After hearing from residents and business owners, city council members approved a zoning change for the Martin Tower site on first reading at their meeting on Oct. 20. However, council members expressed a need to see change in the proposal before granting it final approval.

In a 6-1 vote, council members approved the zoning change on first reading, with council member Eric Evans voting against.

Rod Holt, co-owner of the Apollo Grill, said he was surprised at lack of interest shown by civil leaders.

“We get no response. Ninety percent of this community speaks with one voice. Why are you ignoring the business community’s voice?”

He said business owners have tried to meet with developers and anyone who would listen. Developers “seem to have more clout than those business owners and property owners,” he said

Bethlehem resident Peter Crownfield said, “There is no sensible reason to support this proposal,” and urged council members to “support the people who have already invested in Bethlehem.”

Another resident, Will Carpenter, said, “Rezoning is serious business. You need to demonstrate a need for a change. What’s changed in our community? Do we need more residential? How has the retail market changed?” he asked. “I feel it’s an irresponsible proposal.”

He said council members who have had campaign contributions from the developer should recuse themselves to “avoid appearances of impropriety.”

Jeff Fegley, owner of the Bethlehem Brew works, said the zoning change would discourage business owners from locating downtown.

“They would be stupid to pick downtown with the incentives this site is going to offer,” which he said were “tax incentives on steroids.”

Fegley said, “This zoning change is a tremendous handout.” He also told council members to recuse themselves if they have taken campaign contributions from the developer. “You have a responsibility to the people,” he said, adding “Pay-to-play; you may not want to think you’re doing it, but it’s there.”

Resident Stephen Antalics told council members that business owners “have what is the best interest of Bethlehem for the future. Listen to them. You have heard the will of the people. It’s very disturbing. Your choice will let us know. We put you there. Are you going to listen to us?”

Mayor Robert Donchez said the proposed amendment “was the result of much deliberation. It provides flexibility to make the site attractive.”

Director of Community and Economic Development Alicia Karner said redeveloping the site is “key to the city’s success. It’s a large tract of property.”

Council President J. William Reynolds said to the residents and business owners at the meeting, “I appreciate everyone coming out.” He said that in hindsight he should have handled the public hearing on Oct. 6 differently. “You can take this as an apology,” he said.

He thanked the administration for the proposal.

“I agree with the goals, but I have concerns. I don’t want to see 63 million square feet of retail there. Something needs to be done to fix that and drastically reduce it,” Reynolds said.

The proposal will be up for a second reading Nov. 4. The regular council meeting was moved from Tuesday to Wednesday due to Election Day.

Attorney Jack Spirk, council’s solicitor, said any changes to the ordinance will require the matter to go back to the city and county planning commissions, since both bodies have already approved the proposal. Any substantial changes will require readvertising the ordinance with the revisions, he said.

The percentages of retail space noted in the ordinance were added by the city planning commission.

Reynolds said, “I think that’s a real concern. We need to include a hard and fast number.”

But no matter what amount of retail is allowed, Reynolds said, redeveloping the site will most likely include demolition of the iconic Martin Tower.

“I’m not sure we are ever going to see the day when Martin Tower is redeveloped,” he said.

Council member Eric Evans thanked the administration “for starting dialog with us” but said he also would like to see the proposal changed before final approval.

“I am not comfortable with proposal as it stands,” he said. “We’re the gatekeepers of what goes there. The plan is too wide open. We need to keep an eye out and protect what exists here now.”

Evans made a motion to return the proposal to the council’s Community Development Committee. The motion was seconded by council member Cathy Reuscher, but failed in a 5-2 vote.

Council member Bryan Callahan reminded business owners that the city has made investments to Main Street, in the form of tax dollars spent on lighting, sidewalks, decorative paving, and a dedicated public works staff member cleaning up and emptying garbage cans.

“We care about you and about our downtown,” Callahan said. Since his property is on Main Street, he said, “As Main Street goes so my property goes.”

Council member Adam Waldron said, “It needs to be developed in time, in a sustainable way. I feel like it’s being jammed down our throats.” Waldron said he was in favor of “scaling this way back.

Reuscher said, “I would like to see the property put to good use.” She thanked the administration and residents. “We do care about this. It’s no exaggeration to say I lose sleep over these issues.”

Council member Louis Stellato also thanked people who came out. He said he has empathy for small business owners, adding, “I come from a small business family.” However, he said, it is necessary to “separate rhetoric from reality. It’s time to move forward.”