Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Norristown Zoning Board Denies Request to Convert 517 Stamford Street to Duplex
Summary
The Norristown Zoning Hearing Board denied application 71‑25 seeking a variance to convert 517 Stamford Street from a single‑family dwelling to a duplex, finding the applicant did not demonstrate the property hardship required for a variance.
The Norristown Zoning Hearing Board denied application 71‑25 on a 4–0 vote after questioning whether the applicant had shown the legal hardship required to permit a duplex at 517 Stamford Street.
Attorney Edwin Leon, representing JD Affordable Realty, LLC, presented the application and introduced owner Juan David Perez Lopez and architect Jeffrey Owens. Leon said the plan would convert a 2,278‑square‑foot single‑family house into two units and argued the change would provide more affordable rented housing in the neighborhood. Architect Owens described a proposed two‑story rear addition of about 400 square feet, unit layouts and parking access from a rear alley; he said the finished condition would provide four parking spaces.
Under questioning from the board, Perez Lopez confirmed he purchased the property on 08/21/2025 and estimated it would cost roughly $80,000 to convert the house into a duplex versus about $30,000 to repair it as a single‑family rental. Perez Lopez said he planned rents of approximately $1,600 per apartment and framed the request as both a way to house family members and to make units more affordable for tenants.
Board members repeatedly asked for concrete evidence of a property hardship — the legal standard for a zoning variance — such as recent marketing attempts, documented failed leasing efforts, or detailed cost comparisons demonstrating that the property could not be used for its permitted purpose without the variance. The owner acknowledged he had not recently advertised the property for rent and had not provided formal, recent cost or marketing documentation. A municipality representative confirmed the property is in the R‑2 Residential District and currently classified as a single‑family dwelling.
Responding to the applicant’s market argument, one board member summarized the panel’s view: “An anticipation of a hardship is not a hardship,” and pressed for objective evidence tying vacancy or affordability concerns to a condition of the property rather than an economic preference. The board concluded the application did not meet the hardship test and voted to deny the variance.
The board’s denial leaves the property’s permitted single‑family use in place; the owner may return with additional evidence but no further action was taken at this hearing.
