Council Minutes
APRIL 8, 2003 Meeting Minutes
BETHLEHEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
Tuesday, April 8, 2003 – 7:30 PM – Town Hall
1. INVOCATION
2. PLEDGE TO THE FLAG
3. ROLL CALL
President Gregory called the meeting to order. Mr. Callahan
offered the invocation which was followed by the pledge to
the flag. Present were Ismael Arcelay, Jean Belinski, John
B. Callahan, Robert J. Donchez, J. Michael Schweder, Magdalena
F. Szabo, and James S. Gregory, 7.
Mr. Arcelay, communicating that tonight he looks forward
to start serving the community, stated that, as a member of
the community, he is aware of the many issues presently facing
it. Mr. Arcelay continued on to advise that he spent this
past weekend reviewing the past minutes associated with tonight’s
discussion. Mr. Arcelay stressed that tonight he looks forward
to hearing the most important part of the discussion that
is the people present at the meeting this evening.
Public Parking - City Hall Garage
President Gregory, stating that he would like to address a
memorandum he sent to the Mayor, read the memorandum, as follows:
“Would you please consider my request to have the gates
to City Hall Garage open and a Police Officer stationed at
the entrance so that citizens who are coming to the Public
Hearing that will begin at 7:30 PM can park in the City Hall
Garage.” President Gregory read the response, as follows:
“Your request to have the gates open at City Hall cannot
be granted. The gates at City Hall will remain closed for
the following reason. The current national threat level remains
at orange, and the Department of Homeland Security continues
to stress the need for heightened security at all public buildings.
In the event the Department of Homeland Security reduces the
threat level in the future, the Administration’s position
will be reevaluated. As Police Commissioner, I am the person
responsible for the safety of visitors and employees in the
City Hall complex. I would be remiss in my duties if I did
not take precautions to protect their safety.”
Time Limits for Speakers
President Gregory advised that he would address the issue
of time limits. President Gregory confirmed that he made a
request of Council to limit the time of speakers this evening
to approximately five minutes since he felt people should
be able to say what they have to say in five minutes. Noting
there is a Vote Yes group and a No Mall group, President Gregory
explained he would assume if they wanted to speak in a sense
as a group, then 20 people times 5 minutes provides about
an hour which he thought would be sufficient. However, President
Gregory informed the assembly that Members of Council did
not want to limit the time. President Gregory continued on
to advise that, if speakers want to continue on with their
comments, he would probably ask them to please get to the
point because sometimes when speakers continue on other speakers
do not get the opportunity to have their say. President Gregory
remarked he would not want people to have to be at the meeting
this evening until 3:00 or 4:00 a.m. because one person decided
they needed a half hour to speak. Affirming that, as a result,
he is not going to request a time limit, President Gregory
communicated he would ask everyone to try to do their best
to let everyone be heard tonight. President Gregory said,
from his perspective, since there are no limits, he will be
at the meeting until the last person leaves tonight, and added
that he wants to complete the meeting tonight.
President Gregory explained to those present that no vote
will be taken tonight by City Council because it is a Public
Hearing. The first vote will take place at the next City Council
Meeting on April 15, 2003.
Mrs. Belinski, remarking she would be prepared to stay until
6:00 or 7:00 AM, pointed out that many people have to go to
work in the morning. Mrs. Belinski recalled that, at the beginning
of the meeting last year on this topic, a cutoff time was
established of 11:00 PM by which time if there were many more
speakers to be heard then the meeting would be continued to
a second evening. Mrs. Belinski continued on to recount that
at 11:00 PM last year, after a show of hands, Council voted
to decide to continue the meeting and it ended at 11:45 PM.
Mrs. Belinski wondered if Council could do the same tonight
in setting a time for the meeting tonight to conclude and
then continue the meeting to another night so that everyone
has a chance to air their concerns and speakers are not being
limited to five minutes.
President Gregory, highlighting the fact that many of the
No Mall group also felt the meeting should be divided into
two sessions, expressed he disagrees but pointed out that
Mrs. Belinski has the right to make any motion she wishes.
Motion - Time of Ending the Meeting
Mrs. Belinski moved to end the meeting at 11:00 PM unless
it is seen that the public comment portion is almost at the
end and then a vote could be taken to continue the meeting.
Mr. Schweder seconded the motion.
Mr. Donchez, commenting he does not know that he is in favor
of ending the meeting at 11:00 PM, said what Council should
do is what was done the last time and is what he thought Mrs.
Belinski meant which is at 11:00 PM Council should evaluate
how many people still want to speak and make a judgment at
that point, rather than making a decision now. Mr. Donchez
advised he would be willing to go to 12:00 or 12:30 AM.
In response to Mr. Schweder, Mrs. Belinski restated her
motion as follows: that at 11:00 PM Council reevaluate and
decide then how many additional people would like to be heard,
and as to how long Council would spend at tonight’s
meeting.
Mr. Schweder seconded the motion.
President Gregory, asserting “we can’t have
the best of both worlds. We invited all these people to come
tonight. I asked that we limit their speeches so we could
get by before 11:00 PM, but nobody on Council wanted to limit
the time so now I’m saying if we’re not going
to limit the time it’s going to be a long meeting…In
my opinion, we either do one or the other, we ask that the
speakers limit the time or we do not limit the time of the
meeting.”
Mrs. Belinski wondered whether the speaking time for the
developer would be limited and highlighted the fact that the
developer’s presentation at the Planning Commission
meeting took two and a half hours.
President Gregory, highlighting the fact that Mr. Petrucci
is the developer, expressed the belief that Mr. Petrucci had
said he needs an hour this evening. President Gregory, denoting
he is going to ask Mr. Petrucci to do his best to keep his
presentation as short as possible, stressed he is asking everyone
here to do that tonight.
Mrs. Belinski asked whether President Gregory is going to
allow the pro mall and no mall groups, who are organized and
have a well-organized presentation, their time to do their
presentations as Mr. Petrucci is going to be allowed to give
his presentation.
President Gregory responded everybody outside of the developer
who has signed up will be able to speak as their names come
up, and if they did not sign up they can speak afterwards.
President Gregory advised he is not giving any particular
special time to one group or the other, as is the case at
every other Council Meeting.
Mrs. Belinski advised that Attorney Donald Miles, who had
a conflict and is unable to be at this evening’s meeting,
personally hand delivered a letter to her home. Mrs. Belinski
said she would like the letter entered into the record of
tonight’s meeting.
Attorney Christoper Spadoni, City Council Solicitor, affirming
that the letter has been received, noted there will be segment
of the agenda where that will be acknowledged and made a part
of this record.
Voting AYE: Mr. Arcelay, Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Callahan, Mr.
Donchez, Mr. Schweder, and Ms. Szabo, 6. Voting NAY: Mr. Gregory,
1. The motion passed.
Motions – Limiting Time of Speakers
President Gregory moved to limit the time of each speaker
to five minutes. There was no second to the motion.
President Gregory moved to limit the time of each speaker
to six minutes. There was no second to the motion.
President Gregory expressed the hope that Council is going
to take his point into consideration that anyone who wants
to tie up the meeting can do so and pointed out that is not
what everyone is here for. President Gregory informed the
assembly that, if he sees that happening, he will do his best
to restrict that from occurring.
Ms. Szabo moved to limit the time of each speaker to ten
minutes, because of the fact that there are so many people
who wish to speak. President Gregory seconded the motion.
Voting AYE: Mr. Arcelay, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Gregory, 3. Voting
NAY: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Callahan, Mr. Donchez, and Mr. Schweder,
4. The motion failed.
Public Hearing – Rezoning Former Durkee Tract on Eighth
Avenue - LI Light Industrial to IR Industrial Redevelopment
(19.77 Acres) and RT Residential (12.87 Acres)
President Gregory called to order a Public Hearing to consider
a request of Tiger Den Partners, LLC to rezone from LI Light
Industrial District to IR Industrial Redevelopment District
approximately 19.77 acres bounded on the east by Eighth Avenue,
on the north by Rosemont Manor Subdivision, on the west by
lands of Tiger Den Partners, LLC, and on the south by lands
of Norfolk Southern Railway Company; and from LI Light Industrial
District to RT Residential District approximately 12.87 acres
bounded on the east by lands of Tiger Den, LLC, on the north
by Rosemont Manor Subdivision, on the west and south by lands
of Norfolk Southern Railway Company.
7 A. Lehigh Valley Planning Commission – Rezoning Request
- Former Durkee Tract on Eighth Avenue - LI to IR and RT
The Clerk read a letter (Communication 7 A) dated February
28, 2003 from Frederic
Brock, Assistant Director of the Lehigh Valley Planning Commission,
as follows:
"The Lehigh Valley Planning Commission considered the
above referenced matter at the
February 27, 2003 meeting pursuant to the requirements of
the PA Municipalities Planning Code (MPC). The Commission
voted to return the following comments for your use. The Commission
finds that the following comments, expressed in a September
28, 2001 review of a previous rezoning proposal for this site,
are also relevant to the current proposal. 'The proposed rezoning
is intended to enable the redevelopment of a site formerly
in industrial uses. The Comprehensive Plan for Lehigh and
Northampton Counties supports the redevelopment of existing
vacant industrial sites. The Commission finds the proposed
zoning district(s) to be consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan. The proposed rezoning would enable site development
in a way that would result in a considerable traffic impact.
The City should assure that the traffic impacts of the rezoning
and the subsequent development are mitigated. Further consideration
is needed to satisfactorily resolve these issues.'"
7 B. Planning Commission - Rezoning Request - Former Durkee
Tract on Eighth Avenue - LI
to IR and RT
The Clerk read a memorandum (Communication 7 B) dated March
21, 2003 from Darlene Heller, Director of Planning and Zoning,
as follows: "At its March 19, 2003 meeting, the Planning
Commission voted 3 to 1 to recommend that City Council approve
the rezoning of 1001 Eighth Avenue, the Durkee property, from
Light Industrial to Industrial Redevelopment and RT - Residential
as proposed. It was a difficult decision for the Commission
and each member gave detailed, well thought out reasons for
his or her decision. One member expressed concerns about the
residential zoning in the rear portion of the lot because
of its proximity to existing industrial uses and the proposed
I-R Zone, but decided to recommend approval of the overall
project because of their strong feeling that the I-R Zoning
is sorely needed in the front portion of the lot."
Planning Director Comments
Ms. Heller stated that the rezoning request proposes that
the front 19.77 acres of the former Durkee spice plant site
be rezoned from LI Light Industrial to IR Industrial Redevelopment,
and the rear 12.87 acres be rezoned from LI Light Industrial
to RT Residential. The entire parcel is about 33 acres. It
is currently all zoned Light Industrial. It is bordered by
residential uses in the RG zoning district to the north, Eighth
Avenue to the east, rail lines and other light industrial
properties to the south and the west. Route 378 ramps enter
onto Eighth Avenue immediately south of the property. Route
378 is a limited access highway. Eighth Avenue is a State
road and is an arterial north-south corridor. The parcel is
currently landlocked to the rear, and is a relatively low
spot compared to Eighth Avenue elevations or the elevations
of the residential properties to the north. Eighth Avenue
corridor is largely commercial in nature. Ms. Heller, noting
she received some criticism for that position at the Planning
Commission meeting, said she believes that it is true, and
added that the site is within a mixed use area. Ms. Heller
stated that any rezoning proposal should take the mixed use
nature of the area into consideration, and ensure that any
future uses are compatible with the wide array of currently
existing uses.
Ms. Heller reiterated that the front 19 acres is proposed
to be rezoned to IR, to accommodate a home improvement center,
a bank, and a restaurant. Affirming that the IR zoning district
was created to facilitate the redevelopment of abandoned or
underutilized industrial sites, Ms. Heller said the specific
purpose of the zoning district reads “to promote the
economic revitalization of underutilized heavy industrial
properties. In order to accomplish this purpose, a variety
of land uses will be permitted within the district, and flexible
design standards will be applied during site plan approval
process.” Ms. Heller continued on to say that, at the
Planning Commission meeting, the public correctly pointed
out that this site is zoned Light Industrial rather than Heavy
Industrial. But, Ms. Heller explained, the intent and purpose
of the zoning district is applicable here. The zoning district
permits a variety of commercial, retail, office, and light
industrial uses. It specifically does not permit what are
considered to be the more noxious industrial uses. The district
also allows some flexibility in area, yard, and building requirements,
and in off-street parking requirements. Ms. Heller observed
that a significant portion of the Comprehensive Plan is devoted
to discussion of the reuse of the City’s older, industrial
properties. Although much of the text is directed at reuse
of the Bethlehem Steel property, Ms. Heller noted that the
same importance for the reuse of the industrial land applies
at the Durkee site. She noted that the site is at a prime
location for reuse for commercial, or light industrial redevelopment
due to its location on an arterial street, and its immediate
access to a limited access highway. The rezoning of the parcel
to IR will facilitate the reuse of a valuable but abandoned
industrial parcel. Ms. Heller stated that the IR zoning district
is therefore an appropriate rezoning change for this property.
Ms. Heller, turning to the rear 12.87 acres of the site,
confirmed it is proposed to be rezoned to Residential RT.
Ms. Heller explained that the zone is actually L shaped, and
there is an approximate 120 foot wide piece that extends along
the northern line in an easterly direction to the proposed
Martin Court that would be the public street that enters into
the site. This abuts the RG zoning district to the north,
but there is no proposal to connect the two districts. Ms.
Heller observed that the abutting RG district is mostly single
family attached and detached dwellings. She advised that both
districts permit single family and multi-family dwellings.
However, Ms. Heller noted the density permitted in the RT
zoning district is greater than that permitted in the RG district.
The proposed sketch plan shows 200 multi family units on the
lot in three story buildings. Ms. Heller expressed that the
Comprehensive Plan notes that Bethlehem’s livable neighborhoods
are its greatest amenity. She communicated that the City must
encourage quality housing as opportunities for a variety of
residents, and quality housing is the building block of any
neighborhood. Ms. Heller observed that a major thrust of the
plan is to set the stage to achieve opportunities for all
in the housing market. She added that, as noted in the text,
if allowed and encouraged, the private sector can apply its
creativity to issues of density, design, and diversity. If
the property is ultimately rezoned to RT, Ms. Heller acknowledged
that careful attention will have to be given to the design
and layout of the lot to ensure its compatibility with its
surroundings. She observed that the developer has shown in
the sketch plans ample landscaping, a well landscaped entranceway,
and additional site details that should be included in the
ultimate rezoning of the lot to RT.
Ms. Heller, focusing on traffic, affirmed that a detailed
traffic study has been completed by the developer that has
been extensively reviewed by the City’s traffic consultant
and the City’s traffic coordinator. Ms. Heller advised
their comments indicate that the current submission has substantially
enhanced the proposed traffic improvements from the former
Bethlehem Town Center plan. Additional improvements include
total reconstruction of the Martin Tower driveway, an additional
left turn lane at the developer’s driveway, development
of an exclusive left turn lane on Eighth Avenue from north
of Eaton Avenue to the developer’s driveway, and an
additional traffic signal at the northbound Route 378 off-ramp.
Ms. Heller stated that these additional improvements along
with the improvements proposed in the original 2001 traffic
study will vastly improve safety on Eighth Avenue for both
motorists and pedestrians. She added that these traffic impacts
and proposed public improvements are commented on in more
detail by both the traffic coordinator and the traffic consultant.
Ms. Heller restated that at its March 19, 2003 meeting the
Planning Commission did vote to recommend that City Council
approve the rezoning of this site from LI to IR and RT as
proposed. In addition, the Planning Bureau, the City Administration,
and the Mayor also support this project as it is before City
Council.
Developer’s Comments
Attorney Joseph Fitzpatrick, attorney for the developer,
said that in fairness to Council and the public, and in recognition
of the thorough job the Planning Commission did in hearing
the developer’s presentation, and in realizing that
Council and the public will have access to all of the exhibits,
reports, data, submissions, and studies previously filed,
he wants to acknowledge that Council for the most part is
well familiar with the site. Attorney Fitzpatrick, commenting
that less than a year ago City Council was pondering a rezoning
and is familiar with its physical attributes and its history,
thought that as a matter of law Council can take judicial
notice of its proceedings at that prior consideration and
there is not the need to renew or review every aspect of the
proposal. Attorney Fitzpatrick, referring to motions made
earlier, said from the developer’s standpoint there
is no question that delay is at least an indefinite denial.
Attorney Fitzpatrick expressed concurrence there is no need
for supporters to take ten minutes to express their support.
So that the proceedings can move in a prompt fashion to the
supporters or proponents of what Mr. Petrucci is asking for,
Attorney Fitzpatrick suggested that no filibusters are required.
