Council MInutes

September 16, 2008

BETHLEHEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING
10 East Church Street – Town Hall
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
Tuesday, September 16, 2008 – 7:00 PM

1. INVOCATION
2. PLEDGE TO THE FLAG
3. ROLL CALL

President Donchez called the meeting to order. Father Nicholas Palis of St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church offered the invocation which was followed by the pledge to the flag. Present were Jean Belinski, Karen Dolan, Joseph F. Leeson, Jr., Gordon B. Mowrer, J. William Reynolds, J. Michael Schweder, and Robert J. Donchez, 7.

4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

The Minutes of September 2, 2008 were approved.

5. COURTESY OF THE FLOOR (for public comment on ordinances and resolutions to be voted on by Council this evening)

PPL Right of Way Request – East Market Street, South of Church Street, and North of Brighton Street - BethSands

Mark Jackson, representing PPL Corporation, 2 North Ninth Street, Allentown, explained the proposal to build a substation for the Sands Casino to support the electrical needs, and noted a transmission feed is necessary. He advised that the easements will encompass 10 properties of which there are 6 different owners and the City of Bethlehem owns 3 properties. Mr. Jackson advised that determining a fair market value was difficult due to the irregular shapes of the properties and locations near the river. Mr. Jackson informed the Members that the existing water and sewer lines as well as future plans were reviewed with the engineers so that construction would not affect the plans.

6. OLD BUSINESS.

A. Tabled Items

None.

B. Unfinished Business

1. Establishing Article 314 – Security Cameras
2. Political Contributions and Expenditures – Proposed Ordinance
3. Gift of Real Estate – LVIP

C. Old Business – Members of Council

Lehigh University - Students

Mrs. Belinski, referring to the August 19, 2008 City Council Meeting minutes, noted that Dale Kochard, representing Lehigh University, spoke in favor of the restaurant proposed in a former church on East Fourth Street. Further reading from a newspaper article in which it was reported that 77 Lehigh University students were cited for drinking, Mrs. Belinski exclaimed how insulting the remark was that had been made by one of the students cited who had said that the police officer was a lowly civil servant. Mrs. Belinski pointed out she had previously told Mr. Kochard at a comprehensive plan meeting that there must be something Lehigh University can do to reign in their students.

Stratford Park – Zoning Hearing Board Decision

Mrs. Belinski suggested that a motion be made to override the decision of the Zoning Hearing Board to allow the multi-unit development proposed in the vicinity of Stratford Park. Mrs. Belinski denoted it was advised in a letter from William Scheirer that the residents of the neighborhood are not in a position to hire a lawyer.

President Donchez stated that the motion can be entertained under Resolutions.

7. COMMUNICATIONS

A. Business Administrator – 2009 Preliminary Budget Estimate – Pensions

The Clerk read a memorandum dated September 8, 2008 from Dennis W. Reichard, Business Administrator, listing estimates of the financial requirements of the Police, Fire, Officers and Employees, and PMRS pension plans, and minimum municipal contribution to the plans for 2009 budget purposes, as required under Act 205.

President Donchez advised this is for information only at this time, and no action needs to be taken.

B. Director of Purchasing – City Auction List

The Clerk read a memorandum dated September 10, 2008 from Mary Jo Reed, Director of Purchasing, to which was attached the list of the items to be sold at the City Auction. The auction has been contracted with Asset Auctions to have an on-line auction to dispose of City property.

President Donchez stated that the appropriate Resolution will be placed on the October 7 Agenda.

C. Parks and Public Property Director – PPL Right of Way Request – East Market Street,
South of Church Street, and North of Brighton Street - BethSands

The Clerk read a memorandum dated September 11, 2008 from Ralph E. Carp, Director of Parks and Public Property, to which was attached three Right-of-Way Resolutions between the City and PPL for City-owned property in the vicinity of East Market Street, south of Church Street, and north of Brighton Street, in conjunction with the electrical substation to serve facilities of the BethSands project.

President Donchez stated that authorizing Resolutions 11 R, 11 S, and 11 T are on the Agenda.

