In other business, Commissioners voted 4-0 to support plans providing for a three-story medical office building (41' high) for St. Luke's Hospital at 834-43 Eaton Avenue, located at the northeast intersection of 8th and Eaton Avenues.
Bryan Ritter, President of Jena Engineering, told Commissioners that he will demolish the old Bank of America building and two vacant homes and construct a 22,584 sq ft building with 91 parking places. The building design will be similar to what exists on the Anderson campus of St. Luke's Hospital. The facility will house OB-GYN, pediatrics and other medical arts offices.
The St. Luke's Center for Urology is across the street at the northwest corner of 8th and Eaton Avenues.
Updated 9:10 am: Below is the procedure, which will be explained at the beginning of every meeting:
"The applicant will have a chance to present their project to the Commission as their agenda item is called. Following that presentation, City staff will provide an overview of the City’s comments and a recommendation. Then the Planning Commission members will have an opportunity to direct questions related to the project to both the applicant and City staff.I did not think of this yesterday, but would add a provision that would prevent the same person from addressing the Commission multiple times on the same subject.
"Following Planning Commission discussion, interested parties will have an opportunity to comment on or ask questions related to the project. All interested parties will be asked to give their name and address for the record. They shall also sign their name, address and email address on the sign-in sheet provided. [Name and address is a requirement of the Sunshine Act].
"We will adhere to a 5 minute time limit for each member of the public and each person will have one opportunity to speak. We ask that all comments be related to the project proposal under review and that all comments be related to the land use issues of the project. When there are a significant number of interested parties, we request that members of the public be concise in their testimony and avoid repeating previously made assertions.
"After all interested parties have had an opportunity to speak, the Planning Commission members will have a final opportunity to deliberate on the project. The review of the Planning Commission is based on the provisions of the Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance and other municipal ordinances, as applicable. Decisions will be based on these applicable ordinances, the recommendations of the City’s professional staff, pertinent public comment and the public good."
Is this yet another high traffic corner lot (Eaton & 8th ave) not paying city or county property tax for another St Lukes medical office?
ReplyDeleteI don't believe medical offices are exempt. But if they are, that is no basis for turning down a plan.
ReplyDeleteBefore St. Luke's continues to expand they need to take lessons from Penn Medicine on how to run their facilities. St. Luke's forgot how to take care of the people that come to them. They are overworking their doctors and it is affecting how they take care of their patients. Greed is taking over competency. Very sad when people from the Lehigh Valley are going to Philadelphia for their medical care!!!!!
ReplyDeleteI have always gone to St. Luke's but I must say they are losing the patient care battle to LVHN. Time to clean up your act.
ReplyDeleteAnother 3 properties to go off the tax rolls. This means about $20,000 less in revenue for Bethlehem, Lehigh County, and BASD.
ReplyDeleteBernie @12:24,
ReplyDeleteIf the building is owned by St. Luke's, it will be tax exempt. For reference, look up 1107 Eaton Ave., in the Lehigh County assessments.
Another move by Bethlehem to railroad developer projects thru the system to reward them for their sizable campaign contributions. Now they put in the same archaic rules of 5 minutes per person speaking to the authorities that they have at city council--What a farce that process is & an insult to the citizens of Bethlehem. Campaign to oust Donchez & Callahan in next election is about to begin!!
ReplyDeletePerhaps you are thinking draconian or harsh, but this is by no means "archaic." I completely agree with the rule, and as you know, these kinds of limitations comply with the Sunshine Act and First Amendment. If someone cannot voice his or opposition or support of a plan in five minutes or less, he should not bother speaking at all. When someone comes up and rambles, that behavior is rude to every other person in the room, including other members of the public. I sat through several long meetings where the same people got up over and over as they thought up new reasons to complain. What kills me is that these people will then get up and leave, or they come in late and miss everyone else. If you want to speak, you should also listen. I have no problem with a five-minute time limit. I can think of no time when someone should need more than five minutes. But if that is the case, the speaker should approach the Chair before the meeting and explain he needs a little more time. If a person has an impediment or needs to use an interpreter, I think most boards would be more than willing to extend or double the time limit.
ReplyDeletebu that is only a small part of the change. The big change is requiring the applicant to justify his plan first, which does get rid of a lot of redundancy. Also, I would think the public would want to wait to speak until knowing precisely what is planned. Listening to the details might removes the need to speak at all. This is the procedure Lee Snover uses in Bethlehem Tp, and it works very nicely. If the crowd is large, she will also require nonresidents to wait until residents have spoken, which is fair.
