the parties are bhx represented by Attorney James Preston of brockland DeVito and the City of Bethlehem represented by assistant city solicitor Matthew desler before we proceed with the hearing I would just um ask whether we have any potential conflicts for disclosure on [Music] Council hearing none I'll give a pre brief outline of the proceeding First Council will hear the party's evidence then council members will have the opportunity to ask questions following questions from Council the public will have the opportunity to comment on the application there will be no opportunity for the public to offer comment on unrelated matters at this hearing um my next matter of business that there are several exhibits pre-marked councils 1 through four that I will now now identify for the record Council one is the Curative Amendment petition dated February 1st 2024 Council 2 is the notice of tonight's hearing which ran in The Express Times on April 17 2024 the hearing date having been set by agreement of the parties Council three is the written recommendation of the Lehi valet Planning Commission that the P petition be denied offered pursuant to statute and Council four reflects the vote of the City Planning Commission to recommend that the petition be denied inclusive of a memo dated March 21st with an attachment theto from the director of Planning and Zoning d heler and the March 14th 2024 meeting minutes of the Planning Commission redacted of other business um on behalf of council I will move these exhibits into the record unless there be any objection no objection okay okay and I have copies for Council um and with that attorney Preston are you ready to begin yes I am okay very well okay thank you and and thank you to council and uh if I may we're here this evening on a Curative Amendment it it's it's sort of an odd duck uh you rarely see these uh what's happening is my client is alleging that a particular section of the zoning ordinance uh is not lawful now if I just just bear with me for a minute uh what happens is in Pennsylvania is the case law sort of sets out the Rules of Engagement here it says that the standards by which the constit ution ality of a zoning ordinance uh uh is is maybe judged those rules have been stated and restated in a long line of decisions by this court now this comes directly from Pennsylvania's Supreme Court a challenge to the constitutionality of a zoning ordinance must overcome the presumption of its validity the burden of doing so though heavy is maintainable and courts may not make it so onerous as to foreclose for all practical purposes a landowner's Avenue of redress against the infringement of constitutionality or constitutionally protected rights zoning ordinances are valid whenever they are necessary for the preservation of public health safety morals or general welfare but the power to thus regulate does not extend to an arbitrary unnecessary or unreasonable intermeddling with the private ownership of property even though such Acts be labeled labeled for the preservation of health safety and general welfare uh for the record that comes out of a Supreme Court case titled ex inquiries versus uh versus the zoning hearing Board of adjustment to pa uh site is 425 PA 43 so essentially what we're alleging is that a particular part section in your zoning ordinance uh violates our constitutional rights to develop our property free of uh unreasonable interference I need to make one thing clear because it's sort of and you're going to see this throughout the presentation some of these things seem sort of uh intuitive like why are they bothering with that so if you look at the advertisement the advertisement says that uh that the zoning ordinance section that we're challenging provides that except within the irr and CB zoning districts no building shall exceed 180 ft in length so forth and so on that's partly true the section that we're talking about that appears in a part of the ordinance that deals with multifam dwellings multifamily dwellings are Apartments that's what they are and we'll use those words interchangeably so it's not that this uh provision prohibits any and all buildings uh in excess of 180 feet it only prohibits apartments in excess of 180 feet and have all the commercial zones it only prohibits them in the CL zone so I just want to make that point that's really where we're going it's our contention that to prohibit apartments from exceeding 180 fet in the CL Zone and only Apartments is discrimin discriminatory and serves no valid uh public purpose now as you can tell from the Supreme Court case ordinances are presumed valid so as we go in the ordinance enjoys the presumption of validity we have the duty to show that it does not serve a valid public purpose so what's a valid public purpose scrubbing the case law you're going to find that it's a valid public purpose to provide for Public Safety it's a valid public purpose to control density it's a valid public purpose to control intensity it's a valid public purpose to control to some extent athetics when coupled with another other uh public interest and what you're going to see through the evidence is that this particular piece of legislation here this limitation of 180 feet on res itial apartments in the CL District satisfies none of those and so having said that I'm gonna call as my first witness Mr Kevin fru before I do that for the ease of presentation I know your time is valuable we've put together exhibit binders so you can just leave through them as we go and we'll call them out if you just give me a minute make sure that make sure make sure attorney desler gets one of those one thank you now as those are being handed out I will tell you this uh this property has been in front of the city before if in certain land use matters we app apply for a variance at the zoning hearing board to this particular section uh the city did appear at the zoning Hearing in objection to that and the zoning hearing board denied that request for a variance I tell you that because Mr fruck he was the engineer of record uh we're going to use that particular property but we're going to use it by way of example we're not asking for approval of our plans we're not asking for uh a site plan approval none of that we're going to talk about this property and we're going to show you examples of how this property can be developed if for no other reason then we're very familiar with this property and this prop is in a CL Zone and it is subject to the 180 foot limit building length limitation on residential Apartments so with that explanation I'm going to call Kevin as my first witness uh sworn you want to do them all at once would that be easier Okay Kevin let's let's start running through here uh so tab number one tab number one is your CV that's correct you have that you're familiar with that I am is that true and correct as of this evening it is and so what is your background what are you here for this evening if you'll tell us uh this I'm a professional licensed engineer uh in state of Pennsylvania New Jersey and Delaware uh I work primarily in Land Development uh so we'll handle projects from uh you know couple acres in size to a couple hundred acres in size and we handle all types of you're familiar with the issues before the board this evening I am yes in fact you've been qualified as an expert in Land Development civil engineering before is that correct that's correct testified in front of this City's zoning hearing board we have yes okay I would ask that he'd be allowed to testify as an expert in that area let's take a look at uh number two let's go to tab number two now we're putting up boards here for the public to look at you generated these exhibits did you not uh this tab two uh was part of the zoning hearing package uh alloy 5 created this plan I'm sorry this tab two was created for the zoning hearing uh project it was prepared by alloy 5 but is a depiction of it up on the screen the site plan we're going to continue on but we can't get it up there for us to see you want to turn that out that way because they have it in there I need to be able to talk to the that's good can you see him okay okay we don't have the capacity unfortunately ma'am to put a camera right there I understand what you mean but to put it up here we'd have to have we just have the the uh you're good room angle up there you see it he has Dwayne Dwayne take it over there take it all the way over there anybody wants to see it can move to the middle we're done that's it I will represent to you that what appears on the boards is identical to what's in the books that's in front of council okay if anybody needs to have a closer look they can move over that way so let's get back to the matter at hand uh Kevin tab number two yes uh what is tab number two tab number two is a depiction of uh the site plan that was proposed as a sketch plan uh and subject to the zoning hearing board matters for this applicant's property okay and what is this applicant's property let's start there uh it is an 8 plus acre property located along North monetta hover Avenue and West Broad Street uh also along Florence Avenue and Bascom alley and what is on the site now uh the site is currently uh vacant and paved what was the the prior use was uh an automobile dealership okay and this is in the CL Zone this is in the CL zone is this subject to to the provision that we're challenging here this evening it is so if you wanted do are residential Apartments permitted on this site they are yes now I see that at where there's a number 13 that a line marked is 13 that says either side Bethlehem and out toown what does that signify so this property is bisected by the municipal boundary line between the city of alltown and city of Bethlehem okay now this property was uh this this shows a residential uh uh apartment use that correct so this yes this shows a residential apartment use it has four four buildings and it has some various amenities throughout the site and parking surrounding the buildings and the use itself is permitted by ordinance the use is permitted by ordinance that's not an or an issue but this particular plan uh does not comply with the ordinance is that correct that's correct and what's the what's the primary defect with this plan the buildings are longer than 180 ft okay and what sort of uh can you tell us a little bit about the development itself uh how this was laid in terms of open space those types of things uh certainly so this this project was parked uh at approximately 1.75 spaces per unit which was in line with what the prior ordinance was and that was really just to have enough parking for this this property uh again there were four apartment buildings uh part of that also included parking that was located surrounding the buildings which also allowed for your access aisles and fire uh emergency access and things like that uh it also had a clubhouse A Courtyard area uh with covered parking and an amenities area which also included pickle ball courts dog walking area small seating area things of that nature and what is the density or the unit count for this particular proposal 3177 okay is that a function of the building length no how do you arrive at the permitted uh unit count for any particular property in the CL Zone uh in this particular case the CL Zone reverts to the RT the T allows one unit for every 12200 Square F feet so if the parcel is 38,7 70 F feet that allows for 317.50 units rounded down to 317 so the point here is that density or unit count is not a function of building length but it's a it comes directly out of the ordinance uh based on a lot square footage is that correct that's correct let's take a look at the next the next we have [Music] here can I ask a quick question I didn't hear uh something properly I wasn't sure if you said 1.5 parking spaces or 1.75 the plan the sketch plan when it was first created the ordinance was 1.75 and it it stayed at 1.75 during the process it got changed to 1.5 thank you right yeah okay let's take a look now at uh we're at tab three yes okay what is tab three so tab three is uh a building Arrangement that is based on the uh prior sketch plan that was submitted uh this plan is paired down and uh it's used for comparison purposes with relation to parking in open space to what will be the next exhibit okay and again these plans are all the same property these are all the same property yes okay again we're just using these as an example we're not looking at development of this property okay now these buildings here they appear to be longer than 180 ft these buildings are longer than 180 ft yes therefore the use while the use may be permitted the building lengths are not is that correct that's correct let's take a look at number four what am I looking at on number four uh number four is a a layout that shows on the 8 plus acre parcel buildings that don't exceed 180 ft with the parking so both exhibit three and four are parked uh the same so they have the same number of parking spaces uh C or I'm sorry uh exhibit three carries with it the idea of a courtyard and parking under the buildings whereas exhibit four really only has surface parking uh and some under building parking that would serve this development okay and what let's go back and and on number if I go back to number three what would the unit count be on that uh unit exhibit three has a unit count of 3117 units okay and what about exhibit four exhibit four would also have a unit count of 3177 units so unit three and unit four they are have identical unit counts that's correct again that's a function of lot area is that correct that's correct it has nothing to do with the building length that's correct do you have an opinion as a profession as a professional engineer as to which of these two plans might be more intense I would think because the number of buildings uh and the square footage of the buildings and the square footage of the surface parking that the exhibit the plan shown in exhibit four is more intense so the the limitation the 180 foot building length limitation in the CL Zone drives you towards uh exhibit number four is that correct that's correct and it does not allow you to uh to develop uh exhibit number three correct okay and in your professional opinion exhibit number four is a much more intense use is that correct I I I would say it's more intense because it has more impervious higher building coverage okay you know more impervious leads to more storm water okay and we're going to come back to these some of the other Witnesses have comments on some of these let's go to number five number number five is an exhibit that is based on uh exhibit three so you'll see see that it has the same building layout so it's again 3177 units um what we've done in this plan now is to show what those open areas are and how much that how much land that equates to um you can see we've identified four areas on the plan uh what we use as a criteria there's no ordinance criteria for open space but we use something that's similar to what other municipalities will use which is has to be at least 30 feet wide or 6,000 square feet of area things like that uh this plan shows that at the top right corner you have a an area that that is roughly 26,6 164 square feet and that's the area where the dog park and pickleball courts and things of that nature were you have the Courtyard area which is kind of in between all of the buildings that sits above the parking and that's 51,8 42 so that's over an acre of space on here it's shown as green but it is intended to be kind of a Public Square area where you're going to have people that have have patios and different ways to congregate and use those areas uh between the buildings you have an area that's C is 6390 square feet then you have an area up front at the corner of uh the property and that's uh 41,9 Square fet uh almost an acre of open space there and again we're holding the same unit count 3177 units yes that's correct now now if I asked you in your professional opinion as to exhibits for let me do it this way if I asked you to design a development uh that was if if a if intensity were something I were trying to avoid which of these developments would you propose uh I would I would be looking at exhibit three because it provides for more open space more areas for amenities um you have room for pickle ball courts and dog parks and walking areas whereas in exhibit four uh it's it's a bunch of buildings and parking now as I said in my opening the 180 foot limitation does not apply universally to buildings in the CL zone is that correct that's correct fact that only applies to Apartments that's correct correct let's take a look at exhibit six okay what's exhibit six what are we looking at here exhibit six is uh the shopping center use which is permitted in the CL zoning District the use is permitted the use is permitted okay go ahead uh this shows an arrangement of an L-shaped building some buildings along the frontage some buildings along uh West Broad Street and it shows uh four main buildings uh you have a strip retail building uh each 10 less than 10,000 and one large parking area typical of a shopping center development that would uh serve this property the use this uh this particular particular use is permitted in the CL Zone it is and how long are these buildings so the the the length of these buildings vary uh the long building is over 500 feet in length okay and that would be permitted in the CL Zone under the existing ordinance that's correct there's no limitation on building length in the CL zone for any building other than multif family so you could do this unless you wanted to use it for multif family that's correct okay let's take a look at number seven Kevin what are we looking at here on number seven uh number seven is set up similar to the arrangement of the original sketch plan as far as building location is concerned the main development kind of fronting on North wetta Street but then it also has uh a building along West Broad Street so here you have four buildings with a parking garage uh in the middle and this would be an office development so it's office permitted in the seal office is permitted in the seal yes go ahead I interrupted you go ahead no that's no problem uh this would show about 375,000 square feet uh and we still have enough room to add more parking so you could theoretically go higher uh as far as parking is concerned uh you would have a uh a greater number if it were medical office but again we have enough parking on here currently that it would allow medical office also per use on this property okay and how long are these buildings uh these buildings are similar to the other uh to the the sketch plan so they're between 290 to 300 feet long okay and they would be permitted in this Zone and they would be permitted in this Zone yes as between number seven and number three number three being the uh longer apartment buildings uh which of those in your professional opinion would you consider to be a more intense development I would consider the office to be more intense especially considering the square footage you're getting on here uh the number of parking spaces as well as the traffic generated from an office development compared to a residential development as as to exhibit six and exhibit three exhibit three again being the longer apartment buildings and and exhibit six being the retail which of those two in your professional opinion would you consider to be a more intense development I would consider the retail to be more intense or a shopping center to be more intense it has a greater impervious coverage uh there would be definitely need to be stor water management for this project it's at it's just under 90% which is the city's requirement uh and it it would also have more traffic okay well let's do let's get to that let's take a look now I believe we're up to number eight he you're familiar with number eight I am okay and again we to talk about this a little bit we may get back to this later with another witness but uh Kevin what is number eight number eight is a uh a summary table that shows for comparison's sake the various developments that you have so one is the multif family that we talked about for for sketch exhibit 3 that has 3177 units but the building are greater than 180 ft long let me just take a minute to lay it out so I see 1 two 3 four five columns right yes and at the top I see they're labeled exhibit three exhibit four and so forth correct those correlate with the plans that we just went through yes they do okay so exhibit three I believe was the uh the residential Apartments but of of a length that's not permitted it's correct and then we move through we have the multif family we have the retail and we have the general office and then we see medical office at the very end is that correct that's correct okay now what what what can we glean from this chart well if you look at the two residential uh projects they both have 317 units one does have 180 foot length or less the other one has 180 foot or greater length uh you can see uh as you go down the parking for again three and four are the same 476 spaces so it's only overp parked by 27 spaces it has a ratio of 1.58 as you go down you'll average daily trips uh so these this is information that was provided to us uh by traffic planning and design okay traffic planning design is the traffic engineer for this project um and that's who you typically rely on when you do engineering work correct correct so we'll collaborate with the traffic engineer and and they'll go through and they'll calculate the various uh traffic impacts um so again for the residential development is 1,466 for both because that based on unit count it's not based on anything else but unit count for the property um if you look at I'm going to look at open area that is less than sketch B you can see that um or let's look at net open areas so for uh exhibit three you have almost 160,000 square feet of open area for sketch for exhibit 4 I apologize is 110800 so that's about 40 4% less uh sketch e only has 39 sketch I'm sorry that's exhibit six uh and that was the shopping center so it only has 39 and when they say open space that is just green area it's not like open space as if you could use it it's the buffer area because it requires a 20 foot buffer and it's planted it's not the usable area if you will uh for the office they both would have 98,000 700 roughly of open space um as you go down the chart you can see only exhibit three has any considerable area that you would consider as open space or usable open space roughly 2.9 Acres uh and then total impervious if you look at that um you have about a 58% impervious coverage with exhibit three and that is the one with the buildings that are greater than 180 ft and you're able to to get it that low because you're able to consolidate those buildings and push everything together the next one you see it jumps up to 70 almost 71% it's 70.9% if you look at the shopping center it's 89.5% and when you look at office it's 74% the next one down is building cover aage and and again I'm just going through it's just for comparison sake so I apologize for all the numbers um so again exhibit three you're at 93 592 so that's kind of our Benchmark as we go through this as you can see uh exhibit four which was buildings that were 180 feet or less there's actually more building square footage and that really results because you have more buildings but you have to think that in each building you're going to have redundant now you're going to have another trash room another elevator room all those things that you wouldn't have if you're able to consolidate the uh the shopping center 8,170 of building and then the office is 144 812 of of footprint now we can kind of go through um the the you can see the the increases as you go through uh the the big increases are for office and for exhibit four do you have an opinion as to which of these is the most intense I think the most intense one would be the medical office and that's I mean from a from an impervious standpoint storm water standpoint I would say the shopping center is is the most intense because you have a a almost 90% impervious coverage which is greater than what's out there now okay um but if you were going to look at traffic which is another indicator of intensity that has if it were medical office uh compared to residential of 1,466 for 3177 units you would have almost 16,000 um trips for medical office and those those would be permitted the exhibits four through seven would be permitted yes under the your it's exhibit three that's not permitted is that correct that's correct and that's only because of the building length that's only because of the building length have an opinion as to which of these is the least intense I would say exhibit three is the least intense because it enables you to consolidate into one area and leave open areas around it so out of all these uh potentials potentialities you're not able to do the least intense development because of a building length limitation is that correct that's correct okay I have no further questions from Mr Frog cross all right Mr fruck in regard to your testimony that density is not a function of building length I think you testified that the maximum number of dwelling units you can fit on this property is 317 correct that's correct if the building lengths are only 180 feet in length can you fit the number of dwelling units on the property yes that's exhibit four by um increasing the number of buildings correct that's correct there was a a variance hearing before the zoning hearing board you testified at correct that's correct and at that hearing it was the position of BX that if you increase the number of buildings beyond the Ford that you had on the plan you could not fit 317 uh dwelling units onto that property right no I don't think that's correctly stated okay testimony I gave was that if you were to put on 180 foot buildings that were stacked vertically on the site that the drainage easement would be in the way and that in order to stay within the city of Bethlehem that would be difficult and that was a line of questioning you that yeah sorry I wasn't done yet so when we're looking at that that was a different plan than what we're looking at here here looking at an 8 acre parcel as if it were all one parcel with the other one we have other issues that we're dealing with so if I can fit 400 on here I'm only allowed 317 the parcel we're talking about tonight was the same size as the