Harrisburg Zoning Hearing Board 7-22-2024

e

e

e

e

e

e

e e

meeting my name

is our Z

administrator our solicitor for the

that hit your last

right

C this is

televised is here because Z is AAL

meing like of

law testimony made will

testimony people

two their address has to be in close

proximity to

the property

that

have

missing m

that govern that if the vote ends a Time

motion will

beate decision

V keep you have an option alwaysed

go any

questions ready I'm call first

case Okay read it out right it's

application

2585 yes this is recorded we everything

is people have to be able to hear us

even on television right so it's

2585 uh 425 South 17th

Street um I'll read the exhibits in and

then um then if if the applicant after

you know was sworn in you just want to

state in right that you're fine going

forward with the

two uh board members here um tonight so

we make sure that just at each case that

then the person that says it that

they're fine with that um but the

exhibit it's a B1 is proof of

publication in Patriot news July 7 July

14 2024 B2 is a letter sent from the

planning director to the applicant

notifying of the hearing B3 is a hearing

notice posting on the property of

tonight's hearing uh B4 are the

notification letters uh sent to the

required neighbors B5 the

application um with several documents

attached to it which included the uh

sketch plan the photos those types of

things B6 there was a petition uh for

support um uh in the packet B7 is the

agreement of sale establishing the

applicants uh standing to pursue the

zoning relief B8 is a d to the property

B9 is the planning Bureau case report

and B10 is the uh city of Harrisburg

Planning Commission resolution so those

are the

exhibits so um Mr Knight director

planning the rati your right hand where

the testimony you're going to give is

true whole true I do thank you so you

can please inform us on the case sure um

so uh the application uh before the

board uh for 425 sou 17th Street

involves the establishment of a personal

services use uh a barber shop uh one

chair Barber Shop specifically on site

um it requires the board approval of

special exceptions for the proposed use

per section 7-3 305.7 of the zoning code

and for relief from the off street

parking requirements in section 7- 327.5

of the zoning code um so uh the subject

property is a corner lot at the corner

of Hunter Street and South 17th Street

and therefore has Frontage along both

streets uh there is no uh parking on

site uh currently um the applicant I

believe lives next door and is the uh uh

intending to purchase the proper

property uh and establish the one chair

barber shop on the first floor um of the

of the building um in the recent past uh

the board has reviewed similar proposals

uh one being for 2310 Green Street in

which uh they established a one chair

barber shop in the rear um detached

garage of the property um and uh one I

believe 1918 zarker Street uh which is a

similar proposal row home um with a

first floor one chair Barber shop um and

uh in both of those cases um you know

the both required special exceptions um

with respect to uh the off street

parking requirements it should be noted

that obviously as a um either uh the

applicant living on the propert or in

the property or next door where he

currently lives um they won't be driving

uh to the business they'll clearly be

able to walk so that kind of removes uh

one of the required off Street uh

parking spaces

um and otherwise uh

the proposed use I believe will require

four total spaces so that is what he was

requesting relief from from four off

street parking spaces uh the um planing

Bureau notes again that uh there is

Frontage along Hunter Street um on which

uh customers can park um however we also

note that uh as a barber shop and which

is a fairly um you know Common business

and proposal in the city it's not really

a destination business and so it's

likely that much of the applicants a

clientele will come from the surrounding

neighborhoods uh and will be able to uh

walk or uh potentially bike um from

their homes or businesses uh to uh

patronize the applicant's business um so

with that being said uh the Planning

Commission recommends that the zon

hearing board approve the request with

the following conditions uh the will be

limited to a single chair may not expand

Beyond one Barber to ensure impacts from

the proposed use are minimized and to

ensure the property retains an overall

residential character in use um and then

the applicant must install physical

obstructions along the curb along the

frontage with Hunter Street which will

prevent illegal sidewalk parking and uh

if you visited the site or just looked

at it on Google streets view you'll know

there's a lot of sidewalk parking um

that's pretty rampant there um there is

parking on both sides of Hunter Street

here uh pretty much room for one uh

vehicle to to go between the parking uh

the parked vehicles but it's pretty much

a dead end street so even though it is

two-way there's very limited amount of

traffic on it so it's not like um having

people park on the street and having it

be narrowed to one driving lane would

really um restrict traffic or cause

backups or anything like that so uh the

request for um you know relief from off

street parking should not create adverse

impacts on the surrounding neighborhood

uh and then the Planning Commission

recommends the zoning her board approve

the request for the following reasons

property exists in a mixed use Corridor

with nearby residential commercial

institutional and Industrial uses and

thus the proposed use should not have an

adverse impact on the neighborhood The

Proposal will enable the applicant to

run a homebased business focusing on

serving a local clientele and uh the

Planning Commission and Zoning hearing

board have heard and approved similar

proposals for homebased barber shops in

recent years uh specifically 2310 Green

Street and 1928 zarker

street thank you

are the applicant you can give us your

name and your

addressuse micone up

[Music]

pleas my name is Dan

viona I live in for

273 Street how did you

work so tell us about your project

please

[Music]

project offer

services you

Ser I believe that

okay and hold on one second

since right he this trans first of all

just state state your name for the

record and where you work or anything or

who you know I'm Rosa Santiago I am a

realtor with Century 21 realy services

and I have represented Daniel in the

purchase of both of his properties that

he own in

that okay and on also could you raise in

your right hand yes

or yeah right both right we didn't do

okay well okay let's start with uh uh

Rosa let's start with you okay uh Rosie

do swear affirm that uh that the what

you will be translating will be true and

accurate from Mr V

vona I do

okay and you can obviously then

translate if necessary to him um Mr V uh

venona

uh do you swear or affirm that the

testimony you're about to give will be

the truth the whole truth and nothing

but the

truth

yes thank you for thank you for on the

oversight

um uh do you have anybody in the

audience who can speak want to speak on

your

project

right to the center

Mr

H

question yes good evening um so the

first question actually is for Mr Knight

I was just wondering um I know you

referenced two applications that were

approved in the past that were uh for a

similar similar use um I was just

wondering because I I know for the one

on Green Street I think part of that

application was that there were already

other um somewhat similar use es or more

business related uses of buildings on

that particular area of the street where

that uh building was located um so I was

just wondering what are your thoughts in

terms of other business use in that

specific Corridor where you know

properties that were residential medium

were are now being used in the business

sense so I think uh for the most part

there hasn't been too much in the way of

conversion of properties um just to the

South uh there's uh the Philadelphia

macaroni company I believe that's the

industrial use that was referenced um

there's Pennsylvania Counseling services

for the South and I believe there's a

church a couple blocks up on the

opposite side of the street that looks

like it was in an uh former residence uh

and then there's a pizza place um up at

the corner of 17th and Dairy Street so

um and you know there are uh

industrially zoned properties actually

at the Eastern end of Hunter Street and

we've gotten inquiries about those those

might have operated as storage units or

potentially like auto repair businesses

in the past okay all righty thank

you next questions uh actually from Mr

vona the first one what are the proposed

hours for your Barber

Shop you would like to work from 10 a.m.

