(Latest in a series of posts on Bethlehem Manor and Neighborhoods)

(Some clued-in followers will recognize that Gadfly refrained from using the name of the Bethlehem Manor representative — a name that comes with some baggage in local circles. Gadfly tried to think about this case on its merits, without prejudice, as the Zoning Hearing Board should be expected to.)

So we come to crunch-time. The Board deliberation and vote.

Unfortunately, we do not get to hear the Board deliberation as we do in, I think, all other boards and commissions — and City Council. In most other cases, we have an idea of why members are voting the way they do.

The Zoning Hearing Board is considered a quasi-judicial body (all witnesses are sworn in!), and thus they deliberate out of public view.

The Board deliberated roughly 20 minutes.

The vote was 3-2 to deny the proposal.

During the roll call, one of the two deniers paused a good 5 seconds before voting, indicating some indecision.

Ha! So perhaps the true vote was 3.5 to 1.5 against the Bethlehem Manor proposal.

As he said earlier, Gadfly was surprised (smart money and water-cooler chat usually believes that in Bethlehem voting favors the builder/developer), and he wishes he knew the basis of the votes.

As he also said earlier, when all is said and done, “we” depend on Board members who are intelligent, objective, fair, and empathetic.

We depend on good Board members. We depend on the Mayor to provide them, Council to appoint them, and Council to hold them accountable.

We can judge some of those traits from their behavior in the open part of the hearings and in the brute fact of their vote, but it is in deliberation where those traits would be most needed and most visible.

‘Tis unfortunate that we are not privy to the best evidence we could have of Board member suitability. Thus, the initial selection process is extra-special in the case of the Zoning Board.

More on that in a following post.

Where does the case go from here?

Bethlehem Manor will appeal to Northampton County Court.

If the denial here locally was based primarily on neighborhood “quality of life” issues — as Gadfly suspects it was — then how will that play at the county court level?

Gadfly is not sure, but the Bethlehem Manor attorney seemed confident, and you can hear him laying the groundwork for appeal on the Manor’s compliance with all technical issues:

Neighborhood concerns may not play well at the higher level.

Does this series of posts give you an idea of a Zoning Hearing Board process?

Gadfly will be on the lookout for action at the next level and keep you apprised.

(Latest in a series of posts on Bethlehem Manor and Neighborhoods)

So have you been playing along? What decision would you make if you were on the Zoning Hearing Board?

At the historic commissions, planning commission, and zoning board hearings, Gadfly has often thought a field trip would be helpful for the members.

Those bodies work from photos, sketches, design plans, blueprints, verbal testimony, etc. I wonder why video is not used. A laptop set up at the “Mayor’s desk” would make it possible, I think. And maybe it could be helpful at times.

Gadfly was struck by neighbor Anne Lendzinski’s comment that what Bethlehem Manor wanted to do was appropriate at their Saucon Valley Manor facility but not the “homey environment” of Pennsylvania Ave.

So Gadfly decided to get a personal feel for the validity of her point and take a field trip to both locations and take (unfortunately) unprofessional videos.

Here are two short videos on Bethlehem Manor: Bethlehem Manor 1 and Bethlehem Manor 2.

And here are two short videos on another facility owned by the same company, Saucon Valley Manor, Main St., Hellertown: Saucon Valley Manor 1 and Saucon Valley Manor 2.

Does Anne have a point?

Would “being there” help the Board make a decision?

(Latest in a series of posts on Bethlehem Manor and Neighborhoods)

Ok, back to our “anatomy” lesson on a Zoning Board hearing, focusing on Bethlehem Manor’s proposal to construct an addition to their Rosemont school personal care facility that will enable a 70% increase in population.

We’ve seen the Administrator testimony; we’ve seen the neighbor testimony. What about the role of the Zoning Board?

The Zoning panel is made up of 5 residents nominated by the Mayor and appointed by City Council.

The members of the Zoning Board are the most important factor in these cases. Both sides argue their positions.

But the Board decides.