D. Councilman J. Michael Schweder – Amending Zoning Ordinance – Art. 1325 – Notice of
Hearing

The Clerk read a memorandum dated September 12, 2008 from J. Michael Schweder, Chairman of the Community Development Committee, to which was attached a draft Ordinance pertaining to the Zoning Hearing Board and the suggestion to revise the Notice of Hearing section to require that notice be given to parties within a radius of 300 feet, instead of only to those whose properties adjoin or face on the same street as the property in question.

President Donchez referred the request to the Planning Commission and the Lehigh Valley Planning Commission.

Mr. Schweder and Mr. Mowrer moved to schedule a Public Hearing on Tuesday, October 21, 2008 at 7:00 PM in Town Hall.

Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Leeson, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Schweder, and Mr. Donchez, 7. The motion passed.

8. REPORTS

A. President of Council

President Donchez noted that the Members of Council will have a tour of the Sands BethWorks project on September 17, 2008 at 4:15 p.m.

President Donchez asked the Members of Council to review the proposed Campaign Finance Ordinance that had been discussed previously, and a proposal that Ms. Dolan will be forwarding in the near future. President Donchez noted that Christopher Spadoni, City Council Solicitor, will meet with Mr. Schweder to develop a revised proposal and another Committee of the Whole meeting will be scheduled in October.

B. Mayor

None.

9. ORDINANCES FOR FINAL PASSAGE

None.

10. NEW ORDINANCES

A. Bill No. 25 – 2008 – Amending General Fund Budget – EMS Overtime, Streets, Mechanical, and
Recycling – Gasoline

The Clerk read Bill No. 25 – 2008 – Amending General Fund Budget – EMS Overtime, Streets, Mechanical, and Recycling – Gasoline, sponsored by Mr. Leeson and Mrs. Belinski, and titled:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BETHLEHEM,
COUNTIES OF LEHIGH AND NORTHAMPTON,
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, AMENDING
THE GENERAL FUND BUDGET FOR 2008.

Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Leeson, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Schweder, and Mr. Donchez, 7. Bill No. 25 – 2008 was declared passed on First Reading.

B. Bill No. 26 – 2008 – Amending 9-1-1 Fund Budget – Police Salaries

The Clerk read Bill No. 26 – 2008 – Amending 9-1-1 Fund Budget – Police Salaries, sponsored by Mr. Leeson and Mrs. Belinski, and titled:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BETHLEHEM,
COUNTIES OF LEHIGH AND NORTHAMPTON,
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, AMENDING
THE 9-1-1 FUND BUDGET FOR 2008.

Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Leeson, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Schweder, and Mr. Donchez, 7. Bill No. 26 – 2008 was declared passed on First Reading.

C. Bill No. 27 – 2008 – Amending Non-Utility Capital Budget – Movies, Games and More, Southside Recreation Programs, Eastern Gateway Lighting

The Clerk read Bill No. 27 – 2008 – Amending Non-Utility Capital Budget – Movies, Games and More, Southside Recreation Programs, Eastern Gateway Lighting, sponsored by Mr. Leeson and Mrs. Belinski, and titled:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BETHLEHEM,
COUNTIES OF LEHIGH AND NORTHAMPTON,
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, AMENDING
NON-UTILITY CAPITAL BUDGET FOR 2008.

Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Leeson, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Schweder, and Mr. Donchez, 7. Bill No. 27 – 2008 was declared passed on First Reading.

11. RESOLUTIONS

Considering Resolutions as a Group

President Donchez accepted a motion to consider Resolutions 11 A through 11 H as a group. Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Leeson, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Schweder, and Mr. Donchez, 7. The motion passed.

A. Transfer of Funds – Housing Inspections – Overtime

Mr. Leeson and Ms. Dolan sponsored Resolution 2008-154 that transferred $3,000 in the General Fund Budget from the Housing Inspections – Training and Education Account to the Housing Inspections – Overtime Account to provide additional funding needed for overtime.

B. Transfer of Funds – Parks Maintenance – Overtime

Mr. Leeson and Ms. Dolan sponsored Resolution 2008-155 that transferred $8,375 in the General Fund Budget from the Parks Maintenance Equipment Account to the Parks Maintenance – Overtime Account to provide additional funding needed for overtime.