to 7

as you

like 10 okay is that uh seven days a

week five days a

week

11 Sunday 11 to 4 okay thank you uh next

question just wondering uh was there any

interaction um or discussion with any of

the neighbors today this property about

um their thoughts on this particular

application that he send letters um

surrounding um homes

like half

and also

he had signatures taken from a few

neighbors that could be affected like

this okay was there any anything in

particular um Mr can share I guess

regarding feedback that was

received all right um then my my other

question is just in regards to um for

this particular use like what would be

involved I guess or what do you see

taking place in order to get uh the

space um prepared for the requirements

from the state to run it as the the

barber shop being that it's currently A

Single Living unit

thinks that this is Barber job he only

to in the kitchen the sink converter

into a hair

washer and just have mirrors in the

walls for the chair space right but no

like nothing major in terms of

Renovations or reformatting this

space not right now okay all right

that's all I have for now thank

you going I I want to follow up on Mr

Hop's question are you licensed barar

the state current state license second

since the realtor's here speaking for

you is the purage of this property

dependent on this

application we

already not I don't

think no right it would have been

whatever was presented to the Planning

Commission yeah yeah so so again if he

closed

property it's a barers shop it's not

allow but we deny it well you you'll

still be going through purchase of two

properties he already purchased he

already purchased it okay thir one of

the issues that came out of the planning

Bureau is and and we have a problem with

this on 17th Street uh on curved parking

street parking um I see there's a

recommendation that what are you going

to do to basically prevent that and

block it

can you repeat are you talking about

like like sidewalk parking yes side

Sidewalk Park parking I think the uh

Harrisburg Police Department is now in

an enforcement stage uh basically no

parking on the sidewalks parking on the

street and real out um what are you do

what are you how are you going to

approach that where people will not be

able to park on your sidewalk

that he will place a sign in the wall

property to inform that they can par in

the sidewalk and if he see some marking

there he will just tell them right you

know he will nicely to move to move the

car from there and if they don't follow

PL

to Mr Knight I thought that was a

recommendation out of the planning bar

they have to come up some type of

physical obstruction to prent it correct

um because I mean while it would be

appreciated if the applicant was

notifying customers that they couldn't

do that it may be somebody else from the

neighborhood or something and so uh we

just want to prevent it outright um and

you know something like a one foot

square block of concrete or something

very similar like that um a stone or

something space large enough that you

can't drive over and space closely

enough you can't drive between them is

basically all we're looking for that

would be along the curb um nothing big

or extravagant or anything like that and

you as the applicant do you agree with

basically putting some type of

obstruction physical obstruction in the

not the in the curv

not the complete walkway but the cture

to actually

prevent I think that's all questions I

question yes sorry I just add one more

um I know the application is just for

you to be the only Barber is there any

thought that maybe in the future you

would be wanting

requesting to increase the number of

barbers in that

space I don't have that thought right

now Mr if that would happen he would

have to come back to you to get a get

relief for that well we have to come

back to the board yeah um it would be an

expansion of a non-conforming use yeah

right and essentially I mean you you

basically said you're in agreement with

the conditions that were set with

those two responses to those two

questions so um other than that I think

that's now I think that's it that you

know usually we always a we always ask

you know to mean are you okay with the

conditions well you you essentially did

um and you're also okay with the two

board members deciding this as we don't

have three is this uh person is no

longer with the

board okay fine

okay

recess we'll be right back thank

[Music]

you

for for

minut for

yeah was pretty quiet

the

[Music]

