Harrisburg City Zoning Hearing Board Meeting - 07/21/25

this evening. This is the uh zoning

hearing board uh meeting for July uh

21st, 2025 for the city of Harrisburg.

Uh we have a rather large agenda uh this

evening. Um before we start, I just want

to uh go over some ground rules. Um

they're the same ones each time. Uh I

just want everybody to know that we have

a court reporter here. Uh the court

reporter stenographers taken down every

uh everybody's uh what everybody says

word for word. Uh this is done just in

case there's an appeal to the court of

common please. So we want to make sure

that we don't talk over uh another

person or if we answer a question we

enunciate the answer and not shake our

head up and down. Um, everybody uh here

who resides or owns uh property uh uh in

the city or uh close to the property and

has something legally relevant to say

will be able to participate in each one

of the various hearings uh as they apply

to each uh individual.

Um the first uh matter we're going to

address this evening is going to be uh

application uh 2610.

It's uh last on the agenda. Um

this is uh the application concerning

the property located at 508 and 510

North Second Street. And uh this is a uh

continuence request. Um, I just indicate

that uh to the board that uh we received

a uh letter from the applicant

requesting that this matter be continued

to the August 18th uh 2025 zoning

hearing board meeting. So, I'd like to

um ask for a motion uh uh for the

acceptance of this continuance request

and it'll be on next month's meeting.

18.

>> Is there a second?

>> Second.

>> All those in favor signify by saying I.

>> I.

>> Okay.

So the uh first order of uh business

will be old business uh application

number 2603. This is a variance

application

uh for uh 1951 Hurst Street. Um

and uh for the record for this hearing,

I'll just uh indicate that we have two

uh board members here. uh Claude Fipps

who is our chair and James Hobbs uh who

is uh the vice chair of the board. Um so

with that, do we have a a representative

of uh the applicant in this matter?

Okay.

Um,

I'll also note for the representing the

city's solicitor's office is TIA Cameron

is present here this evening. Um, we'll

start out uh by uh swearing in uh

witnesses. Um, Mr. Knight, do you want

to uh state your uh your position uh

with the city um and then uh we'll swear

you in?

>> Yes. Uh I'm the planning director.

>> Okay.

Um would you uh raise your right hand?

Uh do you swear or affirm that the

testimony you're about to give before

this board is the truth and nothing but

the truth?

>> I do.

>> And uh do you agree that uh that you

will be sworn in for each of the meeting

uh hearings this evening?

>> Yes.

>> Okay.

Um, and then, um, sir, uh, would you

like to, uh, um, tell us your name,

spell your last name?

>> My name is Dennis. B O Y E R.

>> Okay. And, um, what is your are you the

applicant in this matter?

>> No, I'm not. and the uh owner of the

sign company in reading that's going to

be hopefully installing the sign.

>> Okay.

Um would you uh please raise your right

hand? Do you swear or affirm that the

testimony that you will be giving to

this board this evening is the truth and

nothing but the truth?

>> I do.

>> Okay. Um Mr. Uh Knight, do you want to

give us a um a summary of this

application and indicate what zone the

property's located and such? Uh yes. So,

uh the uh case for 2603

um is a

variance application for a sign larger

than permitted by right uh in the

commercial neighborhood zoning district

in which the building uh to which the

sign will be affixed is located. Uh the

applicant is proposing a 50 square foot

sign when a 25 square foot sign is

permitted by right. Um this uh property

uh has been undergoing some changes in

the last few years. Uh it originally um

was two properties uh 1933 and 1951

Hurst Street. uh 1933 had a diner on it

and 1951 had a a small gas station uh a

canopy with uh islands with gas pumps on

them. Um uh two years ago the applicants

uh proposed and received approval for a

project to demolish both properties,

consolidate the lots into a single

parcel uh and build a new larger uh gas

station on the property with the uh

pumps pump islands and canopy at the

eastern end of the site and uh a

convenience store building at the

western end of the site. Um in this case

there uh are actually fairly unique

circumstances uh for the property um

because the two uh lots that previously

comprise the the property the project

site

are located in different zoning

districts. um 1933 Hurst Street uh which

is the uh portion of the property on

which the building uh that the uh sign

in question is located was in the

commercial neighborhood zoning district

and 1951 Hurst Street was in the

industrial zoning district. Um in during

their reconstruction of the uh site uh

into an improved uh gas station with

convenience store. Um the applicants

were limited to where they could put uh

the gas station, pumps, islands, and

canopy, and the uh convenience store uh

due to the fact that they needed to have

access um from Arsenal Boulevard and

from 20th Street. Uh so the gas pumps

needed to be at the eastern end of the

site in the industrial zoning district,

which left the convenience store being

in the uh commercial neighborhood zoning

district. So despite the two properties

being uh conjoined into a single lot uh

the split zoning remained um and uh this

it's this condition um that essentially

creates the justification for the

applicant's request. Uh the applicants

did not have the uh option based again

on the configuration of the site and the

necessary vehicular access of putting

the store at the eastern end of the site

uh where the proposed signage would have

been permitted by right with the gas

pumps being at the western end. Um so uh

from the planning bureau's perspective

it's a fairly straightforward request

with uh a simple justification and the

uh planning commission recommended the

zoning hearing board approved the

request for the following reasons. Site

features conditions that justify the

requested zoning relief including a

complicated intersection and extensive

street furniture including utility

poles, traffic control poles and

signage. Uh the applicant did not have

the option of constructing the

convenience store in the INDZONE portion

of the property which would have

permitted the proposed signage by right

as the site design is necessary to allow

appropriate vehicular access and

circulation. Uh the proposed signage

represents a minor deviation from the

zoning code to allow visibility and

legibility for drivers traveling along

her street. And finally, the proposed

signage would not be out of character

for this portion of her street.

>> Okay. Thank you, Mr. uh Knight. Is there

anybody else here before uh we go any

further? Um that any citizens here uh

relative to this matter? Just want to

identify him ahead of time. Oh, you are

okay. We'll we'll get to you. I just

wanted to make sure someone someone if

someone was here so that we know. I'm

going to mark a few exhibits and then

we'll have uh Mr. uh then then we'll

we'll move forward. Um, I'm going to

pre-mark exhibits uh starting with

exhibit uh B1. Uh B1 was the original uh

email that uh where this matter was uh

continued u from last meeting. Exhibit

B2 is a proof of publication.

Uh the time and place and particular

nature of this matter was published in

the Patriot News on June 1st and June

8th, 2025.

B3 is a letter dated July 17, 2025 from

the planning director uh Jeffrey Knight

to the applicant notifying the applicant

of the time and place of the hearing.

Exhibit B4 was the hearing notice which

was posted upon the property in

question. Uh there was uh exhibit B5 is

the applicant's not uh notification

letters to required neighbors

application or uh exhibit number exhibit

B6 is the application packet with plans

uh for the proposal. Uh exhibit B7 is

the letter of um the applicant designing

signature signs as the representative

for this hearing. Uh board exhibit

number eight is the affidavit of the

property owner uh authorizing the

applicant to pursue the zoning uh

application. Uh exhibit B9 is the deed

to the property. Exhibit B10 is the

planning bureau case report and exhibit

uh B11 is the city of Harrisburg uh

planning commission resolution.

So the to the individual that was here

earlier, could you identify yourself?

from the developer. Okay. So, are you

here in favor of this application? Okay.

All right.

Mr. Ber, would you like to present your

case?

>> U Well, I have a few things to say here.

I mean, I

obviously the whole contention here is

because of the zoning of the two

properties. That's where the issue

became an issue, let's say. And I I did

the square footage of the front of the

building and the square footage at the

front of the building is 1,084

square feet

and the design that we're proposing is

50 square ft. So, which is 4.6%

of this building front, which is a very

small small percentage of the building

front. I know that the zoning for that

district is only 25 square

And I don't I don't see any issues with

it. It fits in the building and the spec

of the building which of course the

planning commission agreed with all

that. That's why they approved it. Um

the to me it's it's just a simple

process. I mean I don't think it's

complicated. I don't think there's any

issues. I don't think there's any body

that would complain about this or object

to it.

