Council Minutes

September 17, 2002 Meeting Minutes

BETHLEHEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
Tuesday, September 17, 2002 - 7:30 PM - Town Hall

INVOCATION
PLEDGE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL

President Gregory called the meeting to order. Mr. Delgrosso offered the invocation which was followed by the pledge to the flag. Present were Jean Belinski, John B. Callahan, James A. Delgrosso, Robert J. Donchez, J. Michael Schweder, Magdalena F. Szabo, and James S. Gregory, 7.

Public Hearing - 2002 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant - $54,112

Prior to the consideration of the regular Agenda items, City Council conducted a Public Hearing on a 2002 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant in the total amount of $54,112 to be used for Police Overtime for Community Policing coverage during school dismissal and at Yosko Park; Police Bicycle Unit, Computer and related purchases; and formation of a Committee for non-binding review of disbursements.

A. Police Commissioner - 2002 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant

The Clerk read a memorandum dated September 5, 2002 from Francis R. Donchez, Jr., Police Commissioner, requesting a public hearing to consider two resolutions for the 2002 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant.

Francis Donchez, Police Commissioner, advised that the City will received $54,112 under the 2002 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant that includes the City's 10% match. Noting the amount is a reduction of about $11,000 from last year, Police Commissioner Donchez informed the Members that the grant is based on a municipality's Part I offenses. Accordingly, if crime goes down then the grant amount is reduced. Police Commissioner Donchez reviewed the proposed use of the funds as follows. For School Security an amount of $7,000 is budgeted. Currently, the City supplies an Officer on an overtime basis who works at Northeast, Nitschmann, Broughal Middle Schools, and Liberty High School, for an hour after school. The funds would continue the program that runs most of the school year. An amount of $10,701 would be spent for Park Patrol. Noting that the program was started several years ago, Police Commissioner Donchez recounted that an Officer is assigned on an overtime basis at Yosko Park from 6:00 until 10:00 PM during the summer months. The plan is to expand the program to include not only Yosko Park but to spread the program out to other parks as the Department sees fit. The amount of $13,500 would be budgeted for bicycles, uniforms, parts and training for the Community Police Bicycle Patrol Unit. An amount of $22,911 would be budgeted towards computers for Police cars, in view of the fact that the City did not receive a Federal grant for revamping the in-car computers, as well as new computers for several divisions within the Police Department.

No public comment was made.

President Gregory stated that the appropriate Resolutions will be placed on the October 1, 2002 City Council Agenda.

4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

President Gregory noted that the minutes of September 3, 2002 would be available for approval at the October 1, 2002 City Council Meeting.

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

Bill No. 30 - 2002 - Proposed Rezoning - Creek and Friedensville Roads - RR to RS

