EASTON, Pa. – Confusion about a wall and debates over language in Easton’s zoning ordinances took center stage at a hearing Thursday night involving a six-story, mixed-use apartment building.
The appeal, offered by attorney Chad DiFelice, involves a proposed 34-unit structure at 70 N. Fourth St. The application calls also for 1,190 square feet of commercial retail space. The developer is listed as 74 N 4th LLC.
The zoning hearing that continued Thursday involves three variance considerations. One is a sidewalk width/configuration variance, a second would permit a building height and size greater than 15% more than adjoining properties, and a third would allow a 35% façade window service area.
The applicant is challenging also a zoning officer interpretation, and without a favorable decision overturning it, would then seek a fourth variance.
DiFelice began Thursday night’s session by explaining the essence of his client’s appeal to the Easton Zoning Hearing Board.
“Our argument is there has been inconsistent enforcement and application of this particular ordinance,” he said. “Arbitrary and unreasonable application of it…This is being applied in a different way for this property than others.”
He added the ordinance’s 15% guideline is “unconstitutionally vague.”
DiFelice then continued with witness Stephen Nowroski, who served as the director of planning and codes in the city from 2015 through 2024. The witness testified a project on 40 S. Sixth St. was less compatible with that neighborhood than the project in question is with its neighborhood.
Under cross-examination, objector attorney Gary Asteak noted Nowroski was one of the authors of the city’s code and questioned him as to whether it was his intent to craft an unconstitutional document. Nowroski responded that it was not his intent to create an unconstitutional or ambiguous document. Further, Nowroski testified he implemented the ordinance for several years without incident and had no questions about its ambiguity.
Nowroski testified he did attempt to change the ordinance when was still in a position to do that, rebutting Asteak’s assertion’s that he was only bringing the ordinance’s ambiguity now as a witness for the applicant.
DiFelice continued his argument that the code was being applied on way for one property, and another way for his client’s property with question to Dwayne Tillman, the city’s director of planning and codes.
Following this, Asteak opened his case. His first witness was Frederic Zonsius, an architect. The testimony at times became chaotic, with arguments between attorneys about maps and documents and what they did or did not depict. There was also debate about what constituted a building’s footprint. Confusion centered around a wall and how the wall was depicted as it related to footprint. How a wall is defined in the code took then consumed intense debate off the official record.
“There is genuinely some confusion as to what is where,” Solicitor Robert Nitchkey said.
At a previous hearing session on Dec. 18, 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.
The hearing is scheduled to resume March 24.