So the

I don't know what else to say. I mean I

think it's in my way of putting it. It's

kind of like a

an issue that should be approved and um

move on to better and bigger and better

things. That's basically what I could

say. I don't know what else to tell you

or to say.

>> Um could you tell us why a 25 foot

square foot sign would be inadequate at

this location.

>> Well, it's it's just that much smaller.

I mean, if you take that for instance,

it would be 2.6 square feet of the front

of the building. You kind of would get

lost. I mean, it's like a posting stamp

on there for 25 square feet. When you

think about the total square foot of the

front of that building, that's I mean,

it's even though to be honest with you,

the 50 square feet is adequate, but that

isn't as big as it I would think it even

should be. But um in the position of it

though, it's going on a on a position on

the building where it's where it's nice.

It looks proportional. There's nothing

objectionable to the view of it on the

building. And

I don't think that 50 square feet is

objectionable. At 25 square feet, it

would be like I said, kind of like a

postage stamp on that building.

And like I said, I mean, here's a

developer that did exactly what they

did, could not put this building on the

right zoning property because of the

pumps. So, they were forced to put it

here. And I think that the board should

grant the parents for them to put the

sign 50 square feet.

>> Does the board have any questions?

Yeah, sure. If you want to come up to

the microphone, please identify

yourself.

>> Hi. Um, my name is Jennifer. I'm not um

I actually didn't come here for that.

Just wanted to see the process because

I'm coming next month. But I'm very

familiar with the um property with the

job site. I own 1939 BOAS which is

directly behind the site. Um and I just

wanted to say first off what they are

doing is it's it's very nice. Um I the

area it was bad before what was there

before the the diner and the previous

gas station. and it was very rand, very

deteriorated.

Um, with how big the building is, I

believe if they put the sign, the

smaller sign, the 25 ft 25 square feet

sign because of the intersection, the

street that it's at when you're coming

down, um, 20th is on the left and then

it becomes a oneway. Uh, what is it?

Arsenal becomes a oneway and then her

comes up. a smaller sign, someone that's

that doesn't see in time that this is a

convenience store and they're going,

they need a convenience store, it may

cause um an accident or traffic

violations if they try to turn too fast

because they didn't see the sign ahead

of time. Um again, because of the

complicated it's it's becomes a oneway,

but then you could turn left also into

it. So, as someone from the

neighborhood, I would be in favor of a

bigger sign to alert someone that's

looking for a convenience store that's

driving past to alert them in time so

they can turn on their blinkers and turn

on 20th Street, which is how they would

be able to turn onto this. And if

they're coming from her street, they

wouldn't actually see the sign if it was

that small because it would be on the

right hand side and it kind of blocks it

the angle. they wouldn't be able to see

it if it was that small. And again, they

would try to make a turn last minute and

it may create accidents or other traffic

violations um because of the if they

didn't see it in time.

>> That was it.

>> Okay. Thank you.

questions.

Are there any traffic

coming off making?

>> Uh yes. So there is a um uh traffic

light on the far side of that

intersection. So basically along this

property uh if you're coming from uh

Arsenal Boulevard. Um so there's uh the

traffic light. There's uh some street

lights and there's some utility poles uh

along that frontage of the property with

um her street.

reason I'm trying to get

that

cut that

You're saying

even though it's lit and it's

electronic.

>> Correct.

>> What what you have to realize is that 25

or the 50 square feet is the out

dimension of the sign. Totally right to

left, totally top to bottom. That does

not have anything to do with the

lettering. in that square footage. So

basically, you take a 25 square foot

sign, increase it to 50 square feet, the

letters can get twice as big, which is

twice as noticeable. That's basically

the whole context there.

>> Mr. night. Was there any conditions that

the planning commission placed on uh

their

recommendation of approval?

>> Uh there were none. The pro the proposed

sign is otherwise in conformance uh with

the illumination um and it's not going

to have movable uh animation on the

sign. So it's otherwise in conformance

with the zoning code.

>> Okay. Thank you.

Make a motion.

So I make a motion that

we

with the conditions set by

>> there were there were no conditions. So

is your motion to approve uh the request

for dimensional variance in this matter?

>> Yes, it is.

>> There's a motion and a second. Um all

those in favor signify by saying I.

>> I.

>> Okay. Um you'll get a written decision

within 45 days of today's uh meeting.

>> Okay.

>> Thank you. Thanks.

Excuse

me.

>> Thank you.

Okay, we're ready for our next

application. This is a variance

application for 600 South 17th Street.

Uh Mr. Uh uh again um for this

application uh we have Jeffrey Knight

from the city of Harrisburg uh codes

office, Tarsa Cameron from the city of

Harrisburg solicitors office uh Claude

Fipps who is the chairman of uh zoning

hearing board and James Hobbes who is

the vice chair. uh for this is a um

application number 2606 for 600 South

17th Street. Uh Mr. Knight uh was

previously sworn in and indicated he

would be sworn in for all hearings uh

this evening. Um for the applicant,

could you identify yourself uh and spell

your last name, please?

>> Yeah. Uh Ben Orens, O R O Ns.

And what is your are you the applicant

in this matter?

>> No, I'm the owner of the sign company

Algra Image 360 on behalf of the client.

>> Okay. Um I'm going to read some uh uh

the uh list of exhibits that we have

pre-marked in this matter. Uh I have

marked as exhibit B1 the proof of

publication. The time and place of

particular nature of this matter was

published in Patriot News, a newspaper

of general circulation in the city of

Harrisburg. It appeared uh in the July

6th and July 13th uh publication.

Exhibit B2 is a letter dated July 17,

2025

uh from planning director Knight to the

applicant notifying uh the applicant of

the time and place of the hearing.

Exhibit B3

is the hearing notice posted on the

property

that was accomplished uh on June 29th,

2025. Exhibit B4 is the applica

applicants notification letters to

require neighbors. Exhibit B5 is the

application packets with plans for the

proposal. Exhibit B6 is the letter and

notice uh to uh uh of the property owner

authorizing the applicant to pursue uh

the zoning relief. Uh exhibit B7

uh is the u deed to the property.

Exhibit B B8 is the planning bureau case

report. Exhibit B9 is the city of

Harrisburg uh planning commission

resolution. And I'll just ask uh for the

record if there's anybody here that's a

citizen that is uh appearing this

evening uh because they have an interest

in this uh application.

I'll let the record reflect there are

none. Uh Mr. Knight, do you want to give

us a summary of this matter? Uh yes. So

uh the uh issue in case 2606

uh involves uh the um allowance of a

second sign uh on the property which is

one more than would be permitted by

right uh in the IND district. Um the

signage is otherwise in conformance with

the um allowable uh size and

illumination. It's 96.6

uh square feet. Um and uh the proposal

is actually part of a a larger um

project that involves um both the

replacement of the existing sign uh at

the um southwestern corner of the

intersection of uh 17th Street and um

forgetting off the top of my head here.

Uh Brookwood Street, sorry, to the

north. Um and so that sign will be

replaced uh with a sign that is in

conformance with the zoning code. And

then the applicant is also proposing to

install another sign at the southern uh

frontage of the uh front of the

building. Um now the uh second sign uh

the location uh creates the

justification uh for the applicant's

request. Uh, as noted, the current the

building occupies um a full city block

uh actually a little bit more um running

probably a couple blocks uh east west

and then the front is a full city block

uh north south. Um the existing sign

again is at the northern end of this

front elevation. So visible to that

intersection of 17th and Brookwood

Street. However, it is likely that a

majority of the uh applicants um

traffic, both visitors um and uh maybe

deliveries uh will be coming directly

from the south uh from um from

Interstate 83, which is uh just to the

um south of the railroad tracks that

border the uh southern edge of this

property. Um and the applicants uh have

one of their uh driveways onto the um

subject property and to the uh parking

area and loading docks at the rear of

the property um just to the south of um

the front of the building here. So if uh

they were only permitted to have one

sign by the time um deliveries and

visitors were able to uh get to the

northern end of the front elevation uh

to see it, they might have passed uh the

uh vehicular access point. Um

and then they'd be forced to maybe

either turn around or drive down

Brookwood Street, which uh having done

several site visits to the property, uh

is fairly narrowed by the fact that

there's a truck parking along the

southern side of the street and uh

there's a um drug treatment center just

to the north. So, there's parking along

that side of the street. It's really

only one lane even though it's two-way

traffic. So, uh, for the benefit of, um,

visitors and, uh, deliveries, uh, it is,

um, reasonable to have the sign at the

southern end of the building near that

vehicular access point so that people

coming off the highway, uh, can quickly

identify the building and turn in, uh,

on the safest vehicular access point.