can

right

you

I

thank everyone for the quick

recess

um I'd like to make a

motion that the applic that the

application for on

2585 be approved by the zoning hearing

board with condition set by the Planning

Commission okay

second okay we move properly second

questions all in favor I I

congratulations and thank you thank you

our second application this evening uh

2586 well I

wait yes sir no okay oh okay are the

applicants here for

2586 brother in

church you here are you're want to speak

have a

seat and I will turn this over to our

solicitor to reading your application

the

record okay it's uh

2586 is the application number it is

2151 Greenwood Street and it's for a

uh well we'll get into right for a

variance but also um whether it is a

place of worship or or an office use but

um so the exhibits though for this will

be uh B1 proof of publication and the

Patriot news July 7 July 14

2024 the letter sent from the planning

director to the applicant notifying of

the hearings B2 B3 hearing notice

posting on the property B4 is uh the

applicants notification letters to

required neighbors B5 is the application

uh it added an attached narrative photo

of the exterior and interior the

property and the plans for the proposal

B6 is the agreement of sale establishing

applicant standing to pursue zoning

relief B7 is a d to the property B8

planning Bureau case report and B9 is

the uh city of Harrisburg Planning

Commission resolution so we got B1

through

B9 thank you and Mr N I have to SAR you

back in I don't have to S you back in

can you basically read the brief uh sure

so uh the application for

2586 um is uh the applicants are

proposing um to establish

um what they have outlined in their

narrative as Administration office uses

pastoral Counseling Services educational

classes Bible studies Church committee

meetings Church board meetings Financial

meetings Food Bank services and other

church and business related purposes uh

the planning Bureau uh determined that

the proposed uses uh would constitute um

a place of worship um the applicants in

their appeal are arguing uh that the

uses um constitute an office use uh and

not a place of worship use um and

therefore would be permitted by Wright

in the indd district um

in in the alternative um they have ad

they have argued that uh

the that the I guess proximity of these

two uh properties

um would create the hardship um that

would justify the variance request um

the planning Bureau uh determination

based on place of worship use um is

essentially that they're going to be

holding things like Bible Ser studies um

you know pastoral counseling Church

committee Church board meetings um and

that such use

are accessory to and in totality amount

to a place of worship use uh the

applicants um argument that because it's

similar because those uses are similar

to an office they argue that their you

know a law office would have a

conference room for example uh the

planning Bureau does not find that to be

a um compelling argument uh Because by

the same token you could say that if an

office for a used car dealership for

example um they had a

lot on one side of the street and on the

other side they said we're going to put

our office over there and Ed car dealers

ships weren't Lo permitted by right over

there but our office is there so it's an

office use we would say but your office

is accessory to the used car dealership

and in a similar manner all of these

Services they're looking uh to do are

accessory to the main function um of the

of the church itself and therefore we

determine it's a place of worship use

you know alternatively we would argue

that um by the app applicants logic you

would not allow be allowed to do a home

occupation use because some of it is

Administrative and office functions and

therefore would be classified as an

office use and therefore would not be

permitted in the RM District as a um

home occupation is and so when we look

at uses we don't look at the little bits

and pieces of them of oh a meeting room

well that's an you know congregation

area or an office is an office and the

parking lot is you know whatever um you

have to look at the use in the totality

of what they're doing not like pick it

apart because not only again does that

create those kind of inconsistencies

that I just noted but it would really

complicate just the administration of

the zoning code to look at every single

activity that might happen as part of a

business and say well what's permitted

and what's not you have to look at it in

its totality uh and that's why we made

the determination that we did um and

then our recommendation of denial was

based on the fact that there's nothing

um in inent to the property itself that

does not allow it to be used for any of

the uses permitted by wri in the um indd

the industrial district and therefore

the variance is necessary to allow the

use to go forward um you know there are

tons of uh especially Auto oriented uses

like Auto Repair Auto Sales that could

be done on the property and we get

requests for those you know on a daily

or weekly basis really um and so we did

not feel that the request was justified

uh in their deliberations the Planning

Commission

sided with the applicants um agreeing

that the activities that they would have

on site would constitute an office use

distinct from um the place of worship

use that is their primary facility at

2217 Dairy Street um and so uh with that

being said uh the Planning Commission

um recommended that the zoning hey board

approve the request uh with the

following conditions that the applicant

is not permitted to conduct worship

activities of the subject property um

and that uh they recommended that the Z

he board approve the request for the

following reasons ough the Planning

Commission feels the applicant cannot

meet their burden of proof with respect

to establishing a place of worship use

on site they feel that the activities

proposed by the applicant do not

constitute such a use and instead

comprise an office use permitted by

right in the indd district thank

you um applicants uh first let's raise

your uh you need to state your name or

your address and you need to raise your

hand to be sworn in okay uh my name is

Tom the hill I'm the attorney for the

applicant um from the law firm of barley

s which is just one South Market Square

Harrisburg okay I am Henry or Hank

Johnson I am the senior pastor at the

Harrisburg brethen Christ Church which

is

227 so can you your hand just just him

just the appli just the okay you're I'm

all right yes do you swear the

information you're 100% is true the

whole

truth I do okay well thank you so let's

talk about your

project yeah um I think um well first of

all I didn't do this last time so I just

want to tell Jeff thank you for your

work I don't you you have a really

really Qui job and we appreciate your

service thank you're doing your job and

really done in the city um we're just

trying to do the same a lot of people

maybe don't know about our church we've

been around since the 1890s um every

time we've moved our church it's not

because of wanting to get bigger better

faster it's the service our started

daily street so if you ever know where

the YWCA is across the street there we

have a marker was our first building we

work in orphanages we work toah homean

this year um when we combine churches we

went to 20th in Chestnut so that was our

old building we gave it up to another

congregation and we moved to what

essentially is an old car dealers even

our building now um wasn't necessarily a

place of worship when we mve into it we

purchased it was a car dealers um so I

appreciate um you know Jeffrey's

argument but I think that totality thing

is what kind of flipped with planning gr

because we said that you know all we're

doing now is an expansion of what we're

already doing our current building is

considered a place of worship we still

hold food pantry we still hold a medical

clinic we have blood drive that comes in

we have English language learning

classes and one of the things I think

switched them was I said so what you're

telling me is that this is an office and

it's a church office if I'm having a

conversation with somebody they have

something going on in this new building

I wouldn't be allowed to advise them I

would have to walk across the street

with them and and and counsel them there

because apparently it's okay in the

first building but not the second

building so I think that's what kind of

switched them because for them was this

is an extension of who we are so yes it

might be Zone differently but

essentially what we're doing is moving

some of our surface across the street

because we grown that currently in our

building we have one office building in

nine one office that has a close door in

mine sta um if you were to come to our

building it's right across the street we

have rookies and then there's a car wash

or right across the street if you walk

into to that entry point again it's all

open so that makes it really hard people

to do their work um so we had looked

years ago to possibly building these

offices in place and doing some of the

things that we would get at 2151

Greenwood and it was cross prohibited um

that was the first thing second thing

was we would lose space because of what

we're doing with the community because

we'd be carving into our current square

footage so in purch of this building if

you look at the totality of who we are

how we serve we're not changing anything

are we're just expanding so my staff for

example can now be able to close their

doors we're expanding so our English

language learning classes don't have to

have a of 100 we're expanding because

again this is how we serve our city and

yeah the the place of worshiping I get

is tricky but it's really really hard

because in one sense everything we're

doing now in the current building we're

just asking to be able to do it across

the

street let me let me just inter because

I in in looking through it right the

Planning Commission seemed to be okay

with a lot of things I still think the

one thing that they did have an issue if

is if a substantial amount of pastoral

counseling was going on over there I

think that was kind of the one thing

that they still were though saying would

be a place of worship but all the other

things not and I think somebody said

well you know I don't think that's going

to be going on you know that off

somebody may be just coming coming in

that that that's the way I read that

summary I thought but other everything

else I don't think they they really

thought was more office but pastoral

counseling is what I thought that they

kind of had the issue with but they were

then still then it's an office because

it's like everything else is really an

office right I mean they did have

concerns about you know the Bible

studies because that was you know

included in this um frankly I didn't

feel like the Planning Commission really

address address the Crux of the issue

which again is that all of these fall

under the umbrella of the church if the

church didn't exist this use would not

be proposed for this building this is

not like a distinct company that's

looking to go in and take over and this

is our sole location it's we are taking

a part of what we do over here as this

place of worship and putting it over

here but not calling it a place of

worship and I think that's the to me

that was the thing that I I don't know

how to to agree with with that and not

have it like I said just unravel the

zoning code to do to just say like well

we can take little bits and pieces out

of this use and call them something else

over here and then they're reviewed

separately but they're accessory

components they're under but but here's

the thing and well I mean I think this

would be more I think this would be more

of what what we were

talking and I get all that the the

problem is that it is on the their own

lot so it can't be an accessory use on

it you know what I mean because there

needs to be a principal use

on that lot you know what I mean that

and that's my argument and and well no

but that that's what I'm saying so then

it's like well then that's the principal

use then it's just an off B

predominantly office over there it'd be

different you know even if it was you

know right next to or on the SC you know

what I mean like that that type of thing

and I think that's really the only the

only rate is that it's on its own lot so

