Zoning Hearing Board - Regular Meeting

If I could have your attention please for a moment. I just want to go over the hearings for tonight. First hearing is going to be 28 Locust Street. Second hearing will be 260 West Milton. Third hearing will be 34 South 13th. Fourth hearing will be 329 Falk Street. Fifth hearing is 1100 Bushkill Drive. Sixth hearing is 1111 to 13 Bush Grill Drive. Last hearing will be 36 South 12th Street. And we'll be starting momentarily, as soon as the rain stops.

You ready? Yeah, go for it. Are you ready? You ready? All right.

I'll go with the first hearing. The second hearing will be the purpose, please.

All right. Applications hereby made for a public hearing before the Eastern Zoning Hearing Board for a property known as 28 South Locust Street, Zoning District, West Ward, Block Class C. Variance is as follows. 59515D, proposed rear yard setback of 12 feet, 10.5 inches. Required is a minimum rear yard setback of 25 feet. 59533J3. Proposed north and south off-street parking spaces are less than the four-foot side yard setback. Required off-street parking spaces shall be at least four feet from any side lot line. The above action is a request to proceed with a proposal to build a two-unit duplex on an existing lot. The appellant is Michael Brett at 123 South 3rd Street, Easton, Pennsylvania. The owner is the Redevelopment Authority of Easton, Pennsylvania, 123 South 3rd Street. 50 adjacent property owners were notified and it was published in the press. Thank you, sir.

I see the applicant is present. Is there anybody else here in the audience that wants to speak at this hearing? All right. I'm going to have you guys sworn in now. Do you want to stand up, please? This is just for 28 Locust Street.

If you're here for another hearing, you don't need to be sworn right now.

Yeah, the rain's super loud.

Mr. Tillman, was this property posted? Yes, it was. Okay. If you want to start, sir.

Yep.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Will Ettinger. I'm the solicitor for the Redevelopment Authority, last name spelled O-E-T-I-N-G-E-R. We are here on 28 South Locust Street for variances related to rear yard setback and parking relative to the side yard setbacks. Just some history on this property. It was formerly a blighted property which was acquired by the redevelopment authority through eminent domain. To the rear of the property is Dutchtown Park. There are some challenging physical features to the property, like steep slopes. In 2022, the redevelopment authority, in conjunction with the city, did a lot consolidation plan in which it took what I would call basically jigsaw pieces and made them into a regular lot. To the north of the property is the parking for Dutchtown Park and the park itself. form is the backyard to this property. The proposal is to construct a duplex with one unit being owner occupied and the other unit to be basically an aging in place facility. But other than that, we are required to have three parking spaces, and this is a limited site, and there's not a lot of on-street parking at this spot. It's a Class C block under the zoning ordinance. So to provide on-site parking, it's really the only place we can place it on this property.

So you meet the parking criteria, just not the width of the parking spaces?

The parking spaces themselves are wide enough, just they're Location relative to the property to the side yard is too close to the side yard In one instance the neighbor is the city of Easton it's its parking lot so I know on the other side There's what looks like a crumbling down parking spot already, but we would just be cleaning that up and putting a parking spot there Yeah

The board is aware. Would you identify yourself for the record, please?

Sure. My name is Michael Brett. I'm the deputy director of the Redevelopment Authority here on behalf of the Redevelopment Authority. Thank you. So the first set is the planning application where you can see the kind of chopped up. It was originally three lots, 26 Locust Street and 28 Locust Street. As you flip through the proposed lots and ultimately became the approved lot known as 28 South Locust Street is a combination of a consolidation of the two smaller lots and then a lot line adjustment with Dutchtown Park behind it to square it off and give it a more buildable surface area. And the final printout is the proposed zoning diagram. So it shows the residents in elevation and plan. The lower unit, as Mr. Ettinger described, is an ADA compliant wheelchair accessible aging in place unit with a 1,300 square foot home built on top of it.

And for the record, what Mr. Brett just described, along with another attachment, a memorandum, and the PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION DATED AUGUST 3, 2022, HAS BEEN MARKED AS EXHIBIT A1. NEW SPEAKER THANK YOU.

