Harrisburg Zoning Hearing Board Meeting 5/18/26

meeting of the Harrisburg uh zoning

hearing board. Okay. Uh to my to my

right is Mr. James Hobs, myself, Claude

Phipps, and our solicitor Mike Connors.

Okay. And joining us from the city was

Okay. Miss Cameron who's a city

solicitor. Okay. City solicitor.

>> We'll make you a city. Yeah. We'll get

you.

Yeah. Well, we got to check and our

director of planning, Mr. Jeffrey

Knight. Okay. And to his left is I could

get your last name.

>> Stephanie.

>> Miss

Thompson.

>> Mr. Stephanie Thompson. Okay. So um

with this a little new u preamble uh

zoning hearing board um we our cases put

in front of us people who are bringing

the cases will be able to speak anybody

in in the audience who wants to speak on

any on any of the subjects has to be

gerine to the topic that's being raised

property. Okay. And they have to be that

be in somewhat close proximity to that

property. Okay. Again, we're a legal

entity. So, um we have aer

that the courts everything for, you

know, appeal has to happen which that

will go up to the court. The court

doesn't need to come please or uh

commonwealth court. So, to that effect,

I'm going to turn.

>> All right. Uh yes, Michael Oconor the

solicitor. Um and as uh Mr. Fipps was

explaining that we do have a

stenographer here who's taking all the

testimony down. Um all the witnesses uh

will be sworn in. Um you know the

applicant, Mr. Knight, anybody else who

will testify.

Um so with that, I will call though the

first application

um is 2628

uh 1854-1860

Walnut Street. Um, and it was the

applicant is Arya.

Is it Arya Carmazin?

Okay. Arya here.

Okay. Um, all right. We'll just push

that to the to the back. We'll push that

to the end um to see if they do arrive.

So, the next uh so many Mr. chokes.

We'll get through we'll get through

those applications.

Okay. So,

um that is we'll start with 2634.

Uh the address is 1644 Market Street

and um the applicant actually is uh

Keystone Property Service. Um and with

that, why don't we swear in the uh

planning director, Mr. night. Uh, first

>> I do.

>> Okay. And then we'll swear in uh the

applicant.

>> I do.

>> Okay. And just state your name also for

the record there.

>> My name is Robert A. Shooks Jr.

>> Okay. And here on behalf of Keystone?

>> Yes. I'm the owner of Keystone Property

Service LLC.

>> Okay. Great. U. So, I'm going to read in

um

the exhibits for the board exhibits for

this application and then we'll turn it

over to uh Mr. Knight for uh you know

background on the application. Um and

then we'll go from there to the

testimony of the applicant. So, we'll

start with B1 is a proof of publication

in the Patriot News April 5 and April

12, 2026. B2 is a letter sent from the

planning director to the applicant

notifying of the hearing. B3 is the

hearing notice posting on the property.

B4 notification letter sent to neighbors

and certificate of mailing. B5 the

application packet with photos of the

property and floor plans. B6 is a power

of attorney authorizing applicant as

agent and attorney in fact of the

property. B7 is uh the deed establishing

the owner of the property. B8, the

planning bureau case report. B9, city of

Harrisburg planning commission

resolution. And since this had to be

continued from the last time, we have a

couple other exhibits. B10 is then a

proof of publication for tonight's

meeting, uh, May 3, 2026, and May 10,

2026, and a letter sent from the

planning director notifying the

applicant of of tonight's hearing

because there was just an advertising

issue last time. So, with that, we'll

turn it over to Mr. tonight for a um a

description of the application, the

property, that type of thing.

>> Yep. Uh so, good afternoon, zoning

hearing board. Uh so, the application

for 1644 Market Street, uh case number

2634

uh is very similar to three previous

reviews that the board uh has had for uh

Mr. Shok's properties. Um again, all

after the fact uh applications. Um those

were uh 923

uh North 18th Street, 1923 State Street,

and 514 Emerald Street. Um so the issues

are are very uh similar. Um in this

case, the applicant has converted a

single family dwelling into a three-unit

multif family dwelling, which require

zoning hearing board approval, special

exceptions for the proposed use and

relief from the All Street parking

requirements per section 7-305.7 and

7-327.6 six of the zoning code

respectively and variances for relief

from the density and specific criteria

regulations in section 7-307.3

and 7-309.2V

of the zoning code respectively. Uh in

in this case again uh the applicant um

had purchased uh the property um I

believe in uh 2016 I want to say um and

uh in coordination uh with uh the codes

bureau uh they did um submit building

permit applications uh did have those

applications uh reviewed and approved by

the codes bureau. Um however they did

not receive the necessary review by uh

the planning bureau and uh that is of

course not um I would say the

applicant's responsibility that did not

happen internally with uh within between

the codes bureau and the planning bureau

um but it did come to our attention uh

in review of a floodplane zoning

certificate uh which was uh recently

filed uh for the property and I believe

uh the applicant kind of attested uh

during the last meeting um to uh how we

came about bringing these before the

zoning hearing board where uh they had a

variety of uh properties and uh these

seven uh the three we previously heard

and the four that will be heard tonight

uh were the ones where there was some

discrepancy and of course that was kind

of the pro purpose of the uh revised um

flood plane uh certification application

and pro review process. Um in this case

uh the uh property was uh fairly

deteriorated. Um it uh in fact the uh

structure uh just to the east of the

property uh at 1646 Market Street has

been demolished. I believe that might

have been demolished by the city. Uh so

there is kind of a gap between that

building and 1648 Market Street. Um and

so a lot of the same uh issues are

inherent in this property. Um a lengthy

history of condemnation. uh various

citations for uh legal dumping, high

grass and weeds, things of that nature.

Um and uh the plane bureau kind of tried

to look at this similarly as the uh past

reviews where we looked at it not kind

of in its current configuration but um

as we would have reviewed it had it come

to us at that time. Um and so as opposed

to um the other uh reviews, we did

actually have a recommendation uh for

this property uh that um one of the

units uh on the third floor be uh

removed from the site. Um and this is

due to uh our belief that there was

probably less of a justification for

that. It's a kind of one unitit um

studio up there on the third floor. so

it can more easily be combined with the

unit that's on the second floor uh to

create just a larger unit that can you

know accommodate a family. Um and uh the

um other issue uh is the uh

consideration of off- streetet parking.

Uh so at the rear of the lot there is

kind of a deteriorated garage. Uh it's

still intact but it doesn't look

operable. Um when we did site visits out

to the property there were just cars

kind of parked in front of the garage

door in the alley. Um and so the

requirement the off street parking

requirements for a three-unit building

would be four spaces whereas for a

two-unit building they'd be two. So the

impact uh with respect to the off street

parking would be doubled between two and

three. And again between that and the

justifications inherent in the property

we felt that uh the um proposal that we

felt that a conversion to two units

would be more appropriate than one for

three. 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 be

limited to two units on site in contrast

to other similar applications filed by

the applicant. Subject property was

transferred between entities owned by or

affiliated with the applicant and was

not purchased from a different

individual or entity as part of the t

judicial sale. Additionally granting

approval for two units would minimize

deviation from the zoning code and

reduce the impacts on the adjacent

properties and surrounding neighborhood.

If granted zoning approval to formalize

a conversion to either two or three

units, 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. And again uh in coordination

with the applicant um as discussed at

the last month's meetings uh the ongoing

rental inspections they have had we do

feel that they have met their burden uh

with respect to this condition. And

finally the third is that the applicant

must either repair or demolish the

existing detached garage at the rear of

the property to establish a formal legal

off- streetet parking space for

residents. And that's largely uh just to

ensure that that rear space can be used

uh to provide some accommodation of

parking for tenants and their guests. Uh

again, whether that's fixing it up and

just using it as is or demolishing the

whole thing and creating a parking pad.

Uh the planning commission recommends

the zoning hearing board to approve the

request for the following reasons. Uh

while the circumstances surrounding the

past conversion are unclear, the

planning bureau can confirm a history of

condemnations related to property

maintenance and insufficient utilities

on site and notes the conditions of the

abuing property required it to be

demolished somewhat recently in post uh

August 2023. As such, there appears to

be or have been some justification for

conversion to multiple units, although

the bureau believes that only two units

are justified. And also, the property is

located in a mixeduse corridor featuring

convenience stores, churches, and other

converted properties. and thus a

two-unit conversion would not create

adverse impacts on the surrounding

neighborhood.

>> Okay.

All right, Mr. Schopes. Uh then you can

testify in support of the application.

>> Uh I have uh coordinated with Mr. Niter

over I want to say

shortly after the last planning meeting

I agreed to the to the uh his

recommendations and uh it it it makes

sense. The the garage needs to go. The

garage is dilapitated. It got boarded up

basically when it became used in the

neighborhood by as a dumping ground and

not by for parking for the for the folks

that were living there. And so that

became a problem. And so it just it just

got closed up and and so it's been

dilapitated over time. Needs to be

demolished and removed and made into a

parking pad. The space that's that's

beneath it, it's it's a slab. It's a

concrete slab inside the garage. So it

will support the parking. So that's the

simplest um remedy there. Uh, as for the

third floor apartment, we had some

discussion there, I believe, at the

planning commission as to how to address

the uh the long-standing tenant there.

