MINUTES HARRISBURG PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING January 7, 2026

MINUTES
HARRISBURG PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
January 7, 2026
THE MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. CITY GOVERNMENT CENTER
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: 	Joe Alsberry, Chair
Vern McKissick, Vice Chair
Shaun O’Toole
Jamesetta Reed
Anne Marek
DeRon Jordan
MEMBERS ABSENT: 	Basir Vincent
CITY STAFF PRESENT: 	Tyrsa Cameron, Deputy City Solicitor
CALL TO ORDER: 	6:35 PM
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Reed moved, and Commissioner Jordan seconded
the motion, to approve the minutes from the November 5, 2025 meeting without corrections. The
motion was adopted by a unanimous vote (6-0).
OLD BUSINESS:
1. 	Special Exception Application for 1100 North 17 th Street, zoned Residential Medium-
Density (RM), filed by Muwahhideen Inc., to establish a “Place of Worship” use at the
subject property.
Commissioner Alsberry noted the Applicants were not in attendance at the meeting and stated
that the case would be moved to the end of the agenda and could be heard if the Applicants
showed up during the meeting.
NEW BUSINESS:
1. 	Special Exception Application for 100 North 13 th Street, zoned Residential Medium-
Density (RM), filed by Jarred Neal with Halden Horizons Group, LLC, to consolidate
the primary parcel with vacant lots along North Linden Street and convert the property
into a twelve-unit “Multifamily Dwelling” with accessory off-street parking.
The case was represented by Phil Petrina with McNees, Wallace & Nurick, LLC (the legal
counsel), 100 Pine Street, Harrisburg, PA 17101; and Jarred Neal with Halden Horizons Group,
LLC (the property owner), 227 State Street, Harrisburg, PA 17101 (aka “the Applicants”).
Mr. Knight noted the project had previously been submitted and approved by the Planning
Commission, specifically that the zoning relief had been approved in April 2021 and the Land

-- 1 of 10 --

HPC Meeting Minutes
January 7, 2026
Development Plan had been approved in March 2022; he noted that the previous owner had not
moved forward with the project and the properties were ultimately sold to the Applicants. He
noted the current proposal included more of the lots along Linden Street which obviated a
previous variance request for the density and a special exception request for relief from the off-
street parking requirements. Mr. Knight gave a synopsis of the report, recommending Approval
with Conditions; the conditions were that:
1. 	If granted approval for the requested zoning relief, the Applicant will subsequently file a Lot
Consolidation 	& 	Land 	Development 	Plan 	and 	receive 	approval 	from 	the 	Planning
Commission and City Council.
2. 	The Applicant will submit a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) application and receive
approval from HARB for the proposed parking area, which is located in the Summit Terrace
Architectural Conservation Overlay District (ACOD).
3. 	The Applicant will coordinate with the Department of Public Works and Capital Region
Water to confirm the appropriate size and location of refuse collection on-site, update the
billing accounts to reflect the new use, and ensure that the proposed site disturbance is
reviewed against requisite stormwater management regulations.
4. 	The Planning Bureau recommends the Applicant consider installing fencing enclosing the
proposed parking area, in addition to the required vegetative screening, to provide more
security and access control, to reduce the headlight spillover from cars into the units across
Linden Street, and to enhance the aesthetic impact of the project. The Bureau also notes that
if the required trees are not planted on-site, they can be planted in tree pits in the surrounding
rights-of-way.
5. 	The Planning Bureau recommends that the Applicant install the requisite bike racks near the
proposed entrance from Walnut Street; if possible, the Bureau would recommend that the
Applicant consider a secure, indoor bike storage area near that entrance/access stairwell,
since the building will not be equipped with elevators.
Commissioner Alsberry asked the Applicants if they had conducted any outreach to neighbors in
the surrounding community. They confirmed that while they had not met with all the neighbors,
they had spoken with several of them including ones from directly across the street, and noted
they had also spoken with residents who had approached contractors on-site regarding ongoing
work on-site. Commissioner Alsberry noted there was a neighborhood group representing that
community; Mr. Knight confirmed that it was the Summit Terrace Neighborhood Association.
Commissioner Alsberry suggested the Applicants reach out to that organization.
Commissioner Alsberry asked whether the other commissioners had questions or comments
about the project.
Commissioner McKissick stated that he had no questions or comments about the project.
Commissioner O’Toole stated that it frustrated him when Applicants present developments to the
Planning Commission only to later on not complete the process or the project, and noted that he
liked the project the first time through and was happy to see it was still being pursued.
Commissioner O’Toole asked Planning Bureau staff whether the previous project had provided
parking on-site; Mr. Knight confirmed that a smaller, twelve-space lot only accessible from
Linden Street had been part of that proposal, whereas the current project will utilize all the

