Council Minutes
November 6, 2002 Meeting Minutes
BETHLEHEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
Wednesday, November 6, 2002 - 7:30 PM - Town Hall
INVOCATION
PLEDGE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
President Gregory called the meeting to
order. Ms. Szabo offered the invocation which was followed
by the pledge to the flag. Present were Jean Belinski, John
B. Callahan, James A. Delgrosso, Robert J. Donchez, J. Michael
Schweder, Magdalena F. Szabo, and James S. Gregory, 7.
Public Hearing - Amending Zoning Ordinance Section 1316.02
- Deleting Motor Vehicle Sales and Service Agency in
the Light Industrial District
Prior to the consideration of the regular Agenda items, President
Gregory called to order a Public Hearing to consider an amendment
to the Zoning Ordinance Section 1316.02, Use Regulations,
Paragraph (a)(22) to delete Motor Vehicle Sales and Service
Agency in the Light Industrial District.
A. Planning Commission - Amending Zoning Ordinance Article
1316.02 - LI District - Deleting Motor Vehicle Sales and Service
Agency
The Clerk read a memorandum dated October 24, 2002 from Darlene
L. Heller, Director of Planning and Zoning, which stated that
at its October 10, 2002 meeting, the Planning Commission voted
3-0 to recommend that the amendment not be adopted.
B. Lehigh Valley Planning Commission - Amending Zoning Ordinance
Article 1316.02 - LI District - Deleting Motor Vehicle Sales
and Service Agency
The Clerk read a letter dated August 30, 2002 from Frederic
H. Brock, Assistant Director of the Lehigh Valley Planning
Commission, which stated that the Commission reviewed the
amendment at its meeting on August 29, 2002 and considers
the amendment to be a matter of local concern and voted to
offer no comment.
Planning Director Comments
Darlene Heller, Planning and Zoning Director, affirmed that
the recommendation to the Planning Commission was not to approve
the Zoning Text Amendment that was proposed by City Council
in October 2002. Ms. Heller confirmed that the Planning Commission
voted 3 to 0 to recommend to Council that the Zoning Text
Amendment not be adopted. Ms. Heller recounted that memorandums
dated October 4 and 9, 2002 and a list of existing motor vehicle
sales facilities that had been submitted to the Planning Commission
were also forwarded to the Members of Council. Ms. Heller
explained that one of the reasons for not approving the Amendment
was because of the way that the motor vehicle sales and service
agency is defined. Ms. Heller continued on to say it does
include repair services which is an accessory use but the
definition also includes body work, painting, and so on that
was felt to be industrial in nature and more appropriate in
the Light Industrial zoning district. Ms. Heller informed
the assembly that currently the use is permitted by right
in Light Industrial and Heavy Industrial zoning districts.
It is also permitted in CG, CB, and CS either by special exception
or by conditional use, not by right, so it does require additional
review either by the Planning Commission or the Zoning Hearing
Board. Ms. Heller advised another concern was that, when the
twelve existing motor vehicle sales and service agency uses
were reviewed, it was found six are currently located in the
Light Industrial zoning district. If the Amendment is approved,
those six would become non-conforming uses. The four in the
General Commercial zone would continue as permitted uses.
There are two that are already non-conforming and located
in Residential zones. Ms. Heller notified the Members that
another concern was compatibility with residential uses. Because
the definition includes body work, painting, etc., it is not
as compatible with residential uses as if it were just retail
sales. Ms. Heller commented that was an additional reason
it was felt more appropriate to keep the motor vehicle sales
and service agency use in the Light Industrial zoning district.
Council Comments
Mr. Schweder noted that in the October 4, 2002 memorandum
from Ms. Heller it was stated there are four motor vehicle
sales and service businesses currently located in the Light
Industrial zoning district, and tonight it was stated there
are six. Ms. Heller explained that the list was amended since
that date and there were two uses that had not been included
in the October 4 memorandum. Mr. Schweder queried whether
the Zoning Text Amendment would only pertain to six businesses
in the City. Ms. Heller affirmed it would pertain to six existing
businesses. In response to Mr. Schweder, Ms. Heller enumerated
the list of businesses, as follows: Bethlehem Auto Sales -
300 block of W. Union Boulevard, SMK Auto Sales and Service
- 700 block of E. Ettwein Street, Saco Sales - rear of 432
W. Union Boulevard, Walters Foreign Car Service - 920 Pembroke
Road, Bethlehem Suburban Truck Center - 1500 Eaton Avenue,
Dick Milham Auto Sales - 460 Union Boulevard. Mr. Schweder
commented that two years ago there would have been at least
one additional automobile business in Light Industrial which
would have been Wilkes Chevrolet. Ms. Heller noted that is
correct. Mr. Schweder stated if one looks at that in terms
of space it is almost as large or larger than the six businesses
that would be impacted by the amendment. Ms. Heller, agreeing
that some of the businesses are on very small lots, commented
that new automobile dealerships would not locate on lots that
size. Mr. Schweder, with reference to Ms. Heller's memorandums
and the arguments for not recommending the amendment, said
if those were the concerns it really was the Administration
and Ms. Heller's department that first decided to do any of
this. Mr. Schweder continued on to point out that the Administration
initiated taking a large automobile dealership on East Broad
Street, although vacant at that time, and asking Council to
convert the zoning to CG - General Commercial from LI - Light
Industrial. Ms. Heller affirmed it is still a permitted use
in the CG zoning district by special exception. Mr. Schweder
observed that automobile dealership on East Broad Street would
still be okay under special exception. Ms. Heller, denoting
that was the subject of a zoning map change, explained that
the Bureau looked at that area in terms of the nearby Moravian
Village and some other changes, and did not feel that Light
Industrial was an appropriate zoning district. Ms. Heller
expressed that she views the current proposal differently
in that it is a text change rather than looking at a specific
location. Mr. Schweder pointed out that the Bureau took an
automobile dealership that was located in the LI District
and removed it from the LI District. Mr. Schweder advised
that a concern raised by a number of automobile dealers to
him was the issue of abandonment of use. Mr. Schweder highlighted
the fact that, as a result of the removal of the automobile
dealership on East Broad Street from the LI District, if a
dealership were to be reinstituted on the property they would
not be able to do so by right but rather would have to do
so by special exception. Ms. Heller communicated that the
formerly zoned LI District where the automobile dealership
was located on East Broad Street permitted more than motor
vehicle sales and service agencies since the LI zoning designation
permitted the whole spectrum of uses permitted in the LI zone
including manufacturing, etc. Mr. Schweder said if all of
these reasons for not doing this are so bad why was it acceptable
to make the change that affected the property on East Broad
Street. Ms. Heller responded that the concern on East Broad
Street was not the fact that another motor vehicle sales agency
would locate there. Rather, the concern was that some other
use permitted in the LI zone would locate there. Consequently,
Ms. Heller expressed that the Bureau approached that differently.
Mr. Schweder, with reference to the four auto sales and service
businesses listed in General Commercial and two in Residential,
commented that all the arguments used before the Planning
Commission regarding the hardships on these businesses such
as alterations, extensions, restoration, and abandonment of
non-conforming uses, currently exist on motor vehicle sales
and service agencies in the City. Mr. Schweder pointed out
there are businesses in the City now that already have these
restrictions. Ms. Heller, noting there are two businesses,
said they are permitted in the General Commercial zone as
special exceptions but not by right. Mr. Schweder stressed
those four auto businesses do not have the same rights currently
that someone has in the Light Industrial district. Mr. Schweder
thought perhaps what could be done is to pass the Amendment,
and then develop uniformity in the Zoning Ordinance so that
every automobile dealer is treated the same, their properties
are zoned the same, and they have the same opportunities by
right. Mr. Schweder suggested that they could be placed in
the Commercial district since in his view automobile sales
is more of a commercial or retail operation than an industrial
operation. Mr. Schweder communicated there should be concern
about those individual businesses that now do not have those
protections. Mr. Schweder thought that, instead of trying
to keep what is non-uniform and discriminatory as far as some
automobile dealers in the City, a solution might be to seek
uniformity so they are all treated the same. Mr. Schweder,
continuing on to observe there are businesses in the same
industry under three different zoning categories, pointed
out that some do not have the same rights as others. Mr. Schweder
noted that some of the automobile businesses currently located
in Light Industrial have no physical means to expand their
operations. Referring to correspondence from Ms. Heller in
which it was mentioned that the Planning Commission will be
shortly receiving a proposal from the Planning Bureau that
would change the Heavy Industrial zone in the Bethlehem Commerce
Center area to IR to accommodate more appropriate uses as
the Commerce Center is developed, Mr. Schweder observed that
automobile dealerships would no longer be allowed in the Heavy
Industrial zoning district. He continued on to point out that,
in effect, motor vehicle sales and service agencies would
not be permitted on those 1,400 acres of property if it were
to be rezoned to IR. Ms. Heller advised she does not think
that motor vehicle sales is an appropriate use in the Heavy
Industrial zoning district. Ms. Heller explained that the
Bureau wants to accommodate Majestic Realty, LVIP and other
industrial uses in the Bethlehem Commerce Center, and they
are looking for the IR zoning which is felt to be an appropriate
zoning for the area. Mr. Schweder, highlighting the fact that
motor vehicle sales does not appear on the list of uses that
are not permitted in the IR District, thought if it is not
on the list then the argument could be that it would be permitted.
