EASTON, Pa. – A contentious hearing involving a six-story, mixed-use apartment building in Easton didn’t make much progress Tuesday night after a debate about whether a zoning board member was required to be at the meeting in person.
The Easton Zoning Hearing Board was supposed to hear variance requests and conduct an interpretation challenge hearing for a proposed building at 70 N. Fourth St. that would include 34 residential units as well as 1,190 square feet of commercial retail space. The developer is listed as 74 N 4th LLC.
Specifically, the developer was set to challenge the validity or seek a variance from the city’s zoning ordinance to permit a building height and size greater than 15% in excess of that on adjoining properties, as well as request three other variances.
However, legal challenges led to the continuation of Tuesday night’s hearing about 35 minutes after it started. It involved the absence of zoning hearing board member Michele Vulcano-Hall, who was ill. Even though she was sick, Vulcano-Hall agreed to remotely attend the meeting, which garnered the approval of the property owner’s lawyer, Chad DiFelice, and board solicitor Robert Nitchkey.
That was not the case, though, for attorney Gary Asteak, representing an objector to the plan. Asteak argued that Vulcano-Hall could not be permitted to hear testimony remotely, stating that neither the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code or Easton Zoning Ordinance expressly provided for “remote appearances” by board members.
Nitchkey disagreed and cited Pennsylvania Senate Bill 841 of 2020, which authorized telecommunications usage by members unless the municipality expressly prohibits such action. The solicitor added that Easton has no law requiring in-person participation.
Asteak responded that if Nitchkey’s interpretation were correct, testimony by witnesses could also be provided remotely. He said some individuals wished to testify on his client’s behalf but did not because they were required to be there in person.
“They didn’t know they could,” Asteak said. “..Or are we making up the rules as we go along?”
“I’m not making up anything,” Nitchkey replied.
“No, no, are ‘we’? That’s my question,” Asteak answered.
This prompted legal counsel to engage in a second off-the-record confab. Nitchkey then informed the public that DiFelice had requested to continue the hearing to Feb. 26.
The motion was approved by zoning hearing board members Matthew Loebsack, Linda Thomas and Pam Panto. Zoning hearing board Chairman Michael Civitella had previously recused himself from the proceedings.
At the hearing’s Dec. 18 session – the last hearing before Tuesday night — DiFelice began by presenting an argument which simultaneously challenged the ordinance’s validity and requested variances from it. Nitchkey indicated members would first render a verdict on the ordinance’s validity, and then if needed, offer decisions on the variance requests.
That night, DiFelice addressed the audience, which included various parties against the project. Most objectors have expressed concerns about parking and the building’s height.
“We are not your enemies,” the attorney said.
He said the “use is permitted by right” and “the height itself is permitted by right.” Finally, he added the reason his client was offering the appeal was that they “just wanted to be treated fairly. No more, no less.”