parcel we were dealing with at the variance hearing right that's correct and the point of the variance hearing was that the applicant needed relief because if it complied with the zoning ordinance and put bill buildings on there that were no longer than 180 ft it couldn't fit 317 I'm going to object I'm going to object to to the relevance of that I think it goes to credibility for one thing how you're you're talk at the LA at the last hearing for the benefit of the council members the idea was that you needed a variance on building length because if if you had longer buildings right you wouldn't be able to fit 3117 dwelling units on the property if you could do that with shorter buildings and more buildings you would not have needed the variance because you could have complied with the zoning ordinance that's correct we're still on the objection that that's not relevant to this hearing that hearing had to deal with a hardship that was unique to the property which was the easement that ran through the center of the property that's not in play here this evening that was a completely different undertaking in front of the zoning hearing board that's you would you haven't seen any easements on any of these plans you haven't seen any unique phys characteristics zoning ordinance that's in play here which is the multif family dwellings all know also known as Apartments deals with any multif family dwellings in the CL District it doesn't take into account drainage easements and other things it just doesn't do it right so for the purpose of an analysis that's not relevant it's completely irrelevant I mean you can characterize it however you want I just did that's it was very well characterized my point is that uh credibility is always an issue in these hearings and if the applicants position at that last zoning hearing where they were requesting a variance and saying we need buildings longer than 180 feet because we can't put these units on the property in that number without that variance and now they're telling us today actually they can do it I think that goes to the credibility of their position again I disagree Sor we still on the objection if I may please Council only attorney Preston do you have any further comment before I roll on this objection yeah yeah this is not a zoning hearing this is this is this is a Curative Amendment for a piece of property which we have selected because we're familiar with it of a certain size what my what my friend is trying to do is to revisit the zoning hearing where matters not relevant to the Curative Amendment were Germain and in fact determinative in that hearing one of them was a drainage easement that ran through the center of the property that PR Ed us from putting the buildings the way that they are here that's not Germain to this hearing I'm going to overrule the objection but caution Council caution attorney dasler to uh keep his questioning relevant to the instant hearing you may proceed question yes I again I I think what you have said is oversimplifying it the variants had to meet specific criteria with regard to those lot constraints which had to do with the drainage easement it had to do with the municipal boundry and the line of questioning at that point was could I fit 180 foot buildings uh stacked vertically I mean what the what we're showing you this evening is more buildings even at less than 180 ft and going more into the city of Allentown than there was before so we're using uh more of the area of the entire property for this demonstration and this comparison it's not before we were trying to stay as much as we could in the city of uh Bethlehem and that is what we represented at the time all right so it's true I guess then back in May of last year when we were at the variant hearing the applicant could have put uh more buildings on that whole tract um where they would have fit within the 180 foot limit that was a viable plan on the track no eight the eight plus acre track you could have done that right well you you could but we are we are also in the city of Allentown which this is not a permitted use and we'd have to get a variance there which was one of the things that we talked about at that zoning hearing right you didn't introduce the exhibit that you introduced night depicting the more numerous buildings that are within 180 ft back at the zoning hearing last May correct that's correct and it was emphasized at the zoning hearing last May that because of the existence of this drainage eement on the property you could not fit um buildings or arrange the buildings such that you could put 317 dwelling units if you kept the limit of the length to 180 feet or less that was not the question that was asked to me at tonight or at the zoning hearing at the zoning hearing you asked and I think I can find it here whether or not if I reduce the buildings to 180 feet would I have less units that's what I asked you last May right yeah okay and and the idea was that you you could correct yeah and I I believe I said I could at hearing and if if you reduce the number if you you reduce the building length you would have fewer units in each building right yes if you if you kept four buildings in the lot and just made them shorter you would have fewer dwelling units per building right what does this have to do with Cur of amendment I don't think any of this has to do with Cur of amendment but your your your your Council asked you a number of questions about this property despite the fact that the amendment deals with every property in the CL so I'm focusing on the subject matter of his questioning four buildings at 180 feet would have let me rephrase this four buildings with the same apartment size at 100 feet would have less units yes I would hope so and I I have I have law school mental math all right so there's been a lot of testimony on uh on this particular property right that's what you focused on correct say that again I'm sorry you focused all your calculations tonight on the property at 23000 Hanover Avenue correct just because we're familiar with it yes I understand you understand though that the applicant is proposing a cur of amendment that would alter the zoning ordinance as it affects every single property in The Limited commercial zoning District right I am you haven't looked at any of those other properties correct not for tonight's hearing okay for for any hearing for other projects yes were those car of amendment projects no they were not or hearings okay no there have not been many he of amendment hearings for this city and the last question I have here with respect to density not being a function of building length yes if if I'm correct and we look at length width height right if if we're talking about unit density uh the length of a building is a factor in how many units you could fit in that building correct is there really a tough question it it really is because I think it's oversimplifying so unit density you're relaying unit density to the building when the ordinance relays it to the property so when I look at the property and it's over eight Acres I can have 3177 units I understand what you're saying is yes if I have a smaller building would I have smaller smaller or a less number of units in it yes unless you did much smaller units which you could then still have possibly the same number of units I have not looked at that very good I have nothing else okay before I I ask attorney Preston whether he has any redirect I would just remind Council and witnesses to speak into your microphones at all times and for witnesses to answer the questions before you with answers and not questions attorney Preston do you have any redirect I do not okay very well you move on to your next witness very good [Applause] [Music] [Applause] ready go ready okay uh the next witness will be Tristan Benedict and I believe all the witnesses were swore at the outset you've been sworn is that correct Kristen okay uh so y yes it's t r i s t a n Benedict b n e d i c t okay welcome and I believe we're up to tab number nine tab number nine again that's your CV is that correct that's accurate and you're familiar with that yes it's true and accurate this evening is that correct yes why don't you to tell us a little bit about yourself Tristan um a registered architect in the state of Pennsylvania I have about 15 years experience in the profession I've been licensed for 10 years a lot of experience with multif family residential and you're familiar with the project that's before the or the the Cur of amendment that's before the council this evening I'm familiar with the amendment yes and the project and were you asked to get involved from an architectural perspective in developing certain elevations for vied for this project I was okay let's flip over to number 10 take a look at number 10 tell me if you recognize that I do and what is number 10 number 10 is a rendering a visual depicting a building um it reflect the building that were're we had proposed along Broad Street okay and you have any idea what the L is that building longer than 180 fet it is you know you know what the exact length of that is or I believe it was 220 okay but and I see a North elevation east west and south elevation is that correct correct are those architecturally accurate for the use that's being proposed yes so the use on this building is proposed as uh apartment buildings you can see the sign above the entrance Handover Lofts okay now let's go to number 11 let's roll out number 11 what is number 11 11 is a building um elevation graphic uh depicting as you can see the name above the entrance and office building so number 11 is an office building is that correct could certainly be an office building correct architecturally accurate depiction of what would be an office building yes what are the functional differences if any between 10 and 11 the use and only the use correct so the building the office building which appears at 11 could be placed by right on the subject property is that correct that's accurate based on the ordinance and the building that's appears on exhibit number 10 cannot be placed by right on the subject property is that correct that's correct as it's over the 180 foot limitation which only applies to apartment Apartments so the 180 would not apply to exhibit 11 that's my understanding of the ordinance yes okay so the limitation on 180 the0 foot building limitation on apartments does not eliminate any particular architectural any any visual impacts does it it does not it does it does it create create any architectural benefit visual benefit to the to the residents I don't actually I'm unable to pinpoint a certain basis for the 180 foot limitation from an architectural Building Safety standpoint um and you can see that if it's allowed for another use that actually has a higher occupant load um I don't find a reason why it wouldn't also apply to residential what does that mean occupant load what are you talking about there um so per the building code um different use groups have different occupant loads based on the square footage of that building uh residential buildings have a lower occupant load um less people in an apartment than in a an office setting so technically building in exhibit 10 would have less occupants than the building in exhibit 11 which could cause more um life safety issues as far as egress do you have a professional opinion I guess aesthetically we're not seeing much of a a difference what about does intensity matter at all is there a difference in intensity between these two so the elevations were simplified just for comparison purposes uh two indistinct buildings having two different uses um one being allowed and whatnot okay okay uh that's all the questions that I have cross I don't have any questions okay very well we move to your next witness thank you yeah that's probably good the next witness will be Mr Dwayne Wagner you've been sworn Dwayne yes why don't you spell your name for the stenographer Dwayne D NE Wagner w a g n r who are you how do you relate to this how do you relate to this Bri uh the representative for BH bhx the developer of the property okay and uh how about a little bit about your experience some background please uh yes I've been in real estate development for over 25 years in the Bethlehem Area as well as the greater lehab Valley in northeast Pennsylvania um during that time I've developed and been involved with development um in multiple facets from leasing sales financing construction management design layout um Land Development approval zoning hearing zoning uh zoning variances Etc um and they developed over over a thousand residential units over a million square feet of office and commercial space totaling about $400 million in value okay and if I look at exhibit 12 or tab 12 I'm G to find a summary of that yes that experience and background is that correct yes now lest somebody say this is a tempest in a teapot can you describe for us well first of all can you verify whether there are any measurable Financial impacts that flow from this 180 foot building length limitation only on apartment uh uses in the SE zoning District yes when comparing the the buildings longer than Y versus yeah in the example we're using this evening with the the plans that were laid out um the economic impact is is really um as Mr Fu said we're developing nine buildings of not more than 180 feet versus four uh the four buildings provide some economies scale and as Mr fruck mentioned um you're not duplicating um services and Facilities within the within the complex um but more importantly the the square footage of the buildings um goes up by about 11% which will result um in probably about a 15 to 20% overall cost increase to the project and and on this scale you're probably looking somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 to20 million of added cost just to go to um a building that doesn't exceed 180 ft um and that's that's a result of um the square footage is 11% more square footage uh required when you limit the length to 180 ft uh with the nine buildings you have 11% more square footage than you do in the four buildings um sketch C which is the nine building or the 180 foot plan we'll call that 180 foot plan um has about 18% or over one acre of additional impervious coverage and that comes into a cost Factor because now you're Paving more area you're putting in more sidewalks you're putting in more curving versus Green Space um that would be on the plan with the buildings over 180 feet um so that ends up adding all those factors add cost to the project between the building uh the building square footage Paving areas sidewalk areas curbing impervious coverage uh the increase in storm water um resulting from the impervious coverage also adds adds cost to the project um so like I said you're you're probably looking at a 15 to 20% cost increase of the 180 foot or less plan compared to the um sketch uh sketch B which is the um buildings over 180 feet okay so there seems to be a significant financial impact yes the um do you have an opinion as to which of the two plans that is the 180 foot comp plan and the long the one with the longer buildings which one might be more intense from your perspective is Mr W testify as an expert yes he is was he qualified as an expert what what's he an expert in what are you an expert in real estate development real estate development and uh marketing financing construction management cost all the factors that go into when somebody says we want to develop a property I'm involved with all those factors I work with the engineers I work with the Architects I work with the banks I work with the leasing uh leasing staff all that sort of thing so I get knowledge and information from all those functions in order to make decisions as as we proceed with the development option no I I appreciate that I just I we've already Witnesses testify about the the intensity from their level of expertise do we we we need one more witness oh absolutely I have another one too that's going to talk about intensity okay intensity when I read the memos that were submitted by your planning director and the the lvip they seem to like that word so we're going to have to address that that's what it takes I have no objection to testifying as an expert he just hadn't said it yet yeah he he had not so yeah he'd not been offered by uh as an expert you you have no objection to him being offered as an expert not not in that field in the field of real estate development real estate development yeah okay not testifying as an engineer I am not testifying as an engineer no he's accepted as an expert in the field of real estate development okay do you have an opinion as a real estate developer as to which of those might be more intense yes the plan with limited to the 180 foot buildings I believe is more intense because you have as Mr fruck mentioned you have a larger impervious area of coverage and compared to the other option of the plan there's a lot of open space and I can walk through some of those factors in my opinion um that make it a less intense plan and I look at the intensity as far as what's happened how it affects the marketability the amenities for the residents and the overall quality of the product of a versus B so that's what I would speak to so intensity is something you need to consider when you're looking at marketability is that right yes the U Life Safety I want to talk about life safety for a second so you know if I told you that a a residential apartment over 180 ft Were Somehow unsafe in the city of bethle would you believe me if you told me a building over 18 that we can't we have to limit building apartments in the city of Bel bth throughout the city we have to limit them to 180 feet I'm going to interrupt for a moment and remind you gentlemen to speak into your microphones thank you if I told you that we were going to limit all apartment buildings in the city of Bethlehem to 180 ft that we needed to do that for the public health saf that that these let me rephrase that buildings over 100 residential Apartments over 108 feet are unsafe would you believe me objection he's a real estate developer he's not a building code official I mean I I I that's I think that's without is it that's outside his area of well I I would I could you want to respond to the objection so I can roll on it or withdraw your question I'm G to withdraw the question thank you are you aware of areas outside of the CL Zone where apartments are allowed to be longer than 180 ft yes that's all I have cross- examination Mr Wagner um you are here for Mr Fu's testimony right I was here for it yes yes okay and you recall when we had the zoning hearing on the variant in in May of last year correct yes you testified to that hearing correct yes did you testify that you needed the 180 foot variant in other words to build buildings longer than 180 feet if you wanted to fit 317 dwelling units on that tract yes you testified that testified to that but again the context of the question as I recall it was around the buildings fitting in the Bethlehem portion of the property and not extending into Allentown so if we're limited to putting the the buildings into the Bethlehem portion that's what I recall that uh discussion to be about we could not fit those buildings uh to to get the same uh yield of units as we could with the longer buildings without encroaching into Allentown I believe that's the plan that was shown earlier uh exhibit four I believe was the plan just showing disregard for um as attorney Preston mentioned everything else just put can you fit these buildings on this property and that's what was done for exhibit four so if if my question to you at that hearing was simply can you get to 37 without a variance as to the building length and you just simply answered no is that what happened or is it not that's what happened but again the context of it was in the in Bethlehem in being in the Bethlehem portion of the property I think at some point I want want to introduce the transcript of the uh May 10th 20123 variant hearing if it becomes an issue as to what the the context was um but that that's your recollection you were just talking about the Bethlehem part of of the track yeah because we don't have the zoning isn't permitted in Allentown for it we don't have approval to be in Allentown uh for the residential so at that time we were in front of you for zoning in front of the zoning hearing board for a variant relating to the use of the property in the city of Bethlehem well do you have any variances to put residential uh a residential component in the Allentown portion of the tract no we haven't been in front of valentown in a formal capacity until we uh get through Bethlehem that's been the direction from Allentown because the majority of the property is in the city of Bethlehem so they would defer to [Music] Bethlehem and with regard to the uh zoning districts at issue here I I think it was in the in the opening statement by Mr Preston that only in the CL District I guess among commercial districts only in the CL uh are we limited to a multif family dwelling of 180 feet or less are there any other commercial districts in the city um where you're limited to a multif family dwelling of 180 feet or less yes what are they uh don't I don't know if I'm going to name all of them but I believe the Cs District uh limits it to 180 ft I know that because I received a variance uh actually I've received multiple variances from the city of Bethlehem for a building length to exceed 180 feet in both a residential district and a commercial District okay so and I think that's that that's fair so in the Cs District which is the uh commercial shopping district right yes you need in that District if you want to have a multif family dwelling in the property uh you are limited to 180 ft or less in building length corre correct but that's that's regarding building length not the density or the number of units but but we're here about building length I understand I just want to make sure I understood your question and and with regard to The General commercial District or the CG District if you put a multif family dwelling on that are you also limited to 180 feet or less I don't know I'd have to look at the zoning variance or you or the zoning ordinance or if you have it there you could would do you have the zoning ordinance in front of you what patreon if we looked at in my book page 34 of the version I have well let's yeah let's go to page 34 first are you there I'm there okay so there's a table here and these are zoning these These are non-residential zoning districts and indicates um about halfway down the page that multif family dwellings other than conversions of an existing one family dwelling into two or more dwellings are permitted in the following zoning districts the CL the CG and CS the CB the irr and the omu correct yes and then if we go to article 1322 uh Double L which is the section at issue tonight Double Double L subsection four right it it reads except within the irr and CB zoning districts no building shall exceed 180 feet in length measured at ground level or any floor level whether on one Frontage or on the combined frontages of the main building and that of any Wings in the same building right that's what it says correct that is what it says and that means that in the CL District if you're going to have a multif family dwelling building on the property uh it has to be no more than 180 ft in length correct that's correct and if you if you have a multif family dwelling building on a CS lot or a CG lot it can't be greater than 180 feet in length correct uh yes just the multif family use in those districts and if if you have excuse me now we're talking tonight about a multif family dwelling on in a commercial zoning District are multif family dwellings permitted in uh residential zoning districts yes I would hope so sense so what zoning districts we go back to the table here on residential uses on page 29 of the zoning ordinance it says here that it looks like um multif Family dwellings are permitted in the rgr T and rrc Zoning districts correct that is correct and just so we're not using acrin all night right the RT is the city's highdensity residential district correct uh yes that's a high density residential and the RG is our medium residential zoning District correct yes the rrc is um a residential district regarding coordinated residential development that's really not we don't we don't see a whole lot of that correct residential retirement I believe yes yes um in those residential zoning districts those three where multifam dwellings are permitted what is the maximum building length of a multif family dwelling building in those districts 180 fet so for all the residential districts in the city where you can put a multifam dwelling building the limit is 180 feet right yes and you you haven't asked to amend the zoning ordinance to allow for longer multif family dwellings in residential districts right that's correct and you haven't asked for an amendment to the zoning ordinance that would allow for longer buildings in that CG or CS commercial District right that's correct we've asked for a longer Residential Building in the CL District because the CL District permits longer buildings unlimited length of other uses so we're we're looking for is the residential to be treated the same way the other uses in the CL are treated that there is not a limitation on the length the length of the building would be limited by the other instruments within the zoning ordinance such as uh setbacks coverage ratios and things like that the length of the building fits within the box that's um calculated by the other zoning requirements within the ordinance that that holds true on any other lot whether it's this lot in the CL District or another lot on Broad Street in the CL District um you can only put as much buildings on that lot or that property as you can fit within the constraints defined by the coverage ratios and the setbacks the length is a function of that the density is a function of the lot area so from what I heard from all that your point is that if you just have a commercial building the CL District it's not limited as to length right no other use in the CL has a limit length limitation how about in the the CG or CS are there length limitations for uh non- multi family dwelling uses I I couldn't answer that without without reviewing and I'm looking I'm here tonight for the CL so I don't I don't I didn't study the cgnc you're here tonight for your