Attorney Fitzpatrick said “we’re here tonight
with a self-explanatory petition to rezone.” Attorney
Fitzpatrick advised that the proposal is not the same as a
proposal last year starting with the truth that there are
two zoning districts proposed for the tract, neither of which
was before Council last year. Attorney Fitzpatrick, stating
that the 32.6 acre parcel of land is currently zoned LI, affirmed
it is requested that the Eighth Avenue frontage of the property
be rezoned to IR being approximately 19.79 acres, and the
rear portion, largely the portion abutting near residential
development on Stanford Road, be rezoned to RT, multi-family
residential, which is about 12.78 acres. Attorney Fitzpatrick,
making reference to exhibit AX and noting there are extra
copies of it, identified that the exhibit is an aerial map,
available to the public at the Lehigh County Assessor’s
Office, at the GIS office. It shows an area in the immediate
vicinity of Eighth Avenue and Route 378 and depicts the former
Durkee plant. It also depicts neighborhoods to the north and
west on the opposite side of Route 378. Attorney Fitzpatrick
stressed it is key to note that the parcel is not an isolated
non-residential use in a sea of neighborhoods and is a mixed
use. To the west of the property and along Route 378, and
not counting schools or recreational areas, there are any
number of industrial, employment, and commercial uses including
the B. Braun complex, Synthetic Thread company, and Apollo
Metals. Attorney Fitzpatrick denoted that to the far east
in the aerial photograph it shows the entire industrial complex
along the creek just west of the Moravian College campus,
and in the middle the most daunting and obvious feature is
the looming shadow of Martin Tower next to the Dun and Bradstreet
complex at former Bethlehem Steel offices that is directly
across the street from the site in question. Attorney Fitzpatrick,
stating that the aerial photograph is worth three hours of
his argument and witnesses testimony, said “we are in
the middle of a gigantic commercial, industrial swath that
cuts through a commercial and industrial and neighborhood
city.” Attorney Fitzpatrick, advising that the IR use
is appropriate, said “this is underutilized commercial.
Before you tonight we are not presenting any land development.
We are not presenting anything other than this rezoning with
the subdivision on an informational basis as we described
at the Planning Commission. In capsulizing this rezoning request,
Attorney Fitzpatrick said, "number one, the non-residential
component is clearly smaller than the prior non-residential
component. More importantly, you are looking at a Lowe’s
store which is the smallest Lowe’s prototype…It’s
a 116,000 square foot retail area, with a 17,000 square foot
office and storage component plus an outdoor garden center
area…The prior retail application before you with the
CS zoning designation called for 222,000 square feet of retail
and commercial. We are asking for a branch bank on a pad,
a sit down restaurant on a pad, and a 116,000 square foot
Lowe’s retail store with an outdoor garden center that’s
not incorporated within that.” Attorney Fitzpatrick
noted there will be testimony briefly to the fact that traffic
will be improved, and movement, handling of congestion, physical
improvements to the traffic, network, and grid in this area
of the City will be improved with the construction of improvements
contemplated under this rezoning. Attorney Fitzpatrick, pointing
out there are a number of letters of support from State legislators,
County and local agencies, including the Lehigh Valley Planning
Commission, Lehigh Valley Economic Development Corporation,
the Brownfields Coalition, and so on, asked that those letters
be taken note of as the witnesses are heard.
Stephen Pany, project engineer for the on-site improvements,
said the company’s address is 609 Hamilton Mall, Allentown.
Attorney Fitzpatrick posed a number of questions to Mr. Pany
whose responses follow. Mr. Pany affirmed he is a professional
engineer registered in Pennsylvania and numerous other states,
and is the supervising professional engineer for the Petrucci
rezoning and the anticipated land development project. Mr.
Pany explained that exhibit A1 is the existing features plan
that depicts the Durkee site, approximately 34 acres, and
the current improvements on the site which include a 255,000
sq. ft. building with interior mezzanines of about 20,000
square feet, parking lots, railroads, on-site rail sitings,
perimeter rail which is currently vacated, and other general
features. Turning to a current 2003 photograph of the former
Durkee building, and affirming he also has a practice that
concentrates in structural engineering, Mr. Pany summarized
that although the building is robust, it is basically inefficient
and could be utilized but the feeling is it does not belong
there any more. The property has been vacant possibility about
nine and a half years. Mr. Pany acknowledged that while the
building has general employment center and general industrial
employment facility application, it is basically non-functional.
Mr. Pany explained that the building was probably initially
built circa 1950 with subsequent additions into the 1970’s,
it had a specific purpose at one time, and was for a specific
industry. However, it has seen its days. There are 30 loading
docks. The railroad tracks that border the building to the
south have been abandoned. Norfolk Southern owns the right
of way but no longer provides service to the site area, and
there is the intention that the tracks will be removed. Mr.
Pany confirmed there are adequate sanitary, storm water and
electrical easements, and gas, phone and water utility availability
along Eighth Avenue which will all be reutilized. Affirming
that the breakdown of IR and RT zoning as requested in the
petition is set forth in descriptions and depictions prepared
by Mr. Pany’s firm, Mr. Pany said the zoning exhibit
depicts the IR zone, areas and distances, as well as the RT
zone.
Attorney Fitzpatrick affirmed that existing features plan
is marked A1, the back of the photograph showing existing
plant conditions is marked A2, and the rezoning plan is marked
applicant’s exhibit A3.
Mr. Pany explained the plan reflects two proposed zones,
IR to the east of the property that will front Eighth Avenue,
and RT to the west of the property which will border a railroad
and the residential neighborhood.
Attorney Fitzpatrick denoted he has a subdivision plan for
informational purposes before City Council as it was for the
Planning Commission meeting, and is marked A4. Mr. Pany, confirming
that he prepared the subdivision plan, explained that it reflects
lot one that would be a site to accommodate two pads; i.e.,
a restaurant and a bank, lot two will accommodate the Lowe’s,
and lot three will accommodate the residential development.
Mr. Pany affirmed that the acreages Attorney Fitzpatrick mentioned
in his introduction were accurate and are reflected in Mr.
Pany’s plans. Mr. Pany, agreeing he would concur with
the information presented with respect to the size of the
proposed retail center, commented there is a proposed Lowe’s
building which is 134,000 square feet under roof, plus an
exterior garden center of about 26,000 square feet. Attorney
Fitzpatrick, affirming that he said it was 116,000 sq. ft.,
noted that the 134,000 sq. ft. includes approximately 17,000
sq. ft. plus of office with which figures Mr. Pany expressed
his concurrence.
Mr. Pany advised there will be landscaping along the north
boundary line that will abut the residential district, it
will be a solid barrier division, and very dense screening
will be proposed along the north property line for the full
length of the property. Mr. Pany, turning to drainage facilities,
explained that, predominately, the site slopes downward to
the south and water from the site drains to the railroad right
of way, some of the water drains under the railroad to PennDot
property, and ultimately to the Monocacy Creek. Other water
drains to the railroad and follows the railroad right of way
to the Monocacy Creek.
Mr. Pany, focusing on site access, informed the assembly
that a high volume drive, called Martin Court, is proposed
that will align with the light serving Bethlehem Steel’s
Martin Tower facility. The Martin Court will be a public street
for roughly 500 feet, and then turn into a private street
to serve the residential component. An emergency drive will
be proposed that will align with the current Durkee’s
driveway, will follow the railroad right of way to the residential
component, and will loop around the site. Mr. Pany affirmed
that the improvements and upgrade of the site will comply
with the City’s Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance
(SALDO) and zoning requirements, and stated “we can
comply with all SALDO requirements without needing any waivers.”
Greg Richardson, of Traffic Planning and Design, 4647 Saucon
Creek Road, Center Valley, PA took the podium. Attorney Fitzpatrick
posed a number of questions to Mr. Richardson whose responses
follow. Mr. Richardson affirmed he is a professional engineer
licensed in Pennsylvania and his specialty is transportation
planning and highway design. Mr. Richardson, confirming he
has some history with the site, verified that he spoke with
Members of Council within the last calendar year. Mr. Richardson
summarized what has been done to improve the traffic situation
as it exists now, anticipating traffic development if the
rezoning and subsequent land development occurs, and compared
it to the prior traffic proposal, focusing on site and off-site
improvements. Mr. Richardson recounted that the previous application
was primarily commercial, and restated that the current application
would include a residential and commercial component. The
current proposal would generate a plan with much less traffic
than the previous plan the main reason for which is the reduction
of roughly 75,000 sq. ft. of commercial space and the addition
of the residential component. However, Mr. Richardson said
it is important to note that although the number of trips
and commercial square footage has been reduced, the client,
Tiger Den Partners, is willing to comply with the offering
of certain roadway improvements. Of the improvements proposed
by the previous applicant, J&L Development company, the
improvements along the Eighth Avenue corridor will remain
the same with the exception that the client will pay for additional
improvements to address some of the concerns that came up
based on comments from Council last time in voting down the
previous rezoning request. Focusing on signalization of the
northbound ramp, Mr. Richardson said the client is willing
to pay for that improvement. In addition, he has been working
very closely with the owners of the Bethlehem Steel Corporation
property to not only address the proposed development’s
impacts on the Bethlehem Steel Corporation property and the
possible reduction in their property value, but keeping in
mind that this study accounts for the expansion of the Bethlehem
Steel Corporation facility or full use of the Martin Tower
office building not now under full use on a person to square
footage basis. Mr. Richardson added that additional traffic
and parking spaces from an increased number of employees in
the future has been included. Mr. Richardson restated that
the impact of Bethlehem Steel’s facility has been included
in with the client’s proposed traffic improvements.
Mr. Richardson, affirming that his client has to mitigate
his traffic impact, said “we believe we have mitigated
the impact from a traffic perspective, we’re solving
existing deficiencies, those being the deficiencies that exist
at the Route 378 ramps, and difficulty to turn from the ramps
onto Eighth Avenue. We are going to be providing a coordinated
signalized system along the Eighth Avenue corridor that will
provide good progression along the corridor and promote safe
and efficient flow along the corridor.” Reiterating
that the current proposal would generate less traffic, Mr.
Richardson said, however, his client is willing to implement
more improvements, and added this is a better plan from a
traffic perspective than the previous application submitted.
Attorney Fitzpatrick noted that the developer does have
a detailed and signed letter of understanding with Bethlehem
Steel Corporation, finalizing the agreement, and there is
an express understanding with Bethlehem Steel relative to
the jug handle and signalization improvements that will occur
not only at the entrance to the former Durkee site but also
in conjunction with the utilization of Martin Tower.
Mr. Richardson, continuing on with his responses to Attorney
Fitzpatrick’s questions, communicated that the revised
plan for Mr. Petrucci’s rezoning and ultimate land development
is superior in virtually all aspects compared to what City
Council saw before. Mr. Richardson’s detailed findings
and supporting data have been filed with the City and reviewed
by staff. Referring to Ms. Heller’s summarization of
the traffic submission and the developer’s need to comply
with City and Planning staff comments, Mr. Richardson affirmed
he is capable and willing to do so on behalf of the developer
and is in the process of doing so right now.
Attorney Fitzpatrick advised he has copies of detailed exhibits
referred to by Mr. Richardson, premarked as Exhibits A6, A7,
A8 and A9, showing the corridor improvements, and added he
will place them for examination.
Attorney Leo Devito, 38 W. Market Street, noted he is representing
Woodmont Properties for the residential component of the proposed
rezoning of the former Durkee site. Attorney Devito said there
are two people who he would like to have speak to the Members
of Council: Louis Zlotnick, Executive Vice President of Woodmont
Properties, and Timothy Wentz, architect from the Martin organization
in Philadelphia.
Lewis Zlotnick, Executive Vice President of Woodmont Properties,
119 Cherry Hill Road, Parsippany, New Jersey, noted that Mr.
Wentz, and Michael Perucci, who is a principal with the development,
are also present this evening. Mr. Zlotnick advised that Woodmont
Properties has been in business for 40 years and is owned
by Eric and Donald Witmondt, a father and son family owned
business. The company develops both single family and multi-family
products in New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania. The company
proposes 200 high quality apartments for the former Durkee
site, ranging from 825 to 1,300 square feet, from one to two
bedrooms, and renting for $1 per square foot per month. The
primary candidates for rental would be singles, newly formed
families, and empty nesters.
Timothy Wentz, principal of the Martin Architectural Group,
240 N. 22nd Street, Philadelphia, referring to sketches, noted
there are 200 apartment units, and explained the site is unique
in that it is triangular shaped which has caused the development
of relatively small buildings with 20 units a piece. They
are three story, walk up, luxury apartments with 14 attached
garages on the sides in each building, and walking paths.
There would be the opportunity for a clubhouse of approximately
3,500 square feet with a pool, and pocket parks. Mr. Wentz
showed sketches of the fronts of the buildings, and side elevations.
Landscape buffers would be provided throughout all the edges
of the site, and in particular to divide the residential portion
from the retail portion. Pointing to the sketch, Mr. Wentz
explained the buffer would be approximately 50 feet wide,
allowing for an eight foot high berm with landscaping on the
top. Mr. Wentz, emphasizing that the fronts of the buildings
do not show any garage doors, continued on to describe the
building materials of a combination of clapboard siding and
brick, along with a hip roof, and some of the architectural
details. He also showed the side elevations, and stressed
the company is trying to provide as attractive a building
as it can to provide an interesting streetscape.
Attorney Fitzpatrick informed the assembly that he has reduced
scale drawings from Mr. Richardson showing the corridor improvements,
and corrected the exhibit numbers to read exhibits A5 through
8, instead of A6 through 9.
Jim Petrucci, President of J. G. Petrucci Company, 171 Route
173, Asbury, New Jersey, and also 22 South Commerce Way, Bethlehem,
took the podium. Attorney Fitzpatrick posed a number of questions
to Mr. Petrucci whose responses follow. Mr. Petrucci advised
that he started the firm in 1987, came to the Lehigh Valley
in 1988, and indicated the company has been the most active
industrial developer in the City of Bethlehem in the past
10 years, having completed seven industrial buildings that
includes five in the Win Drive area, totaling about 200,000
square feet of industrial space, and including three New Jersey
companies that relocated here, with a total job creation of
about 125. In addition, the company developed the former Petrilla
Fuel site into the Perkins Restaurant on the South Side.
Mr. Petrucci affirmed that he has owned the former Durkee
property outright since July 16, 2002 having taken title at
that time. Mr. Petrucci, explaining the rezoning request,
thought the site represents a fantastic opportunity for a
long term future investment in the City, and noted that, in
his conversations with various individuals in the City, the
long term has been the focus. Mr. Petrucci added that the
proposal is a tremendous balance between the immediate benefits
and relief needed in the City for the people who live here
as well as long term, and a long term foundation for the City’s
future. Mr. Petrucci, noting one of the criticisms he heard
was that the company did not pay enough attention to a variety
of uses but came in and immediately charged forward with a
Lowe’s project, said that really is not the truth. Mr.
Petrucci advised that he looked at a variety of uses, both
permitted and not permitted, and settled on the proposal as
the most balanced and defensible, and the best in all aspects,
specifically traffic, that could be put in front of City officials.
Stressing that “we know industrial development”,
Mr. Petrucci continued on to communicate that he spends a
good part of his day in industrial parks and buildings, and
added that his company designs and builds them. Mr. Petrucci
asserted that the worst case scenario is what needs to be
dealt with if the building were to be left as is. He communicated
there is a big difference between the shoes that he is in
and those of the last person who submitted a proposal to the
City because the last person never owned the property. Mr.
Petrucci continued on to say he recognized that if a rezoning
application was made and denied he would be left with the
site as it is. In fact, he stated, if the rezoning is denied
the building will remain. Mr. Petrucci explained that the
project by Lowe’s permits the demolition of the building,
completion of the various remediations, and replacing what
is there with something new. If not, Mr. Petrucci said “the
building will stay and we will make do.” Mr. Petrucci,
stressing it is a “crap shoot” as to what will
go at the current site if it is not rezoned, highlighted some
of the issues involved in evaluating the worst case scenario
such as truck traffic, outside storage, noise, and 24/7 operations.
Mr. Petrucci remarked he would not want to be in a meeting
listening to people yell about a trucking terminal at the
site having had the opportunity “to do a great project
like this”. Mr. Petrucci, advising this plan is the
not the same as the last plan, pointed out there is 77,000
square feet less retail on the site than the last time.
Mr. Petrucci noted that, as he told the Planning Commission,
he had “somewhat of an unfair advantage in that we were
able to review very extensively the transcripts from your
meetings and from the previous Planning Commission meetings.