-- 2 of 10 --

HPC Meeting Minutes
January 7, 2026
vacant lots along Linden Street for a larger, fifteen-space accessory parking lot with bi-
directional access from both Calamus Street and Linden Street. Commissioner O’Toole asked
whether the Harrisburg Redevelopment Authority owned the vacant lots; Mr. Knight confirmed
the lots were all owned by the Applicants. Commissioner O’Toole stated that he felt it was a
good project and that he looked forward
Commissioner Reed stated that she had no questions or comments about the project.
Commissioner Marek stated that she had no questions or comments about the project.
Commissioner Jordan inquired as to the anticipated rents for the proposed units. The Applicants
stated that they had reached out to the Dauphin County Housing Authority to better understand
affordability levels in the county, and confirmed that while they were not planning on submitting
the project through the City’s formal Affordable Housing Program, they were trying to ensure
the units would be affordable to the greatest extent possible.
Commissioner Jordan stated that he was in favor of the project as it was proposing to rehabilitate
a large, long-vacant building with multi-bedroom units; he also noted pedestrian infrastructure
around the site would be improved as part of the project as well.
Commissioner Alsberry asked if there was anyone from the public for or against the project;
there were no questions or comments from the public.
Commissioner McKissick moved, and Commissioner Marek seconded the motion, to Approve
the request with Staff Conditions. The motion was adopted by a unanimous vote (6-0).
2. 	Variance for 3300 North Cameron Street, zoned Institutional (INS), filed by Michael
Della Porta with HACC, to install an eight-foot-high fence to fully enclose a retention
pond associated with the fire training facility on-site.
The case was represented by Michael Della Porta and Kathy Brickner with HACC (the property
owner), 1 HACC Drive, Harrisburg, PA 17110 (aka “the Applicants”).
Mr. Knight gave a synopsis of the report, recommending Approval with Conditions; the
conditions were that:
1. 	The Applicant has not clarified in their submission why there is a four-foot-high portion of
the fence and, given the reasonable safety and liability justifications necessitating an eight-
foot-high fence, the Planning Bureau recommends that the Applicant install eight-foot-high
fencing around the entire perimeter of the retention pond.
Commissioner Alsberry stated that he had no questions and noted that the request appeared to be
fairly simple and straightforward.
Commissioner Alsberry asked whether the other commissioners had questions or comments
about the project.