property at 2300 Handover Avenue right we're here about the CL District that treats the multi family different than every other use in the district have we looked have you looked at other Lots other CL District lots and analyze them as to whether uh this amendment would would impact them in a positive way negative way neutral way yeah uh actually I have I've looked at uh different locations along Broad Street that's one of the areas where there's c um and if you're able to um assemble a series of properties adjacent to each other you would have that uh same situation where you may want to look at a Redevelopment of a a particular block or an area that would be desirable for the city or for residents or whomever um we'd have that same problem if I if I put an assemblage of four or five properties together in the CL District I wouldn't be able to build a building over 180 ft in that that manner now if you're talking about a a 25 foot wide CL lot then that's that's not something I looked at specifically but I have looked at areas in the CL District where you could assemble Lots together and you'd have the same problem where you can put I could put an office building that's 275 feet long but if I wanted to do a less intense residential multif family use on that assemblage I would be limited to 180 ft and then I'm back to the same um constraints and impacts of that length that I spoke about earlier regarding cost increases and other things that could affect the feasibility of a project can you turn to page 25 in zoning ordinance from what I heard that testimony that you just talked about the idea here is that if you were able to consolidate lots of little CL Lots into one large Mass lot like it's said 23 Han Avenue 2300 H Avenue you'd have a situation where you could put long buildings on those on that Consolidated track right well I I I would just want to clarify or it's not a matter of massive okay it's 180 feet and if you put together um six properties along Broad Street that would be wider than uh 200 feet I'd have that same issue where I could put a building over 180 fet that's a residential use but I could put any other use permitted in CL without any limitation on it so it's not a matter of finding a massive piece of ground this is this this isn't relative to the Handover Avenue property it's relative to any assemblage if it's over 180 feet I'd have the same problem where I'd have to break up a building for no for no reason other than it's a residential building and not an office building fair enough now you mentioned properties on Broad Street here and combining lots to get to a point where you could put a building there of longer than 180 feet in length now forget about the buildings right now just just the Lots on Broad Street the the front of lots on Broad Street how many Lots on there in the seal District which is along West Broad Street let's focus on that how many Lots on on that street exceed 180 foot frontages I I don't know I haven't looked at that isn't that important to know the Lots the size of the lots that wait tankk if I the size of the lots that actually exist today and not some imagined scenar in the future where you can buy all them up and consolidate them how about the lots that exist today but those those lots exist and if I can buy those lots I can consolidate those lots so it's not an imaginary uh thing I just we I I did that on a project I'm working on now on lyen Street uh the old Stefano there were two lots that were Consolidated into one parcel and I got a zoning variance for that that was a CS District Pro property uh I got a variance from to go from 180 ft to 271 ft and that was not an imaginary thing it's just it's what happens when you have adjacent parcels and it happens all the time it's not an imaginary type of thing I I understand it happens but in terms of lots on Broad Street that we're going to consolidate we're talking about things that haven't happened yet right you're you're you're talking about Lots on Broad Street that could accommodate a 100 80 foot plus building I'm talking about Lots in the district I'm talking about the district and if those lots exist in the district and I assemble those lots I can consolidate those lots to create a building and the length of that building is going to be dictated in this case by the use only dictated the length is only dictated if it's a multif family use I should say understood as we sit here tonight and we we agreed that uh along West Broad Street I think almost all that land is in the SE District right I believe a majority of it is I wouldn't say all of it but you Mo most of it is as we see here tonight though we haven't or you haven't identified any Lots in that District along West Broad Street that are wide enough that could accommodate a 180 foot building I guess aside from your property uh I don't know I think the answer to your question but let me finish the response is I have not identified a specific property over 180 ft but I also wasn't looking for a property over 180 ft I was looking at assemblages of properties and I think it would I don't think it's appropriate to discuss those because it's it's it's not here um but that is that is an issue with this Zone because it does limit your ability um of how you would redevelop a property for a particular use the only use in the CL that has that issue is the multif family every other use within the district does not um have a length limitation the length of the building is governed by all the other setbacks and Zoning um requirements of the ordinance and that's what limits those lots uh the buildings on those Lots now there is there there was a building in the CL uh would just came up a couple months ago on Third Street um that was in the CL that came in I got a zoning variance they needed a variant so it's it's it seems to be a common thing that the building length is an issue for developers um and the normal course of action has been the good of the the zoning hearing board obviously but in this case it seems to be an issue with the Zone because every other use in the zone can be over 180 or has no limitation it can be over 180 feet now these variances you're mentioning right now are any of them for projects with more than one multif family dwelling building yes uh building or dwelling building you have you have four proposed buildings on on your tra right yes okay these other projects where Varian have been variances have been granted to construct multif family dwelling buildings in excess of 180 feet any of those projects include or any of those projects uh consisting of more than one multif family dwelling building uh I know one in yeah I know two in particular uh were two buildings could have fit on the site but a variance was granted to only have one to allow one longer building to avoid having putting two buildings on so my the answer to my question is yes then those other projects where variances been have been granted to build buildings longer than 180 feet all consist of only one multif family dwelling building right they have one building on the site and on your site you have four multifamily dwelling buildings all of which you're seeking variances for right no I'm not I'm not here I'm not here seeking a variance we're talking about all of which all of which you want to put you have four buildings all of which you would like to build longer than 180 feet correct I'd like all those buildings to be treated like every other use in the district which is there is not a limitation on the length of the building it's governed by the zoning ordinance and requirements could the witness answer my question sorry can could the witness answer my question could you please restate your question and please use your microphone thank you the buildings on your tra 2300 Handover Avenue those four buildings you would like to have them be over 180 feet in length right yes the buildings on the exhibit are over 180 feet in length exhibit three and the other variances even where granted I I acknowledge some variances have been granted for buildings multif family dwelling buildings in excess of 180 feet in those projects we were just talking about one multif family dwelling building right I believe so I have to look at the some examples here see if there's more one yeah and so Mr Wagner just just to bring this to a conclusion I had you turn to page 25 there's a purpose there this is this list some purposes of the various zoning districts right and and there's a purpose there for limited commercial District do you see that yes I do and what it says there is to provide for Less intensive types of commercial uses in areas that include many existing homes or small lots that are immediately adjacent to residential neighborhoods the intent is to control uses that are most likely to generate nuisances or hazards for nearby residents such as 24-hour operations that's what it says correct yes spec specifically it mentions small Lots right that's what it says correct yes that's yes right yes but it also says less intensive types of commercial uses in areas that include many existing homes or small Lots it doesn't say less intensive residential or not intensive resid it doesn't address residential uses in the CL at all from what I'm reading it reads intensive to provide for Less intensive typ of commercial uses I don't see residential no I I'll accept that right it it doesn't this purpose for the CL District doesn't address residential uses in the district at all I agree with you that right that's what you're saying uh yeah yeah that that's what I'm saying and I'm sure I'm sure there's more now now you have more to say right okay I can wait if you want to finish no no no you I no go ahead go ahead now you have more to say but where where I was thinking with that is um it provides less intensive commercial uses in the district if residential uses are not a concern of intensity then what's the need for the building length limitation when the concern for the district or the purpose of the district is to provide for Less intensive types of commercial uses but in that very same district there's no limitation on building length which leads me to believe that building length has nothing to do with intensity building length has nothing to do with intensity if if if the purpose of the district is to provide for a wide variety of commercial uses I'm sorry I'm sorry to provide for a less intense I was reading off the wrong uh for cl to provide for Less intensive types of commercial uses so if the goal of the district or the purpose is to provide less intensive types of commercial uses and that District provides no limitation on the length of those commercial uses then I would say that building length is not related to intensity because if it was then then those use would have a limitation on their length wouldn't they I I don't mean the question I'm sorry didn't I didn't I caught myself there I apologize if if we removed residential uses if if we removed multif family dwellings as permitted uses in the CL District would that I guess would you have an issue with that let's let's say multif family dwellings weren't a permitted use in the SE District would that pose a problem I don't I don't think I understand you're you're you're saying that somehow limiting the length of a multif family dwelling in what is expressly a commercial district is somehow constitutionally in firm right that's your position well I don't know that it's I'm G to object I think the amend the the petition speaks for itself that our position is laid out in the petition that was filed with the council that's our petition if you want to know what it is you can read that well don't I ask get ask questions about the basis for that position that that's reflected in his petition if the idea here is that um the the ordinance in 1322 L is is constitutionally infirm because it unduly restricts uh the uses of property in The Limited commercial District okay let me pose the question to him if we eliminated more if we if we eliminated more uses would would that be inly restricted we seem to be focusing here on the limitation of the of a of a building length for a residential use right but we're allowing residential uses in the first place in a commercial District that in of itself is an extension or expansion of the permitted uses they want to say that well given that expansion to residential uses in a commercial District now somehow you can't limmit it to 18 when that's the limitation in all residential districts what I'm saying here is the city has expanded the number of uses in a commercial District so why can't we regulate those uses the same in the same way that we regulate residential uses or multif family dwelling uses in residential districts I think the qu I think the witness gets answer the question if if we just eliminated multif family dwellings from the CL District would that satisfy their concerns would that make it more rational from their perspective I think your question goes beyond the scope of the petition and calls for speculation so what I would ask you to BU a new course for your questioning Mr Wagner you're not seeking to eliminate the 180 foot restriction in the residential districts correct no I'm asking for the uh 180 fot limitation on multifam in the CL to be treated the same way was treated in the CB and the irr and as the same way the building length and all other uses in the CL is treated there is not a building link limitation on any other use in the CL except the multifam and for the CB and the irr districts right one of the purposes and we go back to the purpose page here right I just want to just get these into the record right for the central business district the purpose there is to provide for an orderly coordinated development of varied Commercial Business and office uses in combination with limited intensive residential development in the Central Business areas of North Bethlehem and South Bethlehem and to encourage Excellence of design in the development of properties to promote pedestrian friendly uses as opposed to uses that are autod dependent that's what it says correct uh it it does say that and that also it says it says more than that it says more than that to me or provides a question is that I give you I've let you go on here is is that what it says though yeah that's all that it saysed limited intensive residential development very good okay and my my only issue with that is course there's there's more I'm sure there there well the CB the CB zone is actually I would argue your most intense most dense residential area where you could put multif family because in the CB there is no minimum square foot like every other Zone has a lot area you need a lot area if you're in CS it reverts to 4,000 square F feet per unit is what your count is so if you have a 400,000 foot lot 400,000 foot lot you can put a you could put a 100 units there right I I get it's a very CB is a very dense District CB it has no limitation no uh minimum lot area size so it it says it's for limited intensive residential development but um the boy theater is putting I think on a 200 foot long area 200 units in one building um there is no if again if in if if intensity is is the concern of of limited intensity in the CB District then it seems it just seems odd that you wouldn't have a way to measure the intensity the only the only way to measure it I think in the CB is you're limited to I believe 150 ft in Building height um so you can't exceed 12 to 15 stories depending on what you're per floor height is um but I don't know how you limit intensive residential development if you don't have any um density measure the CB District allows for very intense development right I I think it allows for very intense residential not limited intense residential which is contradictory to the purpose but that's not what we're here for well the CB District allows for intense residential development right limited intense residential development and there's there's no such language about intensive residential development in the purpose for the CL District right no but it does it does talk about intensive commercial it doesn't mention it does not it's silent on residential so the silence suggests that it should be even what more intense than we see in the CB no I I think it just should be uh it's not a matter of intensity I'm not the the intensity to me deals directly with density and the density we're not here to talk about density uh density calculations the density is what it is in the CL um 1,200 fet per unit is the density calculation and that's we're not we're not talking about that we're just talking about a build an arbitrary building length on one specific use within the CL where every other use has no building length and often results in a much more intense use of the property but the parking setback requirement ments similar requirements for the CB District in general allow for more dense and intense development than those of the CL district is that fair to say I don't think uh I I believe so but I don't think the CB even has a parking there's no parking requirement for residential in the CB I don't believe in in the Central Business history yes okay nothing else any redirect I have no redirect but just procedurally what's going to happen next is our next witness is going to be Mr Tom commit he's going to testify as to tabs 15 through 19 what I'd like to do before Mr Wagner steps down to Simply to have him authenticate those he's not going to testify as to them but he did generate those so I would ask that he look at those and tell me if they're true and accurate representations without objection if I may any objection please proceed okay uh these were 15 through it would be 15 through 19 I'll give you a longer moment 15 to consider whether you 15 through tab 19 Mr just authenticate these exib just authenticate unless you just wanna minut we don't have to go through that if you don't want to that's up to you there's been a request for a five minute recess I'll stipulate to them okay he's he stipulated to their authenticity very good okay very good five minute recess okay well I'll tell e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e we all have our own AG give thank you this stage all right Council I believe everyone is back are you ready to go back on record we're ready okay you may proceed okay very good um let's see here we get lined up so the next witness is going to be Mr Tom kit seated to my right Tom you've been sworn is that correct uh yes could you uh state your name spell your name for the recorder please yes Thomas J kamit C M TTA and at tab number 13 we see a CV is that your CV uh yes and you're familiar with that yes it's true and accurate as of this evening uh yes why don't you give us a little summary of your background training and experience please um yes um so in July of last year I celebrated my 50th anniversary of work as a municipal planning consultant uh currently my company Thomas commit Associates represents 26 municipalities in Pennsylvania as their planning consultant uh since 1973 I have worked for approximately 150 municipalities and have uh during that time prepared many Zing ordinances subdivisional Land Development ordinances comprehensive plans and so forth and testified at many hearings okay and uh you're familiar with the Curative Amendment that's before the board this evening uh yes and you're familiar with the exhibits that are about to follow that I said that I had Mr Wagner authenticate those oh yes okay you're prepared to speak to those as we go through oh yes hear I would ask that Mr committed be allowed to testify as an expert in uh in planning okay so Mr kit let's uh let's turn the page let's go to tab number 14 you're familiar with tab number 14 what are we looking at there yes um tab number 14 actually through um 40 I'm familiar with uh thematically excuse me they all pertain to buildings in excess of 180 ft and uh exhibit 14 tab 14 is a chart that has um a key to upcoming exhibits that are identified in the left column um thereafter it talks about the district in which they are located and horizontally on exhibit 14 is a green highlighted area identifying the seven um instances where in the SE District um buildings exceed 180 ft ranging from 186 289 up to 332 ft and then it gives the address uh the use that's involved the status and uh certain footnotes okay so that's a summary of about what of what's to come uh yes okay very good let's go ahead let's take a look at tab 15 tab 15 um is titled residential buildings exceeding 180 foot length in all zening districts and um as I mentioned in tab 14 it gives the various addresses whereas on exhibit 15 11 by 17 Google Earth aerial map it identifies with the green um Point uh where the particular lot is located and again it gives the addresses um for those properties and seven of those um as indicated it's have 14 our CL District I'm going to do so you don't have to keep going back and forth I'm going to lay this over here okay okay that'll that'll keep you from flipping around okay thank you I'm just goingon to lay exhibit 14 over here for him so 15 I guess that information is contained on 14 right yeah actually actually on 15 it's all zoning districts whereas on following tab 16 it's residential buildings in CL only that would be the green block that we're talking about here on 14 yeah that would be the green block so what you see there are the properties that are highlighted with the pink um pointer um for the properties that are that are identified so if I collected that information and put put it on a chart I'd end up with exhibit 14 with that little green block is that correct yes okay now what about exhibit 17 exhibit 17 um then shows um um buildings exceeding 180 foot length all uses whereas the preceding were um residential uses and um going back to 15 as I said all zoning districts exceeding 180 16 the CL district and then 17 um again CL District um all use is 180 ft I know that you're working with tight space between your microphone and your exhibits but your witness is a little bit hard to hear please keep your voice up and speak into the microphone sorry about that okay thank thank you okay so we had just looked at exhibit 17 and those exhibits collectively provide the information that summarized in exhibit 14 is that correct correct very good so what happens when we move on to exhibit 18 well 18 through um 40 are just individual highlights of um the particular properties that are listed and ex exhibit 14 so it starts if you go to exhibit 14 and you look at the chart you have all the addresses from the top to the bottom of the chart that then corresponds with exhibits 18 through 40 let me just stop you there because so we don't get confused there's a distinction between the exhibits and the tabs so obviously we're at at at tab 18 and if you look the pages all have exhibit numbers on them you're referring to the exhibit numbers oh yes okay very good go ahead so for example at tab 18 exhibit 18 is identified as 30 West BR Street and beneath it it says residential and Commercial and then if you look back at exhibit 14 tab 14 that's the first one that's listed and again the the Nexus between these is identified in the left column on exhibit 14 it then identifies all exhibits 18 through 40 so in the interest of time I I think I would just point out that exhibits 18 through 40 is a sequential enlargement of each property that is listed in exhibit 14 tab 14 but it is shown at a much easier to read scale of of the Google Earth map and it it then corresponds with the actual building length so that uh for example um just to go in the CL District let's say we went to um Taps 23 exhibit 23 so the first property that um is highlighted in exhibit 23 is at 1337 East Fifth Street and the dimension is 225 ft that's the same Dimension that appears in exhibit 14 and then uh tab 24 exhibit 24 332 feet for uh 1866 Auburn tab 20 exhibit 25 residential 1325 Chelsea um that's 189 ft Tab and exhibit 26 329 wood lawn 197 ft T 27 and exhibit 27 uh 1333 East Forth Street um that is 221 ft and then um the next CL um 565 Westley High Street which is uh 186 ft and the import of this is um to demonstrate that there are many cases uh in the city as indicated in exhibit 14 where the building length exceeds 180 ft and in particular seven in the CL District um as evidenced by all the exhibits that I just described and then thereafter exhibit 29 tab 29 uh gets into CS District as does 30 as does 31 and 32 um in exhibit 33 it's the irr district um and that's 610 East Third Street uh 302 feet exhibit in tab 34 260 ft exhibit and tab 35 um one Dimensions 275 the other one's 360 ft exhibit and tab 36 um that one is actually um 264 ft fet exhibit and tab 37 in the RG District 2854 lyen Street 219 ft exhibit and Tab 38 2897 eastn Avenue at 186 ft and then we're getting close to finishing on 39 exhibit and tab it's 206 feet at 345 2 Avenue and exhibit 40 in the RT District 360 conoga Street uh 305 ft so for the benefit of city council um the chart and exhibit in tab 14 and those exhibits that I just briefly summarized from um tab 15 through exhibit 15 through exhibit 40 um they fit hand and glove okay um hold on catch up with you here okay I think we now we're up to tab 19 uh yes why don't you tell us you recognize first of all I see TCA at the top what is that yeah so TCA is the abbreviation for Thomas commit Associates and um at tab uh 19 exhibit 41 appears it's a onepage 8 and a half by 11 exhibit that's titled permitted uses in the CL limited commercial district for which buildings could potentially exceed 180 ft in length and there are 24 uses listed uh ranging from Arena or Auditorium uh through city government uses and facility um and the notes indicate 24 permitted uses in Seal District or uses that lend themselves to building types that can have building lengths in aund in excess of 180 ft and note number two most significant to this Curative Amendment proceeding only multif family dwellings have a 180 ft maximum building length requirement and um as was pointed out in the Curative Amendment um the request to city council is to cure the defect in the ordinance because if you allow all those uses um to exceed 180 ft in length um we're asking consideration for allowing multifam to enjoy the same Privileges and rights that those other 24 uses currently have and and this this the let's pause on that for a second are there life safety concerns with that request well I've been wrri sorry if we're getting into kind of expertise of a building