C. Transfer of Funds – Traffic Maintenance – Overtime

Mr. Leeson and Ms. Dolan sponsored Resolution 2008-156 that transferred $1,500 in the General Fund Budget from the Traffic Maintenance – Operating Supplies Account to the Traffic Maintenance – Overtime Account to provide additional funding needed for overtime.

D. Transfer of Funds – Fire – Overtime

Mr. Leeson and Ms. Dolan sponsored Resolution 2008-157 that transferred $10,000 in the General Fund Budget from the Fire – Training and Education Account to the Fire – Overtime Account to provide additional funding needed for overtime.

E. Transfer of Funds – EMS – Overtime

Mr. Leeson and Ms. Dolan sponsored Resolution 2008-158 that transferred $8,352 in the General Fund Budget from the following: $4,535 EMS – Equipment Account and $3,817 EMS – Equipment Repairs-Ambulance Account, to the EMS – Overtime Account to provide additional funding needed for overtime.

F. Transfer of Funds – EMS – Temporary Help

Mr. Leeson and Ms. Dolan sponsored Resolution 2008-159 that transferred $27,000 in the General Fund Budget from the following accounts: $11,500 – EMS Department Contracts, $10,000 – EMS – Operating Supplies, and $5,500 – EMS – Uniforms, to EMS – Temporary Help Account to provide additional funding needed for temporary help.

G. Transfer of Funds – Mechanical Bureau – Equipment Repairs

Mr. Leeson and Ms. Dolan sponsored Resolution 2008-160 that transferred $30,455 in the General Fund Budget from the Unforeseen Contingency Account to the Mechanical Maintenance – Equipment Repairs – Fleet Account to provide funding needed to account for repairs made to various Fire Department vehicles.

H. Transfer of Funds – Non-Utility Capital Fund – Ice Rink

Mr. Leeson and Ms. Dolan sponsored Resolution 2008-161 that transferred $20,000 in the Non-Utility Capital Budget Pool Capital Account to the Ice Rink Capital Account to provide funding needed for projects scheduled prior to opening the Ice Rink.

Voting AYE on Resolutions 11 A through 11 H: Mrs. Belinski, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Leeson, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Schweder, and Mr. Donchez, 7. The Resolutions passed.

Considering Resolutions as a Group

President Donchez accepted a motion to consider Resolutions 11 I through 11 M as a group. Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Leeson, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Schweder, and Mr. Donchez, 7. The motion passed.

I. Certificate of Appropriateness – 510 High Street

Mr. Schweder and Mr. Mowrer sponsored Resolution 2008-161 that granted a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the existing deck at 510 High Street.

J. Certificate of Appropriateness – 23 East Wall Street

Mr. Schweder and Mr. Mowrer sponsored Resolution 2008-163 that granted a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace storm doors and install a mailbox at 23 East Wall Street.

K. Certificate of Appropriateness – 83 West Broad Street

Mr. Schweder and Mr. Mowrer sponsored Resolution 2008-164 that granted a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a double-sided projecting sign at 83 West Broad Street.

L. Certificate of Appropriateness – 55 East Church Street

Mr. Schweder and Mr. Mowrer sponsored Resolution 2008-165 that granted a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the concrete walk with brick at 55 East Church Street.

M. Certificate of Appropriateness – 505-507 Main Street

Mr. Schweder and Mr. Mowrer sponsored Resolution 2008-166 that granted a Certificate of Appropriateness to install signage and paint at 505-507 Main Street.

Voting AYE on Resolutions 11 I through 11 M: Mrs. Belinski, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Leeson, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Schweder, and Mr. Donchez, 7. The Resolutions passed.

Considering Resolutions as a Group

President Donchez accepted a motion to consider Resolutions 11 N through 11 Q as a group. Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Leeson, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Schweder, and Mr. Donchez, 7. The motion passed.

N. Authorizing Records Destruction – Department of Water and Sewer Resources and Department of Public Works

Mr. Leeson and Ms. Dolan sponsored Resolution 2008-167 that authorized the disposition of the public records from the Water and Sewer Resources Department and Public Works Department, as listed in Exhibit A, according to schedules and procedures for the disposition of records as set forth in the Municipal Records Manual approved on July 16, 1993 and Resolution 13,076.

