|
|
|
|
| City
planners postpone dredge decision until January
|
 |
|
| Tuesday,
19 December 2006 |
By L.A.
TARONE
Amphitheater? What
amphitheater?
Despite the widespread publicity
attached to the outdoor arena proposed by Mayor
Lou Barletta, and his pronouncement that it’s the
most important development project in city
history, the Hazleton Redevelopment Authority
argued to the Planning Commission that it had no
definite plans for the abandoned mine lands into
which river dredge will be deposited.
HRA
argued the point during a hearing that was the
result of a remand order from Luzerne County
Common Pleas Judge Hugh Mundy.
The commission
took no action Monday night, deferring it until
its first meeting of 2007, scheduled for Jan. 22.
Its solicitor, Jim Ferry, will compile a list of
additional information the commission will request
from HRA before deciding whether to reiterate its
approval or vacate it.
The progression of
events that led to Monday night’s hearing is
complicated. During 2005, the Planning Commission
approved a request for a subdivision from Sullivan
Trail involving land connected to the land river
dredge will be used to reclaim. The majority of
the land involved was to be transferred to HRA and
be subsequently leased to Hazleton Creek Partners
for the dredge project. An amphitheater is slated
to built on the land when it is
reclaimed.
However, Edrich Reality, which owns
land that borders the dredge land, appealed the
subdivision approval to Mundy. After hearing the
case, he sent it back to the Planning Commission
for examination of its initial approval. However,
he did not toss out the initial application – the
reconsideration was to be based on information
included in it.
In the meantime, Pagnotti
Enterprises, which had owned the majority of the
land involved in the reclamation project, bought
Sullivan Trail. It asked the court to allow HRA to
represent it at the hearing by proxy and Mundy
agreed.
HRA Solicitor David Glassberg and
Chairman Bob Dougherty argued its case. They said
they believed they complied with both the city and
the state planning code during the original
hearing. They added small triangles of land
created by the subdivision would not be sold
individually, and would only be sold if HRA
decided to sell the entire parcel.
“We believe
we’ve addressed all of Judge Mundy’s concerns,”
Glassberg told Planning Chairman John Lenchak.
“But if there is anything else you believe we
didn’t cover, we’d be happy to address
it.”
Lenchak read off a checklist of things
required under the city planning code, adding that
he thought everything on it had been addressed. He
threw it open to the board for questions, but no
member had any.
But Edrich’s Attorney Anthony
Lucadamo said he had a few questions. He then
picked apart the list, noting several problems as
he saw them – including those he called
significant, such as whether a grading plan needed
to be filed, and minor things, such as a required
address being absent from the blueprints.
Among
the issues Lucadamo raised was that the river
dredge would change the topography of the land,
noting the city planning code required a grading
plan be filed if there was a change in the pitch
of slopes exceeding 10 degrees. He said the plans
showed no slopes, making it impossible to
determine whether a grading plan was needed. But
noting the publicity the amphitheater project has
received, he said there was little doubt slopes
would change by at least 10 degrees, as the land
is slated to leveled for construction of the
amphitheater.
Glassberg countered that whether
slopes will be leveled hasn’t been decided,
adding, “You can’t request us to submit something
we didn’t propose to do at this time.” But
Lucadamo noted plans for dredge importation
required the construction of a pugmill (in which
material will be mixed) and several structures
related to rail transportation. He said they, too,
required permits.
Glassberg argued that none of
that was related to the subdivision, adding that
was the only thing for which the request had been
filed. But Lucadamo also raised the presence of
“watercourses,” as he called them, and whether or
not Dougherty had a conflict of interest, as he is
also the city’s engineer, as well as HRA’s
chairman. Planning Solicitor Jim Ferry said there
was no conflict, adding that acting in an
engineer’s capacity for the city’s boards and
commissions was part of his job as city
engineer.
“It has not been determined what will
be done there yet,” Glassberg said. “We don’t know
what we’re going to do with it; if land
development approval is needed for anything we
propose, we’ll come back.”
“So, all that
coverage about the amphitheater – the paper got it
wrong?” Lucadamo asked.
But Glassberg
reiterated that the only thing the PC was to
decide on was a subdivision, not a land use or
land development plan.
After several more
minutes of points and counterpoints between the
two attorneys – during which Lucadamo asked the
commission to defer any action until an appeal to
the project was heard in April – Ferry said he
would compile a list of information the commission
would require from HRA to make a final decision,
adding that there appeared to be slight
deficiencies in four areas. He said he expected to
mail that list to Glassberg within the next few
days.
The commission then voted unanimously to
continue the hearing until next month.
Lenchak
opened the floor to public comment. About half the
20 people in the audience –unusually large for a
Planning Commission meeting – had something to
say. Grace Cuozzo said the commission should
consider the sloping issue, adding that Buttonwood
Street, near Church and Laurel, has had flooding
problems recently adding, runoff from the project
might add to them.
Bill Lockwood – former city
council president and current president of Save Us
From Future Environmental Risks (SUFFER) – pointed
to the blueprints where two creeks exist. Carole
Martienssen said much work was already going on at
the site, including leveling and grading of old
silt banks.
The most animated speaker was Ann
Marie Shelby, of Hazle Village, a former member of
the Hazle Township Planning Commission. She handed
Lenchak a copy of the lease between HRA, HCP and
Pagnotti, saying the commission had been
“misled.”
“Here is the agreement,” Shelby said.
“They know exactly what they’re doing
there.”
Tom Yurick of West Hazleton echoed
Shelby’s comments.
In fact, HRA is a party to
the lease involving the proposal, along with HCP
and Pagnotti. Under the terms in the lease agreed
to in December 2005, HCP paid $200,000 as a rental
payment up front. HRA used that money to execute
its purchase agreement with Pagnotti, owner of the
land at the time.
HCP was also to pay the city
50 cents per cubic yard of dredge, which will be
channeled into a fund to cover the cost of the
amphitheater (called the Amphitheater Contingency
Fund in the agreement).
Plus, HCP will put
another 25 cents per cubic yard into a fund to
assist development citywide (called the Economic
Development Fund Fee in the agreement).
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
