Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council sends Woolworth Building proposal back to historic board after heated debate
Summary
Developers seeking to add stories to the Woolworth Building on Main Street presented revised plans; the Historic and Architectural Review Board recommended denial and council voted to return the application to HARB for further guidance.
Bethlehem City Council voted 7-0 to return a certificate-of-appropriateness (COA) application for 555 Main Street — the former Woolworth Building — to the Historic and Architectural Review Board (HARB) for further review and explicit recommendations.
The applicant’s attorney and architect told council the owner redesigned the project after a December HARB meeting to incorporate the board’s comments on materials, window patterns and the upper-floor setback. Julie Bernstein, representing the owner, said the revised design “visually distinguishes the new from the old” and preserves the Woolworth facade while adding housing above Main Street retail.
Several speakers from HARB and the historic-district community urged the council to uphold the board’s denial. Diana Hodgson, a HARB member who spoke during public comment, told council “adding three stories to the iconic Woolworth Building does not fit in this criteria,” citing Bethlehem’s guidelines on scale, massing and the Secretary of the Interior’s standards for rehabilitation.
Owner Louis (Lou) Hector spoke in favor of the project and said the building “is basically obsolete” and requires a multiyear, multimillion‑dollar rehabilitation. He said the plan would preserve storefront retail and that attempts to reconcile the design with HARB’s earlier comments had been made.
Architect Todd Chambers said the addition is set back from the Woolworth facade, uses brick to match Main Street’s materials, and reconfigured windows to align with adjacent storefronts. He said the proposal is permitted by-right under the central business zoning code and that no zoning relief is needed.
Council members expressed differing views but coalesced around sending the application back to HARB with a specific request: if HARB recommends denial again, the board should state what changes to plans and specifications would lead to an approval. Councilwoman Laird made the motion to remit the application; Councilman Callahan seconded it; the motion passed 7-0.
The council action pauses the certificate-of-appropriateness decision and asks HARB to provide clearer, prescriptive guidance on how the application could be modified to meet the city’s historic-design standards.