O. Authorizing Records Destruction – Financial Services

Mr. Leeson and Ms. Dolan sponsored Resolution 2008-168 that authorized the disposition of the public records from the Financial Services, Payroll Office, as listed in Exhibit A, according to schedules and procedures for the disposition of records as set forth in the Municipal Records Manual approved on July 16, 1993 and Resolution 13,076.

P. Authorizing Records Destruction – Controller’s Office

Mr. Leeson and Ms. Dolan sponsored Resolution 2008-169 that authorized the disposition of the public records from the Controller’s Office, as listed in Exhibit A, according to schedules and procedures for the disposition of records as set forth in the Municipal Records Manual approved on July 16, 1993 and Resolution 13,076.

Q. Authorizing Records Destruction – Department of Police

Mr. Leeson and Ms. Dolan sponsored Resolution 2008-170 that authorized the disposition of the public records from the Police Department, as listed in Exhibit A, according to schedules and procedures for the disposition of records as set forth in the Municipal Records Manual approved on July 16, 1993 and Resolution 13,076.

Voting AYE on Resolutions 11 N through 11 Q: Mrs. Belinski, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Leeson, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Schweder, and Mr. Donchez, 7. The Resolutions passed.

Considering Resolutions as a Group

President Donchez accepted a motion to consider Resolutions 11 R through 11 T as a group. Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Leeson, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Schweder, and Mr. Donchez, 7. The motion passed.

R. Approving Right of Way Request – PPL – East Market Street – BethSands

Mr. Schweder and Mrs. Belinski sponsored Resolution 2008-171 that authorized the execution of a Right of Way Agreement between the City and PPL Electric Utilities Corporation for the purpose of granting permission for PPL Electric Utilities Corporation to construct, reconstruct, operate and maintain its electric and communication lines on property of the City of Bethlehem known as East Market Street, Tax Parcel No. P6NE2C-9-1, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Agreement.

S. Approving Right of Way Request – PPL – South of Church Street – BethSands

Mr. Schweder and Mrs. Belinski sponsored Resolution 2008-172 that authorized the execution of a Right of Way Agreement between the City and PPL Electric Utilities Corporation for the purpose of granting permission for PPL Electric Utilities Corporation to construct, reconstruct, operate and maintain its electric and communication lines on property of the City of Bethlehem known as South of Church Street, Tax Parcel No. P6-1-5, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Agreement.

T. Approving Right of Way Request – PPL – North of Brighton Street – BethSands

Mr. Schweder and Mrs. Belinski sponsored Resolution 2008-173 that authorized the execution of a Right of Way Agreement between the City and PPL Electric Utilities Corporation for the purpose of granting permission for PPL Electric Utilities Corporation to construct, reconstruct, operate and maintain its electric and communication lines on property of the City of Bethlehem known as North of Brighton Street, Tax Parcel No. P6-2-1A, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Agreement.

Voting AYE on Resolutions 11 R through 11 T: Mrs. Belinski, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Leeson, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Schweder, and Mr. Donchez, 7. The Resolutions passed.
Resolution 11 U

Mrs. Belinski moved to suspend the Rules of Council to add Resolution 11 U.

Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Leeson, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Schweder, and Mr. Donchez, 7. The motion passed.

Mrs. Belinski confirmed that William Scheirer spoke on behalf of the residents who live in the Stratford Park area and he forwarded a letter to City Council.

Mrs. Belinski moved to appeal the decision of the Zoning Hearing Board that allowed a multi-unit development to be built in the area of Stratford Park. Mr. Schweder seconded the motion.

Mrs. Belinski read from the letter dated September 10, 2008 forwarded by William Scheirer in which he requested that City Council appeal the Zoning Hearing Board ruling of July 23, 2008 by which a developer was granted variances to allow six twin houses to be built on a half acre parcel at 829 16th Avenue that was thought to be part of Stratford Park. Mrs. Belinski noted that Mr. Scheirer in his letter listed requirements for variances that he thought were not met because the loss of open space that has been parkland for 87 years is injurious to the neighborhood, greater profit is not sufficient proof of hardship, and the hardship complained of was self-created by the developer when the property was purchased less than eight moths ago.