Um, again, the signage is otherwise in

conformance with the zoning code. So uh

the proposal uh does represent uh the

minimum deviation uh from the zoning

code because it's one additional sign um

when only one is permitted by right and

therefore uh the planning bureau uh and

the planning commission uh both

recommend approval uh of the request for

the following reasons. The proposed

signage will better identify the

business and appropriately direct

vehicular traffic to the on-site parking

for visitors from the south and

specifically from Interstate 83 where

the majority of deliveries, shipments,

and visitors are anticipated. And aside

from the zoning relief required for an

additional sign beyond that permitted by

right in the IND district, the proposed

signage is otherwise in conformance with

the size, height, and illumination

requirement.

>> And the planning commission has no

conditions.

>> That is correct.

>> Okay. And um is there one tenant in this

building?

>> I believe so. Yes.

>> Okay. Is that I saw some of the plans.

Is it HB McCor?

>> I think so. Yeah. And I believe they've

been there for a little bit. Yeah.

>> Occupies the entire building.

>> Yeah.

>> Okay.

So, do you uh

do you have anything to add or to

present in this matter?

>> Um

not much beyond uh what was just said.

Um

because technically it is it is it is

two business units you know under common

ownership they have the HB mcclor side

and the HB home side so along with the

identification they want to you know as

as a big of a business as they are they

want to denote both business units on

the side of their building HP home on

the left HP on the right you were

looking at it straight on

>> and you're a in agreement with uh the

testimony of Mr.

I am.

>> Okay. Does the board have any questions?

>> Uh, I just going to ask Mr. Knight, um,

has there been any, I guess, recent, uh,

approvals to a similar type of request

to have multiple signs?

>> Um, in this general vicinity or just

overall,

>> I guess general vicinity is is

>> um, I can't think of any off the top of

my head for uh, this particular area. I

know um just one that springs to mind is

uh I believe um Harrisburg University

downtown several years ago uh had a

larger building where they were

proposing uh signage at the top on three

uh of the facades uh where two would

have been permitted by rights. So that's

a similar request.

>> Okay. Thank you.

>> They will not

Uh well, both of these signs are facing

uh 17th Street and I believe across the

street is um a an auto repair shop and

uh there is some other industrial

activity at the southern end of that

block.

>> Miss Cameron, do you have any questions?

66.

>> Yep.

You're so Okay. So your motion is is to

approve the uh the application for the

eventual variance for a second sign.

>> Is there a second?

>> Second.

>> All those in favor signify by saying I.

>> I.

>> Okay. Well uh congratulations. Uh we

will uh issue a written decision uh

within 45 days of today's hearing.

>> Okay.

Do you need these hardigital?

The digital. Thank you.

Okay. Next uh application is application

2607. This is a variance application

relative to the property located at 1332

North 2nd Street in the city of

Harrisburg.

Um,

looks like the applicant is Bitner

Reynolds LLC.

And

for this hearing uh again um we have uh

Claude Fipps who's the chair of this

board and James Hob Hobbs who's the vice

chair. Um

Jeffrey Knight uh was already sworn in

and indicated that he would be sworn in

for all future hearings including this

one. Um he's a zoning administrator.

Uh we have uh Tissa Cameron uh from the

solicitor's office. Um

Mr. Clark, uh do you want to introduce

yourself uh and u whoever you're going

to have testify today?

>> Sure. Uh good evening. My name is Jeff

Clark, attorney at Wixer and Widner

representing Bitner Rentals. And with me

is Nathan Bitner.

>> Okay. Is uh Mr. uh um

Bner going to testify today.

>> Uh possibly and certainly available to

answer questions.

>> Okay. So, should we swear him in just in

case? Uh could you uh uh identify

yourself, Mr. Bner? For the record,

spell your last name and then we'll

swear you in.

>> Nathan Bner,

>> could you raise your right hand? Do you

swear or affirm the testimony you're

about to give before this board is the

truth and nothing but the truth? Okay,

I'm going to u mark some uh exhibits

that were forwarded to the board um so

that we have them on record. I have

marked as exhibit B1, the proof of

publication. The time and place and

particular nature of this matter was

published in the Patriot News uh which

is a newspaper of general circulation uh

in the city of Harrisburg. publication

appeared on in the July 6th and July

13th

um publication. Exhibit B2 is a letter

dated July 17, 2025 from the planning

director to the applicant notifying the

applicant of the time and place of this

hearing. Exhibit B3 is a hearing notice

uh posted upon the property in question

that occurred on June 29th, 2025. Board

exhibit number four is the applicant's

notification letters to the required

neighbors. Board exhibit number five is

the application package

um with the attached narrative aerial

map of the property and street view

photos of the property. Uh board exhibit

number six is the deed of the property

establishing the applicant standard to

pursue zoning relief in this matter.

Board exhibit number seven is the

planning bureau's case report and board

exhibit number eight is the city of

Harrisburg uh planning commission

resolution.

Um and again before u we start with the

applicant um and if you want to just

give a a general Mr. Knight a general

overview of this matter.

>> Sure. Um so the issue for case number

2607

uh is um the use of the current

accessory parking lot on the subject

property as a commercial parking lot uh

available to uh residents or uh

customers of businesses in the immediate

area. Uh currently uh the property is

functioning as uh both a funeral home

and a an apartment building. Uh so the

existing parking lot on site uh provided

parking uh for both the uh residents of

the property as well as um visitors and

employees of the business on site. Uh as

the applicant attested to at the

planning commission meeting, uh the

business um of the funeral home has kind

of gradually been winding down to the

point where they're only doing I think a

a funeral a month. Uh they testified. Um

so uh the need for parking has certainly

been greatly lessened from when the

height of that use would have been and

there are five apartments on site but

certainly uh more parking than is

required for um the tenants of those

units. Uh and so the applicant uh is

proposing um not really any change in

the use or the development per se uh but

in who can use the park uh the who can

use the parking lot. Um

the uh property is located outside of

the of the city's competing parking

area. So the um that is not a

consideration in this case. Uh would be

you know whether that would be in

conformance with that agreement or not.

Um that is no longer uh that is not

applicable uh to this particular site.