When we took all that into consideration…to come up
with what really would be the best thing, residential kept
coming up…and I think that we’ve done a good job
of choosing a fine developer who also has a long term track
record and investment profile for this project. To those that
would say these apartments are never going to be built, I
say you’re wrong. We have a developer who has a contract,
who is ready to set up and upon approval move ahead with the
project that’s in front of you.” Observing one
of the other things that was an issue last time was that there
always seemed to be a “moving target”, for example,
whether or not there would be a supermarket, and what kind
of plan was really being put forward, Mr. Petrucci expressed
he has tried to rely on his track record and hopes that the
credibility that has been established over the ten years his
firm has been working here demonstrates that “what we
say we’re going to do we’re going to do, and we
stake our reputation on it.” Asserting that his company
is local and is not going anywhere, Mr. Petrucci said “it
is simply not an option for us to tell you one thing and turn
around and do something else.”
Of the various endorsements the presently proposed project
has been given versus the previously proposed project, and
noting that some individuals and institutions have “flat
out changed” from a negative to a positive, Mr. Petrucci
pointed out the one he thinks is most significant is Bethlehem
Steel Corporation. Mr. Petrucci, correcting the statement
made earlier by Attorney Fitzpatrick, advised “we actually
have a signed agreement, not letter of understanding. It is
a signed, enforceable agreement with Bethlehem Steel. We did
not have that when we were before the Planning Commission.
We had a letter of intent…but we are prepared to enter
that into the record as an exhibit.” Mr. Petrucci recalled
that in April 2002, several Members of Council cited the issue
Bethlehem Steel’s property at Martin Tower as being
the primary reason for not supporting the project. Mr. Petrucci
remarked he is proud to say “that we took that on as
job one and we not only have a signed agreement with them,
but we have a letter that’s in your record which says
that they believe that this will enhance the value of Martin
Tower.”
Mr. Petrucci commented he has gotten the sense that what
limited objection there is to the new plan is not so much
based on traffic or commercial use but is on the concept of
a “big box” store and what a big box store represents.
Mr. Petrucci, expressing that to his company what Lowe’s
home improvement store represents is an excellent employer,
highlighted the Lowe’s track record in employing senior
citizens, a benefit package for approximately 75% of its employees,
and indicated that the project has the support of local labor
unions. Further, Mr. Petrucci pointed out that Lowe’s
has a tremendous track record in the area of local charities.
Mr. Petrucci, advising that he has taken the cue from the
Mayor and the Planning staff with respect to a variety of
upgrades for the project, informed the assembly he believes
this Lowe’s store, as shown by the model at the meeting,
is the first in the area and certainly the first in Pennsylvania
with a brick face, added there is one other in New Jersey.
Mr. Petrucci said that represents a significant concession
in economic terms and an upgrade to the neighborhood and the
project. Mr. Petrucci, noting that the Lowe’s would
sit almost where the current building is located, said there
would be a dramatic difference in terms of the City view.
Mr. Petrucci stressed that a tremendous amount of time has
been spent with landscaping that will feature different colors
and blooming seasons. In addition, Mr. Petrucci agreed to
install Victorian style lighting through most of the project,
and a pattern concrete sidewalk scheme, all of which he said
are upgrades not normally seen that would highlight and signature
the project as a gateway.
Mr. Petrucci, asserting that the tax implications are dramatic
and stating he has met with the Lehigh County and City tax
assessor, indicated there would be approximately $800,000
in tax revenues generated by the project. Recounting one of
the issues of the project previously proposed was that tax
revenues generated would be squandered by dealing with the
traffic situation, Mr. Petrucci said he is “happy to
say that by virtue of our agreement with Bethlehem Steel the
improvements that are going to be made are going to be made
at our expense. City condemnation, which was a feature of
the last proposal before you, is no longer an issue.”
Mr. Petrucci, highlighting the fact that the Perkins project
on the South Side did not need public funding, as is the case
with the presently proposed project, said he is very proud
of that fact.
Focusing on opposition to the project, Mr. Petrucci said
he does not “feel it in the street”. Referencing
the name of the opposition group called No Mall, Mr. Petrucci
remarked he does not “think that the No Mall name works
any more. This is not a mall. This is a Lowe’s store.”
Given what is there, Mr. Petrucci stressed he cannot see any
way but to look at the project as an upgrade to the site.
Mr. Petrucci, with reference to comments that it would be
a “mega store”, explained it is 133,000 square
feet versus the current building that comprises 270,000 square
feet. Turning to the community effort that has materialized
in support of the proposal, Mr. Petrucci noted two public
meetings were held both of which were over two hours in length
at which people asked for very specific details about traffic,
internal circulation, and so on. Mr. Petrucci advised that
petitions circulated in support of the proposal contained
the plan on the back so the signers saw the plan and were
educated about it. Mr. Petrucci, noting the No Mall group
had collected over 1,000 signatures, thought tonight will
demonstrate that is not the majority opinion on the project.
Recounting that Attorney Thomas Maloney, representing Bethlehem
Steel Corporation, had addressed City Council last year expressing
concern about their property, Mr. Petrucci stated that issue
is off the table. With reference to arguments that a mall
at the site would put other stores in the City out of business,
Mr. Petrucci pointed out that his project involves a single
use property which is going to minimize the competition with
existing businesses. Mr. Petrucci, highlighting the fact that
joblessness has risen dramatically in the past year, communicated
it would be difficult to not recognize the distress of the
job climate and the job opportunities that the proposal represents.
Mr. Petrucci, confirming that “we bought this site”
said he thinks “that puts us out of the category of
making a quick buck. We recognize that we were in this for
the long term and we were going to persist, and work through,
and compromise. We’ve earned a reputation in this Lehigh
Valley, one that I’m very proud of, for tackling tough
projects and doing everything that we set out to do. Your
responsibility as a City Council is to straddle that fine
line between immediate benefits, popular opinion at this time,
and long term future implications, and I really believe that
this addresses all three. You have overwhelming public support,
you have immediate jobs and tax benefits for a City that needs
it, and you have a tremendous long term investment by a…company
with major infrastructure improvements and aesthetics the
likes of which this City has not seen.”
Mr. Petrucci expressed his thanks to those who took the
time to meet with him, commented he was impressed that politics
have been set aside, and asked Council on behalf of its constituents
to vote yes.
Attorney Fitzpatrick said he would like to move the exhibits
through A8 into the record. Attorney Fitzpatrick, asking City
Council to look at the petition, the traffic study, and the
facts, stressed “this is a rock solid good planning
and zoning proposal”. Attorney Fitzpatrick marked the
Lowe’s benefit package referenced by Mr. Petrucci as
exhibit A9.
Council Comments
Mr. Callahan, affirming that today the Members of Council
received the pedestrian traffic study, conducted by Traffic
Planning and Design, Inc., pointed out he has not had the
chance to thoroughly review it, and asked how the numbers
were derived showing less traffic with this project versus
the previously proposed project.
Mr. Richardson advised that the purpose of the traffic study
was to determine, based on existing and projected conditions,
what the impact of the site will be on the roadway network
from a traffic perspective. The local data was counted at
a number of intersections along the Eighth Avenue and Schoenersville
Road corridors, with essentially the same scope used previously.
The major difference of this traffic study is the different
uses that are proposed, and the fact that the previous study
did not include the future expansion of the Bethlehem Steel
parking lot. As a result, there is additional traffic that
has been accounted for and not just the traffic associated
with the site. A number of other developments along the Eighth
Avenue corridor have been included, specifically just north
of Eaton Avenue such as the proposed office building and Wawa
market. Mr. Richardson explained the study was based on review
of proposed traffic volumes that are projected out ten years
regardless of whether the site is built and what could happen
if other developments are built that are unknown at this time.
Noting that is a requirement of the Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation (PennDot), Mr. Richardson informed the assembly
that plans and the traffic study have been submitted on a
preliminary basis to the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
that is currently reviewing them. Highlighting the fact that
his client will be required to obtain highway occupancy permits
as well as revised traffic signal plans that have to be reviewed
and approved by PennDot, Mr. Richardson advised there are
two levels of review, the first of which is at the municipal,
or City of Bethlehem level, and stated that the City staff
has provided a thorough review. Mr. Richardson said that he
believes all of the comments of the City staff can be met
and addressed, and the City can be provided with a plan and
improvements that not only mitigate the impact of this land
use that will generate less traffic than the previous application,
but which also accounts for the Bethlehem Steel issue.
Mr. Callahan, asking Mr. Richardson to address the peak
weekday AM and PM traffic, observed that people would be leaving
the proposed apartments to go to and from work at the same
time as students would be going to and from Nitschmann School
located at Union Boulevard and Eighth Avenue.
Mr. Richardson advised that the numbers for the morning
peak hour occur between 7:00 and 9:00 AM. The primary hours
for the commercial uses are typically in the evening hours
and on the weekend. There will be additional traffic associated
with this development on top of what was proposed before but
there is a reduction in the square footage of uses. Mr. Richardson
said the morning peak hour was not analyzed with the previously
proposed plan because it was not believed those proposed land
uses would have a heavy impact. Mr. Richardson stated that
75% of the traffic associated with the proposed use is not
going to go near the Nitschmann School intersection. Mr. Richardson
confirmed to Mr. Callahan it will come on and off Route 378
and to the north. Mr. Richardson notified Mr. Callahan that
the firm is working with the School District to provide improvements
needed. Mr. Richardson said the key point is that there are
“major improvements that were designed to occur based
on the results of what is going to be generated there and
be weekday evening peak hours or Saturday peak hours”,
and added that will be accounted for in the design of the
traffic signals along the corridor. Mr. Richardson advised
that four traffic signal systems along the area as requested
by the City and PennDot, and the morning peak hours, will
be specifically accounted for.
Mr. Callahan inquired whether it can be said that there
will be more traffic in the AM weekday peak period with this
plan than with the previously proposed plan. Mr. Richardson
replied “there is more traffic but it’s not an
appreciable difference”. Mr. Callahan asked if the road
improvements are significant enough to offset the increase
in peak traffic. Mr. Richardson, responding yes, said the
improvements are more than proposed before for less overall
traffic. Mr. Callahan, explaining when he looked at the plan
last year his biggest concern was the Nitschmann School students,
observed that a benefit of last year’s 100% commercial
proposal was that most of the traffic would occur at non-peak
times. In further response to Mr. Callahan, Mr. Richardson
stated with this type of development the major traffic generator,
regardless of the peak hour, is going to be the commercial
use. Consequently, while there will be traffic associated
with the morning peak hours, it is not going to be at such
a level that will create a situation where additional improvements
based on increased volume will be needed. Mr. Richardson,
pointing out there is less commercial use under the present
proposal, recounted some of the morning traffic that would
have resulted under the previous proposal such as that from
the health club is not a factor but on the other hand the
current proposal contains a residential portion that will
generate some traffic. As a result, Mr. Richardson felt it
is a “wash” in terms of traffic during the peak
hour.
Recalling former estimates of $800,000-$900,000 of road
improvements under the previous proposal, Mr. Callahan asked
the estimate under the present proposal. Mr. Richardson enumerated
that, with the addition of a new traffic signal, widening,
and improvements at Bethlehem Steel property, the estimate
is over $1,000,000. Mr. Callahan expressed he is encouraged
that the traffic improvements have increased.
Nitschmann School Students – Project Citizen
President Gregory stated that, if Council so decides, he
would at this time recognize students from Nitschmann School
to make a presentation on their submittal for Project Citizen
of a project involving reuse of the former Durkee site.
Among the students who introduced themselves were: Leigh
Schlener, Ana Medina, Katlyn Snyder, Nicole Geist, Laura Lightwood
Mater, and Alex Roysdon. The students explained that Project
Citizen is a group of students who find a problem in their
community that they would like to fix or make better. The
group won the State competition last year and went on to the
national competition, and this year is defending their title.
The problem was the empty former Durkee spice plant on Eighth
Avenue. Choices for reuse of the site were a pool, mall, community
center, restaurant, recreation, park, Lowe’s home improvement
store, car auction center, skate park, and ice rink. The majority
of the students picked a mall or a community center, and the
decision for the project was to follow through with the community
center. The students listed pros and cons for a community
center, along with apartments around the center, and explained
the depictions on the various poster boards they brought.
Council Comments
Mr. Schweder asked how many additional spaces would be at
Martin Tower. Mr. Richardson, replying 750 spaces, informed
Mr. Schweder that traffic volumes were derived from a study
provided by Bethlehem Steel’s traffic consultant.
Mr. Schweder, observing one of the concerns was the northbound
exit ramp off Route 378 and the ability to make a left hand
turn into the proposed project property, said it appears the
solution is signals at the end of exit ramp. Acknowledging
that is one purpose of the signal, Mr. Richardson explained
a purpose of the signal is to allow motorists to turn out
into the traffic without having to merge or conflict with
volume on northbound Eighth Avenue. Adding that the purpose
of the signal is not necessarily to get people into the proposed
site although it will help, Mr. Richardson advised it is to
solve an existing deficiency. Noting the previous study and
design had a driveway and left turn lane at 100 feet away
while this one is at least 180 feet, Mr. Richardson added
the firm is exploring other issues to try to maximize that
distance as much as possible.
Mr. Richardson affirmed to Mr. Schweder that, traveling
northbound on Eighth Avenue, there will be five traffic lights
between Union Boulevard and Eighth Avenue all of which will
be coordinated so as not to create congestion in between.
Mr. Schweder asked if the letter of agreement with Bethlehem
Steel carries forth to their successors in view of the fact
that there will no longer be Bethlehem Steel on April 22,
2003. Attorney Fitzpatrick replied yes, and highlighted the
fact that his earlier statement was corrected that there is
now a signed agreement, instead of a letter of understanding,
and restated it is binding on successors.
Mayor’s Comments
Mayor Delgrosso stated he is supporting the proposal for
two reasons; i.e., the mixed use that includes the quality
residential component as well as the Lowe’s project,
and what it will do as far as employment and taxes. Mayor
Delgrosso, expressing his appreciation for Mr.
Petrucci’s comments as far as the aesthetics of the
Lowe’s project, said Bethlehem has now, at least through
this developer, established a difference in projects outside
the downtown area so they can meet requirements asked for
in the City applicable to lighting, sidewalks, and landscaping.
Noting the developer has met those requirements with his proposal,
Mayor Delgrosso expressed the hope that would continue with
other projects. Mayor Delgrosso pointed out that the City
real estate and mercantile tax dollars associated with the
proposed project of $221,500 are a little higher than with
the previously proposed project estimated at $209,000.
President Gregory inquired what is the School District property
tax amount. Mayor Delgrosso said the figures he was given
today show City of Bethlehem of $204,000, Bethlehem Area School
District $447,000, and Lehigh County approximately $143,075,
for a total of $794,075. Mayor Delgrosso added that the Lowe’s
project is anticipated to provide 170 jobs of which 70% would
be full time, 15 employees at the proposed restaurant, and
10 employees at the bank.
Council Comments
Mr. Callahan expressed his appreciation for all of the people
at the meeting in support of the proposal. Mr. Callahan, recalling
that the previous proposal was estimated to create 511 jobs,
noted there would be less than half that number with the current
proposal. Mr. Callahan, saying he is still going to support
it, remarked he thinks something is better than nothing, and
added that the mercantile tax would be cut in half under the
present proposal versus the previous proposal. Stating that
the residential plan looks pretty good, Mr. Callahan said
he hopes it will stay that way over the long term. Mr. Callahan,
commenting he is concerned from a land use perspective injecting
a high density residential use in the midst of a commercial
and industrial swath that is bordered by Apollo Metals and
a commercial site on the other, advised he does have some
concern about the long term viability of the housing and its
looking fresh in the long term. Mr. Callahan noted his concern
about a drain on City services under the proposed apartments.
In addition, he observed that the apartments could have an
affect on the school district in terms of the need to build
larger schools and an offsetting increase in school district
taxes.
Council Solicitor Comments
Christopher Spadoni, City Council Solicitor, stated he has
been informed there are a number of letters and recommended
they be made part of the record in this proceeding.
Motion - Letters Becoming Part of Record
President Gregory made a motion that all letters received
pro and con become part of the record. Mrs. Belinski seconded
the motion.
Voting AYE: Mr. Arcelay, Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Donchez, Mr.
Schweder, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Gregory, 6. The motion passed.
(Mr. Callahan was absent during the vote on the motion.)
President Gregory, at the request of Attorney Spadoni, announced
the letters are available for public inspection.
. COURTESY OF THE FLOOR
Public Comments
Ted Morgan, 925 Prospect Avenue, advising he is one of the
spokespeople for the group No Mall which stands for Neighborhood
Organizations Mobilized To Assure Local Livability, communicated
that therefore the name of the group is still applicable.