Uh, we've already um offered to and

moved that tenant to another apartment

to have. And so, he's he is that is now

vacant. It's been closed up. Power shut

off. There's no longer water supply

going to the third floor. There are

plans uh after this uh assuming assuming

approval here at the board here this

evening to go ahead and incorporate that

into the second floor unit as Mr. Knight

has uh described. It's easy enough to

do. It's just another stairwell and

we'll a partition wall to to make that

uh transition easier. Um, I don't think

there's a lot else to say here other

than to recognize that uh I believe in

my last meeting. Uh, this this property

was was an example I had used as to how

we had uh originally gotten to this

point in that that this was a property

that one of the codes inspectors had

come to and we had gone down to the

basement and seen whether it was a three

gang uh gas meter installed. So, this

had been a three unit at some point in

time or at least there had been three

gas meters at one point in time. don't

know that I could say that it had been a

three-unit. Uh certainly it was not in

the configuration that we had done.

>> Right.

>> Uh so so I I think uh Mr. Knight is is

spot on here that we can easily

incorporate the third floor unit into

the second floor that makes it u a

little more profitable. Certainly uh

still allows for for rooms uh to to rent

and that kind of thing. Um so I I don't

see any issue with that moving forward.

And with the with the parking then,

right, even even with that the garage

being removed, the the parking pad is

still there. But is it just gonna it'll

be one space? I understand they're going

to require two with two units, right?

Two spaces.

>> It's a double wide garage.

>> Okay. So, it can accommodate

>> wide enough and on the uh on the parking

pad there to support two vehicles.

>> Okay. All right.

>> It's a tight fit, but it's just barely

wide enough.

>> It's a tight fit.

>> Okay. All right.

>> Walmart parking lot fit,

>> right?

>> Good evening, sir.

>> Thank you.

>> Yes, I tend to be a Mosy Parker. I

actually went past your building and

went in the back too for the garage

where you're going to put the pan out.

Um, and yes, that's going to be a very

interesting navigating cars down to get

to get around that corner to move into

that. But, um, I think you

recommendation from planning is status

32

park usage

go I actually I went looking for 1644

and I said that's a that's a lot that's

they already took you already took that

down so but any you guys have any

interest in basically maybe acquiring

that and additional housing there

>> are we talking about the vacant lot

>> yes Uh, no I don't think so.

>> Last and we always ask the financial

question a little bit and these this is

going to be apartments instead of a

room.

>> Yes. Yes. I'm sorry. I I I I mistakenly

said the room were room but it simply

means instead of a two-bedroom it'll be

a three-bedroom apartment.

>> Okay. Yeah. Clarification on that and

>> pricing fair market.

>> Fair market value. Yes.

>> Okay. I I actually had that discussion

with somebody we use for fair market

value.

>> It's tough.

>> Do you understand that in Harrisburg

with six different sections of

Harrisburg? Um the income levels in

those areas vary. Okay. And it's it's

not flat. You market values in

Harrisburg, but you take that in

consideration because of the area where

the property is going to be located and

and the people who are going to be

moving into that, your your customers.

Yes,

>> you take that in consideration.

>> Absolutely. The market the market tells

us exactly what it is that fair market

there because uh once it's been on the

market for two months at a certain price

point, you you have to bring the price

point down or or you just have a vacant

building. We've been in business long

enough, you know, after 12 years to to

know what that is. And we we've tried to

stay just a hair below in hopes that

maybe we get I I don't know potentially

longer lasting tenants. Um I don't know

that that's been the case, but we've had

COVID in the middle of all that. So it's

really hard to to say. I thought we were

doing quite well before. Since then,

maybe not so much.

>> 19th Street going down to 13th Street.

That was

it was five and then the It's

deteriorated.

>> So your customer base there

>> is a little bit different than what it

was when I grew up here and when I went

to school used to walk past

>> couldn't couldn't agree more. One of the

most compartmentalized cities I've been

in.

So thank you.

>> Yeah, I'm good. I mean, based on the

context of all of the applicants

applications and the cases that we're

we're hearing on his behalf, um, you

know, as long as there's agreement to

the conditions, which it seems as there

is raised, then I'm clear on everything.

>> And I spoke

before, you know, it had already been

converted and I, you know, was less in

my hair. Got up there. I I know a lot of

your applications are places that you're

converting your multi family dwellings,

but seems like they have been converted

before and now we're just cleaning up

the paperwork making sure it's

>> it's legal. So

>> there there should be consistency across

the departments I would think.

>> Right.

>> Yes.

>> Okay. Are you ready for a motion?

>> Okay. So is there a motion uh to approve

application 2634 which is a special

exception to establish a two-unit multif

family dwelling? Um no relief for

parking is ne is necessary and also um

also approved the two uh the two

dimensional variances

uh one for the specific criteria

uh for a multif family dwelling

conversion and one for the uh density

requirements

um con and uh along with the conditions

established by the planning commission.

>> Motion.

>> Okay. Is there a second?

>> Second.

>> All right. All in favor?

>> I.

>> All right. So then with that, obviously,

Mr. Shokes, then decision will be sent

uh to you and we'll move on to the next

one. And

Mr. Knight, we can consider yourself

sworn in for this one as well. And I

believe it is the same applicant,

correct?

>> Okay. Mr. Shes, then we can you can

consider yourself sworn in as well.

>> Yes, sir.

>> Okay.

All right. So, we have 2635

>> 1901 Forester Street, right?

>> Y.

>> Okay.

>> All reading the exhibits and then turn

it over to Mr. Knight. So, um,

we have proof of publication April 5 and

April 12, 2026. B2, letter sent from

planning director to applicant notifying

of the hearing. B3, hearing notice

posted on the property. B4, notification

letter sent to neighbors and certificate

of mailing. B5, application packet with

photos of the property and floor plans.

B6, power of attorney authorizing

applicant as agent and attorney in fact

of the property. B7, deed establishing

the owner of the property. B8, planning

bureau case report. B9, city of

Harrisburg planning commission

resolution. B10, the proof of

publication for tonight's meeting, May 3

and May 10, 2026.

and a letter uh sent from the planning

director to the applicant notifying of

tonight's hearing. So, we got B1 through

B11. And with that, I will turn it over

to Mr. Knight. Uh so, yes, this uh case

um is u similar but slightly different

uh than the last one. Um the application

for 1901 Forester Street uh involves the

conversion of an existing single family

dwelling into a two-unit multif family

dwelling uh which requires zoning

hearing bird approval of special

exceptions for the proposed use and

relief from off- streetet parking

requirements per section 7-305.7

7-327.6

of the zoning code respectively. uh but

only one variance uh for relief from the

density regulations in section 7-307.3

of the zoning code as the lot itself is

large enough uh or sorry as the building

itself is large enough to be converted

to multiple units um by right in

conformance with the specific criteria.

Uh so this um property again similar uh

to the last one in that it has a

detached garage in the back uh with um

at least space for one vehicle. Um and

the building itself was converted uh

some point in the past again in

coordination uh with uh the codes

bureau. Um and the um lack of interior

of internal coordination between the

codes bureau and the planning bureau is

why this issue is now being is is being

addressed now and not uh back then um

when the uh conversion occurred. Uh in

contrast to the last case uh though this

property is a corner lot. Um so it does

have a significant amount of frontage uh

along both Forester Street and 19th

Street. Um, so in the event that the uh

detached garage at the rear of the

property, which does seem operable, much

more so than the last property, um, is

only able to accommodate one car, uh,

the applicant does have, um, the

sufficient on street frontage along the

property to accommodate any, uh,

additional demand from tenants or, uh,

their guests. Uh and uh therefore the

planning commission uh recommends the

zoning hearing board approve the request

with the following conditions. Uh

granted zoning approval to move forward

with the project as proposed. The

applicant shall allow the codes bureau

bureau to perform a comprehensive

inspection to identify any outstanding

code issues and will receive approval

for all necessary city permits prior to

receiving a certificate of occupancy. Uh

the planning commission recommends the

zoning hearing board to approve the

request for the following reasons. In

contrast to other such conversions, the

structure itself is large enough for a

buy right conversion to two units, thus

reducing the amount intensity of zoning

relief and providing some justification

for the current request. And as a

current lot, as a corner lot, the

property has a onecar detached garage

and enough frontage along both 19th

Street and Forester Street to reasonably

accommodate the two off- streetet

parking spaces required for the use,

thereby reducing the impact of the

presumed increase in parking demand on

the surrounding residents.

>> Okay. And um Mr. Tonight you you prepare

the planning bureau case reports.

Correct.

>> That's correct.

>> Okay. And do you adopt that as your

testimony that complete report instead

of stating everything and reading it

into the record?

>> Yes.

>> Okay. Good. All right. Um

then we can turn over Mr. Sch. Go ahead.

>> I'm in agreement.

The battery power is not in agreement.

Okay.

>> But I'll speak louder. I'm in agreement

with

pass.

>> Are you good?

>> Everybody good?

>> This was Yeah, I you answered the

questions to 1644. It's the same thing.

I I did see there's no parking

requirements there parking on both 19th

Street and Officer Street. So that

satisfies the question I have.

>> Okay. And Mr. folks, right? This is like

a just a similar situation that you had

with the prior application that we had,

you know, with dilapidated property and

all that kind of thing, right? That you

upgra significantly upgraded, right?

>> Correct. It was uh primarily

distribution for

illicit materials uh in the neighborhood

for a long time. So, we converted it

from the storefront

that it had to

a stairwell entry. I don't know if you

remember the door when you look up there

in the front, you can see how it used to

be a sandwich shop or corner store. Uh

that's actually an entry stairwell up to

the second floor apartment. So they have

wide enough stairwell to be able to get

furniture up and down. It's 4 and 1/2 ft

wide there. Um so u that uh kind of put

an end to it. Uh so after we showed a

little bit of love in the neighborhood

uh that activity stopped

>> and it's been operating, you know, as

the uh two-unit multif family dwelling

>> last eight years, right? Yep.