Um and uh so the applicant is uh simply

seeking to use the existing

configuration of the property in a

different way uh and in a way that will

uh be of benefit to the surrounding

community. Um you know parking can

certainly be difficult at uh times uh on

uh Second Street uh and on uh nearby

Verbeck Street. Um there are

occasionally people uh parking in the

vacant lot that's about a block away on

Front Street there. Uh so there is

certainly a um a demand uh for more off-

streetet parking which again will bring

the parking on street into uh hopefully

better and safer uh conformance with the

city's regulations. Uh so with that

being said uh the planning commission

recommended that the zoning hearing

board approved the request uh with the

following conditions. Uh the applicant

should provide a site plan of the

proposed surface parking lot including

aspects such as line spaces and driveway

aisles with dimensions to confirm the

parking lot will be in conformance with

applicable regulations. The site plan

should be should identify ways in which

to bring the property into conformance

with the applicable zoning regulations

such as the inclusion of landscape

screening and possibly street trees

planted in the corners of the lot. Um

and to be clear, uh because the property

is already existing as a surface parking

lot, um you know, any non-conforming

aspect with respect to those, um uh

sections of the zoning code would be a

legal non-conforming aspect. Um but we,

you know, realize that in um changing

it, uh or in changing the use and

availability of parking, uh the

applicants may be seeking to do some

additional work to the site, repaving

perhaps. Um and so uh we thought it

would be prudent to if that was going to

be done um look for ways to bring the

property into conformance uh for

aesthetic purposes if nothing else

landscape screening things of that

nature. Um but again that's uh more of a

recommendation uh and you know less of a

requirement because the existing

configuration of the lot is a parking

lot so it can be used as that going

forward. Um, and then the planning

bureau did recommend the removal of one

of the second street cuts to remove a

vehicular pedestrian conflict point if

the applicant does not intend on

utilizing both access points or possibly

relocate a vehicular access to Safford

Street. Uh, the reason that was added

was during our site visit. We noted that

one of the access points was uh chained

off. Um, so we were unsure of whether

the applicant was only intending on

using uh one of the access points. Uh,

and so that was what uh that condition

referenced. Um, in the discussion at the

planning commission meeting, the

applicants confirm they do that to uh

prevent parking by residents um of the

of the neighborhood um currently uh

which again they would not be permitted

to do really. So once the uh presuming

approval is granted uh by the zoning

hearing board, they would likely open up

both vehicular access points. So that

would kind of make that condition move

at that point. Uh the planning

commission uh recommends the zoning

hearing board approve the request for

the following reasons. The proposed use

does not require zoning relief for any

proposed development or use but rather

who would be using the existing parking

spaces and thus represents a deminimous

deviation from the zoning regulations

which meets the applicable criteria in

the zoning code. uh and I should have

clarified earlier that the property is

in the residential medium density uh

district which does not permit

commercial parking lots by right and

that's what is necessitating the

variance application in this case. Um,

number two, while service parking lots

are generally not advisable from a

planning perspective as they represent

an underutilization of valuable urban

land and create impacts such as storm

water runoff and urban heat island

effect, in this instance, it is

reasonable to maximize the utility of

spaces in an existing lot by leasing

parking to local residents. And finally,

reuse of the property to accommodate

parking demand created by residents and

businesses at the surrounding

neighborhood can provide benefits by

reducing on street parking near

intersections, in crosswalks, and on

vacant lots. And the site can be

designed to incorporate elements such as

landscape screening that improve the

aesthetics of the property.

>> Okay. Thank you. Um is there anybody

here um

for this application? Anybody?

Okay. Well, we'll let the record reflect

that there are no citizens here um

for this particular application. Mr.

Clark, would you like to proceed with

your case?

>> Sure. um like to ask Mr. Bitner a couple

uh questions about the application. Uh

Mr. Bitner, are you the um managing

member of Bitner Rentals LLC? I am. And

when did when did you purchase this

property?

>> And was it in its current configuration

when you purchased it? Current use.

>> Um and so have you Does it currently

operate as a funeral home and then also

as it does? Yes. About how many funerals

are held at the

do about one a month.

Um and so and it has do the residents of

the multif family apartments use the

parking spaces.

So is there one each for each? How many

apartments are there? Five. They each

have

Yes. And so is the remainder of the

parking lot more or less unused.

About how many parking spaces are

um and so we're here on an application.

You would like permission. you would

like to change the use to a commercial

parking lot

and do you intend to have

what basis would you rent the parking

spaces on a monthly basis? So permit

parking for on a monthly basis.

Um

do you

is it currently listed for SIM? It is.

>> Does it appear what what kind of

market? What does it seem like it's

showing? What kind of purchases are

showing interest in that way? We've had

people look at it.

And before it was a funeral home, was it

was it a town home in the first place?

>> So I I know that funeral

and so if converted, it still wouldn't

use all of the parking spaces for the

parking lot.

Um

the

guess the other question I would have

there there was a question about it

being one of the there's two entrances

on second

>> and you have one sort of chained off.

Can you explain why that is? So when we

purchased the purchases

All right. Um,

do you

if if the permission is granted to use

it as a commercial parking lot, would

you intend to comply with zoning

regulations as a

further question?

Board have any questions?

Mr.

Good evening

question.

I got

>> I I don't know that he I mean I think it

would it would be insured within

whatever requirements there are. But to

be honest, I I don't know if he's able

to answer that question. I don't know

the answer either other than

But you're basically

present.

I think it in answer to your further

answer to your question I think as part

of the multif family use they might be

required to have parking for the

residents. So I think the intent would

be that the residents would have parking

and they park there.

>> Yeah, I I mean I don't know whether

they'd be able to park on second or I

believe Calder is to the north there. Um

but again I think the applicants uh

intend on providing parking not just for

um you know current uh residents but if

the funeral home goes away and the uh

apartment use expands they would provide

it for those residents as well.

Good evening. Um, so I just had a

question. I know it was mentioned right

that

I guess with having minimal activity in

terms of business for the funeral home

that kind of leads into this this uh

proposed use. Is that minimal activity

is that something I guess that's

purposeful? Are you planning are you

phasing that that business out? And I'm

just asking because of course if that

activity were to increase then that

would potentially conflict with it use.

>> We have two other funeral homes in the

Harrisburg area.

got. Okay. All right. Thank you.

I just have one or two questions. Um,

Mr. Bitney, you indicated that the

funeral home is listed for sale. How

long has that been listed for sale?

When did you put it back on?

>> Okay.

>> Not the funeral home itself.

>> Real estate. Okay. And and you said that

there were there were people looking for

it, but they wanted to change it into

apartments.

>> Yeah. A while back we had

contract.

>> Okay. And Mr. uh Knight, if someone were

to purchase this uh the uh the building

where the funeral home was in and wanted

to change or convert it into apartments.

um would that be allowed in this uh

zoning district?

>> So, they would have to file a special

exception for an expansion of a

non-conforming use because a multif

family dwelling is not permitted by

right in the RM zoning district. Um

given the size of the property, I would

anticipate you could add a few more

units without um triggering zoning

relief for the density. Um but at a

certain point if they added you know

five six units they would have to get a

variance for relief from the density

regulations as well.

>> Okay. And then

uh

would you agree that the uh request here

is uh is for a use variance? Is that

correct?

>> Uh yes.

>> Um

Any other questions?

At the very least, there again, there is

a five unit multif family dwelling

currently on site. Um, so at the very

least, they'd come back for a special

exception to expand an existing

non-conforming aspect of the property.

If if they if they just left uh the

property alone, did not replace the

funeral home space with additional um uh

residential units, then they would not

come back before the board. It would

only be if they converted that space

into additional

Okay. Mr. Clark, do you have anything

else?

>> Uh, the only thing I guess I would

mention as to uh the use variance is

there is case law I think changing an

accessory parking lot to a commercial

parking lot is is I would say a de

law that you can consider a change for a

use. So

>> do you have that case with you? I don't

have the case, but I the site uh is

versus zoning hearing board of East

Bradford Township.

Okay, we're going to if there's nothing

more, uh, Mr. Clark, we're we're going

to recess and they have some qu legal

questions and then we'll be back. Okay.

>> Okay.

What are you doing?

these guys. I appreciate

Yeah,

They have

uh does a board member have uh

does a board member have a uh is there

any motion uh before the board to be

presented?

>> Yes. regarding application 2607. I would

like to make a motion to uh deny the

request for variance.

There's a motion. Is there a second?

>> I second.

>> Moved.

Moved and seconded. Uh all those in

favor signify by saying I.

>> I.

>> Okay. The motion uh to for the denial of

the application

uh was approved by the board. you'll get

a written decision within 45 days of

today's uh hearing. Thank you.

Next is application 2608.

This is an application relative to the

property located at 2001 Lennox Street.

Okay, for this uh hearing um again for

the record because these are independent

uh hearings, we have Claude Fipps, who

is the chairman of the zoning hearing

board. Uh and James Hobbs uh that is the

uh who is the vice chair. Um my name is

Mike Pyosh. I'm the solicitor for the

zoning hearing board. Uh Jeffrey Knight

is here from the uh uh K uh city codes

office. He was sworn in uh at a uh

previous hearing this evening and uh

noted that he will remain sworn in uh

for uh every hearing this evening

including this one. We have uh Tersa

Cameron Cameron uh from the solicitor's

office present.

uh and uh

we'll uh

we'll swear in the applicant. Could the

applicant um could you uh introduce

yourselves um and spell your last names

for the record?

