435 Hamilton Street

Allentown, Pa. 18101

Allentown

Minutes - Final

City Council

Wednesday, June 21, 2023

6:00 PM

Council Chambers

Roll Call

7 -

Present:

Candida Affa, Cynthia Mota, Daryl Hendricks, Ed Zucal, Ce-Ce Gerlach, Natalie

Santos, and Santo Napoli

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

Notice is hereby given that the Allentown City Council will consider for possible

adoption an Ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Allentown by

allowing an elementary or secondary school in the I2 and I3 districts as a special

exception use if the subject lot is immediately adjacent to or directly across the street

from a Residential zoning district and another Institutional Use, providing for a repealer

clause, a severability clause, and an effective date.

City Council will consider the foregoing at a Public Hearing on Wednesday, June

21, 2023 at 6:00 PM in Council Chambers, 435 Hamilton Street, Allentown, PA 18101.

Copies of the full text of this Ordinance are available to any interested party for

examination and copying at cost at the City Clerk’s Office or for inspection during

regular business hours at the offices of this newspaper and the Lehigh County

Department of Law. City Council may adopt this amendment to the Zoning Ordinance at

the regularly scheduled Council Meeting at 6:30 pm immediately following this Public

Hearing.

Ms. Cynthia Mota stated that the purpose of this meeting is to take

testimony on an ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance of the City of

Allentown by allowing an elementary or secondary school in the I2 and I3

districts as a special exception use if the subject lot is immediately

adjacent to or directly across the street from a Residential zoning district

and another Institutional Use, providing for a repealer clause, a severability

clause, and an effective date. The bill is scheduled for a final vote at the

Council Meeting that follows this public hearing. City Council’s

Community and Economic Development Committee met on Wednesday,

May 10, 2023, on the proposal. The petitioner explained the zoning

proposal submitted. The committee forwarded the bill unfavorably pending

the zoning rewrite, which the draft public review copy is scheduled to be

prepared by October. The Allentown Planning Commission forwarded the

bill with no recommendation.

Mr. Michael Hanlon stated that the Public Hearing was advertised in the

Morning Call on June 5 and June 12<sup>th</sup>. Again: The purpose of

the meeting is for comments from the public on the proposal. Members of

the public may come up to the podium and give statements in support or

opposition to the proposal, please state your name, address and your

interest in the petition.

15-5761

Bill 23

Amending the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Allentown by allowing

Elementary or Secondary School in an I3 zoning district if the subject lot is

immediately adjacent to or directly across the street from a residential

zoning district, and providing for a repealer clause, a severability clause,

and an effective date.

Attachments: Bill 23 Zoning Amendment

ACPC Action

Referral Letter from Mike Hanlon regarding Bill 23 - Allowing

Elementary or Secondary School in an I3 zoning district

Merged Envelopes

The Morning Call Ad 7438458

Rezoning Posting - 2268 S 12th Street

Lehigh Valley Planning Commission Letter regarding Elementary

Schools in I2 and I3 Districts

Exhibit Submitted by Attorney Szczesny

Exhibit Submitted by Attorney Szczesny Part II

Exhibit Submitted by Attorney Szczesny Part III

Attorney Loren Szczesny, Fox Rothchild on behalf of the School District,

stated for the purpose of the Public Hearing to present or raise issues on

behalf of the School District with respect to the Ordinance that is being

proposed in the view of the school district the proposed ordinance to allow

elementary and secondary in the I2 and I3 industrial districts is simply not

good planning. He discussed why the school district felt that it is

inadequate. He has with him Tom Smith who is the Executive Director of

the Facilities from the school district and a Certified Planner Thomas

Camitta who they asked to take a look at the ordinance. He has comments

and a report.

Mr. Thomas Camitta provided Council his background with one month shy

of 50 years in the profession. The last 50 years, he worked for 133

municipalities. His firm today represents 26 municipalities. He explained

his certifications as a Planner, Congress for new Urbanism (accredited),

registered landscape architect 1991. He talked about reviewing and

commenting on Zoning Ordinances.

Attorney Loren Szczesny presented Mr. Camitta as an expert and Land

Planner. He stated to Mr. Camitta that he was asked by the Allentown

School District to take a look at the proposed Ordinance and if he did so.

He asked if he had an opportunity to set down his comments or thoughts

with respect to the proposal. He showed a document they submitted to

Council. He went over with Thomas Camitta the documents on the

proposed rezoning. He asked Mr. Camitta what were your comments.

