Disturbing news--the County has apparently decided to expand the juvenile detention center on Ferry Street to accommodate 24 new people, their visitors, and four workers. The article below addresses the issue of how it will effect parking in our neighborhood--one of our members, Terrence, who lives near the jail is quoted in the article:
Express Times Article on Expansion of Detention Center and Parking Issues for Residents
We have to do what we can to stop this. Parking is already a growing problem for WW residents, but I am primarily upset that while Bethlehem residents are allowed public input and to reject having a rehab center built on the outskirts of their town where very few residents live, we, apparently are being given no opportunity to express our concerns before a jail is expanded right in the middle of our neighborhood, a neighborhood with the densest human population in the entire city, and I would venture to say, in the County.
Earl & Tim are going to the City offices tomorrow to file a complaint with a list of their concerns. Apparently the County cannot move forward on this plan until the City of Easton grants some needed variances to the County. This may be our only way of stopping this.
Please, everybody, click on the link on the right side of this blog to find contact info for our City officials, and either call, email, or even better--visit the City offices downtown--to file a complaint and get on record as being a concerned resident who is opposed to jail expansion in our neighborhood! We have to fight fast on this one.
PORTAL TO THE ALL NEW NEIGHBORS OF EASTON
Click the door to enter!
Good Links
Subscribe To Neighbors of Easton
Posts
1 comment:
FYI: here are the concerns hand-delivered to City Hall:
DATE: November 10, 2008
TO: City of Easton Zoning Hearing Board
City of Easton Department of Planning and Codes
City of Easton Planning Commission
RE: Northampton County application for an impervious surface and off-street parking variance to construct a two-story addition to the Juvenile Detention Center at 650 Ferry Street , which is located in a INS-2-A zoning district.
Delivered by hand, November 10, 2008
In response to notices received, we herein express our concerns, and request that the City of Easton Zoning Hearing Board, the City of Easton Department of Planning and Codes, and the City of Easton Planning Commission deny granting a variance requested by the County of Northampton for the above-referenced County of Northampton Juvenile Justice Facility expansion project.
Please note that we present these concerns as private citizens, City of Easton residents and adjacent property owners, not as a Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Architect or as a City of Easton Human Relations City Commissioner .
We are Timothy George Hare, R.A., M.A., Pennsylvania Architect, and Rev. Earl David Ball, M. Div., S.T.M..
For 24 years, we have lived at 667 Ferry St , which is adjacent to our separately deeded side lot at 665 Ferry Street , Easton , PA. We have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of time and money in these properties. The off-site church parking lot required as part of this variance request, borders our properties, to the east.
We herein present our concerns to the proposed county expansion project that includes off-street parking adjacent to our home.
Important information concerning this expansion project was brought to light during our attendance at the Easton Planning Commission meeting last week, when we questioned the county officials and their design consultants. We present this information herein, in the event that the Zoning Board is uninformed about these matters that could have significant bearing on their decision whether or not to grant an exception to the off-street parking lot located across Ferry St. adjacent to our home.
We were alarmed to learn at the Easton Planning Commission Meeting held November 5, 2008, that the county has had a long term arrangement with the church for the past eight years for using the church’s parking lot for off-street parking for county workers and visitors to the juvenile justice center across the busy intersection of three city streets. We were even more surprised to learn for the first time that county property and personnel have been utilized to improve and maintain this private (tax exempt) property.
This contract between the county and church, for providing off-street parking to the county, inextricably links the church parking lot to the county’s present and future expansion design. The 20 or more parking spaces provided to the county by their leasing the private parking lot owned by the church contribute to the total parking spaces needed for the preliminary and final city agency approvals that include Zoning, and Planning Commission.
Only when we asked at this meeting, was it revealed that the county has already been providing taxpayer-paid gravel/stone materials and county maintenance crew labor to plow and maintain this private parking lot (which has damaged our garden fences when plowed snow has piled up). The county official, when asked by us, said there is no rent charged in exchange for these upgrades and services. We were also told that no federal funds are utilized in this project.
We were quite disturbed to discover at the meeting that the county plans to convert their temporary parking arrangement to a permanent written lease agreement. Further, the county stated at the meeting that they have already discussed with the church future permanent upgrades and expanded parking on this private property. This would represent the expansion of the use of public funds, at the expense of all taxpayers of Northampton County , for the site improvement of a private property owner, for which no written lease has been made public, and to this we have major concerns.
