Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning board denies request to convert 1320 Prospect Ave. to four units after prior denial and ongoing occupancy
Summary
The Scranton Zoning Hearing Board denied Nicholas Voorberger’s request to convert a two-family at 1320 Prospect Ave. into four units after finding the property remained occupied following a prior denial; the denial came on a 2–2 vote and the applicant has 30 days to appeal.
The Scranton Zoning Hearing Board on March 2026 denied a variance request from Nicholas Voorberger to recognize four dwelling units at 1320 Prospect Ave., citing the property's continued occupancy following a previous board denial.
Chair (speaker 1) opened the hearing and board members recalled that the same conversion had been presented and denied in October 2024. Voorberger and his son, Jean Louis Voorberger, told the board they had submitted plans and documentation showing parking, egress and interior improvements and said they wanted to make the units legal. “I want everything to be legal,” Nicholas Voorberger said.
Board members pressed the applicant about the gap between the prior denial and continued occupancy. The chair said: “If you were turned down, there should be nobody in them apartments,” noting the board’s concern that two additional units were occupied after the earlier ruling. Resident Jody Tighe, who identified himself as a tenant in the building, raised safety and habitability concerns, including missing smoke alarms, and described confrontations with property management.
During discussion the board explored rental-registration fees and whether city inspectors had seen the units; city staff indicated the property had been registered as a two-unit for multiple years and that rental registration alone did not imply zoning approval. Board members proposed conditions the applicant would accept if granted — including prompt paving of rear parking and permitting a full rental inspection — but a motion to approve with inspection and paving conditions failed on a 2–2 vote.
By the board’s announcement following the tally, the variance request was denied. The chair told the applicant he has 30 days after receiving the written decision to appeal to court; absent an appeal the applicant must bring the property into conformance, which could include vacating two units if they remain unauthorized.
The denial preserves the board’s prior ruling and leaves enforcement and any tenants’ status subject to any appeal or subsequent city enforcement steps.
