Bethlehem Council MInutes

BETHLEHEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING
10 East Church Street – Town Hall
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
Tuesday, September 19, 2012 – 7:00 PM

INVOCATION

PLEDGE TO THE FLAG

The Reverend Ron Hari, of Hungarian Evangelical Reformed Church, offered the invocation which was followed by the pledge to the flag.

1. ROLL CALL

President Evans called the meeting to order. Present were David T. DiGiacinto, Robert J. Donchez, Michael D. Recchiuti, and Eric R. Evans, 4. Jean Belinski, Karen Dolan, and J. William Reynolds were absent, 3.

PUBLIC HEARING

LERTA Ordinance – Amending Codified Ordinance Article 342 – Renewal to December 2017; Changing Boundaries

Prior to the regular Agenda items, President Evans called to order a Public Hearing to consider the continuation and extension of the Local Economic Revitalization Tax Assistance (LERTA) Program through December 31, 2017 and to expand the boundaries of the LERTA Program to include the Eastern Gateway bounded by Daly Avenue to the north, Lynn Avenue to the east, Fifth Street to the south and generally Edward Street to the west, and portions of Third Street and Fourth Street from Hayes Street westwardly to Broadway, Wyandotte Street and Route 378 at the Five Points area.

5A. Chairman of Community Development Committee – LERTA Ordinance – Amending
Codified Ordinance Article 342 – Renewal to December 2017; Changing Boundaries

The Clerk read a memorandum dated September 13, 2012 from David T. DiGiacinto, Chairman of the Community Development Committee, stating that the proposed Ordinance to amend Article 342 – LERTA – Renewal to December 2017 and Changing Boundaries was reviewed at the Community Development Committee Meeting on Wednesday, September 5. The Committee unanimously recommended that City Council adopt the Ordinance and set the Public Hearing Date.

Joseph Kelly, Director of Community and Economic Development, affirming that a majority of Council did hear the presentation on the LERTA Program last week at the Community Development Committee meeting, stated he will give a brief overview. Mr. Kelly highlighted the fact that LERTA has been a very successful program in the City of Bethlehem. Mr. Kelly noted that developers are at this evening’s Meeting who have taken advantage of the program and will speak to its effect on the end users and the redevelopment of the brownfield along Route 412. Mr. Kelly communicated that some modifications to the LERTA boundaries are proposed. Mr. Kelly enumerated that from 1984 to 2006 there were about 3,900 acres in the City under the LERTA program. Between 2007 and 2010 it was reduced to 1,415 acres primarily located along LVIP VII and Majestic, and at Commerce Center Boulevard. Mr. Kelly advised the Administration is asking to expand the boundaries slightly to include the Eastern Gateway that is a section that the City is aggressively trying to develop, including portions of Third Street and Fourth Street starting at Hayes Street into the business district where the LERTA program was in effect once before. The proposed new LERTA boundaries will include the Route 78 interchange site which was pulled out some time ago when there was a casino potentially looking at that land. Mr. Kelly commented that the economy is still stagnant but locally the City faces additional competition in the redevelopment of its brownfields and even in the urban core with new programs that exist. Mr. Kelly pointed out that Northampton County, Easton School District, and Palmer Township created a TIF to offer additional potential warehousing with industrial space off Route 33. Mr. Kelly further affirmed that Allentown has a NIZ which creates additional incentives in the urban core, and Emmaus is potentially looking to offer LERTA in the downtown. Mr. Kelly emphasized that, as successful as Bethlehem has been, the City would like to continue to be aggressive in the incentives that are offered to get the type of development the City wants in the downtown, and to redevelop the former Bethlehem Steel property.

Council Comments

Mr. DiGiacinto, noting that the proposed LERTA Program was summarily reviewed at the Community Development Committee Meeting on September 5, added he also had a meeting with Mr. Kelly in August to discuss LERTA. Mr. DiGiacinto stated the Committee fully supported what Mr. Kelly wants to do and to move the proposal forward. Mr. DiGiacinto mentioned that Mr. Kelly did approach the other taxing bodies to present information regarding the LERTA proposal prior to requesting their approval. Mr. DiGiacinto highlighted the fact that it is a very competitive economic development landscape now, and hopefully LERTA will continue to be successful for the City.

Mr. Kelly explained that he is also asking to expand the LERTA Program from a two year renewal to a five year renewal period. This would make it administratively easier and it creates a certain program for entities that are looking to locate in Bethlehem.

Mr. Recchiuti advised that he has had some conversations with Mr. Kelly about the LERTA program and he sees it as a very successful program for the City. Mr. Recchiuti remarked that Mr. Kelly highlighted the challenges faced for development in the City with competition from neighboring communities. Mr. Recchiuti added that he will fully support LERTA. Mr. Recchiuti advised that since Mr. Reynolds was unable to attend this evening’s Meeting he asked that his support for the LERTA Program be noted.

Mr. Donchez affirmed that he has always been a strong supporter of LERTA. Mr. Donchez, stressing it is a very important program, pointed out it is probably more important now than in past years because of all of the competition from neighboring communities. Expressing it is a good idea to expand LERTA, Mr. Donchez noted it looks like it will include most of the South Side and the Gateway on the eastern and western ends. Mr. Donchez agreed it is also wise to extend the LERTA Program to five years rather than renewing it every two years, and confirmed that he supports the proposal.