Noting that retail and service use is permitted in IR, Mr.
Schweder thought that an automobile agency should be a permitted
use in IR. Mr. Schweder further pointed out that he cannot
find a definition of retail and service use in the Zoning
Ordinance. Mr. Schweder communicated that under the proposal
pertaining to deleting motor vehicle sales and service agencies
from the LI District there is the opportunity to do something
for the automobile agencies in the City; i.e., to provide
uniformity so they are all protected by right by either finding
a way to zone them as a permitted use either within one of
the commercial uses or determine there is a new classification
to cover them. Mr. Schweder felt that the City's zoning has
become a "hodge podge of fitting things in under special
exception, non-conforming uses,…but we've reached the
point where this whole thing ought to be addressed, and what
I'm suggesting is it ought to be uniform for the people who
are in this business."
Tony Hanna, Director of Community and Economic Development,
expressing his understanding is that was not the thrust of
the amendment proposed by Council, stated if that is being
changed and Council wants the Bureau to look at the amendment
differently they would be happy to do so. Mr. Hanna commented
that the Department would be happy to look at inconsistencies
in the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Schweder recalled that when Council voted to send the
proposal to the Planning Commission it was to have consistency.
Mr. Hanna inquired if Mr. Schweder's thought is to have a
more consistent definition for auto dealers throughout the
zoning code. Mr. Schweder responded in the affirmative. Mr.
Hanna communicated that "we certainly wouldn't disagree
with you there, but we think that the approach of removing
it as a permitted use the way it stands right now in IR is
the wrong way to approach it. I think there's a different
way to approach it." In response to Mr. Schweder, Mr.
Hanna pointed out that many significant changes have been
made in the Zoning Ordinance although it has not been comprehensively
redone. Mr. Hanna, adding that issues are being addressed
as there is the time and staff necessary to deal with them,
restated that the Department would be happy to address these
issues as well and look at the matter a little differently.
Mr. Callahan commented there has not been any consistency
in the reasoning for putting the amendment forward. Mr. Callahan
recalled that the original purpose for putting the proposal
forward was the fact that there was the change on Broad Street.
He continued on to say it was put out to Council that based
on Mr. Schweder's review there were no automobile sales and
service agencies in LI at that time. Mr. Callahan noted that
has been proven not to be the case in that there are six of
them. Mr. Callahan stated that developing fairness for other
car dealerships that would have to exist under non-conforming
uses was never an issue until this evening. Mr. Callahan asked
if the four car dealerships in CG and two in Residential are
there by choice. Ms. Heller responded she does not know the
history of the two in Residential. Mr. Hanna added the four
in CG could have been granted their use by special exception.
Mr. Callahan remarked it would seem the idea behind taking
away the use of automobile sales and service agencies in LI
would be that instead of having six businesses in one place
by right it would take away that right and make them non-conforming
uses to somehow correct the inequities of the other four.
Mr. Callahan expressed it does not make sense to him to pluck
out uses and create non-conforming uses in an attempt to clean
up the zoning. Mr. Callahan, saying he has yet to hear a good
reason for the proposal from Council, did not think it was
the Administration's responsibility to defend why it should
be done. Rather, Mr. Callahan thought that since Council put
the proposal forward it was Council's responsibility to defend
why it should be done. If the desire is to help people who
live next to LI properties and create some safety, Mr. Callahan
thought there could be five or six by right uses in LI that
could be tackled by Council before denying people the right
to have a car dealership. Mr. Callahan pointed out that if
the proposed language is removed from LI it in fact affects
every owner of property in the LI District and not just the
six mentioned. Mr. Callahan, denoting there are many uses
throughout the City that are non-conforming, questioned why
must car dealerships be tackled all of a sudden.
Mr. Delgrosso noted that if the proposal were to be adopted
the six car dealerships would not be eliminated. Mr. Hanna
affirmed they would become non-conforming uses. Mr. Delgrosso
asked if they could sell their business to another car dealership.
Ms. Heller replied yes, and Mr. Hanna added as long as the
size stayed the same but if they wanted to expand they would
have to go before the Zoning Hearing Board. Mr. Delgrosso
queried if Ms. Heller felt that service agency is the part
that puts it in LI. Ms. Heller, indicating in the affirmative,
explained that body shops are not defined separately from
repair garage, although that probably should be done. Ms.
Heller noted that any of the body shop operations that are
located in CG or Residential zones would be permitted as a
part of motor vehicle sales. Ms. Heller confirmed to Mr. Delgrosso
that a lot of the body shops are in LI in addition to car
sales. Mr. Delgrosso asked which of the properties where the
six automobile agencies are currently located in LI is felt
to be a good fit for LI if the property were to be sold for
something else that could go into an LI District; e.g., Bethlehem
Ford Truck Center on Eaton Avenue. Mr. Hanna, noting that
is across the street from an industrial use, said a small
manufacturing facility could be put there. Mr. Hanna, acknowledging
that some of the properties are small, noted some would not
be appropriate industrial uses unless they were aggregated
with a larger adjacent tract. Mr. Delgrosso observed that
most of the automobile agencies are close to Residential sections.
Mr. Delgrosso recalled that he has several pieces of correspondence
from past Administrations saying it is time to look at the
entire zoning of the City and reevaluate it because the City
has grown. Mr. Delgrosso commented that of the six automobile
agencies currently located in LI he cannot see one of them
where he would like to see an industrial center placed there
because they are all near Residential. Mr. Hanna advised one
has to look at the context of the neighborhoods they are in.
Mr. Hanna, focusing on the rezoning of East Broad Street,
explained that the Department recommended a significant change
of the zoning map for the entire East Broad Street corridor
that happened to include the Wilkes car dealership and other
real estate that extended along the street. Mr. Hanna, continuing
on to highlight the fact that it was much more than just rezoning
the Wilkes tract, said obviously that opened the door to Council's
taking a look at automotive uses in the Light Industrial zone.
Mr. Delgrosso expressed that when he looks at the six automobile
agencies currently located in LI he questions whether the
use is a good one and if those areas should still be zoned
LI or changed. Mr. Hanna stated that is not what Planning
was asked to look at. Mr. Hanna continued on to say in looking
at Council's proposal to remove a particular use from the
LI zone singularly it is not the right approach. Mr. Delgrosso
expressed his agreement with Mr. Schweder that selling a car
is not a Light Industrial use while fixing the car or doing
body work may be. Ms. Heller, advising that other ordinances
were reviewed, commented there is a difference between selling
cars and selling refrigerators. Continuing on to say there
are different types of commercial zoning districts, Ms. Heller
said she does not believe this is the type of retail that
would be wanted in every commercial zoning district. Ms. Heller
agreed there are other things that need to be done. Mr. Delgrosso
read from Section 1323.05 pertaining to restoration and non-conforming
uses, and asked the rationale for not allowing the business
to be rebuilt if it were destroyed by fire. Ms. Heller, acknowledging
that is another section that needs to be looked at, explained
that non-conforming uses are looked at in a restrictive way
for a reason. Ms. Heller advised "we don't want to proliferate
non-conforming uses. We want them to locate in areas where
they are permitted. That's why we review their expansion and
limit their expansion in the future, and all their expansion
goes to the Zoning Hearing Board. And the reason for this
provision…was another way to limit non-conforming uses,
to eliminate them in areas where they may not be appropriately
zoned. The Zoning Ordinance assumes that if it is a non-conforming
use obviously it is inappropriately located…I believe
it is too restrictive, however, and just this week we were
discussing it for some other matter…". Ms. Heller
further informed Mr. Delgrosso that mortgage companies ask
about such provisions before a mortgage is provided for a
home, for example. Ms. Heller remarked it is too prohibitive
and needs to be reviewed.
Ms. Szabo, communicating that there are meetings when only
three of the five Planning Commission members are in attendance,
stated that if there were five members present perhaps the
consideration would be different on some of the problems that
come before the Planning Commission. Ms. Szabo felt if someone
is interested in an appointment to the Commission then that
person should fulfill their duties, and continued on to express
that something should be done about it.
