Gadfly has lost count. But there was another 4hr meeting of the Zoning Hearing Board last week on the challenge to the validity of a text amendment to the “storefront” ordinance originally intended to apply to properties like the one on the left but benefiting 2 W. Market on the right — an ordinance passed by a Council, in Gadfly’s opinion, not in its best hour.
This is the 88th post on the long history over the controversy of the zoning on 2 W. Market, and followers can refresh themselves on that history by clicking the link on the Gadfly sidebar.
Gadfly loves examples of citizen participation, of which there were several at this meeting, and he invites you here to both learn about the issues surrounding 2 W. Market and to enjoy a model of good citizenship through the testimony of Paige Van Wirt.
How does this zoning amendment impair or impede the residential character of the neighborhood? (3 mins.)
- “There’s no families in this business to watch little kids on the street, there’s nobody to see that somebody fell down on the corner.”
What are your concerns given that this property is on the edge of a commercial district? (1 min.)
- “Now this neighborhood is struggling to come back and have a full residential character to it. Any conversion . . . of a previously healthy residential home . . . is going to erode the fabric of my neighborhood.”
Do you have concerns about commercial creep? (1 min.)
- “This does give a signal that our neighborhood’s zoning is not a wall.”
Will this amendment erode the reliability of the zoning ordinance? (1 min.)
- “As a homeowner . . . I would be much less inclined to buy a property on this block if I felt there were going to be more commercial/residential flips.”
Describe the importance of drafting the memo to the City Planning Director asking for more data? (2 mins.)
- “My concern was that there was no impact study done by the City. . . . that we were asked at City Council to adopt an ordinance where there had been no data and research done.”
Does the amendment support the general health, safety, and welfare of the residents of Bethlehem? (1 min.)
- “I understand why this is in the best interests of Quadrant, I get it, they did a great job on the building, but it doesn’t pass the litmus test of being in the best interest of the City, and that’s fundamentally what City Council is here as a representative body of the citizens of Bethlehem to do.”
Interesting material came out as Van Wirt parried with one of the attorneys under cross-examination. (9 mins.)
- “This is a border neighborhood. . . . You’re not going to go six blocks in to the middle of Wall St. to try to set up a business there.”
Are you familiar with uses of the properties on your block? (1 min.)
- “If this amendment could be so broadly applied that it would affect my own home, it made me understand the potential impact this would have on the rest of the City.”
Why did you wait so long before requesting data from the City? (2 mins.)
- “Call me naive, but I never thought it would get that far. Once it was apparent that there was enough people on Council considering voting for it, that’s when I said, O, my God, I’ve got to show them, I’ve got to prove to Council why this is not in the best interest of the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Bethlehem. . . . That’s my job”
The hearing board will convene again December 11 to continue consideration of this case.