Noting that last year City Council voted against rezoning
the property in question from LI Light Industrial to CS Shopping
Center District, Mr. Morgan felt being patient and trying
to find appropriate zoning for West Bethlehem and for the
long term interests of the City shows good planning principles
that the long term vitality of the City is based on finding
good jobs, maintaining vital healthy retail areas of the City
in appropriate centers, strong neighborhoods, and maintaining
the historic and cultural traditions of the City that make
it distinctive. Mr. Morgan recounted that the grass roots
citizens group did a great deal of research, provided a great
deal of evidence, had strong support from over a thousand
residents of West Bethlehem, and worked in a mutually respectful
manner with the Members of Council to try to come up with
a better alternative for the site. Mr. Morgan related that
immediately after Council’s vote last year against rezoning
the property in question from LI Light Industrial to CS Shopping
Center District, the vote was attacked “by well placed
advocates of the original zoning proposal and an effort was
made to discredit Council for inviting in much worse kinds
of developments to this site.” Mr. Morgan expressed
the opinion that those attacks along with subsequent events
like clearing the site have helped to orchestrate strong public
support for rezoning. Mr. Morgan enumerated that most of the
members of the No Mall group will draw on research, consultation
with professional developers and traffic engineers, economists,
and others to argue and show this proposal has virtually the
same impact as last year’s proposal and is not really
very different. Mr. Morgan expressed that he respects those
wearing yellow T-shirts who are in favor of the rezoning request
and are at the meeting tonight to present their perspective.
Noting that those in favor of the rezoning request have said
they want convenient access to a Lowe’s home improvement
store, Mr. Morgan said Lowe’s is not the issue and his
group has no problem with their having access to Lowe’s.
Rather, Mr. Morgan explained the issue is location and the
nature of this site. Mr. Morgan asserted that for the very
reason of the amount of traffic encountered when one drives
along Route 191 to go to Home Depot “it would be a terrible
mistake if this City Council decided to introduce that kind
of development to Eighth Avenue in West Bethlehem.”
Focusing on the petition presented by No Mall last year that
was no longer circulated after being signed by 1,000 citizens
in opposition to rezoning the site from LI to CS, Mr. Morgan
informed the assembly that of those citizens contacted at
least two to one favored No Mall’s position. Mr. Morgan
added that No Mall noticed that support for its position “was
a little stronger the closer you got to the site than it was
farther away from the site.” Mr. Morgan suggested that,
whatever number of signers the Vote Yes group obtained for
their petition in favor of the present request to rezone the
site from LI to IR and RT, a few thoughts might be considered
such as how far away from the site do the signers live, and
what have people been told when they raise questions about
the proposal. Mr. Morgan stated his group has received reports
that when people questioned the amount of traffic under the
present proposal they were told that the amount of traffic
would be the same as when the Durkee spice plant was in operation
at the site. Mr. Morgan said that is “patently not right”.
Mr. Morgan denoted that people may have signed the Vote Yes
petition based on misleading information. Making the observation
that there has been an orchestration of support for the rezoning
in that the rezoning has been supported by the former Mayor
and currently supported by the developer, Mr. Morgan stated
that is not the same as a grass roots movement. Mr. Morgan
felt that Council should make a decision on the merits of
the case.
Mr. Morgan asserted that rezoning the front of the property
to IR “…is in fact inappropriate, if not illegal”.
Reading from the City of Bethlehem’s Zoning Ordinance
Section 1317A that addresses IR, Mr. Morgan highlighted the
fact that the IR zone is for “the economic revitalization
of underutilized Heavy Industrial properties” and stressed
that the property is currently zoned LI Light Industrial.
Additionally reading some of the uses allowed under HI, Mr.
Morgan said that is not what the site in question contains
or can contain. Furthermore, Mr. Morgan said the IR zoning
allows greater flexibility in terms of the development of
the site which is a concern. Mr. Morgan, recalling that in
1996 City Council created IR zoning for the explicit purpose
of giving Bethlehem Steel Corporation maximum leeway so that
its property could be redeveloped, recounted there was criticism
on Council about the wide latitude IR zoning provided. Mr.
Morgan, pointing out that Mr. Donchez voted against it, quoted
from remarks made by Mr. Donchez that “Council would
be abrogating its responsibility of control in protecting
the public interest” and further quoted remarks made
by Don Cunningham, a Council Member at that time, that IR
zoning gives “very little control into the future”.
Mr. Morgan expressed the opinion that this shows “how
inappropriate IR zoning is to this site”. Questioning
why the section of the property requested to be rezoned to
IR is separated into two plots, one for Lowe’s and the
other for a bank and a restaurant, Mr. Morgan wondered whether
it is because Tiger Den can try to make the legal case that
the front half is not a shopping center; and, if not, does
that not allow them to have a smaller number of parking spaces.
Mr. Morgan said it does come in several hundred parking spaces
under the requirement which he thought might make it look
like it will generate less traffic than it will. Inquiring
why IR zoning is being requested when the developer is planning
to build retail at the site that it is CS Commercial Shopping,
Mr. Morgan wondered if it is being done to avoid legal action
because Council rejected rezoning the property to CS one year
ago. Noting that the answers are for Council to decide, Mr.
Morgan suggested that Council investigate the questions fully
until it is satisfied with the answers. Mr. Morgan summarized
that the front portion of the property is Commercial Shopping,
it should have several hundred more parking spaces, and the
Lowe’s store is the same size or larger than the Lowe’s
store of last year in that the comparison made by Attorney
Fitzpatrick to last year’s plan was to the total square
footage of retail being 220,000 square feet that is not the
Lowe’s piece but rather the total square footage. Mr.
Morgan remarked if that is the case then the only real difference
is the proposal to rezone the rear section of the property
to RT Residential.
Mr. Morgan said the developer’s argument that the proposal
will generate less traffic, is mixed use, is a compromise
for different interests in the City, and that retail is contained
“are dependent on the fact that the rear property is
in fact zoned and constructed and occupied and successful
as residential property” which he felt was a big burden
for that section of the property. Mr. Morgan, asserting that
the property is not mixed use, enumerated what planners consider
mixed use and stressed that mixed use would be ideal development
for the site. Mr. Morgan added that the City’s Historic
Officer, a professor at Lehigh University, once contemplated
having her students design a mixed use project for the site.
Stressing that his group’s issue is not with the Woodmont
Company that does quality structures, Mr. Morgan said “if
you build it they won’t come”. Mr. Morgan stated
that the proposed residential development is “three
to four times the density of other sites like Lehigh Street…or
Marvine Village, two of the more densely populated complexes
in the City…[,and] it’s behind a huge Lowe’s
right next to the loading platform…and…Synthetic
Thread [company] to the immediate west, but a whole series
of light industrial factories to the west, a very busy highway
to the south, and it shares the single entrance and exit from
busy Eighth Avenue to the east with shoppers at Lowe’s.
Who is going to pay a high rent to live there.” Mr.
Morgan related that one of the developers he talked to who
was considering building high-end empty nest residential apartments
or condominiums on the whole site “laughed at the idea
of trying to do that behind the Lowe’s”. Mr. Morgan
said the real question about the proposed residential development
is whether it is "real, is it a phantom, is it an illusion,
what will happen down the road”. Mr. Morgan, stating
that Council must satisfy themselves with their answer to
that question, expressed the hope that “it will be the
right one and you will reject this rezoning”.
John Ladics, 1527 Kaywin Avenue, remarked that “for
most of us it’s a dream to have a Lowe’s and a
commercial development” at the site. Mr. Ladics, noting
that he signed the petition in favor of the rezoning, advised
that he lives six blocks away from the site and Mr. Morgan
lives a little further away. Turning to the presentation made
by the students from Nitschmann Middle School, Mr. Ladics
noted that the first choice was for a community center while
the second choice was a mall project. Mr. Ladics, recalling
it has been one year since some Members of Council were persuaded
to vote against developing the abandoned former Durkee spice
plant site into commercial retail by the No Mall group, said
the group was right in that “the proposed development
is not a mall”. Mr. Ladics pointed out that a mall is
connected by buildings with large parking lots and anchored
by several large department stores, and remarked that the
proposed plan is not a mall or a mega store. Mr. Ladics stressed
that the proposal is for three unattached buildings architecturally
designed to give an appealing appearance. Mr. Ladics communicated
that one year has passed, there is still an abandoned building
at the site known as a brownfield, there have been no improvements
to Eighth Avenue, taxes have increased, unemployment rises,
and Bethlehem Steel retirees have lost benefits. Continuing
on to say there is no competition or convenience for Bethlehem
residents to benefit from, Mr. Ladics asserted that “townships
and boroughs surrounding the City [are] cashing in on what
the No Mall mega-store people reject.” Mr. Ladics highlighted
the fact that traffic will never be eliminated from the Eighth
Avenue area in question. Mr. Ladics stressed that any Light
Industrial development of the site would look much like it
does now with box-shaped buildings, no buffer zone, no proper
landscaping, pollution, noise, and industrial traffic. Mr.
Ladics, commenting that the No Mall group would have people
believe that commercial development would harm local business,
noted that yet people will go out of their way to shop and
dine in the various townships surrounding the City. Mr. Ladics
wondered what visitors think when they come into the City
and see an abandoned factory sitting idle at this location
for almost a decade. He further said most elected officials
“would be ashamed to show this site to visitors but
would welcome a commercial development as proposed by Mr.
Petrucci with the Lowe’s as an anchor.” Focusing
on Bethlehem Township and the recently opened Route 33 interchange,
Mr. Ladics highlighted the fact that the Township commissioners
did not hesitate to approve a commercial development at the
location. Mr. Ladics continued on to remark that townships
have a nice tax base, its employees get a little more money
than City of Bethlehem employees, and there are jobs there.
Turning to a commercial development in Lower Saucon Township
past Wyandotte Street, Mr. Ladics enumerated there are movie
theaters, a food store, restaurant and other commercial enterprises
and pointed out that there is one traffic light, an extra
turning lane and no overwhelming traffic developing there.
Recalling three home improvement type stores that had been
in Bethlehem, Mr. Ladics highlighted the fact that they are
gone. Mr. Ladics, communicating that young and old alike are
employed at Home Depot, acknowledged they are not making $20
an hour but they are employed. Quoting from a letter to the
editor in the Morning Call in which it was stated that the
newspaper wants a Lowe’s in order to gain more adverting
fees, Mr. Ladics said that is not true citing that one basic
flyer is used to advertise products at multiple store locations.
Recalling that one year ago people were told that development
of the abandoned Durkee site was “waiting in the wings
of City Hall”, Mr. Ladics said that is not true in that
only one developer, Mr. Petrucci, came forward and had the
foresight to purchase the brownfield, pay taxes on it, and
plan a development that benefits all of the residents of the
City of Bethlehem. Mr. Ladics pointed out that Mr. Petrucci
has worked with the Planning Commission, zoning, and residents
of the area to make the development plausible for all concerned,
and added “yet the No Mall people continue to find everything
wrong and attempt to convince you that his plan is not good
for the residents….of Bethlehem.” Mr. Ladics asked
Council to consider in favor of Mr. Petrucci’s plans
and give him a chance since he is willing to work with Council
and the residents to develop the land into something of which
the residents of Bethlehem can be proud, or “reject
his plan and be faced with industrial development that holds
no boundaries”. Mr. Ladics felt that if industrial development
were to occur at the site it is something that the No Mall
group will regret.
While expressing his agreement with comments made at a past
meeting by Mrs. Belinski that Nitschmann Middle School is
a shining star of middle schools in the City, Mr. Ladics said
she forgot to mention Northeast, East Hills, and Broughal
Middle Schools. Mr. Ladics, with reference to the presentation
made by students from Nitschmann Middle School, communicated
that ignores the fact that the owner, Mr. Petrucci, not City
Council, must be convinced what to do with the land if the
commercial development is rejected. Mr. Ladics felt that people
should not be swayed into thinking that industrial development
is better than commercial development. Mr. Ladics pointed
out that Lehigh University and Moravian College have continually
encroached on the City’s neighborhoods, purchasing properties,
buildings, and parking lots for their new developments, and
they pay no taxes. Mr. Ladics said he did not hear any complaints
from the No Mall group about the safety of Broughal Middle
School students when a parking garage, retail, commercial,
and dormitory development that added traffic was proposed
on Morton Street at Lehigh University. Mr. Ladics queried
whether Lowe’s management would be willing to hire Bethlehem
Police on grand opening day when 28,000 vehicles are going
to pass through there so that some of the traffic congestion
can be alleviated. Mr. Ladics said it is up to City Council
whether they want an abandoned factory brownfield, a well-planned
commercial development, or industrial development with no
boundaries. Mr. Ladics communicated that Mr. Petrucci should
be given a chance, and described him as a gentleman, upfront,
willing to listen and correct problems that may arise. Encouraging
people to check Mr. Petrucci’s website and the projects
he has completed in the Lehigh Valley, Mr. Ladics said Mr.
Petrucci is concerned with the future of the residents of
the City.
Michael Galio, business representative for the Lehigh Valley
Carpenters Local 600, 528 Linden Street, said he speaks as
a businessman with a business address in the City, a representative
of nearly 800 tradesmen in the local who work in the Bethlehem
area and Lehigh Valley communities, and a spokesperson for
about 68 members from the local who live in the City. Mr.
Galio said “we are here to voice our support for the
Lowe’s project for some reasons of self interest and
some reasons of what we feel is common sense and sound planning.”
While acknowledging that the Lowe’s project offers opportunities
for work for the members, Mr. Galio observed it is not just
or sufficient cause for Council to render a decision, and
added there are other compelling reasons. Mr. Galio pointed
to the use of automobiles for the populace and use of trucks
for shipping as reasons for diminishing the need for business
to have rail access and ending the need for businesses to
be located in the center of a large population area. Referring
to the use of cheaper foreign labor instead of domestically
produced products, Mr. Galio stressed that “with large
numbers of abandoned factories, closed plants, and various
other brownfield sites, the likelihood [that] one of the few
manufacturers in this country looking for a site might choose
this property is slim to say the least.” Mr. Galio,
while asserting that in the Lehigh Valley many acres of prime
flat virgin farmland are being offered at prices that make
this site unattractive to many potential customers, further
stressed that every other brownfield site is available for
the taking which gives a manufacturer a wide range of choices
to pick a site that best suits their needs. Mr. Galio questioned
what are the chances that the floor space span between the
columns, specific dimensions of the area inside the building,
height, access to loading docks, outside access, or outside
storage would be suitable for a particular manufacturer. As
time passes and business needs change, Mr. Galio asserted
“we must adapt. Many old sites are now suited better
for a different use than originally chosen. The abandoned
Durkee property with its close proximity to a large population
base is now a better site for retail and commercial development
rather than manufacture. The Lowe’s company is a good
fit for this site. Lowe’s has a 100% track record for
their stores remaining in business after being built with
the only exception being when they close one store to open
another larger store in its place. Lowe’s is a well
run company with its number one concern being customer satisfaction.
Lowe’s restricts their receiving hours [so] that they
do not adversely impact the neighborhoods. Lowe’s, as
almost all retail, [is] non-polluting, and, finally, Lowe’s,
as all retail, adds to the tax base.” Turning to the
issue of additional traffic and its impact on the school zone,
Mr. Galio pointed out that throughout the country schools
are built, run, and maintained in cities with far more dense
populations than that of Bethlehem. Mr. Galio stated that
the added traffic is not an unmanageable situation. Mr. Galio
said “we support the Lowe’s project and we believe
it is a good fit for this site.”
Glen Womer, Sr., 650 Ontario Street, stated he has lived
in the City for about 20 years, and went to Broughal and Liberty
High Schools. Mr. Womer, expressing the opinion that the Lowe’s
project is a great venture, said he has to travel five miles
to get a piece of lumber. Mr. Womer, noting that he owns two
houses on the South Side, questioned why he should have to
travel to get a piece of lumber, and highlighted the fact
that there used to be several lumber yards in the City. Mr.
Womer, informing the assembly he is a truck driver, advised
that he has been dealing with Lowe’s for 16 years and
said “they are probably one of the best companies…for
a truck driver to get in and out of.” Mr. Womer pointed
out their receiving hours are from 7:00 AM to 4:00 PM. Mr.
Womer communicated that a Lowe’s is needed in this area
mainly because traffic outside the City is bad as one travels
to Home Depot stores. Stressing that Lowe’s is one of
the largest companies in the country and employs thousands
of people, Mr. Womer said their employees are very friendly
and knowledgeable, and their products are very good. Mr. Womer
said he proposes that the Lowe’s be built.
Marty Smith, 2073 Blossam Lane, said he has lived in the
City for about five years and likes living here. Mr. Smith
expressed a main reason he is here tonight is his focus on
the future of the City. Mr. Smith felt that rezoning the site
to IR allows for the best use of the property, and revitalization
of this portion of the City. Mr. Smith encouraged the Members
of Council to consider both sides of the argument, listen
to what the engineers have presented, and come to the best
decision.
