Local Government TV

Wednesday, December 21, 2011

Bethlehem Zoners Give Abe Atiyeh Lump of Coal

Abe Atiyeh
He came to Christmas City's Town Hall dressed, appropriately enough, in red. He even carried a sack of goodies, from which he handed out pieces of candy throughout the evening. Though his eyes sometimes twinkled and his dimples were quite merry, Bethlehem zoners were still in no mood to give him a cherry. After listening to 3 1/2 hours of testimony during a special hearing on December 20, they decided, 2-1, to deny his request for a use variance that would have enabled Abe Atiyeh to build luxury apartments on a vacant, 5-acre tract at Center and Dewberry Streets. With Bill Fitzpatrick dissenting, Chairman Gus Loupos and Ron Lutes turned Abe down.

This is Atiyeh's fourth attempt to develop this site, which is located in an institutional zone that bars apartments.

Appraiser Joe Genay
Originally, after purchasing the property in 2007 for $1.4 million, Atiyeh planned an assisted living facility, which he considered an "excellent project." But then Alexandria Manor, at Johnston and Linden Streets, and a Moravian Village expansion, along Stefko Boulevard, were both approved. As a result, he was unable to get financing. "We're stuck on this property," he said. "I'd sell it for $1 million right now."

That's when Atiyeh decided on luxury apartments, but zoners shot down his request for a hardship variance last year, and their decision was affirmed in November by Judge Stephen Baratta. Atiyeh has appealed that ruling, claiming that "we have a significant hardship in developing the property."

Then Atiyeh proposed a 4-story, 125-bed, inpatient detox center and psychiatric center, which needs no zoning approval. But planners nixed that idea in August in a room packed with at least 80 vocal opponents, who objected to such a facility located so close to a high school, playground and little league.

Atiyeh has appealed that denial, but also presented zoners with a scaled-down version of the apartment complex design, his fourth attempt to develop the site. Instead of 4 3-story buildings, he's proposing 3 4-story buildings. Instead of 102 apartments, there would be only 96. The buildings would be closer to the streets than in the original plan, and the principal access point would be along Dewberry instead of Center Street.

But before the hearing even started, Attorney Steve Goudsouzian, representing a collection of neighbors called the North Bethlehem Action Committee, filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the basis that the matter is res judicata, i.e. has already been decided by zoners.

Attorney Jim Preston, representing Atiyeh, denied the matter is res judicata or that the uses are the same. He exlained that Target and Dollar Stores might both be retail uses but are really different uses, and asked zoners to permit him to make his case.

Zoners allowed Preston to make a record for three hours when Goudsouzian renewed his res judicata objection, pointing out that all Atiyeh was doing was just repeating his financial hardship argument. Preston countered that he was establishing that the property has no value at all for any use other than the apartment complex under consideration, and called the assisted living center "economic suicide."

But zoners had heard enough. Instead of a variance, Atiyeh got a lump of coal.

This proposed apartment site is directly across the street from Calvary Baptist Church, where Atiyeh is seeking zoning approval for a controversial 70-bed voluntary inpatient substance abuse center.

35 comments:

  1. The zb did the job entrusted to it. Justice prevailed.

    The law is the law.

    ReplyDelete
  2. stop saying that. the more you repeat it like some mantra, the more retarded you sound.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well one of them made the right decision, the other two just don't listen and should be replaced.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The right decision is the decision that makes use of the existing law. The zb decided based on the law.

    The law is the law.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The Zoning Hearing Board got another big one right. They listened to the appellants, and they followed the law; they did not make new law. New law is the purview of City Council, as it should be. The ZHB is getting on a better track of following the law. Hopefully, it will continue.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The zoning hearing board always followed the law. What basis do you have to say they haven't ?

    ReplyDelete
  7. OT: GRACEDALE GOONS' GOLDBRICKING CONFIRMED AS WORST IN COUNTY BY INDEPENDENT AUDIT

    http://www.mcall.com/news/local/northampton-sd/mc-northampton-county-sick-time-20111221,0,2472969.story

    ReplyDelete
  8. NIMBYs delaying the inevitable.

    ReplyDelete
  9. In not being bullied into taking any action they do not deem appropriate the zb has in fact been doing their job well. The granting of a "special exception" is an action the zb "could" take but is not mandated to take.

    I must conclude that the zb is in fact following the law.

    The law is the law.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "The zoning hearing board always followed the law. What basis do you have to say they haven't?" 7:02PM

    To whoever wrote this - are you stupid? Or just plain ignerent?

    ReplyDelete
  11. If a project satisifies the conditions of the SE, the ZB shouldn't waste the courts time to do it's job for them.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The conditions for an SE are so subjective, it depends on which way the odor is moving the night of the decision. Give it a break. Those decisions are political, not legal.

    ReplyDelete
  13. A "special exception" is defined by the phrase itself. The board is not required to take any action above and beyond their duty.

    The law is the law.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "The law is the law."

    Well... that depends on who wrote it, who interprets it, and who enforces it!

    The law is whatever human beings want it to be. It is subjective, and subject to the whims of the writers, interpreters, and enforcers.

    So, everything depends...

    It is imperative to understand that it matters not what the law says, nor how it is interpreted, or how it is enforced.

    What matters is that you win!

    ReplyDelete
  15. "A 'special exception' is defined by the phrase itself."

    How many times must you be proven wrong over and over and over again?