Mrs. Belinski highlighted the fact that the developer is going to squeeze townhouses in a half-acre tract. Mrs. Belinski related that Charles Brown, the former Parks and Public Property Director, verified that for many years his department had to clean the area, cut the grass, and clear the snow. Mrs. Belinski questioned how can this property be sold for this development resulting in the devaluing of long-standing residential single-family homes across the street. Mrs. Belinski highlighted the fact that the residents would like to do something about it but they do not have the financial means.

In response to President Donchez, Mrs. Belinski confirmed that her motion is to request that City Council take action to overrule the decision of the Zoning Hearing Board.

Attorney Spadoni advised that the decision of the Zoning Hearing Board contains variances for dimensional relief and use relief in granting the application filed by Jama Barker.

Mr. Reynolds observed it is not just an issue of Council voting to overturn the Zoning Hearing Board’s decision but it would be to appeal the decision. Attorney Spadoni replied yes. President Donchez stated that the motion is to take legal action as a party to overrule the decision of the Zoning Hearing Board.

Mr. Mowrer queried if Mrs. Belinski is requesting that City Council pay for the attorney for the group. Mrs. Belinski stated the residents cannot afford an attorney.

President Donchez asked whether it is correct that if the action were to be approved by City Council then Attorney Spadoni would represent City Council. Attorney Spadoni stated that is correct.

In response to Mr. Reynolds, Attorney Spadoni noted he would be representing City Council rather than the City. Mr. Reynolds wondered whether the Administration would need to agree with Council’s decision to move forward. Attorney Spadoni, while observing that would be beneficial to know at the outset, commented that a municipality in all zoning cases at all junctures is a party with standing to participate. Attorney Spadoni stated it would help if the City Administration with the City Solicitor would join.

Mr. Reynolds, noting that he spoke with Attorney Spadoni and with Attorney Spirk, City Solicitor, said he will be voting no on the Resolution since as it was explained to him it is a situation where pursuing it could potentially have more adverse effects to the neighborhood in the future. Continuing on to express that the more Council would discuss the matter and whether or not to appeal the decision could potentially weaken City Council’s position, Mr. Reynolds restated that an appeal could be more detrimental to the neighborhood.

Mr. Mowrer said he agrees with Mr. Reynolds and will vote accordingly.

Mr. Schweder observed that if one reads the opinion he does not know how one would get to the point that there was hardship, and noted two variances were granted for property that was part of the City’s. Mr. Schweder thought that Council needs to go forward with the appeal. Mr. Schweder noted that in talking with people who live in the neighborhood they are willing to take the risk to which Mr. Reynolds alluded. Mr. Schweder expressed the hope that at some point Council will pass something like this because it seems the majority of Members are always in favor of supporting people in the neighborhoods but then when it is voted upon it fails. Communicating there is a very significant disconnect, Mr. Schweder stated Council may be in favor of something but the Members just cannot bring themselves to take the actions that are warranted, and he expressed the hope Council will take action tonight.

Mr. Leeson asked what is the deadline to file an appeal. Attorney Spadoni replied the written decision is dated September 5, 2008 and there is a 30 day appeal period from that point. Mrs. Belinski noted the envelope was cancelled September 8. Attorney Spadoni clarified that under the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code the time requirements are strict and the decision is dated September 5 so it is 30 days from that date.

Mr. Leeson asked if the Administration has a position on the matter.

John F. Spirk, Jr., Esq., City Solicitor, responded the Administration did not choose to pursue an appeal because of concerns about the related litigation involving the other 4 acres and the willingness of the developers to surrender and terminate that litigation favorable to the City if the City does not perfect an appeal on the ½ acre tract.

Mr. Leeson inquired what is the other litigation to which Attorney Spirk is referring and what is the status.

Attorney Spirk advised the 2 parcels of the other 4 acres of Stratford Park were deeded to the City with the reverter clause that requires they be used as a park and playground. The litigation is proceeding on the basis that those parcels should have reverted many years ago since the City never developed a park and playground. That litigation has been filed and the matter is in Lehigh County Court. The developer of the ½ acre parcel is the owner of those reverter rights for about half of the remaining 4 acres. The developer indicated on the record at the Zoning Hearing Board meeting that if the City does not appeal then the developer would terminate that litigation favorable to the City so there would be no concern about reversionary rights. Attorney Spirk stated for that reason the City Administration is not pursuing an appeal in this case.

