At the heart of the discussion was the impact of the zoning ordinance on property development, private property rights, and public interest. The presentation by Attorney Preston and the testimony of Mr. Kevin Fru, a licensed professional engineer, highlighted a proposed site plan for an 8-acre property that included residential apartment buildings longer than the 180-foot limit set by the current zoning ordinance. The plan became a focal point for debating the implications of the ordinance on development intensity and the use of land within the city.

The council also examined the broader impact of the zoning changes, particularly concerning traffic and the city’s need for more affordable housing. Developers provided insights into their plans, which included the consideration of affordable housing and potential traffic mitigation efforts. This sparked a debate on the potential impact of the proposed zoning changes, with varying views on traffic and affordable housing needs.

Mr. Benedict, a registered architect, and Mr. Wagner, a real estate developer with over 25 years of experience, provided testimony on the financial impact of the 180-foot limitation, the comparison of building plans, and the marketability and amenities for residents. These insights contributed to a debate on building length in relation to life safety, density, and the marketability of residential development.

The council discussed multiple exhibits, including comparisons of building length regulations across Bethlehem, Allentown, and Easton. It was noted that Bethlehem imposes a 180-foot maximum building length requirement for multifamily dwellings in all districts, a restriction not commonly found in neighboring cities. The concept of intensity and the typical use of building length limits in planning ordinances were also analyzed.

Mr. Tom Kit, whose expertise in planning was recognized by the council, presented a series of exhibits detailing buildings exceeding 180 feet in length in different zoning districts to support the argument against the building length limitations in the CL district. Further, a discussion ensued regarding the 24 permitted uses in the CL district that could potentially exceed 180 feet in length, questioning the specific limitation for multifamily dwellings.

The meeting touched on the potential rezoning of the property to high-density residential and the implications of such a change, including the continued application of the 180-foot building length limit. The conversation also explored the possibility of the city using the property for a homeless shelter and the requirements for mixed-use buildings.

The council debated the 2021 zoning amendment that addressed restrictions on multifamily dwellings in the CB (Central Business) and CL zoning districts, with a focus on the credibility of the Planning Director’s statements and the need for providing the actual zoning amendment for reference. This underscored the importance of clarity and accuracy in the representation of zoning amendments.

During the meeting, the council members questioned the rationale behind the 180-foot limit and its impact on development, including the implications for traffic and regional housing needs. There was a discussion about a proposed development on East 4th Street, which aimed to develop residential units but faced concerns over environmental impact and the alternative uses of the property.

The discussions suggested that the City Council might reconsider the building length limitations in the CL district, as it could be interpreted as inconsistent with the district’s intended purpose. The zoning ordinance’s impact on multifamily dwellings, traffic, and the housing crisis was a point of contention throughout the meeting.