NEW SPEAKER WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD.

NEW SPEAKER THE SETBACK, IS THAT PROPOSED LOT ONE OR TWO?

NEW SPEAKER SO IT'S ONE LOT BECAUSE IT'S A STACKED DUPLEX.

NEW SPEAKER OKAY.

So it'll be one 12 foot 10 inch setback to the rear yard, which to the rear property line, which is itself city property.

So it's in order to meet the rear setback, the building orientation or dimensions would take up more street frontage, but to maximize the street frontage to get three off street parking spots, we approach it as a kind of a short and a narrow footprint so that we can maximize the street frontage for driveway aprons. So it was like one way we weren't going to get, we're going to be sacrificing something either way. And I think the parking is more valuable. It was our kind of judgment call on this.

Any other questions from the board? No. No further questions. Do you have anything else you want to add?

No, that's all. We just ask respectfully that you grant the variances as requested.

Was there anybody? I forgot. Was anybody else warning? Wasn't it? Was there? No. All right. I'm closed to hearing. Yeah, I mean, like you said, yes, I could place the parking for the rear yard. I'd rather have the parking than the rear yard. Thank you.

Yeah, absolutely.

Motion to approve by Mrs. Panto. I'll second. Second by Mr. Loebsack.

Ms. Panto? Aye. Mr. Loebtag?

Aye.

Mr. Civitello? Aye. Ms. Thomas? Aye.

Mr. Granite, good luck. Thank you very much. Have a good evening.

All right. I'll open up the next hearing.

The secretary with the purpose, please. All right, applications hereby made for a public hearing before the East End Zoning Hearing Board for a property known as 260 West Milton Street Zoning District Southside Street Corridor Enhancement Block Class B, a special exception. 59514F13F1 proposed a six foot high fence in the side yard. Requirement special exception for fences over four feet in height. Above action is requested to proceed with a 50 foot by six foot high pressure treated lumber standard privacy vertical boards with one gate fence. The appellant is Raymond Gonzalez and 913 Woodbine Avenue, Ben Salem, PA 19020. The owner is Catherine Pfeffer at 260 West Milton Street, Easton, PA. 29 adjacent properties were notified and it was published in the press. And then I have the Easton Planning Commission resolution from August 5th, 2026. Now therefore it be resolved that the Easton Planning Commission recommends to the Zoning Hearing Board that the special exception be granted for the six-foot fence at 260 West Mill Street based on the findings that the proposed use is generally consistent with 59507C considerations for special exceptions request, 59540C criteria for special exceptions in the city's comprehensive plan with the following conditions. One, the application is subject to any conditions the zoning hearing board may impose. To all additional comments from zoning administrators, zoning hearing board, codes, and planning department and city engineers shall be met.

Thank you, sir.

Is the applicant present? Come forward, please.

Is there anybody else that's here for this hearing? Can I have you make a standing, please? It's going to be sworn in. I do. Mr. Tillman, this property was posted.

Yes, it was.

If you give your name and address for the record, please. I don't think it's on. Is it on?

Yep, there you go.

Catherine Pfeiffer, 260 West Millen.

Thank you. Okay. Tell us why you're here.

I'm just purchasing a fence because the area is a little bit dangerous and I have a dog.

So your four-foot fence is not good for you. Why?

That dog is definitely going to jump over that fence.

That's hard to argue with. So from the from the photo we have is that the defense cover looks like it's almost triangular.

Yeah it's pushed back. One just because it's a little bit of a dangerous area if you're looking around the corner we wanted to make sure that you could see the corner. As you know, Milton in Philadelphia is pretty intense. So we did that, and then also my neighbor owns some of the yard on the side, so we wanted to be cautious of that as well.

Okay.

Any questions? Just one. When you say dangerous, are you talking about the traffic surrounding the property?

Yeah, I would say the traffic, and there's a lot of car accidents there.

Thank you. Has your dog jumped a four-foot fence?

No, but he jumps. He's a cattle dog. So in training, he kind of jumps for fun. OK. All right.

Any other questions?

Sure.

