EASTON, Pa. – The Easton Zoning Hearing Board rejected a special exception request for a million-square-foot warehouse proposed for Wood Avenue during a hearing Thursday night at city hall.
The developer, Easton Wood Ave. Propco LLC (Scannell Properties), sought the relief to relocate a tributary to the Bushkill Creek and acquire permission to create flood control structures within the tributary. It’s the latest request related to a proposal to construct “Easton Commerce Center” on the 106.2-acre former Pfizer Pigments site near the 13th Street and Route 22 intersection at 1525 Wood Ave.
Zoners denied the applicant’s request Thursday night because it was “not in full compliance with each of the zoning requirements,” according to Solicitor Robert Nitchkey. Specifically, the board cited the insufficiencies of some certifications and that testimony of objectors’ witnesses proved “more compelling” than testimony from the applicant’s witnesses.
The request had a lengthy history. Last August, attorney Marc Kaplin, representing Scannell, offered the request to the planning commission. That plan would include bringing the underground tributary, which now runs parallel to the property’s Wood Avenue frontage for 300 feet, above ground.
The petition Kaplin articulated that evening involved also the construction of a 40-foot-wide paved access road, a culvert for tributary crossing, and the addition of various utility crossings. One of the utility crossings was a 12-inch water main, a gas main, and multiple stormwater management pipes.
The planning commission recommended the zoning hearing board reject the request.
Thursday night’s hearing purpose was to conclude expert testimony and then hear public comment before the zoners rendered a verdict. It began with cross-examination of applicant witness Frank Browne, who served as a civil engineering consultant who had reviewed the project. The questioning attempted to discredit his previous testimony about rerouting the Spring Brook tributary on the property.
He was asked if he was at the location on Sept. 16, 1999 when there was over 6 inches of rain.
“No, I was not there,” Browne answered.
This type of questioning continued as an mantra requiring Browne to state that he was not on site during other significant rains which had occurred throughout history, or if he had along the Bushkill Creek at various locations.
The cross-examination then explored topics such as whether Browne had examined the area’s geometry.
Browne replied he had not; rather, he had examined mathematical models. This led to the presentation of a Bushkill Creek Watershed land cover map. The witness reiterated his previous testimony that the new proposed channel would be larger than the existing channel and would have a significantly greater flow capacity. As such, Browne testified, this would mitigate — not enhance — the potential for flooding, which would be myopic.
After cross-examination, Kaplin asked Browne to explain to zoners the science behind the channel design.
Browne said a topographical map is employed and then enhanced by stream statistics to find the 100-year flow, which Browne said is “very conservative.”
“This provides the dimensions you need,” the engineer said.
During public comment, Bruce McCutcheon, an Easton resident, questioned zoners about who would be responsible for the cleanup when the modeling offered by the applicant “all goes to hell in a handbasket” and the area floods.
The response was the zoning hearing board could not answer that question.
In closing statements, Kaplin said his client’s burden of proof to obtain the relief was “straightforward.”
“It is our obligation to prove our use fits into the special exception categories that are permitted,” Kaplin said. “…We have satisfied all of the objective criteria. Your professionals in this city have reviewed everything…they said for the special exception we satisfy all of the specific criteria.”
“None of the calculations, none of the math, none of the plans reflect on the proposed end use,” said Tyler Meyers, an attorney for a project objector said in his closing statement. “…There’s been a lack of discussion related to the proposed use.”
Given this, Meyers argued the applicant failed to meet the special exception requirements.
Thursday night’s special hearing was the latest in a lengthy and contentious approval process. Last week, Scannell and Wilson Borough filed a lawsuit against the City of Easton, the city’s planning commission and individual planning commission members over the latter’s denial of the plan for Easton Commerce Center in December.
The property encompasses roughly 62 acres in Wilson Borough, 29 acres in Easton and 15 acres in Palmer Township.
Scannell’s proposed 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.
Kaplin told 69 News the developer is waiting for the lawsuit filed last week to play out, and they also plan to appeal Thursday night’s decision.