>> Yes.

>> Okay. With that, uh do I have a motion

to approve application 2635, the special

exceptions requested and the dimensional

variance requested?

>> So move.

>> Okay. Is there a second?

>> Second.

>> Okay. Let me go back. A motion to

approve with the conditions. Weren't

there conditions? Yes, there were

>> one condition. Yeah.

>> Okay. Well, let me go back. Uh, is there

a motion to approve application 2635,

the special exceptions requested and the

dimensional variance subject to the uh

conditions stated by the planning

commission?

>> So, move.

>> Okay. Is there a second?

>> Second.

>> Okay. All in favor?

>> I.

>> Okay. See, we'll get a decision out to

Mr. Sch on that one. Now, let's see. We

have

2636

and I'll ask uh Mr. Knight that um

obviously you'll consider yourself sworn

in for this application as well.

Correct.

>> Correct.

>> All right, Mr. Shes um you consider

yourself sworn in for this application

as well. Correct.

>> Yes, sir.

>> All right. So, we got 2636 the address

2040 North 4th Street.

um same applicant. Um and I will read in

the exhibits and then turn it over to

Mr. Knight. Um basically there are the

same exhibits but we got to read them

in. So B1, proof of publication April 5

and April 12, 2026. B2 letter sent from

planning director to the applicant

notifying at the hearing. B3 hearing

notice posted on the property. B4

notification letter sent to neighbors

and certificate of mailing. B5

application packet with photos of the

property and floor plans. B6, power of

attorney authorizing applicant as agent

and attorney in fact of the property.

B7, deed establish establishing the

owner of the property. B8, planning

bureau case report. B9, city of

Harrisburg planning commission

resolution. B10, proof of publication

for tonight's meeting uh and the Patriot

news May 3, 2026 and May 10, 2026. Then

a letter sent from the planning director

to the applicant notifying of tonight's

hearing. So we got B1 through B11.

And with that, Mr. Knight, go ahead.

>> Uh, yeah. So, the applicant for case

number 2636, um, similar uh to the last

two proposals, um, and will be similar

to the next, uh, which is the adjacent

property, um, requiring the special

exceptions for the proposed use and the

relief from the off- streetet parking

requirements and variances for the

relief from the density and specific

criteria regulations. And this is also

an after the-act application. Uh this

property is a similar history uh to the

other two properties in that there was a

uh lengthy record of condemnations

um of uh utility shut offs of uh legal

dumping uh on the property and uh prior

to the purchase by the applicant. Um and

uh the applicant uh in fact you can see

some of the uh exterior issues that that

the property had. I believe there's a

big um parched or uh vinyl sighting on

the side uh where some of the um siding

uh previously started to uh rode away.

So uh the conditions of the property

itself and the structure uh do uh

provide justification for that

conversion to multiple units. It's

likely without uh you know a um

allowance of multiple units on site. Uh

the properties would probably suffer the

same um fate as the adjacent properties

which are both vacant lots due to um

buildings on those lots being torn down.

Um and uh due to the fact that uh the uh

adjacent properties uh have been

demolished um and uh the property across

the street which occupies about half the

block uh is a church with its own

surface parking lot on site. Uh there is

um sufficient on street parking to

accommodate the two off- streetet

parking uh spaces required by the uh

required for the two uh unit use. Uh

because the rear of the property uh due

to topographical issues um it's not easy

to access that uh for off- streetet

parking without significant um uh uh

removal of soil and you know creating

retaining walls and things of that

nature. Uh there is about probably a

three-foot difference between where the

road is at in the back and the uh uh

level of the backyard. Um so uh with

that being said uh the planning

commission is recommending the zoning

hearing board approve the request with

the following conditions and same

condition as last one. Uh 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 an updated

certificate of occupancy. Uh the

planning commission recommends that the

zoning hearing board approved the

request for the following reasons.

property had a history of condemnations

for various building code deficiencies

over the years prior to the applicant's

ownership, potentially requiring more

investment than would be viable for

rehabilitation as a single family

dwelling. As such, there is

justification for the allowance of an

additional unit that would be permitted

by Wright. Uh the project reconstructed

a bleeding influence and attractive

nuisance and two units that will

contribute to the housing inventory in

the city and the neighborhood and

appears to have had a positive impact on

the amount and frequency of illegal

dumping on the adjacent vacant lots and

existing conditions of the property and

its context within the neighborhood.

Specifically, the availability of on

street parking along North Fourth Street

due to the abuing vacant lots and the

vacant church across the street mean the

proposed increase in residential density

would have a limited impact on the

surrounding community.

>> Okay. And Mr. Knight, just like the last

one, you prepared the planning bureau

case report. Correct.

>> Correct.

>> And you would adopt that also as

additional testimony in this matter.

>> Correct.

>> All right. Okay. Uh Mr. Shes,

>> um I am in agreement with everything

that Mr. and I just described.

>> Okay.

>> It's pretty straightforward.

>> Okay. And uh you prepared the

application and the attachments.

>> Yes, sir.

>> Okay. And submitted that. You adopt that

as your testimony as well. Yes, sir.

Okay.

>> Any questions for this one?

>> Okay.

>> Okay. Uh so um

do I have a motion uh to uh approve

application 2636 and the special

exceptions requested and the dimensional

variances requested with the uh subject

to the conditions established by the

planning commission?

>> Motion.

>> Okay. Do I have a second?

>> Second.

>> All right. All in favor?

>> I

>> Okay. Take the decision out for that.

And the last

this one.

Okay.

26372042

North Fourth Street. And again, Mr.

Knight, uh, consider yourself, uh, sworn

in for this application as well.

Correct. Correct.

>> Okay. Mr. Schultz, same. Consider

yourself sworn in for this application

as well?

>> Yes, sir.

>> Okay.

I'll read in the exhibits. Uh B1, proof

of publication, April 1 and April 12,

2026. B2, letter sent from planning

director to applicant notifying of the

hearing. B3, hearing notice posted on

the property. B4, notification letter

sent to neighbors and certificate of

mailing. B5, application packet, photos

of property and floor plans. B6, power

of attorney authorizing applicant as

agent and attorney fact of the property.

B7, deed establishing the owner of the

property. B8, Planning Bureau case

report. B9, City of Harrisburg Planning

Commission resolution. B10, proof of

publication, May 3 and May 10, 2026 for

tonight's meeting. And B11, letter sent

from planning director to applicant

notifying of tonight's hearing. With

that, I'll turn it over to Mr. Knight.

>> Uh, yes. So, this uh final uh

application in in the group um

represented by Mr. chokes uh for 2637

for 2042 North Fourth Street uh requires

two special exceptions for the proposed

for the multif family dwelling use uh

and the relief from off street parking

uh and two variances for relief from the

density and specific criteria

regulations uh and is an after the-act

application. Uh while the properties are

um ab budding and conjoined, uh there

actually are some minor differences

between the two, but um regarding the

the size and some access points at the

rear of the property. Uh but the

properties themselves and the structures

themselves um uh are similar in the

history of condemnations and uh um uh

the utility shut offs and uh a variety

of violations issued by the codes bureau

over the years prior to the applicant's

ownership. Um and uh the applicant uh uh

post owning post uh purchasing the

property uh did put a significant amount

investment in with uh coordination at

the codes bureau uh and did um

rehabilitate what was an attractive

nuisance and a blighting influence on

the block and uh as previously noted um

likely maybe save the uh buildings

themselves from having to be torn down.

Um and uh the context of the property

along North Fourth Street with uh

respect to the vacant lots and the um

vacant church across the street uh

create the same support for the uh

relief from the off- streetet parking

requirements uh and the same

topographical issues exist at the rear

of the property as they did at the uh

property at 242 North Fourth Street. Um

and therefore the uh planning bureau's

recom or planning commission's

recommendations

are similar in that they are

recommending the zoning hearing board

approve the request with the following

conditions. Uh if granted zoning

approval to move forward with the

project as proposed. The applicant shall

allow the codes to perform a

comprehensive inspection to identify any

outstanding code violations and will

receive approval for all necessary city

permits prior to receiving an updated

certificate of occupancy. Uh the

planning commission recommends the

zoning hearing board would approve the

request for the following reasons. The

property had a history of condemnations

for various building code deficiencies

over the years prior to the applicant's

ownership, potentially requiring more

investment than would be viable for

rehabilitation as a single family

dwelling. As such, their justification

for the allowance of an additional unit

than would be permitted by Wright. The

project reconstructed a lighting

influence and attractive nuisance into

units that will contribute to the

housing inventory in the city and the

neighborhood and appears to have had a

positive impact on the amount and

frequency of illegal dumping on the

adjacent vacant lots. And finally,

existing conditions of the property and

its context within the neighborhood,

specifically the availability of on

street parking along North Fourth Street

due to the abuing vacant lots and the

vacant church across the street mean the

proposed increase in residential density

should have a limited impact on the

surrounding community.

And Mr. Knight, once again, you prepared

the plan bureau case report, correct?

>> Correct.

>> And you adopt that as your testimony

tonight?

>> Yes, I do.

>> Okay. Mr. Sh.

>> Yes, sir.

>> Okay. Anything to add uh from what Mr.

Knight's testimony was?

>> Only to state that we're in agreement

with the cases presented by Mr. Knight.