David Silliman, 2004 Fernway Avenue, said he has been a
resident for about four years. Mr. Silliman, focusing on the
unemployment rates that are higher than they have been, thought
that the Lowe’s project will help that situation. Mr.
Silliman said more important to him is the quality of the
employer that Lowe’s is from research he has done, and
noted they are a top quality employer that offers good, competitive
benefits, and values their employees. Mr. Silliman expressed
his support for the rezoning, and remarked he would say yes.
Kenneth Beadle, 1589 Kadel Drive, noted he is a retired
City firefighter. Mr. Beadle, informing the assembly that
he went door to door in the rain, snow, and cold with a petition,
read from the petition, as follows: “I, the undersigned,
have reviewed the development plans (see the reverse side)
for the proposed project including a Lowe’s, restaurant,
bank, and residential units, and we support this project.”
Mr. Beadle advised that when homeowners found out he was with
the say yes group he was greeted “with open arms”.
Mr. Beadle said “these people told me they are in the
majority, not the minority…, and asked me to take this
message to the City Council and let you know that the majority
is speaking right now. Out of the 70 people who I contacted,
66 signed my petition…That’s 94%. They said to
me why should we have to go out of the City, even out of the
State, to go to a home improvement center. We need Lowe’s…Say
yes City Council tonight, and vote yes next week.” Noting
that most people he talked to were senior citizens, Mr. Beadle
pointed out they talked about the tax base and how the taxes
from this development would help Bethlehem. Mr. Beadle, remarking
he wants the very best for Bethlehem, said “I want Lowe’s.
Lowe’s is the very best. Lowe’s will be the crown
jewel of Bethlehem.” Mr. Beadle added “just vote
yes when you vote”.
Ken Kirst, 72 W. Elizabeth Avenue, focusing on the residential
portion of the proposal, advised that he was frequently in
the Marvine-Pembroke residential development during two years
when he delivered pizzas, and any apartments that had attached
garages was always well-maintained and a good place to go
to get a good tip. Mr. Kirst encouraged Council to vote yes.
Vince Paden, 521 Ninth Avenue, noted he is a life-long resident
of Bethlehem and became involved because of Council’s
vote a year ago. Mr. Paden remarked that he allowed himself
to assume that Council would do what is in the best interests
of a majority of the citizens of Bethlehem, not a minority.
Mr. Paden, advising that he became involved with neighbors
on both sides of the issue due to his residence location,
expressed something that disturbed him was the pitting of
neighbors against each other. Expressing his sadness at the
decline of Bethlehem Steel Corporation, the empty real estate
on the corporation’s property, the abandoned former
Durkee site, Five Points, etc., Mr. Paden said “the
town is in a downward spiral”. Mr. Paden stressed that
with loss of payroll taxes, real estate taxes, school taxes,
and rising unemployment, the City will be forced to make hard
decisions about its economic future very soon. Mr. Paden recalled
that, in the past, Bethlehem Steel Corporation assisted the
City with many major municipal projects and improvements for
the quality of life of citizens when the “money was
not there”, including Town Hall, and the library. Mr.
Paden highlighted the fact that Bethlehem Steel is gone. He
expressed that an attempt should be made to try and create
a tax base that the citizens of Bethlehem can live with. Mr.
Paden, focusing on the need for economic development and fair
tax rates in the City, enumerated several issues facing Bethlehem's
citizens including increased health care costs that must be
paid by Bethlehem Steel Corporation retirees, and stressed
that potential investors at the Bethlehem Works site would
be observing how businesses are received in the City. Mr.
Paden questioned why development should be feared when there
are City officials who can control it such as City Council,
Zoning Hearing Board, Planning Commission, City traffic coordinator,
Benchmark Engineering that is the City's traffic consultant,
and many departments.
Focusing on a press release of October 11, 2001, Mr. Paden
remarked No Mall left the impression that the City would be
attracting Light Industrial companies to the former Durkee
site. Yet in a No Mall flyer that he received at his home
last Sunday, Mr. Paden pointed out it says there are two parties
interested in building residential homes on the site. Mr.
Paden queried what happened to the Light Industrial development.
Mr. Paden further questioned where were the two companies
interested in building residential homes on the site when
it was on the market. Mr. Paden said if he took the numbers
presented in the No Mall flyer received at his home last Sunday
it would tell him there are 28,000 cars per day on the average
on Eighth Avenue and 32,000 cars per day on MacArthur Road.
As a result, Mr. Paden calculated if he were to stand at MacArthur
Road at 4:00 PM on a Tuesday afternoon and count the cars
for 60 seconds it works out to 22 cars; and, if he were to
stand at Eighth Avenue at 4:00 PM on a Wednesday the next
week and count the cars for 60 seconds there will be 19 cars.
Mr. Paden questioned if he is "really to believe that
there are 3 cars a minute more on MacArthur Road than are
going to be on Eighth Avenue. [MacArthur Road is] a six lane
highway. Eighth Avenue is four [lanes]". Mr. Paden, listing
the commercial developments in the vicinity of MacArthur Road
such as Lehigh Valley Mall, Whitehall Mall, developments on
Grape Street, and five miles of strip malls along Route 145,
queried "am I really to believe that a home improvement
store, a bank, and a restaurant is going to create 3 cars
less an hour".
Mr. Paden, referring to comparisons of the townhouses proposed
in the development plan with residential developments on Lehigh
Street and in the Marvine Village area, said the way he interprets
it is "the NIMBY attitude which is not in my back yard
and an…insinuation that I don’t even want to address."
Mr. Paden asserted that "reality is with the new road
improvements and the access at the new proposed entrance to
the Durkee site it's going to make Martin Tower that much
more viable to a potential investor." Mr. Paden further
remarked "reality is this whole thing is nothing more
than the rights of a private citizen who owns property and
wants to develop it and market it as he deems fit and within
the laws set forth by the City of Bethlehem, and controlled
at every step of the way by the City of Bethlehem…It
is not up to anyone's discretion what they want in that person's
site."
Mr. Paden communicated it was thought the last time Council
voted on a proposal to rezone the former Durkee site they
"would do the right thing and pass it but you didn't.
Some people took it as a negative. I became involved with
a group of neighbors. We didn't even have a name". Mr.
Paden continued on to communicate that his group of neighbors
does not have a spokesperson or an agenda "other than
doing what's right for the City of Bethlehem… ".
Mr. Paden stressed "we're not happy about what happened
as a group." Mr. Paden, urging Council to vote yes, said
"do what's best for all the citizens of Bethlehem."
Mr. Paden added that he sent an e-mail to the Members of Council
regarding the rezoning matter. Mr. Paden, making reference
to a group called Pennsylvania Environmental Network, quoted
from the purpose of the group, as follows: "to support
and encourage local grassroots activism throughout Pennsylvania
by networking individuals and groups across the state on a
variety of…environmental issues. The main focus of PEN
is to empower citizens to work towards and promote environmental
justice not only within their own communities but in everyone's
back yards." Mr. Paden noted that, in the northeast area,
No Mall is listed as a reference point and a group to call
for information. Mr. Paden said he also found out through
the website that people can network to websites that help
people fight big box retailers, cell phone towers, and so
on. Mr. Paden stated he "is a little confused with what
housing and light industrial development has to do with environmental
issues." Mr. Paden again urged Council to vote for what
is good for all of the taxpaying citizens of the City.
Jeanne Brugger, 638 Franklin Alley, said she has lived in
Bethlehem all her life and on the west side since 1980. Ms.
Brugger advised she would like to reiterate some of the things
she said before the Planning Commission regarding the matter.
Ms. Brugger, turning to the question of what will the project
accomplish, stated there will be tax revenues, and City dollars
would not have to be used to install new lights and make some
roadway improvements. Most importantly, Ms. Brugger stressed,
is "we're going to get some jobs. Jobs that pay benefits…".
Ms. Brugger communicated there has been a willingness of the
owner of the site "to try and work with the neighbors
who live north of this, who…have put up with around
the clock the industrial site there for years, Durkee's, [with]
traffic in and out, smells, sounds, lights, horns…Why
didn’t they complain all these years. You know why.
Their friends, their families, their neighbors were employed
there…". Ms. Brugger added those employees earned
good wages and received benefits. Pointing out that the former
Durkee spice plant building has sat vacant for years, Ms.
Brugger said now "somebody wants to put something in
to bring some revenue back into the City and all of a sudden
it's…too much traffic, too much lights, too much of
this, too much of that." Ms. Brugger expressed her disappointment
that neighbors have taken this opportunity to bring that point
out so much after the developer has taken the time to talk
to those neighbors, and offered to put up buffers. Ms. Brugger,
stressing she would hate to think what is going to go on the
site if "we don't get what's proposed", wondered
what kind of industry would go there, what kind of traffic,
smells, or sounds "will we then be dealing with".
Ms. Brugger stated her hope "that this is a good project
for all of Bethlehem. Not just the neighbors on the west side…,
and it does keep you in Bethlehem, spending some of your money
in your own town, instead of going to a township or to another
city to shop." Ms. Brugger also communicated it would
be nice to have a chain restaurant where families could go
for a reasonable price.
Jack Gambino, 537 Prospect Avenue, said he would like to
speak against the proposal for the development of the former
Durkee property by focusing on one intersection; i.e., Eighth
Avenue and Union Boulevard. Expressing his thought that everyone
would agree there is a problem at the intersection, Mr. Gambino
highlighted the fact that Nitschmann Middle School is located
there within the "commercial and industrial swath"
as, he noted, was referenced by Attorney Fitzpatrick. Stressing
this is a key issue on which there needs to be focus, Mr.
Gambino communicated it concerns "the children of all
of us in this community." Mr. Gambino, referring to photographs,
pointed out the intersection of Eighth Avenue and Union Boulevard
as shown at dismissal time at 3:00 PM and "kids are lined
up to dash across Union Boulevard". Mr. Gambino advised
that a crossing guard was added by the efforts of many people
in the wake of the last series of discussions on the matter.
Mr. Gambino pointed to a photograph showing a walk sign and
said "a car is dashing through". He continued on
to say this has been corrected. Mr. Gambino stressed "but
you have to…recognize the extent to which the additional
traffic will add to this particular problem". Mr. Gambino,
showing photographs of children "dashing across Union
Boulevard", communicated that children's minds are on
afternoon activities and they do not pay too much attention
to what is going on. Turning to another photograph, Mr. Gambino
remarked it shows "a common occurrence with many of the
children crossing Union Boulevard which is dashing across
diagonally to the opposite end." Mr. Gambino said he
would like to submit the photographs before Council as a visual
representation of the problem that, in part, has been addressed
but that he asserted is still a problem. Mr. Gambino continued
on to say that to increase traffic on the Eighth Avenue thoroughfare
will only exacerbate this problem. Mr. Gambino expressed the
hope that Council gives its most serious consideration to
this problem and that Council keeps before them in everything
that they think about "the children that will be crossing
these streets."
Mary Lo Hatcher, 925 Prospect Avenue, said she is the parent
of two children who attend Nitschmann Middle School. Ms. Hatcher
informed the assembly that she is a member of the school's
safety committee that has been meeting for the last two years
and is primarily the experience from which she wants to speak.
Ms. Hatcher said over the last two years the parents committee
along with the Nitschmann administration, and also various
components of City government, including Frank Barron, the
Traffic Coordinator, and the City traffic advisory committee,
have worked to make improvements to pedestrian access and
safety around the school site. Ms. Hatcher, continuing on
to say there have been some very concrete and important improvements,
enumerated that a four way pedestrian walk was retimed, a
crossing guard was hired to be present at arrival and dismissal
time, white lines were painted along Union Boulevard as a
traffic calming strategy, and vehicle access to Ninth Avenue
was reconfigured. Ms. Hatcher said all these things have greatly
increased the safety for the children who walk to school.
Ms. Hatcher advised there were some other safety requests
made by students but turned down by the City. She informed
the assembly that a four way pedestrian stop at Eighth Avenue
and Broad Street, and a pedestrian crossing lane somewhere
along Union Boulevard west of the school so that students
were not protected just at the school site but along the corridors
leading from the school to neighborhoods were turned down
because they "hamper the level of service to motor vehicles",
and pedestrian signage and assistance would further denigrate
these intersections to motor vehicle traffic. Ms. Hatcher,
expressing the belief that "all of us here are interested
in preserving the character of West Bethlehem", said
to her "…an important piece of that is the gridded
streets and the walking neighborhoods…Improved and widened
roads will bring greater traffic volume and greater speed
of traffic." Ms. Hatcher, observing that often the needs
of pedestrians and of motor vehicles are at cross purposes
with one another, stated she is concerned about pedestrian
traffic. Ms. Hatcher stated she is "actually not as concerned
about the intersection right at Eighth and Union where the
school sits as I am about the corridors leading out from the
school…". Ms. Hatcher said she is also concerned
about the traffic that will cut through neighborhoods to avoid
the busy streets south of the school. Ms. Hatcher felt that
the City will want to increasingly work on the efficiency
of moving motor vehicles through that segment and there will
be greater pressure on the City to bypass pedestrian friendly
signage in favor of motor vehicle signage. Ms. Hatcher encouraged
Council, as they think about what improved roads will look
like and their votes on the proposal, to advocate for as well
as improved motor vehicle passage through the area, improved
pedestrian passage and not just for school children. Because
she thinks the swell is too great to allow pedestrian traffic,
Ms. Hatcher said she finds herself continuing to oppose the
rezoning of the property for such a high density use. Ms.
Hatcher expressed that she is moved by the attention and patience
of Council to the many residents who have come before them.
President Gregory expressed the hope that the Administration
looks at making West Goepp Street one way out which he noted
was one of the most serious concerns he had about the matter
last year.
Dean Bruch, 625 Hawthorne Road, noted he is a registered
master plumber in Bethlehem for quite a few years, and added
that he took his drivers test on Eighth Avenue. Mr. Bruch,
remarking he would let the developer worry about whether buildings
will be rented, said "we get the taxes from him no matter
what he does with it." Mr. Bruch expressed his opinion
that the agenda should be more tax revenues.
Peter Axiotis, 1835 Richmond Avenue, advised he has lived
in Bethlehem for 34 years of which he lived for 29 years in
West Bethlehem. Mr. Axiotis, noting he has a business in downtown
Bethlehem, advised that he drives through the intersection
of Eighth Avenue and Union Boulevard many times a day and
expressed there is not a traffic problem. Mr. Axiotis highlighted
the fact that there is not a place to buy lumber in the City.
Mr. Axiotis, informing the Members that he collected about
200 signatures, advised that everyone he went to were thanking
him for doing something about the matter because they said
last time all they heard from was the No Mall people.
Doug Roysdon, 421 Second Avenue, queried "what do we
really know about the future traffic and safety of the Nitschmann
School area." Advising that he looked over the latest
plan for broadening the road, changing light timings, and
redirecting students, Mr. Roysdon said he has heard "how
it will help the flow of traffic and how it will block the
flow of traffic, how it will work and how it won't work. But
what about all those traffic details that are sure to be affected
by a significant increase of traffic at Nitschmann School."
Mr. Roysdon questioned what happens when it rains and many
parents pick up their children, making the corner even more
busy. He continued on to question what happens if parents
determine that the Eighth Avenue and Union Boulevard intersection
is not safe and "they come in droves to pick up their
kids and add to the numbers." Asking what protection
will there be for the kids who do not arrive and leave Nitschmann
at the same hour, Mr. Roysdon stressed that many leave around
4:30 or 5:00 PM when there will be a new more intensive rush
hour. Mr. Roysdon continued on to query what happens on the
side streets when the students walk home and cars are trying
to avoid the intersections, and how this will increase the
traffic effect and these situations. Mr. Roysdon stressed
that knowing what is going to happen at the intersection is
a lot more complicated than the timing of a light. Mr. Roysdon
communicated if there was a real pedestrian study perhaps
"we would know what our kids are about to be up against".
Mr. Roysdon, focusing on the proposed development at the
former Durkee site, remarked "it's a full sized, evidently
popular new Lowe's store with a restaurant or two, and a bank,
it's a thousand new parking spaces at Martin Tower. It’s
a new build-up at Eighth and Schoenersville Road with a Wawa…It's
an apartment complex three to four times more dense than any
other in Bethlehem. And, it's a possible IR zoning in which
the sky is the limit for the developer. Do we really need
to count imaginary cars to believe that something big is about
to come down through the intersection of Eighth and Union…Is
it possible that an outside, reputable, independent pedestrian
study really ought to be part of this decision, a study not
conducted by the person who has the most to gain from this
situation, the developer…". Mr. Roysdon stressed
that an independent pedestrian traffic study does not exist.
