BETHLEHEM, Pa. — City Council on Wednesday unanimously voted down a developer’s wishes to build up to a 286-foot-long building (more than 100 feet over code) within a planned 317-unit apartment complex.
While the developer’s attorney said the zoning code’s limitation in place is a “constitutional defect,” a lawyer on the city’s end said public health and safety could be at risk with such a large building.
Wednesday’s meeting was a continuance of a hearing on April 30, a meeting that lasted over five hours.
While the developer’s attorney said the zoning code’s limitation in place is a “constitutional defect,” a lawyer on the city’s end said public health and safety could be at risk with such a large building.
Councilman Bryan Callahan was absent.
Council President Michael Colón stepped down from the discussion after disclosing he received campaign contributions from assistant city solicitor Matthew Deschler. He clarified the donation came in before the curative amendment was ever filed.
The panel acted in a “quasi-judicial” capacity instead of its typical legislative process, according to Colón.
Project background
The Hanover Apartments proposal, filed by BAHX LLC of New Jersey, is planned for the border of Bethlehem and Allentown, at a former Bennett Toyota lot.
The BAHX plan calls for 317 apartments and 550 parking spaces in a four-building development, spanning an 8.74-acre tract in the Limited Commercial (CL) District. The complex is proposed to stand five stories, the maximum allowed.
BAHX plans to consolidate four tax parcels — 2235 W. Broad St.; 2220 W. Florence St.; 2211 W. Broad St.; and 2300 Hanover Ave. — into one for the proposed four buildings.
The property would straddle the border of Bethlehem and Allentown, with mostly apartment units in Bethlehem and mostly parking on the Allentown side.
Among many stops in the legal battle over the development, the landowner has gone the route of seeking a curative amendment to the city’s zoning code to allow broader buildings than what’s usually allowed.
A curative amendment lets a landowner challenge a municipality's zoning ordinance on the basis that it doesn't provide for all uses or for a reasonable share or mix of a specific use or uses, and suggest a “cure” as an amendment to the zoning ordinance.
Reasoning from attorneys
The magnitude of the project, with its multiple buildings, doesn’t match up with previous leeway approved by the Zoning Hearing Board, said Bethlehem Planning and Zoning Director Darlene Heller.
“We’re not obligated here in the city — whether it’s in the CL or in the various residential districts where you can put multi-family dwellings — to endorse or encourage a proliferation of Soviet-style housing blocks, where you just have these massive edifices consuming lots in the city,” Deschler said.
“We are allowed to limit building lengths, just as we can limit height, lengths and the rest — all of those are rational purposes of a zoning ordinance.”
Deschler further argued that current rulings prevent overcrowding, emphasize public health and encourage a variety of housing types.
“There’s no reason to believe that it opens the door to all sorts of mayhem and mischief. … We’re simply asking that the council recognize those facts and clean up a process that’s been used in the city now for several years, of forcing people to go to the zoning board to have these buildings.”Attorney James Preston, speaking on council providing leeway for lengthy apartment buildings
Approving such a measure wouldn’t be a “heavy lift,” said James F. Preston, legal counsel for BAHX.
He said the ordinance was due for a fix, since it doesn’t put “public justification” at the forefront.
“There’s no reason to believe that it opens the door to all sorts of mayhem and mischief,” Preston said.
“ … We’re simply asking that the council recognize those facts and clean up a process that’s been used in the city now for several years, of forcing people to go to the zoning board to have these buildings.”
Preston said before that the zoning ordinance violates his client’s constitutional rights, saying it’s “discriminatory” and it “serves no valid basis.”
Could have been continued again
Deschler kicked off the meeting by asking for a continuance since all of council wasn’t present.
Officials said part of the reasoning in continuing the meeting on a previous occasion was because Callahan was going to be absent.
The opposing attorney said any extension on the date should be “the very near future.”
“I want to be as accommodating as I can to my colleague’s request, but we have to realize that there’s a timeline here that we need to respect. And we need to respect my client’s entitlement to a decision, especially in light of the fact that there is no requirement for a quorum.”Attorney James Preston, representing BAHX, in response to assistant city solicitor Matthew Deschler
“I want to be as accommodating as I can to my colleague’s request, but we have to realize that there’s a timeline here that we need to respect,” Preston said in response to Deschler.
“And we need to respect my client’s entitlement to a decision, especially in light of the fact that there is no requirement for a quorum.”
City Council solicitor Stephanie Steward, who oversaw the hearing, chose to reconvene the meeting.