>> Okay. And uh again, you prepared the uh

application and uh the attachments,

photos, floor plans, all that.

>> Yes, sir. You you at least attached it,

reviewed it, all that type of thing.

Correct.

>> Absolutely.

>> Okay. And uh you adopt that as your

testimony here tonight?

>> Yes, sir.

>> Okay. Any questions?

>> No, I have one.

That empty lot.

>> You're referring to the empty lot to the

left. if you're at at there. We used to

own that. Uh we we sold that to the

gentleman who lives adjacent to that

property, one further left. So, he now

takes care of that property that's now

his. Uh in years past, I have uh taken

care of the vacant lots that are to the

right of that property and across the

street from what is now the vacant

church to help them out kind of thing.

Uh, plus there was a lot of, you know,

illegal dumping and that kind of thing.

And and since there was no one there to

actually take care of it,

we're there. So, we have been doing

that. Uh, I can't say whether or not

we've actually begun that process again

this year, but I'm sure we will.

>> Okay. With that, do I have a motion to

approve application 2637,

which are uh requests for special

exceptions and dimensional variances

subject to the conditions stated by the

planning commission?

>> Motion.

>> Do I have a second?

>> Second.

>> All in favor?

>> I.

>> Okay. So, what decision will be sent out

to you, Mr. Schol with regard to that

one? I think that concludes right the

four, right? Yep. All right. Great.

If I may, I just wish to send out a

quick thanks to uh the planning

commission's office there for

demonstrating a level of professionalism

here that that made a difficult

situation into something that was quite

manageable, I think, for everybody and

and sort of a reasonable outcome.

>> Yeah.

>> Thank you, Mr. Strokes.

>> What's that?

>> No, those are only two.

Yeah.

>> Okay. So, now we have 26 application

2638.

Uh the address 1257 1259 Walnut Street.

Uh applicant South Central PA

Restoration LLC.

Uh on behalf of uh is it Arthur Arthur

Jefferson? Okay.

>> Okay.

All right, Mr. Knight, you'll obviously

consider yourself sworn in already for

this application,

>> correct?

>> Okay. And uh so let's identify for the

applicant. We have Arthur Jefferson. And

who else is with him?

>> Uh good evening. My name is Duran

Sawyers.

>> And could you spell that for me?

>> Yes, it is D A R an last name Sawyers. S

A W Y E R S.

>> Okay.

Okay. You swear them both in. Yeah.

>> Yes.

>> And so, Mr. Jefferson, you're uh with

the South Central PA Restorations.

>> Yes, we're both owners of South Central

PA Restoration.

>> Okay. Both owners. Sorry.

Okay.

>> Okay. Mr. Knight.

>> Yes.

>> Uh let you know forgot to read them in.

Yeah.

>> Okay.

>> All right. So, the exhibits are uh B1

applicants request for a continuence

um uh to tonight's hearing.

B2 is a proof of publication May 3 and

May 10, 2026. B3

is the letter uh sent from planning

director to the applicant notifying of

the hearing. B4 hearing notice posted on

the property. B5 notification letter

sent to neighbors. B6 application packet

with photos of property and plans for

the proposal. B7 Harrisburg

redevelopment authority resolution

authorizing applicant to develop the

property. B8 the planning bureau case

report. B9 city of Harrisburg planning

commission resolution. So we have B1

through B9. Now Mr. Go ahead.

>> Uh so uh the application for case number

2638

uh involves the um consolidation of the

subject parcels and the construction of

a three-story six-unit multif family

dwelling with a rooftop patio common

area. Uh the project requires zoning

hearing board approval of two special

exceptions. uh one for the proposed

multif family dwelling use and relief

from the off- streetet parking

requirements for the uh proposed

development per section 7-305.7

and 7-327.6

of the zoning code respectively and two

variances for relief from the density

and allowable building widths width

regulations in section 7-307.3

of the zoning code. The project will

include three one-bedroom units and

three two-bedroom units. Uh so the

project site uh is comprised of two

vacant lots. Um they've been vacant for

um decades I think uh somewhere around

30 years almost. Um and uh they've

remained that way uh all this time. Um

there's you know v at varying times it's

been used for illegal parking for some

dumping. Uh there's been um you know

unmaintained vegetation on site. Uh so

uh the planning bureau feels uh that the

uh subject proposal uh represents a good

infill development. Uh the building

itself uh will generally be in

conformance uh with most of the

development standards with respect to

the building height uh setback and

impervious surface coverage. Um and uh

as uh the uh application notes, um the

applicants are also proposing a somewhat

unique co-op uh housing um configuration

uh and structure. Uh and uh the

intention is to make the um units

available to people I believe making up

to 60% of the median family income. Uh

so um we're not quite sure off the top

of our head whether it's going to be

submitted through the um affordable

housing uh certification program or not.

And I think that's just due to whether

the co-op ownership um uh proposal that

they're doing. Uh but um certainly if

they are uh going to be submitting

through that and that'll be worked out

through the land development plan

process that they'll be uh following

subsequent uh to this review. Um it

would reduce the amount of uh deviation

from the zoning code. Um they'd only be

required to provide three uh vehicles

instead of um seven or three off-

streetet parking spaces instead of seven

off- streetet parking spaces and they

would be able to uh to build four units

on site instead of the two units uh that

they would be permitted for a market

rate uh development. Um, as noted in the

site plans, uh, the applicants will be,

you know, keeping the building, um,

separated from the adjacent structures.

Uh, it's enclosed on all three sides,

uh, besides, um, Walnut Street, uh, by

buildings and, uh, other improved

properties. Um, and, uh, they'll be

having setbacks to allow those owners to

be able to access those properties. Uh,

that also, uh, impacts basically, uh,

whether, uh, they can provide any

parking on site. Um, so they obviously

can't can't access the rear of the lot.

They'd have to go through the front, um,

which would mean a new curb cut onto the

property, uh, which would both, uh,

remove, uh, publicly accessible on

streets parking, uh, but given the

required, uh, spaces, uh, and, uh, drive

widths. Um, it's likely that they

couldn't do any development on the first

floor. So, they'd have to elevate um

everything up a uh a floor, which may

necessitate additional um uh zoning

relief for things like uh exceeding the

maximum building height. Uh it may also

make the project itself infeasible. Uh

because I believe going above three

floors requires an elevator which is

obviously a significant cost uh uh to a

project of this site uh of this type

especially one um seeking to provide the

deeply affordable units that the

applicants are planning to do. So uh for

those reasons uh we do feel uh that the

uh project um as proposed is justified.

Um it should also be noted that the uh

applicants I believe have gone through

the hard review process because the

property is in the Summit Terrace

Architectural Conservation Overlay

District area. Uh and they did get

approval um from that board. Um so

with that all being said, the planning

commission uh recommends the zoning

hearing board approve the request with

the following conditions. Uh, the

applicant must submit a lot

consolidation and land development plan

application and receive approval from

the planning commission and city

council. Uh, and the applicant must

receive approval from the Harrisburg

architectural review board. Uh, the

planning commission recommends uh, the

zoning hearing board approve the request

for the following reasons. The decadesl

long vacancy of the subject properties

demonstrates the challenges inherent in

identifying appropriate and feasible

redevelopment projects and thus supports

the requested relief for development of

a six-unit multif family dwelling. The

configuration of the property with

limited frontage along public rights

ofway and surrounded on three sides with

developed lots presents challenges

regarding access to the property and

supports the requested relief from the

off- streetet parking. Uh the project

will improve currently vacant and and

unmaintained lots with affordable units

that are pressing need in the city

generally and the neighborhood

specifically. The applicant has also

responded to a solicitation from the

city for redevelopment of the site as

affordable housing which necessitates

additional relief from the zoning

regulations.

The proposed building design

incorporates a number of novel features

for projects in the city including

including the incorporation of a rooftop

deck uh green roof and solar panel

array. The property will also be

operated as a cooperative housing model

that will retain affordability over

time.

And Mr. Knight, once again, uh you

prepared that plan your case report,

correct?

>> That is correct. Yeah.

>> And you adopt that as your testimony as

well tonight?

>> Yes, I do.

>> Okay. Now, for uh the applicant, whoever

wants to start testimony in support of

your application.

>> Um I myself don't have anything to

testify. I'm open to any questions you

guys may have, but I think Mr. Knight

said everything that need to be said.

>> Okay. All right,

>> Mr. Stories, you too.

>> Yes, sir. Um, it's been a long day, but

uh um what Mr. Knight said and um just

being in front of the uh carb review

board and the uh planning commission uh

we pretty much everything is stated in

there of uh what we plan to do, what we

would like to do for our community. Uh

we don't want to do it one time. we want

to continuously uh do this. And then

even when we were walking through the

neighborhood, just to see that uh that

property, that lot right there has been

vacant for over 30 years. uh it's uh

it's much needed for all of us who are

trying to develop, you know, to

continuously try to grow our city and

bring it back to I know when I was

raised it seemed like it was more family

oriented and less just vacant lots like

this.

>> All right, any questions from the board?

>> Sure. Good evening. Uh just a couple of

questions. number one. Uh so this here

in the write up there is uh basically a

statement saying that there you have a

comparison for by right development. Um

uh basically comparing that to the

proposed project. Can you talk about I

guess uh perspective on financial

hardship or inability to develop um

within the the guidelines?

>> I don't know if I understood your

question fully. So basically right uh I

guess in the sense there's a for

variance right there's kind of a burden

of proof that you're not able to develop

um within the current zoning guidelines

which is what requires or it brings

forth your request for a zoning

variance. So I'm just wondering if you

could provide some insight into your

inability to develop based off of the

current guidelines.