You good? Yeah.

All right. Porter, if there's no further questions, do you have anything else you want to add? No. All right. Close the hearing.

I wish they would make these four foot six. We have to change that. I don't know if it was why she couldn't go back here, but she has a garage. If you look at the other pictures, there's a structure here. Yeah.

But I don't like four foot six anyway for me. I have a dog, so I wouldn't. Definitely. And my dog was a four-foot pass on my one side. My dog jumped it.

So, yeah. Yeah.

Yeah, yeah, it's just, yeah. Okay. Mr. Thomas, may I have the, to approve? Second. Second, Mrs. Panto?

Ms. Thomas? Aye. Ms. Panto? Aye. Mr. Civitella? Aye. Mr. Loebsack?

Aye. All right.

Where'd she go?

I thought you jumped the fence.

All right.

It's been approved. Good luck. And you don't have to stay. I mean, you can if you want to, but you don't have to. Right, Dwayne? Yes, sir. All right. I'll open up the next hearing. Secretary, read the purpose, please.

All right. Applications hereby made for a public hearing before the Eastern Zoning Hearing Board for a property known as 34 South 13th Street Zoning District Westward Street Corridor Enhancement Block Class C variances as follows. 59515F6 proposed 19 foot and a half wide driveway. Required driveways shall be no more than 10 feet wide. 59533J3, proposed zero side yard setback required. All street parking shall be at least four feet from any side lot line. Above action is request to proceed with, they want to remove old bricks and replace them with concrete so that cars can park in the back of the house. The appellant is Gladys Ordons at 348 Wedgewood Drive, East MPA 18045. The owner is Suzanne Peter Rosowski. Sorry if I messed that up. At 34 South 13th Street, East MPA. 47 adjacent property owners were notified, and it was published in the press.

Thank you, Mr. Tillman. I see the applicant is present. Do you want to repeat? Remain standing. Is there anybody here in the audience that wants to speak at this hearing? I ask you to be sworn in now. All right, you may be seated. If you could, Mr. Tillman, this property was posted. Yes, it was.

And, Mr. Chairman, before you proceed, if I may, Mr. Tillman, unlike the others in our packet tonight, there was no authorization included with this particular appeal. Is there one on file?

There is.

There is? Thank you.

If you could give your name and address for the record, please. Brian Rodriguez. Is that on?

Is the microphone on?

It is upturned on. There you go.

Brian Rodriguez, 3413th Street. And your name, ma'am?

Gladys Rodriguez. My address is 348 West Wood Drive, Easton, PA.

Thank you. So tell us why you're here.

So we would like to install a driveway in the back of the yard. The yard's basically useless anyways, other than for a driveway. And we think it'd be really convenient, especially in the winter when there's, you know, state of emergencies and they make everybody clear out 13th Street. Like no one's allowed to park there.

Be easy for... Do you have photos there? Yeah. Do you want to give them to the secretary first, please? Yeah.

Would you like to come up and identify these after I mark them? OK, I've marked this photo A1. If you can identify that for the board, please.

Oh, so that's the entrance from the alleyway. into the yard.

Do you want to pass it down?

It's in the front.

And I've marked this as A2. Would you identify that, please?

That is the current patio driveway that's already there. And A3? That's a little area that we'd like to turn into a garden once we're done renovating the house. And A4. That is a picture of the alleyway behind the house, just showing that the other properties also have a fairly small yard.

Mr. Tillman, if I can interrupt for a second, what does A3 have to do with?

These are just photos of his rear yard that he took, that the applicant took.

But this has nothing to do with the parking pad, typically? No.

No, he's just showing the description of his backyard.

Is there any kind of impervious surface?

No, he's in a street corridor, so he can go 100%.

Okay.

Yeah, no, you can.

And this is A5. That's the rest of the patio driveway.

No, this is the driveway.

It's already there.

Can we keep?

Oh, OK. Yeah, so there's like a patio.

Like I said, patio slash driveway. And then a six. That's another view of the entrance from the alleyway into the backyard. And there are landscaping stones there. Is that an accurate description? Ugly landscaping stones. I would like to replace all of that.