President Evans advised that his thoughts are much the same as his colleagues. President Evans denoted the support is equally as strong as it was last time. Focusing on the change in the LERTA boundaries, President Evans observed the boundaries are not only expanding but it is important to note that the boundaries are being moved to the areas that need the Program the most. He continued on to point out those are areas where LERTA can be used as the effective tool that it is. President Evans noted testimony will be heard tonight as to how LERTA has been effective, the hope for the future, and what it can continue to do. President Evans added that he supports the proposed LERTA Program.

Public Comment

Kerry Wrobel, President of Lehigh Valley Industrial Park (LVIP), remarked that the Lehigh Valley Industrial Park is a private, non-profit economic development corporation that has been in existence for over 50 years. In the 7 Parks, there are 2,500 acres of land, over 22,000 employees, and 470 companies. Mr. Wrobel affirmed that Lehigh Valley Industrial Park is developing 1,000 acres of the former Bethlehem Steel Plant acquired in May 2004. Mr. Wrobel communicated he is pleased to report that with the help of LERTA this evening he can state that there has been $192 million worth of investment in LVIP VII in the last 8 years. Mr. Wrobel advised that 2,000 employees work now on what use to be vacant land, and there are 11 companies including the second largest retailer of cigars, to a refrigerated warehouse, to an architectural company, and an environmental consulting firm. Mr. Wrobel explained the goal is the same as it has been for the first six parks which is to create a premier business center with diverse businesses including manufacturing, technology, warehouse, and industrial. In the case of LVIP VII, there are opportunities for commercial and retail. Mr. Wrobel highlighted the fact that there are challenges with developing a brownfield site. Every day, LVIP is in the business of promoting the City of Bethlehem and answering the question of why a business should locate on a former industrial site versus a greenfield site. Mr. Wrobel emphasized that one of the key tools in the incentive package is the LERTA tax program. Mr. Wrobel confirmed it has been tremendously successful, it is outstanding public policy, and expressed it sounds like there is the support for the proposal.

Skip Bailey, with Commerce Construction and Majestic, noted that the company closed on the property in 2007 and planned on having building start in 2009 but the economy did not cooperate. Mr. Bailey affirmed the plans are finally getting started and currently under construction with 800,000 square feet is the Crayola building that will be turning over December 1. Mr. Bailey expressed he is happy to be here tonight to show support for the LERTA program. Mr. Bailey informed the Members it is a key tool in this landscape that is competitive now, as was mentioned earlier. Advising that the firm deals with companies all over the country, Mr. Bailey said in this area it seems that just about every major distribution and industrial type business that wants to work in the northeast looks to the Lehigh Valley. Restating it is very competitive, Mr. Bailey pointed out that the firm has had many conversations with many people because there are many components. Location is important, as is infrastructure, freeway access, water, sewer, workforce, and the culture of the community. Mr. Bailey remarked that, while he sees competition between cities, one thing in common is the LERTA program. Mr. Bailey confirmed that LERTA was definitely instrumental in negotiations with Crayola and he is happy to have the company on board. Mr. Bailey communicated that he appreciates the past support and stated that he encourages continued support. Mr. Bailey added the company enjoys the cooperation working with the City of Bethlehem in being able to develop, and noted that they have seven million more square feet to go.

Tom Shaughnessy, representing J. G. Petrucci Development, stated that he appreciates the opportunity to come before City Council for the fourth time to support LERTA. The company is design, builders, and developers that has done many projects in the City of Bethlehem, and three in the past few years in LVIP VII. In 2007, the company built 80,000 square feet for Receivable Management Services (RMS), in 2009 they built 62,000 for Synchronoss Technologies, and in 2010 they built 115,000 square feet for Cigars International. Those three firms have employed over 1,500 workers all in the City of Bethlehem. Mr. Shaughnessy highlighted the fact that those three companies did have choices and confirmed that, as Mr. DiGiacinto had stated, it is a very competitive landscape in economic development. Mr. Shaughnessy pointed out that RMS and Synchronoss had opportunities to go to New Jersey, and Cigars International considered several sites in the Bethlehem suburbs yet chose LVIP VII. Mr. Shaughnessy affirmed one of the key reasons was that among the incentives provided was the LERTA program. Mr. Shaughnessy pointed out that RMS has been paying taxes for 5 years under the LERTA and in another 5 years the company will be paying 100% of the City, School District, and County taxes. Mr. Shaughnessy emphasized that LERTA is an important program and it continues to be. He noted the company is currently talking to a few more prospects for LVIP VII for the two additional lots they own. He restated that this program is important as municipalities compete for economic development. Mr. Shaughnessy added it is also important to J. G. Petrucci and important to LVIP. Mr. Shaughnessy recognized not only LERTA, but what the City of Bethlehem, the Redevelopment Authority, LVIP, and Northampton County have done in terms of preparing those sites and redeveloping the brownfield site. Mr. Shaughnessy stressed is a very important piece of property not only in the Lehigh Valley but throughout Pennsylvania.

President Evans stated that Bill No. 28 – 2012 is listed on the Agenda for First Reading. The Resolution will be placed on the October 2 Council Agenda along with Final Reading of Bill No. 28 – 2012.

The Public Hearing was adjourned at 7:15 PM.

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

The Minutes of September 4, 2012 were approved.

3. PUBLIC COMMENT

None.