    See a previous post below: http://www.newpa.com/webfm_send/1512

    Go to page 2, paragraph 3 under "Special Exceptions." Special exception is a misnomer...It is neither special nor an exception. It is not a deviation from the zoning ordinance. A special exception is a use envisioned by the ordinance and if the express standards or criteria are met, the use is one permitted by the ordinance.

    City Council expressly authorized this use in this zoning district in this neighborhood. Yet, they are bowing down to political pressure rather than defending their own legislation."

    You've known this, yet you still deceive. I've said it before, but Law is the Law is not an honest broker and cannot be trusted.

    ReplyDelete
  16. The use "is permitted". The meaning is clear. The only deception is that which makes the claim that it means more than it does. The city and zb has acted as per their duties. They may apply not must apply.

    The law is the law.

    Merry Christmas to all.

    ReplyDelete
  17. The ZB has a duty to not waste the court's time and a fiduciary responsibility to not waste the township's money fighing a losing case.

    ReplyDelete
  18. The city and the zb were not created to worry about whether or not a wealthy individual will run up court bills when they must decide an issue. The zb would be derelict in all its responsibilities if a decision was reached based on the potential for a lawsuit. It is their responsibility to follow the law. They have up to now followed the law. They are not obliged to grant any "special exception" to anyone, regardless of their wealth or potential to bully the city through the court system. Fortunately we are a nation of laws, not men or wealth. The people require, nay demand, the zb follow the law.

    The law is the law.

    A very Merry Christmas to all in the land of the free.

    ReplyDelete
  19. And yet the ZB will lose in court because of...wait for it...The Law. You may find that ironic, but the rest of us who have a more full understanding of the law will lament the spinelessness of the ZB to face facts (and their fears of their neighbors) and to do their job under the law...

    Merry Christmas

    ReplyDelete
  20. The law is clear, "may" is not "must". Until the zb is shown a law that says "must", they are acting appropriately.

    The law is the law.

    ReplyDelete
  21. ...Only in the eyes of folks who believe that leadership means writing a check to the court so they may pass them the buck.

    ReplyDelete
  22. The courts can settle disputes and will. The zb will defend the citizens against developers not abiding by the law. The city will defend its citizens up to any court necessary. The citizens support the zb and the city. We will not allow the tyranny of money to corrupt the law.

    The law is the law.

    ReplyDelete
  23. So wrong on the laws. As established many times now.

    ReplyDelete
  24. No one seems to mention that this man is a man of money and the feds pay more to treat pedophiles than they do to treat D/A ,yet treatment being one or the other is all under the same cover. Saying that it will be introducing more such violent preditors onto our local streets.

    ReplyDelete
  25. The law is clear and the zb has only maintained the true meaning of the law. There is no "must" provision in the law. The only reality is that which is real today as reflected in the actions of the zb and city of Bethlehem. The only confusion is in the minds of those who wish to undermine the intent of the law.

    The law is the law

    ReplyDelete
  26. It's funny to read that someone who beat up on "spirit" of the law defenders now turns and uses it's "intent" as an argument. Just a little hypocritical. But, this was never as much about making an honest argument as it was a smokescreen to cover a chicken ZB who doesn't have the intestinal fortitude to explain to the community that their job is not to rewrite ordinances but to measure proposals against them. If the law truly is the law, you should know better.

    ReplyDelete
  27. The zb is reading the law as written and interpreting it as intended. While some influential individuals and their flacks want to muddy the waters with "speculations" of what "should" be done they are unable to provide the key piece of factual evidence to prove where in fact the law plainly and clearly states "what" must be done.

    As the law is written, the zb and the city have legal latitude in deciding when and if a "special exception" to the existing language of the law is allowed.

    The zb is acting in the best interests of all the citizens of Bethlehem by observing the letter and spirit of the law. It is neither intimidated by threats of lawsuits nor deterred from carrying out its legal duties. they are to be commended for understanding that in fact,

    The law is the law.

    ReplyDelete
  28. "As the law is written, the zb and the city have legal latitude in deciding when and if a 'special exception' to the existing language of the law is allowed."

    Despite best efforts, some still don't understand what an SE is. It is not an "exception to the existing language of the law." Fortunately, most who got this far actually paid attention to the facts presented in Anon 4:34AM above.

    Additionally, Law is the Law advocated in the past (and in this stream no less) that the ZB abstain and do nothing. Now s/he thinks they should determine if an SE should or should not be allowed. Well, that's an improvement, I guess, even if they don't understand what SE means.

    To quote Anon 3:25PM: "If a project satisifies the conditions of the SE, the ZB shouldn't waste the courts time to do it's job for them."

    For the ZB to do nothing would be to shirk their responsibilities. To deny it may be politically expedient, but it is easy for the applicant to prove in court that the SE is appropriate. ZB members should know that, thus a denial wastes public resources.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Please supply the language stating that the zb "must" act. without the specific language the board is following the law in denying a special exception as defined in the law. It is there determination since this is a nation of laws not dollars.

    The law is the law!

    ReplyDelete
  30. Who is saying that the ZB "must" approve? That's a red herring that keeps trying to deflect everything articulated above.

    ReplyDelete
  31. The facts are the facts and the law is the law. The zb has handled this issue appropriately. Money often talks but in this case it is the written law that has done the talking. All the threats of lawsuits and courts are irrelevant to the fact that this is settled.

    The law is the law.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Readers (if there are any) can decide for themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  33. It has been decided in the appropriate and legal way.

    The law is the law.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Nothing's been decided yet. Wrong...yet again.

    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.