>> My name is Dean Morgan. I'm an attorney

for Mr. Usher.

I can't pronounce a who is the owner of

the property.

>> Okay.

>> Tonight I might be giving testimony. So

I will beating.

>> Okay.

And um what was your client's name? Can

you

>> Oh, Sam. I'm sorry. The owner is

Shamboo. S H A M B H U A Sheria. A C H A

R Y A.

>> Okay. Mr. Morgan and Mr. Sheria, could

you uh please raise your

>> This is not Mr. This is

Construction.

>> Okay. What is your name?

>> Geraldic.

>> Gerald Radic. Could you spell your last

name?

>> For the record, Mr. was not able to make

it tonight.

>> Okay. You're his attorney. That's so

that's fine. And then you said Mr.

Radzik, your first name is Gerald.

>> Yes.

>> Okay. Uh Mr. Radzik and Mr. Morgan. Um,

could you please uh raise your right

hand? Do you swear affirm testimony

you're about to give before this board

is the truth and nothing but the truth?

>> I do.

>> Okay. And just for the record, um is

there uh anybody here uh anybody else

here for this application?

Uh we'll have the record show that there

is uh no one here u present for this

application other than the applicant. Uh

with that uh I'm going to mark some

exhibits

uh for the record.

I have marked as exhibit B1, the proof

of publication. Uh the time and place

and particular nature of this matter was

published in the Patriot News, a

newspaper general circulation for the

city of Harrisburg. Um the ads appeared

on July 6th and July 13, 2025. Exhibit

B2 is a letter dated July 17, 2025 from

the planning uh director to the

applicant notifying the applicant of the

time and place of the hearing. Board

exhibit number three is the hearing

notice uh posted upon the property in

question which was accomplished on June

29th, 2025.

Exhibit B4 is the applica applicant's

notification letters to the required

neighbors. Exhibit B5 is the application

packet with the attached narrative

aerodial map

and

uh exhibit B5 is the application packet

with the attached narrative.

photos of the interior um and exterior

of the property uh the plans for

proposal

uh and the application uh signed by the

applicant and property uh owner. Exhibit

B6 is the deed to the property

establishing the applicant standing to

pursue relief. Board exhibit number

seven is the planning bureau case report

and board exhibit number eight is the

city of Harrisburg planning commission

resolution. So we have exhibits B1

through B8 and um Mr. Knight, would you

uh please give a um general overview of

this matter?

>> Uh sure. So, uh, the proposal for case

2608,

um, involves, uh, the reestablishment of

a two-unit multif family dwelling on the

subject property, uh, which requires at

least one special exception and one

variance, the special exception for the,

uh, multif family dwelling use in the RM

zoning district. uh and the variance for

uh relief from the density regulations

uh in the um in section 7-307.3

of the zoning code. Um I do uh I did add

a second um zoning relief application

for relief from the off- streetet

parking in the event that it could not

be provided and I'll discuss that in a

little bit. Um so in uh this case the

property had previously uh operated as

two units uh per the city's um records

up until I believe the early 2000s. Um

and then or maybe the late 1990s. Uh and

at that point uh the property reverted

back to a single family dwelling um and

had remained that way uh up until uh Mr.

Chara's uh recent uh purchase of the

property um and during which he sought

to uh con revert the property I guess

back to um two units. Uh the um

while the planning bureau has not been

inside the property uh per the

applicant's uh testimony at the planning

commission meeting uh there are um there

is a first floor unit of the property

and uh a unit on the upper floors as

well. Um, now the there is a um kitchen

in both of these units. Um, but per the

testimony at the meeting, there does not

appear to be a bedroom on the first

floor unit. Uh, so it's likely that at

some point in the past, again in the

1990s, maybe the 1980s. Um,

a previous owner might have established

like an in-law unit or something on the

upper floors. Otherwise, they would have

had a bedroom for themselves on the

first floor. Um, so it was likely, you

know, they were living in it, created

this uh second kind of mini unit, uh,

with its own kitchen and own bathroom.

Um, and, uh, the applicant is seeking to

go back, uh, to that configuration. Um

so there is uh a justification

uh for uh the proposed variance um and

the special exception uh given the uh

previous configuration of the property

the existence of um two kitchens and its

operation uh as that two unit. Uh with

respect to the relief from off streetet

parking, uh we do note that there is a

two bay garage at the rear of the

property accessible um from sorry uh

Lennox Street um or sorry, South 20th

Street. Uh it's a little unclear whether

uh the bays are accessible. Uh they

currently have wooden doors over them.

Uh not sure if they're operable. There

are two cars parking uh in the driveway

right in front. Um however we note that

driveway is actually the public right

ofway and uh the cars are parked across

sidewalks. Uh so they do not constitute

um legal parking spaces. Uh but again

we're not sure whether these the doors

on the garage can be opened or not. If

uh they can or if they can be removed

and tenants can park in them, then the

applicants would have the required off-

streetet parking. Uh in the event that

they cannot be opened or vehicles cannot

be parked in there. Uh given that it's a

corner lot, it has frontage along South

20th Street and Lennux Street. Um we

believe that uh there is sufficient on

street parking to provide park the two

off- streetet parking spaces uh required

for the property. Uh with that being

said, the uh planning commission and the

planning bureau uh recommended that the

zoning hearing board approved the

request for 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 any outstanding code violations

and will receive approval for all

necessary city permits prior to

receiving a certificate of occupancy. Um

and uh as uh they testified to at the

planning commission meeting, the

applicants have been in coordination

with the codes bureau uh and has had has

had multiple codes officer visits to the

site um to review aspects of the

building related to the electrical panel

um related to um some of the um some of

the other elements inherent in uh

establishing a multif family dwelling on

site. Um,

but we do want to ensure that any work

that was done previously to kind of

create that second unit, you know, is up

to code. Um, I believe the applicant,

um, Mr. Radzig testified that they had

to replace the, uh, electrical panel

because it wasn't up to code. So, we

want to make sure that the rest of the

property is in a similar state. Um, and

then the second condition was the

applicant must remove the fence between

the driveway and Chalky Alley, which is

currently blocking the public right

ofway, and require tenants to either

park in the garage or on the street to

ensure that an ADA compliant sidewalk is

maintained along South 20th Street. Um,

along the South 20th Street frontage,

uh, when you get to Chalky Alley at the

rear of the property, there's a small

wooden fence built there. Uh, and in the

past that didn't really have much of an

impact because the property just

directly to the south was a car

dealership and uh the cars were parked

uh all the way up to the uh cartway to

the street basically. So there was no

pedestrian path. Uh in the last couple

years uh that property has been

redeveloped and as part of that the city

required them to install um sidewalks

along that. So now there is a compliant

path or now there is an existing

pedestrian path uh from the property uh

to the property of the south across

Chalky Alley. So we want to ensure

that's opened up to provide uh

pedestrian access there. Um the planning

commission recommends the request be

approved for the following reasons. Uh

the zoning relief request for the

proposed use are warranted by the

history of the property which has

operated in the past as two units as

well as the configuration of the

property in which existing elements such

as a rear fire escape to the second

floor provides a co building code

required secondary egress. Uh the

project will address the primary concern

of the public regarding such

convergence, specifically the impact on

parking available to existing residents

through the provision of the required

parking in the detached garage at the

rear of the property and due to the

availability of ample on street parking

along the frontage of the property with

South 20th Street and Lennox Street.