4. OLD BUSINESS.

A. Old Business – Members of Council

None.

B. Tabled Items

None.

C. Unfinished Business

None.

5. COMMUNICATIONS

B. City Council Solicitor – Appeals of Penn Venture Capital, LLC – Zoning Hearing Board

The Clerk read a memorandum from Christopher T. Spadoni, City Council Solicitor, dated September 12, 2012 to which was attached a proposed Resolution regarding appeals of Penn Venture Capital, LLC before the Zoning Hearing Board authorizing his appearance for City Council.

President Evans stated Resolution 9 A is listed on the Agenda.

C. Chairman of Community Development Committee – Proposed Zoning Ordinance – Amending Article 1304.04 – Reuse of Corner Commercial Uses Allowed in RT and RG Districts

The Clerk read a memorandum dated September 13, 2012 from Chairman DiGiacinto to which was attached Amendments that were unanimously recommended by the Community Development Committee to Article 1304.04 – Reuse of Corner Commercial Uses Allowed in RT and RG Districts.

President Evans stated the proposal, along with the Amendments, will be referred to the Planning Commission.

D. Chairman of Community Development Committee – Proposed Zoning Ordinance – Amending Articles 1302 and 1319 – Commercial and Recreational Vehicles in Residential Zoning Districts

The Clerk read a memorandum dated September 13, 2012 from Chairman DiGiacinto to which was attached Amendments that were unanimously recommended by the Community Development Committee to Articles 1302 and 1329 – Commercial and Recreational Vehicles in Residential Zoning Districts.

President Evans stated the proposal, along with the Amendments, will be referred to the Planning Commission.

E. Chairman of Community Development Committee – Establishing Article 1321 – Landmarks and Historic Resources

The Clerk read a memorandum dated September 13, 2012 from Chairman DiGiacinto stating the proposed Ordinance establishing Article 1321 – Landmarks and Historic Resources was unanimously recommended by the Community Development Committee.

President Evans stated the proposal will be referred to the Planning Commission.

F. Chairman of Community Development Committee – Amending Article 1317 – Flood Plain Ordinance

The Clerk read a memorandum dated September 13, 2012 from Chairman DiGiacinto stating the proposed Ordinance amending Article 1317 – Flood Plain Ordinance was unanimously recommended by the Community Development Committee.

President Evans stated the proposal will be referred to the Planning Commission.

G. City Solicitor – Records Destruction – Health Bureau

The Clerk read a memorandum dated September 13, 2012 from John F. Spirk, Jr., Esq., City Solicitor, requesting a Resolution for the destruction of records from the Health Bureau. The Law Bureau reviewed the Municipal Records Retention Act and the records fall within categories where destruction is permitted.

President Evans stated that the Resolution will be placed on the October 2 Agenda.

H. City Solicitor – Amendment No. 4 to Lease Agreement – Ice Rink Concession Stand

The Clerk read a memorandum dated September 13, 2012 from John F. Spirk, Jr., Esq., City Solicitor, to which was attached a proposed Resolution and associated Amendment No. 4 to Lease Agreement between Richard J. H. Keck, Jr. and the City for use of the Food Concession Stand at the Ice Skating Rink at Illick’s Mill Road (now known as the Earl E. Schaefer Municipal Ice Rink) for the renewal term of one additional year, according to the Agreement.

President Evans stated the Resolution will be listed on the October 2 Agenda.

I. City Solicitor – Use Permit Agreement for Public Property – LeadDog Marketing Group, Inc. –
Runner’s World Half Marathon and Festival

The Clerk read a memorandum dated September 13, 2012 from John F. Spirk, Jr., Esq., City Solicitor, to which was attached a proposed Resolution and Use Permit Agreement between LeadDog Marketing Group, Inc. and the City for use of various City streets and properties for the Runner’s World Half Marathon and Festival on October 19 through October 21, 2012, according to the Agreement.

President Evans stated the Resolution will be listed on the October 2 Agenda.

J. Business Administrator – 2013 Preliminary Budget Estimate – Pensions

The Clerk read a memorandum dated September 12, 2012 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 2013 budget purposes, as required under Act 205.

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

K. City Solicitor – Use Permit Agreement –Greater Lehigh Valley Chamber of Commerce, Downtown Bethlehem Association – Harvest Festival

The Clerk read a memorandum dated September 12, 2012 from John F. Spirk, Jr., Esq., City Solicitor, to which was attached a proposed Resolution and Use Permit Agreement between the Greater Lehigh Valley Chamber of Commerce, by and through its Downtown Bethlehem Association, and the City for use of Main Street between Broad Street and Church Street for the Harvest Festival on October 13, 2012, according to the Agreement.

President Evans stated the Resolution will be listed on the October 2 Agenda.

L. Intermunicipal Liquor License Transfer Request – Corked Wine Bar, Inc. – 515 Main Street

The Clerk read a letter dated September 13, 2012 from Giuseppe Grisafi requesting a transfer of Liquor License No. R-8246 from Crystal Jade Inn, Inc., traded as DaVinci’s Italian Restaurant, with a former address of 5000 Bath Pike, Bethlehem, Hanover Township, Northampton County to Corked Wine Bar Inc., 515 Main Street, Bethlehem, Northampton County.