Mr. Donchez, stating that the whole zoning map should be
looked at, commented there are too many ambiguous areas and
there needs to be uniformity and consistency. Mr. Donchez
expressed what troubles him is that, when things do go to
the Zoning Hearing Board, the Board grants too many variances
and special exceptions. Mr. Hanna pointed out that, given
a city like Bethlehem that is 250 years old, whenever a new
zoning district is superimposed on top of pre-existing buildings
there will always be non-conformities. Mr. Hanna indicated
that some changes will be presented to Council in the near
future. Mr. Donchez stressed that special exceptions and variances
should be the exception to the rule and not the norm.
Mrs. Belinski, expressing her agreement with Members of Council
who addressed the matter, stressed "it's long past time
when our Zoning codes should be cleaned up and this is the
first step in the right direction…". Mrs. Belinski
added that "Light Industrial is manufacturing and car
sales is not manufacturing cars, so it doesn't belong there."
President Gregory, indicating it may have been rumored that
the thrust of the proposed ordinance change is to prevent
an auto auction at the site of the former Durkee's property,
said "I think if we're doing that we're making a mistake
for a number of reasons." President Gregory queried whether
an auto auction would be able to be prevented from locating
at the site of the former Durkee's property.
Joseph Leeson, City Solicitor, responded that matter is still
under research and he did not come prepared to address the
matter this evening.
Christopher Spadoni, City Council Solicitor, suggested that
this is a legislative function of Council that needs to be
looked at on a city-wide basis, and in the exercise of that
discretion it be looked at with that perspective.
Mr. Delgrosso stated at the time the proposed ordinance change
was brought before City Council he does not recall anyone
saying that the former Durkee's property was going to be used
for anything. Mr. Delgrosso recounted that, after the rezoning
proposal under which a Lowe's store was planned at the former
Durkee's site, there was another buyer, Mr. Petrucci, and
he knew of nothing at that time that Mr. Petrucci planned
for the site.
President Gregory noted that although officially plans were
not known they were rumored. Acknowledging there are some
problems with uniformity in the Zoning code that may not have
been dealt with over the years, President Gregory commented
that the staff is certainly working on that. President Gregory
expressed the opinion that the zoning text amendment proposed
by Council represents a piece-meal approach and is the wrong
way of doing it. President Gregory, with reference to Mr.
Callahan's comments, restated that the change will affect
anybody who is located in the LI District and they will lose
the use. President Gregory, focusing on the Zoning Ordinance
provision pertaining to non-conforming uses, highlighted the
fact that if a business were to burn down or something happens
to a business in LI the owner may not be able to have that
business again if the Ordinance were to pass.
Ms. Szabo insisted that the issue of an automobile auction
is a rumor and it is unfair to make accusations.
Mr. Callahan clarified that the six car dealerships will
be able to continue to exist under the proposal, but said
to make the statement that their rights will be preserved
is inaccurate. Mr. Callahan stressed it is a fact that those
businesses would not have the same rights that they would
have if the zoning change were not made. Mr. Hanna added they
would not have the same rights as those who are permitted
by special exception and would have no right other than to
continue as a non-conformity. Mr. Callahan, remarking it seems
that everything was talked about tonight other than the issue
before Council such as attendance at planning commission meetings,
comprehensive need for rezoning, fire that occur at businesses
that are non-conforming, asserted "but we've yet to really
put forth any argument why we should make this change. And,
if the argument is that we want to clean up the ordinance
and this is the first step, all we're doing tonight is creating
six non-conforming uses which is what we are all saying is
the big problem in that we have these too many special exceptions
and non-conforming uses, and all we're doing is now creating
six more non-conforming uses. So, I would hope that Council
would take a very limited role in future planning direction
in the City, because if this is the necessary first step that
Council thinks we should take, then I think we're going in
completely the opposite direction." Mr. Callahan, noting
that he attended the Planning Commission meeting, felt if
five members had been present then the vote would have been
five to zero instead of three to zero.
Public Comments
Tom Hornberger, 4127 N. Church Street, Whitehall, owner of
SMK Auto Sales, advised that the following two businesses
were missing from the list: East Penn Carriers and Road Motor
Cycle Shop. Mr. Hornberger, advising that the business has
been operating for about 20 years, indicated he signed on
about seven years ago. Mr. Hornberger remarked "for you
to change it now is killer on me. The whole reason I chose
this property is to do what we do which is body work, disassembling
of cars, auto sales. It's basically a one stop shop. To change
it would really hurt my business which would in turn make
me move out of Bethlehem." Mr. Hornberger highlighted
the fact that he has done everything to conform with Bethlehem
codes. Mr. Hornberger, informing the Members that he was looking
to expand in Bethlehem, said to change the ordinance would
lead him not to expand and move. Focusing on Light Industrial
being close to Residential, Mr. Hornberger said "you
can check with any of my neighbors which there's no problem
ever…".
Jeff Salukas, 736 E. Fairview Street, advising he is across
the street from SMK Auto Sales, said he has two properties.
Mr. Salukas noted that of the four properties in the vicinity
more than fifty percent of the time in the last fifteen years
there has been some kind of body shop or auto mechanic work
done there. Stating that is the only thing it is good for
in the area, Mr. Salukas pointed out that the lots are small.
Mr. Salukas stressed that if he wants to sell his property
it will be devalued as a result of the ordinance change. Mr.
Salukas communicated that auto mechanics is an appropriate
use in Light Industrial.
Martha Cusimano, Executive Director of the Lehigh Valley
Auto Dealers Association, advised that the organization represents
new car franchise dealers in the Lehigh Valley, the third
largest market in Pennsylvania. Ms. Cusimano, informing the
assembly in 2001 there were just under 450,000 registered
vehicles in Lehigh and Northampton Counties, highlighted the
fact that the vehicles have to be purchased, inspected, and
serviced which is taken care of by a lot of the new car franchise
dealers. Ms. Cusimano, stating that the organization was represented
at the Planning Commission meeting, expressed agreement with
the recommendation of the Planning Commission that the zoning
ordinance text amendment not be approved. Ms. Cusimano stressed
that under the proposal the automobile dealers industry is
taken out of the list of allowed uses and the rights of the
dealers are restrained now and in the future. She continued
on to note if a dealer wanted to expand or move into a Light
Industrial district "you have automatically taken out
one of the cornerstones of our economy." Ms. Cusimano
distributed to the members a handout about the industry. Ms.
Cusimano asked that Council "please protect the rights
of our members, all of whom are very respected people in this
community, and as you take on this massive task at another
date, if you're looking for people to volunteer to assist
you I'm sure that some of our dealers would be willing to
step up…and assist you in seeing the general picture
as to how they do business…and what their needs are…".
Ms. Cusimano asserted that, if the proposal is adopted, the
rights of the dealers will be restrained.
Paul Florenz, 65 E. Elizabeth Avenue, advised he is an attorney
at the meeting on behalf of Dick Milham, and to speak in opposition
to the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. Attorney
Florenz informed the Members that Mr. Milham owns Milham Used
Car Sales on West Union Boulevard which is located in the
LI Light Industrial zone. Attorney Florenz stated that lot
has existed there in one incarnation or another since 1951,
and there has never been a complaint from any of the neighbors
or anybody else since that time about the operation of the
lot. Noting there are about five to seven other motor vehicle
agencies in the LI zone, Attorney Florenz said it is his understanding
those facilities have not had any problems either probably
largely because residential uses are not allowed in the LI
zone and the possibility of conflict is limited by that restriction.
Attorney Florenz continued on to comment that the Zoning Officer
has represented to him that the problems seen with regard
to automotive agencies are from the ones located in the Commercial
zone or the Residential zone because of their proximity to
residential uses. Attorney Florenz said "it is our opinion,
and obviously that of the City Administration, that the LI
zone is an appropriate place for motor vehicle sales and service
agencies…[P]resently, the only zoning districts in the
City in which motor vehicle sales and service agencies are
permitted as a matter of right are the LI zone and the HI
zone. And, because of the Bethlehem Works and the Commerce
Center, and that development that's going on on the former
Bethlehem Steel property, the HI zone, or most of the HI zone
will disappear. If motor vehicle sales and service agencies
are removed from the LI zone, then…the conclusion is
that motor vehicle sales and service agencies will be permitted
as a matter of right in the City of Bethlehem no where. Can
that possibly be the right answer. We submit that it's not.
That can't possibly be where we want to end up. If the proposed
amendment is enacted the existing motor vehicle sales and
service agencies will become non-conforming uses…The
use of these properties will be therefore restricted, particularly
with regard to alteration and expansion. It is our opinion
that as a result of that these properties will be devalued.