>> Right. Why you pick the number of units,

you know what I mean, six instead of

something less, you know?

>> Well, we we noticed that there's a need

for the six units in the area. Um that's

what made us pick six. Um as well as uh

the the the request for the the zoning.

I'm thinking that's what you're talking

about, right? Like why did we request

these exceptions and variances, right?

>> So, um as Mr. night stated earlier is

that um with the parking we can't we we

financially we can't afford to uh to

build an extra store. Not only when we

talked to the mayor she said it ain't

happening on top. So, she already said

that, but um again, to have to put an

elevator in there is is is is a couple

bucks uh uh to the hundreds of thousands

of which already we're going with

affordable housing and it's hard enough

to raise the money that we have already

raised. So, that was one reason for

that. And um the the parking with the uh

the street cuts, we didn't think that

that would even look right in the

community. We felt as though if we cut

because I don't know if you guys have

the pictures in front of you, but we

have a permeable area right there where

we want to we want to do the whole

street like that. Um, we want people to

walk around. We don't want you to have

to weave through cars just to get to the

from one side of the house to the other

side of the house. If that makes any

sense to you.

>> And and then also you said why six and

not four? Um

when when you when we go through old

parcels or whatnot, there's a lot of

mess that we are charged for cleaning up

from the city's situations prior to us

that it's so costly that four units it

wouldn't do us just for us to build

there. You know, uh I don't think six

would be enough, but that is probably

the most that we could have asked for

for those two locks, you know, we

couldn't go any higher or whatnot

>> based on the architectural review area

of that area some materials.

>> Go ahead, Mr. Yeah. And I was going to

say I think the applicants also noted

something relatively unique to these

properties is that they the PA1 call uh

they performed uh didn't identify any of

the subsurface uh utility lines which is

even for vacant lots in the city that

the city has taken down over the last

couple decades. Uh there's still usually

a sewer hookup or a water line or

something like that. And the PA1 call uh

didn't even identify those. So it may I

mean it may be longer than 30 years that

this has been vacant. Our records are

very unclear about that, but that's

going to require, you know, excavation,

running new uh underground utilities,

>> right? And I just wanted to write that

that it has been vacant for a minimum of

30 years at least.

>> Okay.

>> As far back as our records go, which are

pretty pretty consistent up until the

late 1990s.

>> All right. Questions?

>> Yes. uh can you also provide insight on

the uh what was mentioned regarding the

co-op?

>> So after um we have a compliance period

where we have to rent it out for 15

years and in our model we want to build

relationship with the community where we

can um practice generational wealth

meaning um if because each floor has two

apartments. So if on our idea of life,

if one person could own one apartment,

rent the other apartment out to whomever

that other person may be, that will

again create that a form of generational

wealth to where we're getting

supplemental income brought to each

family on each floor. If that makes any

sense to you.

>> But this doesn't occur until after that

15-year period.

>> Yeah. Our compliance period. Yes.

>> Okay.

All righty. this allow for now.

>> Good evening gentlemen.

>> Good evening.

>> My questions

around this funding source. So,

you're going to build this new

structures. What's your funding source

going to be?

>> We have um so far required a fair grant

with the PHFA. Um we also um have and

that was for 350,000 and we have a um we

were awarded the Federal Home Loan Bank

of Pittsburgh for 900,000. We have one

last um grant that we're seeking after

which is the home ARP funds for the

remaining balance of our bill.

I Mr. Hops you spoke a little bit

question a little about the co-op and

the co-op your your position on it is

that you're trying to build uh

generational wealth. So these apartments

again after 15 years they will be

available to buy or that a floor. Okay.

So you buy the floor, you get both the

who buy said he's got income coming in

to offset his cost.

>> Yes.

>> Okay. Um let's say you're laying us. How

about storm water? And the reason why I

say that is because you were downhill

from runoff a little bit from Yeah. How

you want to address it? We got a talk

region on that. Yes, we we we we had a

lot of conversation with Cal Region. Um

so we're we're we're developing that

storm water plan. We're probably about

90%

finished with the plan. Um we have to

open up the street and we're going to

run our storm water. You you would think

it would go down towards the capital,

but that's not how they're saying we

have to actually go back up towards 13th

Street.

>> Major collection point. Yes.

>> Yes.

>> Okay.

This is going to be a three uh three

story structure.

>> Yes.

>> Okay.

>> With a rooftop.

>> This is going to be more directed

towards you across the street. You're

got a head development going on at uh

what is it right there at 13th in

Walnut. I actually went out and look at

your lots and stuff. So remember they're

going to be that rehab

printing building there.

>> Correct.

>> It's right across it's almost right

across the street from their lots.

>> Yep. They were heard at the uh May 6th

meeting. Yep.

>> Okay. So, you're going to have

construction in that area, multiple uh

multiple activities. Okay. Um you ask

the city, how do you visualize the

impact on community?

>> Well, um I think the um you know, the

logistics of how to stage all that um is

probably a bit up in the air. there is a

you know there is a vacant lot that

occupies the majority of a block that's

kind of like between those two um that's

just storing parked cars at the moment

um but I imagine it's a pretty um

accessible to both project sites um and

you know from you know in addition to

the uh improvement to the streetscape um

developing vacant lots or adaptively

reusing a vacant building uh it seems

ideal to have such two such large

projects occurring at the same time

because we'll likely need to repave the

road, maybe like reset curbs, things of

that nature. And if we can do that once

while we've got two projects going on,

uh that may that reduces the overall um

impacts from the construction timeline

uh on the surrounding um uh residents

because it's likely, you know, we'll

have to do road shutdowns for periods of

time to, you know, make these utility

connections. So, if we're able to do

that kind of uh for both projects at the

same time or back to back, uh that

should reduce the downtime for um

residents to be able to use those

streets.

>> Yeah.

What's underground, but I have concerns

is that if you're going to build out one

side and they're coming on the other

side, would it make sense to basically

get them both done

>> that?

ask you a pricing structure but

this is going to be more co-op but

you're um

again use the term affordable housing

correct so which going to be your

pricing for these apartments

>> I think for the um if if I'm if I'm

correct okay I think for the onebedroom

it's around $900. And then for the two

bedrooms, I want to say it's around

like$1050,50.

>> Sounds like you're getting PHFA

financing and

Pittsburgh.

>> Yes.

to

the parking. Okay. Uh we don't hit them

a lot, but because they require seven

spots on Wall Street parking, how do you

plan to accommodate? Because I I looked

at both Walnut Street and 13th Street

and the parking here could be

problematic.

to say when everybody's in. Okay. So,

how how do you tend to address that?

>> Well, we're hoping for a waiver from you

guys.

>> That's who that's what we're for

>> because because because the the

community that we're looking to service

um they typically don't have vehicles

and that's why we're requesting that.

>> Well, there's public transportation

right there off of

Yeah. And I believe there is at least

one bus route that runs down 13th Street

as well. Yes.

Say your return on ask for return on

investment on this, but again seems like

you're trying to build your your

position is that you're trying to

rebuild community and you want to see

that 15 to 30 year investment into this

property

>> at a minimum.

>> I'm not putting words to your mouth.

>> You are very correct. Got a minimum.

>> All right, Mr. Hobs, do you have

anything else right now?

>> Just a kind of a general question. Um,

>> sure.

>> Back to what you mentioned with parking.

Um, because I know there's kind of I

think even in the last meeting just

general statement about a viewpoint of

how many cars a certain population will

own um which I don't know if we can

really directly calculate that right. Um

but what is your thought or estimate

then if for this sixunit building of

what would be the average um need I

guess in terms of of parking spaces or I

guess I should say how many vehicles do

you think would be owned by you know the

tenants that are um occupying these six

units at any given time.

Well, the the way that we went about uh

housing uh this six unit complex uh we

partner with uh uh um

New Tomorrow. So, a nonprofit company uh

nonprofit organization, I'm sorry. and

and what they do, they have a housing

list um that meets the conditions and

the standards of affordable housing who

uh in our community. We want to help you

know those people and uh they they've

written us they have statistics and they

they've written us a statement um to

include uh whenever we go out to anyone

to show that uh I think it's 90 I want

to say 98% of uh those who they house

they don't have a vehicle. Um, and so

that would be perfect for us because if

most the majority of them don't have a

vehicle and what we're trying to apply

for is is an exemption from that, um,

that would that would fit the the

community and where we're at. And it

would also enable them to be right there

on a bus line and in close proximity to

what they need. Uh, even though, you

know, they have transportation but not

their own. vehicle.

So, um that is how we tried to

supplement um not having park

>> and the plan is right to have this as

affordable housing, right? That that's

what you would apply to the city. Is

that how it an application goes to the

city to make sure that then they get a

certific that then they get the

certification

>> the affordable housing?

>> Um I think it it does come through the

city. Yeah.

>> Right. for the certification to do it.

But but that is the plan

>> and and it's based on though, right?

Kind of the pricing of the units, right?

That's what

>> that that's correct. It's ba it's based

on um who the uh what level of

affordability the units are. Um it's our

our threshold is 80. They're below that.

Um so uh and again they they they're

proposing the co-op which I think is a

little bit different than what we've had

in the past. It's usually, you know,

rental units or something like that. Uh

sometimes four for four for uh uh for

sale home uh row homes like on North

Fourth Street that was just completed

and Market Street that the board has

reviewed recently. Uh but this co-op is

a is a different uh configuration as far

as that's concerned. So, um I don't

think we've had to review that against

the specifics of the program language,

>> but al also based on really I guess the

income level of you know the tenants or

you know residents of that that that is

really why then

>> the required off streetet parking is

reduced.