We were also alarmed to learn at the meeting, from a county representative, that the county has been in discussions with the church to pave and upgrade the parking lot, including lighting, etc., and that the County could expand the lot in the future, as needed, to the rear portion of the site, which borders Sandts Court .
This knowledge came to light at the meeting only because we had attended the meeting, for which the notice for the meeting misrepresented the full scope of the project by avoiding any reference to this off-street parking lot adjacent to our home.
We are very glad that we asked whether or not the county’s planned scope of the project involved any property on our side of Ferry Street , since there was no indication in the meeting notice/map of any scope of work planned anywhere but on the county property across Ferry Street from our home.
This misleading notice is sufficient reason alone for us to expect that it would be incumbent upon the Planning Commission that their preliminary approval be rescinded, and that a new notice be delivered to all neighbors within 200 feet of all sides of the church parking lot, including the neighbors that border on Sandts Court at the foot of the church’s off-street parking lot.
While this church parking lot was completely “off the radar screen” in the meeting notices, maps, and plans, the discussion of this lot, along with it’s lack of a publicly-available written lease with the county, occupied almost half of the time spent discussing the project at the Planning Commission Meeting. For something so seemingly tangential, were it not for us two adjacent homeowners raising our questions and concerns about it, the public could have been completely misled about how inextricably linked this off-site parking lot is to this major county expansion project.
Our concerns to granting a variance for current and future utilization by the County of Northampton of the off-site parking lot bordering on Ferry Street and Sandts Court, and adjacent to our 665 Ferry Street and 667 Ferry Street property:
1. This off street parking lot owned by the church at Walnut/Ferry/Locust St./Sandts Court was specifically omitted from the zoning notice. We are highly concerned about this omission and expect a rescheduling of this zoning meeting, with a postponement of all discussion of this agenda item, scheduled for the November 17th Zoning meeting. We expect that due notification for a rescheduled Zoning meeting would be issued by the Zoning Board to all neighbors within 100 feet of all sides of the off-street church parking lot that borders on Sandts Court to the north.
2. We strongly request a denial of both the current temporary and the future permanent use of the adjacent church parking lot by the county facility across Ferry/Walnut Sts. We expect that, if the county cannot provide for its permanent parking needs on site, then the county would abandon the proposed 40 percent expansion of the facility, or must find a way on-site to provide permanent parking without negatively impacting the quality of life in our neighborhood.
3. We are very concerned about this current and proposed use of public money for the permanent improvement of private property, especially when the private property that is tax exempt and, as such, do not contribute to the tax base of the county. We expect that the county should actually own the land on which they are spending public funds.
4. We are extremely concerned about the current use of this parking lot by the county, since we were never given an opportunity by the city or county to file our objections to this use of this land adjacent to our home. We expect that the current use be evaluated by the zoning and planning agencies, and other agencies of the Commonwealth, to determine whether or not it is contrary to current zoning, regulatory, and/or building code requirements, including the federal Americans with Disabilities Act.
5. The preliminary approval of this project by the Planning Commission is contingent on their receipt of a written lease from the church for the use of this parking lot. We are concerned that no such lease appears to exist and we expect to be provided with the exact terms of that lease, since public money is involved for the improvement of private property.
6. We have objections to the current and proposed use of this off-street parking lot adjacent to our home due to health and safety concerns. Requiring county visitors and staff to park across a busy intersection of heavily traveled city streets that do not have walk/don’t walk signs, or any other adequate safety measures, would create a hazardous and substandard condition resulting in a public nuisance. Poor sightlines, high traffic volume, steep topography, and lack of safety design features, create a formula for pedestrian/vehicular disaster. To increase the volume of cars and pedestrians entering and exiting the existing or a new curb cut in the midst of a hazardous intersection is not only extremely dangerous, but also highly irresponsible and libelous.
7. We have witnessed many accidents and collisions at this intersection over the pat 24 years, one which leveled a huge street tree, which while at the corner of this parking lot in question, crashed into our house. Thankfully, nobody was waiting on the sidewalk to cross Ferry Street to the county facility at that moment. During an ice storm we saw seven accidents within one hour. Often we hear screeching brakes as pedestrians try to maneuver crossing this dangerous and busy intersection of Walnut Ave./Ferry St./Locust St. without the aid of proper signaling or crosswalks. This hazard is bound to increase as the volume of occupants of an expanded county facility increases.