Attorney Joseph Kelly, 203 South Seventh Street, Easton, presented to City Council a memorandum of law, marked Exhibit #1. Attorney Kelly said he was recently retained by William Neff, III, 2010 Creek Road, and is at the meeting opposing Mr. Reilly's application for rezoning nine acres of property at the corner of Friedensville Road and Creek Road. Preliminarily, Attorney Kelly stated he would like to bring to the attention of Council that the action before the Planning Commission may not qualify as an approval for the plan to be before Council. Attorney Kelly, continuing on to note his understanding is that the vote before taken before the Planning Commission was a two to one vote for approval, advised there is case law that indicates when there is a quorum a majority of that quorum is needed in order to pass on complete official action. Attorney Kelly, turning on Bill No. 30 - 2002 - Proposed Rezoning - Creek and Friedensville Roads - RR to RS, thought it was important to understand that the focus of these proceedings are not on any plan or any sketch of a plan that the developer has presented to Council on a previous occasion. Rather, Attorney Kelly said the focus of any rezoning effort is on the uses that can go on that property and whether it is appropriate for that particular use. He continued on to say at this stage in the rezoning effort there is nothing to bind a client or a developer to a particular project. If the rezoning is permitted, a developer could basically do whatever is allowed within that zoning district. In this case, Mr. Reilly, through Landmark Communities, is seeking to rezone nine acres from RR to RS. Essentially Mr. Reilly is seeking to get a higher density and put in apartments on that property. The RR property, that is on Creek Road, is currently zoned to take 15,000 sq. ft. acres of property. There are two critical inquires before Council with this particular subject. First, what is the proper use/classification for this property. Two, what has changed since 1999 to justify the rezoning of the property. Attorney Kelly stated it is his opinion in answering the first question that "you are left with the answer to the second. In 1999, this same developer was before you seeking to rezone this same tract of land to put on apartment use. Council at that time decided to maintain that use as rural residential seeing it as the appropriate use of that land. I think we have to take a look at whether anything has changed to justify rezoning that property. In my opinion nothing has changed. Traffic has increased, as it would, because Mr. Reilly put on a one hundred sixty apartment unit[s] on the property to the East in the Saucon View Apartments. Creek Road residents have noticed an increase in the use, and I believe the City of Bethlehem an increase in use on Creek Road of about, from my reading, it was about four hundred six per day over about a thirty-six hour study performed by the City of Bethlehem. Additionally, the City noted that there was a three mile per house increase on Creek Road since 1999. I think it's also important to take a look at what the purpose of zoning is, which goes to what my second inquiry is, and what is the proper use of that land. In 1999, these same issues were probably before you as they are today. And, the City of Bethlehem Zoning Ordinance at Section 1301.03 basically states in a the general sense what the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is and the criteria that the Council should take into account when determining whether to rezone a property at certain classifications. If�you look to that criteria set forth in that Ordinance you will see that at least seven of the ten ordinances were looked at critically do not favor rezoning this property�The first [criteria] is encouraging the most appropriate use of the land�Since before 1999 the most appropriate use of that land is�RR�residential on 15,000 acre lots. City Council in 1999 reaffirmed that they believed that that was the most appropriate use of the land. The next one in the list is preventing the overcrowding of land. I think it's clear that when you're choosing between 15,000 square feet and 8,000 square feet in terms of overcrowding land you always favor green space, especially along Creek Road, taking into account what is currently along Creek Road. It is a beautiful rural road. Next one is conserving the value of land. In 1999, my client purchased his property after the rezoning effort had taken place knowing that apartments going to be developed near his land, but also knowing that Council had come down strongly and said that land adjacent to him would be developed as rural residential. I think conserving the value of the land is not just money. I think it's also green space. And, I think allowing larger lots in this area would be conserving the land, a valuable resource. Lessening the congestion of traffic on roads is the next one. As the Council is well aware, there's traffic issues at the intersection of Water and Main Street, on Friedensville Road, and there are traffic concerns on Creek Road as well. I think that�the traffic report states that the speed on Creek Road has increased since 1999, also, the frequency within which people use Creek Road. I'm not necessarily convinced that the developer's position that any more or a sixty unit apartment complex will have a minimal impact on that traffic on Creek Road considering the growth that has happened over the last three years. Going to the next criteria is giving reasonable consideration, among other things, to the character of districts and their percular suitability for a particular use. When you look at this criteria, you would take into account what is currently on Creek Road. Creek Road is currently residential developments on 15,000 acre lots, large lots, rural residential. You want to give reasonable consideration to what is already there to promote stability first hand, and also a sense of stewardship to the current owners. I think in looking at this it goes beyond preserving a tree line, as it goes more to a way of life. The last criteria is guiding and regulating the orderly growth and development and redevelopment of the City in accordance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan for the City of Bethlehem which contains a long term objective, principles and standards being beneficial to the interests and welfare of the people. Page 46 of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Bethlehem states that this area is earmarked for single family residential development. Furthermore, in looking to rezone this particular property, the designation RR was noted by Council as being an advantage to the area and pointed out that the people bought their properties knowing how it was zoned. In particular, my client purchased his property in June of 1999 which was close in time to when Council decided to rezone. If Council wished to compromise in redeveloping the property to the east and to one hundred sixty apartments. And, they made a strong statement in support of their RR designation at that time. Prior to purchasing that property my client contacted the City of Bethlehem, reviewed the rezoning effort, and he also relied upon Council's previous comments that the remaining land to the south would remain RR and would be developed in the future at single family residential. It was a crucial factor when deciding to purchase his property on Creek Road. Accordingly, I think that when you go back and answer the two critical inquiries that I laid before Council today that nothing has changed since 1999 that justifies rezoning this particular property, and that the best use of this property is the one that Council realized in 1999, and that was that nine acres of RR that should be developed at single family detached dwellings. I believe that residents of Creek Road can testify a little bit better as to their way of life along this road�".