it has to be the principle one and it

can't be an accessory though even though

it supports the church that's just the

way that I I but and I think that's the

distinction is it's supporting a place

of worship that is across the street

because even Again by your definition

place of worship is a building a church

that's used primarily for religious

Andor spiritual worship the church is

that we're we currently have is clearly

a place of worship we are cross the

street on a separate piece of property

as the principle use there being more

office related purposes right I think

the condition that was stated is that

you can't use that office for peryam I I

hate to be that blunt but again because

that is a church function that should

take place in the sanctuary I think

that's where they're making that

distinction clear distinction that you

know you could in that office yes

counseling um Supportive Services for

the community that's an office function

uh Bible study that is not a supportive

function planning Comm did seem to have

a cons and that's what I was saying

though mostly though that's what I mean

when it was like when you're looking at

most of the the time as you would do

that's where where they were you know

going that it was just then then more of

that and and it was right the Bible

study and I and I do though think it was

kind of than counseling that that that

may be provided but all the other things

you know weren't and

and that's the thing because I I agree I

mean it does you can't it wouldn't be

there you know but but for the church

but it is it across the street is that

what it is it is right across the street

in a separate lot and that might be well

that's what we'll have to you know

obviously discuss and I think it might

be different if like for example they

spun off a different arm like if you're

a company and you spin off a different

arm and you're a different company even

though you're under that like larger

umbrella that'd be one thing but this is

just we're taking activities that

physically happen here and put them over

here but it's still all part of our

church and I think that to me is is the

differentiation that it's not like okay

we're going to create you know brethren

in Christ LLC and that's what's going to

be operating here separately and

distinctly it's all part of their

regular church functions they just need

more space so they're going into a

different building how how long have you

been at the church a place of that that

one

that's October

2005 okay okay and then this prop and

then so you had your office wherever and

then this property opened up and that's

okay no we have our like I said but yeah

that's what I mean and then this

opportunity to it's not like you bought

like I'm just saying instead of how

somebody doing hey I'll do the more like

really trying to you know skirt you know

requiring those kind of things of doing

it at the same time you know I think

important distinction to not say we're

just moving you know I mean it's not

like we just like woke up one day and

let go Z because we want to Mo we've out

it and it is the stuff we're currently

we're not adding new you're right we're

not a new arm but we can't physically do

the same things that we're allowed to do

this building because I think that's the

issue and I think our issue is if this

property wasn't across the street if we

were three blocks down five blocks down

and we decided to have our office space

down there and our counseling SP down

there and everything else I don't know

if anyone would be going oh well that's

U accessory used to a place of worship

because it's down the street and we

could do our office our counseling our

our meeting rooms maybe not Bible

studies again we I the question for

Corporation is Jeff said in situation

like that you would be your office would

be a it wouldn't be under the church

umbrella per se you would have an an

entity above that that the church is a

function and your office is a different

function it's under an umbrella of a

different of a a a corporate umbrella or

another type of another type of

entities's umbrella then the distinction

is broke is made right then and there

but that's sort of our argument that you

should not even if it was down to block

it would be the same thing and you'd be

saying the same thing and that really

wouldn't be as much a concern yeah I I

apologize for interjecting but no

no but right and then the though then

the problem because I do believe in

front of the Planning Commission when

the questions were raised you you know

said you know if we are doing activities

for a place of worship we would be in

violation you know over

here which right that can that you know

that's where problems can can then arise

too although I don't think it would be

so much as you know something comes up

you know those kind of things but

certain ones clearly not right but I

think that applicant you were willing to

say fine I'll be clear in move in making

sure things that are with the place of

worship would beay with the stay with

the church and I think I wish someone

from the planning committee was here

because I think what you picked up was

the sentiment until the end I think the

struggle for them was what is inherent

we're not a corporation we're a church

you know so what is inherent in what we

do so for example if you're a legal

office which we brought up right and you

have a friend that came in they're not a

client they're a friend and ask you a

legal question right would you then walk

across the street to be answer the legal

question so we're saying that some of

the stuff we do is inherent to who you

are and so when I gave the example of so

what you're saying now because you're

worried about P cing we're an urban

church we have people who come from all

different thingses we have people who

may not go to a therapist we have people

who may not know what resources is out

there so these questions are a normal

part of my everyday ministry right um

and so what they struggle with they're

kind of going that path you're saying

but they they struggle with the idea

that like if we rule that way again what

you're essentially saying is when people

come to my office with these things I'm

not allowed to do it at 2151 but if I

just walk them across the street I can

yeah I I think it' be more as though if

somebody just walked in I think the

problem would be every week we have

Bible study over here uh I've scheduled

these five appointments across the

street for pastoral couns you know that

I think that'd be a that'd be a problem

for you because I think that is then the

place of worship but something comes up

and a couple people come in death you

know what are you going to do we're not

going to say that I I'm not saying we're

not that's just my view of it people

walk

in mult urban church so a lot of people

rely on availability of their staff yeah

and so it's not always we schedu

PIV pardon me I would just say and and

to me that argument of oh well it's kind

of um unreasonable to ask us to walk

back across the street shows you how

this thing is tied into their bigger

thing like if it were just like no

everything we do over here is completely

separate but they're saying well if

somebody comes into here I'm going to

clearly have to counsel them in this

building because it's and and I agree it

would be ridiculous to go have to let's

go walk across the street to go talk

over there but that shows you that this

that this is this providing spiritual

Counseling in it's on building you're a

violation of the what is being stated

and that's the and that's a slippery

slope you saying if it's a law firm I

would say I'm in this building and

that's not my law office is and you want

to talk to me about law my comment would

be approach me in a proper way go to my

office that's because that's what the

office is right as long as because it

wouldn't be occasion you know what I

mean if it was this more a regular thing

because occasion like somebody comes to

my house and ask they can ask me for

legal you know but that really wouldn't

be a problem but if then I started you

know more people started coming over

then you start getting a problem and I

think the distinction too is the

counseling um keep in mind he's not

always doing spiritual pastoral

counseling someone may come to him and

say hey I've lost my job I just need

some help on try how do or I'm depressed

because this that or the other he's

providing counseling service not always

necessarily Church directly Church

related spiritual

that is the yes we agree that these

definitions are very hard to

differentiate how about though all the

the you know the you know how often are

you know meetings uh you know other

things other than pastoral counseling

which is really just kind of somebody

coming in and it could be during the day

obviously you mentioned you know you got

food you would have food

pantry there you know medical English

but I mean like it' be used for

other education process education

process course you through your space

all be included inside because other

churches do that functionality but it's

all under one umbrella because they have

the space you don't have the space So

currently a lot of so our a food pantry

a medical clinic a blood drive

citizenship

classes are all primarily in what we

call a Christian H room but it's really

housed in our children Ministries

because it's the only big space we have

so one of the things that's appealing

about across the street is that we can

literally physically move all of that

out of the children L the children space

and actually use that just for children

which is another safety concern as well

right so yeah so currently our building

is 30,000 sare fee if you want to come

to it just call me I'll walk you around

um however we use every square inch of

it and what we have available for those

things is just that one year you asked

about other meetings or church board

meets monthly um there are bigger groups

in the church like we have a group that

kind of

services as our church grows we have a

population of people so we kind of have

this group that services like almost

like a first response is like major life

issues so they need um that's big group

um but we also have like I have a letter

for example from egg Solutions which is

like a company right across the street

writing in support of us in this because

we have people that to come to us and

want to use whatever space we have

because the nice thing about us mostly

using it Wednesday or Sundays is that

times during the week we can make space

available for them and right now what

they do is they just use our off our

current offices as it is um so yeah so

the nice thing about the the building

now that we have is we're using all

these things but part of why we're

looking at purchase is because we just

we can't physically keep doing

it I I know I want to put this to the

city solicitor because I I read eyes

times okay and I'm reading your eyes on

the questions that are being brought

about so what's your take um I think

that you know though it is a place of

worship there are plenty of

administrative functions that any church

has to tend to they have members they

collect ties they make phone calls they

collect food so I think that as long as

the space across the street remains

administrative then it should I I would

think a church could have a church

office just like any business could have

an office that has office function

might I suggest since you have space

being used as an office next door maybe

the pastor and the assistant pastor keep

their office over there the rest of the

staff move across the street who's only

doing um administrative functions and

then you have less of a chance of the

Pastoral duties being done where they

shouldn't be I mean all of your staff to

me doesn't have to be together if the

pastor and the assistant pastor stayed

over by the sanctuary where their

offices could be your other people

secretaries T you know whoever's doing

all that stuff stay across the street

then I do think there is a way that you

can keep the uses separate as required

by the code doing

aun yeah to keep them separate Poss um

practically that's kind of part for us

because we're pastoral staff heavy and

we all have different focus in the

church so for example our children's

Pastor is going to be primar dealing

with Children and Families youth a young

adult youth a young adult discip sh