For no apparent reason, by a stroke of the pen, the City Council
of the City of Bethlehem will devalue the properties owned
by its citizens in the LI zone and used for automotive purposes.
Linda Dietrich, from Imperial Realty Appraisal, who is an
expert in valuation of commercial real estate is here on our
behalf and she will speak…[in] more detail on the valuation
issue. But, I have an example that I think sets forth the
problem as we see it. Mr. Milham's lot is on West Union Boulevard…Right
behind the lot is his body shop which is presently being used
by Faulkner operation. Right behind Mr. Milham's lot is the
Staats used car sales. Just to the east of Mr. Milham's lot
is Dave and Wayne's car repair facility, and just to the east
of that on Union Boulevard is Bethlehem Auto Sales, all in
the LI zone. It is not inconceivable, to me at least, that
somewhere down the line some larger motor vehicle agency could
come in and see that entire property as a good location on
which to locate a larger automobile agency. The body shop
is there. There's plenty of room for cars. The Dave and Wayne
shop could be used for mechanical purposes. Now, if that were
to happen tomorrow all of these owners could sell their properties
to the proposed larger agency for what would probably be a
good price. If this amendment is enacted, that is not possible.
It will not be possible for a future user to aggregate those
properties into one larger use. And that's not fair. That's
not fair to the present owners to devalue their property for
what is really no apparent reason. And, it is still not clear
to us what the reason behind the proposed amendment is. We
have heard it is for the benefit of the dealers. Well, here
are the dealers, and they're all against it. So, is it really
for the benefit of the dealers. If it has to do with revising
or rewriting the entire the zoning code for the City of Bethlehem,
I agree with Mr. Callahan, this is the wrong way to approach
that project. Why are we doing this. We can speculate…And,
if it has something to do with the Durkee's site, then that
is not good legislating. And we trust that the Council of
the City of Bethlehem will not make such a sweeping change
to effect what would really be spot zoning through the back
door. We hope you won't do that. If residential use or some
other less offensive, whatever that means, use is desired
at the Durkee site, then rezone that site. But don't stand
the rest of the City on its ear in the process, and disrupting
uses that have been in peaceful existence for many, many years."
Linda Dietrich, of Imperial Realty, Postal Road, Allentown,
advised that she has been appraising for ten-eleven years,
and the strong suit in the realty office is commercial, industrial,
and subdivision. Ms. Dietrich, informing the assembly that
she has been asked to speak tonight on behalf of the car dealers,
said she would like to speak just to valuation of their real
estate. Ms. Dietrich explained that, as an appraiser, when
one begins to appraise a property the first thing reviewed
is highest and best use. She continued on to say "the
first step is to look at the legality and the permitted uses
within that zone, and from there physical, and then financially,
and ending up with maximum productive. In my opinion, the
car dealerships are a nice fit in the LI. We think they fit
nicely with surrounding uses, and also the other uses that
are permitted within that district: office, warehouse, manufacturing,
and some light assembly. They all seem to be harmonious neighbor-wise.
In the heavy industrial you have more nuisance type uses permitted
in there such as junk, scrap yards, some manufacturing…etc.
It doesn't seem to work as well in there. If it's eliminated
from LI, and included temporarily in HI, it's not permitted
anywhere. Then, the dealers would have to, if they were going
to make any change to their real estate, either be at the
mercy of the zoning hearing board, or they become a non-conforming
use, or they have to go to planning. If everything stays status
quo, it's fine. But many dealerships have multiple franchises
under one roof. And sometimes those franchises will require
separate buildings, separate signage. If they need to make
a change, they're restricted in doing that. And, any time
you make a restriction, it diminishes value because it's taking
something away. The other thing is that I wanted to put out
to you is that any revision to this, whether it's a relocation
or start-up business, if they're not permitted in an LI zoned
area,…let's say its vacant land and they're going to
start a new dealership. They start in a commercial zone, whether
it's a shopping center, or general business commercial, that
land is typically far more expensive. And at some point it
becomes financially prohibitive to buy land for a new dealership.
You can't afford it. So, again, it's a restriction for this
use. And, I think it works nicely in the LI. If you take it
away, you've taken away some of their limited uses and it
restricts their value."
Ron Reybitz, attorney with Fitzpatrick, Lentz, and Bubba,
stated they represent J. G. Petrucci, the owner of the Durkee
site, which is zoned LI. Attorney Reybitz said "it is
our position, in addition to this doesn't make any planning
sense, as this Council may or may not know, we have submitted
plans for an auto auction which is permitted under current
Zoning Ordinance, and will not be permitted under the Ordinance
as proposed. We believe there's certainly evidence of special
legislation which, not only is not good from a legislative
standpoint, it's also illegal. Now, I'm not sitting here and
saying this was specifically discussed, but let's face it,
everybody knows the Durkee's site. It's been in the news for
quite some time. The auto auction was in the paper, and this
amendment comes to pass. The bottom line is, as was stated
numerous times, the automobile sales people are not in favor
of this. This is not a way to start doing amendments. There
were a lot of good points made today. I live in Bethlehem,
and I know that zoning districts all over the place may or
may not make sense. But this isn't the way to do it. And if
you look at the circumstantial evidence, you're negatively
affecting a bunch of people who have already established rights.
But what's the one that's pending. Well, that's our[s]…Are
there any other ones pending. Well, no, it's just ours. And,
the bottom line is, in addition, you're going to make a decision
like this, which is making in some respects a very small change.
This isn't an overhaul of an ordinance. This isn't the way
you do it. But, it's negatively affecting people. Then it
should be proper planning, and there's no proper planning
here. And, that's our position. In addition to our position,
really, we think it's special legislation. But it is not the
way to go about amending an entire ordinance. It's not the
way to make people consistent by turning them into non-conforming
uses."
Walter Pikarski, of Walter's Foreign Car Center, said he
finds the decision arbitrary and capricious…I think
it's going to devalue our property. We have there almost two
acres at the corner of Pembroke and Stefko which part is,
actually the City is using, because the water line is going
under there…We put twenty-five years of improvements
over there, and I think it's going to devalue our property…We
service the local community…We're very happy right there.
We try to keep the place clean, and we recycle…we do
everything that you ask for. And, suddenly we find ourselves
in the position that we're told well we don't want you, get
out of here. It really makes us upset. My wife and myself
put twenty-five years in that place. We moved here thirty-three
years ago to the Lehigh Valley, found this place beautiful,
City of Bethlehem impressive, now I feel like they don't want
us…It's a feeling [that] it's a betrayal of trust."
John Bleimaier, a customer of Walter's Foreign Car Center,
said he used to sit on the national board of directors of
a car club. Mr. Bleimaier said the Burn Foundation's Classic
Car Show that is presented annually in Bethlehem, along with
other tendencies in the larger community, "has resulted
in Bethlehem being a kind of a hub of the enthusiast car field,
industry…What you're trying to do now is to cut off
in the bud a very, very important part of your municipal economy…People
come from all over the place with cars that were built in
the 50's and the 60's that they'll only trust to [Walter's
Foreign Car Center]. He's not the only dealer of that nature
in the City, and indeed you should encourage others…When
people come here for your classic car show, when people come
here to have their classic cars restored, or serviced, they're
bringing money into your community. They are also shopping
here,…having lunch here…They are making this a
better place to live and work. They're building up the value
of your ratables. I think it's a very, very, very positive
thing. And, from that perspective, I really, really strongly
stand behind it. And, to make this change in the Zoning Ordinance
is precisely to make this very, very welcome use feel unwelcome…".
Mr. Bleimaier expressed that it does not make sense to him
to make the six or so dealers a non-conforming use. Mr. Bleimaier,
remarking that an automotive use in a residential zone being
non-conforming is perfectly logical, stated "you don't
want an automotive use in a residential zone to be expanding
as a right…But, in a light industrial zone, what could
be better…than if these automotive uses do expand in
a light industrial zone." Mr. Bleimaier continued on
point out that uses which can occur in a light industrial
zone can be polluting, and can have negative social and environmental
consequences. Mr. Bleimaier insisted that automobile services
are the most benign of a light industrial use. Mr. Bleimaier
thought that in the final analysis the City would be "buying
litigation for the taxpayers" as a result of the change.
Mr. Bleimaier expressed the hope that Council will vote against
the proposal.