William Neff, III, 2010 Creek Road, said he strongly opposes any rezoning to the land adjacent to his property. Stressing that he and his family made a rather large investment in the home and land, Mr. Neff enumerated several reasons such as the scenic beauty and the overall character of the community. Mr. Neff advised that he met several times with Michael Topping, former Planning Bureau employee, to discuss and look at the current zoning map and what was going on in the surrounding areas. Mr. Neff stated he had ample time not to purchase the property, and knew everything about the Saucon View apartment complex that was going to be built behind his home. Mr. Neff asserted it was made very clear, based on City Council minutes and the City Zoning Map, that he was going to purchase a piece of property and a home next to future private single family homes and that the rezoning there would remain RR. Mr. Neff, commenting he never truly opposed Saucon View that was built behind his property, and he could have walked away from the deal at any time. Mr. Neff restated that, based on pictures and the character of the area, he and his family made a purchase and have been very pleased with the surrounding area and the overall City of Bethlehem. Mr. Neff reiterated that he wishes City Council to vote no on the rezoning the property at the corner of Creek Road and Friedensville Road.

Attorney Linc Treadwell, Lower Saucon Township Solicitor, stated that with Council's permission and in the interest of time he would ask that Council note his statements at the Public Hearing of September 3, 2002 for the record in this meeting.

Joann Jones, 1966 Creek Road, stated she lives on the southern slope of South Mountain going down to Saucon Creek and the Little Black River, it is a beautiful part of the City of Bethlehem, and is a real treasure. Ms. Jones, communicating that when one lives near a creek there is more than fishing, pointed out that the Little Black River has natural springs, and there is a lot of wildlife that lives there including white and blue herons, horses, buck, and wild turkey, and stressed it is such a lovely place to live. Ms. Jones highlighted the fact that the area has changed since 1999 in that where she used to see fields and trees she now sees a wall of very inappropriate and ugly urban development. Ms. Jones asserted that the nine acres of residential land proposed to be rezoned "could very easily go for very lovely houses with land around them. the only disadvantage, of course, is that they would be next to one hundred and ninety apartments, which was a mistake. But I understand everybody makes mistakes. Let's not compound it." Ms. Jones, informing the assembly that a one acre house sold for $450,000 on Creek Road in the last year, said "so if you develop it appropriately, you can make money, if you're thinking about long term advantage because we live in an historical area." Advising that the house in which she lives is from the 1830's, Ms. Jones noted another house is from the 1700's and stressed "you can't recreate that. You have to preserve it. And the way that you preserve it is that you don't allow someone who has the wrong idea -- maximum density is not correct for this area. Every other developer in the area has chosen ownership and lower density than what they've been allowed. Mr. Reilly has the wrong idea for this area. His development would go someplace else easily. It will not go in our area. Please do not change the wise decision you made in 1999. It was intelligent then. It's even more intelligent now." Ms. Jones stated what is needed is for the area to be declared a historical byway, and to be designated a scenic byway. Ms. Jones continued on to note that right across the street from the proposed development is another township and the historic Michael Heller House. Ms. Jones said she would hope that Council wants its legacy to be that Council continues to make intelligent, wise decisions, and do not rezone this land. Stressing the current Rural Residential zoning is appropriate, Ms. Jones asserted that if Mr. Reilly cannot get the creativity to develop the tract appropriately there are plenty of other people who will.