Scheduling Public Hearing

Mr. Donchez and Mr. Recchiuti moved to schedule a Public Hearing on Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 7:00 PM in Town Hall. Voting AYE: Mr. Recchiuti, Mr. DiGiacinto, Mr. Donchez, and Mr. Evans, 4. The motion passed.

6. REPORTS

A. President of Council

None

B. Mayor

None.

C. Community Development Committee

Mr. DiGiacinto, Chairman of the Community Development Committee, gave an oral report of the Committee’s meeting held on Wednesday, September 5, at 7:00 PM in Town Hall on the following subjects: (1) Zoning Ordinance Amendments: Section 1304.04 - Reuse of Corner Commercial Uses Allowed in the RT and RG Districts/Corner Lots; Section 1321 – Landmarks and Historic Resources/Demolition; Sections 1302 and 1319 - Commercial and Recreational Vehicles – Parking in Residential Districts; Section 1317 - Flood Plain Ordinance; (2) LERTA – Codified Ordinance Section 342: Renewal to December 2017; Changing Boundaries; (3) Updates: Economic Development Loan Program, and Main Street Streetscape.

7. ORDINANCES FOR FINAL READING

A. Bill No. 24 – 2012 – Amending Article 531 – Handicapped Parking Violations – Special Condition

The Clerk read Bill No. 24 – 2012 – Amending Article 531 – Handicapped Parking Violations – Special Condition, on Final Reading.

Voting AYE: Mr. Recchiuti, Mr. DiGiacinto, Mr. Donchez, and Mr. Evans, 4. Bill No. 24 – 2012, hereafter to be known as Ordinance 2012-24, was declared adopted.

B. Bill No. 25 – 2012 – Amending Article 1739 – Regulated Rental Unit Occupancy

The Clerk read Bill No. 25 – 2012 – Amending Article 1739 – Regulated Rental Unit Occupancy, on Final Reading.

Voting AYE: Mr. Recchiuti, Mr. DiGiacinto, Mr. Donchez, and Mr. Evans, 4. Bill No. 25 – 2012, hereafter to be known as Ordinance 2012-25, was declared adopted.

C. Bill No. 26 – 2012 – Amending General Fund Budget – Healthy Women, HIV/Aids, Bioterrorism

The Clerk read Bill No. 26 – 2012 – Amending General Fund Budget – Healthy Women, HIV/Aids, Bioterrorism, on Final Reading.

Voting AYE: Mr. Recchiuti, Mr. DiGiacinto, Mr. Donchez, and Mr. Evans, 4. Bill No. 26 – 2012, hereafter to be known as Ordinance 2012-26, was declared adopted.

D. Bill No. 27 – 2012 – Amending Non-Utility Capital Budget – Ice Rink, Johnston Park, South Bethlehem Greenway, Genoa Street – B. Braun, William Street Improvements, EMS Repeater System, Skate Park Project

The Clerk read Bill No. 27 – 2012 – Amending Non-Utility Capital Budget – Ice Rink, Johnston Park, South Bethlehem Greenway, Genoa Street – B. Braun, William Street Improvements, EMS Repeater System, Skate Park Project, on Final Reading.

Voting AYE: Mr. Recchiuti, Mr. DiGiacinto, Mr. Donchez, and Mr. Evans, 4. Bill No. 27 – 2012, hereafter to be known as Ordinance 2012-27, was declared adopted.

8. NEW ORDINANCES

A. Bill No. 28 - 2012 – Amending Article 342 – LERTA – Continuation and Extension;
Changing Boundaries

The Clerk read Bill No. 28 – 2012 – Amending Article 342 – LERTA – Continuation and Extension; Changing Boundaries, sponsored by Mr. Donchez and Mr. Recchiuti, and titled:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BETHLEHEM,
COUNTIES OF LEHIGH AND NORTHAMPTON,
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, AMENDING
ARTICLE 342 OF THE CODIFIED ORDINANCES
ENTITLED LOCAL ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION TAX
ASSISTANCE - ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT AREA.

Voting AYE: Mr. Recchiuti, Mr. DiGiacinto, Mr. Donchez, and Mr. Evans, 4. Bill No. 28 – 2012, was declared passed on First Reading.

9. RESOLUTIONS.

A. Authorizing Intervention – Appeals of Penn Venture Capital, LLC – Zoning Hearing Board

Mr. Donchez and Mr. Recchiuti sponsored Resolution No. 2012-154 that authorized Council Solicitor Christopher T. Spadoni to enter his appearance for Bethlehem City Council, intervene, to present any and all necessary testimony, filings, and/or documents as deemed necessary by City Council Solicitor Christopher Spadoni, to oppose Zoning Appeals before the Zoning Hearing Board of the City of Bethlehem as filed by Penn Venture Capital, LLC on behalf of Center Street Development LLC and Penn Venture Capital, LLC and Greenhouse Development LP for special exception approvals to construct and operate a residential treatment facility at 2110 Center Street and 2349 Linden Street, and to object to these applications.

Voting AYE: Mr. Recchiuti, Mr. DiGiacinto, Mr. Donchez, and Mr. Evans, 4. The Resolution passed.

Motion – Considering Resolutions 9 B through 9 E as a Group – Certificates of Appropriateness

Mr. Recchiuti and Mr. DiGiacinto moved to consider Resolutions 9 B through 9 E as a Group. Voting AYE: Mr. Recchiuti, Mr. DiGiacinto, Mr. Donchez, and Mr. Evans, 4. The motion passed.