code official I don't think the testimony is relevant if I can respond you may respond the man's a professional planner as part of he can tell us as part of his duties and profession and laying out comprehensive plans zoning ordinances and all the things that he does for all the municipalities he does them for one of the things that he must pay attention to are life safety issues so as he develops these ordinances which is what we're talking about is a zoning ordinance he has to be cognizant of things such as density uh life safety intensity all of the all the things that dictate good planning and conversely poor planning so I would suspect that he's perfectly capable of providing an answer that would be helpful to this Council and coming to a conclusion if you can briefly lay that foundation with your witness allow you to proceed okay very good so Tom in in Your Capacity as a planner and and do you deal with zoning ordinances oh yes comprehensive plans yes so in in that capacity are you do you have to be aware of and take it into account life safety issues when you're working with those types of documents oh yes and I I have worked for 50 almost 51 years and um in all the ordinances that I've prepared and in tab 13 of the second page of tab 13 exhibit 13 says number of zoning ordinances prepar since 1981 over 65 I am not aware of any rule or law or requirement and if I was I would have already reflected it in in the work that I've written um to make limitations uh so I'm not aware of any life safety reason that the 24 uses currently Allowed by the city and cl can enjoy a building length in 180 ft and why multif family dwellings cannot I'm not aware of any I I have three certifications since 1977 I'm a certified planner since 1993 I'm a certified licensed landscape architect and since 2002 I'm accredited uh Congress from new urbanism for each of those I have to take a lot of continuing education classes um usually close to about 80 hours a year for the last 50 years or let's say 48 years um and I am not aware of any reason from Life Safety that multif family would be limited in fact multif family is permitted in excess of 180 fet elsewhere in the city is it not uh yes okay let's uh let's move on number 20 again I believe this is an exhibit that was prepared by your office is that correct yes um so what are we looking at here so tab 20 exhibit 42 is a onepage 8 and A2 by 11 exhibit it's titled multifam SL residential midrise apartment used cing district and Metric and um the comparison is just really to look in the Lehigh Valley at um the cities of Bethlehem Allentown and Easton I first started working in the Lehigh Valley 1973 um I worked with the Lehi Valley it was then called The Joint Planning Commission of Lehi and Northampton counties for two years as a consultant when I was at Weston um on the co uh 208 water quality management plan for both um Lehigh and Northampton counties um during which time became familiar with uh the codes of the municipalities uh since then I actually did prepare the city of Easton zoning code several years ago uh when I was there planning consultant but simply stated in exhibit 42 I wanted to give Council the benefit of seeing how Allentown Bethlehem Easton compare from an area and bulk regulation standard whereby in the city of Allentown in Easton there is not a 180 foot building length but obviously as noted in um exhibit 42 um for the clal district um it shall not exceed 180 ft in length except as was testified by Mr Wagner that um there are other um commercial office industrial uses where buildings can exceed 180 ft just like I mentioned um in the preceding exhibit of 41 so the note here is the cities of alltown eon do not have building length limits like the 180 foot limit in Bethlehem um and further it says the city of Bethlehem imposes a 180 foot maximum building length requirement for multif family dwellings in all districts including the CL District except that in the irr and CB districts where there are no building length limits however Industrial and Commercial buildings can exceed 180 feet in length now I want to back this is my fault I want to back up minute we didn't take a look at this skip over this yeah that's the next one you got them oh mine are out of order I have a different order okay I apologize so go ahead we we'll work with yours so the next tab uh exhibit 43 yes see these These are reversed I apologize some of these have them reversed we just did 42 and now we're going to do 43 oh yes so my mind first go ahead exhibit 43 is a onepage 82 by 11 exhibit uh the top of which is uh intensity the word intensity that's underlined and and it's dated today April 30 2024 so um during City council's deliberations let's say after tonight you're curious and you want to Google the word intensity and do a deep dive in in any kind of treatise authoritative Source uh what you would find when you do that um would be that um in uh Source number one which is a document measuring density working definitions for residential density and building intensity um authored by Design Center for American Urban landscape University of Minnesota November 2003 um intensity is described as the function of the relationship between building Mass development cover and project open space B on a given land area physical indicators related to how much built area there is on a site uh second in the tretis titled the latest illustrated book of De development definitions coming out of Rucker 2004 intensity of use is defined as the number of dwelling units per acre for residential development and floor area ratio for non-residential development such as commercial office and Industrial Source number three uh written by Fred Steiner and Kent Butler at the University of Texas at Austin really talks about the environmental uh aspect of regulation of land use and intensity and Source number four um comes from the New Lebanon Ohio zoning ordinance where there's a land use intens it scale and it talks about the purpose of land use intensity is to relate the land area and open space to each other and then it goes on to talk uh more about what that means um the point is that um the building length limit of 180 feet uh in my experience 51 years well July 16th it'll be 51 so 50 and a half years um I have not seen or I have not used building length as a element to address intensity I have used building coverage impervious coverage uh the amount of open space um on a lot unit count is that something that sometimes oh yeah I mean um unit count could be involved um what that's more a driver of impervious and so I'm sorry but that's more a driver of impervious any other things that you mentioned right and as Mr fruck Illustrated in his exhibits you actually get a less intense effect with the buildings that are shown in what Mr said was the preferred exhibit three that has more open space than you would by achieving the 180 ft where you have more building coverage and more impervious coverage thereby more intensity okay let's keep rolling I think we're at exhibit oops we're jump it we're at 44 right yes we're at 44 and and so uh in preparing for the hearing tonight I I reviewed the city of Bethlehem comprehensive plan um and the purpose of including exhibit 44 in the exhibit binder is simply to highlight that the site in question um is identified as high density residential so from the standpoint of um the discernment that uh burough city council has to uh engage in for this Curative Amendment proceeding I thought it was important to highlight that the subject property is identified in the future land use plan as high density residential very good okay exhibit 45 um simply stated um on the sheet of 11 by1 17 there's the colorcoded version of the city of Bethlehem officials and map 2018 that identifies in a salmon like color the CL limited commercial district and if you liken the exhibit to a clock at 9 o'clock um is the subject property that is highlighted with the letter c on it as well as the other CL districts in the city and obviously this property yeah all the way up by the border without correct okay gotcha yeah at the end of Broad Street yep exhibit 46 yeah exhibit 46 is the last exhibit in the binder um and it's an exhibit that I prepared it scales at 1 inch equals 200 feet I used this exhibit when I visited the site to familiarize myself with um property in question and the surrounding area okay now Mr committee you're familiar with the petition Curative amendment that was filed is that correct oh yes and in that petition we've alleged that this subject zoning provision this 180 foot building length limitation on apartments in the CL Zone uh has no rational relationship to a legitimate governmental interest you're familiar with that phraseology oh yes I I am yes okay can you can you talk a little bit about that given your experience training and background and can you give an opinion as to whether that provision that provision is is or is not rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest uh yes um in in so doing I wanted to uh first point out that the municipality's planning code act 247 of 1968 as amended has an article six ran numeral 6 which is titled zoning um and I suppose the attorneys could take judicial notice of the Pennsylvania municipalities planning code um but what I'm like going to do to answer your question Mr Preston is U mention in section 605 um called classifications um uh it talks about in any municipality which enacts a zoning ordinance no part of the municipality shall be left unzoned it goes on to say um the provisions of all zening districts may be classified so that different Provisions may be applied to different classes of situations uses and structures um where zoning districts are created all Provisions shall be uniform for each class of use or structures except that additional classifications may be made and then it points out well what are what are the exceptions and it talks about transitional Provisions non-conforming uses major thoroughfares bodies of water steep slope public buildings aircraft helicopter um historic and Architectural areas flood planes agricultural areas landfills and so forth and so um when Mr Preston you first brought to my attention the Curative Amendment um you asked me on first blush after I looked at all the facts that I just testified to um you know my overall takeaway and the first thing I said to you Mr Preston was that I found it odd that in the same district you would allow those 24 uses and as the other exhibits that Mr  depicted uh allow buildings in excess of 180 ft to to whatever No Cap uh for commercial office industrial buildings but um it is for residential so that gave me pause and um I thought that was a legitimate reason um to request the Curative amendment in my uh 50 plus years of experience representing almost 140 municipalities I have been involved in about 22 Curative Amendment proceedings and essentially in 1972 the legislature put the Curative amendment process in the municipalities planning code to bring to the attention of a governing body that at least in our opinion that there is a defect in the ordinance and we're asking discernment and consideration of curing that defect you know I know that we enter the room and it's tense and everybody's cross and examining and all nervous and so forth but the municipalities planning code set up the Curative amendment process as an administrative remedy to ask a governing body to consider the merits of what we're saying and so um even though uh based on like the tone of cross-examination seems like we're in an adversarial setting the Curative amendment is meant to be an administrative remedy and I've sat through it in many hearings and many municipalities and um you know it's it's for city council to decide and it's our job to put on the evidence hopefully the city council will be convinced uh on the preponderance of our evidence that uh we have a good point and we'll find out okay uh no further questions attorney deser committ if city council wanted to could it amend the zoning ordinance to eliminate multifamily dwellings as a permitted use in the CL District it could yes so the idea here is that having allowed multif family dwelling uses in the seal District it canot City Council cannot impose any kind of length limitation on that use is that your testimony could you repeat the question sorry okay you you said that city council could eliminate multif family dwelling uses totally from the CL District they could do many things so that's one of them yes fair enough but but having decided to allow multif family dwellings in the CL District yeah your testimony is that city council cannot put a limit on the building length is that correct I'm not Mr dler I'm not sure how else I can say that or pose the question I mean is your testimony that having decided to through the zoning ordinance allow multif family dwellings in the CL District city council is not permitted to place a cap on the building length if there was a legitimate reason we wouldn't even be here okay so right so there there's there there there can be no cap on the building length in the of a multif family dwelling in the seal District we we believe that the multifam should be treated equally to the other uses in the district and we think that the way it is currently structured it's discriminatory so if the other uses had a 180t liit you would endorse a 180 foot limit for multif family dwellings in the SE District I as a hypothetical I wouldn't even go there I wouldn't do it because I would have no basis on any of my research my work to um come up with that number arbitrarily but I just I want to kind of get get answer my first question right so the question is if city council can eliminate multif family dwellings totally as a permitt use in the CL District you're saying that having allowed them city council is not permitted to place any limit on the building length well I think we're getting ahead of ourselves okay can you answer the question I I I can't answer the question because it is too contorted the matter between before the city council is does a city council agree with our testimony on the arbitrary and disperate use of the limitation on residential yes or no city council can and all these Curative Amendment proceedings I've involved in there's three choices you can accept it you can reject it or you can offer a counter proposal those other items are in the purview of the city council I don't know what they're thinking I don't know hypothetically uh if they have a better mouth strap I don't know that so I can't answer your question I I'm not asking hypothetical I mean this is another witness where I asked Mr Wagner to read it his owning ordinance he reads things that aren't even in the ordinance I'm asking you a simple question having you you've said that city council can eliminate multif family dwellings as a permitted use in this District if they can do that is it your testimony that having allowed multif family dwellings there can be no limit on the building length can can you answer the question that's I think that's a fair question they they um that's what we're asking for yes I mean I mean I I think we've made it infinitely clear so the answer is yes I think that answers your question the answer is that city council cannot put a cap on the building l i i interpret the question to say well I don't understand your question but what I thought you wanted me to answer was if they agree with our Curative Amendment and they remove the Restriction is that good and I'd say yes that's not my question I'm going to ask it again you testify that city council can eliminate multif family dwellings as a permitted use in the seal District they can do many things that's one of them fair enough if they can eliminate it as a permitted use in the seal district and you you you agree they can do that okay then having allowed multif family dwellings in the SE District as they have right is it your testimony that city council can place no limit on the building length of a multif family dwelling building I said yes before I'll say yes again and with respect to the uses that you went over I think and this is exhibit 41 uh so tab 19 maybe yes tab 19 tab 19 exhibit 41 right now you would testify that it's um it's irrational to treat the multif family dwelling use differently from all the other permitted uses um in the CL District in terms of building length right highlight it bold underline all caps yes now multif Family dwellings that is a a residential use correct that's correct a residential use that City Council in the zoning ordinance has decided to permit in the CL district and some other commercial districts right right the one through 24 uses that you've identified in exhibit 41 that are permitted uses in the CL District are any of those residential uses you could have well Moravian College is a college or university and there is dormitories so if you allow me to say that a dormatory is a residential use on a college or university yes I think the zoning ordinance has special rules for dormitories but if we just look at colleges and universities I mean is is that typically just looking at a college and university in your experience is that typically considered a residential use I went to Penn State and to Harvard and all those buildings um had a variety of office residential recreational institutional health services so it's a broad uh it's a broad band that you're allowed all right is is the primary purpose of a College University to provide a housing students it's to educate students right I mean unless you're in Spring City Spring Garden Institute I brought in Spring Garden where there's no dorms okay I'm not going to dwell on this but the the the purpose of a multi family dwelling is for housing of individuals correct that is the primary purpose of of that use right that be correct and just 180 ft right that is the equivalent of half a football field plus one end zone of the football field right 60 yards correct yeah so we have 300 feet plus the two end and so we'll figure out the numbers but you're you're in the ball part 60 yards equals 180 feet right oh yes just to give some illustration about how how long that is right okay and you've you've been here throughout all the testimony correct oh yes and and you heard me question Mr Wagner when I was asking about the the purposes of of the CL District right and how the purpose is to provide for Less intensive types of commercial uses in areas that include many existing homes or small lots that are immediately adjacent to residential neighborhoods that's that's what it says correct I believe you called that out on page 25 25 the zoning ords yes and this this track that we're talking about here at 2300 Handover Avenue um which is in the SE District right corre are there any other Lots or tracks uh in the SE District that big no that is the largest tra in the seal District right as far as lot width yes and and and maybe you know maybe you don't but we we have the zoning map here I think in one of your exhibits that um that that is a city zoning ordinance map it's the next to last okay number 45 right yes and I don't again maybe you know maybe you don't but when we're looking at the the frontages of properties in the CL District um do do you know what percentage of them have frontages in excess of even the building length Max of 180 180 feet I don't know but as you can discern we all can discern on exhibit 45 uh on Broad Street the closer you get to the downtown the smaller lot width the narrower the L was and your testimony about the the future land use plan this is exhibit 44 after tab 22 um you do indicate that the property at 2300 Handover Avenue is indeed noted in brown for high density residential right correct right so if it were high density if it were in a high density residential Zone what would the limit be for multif family dwellings what would the building length limit be if it's if it's rezoned to an RT District what would the building length limit be well the comprehensive plan doesn't get into those metrics what what what zoning District does high density residential in the comprehensive plan correlate to to my knowledge although you might point out some page that I am not aware in a comp plan where it tells you that answer I I don't know that answer in every residential zoning District in the city of Bethlehem where multif family dwelling buildings are permitted it is true that the limit on building length is is 180 ft correct correct so if if this tract were rezoned into the city's high density residential Zone the building length limit would be 180 feet for multif family dwelling buildings right so were saying the same question you asked me earlier hypothetically if the city council wanted to change the zone you asked me before if they wanted to get rid of residential is it correct now that you're asking me to assume a District change well let's let's let's look at the map here okay on the future land use plan so this is an ex this is the I guess proposed future land use plan in the city's comprehensive plan we we see the section along West Broad Street there in there's a lot of pink there right oh yeah you see that and that's his neighborhood commercial correct correct now the and and we know from testimony tonight that the the land along West Broad Street there is Zone CL limited commercial right correct as is the subject property currently right cor correct now the land or sorry the subject property 2300 Han Avenue is not identified in pink here it's brown right correct round for high density residential correct corre now doesn't that suggest that in this future land use plan while the land along the strip West Broad there would remain limited commercial at least the future land land use plan might anticipate resoning the tract at 2300 H Avenue into the highdensity residential district it doesn't suggest that to me because I don't know what Urban research and development Corp and whoever with the city had in mind for that uh often time that's not a specific rational Nexus to go from one point to the other the reason I thought it was important to point out is why would the comprehensive plan Advocate high density residential and then penalize the multifam in ways different than the other districts and uh in case um in case city council is wondering about um that question and answer um part of the relationship to the comp plan to the zoning ordinance um in the municipality's planning code in SE 303 C Small C quote not withstanding any other provision of this act no action of the governing body of a municipality shall be invalid nor shall the same be subject to challenge or Appeal on the basis that such action is inconsistent with or fails to comply with the provision of the comprehensive plan attorney Preston can you just make sure that that microphone is a little bit closer to your witness please getting very hard to hear him again would you like me to repeat that you're yeah you're also competing with the rain ah your m m your might might be off press that button there we go okay sorry about that um I'll speak more slowly um what I was citing from the municipalities planning code in section 303 U pen small C and Pen quote notwithstanding any the provision of this act no Act of the governing body of the municipality shall be invalid nor shall the same be subject to challenge or Appeal on the basis that such action is inconsistent with or fails to comply with the provision of the comprehensive plan I was simply using that as a gesture to try to figure out why did the comp plan call high density and the zoning penalizes the use compared to residential I'm sorry to Commercial and Industrial that's all and that's the emphasis and weight I chose to put on that exhibit and that's your testimony understanding that for high density residential zones in the city that 180 foot limit would apply to any multif family dwelling you would put in that District right hypothetically well not hypothetically the zoning ordinance it's not zon that way so I have to say hypothetically in a right it okay fine let's do this hypothetically if the property were rezoned into the city's high density residential zoning District RT what would the limit of a multif family dwelling building length be 180 and there's a lot of testimony about the uh I just want to pull out the tabs here so I guess after tab 18 we see exhibits 18 and they go through 40 um with with regard to any of these exhibits that's depicting a a building length in the CL District in excess of 180 ft um is that excess distance obtained by the grant of a variance uh bear with me which exhibit was that well I just speaking generally but I guess if we start an exhibit 22 that's a property in the CL District at 225 East 4th Street that you say is 195 feet in length right tell me what exhibit you're on this is exhibit 22 22 thank you uh yes I guess I mean do we know this was a variance or this is a non-conforming building built before the zoning ordinance I mean do we know Mr Wagner knows I don't know I don't know I I'll just point out for the record if you look at the pictures anyone that received the variance it's noted on there you'll see length variance if it doesn't say length variance it was a granite so if you flip through you'll see some that say length variance okay lower left or or upper right where's my that's so exhibit 25 at exhibit 25 5 is a variance granted for a building in the SE District right the 189 ft for 1325 Chelsea Avenue and that would be a a 9- foot variance correct uh correct exhibit 26 that's another property in the SE District it's at 197 feet in length that's a that's commercial space right right correct so that wouldn't be subject to the 180 foot limit right correct exhibit 27 this is a building in the seal District it's residential and commercial that did receive a variance uh to build a building of 221 ft in line correct correct and it it's true Mr Mr comma in in terms of treating um residential uses in these commercial districts equally uh we see that um the 180 foot limit is not imposed for multif family dwellings in the CB District correct are correct okay but in terms of where in these commercial districts the limit is imposed it's not just the CL but for multif family dwelling buildings in the CG and the Cs districts that 180 foot limit is also imposed on multif family dwellings correct correct all right that's all I have thank you redirect yes thank you okay Tom let's start with this notion of the resoning the property to RT now I believe you