Local Government TV

Tuesday, December 20, 2011

Atiyeh Expert Points to Two Other Rehabs Near Schools

Erik Hetzel under cross
At the rate things are going in Bethlehem, developer Abe Atiyeh will soon be able to market his own reality show. In fact, he's video-taped each of four hearings on his request for a zoning stamp of approval of an alcohol and drug rehab center located next to Bethlehem Catholic High School. The most recent taping occurred on December 19 at Town Hall, at which time Atiyeh Attorney Blake Marles called planner Erik Hetzel as an expert witness.

Hetzel told zoners that, under Bethlehem's zoning ordinance, a 70-bed voluntary inpatient substance abuse center like the one proposed by Atiyeh would be permitted as a special exception in any residential district. He added that the vacant Calvary Baptist Church site, located at 111 Dewberry Avenue, is bordered by institutional and residential uses and would serve as an "effective transitional use" as a "hybrid" of both uses.

Asked whether he was aware of similar facilities located near schools, Hetzel stated that a cursory examination revealed a dozen such uses, although he only described two in detail. One such facility is the Livengrin Foundation, located only 1/4 mile from Ben Salem High School, and surrounded by residential properties. The other rehab center, Penn Foundation, is bordered by West Rockhill Elementary School recreational fields. Unlike Atiyeh's proposed rehab at Calvary Baptist church, there is no fence or landscaping buffer at Penn Foundation.

Hetzel spoke to the principals at both schools about security concerns, but hearsay objections prevented him from sharing what he was told.

After discussing these two similar facilities, Hetzel went on to cite the reasons why this rehab would be beneficial.

First, it would generate less traffic than it did as a church, which often had overflow parking along Dewberry and in Becahi's parking lot. Hetzel noted there would be no more than 29 employees on site at any given time, with a 147-space parking lot.

Second, the proposed rehab is a good adaptive reuse of a church. He added that empty churches often sit vacant for long periods in Eastern cities and become blighted.

Spadoni gets critiqued
Third, he noted that, in accordance with Bethlehem's comprehensive plan, this is an adaptive reuse that will result in good paying jobs and put the property back on the tax rolls. It would be beneficial to the school district in particular because there would be additional revenue that is not offset by the cost of educating children.

Fourth, the proposed rehab is a "socially valuable service" that Bethlehem needs. He pointed to previous testimony about the lack of rehabs in the entire Lehigh Valley. he added this rehab would provide a convenience to residents in need of treatment, who would no longer have to leave the area.

Finally, Hetzel testified that the rehab would maintain the same "physical integrity of the neighborhood" that currently exists because it would still look like a church, although he conceded it would be a church surrounded by a fence, gate, guard and security cameras.

Under stiff cross-examination by City Council Solicitor Chris Spadoni, Hetzel conceded that he never contacted the Diocese of Allentown, Bethlehem Catholic administrators, Kirkland Village managers, a nearby day care operator or any of the neighbors who surround the proposed rehab. In fact, Hetzel was unaware there even was a nearby day care center. Spadoni grilled Hetzel how he could be so sure the proposed rehab would be "in harmony" with the existing neighborhood when he never spoke to any of the neighbors in it.

When Hetzel finished testifying, Attorney Marles rested his case in chief, and his 26 exhibits were admitted into evidence without objection.

Bethlehem zoners will convene again on January 4 at Town Hall, to listen to the testimony of Objectors. Attorney Steven N. Goudsouzian represents the North Bethlehem Action Committee, which includes Judge William Moran among its members. Bethlehem Catholic is opposed to the request, too, and is represented by Attorney Jay Leeson. Finally, City Council has intervened.

22 comments:

  1. Hetzel did what he was paid to do. In the end it was shown he had done no real local research. The Board id not mandated to allow "special exceptions" to the law. As such they can take no action on the request and by so doing are exercising their responsibility to the people of Bethlehem as allowed by law.