>> Thank you. U Mr. Morgan, do you want to

present your case? Um

with respect to the planning

commission's recommendations

uh and specifically with respect to the

condition regarding removing the fence

uh Mr. is certainly able and willing to

do so. Uh with respect to the matter of

it being a two unit, I would also like

to note that not only were there two

kitchens, there's fireplace, there are

also two electrical panels which were

part of this building beforehand. It's

evident this has always been operated as

a twounit

facility. Whether during 1999 to 2022 it

was a single family living there. It's

evident that this has always operated

with two

separate tents. Um, with respect to the

garage, uh,

because there's ample street parking, we

and because the age of that garage

can tell us a little bit more about

that, uh, it's likely that we would need

to only be able to have off on streets

there.

that garage was built long time ago

and it's not ample it's not it's

probably not of the correct size for

vehicles modern

and with that I would rely on the

information provided in the planning

commission approval would ask for

>> Mr. Rajik I had a a question uh Mr.

Knight indicated that there is not a

bedroom in the uh lower level unit.

>> Yes. Uh where where would a person

sleep?

chose the

ch.

>> Okay. So, you have one bedroom on the

first floor and what would be the

occupancy for the second floor?

[Music]

Well, do you know or you're the

contractor? Do you know how many

bedrooms are up there?

>> Okay.

And and I do believe the um the property

owner testified that there are three

bedrooms up there and and a tenant

showed up at the planning commission

meeting and testified there were three

bedrooms up there.

>> Okay.

>> Yes.

>> And and I do apologize. I thought this

was included in the packet. These are

the these are the drawings that reflect

a bedroom on that first and I can

certainly publish that.

the board if you'd like to. I thought

that was already included in the packet.

>> I do I do see um it's pretty small but I

see the second floor here.

>> So on that first page directing your

attention to the bottom left hand corner

which reflects the first floor. You'll

see that it is a kitchen area, a living

room and then a bedroom and then a

sitting there.

Your eyes are as bad as mine. I'm happy

to show you the full copy.

What's there's a on the one plan there's

a third floor there. There is which

comes up from the second floor. That

would be the same unit. Second floor.

>> Oh, I see. So the the second floor It

has two bedrooms. It's all one unit, but

two bedrooms on the second floor and one

on the third floor.

>> Yes.

>> Two on the third floor, one on second.

>> And then the other room there is a

living room.

>> Oh, I see. So on the third floor you

have storage, a bedroom, a bedroom, and

then storage.

And then on the second floor, you have

the kitchen, living room, and a bedroom.

But and all that, that's all one unit.

And then the first floor

is a kitchen, living room,

you're going to put in a a a bedroom,

and there's going to be a sitting room.

>> Yes.

>> I see.

I don't have any other questions. Board,

have any questions?

Yeah. So when we look at uh properties

like this um we go back through

essentially what are the codes bureau

records although um the same database

has like merile permit records and

stuff. Um and the codes bureau records

uh are comprised of things like building

permits um rental inspections uh buyer

notices and zoning certificates. Um, now

I think sometimes, uh, what'll happen is

a contractor, for example, will submit a

you submitted a permit in the past and

maybe only put one unit because they

were only working on one unit. And so

that's how that's entered into our

system. And so what what it's our job to

do is kind of to parse through these old

records and kind of say, is that what

happened here? And, you know, if we see

rental inspections for two units, we

assume the codes bureau went out there,

did an inspection, and confirmed there

were two units. So while the um

numerical record may be a little back

and forth, you know, we kind of know

what to look for in identifying like,

okay, we acknowledge that this was uh

two units at one point. Um you know,

that being said, this was all decades

ago and I don't think anybody from the

coach bureau is still working here that

was back there then. So um you know, I

can't attest to what city staff did at

the time, but we have to use the best

information available to us.

So you provided by

there are two electric

Mr. Knight, I had a quick question. Um,

do you know or Mr. Morgan, if you could,

do you know what the square footage of

this is? Because was there some

confusion that it was maybe over 2500

square feet, but the old city record

said it was 2400 or and if it's over

2500,

do they need a special exception for

conversion?

>> Yeah. So, uh, the county's records say,

uh, 2400 square f feet, but the

applicant, um, stated that they did a

current measurement of the property, and

I I want to say it was 2552

maybe. Uh, I don't 2528. Yeah.

>> Okay.

Okay. So, Mr. Radzik, it's your

testimony that the square footage is

2528. Is that correct?

Mr. You have any questions

in an overabundance of caution here and

with the availability of street parking.

I

I believe it would be appropriate to

allow for street parking in this

particular case rather than having to

later on come back and make that

request. I'm understanding how process

works

>> that there would be required to have two

off street parking spaces for the two

units. Yes.

I have a question just to maybe to Jeff

just to jog my memory. There was quite a

bit of conversation at planning about

the back steps and I thought

>> slip proof paint or something like that.

Wasn't that a condition about the back

stairs? Hold on. because there was a the

one of the tenants came and she had

already fallen down the back steps and

there's going to be a period of time

where there is no front steps while they

build a egress and a a new doorway

because if I'm understanding right now

there's the upstairs tenant basically

has to walk through the downstairs

tenants building until they build the

egress. But I just maybe it was an

agreement it wasn't a condition I

thought we said specifically planning

was concerned about He said he was going

to get paint with sand in it. You

remember that?

>> Yeah, they they did they did say that.

Um

>> yeah, I I I honestly don't recall

whether

>> they just

>> I think they I don't I don't think it

was formally added as a condition. And

>> yeah, they but they did uh uh the owner

did commit to um and I believe Mr. Raza

committed to painting it with non-slip

uh paint. Um that was primarily a lar a

larger issue for a temporary period when

they're going to be installing this new

wall and re uh configuring the front

entrance. Once that happens, um you

know, that will be a secondary means of

aggression. It won't be their only point

of access.

>> It's existing wood.

>> Yeah.

>> And if I can address that, we would

certainly have no problem making that a

condition. Um certainly the safety of

>> I mean if they didn't make it a decision

that's fine. I actually think the owner

just agreed that he would do it. So

>> and and we're okay with either way

because the safety of the tenants is

>> I don't think so. But that would be

something we would expect the codes

bureau to bring up during their uh

inspection of the property if if there

are. I don't believe there's like a

requirement that it be ADA compliant or

anything, but they would be able to

address that.

>> So, Mr. Knight, just to re review, um

there's a special exception for the

conversion

>> for the use

>> for the use.

>> Yep.

>> Um there's a special exception

um for the parking

>> for relief from the off street parking.

Yep.

>> And is it the case that they're over

2500 square feet if that's what the

board finds that there's the dimensional

variance is not applicable.

>> Uh so the 2500 square ft applies to the

specific criteria and 7309.2V

it requires the building be 2500 ft in

order to be converted. Um and you know

based on the uh architect's measurements

that it is that uh variance would be

obiated but the variance for the density

um would still apply.

>> Right. Okay.

>> And if I can note one further for the

for the record. Um, as stated in the

planning commission's report, this is

not something caused by the current

owner when he bought the property on

January 23rd. This was the condition of

the property at that time.

>> Okay. Anything else?

>> We're going to take a a a short break

and we'll be back. Okay.

Okay, we'll go back on the record. Um,

does any of the board members have a a

motion they'd like to present?

>> Yes. Uh regarding application 2608,

I would like to make a motion to approve

the request for variance and special

exception

um inclusive of the conditions set forth

by the planning commission um as well as

the owner taking steps satisfactory to

the city uh to address the concerns of

slipping on the uh with the back steps.

>> Okay. Okay. So, your motion was to uh

grant the u

um request uh pursuant to the

application. Uh is there a second?

Moved and second. All those in favor

signify by saying I.

>> I. Okay. Motion passes and uh you'll

receive a written decision within 45

days of today's hearing. Okay.

Thank you.

>> Okay, last item on the agenda is item

number 2609.

This is a variance application

for 315 North Second Street.

uh filed by uh Adam Brenamman of

Brenamman Properties LLC.

Um we have this evening uh with us uh

chairman of the zoning hearing board

Claude Fipps. Uh vice chair James Hobbs.

Um

uh we have um

Jeffrey Knight who was uh previously

sworn in in a previous in a hearing

earlier this evening um who has

indicated that he will um remain sworn

in. We have Tercan from the uh city

solicitor's office

um and um Mr. Patrina. Would you like to

introduce yourself and uh anybody that

would be testifying this evening? Yes.

