The July 22 meeting of the Bethlehem City Zoning board was a hybrid meeting. The board, most appellants and their attorneys, as well as some neighbors who were testifying, met in the Rotunda. One appellant and many more neighbors joined the meeting online. This brought some technical and procedural issues, including the order in which neighbor would be able to speak.

The first case was 60 West Broad St. Attorney Jim Preston represented Posh Properties, which was seeking to put an office space in the ground floor front of the building. Joseph Posh appeared for the company. Preston withdrew a request for a variance, in favor of challenging the interpretation of the portion of the zoning ordinance that was applied when the owner’s application was denied. His position was the language in the ordinance was ambiguous, and in the case of ambiguous language, relief should be granted to the landowner. Specifically, more than one section of the ordinance refers to a note. The note states that a ground floor front unit of a multi unit residence must be either personal service or restaurant use.

Bruce Haines, who manages Hotel Bethlehem, spoke in favor of following the note in the ordinance for all buildings in the CB district. He spoke of “deserts” created by first floor non retail/restaurant uses on Main Street and on Broad Street. Haines said, “We want to maintain integrity as a tourist destination, and increase (that) integrity.”

Darlene Heller, Director of Planning and Zoning for the city, concurred with Haines’ opinion, and stated she was part of the team that wrote the ordinance, and that this part of it had never been challenged before. She also mentioned that the potential tenant was Lanta, and she had discussed the potential of their office being located in the rear of the building.

Lanta’s planned office will be for processing applicants for their paratransit buses. Applicants need to come to the office to apply, then if approved, they must go through training on how to board, ride, and disembark the specialized vehicles.

Zoning officer Craig Pfeiffer was called as a witness. He reaffirmed his position, that all first floor buildings in the CB district were subject to the note in the ordinance.

Preston said he felt the language in the Dimensional section of the ordinance supported his client’s placement of an office on the first floor of the building.

The board voted to interpret the amendment to approve the planned use.

The next case was 1738 Madison St. Dominic Villani Jr. was seeking a dimensional variance for a subdivision of the lot. He was represented by attorney James J. Holzinger. Villani wants to renovate the existing house on the lot, and use the subdivided area to build a new single family home. An existing outbuilding on the property would be razed to allow parking pads. The variances for lot size would be a reduction of 550 feet on lengths, and 10 feet of width. Villani had rejected the idea of making the existing house into a twin home, based partly on the existing house’s windows being on the side where another home could be attached.

Villani describes his work as, “We are not a cookie cutter builder.” He showed a photo of a home he constructed at 1400 Main St. He described neighbors who had raised objections to the construction coming to the building site to thank him.

For the 1738 Madison site, he described the new construction as a two and a half story home with aesthetic dormers. For the existing home, he would replace the roof and windows, improve the front facade with concrete work and new railings. Inside the home, hardwood floors would be installed, and the kitchen and bathrooms would be replaced.

The estimated selling price of the renovated home would be between $219,00 and $229,000. The estimated price of the new home would be between $279,000 and $299,000.

The two homes would be similar in height.

Villani explained he would work on the renovation of the existing home first, then start on the new construction when all permits and approvals were in order. He said the outbuilding would be demolished first, allowing most construction vehicles to park at the rear of the lot.

Neighbor Megan Malavolta asked about how much space was on the lot to accommodate parking.

Villani estimated there is room for parking for four to six cars, with room for a backyard between the homes and the parking area.

Matthew Linsenbigler, who lives next door at 1730 Madison Ave., asked how close the new home would be to his property. Villani said the new building would be four feet from the property line, and he would agree to meet with Linsenbigler about not having windows on the side of the new house that is next to Linsenbigler’s home.

The board agreed to approve the subdivision, with conditions: the property would follow the plans Villani had described; the work on the renovation would occur first; the outbuilding would be demolished; and there would be no windows on the south side of the new home.

Greg Lauray, CPA, represented himself, in order to request the conversion of his 611 Center St. office to a single family home. Lauray explained that since the COVID-19 pandemic, he has been working from home, and that arrangement has been successful, so he no longer needs separate office space. Lauray, testifying online, displayed photos of the building and its interior, showing his use of the living room and bedrooms as office space had not fundamentally altered the rooms. He explained his intent is to rent the home, as a single family residence. The board approved his request, and asked him to keep in touch with the zoning officer as the conversion takes place.

The final case was 10-16 West Geopp St. Plamen Ayvazov, on behalf of Monocacy General Contracting, LLC was seeking to convert the building into six or seven apartments, a mix of efficiency, one-bedroom and two-bedroom units. Ayvazov was also represented by attorney James J. Holzinget. At the very start of the case, the petition was amended to 12 units. Christine Ussler is the project architect. The proposed design would include an office on the first floor as well as storage and parking for the owner’s construction business, plus a storage area, laundry facility and fitness area for use of the building tenants. Also on the first floor would be two apartments. The second floor would be divided between a parking area with a ramp to the rear of the property, and apartment units. More apartments would occupy the third floor. A sprinkler system would be installed throughout the structure.

Neighbors raised questions about the safety of the parking area, whether it could hold the weight of several vehicles. Others questioned the occupancy of the units, and what would happen if residents had more vehicles than the parking area provided for. Some of the answers to these questions cannot be addressed until a structural engineer examines the property. Board attorney Erich Schock explained that the process is usually to seek zoning approval first, then an engineering study, since the cost to achieve zoning approval is considerably less than the cost of an engineering study.

Due to the lateness of the hour, the case was carried over to the board’s August meeting.