Mr. Leeson expressed his understanding is that the developer has indicated a willingness to surrender rights to the other 4 acres to allow the City to keep acreage as a park. Attorney Spirk advised it would be to keep half of the other 4 acres, and further advised that the other half is owned by heirs of the grantors from the 1930’s who have had contact with the City but have not filed any litigation. Mr. Leeson asked if the position being taken is that the entire 4 acres is not any part of the City’s. Attorney Spirk responded yes. Mr. Leeson questioned whether the hope is, if the City would prevail in the negotiations, that at least 2 acres would be released back to the City. Attorney Spirk replied in the affirmative. Mr. Leeson inquired does the City have that commitment in writing from the developer. Attorney Spirk advised it was stated under oath and put on the record at the Zoning Hearing Board meeting.

Mr. Leeson stated he would like to obtain a better understanding from a legal opinion standpoint as to the prospects of win/loss and the litigation instituted by Attorney Spirk for the City, and also the prospects of win/loss on the potential litigation that would be instituted by Attorney Spadoni. Mr. Leeson noted since the matter pertains to litigation it could be the subject of an Executive Session. Mr. Leeson, expressing he is reluctant to give carte blanche, said he is willing to explore the possibility of litigation. However, if the Attorneys conclude that the prospects are not good, Mr. Leeson questioned why would Council want to pursue something that would be potentially not successful and potentially have a detrimental impact on the efforts by the Administration to save the 2 acres. On the other hand, Mr. Leeson stated he does not want to say no to the proposal of Mrs. Belinski but, in the absence of a more concrete opinion after the Attorneys have had a chance to study all the aspects, his position is that he is willing to consider it although does not feel he is in a position tonight to give carte blanche to it. Mr. Leeson suggested that, rather than voting yes or not on it tonight, an Executive Session could be scheduled if necessary and a Special Council Meeting could be scheduled before the 30 day period is over in order to take action. Mr. Leeson thought there were too many ramifications to a decision tonight that have the potential to be detrimental.

Attorney Spadoni commented he would render an opinion if that is the will of Council as to the concerns that have been raised. While communicating he is somewhat hesitant as to giving a probability of success or failure, Attorney Spadoni affirmed he would provide the pros and cons.

Mrs. Belinski noted the reverter clause is also in effect for the other 2 acres. Mrs. Belinski further affirmed that the former Parks and Public Property Director would testify that the Department maintained the land all these years and it was used as a passive recreation area.

Ms. Dolan, commenting she is sensitive and responsive in particular to the comments of Mr. Schweder, stated that certainly all want to do the right thing especially when citizens come before Council with their concerns. Recalling when she heard Mr. Scheirer’s comments she thought it could be the opportunity to stand up to the Zoning Hearing Board that seems to be functioning as the Planning Commission, Ms. Dolan said she would look forward to the time when she would feel one hundred percent comfortable that it is the right time to do so. Ms. Dolan communicated that after looking at the map and a 45 minute briefing on the matter, she is concerned with what Mr. Reynolds brought up without going into detail. Ms. Dolan pointed out there is a lot of complex legal strategy involved. Ms. Dolan continued on to say as someone who wants as much open space in the City as possible, she thinks there is great risk of deterring that. Expressing her agreement with Mrs. Belinski regarding how the property was used and maintained, Ms. Dolan noted the other sections and their history are much more complex and raise grave concerns about how successful an appeal would be. Ms. Dolan further stated since it is clear the Administration is not going to be a party in this then why would Council want this to be the time when it is decided to take the Zoning Hearing Board on when it could weaken the argument. Ms. Dolan observed a portion of land closest to the highway may be lost but potentially a viable tract for the park could be saved. In the spirit of protecting the land, Ms. Dolan advised she would not want to challenge the matter.

President Donchez communicated it is a very delicate and complex issue, the matter goes back a long period of time, and there is a history to the various parcels. President Donchez expressed he would feel more comfortable if City Council were to take action with the support of the Administration. President Donchez stated that, after talking with Attorneys Spadoni, Kelly and Spirk and looking at the map, the issue contains a host of complexities, and the key point is that an appeal could create a more adverse effect for the neighbors if Council were to lose the appeal. President Donchez advised in this situation he cannot vote to support the Resolution.