Good evening everyone. Thanks for having

us here tonight. Uh my name is Phil

Patrina Mcnes Wallace and 100 Pine

Street in Harrisburg. I'm here on behalf

of the applicant here, Brenamman

Properties LLC. Uh and my client Adam

Brenamman, the owner of that company is

here and he will provide some testimony

tonight as well. So he should be sworn

>> Okay. Mr. Brenamman, could you raise

your right hand? Do you swear or affirm

that the testimony that uh you will give

this evening before this board is will

be the truth and nothing but the truth?

>> Yes.

>> Okay. And then um do you have anybody

else that will be testifying this

evening?

>> No, that's it.

>> Okay. And um it appears um that there's

uh no one else here opposing or for the

application. Is that correct? We'll let

the record show that there's no uh

citizens here um either opposing or um

here to support this application. I'm

going to mark some exhibits uh for the

record before we start.

I have marked as exhibit B1 uh the proof

of publication. The time and place and

particular nature of this matter was uh

was uh advertised in the Patriot News

which is a newspaper general circulation

in the city of Harrisburg. Publication

appeared on July 6th and July 13th of

2025.

Board exhibit number two is a letter

dated July 17, 2025 from the planning

director to the applicant notifying the

applicant of the time and place of this

hearing. Board exhibit number three is

the hearing notice that was posted upon

the property in question that was

accomplished on June 29th, 2025. Board

exhibit number four B4 is the

applicant's notification letters to the

required neighbors. Board exhibit number

five is the application packet with the

attached narrative, photos of the

exterior of the property and plans for

uh for the proposal. Board exhibit

number six is the agreement of sale for

the property establishing a uh applicant

standing to pursue the zoning uh relief

uh this evening. Board exhibit number

seven is the deed to the property. Board

exhibit number eight is the planning

bureau case report. Uh board exhibit

number nine is the city of Harrisburg

planning commission resolution. So we

have exhibits B1 through B9 which will

be uh admitted into the record. Uh Mr.

tonight. Would you like to give a brief

brief summary of this application and

then we'll have the applicant present

this case?

>> Uh yes. So uh the issue uh in case

number 2609

uh is a variance for relief from the

density regulations um for multif family

dwellings in the commercial neighborhood

uh zoning district. Um the project site

is comprised of three separate

buildings. um that are all on a single

lot um and have been internally

connected at some point in the past. Um

and the uh total square footage of the

property would permit about 8.3 units by

right. Um and the applicants are

requesting 10 total units. Um so there's

relief from uh two um dwelling units uh

per the density regulations in the

zoning code. Um the planning bureau

notes uh again the unique configuration

of the site in that it's uh again three

buildings that are internally connected.

Um so the it has um you know stairwells

kind of in different

and maybe less um uh useful locations

than you would have if you just had one

building built um purpose built for this

uh type of use. Um in addition uh the

there's like kind of different floors of

the uh buildings. If you note the uh

floor plans provided by the applicant

where uh the central uh building has a

third floor uh that uh the other two

buildings don't really um have. Uh so

there's kind of additional space there.

Um and uh the planning bureau notes that

um the uh units range in size from 486

to,290 square ft. Um so it's clearly not

a case where the applicants are trying

to fit as many units into the building

as possible. They are uh working within

the unique configuration creating um

smaller one-bedroom units and then uh a

two-bedroom loft uh unit again in that

central uh unit. Uh and then uh finally

uh because they're converting it from

office space to residential use um there

is a significant amount of investment

that needs to be made uh bringing in you

know a kitchen for every unit. Um even

if they were only doing eight units um

and not uh 10 units. Uh the addition the

cost of bringing in kitchens for eight

units and running uh new lines for those

things, bathrooms for each of the units,

uh new electrical for each of the units.

um does um create a financial hardship

which uh the board has um heard in the

past from other uh applicants um uh

about the legal precedent of there being

an allowance for uh some financial

hardship in the granting of a

dimensional variance. Um so with all of

that being said uh the planning

commission and the planning bureau

recommended the uh zoning hearing board

approved the request with the following

conditions. If the applicant receives

approval of the requisite zoning relief

requests, they must secure city council

approval of a land development plan for

the proposed conversion. Uh any exterior

alterations to the building will receive

approval from the historic preservation

specialist or if necessary receive HARB

approval of a certificate of

appropriateness application. Um the plan

B recommends the applicant consider

differentiating the facades of the three

buildings to reestablish their original

identities. Um and it should be noted

that there were some minor um uh I think

uh exterior work noted by the applicants

in their site plan and so that's what

we're referencing uh in regards to the

exterior alterations and as noted the

buildings are already painted um so

painting the building which would

generally not be permitted uh for or

recommended for a masonry building in a

historic district um can be done uh

without HARB approval and we'd recommend

you know reestablishing again that uh

individuality of each of the units um if

the reference parking spaces are not on

the subject property the applicant

provide a signed lease agreement to

allow parking at those spaces. The

property is located in the CN district,

which does not require off- street

parking, but uh the applicants have

testified that there are eight spaces

that I believe uh convey with um uh the

deed uh to this property um located in

the lot uh directly to the rear of the

properties. Uh and then finally, the

applicant will coordinate with the

Department of Public Works to ensure

that the account billing reflects the

establishment of the proposed uses on

site and to identify the appropriate

refuge storage and collection needs. The

planning commission recommends that the

zoning hearing board approved the

request for the following reasons. The

internal configuration of three attached

buildings, specifically the locations of

aspects such as walls, stairs, and doors

and windows, compels the reorganization

of space into more units than we would

be permitted by right and the components

necessary for the establishment of the

by right multif family dwelling use such

as kitchens and bathrooms, requires

investment compensated for through the

inclusion of additional units. The

proposed reuse will add new residents to

the neighborhood to activate the street

on nights and weekends and grow a

customer base to support local

businesses and will provide additional

units to the downtown housing inventory.

Range of unit sizes in the mix of one

and two-bedroom units will accommodate a

variety of household sizes and needs

helping to further diversify the

downtown housing inventory. Uh finally,

other conversions of former office

buildings in the surrounding

neighborhood have demonstrated the

proposed use will not adversely impact

the character of the neighborhood.

Okay,

Mr. Patrina, do you wanna

>> Yes, with that. Thank you, Mr. Knight.

Um, we have a short presentation tonight

and I'm going to pass out some exhibits

um just so that we're all

Okay.

So, as Mr. Knight stated, this property

is located at 315 North Second Street.

It's the former administrative office

location of the Pennsylvania Healthcare

Association. Um, they've used it

commercial office space since at least

1996

and they've ultimately decided to

downsize its office presence uh postco

um with people really working from home

and have entered into uh the the

attached agreement of sale as provided

our application with Mr. Brenamman uh

for the sale of the property property is

located in the city's commercial

neighborhood district and old Harrisburg

historic district and it is improved

within approximately 8,300 square foot

building and eight off- streetet parking

spaces uh that the property has use of

through an access easement agreement

that's conveyed in the deed to the

property. Brenamman properties proposes

to convert this office uh this existing

office building into a 10 dwelling unit

uh multif family apartment building.

Residential uses are permitted by right

in the CN district. And the CN district,

as Mr. Knight pointed out, is exempt

from the city's off streetet parking

requirements, although we do have those

additional eight spaces provided uh in

the north uh or rear of the property.

Tonight we're here to request the board

uh for a variance from section 7-307

of the zoning ordinance uh a dimensional

variance to permit 10 dwelling units in

the building.

Um on July 2nd, 2025, the Harrisburg

Planning Commission recommended approval

of the variance application.

Uh and there were a few conditions that

you know we are agreeable to. I would

note that um Mr. Brenamman uh as far as

the exterior of the property goes, I

think is no longer planning to really

alter the outside of the building and

you know to the extent that there would

be any exterior changes, we would

obviously seek the approval uh of HARB

and any other necessary zoning ordinance

requirements, but I I think that the

plan is to really preserve the history

of this building and as much of the

street facade um as as possible. And so

I think decision was made to just leave

it as is. Um, so with that, I'll call

our first and only witness tonight, uh,

Adam Brenamman.