testified that agreed with Mr desler that the RT does impose a 180 foot building length limitation on multif family dwellings is that correct correct now you were asked what if we zoned our particular property to RT all right let's assume that we did that now I wanted you to go to number tab number 19 I'm going to put in front of you this is the zoning ordinance oh yes this is the table that has the RT Zone do you see that uh yes so currently what exhibit um at tab 19 we see uses that are permitted at this property is that correct here uh yes okay and I see an arena or an auditorium is currently permitted at the property is that correct correct if I reson at RT would I be able to do an arena or an auditorium uh no what a b a bus at number three says bus taxi or passenger rail terminal if I rezone this property to RT would I be able to do a bus taxi passenger rail terminal no let's just jump around here I don't know a financial institution if I rezoned at RT would I be able to do a financial institution uh no but I can do that now correct correct uh what about a retail store can I do a retail store if I rezoned it to RT uh no but I can do that now is that correct correct what about an office building if I rezoned it to RT could I do an office building uh no but I can do that now isn't it correct isn't the gist of our argument that the 180 foot limitation on residential uses the apartment uses contrast with the c other permitted uses in the CL zone is that exactly yes is that the gist that we're saying can you see any relevance to hypothesizing about rezoning the property to RT um no and in fact the RT and most of these in fact all the other residential zones if you look the at the uses a single family residence detached dwelling are you familiar with many single family detached dwellings in excess of 180 ft in Charlestown Township where I worked since 73 there are some mcmansions that um are about 225 ft okay but I would say in most parts of the United States no especially with tiny houses okay so the users themselves are sort of self-limiting aren't they correct okay that's all I have Avery cross uh no R cross okay um okay you're done yet uh in a sense I'm done with my witness is we do have questions for darling Hower but Matt told me he was going to call Darling probably an interest of time if he wants to do that or we can do it a different way I don't know I don't have a problem you want me to call her first and you're just crossing her or um I think so depending on what she says um I have no idea what her testimony is I do have questions for her um all right I don't mind call just give me a second [Music] this is the okay [Music] that I'm give you one of these all right I will call Miss heler um just because I had no idea where the city would be with with exhibits I have some exhibits I have for her that aren't pre-marked but I'll tell you what they are and maybe I'll mark one and you can go along with me we'll work our way through it so residing officer you get the your labeled one for now City exhibit one hopefully have a copy can I just have one back next just event okay okay Miss heler um we've marked as exhibit City or exhibit or city exhibit one uh is this your uh CV yes it is okay just uh can you briefly go through your uh Education and Training uh I have a a bachelor's degree in urban and Regional planning um since about 1990 I've been certified as uh certified planner and uh continue to maintain the credits and uh the ongoing certifications for that um in the last 24 years I've been working for the city of Bethlehem as the Director of Planning and Zoning we um administer four of the review boards the Planning Commission the zoning hearing board and two historic review boards we review all land developments and and and permits in the city we manage the neighborhood planning and long range planning processes for the city we assist with Grant Management Grant seeking grant writing um we work with a lot of stakeholders in the group a lot of regional entities that um engage in uh Regional planning then Le have Al Planning Commission and lbts okay good enough for me um in addition it looks like from your your CV you had experience before uh working in the city as a Planning and Zoning officer in Salisbury Township is that correct that's correct from 1992 to 2000 yes and then from 1989 to 1992 you were a planner in the city of Allentown that's correct um and this is a true and accurate copy of your curriculum VTE yes it is I I would offer Miss heler as an expert in uh Planning and Zoning no objection okay so um Miss hel you understand we're here tonight on a uh C of Amendment uh challenge filed by BX LLC right correct yes and are you familiar with the zoning provision at issue that is article 1322 L uh subsection 4 yes and you have your your copy in front of you I can get there okay and again this is the multifamily and and I guess just to back up a second here this this SE of the zoning ordinance article 1322 that we see the the Double L multif family dwelling section and uh what is what does article 1322 deal with 1322 um in its entirety is this are the special Provisions that we have for any uh particular uses almost any um non-residential use or multif family would have special Provisions so they're listed in 1322 so the so the uh Provisions in section Double L uh concern specific Provisions um that relate to multif family dwelling uses right correct and the subsection I issue here is number four except within the irr and CB zoning districts no building shall exceed 180 feet in length measured at ground level or any floor level whether on one Frontage or on the combined frontages of the main Frontage and that of any Wings in the same building that's what it say s correct yes and um when when did this particular provision pop up in the city's zoning ordinance that the history of the ordinance well this ordinance was adopted in uh 2012 um but in the prior versions of the ordinance there were um also limitations uh at the 180 foot length so this wasn't a new thing in the 2012 uh comprehensive revision right no there were modifications but this is not a new not a new provision and in identifying and let me back up and say with with respect to the 180 foot limit um I think there's been some testimony tonight about uh zoning districts residential zoning districts in which you can uh put multifam dwellings correct yes okay and that's not all zoning that's not all residential zoning districts correct uh multif family is not permitted in all okay residential districts and in what and what's yeah and what's zoning districts what residential zoning districts are multif family dwellings permitted I'm going to go there to make sure I don't miss this is on page 29 yes in RG multif family is permitted in uh RG is um medium density in RT which is high density and in rrc which is residential uh retirement commune they uh are permitted and for all those three residential districts where we permit multif family dwellings also known as Apartments um what is the building length of those buildings the maximum allowed is 180 feet for all three of the of these residential zoning districts yes and in terms of um non-residential zoning districts where we permit multif family dwellings um what zoning districts are those this is on page 34 of your book uh CL limited commercial CG General commercial CS shopping center and CB which is Central Business also um irr industrial Redevelopment and um omu which is the Martin Tower site and I think we understand that uh except for the CB and the irr within those or among those non-residential zoning districts again except for the CB and irr uh that 180 foot building length limit would apply correct correct so it's just those two districts the CB and the irr where the 180 foot building length limit does not apply right right and in terms of um the purposes in the zoning ordinance this is this is back to page 24 and 25 um now we we we've looked at these a few times so the CB District um the purpose there to provide for an orderly coordinated development of varied commercial businesses and office uses in combination with limited intensive residential development in the Central Business areas of North Bethlehem and South Bethlehem and to encourage Excellence of design in the development of properties remote pedestrian friendly uses as opposed to uses that are autod dependent that's what it says correct yes okay and in the CB District we know uh the 180 foot multi family building length limit does not apply right correct now is is the purpose of the CD District or let me back up and switch that around is is the exemption from that 180 foot building length limit for multif family dwellings uh consistent with the purpose of the CB District yes it is and and and how's that well Central business district is um uh most intense I use the word intense um and and IR are uh developed areas and that's intended uh to be written that way um I will say too um the zoning ordinance recommendations do come out of the comprehensive plan we did the comprehensive plan in 2008 we immediately followed up with um the zoning ordinance and so the provisions within the zoning ordinance do um enact the recommendations that are within the comprehensive plan and um there are other U requirements or or Provisions within CB that allow for uh density um the building length is just one of them and if we don't address at this point the CL District but look at the irr district on the next page um that's another zoning District where the 180 foot limit does not apply correct correct and the purpose of that district is to promote the economic revitalization on underutilized properties that is historically were used for older industrial uses to allow for a variety of non-residential land uses with flexible design standards to be applied during the site plan approval process to allow to also allow rental and condominium apartment dwellings in combination with complimentary commercial uses in the same building that's what it says correct yes okay and again um the exempting this district from that 18 foot limit for multif family dwellings how is that exemption consistent with the stated purpose of the irr district well the irr district probably has the most flexible um development of of any other district and it actually was um designed that way if you look at the existing buildings that were there at the time they're huge structures and so maybe just back up where is I mean we look we've seen the zoning map where is the irr district it was initially created for what we call the Beth Works area the 120 Acres between um the new Street bridge and the miny Trail bridge um generally speaking um it includes thearts the steel STX campus and the casino and much of what's in between and just talking about the CB District we which we've already referenced where is that located it's located um north side and Southside um generally speaking I'd say on the Northern and the southern ends of the um fee bridge I centered around say Main Street and and Broad Street Main and Broad South Side third and fourth and looking at the stated purpose now on page 25 of the zoning ordinance as to the CL District again to provide for Less intensive types of commercial uses in areas that include many existing homes or small lots that are immediately adjacent to residential neighborhoods the intent is to control uses that are most likely to generate nuisances or hazards for nearby residents such as 24-hour operations so um is is the application now of the 180 foot limit uh consistent with the purpose of the CL District yes it is and why is that well uh this is limited commercial so um it's intended to be less intense um in our prior zoning ordinance um we actually referred to this as neighborhood commercial and if you look at how those quarter how these zoning districts are laid out they are laid out more as quarters along West Broad and East Broad and uh Fourth Street lyen street they abought Residential Properties that are much smaller in size and so the intention is that uh the uh development would be more compatible with the uh residential areas that it transitions to and um in the CL district there there's lot there's been some discussion I guess mostly prompted by me about uh the typical building not let me back up the typical lot Frontage widths uh of properties in the CL District um can you speak to that well they vary um I typically they're not nearly as large as the property in question here um but they all smaller are smaller Lots typically um but they do vary in size um do we see a lot of uh Lots in the SE District um where they have even not talking about buildings but just lot frontages uh in excess of 180 feet or 60 yards there aren't many of those no and um throughout this process is one of the things that um the city does here uh did this secutive amendment go before the city's uh Planning Commission yes and um did did you uh author a memo to the um City's Planning Commission yes and ultimately that memo was passed along to city council yes right and I believe I think all right that was introduced I believe is uh Council isit four is that correct that is correct Stuart I know you handed that to me but that does that include the March 21st 2024 cover sheet along with the memo authored by it does as well as redacted minutes from that meeting of March 14th okay so I won't introduce that myself but so focusing on Council exhibit 4 uh Miss heler uh did the memo that I believe begins on the second page of the overall exhibit that was sent by you to the Plenty commission members uh dated March 7th 2024 is that your memo yes and just overall because the council can can obviously read it for themselves um was this was uh your recommendation uh adverse or or positive with respect to the proposed Cur of amendment adverse and um have you had the chance to review your your memo in advance of this hearing tonight yes um and as written on March 7th uh 2024 um do you still agree with everything that you've put in this memo yes and in particular because we've gone over some of uh the content of the memo in tonight's testimony um but on the uh fourth page of your memo and I would direct everyone's attention to the middle of the page where there's a paragraph that starts in addition the following sections of the zoning ordinance note various distin distinctions between the CL district and CB and IR our districts you see that Miss hel yes and um we you noted there a number of sections of the zoning ordinance correct correct and with respect to um that first bullet point where it says section 1305 allows more intense uses in CB and irr districts that are not allowed in the CL District do you see that yes and then and then what what did we list after that uh there's quite an extensive list of uh uses that would be allowed in both CB and IR are Conference Centers hotels motels hospitals surgery centers Personal Care Homes nursing homes Industrial Equipment Sales rentals and service wood products and Furniture packaging Printing and bookbinding crop farming wholesale green houses uh parking structures recycling collection centers Amusement arcades automobile sales boats and manufactured home sales Beverage distributor plant nursery commercial indoor Recreation commercial outdoor recreation fast food restaurants with a drive-thru indoor Target ranges uh and then there's um some other examples that might be permitted in either CB or IR but not both right not not to cut you off but those uses that you just read were were by right uses in the CB and irr districts right yes but but not in the CL correct yes and byright means you don't need a variance or special exception you're just entitled to it right correct and um with respect to the next bullet point regarding section 135b of the zoning ordinance um what are we addressing there uh this is another provision in the ordinance to try to um maintain the intent of the C zoning District that it would be limited commercial or more neighborhood commercial commercial and it notes that um let me see where I can act that retail stores and restaurant uses in the CL District including a note for say that each business establishment in an existing building shall have a maximum floor area of 10,000 square feet on any one floor of a building and the intention is to have smaller uses to not allow any uh big box type uses in CL and to have uh uses developed and created there that would mirror a neighborhood commercial district and that's a restriction that's limited to the CL District right yes and then uh the next bullet point on page five of the memo this refers to section 136.000 1B it says the whole thing says that section imposes densing limitations for residential use in the SE District but not for the CB district is that correct that's correct as was noted earlier there is no density limit in CB and just um if if we can draw your attention this is on page 51 of the zoning ordinance I I think here there's a chart regarding uh density and it it's fair to say miss heler that where we have a lot in the CB District um you can cover 100% of that lot with um with building coverage right in CB yes and as the same with um impervious coverage whether building or parking lots Etc in the CB 100% of that lot can be can be covered with impervious coverage right yes in the CL um for the maximum building coverage we see 80% right yes and then for the maximum coverage in this CL we see 90% right yes and then so those are examples of of density or dimensional restrictions that we see in the CL but not in the CB yes and then um the next bullet point on page five section 1319 parking um C can you tell us what that is well it was also noted earlier in CV we have no parking requirement um intentionally uh no off street parking requirement no off street parking requirement in CB all other zoning districts have a parking requirement for off Street um but not in CB and the next bullet point uh section 13 [Music] 20.09.2011 neighhood or limited commercial we restrict the maximum is to uh 200 square F feet we don't have a maximum for a sign size in any other zoning District or in any other commercial district and then uh the next bullet point section 13823 buffer yards we um allow a a reduction in buffer yard in CB um because of the density of the development that's permitted there but we do not allow that reduction in any other commercial District and just in a generalized way if if we're comparing and contrasting uh the CL district and from the CB District or the irr district um H how do you view those three districts um how how do they differ from from one another well like I said I think the CL Zone uh is really more of a transitional Zone it's um lower intensity commercial use um typically AB budding Residential Properties we have we have other Provisions in there there's a step back requirement on height and there's other things to try to create um more of a transition between commercial and residential whereas in CB and IR uh the provisions in the ordinance uh allow much more flexibility and much more density of development and um Miss hel I would just note uh from from and are you familiar with the municipalities planning code yes um one of the um purposes of a zoning ordinance this is from the MPC section 604 uh is to prevent one or more of the following overcrowding of land blight danger and congestion in travel and transportation loss of Health life or property from fire flood Panic or other dangers are you familiar with that yes um does does the existing uh zoning restriction for multif family dwellings in the CL and other districts uh Advance the purpose of of that subsection I just read yes it does and then just generally speaking how does it do that just the same way as all of our dimensional requirements do we have setback requirements we have uh requirements on um the footprint of a building we have requirements on height um there's all sorts of um dimensional and massing requirements in every zoning district and they vary um in different gradations for reasons and so um that's all intended uh to meet the purposes that you just outlined and when we look at another uh purpose of a zoning ordinance and this is subsection four of section 604 of the MPC it says that uh one of the purposes of a zoning ordinance is to provide for the use of land within the municipality for residential housing of various dwelling types encompassing all basic forms of housing including single family and two family dwellings and a reasonable range of multif family dwellings and various Arrangements mobile homes and mobile home parks provided however that no Zone ordin shall be deemed invalid for the failure to provide any other specific dwelling type right does uh section um 1322 dou L um does that Advance this uh provision of the MPC yes it does it still allows for all um uh it still allows for a lot of flexibility for multifamily dwellings it puts parameters on that so that it's reasonable um there's uh required separation between buildings Etc but um it does provide quite a bit of flexibility and I think one of the points that been addressed tonight and perhaps hammered home accessibly by me is that the cl district is it a primarily a commercial District or a residential district it's intended to be a um commercial District that is Transitional and so it also allows um residential units on the Upper Floor yes and um with respect to the comprehensive plan that we were looking at before and this would be the uh the future um land uses of the plant let me just get the box binder out here all right and just so there's no confusion on exhibit 44 um and this is the future land use plan northern and western sections of the city correct yes when was this um when was the comprehensive plan developed 2008 and is the idea here that this is a sort of a a forward forward-looking idea of what uh the mix of land uses would be in the city certain number of years from 2008 Yes and along uh just focusing on West Broad uh today that is the um CL commercial limited District that we've been talking about tonight right yes and currently the the subject property that box owns or BX is in the CL District right yes so looking at this future land use plan uh looking at the land along uh broad West Broad Street on the city's West Side um what is that design designated as I have to see here it's in what what it says NE it's a the term salmon color was used earlier and it's designated as neighborhood commercial and um what what zoning District does neighborhood commercial correlate to limited commercial and so in this future luse plan the bhx property is not colored in this salmon pink right correct okay it's it's colored in brown right yes and what does brown represent high density residential and what zoning District does that correlate to uh RT and just for the sake of completeness the downtown commercial um land use in this future land use plan that looks like it's the salon pink with some black crosshatching do you see that says Downtown commercial yes um what zoning District would that correlate to CB Central Business and even though this is a um future land use plan um if if we look at today the areas in the city that are zoned CL uh does the salmon pink coloring largely correlate to or map on to where those areas are located uh for the most part yes we we see neighborhood commercial along Broad Street along East Broad up Linden Street [Applause] yeah and is it um is it your opinion that uh section 1322 dou L subsection 4 of our zoning ordinance uh advances the overall purposes of our zoning ordinance yes okay and does it Advance the uh the purposes of the municipalities planning code in general yes have all your opinions today been rendered to a reasonable degree of professional certainty yes that's all the questions I have I would move Miss hel's uh CV thank you no OB those are all the questions I have let me get myself sit you pressing when you're ready it's already in yeah yeah M Sal good evening um a couple of questions about your testimony you were asked about the various zoning districts ccg CS CB i r r and I think you talked about the omu and you asked about limits on building length I thought you said that the omu does not limit uh the length of residential Apartments is that correct I'm sorry you said it does she said it does limit it it was just about where you're permitted to put multi family dwellings well at one point she said did the omu limits building length to 180 feet is that your testimony I don't think I said that that's fine so do you know whether it does or not uh there's a special chapter for omu I'd have to look at it okay that's fine I thought you said that CL only allows residential uses on upper floors is that correct well we have a requirement um unless it's a local street but we have a requirement that uh commercial use be on the first floor so it may or may not be on the upper floors depending on where it's located is that yeah I mean it could be a residential it could be an office on the upper floors but generally speaking in CL the residential uses are on the upper floors we don't have that requirement for local streets but mostly CL is along major quarters understood now you were quite adamant that the cl is more of a transitional zone is that correct yes it's a transitional zone between commercial and residential that's how I see it yes yeah well that that's that was your testimony yes that that that's your view of the zoning ordinance and as the planning director that's always been your view of the zoning ordinance yes okay now uh miss her how long have you been the city's planning director since 2000 since when 2000 now zoning amendments sponsored by the city Administration they're drafted uh by your office under your direction uh frequently not always but typically or mostly yeah so and drafting zoning ordinance amendments uh for a particular zoning District you uh pay attention to the ordinance's stated purpose for that district is that correct we should sure should or you do we do okay you don't propose zoning amendments for particular zoning districts that conflict with the stated purpose of that district is that correct no now it's the city council not the city Administration that has the ultimate authority to approve or deny zoning amendments drafted by your office correct correct and approval of any zoning amendment requires official action by city council correct before a zoning amendment is forwarded to city council for official action it is first reviewed by the city's Planning Commission correct for a