right now is working on leadership and

one-on-one mentorship um so each person

has these different functions of who

they connected right well couldn't the

couldn't the the youth pastor stay in

your now freed up youth space I mean

since you're going to have a youth space

let's put the youth pastor there since

you're going to have a pastor let's put

him by the sanctuary I mean it's it's

difficult but I think if you need to

stick to the office use then those are

just the you know maybe we have to have

a better scheduling you know and I'm not

to say that right anything happens I I

mean counseling is counseling I think

that the counseling you do is always

faith-based so whether it's about the

word or it's about I need you know funds

for in eviction I think there is a way

with work to split the administrative

use separately from the worship so that

you can maintain an office and you can

maintain a church and I think that's

what the zoning I think that's what the

code requires and and I think sorry just

to one more point I think we actually

have um there was actually a case within

the last 18 months or so that is

somewhat analogous to this with 208

humel Street when the Brethren Housing

Association was looking to move out of

the basement of the First Church of the

Brethren on hum street across the street

into a different zoning district and the

board said no in that case for an office

that was an RM District a little little

bit different from that perspective but

in that case the Brethren Housing

Association is a completely separate

entity from the church of Brethren and

and like so that's what I was talking

about if it was like a completely

separate entity doing something and the

Breen housing was totally focused on

housing so it wasn't like the same thing

of like a an arm of the church is going

over it's like a separate entity moving

over even though it's Affiliated so if

if that helps in the deliberation I

think

that right that whatever the zoning

relief was on that you know I mean this

really wouldn't be

welled by the city it was to establish

an office in that case and it had to be

res that's what me go through that that

wouldn't matter that wouldn't do

anything you know I don't you know well

I mean it could but I wouldn't yeah one

question I may ask out of you and then

Mr H if you're in um the functions of

your church and and I hate use business

term here but what are you in business

to do list those functionalities okay

okay because then you can make a you can

look at a decision when is this is tied

to church functions worship versus you

know I always call feeding the poor okay

feeding your your pantry your your

clothes Pantry your food pantry that's a

different function and you list those

functions and you may add them all

together and they come up that way but

by sitting down going through that chart

you clearly understand where the line is

and what the planning board's going to

look at and what the zoning rules are

what the zoning rules would be okay it's

a little bit extra work but again you

got to take a make an educated guess but

actually sit down and look you know

worship not always is about taking a

Bible get on your knees and praying

that's not always what worship is about

or sitting listening to the sermon but

that's a major functionality of the

church okay so you know you got your

major function and you have your

ancillary functions and I think that's

what we're asking is take those ancy

functions and what can be in that space

and what cannot be in that space okay

and if it crosses then you may have to

look for Rel a little bit different way

you may you may have to appeal to have

the zoning law adjusted okay um but it's

a slippery slope church and churches

you're that umbrella is a slippery slope

okay because again we need to have

specificity in those rules yeah we

acknowledge there's some grayness here

and you know and all of this and trying

to separate it is the difficult part

that's a little bit of when the Planning

Commission was like well just don't do

the place of worship stuff over there

yeah that's easier said than done

because your definition literally just

says you know it's it's you know for

religious Andor spiritual worship that's

a place of worship it doesn't go any

further specificity there yeah so um I

just that's a little bit where we are as

we just are truly administrative

functions for instance they pay a water

bill they pay electricity they send like

there are things that are administrative

that just because you're doing them for

a church they don't become worship

Services you pay a water bill just like

all of us you pay electricity you you

know you fund raise or whatever so I

think there can be a line drawn so that

you can have both yeah secretarial

functions would be ideal for the add-on

place okay um if you if you're doing in

your current church right now maybe

that's something you need and I say look

at those functions what's tied to

worship then what's tied to an services

and then look at those answer services

and what can you relocate out of the

your current space okay there's your

starting point but uh Mr hops please Jo

okay no I was just going to say you know

based off of what I've heard from the

applicant um to me it seems like there

is no clear distinction right and that

and I appreciate the honesty right that

it it's there's going to be overlap so I

don't know if there can be it could be

said that there is going to be a

specifically distinct use separating

this from the actual Church itself right

which to me aligns with what Mr KN said

is it being an accessory to the current

building which would mean it's still

considered place of worship as opposed

to um

office right within how it aligns to the

zoning code um so that's to me that's

what I'm hearing through all of this um

and then in addition to it I just think

as just the general statement right is

that you know we have to be careful with

that because anything we do right in

terms of decision sets precedence for

what comes in the future which could

cause

some right some issues further you know

as we try to work through this as it

aligns to the current zoning code so um

that's just what my take on it has

become during this conversation and

hearing um the different thoughts and

directions on

it

question um audience members um if you

want to speak please step up to the mic

give me your name and your address and

go into conversation to my

right to my

Center oh we have something to

consider good evening all I'm a member

at uh harburg Brethren Christ Emerson

leer from uh 1340 Ross Moy

Mechanicsburg um I just wanted to guess

ask a

question I think it was that one example

was a car dealership or maybe another

business um if they had an office across

the street it would be seen as ancillary

my question is that there are a lot of

businesses that have a center of

operations somewhere but their

administrative offices are miles

away and I guess how would the city look

at that um you know if we decided to go

to Center City and use an office for the

same functions

essentially uh how would that be viewed

because to me that the because it's

across the street it's may be confusing

as whereas if we were somewhere else uh

we would be an office basically it's

based off of where that area is and what

it Zone could be correct it would be it

would be context specific because just

being across the street would not put

you necessarily in a zoning District

that does not permit what you were

looking to do so it's it's very context

specific for something when you

decoupling uh functions of a single

entity or something across multi right I

think if if it's the activities don't CH

you know it's

what you you know if somebody said this

is going to be a place of worship across

the

street it's not just because it's across

the street if it was then still you know

a block all the way down it it would

still be possibly the same thing you

know if that's what it is

um what's and what's it's Emerson leer l

s h e r okay and and um you're you're a

member of the church member of the

church yes okay and just just one final

comment uh I like the language of the uh

planning uh Bureau in terms of how they

Define uh and what they approv and to me

that makes a lot of sense in terms of uh

worship activities would not be there

but uh other other activities so I think

that broad definition sort of helps us

thank

you uh Chad fry I live uh downtown

Harrisburg 623 North 2nd Street um I

stand in support of Harrisburg bre and

C's proposal uh I too like Emerson like

the language of the planning um

committee and um I think I guess my

question is given similar uses in the

past of this building for office

purposes guess some of my questions are

it seems as though the

presentation uh is asking for similar

use of what has been there in the past

with office use so um just wondering if

someone could speak to me speak to that

issue and give clarity as to whether or

not that's that is the case uh that

similar functions have been used in this

facility or

not yeah I'm not I'm not sure was ex

same the same thing that was going on

there before you would have bought it I

don't think

count you know what I mean those types

of things may have been going on not

that some of them actually weren't going

on actually office things were going on

but well I think there was at least like

a Contracting a contractor's company

before then and yeah they may have an

office they may have a conference room

but like I would consider them like a

Contracting Company not a office use

just because there is a office component

in there they are a different

classification per the zoning code um

there were two businesses there I think

up until this year and I don't recall

top my head with the other one might

have been like an industry lobbying

group or something yeah we think the

other one was um Alliance of automobile

service providers if you look up we

don't know firsthand but if you look up

on their website they provided

educational um classroom settings for

their members um some programs with

regard to that meeting rooms similar to

what we were space it was an office

space fun that you tied on office bases

what was taking place there and I think

what I'm hearing out of the planning

from the planning department and what

we've been discussing is that similar

type functionalities that the church

participates in need to be put in that

space I think that's I think that's what

I'm actually hearing okay you're

separating the say you're separating the

prayer side from the administrative

function side Church administrative

function sites can exist in that space

okay prayer activity uh where now

dancing on a hit of a pin okay we're

over we're over that line and with that

you've got to you run you're running

conflict what it's own thanks for the

clarity and the additional

information there for me

yes my name is Ed mashes I'm a member of

the congregation and I live at 3906

Woodville Road and how do you uh the

last name again

mashes spell can spell like the TV show

or like a

potato I'm just wondering if this area

was zoned this way in

2005 because if it was zoned the same in

2005 wouldn't they have had the same

concerns that worship or X Y and Z is

taking place in what used to be Layman

Volvo building and a became a

church so since the other building

is less than 100 feet away how is this

different in

2024 from whatever would have been

decided in 2005 when the original Church

like was the decision in

2005 that yes you could buy this car

dealership do what you want worship God

whatever but you'll be penned in here so

I'm just wondering was the I don't know

I I'm not a yeah he's he's referencing

the main Church facility not the subject

I'm referencing the main Church facility

so what I'm what I'm asking is how

somebody in

2005 must have made a decision right to

allow that sale to go through to you

know they didn't sure on that for that

property that's so I I wasn't here I

can't speak to that um but I do know

that the current zoning code was adopted

in 2014 so whatever whenever was the

church moved into the current facility

in 2005 it would have been under a

different classification that was an

entirely okay well that clarifies that

yeah I don't

know something had changed right yeah

Michael we had a we've had a heard cases

of something like this uh perfect

example on M Clay Street right across