Jim Preston, with the law firm of Broughal and DeVito, 38
W. Market Street, notified the Members that he is at the meeting
on behalf of Bethlehem Suburban Ford, located at 1500 Eaton
Avenue. Attorney Preston said "I do suspect that this
proposed zoning amendment is an attempt to defeat a particular
land development at a particular property. Attorney Preston
stated he is going to talk about the effect of the amendment
on lawfully existing permitted uses. Attorney Preston pointed
out that, in particular, his client, Bethlehem Suburban Ford,
and all the other auto dealers currently operating as permitted
uses in the LI zone will obviously be adversely affected and
impacted by this amendment. Attorney Preston highlighted the
fact that, if the amendment is adopted, all of the affected
businesses will go from being lawfully existing permitted
uses to prohibited uses. He added that while they will not
have to close their doors, they will be sent into the world
of non-conformities. Attorney Preston, remarking that discussions
tonight about non-conforming uses is as if they were just
another variance of a permitted use, with a little bit of
a restriction, said "they're not…The Ordinance
Section 1323 speaks to non-conforming uses. The purpose of
1323 'these regulations are designed to restrict further investment
in such uses.' And, so how does the ordinance go about restricting
that investment. Well we've heard some of that tonight. We've
heard some of that from Planning, some of that has been in
letters that they've given you. We know that non-conforming
uses cannot be altered, reconstructed, extended, or enlarged,
except in accordance with certain provisions, and they're
listed in the Ordinance. This is a limitation of rights. This
is not a continuation of a permitted use. This is an attempt
to confine and restrict the use of these properties. As Mr.
Delgrosso pointed out earlier, Section 1323.05 which deals
with the percentage of destruction and the point at which
you can rebuild, he stated that it was too prohibitive. It
is too prohibitive. What we're doing is we're taking these
permitted uses and we're now consigning them to this set of
regulations which by its very admission is designed to restrict
further investment in these uses. We have abandonment provisions
that apply…I think that to speak of non-conforming uses
as just another variant of a permitted use really is being
disingenuous, which leads us to the next question, and that
is why are these motor vehicle sales being targeted for exclusion
from the LI zone…". Attorney Preston, enumerating
permitted uses in the LI zone, said if the intent of this
particular legislation is to somehow cause the LI zone to
be more compatible with the adjoining residential zone then
in achieving that goal "we should remove all of the industrial
uses from Light Industrial zone. We have many uses here that
are much more…intense than the motor vehicle sales…These
are really one of the most benign uses in the LI District.
I haven't heard anyone articulate any reason why this use
has been targeted for elimination. There's been some reference
to this being, I suspect, a preamble or a precursor to some
ordinance-wide cleansing. If that's the case I think that
it's really not a proper first step."
John Lezoche, 1460 Hazlewood Lane, noted that he is the City
Zoning Officer. Mr. Lezoche informed Council about some of
the disadvantages of car dealers in the CG zone including
noise of cars coming and going to the car dealerships, opening
and closing of doors. Mr. Lezoche communicated that it is
not really a good retail use when one talks about the noise
in that CG is normally in close proximity with residential.
Mr. Lezoche stated another complaint is deliveries. Mr. Lezoche
highlighted the fact that Mr. Milham has been a good neighbor
with his business on Broad Street and has cooperated with
the office to try to curb deliveries. Noting that is not the
case in LI, Mr. Lezoche commented that LI zones are usually
larger properties, except for the fringes at residential or
some other district where there may be such problems. Mr.
Lezoche stated it is difficult for any commercial district
to expand, there is not that much property, and the land is
expensive. Turning to non-conformities, Mr. Lezoche affirmed
there are literally hundreds of non-conformities in the City
which is an old city, and he has to deal with the issue all
the time. Mr. Lezoche pointed out that it is the intent of
the Zoning Ordinance to make a property more conforming, not
more non-conforming. Mr. Lezoche expressed it is important
to look at the Zoning Ordinance as a whole, as opposed to
looking at a small area.
Council Comments
Mrs. Belinski stressed that, before the possibility of an
auto auction at the former Durkee's property was mentioned
in the newspaper, Council had discussed amending the Ordinance.
Mrs. Belinski, expressing her agreement with Ms. Szabo about
three members of the Planning Commission being present at
the meeting, felt that the Administration should look into
the matter of two members being absent at Planning Commission
meetings. Mrs. Belinski communicated that the proposal will
not harm business, will not put owners out of business, and
if the owners want to sell their business for the same use
they can. Mrs. Belinski stated that automobile sales and service
agencies should never have been in Light Industrial because
it is not the manufacturing of cars; rather, it is the selling
of cars.
Mr. Callahan said it seems clear to him that if Council moves
forward with the proposal it will be dragging the City into
litigation. In addition, Mr. Callahan communicated that, after
having spoken to a number of attorneys who specialize in development,
the pending ordinance statute is not applicable, and "it's
pretty much an air tight case against what we're getting ready
to do." Whether or not the intention was to block a car
dealership at the Durkee's site, Mr. Callahan stated that
will be the intended result. Mr. Callahan added that Council
has already voted six to one to allow and authorize the City
Council Solicitor to defend this move and to try to defend
the pending statute. Mr. Callahan observed that, not only
did the City lose the tax money from the formerly proposed
development of the Durkee property, there will now be good
money after bad spent to defend what has been discussed tonight
as a very bad policy.
President Gregory stated that the appropriate Ordinance will
be placed on the November 19, 2002 City Council Agenda for
First Reading; and, if the Ordinance passes on First Reading,
Final Reading is anticipated at the December 3, 2002 City
Council Meeting.
The Public Hearing was adjourned at 9:10 pm.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of October 15, 2002 were approved.
5. COURTESY OF THE FLOOR (for public comment on ordinances
and resolutions to be voted on by Council this evening)
Proposed Sidewalk Ordinances
Tim Nixon, 2273 Linden Street, noted that, in speaking with
his neighbors, he has discovered that if the proposed Ordinances
related to sidewalk installations are adopted the decision
on who will have to or not have to install sidewalks will
be in the hands of the Public Works Director. Mr. Nixon said
he does not feel this is the proper way for people to have
sidewalks. Mr. Nixon expressed that everyone in the neighborhood
should have to install sidewalks.
Michelle Leidig, 2263 Linden Street, said that the Ordinances
Council seek to pass tonight with regard to installation of
sidewalks, curb, and gutters is still seriously lacking in
the improvements that it so desperately needs to stop a suit
in Northampton County. Ms. Leidig continued on to say "the
Ordinance that you seek to pass tonight is more of the same
fodder that brought us to this point. It's mostly attacking
of neighbors by other neighbors because they don't like the
color of your eyes, or the color of the flowers you planted
this year. It promotes that type of attack assisted by the
Administration of the City of Bethlehem. What I would like
to know seriously is why is one citizen worth more than another
in the eyes of their own City government. That is what is
being promoted by the current Administration by the old Ordinance,
and with the new one it even takes out the safeguards for
the citizen and is put upon by another citizen or the Administration
by removing Council from the loop. Once this Ordinance goes
any further in its present form it tells the citizens of the
City of Bethlehem that they need to take stock in its current
politicians because they're telling their citizens that they
may not be as valuable to their government officials as their
neighbor is. I don't think this is what our government is
trying tell us, but it certainly does seem that way. The current
Administration needs to direct its factions to write the Ordinance
that is necessary to put an end to this type of subverse use
of its ordinances. Make it everyone needs to do this, or nobody
needs to do this. Anything less than this type of change is
not a fair and equal Ordinance, and is subject to attack in
the court system. You cannot tell someone under the same Ordinance
that they don't need sidewalk, and then go to somebody else
two blocks down the road and say you do. I was told that I
needed to get a consulting firm that we went to to give me
a written estimate of a price that they told me. Unfortunately,
the consulting firm is not who told me what the price was.
They told me what needed to be done. I, in turn, told the
contractor what needed to be done and they gave me a verbal
on that cost. I have contacted that contractor and, due to
the day off in hunting season, he hasn't gotten back to me
as of yet but I certainly will produce that if it's needed.
I don't suppose we can entice the Public Works Department
to cough up their plans so we can have our engineers take
a look at it. We've asked for information that should have
been available to us over a month ago. We still don't have
the information. We are being told we have to do what City
Administration says we have to do, and yet we don't get the
same cooperation from that City government. It's do as I do,
not do as I say. I'm still telling you as of right now that
this is a terrible financial hardship on me and my family.
And, if there's anyone that has any doubt about that, feel
free to call me and I promise you I'll explain."
Brian Humphries, 2253 Linden Street, said all he sees is
a lot of hostility and a very bad program with the sidewalk
Ordinances. Mr. Humphries, stressing there is not any reason
why two people should be subjected to hardship, pointed out
it has already been a hardship in that the issue has been
going on for several years. Mr. Humphries said he does not
expect that Council will have to listen to him talk at Council
meetings any more because he does not see any reason to go
on with the back and forth argument that goes nowhere. Mr.