Mr. Roysdon expressed his belief that most West Bethlehem
residents "base their support of this development on
the idea that such a study has been done,… that the
City and Planning Commission and especially the School District
know what they're doing, that they have the facts and have
done their homework. And that if this development is okay
with them it must be okay for the kids. But I can tell you
that nobody in this room has [brought] and nobody is going
to bring anything into this room that is anything like a complete
and professionally unbiased picture of what are kids are in
for…". Mr. Roysdon advised that for two years citizens
of the West side "lobbied for a good, clean pedestrian
study" but have failed. Mr. Roysdon thought that in great
measure "we're here tonight because of the absence of
this document." Mr. Roysdon expressed he does not believe
there would be support for the mall if it were ever shown
conclusively that the community's children and grandchildren
were at risk. Conversely, Mr. Roysdon communicated it is possible
that opposition to this development may never have reached
the peak to which it has risen "if it was shown that
there were no substantial increase of danger to our children."
Mr. Roysdon reiterated there is big piece missing from this
debate that is a professionally researched and objectively
described picture of what children will encounter if the rezoning
goes through. Mr. Roysdon, querying who will step up and question
why "we can't wait until we have a true, unbiased opinion
on what our kids will be facing at the corner of Eighth and
Union" further questioned "who among us believes
there is anything to lose by calling in an outside opinion
on this subject for a proper pedestrian study for Nitschmann
School."
President Gregory showed the study titled "Eighth Avenue
Mixed Use Development Traffic Impact Study". President
Gregory commented he would assume that a few Police Officers
could be hired for those times when students would be walking
in the vicinity.
Hanna Stewart, 537 Prospect Avenue, said she is at the meeting
to urge Council to vote against the proposal. Ms. Stewart
stated she is at the meeting with a lot of neighbors who are
parents of her children's friends. Ms. Stewart advised she
is "here mostly as a mother" of Nitschmann students.
While confirming there is a crossing guard, Ms. Stewart informed
the Members that the crossing guard is there only at arrival
and dismissal times but is not there when students arrive
before school starts or leave later after school ends depending
on their school activities. Ms. Stewart, expressing it worries
her that those are particularly peak times for customers of
a home improvement store, said "it is particularly the
Lowe's that I think is not appropriate for this site."
Ms. Stewart, noting that Nitschmann Middle School would not
be allowed in its present location given today's standards
such as setback regulations, stressed the fact is "that
little sliver of land between Eighth Avenue and the east wall
of the school wouldn't meet regulations today." Ms. Stewart,
remarking there will be more traffic and that is why improvements
are proposed, pointed out that another 14 feet will be taken
away from the small sliver of land. Ms. Steward stressed that
the students "come piling out at 3:00 onto what is already
quite a dangerous and difficult corner, one that will be even
smaller, even closer to the front door of the school when
it leaves 14 feet off of that." Ms. Stewart, pointing
out that trees will be taken away, stated that trees could
stop cars that have gone out of control, and added that the
corner would be potentially more dangerous. Highlighting the
fact that the east side of the school is not air conditioned,
Ms. Stewart communicated that the loss of 14 feet means that
cars and trucks will be idling within "spitting distance"
of students desks. Remarking there will be noise and air pollution,
Ms. Stewart advised that closing the windows causes classrooms
to heat up making it very difficult to have class; or, the
windows are left open and the students cannot hear the teacher.
Ms. Stewart expressed her fear about vehicles "gunning
to be able to make the light…". Urging Council
to "consider the safety of our kids", Ms. Stewart
enumerated there are "all kinds of places we don't put
schools. What we ought to think about is whether or not this
project on this piece of land with this school is a wise plan,
and I would urge you to vote against it."
Motion - Continuing Meeting Beyond 11:00 PM
President Gregory, with reference to the discussion at the
beginning of the Meeting concerning ending it at 11:00 PM,
indicated that he would accept a motion.
Mrs. Belinski made a motion to continue the meeting. Ms.
Szabo seconded the motion. Voting AYE: Mr. Arcelay, Mrs. Belinski,
Mr. Callahan, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Schweder, Ms. Szabo, and Mr.
Gregory, 7. The motion passed.
Attorney Fitzpatrick, referring to Ms. Stewart’s comments,
pointed out that the exhibit he would mark as A-10, shows
the Nitschmann intersection improvements which also includes
a concrete barrier wall intended to separate traffic from
the school property. Attorney Fitzpatrick, adding this is
part of a submission made to the School District and he would
make it available to Council or anyone else who is interested,
stated it is a matter of public record.
Martha Christine, 264 Tenth Avenue, said she wants to speak
for herself as a resident of West Bethlehem and also wants
to speak for her former Calypso School students who now attend
Nitschmann Middle School. Ms. Christine, advising she is concerned
about more than just the intersection, said she is also concerned
about the area north of Nitschmann. Ms. Christine stated she
wants "to make sure all those traffic lights along Eighth
Avenue are going to be safe for our students to cross too".
Ms. Christine, informing the assembly that she and her son
walk every Friday afternoon from their house to piano lessons
near Westgate Mall, noted she sees quite a few pedestrians
along Eighth Avenue. Ms. Christine remarked she does not "think
it's going to be very pleasant for pedestrians to be walking
down Eighth Avenue if this proposed rezoning goes in."
Ms. Christine, explaining that she walks to the library and
various places downtown, said she is concerned that rezoning
this area so close to the downtown area will detract from
people going downtown. Ms. Christine asked how long the property
was available at a reasonable price for light industrial use.
She also asked if this property is rezoned how would it impact
other sites within the neighborhood and would the area become
more commercial. Ms. Christine felt these are issues that
need to be discussed and considered for the future.
Jeff Horning, 532 Third Avenue, stated it occurs to him
that everyone here has the same things in common; that is,
what would be best for Bethlehem. Mr. Horning said "we
all want to see the needs of our City judiciously served when
you cast your vote." Mr. Horning, communicating that
Bethlehem is composed of neighborhoods where growing up everyone
knew everyone else, remarked that neighborhoods can take on
that old characteristic when they feel threatened. Mr. Horning
continued on to say when this happens it is necessary that
attention be paid to many and all concerns. Such attention
has been paid in this situation by the spokespeople of the
No Mall group and by members of that group. In addition, all
of City Council and many members of City government have paid
attention to these neighborhood concerns. Mr. Horning said
attention has also been paid to these concerns by Mr. Petrucci
and Lowe's. Mr. Horning felt that Mr. Petrucci has shown,
by his actions so far, that he realizes the sensitivity of
this issue and moreover has exhibited a willingness to work
with City Council, City Planners, Engineers, traffic people
and citizens both for and opposed to his plan for this site,
his object being to make this project the best that it can
be in order to meet the needs of our entire City. Mr. Horning
felt that Mr. Petrucci’s efforts will continue, and
expressed that everyone should look upon these efforts favorably
when making a decision. Focusing on a concern of the No Mall
group that a Lowe’s store would have an impact on local
businesses, Mr. Horning observed he supposes that the possibility
exists that the impact will be far less than anticipated if
there is any impact at all. Expressing the hope is that a
Lowe’s will not affect the businesses in any tragic
way, Mr. Horning said "if it does it will not be Lowe’s
fault, it will be ours for not continuing to support those
stores as we do now. It is up to us to make room for a Lowe’s
and at the same time keep smaller stores selling similar products
in business." Mr. Horning felt that the City of Bethlehem
can do both. While highlighting the importance that small
businesses play in the community, Mr. Horning remarked that
to exclude one business because it may adversely affect another
is simply not good business or good government. Turing to
another concern of No Mall about Nitschmann School and its
students, Mr. Horning observed that they paint a picture of
New York style traffic jams leaving the impression that because
of increased traffic due to Lowe’s children’s
lives will be in jeopardy. Acknowledging it stands to reason
that traffic will be affected, Mr. Horning pointed out that
any potential traffic changes should be a consideration and
a concern of City Council but should not halt the retail development
of this site. Mr. Horning expressed his confidence that, with
all of the intelligent and variously expert minds in this
room and the City Government, the safety of all children and
pedestrians cannot only be met but beyond that made even better
than it is presently. Mr. Horning queried, with upwards of
a million and half dollars in road and traffic improvements
factored into this development and its affect on the Eighth
Avenue Corridor, how can the current situation not be made
better. Mr. Horning thought that Mr. Petrucci and Lowe’s
have gone out their way to present the City with a plan that
is over the top in addressing the needs and desires of the
entire City while being very mindful of the neighborhoods
this development may affect. Mr. Horning asserted that Lowe's
market research has no doubt indicated very simply that there
is a market to be had on this site, sizeable enough to justify
the expense of building and maintaining one of their stores.
Regarding the alternatives, Mr. Horning pointed out that in
the years the Durkee lot has been abandoned the only concrete
plans have been the one before Council now and the preceding
plan, both based on a Lowe’s store. With respect to
the feelings of those opposed or hesitant or waiting for something
better to come along, Mr. Horning expressed the opinion that
any so called alternatives are mere pipe dreams disguised
as alternatives when compared to this solid ready to build
development proposal. In terms of benefits to the City, Mr.
Horning said he can see no down side in that there would be
more jobs, more tax revenues, road and safety improvements,
an attractive, well-landscaped, environmentally conscious
store design among others, instead of pipe dreams and a derelict
lot. Mr. Horning thought that the basic motivations of the
No Mall group are concerns that Bethlehem may in the future
be overrun by this particular kind of development; namely,
a retail one. Agreeing it is true there is a nice, and not
so little anymore, town in Bethlehem, Mr. Horning agreed it
is important to pay attention to its future. Mr. Horning,
remarking that balancing idealistic notions and realistic
ones is never easy, believed that the Lowe’s development
is a realistic compromise, and thought it will move the City
forward in a favorable direction. When the time comes, Mr.
Horning said he would urge all Members of Council to vote
yes to this proposal. By doing so, Mr. Horning thought Council
will be doing what is right for Bethlehem, not to mention
for an overwhelming majority of City residents. Mr. Horning
commented that the No-Mall group has manifested its opposition
for this project and its predecessor in many ways, trying
and succeeding in holding off the bulldozers to this point.
While advising that he fully respects their right to dissent,
Mr. Horning urged them to recognize that many City residents
do not share their opinion. Mr. Horning believed that, if
all of the parties concerned about the proposed Lowe’s
development worked together, an intelligent, well-executed
plan to minimize, improve or eliminate any concerns about
the impact of this development can be achieved. Mr. Horning
said this, combined with the ability to adapt to change, can
make this proposed Lowe’s project a resounding success
for everyone.
Jim Carolan, 507 W. Union Boulevard, said he is a member
of No Mall. Remarking that he is not an environmentalist,
Mr. Carolan stated he would like to clarify something that
was said earlier about No Mall being part of an environmental
theme. Mr. Carolan explained that, when the group started
researching and trying to fight the initial proposal last
year, they went to the internet and typed in malls. They found
a site that basically fought Walmart’s and learned from
that site. As a result, the No Mall name was added to a list.
Mr. Carolan recounted that the property was not on the market
very long, the previous rezoning proposal was rejected last
April, and Mr. Petrucci had an agreement for the property
last July. Mr. Carolan asked, if approval for IR rezoning
is given, would it open up a can of worms for every other
developer that comes down the line to receive approval for
rezoning to IR. Mr. Carolan expressed that, in reality, the
site if approved should be a retail spot, not an IR spot.
Mr. Carolan respectfully asked Council to look at the legal
arguments that Attorney Don Miles put forward. Mr. Carolan
requested that, if necessary, the proposal be tabled until
the legal arguments are settled because it will save lots
of taxpayer dollars down the line when the matter goes to
court and gets overturned.
David McGuire, 815 Beverly Avenue, representing the Sierra
Club, advised that the Lehigh Valley Group of the Sierra Club
has followed this land use controversy almost from its beginning,
and added that the membership includes over 1,500 with 250
of them from Bethlehem. Explaining that they are interested
because having strong cities is the best way to stop sprawl,
Mr. McGuire stated the best way to enhance cities is to protect
the vitality and cohesiveness of neighborhoods. Mr. McGuire
stressed that, as Council is well aware, if the land is rezoned
there will be no control over the development no matter what
the intentions of some people might be. Mr. McGuire, recalling
that IR zoning was specifically brought up to facilitate the
under-utilized Heavy Industrial zoned properties of Bethlehem
Steel, highlighted the fact that the site in question is currently
zoned light industrial, and asserted this is an inappropriate
application of the IR Zoning. Mr. McGuire urged Council to
defeat this current proposal so that an appropriate development
might take place. Acknowledging that everybody would like
to have a development and a better use of the former Durkee’s
site, Mr. McGuire stated that the question is simply finding
a zoning that best sustains and strengthens the core neighborhoods
of the West Side. Mr. McGuire expressed that this open-ended
opportunity of IR zoning does not benefit neighborhoods. Mr.
McGuire enumerated shopping centers already located in the
area that he characterized as declining grayfields and which
he said are further weakening neighborhoods. Mr. McGuire communicated
that he would like Council to take a larger view to recognize
that some forms of development are detrimental and degrade
neighborhoods and the tax base. Mr. McGuire expressed that
a vote for rezoning to IR is a vote to put one and a half
to two million dollars into the pockets of the investor pool.
Referring to a letter from the Lehigh Valley Planning Commission
(LVPC), Mr. McGuire noted it stated that anything developed
at this site fits in with the county master plan. Continuing
on to note that LVPC also looked at the traffic, Mr. McGuire
pointed out that LVPC believed there are a lot of significant
impacts and urged the City Planning staff to contact LVPC
about these matters. Mr. McGuire remarked that, the Lehigh
Valley Planning Commission took a look at the proposal and
does not have their usual glowing statements about such matters,
and recommended that be considered.
Wayne Maura, 826 W. Union Boulevard, stated he is returning
with a different perspective. In trying to contemplate what
he might add to this discussion, Mr. Maura observed that the
recurring theme of truth kept coming back. To that end, Mr.
Maura's hope was that everyone gets a very detailed explanation
of what took place at the Planning Commission, and that Council
follows up with a careful review of all the zoning issues.
If there is not an understanding of all of the complexities
of this issue, Mr. Maura hoped that Council would do all that
it takes to get to that point and to the truth before taking
a vote. Mr. Maura asked that Council make a decision based
on feeling very confident knowing all of the dynamics involved
in this situation.
Mr. Maura asked how many have spent time at this site between
the hours of 3:00 PM and 6:00 PM. Mr. Maura felt the traffic
issue alone should not be the only consideration. Mr. Maura
remarked that, when the Planning Commission met last year,
the issue of a possible residential application for this site
was put forth. One of the members questioned the validity
of such a proposal stating that he wondered who would want
to live next to Route 378. Citing from Article 6, Section
604 of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, Mr.
Maura highlighted the fact that it states in subsection 1
that the statutes exist to promote and facilitate any or all
of the following: public health, safety, morals, and the general
welfare, coordinated and practical community development,
and proper density of population. He continued on to note
that in Subsection 2 it states that the statutes serve also
to prevent overcrowding of land, blight, danger and congestion
in travel and transportation, and so on. Mr. Maura stated
that, when the Durkee site was active and functioning, the
traffic issue was different then versus now with additional
businesses in the area.
Mr. Maura remarked he is appalled at the political nature
that this issue has taken. Mr. Maura, noting he has spent
some time in the building business, commented there are certain
townships in the State where if a developer came forth with
veiled references to what people might get if they do not
approve what is proposed they would get nothing. He suggested
that is what is happening here. In addition, Mr. Maura felt
that the reckless characterizations made last year by the
former Mayor, members of Council, and the media led to much
of the public outcry. Focusing on remarks made tonight that
the City’s Traffic Engineer is not concurring with the
developer’s study, Mr. Maura expressed his displeasure
with the way traffic engineering has been conducted of late,
and stated there is more traffic in the City. Mr. Maura acknowledged
that his neighbors have every right to come out in support
of this project, and applauded their involvement. With reference
to Mr. Callahan's comments that if the supporters would have
been here last year things may have turned out differently,
Mr. Maura said, in fact, Mr. Petrucci may not have been able
to buy the location for the two million dollar savings. Expressing
that those who are not in support of the proposal extend the
invitation to others to meet as neighbors, Mr. Maura advised
the group would be happy to sit down any time and any place
and go over the information, and would like to see that happen
prior to Council taking its vote.