from the farmfield that's an industrial

area we heard a case where Church wanted

to use that as a virtual service and

they had to come in front of us and they

had to get special permission to do that

I think je they got a variance didn't

they yeah that used to be the

international yeah no that's not that

was a variance that's right that was but

that was a place of worship wasn't it um

so they I don't believe so that was

handled by a prior zoning officer so I

wasn't here I don't know about this

specific well I was here but I don't

know all the specifics of that case at

that time that was International

Harvester right across from the farm I

was

tractor Place yeah and I think as I

recall um maybe some of the

justification for that was due to the

like long-term vacancy of that building

um because it's a rather large building

there um and like I said I was not in

attendance at the meeting so I don't

know what all the discussion was but I

think it was based on the longterm

vacancy of the building and which that's

what I mean we granted whatever the

zoning relief what that's what it was I

mean it's it was an abandoned building

and even though but they applied for

what ever it was and and you evaluated

under some you know something different

it wasn't wasn't this wasn't like

this not exactly like it but again that

goes back to the question was raised

that this was this area was owned

industrial okay so in

2005 if uh if it it changed to and you

allow a church again what was see was

there paperwork that allow that was did

they come in front of the the planning

board and Zoning Board so I don't I

would guess that the with respect to 227

Dairy Street I would guess that that was

not zoned industrial just because it's

along a corridor my guess is it had

there was like um a business General use

back then and a few like different

business classifications my guess is it

was something one of those and not as

industrial and and I again don't we also

had a completely separate zoning youth

which allowed in every more intensive

districts allowed everything in the less

ensive District so it was like you know

pyramidal um style which is a little

different than what we have

now hi my name is Rachel Lewis and I'm

at 502 luinda in Mechanicsburg but for

many years is at 2300 Valley Road in in

BBY Park um and I just want to say I'm

the church board chair and I also

support um both Chad and Emerson's

comment and the Planning Commission that

um to allow this to be used for um the

administrative functions um that the

church has

okay anybody

else any fur can I ask a question

regarding the emptiness of the building

so like what's the significance because

from what we understand since it's been

on the market we're the only one I know

Mr Knight said that ex of Auto could

possibly exist um I mean that's a theory

um as far as we know since been on the

market no one else has done it so

he's I think he's talking about I mean

things like decades you know what I mean

like decades would run down

which then it may then then it may you

know factor in like and I mean that like

a very very long time but this well if

you want to I don't know I don't think

it's that's what I'm saying so like

what's the bearing of that so if we

don't purchase the building for example

and it sits vac

for I'm not seeing that con no and it's

only one it's only one fact it's not

like that's the only factor to

evaluating own relief it was just it was

just one of many factors that that is

like oh and by the way it was actually

probably the last thing that that that

would have been said it's nothing

determining you know or something like

that and and it's not like oh I'll just

come back in a year either it's you know

it it was you know a long long time and

and it wasn't like the person didn't

meet all the other you know the

requirements that were would have been

requ re ired for whatever the relief

requested so it was just something I'll

say oh by the way if you want to you

know even consider this but it me the

variance requirements there was a

hardship you know all the things that

you know that would apply it's now like

doesn't meet any of these things but by

the way it's been vacant and they

wouldn't get approved you know

so I see in in your review here you

don't okay she done hardship okay they

said it hasn't been created so if you if

that if you're not allowed to put that

office space there but you consider at a

a

hardship I I think if I think if you if

you take the interpretation that

because we are buying it it's across the

street and somehow because we are Church

on this side of the street and any other

property we ever buy automatically

becomes a place of worship because the

church is buying it that does create

hardship because that interpretation of

the zoning ordinance automatically

creates a a hardship for the church

because anywhere it goes it's going to

be considered a place of worship even if

it's doing

ancillary um administrative or

counseling or anything else that if it

wasn't a church would fall within the

definition of an office but because it's

a church automatically becomes a place

of worship does impose a hardship on us

um because as we said if we were buying

it in Center City here and we were going

to use the same use and someone says

well it's the you're doing it as the

church so you're a place of worship now

that creates a hardship for us to to be

able to find um property that that we

want to use for those proposed purposes

the office the counseling so I think

that does somewhat create a hardship

well I mean I mean that that's just

basically an acknowledgement that it's

the conditions it's the language of the

zoning code that creates it which cannot

be used as a

justification no I don't think that's a

zoning interpret I think that's an

interpretation of your definitions of

place of worship that all of a sudden

becomes but it was also stated I believe

right in the application that there

would be some overlap of things that are

taking place in the current building in

the new building so that actually was

said as part of the cas is being brought

forward so I think that's what creates

that whole dynamic of continuation into

the second building I think if there was

you were saying that there was a second

building whether it's across the street

or down the street and there's

distinctly only these things happening I

think that creates a different scenario

but in what we heard this evening is

that there's still a thought that

there's going to be an overlap of

functionality between the original

building and the new building yeah we we

did in in the application admit that we

were going to potentially use it for

Bible studies and those things so there

was overlap right so if you're going to

tell us that we can't use for Bible

studies because that you

have the zoning hearing board has made

the determination that Bible studies

fits within your definition of place of

worship again your definition is pretty

distinct that it has to be for worship

that Bible study is is a religious

worship then tell us that we'll make

sure that we keep the Bible studies

where it's supposed to be on the place

of worship uh but the rest of it

shouldn't just automatically transform

all of those other functions into a

place of wor I think they're stating

that the administrative functions can

exist in that adjacent building that's

that's clear but again it's your ter

it's your definition and terminology

what your administrative functions are

and until you sit down and go through

all the functions of your

church you're you haven't made that

deter ation yet you've got to you have

to take a piece of paper and say this is

Administrative function secretary's

office that's administrative function

that does not have that's not that's not

that's not be tied to a place of worship

it can go into that bu that that

adjacent building okay you can do that

and I think you need

to it would be an exercise I think that

would behoove you and would help you

with your argument and understanding of

the rulings that are being

made I haven't made any

mean we're not Mak anything why the

planning bureau's uh recommendation was

okay but we could obviously go is

anything else anything else I mean I get

the argument too with you know with

hardship I mean that's obviously

what and and that's really what it would

come down to whether it is or or or it

isn't and certainly you know understand

that um

so okay okay so uh we need to take a

recess long we have a lot to internalize

a

lot

yeah

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e e

and they

um good

evening good evening everyone we're back

in session

so I um want to basically turn this over

to my associate for a motion yes I would

like a motion to uh deny the variant um

for use as a place of worship I

second motion any question

discussion questions discussion I'll

just say that based off of what we heard

this evening um as part of the

application for this request that um the

use more aligns with being a place of

worship as opposed to office

use vot I'm going to vote all in favor I

iOS so I'd like to thank the applicants

for coming in and joining in a lively

discussion of okay that's your plan so

thank you thank you for

attending

okay all they all all they did was right

determine right you know a place of

worship and that would be it if some you

know what I mean if you happen to have

that property and it

was maybe what you know was it was like

you sent a secretary I mean something

truly different I don't know if anybody

you know if if anything would happen or

not but

um that you know what I mean we don't

then determine from

there you know they just had then you

know the variance application and

determined you know the use of uh based

on everything that they heard I don't

think it's like every single thing that

you would have possibly done would be a

place of worship but there was enough

overlap based on uh you know

what you know what they heard that uh um

things that definitely appeared more to

be place of worship and those types of

services than just the administrative

and office type uh thing so um because

if it was an office we wouldn't we would

have to approve anything you know what I

mean

so but you can you know

uh and I'll you know send a decision out

you know and uh and then you can review

that and take it from

there thank

you

so so our last case

tonight page

2587

okay for

the have a seat

thank you sir thank

you problem excellent

thanks yep no

worries so hold on yes

okay you guysbody

ready so going to turn this over to our

solicitor to rri the record thank you

okay so this is 25 uh

87 3100 North 3rd Street um and I'm

going to re you know read in the

exhibits in Council I understand

there'll be overlap and that's fine you

can do the then the same since you know

that's how you prepared you know that

that's perfectly acceptable um so I'll

just so we got B1 again proof of

publication uh Patriot news July 7 July

14 2024 B2 is the letter sent from the

planning director to the applicant

notifying of the hearing B3 is a hearing

notice posting on the property B4

applicants and notification letters to

required neighbors B5 is the application

had an attached narrative photos of the

exterior and interior of the

property um and other uh uh documents

including in that application there was

a letter from the prior owner and I'm

sure that'll be submitted with the

applicant's case as well uh B6 is a d to

the property establishing establishing

applicant standing to pursue zoning

relief B B7 is the planning Bureau case

report and B8 is the city of Harrisburg

Planning Commission resolution so we got

B1 through

B8 so we turn it back over to Mr Knight

read the application sure uh so case

2587 um is a request to establish um a

tun multif family dwelling uh on the

property um this requires only hearing

board approval of a special exception

for the proposed use per section 7-35 .7

of the code and variances for relief

from the density regulations and

specific criteria per section

73073 and 7- 3092 V of the code

respectively um so this uh case is um uh

a little there's a little bit of um

ambiguity I think in in some of the um

history uh and information of the case

um it's you know I think evident that at

one point in the past p uh the property

was operating as two units I think it's

configured as two units um but as noted

in the planning bureau's case report um