Jim Brown, 1613 Creek Road, said he is a member of the Southeast Bethlehem Conservation Association (SEBCA) and is opposed to the proposed rezoning proposal. Mr. Brown thought it would be a mistake to rezone the property on Creek Road and to allow Mr. Reilly to build apartments if only because it would set a precedent, one that would invite future requests for rezoning and the ultimate development of Creek Road. Mr. Brown continued on to say allowing for the rezoning and the construction of apartments would surely send a signal that other properties on Creek Road could be used for similar purposes. Advising there are large tracts of land; namely, those owned by Lehigh University, the City of Bethlehem, and by individuals, Mr. Reilly said "as we have seen Lehigh can be very persuasive when it needs to be. And should this precedent be granted, Lehigh could easily enter into an agreement to sell some of its Institutional land whenever finances dictated. The City Administration for its part has not shown itself to be a good steward of land, especially rural land. And, we do not know what the future has in store. As for those of us who have been fighting to keep Creek Road rural, it won't last forever. I know it may well eventually change hands. Then what. Zoning is our only protection and is the only guarantee that our road will remain protected. Council has voted in the past to uphold Creek Road and the RR zoning. In the 1999 sale of Friedensville property, Council unanimously voted to keep the property in question�tonight Rural Residential. In 1990, Lehigh's proposal to make Creek Road a four lane highway�was turned down by the Council, and Council voted to retain the RR status quo. If Council were not to vote and grant the rezoning request, it would be in keeping with earlier decisions. There is much to be preserved and protected on Creek Road, and at this time I would like to present you with something." Mr. Brown distributed to the Members of Council a handout (marked Exhibit #2) entitled Landmark and resources along the Saucon Creek showing a map of the area, identifying the dates of historic resources including numerous stone homes and buildings, some of which are 150-200 years old, the past uses of the buildings and current owners, and explaining characteristics and activities along the Saucon Creek including waterways, trout streams, parks, natural springs, farmland, wetlands, and green belt. Mr. Brown, in explaining his handout, communicated that Creek Road is viewed as a historic corridor that contains landmarks relating to the settling of the Saucon Valley, and enumerated and explained the historic landmarks. Mr. Brown said the Creek Road corridor actually begins at Water Street in Hellertown at the site of a grist mill dating back to 1767. Mr. Brown expressed it is hoped that Council would view the area with special consideration and deserving zoning protection.

Jonathan DeRaymond, 174 Williams Street, advised that he bought his house which he is renovating because it is historic and is in such a beautiful area. Mr. DeRaymond related some of the stories told to him by his neighbor who has lived and farmed in the Creek Road area throughout his life. Mr. DeRaymond, explaining that he and his neighbors on Creek Road tend to live more in a rural area, spend a lot of time outside and have big gardens, said "it is frightening to the way we live in our lifestyles and the properties we have." Mr. DeRaymond, affirming that he has spoken to Council in the past about the matter, pointed out it is like a speedway on his street. Mr. DeRaymond, communicating that common sense would dictate that if apartments were built people will take shortcuts through the area, stressed that the back roads will have a lot of heavy traffic and speeding pressure since people would rather use the roads instead of traveling on Route 412 with its traffic lights and traffic. Mr. DeRaymond asked Council to consider a smaller density, and "maybe a couple of speed traps on Williams Street or some signs". Mr. DeRaymond distributed to the Members a picture of a car that was traveling at excessive speeds that flipped on its hood on Williams Street about 30-40 ft. from his house.

Shelagh Maloney, 1919 Creek Road, remarked that money is nice but it should not dictate zoning decisions. Ms. Maloney asserted that a compelling need for downgrading the parcel to RS has not been established at any point. Ms. Maloney pointed out that, if Mr. Reilly for some reason backs out of the project and the property was rezoned by Council to RS, the only egress will be onto Creek Road because Mr. Reilly's existent development will be able to be used. Ms. Maloney added that PennDOT has not given any guarantee that they will allow the sixty apartments proposed to be built to exit through the existent roads in the existent development. Ms. Maloney informed the Members there is a petition (Exhibit #3) signed by 50 residents in Bethlehem. Ms. Maloney, distributing newsletters of the Southeast Bethlehem Conservation Association (SEBCA) (Exhibit #4), highlighted the fact that in the publication are quotes from Members of Council in 1999 in support of protecting the RR zoning of the area in question.

Ms. Maloney read a letter of a Lauren Nelson Robbins, 1625 Coventry Court, who was unable to be at the meeting, as follows. "�I would like to express my concerns about the proposed new development in our area. When we chose to move here four and a half years ago this was a much quieter and more desirable place to live, a safe place to raise our four children. As of late, Creek Road has become more developed and congested. I have personally witnessed three children almost getting run over due to the increase in traffic and high speeds. Also the noise pollution is absolutely not to my liking�[w]hen you add up these factors, plus our mortgage, plus our extremely high taxes, we are becoming very discouraged. As a mother and a father we respectfully vote 100% against this new development and the rezoning for the safety of our children."

Ms. Maloney advised that she and her neighbors have prepared a sketch plan with the help of an engineering firm of a proposed alternate development of eight homes, with one exit onto Creek Road, to show how it can be developed with minimal impact on Creek Road. Recalling at the last meeting she spoke about Council's responsibility for stewardship for zoning classifications, Ms. Maloney asked Council to look at the request objectively, not to be shortsighted, and to remember the wisdom of three years ago of protecting this land from inappropriate zoning.