recommendation right and any Planning Commission recommendations are forwarded to city council for council's consideration as part of the ordinance review process is that correct yes in fact that's what happened here this evening right and you often participate at the planning commission meetings where zoning amendments are being considered yes you also participate at the City Council meetings where zoning amendments are being considered correct you were the city's planning director back in 2021 yes and you were in charge of the city's planning Bureau in 2021 and in 2021 the city's planning Bureau which you were in charge of proposed a zoning amendment to amend section 13 2204 particularly amending the provisions for multif family dwellings in the CB and cl zoning districts isn't that correct I you'd have to be more specific I guess okay specifically in the year 2021 the city's planning Bureau which you are in charge of proposed a zoning amendment to amend section 13224 right that's the issue 2204 okay particularly amending the provisions for multif family dwellings in the CB and cl zoning districts isn't that correct yes now prior to 2021 to that 21 2021 Amendment which is what I'm going to refer to that okay as the 2021 Amendment there were restrictions on multif family dwellings applicable to the CB and cl zoning D districts that did not apply to multif family dwellings in the irr zoning District isn't that correct I'd have to I'd have to look at the amendment I mean I don't I don't remember exactly well then we need to do that I have the copies of the transcript of those hearings uh I believe well let's do it this way 1421 you saying that you don't remember whether the 2021 amendment dealt with restrictions on multif family dwellings I'm saying that I'm looking at the multifamily section right now of what of our ordinance of the zoning ordinance and it says in Section 5 little I that there was an amendment 122122 by ordinance 2238 so yes there was one I don't remember the particulars of what was added or deleted at the time well that particular 2020 21 amendment dealt with restrictions on multif family dwellings applicable to the CB and cl zoning districts you can deduce that from that language is that it's in the multif family section yes so that part's correct yeah just kind a point of clarification you keep saying the 2021 Amendment what's listed here is a 2022 Amendment are we talking about the same thing well I I think that we are I'm I'm using the date that came out of the commission hearings so the adoption was probably in 2022 it is December 21st 2022 so I would say so I see an amendment my zoning ordinance to you know subsection L 5 little I and then there's an amendment to subsection or section dou L subsection s Roman numeral little four and there's a deletion of dou l s little Roman numeral I well I don't know maybe I went through a wormhole just give me a minute here we have the transcripts of the meeting at the Planning Commission we have the transcripts of the meeting of the hearing before city council they're dated Planning Commission January 14 of 2021 and the uh city council is Tuesday April 6th of 2021 now maybe I'm I don't know confused I'm sure we can sort this out 20 even if I look in the back not yet are we clear on what I'm referring to this is this is this is a footnote right on among the tables 135 right that's what we're talking about here I'm talking about an amendment that took the exemptions that were applicable to the irr zoning district there were several for multif family dwellings they had to do with the size of the parking lots that was forgiven distance between parking and buildings that was forgiven those types of things uh lengths uh 180 foot limitation on building length so forth and this particular Amendment took those provisions and applied them to the CL and CB Zone that's what this amendment did that's what it says here we're going to go through this okay but that's a look I I mean I I object if if we can't just provide us with the council's amendment that they changed all this stuff I mean what I don't know what we you're asking your questions in a vacuum where we have an updated zoning ordinance if there's some other or that we need to look at I I'd like to see it I mean if what I mean do do you have the amendment that was passed by Council that we're talking about here I don't need the amendment that was passed by Council that we're talking about the purpose of this testimony is not to find out what council passed that's a very simple thing to do the purpose of this examination is to test the credibility of this witness and to test the credibility of the statements that she's made on the record this is a transcript of her testimony first of all her statements before the Planning Commission this is a transcript of her testimony at a hearing before city council both of these things are cons internally consistent and they both contradict everything that's just been said here this evening so I have a right to explore that without providing you with his zoning Amendment that's that's fine question I referencing amendment is it the amendment from Guess February 3rd 2021 than it we have it in there I'm not the one kind of directing your attention to an amendment if I just I want to know what we're talking about that was in February it would have to be after that Mr desler first of all have we ruled on this objection because I don't know that I need to provide a zoning Amendment asking her questions about testimony that's in a transcript I would like clarification about doesn't have to show me the amendment right but what amendment is he talking about can can we have a if if the question is being directed to a particular amendment I don't mind him asking questions about that but what is the amendment can we identified by a date it was enacted for example yes it's it's not precisely an objection it is a point of clarification that's been asked for we we'll get that information for you attorney desler do you have any objection to him proceeding with questioning with regard to this Planning Commission transcript no I like to see where it goes but I yeah I don't have any objection to to that as an abstract principle okay let's proceed you find that pull okay so what I'm referring to as the 2021 Amendment and we're going to pull that up and show you what that was do you recall participating as the planning director in the production of and presentation of a zoning Amendment to the city's Planning Commission relative to the uh CB and cl zoning districts the the zoning amendment that you're referring to a title of C for CB and cl from February of 2021 has to do with having commercial uses in the first floor um the transcript that you're that you forwarded doesn't talk about that right it talks about the multifamily section okay and what's the date of that transcript this is the January 2021 I'm looking at the betham city council proposed zoning change you see that I'm sorry I've got ahead of myself let's start with the City Planning Commission do you see that that's what you gave yeah that's what you gave me yeah we don't typically have transcripts of a of a meeting so I'm not sure where this came from and okay hold on let me read that into the record okay it's Bill number 14- 2021 passed at the first reading what's the date of that 21 April 20 2021 is there an ordinance number on that mending section this one here we have to move things along well I do but I mean I I have transcript I'd like to refer to okay we have the bill number okay we've giving you the bill number we have the transcript transcript was taken by a court reporter these documents are recorded on on on uh the internet do you have the do you have the the audio recording yeah put the order every we'll do it that way this is this is um [Applause] so you see the the transcript that I've given you that you you've been handed to you for the betham City Planning Commission proposed zoning change amending ordinance 1322 you see that you have that in front of you this what that you just gave me I I'll say it again go ahead it's a transcript before the betham City Planning Commission yes re proposed zoning change amending zoning ordinance 1322 do you have that in front of you yes okay we do have the audio we can play the audio if it helps you to refresh your recollection but for now we'll just move through the transcript and I think that'll be a little easier so we see here that the uh if we go to page three and we look down at line number seven we have Miss heler uh uh describing uh the proposed amendment and I believe you say here that so this request is coming from the planning Bureau directly do you see that yes is that something that you do you recall saying that we T we often forward amendments I don't remember this exact meaning but what it's not uncommon that we would forward amend in this particular Amendment as we'll see as we go through here okay uh identified certain exceptions or exemptions that apply in the irr for multifam development do you recall that we did make changes to these Provisions in the multif family section in fact the purpose of this amendment was and I'll read from page four and I'm at line five and again this is you speaking so we are proposing that all of the exemptions or exceptions that apply in irr for multif family development should apply I'm sorry should also apply in CB and cl do you see that I see what you're reading well those are your words do you remember those well we a trick question no I I don't remember the exact meeting but I just saying I believe I said it if it's in a transcript that's from the meeting it says CB is really our densest zoning District it seems reasonable that we should be allowing the same Exceptions there there's a high demand for multif family development for apartments in the urban core here we've seen several proposals come in in fact it's great to see that it's good for our downtown businesses and it's something that we want to support report that was something that you told to the Planning Commission and if I back up to page three and I go to the bottom I look at 24 this proposed amendment which was to take the irr exceptions and move them into the C BCL you say at line 24 and that's because really in my opinion anyway the criteria in the multif family dwelling section apply more like more like Garden Apartments that would be in the outlining areas so the irr is very similar to CB and cl that's what you told the Planning Commission back in January 14th but what I don't know are what Provisions we were proposing to change because we're gonna get to that this change was not made sure we're gonna get to that we're going to get to that so uh if we go on page four and we drop down to line 16 it says I can go through these section sections specifically if you want to one talks about the length of the building you see that yes so the length of the building was one of the uh limitations in the irr that I mean in the CB and cl that was to be dropped pursu into this amendment do you remember that I I don't think we proposed to do that I think we proposed to um remove the provision that required 15 feet between the building and parking well we'll get to that we'll get because at at when we get to the hearing uh at one point you do say that that's exactly what you were doing um so you were asked about reducing the building length and your response was well we do have design guidelines and they would apply to anything in the CB and cl to both in response to what about changing the building length you have any idea what you were referring to there when you say we have design guidelines well we used to have a chapter uh entitled design guidelines in the zoning ordinance without seeing the actual amendment I don't it's unclear to me and if I go to page five looking at okay here's an interesting piece if I go to page five I look down at line eight your statement so something goes back to the zoning hearing board fairly frequently and gets approved typically that that's really a revision that we need to make to the ordinance in our minds what did you mean by that I object I love this on for a little bit but I mean look I trust that Mr rewok took an accurate transcription all right and if you want to would address this or or discuss this for whatever relevance it has fine but just reading off this transcript from three no four years ago sorry no no three years ago and just asking her what what she meant I don't think has any the the transcript says what it says and you can address it whatever relevance it has but just to get her kind of commentary on what she said back in 2021 I don't think is relevant have what you said I think that's that that would be the relevance you're saying this is not relevant I'm saying her commentary on what she can recall from three years ago isn't relevant if if you think that this transcript has some relevance as you know whatever fine you can address that and if you want to admit it you can move to admit it but just to just to sit here all night and have her read a section and say what do you remember about that I don't think is relevant well I I don't know how it's not relevant we've just had we've just had testimony of how the CL zone is so different from the irr and the CB and everything else and that that's why it's being treated differently it's a transition zone a transitions from commercial to residential that was her testimony that's not what it says here we're going to go through this it's not what it says here is that relevant I think it's relevant if the planning director comes before city council at a public hearing and under oath testifies as to her opinions and so forth about how the zoning ordinance got to be where it is if those opinions are impeached and contradicted by her prior statements both to the Planning Commission and to the city council how's that not relevant look you can ask her if if you believe for example if if if there's something said in here you can ask her you know up or down you agree with that statement or whatever but what you're asking her okay I'll do it that way fine up or down okay we see at we see at page six the top of page six where you talk about at line one and in the CB and cl we actually have a zero setback requirement we want you to build up to the street we want you to put the parking in the back I think the sidey yard setbacks are also pretty much zero typically we want want you to fill the lot and clearly activate the whole parcel so we don't want you to increase the setbacks to building setbacks if you go up in height that's just not appropriate it's really a way to try to recognize the kind of development that the design guidelines are already intending in the CB and cl is that your opinion but I think it's important to know what section this is really talking about clearly as I'm talking I'm going through specific provisions of a proposed ordinance Amendment on page seven okay at line 16 Miss Cohen asks you a question she says I do have a question a 180 foot building would be allowed in a CB or CL zone now do the requirements for the visual separation of the building into different Aesthetics still apply to that then your response is yes that's sort of what protects Us in the CB and cl the design guidelines require that if your building is of a certain length you need to develop it as if there are different uh not necessarily different storefronts but different facades that they're and that it looks like something that grew up organically in the community is that your opinion I believe that's my opinion sure and tell you what can I just have a moment see sure do we need a bathroom break yeah okay five minute recess yes yeah e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e app I love I'm G toop that because this is [Music] not I believe I believe everyone is back are you ready to go back on the record okay very good um ordinance that we're talking about ordinance 2021 D13 uh it is titled an ordinance amending section 13223 lision that to amend Provisions for multif family dwellings in the CB and cl zoning districts so that's the ordance actually during the break I was during the break I was able to pull that up okay that so now we're talking about the we're all in agreement yeah as to which ordin it is would you hand out that memo please thank you thank you so can we agree miss heler that there was an ordinance ordinance 20213 that did amend section 13223 LL uh can we at least agree on that yes and in particular it it addressed multifamily developments in the CB and cl zoning district is that correct yes now I've just distributed a document that is a Department of community and economic development inter office memo do you have that yes do you recognize that yes in fact that's your signature is that correct yes and this particular memo deals with the amendment that we just talked about is that correct yes and this says that at their January 14 2021 meeting the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend that city council support the zoning or its Amendment am I correcting that yes now if I flip the page I see another deportment of community and economic development in her office memo again this is over your signature is that correct yes and this is to the Planning Commission members and it says it attaches the draft zoning ordinance text amendment to address specific requirements for multif family developments in the CB and cl zoning districts does that refresh your recollection yes I see it here and it says that it's it is recommended at this time I'm down at the one two three fourth paragraph it is recommended at this time that the same exemptions that apply to the IR RR zoning districts should also apply to the CB and cl zoning District do you see that I see that it says that yes right and so the the irr zone District was exempt from many of the or several of the limitations on multif family dwellings at this time is that correct yes so one of the restrictions was a limitation on parking areas set at 40 cars maximum that limitation was excused in the irr is that correct yes and that's something that you wanted to import now over into the CB and cl is that correct section two it's section three of the overall section three yes well it does say in your memo that the same exemptions that apply to the RR zoning District should also apply to the CB and cl so let me ask it this way does the 40 foot um I'm sorry does the uh the limit the requirement or the limitation of a 40 car maximum parking lot did that apply to the irr Apparently yes well actually the the IR was exempt from that one yes is that correct yes so if I understand your memo it is recommended at this time that the same exemptions that apply to the irr zoning District should also apply to the CB and cl so I would assume that that means that that exemption should then be moved over to the CB and cl correct isn't that what that says are you looking at the ordinance no I'm looking at your memo get to the ordinance there's a problem with the ordinance believe me we're going to get to it I see the sentence in there yes you see the sentence well does the sentence mean doesn't it mean that the uh limitation on parking area set at 40 cars maximum which doesn't apply to the irr should then be moved over to the CB and cl isn't that what that sentence says well the sentence doesn't talk in specifics for each section but you're referring to section three and yes that's where the 40 car parking lot provision is yes so the same exceptions that apply to the the IR should also apply to the CB and cl one of those we talked about was the parking lot limitation another is the 180 foot building length limitation on multif family dwellings that particular limitation did not apply in the irr is that correct it did not apply in the irr so if it is recommended at this time that the same exemptions that apply to the irr zoning District should also apply to the CB and cl zoning districts then the 180 foot building length limitation that doesn't apply to the irr should not apply to the CB and cl according to this sense we chose not to include it there obviously it's not included in section one of the ordinance I can see that but that's not what this sentence says is that correct object I mean the sentence says what it says well no the sentence is a preamble to what's about to follow the amendment that was submitted to the plan in commission did include the 180 foot limitation as it wound its way through the process and got to city council that was eventually dropped so what you're looking at in the back end is the is the amendment without that that got removed the 180 but miss hel represent why would you hold hold on we have we have a cover Memo from Miss heler to Mr Waldren February 8 20121 and then the cover Memo from miss heler the Plenty commission members January 8th 2021 so at a prior date presumably enclosing this this draft ordinance and in the draft ordinance for the 180 foot limit yes we include the exemption now for CB in addition to the existing IR exemption but it doesn't say that we're also exempting the CL District I I agree with you that we exempt the CL District in other provisions of this draft ordinance but the ordinance is what it is I mean I guess is is is all this about did we just make a mistake and forget to include it I mean if you can ask that question but it seems like we're circling the drain here I mean the the ordinance says what it says well whether it was a mistake or not is yet to be determined I'm simply asking Miss heler questions about documents that she signed and submitted and if she didn't intend that the same exemptions that apply to the IR zoning District should also apply to the CB and cl zoning districts she can tell us that she can tell us if that sentence not accurate she can tell us that let's get to that question is that sentence accurate I would say this I would say that the ordinance overall does apply to CB and cl I don't think that it's necessarily intended to say that every section that's submitted would be reviewed the same way so there was a distinction made between section one which addresses the 180 feet and section 2 three and four which relate more to parking requirements I believe it is so at the Planning Commission where the ordinance was reviewed and Miss Cohen asked you I have a question a 180 foot building would be allowed in the CB or CL zone now do the requirements for visual separation of the building into different Aesthetics still apply to that then did you tell her that the 100 you in here can you tell me where you are oh sure Sor I'm at the transcript yeah no I don't for the Planning Commission I'm at page seven and it begins at line 16 is it possible to identify these for the record I mean the transcript can be what's what's your next exhibit well let's do it this way we had that I think it was 467 this so 47 would be the uh document that was just handed up which would be the Department of community and economic development interner office memos that's 47 yep thank you and the January 14th 2021 transcript is is what that would be a48 and this is a transcript of the no we have this is is the City Planning Commission so let's take a look at that transcript and again I asked you to look at where you would ask me where I was I'm on page seven and I'm down at line 16 Miss Cohen says to you I do have a question a 180 foot building would be allowed in a CB or CL zone now do the requirements for the visual separation of the building into different Aesthetics still apply to that then did you tell her no it does not apply I said yes and I talked about the design guidelines and how you break up the length of a building with design guidelines right so if the building were longer than 180 fet I believe your answer is not to worry because we have design guidelines require that if your building is of a certain length you need to develop it as if there are different not necessarily different storefronts but different facade there that it looks like something that grew up organically in the community those are your words right those are my words right so you didn't correct Miss Cohen when she asked you directly about the 180 foot building well I don't think I mean 's a unless you have a version that shows that we proposed it to be Exempted in CL I don't think that there was one well you say I don't recall that that was you say in your answer I mean I think this is that's what protects Us in the CB and cl I think this is an accurate document though the ordinance draft that was attached for them to review I believe that's an accurate document I mean Mr rest we have no idea if she's answering the question a 180 foot building would be allowed into CB or CL zone now or if she's answering the question posed by Miss Cohen do the requirements for the visual separation of the building into different Aesthetics still apply to that then I mean that's the last question that's posed which is different from just saying a 180 foot building would be allowed in a CB or CL zone now it looks like Miss was ask was answering a question about uh building Aesthetics not about the building L right I I I maintain that the transcript is what it is I think we can make our arguments based upon the the black letter of the the document where's the one that all all the requirements and I believe on page four at line five you're telling the Planning Commission quot so we are proposing that all of the exemptions or exceptions that apply in the irr for multif family development should also apply in the CB and cl but the rest of that paragraph is really only talking about CB I understand that but as a director of planning you represented to the Planning Commission that what you were proposing was that all the exemptions or exceptions that apply in the irr for multif family development should also apply in the CB and cl you're telling us here this evening that the cl is very different than any of these other districts and you should not have all those exemptions appli which is no I said I and I stand by that the CB and the CL are very different zoning districts and there are several Provisions in the zoning ordinance that I think substantiate that I think what's was forwarded to the Planning Commission for their review is the amendment that was attached and section one does not suggest that there should be an exemption in CL for the 180 foot building length clearly this these comments are pretty General I did not go through these step by step okay where's the other one this