On September 10, 2026, the Pittsburgh Zoning Board of Adjustment heard two cases. A Central Northside owner asked to replace a crumbling one-car front-yard parking pad with a wider two-car pad. The Board denied the two-car pad but approved an in-kind replacement of the existing one. The owners of a planned boxing and strength gym asked to reuse a long-vacant South Side Flats bakery storefront; that decision is still pending. An East Allegheny two-unit request was postponed. Here’s what happened, by case.
Recording: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWWeJRHd-js
Hearing and Action
Zoning Case 120 of 2026 — 20 Jacksonia Street (Central Northside)
City materials: Case packet · Meeting agenda
Summary of Case
Variance from Section 912.04.L (front-yard parking prohibited) for a parking pad in an R1A-VH district in the Mexican War Streets (BDA-2026-05118). The site is two 20' by 80' parcels: a house, and a next-door lot with a cracked concrete pad of about 8' by 22' that's reached from a curb cut on Jacksonia Street. Applicant Logan Woo said the pad was there before he bought the property. He proposed replacing the tandem pad with an 18'-wide, side-by-side two-car pad using compact stalls. He also asked to measure the 5' setback from the property line instead of from the house next door, since the porch isn't counted as part of the house. Following the code exactly, he said, would make about 40% of the lot's length concrete and leave less yard to use.
Discussion
Chair Alice Mitinger said the Code strictly bans front-yard parking and that going from one car to two side by side would increase the area used for front-yard parking and widen the curb cut. She pressed Woo on what is unique about the lot itself, which is flat and regular, as opposed to how he'd like to use it. She also noted that parking pads elsewhere in the neighborhood aren't precedent. Woo said street parking is only on the other side of the one-way street, so a wider curb cut wouldn't remove spaces. Board members LaShawn Burton-Faulk and John Richardson had no questions. The owner of the vacant lot next door testified in support.
Decision
Partly approved, partly denied. The Board issued a written decision dated October 14, 2026. It denied the variances for a two-car front-yard pad, finding no unique condition of the property and no showing that doubling the pad's width was the minimum relief needed. It approved variances for an in-kind replacement of the existing one-car pad, subject to the Department of Mobility and Infrastructure's review of the curb cut. You can view the full decision here.
Zoning Case 121 of 2026 — 22 South 27th Street (South Side Flats)
City materials: Case packet · Meeting agenda
Summary of Case
Special exception under Section 921.02.A.4 to change a nonconforming use to a gym in an R2-VH district (BDA-2025-08366). A 1940 certificate of occupancy allows a bakery on the first floor and one dwelling on the second. The corner building is about a block south of East Carson Street, and the old bakery sign is still on the front. Architect Nate Hart said the building was built with a commercial first floor and would be hard to convert to all-residential. The two apartments upstairs would stay. The gym's owners said they plan a strength, Olympic-lifting and boxing gym with classes capped at 14 people, at most about 24 to 30 people when two classes overlap, and three or four coaches. Hours would be about 5 a.m. to 9 p.m., with the busiest classes early in the morning.
Discussion
Mitinger said it is harder to compare impacts when the old use hasn't operated for years, and focused on parking. Hart said the space is under 2,400 sf, so no off-street parking is required, though the exact area wasn't on hand. The gym owners said members often carpool and that a nearby social club with a large lot has offered parking if needed. Richardson and Burton-Faulk had no questions. The owner of the building next door said the bakery hadn't run full-time in about 15 years and had been closed for about 10. He disagreed that parking is easy and worried about 24 to 30 extra cars, but said he had no objection to a working business replacing a vacant storefront. He also raised a pending court case involving the property's owner, which the Chair said is outside the Board's jurisdiction.
Decision
Hearing closed; decision pending. The Board accepted the exhibits and will issue a written decision within the 45 days the Code allows. No decision has been received yet.
Also on the Agenda
Zoning Case 118 of 2026 — 500 Avery Street (East Allegheny)
City materials: Case packet
Variance under Section 911.02 for an addition and use of the building as two dwelling units in an R1A-VH district, where two-unit residential isn't permitted (BDA-2026-06232). The Chair announced that the hearing was postponed to October 8. It was later rescheduled again to October 15, 2026.
Summary prepared with the assistance of AI from the public YouTube recording. This is not an official City of Pittsburgh record.