-- 3 of 10 --

HPC Meeting Minutes
January 7, 2026
Commissioner McKissick inquired as to why the project was being proposed now, given that the
facilities and retention pond had existed on-site for a while. The Applicants stated that HACC
was beginning a project to better secure the Fire Academy Training Facility overall and that this
project was a small component of that. Commissioner McKissick noted that he hadn’t seen any
new construction on-site and thus wasn’t sure if the facility was moving or expanding.
Commissioner O’Toole stated that he felt the proposal was a commonsense one that justified the
requested relief from the Zoning Code.
Commissioner Reed stated that she had no questions or comments about the project.
Commissioner Marek concurred with Commissioner O’Toole, and stated that she was somewhat
surprised it hadn’t been fully enclosed. She noted the pond was fairly large and inquired as to its
depth; the Applicants stated that it was approximately twelve feet deep. Commissioner Marek
concurred that it was a significant safety concern.
Commissioner Jordan asked the Applicants to address why a portion of the fence was only four
feet high. They stated the manager of the fire training academy had requested a lower fence
height at that location so that multiple teams would be able to “drain down” their hoses after
training exercises.
Commissioner Alsberry asked Planning Bureau staff whether that response addressed the
condition in the case report; Mr. Knight stated that any deviation from the eight-foot height
might allow unauthorized access, and speculated that there may be other solutions than a lowered
fence height, but stated that if the fire training academy specifically requested a lower fence, he
wasn’t knowledgeable enough about firefighting protocols to second-guess that aspect.
Commissioner Alsberry asked if there was anyone from the public for or against the project;
there were no questions or comments from the public.
Commissioner Marek moved to approve the request; Commissioner McKissick asked whether
she wanted to include the condition that all of the fence be eight feet in height. Mr. Knight noted
that he considered it a “recommendation” that the commissioners could choose to adopt or not.
Commissioner 	O’Toole 	asked 	if 	her 	motion 	was 	with 	the 	condition 	or 	without, 	and
Commissioner Marek confirmed that she was recommending approval as presented by the
Planning Bureau. Mr. Knight reiterated that the condition was added for conformity of the fence
height to ensure it addressed the safety and liability concerns, but that if there were operational
considerations that superseded those issues, he was willing to defer to the Applicant’s judgment.
Commissioner Marek moved, and Commissioner O’Toole seconded the motion, to Approve the
request with Staff Conditions. The motion was adopted by a unanimous vote (6-0).
3. 	Variance & Special Exception Application for 1512 State Street, zoned Residential
Medium-Density (RM), filed by Jarred Neal with Halden Horizons Group, LLC, to
convert the existing single-family dwelling into a three-unit “Multifamily Dwelling.”

-- 4 of 10 --

HPC Meeting Minutes
January 7, 2026
The case was represented by Phil Petrina with McNees, Wallace & Nurick, LLC (the legal
counsel), 100 Pine Street, Harrisburg, PA 17101; and Jarred Neal with Halden Horizons Group,
LLC (the property owner), 227 State Street, Harrisburg, PA 17101 (aka “the Applicants”).
Mr. Knight gave a synopsis of the report, recommending Approval with Conditions; the
conditions were that:
1. 	If granted zoning approval to move forward with the project as proposed, the Applicant shall
allow the Codes Bureau to perform a comprehensive inspection to identify any outstanding
code violations, and will receive approval for all necessary City permits prior to receiving a
Certificate of Occupancy.
2. 	The Applicant must provide a detailed site plan, developed by a professional, demonstrating
how the rear yard will be developed as off-street parking and whether any such development
is in conformance with the applicable zoning regulations.
3. 	The Planning Bureau recommends the Applicant recreate historic and architectural features
of the property such as the oriel windows and wooden front porch elements, to ensure the
property retains and enhances its contribution to the aesthetics of the block.
Commissioner Alsberry stated that he had no questions or comments, and asked whether any of
the other commissioners had questions or comments about the project.
Commissioner McKissick inquired as to how the required off-street parking would be addressed;
the Applicants noted their proposal required relief from two off-street parking spaces, and that
they concurred with the analysis in the Planning Bureau’s case report. They stated there were
two existing parking spaces in the rear of the property, and that there was sufficient street
parking on the surrounding blocks. The Applicants stated they felt they met the criteria for relief
from two off-street parking spaces, given the conditions of the property and surrounding
neighborhood.
Commissioner O’Toole referenced the existing conditions photos submitted with the application
and stated that he felt whatever was necessary to rehabilitate the structure was warranted; he
stated that he did not feel three units was too dense.
Commissioner Reed stated that she had no questions or comments about the project.
Commissioner Marek concurred with Commissioner O’Toole’s statements and noted that the
cost to rehabilitate the structure as a single-family residence was likely similar to the cost for the
proposed conversion to multiple units. She asked whether there was any indication in the
configuration of the building or past property records that it was designed for or operating as
multiple units. The Applicants noted that when they toured the building, it appeared as though it
had been converted or was in the process of being converted to multiple units, although it was
difficult to tell based on the condition of the building. Commissioner Marek concurred that the
requested relief was justified.
Commissioner Jordan asked the Applicants to discuss the structural conditions in the photos they
provided and if they knew how the building had fallen into such disrepair. The Applicants noted
they purchased the property in its current condition and felt it was a candidate as a viable