one yeah so ultimately that Amendment mov from the Planning Commission to city council is that correct yes and you appear before city council I'm sure I did this next one we're going to Mark is a 49 so this here once again this is a a transcript this would be of the uh proposed zoning change amending zoning ordinance 1322 same Amendment and this is before the betham city council this is where it moves from Planning Commission to the council and here we begin on page three with the clerk reading from a memorandum from Darlene heler indicating that the Planning Commission recommended city council support the proposed zoning amendment to revise the multif family development section in our zoning ordinance to ensure that that the provisions that currently apply in the irr industrial Redevelopment District also apply in the CB Central Business and cl neighborhood commercial districts you see that there I'm sorry where are you that's on page number three third paragraph okay all right there's no mention there of exempting out any particular provision say like building length or anything like that is there no those aren't my words though well let's take a look at your words let's go to page let's go to page five top of page five here you say I think really at the time we should have also added the ex iion for CB and cl CB is Central business district for our two main downtowns CL is limited commercial neighborhood commercial it's east of Fourth Street or East and West Broad Street Main Street these those areas Are CL and in each of those areas we want to get compact development we want it to be dense we want it to be built up to the streets do you remember saying that yes and so if I go down to lot line 18 on the same page here you tell the city council so what we're really proposing to do here is to allow in the CB and cl zoning District all of the exemptions that we currently find in the irr irr is basically the be Beth works and what we intend to do is really just clean up and oversight you remember saying that apparently I said it yeah gr SE so throughout your presentation to both the Planning Commission and city council you were pretty clear that the CB and cl zoning districts were very similar isn't that correct I object to the characterization and say yes or no oh I object to the characterization she if she said that I mean these are transcripts of what she said can just they are what they are I mean at one point she's saying the CB and cl are similar to the IR R but not necessarily to each other I'm going sustain the objection to characterization and ask you to move on okay give me one sec okay I have no further questions for Miss Howard redirect the city council transcript is this GNA be exhibit 49 then that was city council was 49 49 all right um M Miss heler I think since um when did you become the city's director of Planning and Zoning 2000 have you ever been a member of city council no do you have the ability to enact um a city zoning ordinance or an amendment there too no who does that city council so e and at any point in all these documents that we've just looked at now exhibit 47 48 49 was there ever a draft ordinance of the amendment to uh section dou L for uh that included the CL in addition to the CB as a district where we were now exempting multif Family dwellings from that 180 foot limit no the the added exemption was for the CB District alone right correct does does the memos that you draft either to the Planning Commission or to city council do they have the force of law no um did you review the draft ordinance um that was included in the the memo packets I to the plan commission or the city council before you submitted those memos with the ordinance did I review them sure did you review the draft ordinance oh sure yes and in that draft ordinance in section um one thereof when we're amending the section regarding the 180 foot limit um before this zoning Amendment you just Exempted the irr district correct yes and with the proposed amendment that was ultimately enacted it then Exempted the CB zoning District right yes and the inclusion of that CB zoning District there's a it it's highlighted to indicate the addition correct yes and did you review that language with that not highlight that but with that underline before submitting it to the city council yes and that there's no underlining in that section regarding the CL District correct correct and all all these other zoning um amendments that Mr Preston was re reviewing with you it looks like uh we are including the CL in addition to the CB as new districts that are being Exempted from various provisions of um article 13:22.0 three dealing with multi family dwellings correct yes so in in general the memo that was submitted either to the Planning Commission or C Council that's referencing we're basically treating the CL and CB districts um similarly for these amendments as to multif family dwellings is substantially accurate correct yes s but similarly but not the same there there was this this one difference where for this one provision we decided to exempt the CB or city council decided to exempt the CB but not the CL right correct and and throughout these these comments to specifically the the comments to city council from April 6 2021 were you ever representing to them that um if they adopted the zoning ordinance amendments that were proposed that the cl District would be added to an exemption from the 180 foot limit no was city council ever provided with some draft ordinance that included the CL District um among the new exemptions for the 180 foot limit no that's all I have anything further Mr Preston no nothing further okay um I would move for the admission of our exhibits that's A1 through 49 yes is there any objection no objection okay and you have the one exhibit yes okay no objection all right those are those exhibits are removed without objection I would now open it up to council to um ask questions I suggest that you direct your questions to council and that they can direct them to the witness that might be best able to answer those questions I think this would be for Mr des and that side I was looking at some of the exemptions the photos of the exemptions that you were going through earlier um and you pointed out that some of them um I'm just looking at them and I see the ones that have that are residential that have only residential and exceed 180 ft to some length it seems like those were adaptive reuse buildings and not they weren't originally built as residential only um is that the same thing that you're noticing or are are do some of these buildings like Koga pre the CL zoning yeah I mean I I noticedo when I was looking through this packet I mean I don't know when that was built but it it's been there for a while so it's possible that it could be a a non-conforming um a dimensionally non-conforming building I I don't know um so I mean that's kind of an open question I I mean I think generally speaking if these are either variant um requests that have been granted uh or they're and that's really only for um when the building contains this multif family dwelling component right if if it's just the commercial use it's not bound by that by that limitation so some of these buildings are longer than 180 fet by right because the zoning ordinance allows that um and where where it is a multi dwelling and it's longer than 180 feet um it's either because it's permitted by W in the CB or the irr or it's because it's been given a variance or it's non-conforming because it was built before we had this L limitation yeah that's what I that's kind of what I've noticed other than Chelsea everything else has either a commercial component or something like the cacv building where it was Prior like it was a factory it wasn't built as solely residential so that was um I had another question about how we decide to change zoning across the city um like I'm thinking about some other zoning questions that are coming up right now and it seems to be like a a two-year process has the city of Bethlehem ever kind of just like Snapped change zoning across the city without like this kind of two-year public engagement process prior to I think M hel might be able to answer that one uh typically there is a a more um a there's a lengthier process to um do some anal Anis of the properties that would be affected to talk to um possible stakeholders if there are any to um reach out to other departments see if there would be other impacts I mean we need to be pretty thorough in the work that we do before we do something Citywide so that there's not unexpected unexpected consequences yes um and to exhibit 49 uh page 10 down in line 15 you say it just eliminates the setback requirements was that the whole purpose of of this it says um well this amendment is not addressing height at all so you guys talk a little bit about Dimensions but more about height than length and you go on to say we're exempting those additional setbacks for CBN it's just eliminating the setback requirements was that the purpose of the zoning changes just to eliminate the setback requirements yes and the uh actually I think the setback requirement is um the setback of of uh between parking and the building we have a 15 foot setback in some districts and we eliminated that from um CB and cl within this and I think that's the setback they're talking about as opposed to a building setback I was going to ask the Zoning for residentials but I think We Beat to Death that in the residential it's 180 ft so I won't that's the other question I had so I won't I'm good now [Music] okay sorry there are a lot of wires here um okay so uh we've heard a lot about the 180 magic number in many different zoning districts um where does that 180 number come from in any of the areas like what is the rationale for that number as opposed to 200 or 150 is that a building code Norm is it what what does 180 feed meet or do uh that's a good question um and actually there are par parameters on any um dimensional requirement in the ordinance if it's it's height if it's building coverage at some point there's a a limit put on um massing and and etc for buildings I don't believe that it comes from the building code although I'm not an expert in the building code at all uh I think we mentioned earlier I I believe it's a carryover from the ordinance in before 2012 we had Provisions for multifamily uh at that time and um I believe it was just really a carryover I don't think there was a lot of discussion about the building length at that time I think it was in place well before I was ever working with the city of Bethlehem does anyone know the like basis for that that number even before like yes acknowledging I had noted that it's before 2012 like where that number came from I think the number is actually very generous frankly um especially in um we don't allow uh further than 180 feet as was noted in any of the residential districts and it's very it's really very generous um there's certainly most multif family development that occurs in the city does not exceed that length Okay um and then my other question is uh so why are there no limits on the other types of buildings in commercial limited with it being sort of that transitional uh neighbor other smaller properties uh why aren't we more restrictive on what the other buildings can do so that it really is more of a transition and that's that's a good question too um I think that typically we're not weighing in on the length of non-residential buildings I mean as there was some testimony tonight I was trying to um think about the difference between um when there's multiple residential buildings on the lot on a lot versus sort of an office park or a commercial development the footprint of the buildings just is larger and there is a a different feel but in residential development we want it to have a different feel we want it to be more compact so I think that's much of the origin for that L requirement um and then and just to make sure I'm clear on the commercial limited um in general it would also then be required to have commercial property in this in those properties too right on the first floor like you said if it's on a if it's on an um anything other than a local Street we require commercial use on the first floor right so like Broad and Handover for the the property in question would be required to have commercial okay that's all I okay thank you um questions for the city first was this area always Z cl to your knowledge well um I don't remember exactly what it was Zone before 2012 it was the car the uh automobile dealership and I believe it was that use for quite a long time so I would assume although I have to say it is an assumption but I would assume that it was zoned um in some commercial District before 2012 okay and do you have any idea of the percentage percentage of the city that is Zone CL all Park figure I it's I don't believe it's very high um it doesn't look good according to the map but I'm wondering because mostly on quarters I would say maybe not even 10% okay and do you have any idea how much a percentage of that that is maybe still not developed or blighted areas within CL that is yet to be developed um I don't I don't think there's a lot of vacant land in um CL but there could be Parcels that could be um reused or expanded um you know infi development because I guess I'm getting at what would the impact be if the Curative amendment was passed and then CL did not have the limit how much land are we looking at in the city that's going to be impacted by that I guess that's part of the concern when changes like this are made and they apply Citywide that without some research or knowledge or or or deeper understanding of what those impacts are uh there are um definitely concerns about what the ramifications could be okay and I know um councilwoman I think Leon asked a question I guess I am wondering why um there are some areas that are SE that have over 180 feet and some areas might have been blighted whatever but some of them are are newer I'm thinking like the boy or the flats and well can you speak to those the differences and why they those are larger buildings but those are not in the CL zoning District um the boy is in CB uh we Have No Limit there um 510 flats and 610 flats are in the irr and we have no limit there what about the ones that are mentioned in um part of the exhibit that are in CL that are over 180 um I really have didn't have a chance to go through those um I don't if there's a particular exhibit that you're well I'm thinking of one I believe is Chelsea is that I think CL and that's fairly newel Chelsea did go uh to the zoning hearing board for uh B uh for zoning hearing board relief on a variety of items I think you'll notice on that though one though I think the it's 189 feet or something like that um about 10% I mean it's really a DI Minimus amount of relief that was granted to that that's very different than allowing you know a 100 foot you you'll have your time to speak and the one thing that I'm thinking about is just thinking about our our needs because I know at the Curative Amendment that's one thing we need have to evaluate our re Regional needs and um I know in one area talks about residential being more limited than commercial and Industrial but in my mind I'm thinking that I think it's pretty apparent one of our major needs in the city is residential especially affordable housing so I'm thinking is sort of Twisted in that way and that we're limiting residential and not commercial and Industrial does that make sense well the provision of for a building link doesn't have anything to do with affordability though it it doesn't there's no there's no um correlation to that um there's no guarantee that units that would be built um would be affordable and even in the Curative Amendment um section I don't know where that letter is but there's um five Provisions I think in the MPC that you you weigh a Curative Amendment against and one is based on housing but it's really whether or not the housing that would be um affected would be housing that's not typically available uh to the disadvantaged I forget how it's worded I don't have it in front of me but um this uh provision doesn't have anything to do with that okay the other thing I'm I'm thinking about the correlation with our climate action plan because this may or may not be relevant but we're looking at the different plans and if it looks like if it's 180 or less we're going to have less Green Space more impervious areas is things that are not really um congruent with our climate action plan can you speak to that please that's a good question because we do have um a variety of plans and policies and initiatives that we want to support in the city the climate action plan is certainly one of them they did show uh a a plan that shows um buildings less than 180 ft I mean we're only seeing for the very first time tonight a very conceptual layout of that we've had no time to really take a look at or analyze that in any way I have I wouldn't even be able to comment on whether or not that's um the best layout or if that layout meets zoning requirements or anything like that so I'm not truly convinced that if the building footprint shrinks there's more impervious coverage on a lot you would think that if a book a footprint shrinks um there's less impervious coverage and more room for Green Space um I don't know that's I I just think that's uh sort of intuitive uh I I'm not really able to C uh comment on the layout that they shared with us tonight okay and in the SE what's the height restriction how uh the most you can go is five stories and 60 feet there are some parameters and limitations on that as well but that would be the maximum okay and um one last question is also we talked about the um the proposed comprehensive plan of the city and the area that was Brown being high density can can you speak to that is that something that we're looking at for well F to make it more high density yeah the comprehensive plan was um adopted in 2008 and then the zoning ordinance in 2012 so um I don't know if there was further analysis in that time period I don't really recall any specifics about why that would have changed but because the density Etc in CL U refers back to RT the density of the residential development would would be the same it's essentially the same uh the CL would just allow the additional commercial along the Broad Street Frontage so we'd be looking at greater density then well I'm just saying the density that's permitted in CL is the same as for residential density is the same that's permitted in RT it's the same the same okay thank you and then I have questions for um bhx um what are what are you looking at as far as the the length how much Beyond 180 are you looking at going through all the buildings to about 28 208 2 280 I think 286 was the longest yeah 286 was the longest it was somewhere 220 240 it varied depending on how they laid out um and how they laid out with the um the podium parking that's underneath it that was part of um how we're able to reduce the impervious coverage as we're creating parking under the building to eliminate some of the surface parking which allowed us to create more green space try to be a little more uh creative and hit some of the climate action plan items to try to minimize storm water runoff increase in privious coverage create a more efficient building so for the four buildings in your original plan they would be in length from 220 up to 286 is that what you're saying yeah okay yeah okay and um would you consider a lower height if you were able to go longer in length or are you stuck with the five stories it's it's a function of it's a function of both because it's it's a are getting the proper density as you said earlier there's there is a need for housing um and if we cut a floor off the buildings we lose we lose units whether whether the units are affordable or not there's a need for housing in the city and the all over the valley um so we we'd prefer to keep the height because again having the same um the same number of units with the longer building plan does provide it we believe um as we testified this evening a less intense development than the 180 foot buildings and a better development and I think a more Innovative and a more Progressive development to have um uh than a Suburban uh three-story walk up or you know typical surface parking and that's that's part of what's driving a larger impervious coverage with the 180 foot building limitation because the buildings are now spread out you can't take advantage of the foundations and trying to connect those to create the podium parking um so you're spreading the buildings out which forces us to go to a surface parking model and that that requires more land it's to the tune of I think about 1.1 Acres an additional 49,000 square feet of impervious um and that's just a function of how the layout happens with when you spread the buildings out um with the shorter length it's more traditional when you see the the parking lots and Suburban um apartment buildings okay and so when I think about the things that we have to look at in the merits of looking at a Curative amendment being proposed um one thing naturally is traffic and that naturally is an area that traffic is an issue especially because of the intersection of meaton Avenue Hanover and Broad do you have any proposals on how to address that yeah we we worked with uh as Mr fruck mentioned traffic planning and design um in their analysis of the proposed use uh whether it's the longer building or the shorter building it's it it doesn't have an impact on traffic because the the units the unit count is the same the unit count is what drives of traffic so the shape of the building or whatever configuration they're in doesn't change the amount of traffic um and the traffic analysis showed that there wouldn't be improvements uh to the road infrastructure required it could be done based upon the existing conditions that doesn't uh the traffic increased traffic from the proposed development doesn't require any change in the grading of the lights according to pend Do's grading scale and that sort of thing so that that doesn't that doesn't mean that there's not in existing issue but this does not add to that issue to a degree that we require new traffic lights new traffic lanes that sort of thing we did have conversations with Miss heler as well as with Allentown that um should this development proceed we'd be happy to sit down and see how we could work collectively with both cities um to try to figure out ways to mitigate some of the existing traffic issues out of there yeah because it is apparent there are you know as you know SE accidents it's really bad then adding 117 at least more cars is going to be an issue even even with the development up at the the state hospital is going to add traffic it's it's it's happening but we we did indicate and and spoke to both both planning departments that we'd be happy to sit down and see how we can help contribute to that uh with the cities okay and next one one of the other things to consider naturally is the impact on um Regional Housing needs and naturally one of the biggest needs is we need more housing but we definitely need more affordable well any of it are you considering affordable is it on the table we we looked at that and this is a property we were hoping to open up a dialogue with regarding a potential lerta for the site um and with a lerta that can be functioned it can function two ways um as you guys have done recently it can be a fee in Le of that would go to the city's affordable housing fund for the city to expand its initiatives and and Implement those or or look at some factors that would allow affordable housing on the site every 10th unit could be affordable what or every 10th unit could be affordable you could look at that and the challenge there comes into what what you define affordable as um I know I believe at the uh um property of 1333 east four street they're in the Lura there existing as part of the Southside Lura and I think they were looking at the 80% median um and that's something we could we could look at as well um the challeng is when you start to get into the lower median ratios you end up with apartments at least that least for a significantly lower um 75% lower than market rate which which affects the financial viability of the project but we'd be happy to sit down and and talk about that I think we can certainly look at that okay great um one of the other things is the impact on national resources and I'm thinking about behind the property is the woods and I know that there's um some of the concerns with the community is there were a lot of trees that were planted and that they'll be all knocked down is there any way um again because this is part of the five factors of a Curative agreement looking at um you know the the effects on the natural resources in the woods and the trees that are already there I think if if we have an um if we have some flexibility on the building length that would allow us to potentially look at a way to try to mitigate or minimize any impact to those or certainly work with the city Forester and even the neighbors I've done that before we do our you know we do a development you you take what the city Forester says but you also look at what the what would help some of the neighbors as well so we'd be open to that as well to try to minimize whatever we'd have to take down there but but there's some issues when you get to the larger trees the root systems are larger and as you get closer um you can impact the root system which ends up being a problem an inevitable problem down the down the road when the the tree dies so sometimes you're better off to replace some of those but we'd be open to that and easier okay um yeah and having the building length does give us some more flexibility on our design for the parking infrastructure incorporating it under the building so that can eliminate as as we've shown eliminate some of the impervious coverage which then maybe we can pull some of that impervious back off of those trees okay and my last question is um I know you have a lot of you gave us a lot of different plans as far as the exhibits so um if the ctive amendment is not approved what would be your plan B uh we' we'd have to explore expl that and see see but there's there's several options I mean um office and medical office is a is a strong um use in the marketplace and it seems every time you turn around