B. Certificate of Appropriateness – 443 Linden Street

Mr. Donchez and Mr. Recchiuti sponsored Resolution No. 2012-155 that granted a Certificate of Appropriateness to repaint the exterior of the home at 443 Linden Street.

C. Certificate of Appropriateness – 81 West Broad Street

Mr. Donchez and Mr. Recchiuti sponsored Resolution No. 2012-156 that granted a Certificate of Appropriateness to install glass panels over the 81 West Broad Street entrance.

D. Certificate of Appropriateness – 338 West Street

Mr. Donchez and Mr. Recchiuti sponsored Resolution No. 2012-157 that granted a Certificate of Appropriateness to repaint the exterior woodwork white and repair the porch rail at 338 West Street.

E. Certificate of Appropriateness – 241, 243, and 245 East Wall Street

Mr. Donchez and Mr. Recchiuti sponsored Resolution No. 2012-158 that granted a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a new roof at 241, 243 and 245 East Wall Street.

Voting AYE on Resolutions 9 B through 9 E: Mr. Recchiuti, Mr. DiGiacinto, Mr. Donchez, and Mr. Evans, 4. The Resolutions passed.

10. NEW BUSINESS.

Amendments to Proposed Zoning Ordinance Articles

President Evans affirmed that Members of Council received a memorandum and attachments with additional Amendments to the Proposed Zoning Ordinance Articles that were reviewed at the Community Development Committee meeting on September 5, 2012.

President Evans stated that he will accept Motions on each of the 3 Amendments separately, and the Clerk will call the roll on each of the motions.

Article 1304.04 - Reuse Of Corner Commercial Uses – RT And RG Residential Districts –
Amendment from Council Member Dolan

Mr. Donchez and Mr. DiGiacinto moved the following amendment:

SECTION 1. That paragraph (a) that reads as follows:

(a) As a special exception, uses that are small in scale such as a n professional office, barber/beauty shop, retail store, nail salon, coffee shop, retail bakery, art gallery, tailoring/clothing alteration use or shoe repair use may be approved by the Zoning Hearing Board (“the Board”) provided all of the following requirements are met:

shall be amended to read as follows:

(a) As a special exception, uses that are small in scale such as a n professional office, barber/beauty shop, retail store, nail salon, coffee shop, retail bakery, art gallery, tailoring/clothing alteration use or shoe repair use real estate office, photography studio, green grocer, cafe, or antique store may be approved by the Zoning Hearing Board (“the Board”) provided all of the following requirements are met:

SECTION 2. That paragraph (a) (4) that reads as follows:

(a) (4) The Board shall have the authority to place reasonable conditions upon the use, including but not limited to: 1) limits on hours of operation, 2) limits on alcohol sales, 2) limits on the maximum floor area occupied by the use, and/or 4) 3) requirements that the operator of the use regularly collect litter on the sidewalk and gutters adjacent to the lot, and/or 4) conditions that preserve and enhance the residential character of the neighborhood.

shall be amended to read as follows:

(a) (4) The Board shall have the authority to place reasonable conditions upon the use, including but not limited to: 1) limits on hours of operation, 2) limits on alcohol sales, 2) limits on the maximum floor area occupied by the use, and/or 4) 3) requirements that the operator of the use regularly collect litter on the sidewalk and gutters at edge of street adjacent to the lot, and/or 4) conditions that preserve and enhance the residential character of the neighborhood.

Voting AYE on the amendment: Mr. Recchiuti, Mr. DiGiacinto, Mr. Donchez, and Mr. Evans, 4. The motion passed.

Article 1304.04 - Reuse Of Corner Commercial Uses – RT And RG Residential Districts –
Amendment from Council Member Recchiuti

Mr. Recchiuti and Mr. DiGiacinto moved the following amendment:

SECTION 1. That paragraph (a) (4) that reads as follows:

(a) As a special exception, uses that are small in scale such as a n professional office, barber/beauty shop, retail store, nail salon, coffee shop, retail bakery, art gallery, tailoring/clothing alteration use or shoe repair use may be approved by the Zoning Hearing Board (“the Board”) provided all of the following requirements are met:

shall be amended to read as follows:

(a) As a special exception, uses that are small in scale such as but not limited to a professional office, barber/beauty shop, retail store, nail salon, coffee shop, retail bakery, art gallery, tailoring/clothing alteration use or shoe repair use may be approved by the Zoning Hearing Board (“the Board”) provided all of the following requirements are met:

Voting AYE on the amendment: Mr. Recchiuti, Mr. DiGiacinto, Mr. Donchez, and Mr. Evans, 4. The motion passed.

Articles 1302 and 1319 – Commercial/Recreational Vehicles – Parking- Residential Districts –
Amendment from President Evans

Mr. Donchez and Mr. DiGiacinto moved the following amendment:

SECTION 1. That Section 1319.03.i of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Bethlehem that reads as follows:

1319. 03.i No truck with a gross vehicle weight of more than 10,000 pounds, no tractor trailer cab and/or truck and no trailer of a tractor-trailer combination may be parked on a residential lot, except as necessary for on-site construction or occasional deliveries. Standard pick-up trucks and/or passenger vans are exempted from this designation or definition.