Was that six? Yep. All right, this is A7.

That's a copy of the other one. It's basically the same photo, it's just I'm standing in it. You want to just keep that one then and we'll mark the next one A7.

All right, then the replacement A7, would you scribe that please?

Again, another photo showing that other neighbors also have 100% driveway for our yard.

May I?

Oh.

OK. Thank you.

Okay.

So in other words, you're not going to have any green yard at all?

Yeah, we will. In that one photo that I showed with it, I said I want to turn into a garden. Okay. Yeah.

I mean, he means green that you're going to park on.

Yeah, I would not like to park on grass. I would like to park on concrete or asphalt.

Right. Yeah. No, Mike, with all due respect, that's not what I was asking if he was going to have any green grassy yard at all.

Oh, well, there will be about a 25. Well, no, I think it's a 20 by like three foot area. That's that area that I want to turn into a garden.

And what is the size of the rest of your yard that you're planning on? You keep saying driveway. Is it just?

It's already covered in concrete. It's just it's all busted up. And I think it was, I don't know how you marked it, but you can see in this photo that there's a concrete slab right here. Okay. And then there's a paver area right next to it.

So your entire yard is already concrete?

I just want to replace it with something nice.

And this is just for cars in your household? And how many cars do you have?

There will only be two. Once I'm able to move in. Once I'm able to move in. I'm renovating it currently, living with my mom.

So it's just going to be you in the house and your mom? No, just me. And then you have two cars?

Yeah, a truck and a car.

Any questions from the board? I know there were some people that wanted to respond in. You want to come forward, please? If you would state your name and address for the record, please.

David Cubic, 36 South 13th Street. Cubic, K-U-B-I-C-H. My only concern was it was brought to our attention by the realtor that it was going to be a multi-purpose home, and it was listed as a single family. If it's him and his two cars, and it's just him living there, I have no objections.

I think that's what he said, right?

That's what he just stated. That's when my whole, I was like, okay. Because it was brought to our attention from the realtor that it was to be renovated and made a multipurpose home. And I'm thinking to myself, you know, we've been here for 17 years. All of the neighbors on the block has been here for more than 20 years. We maintain that alley. We snowblow it. I have neighbors with disabilities. So to try to keep it open in case there is an emergency so they can get their cars out of the back in the wintertime, it gets to be a community effort back there. So that was my major concern. If it's him, welcome to the neighborhood. If it's his two cars, I can handle it.

And again, your plan is not to have it a multi-unit. No, no, no.

One family for the house.

I only seen him in passing one time. I wish he would have introduced himself. You know, we could have had this conversation probably in the backyard. Unfortunately, that didn't happen. I hope to see him in the future and, you know, we can go from there.

Looks like there are no backyards.

All right. There you go. Yeah. They had purchased the house. That's what the intentions were. I don't know if that was maybe that was a different seller for all I know. I was just concerned.

Well, he stated on the record that it's not.

Which is fine.

Got him.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Thank you. And Mr. Tillman, if I may, just for the record, what is the current designation of this property?

It is an A2 semi-detached dwelling.

Single family.

Single family.

Thank you.

Okay. Anybody else that was sworn in? You weren't sworn in. Sir? Sir? Were you sworn in? You weren't sworn in.

Okay.

Yes. Yes. Okay. I do so swear.

If you give your name and address for the record, please.

1236 North Hampton Street. Will this construction of yours and your surrounding property affect my restaurant, Brooklyn Eats, S&S, my awesome neighbors, or the Paxonosa School? No. Any of that surrounding area? No. All right, then I wish you the best on your construction then. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else? Any other questions from the board? You had something?

I don't have a photo of what's going on. What are you struggling with? We've denied many of those. He's going black top to black.

So that's a good point. So you're going from your property line to property line.

Property line to property line. Wide, zero yard setback. Is that, and I don't have a measurement of it. We don't have any drawings or anything. Is that necessary to fit two cars?

Just for like a approach angle. And since it is a fairly narrow driveway in the back and I have a quite long truck, just to be able to have some more approach angle.