it's been owner occupied as far back as

the County's records go which is the

2001 um so you know that's right there

kind of one thing we note when looking

at things like this is it a if it's a

you know investment property or

something like that clearly it's a

rental of and then you're just asking

how many units whereas this is uh has

always been under occupied since 2001 uh

we do have a record of um it being two

units back in 2001 in the city's records

however in the intervening 23 years or

so there's been no um you know rental

inspections done that would um confirm

that this is two units uh as as would be

required uh you would have to have um at

least semi-regular inspections of both

units to um affirm that it's still

maintaining Cod compliance and things of

that nature um and so uh the current

applicant um recently purchased the

property and um was looking to U

maintain those two units and it was our

determination that uh due to the two

plus Decades of at least no records of

there being multiple units the former uh

multif family dwelling use had been

abandoned per the zoning code and thus

um the applicants needed to go through

the necessary zoning relief uh to

reestablish the two units on site um and

the applicants have you know

documentation that they'll be I'm sure

discussing and presenting to the board

um uh to you know from from their

perspective um but the that being said

uh the planning Bureau is supportive of

the uh proposed use you know one of the

uh big issues um when you're talking

about conversion of properties is the

impact on parking in this case they have

a three Bay garage at the rear of the

property um it should be noted that that

garage doesn't actually have like a

formal driveway uh there's a grass strip

between uh what would be I guess the

driveway apron and and the street um and

it's a pretty kind of steep topography

there uh but it's clear that there's

three Bays there and I'm sure somehow

got into those bays in the past um so

they have the um you know off street

parking to handle this they you know

clearly have a um uh fire escape on off

the rear of the property uh and as

they've shown in the their um photos

there are you know two separate

entrances uh and if the previous

property owner it's not just the

previous owner Mr Clark there was

another one before that for 18 years or

so I think um had they you know

maintained the even semi-regular rental

inspections we would have just

determined that this was you know

continuing non-conforming use um so with

all that being said uh the Planning

Commission recommends that the zon

hearing board approved the request with

the following conditions if granted

zoning approval to move forward with the

project as proposed the applicant shall

allow the codes Bureau to perform a

comprehensive inspection to identify out

any outstanding code violations that

will receive approval for all necessary

city permits prior to receiving a

certificate of occupancy uh because they

are not requesting relief from the off

street parking requirements and have

reference the detached garage and

affirming the provision of the required

off street parking uh the applicant must

construct a driveway to provide access

to the three garage bays in the rear of

the property as no such access currently

exists um it should also this work

should also ensure that there's an ada8

compliance sidewalk uh it's maintained

along Edward Street there and then the

applicant will coordinate the Department

of Public Works to ensure the account

billing is updated to reflect the

proposed change in use uh the Planning

Commission recommended that the zon he

board approved the request for the

following reasons the zoning relief

requests for the proposed unit the use

are warranted by the history of the

property which is operated in the

pastest two units uh and the project

will address the primary concern of the

public regarding such conversions

specifically the impact on parking

available to existing residents through

the provision of the required parking in

the detached garage of the rear of the

property and due to the availability of

ample on Street Park y on the Frontage

of the property with Edward Street thank

you and Mr before we go the um when you

were mentioning um as far as uh any

documentation being filed in inspections

like um that would be as being continued

to be uh rented right I mean if it was

was then rented then to another tenant

and all that kind of stuff I mean I

don't think it's done uh when there's

like a new tenant taking over it's just

supposed to be done on a I think at one

point it was like every five years now

it's like more frequent um but there

would be a regular schedule of like

going in and saying like oh you know the

city adopted the

2013 um building code requirements and

we just want to make sure you're updated

to that you know they would go through

like every five years and inspect

individual each of the individual units

to make sure that they were up to code

okay and and that kind of is going to

get at my question that um e would they

do that even if it isn't um you know

rent you know what I mean you you know

it's some cousin and he's going to go

live there he's going to live there you

know full-time and all that kind of

stuff the fact though that it's two

units though does is that what kind of

then triggers that type of inspection or

so yes I mean if a if a property owner

wanted to stay in conformance and

compliance with the various city

regulations they would have gotten that

every again whatever the frequency was

but it would have been more frequent

than you know never um so yeah I mean

theoretically the for a property owner

if they wanted to and continue leasing

it out whether it's to a stranger or to

a family member they would you know

contact the city or the city might even

have contacted them and said hey you're

due for an inspection now you know as

long as you're continuing to use this so

the lack of any such inspection implies

that you know uh the owner was not

interested in maintaining a current a a

compliant two

unit property right

or or didn't respond right it was but

something right I mean it wasn't

regardless or it

wasn't inspected or you know whatever

done and if again if it had been you

know maybe five years you're kind of

saying like Okay maybe they just forgot

or something like that but when you have

that length of time of 23 years you know

that to me is where that issue of

Abandonment of that use comes okay and

that's it and then we can turn over to

applicant I didn't know if it was based

on just rental or something like that so

but and there's and well and we look at

the you know when we have to go back and

look at these uh properties you kind of

go back to see Google streets view as

far back as that goes and there's one

electric meter so you kind of look for

little Clues here and there and like

looking at the past history of these

things it's not just necessarily do we

have a rental inspection in the right

it's a collection of okay got

it so why don't we then uh introduce

Council and uh and then the applicant

we'll swear applicant in but go ahead

good evening my name is Adam de

bernardis I'm an attorney with mcace

filling in from somebody you're familiar

with Ash so if anything's wrong we know

who blame sure that's we will yeah

my name is Robert Kilby I second

um address 251 Washington

lane4 thank you so can both I mean oh

can you raise your right hand up and

swear you swear that information you're

going to present tonight is true whole

truth yes thank you very

much okay so tell us about your project

perfect uh so again my name is Adam

artists I work for MCN and we represent

Mr Robert Kilby here who's the owner of

3100 north3 Street which is the sub of

the application Mr Kilby purchased the

property in the beginning of the year

January of 2024 and seeks to continue

the use as a two-unit multi family uh

voling I'm going to give a very brief

overview and then I'll ask Robert some

questions to present the use of property

um I trumped you I got 10 exhibits that

we'll work through uh can we start by

marking the application is

one okay as as I mentioned Robert

purchased the property in January of

2024 as a two-unit multif family

dwelling uh the property is a semi

detached dwelling building it has been

used as a two-unit multif family

dwelling for approaching 50 years the

property is located in the city's

residential medium density District uh

we had uh Jeff the planning Bureau CH

make an interpretation that the use is

actually a single family dwelling and

not a multi family dwelling unit we are

here seeking an appeal of the zoning

officer determination or in the

alternative a special exception coupled

with two dimensional variances to permit

the use we did receive a favorable

recommendation from the City Planning

Commission already unless you have any

questions for me I'll start with

M right Mr Kilby if you could please

state your name and address for the

record again Robert Kilby II address 251

Washington

Lanea and you are the record owner of

the property yes

and what is your connection to the city

of Harrisburg I came to Harrisburg in

1987 after college was my thir job at I

worked

at by um I also joined the Macedonian

Church at that time where I a deacon and

chairman of Deacon board eventually

became a liced minister I got married in

um Harrisburg at M Baptist Church we've

been married 36 years now my wife

our son was born in Harrisburg I also

Pastor a church in Harrisburg on 19th

Street in a Missionary Baptist Church um

also I was um Serv leader coordinator at

harambe which is now um Kingdom emany uh

when U Al was the pastor um we stayed in

Harrisburg as long as long as we could

until we had the opportunity uh to

passor church outside of um the area

that weed uh M out and are you Curr ad

Minister C yes let's turn to the

property before you exhibit

A2 what is it it's AAL image of the of

the property itself and and the property

is highlighted in a teal green or yes

and can you just use it to orient the

board to describe the where the property

is uh so if you look at the property um

you can it'll be oriented this way uh on

this side will be the s River over to

the uh left over there would be um C

Lake would be in that are close by that

area and this is our

corner and Frontage on North Third

Street is that correct correct and also

has Frontage on Edwards Street correct

yes and can you describe the other uses

in the neighborhood surround the they're

are

residential before you now is exhibit A3

what is that that's a frontal view of

the property itself can you just briefly

describe the property itself uh it's a

what's called a semi- detached um it has

um two two main floors and an attic

access area it also has um on the sides

there at which side it has um three B

garage not shown there but that's that

side of it as well and it has two

dwelling units inside correct correct

and when did you purchase the property

uh January of uh

2024 January 16th who did you Pur the

property from it was from Codwell um but

it was the the owner was Melvin Clark so

the owner of the property was previous

owner is Melvin CLK Melvin CLK correct

and why did you purchase the property

purchased it to serve as a rental income

so you purchased the property solely to

rent it out to 10 yes as two drawing

units two ding unit for you now is a

couple

Pages five pages

four I think first page is the only one

that's relevant towards the bottom or

actually what what is

this uh this is the um agreement the be

itself would be registered okay and

towards the bottom does the de list the

prior ownership of the property yes and

is it correct that Melvin Clark gained

ownership of the property in 1977 based

on that D

yes before you now is exhibit A5

what is that that's a letter from Melvin

Clark

U and what does that letter State the

letter says the letter um concerns the

property

3100 North Third Street har Pennsylvania

when this property was sold in

1977 the property was a two-unit

building the property has been used as

two unit since the 1970s the owners

occupied the property with one family on

the first floor and the second family on

the second floor that's the

and that letter is addressed to Loretta

Campbell who is that Loretta Campbell is

the realtor at car um car real real

that's who was the realtor for M CL and

did you receive any other information

who else occupied the other unit beside

the