    The law is the law!

    ReplyDelete
  2. "located only 1/4 mile from Ben Salem High School" This project is located a 100 yards away from a High School or better yet borders a High School. A little different I would say.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Bernie
    Nice looking guy. Interesting topic.
    Could you also when time permits let us know who you know is running for local offices across region. You seem to be ahead of the newspapers.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "This project is located a 100 yards away from a High School or better yet borders a High School. A little different I would say."

    Hetzel also testified about a second rehab that does border the rec fields of an elementary school, just like Becahi.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Where was KRAFT again???

    ReplyDelete
  6. This is the perfect place for a re-hab. Half the kids from becca will use it and the built in clients will make it very profitable for the owners, and look at all the positive taxes to Bethlehem, how can I be turned down

    ReplyDelete
  7. Moran could use this pace too...

    ReplyDelete
  8. Because he missed the original hearing, he may not participate in this matter.

    ReplyDelete
  9. That was very convenient for Kraft to miss the first meeting now that he is an elected official.

    ReplyDelete
  10. My expert says this is a bad idea, and we all know my expert trumps your expert.

    We can pay anyone to say anything.

    Go away!!!

    ReplyDelete
  11. "Half the kids from becca will use it and the built in clients will make it very profitable ..."

    It's ironic to read bigotry in the form of a public schoolesque run-on sentence from a complete fuck.

    ReplyDelete
  12. If it's not allowed and the developer sues, he'll win in court. This was documented in previous posts. It's expensive and fiscally irresponsible to oppose. The only hope is that the developer won't see suing as being worth the hassle. But, a court case would clearly be in his favor.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The zb is not legally required to take any action above and beyond their stated duty.

    The law is the law.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Bernie, Is the proposed "hospital" in West Easton an attempt to slide another treatment center into the area? Since there are many beds available in his assisted living centers --- are the "treatment center/hospitals" the next hot item?

    ReplyDelete
  15. time to clean out the zoning board and get real people in there

    ReplyDelete
  16. "The zb is not legally required to take any action above and beyond their stated duty."

    I don't think anyone is saying that the ZB can't abstain, but if they do and the developer sues, clearly the court will do what they didn't want to dirty their hands with and allow it.

    ReplyDelete
  17. 8:27, I know about the treatment center in West Easton, but nothing about his other plans.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Not in my back yard...only in yours.

    ReplyDelete
  19. The only thing that is "clear" is that the zb is empowered to make a decision based on the law. The law "allows" for "special exceptions" but does not demand it. A court of law may find in favor of a suing developer but another court may find in favor of the city. It is the city's responsibility to uphold the law and protect it's citizens. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the city to not be intimidated into taking action it doesn't have to.

    The law is the law.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Bernie, The W. E. Council was given plans by the developer during a meeting I attended. I am curious to know how many municipalities he has pitched this idea.... thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  21. A "special exception" is neither "special" nor an "exception." The court will recognize if the developer meets the legal standard and greenlight the project. In this case, the ZB can do nothing but delay...at public expense.

    ReplyDelete
  22. A "special exception" is in fact a "special exception". The law is language not gibberish. The zb is not required to grant a "special exception"

    The law is the law.

    ReplyDelete

You own views are appreciated, especially if they differ from mine. But remember, commenting is a privilege, not a right. I will delete personal attacks or off-topic remarks at my discretion. Comments that play into the tribalism that has consumed this nation will be declined. So will comments alleging voter fraud unless backed up by concrete evidence. If you attack someone personally, I expect you to identify yourself. I will delete criticisms of my comment policy, vulgarities, cut-and-paste jobs from other sources and any suggestion of violence towards anyone. I will also delete sweeping generalizations about mainstream parties or ideologies, i.e. identity politics. My decisions on these matters are made on a case by case basis, and may be affected by my mood that day, my access to the blog at the time the comment was made or other information that isn’t readily apparent.