-- 5 of 10 --

HPC Meeting Minutes
January 7, 2026
reconstruction project, and stated they had completed rehabilitation projects on similar properties
over the years. They speculated that the issues resulting in the partial collapse of the side
elevation had started with the roof and gradually expanded until a portion of the side wall and
window section caved in.
Commissioner Jordan asked the Applicants to discuss the proposed floor layouts and how the
three units would be accessed. They confirmed that the first-floor unit would utilize existing
access points on the front and rear elevations, and that they intended on constructing a fire
escape on the rear elevation to allow access to the second and third floors [note: presumably
primary access would occur through the front entrance and stairway].
Commissioner Alsberry asked if there was anyone from the public for or against the project;
there were no questions or comments from the public.
Commissioner O’Toole moved, and Commissioner Jordan seconded the motion, to Approve the
request with Staff Conditions. The motion was adopted by a unanimous vote (6-0).
4. 	Variance & Special Exception Application for 2140 North 2nd Street, zoned Residential
Medium-Density (RM), filed by Steven Toole, to convert the existing single-family
dwelling into a three-unit “Multifamily Dwelling.”
The case was represented by Steven Toole (the property owner), 5005 Pellingham Circle, Enola,
PA 17025 (aka “the Applicant”).
Mr. Knight gave a synopsis of the report, recommending Denial.
Commissioner Alsberry asked the Applicant whether they wanted to address the Planning
Bureau’s recommendation. He stated that his family had been involved in this neighborhood
since the 1980s. He noted he had presented to the Planning Commission in 2021 regarding the
conversion of 2134 North 2 nd Street from a commercial property to a four-unit apartment
building; he stated that at that time, he had also purchased the property at 2138 North 2nd Street,
which was configured as a three-unit apartment building. The Applicant stated that conversion
would allow for affordable housing, stating that the third-floor unit of 2138 North 2nd Street was
a one-bedroom unit listed for rent at $1,175/month and the second-floor unit was a two-bedroom
unit listed for rent at $1,650/month.
The Applicant claimed that every other property on the block was a “multifamily property.” He
noted the property bordered a commercial property (Governor’s Plaza) to the west, and the
manager of that property provided a letter of support based on his work at 2134 North 2nd Street.
The Applicant stated that the changes he made to these properties significantly increased the
value of the surrounding properties over the past three or four years. He stated there was
sufficient parking in the surrounding neighborhood.
The Applicant stated the building was 2,915 square feet [note: the County’s records indicate the
building is 2,532 square feet], and asked whether the best use was as a single-family dwelling,
confirming that the property had been operating as a single-family residence since 2018. 	He

