Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting Summary - August 13, 2026
On August 13, 2026, the Pittsburgh Zoning Board of Adjustment heard four cases: legalizing a two-unit house in Greenfield, an electronic sign for a new S&T Bank branch on the North Shore, two new infill homes on steep lots in the South Side Slopes, and a four-apartment conversion of the upper floors of a commercial building in Bloomfield. The Board took all four cases under advisement at the hearing. It has since issued written decisions approving the Greenfield two-unit use, the Nusser Street homes, and the Bloomfield apartments, and denying the North Shore sign.
Recording: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPXZ1YuX5EY
Hearing and Action
Zoning Case 109 of 2026 — 309 Greenfield Avenue (Greenfield)
Summary of Case
Review under Section 911.02 to use an existing building as two dwelling units in an H (Hillside) district, where two-unit residential is not permitted (BDA-2026-05544). The building sits on the downhill side of Greenfield Avenue near the Swinburne Bridge. It has four legal stories plus a walkout basement, with no rear access because Acorn Street is roughly 40 feet below. The applicant's representative said the proposal is one unit on the street level and the two floors below it, and a second unit on the upper two floors, with a shared street entrance and separate doors inside the vestibule. He believes the building has been at least two units for decades but said he could not prove it. His evidence was a Street View timeline showing three electric meters as early as 2007, plus separate heating and water systems for the upper unit. He said the house sat empty for more than a decade, with an unfinished building permit in the window, before the current owner bought it. The owner attended with a translator but did not testify.
Discussion
Chair Alice Mitinger asked whether the two units date to the original construction or were created later, what physically separates them, and whether there were interior photos. The representative said the timeline was his best evidence, and the Chair asked him to add interior photos to the record after the hearing. Members John J. Richardson and LaShawn Burton-Faulk had no further questions. The representative also noted that the site has no off-street parking but has hundreds of feet of open curb along vacant lots, so two units would not strain parking. No one from the public commented.
Decision
Taken under advisement. The Board asked for supplemental interior photos and said it would issue a written decision within the time the Zoning Code allows.
9/28/2026 Update: The Board approved continued use of the building as no more than two dwelling units in a decision rendered on 9/18/2026. You can view the full decision here.
Zoning Case 107 of 2026 — 12 Federal Street (North Shore)
Summary of Case
Variance from Section 919.03.O.3 for an electronic sign in the RIV-NS district, where electronic non-advertising signs are not permitted (BDA-2026-06033). S&T Bank is fitting out a ground-floor retail branch in a five-story office building across Federal Street from PNC Park. The bank proposed a digital display of about 11'10" by 5'7", set a few feet behind the Federal Street window. Attorney Bill Sittig, architect Josef Petrack, and Kari Borello of S&T Bank argued that the building makes the branch hard to see: tinted glass, heavy columns, a recessed entrance around the corner, deep sidewalks, and street trees. They said the bank would meet or beat the brightness and dwell-time limits for electronic signs. They asked to keep the sign lit overnight for safety near the ATM and night deposit. Borello said the bank is investing $4.5 million, including two floors (28,000 square feet) of office space that will bring about 100 employees to the building. She added that the proposed size is the minimum needed for required rate disclosures to be legible.
Discussion
Chair Mitinger repeatedly noted that a use variance requires a hardship tied to the property, not to the tenant's business needs. She asked whether the bank knew about the building design and sign rules when it chose the site, why the proposed size was the minimum needed, and whether approval would lead other nearby tenants to seek the same relief. Sittig acknowledged the heavy burden. He pointed to an existing electronic sign at a nearby FNB branch, whose approval status nobody could confirm. He also noted that the new North Shore Entertainment District directly across Federal Street allows this kind of signage, and he argued that the whole two-block stretch of Federal Street is in a similar position. Richardson asked about the entrance and window layout. No one from the public commented.
Decision
Taken under advisement at the hearing.
9/28/2026 Update: The Board denied use and dimensional variances for a 67-square-foot electronic sign at the new S&T Bank branch, without prejudice to submitting a revised signage plan, in a decision rendered on 9/28/2026. You can view the full decision here.