Mr. Thomas Camitta stated that he reviewed the text of the ordinance and

visited the site and looked at the current Zoning regulations. In the interest

of time, he briefly summarized the Planner's Analysis. He stated that they

are here because of the amendment. If the subject lot is immediately

adjacent or directly across the street from a residential zoning district for

institutional use. There were some previous comments raised on April 11

about spot zoning. It is his understanding when he went past the site, there

is a sign that says opening up in September. They must have some great

confidence. It is in the I-3 District and adjoining the daycare center on the

adjoining lot. The city of Allentown Planning staff already determined that

there were seven sites to which this amendment could apply. Six of them

were in I-3 and one is in I-2. Currently, the ordinance requires 20,000

square feet for a school, where as the City Council knows the minimum lot

area for the I-2 and I-3 is 10,000 square feet. In the current ordinance it is a

statement of community objective. Sadly, the text amendment does not

comport with those objectives. It talks about text amendment and

ordinance consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. In order to be

complete, we have to look back at the purposes and the statement of intent

of the whole ordinance to determine the extent to which the amendment

complies or not. He talked about the buffer strip. Sadly, there are not

standards pertaining to pick up and drop off areas fencing, lighting,

playground areas, sidewalks or crosswalks. There is a sidewalk in front of

the building that hopes to have the Charter School. It is his opinion that the

amendment in front of Council will be a horrible precedent. The standards

are incomplete for the reuses that are described. That there should be if

you are going to allow primary and secondary schools in industrial districts.

There should be the creature comforts for the children. The proposed

STEAM use will comply with the text amendment. He talked about the

residential district being there for 50 to 100 years. The question is if the

daycare center will always be there. The text amendment tends to apply to

other properties. It seems to be targeted specifically to the STEAM. It is

inconsistent with Allentown Vision 2030. Municipality Planning Code when

it was recently amended, they said that Zoning Amendment and

Comprehensive Plans needs to be consistent. To promote I-2 and I-3

districts where they are permitted. The amendments are silent to tweaking

those words to enable schools. Someone can find a different site to create

a school. He never seen an amendment like this.

Attorney Loren Szczesny asked did you find anywhere in your review that

the current Zoning Ordinance in terms of the number of districts that a

school uses allow is deficit or inadequate.

Mr. Thomas Camitta stated that he did not find that. He stated that 13 of

the 18 districts already allow schools and that is a fact.

Attorney Loren Szczesny stated that they either allow by special exception

or permitted by right.

Mr. Thomas Camitta stated that is correct.

Attorney Loren Szczesny asked Council if there were any questions for Mr.

Camitta.

Ms. Cynthia Mota stated no.

Mr. Tom Smith stated thanked Council for allowing him to address them

this evening in regards to Agenda Item, Bill 23. Amending the Zoning

Ordinance with the city of Allentown by allowing an Elementary and

Secondary School to be placed in an I-2 and I-3 Zoning District. He offered

the following: The city of Allentown establishing Zoning laws and Zoning

permits used to regulate the use of land. As such, the city wanted to limit

the use of the amount of land used for industrial zones and did so to protect

residential and commercial neighborhoods from factories, industrial

manufacturing and power plants along with their inherit risks for spills,

waste, accidents, smoke, emissions, and traffic and other types of

pollutants. As such primary and secondary schools are not permitted.

Uses in the I-3 industrial district no by right via conditional use or via

special exception. The zoning district stated purpose is to provide areas

suitable for a wide variety of industrial and related uses with controls

necessary for ensuring sound industrial development. Permitted uses in

the I-3 district include chemicals, manufacturing, mixing or bulk storage that

is extremely hazardous, ammunition, fireworks, explosives,

pharmaceuticals, testing labs, trucking terminals, warehouses, paints,

varnishes, distribution, industry, laundries, recycling, processing centers,

mental products, paving and roofing materials. As a representative for a

major stakeholder of the city of Allentown, he attended and participated in

the development and review of the Allentown Vision 2030 Comprehensive

and Economic Development Plan and nowhere in the Plan did it suggest a

Zoning change to permit primary and secondary schools in an I-2 or I-3

District. The Plan however acknowledges sidewalks and bus routes and

gaps making south Allentown largely automobile dependent. it does

highlight the fact that south Allentown provides a living wage manufacturing

jobs and space for businesses to grow. It does highlight creating

economic opportunities and increasing the tax base as key to the plants

success and it does highlight south Allentown as an important employment

hub and high tax contributor per square foot. He asked why would the city

of Allentown wants to allow children to be located in an industrial

environment, increase already heavy traffic, and potential lose tax

contributions and potentially manufacturing employment space by allowing

a school. As such, he asked Council to disallow the amendment.