Shall be amended to read as follows:

1319.03.i No vehicle with a gross vehicle weight of more than 10,000 pounds, no tractor trailer cab and/or truck and no trailer of a tractor-trailer combination, no bus, school bus, or cube/box/cargo/container truck may be parked on a residential lot, except as necessary for on-site construction or occasional deliveries. Standard pick-up trucks and/or passenger vans are exempted from this designation or definition.

SECTION 2. That Section 1302.99 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Bethlehem that reads as follows:

1302.99 Recreational Vehicle. A vehicle which is built on a single chassis, not more than 400 square feet, measured at the largest horizontal projections; designed to be self-propelled or permanently towable by a light-duty truck and not designed for use as a permanent dwelling but as temporary off-premises living quarters for recreational, camping, travel or seasonal use.

Shall be amended to read as follows:

1302.99 Recreational Vehicle. Travel Trailers, folding tent trailers, motor homes, truck campers removed from a truck or pickup truck, horse trailer, boat trailer with or without boats, boats, utility trailers, watercraft, and all other vehicles designed mainly to serve a person for primarily recreational instead of transportational purposes. See also Section 1319.06

SECTION 3. That a new Section 1319.06 shall be added that reads as follows:

1319.06 Parking of Recreational Vehicles in Residential Zoning Districts

(a) The purpose of this section is to establish standards for outdoor residential uses, storage and activities related to recreational vehicles and watercraft. These standards are intended to protect property values by reducing visual blight, aid in emergency access and fire safety, guard against the creation of rodent and pest harborage, and reduce the impact on the natural environment from the leakage of motor vehicles.

(b) A recreational vehicle may be stored on a residential lot if ALL of the following are met:

(1) The vehicle is less than forty feet (40’) in length.

(2) The vehicle is in a side or rear yard behind the front façade of the building
and in compliance with the setback requirements to accessory structures in that district.

(3) The vehicle is sight-screened from abutting properties by solid board fencing
or sight obscuring landscaping at least six (6) feet in height. Sight screening is not required along the alley side of the storage area.

(4) The vehicle is parked on a solid surface parking pad constructed of either
macadam or concrete; and

(5) All recreational vehicles and watercraft shall be maintained in a clean, well-kept condition. All recreational vehicles and watercraft must be kept operational and currently licensed and inspected.

(c) A recreational vehicle may be parked on a residential lot when guests visit for up to seven (7) days and no more than three (3) times per year. The recreational vehicle must be parked to prohibit obstruction of other driveways or the right-of-way.

(d) A recreation vehicle may be temporarily parked in a residential district for the
purpose of loading and unloading items for a period not to exceed three (3) days.
(e) There shall be no parking of recreational vehicles or watercraft for compensation in any Residential Zoning District.

Voting AYE on the amendment: Mr. Recchiuti, Mr. DiGiacinto, Mr. Donchez, and Mr. Evans, 4. The motion passed.

11. PUBLIC COMMENT

Windmills; Rentals – South Side

Jack Abel, 422 Thomas Street, commented it is his understanding that a resolution was passed that would ban windmills in the City. Mr. Abel stated it seems appropriate that this should have been brought before the Environmental Advisory Council. Mr. Abel explained there are all kinds of windmills and there should not be a universal ban against them. He noted that many of the windmills would fit nicely into a home and not create any type of problem. Mr. Abel noted that he and his wife moved to South Bethlehem 28 years ago and it was a vital neighborhood at that time. Mr. Abel, pointing out that he became involved with the City of Bethlehem, communicated there was the idea that as older people moved away the vitality of those neighborhoods would be maintained by trying to bring in families, but that is not happening. Mr. Abel remarked that his home is totally surrounded by students and rentals. To show the magnitude of the problem, Mr. Abel advised that 31 of the Latin Kings arrested recently live within two blocks of his home. Mr. Abel stated the City needs to deal with zoning in a way other than permitting rental property owners to have offerings that allow five different family units within a home. Mr. Abel stressed that young families need the opportunity to live in these homes and actually have a productive neighborhood again. Mr. Abel said he sees this as becoming a serious problem. Expressing that the Lehigh University students are not a problem, Mr. Abel commented there are other adjacent problems. Stating that some of the rentals around the University need to be grandfathered, Mr. Abel noted when the rentals go further away it produces problems and instability.

Cable Companies; Trash Hauler System; Plowing; Parking – Center Street

Tony Saldutti, 3229 Marchant Drive, wondered why he cannot choose a cable company. Mr. Saldutti informed the assembly that he has tried to change cable companies but was told that he could not. Mr. Saldutti, commenting that Bethlehem is a green City that he is proud to live in, wondered why from a trash collection perspective residents have several trash carriers that are allowed to drive around the City and pass every street to pick up trash. He queried if there is a way that a proposal can be created to divide the City up by number of residents to try to be a bit greener with trash collection. While stating that his street certainly gets plowed, maybe not timely but he understands that, Mr. Saldutti inquired if the City can plow the whole street because most of the time he has to dig himself out because his side of the street does not get plowed. Mr. Saldutti, noting he is a fisherman and goes to Biery’s Bridge Road off Center Street, advised that in the past few years no parking signs have been placed on the slow side, the west side of Biery’s Bridge Road. He explained it is forcing people like him who are fishing to park on the east side of Center Street and this is a safety hazard. Stating that he does not want to disobey the law, Mr. Saldutti said he does see residents who live there park abandoned boats and cars and all kinds of things. Commenting he does not want to do this and do something illegal, Mr. Saldutti wanted to know if there can be a place to park safely or whether some type of traffic light could be put in.

