Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Geisinger topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors press council over Geisinger zoning change, citing height, traffic and transparency concerns
Summary
Dozens of residents urged the Scranton City Council to slow a proposed zoning change for Geisinger, raising questions about building height (75 ft vs. 60 ft), traffic pinch points at Mulberry and Colfax, lack of advance neighbor notification, and whether a community benefits agreement is feasible on the current timeline.
Dozens of residents urged the Scranton City Council on Monday to delay or limit a proposed zoning change that would allow expanded medical facilities for Geisinger in a residential area.
Speakers at the public-comment period — including Joan Wannas, Jean Barrett and Tom Hoppel — said they support access to health care but objected to the process, arguing the proposal was rushed and could permit structures as tall as 100 feet behind homes. "I have these red flags keep flashing in my mind," Joan Wannas said, questioning why the measure did not first go to the zoning board and whether Geisinger might be a major contributor if the mayor runs for Congress. Jean Barrett said neighbors discussed a 75-foot proposal and asked whether 60 feet might be a reasonable compromise.
Several commenters described traffic and logistics concerns around the CMC hospital site. "The traffic at the hospital, it's absolute bedlam," Barrett said, citing pinch points on Mulberry Street and the 300 block of Colfax that already experience tractor-trailer deliveries and frequent congestion. Tom Hoppel and Doris Koloski warned that giving broad "civic" zoning and high height limits could allow future parking garages or other structures that would change neighborhood character.
Not all speakers opposed the change. Jamie Hailstone, general counsel for Lackawanna College, said the college "supports it 100%" and framed the zoning change as necessary to attract employers and services to the city.
Council members acknowledged the volume of neighbor concerns and set a public hearing for Tuesday, Dec. 9, at 5:45 p.m. Several councilmembers said they want more information before voting on the amendment. "I would like to see those answers," said Doctor Rothschild, who also noted operational constraints cited by Geisinger and said traffic and lighting should be considered in planning.
The council introduced the zoning amendment for committee consideration; the item was later listed as tabled until the Dec. 9 public hearing. The meeting record shows questions from council about whether the 200 block should be removed from the civic zoning change and repeated requests for specific traffic, height and garbage/operations clarifications.
The next procedural step is the advertised public hearing, after which the council may move the amendment out of committee for further votes.