Attorney Loren Szczensy stated that for a point of clarification on the

Agenda for the Allentown City Council meeting. Your regular meeting that

starts at 6:30 PM, when it makes reference to the proposed ordinance

under the legislation history, it indicates that the Community and Economic

Development Committee forwarded this proposal without

recommendation. As the vice president said at the beginning, the

Community and Economic Development Committee did take action. They

did take a vote and the motion was to forward this proposal to Council

unfavorably due to the Code rewrite at the end of October.

Ms. Cynthia Mota stated that members of the public can come up to the

podium and give testimony.

Mr. Michael Hanlon stated that he has Mr. Vanluvanee.

Attorney John Vanluvanee, Eastburn and Gray, stated that he is an attorney

in East Doylestown. He stated that he and Mr. Comitta know each other

very well. He stated that he has been practicing law one year longer than

Mr. Comitta has been Planning. He has been doing land use work all that

time. It is important to respond to a couple of comments. He reminded

everyone that the school district has a history of opposing Charter Schools.

The application made in regards to this site that the school district

recommended did not approve and that is on an appeal. They have a

vested interest to try to convince you not to pass this ordinance. He

suggested that they look at it objectively as your staff did. He stated that

their Land Planner Charlie Schmehl written a good number of the Zoning

Ordinances in the Lehigh Valley. He had a conflict tonight and could not be

here to try to match credentials with Mr. Comitta, but he thinks most of them

know he would be a fair adversary for Mr. Camitta and matching his CV

very affectively. He stated in regards to the comments, Charlie prepared

an ordinance amendment which they then filed. Following that submission,

there were a series of meetings between representatives and his client, Mr.

Schmehl and your staff. The city's staff. As a result of that, the original

amendment was (the original application) was amended in February of this

year based on to incorporate the recommendations of the staff with whom

Mr. Schmehl and his client had met to discuss this amendment and it was

expanded s a result of that to include the I-2 and the I-3 district. It was also

amended to include a requirement that it be an institutional use. That was

not in the original draft. He called their attention to the Staff Report, dated

April 3, 2023. He assumes they have confidence in their staff and if you do,

you will see the Report contradicts some of Mr. Comitta's comments. He

went through the Report regarding the Comprehensive Plan and Spot

Zoning. He stated that Mr. Comitta stated that he never has seen an

ordinance like this. He stated that he finds it hard to believe. You have in

your Zoning Ordinance a use called Adaptive Reuse and has been applied

many times. It is the same concept. Uses have to be consistent. This

amendment deals with the same kind of thing. You know what uses are

here. This is not a blank canvas. This area is developed. The question is

it compatible or does it make sense. They made applications to use it as a

trucking terminal. His client will pursue this use in the event that they don't

have the opportunity to pursue this use. This is the preference. It is clearly

responsible legislation. It is nothing in the staff report to say it is

inappropriate. You staff worked with his client and Mr. Schmehl to work on

the ordinance that is in front of Council.

Mr. James Kacer, 2244 S. Poplar Street, thanked to School District for

correcting the error related to the May 10th meeting. They recommended

not to support this Bill because of the Zoning rewrite. He stated that he has

a packet. He thanked the lawyer of Mr. Atiyeh for making that presentation.

He talked a lot about appropriateness. He asked why would we create a

carve out or spot zone for somebody who flagrantly ignores our Zoning

laws. He spoke about a Cease and Desist on this with a $500 per day fine

that was appealed. You will see on March 23rd, it was a denial by Zoning

on his appeal. he received this from a Right to Know. We have a man that

wants us to accommodate him, but he ignores our Zoning Laws. The last

page, he is operating a Trucking Terminal on the site. A truck rolled off his

property and landed on his property at 130 feet away, across 12th Street,

between two parked cars and miraculously did not hurt anyone. He is still

going along operating this Trucking Terminal against our Zoning laws and

doing it poorly. Why would want to do anything to accommodate him. It

does not make sense. Why wasn't Zoning Cease and Desist wasn't taking

care of at that time after the appeal was denied by Zoning.

Ms. Cynthia Mota stated that now, the record is now closed.

ADJOURNED: 6:32 PM