Uh, Mr. Brenamman has been sworn in. So,

um, we'll just get right to it. Um, Mr.

Brenamman, what is your position with

Brenamman Properties LLC?

>> I'm the sole owner.

>> Okay. And how many properties um, do you

own within the city?

>> Uh, about 25 units. Okay.

Uh looking in front of you um what we'll

mark into the record as applicants

exhibit A1.

Um what is shown in front of you there?

In front of me is 315 North Street

that we would convert

>> yes.

>> Is the property also part of the city's

old historic district.

>> Yes, sir.

>> And are you the equitable owner of this

property in the form of an executed

agreement of sale?

>> Yes.

>> Okay. Um with that, I'll move to uh

offer that exhibit into evidence as

applicants exhibit A1 or however you

would like to mark it.

>> Yeah, we'll leave it as A1 and it'll be

admitted into evidence.

>> All right. And then we're going to turn

to the second uh few pages here of the

packet that I just distributed um which

are Google Street View images of the

existing conditions of the property. Um

we're looking at the first page here,

Mr. Brenamman. What does this first page

show of the street view image?

>> Yeah, this is the building from looking

at it from street.

>> Okay. And then flipping to the second

page here.

Does that show the building facade from

the right of way at Barber Street and

North Second?

>> Yes.

>> We're going to turn to the third image

now

uh which shows the back rear of the

property. Does this prop does this image

here show the eight off street parking

spaces that are located behind the

property?

>> Yes, it does.

>> Okay. Will the tenants of your property

or proposed apartment um dwelling have

access to these eight off- streetet

parking spaces?

>> Yes.

>> The street view images uh show the

historic nature of this building as I

alluded to earlier in the presentation.

Do you plan on preserving the historic

nature of this building? Yes, the the

historic nature of the building was a

major part in wanting to purchase the

building and plan

that historic piece of it.

>> Okay. And and to the extent required for

any of your minor cosmetic changes, I

know that we did discuss earlier tonight

um that you're planning to just leave

the building facade as is. If in the

future at any point um that does change,

do you agree to obtain a certificate of

appropriateness from the historic

architectural review board or any other

uh city zoning requirements?

>> Yes.

>> Okay. And with that, I'll go ahead and

move to admit the street view images as

applicants exhibit A2.

>> All right, Mr. Brenam. Now turning to

the floor plan that is in

the those exhibits there. Um so Mr.

Brenamman, uh please describe the unit

mix of the multi the proposed multif

family residential building.

>> Yeah. So um 10 units total as you'll see

on the first floor here we have six

proposed units all onebedroom units and

you can see the different colors of

units there and the second floor of the

building will be four two bedroom units.

It was important to as we as we put this

plan together to have a mix of one

bedroom and two bedrooms

as many units as possible

in the city and um and ranging in size

from

500,200

ft good units and even includ a unit of

the second floor that will have access

to a third floor

>> and in determining the 10 units for this

8,300 square foot building. How did you

and your engineering team arrive at a

unit mix of 10 units?

>> Yeah, we bring a lot of different plans

and financial analysis and formulas and

the reality is with construction costs

where they are that 10 units was the

least amount of units we could

build that would be financially

given the cost of the conversion. It

being an office space, the unique nature

of of the building the building

lot different buildings

10 units.

>> And will these uh proposed units be

market rate rental units?

>> Yes.

>> Uh Mr. Bman, please uh you know, take a

look here at sheet A 101 of the floor

plan and walk us through what it is

showing on the first floor.

>> Yeah, first floor you'll see uh unit

on the left 548 ft. It's a one bedroom

as you can see the bathroom and the

kitchen area and bedrooms outlined which

is 659

unit C there

on the top right.

>> Okay, we'll turn to uh sheet A 102 of

the exhibit. Um why don't you walk us

through what that is showing us? So unit

2 a 859 feet that's a twobedroom and and

one and a half bath. You see unit 2 C

which is 819 square ft that is a two bed

one bath. See unit 2 which is actually

the unit which will be two stories. So

the the first story there on unit 2B is

the living area and the kitchen and then

unit 2 on the right

overt.

>> Okay. And then turning to the last sheet

of the exhibits sheet A 103. Um what

does that one show us?

>> Yeah, that is the the top floor the loft

area of the uh unit 2B that you saw on

the last page. That is where the two

bedrooms will be, the bathroom upstairs,

which I think will be a really neat unit

for the city.

>> Okay, great. Um, with that, I will move

Mr. Solicitor to admit the floor plan as

applicants exhibit A3.

>> Okay, that'll be uh that exhibit will be

uh

moved into evidence. Thank you.

>> Thank you. Um, okay, just a few more

questions here for you, Mr. Brown. Um,

did you create the existing lot

conditions at the property?

>> What was that? Sorry.

>> Did you create the existing lot

conditions at the property?

>> Does the building's approximately 8,300

square foot size in relation to the

approximately 4,300 square foot lot

create a hardship uh to developing the

property in conformance of the zoning

ordinance?

>> Yes.

and anything less than 10 units is not

financially feasible for this project.

>> Is the required variance the minimum

variance necessary to afford appropriate

relief to to redevelop this property for

residential purposes?

>> Yes.

>> Okay. And will you agree to comply with

all other city zoning ordinance

requirements and any reasonable

conditions that are imposed by this

board in making the apartment

conversion?

>> Yes.

>> Did you review the and the materials

that were submitted in support thereof.

>> Yes.

>> Okay. And to the extent applicable, do

you adopt the statements made in the

application and here tonight um as your

own statements?

>> Yes, I do.

>> Okay.

Uh and for all the uh aforementioned

articulated reasons um we have no

further questions for Mr.

and respectfully request this board uh

approve the requested variance uh in the

application here tonight. And uh with

that, we'll yield back for questions you

might have.

>> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Petrina. Does the

board have any questions of uh Mr.

Brenamman?

>> I'm just curious. So, these units um

these 10 units are all I'm assuming be

market rate housing. Is that correct?

>> Yes.

>> Okay,

I'm good.

So they currently are all connected

as an office building. So our plans

involve moving and removing some of the

walls in the building, but we are trying

to preserve as much as possible. But it

is different. They are operating

currently as one.

>> Yeah.

Yeah. It'll end up being between $1,200

to $1,400

probably out.

Those are the numbers that make

>> parking

space.

cameras.

>> Um, I believe that

came

right next to

But that that lot is not owned by won't

be part of this uh agreement of sale is

that's

>> no but they they said they have reserved

spots there but it's

>> the lot is technically owned by Verizon

Bell Atlantic telephone company and

Pursuant to the deed that's also

attached to this application, there's an

access ement agreement

>> um to those eight parking spots,

>> right?

>> Well, I mean, I guess they, you know,

there could be a a camera on the

building itself, you know.

It looks like it almost is. I mean, it's

just something to think about.

>> I'm sorry.

singles.

Yeah, I think professionals in the city

want to do this project

downtown

I mean, I don't know whether they've

reached out, but I know they've

discussed this with the planning bureau.

>> I don't have any other questions.

You have any questions?

>> He's the broker.

>> I hope he's not opposed.

>> He's got a stake in this thing.

Okay.

>> Is there anything else, Mr. Katrina?

>> That was all we had.

>> Okay.

Okay.

recommendations

by

>> So your motion um Mr. Fipps is to um

grant the dimensional variance request

uh along with the conditions set forth

in the planning commission's um

resolution.

>> Is there a second?

>> So moved.

uh moved and seconded. All those in

favor signify by saying I.

>> I.

>> Okay. Um so your uh request was uh

granted. You'll get a written decision

within 45 days of today's hearing. Okay.

>> Thank you.

>> Thank you very much everybody.

>> Thank you.

Thanks.

>> Second.

>> All right. Thanks.