Bethlehem City Council, which recently expanded its Zoning Hearing Board from three to five members, is considering yet another amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. This latest change will require that any action taken by the board have the approval of a majority of all members. What this means is that if two of these volunteers are absent, the three remaining members must agree unanimously on any request for zoning relief. Changes to the zoning ordinance require a review by the Planning Commission , and they tackled this thorny, if somewhat esoteric, subject at their January 13 meeting.
Bethlehem resident Al Bernotas, who had successfully urged City Council to expand the Zoning Hearing Board, gave the argument in support of a rule of three. When City Council expanded the Board, it failed to provide for alternates who could serve in the place of absent zoners. "You're back to two. You might as well not even have gone to five," he advocated. "Why would you have gone to five when now you can make a decision with two people?", he asked.
Planning Chair Larry Krauter worried that there could be "unintended, negative consequences" to the proposal, in which just one person could effectively kill a zoning application. But Planner Steve Thode, a Lehigh professor, made the most eloquent case against the amendment. "Most of us who serve on commissions, boards, things like that, do so out of a commitment to our communities. There are, however, times when our family or professional obligations make it impossible for us to attend a meeting. Such a Super Majority requirement, essentially that if you're absent you're counted as a No vote, would force some otherwise well-meaning, public-spirited volunteers for public service, to think twice about whether they want to be placed in a position where their commitment to family or to their job, was read as some sort of denial of their civic obligations."
All five planners voted against recommending this amendment.
19 comments:
these boys seem worried about losing their power
Was the Zoning Board asked for its opinion, or even consulted, about this change?
Also, has the City appointed the two new permanent members to the Board?
The City Charter requires Planning to review every proposed change to the Zoning Ordinance before enactment. It does not require an opinion from the ZHB. I suspect that as a quasi judicial board, it would want to remain above the fray.
So far as I know, there are no new appointments yet.
Does anybody even care about this type of issue??? Gawd...........
This is an important issue. It basically means that it will be harder to get zoning variances.
The look and function of a community is controlled by the zoning code. A community's ZHB can erode that by giving out variances to anyone who pays the fee and comes before them, which is common practice all around the Lehigh Valley.
This is a good thing. More municipalities should adopt this policy.
The MPC controls this issue and it says that the Board can set its own rules regarding voting. Additionally everyone who showed up at a hearing with only 3 members would just continue the hearing until they had 5 members. This is just the City trying to control an independent body. I doubt that the rule would survive a legal challenge anyway.
If the MPC does allow the ZHB to set its own rules regarding voting, it may pre-empt whatever is provided for by ordinance. To my knowledge, this has not been mentioned by anyone.
I do not believe the City Council is trying to control the ZHB. People like Bob Donchez used to sit on the ZHB. Five people are probably a lot less difficult to control than three, so I'm not seeing that argument.
The MPC allows the a ZHB to set its owns rules, so long as those rules are not inconsistent with the MPC or the local zoning ordinance. See Section 906.
The municipality has the final say on the local Ordinance and the Board must comply with the Ordinance.
Unless the Ordinance is invalid or illegal. Check out Bethlehem's Ordinance that does not permit use variances in the City.
Anon 7:54 PM
To which article in the zoning ordinance are you referring? That is important, if it is so. Please follow up with info.
Check out 1325.06(c)(2) "That the granting of the variance will not permit the establishment within a District of any use which is not permitted in that District."
That has been in the Ordinance since 1970. This makes use variances illegal in the City of Bethlehem.
To: Anonymous 1:32 PM
Thank you, regarding 1325.06(c)(2)!
I know someone who can make use of this info...
To: Anonymous 1:32 PM
Is there any case law that negates 1325.06(c)(2)?
Who sits on the planning board besides Krauter and Thode? I couldn't find the info on the city website.
Jim Fiorentino, Andy Twiggar & Katie Lynch. It's a good group.
To Anon 3:16:
As far as I know, the Board hasn't turned down a use variance because of 1325.06(c)(2). The point is it the Zoning Ordinance is a piece of legislation, and just because it is enacted doesn't make it legal per se. I think requiring a super majority to approve a zoning appeal falls under that penumbra.
Anonymous 1:32 PM said...
"Check out 1325.06(c)(2) "That the granting of the variance will not permit the establishment within a District of any use which is not permitted in that District."
That has been in the Ordinance since 1970. This makes use variances illegal in the City of Bethlehem."
***************************************
The article quoted above, or verbiage similar to it, does not exist in the new draft ordinance.
"The article quoted above, or verbiage similar to it, does not exist in the new draft ordinance."
You mean the one that has not been enacted by City Council yet?
Yes!
Post a Comment