President Evans advised that if Mr. Saldutti could stay after the Meeting he could address the questions with members of the Administration.

Mayor Callahan noted that, regarding snow removal, the Public Works Director is at this evening’s Council Meeting and can speak to that issue. Mayor Callahan related that he lives on Biery’s Bridge Road and knows what Mr. Saldutti is talking about regarding the parking issue but he would have to take a look at this. Turning to the question about cable companies, Mayor Callahan explained it has to do with the franchising fees but the Administration can talk to Mr. Saldutti about that as well. Mayor Callahan, remarking he could not agree more in terms of the way trash removal is done, said it is hoped to improve the efficiency and he appreciates his comments. Mayor Callahan added after the Meeting the Administration can discuss the matters.

Rentals – South Side; Definition of Family

Stephen Antalics, 737 Ridge Street, stated that he supports the comments made by Dr. Abel and he would like to present some facts to support those comments. Mr. Antalics studied the Zoning Ordinance definitions of various communities of higher learning including Bethlehem, Allentown, Easton, Radnor Township, Lower Merion Township, West Chester Township, Collegeville, Swarthmore and Haverford. Of these nine communities in the definition of family, three allow four people, five allow only three, and one allows only two. Mr. Antalics added that of the nine, six have very clear definitions in addition to family and used the term student residences. Mr. Antalics highlighted the fact that in Bethlehem’s Zoning Ordinance there is a definition only for family but no definition for students. Mr. Antalics related the definition states family by blood or five unrelated persons. Mr. Antalics said he understands five unrelated because that could accommodate students already living there and it would create a problem if it were less than five. Mr. Antalics suggested that the definition of family be revised, and the definition of student and student housing be incorporated as is done in six of the nine communities he mentioned. Mr. Antalics noted that process would include what is known as a student zone. Mr. Antalics, communicating that a student zone is fairly well defined but does not have a boundary, pointed out that on East Fifth Street there are no students beyond Pierce Street, no students on Atlantic Street, and no students on some of the contingent streets. Mr. Antalics stated this would clearly define what student means. Mr. Antalics, explaining that he would revise the definition of family to reduce it to two unrelated persons, noted two unrelated individuals could be a man and woman living together, two women living together, or two men living together. Mr. Antalics stressed this would put pressure on the landlords if this is grandfathered and make it financially unfeasible to maintain the current situation. Mr. Antalics pointed out that most of the properties on the South Side have for rent signs, and there are very few for sale because rentals are big business. Mr. Antalics commented that his suggestions might cause the landlords to put their properties up for sale and then a single family could afford the property. Observing the question could come up about having vacant homes, Mr. Antalics asserted the question could be what would residents rather have: a vacant house or a house full of gang members. Mr. Antalics urged that these revisions be made in the definitions of the Ordinance and that this be given serious thought.

Rentals – South Side; Definition of Family

Beall Fowler, 443 Center Street, thanked the Members of Council for moving along the revised corner store amendment in Section 1304.04 of the Zoning Ordinance, and added the intent is clear. Mr. Fowler said he would like to speak to the issue that was raised this evening by Mr. Abel and Mr. Antalics. Mr. Fowler stated that, clearly, there is a special situation regarding South Side housing. Mr. Fowler noted that some years ago the definition was established of five unrelated people to fix a problem in which eight or ten students were crowding into housing and making it quite untenable to live in. Mr. Fowler observed that seems to work as far students were concerned but it has clearly made the economics such that it is more profitable for people to rent to students than to allow single families. Mr. Fowler thought that the issue of the gang members taking advantage of this was not something anticipated and did not occur in the past. Remarking this is a serious matter, Mr. Fowler said he is not sure what the solution is but it should be addressed. Mr. Fowler, a retired Lehigh University professor, stated he cannot speak for Lehigh University but he thinks that they would have a great interest with this. He related that the reason Lehigh would be interested is not only would it be housing for students but also Lehigh students and Lehigh in general does not want criminals wandering around the streets of South Bethlehem. Mr. Fowler communicated that anything that can be done to make it more livable and safer the University would support. He suggested that City Council engage some Lehigh University administrative people in this discussion. Mr. Fowler encouraged City Council to take this situation seriously, to engage Lehigh, and engage the citizens of South Bethlehem and try to fix this.

Article 1304.04 - Reuse Of Corner Commercial Uses – RT And RG Residential Districts

