BETHLEHEM, Pa. — The city Zoning Hearing Board on Wednesday unanimously denied a developer’s request for a variance needed for a proposed four-unit, market-rate apartment building in West Bethlehem.
The two-story, multi-family project at 241 Eighth Ave., pitched by ABDA Properties on 8th LLC and property owner Martin Zawarski, would be a permitted use and typically require at least 90 feet in lot width in the RT-High Residential Zoning District.
Developers sought a 10-foot variance in lot width.
Bethlehem Town Hall filled with cheers after a decision following three hours of back-and-forth between developers, the board and several concerned neighbors.
“Emotions get high and there’s some frustrations along the way, but we do appreciate that you guys care about your community and you come out here and give us your opinions and your thoughts.”
Bethlehem Zoning Hearing Board chairman Peter Schneck
“Emotions get high and there’s some frustrations along the way,” board Chairman Peter Schneck told the audience.
“But we do appreciate that you guys care about your community and you come out here and give us your opinions and your thoughts.”
Residents spoke on how the project may affect the area’s notable legacy shade tree, as well as traffic, snow removal, parking, privacy and even safety of the neighborhood’s schoolchildren.
Calypso Elementary School is about a quarter-mile away, and walking to class is common.
It’s unclear what’s next for the proposal. The property owner already made adjustments to the plans, following a previous sketch plan review from the city Planning Commission and commentary from residents.
Changes along the way
Zawarski altered his design from a proposed six-unit, three-story structure into the four-unit, two-story building as discussed.
It would have a 15-foot buffered landscape area along both sides and a six-space parking lot in the rear. The apartment building would be 32 feet tall.
The two-bedroom two-bathroom units, at 1,200 square feet each, were proposed to cost about $2,000 a month in rent.
The 80-by-131-foot lot currently has a single-family ranch home on site that’s planned for demolition as part of the development.
Zawarski said it would cost about $40,000 to make necessary repairs to the home’s foundation and more to keep it viable in a neighborhood with a mix of single-family detached, semi-detached dwellings and townhouses.
Zawarski said of his apartment proposal, “It does bring it more in conformity to the properties more closely surrounding it.”
“There are three-story buildings on the street; three stories are allowed. But I thought it would be best to get my approvals and to meet some of the needs of the neighbors — and I believe I’ve done that.”
Developer Martin Zawarski
“There are three-story buildings on the street; three stories are allowed,” he said.
“But I thought it would be best to get my approvals and to meet some of the needs of the neighbors — and I believe I’ve done that.”
Project documents state, “Applicant is not seeking to ‘shoe horn’ in an oversized building onto the Property.
“Applicant submits the [project] will not negatively harm the public welfare, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood and will not negatively impact surrounding properties.”
Phillip Albright of Lehigh Engineering Associates, speaking on behalf of the developer, said the new structure would be “the same general height as the other buildings” nearby.
Attorney Victor Scomillio said the applicant “will not be touching that tree with this proposed development.”
Scomillo said the decision to narrow the parking lot would avoid any interference.
He also agreed “to undertake snow plowing of the alley to allow its tenants and residents to have year-round access without issue,” according to city documents.
In Tuesday’s meeting, he said he would have the alley plowed up to his parking area.
Zawarski also proposed adding a “No Left Turn” sign in the exit of the parking area to prohibit use of vacated Walton Street and forcing a right turn northbound on Carter Street.
Parking, privacy and more
Kirsten Mondillo, who lives behind the property in question, said the neighborhood’s children “are all in and out of that alley all day long.”
“So cars coming up or down, from Eighth or Ninth Avenue — traffic coming in there is a huge issue,” Mondillo said.
“It’s a safety concern for our kids.”
“We have several children and people with disabilities on our street, and even just the construction process alone for months is going to affect how people get around our neighborhood. And I don’t think that can be stressed enough.”
Bethlehem resident Brian Foley
She said that she can’t even park in front of her own home the great majority of the time.
“I have three vehicles; I can barely park my work truck on my own street,” Jorge Rivera, of Ninth Street, said. “I can’t imagine Eighth being any different.”
Brian Foley, who also lives nearby, said, “We have several children and people with disabilities on our street.
“And even just the construction process alone for months is going to affect how people get around our neighborhood. And I don’t think that can be stressed enough.”
‘Community’s character should be prioritized’
William Scheirer, who lives a bit further away on Eaton Avenue, said officials have to think about future generations of the city when rendering a decision.
“I care about the city of Bethlehem,” Scheirer said. “Everything you do sets a precedent.”
“If this proposal, its variance, were to be approved, it would open the door for other developers to burden additional residents and property owners with aggressive construction drastically affecting their neighborhoods.”
Bethlehem resident Nicole Boncik
Diane Fegley, who had a number of concerns about what the development could mean for local families and more, also said the building’s design could use another look.
“It looks like a poorly designed 1980s Tudor home, and I don’t think it really fits the aesthetic of the neighborhood,” Fegley said.
After living next door for 17 years, Nicole Boncik said that for her and her husband, the “intrusion on our daily living might ultimately force us out.”
“If this proposal, its variance, were to be approved, it would open the door for other developers to burden additional residents and property owners with aggressive construction drastically affecting their neighborhoods,” Boncik said.
“Focusing on preserving our community’s character should be prioritized.”