Christopher Geyer, said he is speaking mostly on behalf of his mother and father who reside at 1871 Creek road. Mr. Geyer advised that his family is the oldest living residents on Creek Road with he being the third generation and his daughter the fourth. Mr. Geyer recounted he can remember when Creek Road was a dirt lane and was taken care of by his family, including pruning the trees and plowing the snow. Mr. Geyer explained the reason why three or four generations have stayed in the same spot is because of the character and beauty of the road, and asserted that a nicer country road cannot be found anywhere. Mr. Geyer pointed out that along the road are 250 year old trees, a mill race, and grist or cider mill. Mr. Geyer stressed that he has gone from listening to crickets to hearing diesel motors pull a grade up on Route 78, from seeing stars and fireflies to the glare of city lights. Mr. Geyer, explaining that he relates to his daughter the many things that used to be there, questioned "when are we going to stop saying they're used to be and at least protect something that was." Mr. Geyer, saying "we really don't need this" pointed out that people cannot walk down the road safely in that it has become a bypass for Route 412. Mr. Geyer asked that Council keep the zoning the way it is and not make it worse than it already is.

Joris Rosse, 1966 Creek Road, focusing on the traffic study discussed at the Public Hearing, with regard to the statement that single family homes would generate on average one trip per hour, said "our own personal experience is that it might be once a day, or sometimes less�". Mr. Rosse stated that zoning ordinances generally are the one instrument that a home investor has to go by when selecting a home site. Mr. Rosse stressed what it there now "is not the suburbia that we actually bought into thirty years ago. It was a very rural scene�Now, we're dealing with an urban island in a suburban setting�that doesn't belong there." Mr. Rosse explained that the neighbors would like to contain and not exacerbate the situation, and consequently would like to retain the RR zone. Noting there is periodic flooding at the intersection of Creek and Friedensville Roads, Mr. Rosse advised that threatens the access of emergency vehicles to the site. He said having more apartments would increase the tendency to need emergency access. Mr. Rosse reminded the assembly there was a four million dollar plus fire on Main Street in Hellertown and emergency vehicles could not reach the site for hours because of the traffic. Mr. Rosse felt the number of minutes recited for emergency vehicle access of the area was very optimistic, and, based on his experience of thirty years of living there, communicated it could take ten minutes to travel the distance. Referring to the fact that Council rejected the downgraded zoning of the nine acres in 1999, Mr. Rosse said "we plead for you to reject it again." Focusing on the PUD requirement that was eliminated for the whole City, Mr. Rosse felt that the entire City lost something very important on behalf of Mr. Reilly's development in that it should have incorporated single family homes as part of the PUD requirement. Mr. Rosse expressed the opinion that laws, zoning, and growth are too often designed to maximize profit for the already wealthy. Mr. Rosse, expressing that many things are good about the City and about Creek Road, said "let's do our darnedest to keep what is good."

Lawrence Eighmy, 1503 Creek Road, said he is a member of SEBCA and Saucon Valley Conservancy. Mr. Eighmy reminded Council as stewards of the Zoning map of the due diligence of the property owners in making an investment in their homes. He continued on to say that, from the perspective of an institutional planner, "we look at the context for making planning decisions, and typically you see those as macro adjustments or macro pushes and here we have a micro force driving a macro decision. That imbalance is one that charges back to my trust in you as a homeowner in what the Zoning map portrays." Mr. Eighmy restated he thinks the matter boils down to those two simple issues: trust in the zoning process, and the context in making those decisions. Acknowledging the is a lot of growth in the area, Mr. Eighmy communicated it is important to have some context and to let the zoning process work in a comprehensive fashion as opposed to a micro fashion.

Dean Bruch, 625 Hawthorne Road, remarked if one lives in a rural settlement and does not have apartments next to them "then�you have to vote your conscience, too�Think about what you're doing to these people that have these beautiful homes down there and don't ruin their life for the sake of whatever you're going to get for monies on tax bases�".

