After hearing from the public and debating options, city council members approved amendments to a proposed zoning change for the Martin Tower site Nov. 4. The amendments have the effect of sending the proposal back to the city planning commission, where the public will also have more opportunity to voice opinions on the issue.

After that, the proposal, either as amended or with other amendments from the planning commission, will go to the Northampton County Planning Commission for further review. Each entity has 30 days for review and comment. After that process, the proposed zoning change will come back to city council, where a public hearing will be held Dec. 8 before a final vote can be taken at the Dec. 15 meeting.

Marc Kaplin, an attorney representing seven city businesses and seven property owners, told council members the ordinance was in violation of city’s preservation plan and put the city revitalization and improvement zone (CRIZ)-designated sites in jeopardy.

“In my opinion, passing would be voidable. Pass on passing this ordinance tonight,” he said, followed by applause from the audience.

Resident and business owner Krisann Albanese suggested moving city government offices to Martin Tower.

“You can all have a window with a view,” she said.

Resident Robert Romeril told council members the tower should stay.

“I was one of the first people to move into the tower as an employee. It was a great place to work,” he said.

Martin Romeril also suggested using the tower for city offices. The auditorium on the site “is better suited to city council meetings,” he said. The site is about seven acres with the tower and outbuildings and a 46-acre section that is mostly open space. This could be seized by eminent domain and made into a park, Romeril said.

“It would be a gift of enduring value,” he added.

Lehigh University student Mike Talenti said many students work at or patronize local businesses. He told council members to avoid zoning for big box stores because it would be doing a disservice to students who appreciate the character of the downtown.

“It’s not what they want,” he said.

Jeff Fegley, owner of the Brewworks, said the proposal “looks like a giant favor, smells like a giant favor” to the developer.

After the public comment, council member Eric Evans thanked residents for coming out, saying any type of development “fills the house.”

Evans said after the last meeting, when his proposal to move the issue back to committee was voted down, he met with members of the city staff and held discussions with other council members, along with city solicitor Jack Spirk to make sure the Sunshine Law was observed.

Evans said he wanted to come up with possible amendments to the proposed zoning to achieve consensus among council members before proceeding.

While some members of the public have asked for the developer to present a plan before the zoning change can be approved, Spirk told council members any zoning changes would need to be in place before a plan is submitted. It is not permitted to ask for a plan and then vote the zoning around the plan, he said, as this would be “contract zoning.” Kaplin said he has litigated such issues and disagreed with Spirk’s definition of contract zoning.

Evans then proposed five amendments to the proposed zoning change, both to correct some minor points and to “set parameters on the amount of retail. It’s important to dial it back to control the character of development,” Evans said.

Council President J. William Reynolds said that any amendments would require the proposal to go back to the city and county planning commissions before coming back to city council, giving the public more opportunities for discussion.

“The overall goal is to create a balance and find a finished product that people can get behind. It won’t make everybody happy,” Reynolds said.

The amendment included clarifying the language in the proposal to eliminate the multistory building obligation.

“That reduces the vision that this ought to be a third downtown,” Evans said. The first amendment was approved 6-0.

Evans proposed another amendment to specify that potential development should “create connectivity between residential and commercial buildings on the overall tract.”

Council member Bryan Callahan said while merchants are concerned with potential retail competition on the site, local residents are concerned about more housing.

“They are adamantly opposed to residential. It’s our job to try to be fair to everybody,” Callahan said.

Evans also proposed an amendment to allow a potential group home as a permitted use. This amendment was approved 5-1 with Callahan voting nay.

The third amendment was a simple correction of the word principal to principle, which was approved 6-0.

The fourth amendment was to clarify wording on intended uses of the site as in the first amendment, to be consistent with wording in another section of the proposal. This was approved 6-0.

The fifth amendment placed limits on retail construction to a maximum of 380,000 square feet, with small tenants of 3,000 square feet or less not to exceed a total of 30,000 square feet and medium tenants of 3,001-8,000 square feet not to exceed 35,000 square feet.

Callahan proposed changing the amendment from 35,000-40,000 square feet. Council member Adam Waldron said, “I think 35 is correct. Start more conservatively.” The change was voted down 4-2, with Callahan and council member Michael Recchiuti for and Evans, Reynolds, Waldron and council member Louis Stellato voting against.

Then the fifth amendment Evans proposed came up for a vote. Recchiuti said while most cities are not zoning for more retail, “I don’t know if we’ll get anything better than this.” He said development “is a way we can grow our tax base.”

The amendment was approved 5-1 with Callahan against. Stellato said the amendment is “fair and equitable compromise for all of us.”

Council member Cathy Reuscher was absent due to a family emergency.