Bruce Haines, 63 W. Church Street, echoed his support for both Mr. Abel and Mr. Antalics and what they spoke of. Mr. Haines stated he is at the Meeting mainly to talk about the corner lot provision in Zoning Ordinance Section 1304.04. He believed that the Community Development Committee went a long way to accommodate the requests of the residents regarding turning that back into truly a corner store under the concept that it was originally designed. Mr. Haines added that he spoke after the Committee meeting and he still thinks there needs to be two more steps taken in that provision to deal with unintended consequences of the provision as it now stands before it goes to the Planning Commission. Mr. Haines explained those steps are to address the fact that there is nothing to preclude a business from occupying two floors of the entire property. For example, the property across the street from City Hall is the classic case of a corner store. It is now an antique shop on the first floor and a residence on the second floor. Mr. Haines pointed out that, as the provision now is written, there is nothing to prevent someone from coming in and removing the residential character of that property and occupying both floors. He would prefer to see an owner/occupant provision put into this situation to ensure that the residential character of the building is maintained while still providing the opportunity on the first floor for appropriate retail. Mr. Haines highlighted the fact that at this point in time someone could come in theory and decide to open a pawn shop and not only occupy the first floor but also the second floor. Mr. Haines, stating that there should be restrictions in the Section for a pawn shop or a tattoo parlor, stressed that if a pawn shop is unacceptable within a mile of the Casino it should be unacceptable next door to his home. Mr. Haines pointed to the fact that since there is no residential provision left for this type of property it suggests that such a shop could occupy the entire building and he does not think that was the intent. Mr. Haines requested that City Council consider adding a residential provision for either the second floor or the back of a building, and to consider further restrictions on uses beyond adult entertainment and alcohol beverage sales to include restricting pawn shops and tattoo parlors.

Rentals – South Side

Bill Scheirer, 1890 Eaton Avenue, seconded the remarks of Mr. Haines, Mr. Abel and Mr. Antalics. Mr. Scheirer observed they described the circumstances when a residential property has a market value greater when not used as a single family residence. Mr. Scheirer noted that is what happened at the corner of Market and New Streets when a variance was requested before the Zoning Hearing Board, and the owner admitted that he could sell the house as a single family residence if he reduced the price sufficiently. However, the owner was offered more money by someone who wanted to occupy it as an 11 employee office. Mr. Scheirer said in the case of housing in South Bethlehem with all of the rental properties, if an owner reduced the price their house could be sold as a single family residence but it is worth more to sell it to a landlord and have 5 unrelated people living in those homes. Mr. Scheirer communicated this is a common problem in the Zoning Ordinance and a common threat when you are trying to protect residential neighborhoods.

Intermunicipal Liquor License Transfer Request – Corked Wine Bar, Inc. – 515 Main Street

Martin Romeril, 26 W. Market Street, stated he is concerned about the liquor license transfer request for Corked Wine Bar at 515 Main Street that was listed as a Communication on the Agenda. Mr. Romeril pointed out that on page three of the application it states in question number 23 that the building to be licensed is not located within 300 feet of any church, school, hospital, public playground or charitable institution, except as follows. Mr. Romeril highlighted the fact that on the application it is left blank and the no exceptions block was checked. Mr. Romeril questioned the application and how the applicant arrived at that answer. Mr. Romeril suspected that they were told to put that there and that this is standard operating procedure when people submit these kinds of transfers to the City or to the Liquor Control Board (LCB) if it is within the City. Mr. Romeril remarked that his frustration is that it is not true. Mr. Romeril advised he is not saying that these people do not deserve to have this restaurant, and he is sure it will be a wonderful business. Noting they have answered everything else on the application honestly, Mr. Romeril thought if they were told to leave that blank this is something that City Council needs to question. Mr. Romeril highlighted the fact that for this particular property at 515 Main Street, 75 feet north on the sidewalk is the IIRP Graduate School, the Valley Youth House has an office and there is an Art Museum. He thought that these would fall under a school and a charitable institution as noted on the liquor license transfer application in number 23. He continued on to highlight the fact that across the street at 544 Main Street there is another school called the CSF Buxmont Bethlehem Center and that is less than 300 feet away. Mr. Romeril, noting he is not saying that this disqualifies the liquor license transfer, thought that the application form should be filled out properly. Mr. Romeril pointed out it is not true that there are no such institutions within 300 feet of the property for which the liquor license transfer is being requested. He remarked that if people are being encouraged by the powers that be to fill out that question falsely because it smoothes the way for the transfer that is wrong, and it is denying the citizens the opportunity to protest on legitimate grounds. Mr. Romeril recalled there was a request for a liquor license transfer in the past at the corner of Heckewelder Place and W. Market Street where the LCB sent their representative to do a survey. The person walked around but did not see a church or a school or a museum. When the neighbors protested there was nothing in the record that said that the LCB tried to suppress evidence. Mr. Romeril stated he will ask these questions again at the next Council Meeting and hopefully get an answer.

President Evans pointed out that these comments are part of the record and thanked Mr. Romeril for bringing this to the attention of Council.

Article 1304.04 - Reuse Of Corner Commercial Uses – RT And RG Residential Districts; Rental Units

Mary Pongracz, 321 W. 4th Street, focusing on the matter of the corner properties addressed in Zoning Ordinance Section 1304.04, remarked that, in talking about being historically correct, opposition to corner properties is not historically correct. Ms. Pongracz highlighted the fact that, over the life of the City, the corner properties which were generally Mom and Pop stores were the community centers of the neighborhood. Ms. Pongracz stated that when one condemns the use of corner properties for commercial use they are not being true to history. Turning to rental units, Ms. Pongracz said she would like an opinion from the Law Bureau as to whether or not a person can refuse to rent a property to someone other than a student in student housing. Ms. Pongracz remarked that to her that would be discriminatory and is what would be called red lining in the real estate field. Ms. Pongracz queried how can a person legally deny a family the right to rent a home. Pointing out that on Fifth Street there are numerous signs that say campus apartments which are obviously student apartments, Ms. Pongracz questioned can the owner of those apartments refuse to rent to her because she is not a student.

The meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m.