>> Yeah. Which is goes along with the plan

that then they're not going to have as

many cars which I think is what Mr.

Hobbs was kind of looking at. Right.

>> Correct. And you know that's largely

been a position of the of the planning

bureau is that you know when you're u

when you need assistance to put a roof

over your head you know it's likely that

um statistically that you're more less

likely to have a vehicle because that

costs a significant amount of money as

well uh either to own, buy, run,

maintain. Um, so when we're talking

about populations where we're going as

deeply affordable as what the applicants

are doing, it's definitely less likely

that uh the average household there will

have a a car or maybe they'll share a

car with a friend of theirs or somebody

that lives nearby, you know, something

like that. Um, but the but you know, the

cost of a car is significant and it's

only going up. Um, you know, with

respect Yeah. uh gas uh with respect to

uh even um the used car market uh is

increasing. So uh the cost of vehicles

going up uh and it definitely makes it

less affordable for everybody especially

uh people who need um help with uh

subsidized housing.

>> And the other question I have those

focused on that the onedimensional

variance related to the building width.

>> Yeah. So what is the

building width of buildings in that area

and then what's the 20% because I've

kind of seen like 16 to 18 feet or is it

32 to 36 that kind of thing just so I

know in writing

>> sure decision we need to write

>> you know that's always a tricky little

section of the zoning code and both

because it's uh because really a block

is not well defined uh whether it's just

the you know contiguous land surrounded

by rights of way or is

the properties on both sides of a single

street. And how far does that go? Um,

you know, the adjacent property, the

mixeduse property just to the uh east uh

which is like apartment over convenience

store is larger than the average in the

neighborhood. Um, as the applicants note

in their application, it's uh, you know,

anywhere from uh 14 to 18. Um, and there

are single family homes just to the west

along Walnut Street that are wider than

that. There's the building at the corner

of 13th and Walnut that you know. So,

it's it's tough to say whether there's a

prevailing, but the block AC the

directly across the block from this

project say you do have a pretty

consistent uh row home um uh

design or a row of homes that are all

about the same width. Um and so you know

in the I think in the interest of uh

completeness of this so that there's not

you know a missing aspect of the project

we wanted to look at that and say well

you could argue that there's a

prevailing width because of what's

across the block. So um but I think when

you look at the certainly the blocks

surrounding uh the subject uh properties

uh I would say there isn't really a

prevailing width within the general

neighborhood.

>> Okay. So, but in writ

then looked at it and make sure first of

all the building is going to be 38 ft

width there the the applicant that

proposed building correct

>> 38.

>> Okay. And the prevailing width may be 32

to 36 feet. Is that maybe a fair way to

consider all the properties

>> in order to be able to write this and

and have it decided this dimensional

variance request?

>> Yeah. So, you know, I Yeah, I mean, I

would say it's almost like there's two

row homes side by side. They have the c

two central stairwells that are required

for access to the upper floors. So, it's

not as though it's one building frontage

for um you know, a large apartment

building. It's being treated as, you

know, two conjoined row homes that have

a central access corridor.

>> Right. Okay. All right. Any other

questions?

>> Question. Since this is part of summit

association.

Yes, I have tried reaching out to them

to let them know what's going on

and um I haven't got any responses.

>> Um uh Mrs. uh what's her name? Barbie D.

>> Uh um

>> I haven't spoke to her for a while. I

I've tried left her a message. I talked

with her for a while prior to this, but

um I haven't uh she hasn't replied or

anything like that.

Any type of handouts is something you

would basically hand to people or some

type of notification

want to do this or something and your

input.

>> Yeah, we sent the letters out our

certified letters out.

>> Thank you.

Okay.

Want to take a break or anything?

deliberate

questions.

Either way,

Is there anybody here from the public

that wants to comment on this uh

application?

Seeing none. Okay. Do we have a motion

to approve application 2638

um in the request for special exceptions

and a dimensional variance subject to

the conditions stated by the uh planning

commission?

>> So move.

>> Okay. Do we have a second?

>> Second.

>> Okay. All in favor?

>> I

>> Okay, it's approved. And uh with that,

I'll send out the written decision to uh

the applicants within 45 days. Okay.

>> All right.

>> Congratulations, guys.

>> All right.

Let's see. We got

we got

right 26.

Okay. Okay. So, we have applica

application 2639,

which is 1531 and 1533 North 6 Street.

Um, okay.

And with that also, um, Mr. Knight,

you'll consider yourself sworn in for

this application as well. Correct.

>> Correct.

>> Okay.

Um,

and who is here for the applicant? I see

they're represented as well, but who's

>> Kevin Kufa, Penn State Health, last name

is KU FFA.

>> Okay.

Mark Karowski, Kur WKI

with K&W, Civil Engineers for the

project.

Esh Mccomi with MCNE Wallace and Nurk uh

land use attorney and then we also have

uh in the audience with us David Deloo

with Penn State Health uh general

counsel.

>> Okay.

Okay. Um why don't we uh though swear in

the uh witnesses for the applicant the

two they can just raise their right hand

and then have you both sworn in.

for the test.

>> I do.

>> Okay. Both answered in the affirmative.

All right. So, I'll read in the exhibits

and turn it over to Mr. Knight.

Uh, we have B1, proof of publication.

May 3, May 10, 2026. B2, letter sent

from the planning director to applicant

notifying of the hearing. B3, hearing

notice posted on the property. B4,

notification letter sent to neighbors

and certificate of mailing. B5,

application packet with attached

narrative photos of the property. B6,

uh, commercial lease establishing

applicant standing to pursue the zoning

relief. B7, planning bureau case report

and B8, city of Harrisburg planning

commission resolution. So, we have B1

through B8. With that, I'll turn it over

to Mr. Knight.

>> Uh, yes. So uh the issues inherent in um

the application for case number 2639

uh are a um accessessor or sorry are a

special exception and that is for uh

allowing a fence taller than the 6ft uh

height permitted by right in the INS

district. Uh the applicants are

proposing a 10-ft high fence to surround

the play area and then the variances are

for the proposed use. So uh the uh play

area represents an accessory use. is

accessory to the medical offices that

are located at 1524 Wallace Street just

across the street. Um and uh they will

be the principal use of the subject

property. So that's what the variance is

for allowing an accessory use as a

principal use and then also for

encroachment into uh the side and rear

yard setbacks. Um the applicants are

proposing the construction of a

basketball court at the rear of the

property. Um and uh the

full width of the property is I believe

31 ft of the two properties. Um and I

believe the depth is uh 70 ft. Um so the

sideyard setbacks for properties in the

INS district are 20 ft. Uh and the rear

yard setback is 20 ft as well. So you

actually couldn't build anything on the

site uh at least within the sideyard

setbacks because uh they're combined 9

ft more than what the full width of the

site is. Um and similarly the um rear

yard setback is 20 ft. So uh basically

it's would severely constrain any uh use

of the uh property uh for any reason. Um

and you know the properties themselves I

think are a bit unique for the INS

district which obviously imagines uh

larger uh types of institutional uses

like hospitals and schools and things of

that nature which you know you're not

going to be building on a kind of narrow

um lot that of the type that

accommodates like row homes throughout

the city. Um and uh for that reason um

development that uh is not in

conformance with the zoning code and

does require the requested zoning relief

uh is sensible for the use. Uh,

additionally

uh the um the playground use uh

represents a uh reasonable proposal for

the site given the proximity of the

principal use to which it's uh attached

and again uh the overall configuration

of the site uh that uh pretty much

precludes any other type of develop of

by right development uh on it. And then

with respect to the um special exception

for the fence height, uh as uh the

applicants noted in their testimony at

the planning commission meeting, uh you

know, they're one of the biggest

concerns is for safety. Uh this is

largely going to be um an outdoor

therapeutic space for uh patients of the

um adjacent medical office. Um and

because it's going to involve, you know,

children, they want to make sure uh to

ensure the security uh of the uh play

area. Uh but also because they'll have

basketballs and I'm sure other

equipment, they want to make sure those

aren't like going out uh of the play

area. So in addition to the uh 10-ft

high uh fence, they'll have netting over

the top too to ensure the area is

enclosed. So it's for both security and

then uh also uh the safety of passers by

make sure something doesn't go into the

street or damage a car in the adjacent

parking lot or something like that. Um

so overall uh the planning bureau finds

the request uh reasonable uh and uh you

know appropriate uh for reuse of these

subject properties. Uh as such uh we are

recommending approval without any

additional conditions. Uh and the

planning commission also recommends that

the zoning hearing board approved the

request for the following reasons. The

existing configuration of the

development site, particularly the

narrow width and shallow depth, would

require relief for any type of

development on site and the proposed

development represents a sens a sensible

use of the lot given the low inensity

use and proximity to the principal use

which it will support. Uh the lots have

been vacant for approximately 30 years

and given the location between an

accessory parking lot and long-standing

restaurant establishment. The proposed

development represents the most feasible

most feasible and reasonable proposal to

activate the lots and approve their

contribution to the streetscape. And

finally, the project will complement a

medical outpatient clinic that provides

services to adults and adolescence

receiving treatment for emotional,

psychological, and cognitive issues,

which will provide an interactive

outdoor setting that facilitates their

physical and mental health.