Humphries stated it is apparent that "we would have to
fight even to get information out of City Hall because I haven't
got very much of what I've requested over the last month and
a half. I'm very disturbed about it. I really feel probably
more unwelcome in this town than the car dealers at this point.
I don't know why this situation should have ever developed.
Clearly,…with the Ordinance that is being passed, it
isn't the answer to the problem because it's only going to
prolong it. Instead of making it better, it's going to make
it worse. It probably will result in litigation or some kind
of a settlement. But, it isn't good because it isn't fair.
There's no question about that. Any of the arguments that
have been brought up about safety, just the whole process
of getting a petition is just something that leads to conflict,
hardship, aggravation…" Mr. Humphries felt that
the proposed Ordinances were something made more with a xerox
machine than something that was actually written new. Mr.
Humphries thought there is no way around a more creative and
more complicated solution to the problem of sidewalks. Mr.
Humphries remarked that "not having sidewalk is a special
privilege…that's been granted to a lot of people over
time. It's privilege because it relieves them of an expense.
And, unfortunately, maybe it's time that these people have
to pay for that special privilege, myself included, because
maybe paying for the special privilege would be better than
what my mother and I have been subjected to over the past
several years. Now, we may have a police officer stationed
on the street to take another traffic study, count pedestrians,
and see whether maybe we really need to put in a sidewalk.
This has gone on for too long. I think that maybe everyone
who doesn't have sidewalks should pay a special sidewalk tax.
Anyone who does have sidewalk is exempt. The tax could be
used to fund a trust fund that would be used to pay for sidewalk
in those few cases where it's really needed. Right away that
eliminates the financial hardship part of it. Then the only
thing left to argue about is safety, aesthetics, and whatever
else. There could be a cap on the trust fund, how much money
would be accumulated there, and once the cap is reached the
collection of the tax which may amount to…ten or twenty
dollars added on to the water bill every year, or something
like that. I don't think it would be a large amount of money.
It would be a very little for people to trade to not have
to worry about being subjected to what my mother and I and
our neighbors have had over the past several years. And never
have to worry about at least the financial impact of this
sidewalk, curb and gutter project…The Council would
have to adjust the tax rate from time to time, and the collection
of it could be paused once the trust fund cap is reached.
It would have to be adjusted to match the anticipated need
for new sidewalk at whatever that may be, and this trust fund
would just simply have to be managed as long as there's any
remaining property in Bethlehem that doesn't have sidewalk,
and that probably means forever. But, I think that an ongoing
management problem like that would be far better than what
we have at this point now. That's why I propose what probably
should have been proposed a long time ago. But, I don't see
any other way to do it. The sidewalk problem has been an infection.
I don't think that this ordinance is even a band aid to put
on it, and it is not going to be an improvement and make it
go away. So, I'm asking …the Council to reject the ordinance
so that we can write a good ordinance." Mr. Humphries
thought there were people on his block who would have been
willing to assist City officials in writing a sidewalk ordinance
but it was never verbalized. Mr. Humphries expressed there
should be an effort to do something about the ordinance.
Dean Bruch, 625 Hawthorne Road, queried whether the children
are walking to the same school past the cemetery that does
not have sidewalk. Mr. Alkhal indicated in the affirmative.
President Gregory, noting it would be a new process to determine
whether or not there should be sidewalks on Linden Street,
stated each individual case will be determined on a number
of factors.
6. OLD BUSINESS
None.
7. COMMUNICATIONS
C. Planning Director - DCNR Grant Application - Johnston
Park
The Clerk read a memorandum dated October 23, 2002 from Darlene
Heller, Director of Planning and Zoning, to which was attached
a proposed resolution for consideration concerning a grant
request in the amount of $125,000 to the Pennsylvania Department
of Conservation and Natural Resources for Johnston Park restorations.
President Gregory stated that authorizing Resolution 11 D
is listed on the agenda.
D. City Solicitor - Use Permit Agreement - Hot Air Balloon
Take Off
The Clerk read a memorandum dated October 24, 2002 from Joseph
F. Leeson, Jr., City Solicitor, to which was attached a proposed
resolution for a Use Permit Agreement between R. Scott Kelley
& Has Anyone Seen My Balloon?, Inc. and the City of Bethlehem
for use of Yellis Park, Monocacy Park Complex Athletic Fields,
Saucon Park Complex Athletic Fields, Clearview Complex, and
the area behind the Municipal Ice Rink, for hot air balloon
take off for the time period November 1, 2002 to October 31,
2003, according to the terms and conditions of the Agreement.
President Gregory stated that authorizing Resolution 11 G
is listed on the agenda.
President Gregory asked the Clerk to read additional Communication
7 E into the record.
E. Authorizing Execution of Federal Aid Reimbursement Agreement
- Paint Mill Bridge Project
The Clerk read a memorandum dated November 4, 2002 from Steven
W. DeSalva, City Engineer, requesting consideration of a resolution
authorizing the Mayor and the Controller to execute Supplemental
Federal Aid Reimbursement Agreement No. 050218-B to add funds
for 95% reimbursement by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
to the City for right-of-way acquisition for the Paint Mill
Bridge project.
President Gregory stated he would accept a motion to add
the authorizing Resolution later in the Agenda.
8 . REPORTS
A. President of Council
President Gregory, with reference to information received
this evening, inquired about the watershed investigation.
Mayor Cunningham advised that he planned to address the matter
under the Mayor's Report.
B. Mayor
Watershed Investigation
Mayor Cunningham stated that the City of Bethlehem Police
Department recently concluded the investigation that the Mayor
had requested concerning allegations of wrongdoing that may
have occurred on Bethlehem watershed lands. The results of
the investigation were shared with the Mayor and City Solicitor
Joseph Leeson. Mayor Cunningham continued on to say after
a review of the investigation by the Police, on the advice
of Solicitor Leeson, he has directed that the results of the
investigation be transmitted to the District Attorneys of
Carbon County and Monroe County which has been done. Mayor
Cunningham said the reason for the referral to law enforcement
authorities is because the investigation suggests the possibility
that criminal conduct might have occurred. Accordingly, this
matter has been turned over to the District Attorneys for
further handling. Mayor Cunningham advised he has pledged
to the District Attorneys' offices through Solicitor Leeson
the full cooperation of City government to the District Attorneys
in connection with their review and investigation of the matter.
Because the matter is now in the hands of law enforcement
authorities, Mayor Cunningham suggested that further questions
be directed either to the District Attorneys or to the City
Solicitor Joseph Leeson.
C. Finance Committee
Mr. Delgrosso, Chairman of the Finance Committee, presented
an oral report of the Committee's meeting held on October
31, 2002 on the following subjects: Transfer of Funds - Golf
Course - Temporary Help; Transfer of Funds - Economic Development
Bureau - Training and Equipment; Amending Water Fund Budget
- Water Guarantee Fee. Chairman Delgrosso continued on to
report that the Committee also recommended that Council adopt
an Ordinance for the Bethlehem Authority's Interest Rate Swap
on $6 million of the Emmaus General Authority Note of 1997
provided that at least $600,000 in interest rate savings can
be achieved. Focusing on the interest rate swap proposal,
Mr. Delgrosso explained the idea is, of the $18 million in
the Emmaus General Authority Note of 1997 that is on a flexible
interest rate, the Bethlehem Authority proposed to take $6
million and swap it for a fixed rate because of the current
low interest rates and the uncertainty of what the interest
rates may be in the future. Mr. Delgrosso explained that the
benchmark discussed at the meeting was a savings of $600,000.
Consequently, at the time of Final Reading, the financial
consultants will advise whether the rates are at a position
where savings of $600,000 can be realized. If not, the question
will be whether the Ordinance should be tabled, or give the
right to the Bethlehem Authority to go out for bids when the
$600,000 threshold is reached. With reference to the letter
received from Peter Carlucci, Bond Counsel, Mr. Delgrosso
advised that in the last paragraph Attorney Carlucci stated
he will meet with both the City Solicitor and the City Council
Solicitor to determine how to accomplish it. Mr. Delgrosso
suggested that Council could pass the Ordinance this evening
on First Reading, and prior to the next City Council Meeting
on November 19, 2002 there will be information from the Solicitors
as to which direction to take. In addition, the Committee
recommended approval of payment from Council's Professional
Services Account for the Timber Sales Report prepared by Robert
LaBar.
9. ORDINANCES FOR FINAL PASSAGE
A. Bill No. 35 - 2002 - Establishing New Article 1159 - Animals
The Clerk read Bill No. 35 - 2002, Establishing New Article
1159 - Animals, on Final Reading.
