EASTON, Pa. – The fight isn’t over for a proposed million-square-foot warehouse on Wood Avenue.
Its developer, Easton Wood Ave Propco LLC (Scannell Properties), and Wilson Borough have filed a lawsuit against the City of Easton, the Easton Planning Commission as a whole, and individual members of the commission.
Last month, Easton’s planning commission rejected a development plan that would have constructed “Easton Commerce Center” on the 106.2-acre former Pfizer Pigments site near the 13th Street and Route 22 intersection at 1525 Wood Ave.
The property encompasses roughly 62 acres in Wilson Borough, 29 acres in Easton and 15 acres in Palmer Township.
The developer proposed an industrial complex for the site that would put approximately 71,000 square feet of warehouse within Easton proper, while around 936,000 square feet would sit in Wilson. Warehousing is permitted by-right in the zoning districts where the property is located in both Wilson and Easton.
However, at its Dec. 3 meeting, the Easton Planning Commission denied the plan after three separate hearings that lasted a total of more than 16 hours.
At that meeting, Chairman G. Kennedy Greene said the developer failed to fulfill specific zoning and Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance requirements. Among them, he cited the SALDO pre-application, for which he said 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 the planners outlined involved the applicant’s alleged 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.
Some of the other items involved an inadequate impact assessment report, which planners said utilized flawed methodology in the traffic assessment study. In addition, the developer failed to adequately address development traffic intensity and submit an adequate noise study, planners said.
But in the lawsuit filed last week in the Court of Common Pleas, attorney Marc Kaplin and Wilson solicitor Stan Margle argue that application requirements and numerous plan revisions were submitted to Easton planning and zoning staff, the city’s engineer, its stormwater consultant, and other city staff and third-party agencies — all of whom “repeatedly verified” that its application was compliant with Easton’s SALDO throughout a lengthy review process over the course of several years.
The lawsuit also contends that the planning commission’s reasons for denying a permitted, by-right use have no legal basis in that they are not specific and have no objective standards, using language such as “adequate” and “sufficient” to evaluate aspects of the developer’s application and plan.
In addition, the plaintiffs allege that the planning commission “yielded to community pressure” rather than uphold the law and perform its duties “in good faith, with fidelity and impartiality.”
During a May public hearing last year, which was heavily attended by individuals who spoke in opposition to the development, the lawsuit states that “residents presented misinformation, falsehoods, hearsay testimony, irrelevant materials and inaccurate documents in opposition to the Proposed Redevelopment, and argued against the granting of the Application.”
The lawsuit outlines examples that it says demonstrate planning commission members advising residents opposed to the project and expressing difficulty remaining objective, particularly at the December meeting during which the denial was decided. It also claims that Planner Kim Wagner had a “personal prejudice and bias” against the project and took on an advocacy role as a private citizen to oppose the applicant’s request to the Easton Zoning Hearing Board for a special exception related to the project. The lawsuit argues that such conduct is a violation of the developer’s constitutional rights to due process.
For its part, Wilson Borough — whose council granted conditional approval to the project in September 2024 — makes the case that it will suffer “significant damages” due to Easton’s decision about redevelopment that’s mostly located within the borough’s boundaries. Wilson will not be able to grow its tax base to support its economy, and essential environmental cleanup, stormwater management and roadway improvements at and around the site will not be implemented, the lawsuit asserts.
While the parties fight it out in court, another meeting will take place this Thursday for Scannell to request special exception from the Easton Zoning Hearing Board to relocate an unnamed tributary to the Bushkill Creek and to obtain permission to create flood control structures within the tributary.
Last August, attorney Kaplin presented the request to the planning commission and said the proposed relocation plan includes bringing the underground tributary, which currently runs parallel to the property’s Wood Avenue frontage for 300 feet, above ground.
Other additions, he described at that meeting, included the construction of a 40-foot-wide paved access road, a culvert for crossing of the tributary, and the addition of various utility crossings, including a 12-inch water main, a gas main, and multiple stormwater management pipes.
The planning commission unanimously voted at that time to recommend that the zoning hearing board deny the special exception request.
The Easton Zoning Hearing Board will conduct a special public hearing on the matter this Thursday, Jan. 15, at 6 p.m. at Easton City Hall.