Easton planners deny plan for 1 million-square-foot warehouse | Easton Area

EASTON, Pa. – The Easton Planning Commission rejected a preliminary/final development plan for a warehouse application Wednesday night at city hall.

The facility, known as the Easton Commerce Center, would occupy the former 106.2-acre Pfizer Pigments site. The proposal, offered by Scannell Properties, calls for a 1 million-square-foot warehouse near the 13th Street and Route 22 intersection at 1525 Wood Ave.

The building would cover about 23 acres near two Route 22 intersections at 13th and 25th streets. Bushkill Creek would flow around a portion of the structure.

Most of the site — 93% — rests in the Borough of Wilson, with some land in the City of Easton and a smaller portion in Palmer Township. Warehousing is permitted by-right in Wilson and Easton.

The verdict came following the request of a rebuttal hearing to dispel project “misinformation and falsehoods,” according to the applicant’s attorney, Marc Kaplin. A total of three hearing sessions then occurred on Sept. 3, Oct. 15 and Nov. 5. The hearing encompassed more than 16 hours.

Kaplin said the applicant had received a zoning permit from the city on Oct. 7, 2024, and that it met “the city zoning requirements.”

“We have a plan that complies with the zoning ordinance of this city,” Kaplin noted Sept. 3. The attorney said the project had received other permits for the project from the fire department, forester and planning department. Kaplin added the proposed development had received approvals not only for the project but for construction on the project.

“The planning commission is obligated” to support the land development plan, Kaplin argued in September.

Chairman G. Kennedy Greene acknowledged Wednesday night that the applicant fulfilled “many” specific zoning, subdivision and land development ordinances and requirements, but failed to fulfill some entirely and others at all. He cited SALDO pre-application, where the applicant failed to adequately demonstrate the traffic impact on the roadway system or a comparison of costs to the City of Easton for roadway upgrades versus revenues generated to the city from the project.

A second issue involved the applicant’s failure to produce all required permits and approvals. Specifically, one was a special exception under the Easton Floodplain Management Ordinance to alter or relocate a watercourse in the floodplain.

Two other items involved an inadequate impact assessment report which the commission said utilized flawed methodology in the traffic assessment study. In addition, Propco failed to address adequately development traffic intensity and submit an adequate noise study, among several other issues, planners said.

Planner Frank Graziano concurred with Greene, saying the plan “does not comply with our SALDO requirements.”

Planner Kim Wagner added that the plan is “missing critical elements required by ordinance” as the rationale for her rejection.

The verdict concluded a lengthy and at times contentious proceeding. The applicant offered three witnesses during the hearing. Donald Haas, an engineer and architect associated with the project, testified that the plan overall would not worsen the site.

Haas said on Sept. 3 that the project “wound not have adverse environmental impacts” on the city of Easton.

That night, planners Wagner and Hubert Etchison questioned Haas about the validity of the various approvals the project received, and questioned the thoroughness of the design itself, particularly as it related to how contaminated soil would be addressed. Several times, Kaplin objected to the questioning, stating the engineer did not have the expertise to answer those questions and most would be addressed in the permitting process —a process not under the review of the planning commission.

The discourse between planners and Kaplin deteriorated as Haas was questioned for more than 90 minutes. Wagner expressed concerns about the plans themselves, saying they were incomplete or confusing. She had seen plans where the building was 100 feet tall, whereas Haas testified the building was 65 feet.

Kaplin’s second overall witness and first on Oct. 15 was Jeffrey Smith, a geologist. Smith testified about how contaminated sites are remediated, and how he composed a remedial investigation, risk assessment and cleanup site plan. He explained how his plan eliminated risk associated with contamination.

“Contaminants are essentially not a risk,” with his plan Smith testified in October.

The geologist noted they sought to examine a full gamut of potential chemicals during their risk assessment.

“We weren’t skimping on what we were looking for,” he said. “…From an environmental standpoint, it is ready to go forward.”

Smith added the site had an approved cleanup plan and an approved land development plan.

Planners’ questions to Smith focused on airborne contamination during the actual cleanup and whether that would pose a safety risk to the nearby community.

At the Nov. 5 meeting, warehouse objectors presented their case. An attorney, Cody Harding, called the proposal “potentially the largest buildings ever built in Easton by footprint.” He argued the warehouse would threaten to overwhelm the area with truck traffic, pollution and general disruption.

Harding compared the proposed warehouse size to various regional structures. This included the Palmer Town Center at 280,000 square feet; the Palmer Park Mall at 457,734 square feet; and Easton Area High School at 377,000 square feet.

The lawyer said the project failed to comply with six SALDO requirements, offered a vague and speculative use that did not comply with a comprehensive plan, and had pending zoning and flood management issues which were unresolved.

This led to arguments between Kaplin and Harding about the validity of a witness on 3D dimensions and documents offered by the objector’s attorney. One witness, Daniel Brown, who was offered as an expert in 3D modeling, testified the renderings used as a promotion for the warehouse contained “inaccuracies” and categorized it as a “bad Photoshop job.”

Overall, Brown portrayed the renderings used by the applicant as inaccurate. Brown was one of several witnesses offered by the objectors who, to degrees varied, reached the same conclusion that the warehouse, if built, would prove detrimental to the city’s overall safety, health and welfare.

The hearing was closed on Nov. 5, leaving planners to deliberate and make their decision on the case Wednesday.