8. Our own safety while occupying our garden has been severely endangered already with parking lot vehicles and maintenance vehicles hitting our small fence that would not be able to stop a careening vehicle from causing us bodily injury or death. The current “temporary’ county parking at the church parking lot has no wheel stops and is complete substandard from a safety point of view.
9. We have strong objections to any future permanent upgrade of this parking lot due to concerns about light pollution, air pollution, increased vehicular flow, noise, litter, loitering, crime and other nuisances that such a permanent parking lot would invite. Any permanent improvement would need to meet city design codes, and storm water management standards set locally and in the Commonwealth. These design restrictions could reduce the planned 20-car spaces to a small fraction of that amount, owing to setbacks, landscaping, etc., even to the detriment of satisfying the church’s own needs for parking cars for their members and visitors.
10. We are very concerned about the possible lack of storm water management review by the State Dept. of Environmental Protection which has jurisdiction over the storm runoff to surrounding areas that include Bushkill Creek. The Zoning Board and Planning Board must be aware that we were told by the county representatives that the current impervious paving calculations for this project do not include the church off-street parking lot. This fact was only brought to light when the representatives answered our questions at the Planning Commission Meeting. Whether paved or not, we are concerned about the omission of this parking lot in the current calculations. If ever paved imperviously, the church parking lot would greatly impact those calculations negatively and could have a major negative impact on the volume of storm water runoff onto Sandts Court as well as onto the neighboring properties downhill from the lot.
11. We have safety concerns that the current design requires visitors, clients, their representatives, members of the public, and county workers, to park offsite when they would be best served parking on county property without having to cross this dangerous intersection described above.
12. As longstanding and contributing citizens of the city and county, we feel that it is incumbent upon us to fulfill our civic and moral obligation to herein caution that the City of Easton agencies and the County of Northampton may be unaware that the taxpayers and all visitors needing access onto Sandts Court bordering this off-street parking lot in the rear, could face legal action.
This could occur because this off-site parking lot might be required by government agencies to access onto Sandts Court for secondary access, or for permit approvals, fire and safety access, surveying purposes, storm water management improvements, lighting, paving, maintenance vehicles, utility vehicles, etc. Should this occur, all persons accessing onto Sandts Court could become additional future defendants in an ongoing costly and protracted lawsuit filed in county court in April, 2006, with no court date or resolution yet in sight.
Therefore, the City of Easton agencies involved in approving the future use of this off-site parking lot that borders on Sandts Court would be prudent to do research at the County Court of Northampton County for further information about the magnitude of this ongoing legal cloud that has existed for the past two and a half years over access to Sandts Court. This lawsuit has already negatively impacted everyone owning properties bordering on Sandts Court , including us and the owner of the off-street parking lot under consideration for a variance and approvals from your government agency.
Our Additional Concerns about this County expansion project:
1. If federal funds are being utilized, directly or indirectly, for any part of the present or future scope of construction of this project, or its funding, we are concerned that an environmental impact statement has yet to be made public. The on- and off-site properties may be within a floodplain that could have been established in the 1970s for the former county expansion projects at that time.
2. We are concerned about the accuracy of the classification of the type of zoning district indicated in the notice for this county expansion, if the church parking lot, or any other off-street parking lots involved in this exception application, are located in a different type of zoning district, such as residential.
3. The addition of four offices on the west side of the project could negatively impact the present view of the historic Statue of the Maine . Future viewing the statue from the public sidewalks would now have the distraction of a new building located behind the stature. We expect that the Pennsylvania History and Museum Commission would be required to review and approve this county expansion design since the current design could negatively impact the surrounding environment of this important statue which contributes to our American heritage.
4. The additions of four offices on the west side of the project could require the removal of three or more majestic mature trees that provide significant shading and screening of unsightly prison razor wire from public view, including the view from the front of our home.
5. The expansion by about 40 percent of the existing population of the facility residents, visitors, and staff of the current facility would simply create too large a facility of this nature to exist in the midst of our residential neighborhood. Further, it was discussed at the Planning Commission meeting that there would be no future cap on future expansion; we record herein our objections to the lack of a cap being imposed on this project now.
6. We are shocked at the lack of overall planning for the full parking needs and solutions of the county parking needs, on their own property, which has resulted in this plan imposing extreme off-site parking expansion to the severe detriment of the health and safety of the neighborhood’s private property owners and their own parking needs;
Posted by Rev. Earl David Ball, M. Div., S.T.M.
667 and 665 Ferry St., Easton, PA 18042-4423
Post a Comment