Mr. Maura proceeded by reading a letter for the record, as
follows: “We ask you to consider that from California
to New Zealand, city planners have halted construction of
big box retail stores and centers to reevaluate their efforts
on towns and local communities. The alarm is sounding that
all too often quick fixes to generate money development gradually
over time create a downward slide and communities suffer ugly
effects. The reality is that the hope for economic boosts
quickly fills the pockets of out of town developers while
local businesses suffer. Traffic problems develop into the
city’s ongoing nightmare to finance pedestrian traffic
becomes risky, avenues turn into traffic highways, quiet neighborhoods
transformed by the invasion of the touring cars. Traffic,
litter, street noise and pollution invade seven days a week,
morning noon and night, and ultimately the city suffers economically
as neighborhoods decay. Please consider at this point in time
traffic volume is burgeoning throughout the valley. Why deliberately
vote for how many more cars per day to clog the 378 exit ramp,
and turn Eighth Avenue into a congested highway. The population
of the City has not increased dramatically since 1964. How
much development is economically warranted when Westgate Mall,
Lehigh Shopping Center, local merchants struggle for business.
Too late for hindsight, city planners are discovering that
miscalculated zoning decisions may cause a city to shoot itself
in the foot. That can happen very easily here in Bethlehem.
Stable, contributing neighborhoods are devalued as a vital
component necessary for a city’s economic health and
well being. Petitions signed by a thousand citizens is testimony
for serious concerns about rezoning the Durkee property. That
said petition represents taxpaying, voting citizens who want
to avert the big problems that this kind of development breeds.
One thousand people expect government to represent their best
interests, too. Months of research and expert opinion recommends
that big box development is ill-suited within that particular
Eighth Avenue area. In March 2002, after many meetings and
after considering presentations given by both Lowe’s
and citizen opposition to rezoning the Durkee site, Council
voted no to rezone for big box development. Council reached
that decision for valid and sensible reasons. Council was
congratulated for its vision. Unfortunately, a year later
and with another cast of players, the same rezoning issue
was again slated for rehashing. Curiously, when plans are
examined, the new proposal is essentially the same old build-out
proposal presented last March, perhaps worded a little differently.
This new proposal includes a residential component thrown
in the mix. However, to be questioned is the description of
‘quality residential buildings’ to be located
between dumpsters, loading docks and highways. For elected
administrators to consider rezoning the Durkee site for big
box commercial development is contradictory to the Comprehensive
Plan. When was it decided to ignore the Comprehensive Plan.
It seems on one hand the City is trying to revitalize the
South Side and enhancing its charm, while on the other hand
at the same time is considering rezoning for big box commercial
that will undermine the west side, including the Rose Garden’s
charm. Big box is certainly not unique nor charming, and ultimately
down the line presents more problems than it solves. Bethlehem’s
Comprehensive Plan designates light industrial or residential
development for the Durkee’s site. This decision was
formulated after considerable research and debate by intelligent
government. Planners agreed that certain types of development
are suited for particular sites and locations within the City
to avoid quick fix spot rezoning. We have witnessed the pattern
of urban flight and the whole of economic deterioration affecting
nearby cities. We hope to avoid that same type of erosion
and fear that the West Side is poised on a slippery slope.
It seems by presenting the same proposal again and again,
disguised as a new scaled down proposal, the strategy to continue
to drag out and wear down any opposition until Council approves
the zoning change for a quick fix is at hand. The faster negative
development occurs, the faster the developer realizes mega-profits.
The Comprehensive Plan supports growth and wise development
in Bethlehem but is aware of the lure of just such quick fix
proposals that dazzle with the promise of bigger, better,
easier but that don’t provide the solid money base that
light industrial jobs or residential development gives back
to City coffers. Good progress comes from wise choices. The
Durkee site is a serious commitment of land development. Light
industrial development provided stability for the City, and
Durkee’s was an unobtrusive and contributing neighbor
that provided good jobs. Folks aren’t against the wise
development, or a Lowe’s per se, or restaurants, or
banks, and it is not a question of NIMBY, not in my back yard,
but issues of children’s safety at the Nitschmann School,
issues of local business losses, issues of existing traffic
problems that are an accident waiting to happen. Furthermore,
even if existing traffic problems are corrected and paid for,
who would be fiscally responsible for the ongoing and increasing
traffic problems generated by the demands of big box commerce
– the taxpayer. Voters expect responsible government
expect responsible government to consider all ramifications
of big box development to question endorsing quick fixes.
It’s been quoted, act in haste, regret at leisure. To
rezone a site that is ill-suited for this type of commercial
development when light industrial and residential is recommended
by a well thought out Comprehensive Plan would be counter
productive. Note that light industrial/residential is not
zoned for auto auctions, cement factories, hog haves, or any
other worst case scenario scare tactic that has been publicized
to confuse folks into believing that it’s either a Lowe’s
or an auto auction. As our elected officials, we trust the
Council Members will scrutinize and question the wisdom of
rezoning, and resist the quick fix philosophy of politics.”
Mr. Maura informed the assembly that Marie Maura wrote the
letter he just read.
John Gatewood, 926 Seventh Avenue, advised he would be speaking
on the issues of economics, tax base, and will be the projected
or likely consequences. Mr. Gatewood said those who oppose
this particular zoning request are not opposed to economic
development. Rather, they want to focus on which kind of economic
development makes the most sense for this particular site,
and what is best for the long-term vitality of the community.
He felt that those types of questions should find agreement
with everyone. Mr. Gatewood reviewed a money flow comparison
between two different kinds of developments, three ways that
this site might be developed, and what might be their tax
revenue consequences. He began with the first comparison of
the difference between light industrial development and some
kind of commercial development. He focused on a commercial
development that has to do with non-locally owned businesses.
Pointing out that what occurs with light industrial development
is basically manufacturing a product that is purchased by
someone in the country or the world, Mr. Gatewood observed
that, ultimately money that used to be outside of the City
ends up in the city where the product is manufactured. By
contrast, Mr. Gatewood said if one looks at non-locally owned
commercial development, the money trail can be followed. Instead
of staying in the community, Mr. Gatewood explained that a
certain fraction of every dollar spent is for profit that
leaves the area's economy. In the case of Lowe's Mr. Gatewood
said it will go mostly to North Carolina and ultimately it
will go to stockholders of the corporation. Mr. Gatewood highlighted
the fact that the key issue is that it leaves the Lehigh Valley,
while the manufacturing type of operation brings money into
the Lehigh Valley. Comparing the quality of jobs that light
industrial development creates as opposed to the kind of jobs
that retail creates, Mr. Gatewood observed that with light
industrial there are good jobs with high paying wages. However,
with commercial development the average wage is about $8.75
per hour. Consequently, he pointed out that people who work
at Lowe’s would not be able to afford to live at the
apartments that will be built behind it. He then turned to
how many services are required by the two kinds of developments.
Mr. Gatewood stated that light industrial requires less City
services, while commercial operations on the other hand require
much more services which is what the taxes are paid for. Mr.
Gatewood next focused on the impact on existing business.
He pointed out that a light industrial plant coming in and
setting up a base in the community is good for everybody,
and does not take anything away from anyone because it is
simply additive. By contrast, Mr. Gatewood explained that
particularly with a big category type operation coming in
most of what it sells will not be new sales. Instead, that
operation is taking away sales from other stores that already
exist in the community. Consequently, it does have a big impact
on existing local businesses. While acknowledging that both
will increase the tax base, Mr. Gatewood pointed out that
in comparing the tax revenue estimate for both of these developments
there are different kinds of components to the tax base. The
major components for the tax revenue with retail plus the
apartments is as follows: property tax on assessed value of
the land, wage taxes on the people who work in the stores,
mercantile tax on any sales, and Bethlehem Area School District
taxes. He noted that the proposed residential development
will have property, wage, and school tax. Focusing on mercantile
tax, Mr. Gatewood noted that the mercantile tax could stay
the same in cases where there are no actual new sales such
as when someone purchases an item at Lowe’s instead
of purchasing that same item at another Bethlehem retailer.
Under a manufacturing operation, the same taxes will be paid
except for the mercantile tax. He next turned to how much
of the sales can be expected to be new sales. Nationally,
Mr. Gatewood said if you look at Walmarts, their sales are
only about 16% new. When a Walmart comes in and locates it
takes away business. In the case of Lowe’s and Home
Depot, Mr. Gatewood said he does not have exact numbers available.
Advising that Home Depot's new sales vary from region to region,
Mr. Gatewood advised that about one-third of their total gross
sales are actually new, and is what was used to estimate the
mercantile tax. Taking gross sales multiplied by percentage
figures for the tax will show adjusted mercantile tax. He
also included a multiplier for the wage tax using 1.2%. Mr.
Gatewood then distributed handouts to Members of Council.
Mr. Gatewood stated that the first page shows how the calculations
are made. He pointed out that shopping centers and malls cost
more in services required to the City than do factories. Likewise,
he said high-density apartments cost more than just about
anything from the cost side viewpoint. Observing that in some
of the proposed 200 apartments there would be children, Mr.
Gatewood estimated that one-third of the apartments will have
a total of 67 school age children. Informing the assembly
that he spoke with the Bethlehem Area School District, Mr.
Gatewood said they reported that it costs about $8,500 for
every student in school in the Bethlehem Area School District.
Of that cost, local revenues pay 77.42%. As a result, Mr.
Gatewood calculated that if there are 67 children out of the
200 apartments each one of these 67 students is going to cost
$6,580 per year that they are in school. Mr. Gatewood concluded
that, instead of being a hands down winner on tax base, the
apartments are the least desirable of the three alternatives
from a tax base viewpoint. He pointed out that cost does not
apply to manufacturing and it does not apply to the empty
nesters living in apartments. Mr. Gatewood observed that police,
fire protection and street maintenance costs would apply to
all three developments. Mr. Gatewood asserted that none on
the three developments will produce a big windfall profit
for the City. Mr. Gatewood stressed that, if the tax system
in the City is fair, it is time to give up the talk of windfall
profits, broadening the tax revenue, and how that is going
to keep him from paying another dollar. He pointed out that
with the traffic comparison there is a very clear difference
in what can be expected from the developments.
Jo Horning, 532 Third Avenue, noting that she has lived
in Bethlehem for 30 years, observed this City is no longer
the way it was when she moved here. Ms. Horning communicated
that present problems should be addressed instead of trying
to keep things the way they used to be. Ms. Horning felt that
Mr. Petrucci has bent over backward trying to address all
of the concerns of everyone. Ms. Horning said as far as she
knows the residential use did not come up until the first
developer was turned down last year. Ms. Horning recalled
at that time Mr. Schweder remarked he would like to see some
kind of residential development. Ms. Horning continued on
to say that after Mr. Petrucci bought the land he met with
the No Mall group in order to see what their concerns were.
Noting that the No Mall group told him they would like to
see some housing and Mr. Petrucci tried to comply, Ms. Horning
said now she feels that they are complaining a little too
much about it. Ms. Horning related a conversation that she
had with someone who was asked to sign the petition to not
allow the project to go through. When that person asked the
No Mall representative holding the petition if the No Mall
person would want to shop at the Lowe's store, the No Mall
person replied of course they were going to.
Donovan Remaley, 1403 Stanford Road, advised he is an adjacent
dweller to the proposed project, and is not affiliated with
a group. Mr. Remaley advised that he discovered the plans
on his dining room table. Mr. Remaley felt that this does
not seem to be the right place for the proposed development.
Mr. Remaley said in his estimation when Durkee’s was
located there it was very non-intrusive. Mr. Remaley pointed
out that the density of the houses is his concern. While expressing
he is not concerned about a Lowe’s, Mr. Remaley asked
if this is the right place for it. Mr. Remaley expressed that
whether people are for it or against it, research must be
done, and there cannot be dependence on numbers from other
people. Mr. Remaley communicated that people have to be willing
to work together to see what is best for the overall community
in the long run. Mr. Remaley urged everyone to take a look
at the plans and to make an informed decision.
Al Wurth, 525 Sixth Avenue, felt that the most important
issue is about rezoning, and that the rezoning is not in any
way binding the developer to any of the proposals that have
been seen. Mr. Wurth recalled that the former Planning Director,
Samuel Guttman, described the IR district as removing zoning
restrictions as much as possible without dispensing with zoning
altogether. Mr. Wurth further recounted that Frederic Brock,
Assistant Director of the Lehigh Valley Planning Commission,
in 1996 said that he thought IR zoning was somewhat precedent
setting in the openendedness of it. Mr. Wurth noted that Mr.
Donchez at that time had indicated that if the rezoning request
was approved for IR at the Bethlehem Steel it is being said
in a sense that there is no zoning. Focusing on redevelopment
of the former Bethlehem Steel property, Mr. Wurth felt that
should be a lesson to the City about granting this type of
zoning to any sites, person or property in the City. Mr. Wurth
expressed that the City may end up with an absentee owner
who does not care about Bethlehem and making decisions about
what will be built there. Pointing out that the zoning is
not about Lowe’s, Mr. Wurth stated that Lowe’s
has decided to move into the Lehigh Valley and there will
be a Lowe's whether it is here or elsewhere. Remarking that
the reason Lowe’s likes the Eighth Avenue site is because
it is one of the three busiest streets in the City, Mr. Wurth
stressed that should be a good indication as to why it should
not put there. Turning to the price of the property, Mr. Wurth
acknowledged the property is worth something but said it would
be worth a lot more if it is given the green light and stressed
this is a two million dollar decision. Mr. Wurth argued that
it should not be developed as proposed because it should not
be located right next door to a school. He pointed out that
traffic cannot be added to this street and expect it to be
made safer. Highlighting the fact that all pedestrian safety
studies suggest that streets be narrowed to make them safer
to cross, Mr. Wurth pointed out that, instead, it is proposed
to add a lane and made the curb radius wider so that trucks
can make the turn faster. Mr. Wurth expressed his agreement
with Professor Gatewood's comments about the economic side
of the argument, including taking sales away from one business
and giving it to another. Mr. Wurth, contrasting retail with
light industrial development, enumerated the high number of
tractor trailers that leave and enter a retail site on a daily
basis, and the number of customers’ cars that come and
leave the stores to take away the delivered goods. Expressing
that the developer could develop the site for light industrial
since that is the developer’s expertise, could be Mr.
Wurth felt that the matter should be put on hold for the time
being, and put on the site what is appropriate and safe for
the neighborhood and community. At the least, Mr. Wurth felt
that, before making a decision, a determination must be made
about what will happen with pedestrians, and issues at Nitschmann
School. Referring to the letter from the Planning Commission
dated March 27, 2003, Mr. Wurth pointed out it states that
the City should make sure all relevant pedestrian issues are
addressed. He continued on to advise the letter also states
that with the proximity of Nitschmann Middle School to the
site, safe pedestrian movement is an important objective.
Mr. Wurth asserted that requires an independent pedestrian-oriented
study of the entire region. Stressing that IR would allow
potentially anything to go into the site, Mr. Wurth observed
that if the Lowe’s turns into a shopping center, the
traffic will increase about 30%. Mr. Wurth contended that
a vote for IR is not a vote for Lowe’s but instead is
a vote for the next owner and the possibility of even more
traffic. Mr. Wurth stressed that the City should not be dealing
with the IR zoning. Mr. Wurth added that he has some quotes
that he read tonight from the minutes that he would like to
submit for the record of the public hearing.
Mr. Callahan, indicating his concern about rezoning the property
to IR, expressed that IR is a special zoning designation created
in 1996, was controversial at the time, and expressed the
belief that it is a carte blanche type of zoning. Mr. Callahan
felt that if the property is to be rezoned for commercial
uses then it should rezoned to CS rather than IR. Mr. Callahan,
expressing the thought that everyone should be concerned about
the potential for the property as IR, observed that IR zoning
does not exist anywhere else in the City other than the 160
acres at the Bethlehem Works site in South Bethlehem. Pointing
out that IR was created to help redevelop old, heavy industrial
brownfields, Mr. Callahan highlighted the fact that is not
the case for this property. Observing that the property is
under a great deal of demand, Mr. Callahan pointed out it
is a prime piece of real estate in the City. Mr. Callahan
communicated that rezoning it to IR does set a precedent.
Glen Remaley, 1403 Stanford Road, noted that he also is
speaking for his father who resides at 1417 Stanford Road.
Mr. Remaley noted it had been indicated earlier that Members
of Council received a letter from his attorney, Don Miles.
Mr. Remaley informed the Members that Attorney Miles is the
Solicitor for the Planning Commission in Lower Macungie Township
and consequently could not be at tonight's meeting. Mr. Remaley
pointed out that, in Attorney Miles' letter, he has questions
about the legality of this meeting tonight in view of the
fact that a zoning appeal was filed by several neighbors.
President Gregory affirmed that Members of Council received
the appeal and it has been turned over to the Solicitor.