Members of the Zoning Board — it goes without saying — must be intelligent, objective, fair. And maybe “empathetic” would be a good addition to a list of desirable traits.

One of the members of this panel is currently an alternate member of the Board but is up for appointment as a full member at tonight’s City Council meeting. Gadfly will post on this important appointment later today. Stay tuned.

But for now look at this few minute selection of the Board questioning the Bethlehem Manor Administrator to get a flavor of the interaction.

The interaction between Board and Administrator elicits several important points. The motivation for the expansion is the desire to provide private rooms to meet concrete demand for them, a demand she did not realize at the beginning. The Administrator elaborates on the reason people want private rooms to start, how movement to shared rooms at the same location is fostered when money becomes an issue, why she wants to fill that demand at this Rosemont school location rather than elsewhere, how she interacts with neighbors — while indicating her confidence that she would fill the new space in quick order.

Good points. Worthwhile listening to this interchange if you are playing Board member as Gadfly was and weighing what your decision would be.

But, ironically, the Administrator, in praising the neighborhood — in Gadfly’s opinion — makes the neighbor’s case. In answering a question about why a fence was not erected along the outside recreation area as promised in the original Zoning approval in 2016, the Administrator says:

It’s a nice homey environment. We’re in, you know, a neighborhood, and to take a fence and put it there, you know, you’re 95 years old and you’re looking at a fence. You know it’s not as attractive. . . .It’s nice for them to look out.

Wow! There’s the crux. The neighbors talk about such a large addition rending “the fabric” of the neighborhood, and Bethlehem Manor’s position is that they precisely want to provide their often very senior personal care residents with the feel of a neighborhood.

See what makes this an interesting case?

(Latest in a series of posts on Bethlehem Manor and Neighborhoods)

In Gadville there are always two (or more) sides to an issue.

So let’s look at how the Bethlehem Manor argued for acceptance of their proposal.

The BM administrator stated that in the course of marketing the facility she determined a new demand for/discovered a market for a type of room that she didn’t anticipate and can’t currently satisfy: “a private room with a private bathroom.”

Now if someone wants a private room, she offers space in her other locations in Whitehall and Hellertown, but often location (they do serve families in the immediate Rosemont neighborhood) is key, and families want to stay in this area: “location is a huge factor.”

The Administrator spoke of the economies involved in adding a building to this location rather than opening another facility at a separate location and further stated that the proposed addition was necessary for her business to stay competitive.

Not very dramatic video, but you can begin to judge the character of the Administrator (and through her Bethlehem Manor) in her opening testimony on these subjects and several other subjects here:

Testimony from neighbors raised a series of problems running from cigarette butts to mosquitoes to traffic, and in her rebuttal the Administrator made a rather remarkable  impassioned defense of her specific mission and the cause of the elderly in general.

Don’t skip this audio:

• “I know the neighborhood has not been impacted negatively, and it won’t be, giving us the honor of adding 54 more beds.”
• “We’re just asking for our residents to have a good quality of life too without hurting any of the neighbors or the neighborhood.”
• “They just want to have a good quality of life, hopefully they have 20-30 years, but some have 2 or 3, and they deserve that as well.”
• “They are equally as important. Just because they’re older and they’re in a personal care home does not diminish the fact that once they were home owners, once they were people more contributing to the community, but that should take away their desire and our need to give them a good quality of life.”
• “We want to be good neighbors, but, also, yes, we want to satisfy the market, which means satisfying the elderly.”
• “It’s not about just making the money.”
• “But it is hard if you’ve ever cared for someone elderly.”
• “54 residents in their rooms, in their building are not going to change anything for the neighborhood.”
• “I only request and ask that you give the other 54 residents . . . the honor and privilege of living their last years in a neighborhood that is very nice and they should deserve that.”

Were you expecting all that?

The Bethlehem Manor Administrator turns “quality of life” on its head. The personal care residents deserve good quality of life too!

Gadfly found the Administrator’s statement powerful. She defended her position with emotional vigor.

So the Zoning Board decision was not an obvious one to Gadfly.

Let’s go on to look at a few more aspects of the hearing.