John Vivian, Saucon Fields Condominiums, turning to traffic, stated he can speak on behalf of just about every resident of Saucon Fields. Mr. Vivian commented that accident reports filed with Lower Saucon Township must be considered. Mr. Vivian explained that about a year ago his wife's car was hit in front of the Condominiums. He pointed out that a minimum of about 200 cars are already emptying out from the Saucon View Apartment complex that has already been built. Mr. Vivian, remarking that the entire character of everything changes in this small section of Bethlehem, highlighted the fact that, with the exception of the Apartment complex, all of the other buildings are screened. Enumerating some of the scenic elements along the roadway including the horse farm, the grist mill, and historical beauty, Mr. Vivian asserted "what sticks out now is bad enough. To put something right across from the grist mill that looks like that is particularly shameful, and it shouldn't be motivated by money." Mr. Vivian advised that he has seen motorists pass school buses there. While acknowledging that there must be housing for everyone, Mr. Vivian remarked that in view of building apartments in this area "you might as well put a Holiday Inn in�". He continued on to say people are using Friedensville Road and Water Street in Hellertown as their access to their jobs in New York City. Mr. Vivian stressed there are a number a places in Bethlehem that are beautiful and should be kept that way.

Attorney Leo DeVito, 38 West Market Street, said he is at the meeting on behalf of Mr. Reilly. Attorney DeVito stated that prudent planning in light of ever-changing communities often requires review and adjustment of zoning districts. He continued on to say that requests for rezonings are one way to accomplish that. Attorney DeVito denoted "Mr. Reilly believes that the current request is both prudent and reasonable�in light of what could be developed even as single family." Attorney DeVito said he would like to take this opportunity to thank the concerned residents who came to this and prior meetings, and the Members of Council for their time and attention to this matter.

Matt Cummings, 1919 Creek Road, recounted that he first lived there about twenty years ago when a college student, and several years later he and his brother bought the home. Remarking it is a beautiful area, Mr. Cummings noted it has changed over the years and change is inevitable. However, Mr. Cummings stated that the latest change is very unfortunate, and expressed how disturbed he is when he travels down Friedensville Road and sees "the monstrosity that we unfortunately allowed to be built there." Mr. Cummings said the important thing is to not make it any worse. Mr. Cummings expressed he cannot understand Attorney DeVito's perspective in thinking the proposal is appropriate, if one takes a look at it objectively. Commenting they were lucky enough "to get a hook in a few years ago into a rural area with what I think a very inappropriate development and now that that beachhead is in the sky's the limit." Continuing on to communicate "anything now I guess can be appropriate�", Mr. Cummings said he would suppose his rural residential sixteen acre farm would be appropriate to make commercial, and pointed out that somewhere the line must be drawn. Turning to traffic, Mr. Cummings confirmed that he has made proposals over the years to the Mayor and Council to do so something about the traffic on Creek Road. Mr. Cummings recalled that in 1999 he suggested that the traffic would probably double because of the then proposed development. Mr. Cummings stated that certainly the speed and the number of irresponsible drivers have increased. Mr. Cummings advised that his two young children can no longer play freely any more in their beautiful rural neighborhood because it is dangerous on the fourteen foot wide road that is a half mile long with no stop signs and drivers that "are easily going 50 miles an hour down that road." Mr. Cummings encouraged Council that, no matter what happens with this proposed development, something needs to be done about the traffic situation seriously and quickly. Mr. Cummings noted that some of the ideas would be fairly simple such as signs and speed bumps, while another could be to close Creek Road and make it into a cul de sac where people could park their cars, walk their dogs, play with their children, and ride their bicycles. Mr. Cummings commented that the issue comes down to commitment in that the Members of Council committed to the residents several years ago to do the right thing by not rezoning the RR zoned nine acre tract at that time, and said he does not see how anything has changed. Mr. Cummings, asserting there is a viable development opportunity under the present RR zoning, recounted that Ms. Maloney presented a plan tonight that could be an option. Mr. Cummings, saying he is not sure why rezoning is even being discussed since if the owner wants to sell it and there are other developers who would develop the land under RR, queried "why do even [have] to talk about it. Why take what is the by right development and change it and increase the traffic by two or three times with higher density development. The traffic situation is bad enough�". Reiterating that Council made a commitment to the residents several years ago to be good stewards, Mr. Cummings said he does not see what has changed and strongly impressed upon Council that they should abide by the good judgment they had three years ago.