-- 6 of 10 --

HPC Meeting Minutes
January 7, 2026
noted that as an older building, it needed constant investment to maintain its condition, and
stated that the property needed to have a “profit motive.” The Applicant stated that the
multifamily configurations of the adjacent properties he owned (2134 & 2138 North 2nd Street)
was necessary to generate the money necessary to keep the properties as “Class A.” He noted
that an adjacent neighbor was in attendance and that he was interested in hearing her thoughts.
The Applicant stated that his proposal was a valuable addition to the city. He acknowledged that
the building was not abandoned and that a prospective buyer could use it as a single-family
residence. He claimed the proposed development would be affordable housing.
Commissioner Alsberry asked Planning Bureau staff whether they wanted to response to the
Applicant’s testimony. Mr. Knight noted that as outlined in the case report and discussed in the
review of the previous application at the meeting, there needed to be a justification for why the
property could not be used in conformance with the Zoning Code. He noted that in the case of
the previous property, it was severely deteriorated and might collapse or require demolition, and
thus not granting approval might result in the loss of housing. Mr. Knight also noted the
Applicant stated there needed to be profit motive to ensure the viability of the building, but noted
that as a homeowner himself, the primary concern was securing the necessity of shelter and
whether a profit would be made at sale was not a concern. Mr. Knight noted that because the
property had been serving as a permitted use [a single-family dwelling], the pertinent question
was why it could not continue operating as such.
Mr. Knight noted that another aspect of the property which differentiated it from other properties
for which similar zoning relief requests had been filed was that there was no direct access to the
rear yard and thus nowhere to provide parking on-site. He noted that the provision of off-street
parking was a stated concern of the Planning Commission, the Zoning Hearing Board, and the
general public.
Mr. Knight stated that the primary consideration was not whether the Applicant would do a good
job in converting the building to multiple units, but whether the property itself exhibited the
conditions that justified the requested zoning relief.
Commissioner Alsberry asked whether any of the other commissioners had questions or
comments about the project.
Commissioner McKissick noted that he could appreciate the subject property was the other half
of a duplex owned by the Applicant, but expressed his concern about the lack of parking on-site
which necessitated full relief from the off-street parking requirements; he noted this was a
common concern of the public for such projects. Commissioner McKissick asked the Applicant
whether they were able to secure a lease for parking spaces in the accessory lot of the adjacent
commercial property to the west. The Applicant noted that the parking lot was currently being
utilized as parking for contractors working on the Governor’s Mansion, and thus could not
provide spaces until that project was complete, but that the lot otherwise exhibited limited
occupancy prior to that time. He also stated there was sufficient on-street parking in the block to
the south that was available for tenant parking. The Applicant noted that he owned other
properties along 2nd Street further south in Midtown, and that on-street parking was more

-- 7 of 10 --

HPC Meeting Minutes
January 7, 2026
available at the subject property than those properties. He speculated that other surface parking
lots in the surrounding neighborhood were underutilized and thus he anticipated that he would be
able to secure parking leases.
Commissioner McKissick stated that if the Applicant had specific information on the number of
spaces that were available and utilized in the surrounding lots, his concerns about parking might
be addressed. The Applicant stated that he would review footage from security cameras that
faced 	the 	rear 	yard 	and 	adjacent 	lot 	to 	quantify 	how 	many 	spaces 	were 	being 	used.
Commissioner McKissick noted that he would feel better about the proposal if the Applicant was
able to secure a lease for off-street parking spaces at some point in the future.
Commissioner O’Toole asked the Applicant to confirm they had previously received approval to
convert the single-family dwelling at 2134 North 2 nd Street into a four-unit “Multifamily
Dwelling;” the Applicant confirmed that was the case. Commissioner McKissick noted that the
Applicant had previously stated the property was operating as a commercial use; the Applicant
confirmed the property was a commercial use that had higher parking requirements then a four-
unit “Multifamily Dwelling.”
Commissioner O’Toole asked the Applicant whether they had conducted any outreach to
residents of the surrounding community; the Applicant stated that he had mailed out the required
notification letters, had gotten an email of support, and that one neighbor was in attendance at the
meeting. Commissioner O’Toole stated that he concurred with Commissioner McKissick that a
signed lease for parking in a nearby lot would help the Applicant’s case. He stated he concurred
with the Planning Bureau’s recommendation that the property did not meet the legal standard for
approval of the Variance request.
Commissioner Reed asked Planning Bureau staff whether the Variance was necessary as the
building square footage was sufficient to allow by-right conversion. Mr. Knight confirmed the
building was in conformance with the Specific Criteria, but that the proposal required relief from
the density regulations in the Development Standards given the size of the lot.
Commissioner Marek concurred with the other commissioners’ statements that the property did
not meet all of the criteria necessary to be granted approval for relief from the density
regulations. She noted the other conversions referenced by the Applicant were different scenarios
from the current proposal, as they repurposed underutilized commercial of office space into
housing units, or were necessary for the reconstruction of significantly deteriorated structures.
Commissioner Marek noted that up until December 2025, the property was functioning as a
single-family, owner-occupied dwelling, and thus could be used in conformance with the Zoning
Code.
The Applicant stated that he felt the construction of the adjacent commercial buildings along
Front Street decades prior [note: these were constructed in 1960] justified the current proposal to
convert a single-family dwelling into three units. He stated that converting the property to
multiple units would be in the best interest of the community because it would increase the
“valuation of the neighborhood.” The Applicant acknowledged that the property could be used as
a single-family residence, but stated that he didn’t think someone would be willing to purchase