Mr. Leeson felt it would be unwise to foreclose Council’s options by defeating the Resolution at this time, and it weakens the Administration’s hand. Mr. Leeson commented that the developer might have a strong incentive to settle the matter within the next few weeks. Mr. Leeson said he will vote for the Resolution even though he is not convinced it is the right thing to do and he reserves the right to vote to withdraw the Resolution at a later date.

Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Leeson, and Mr. Schweder, 3. Voting NAY: Ms. Dolan, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Reynolds, and Mr. Donchez, 4. The Resolution failed.

12. New Business

Committee Meeting Announcements

Chairman Schweder announced a Community Development Committee meeting on October 7, 2008 at 5:45 p.m. in Town Hall on the Proposed 2009 CDBG and HOME Programs.

13. COURTESY OF THE FLOOR

Parking Problems – Garrison Street Vicinity

Jean Tate, 428 E. Garrison Street, stated she is at the meeting to inquire whether there is any resolution as far as parking in front of residential homes. Ms. Tate, explaining that the street is very narrow and there are no garages in the backs of houses, informed the Members that the parking situation in the neighborhood has become extreme within the last 3-5 years particularly resulting from non-residents. Ms. Tate advised that she works various shifts and sometimes comes home late at night and is unable to park in the vicinity of her home. Among the issues are non-residents who stay 2-3 days at a time, and complaints from garbage haulers when people try to park in the back. Ms. Tate highlighted the fact that she asks her neighbor if she can park in front of their house temporarily, but others do not extend this courtesy.

President Donchez notified Ms. Tate that she can meet with City officials after the Council Meeting regarding the residential parking permit program.

Elliott Heights - Development

Martha Christine, 107 Mt. Airy Avenue, expressed her concern about development in the neighborhood. She confirmed that property adjacent to her house at 1801 Elliott Avenue was recently sold and at a questionable Zoning Hearing Board meeting the development of 22 housing units on the property was allowed because of the allegedly man-made slope. Enumerating the various community groups to which she and her family members belong, Ms. Christine highlighted the fact that they are civic-minded and care about Bethlehem. Ms. Christine pointed out the residents do not have fancy historic buildings but there is history in the area as the 1801 Elliott Avenue property was part of an original 100 year old farm that borders the canal and Lehigh River, and there are natural green spaces. Neighbors are exploring the idea of having the district rezoned to stop future development. Explaining that City officials pointed out that the neighbors did not have a lawyer at the Zoning Hearing Board meeting, Ms. Christine further stressed it is not enough for City officials to be sympathetic. Ms. Christine urged Council to do all in their power to limit development in Elliot Heights and preserve the unique rural character of this area in the City.

Stratford Park

Bill Scheirer, 1890 Eaton Avenue, expressed that he supports the remarks of Ms. Christine. Highlighting the fact that there are three areas in West Bethlehem that are of concern; namely, Elliot Heights, Stratford Park, and Kelchner Road, Mr. Scheirer pointed out the underlying issues are the same in that developers have discovered West Bethlehem. Mr. Scheirer related that he spoke with about 12 residents of Stratford Park and about half said they would want to appeal the Zoning Hearing Board decision and the other half indicated they would favor an appeal as long as the rest of Stratford Park could be saved. Querying whether it was ever anything other than a park and playground, Mr. Scheirer denoted that the definition in the 1930’s did not include recreational equipment. Mr. Scheirer stressed there is another issue in the case of Stratford Park, as well as Kelchner Road and Elliott Heights and that is the Zoning Hearing Board is not paying one bit of attention to the requirements for a variance. Mr. Scheirer remarked that Council has implied tonight that is okay. Pointing out the law is clear that a variance shall not be injurious to the neighborhood, shall not be for greater profit, and shall not be self-inflicted, Mr. Scheirer emphasized these requirements are being ignored, and until something is done about it developers will be able to do whatever they want in the City simply by going before the Zoning Hearing Board. Mr. Scheirer further remarked that until the Administration or Council or neighbors that have the money to hire a lawyer institutes a challenge there is government of the developer, by the developer, and for the developer. Mr. Scheirer observed that City officials are so enamored with developers that they are willing to risk the fabric of the neighborhoods and the City. Mr. Scheirer stated that is a situation that people will live to regret.