>> Okay. And Mr. Knight, uh once again, you

prepared the uh plane bureau case

report, correct?

>> Correct.

>> And you That is your testimony as well

tonight. Correct.

>> Correct.

>> All right, Mr. McCome. Go ahead.

>> Hey, good evening. Thank you for having

us. We'll take a a brief detour away

from housing and talk uh playgrounds for

a little bit here. Um, as Jeff noted,

uh, the applicant operates a outpatient

clinic uh, on this land around North

Sixth Street in Wallace. And to support

that clinic, uh, we wish to establish an

outdoor therapeutic playground.

Unfortunately, there's there's no space

at the North Sixth Street facility. Uh

we had actually prepared an application

for that the facility itself months ago.

Uh but we're able to work through some

zoning things with with the planning

department and didn't need to come

before you uh for that. Uh so I know the

planning department's very very familiar

with this this property. Um as Jeff

pointed out, the the lots are extremely

narrow. Uh, I think it's it's funny

sometimes when I talk to clients of mine

about, you know, what are we talking

about with a variance and a hardship and

what does that what does that mean? The

one of the examples that I'll often give

is when you want to build a home on a

lot, but the lot's only 30 feet wide.

What what do you do if the if the

requirement is for that is larger? And

and that's exactly what we have here. We

have two 15t wide lots. Uh, even if you

combine them, it's 30 feet. with a 20

foot setback, you can't fit anything in

there. So, to Jeff's point, we think

this is a great uh potential reuse for

the property. Uh Kevin is here to answer

any operational questions you might

have, but I think what I'll probably do

is skip ahead to Mark and let Mark walk

you through the plan and then if you

have any follow-up questions, we'll be

happy to to answer them. Mark, you want

to take a seat up here?

Put

>> the board up. Uh I'll hand these out

because I think they've got

Sure.

It's Mark Karowski. Business address is

2201 North Front Street in Harrisburg.

>> Thank you. And how long have you been

with K&W?

>> Uh it's been 21 years.

>> What's your role there?

>> I'm the president and CEO of the

company.

>> And have you ever testified before

presenting hearing before?

>> I have. And have you ever been denied uh

as an expert?

>> Uh no, I have not.

>> And did your firm prepare uh the

exhibits that go with this application?

>> We did.

>> Great. I'd like to offer Mr. Kowski as a

expert in site design and zoning.

>> Yep. Recognized. Go ahead.

>> Thank you. Uh if you could flip to the

first page. That's exhibit A. What is

it?

>> Uh it's an aerial view of the property.

>> And could you use it to orient the

board?

>> Sure. Uh as you're looking at exhibit A,

um you're going to see uh north is

basically kind of pointing up on the

drawing. Um you'll see the area in

yellow, that's the um office building

that um Ash had mentioned previously.

And the area in red are the two lots

that we're looking at for the

playground.

>> And those are along Sixth Street.

>> That's correct.

>> And then the is the restaurant the

building that's directly playing north

of the the red rectangle?

>> Correct. Anastasia, I think it is.

>> Uh, is the property in the INS district?

>> It is.

>> If you could flip to exhibit B, please.

What are exhibit B?

>> A couple of street view images of the

property in question.

>> And how many images are there?

>> Believe there are one, two, three, four,

three of them.

>> And to your knowledge, do they generally

uh and accurately reflect the status of

the property?

>> They do.

And then lastly, we'll go to exhibit C.

What is that?

>> Exhibit C is the site plan for the

project.

>> And uh on it is north to the we'll call

it uh 10:00,

>> correct?

>> That would be to the left.

>> Left on the plan. Yes.

>> Uh and does it depict uh the two lots

being consolidated?

>> Yes. If you look at the uh basically in

the center of the plan, you'll see some

dash lines. Within those dashed lines,

uh you'll see darker lines. Those are

the two lots that are to be consolidated

for the project.

>> And uh directly above those are the

building that the office building we

were talking about earlier.

>> That's correct.

>> And the dash lines themselves, it says

uh C enlargement plan A. Is what is

that?

>> That's correct. If you look to the right

of the sheet, there's actually an

enlarged view um that shows a bit more

of what's actually looking to be

developed within those two consolidated

lots for the playground. Could you just

generally describe what's planned for

the playground?

>> Sure. Uh so a couple of things you'll

see there. Um the consolidated lot

itself is about 2326 square feet. Um

within that proposed playground area,

you've got about a third of it is

looking to be asphalt paving. That's

more on kind of the rear of the lot away

from Sixth Street. And then the other

two/ird would be uh a playground

surfacing type material. Um the hard

surface is going to be essentially like

a halfcourt basketball area. Um four

square kind of hard surface play. And

then the the looser playground type

material is more there's some play

equipment likely to be in those areas.

Uh as well as some covered tables for uh

for kids to be sitting.

>> This board might not be aware of what

four square is. Can you walk them

through the rules?

>> I'm a little rusty. Uh but I do watch it

periodically. Yes.

>> Fair enough. Uh is is the playground lot

consolidated about 2326

square feet?

>> It is.

>> And what are some of the setback issues

that we're dealing with?

>> So we looked at this and tried to find

how do we um site the playground

equipment as best we can and provide

some level of setback. Um if you you

look in the enlargement, you'll see a

couple of elements. I'll start with the

rear of the lot which again is towards

the u the clinic building um which is

the rear or again away from Sixth

Street. Uh we're shown a 3.5 ft setback

uh in that location which would be to a

basketball hoop and net. And then if you

look on the side yards I'll start on the

south side uh which would be to your

right on the enlargement drawing. That

is a 3.23 foot setback line. um that is

to I believe the covered one of the

covered tables we have in that location.

And then if you flip to the other side,

the north, which would be the side

closer to Anastasia's, we've got a 4.23

foot set back. That's to um what we're

calling a a shade sail or a canopy to

provide some shade on on the playground.

>> Great. And then um I think

uh lastly on the plan itself, is that

access to the top right of that inset?

>> That is correct. And so the idea is that

um patients would come out of the the

main doors uh from the office building,

cross over Cen Street uh which is a

one-way street and then enter the uh the

playground in that area.

>> That is correct.

>> And for the board's uh knowledge, Cen

Street's kind of an interesting street.

Uh it is technically a a public street.

It almost has always operated as a

private street. It's a small small

oneway alley.

Um Mark, have you reviewed the

application and the narrative included

with it?

>> Yes.

>> And to the extent applicable, do you

adopt the comments made therein as your

own?

>> I do.

>> Thanks.

>> Any questions for for Mark or for Kevin?

You know, I always have to ask

questions, but I don't this time. This

is very This is good. I very familiar

with

extremely familiar with it.

>> We're going to hold you to that, Mr.

Fibs.

>> We met now as a fight now.

>> Like an attorney.

>> Okay.

>> Thank you.

>> I I do have one question because you on

the other side of Paris Street, you have

the AR archives. Okay. And it goes all

the way back to Wallace below that.

I understand the need for the 10 foot

high fence and with some netting over

top of it and that's more for a safety

purpose for the people who are going to

be in that in that area. Correct.

>> Yeah. It's to keep keep balls from

coming out and

>> that's all I have. Thank you.

>> Thank you.

>> Yeah, just one question. So, um I'm

assuming that is this just going to be

accessible during the hours of operation

of the clinic.

>> That's correct. The uh the patients uh

the youth patients that are here come

for for the day

>> and so yeah, this is during those

regular oper hours of operation. It will

be closed and and locked up uh in off

hours.

>> Thank you.

>> Yep.

>> Question for you.

going to be a play area. Will you

provide lighting into that or because

it's only going to be active during

business hours per say?

>> I I believe there's

be

there'll be site lighting that'll be

there for the parking lot that can

that'll that'll also light that area if

we need to. It is daytime only use so

it's from like 8:30 in the morning until

like 1:30 in the afternoon. I was just

thinking about the netting over top of

the area. Okay. That light effective

say,

>> right?

>> Okay.

Mr. Kufo, what is your position at uh

Penn Health

Penn State? I meant

>> I'm the facilities project manager.

>> Okay.

Okay. Anything

else?

Anybody u anybody here from the public

or wants to comment on this application?

Okay. And

all right. So,

uh, do we have a motion to approve

application 2639, which are for special

exceptions and, uh, a special exception

and, uh, variance requests? Um, do we

have a motion for that?

>> So, move.

>> All right.

Uh, do we have a second?

>> Second.

>> Okay. All in favor?

>> I.

>> Okay. There we go. It's approved. And I

will get that decision out to you,

applicant.

>> Y, thank you very much. Appreciate it.

Thank you.

>> All right, so we got

20.

>> All right.

Yeah, we'll deal with that. All right.

>> So, we have application 2640

North 16 Street in Crab Apple Street.

Um, before I go through the exhibits,

uh, Mr. Knight uh you consider yourself

sworn in for this application as well

tonight. Okay. I will u uh read in the

exhibits then we can have the people for

applicant uh introduce themselves

uh and swear them in and then we'll turn

it back over to Mr. Knight to go through

um the property description and so on.

So, we have exhibits uh B1, proof of

publication, May 3 and May 10, 2026. B2,

letter sent from the planning director

to the applicant notifying of the

hearing. B3, hearing notice posted on a

property. B4, notification letter sent

to neighbors and certificate of mailing.

B5, application packet with attached

narrative photos of the property. B6

Harrisburg Redevelopment Authority um

resolution authorizing applicant to

develop the property.