Intermunicipal Transfer of Liquor License to Jake Co., Inc.,

Attorney Ted Zeller, representing his client Stephen N. Camarano, principal in Jake Co., Inc., advised he is at the meeting regarding the Application for the Intermunicipal Transfer of Liquor License and Permit from Big Hoss's (now out of business) Easton, PA, license now in safekeeping by PALCB, to Jake Co., Inc., 2955 Linden Street, Bethlehem PA, as required under Pennsylvania Liquor Code 47 P.S. Sections 4-461 (b.3). Attorney Zeller, affirming that he forwarded correspondence dated September 10, 2002 to the City Clerk, said he would like that to be made part of the record. The letter is as follows: "I offer this letter in support of my client's application which was made before City Council on September 3, 2002, and request that this be circulated amongst City Council members for their review. Inititally, thank you for the opportunity to present Jake Co., Inc.'s application to move a liquor license into the City of Bethlehem at 2955 Linden Street. At the City Council meeting last Tuesday, we were the first of two public hearings. At the hearing, Jake Co., Inc. offered evidence that approval of its application would be consistent with the general welfare, health, and safety of the city of Bethlehem and the neighborhood immediately surrounding the proposed premises. Please understand that I did not embark on a lengthy dissertation of the law regarding intermunicipal transfers and how my client's application was consistent with that law, in light of what I perceived to be a lengthy public hearing which began immediately after our presentation. Simply, under Section 461(b)(2) of the Liquor Code, a municipality must approve an applicant's intermunicipal transfer request unless it finds that doing so would adversely affect the welfare, health, peace, and morals of the municipality or its residents. As you are aware, this process is necessary when an applicant attempts to move a liquor license from one municipality to another. If the proposed applicant has found a liquor license within the city limits of a particular municipality, it is not necessary to seek the approval of the municipality before making application with the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board. With regard to Jake Co., Inc., my client established at the hearing that he will be operating a nationally-recognized franchise known as Fuddruckers, which is a family restaurant. There were no objectors and no evidence proffered that my client's proposed use was in any way detrimental to the general welfare, health, and safety of Bethlehem's residents. My client's intent is to only serve beer and wine, although its subject liquor license would also permit it to serve alcohol. Fuddruckers plans on being closed by 11:00 P.M., and the premises will not include a bar. Rather, it is a family restaurant serving fresh ground beef hamburgers, chicken and fish. As a result, its impact on the neighborhood will be insignificant, yet City Council's approval would foreclose any possibility that any other applicant could seek a liquor license for the subject premises which has already been approved for a 6,000 square foot restaurant. This is important because if City Council were to reject my client's request, that site would become available to other restaurant developers. If those other restaurant developers were to purchase a City of Bethlehem license (which are available), unfortunately, City Council would not have the benefit of reviewing that new restaurant developer's proposed use at this location. It is our position that Jake Co., Inc.'s impact on the community will be nothing except beneficial and only enhance the services available to the residents of the Lehigh Valley in the City of Bethlehem."

Attorney Zeller advised that the Resolution before Council has an error. Wherever the words Eating Place License occur it should read Restaurant License. In response to President Gregory, Attorney Zeller explained that an eating place license is an E license which is a beer only license, whereas a restaurant license, known as an R license, is a full service license.

6. OLD BUSINESS

None.

7. COMMUNICATIONS

B. Business Administrator - 2003 Preliminary Budget Estimates - Pensions

The Clerk read a memorandum dated September 9, 2002 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 2003 budget purposes.

President Gregory stated the Communication is for information only at this time.

C. Director of Public Works - Elm Street Swale - Storm Sewer - Agreement with Norfolk Southern Railway

The Clerk read a memorandum dated September 16, 2002 from Michael Alkhal, Director of Public Works, to which was attached a proposed resolution concerning a change in the size of the storm sewer crossing for the Elm Street Swale, Moravian Village Development - Storm Pipeline Crossing of Norfolk Southern Railway Company.

President Gregory stated that the authorizing Resolution will be added to this evening's Agenda.

8 . REPORTS

A. President of Council

None.

B. Mayor

1. Administrative Order - Raymond G. Bush - Fine Arts Commission

Mayor Cunningham reappointed Raymond G. Bush to the Fine Arts Commission effective until May 2005. Mr. Donchez and Mr. Delgrosso sponsored Resolution 13,903 to confirm the reappointment.