Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Zoning board denies variance for proposed storage/flex garages on North Rebecca Avenue

Scranton Zoning Board of Adjustment · May 14, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Scranton Zoning Board of Adjustment voted 5–0 to deny Altostrata—s request for use and setback variances at 1402 North Rebecca Ave, citing neighborhood compatibility and access concerns despite the applicant—s argument that a large sewer easement and triangular parcel create practical hardships.

The Scranton Zoning Board of Adjustment on a 5to0 vote declined a variance request from Altostrata (represented by attorney Jesse Hallinan) to construct storage/flex garages at 1402 North Rebecca Avenue.

Hallinan told the board the parcel—s triangular shape and a large sewer easement held by the Scranton Sewer Authority make residential development impractical and that the proposed low-intensity storage and "flex" spaces would preserve the easement and not increase traffic. "The sewer easement alone would preclude any true-to-form residential structure," Hallinan said, and he described security measures, internal-only storage rules and lease terms intended to prevent onsite businesses or heavy activity.

Board members pressed on hours of access, parking, enforcement and how the property could be monitored if ownership changes. The chair said he remained "not satisfied" with the applicant—s plan for accessibility and potential noise, noting houses sit across from the site and that the board must weigh neighborhood impacts.

The board declined the application, with no recorded affirmative votes. The decision leaves the property unchanged; the applicant was told the site could still be pursued under different plans that address the board—s stated concerns.

The board—s order explained the denial by reference to compatibility and access concerns and the lack of confidence that the restrictions offered would prevent future use changes under subsequent ownership. The board also noted the regulatory limits of touching the sewer easement and recommended any future proposal clarify parking, operating hours and enforceable lease conditions.