Amendment to Bill No. 35 - 2002
Mr. Schweder, noting that a number of recommendations were
received, stated that in discussions with Dr. Lashmet, the
veterinarian who assisted with drafting of the Ordinance,
he moves the following amendment, and Mr. Delgrosso seconded
the motion:
That Section 1159.08 which reads as follows:
1159.08 CERTAIN ANIMALS AND FOWL IN DWELLINGS PROHIBITED.
No pigeons, turkeys, chickens, ducks, geese or other [feathered
animals] shall be kept or maintained in any dwelling, apartment,
flat or tenement.
shall be amended to read as follows:
1159.08 CERTAIN ANIMALS AND FOWL IN DWELLINGS PROHIBITED.
No pigeons, turkeys, chickens, ducks, geese or other poultry
shall be kept or maintained in any dwelling, apartment, flat
or tenement.
Voting AYE on the Amendment: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Callahan,
Mr. Delgrosso, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Schweder, Ms. Szabo, and Mr.
Gregory, 7. The Amendment passed.
Mrs. Belinski stated that she was contacted by a resident
who had asked that Council consider several other amendments,
one of which was that a dog would be put down if found to
have bitten someone at least three times. Attorney Leeson,
affirming that State law has legislated on the issue of what
is a dangerous dog, advised that provision is made for destruction
of such a dog. Consequently, Attorney Leeson suggested that
type of provision be avoided in the City's Ordinance.
President Gregory, commenting that although he feels the
Ordinance could be stronger, said it is an excellent start.
President Gregory asked if the Ordinance will get at the root
of the problem such as the snake and dog issues that the City
has been dealing with. Tony Hanna, Director of Community and
Economic Development, stated it is certainly a better Ordinance
than the City had in the past, although there will be enforcement
issues with which to deal. Mr. Hanna confirmed that it will
give the City a better tool to deal with problems. President
Gregory pointed out that the Ordinance could be revisited
at another time if there are other issues of concern that
are found not to have been addressed by the Ordinance.
Voting AYE on the Bill as amended: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Callahan,
Mr. Delgrosso, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Schweder, Ms. Szabo, and Mr.
Gregory, 7. Bill No. 35 - 2002, hereafter to be known as Ordinance
4151, was declared adopted.
B. Bill No. 36 - 2002 - Amending Article 303 - Motor Fuel
Meters - Inspection Fee
The Clerk read Bill No. 36 - 2002, Amending Article 303 -
Motor Fuel Meters - Inspection Fee, on Final Reading.
Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Callahan, Mr. Delgrosso, Mr.
Donchez, Mr. Schweder, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Gregory, 7. Bill
No. 36 - 2002, hereafter to be known as Ordinance 4152, was
declared adopted.
C. Bill No. 37 - 2002 - Amending General Fund Budget - Local
Law Enforcement Block Grant, Northampton County Drug Task
Force, Highway Safety Grant, Immunization Outreach Grant,
and Emergency Preparedness Grant
The Clerk read Bill No. 37 - 2002, Amending General Fund
Budget - Local Law Enforcement Block Grant, Northampton County
Drug Task Force, Highway Safety Grant, Immunization Outreach
Grant, and Emergency Preparedness Grant, on Final Reading.
Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Callahan, Mr. Delgrosso, Mr.
Donchez, Mr. Schweder, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Gregory, 7. Bill
No. 37 - 2002, hereafter to be known as Ordinance 4153, was
declared adopted.
D. Bill No. 38 - 2002 - Amending Article 905 - Curb, Gutter,
and Sidewalk Requirements - New Developments
The Clerk read Bill No. 38 - 2002, Amending Article 905 -
Curb, Gutter, and Sidewalk Requirements - New Developments,
on Final Reading.
Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Callahan, Mr. Delgrosso, Mr.
Donchez, Mr. Schweder, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Gregory, 7. Bill
No. 38 - 2002, hereafter to be known as Ordinance 4154, was
declared adopted.
E. Bill No. 39 - 2002 - Establishing New Article 909 - Curb,
Gutter, and Sidewalk Requirements - New Developments
The Clerk read Bill No. 39 - 2002, Establishing New Article
909 - Curb, Gutter, and Sidewalk Requirements - New Developments,
on Final Reading.
Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Callahan, Mr. Delgrosso, Mr.
Donchez, Mr. Schweder, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Gregory, 7. Bill
No. 39 - 2002, hereafter to be known as Ordinance 4155, was
declared adopted.
F. Bill No. 40 - 2002 - Amending Article 150 - Codes Board
of Appeals
The Clerk read Bill No. 40 - 2002, Amending Article 150 -
Codes Board of Appeals, on Final Reading.
Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Callahan, Mr. Delgrosso, Mr.
Donchez, Mr. Schweder, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Gregory, 7. Bill
No. 40 - 2002, hereafter to be known as Ordinance 4156, was
declared adopted.
10. NEW ORDINANCES
A. Bill No. 41 - 2002 - Amending Water Fund Budget - Guarantee
Fee
The Clerk read Bill No. 41 - 2002, sponsored by Mr. Donchez
and Mr. Delgrosso, and titled:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BETHLEHEM, COUNTIES OF LEHIGH
AND NORTHAMPTON, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, AMENDING THE
WATER FUND BUDGET FOR 2002.
Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Callahan, Mr. Delgrosso, Mr.
Donchez, Mr. Schweder, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Gregory, 7. Bill
No. 41 - 2002 was declared passed on First Reading.
B. Bill No. 42 - 2002 - Bethlehem Authority - Interest Rate
Swap - Emmaus General Authority Note of 1997
The Clerk read Bill No. 42 - 2002, sponsored by Mr. Donchez
and Mr. Delgrosso, and titled:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BETHLEHEM, NORTHAMPTON
AND LEHIGH COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA, DETERMINING TO INCUR DEBT
IN THE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $4,131,737 (subject to change);
DETERMINING THAT SUCH DEBT SHALL BE INCURRED AS LEASE RENTAL
DEBT TO BE EVIDENCED BY CERTAIN PAYMENT OBLIGATIONS OF THE
BETHLEHEM AUTHORITY; BRIEFLY DESCRIBING THE PROJECT FOR WHICH
SAID DEBT IS TO BE INCURRED AND SPECIFYING THE REALISTIC USEFUL
LIFE OF SAID PROJECT; AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL, THE CITY CONTROLLER, THE CITY
TREASURER, THE BUSINESS ADMINISTRATOR OR THE CITY CLERK OF
THE CITY TO PREPARE, VERIFY AND FILE, AS APPLICABLE, THE DEBT
STATEMENT AND OTHER APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTS REQUIRED BY THE
ACT OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,
AS AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTED, KNOWN AS THE "LOCAL GOVERNMENT
UNIT DEBT ACT", 53 PA.C.S.A. §§ 8001 ET SEQ.,
AND, UPON RECEIPT OF APPROVAL OF THE PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT
OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, TO EXECUTE, ATTEST,
ACKNOWLEDGE AND DELIVER, AS APPROPRIATE, (I) A SUBSIDY AGREEMENT
BETWEEN SAID AUTHORITY, ON THE ONE HAND, AND THE CITY, ON
THE OTHER HAND, AND (II) A GUARANTY AGREEMENT WITH RESPECT
TO AFORESAID SUBSIDY AGREEMENT; APPROVING THE FORMS OF SAID
SUBSIDY AGREEMENT AND SAID GUARANTY AGREEMENT; CONSENTING
TO THE ASSIGNMENT OF SAID SUBSIDY AGREEMENT BY SAID AUTHORITY
AND AUTHORIZING DELIVERY OF SAID GUARANTY AGREEMENT; SPECIFYING
THE MAXIMUM SUBSIDY PAYMENTS TO BE PAID BY THE CITY PURSUANT
TO SAID SUBSIDY AGREEMENT; GUARANTEEING PAYMENT OF THE SUBSIDY
PAYMENTS, AS AFORESAID, AND MAKING CERTAIN COVENANTS WITH
RESPECT THERETO; SPECIFYING THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF THE GUARANTY
OBLIGATIONS OF THE CITY PURSUANT TO SUCH GUARANTY AGREEMENT;
PLEDGING THE FULL FAITH, CREDIT AND TAXING POWER OF THE CITY
WITH RESPECT TO THE GUARANTY AGREEMENT; AND PROVIDING FOR
PROPER OFFICERS OF THE CITY TO TAKE ALL OTHER REQUIRED, NECESSARY
OR DESIRABLE RELATED ACTION IN CONNECTION WITH SAID PROJECT,
SAID SUBSIDY AGREEMENT AND SAID GUARANTY AGREEMENT.
Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Callahan, Mr. Delgrosso, Mr.
Donchez, Mr. Schweder, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Gregory, 7. Bill
No. 42 - 2002 was declared passed on First Reading.