You have a 19 and a half wide driveway.

Mm-hmm.

I'm trying to follow suit, yeah.

And then, you know, having one car parked, let's say, to the left, and then I would try to come in with my truck and park it on the right side.

Yeah.

And just to have two parking spots. Could you have a foot on each side?

How wide is the property?

I think the property is about 20 feet wide. Oh, just 20? Yeah. Yeah.

What's the 10 feet? 9 feet is the parking lot. It's 9 feet wide. 9 by 18. There's a parking stall.

9 and 9 is 18. I know.

Yeah.

So what we're just

Would you be agreeable to have a foot on each side so that you have some space between property lines so that you can at least take care of the property on your own side? So if you're from property line to property line, you have to go on somebody else's property to take care of it, basically.

And water runoff.

And water runoff also would be.

You give yourself a little bit of permeable surface.

I can do that, yeah.

Okay.

Mm-hmm.

I'll put a one-foot margin on either side of it.

So you realize that is going to require that you, on the record, modify your appeal to request not a zero side yard setback, but a one-foot side yard setback on each side.

I'm sorry, one more time.

It's okay. We would ask if that's what you're willing to do, that you verify you are willing to revise your appeal to request a one-foot side yard setback on each side of the property.

Okay.

Instead of zero.

Would I have to resubmit that application and come here again?

No, I'm asking you to do it now on the record.

Oh, yeah, okay.

All right. Any other questions?

Now, Mr. Chairman, do you want to specify that that one foot setback be sod or grass and not stone or any other? I understand that.

I don't typically have a preference, no. Okay. Yeah, it could be stone. Okay. Just asking. All right. The board has no further questions. Do you have anything else you want to add? No, sir. All right. Thank you. I'm going to close the hearing.

I would suggest that the board consider attaching a condition prohibiting rental of the spaces to anyone not residing on the property.

OK.

Absolutely. You want that to have a, thank you, that nobody other than homeowners or parking. So is there a motion? Mr. Thomas and make a motion to approve. Mr. Loebsack, second. With that condition, yes.

All right. Ms. Thomas? Aye. Mr. Loebsack? Aye. Mr. Civitello? Aye. Ms. Panto?

Aye. So it's been approved with the condition that you can only use it for people of that property. You can't rent it out. Okay. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

Ready?

Ready. All right.

Open up the next hearing.

Secretary to purpose, please.

All right.

Applications hereby made for public hearing before the Eastern Zoning Hearing Board for a property known as 329 Folk Street Zoning District South Side Block Class C. Special exception for an A7 multifamily and variances as follows. 59514C1 proposed an A7 multifamily dwelling required a special exception. 59514D, proposed existing lot area of 4,875 square feet, required minimum lot area of 5,000 square feet. 59514D, proposed existing five-foot built-to line, required a three-foot built-to line. 59514D, proposed existing zero-rid yard setback. Required a minimum 25-foot rear yard setback. 59514D, proposed existing impervious coverage of 67%. Required maximum impervious coverage not to exceed 50%. 59514F3, proposed no street trees. Required street trees shall be planted along all streets in accordance with Chapter 5542 and as determined by the City Forester. 59532A2A, proposed, 1,219 square feet per dwelling unit, required a minimum lot size, 1,250 square feet per dwelling unit. The above action is a request to proceed with the conversion of an A2 mixed residential business into an A7 multi-use. The appellant is Atin Vermin at 831 Walnut Ave, Easton, PA, 18042. The owner is Avis Property, LLC, at 831 Walnut Ave, Easton, PA. 38 adjacent property owners were notified. It was published in the press. We also have the resolution from the Easton Planning Commission, dated August 5th, 2026. Now, therefore, it be resolved that the Easton Planning Commission recommends to the Zoning Hearing Board that the special exception be granted For the A7 multifamily use at 329 Folk Street, based on the findings that the proposed use is generally consistent with 59507C considerations for special exception request, 59540C criteria for special exceptions in the city's comprehensive plan with the following conditions. One, an impact assessment and mitigation statement is submitted and reviewed by Planning Commission as part of the land development application. Two, the Zoning Hearing Board consider new information provided by the applicant at the August 5th, 2026 Planning Commission regarding the applicant's commitment to planting forestry trees along the frontage of the property. Three, the application is subject to any conditions the Zoning Hearing Board may impose. Four, all additional comments from the Zoning Administrator, Zoning Hearing Board, Codes and Planning Department, and City Engineer shall be met.