Various Issues

Eddie Rodriquez, 1845 Linden Street, noting he brought pictures, expressed that the concerns of residents in the vicinity of Beverly Avenue, Rosemont Drive, Fernway, Eastman, and Ridgelawn Avenue are true. Advising that he spoke with residents in the area, Mr. Rodriquez explained that in addition to speeding there is a dire need for stop signs. Mr. Rodriquez advised that Mr. Alkhal and Mr. Barron will meet with him on Friday. Mr. Rodriquez stated there are many concerns in the City about drug dealing, violence, burglary, and he stressed these major concerns are putting the City under and something needs to be done about it. Mr. Rodriquez asserted it is a major blow when people come into the City and do whatever they want. Mr. Rodriquez thought that business owners who want to operate in the City should have background checks, and expressed the belief that a lot of stores are being used for drug dealings.

Gaming Revenue Distribution; Casino Related Matters

Robert Pfenning, 2830 Linden Street, reported on the recent Northampton County Gambling Impact Study Commission meeting. He noted a ruling made on August 4 by a Judge in Erie County which has been appealed to Commonwealth Court stated that entities eligible for making municipal grants under the distribution of gaming revenues include the five contiguous municipalities to the City of Bethlehem, the host County which is Northampton County, and Bethlehem which is the host City. The Act delineates six different areas for which grant applications can be made. The expenses being met under the grants must be associated with the licensed facility operation. Any uncommitted funds would revert to the grant-making authority for any purpose in the County. Mr. Pfenning said even though the City can apply it should not because of what the existing revenue sharing deal already did to the City. He stated that according to the recent Pennsylvania Department of Revenue estimates the City will get $1.1 million more than the 80% it would have received before. Northampton County would get $2 million less per year and the municipal grants section gets almost $1 million less per year. Mr. Pfenning, advising that the Sands Casino will be paying for intersection improvements along Route 412 between the casino and Route 78, questioned why he had to go to the meeting in Easton to find this out. Remarking that the public has not been informed about the casino project, Mr. Pfenning requested that City Council hold a Committee of the Whole meeting to request a presentation by the Administration or a meeting of the appropriate committee for an update. Mr. Pfenning informed the assembly there is a group called the Lehigh Valley Industrial Heritage Coalition that met on September 11 to discuss the consultant’s report on how the host City and the casino could interact to benefit historical projects, and said he would like to know what the meeting was about.

Development and Erosion of Quality of Life

Stephen Antalics, 737 Ridge Street, referring to the comments of Mr. Scheirer, stated the same type of pattern occurred in destroying the integrity of the South Side by the inability to do proper code inspections, and so on. He said as a result many fine neighborhoods were destroyed because the Bethlehem Steel needed expansion. Mr. Antalics highlighted the fact that Mr. Scheirer has pointed out a pattern. Mr. Antalics communicated there are decent people in the City who make it what it is, and the residents enjoy quality of life. However, Mr. Antalics stressed that quality of life is changing by the inability to restrict wholesale development. Questioning whether developers are exerting the same power on the Administration that Bethlehem Steel exerted in the past, Mr. Antalics asserted both result in destruction of the quality of life in the City. Mr. Antalics thought that Council has a very clear obligation to protect the citizens’ quality of life against ruthless development. Mr. Antalics emphasized how people come to Council Meetings to speak about how their quality of life is threatened and remarked that Council is sitting there quietly. Mr. Antalics stated it needs to be looked into as to why developers have such a great ability to develop on these various tracts.

PLCM Convention in Bethlehem; Bicycle Lanes

Chuck Nyul, 1966 Pinehurst Road, referring to a newspaper article about a mayors conference planned in the City, questioned the generation of revenue from the event.

Mayor Callahan advised that the first official booking for the Sands Casino Resort is a state-wide convention of the Pennsylvania League of Cities and Municipalities (PLCM) that includes municipal officials from across the State and not only Mayors.

Mr. Nyul queried how the newly signed bicycle lanes in the street will function.

The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.