Mr. Remaley continued to explain that he lives right next
door to the site and has been a life long resident of the
City of Bethlehem. He chose to live there and did his homework
and knew about the light industrial zoning. Mr. Remaley commented
that he liked the idea of a car dealership at the site. Admitting
that Mr. Petrucci is a class act and has built some beautiful
buildings, Mr. Remaley said it is not a question of whether
Mr. Petrucci does a beautiful job or about Lowe’s because
it is a great store, rather it is a question of zoning. Mr.
Remaley thought that this hearing was a public forum where
he would find seven Council persons that were impartial, listening
to the public, weighing both sides, and not bantering back
and forth. Mr. Remaley stressed it is a question of what is
best for that area. Mr. Remaley said he was told that zoning
needs to be considered by itself and not with a project in
view. Mr. Remaley related that he heard a lot of opinions
tonight, and a lot of people saying how this is going to be
improved. Noting there was a petition sent around in favor
of the rezoning with a drawing on the back, Mr. Remaley asked
if anyone has taken the time to see what was filed, and stated
that it is nothing like what appears on the back of the petition.
Focusing on last year's proposal, Mr. Remaley there was 220,000
square feet of shopping center on thirty-seven acres. In contrast,
Mr. Remaley calculated that the current proposal for approximately
150,000 square feet on twenty acres has the greater impact
on the community. In addition, Mr. Remaley highlighted the
fact that high density residential is also planned for the
site. He added he is not speaking in favor of last year’s
plan either. Mr. Remaley advised that Attorney Miles reported
he has found at least 30 zoning violations in this new plan.
Recounting comments tonight that something is better than
nothing, Mr. Remaley stressed, in his estimation, something
is not better than nothing, and the right thing even if it
takes times is what is needed. Initially, Mr. Remaley noted
the concern last year was having a buffer between the development
and residential neighborhoods. Mr. Remaley highlighted the
fact that his bedroom happens to be next to the area in question.
Mr. Remaley, observing there is no buffer in the current plan
between the IR and the residents, questioned how the proposal
will impact the standard of living in his neighborhood. Mr.
Remaley communicated that the neighborhood is being ruined,
and he hopes that it is not going to be done with Council’s
blessing. While indicating he has no problem with apartments
or a Lowe’s, Mr. Remaley reminded everyone that it is
a vote for rezoning and for anything that can go into that
zoning designation. He continued on to point out that, as
a result, if the property is rezoned to IR or, for that matter,
even to CS, it is not a question of whether or not Mr. Petrucci
is going to build something that is very nice. Rather, Mr.
Remaley stressed the concern is about what happens as it moves
forward, what will happen if Lowe’s moves out, and the
uncertainty about what will go into that site with an IR zoning.
Restating it is a question of whether the zoning makes sense,
Mr. Remaley urged the Members of Council to read and reconsider
the letters that have been sent, and consider all possibilities
and implications that are included. Mr. Remaley said vote
yes for Lowe’s and no for rezoning.
Katherine Cameron, 926 Seventh Avenue, remarked that the
proposal represents the same old plans and problems. She enumerated
there are intersections that cannot be fixed, widened intersections
that put cars even closer to students at Nitschmann School,
traffic problems that push 7,000 to 9,000 cars that make short
cuts through neighborhoods, noise and light pollution for
the houses on Stanford and Ralston Road that lie behind the
Lowe’s, minimum wage jobs in big box stores instead
of a living wage at industrial plants. Ms. Cameron observed
that this plan is touted as a compromise and better than before
because it is built as a mixed use with the addition of a
residential component of 200 apartments. However, Ms. Cameron
questioned who in their right mind will pay in excess of $1,000
a month to be sandwiched in between an industrial plant and
a Lowe’s. Ms. Cameron remarked this plan is not mixed
use in anyway that an urban planner would understand. She
pointed out that in new construction mixed use means capturing
the quality of small time life so that neighborhoods where
people live are near where they work and shop. Such developments
are small scale and people oriented. Those who build big mixed-use
neighborhoods combine home residences with office space and
retail along with sidewalks and green space. Ms. Cameron pointed
out that big box stores have not been a feature of these kinds
of developments. She added that urban planners have proposed
mixed-use plans for decaying urban neighborhoods and old shopping
centers. Advising that the No Mall citizens group had a meeting
with Mr. Petrucci in January about his plan, Ms. Cameron informed
the Members that the No Mall group asked Mr. Petrucci about
developing the site either for light industrial or mixed use.
Ms. Cameron related that Mr. Petrucci said that he could find
industrial tenants or buyers but he did not want to go that
route, and also said he would not consider strictly residential
plans where people buy but do not rent. Ms. Cameron, saying
she did not understand Mr. Petrucci's reluctance to think
beyond a standard commercial concept, stated she could only
assume that for him the bottom line is that commercial is
so much more lucrative than the alternative even though the
alternative is better for the west side. To the arguments
of pro-mallers that a Lowe’s is needed or wanted five
minutes from the areas homes, Ms. Cameron said be careful
for what you wish. Turning to the City Planning Bureau, Ms.
Cameron asked why concessions not been made with the owners
of vacant sites that have been mentioned before. Asserting
these sites could be right or even made right, Ms. Cameron
questioned why the City cannot find a vacant property so that
this tired, recycled and unimaginative proposal for commercial
development can finally and irrevocably be put to rest.
President Gregory asked if Mayor Delgrosso supports the
proposal that includes rezoning to IR.
Mayor Delgrosso replied, as it stands yes.
Gene Mater, 434 Second Avenue, advised he is at the public
hearing to talk about traffic and to give an evaluation of
Greg Richardson’s traffic study. In addition, he would
also like to answer some of the questions that Mr. Callahan
was asking. In view of the lateness of the hour, and the fact
that his fifteen minute presentation is heavy on facts, figures
and schematics, Mr. Mater offered to make his presentation
instead at the next City Council Meeting.
President Gregory stated that he would allow Mr. Mater to
be the first speaker at the next City Council meeting.
Attorney Fitzpatrick, raising a question about procedure,
inquired about a second hearing.
President Gregory explained that he meant the next City Council
meeting.
Attorney Fitzpatrick, affirming that he understands there
will be two readings of the Ordinance at the next two Council
meetings, noted there is a point where testimony closes in
a public hearing and thereafter procedurally there are readings
of the Bill.
Christopher Spadoni, City Council Solicitor, commented that
the offer was made that Mr. Mater could speak at the next
City Council Meeting at the Courtesy of the Floor, prior to
the First Reading of the Bill that evening.
Attorney Fitzpatrick requested clarification that is not
to indicate however that the hearing would either reopen for
testimony or the hearing would be continued to another night
or indefinitely.
Attorney Spadoni replied no.
Attorney Fitzpatrick asked whether the Public Hearing is
closing this evening.
Attorney Spadoni, responding the answer would be no at the
current time, pointed out it is not yet known how many more
individuals want to speak this evening. Consequently, the
determination on ending the Public Hearing this evening cannot
be made at the present time. In further response to Attorney
Fitzpatrick, Attorney Spadoni confirmed that Mr. Mater would
speak at the next City Council Meeting under the first Courtesy
of the Floor but not with the intention of extending or continuing
this Public Hearing, or delaying First Reading.
Mr. Schweder added that every citizen has the right to come
to next Tuesday’s meeting and what is being done is
the same procedure followed under any other proposal before
City Council.
Attorney Fitzpatrick queried whether Mr. Richardson would
be able to respond to Mr. Mater’s presentation at the
next City Council Meeting.
President Gregory replied certainly.
Kathy Martucci, 1402 Elliott Avenue, stated she is at the
meeting representing thousands of City residents who very
strongly support the project before Council tonight. Ms. Martucci
advised that she and her husband, Gary, became involved in
the process towards the end of the rezoning request made by
the previous developer last year. Ms. Martucci, stating the
current proposal is a very different application, said it
has much less retail and less parking spaces. The Lowe’s
is bricked-faced, is facing Eighth Avenue, only eighteen acres
are proposed to be rezoned to IR, and housing units are a
part of the plan. Observing some might say that this is the
same plan as before, Ms. Martucci commented that ignores the
facts. Ms. Martucci continued on to note that to say this
plan will change the character of Eighth Avenue or affect
Historic Bethlehem would make sense if there were a cornfield
surrounded by houses or if it was downtown, but “it
is a rusty mess of a building across from a twenty story building
next to [Route] 378”. Ms. Martucci advised that many
people who have signed the petition in favor of the rezoning
request have said that they regretted having signed a No Mall
petition the last time. Stressing there is the absence of
a No Mall petition this time around, Ms. Martucci explained
the reason why is because even people who reasonably disagreed
the last time can see that this new plan does make sense.
Ms. Martucci, expressing she was amazed at the Planning Commission
meeting to hear the few objectors say that the Route 33 site
in Bethlehem Township was a far better site for a Lowe’s,
pointed out she was amazed because these same people went
out and objected to that plan, too. Ms. Martucci asserted
the bottom line is that, except for the few people who hope
this will go away, this project has City-wide support. Ms.
Martucci communicated “we want you to hear us, and we
want you to act as quickly as possible so that this opportunity
to create jobs, get road improvements at no cost to us taxpayers,
and have a great class project in our neighborhood doesn’t
pass us by. Please remember that many of our City residents
are out of work and many of the Steel employees and retirees
are in the middle of a real crisis. Please send a message
that you’ve heard them.” Reiterating that she
is here representing many people, Ms. Martucci said she would
like to show the Members of Council it is not just the people
in this room. Accordingly, Ms. Martucci said she is happy
to present with the petitions that have the plans of the project
on the back with 3,656 people who have signed their names
to it. Ms. Martucci asked that Council please listen to the
majority when they say vote yes.
Rick Dow, 1503 Budd Avenue, stated he would like to speak
about the quality of life that may be influenced by the change
to an IR zone. Mr. Dow thought that the IR zone is actually
going to end up in many cases as commercial with the risk
that in the future it could become a big problem. Mr. Dow
said the quality of life that now exists in Bethlehem means
that he can get to the airport on a decent day in fifteen
minutes, to Westgate Mall in ten minutes, as well as all over
the Lehigh Valley, except when he gets stuck in traffic on
Linden and Center Streets. Mr. Dow suggested that the convenience
of getting to a commercial area, specifically Lowe’s,
a few times a year is going to be outweighed by the many times
that he will be inconvenienced when trying to get to Westgate,
or any place else in the Lehigh Valley. Mr. Dow, expressing
he did not think that Lowe's is expecting to get its support
from Bethlehem citizens, remarked that Bethlehem citizens
were not able to support a Triangle’s or a Rickles home
improvement stores. Rather, Mr. Dow expressed the belief that
Lowe’s will be supported by the people who are coming
into Bethlehem. As a result, Mr. Dow asserted “the same
traffic that we find when we go to Whitehall and when we go
on Linden, that traffic is going to be in our neighborhoods
when people from out there are coming in.” Mr. Dow suggested
that this traffic problem is going to diminish the quality
of life in his City.
Tom Morganelli, 922 W. Market Street, stated he is one of
the many people who were outraged last year when the commercial
development on the former Durkee Food site was denied. Mr.
Morganelli, remarking that people could not believe an opposition
group would have that much influence, noted it was thought
that the proposal would be a great boon to the area, and it
was assumed everyone would naturally vote in favor of the
project. Mr. Morganelli stressed that now people need to voice
their opinion that the community wants this and that most
in the community think this is a great idea. Mr. Morganelli
stated “we want to shop at Lowe’s, we want to
see that the site has something other than an eyesore, and
we’re glad to see development in the City instead of
in the outlying townships.” Mr. Morganelli felt this
plan is appropriate for that location. He pointed out that,
from the standpoint of the sensible engineering and planning,
the proposed improvements at Eighth Avenue, the creation of
good jobs, and the convenience of the location, it has been
endorsed by the City departments as a worthwhile project.
In addition, Mr. Morganelli stressed there is a reputable
developer who will choose to do what is better than what is
cheaper, and who has a strong reputation for keeping his word.
Mr. Morganelli continued on to say, inasmuch as professionals
planned and reviewed this project, and found the designs to
be sound, many of the concerns of the detractors of the former
plan are accounted for in this present plan. Remarking, however,
that the opposition continues, Mr. Morganelli expressed that
the opposition is from a group who has no experience or track
record in land development but still feels the need to tell
the community what to do. Mr. Morganelli, asserting that the
No Mall group can no longer claim to have the popular support,
said they are now using propaganda and illegal maneuvering
to insist on having their way without accountability for the
outcome, and the City will pay the price. Commenting “we
don’t have to wait that something better might come
along, it is here for you now, in front of you”, Mr.
Morganelli asked that the Members of Council please serve
the community properly and vote yes for this project.
The earlier referenced letter from Attorney Donald Miles,
dated March 14, 2003, addressed to Members of City Council
and Members of the Planning Commission follows:
“Enclosed please find a Zoning Appeal filed today with
the City, requesting the Zoning Hearing Board to provide zoning
ordinance interpretation and/or appealing from decisions of
the Zoning Officer/Planning Bureau regarding applications
for preliminary/final approval filed by Tiger Den Partners,
LLC, for one 3-lot Subdivision and two Land Development plans
for Lots 1 and 2 of that subdivision, on the 32-acre lot known
as Ward 13, Block 1 (Lehigh County Tax Parcel FllSW4C-I-1),
located at the northwest corner of Eighth Avenue and Pa. Rte.
378.
Under Pennsylvania law, Section 915.1(a) of the Municipalities
Planning Code, enacted in 1968, the filing of this Zoning
Appeal stays (halts) "all land development" involving
this lot until the appeal is resolved, after hearings, by
a decision of the Zoning Hearing Board or judicial review
(see, Orchard View Estates West Residents et al. vs. North
Whitehall Board of Supervisors et al., Lehigh County Court
of Common Pleas, decided December 31, 2002, per Hon. Carol
K. McGinley, Judge [copy attached] ). As provided in that
state statute and recently confirmed by the Lehigh County
court, therefore, neither the Planning Commission nor City
Council may take any official action with respect to these
Plans or the related pending request for rezoning of this
lot until the many zoning issues raised by this appeal are
resolved.
Appellants would have preferred to seek this review of the
many significant zoning violations proposed by these Plans
more than two days before the Planning Commission meeting
scheduled March 19, 2003 to consider these Plans. However,
revised Plans were filed only 21 days ago (February 24) by
the landowner and the Planning Commission meeting was scheduled
a mere 23 days after that. The final Planning Bureau reviews
were not completed until March 14. Thus, my clients sought
this review by the Zoning Hearing Board at the earliest possible
opportunity under the rapid schedule set by the landowner
and the City. We did not set up this short schedule.
Pennsylvania law provides a clear structure to insure that
land development occurs in accordance with long-standing land
use planning rules enacted by the state and each local government:
the planning commission and governing body of the municipality
consider subdivision/land development issues such as streets,
utilities, stormwater and parks; the zoning hearing board
reviews issues involving the zoning ordinance -- proper zoning
district, lot configuration, buffer yards, parking, access
and traffic flow, noise/glare/pollution controls. If the Zoning
Hearing Board is not asked to review these zoning ordinance
issues before the subdivision/land development issues are
decided by the governing body, they may not later be questioned.
Since more than 30 zoning ordinance sections present significant
zoning issues involving these 3 Plans - suggesting violations
involving, to cite just some examples: multiple uses not permitted
in this zone, insufficient parking spaces and truck-loading
areas, total lack of required buffer yards between non-residential
and residential uses, dangerous pedestrian and traffic access
and traffic flow, signage, storage - and these Plans will
severely impact the adjoining and nearby residential landowners,
an appeal seeking Zoning Hearing Board review of the Plans
was imperative at this time. These important zoning issues
involve the largest development currently before the City
for approval and those issues deserve proper review.
Recently-amended Section 908 of the Pennsylvania Municipalities
Planning Code, 53 P.S. §10908, provides that such hearings
before the Zoning Hearing Board must be commenced within 60
days of the filing of the appeal and that each subsequent
hearing must be held within 45 days of the prior hearing.
Section 908 also provides that the appellants must complete
their side of the case within 100 days of the first hearing
and that appellants must be afforded at least 7 hours of hearings;
persons opposed to the appeal are then afforded for their
response 100 days after the completion of appellants' side
of the case. Either party may request additional time and
each side must be afforded an equal number of hearings. The
Zoning Hearing Board must render its decision on the appeal
within 45 days of the final hearing. Section 1002-A of the
Municipalities Planning Code provides that review of that
decision may be sought in Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas
within 30 days of the Board's decision. Please also refer
to my attached cover letter to the Zoning Hearing Board and
Planning Bureau at the time this appeal was filed.”
The President Gregory announced that the appropriate Ordinance
will be placed on Council’s Agenda for First Reading
at the next City Council Meeting on April 15, 2003.
14. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 1:09 a.m.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
|