"Another 3 properties to go off the tax rolls. This means about $20,000 less in revenue for Bethlehem, Lehigh County, and BASD."
ReplyDeleteYou can't deny a plan simply bc the applicant is tax exempt.
Bernie @3:28,
ReplyDeleteNot bashing SLUHN, but a very large amount of real estate has been pulled off the tax rolls in the last 20 years. Mostly due to LVHN, SLUHN, Lehigh, and Moravian. That means the revenue has to come from somewhere else, even though those buildings benefit from the same municipal services taxpayer fund.
Not to mention Lehigh buying all those buildings around its campus in South Bethlehem. Non profits should have to pay taxes on buildings acquired off property thru expansion.
ReplyDeleteThe city council process adopted by the planning commission removes dialogue & turns it into a monologue with the time limit issue. Both the planning commission & ZHB allowed for dialogue with commissioners or questioning of developers. That has now been removed. The developer & city always presented first so that is no change. All this did was squash true dialogue with citizens on the losing end. Take s look at the qualifications of the planning commission members--football coach, paving contractor, city council flunky--none of whom ever ask a legitimate question to challenge a developer project. It is the citizens that raise the right questions. Now those questions won't get answered just like at city council. Norco county council process is welcoming vs Bethlehem council & now Planning commission.
ReplyDeletePatriot, I don't think you understand the right to speak at meetings very well.
ReplyDelete1) The ZHB is a quasi-judicial body, and the only people who really have a right to speak during hearings are people with standing. There is no 5-minute limit and there is no right to question ZHB members, only the witnesses who testify. Members of the public have the right to speak, but not at hearings unless they have standing. Try going into a courtroom and interjecting yourself in a civil or criminal dispute and see how far you'll get.
2) The Sunshine Act applies to meetings of City Council and the Planning Commission, but by its express terms, allows governing bodies to adopt procedures designed to prevent repetitive comments and demagouguery. That means a five-minute limit. When you have 30 people signed up to speak, that's a good thing.
3. The Sunshine Act gives people the right to speak before official action is taken on any matter getting a vote or deliberation, or on matters of public interest. But it DOES NOT give the public the right to interrogate or cross-examine board members. City Council is there to listen to concerns, not have a cup of coffee with you. I agree that I wish there were more dialogue, but the law does not require it and too often, dialogue is an excuse to abuse board members. If you allow dialogue, there is a potential it can be abused by the board, not the citizenry. I have been at meetings where council members engage in the dialogue you claim to want, and they are ripped for interfering with the citizens' right to speak.
4. I hate when people come in and insist on speaking, and then leave without listening to others. Or when they come in late and demand the right to speak. The right to speak includes a duty to listen, but I have seen many offenders who are more interested in listening to themselves than the issue. In Allentown and Bethlehem, this behavior is not the norm, but I do see it.
"Not to mention Lehigh buying all those buildings around its campus in South Bethlehem. Non profits should have to pay taxes on buildings acquired off property thru expansion."
ReplyDeleteBut that is irrelevant to the question whether a plan complies with SALDO. I don't think any PC would ever get away with turning down a plan bc the property owner is tax exempt.
There used to be a dialogue with council in Bethlehem & my observations are that NORCO council meetings include such dialogue without time limits. While I agree that you don't want someone going on forever there is a distinct impression that the current Bethlehem process is one that is not productive but merely confrontational & disrespectful to constituents. Why not the NORCO model for Bethlehem?
ReplyDeleteI agree that ios the perception, especially when someone asks a question and is greeted with stony silence. In NorCo, there is far less public input, but there is a five-minute time limit. If people have questions, Council members do try to answer, but it is not an interrogation. Bethlehem City Council should probably participate a bit more, and at the last meeting i attended about two months ago, they did. It's a fair criticism, and members like Callahan would like to jump in a bit more. But when 30 people are signed up, there's no real opportunity for dialogue.City Council might consider doing what BT Commissioners do. At the end of each month, on a Sunday afternoon, members of the public are invited to come and speak with them informally. Might be just two Commissioners, and some may only be there an hour, but that has been given rave reviews.
ReplyDeleteYou are correct when you note that there is a perception that City Council in Bethlehem is aloof and nonresponsive. I think periodic "talk to your Council" sessions, in which they do engage in dialogue informally, could change that view. I
Good idea Bernie!!
ReplyDelete