owners before you now is exhibit

A6 what is that this is the what what's

what we found was that the the in Mel

mentioned was that the property always

had two gas bills put that as two unit

and that's

what gas so each unit has its own

separate gas meter

correct we'll turn to the physical

aspects of the building exibit A7 three

pages looking at the first photo what

what is it it's the front door the of

the um of the property itself going so

that first door is that the F door yes

and what is that

behind that's the door to the second

separate entrance and depicted on that

photo does each unit have its own

doorbell yes moving to the second

photo what is that that's the first

floor unit from the door with and it has

a dead bolt lock on it so that's the

interior view of the first door right

and just to confirm it has its own dead

moving to the third photo what is that

image of the second floor unit door with

and it also has on it as well

staircasing up to and the staircase is

located behind the second floor correct

correct and in relation to that photo

where's the first floor it's over to the

it's over to the left here you kind of

see the door frame in the top left

corner yeah so before you get to that

second door you go into the you go into

the first unit there so each unit has

its own separate entry door to the

respective units correct yes and because

of that tenant of the first floor unit

can access the second floor unit that is

correct vice versa correct before you

now is exhibit A8 what is that it's

photo of the first floor kitchen and the

second floor kitchen both units have

their own their own kitchen so each unit

has its own separate kit yes for you now

is exibit A9 what is that these are the

U first floor bathroom and the second

floor bathroom each um unit has its own

its own

bathroom where you now is exhibit A10

what is that this is the uh mailbox each

unit has a mailbox of its

own mailbox allow mail to be given to

each unit so reviewing some of these

physical aspects buildings the doors

layout kitchen bathrooms mailbox

doorbells were all of these physical

aspects in place when you purchase the

property

yes was this property marketed to you

and showed to you as a two-unit multi

family glowing unit that existed for

decades yes it was you mentioned that

you purchased a property to rent to

uh are you planning or have you done

any so far we've done about 35 to$

40,000 person improvements to bring it

up to so it can be U rented at good

price and also good for the neighborhood

so General repairs General repairs

painting are you doing anything with the

electrical we will have to um split the

unlike the gas the electric was being on

one meter um but the gas was 2 m two

unit but the electric was uh would like

to

have when we were here about a week and

a half ago the planning Bureau

recommended commission recommend

condition that you pave a driveway along

at Ed street is that correct yes will

that add to the additional

expenses yes it will that figure of 35

to $40,000 does that include the

driveway no is it also your

understanding that that condition will

further delay you in receiving permits

that's out the property yes are youning

any Dem or additional expansion of the

building on the property no how many

vehicles can park in

the turning to the relief uh through

Council you've already asked for a

zoning determination is that correct yes

and the city stated that the use had

been advanded now single family right

that's why

we you subsequently submitted an appeal

of that decision and in the alternative

the special exception variant

relief are multi family dwelling

permitted in the RM District VI a

special reception yes and is mentioned

several times how many units are in

build who is the building have

2500 and so you're requesting a variance

section

73092 as the building is less than

2500 yes Additionally the code requires

1500 feet for dwelling unit

correct and is a property lot area 3000

larger

no no is it possible to expand the lot

size of the

property you're requesting a variant

trans section

73738

density except for the requested relief

will the use comply with all applicable

local state and federal laws does the

property provide proper Ingress Andress

for pedestrians and emergency vehicles

as a residential use are there

significant Public Safety haard hazards

including fire toxic or exposive

the use creat significant negative

impacts for the existing neighborhood in

heavy TR

trafficers there any outside operations

involved in this no there any risk of

serious explosive fire biological

biogenetic toxic Hazard or slop or

Wetland property and to confirm there is

no demol demolition

property have you reviewed the narrative

included in the application Mark is the

de to the extent applicable doic

comments made there in is your

own you have any other testimony

provide no go ahead and admit exhibits

A1 through

A10 uh and just as a brief summary this

is a longstanding 2unit multif family

dwelling unit for almost 50 years uh

which Mr kby purchased in January of

2024 the physical aspects of the

property clearly indicated it's a two

unit property uh and the letter from the

prior owner indicates that he never

abanded the multif family use and never

intended to and sold the property as

such and in Pennsylvania to abandon a

use requires both uh intent and actual

abandonment there does appear to be some

confusion on the owner's history but as

the deed indicates Melvin Clark gained

half ownership of that property in 1977

and when the other owners died he gained

complete

ownership finally if the board does not

want to Grant the appeal and grants the

alternative relief uh just a comment

about the recommended driveway condition

the last of formal access uh we would

argue is likely a non-conforming

condition and imposing this condition

places another significant burden on the

applicant further pushes back this

timeline to rent the property out to

tenants uh you're essentially asking to

maintain the status quo as that has

continued to exist as it does today and

furthermore as indicated by the planning

Bureau there is sufficient on street

parking available along the property

including 150 on Edward Street and for

the reasons discussed

request you grant the appeal or in the

alternative special exception

guarantees that

questions I think my questions have been

answered so I'll let you start okay okay

so a question I I went back to one of

your images the mailbox there three

mailboxes there but there's only two

units

that's a three-story building that third

floor what do it Ed for it's

a so the second floor the person who has

the second floor is also able to access

so it's up

you it's a smaller finished

add okay I I just found it interesting

three mailboxes but it's only supposed

to be a two unit place okay just yeah we

think it might have been a standard

1970s unit mailbox purchased in

n and you're going to split the electric

to each and do each you know have its

own individual feed will that require

any other rewiring of this of that

building that's my

know they'll just it and have the

two okay this meter but

um okay but you'll hire a qualified

electrici yeah so one thing one we did

do is um um I hired um the Midtown

Property Management to take care of all

those type of things for two reasons one

wanted to make sure that the tenants had

someone local that they can get U

answers from get things care the other

thing is um I want to make sure the

property stays in good standing and good

shape for the other homeowners in the

area it's very important to be able to

do that so mtown Property Management all

of that full

service yeah I was going to say if

you're rning a in the landlord act Bic

require 50 miles to

have for manager there

um I'm just trying to think might a lot

this question I look at the square foot

is you're asking for relief from that

okay the B the rule says um I'm just

reading the uh 3,000 square foot but the

you but you the lot size is only 28 50

right now correct so there's two

different reliefs that are involved one

is for special exception requires if

it's the appeal is not granted it's

considered a

conversion one of the two criteria is

the requirement that the building be at

least 2500 square feet the other one is

not specific to uh special exception it

just has a density requirement of 1500

square fet per unit here we have two

units and we're under 3,000

for the entire

law so that would again each of the unit

wouldn't satisfy that either the 1500

per either corre okay

um once you do your improvements on the

building you'll go through codes

Harrisburg codes will go back and

reinspect the building making sure

everything is up to

Snuff whatever well that's the why we

had all those things be

followed they let a bait

uh I know the capital region they're

replacing water meters in that area and

um hypothetical you uh they're replacing

the water meters they're making them all

electronic when they go through that

effort if they discover lead lead uh

connectors okay they'll require the

owner to basically remediate that um if

they don't well not even immediately

once they discover it water will be shut

off put the building until it is

remediated that would that could cause

that building to be brought into u a

zoning violation where it'll be marked

unhabitable human habitation because

we'll have no flowing water right well

that wouldn't be a zoning violation that

be a codes

violation yes corre and it's a

possibility yes that would be the same

possibility for property that

has okay

you respond okay um I really have no

further questions about this property

it's again it

was I actually know where bu was at I've

many

times how about the driveway that they

were saying I mean I I I get it you know

to the condition and and you know

totally understand it um anything with

regard to that or well I mean I I think

get any look at it and I was trying to

find a picture of it but um it's it's

like a foot above where the street is

like I don't think I'd be able to get my

car into the D into either the garage

Bays just because of the way like the

low clearance of it so that's why I made

the reference to the um uh to installing

the driveway I mean if if you had a

truck you can probably get in there no

problem but it's how do you know what

your tenants are going to have and

therefore they're going to get in that

all being said I think the frontage of

the property along Edward Street as I

know noted is clearly sufficient to

accommodate whatever the off street

parking requirements are so they don't

put the driveway in I still think the

property justifies the request but if

they're going to claim that that's an

accessible driveway or accessible garage

Bays I don't know they are right and

don't need the zoning relief for the

parking right right so that so that

would maybe you'd have to add the the

requested relief for that I

guess right right that you know that

that would and that's what I mean I

couldn't really even see the D with any

of the pictures from

everybody you had one from the front to

and I'm sitting here looking I'm

like where's stra around the side and

I'm so um yeah okay I think

it's it is on Edward Street yes

yeah L question

okay so um I think we need to

take yes take a free pause and we will

rejoin you thank you

oh

yeah well

like I don't know what's going on I I

don't know if they shut it

off yeah I think they still I think

you're still probably that's why they

go yeah I think

so

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e e

busy that's the alternative

computer EV this so okay so good evening

we're back in session okay um I need a

motion Mr hops on the zoning Appeal on

the zoning appeal yes I will make a

motion to deny the zoning appeal I

second

n uh

questions all in favor I I okay second

then I would like to make a motion to

approve the variance in the special

exception application

2587 with the conditions set forth by

the Planning

Commission all right second

approval

questions all in favor I I so thank you

thank gentlemen thank you for showing up

thank you for coming in and you'll get

right the written decision and so you

can adjourn so we're gonna make a motion

to adjourn something meeting for

July okay U so approved the zoning

meeting is now over thank you for

everybody showing

up telling you I

like by the way Adam I think it was the

the nature of it you know what I mean I

think it you know

okay