Hollenbach, who is also an attorney, explained that the addition will provide a "temperature and humidity controlled environment" for the storage of over 40,000 museum artifacts consisting of artwork, glassware and textiles. "I'm excited about this project, and am looking forward to the opportunity to preserve more of Bethlehem's history," stated Hollenbach, who added that the facility would also store artifacts from other members of the Historic Bethlehem Partnership.
According to architect Dan Kayser, the addition will not really be noticeable from New Street. "It is in keeping with the character and scale of the residential zone," he stated.
Priscilla Wolle, who lives near the museum, was concerned that her own parking space might be taken. Zoners and Hollenbach both assured Wolle that this expansion is for storage only, and not to attract more visitors.
12 comments:
wow - the excitement is overwhelming less than 15 people care
This moght not be your bad, but thankfully, there are people like Barb who care.
get spell check
The Kemerer Museum of Decorative Arts is a gem in the Historic District of Bethlehem.
They plan a proposed addition. Since it is a lawful, pre-existing nonconforming use, the zoning ordinance requires a structure shall not be increased by greater than 50% beyond the area that existed when it first became nonconforming. The Museum passed that test.
An additional requirement for the enlargement of the Museum was that a "special exception approval shall be required."
The zoning officer told the Solicitor for the ZHB that a special exception was not required because the expansion did not exceed the 50% limitation.
Wrong!
Special Exception approval shall be required. Article 1323.04.b.
The zoning officer erred. The Solicitor knowingly allowed the error. The ZHB does not know any better, and if an issue is not brought before them, by the zoning officer, they are not required to make a decision about the issue. So, misinterpretation of the zoning ordinance by the zoning officer, overlooking of the misinterpretation by the ZHB Solicitor, and lack of knowledge by the members ZHB let this slide.
There is currently a case in Northampton Court of Common Pleas that sent a case back to the Bethlehem ZHB for this same issue. Is the ZHB untrainable?
The Kemerer got what they wanted. Frankly, they would have gotten it, even if they went through the effort of requesting a special exception.
The real issues are the glossing over of errors by the zoning officer, the lack a valid legal advice to the ZHB by their Solicitor, and the lemming like behavior of the ZHB members.
And to top it off, the ZHB again started to resume their muzzling of City residents. They did it politely, but they did it. At least four residents were muzzled at the August 24th ZHB meeting, and on different issues. What happened to the ability of interested parties to speak to an issue?
Well, at least the Kemmerer Museum made progress!
Al, I noted that three people were denied standing in the LED case. A 4th person was denied standing in this case. As you know, in all four cases, there were objections to standing. As you also know, the ZHB Solicitor explained that allowing people with no standing to participate could be reversible error. It is a quasi-judicial body.
Under your interpretation of the right to speak, a judge in a courtroom should allow everyone to get up and tell him or her how to rule. 'm sure you'd agree that's not appropriate, and in criminal cases, presents constitutional questions.
Finally, the right to speak contains a corollary duty to listen. In the case where you spoke, you were late to the hearing. You did not exercise your duty to listen.
Similarly, Bill Scheier strolled in half way through the LED case, and was nevertheless quite insistent that everyone should stop and listen to him. Frankly, if you don't have enough respect for others to listen to what they have to say, why should they want to listen to you?
Bernie, let's get it right. You were late to the hearing, not me. And listen to the opening comments of the ZHB Solicitor, he always mentions "interested parties," not just those that have "standing." The attornys have the right to object to someone's standing. But, for the ZHB to welcome "interested parties," and then shut them down, it ludicrous. And since the attornies objected to "standing," let it be taken up by the appeals court. Let the people speak. These are not capital murder cases, they are zoning. Change your sneakers, your opinions are starting to stink, just like them.
Easy Al. Bernie almost beat the Otter.
all hail the great zoning god al
the zoning board are nothing but appointed flunkies of this mayor or previous mayors. worse than the rubber stamp council
Al, I was twenty minutes late to the ZHB meeting as a result of another meeting that ran longer than expected, but did not seek to address the board. Interested parties necessarily include those who have standing. As I indicated, this is not a City Council, but a quasi-judicial body.
If you don't have standing AND an appellant objects, you should not be able to speak before a body that is making judicial decisions as opposed to setting public policy. So we disagree.
I believe you were late coming into the Holzinger hearing. In fact, I believe you said you were late. If I am mistaken about that, I stand corrected. I know Bill Scheier was late. I do believe the right to speak contains a duty to listen, and if you're not there, you're not listening.
A board cannot change the ruling of a zoning officer. How fair would it be if a judge added or removed charges against an accused? That's the d.a.'s job. A board only has jurisdiction on what the zoning officer brings to it. And it has to hear the cases within 60 days from the filing of the application. If the board amended or altered the application on it's own, it's reversible error, but of course everyone knows that.
Laws are laws, even zoning laws, and they must be followed no matter how inconvenient they are. It's up to the legislature to change them. And in this case, the legislature is in Harrisburg since the MPC is what dictates procedure.
"A board cannot change the ruling of a zoning officer."
It certainly can. That's why they're called zoning appeals.
Post a Comment