11. RESOLUTIONS
A. Approving 2003 Action Plan - CDBG and HOME Programs
Mr. Donchez and Ms. Szabo sponsored Resolution 13,939 which
approved the Action Plan for 2003, containing the City's 2003
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Programs,
and authorized the Mayor to provide the necessary assurances
and certifications to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development and to submit the 2003 Action Plan for HUD approval.
Amendment to Resolution 13,939
Mr. Donchez and Ms. Szabo sponsored the following Amendment:
That Item 1. of the 2003 CDBG Activities which reads as follows:
Acquisition/Demolition $300,000
Vacant Property Review and Economic
Development
be amended to read as follows:
Acquisition/Demolition - Undefined - Five Points $ 50,000
Vacant Property Review 50,000
Unprogrammed Activities 200,000
Voting AYE on the Amendment: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Callahan,
Mr. Delgrosso, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Schweder, Ms. Szabo, and Mr.
Gregory, 7. The Amendment passed.
Voting AYE on the Resolution, as Amended: Mrs. Belinski,
Mr. Callahan, Mr. Delgrosso, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Schweder, Ms.
Szabo, and Mr. Gregory, 7. The Resolution passed. B. Authorizing
Execution of Use Permit Agreement - Live Bethlehem Christmas
Pageant
Mr. Donchez and Ms. Szabo sponsored Resolution 13,940 which
authorized the Mayor and the Controller to execute a Use Permit
Agreement between the City of Bethlehem and the Live Bethlehem
Christmas Pageant Society, Inc. for use of the Community Arts
Pavilion and Surrounding Field for the purpose of the 2002
Live Bethlehem Christmas Pageant for time periods beginning
December 9, 2002 through January 13, 2003, according to the
terms of the Agreement.
Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Callahan, Mr. Delgrosso, Mr.
Donchez, Mr. Schweder, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Gregory, 7. The
Resolution passed. C. Authorizing Execution of Use Permit
Agreement - Christkindlmarkt
Mr. Donchez and Mr. Delgrosso sponsored Resolution 13,941
which authorized the Mayor and the Controller to execute a
Use Permit Agreement between the City of Bethlehem and Bethlehem
Musikfest Association for use of certain City property for
the purpose of location of the market and parking during Christkindlmarkt
2002 for time periods beginning November 11, 2002 through
December 27, 2002, according to the terms of the Agreement.
Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Callahan, Mr. Delgrosso, Mr.
Donchez, Mr. Schweder, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Gregory, 7. The
Resolution passed. D. Authorizing Execution of Grant Documents
- Johnston Park
Mr. Delgrosso and Mrs. Belinski sponsored Resolution 13,942
which authorized the Mayor to execute the appropriate documents
to apply to the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
for a grant for the Johnston Park Restoration Project.
Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Callahan, Mr. Delgrosso, Mr.
Donchez, Mr. Schweder, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Gregory, 7. The
Resolution passed.
E. Transfer of Funds - Golf Course - Temporary Help
Mr. Donchez and Mr. Delgrosso sponsored Resolution 13,943
which transferred $15,000 in the Golf Course Enterprise Fund
Budget from the Salaries and Plant Maintenance Accounts to
the Temporary Help Account to provide additional funding needed
in the Account.
Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Callahan, Mr. Delgrosso, Mr.
Donchez, Mr. Schweder, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Gregory, 7. The
Resolution passed.
F. Transfer of Funds - Economic Development - Training and
Equipment
Mr. Donchez and Mr. Delgrosso sponsored Resolution 13,944
which transferred $2,350 in the General Fund Budget from the
Economic Development Salaries Account to the following: $1,500
- Economic Development - Training and Continuing Education
Account and $850 - Economic Development - Equipment Account,
to provide additional funding needed for attendance at International
Economic Development Council courses, and for the purchase
of a TV/VCR and display board.
Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Callahan, Mr. Delgrosso, Mr.
Donchez, Mr. Schweder, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Gregory, 7. The
Resolution passed.
G. Authorizing Execution of Use Permit Agreement - Hot Air
Balloon Take Off
Mr. Donchez and Mrs. Belinski sponsored Resolution 13,945
which authorized the Mayor and the Controller to execute a
Use Permit Agreement between R. Scott Kelley and Has Anyone
Seen My Balloon?, Inc. and the City of Bethlehem for use of
Yellis Park, Monocacy Park Complex, Athletic Fields, Saucon
Park Complex, Athletic Fields, Clearview Complex, and the
area behind the Municipal Ice Rink, for Hot Air Balloon Take
Off from November 1, 2002 to October 31, 2003, according to
the terms and conditions of the agreement.
Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Callahan, Mr. Delgrosso, Mr.
Donchez, Mr. Schweder, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Gregory, 7. The
Resolution passed.
Considering Resolutions 11 H through 11 K as a Group
Mrs. Belinski and Mr. Callahan moved to consider Resolutions
11 H through 11 K as a group.
Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Callahan, Mr. Delgrosso, Mr.
Donchez, Mr. Schweder, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Gregory, 7. The
motion passed.
H. Certificate of Appropriateness - 710 East Fourth Street
Ms. Szabo and Mr. Schweder sponsored Resolution 13,946 which
granted a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the existing
slate roofing materials with fiberglass shingles, and to install
vinyl siding on both sides of structure and the upper front
façade at 710 East Fourth Street.
I. Certificate of Appropriateness - 702 East Fourth Street
Ms. Szabo and Mr. Schweder sponsored Resolution 13,947 which
granted a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the existing
windows and door of the structure at 702 East Fourth Street.
J. Certificate of Appropriateness - 4 East Fourth Street
Ms. Szabo and Mr. Schweder sponsored Resolution 13,948 which
granted a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the existing
wall signs and the awnings on the façade of the Bridge
Works Restaurant at 4 East Fourth Street.
K. Certificate of Appropriateness - 331 South New Street
Ms. Szabo and Mr. Schweder sponsored Resolution 13,949 which
granted a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the awning
sign at 331 South New Street.
Voting AYE on Resolutions 11 H through K: Mrs. Belinski,
Mr. Callahan, Mr. Delgrosso, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Schweder, Ms.
Szabo, and Mr. Gregory, 7. The Resolutions passed.
Adding Resolution 11 L
Mrs. Belinski and Ms. Szabo moved to add Resolution 11 L
to the Agenda.
Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Callahan, Mr. Delgrosso, Mr.
Donchez, Mr. Schweder, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Gregory, 7. The
motion passed.
L. Authorizing Execution of Federal Aid Reimbursement Agreement
- Paint Mill Bridge Project
Mr. Donchez and Mr. Delgrosso sponsored Resolution 13,950
which authorized the Mayor and the Controller to execute Supplemental
Federal Aid Bridge Project Agreement No. 050218-B between
the Department of Transportation of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
and the City of Bethlehem, for the Paint Mill (Schoenersville
Road) Bridge over the Monocacy Creek Project, according to
the terms and conditions of the Agreement.
Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Callahan, Mr. Delgrosso, Mr.
Donchez, Mr. Schweder, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Gregory, 7. The
Resolution passed.
12. NEW BUSINESS
Agreement with State Game Commission - Watershed Lands
Mrs. Belinski notified the Administration that she received
a telephone call on Monday from the State game warden who
received complaints from hunters about ATV's that are being
driven on the lands, making noise, scaring away game, as well
as snowmobiles that are doing damage. Mrs. Belinski inquired
about the status of the agreement with the State Game Commission.
Attorney Leeson, advising that the agreement is ready, explained
that an outstanding item had been the request of the State
game officials that the City develop a set of rules and regulations
on what would be prohibited and allowable public usage of
the watershed lands. Confirming that Kathleen Reese, Director
of Water and Sewer Resources, had been working on the matter,
Attorney Leeson related that Ms. Reese assured him that she
would address it first thing in the morning in the hope that
it can be presented for consideration at City Council's next
meeting, and to the Bethlehem Authority for their approval
as well. Attorney Leeson expressed the opinion that both Council
and the Bethlehem Authority should approve the agreement in
view of the fact that the Authority owns the watershed lands
and the City leases it. He added in this way, there would
be no doubt as to the enforceability of the agreement in the
event of challenge by someone who would be prosecuted under
it.
Flatiron Building
Ms. Szabo commended Kevin Moyzan, Fire Commissioner, and
Eugene Novak, Fire Marshall, for their actions related to
the Flatiron Building, and added it demonstrated the usefulness
of the camera to which many citizens had contributed. Ms.
Szabo further stated it has been proven the City is right
in insisting that buildings should be sprinklered.
13. COURTESY OF THE FLOOR
None.
14. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:01 p.m.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
|
