Geisinger Community Medical Center wants Scranton City Council to redo its public hearing and vote on its May rezoning of the former Audubon school because the city’s posting of public notices on the property boundary was done too late.
The hospital’s attorney, Andrew Hailstone, and city solicitor Jason Shrive believe that redoing the hearing, with public notices posted on the property far enough in advance and published again in The Times-Tribune, and council voting again, would fix the situation, according to Mr. Hailstone and council solicitor Amil Minora.
However, Mr. Minora disagrees and believes council would need to amend the rezoning ordinance, also with a reposting and republishing of public notices and another council vote. That route also is fairly simple but would take a few weeks longer than the one Mr. Hailstone wants, Mr. Minora said.
Meanwhile, Scranton School District, which is selling the school to the hospital, also is awaiting a resolution. The district has included the sale proceeds of $750,000 in the school budget, but a closing has been held up by the public-notice issue.
The debate stems from the May 22 council hearing on a proposal to change the zoning of the John Audubon Elementary School to benefit GCMC, which is buying the school at Mulberry Street and Colfax Avenue, across from the hospital. Later that night, council adopted an ordinance rezoning the property.
Mr. Hailstone said that when he received a few days later from the city an affidavit of the zoning officer’s posting of public notices on the property, he realized they had not been posted far enough in advance of the hearing. And that could be a problem if the rezoning were challenged in court, he said.
The city planning code requires such notices to be posted at least seven days before a hearing, Mr. Hailstone said. The day of the posting and the day of the hearing should not count, so the requirement effectively is a nine-day period, but the public notices were not posted at least nine days before the hearing, he said. He fears the discrepancy makes the rezoning vulnerable to a potential legal challenge for the next two years, which is a window of time for appeals.
“They (council) have to schedule a new public hearing,” Mr. Hailstone said. “The ordinance is fine as it is. They just have to have a hearing and vote on it again.”
The issue was discussed during a council caucus Thursday, when council President Bob McGoff said, “It came about that the posting of it may not have been done in a timely manner. The zoning officer may have misunderstood and did not give sufficient time for the posting.”
Mr. Minora told council he believes council voting again on its original, already-adopted ordinance would not be appropriate. Rather, an amendment of the ordinance with a new date of passage — and also with new rounds of public notices and a new vote — would be the proper remedy and make the rezoning unimpeachable to potential legal challenges.
“They (Mr. Hailstone and Mr. Shrive) feel that all we have to do is have a public hearing and presto chango, it’s fixed,” Mr. Minora said. “My own feeling is that’s an amendment. An amendment under the administrative code requires an ordinance.”
GCMC wanted the zoning of the Audubon changed from R-1A, medium low-density residential, to INS-G, general institutional.
The school district moved students out of the school in 2010 because of mold problems. GCMC agreed to purchase the school for $750,000 in an auction in November 2012, but the purchase was contingent on the city rezoning. A real estate closing has not been held, and Mr. Hailstone hopes the matter can be resolved soon so the transaction can be completed by the end of the year.
Geisinger most likely would demolish the building and use the property for parking or outpatient clinics, a hospital official told council in February. If the zone were to stay residential, the school property would be useless to the hospital.
During the May 22 public hearing, some residents who live near Audubon spoke against the zone change. They said it allowed GCMC to sidestep having to get a zoning variance for a new use and the hospital had not stated its long-term plan. They also expressed concern that rezoning would be a first step in expansion outside the hospital’s institutional zone and destroy their neighborhood.
Resident Edmund Scacchitti welcomes another public hearing, even though he expects the result to be the same.
“The neighbors would love to have another opportunity to address the issue,” Mr. Scacchitti said. “Am I optimistic anything would change? No. But I certainly would welcome the voting members of city council to look at this again, because they totally disregarded the concerns of the neighbors.”
Contact the writer:
jlockwood@timesshamrock.com, @jlockwoodTT on Twitter