There was uh several attached deeds and

other agreements establishing applicants

standing to pursue the requested zoning

relief. B7 the planning bureau case

report and B8 the city of Harrisburg

planning commission resolution. So we

have B1 through B8

and um

people for applicant introduce

themselves. We'll swear in the witnesses

and then we'll go back. We'll go to

mystery night.

>> Jared Miller, the Cooper Companies.

>> Tar Castile, TLC workbased training.

>> Okay. Uh Tar, what's the what was the

last name?

>> Castile.

>> Castile.

>> Yes.

>> Okay.

Is that uh T A R E K? Is that it?

>> T A R I K. I K. Got it. Castile. C A S T

I L L E.

>> S T E.

>> Darn. I'm doing bad on this spelling

test.

>> All right. What was it? C A S

>> S T E L.

>> Castile.

>> E L. Oh, Castile. Got it. Yeah.

>> I used to be good at spelling, but then

I became a lawyer, so you know. All

right. Next.

>> Matt Witters with Eustus Engineering.

Okay. And before you ask, Mike, there is

one R in Jared.

Got it.

Okay.

All right. And then we have Mr. McCumbi

here representing. Right.

>> That's correct.

>> All right. So, we'll turn it over to Mr.

Knight and then we'll move on to the

applicants.

>> All right. So uh case number 2640 uh is

a somewhat unique one uh although it's u

very similar to the first phase uh uh

that this project represents the second

phase of um

and uh the first phase of the project

being the TLC cornerstone which is uh

directly to the west of essentially

where this project footprint is uh and

represented uh the construction of 50 um

units uh across uh several blocks of row

homes and a multif family dwelling

building. Uh whereas uh this project is

a bit more of a scattered sites um

development and largely involves only uh

two units uh at a time uh or I should

say two duplexes connected uh on uh nine

different lots uh across the uh project

site. Uh there's um a total of 34

affordable housing units in 17 buildings

across those uh nine uh consolidated

lots. Um and the proposal involves uh

the establishment of multifamily

dwellings on the subject properties uh

and a request for relief from the off-

streetet parking requirements in section

7-327.6

of the zoning code. And those are the

special exception requests. Uh and

requires relief from various aspects of

the development standards outlined in

check in chapter 7-307 of the zoning

code. Um and those are specifically for

uh relief from section 7-307.3A

of the zoning code to construct a

building wider than 20% of the

prevailing width on the block. Uh that's

applicable to lot number five. Uh,

relief from section 7-307.3A

of the zoning code to permit full

encroachment into the 5- foot front yard

setback. Uh, also applicable to lot

number five. Uh, relief from the same

section of the zoning code to permit

full encroachment into the 4ft sideyard

setback. And that's applicable to lots

number 6, 7, and 9. uh relief from

section 7-327.9A4

of the zoning code to permit parking

encroachment into the required rear yard

setbacks along Apple Crab Apple Street

and that's applicable to lots number

four and nine and then um to the extent

necessary relief from section 7-307.13

of the zoning code to authorize the

removal of trees with trunk diameters of

12 in or more and that's applicable to

those properties uh which again front

along Crab Apple street which is lots

four, six and nine. Um

the uh the project is going to be

submitted through the

>> yeah

just turn

>> that one.

>> Okay. Test test this one.

Hello.

>> I was just trying to speak really

loudly.

>> Hello.

>> Okay, there we go. Yep. Thank you.

>> Thank you.

>> Thanks, Emily. Um, so uh the project

will be submitted uh through the city's

affordable housing uh certification

program uh which impacts uh two aspects

of this pro of this project. um both the

density uh which requires 750 square

feet of lot area per dwelling unit as

opposed to the 1500 square foot of lot

area per dwelling unit in the RM

district and also the provision of off-

streetet parking uh as the project would

require uh 0.5 spaces per dwelling unit.

So, uh, for a total of 34, uh,

affordable housing units, they would be

required to have 17 off- streetet

parking spaces. And they are providing

10, uh, off- streetet parking spaces

across, uh, three of the lots. Um, and

so therefore, they're requesting, uh,

total relief of seven, uh, off- streetet

parking spaces. Um

so with respect to the uh proposed

development uh the multif family

dwelling as we've heard from uh both um

other applicants uh at tonight's meeting

and other meetings. Um you know the when

you're going for affordable housing you

need to have a slightly denser uh

development than would be permitted by

Wright. Um and uh the um relief from

off- streetet parking. Again, we had

just kind of had a conversation about

that of um people who are going after

affordable units uh generally uh

statistically less likely to own

vehicles. Uh but the planning bureau

would note that with respect to the

project footprint, um all of the sites

uh that are proposed as part of this

project are uh vacant. Um and uh several

of them uh have a significant amount of

uh frontage along various rights of way

whether that's Walnut Street, 16th

Street or Regina Street. Um and uh given

that there's vacant lots uh fronting

these, there is really no um demand or

there were no vehicles uh really parked

along the frontages of these properties

on those streets. Uh so there is

sufficient uh on street parking in the

surrounding neighborhood uh to

accommodate um any demand from tenants

or their guests. Um and while the

project site sits in a bit of a uh kind

of in a bit of a maybe black hole with

respect to uh transit um being that

there's no uh routes that run directly

adjacent to the project sites. Uh there

are routes uh kind of enclosing uh the

project site on uh 13th Street, 17th

Street, State Street and uh Market

Street which kind of all enclose uh the

property to the west, east, north and

south respectively. Um so in addition to

the availability of on street parking,

there is uh near there are nearby uh

mass transit routes for uh residents of

the uh prospective uh dwelling units. Uh

with respect to some of the variance

requests um

the one for building uh lot number five

for the building width larger than 20

uh% of the prevailing width on the block

um there really is not a I would say

prevailing width uh because so many of

the uh blocks or sorry so many of the

lots that comprise a project site are

vacant. Um, a lot of the buildings that

are there are one-offs or uh attached

buildings. Uh, so they don't really

establish a um, prevailing width. Um,

but it should be noted that for block

lot number five, um, the building itself

will probably if looked at from Regina

Street will be similar to other uh,

buildings that line Regina Street, but

these buildings are actually going to be

facing uh, North 15th Street. Um so

while the building massing is very

similar to other buildings uh because of

the way they'll be because of the way

the um the entrances will be facing uh

it kind of establishes the side of the

building almost as the front which is

why uh they're requesting that relief uh

for wider than uh 20% of the prevailing

width. Um, as far as the encroachment

into uh the front yard setbacks, again

that applies to to lot five and it's

really I would say more the uh side

would be more the um sideyard setback.

Uh because again they they will those

units will be fronting North 15th Street

instead of fronting Regina Street. Um so

it will be built but it will be built up

to the property line which is um the

configuration of the uh single family

row homes just to the east. Uh so it is

matching uh what's out there in the

neighborhood right now. Um as far as

encroachment into the 4oot sideyard

setbacks for lots six, seven, and nine,

um those are going to be kind of

constrained by either vacant lots that

are not part of this project or existing

buildings. And so, uh, the applicant has

designed the new developments so that

they're further from the existing

buildings to allow those owners of those

properties to have access to their

properties, which kind of pushes them

into uh, the sideyard setbacks on the

opposite sides uh, of those uh,

development footprints. Uh with respect

to the parking encroachment into the

rear yard setbacks along Crab Apple

Street, um you know, the plane bureau

notes that is the most reasonable and

rational uh location to provide parking

uh for at least some of the units uh in

this project. Uh both because um you

wouldn't want to have front yard

setbacks or sorry, you wouldn't want to

have front yard parking which would be,

you know, out of character with the

neighborhood. Uh but also there are no

sidewalks along Crab Apple Street. So,

uh, by locating the the parking off of

that street, they'll be able to, uh,

avoid creating a new pedestrian

vehicular conflict point, um, there

because people aren't using the garage,

uh, the sidewalks already there. Uh and

then finally with regards to the removal

of uh trees, um you know, given the

constrained nature of the sites and the

fact that uh at least two of those along

Crab Apple Street will have parking in

the rear yard, um they're going to have

to remove the uh trees uh in order to

construct new units. Uh they would

probably have to do that anyway for site

prep, but they'll probably need to use

that for staging and uh parking

vehicles. Um so it's likely that all of

those trees will need to be removed. Um,

but we are trying to address that in the

conditions by uh recommending that uh

there be like a one for one replacement

uh for uh new trees and tree pits along

sidewalks uh for properties as part of

this project.

So with all of that being said uh and I

would note uh also that again uh this is

the second phase of the cornerstone

project uh just to the east there and

it's made a remarkable improvement uh on

the neighborhood. Um it uh replaced a

lot of overgrown lots uh some of which

had illegal parking of uh you know uh

junked vehicles uh with uh a lot of new

uh housing units uh with modern

construction affordable housing units uh

for residents of the neighborhood um and

has really reactivated those streets uh

North 15th Street Regina Street um and

really brought uh I would say a much

better sense of ownership of those

spaces. Uh, and you can tell that

they're better maintained along those

frontages than what they used to be. Uh,

so with all that being said, the

planning commission has recommended the

zoning hearing board approved the

request with the following conditions.

If granted approval for the requested

zoning relief, the applicant will

subsequently file a lot consolidation

and land development plan and receive

approval from the planning commission

and city council. Uh because the project

will be restricted to residents earning

60% of the median family income and is

therefore eligible for the certificate

of qualification pursuant to chapter

12101 of title 12. The applicant should

submit the project through the

affordable housing certification program

prior to recording the lot consolidation

and land development plan with the

Dolphin County Recorder of Deeds. Uh the