-- 8 of 10 --

HPC Meeting Minutes
January 7, 2026
the property for their residence because there were other apartments on the block. The Applicant
stated that his proposal would match the other multifamily buildings on the block. He stated that
he didn’t think someone would purchase the property as their residence because it was adjacent
to a parking lot.
Commissioner Jordan stated that he had no questions or comments about the project.
Commissioner Alsberry asked if there was anyone from the public for or against the project. Ms.
Annette McCraw (2144 North 2nd Street, Harrisburg, PA) noted that she lived two homes down
and owned the adjacent property at 2142 North 2nd Street. She expressed her concern about a tree
in the public right-of-way in front of the subject property and noted that she was often cleaning
up after fallen leaves and branches, and that she was constantly replacing the concrete sidewalk
due to the uplift and heave from the tree roots. Ms. McCraw expressed concern about on-street
parking, and stated that she had presumed the property had parking in the accessory lot of the
commercial property to the west. She noted that the aforementioned issues had been occurring
for approximately thirty years.
Commissioner Alsberry asked if there was anyone else from the public for or against the project;
there were no other questions or comments from the public.
Commissioner Alsberry noted that he was always concerned about the provision of parking with
respect to residential conversions, and recommended the Applicant consider securing parking in
a nearby lot.
Commissioner McKissick moved, and Commissioner O’Toole seconded the motion, to Deny the
request. The motion was adopted by a unanimous vote (6-0).
Commissioner Alsberry recommended the Applicant continue engagement with the Planning
Bureau if there were substantive changes in their application, such as securing long-term off-
street parking. The Applicant noted that there seemed to be some disagreement among the
commissioners on whether the provision of off-street parking would impact the viability of the
zoning relief request.
Ms. Cameron stated that approval or denial was not predicated upon whether parking was
provided, but whether they property could meet all of the criteria necessary for approval of a
Variance; she noted that parking may be a consideration regardless. The Applicant stated that he
understood the distinction, but asked whether it was worth his time to continue through the
process. Commissioner Alsberry noted the commissioners had voted on the case. Mr. Knight
recommended the Applicant attend the Zoning Hearing Board meeting to better understand their
perspectives on the proposal.
Commissioner O’Toole noted the Applicant had undermined their argument by affirming the
property could be used as a single-family residence.
Commissioner McKissick further noted the property had increased significantly in value over the
recent transactions which indicated that there was a market for use of the property as a single-

-- 9 of 10 --

HPC Meeting Minutes
January 7, 2026
family residence. He stated that the conversion of 2 nd Street to a two-way configuration had
calmed traffic and made properties along the corridor more attractive as single-family use. The
Applicant noted that he owned eleven properties along North 2 nd Street and was appreciative for
the conversion to two-way traffic.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Commissioner Alsberry asked Planning Bureau staff whether there were any other items for
discussion. Mr. Knight confirmed that he was still working on developing an Annual Report for
2025 which had been discussed at previous meetings. He stated that the document would include
an analysis of the cases heard during 2025, as well as quantitative statistics about the Planning
Bureau’s general work including the number of permits reviewed and actions taken on them.
Mr. Knight noted the Planning Bureau had also updated various applications and revised
application review processes in coordination with other departments to improve information
provided to the general public. He also noted that the Bureau was working on updates to its
webpages.
Commissioner McKissick stated that an annual report would be helpful to the commissioners, the
public, and City Council, noting that councilmembers had inquired about the reports during a
meeting held at the end of 2025.
ADJOURNMENT: 7:45 PM
Commissioner Marek moved, and Commissioner McKissick seconded the motion, to adjourn.
The motion was adopted by a unanimous vote (6-0).

-- 10 of 10 --