Zoning Case 110 of 2026 — 7 and 9 Nusser Street (South Side Slopes)
Summary of Case
Two new homes on two existing vacant lots in an H district (DCP-ZDR-2021-12832). The agenda listed a special exception under Section 911.02 for single-unit attached homes. It also listed variances from Section 911.04.A.69, which requires buildings to sit on land under 30% slope, and from Section 905.02.C, where 50% is the maximum area of disturbance and 55% was requested. Civil engineer Tyson Miller of KU Resources said the architect has redesigned the homes as detached. The Chair noted that detached single-unit homes are permitted by right in the H district, so the special exception would no longer apply; the two variances remain. Miller said Nusser Street sits 40 or more feet above the street below. He said no part of the lots has enough flat land to meet the buildable-area rule. Extending the rear stem wall and using a crawl space cut the planned disturbance from about 70% to 55%. Each home would have a garage entered from Nusser Street. Two earlier houses on the lots were demolished around 2006, and Miller said their remaining foundations extend farther down the hill than the proposed grading. The owner, Keilan Walls, attended and affirmed the application.
Discussion
Chair Mitinger asked whether the earlier houses could be used to compare past disturbance, whether they were attached, and what separation the new homes would have. Miller said he believed the earlier houses were separate but had no records for 7 Nusser, and that about 3 feet between the new homes would be required by fire code. The owner of the adjacent home testified online and had also submitted a letter. She raised concerns about a utility pole that would need to move, stormwater runoff, underground coal mines and a nearby filled sinkhole, and possible foundation damage like what she said a previous project caused. She also said the earlier houses were smaller and placed differently: one right behind the sidewalk, the other set back 15 to 20 feet. The Chair explained that construction issues such as utility poles, runoff, and mine subsidence are handled through building permits, not by the Board. In response, Miller noted that the neighbor's home has a larger footprint than the two proposed homes combined.
Decision
Taken under advisement. The Board accepted the testimony, the neighbor's letter, and exhibits into the record. The Chair noted the Board has 45 days to issue a written decision.
9/28/2026 Update: The Board approved a variance allowing 63% and 58% site disturbance on the two lots (50% is the maximum) to build two detached single-unit homes, in a decision rendered on 9/23/2026. You can view the full decision here.
Zoning Case 99 of 2026 — 610 South Mathilda Street (Bloomfield)
Summary of Case
Change of use to add multi-unit residential in an existing nonconforming building in an R1A-H district (BDA-2025-10972). The request includes a special exception under Section 921.02.A.4 to change a nonconforming use. It also includes variances for zero loading spaces (Section 914.06.A), compact parking (Section 914.09.H.2), and zero interior-side, exterior-side, and rear setbacks for parking (Section 903.03.D.2). The three-and-a-half-story building covers essentially its entire corner lot. The city's most recent certificate of occupancy (1964) is for a heating and ventilating shop and offices, and that use continues. Speaking for the applicant team with the owner present, the team's lead presenter proposed keeping the existing use on the basement and first floor and converting the top two floors into two apartments each, four units total. The L-shaped parcel fronts three rights-of-way, including Lima Way. Two parking spaces would be marked off in the rear area, which is already used for parking, and an existing garage space off South Mathilda Street would remain. A curb-cut rebuild is going through the Department of Mobility and Infrastructure (DOMI). The team noted that a building permit for this project was started around 2006–2008 but never completed.
Discussion
Chair Mitinger asked how the upper floors have been used; the team said they have mostly served as back-of-house space for the HVAC business. She also asked how close the parking would be to the neighboring house and garage, and whether fencing or landscaping would separate them. The team said the neighbors did not want a fence because it would block access to their garage. Instead, the team proposed planters or a chain to keep cars from parking through the site, and possibly a taller curb along Lima Way. The Chair noted that curb and right-of-way details are a DOMI matter. The team also said the compact-parking variance may no longer be needed: only one of four spaces (25%) would be compact, under the 40% limit. No one from the public commented.
Decision
Taken under advisement. The Board accepted all exhibits and said it would issue a written decision within 45 days, and it tries to act sooner.
9/28/2026 Update: The Board approved converting the upper two floors to four apartments, with four rear parking spaces at reduced setbacks and no loading space, in a decision rendered on 9/21/2026. You can view the full decision here.
Summary prepared with the assistance of AI from the public YouTube recording. This is not an official City of Pittsburgh record.