there's a new and believe leh have Alley's building a micro Hospital down on 412 now um so and with the activity going on in the state hospital site I think that demand would go so I think that would be a use we'd look at as offices and medical offices and labs are permitted use in the CL um unfortunately with that there's a there's a much higher traffic U impact um which is just natural with that type of use but so essentially if it's not approved then residential would be off the table for the most part I don't know I can't I can't say that yet we'd have to we' have to consider everything at that point but okay thank you thank you um S i' have a couple quick questions um do you have a Miss do you have a copy of the uh of the exhibit booklet that they gave us so if you could go to um exhibit B B or eight I'm sorry I wasn't looking at it properly okay so are they telling us now that they have the legal right without any uh Curative amendments any new zoning any new um adjustments to anything they have the legal right right now to do the medical office and an ex exhibit seven a sketch F and then general office and Retail and restaurant they could do that right now leg legally it's their chart I think they might have to decipher it for you I'm not I think that's what they're saying but I we have obviously haven't reviewed any plans like that so yeah but I mean the CL does allow 180 the CL District does allow for retail restaurant general office and medical office space yes buildings over 180 feet right yes all right so you know as as as as Miss kampsy Smith said um we have I think um I think the mayor has in in his one of his um his opening doors uh proposal that he's trying to get more housing into the City and one of the things that he uh said that they're looking at is changing zoning uh I asked him at you know a few meetings ago and he said that's something that they are looking at it's just changing the zoning and that is for single family uh zoning neighborhoods single family neighborhoods to have multifamilies I'm just think I don't know that that's true um there is a recommendation in opening doors to make zoning amendments to allow more flexible flexibility in housing I don't know that it gets so specific as to what those amendments are going to be well it's Citywide yeah yeah it's Citywide yeah and that's why we had all the people that are on Center Street upset and Ed Ed specifically on Center Street people are interested in the develop that might be right occurring on Center Street right but we haven't done anything for zoning am I know the neighbors are here and I I I get it you know I really do but this is my personal opinion I'm sure it's not theirs if I was living there out there I would not want if if if you look at the if you look at this and this is I would say accurate as far as I can tell because um if you look at other shopping and ret areas there is a lot more traffic so by by not approving this they have the right to do any of the following the medical office the general office re retail restaurant and have all those buildings much larger than 180 feet without changing to do that now right they're not that's my point yeah okay I don't know if if I want that or if other people on Council I don't know if the neighbors would want that because if you look at the if you look at this that to me is a worst case scenario than having housing three you know 300 um how how many units is it again 317 3 317 let's say each unit had two cars in it you got 640 cars there versus you know a medical office general office building retail uh those other scenarios which they're allowed to do as of right now has a worse component for length of buildings because they can go unlimited that has a worse component for parking almost double in some some instances almost triple the amount of parking uh cars there um if they went with medical office you know they're looking at, 1500 to um 1500 spaces general office 1,250 to uh 1588 retail um 340 it's a worse um position for traffic the traffic involved is almost three times in some in one of the cases three times more and in in the worst case scenario 12 times more traffic the impervious the the impervious coverage is worse is a worst case scenario I have a question here okay I just so so so the impervious coverage um is a worst case scenario that they're allowed to do right now it looks it it looks by what what we're looking at here the the best case scenario for all those things is having the housing not the other options that they're legally allowed to do right now so my question is the city I know that um in the opening doors policy that the mayor is trying to uh get more housing in the city correct the plan recommends taking a a a look at the zoning Citywide to see where there may be opportunities for additional units so that we can start to um create some flexibility in this this housing crunch that we have right so that means getting more rental units in the city that was the recomend that I well well how how do we how do we solve a housing crisis without addressing more housing units well I'm acknowledging that the amendment is in there I think what I'm trying to say is it doesn't get into any specifics about what those recommendations are we haven't started that process well it's multifaceted I think I think there's a lot of things as far as zoning alley homes and all that stuff it's all about adding more residential units in into the City and I think we can all agree on that right I mean there's no way we're going to solve a housing crisis without having more housing rental units in the city so my point is that so I think a week ago the uh lvi the mayor had a press conference on the south side where lvip uh donated land to the city or or for affordable housing do you remember that was this this week it's like a week ago I know what project you're talking about okay so if we go to tab go to uh exhibit 41 which is tab 19 so those are the permitted jues right now in CL correct I didn't go back to this is what they're saying are permitted uses that are non-residential in CL that would be allowed to be built greater than 180 Fe so right so one one of the things that that a council brought up was College I think it was him I'm not sure I apologize if it wasn't that if a college or university went in there and obviously it's not big enough for that but they would obviously have dormitories on I even our are e even Northampton Community College and lei Community College has dorms on site but the thing that I'm looking at is item number 24 city government uses and and facilties so if that land was donated by the owner for affordable housing the city would be in their right to put as long of a building as they wanted to for a homeless shelter because the the mayor was looking for a homeless shelter that's why he he wanted to purchase those four or the three churches on the southide that did not that deal did not go down so if the land was developed I mean if the land was donated uh in Li of uh fees because he obviously owns another build another property in the city and I know there's negotiations going on with that and that you know I know the mayor wants certain things at that property that the developer is not willing to at this time okay so if the land was donated for affordable housing or low-income housing the city would be permitted to put as long of a building on there as they wanted to because it's for and it would be longer than this right so is that your question allow her to answer the question yeah the so so the city I think the question is there can we allow yeah her to answer it if she can so if the Hanover Avenue property was donated given to the city right the city would we we be able to put a government building on it is question yes it's over 180 feet it's yeah yeah so the city could put a affordable housing building of over 180 ft no no that's not what it's consider a government if the city owned it no no no no no no now you're confusing two things affordable housing is affordable housing and it's residential but the city would it it it would be for city government use no that you know that's not the way it works is that a permitted use for for City Hall like a fire station like a recreation I I I would ask I would ask Mr PR Preston would would you guys consider that a city usage which a homeless shelter yeah I mean the the the mayor wanted to open up a city-owned homeless shelter that is on the record so if the if the mayor if the land was donated if the land was donated the city would have the right because it's a city usage for a City homeless shelter over the building could be this building M or more you're saying it's owned and operated by the city by the city because that's that's that was that was a proposal that that that the mayor had out there he wants a city-owned operated homeless shelter if I may before you answer I would just state that we are here on a Curative Amendment petition BX is the Equitable owner of the property and the scope of our question should be related to it is it is to the I'm sorry the scope of the question should be related to the Curative Amendment petition and the plans proposed by bhx good so attorney presson exhibit 10 okay okay um and exhibit 41 you have listed there where where did you get this list from there's 24 itemized uses legal uses those Come Those came directly out of the city's zoning ordinance okay so I would assume if the city was granted uh that land and they decided and I'm not saying he's going to but I'm saying if he chose to if the city of betham chose to build a home and shelter there for a city government use or a facility it says city government use uses or a facility it's a city owned and operated and funded City homeless shelter that would be a permittable use on that lot uh other attorneys may give you a different opinion but if it's owned and operated by the city I believe that would be a government use and or facility thank you Mr deser do you have any opinion on it if it was a if it was a city owned if the if the city was granted and given just like like the property on the south side if the city was granted that and the mayor had did did want to purchase those churches he said it for a homeless shelter a city-owned homeless shelter and this and the city's operating it it's under the city budget I I can stop you right now I'm not going to answer these abstractions that are are not really designed to address the matter at hand I think generally speaking the reference to government uses in buildings are things like City Hall maybe an EMS building where our public works department Parks its truck A Fire Department substation Police Department substation that's generally what it means now we can get into that we can hash into details when you present when someone's presenting us with a specific plan um but I'm not going to talk about those kind of abstractions here I'm Not Gon to answer the question it's not at all relevant to why we're here tonight no it is not relevant so I if we could move on to any further questions to do with the cura of amendment petition give me one second here let me look real quick I'm I'm done I'll let other people speak thank you okay I think Council M has some questions very quickly um so we understand that a building that is commercial is allowed to be longer than 180t I just wanted to understand that some of the buildings require retail on the first floor correct and if there's retail on the first or commercial on the first floor are those buildings permitted to be greater than 180 ft that's a good question excuse me um it's a mixed use building at that point we have been applying that requirement um to other buildings when there's commercial on the first floor but um it is a mixed use building but if there's residence above we have been applying we apply the 180 ft thank you and just wanted to go back quickly to exhibits three and four um for being the one with multiple buildings and this is now for bhx does exhibit three and exhibit four do they both contain 317 units yes all all those exhibits the in terms of the parking spaces that we're looking at are we looking at an actual accurate number of parking spaces is it space by space okay so the reason that we're looking at more surface parking in exhibit 4 is other than cost to to the I understand there's a an increase so before when you're 200 around a big block you can fit them in there but if it's a 120 foot long building you're only going to get in and parking spaces by the time you put columns in and elevators and all the other stuff so other than it's not being convenient what are the reasons that you would not be able to make you know leveled parking or parking underground in other words I'm I'm just trying to understand why this design exhibit 4 has such a significant increase in impervious Services other than um trying to show more parking and exhibit for in other words there somebody trying to fool you not no not fooling but I think it's been stated earlier that this this is one design and just because it's on paper I I want to be cautious to presume this is what has to happen if we adhere to the 180 limit and build more buildings and I know that there's a 20 to 25 if I remember correctly um increase in cost to the developer so I'm just trying to understand what other than an increased cost to a developer would prevent alternatives to just a complete you know significant increase in impervious service surface parking I could um you're not gonna get mic sorry first first I want to say as Darlene said these are these are conceptual they haven't reviewed them yet and it is just a you know a first pass but uh the intent is to show a comparison of what does a uh a building greater than 180 ft that that follows a lot of the more Modern urban planning design principles especially like you see down in King of Prussia uh places that are really trying to move forward and do this type of development uh versus what is a more traditional Suburban approach that's not to say you couldn't put some parking underneath those and a quick calculation would show if you have nine buildings 18 spaces building you have 162 parking spaces unfortunately those 162 asphalt parking spaces are still cheaper than doing it under the building there's no requirement to have under buing parking I think that answers sort of the the sort of tail end of my question which is other than increased cost to a developer what would prevent something like underground parking or layered parking and it sounds like really it is about increased cost to the developer there's no other reason that would prevent a a more creative solution to parking in this design well you'd also have to look at the grade of the site you'd have to look at Building height as a a with with the underground parking uh with the other one it's it's kind of set underground with the grades it all it all kind of works we haven't looked at each individual building some of them could be buried some of them not so then you may you may end up being taller than 60 feet possibly so you'd want to go to surface um okay or or you're artificially just raising the site so you can have that and then your buildings are going to sit 13 14 15 feet higher even though there's still a five story building so understood thank you any further questions thank you just just a few brief questions the first to the city we heard a lot about the 180 foot limit on length and and where that's applicable is there anywhere in any of the existing zones where an industrial or commercial building is limited in length I know there's other factors that we heard about setback and impervious coverage things like that but specifically is any are any other uses limited for the length of their building in in any zones in the city I don't believe there I don't know of one I can't think of one understood I don't have my zoning uh ordinance in front of me so I just wanted to ask the and then just a couple quick ones for the applicant we we heard the number 317 for number of units regardless of uh the mockup uh am I correct in understanding that that 317 comes regardless of length but that's the size of the parcel is that what I it's a function of the size of the parcel it's a gross footage divided by an increment that the city dictates and is that 317 the ceiling of how many units could go on given the size yes of that parcel and then um for the for this zoning District this may have B satis sure if I heard it correctly or if not that I'm understanding correctly is this specific um parcel that we're talk the one that the applicant owns is that the largest in terms of the CL District did I hear that mentioned before when we were talking about the size of the what the typical size is of these Lots Parcels tracks call them what you want um now I'm not gonna hold you to the exact uh we believe it is without having come here prepared to answer that question but from what we know and the market research we've done we believe that it is okay we would be surprised if there was another one [Music] larger those were my only questions thank you everybody am I allowed to ask again I'm sorry I know it's late I also worked all day um but I also don't want to rush something that impacts an entire zoning uh District so um I'm curious and in terms of either side here um we you know we know that there are neighbors residential neighbors here um several city council people including myself have walked the neighborhood um has anyone in these offices talk to the other CL property owners in the area not the residents but the CL property owners that this zoning change would directly impact we have not have we talked to the other property owners the not not the residential property owners but the CL property owners that this change would impact have you considered their perspectives on it in making your arguments well I I've been involved with the developing Community for a number of years what's why this is coming to you now is for a very simple reason if you it's been the custom that in order to deal with this restriction you need to go to the zoning hearing board and the zoning hearing board routinely grants variance to this particular restriction there's numerous properties that have received that relief right and you did try to get a variance and it was we tried to get a variance but for some reason unlike like the other variances of which I've gotten several on my own City Administration decided to show up at this particular hearing and oppos the application which I don't think was lost on the zoning hearing board so we were in effect thrown overboard we didn't get the variant that everybody else gets so we had to take a long and hard look at this we we we Comm we don't have a problem the city Administration ing its ordinances we commend that we think that's laudable however the provision that they're enforcing We Believe should at a minimum be legal and certainly make some kind of planning sense so if we're going to be confronted with this we thought it best to come back to city council who's ultimately really the decision maker in this area right but we're not just making a decision just this is I guess a question for you as we're kind of getting towards our deliberation Point here our decision really has nothing to do with the drawings that were put out as hypotheticals or any other hypothetical uses on the site regardless of like I have personal feelings about what would be great on that side or not too but we're looking at every single CL property correct and what could be done in the future on those properties you're looking at a proposed change to the zoning ordinance that would add the CL District to those districts Exempted from the 180 foot length in a multifam apartment building okay I just wanted to Circle back to that like this is the question we have so my humanity is getting the better of me I have sat through court today with Miss Evans um unless we can wrap this up we should adjourn to another meeting both both she and I have to get up early tomorrow for that same trial so yes this is I think we're I don't I'm not we're going to wrap this up tonight um I don't believe we are um we still have members of the public who have not Happ had an opportunity to speak we still have perhaps questions from Council um so I think at this juncture unless you had one more question you didn't want to forget right now fine I just wanted to make sure that we don't like like I said I'm yeah we we all got work in the morning too but I also want to give it the time it's due so if that means it has to be another time I think in the interest of Miss Evans who's been typing all day long as she expressed I I don't know that we can keep going tonight um I agree can I just say that it would be helpful for the next meeting whatever if Miss hel can you give us information on areas that are Zone CL more you know I see this map but it's hard because it is really small areas so is that possible to provide us with information on the areas in the city that are C you mean just an an a blow just via email some kind just um because this map just doesn't do it for me just you know just the areas if it could be written out what the what the partials are what the street is whatever just areas that we know that are CL that would help I mean I think we've closed the record the zoning map is part of the zoning ordinance so Council can take judicial notice of that and look at the big blown up maps those are always available uh I don't think that um either side should be sending Communications to council um because this is a quasi judicial hearing everything that's submitted to council should be in the context or in the in the confines of of this room and everyone submitted their evidence but I think if city council wants to review the zoning ordinance it's obviously a public document and the map is included with that ordinance is accurate the record is closed so we we have what we have in terms of evidence um in terms of if if Council would like we will produce a list of all the tax M Parcels we'll provide it to the city we'll provide it to the council that's up I mean the record I we put in our evidence but Council would like that list we'd be happy to provide that list I would well I think that's a an evidentiary record issue rather than a at the discretion of council issue um do you have a position on that attorney Deshler I think the record is closed and the next steps are for the council members to ask whatever questions they have and that may have been completed tonight perhaps not and for the public to provide comment and for the attorneys to provide uh closing statements and for Council to deliberate I don't think there's a I don't think we're receiving any more evidence of this that is precisely the the um position or the point that we're at and and that is how we will proceed the record is closed [Music] um we need to discuss how we're going to proceed in terms of uh wrapping this up at a later date and we we covered just now like that we shouldn't be getting Communications from either side in terms official people we also should not be discussing this with residents I assume at this point this is you're in the midst of the hearing do not have any Communications with anyone related to this matter okay thank you well once we go to deliberate certainly and and you know if you're not in a quorum then you're not in a [Music] quorum C can Council ask the administration separately of this for that information uh no we can't engage in any independent investigation at this point and because you're sitting quasi J judicially and I understand about you know there not submitted evidence but I guess I have a problem that as a council member I that information I think is vital to me to make a very um an educated and balanced decision well we do have the exhibits and if you know if you need to look at it with their magnifier you know I we have we have it's it's just I know it's very different you're sitting quas judicially is a little bit different time if the zoning hearing map has been admitted as evidence can we not just then get a blown up zoning hearing or zoning map from the from the clerk if the zoning map itself has been entered which it has been entered in their binder would it would that not solve the problem no problem cool we solve the problem yeah or that you'll look at at least so yeah you know get the zoning map in however large a size you want I have no issue with that okay awesome blown up zoning map motion to adjourn no no no are you g resched down so we don't have to read advertise I think we should establish a date if we get can do it now we should do it now and I'm assuming I will not need to bring all these Witnesses back some of them have to be in Italy some of them have to be in Lucky them record is closed okay well now if we have more questions right you know you have whoever you have to answer the questions so that's at your own Peril understood I think Tad's got to tell us when it's over yeah any Tuesday that's not a council check the uh that's upstairs on the computer okay can we set 10ed time yeah can we do like three proposed dates let's yeah do we have some tentative dates that that might work any second or 4th or 5ifth Tuesday May is the 14th and the 28th is the 11th and the 25th I can't do that or Council can reach out to me and propose dates if you if you need time to consult your calendars and we will just that's fine I think we'll have to make sure you read advertise that yes we will have to re advertise yeah unless we announce tonight so well I mean I have my calendar with me we can pick a date but I sounds like we're gonna have to read advertise and we're gonna confer later and then pick a new date was there a date on the table not yet okay May 14 I can do that does it have to be a Tuesday doesn't I'm out of town at 14 so I don't know I could do the 13th Monday May 13th if everybody's good I would not be available on the 13th I'm not available on the 13th either about the ninth is well we're going to have to read advertise anyway I know also try to coordinate a dozen C yep that's not happening can we do a doodle Po and with no guarantee that open no guarantee will be open we want to meet in myage say that we if it's to everyone's benefit propose a few dates let everyone weigh in and then and then confirm a date as soon as possible yes have to yes okay we are in recess until a later date thank you Miss Evans yeah it's up to you if you don't mind I don't mind walking if it's not raining [Music]