Mr. Tillman, I could have heard it wrong, but did you say A2 or A12? Did you hear it?

He did say A2, and I was going to wait, but it is an A12 existing.

All right. Is the applicant present? Is there anybody in this audience that wants to speak at this hearing? I'm going to have you stand up, sir, or be sworn in, please.

Yes, I do. Okay.

You want to give your name and address for the record, please?

Aston Verma, 831 Walnut Street, Easton, PA. And chair, Mr.

Chair, this property was posted.

Thank you. You can tell I forgot, didn't you?

I did.

All right, sir. Tell us why you're here.

I'm requesting to turn this commercial unit into a three-unit apartment building. It has an attached house. It's one lot. It's one parcel. And it's due to the hardship that I'm going for this, because I'm not able to rent that spot out at all. And I'm not looking to construct anything outside the building that is already existing. So everything that I'm doing or proposing, it's inside. increasing the footprint, I'm not doing nothing, that sort.

Can you speak then to all the proposed codes that our codes don't allow for you? So you could tell the board why you need all the variances. And I think one is a special exception.

Which one specifically? All of them. I don't have anything in front of me right now to tell you.

So you have a minimum lot area of 5,000 square feet, and you're proposing 4,875. You have a three-foot build to line. You need five feet to build. 25-foot rare setback. You're proposing nothing. You have a maximum impervious coverage not to exceed 50%, and you are at 67%. You're proposing no trees when it calls for trees.

No, I am proposing trees, four trees.

You are? Yes.

Per the planning commission. Oh, okay.

I'm sorry. And then the minimum lot size of 1,250 square feet versus your 1,219 square feet.

Let me see if I can make this easy.

In your opening statement that I understand you correctly when you said that you were having difficulty renting the commercial unit Yes, because of the traffic that will bring to the neighborhood We proposed barbershop that got denied we proposed a couple other units and they were denied different businesses and there was one approved but then neighbors complained because it was actually helping, it was something to do with community helping, and these people would line up in front of the location early morning, like 7 o'clock, 10, 20 of them, for whatever their business was. I think they were helping, they were a government site, something like that. But anyways, they were denied to renew the lease for the second time. Since then, we haven't been leased at all.

Okay, and so you're not There are three separate units in the building presently.

So there is a house, same parcel, same lot. There's a house attached. And then there's a building, which is commercial, also attached. So I guess this was a mix, right? So the commercial building that is there This is the entire commercial building right here. And we are just dividing that within the premises that exist into three apartments. And they all have, because the corner property, all the three apartments have their own entrances and windows.

There are two buildings on this property?

There is a house attached to the building.

Are they both on the same property, Mr. Tillman?

They are. So if you look at in the packet here at the corner one, so this single family house, well, it's a part of the mixed use, but it's connected to the commercial building.

Got it.

Which I'm not touching at all. That stays as is.

I was going to ask you this. So you do nothing with the house? We're not doing nothing with the house.

And the house is just a single family? Single family, yes. And we do rent out to Section 8, so that's what this is going to be used for as well. We're not changing anything on footprint, no. Only interior. Exactly, right, correct. I see a garage. Is there a garage? That garage is going to turn into like a studio apartment.

Okay. That garage is for the house?

No, it was for the commercial. For the commercial? Yeah.

And when you were talking about the denied rentals, did you own it during this time? Can you give a little more?

I own the property for the past five to six years now.

Okay. And throughout that, you've tried to go to a barbershop. Oh, many times. They got denied and so forth and so on. So you've made various attempts for five years.

Yep. And with the garages, that's like a very narrow street. You've got parking on both sides. And so we did rent it out to a millwork business, but they were having difficulty getting big trucks delivery. So they left.

That's good for rent. Yeah.

That's a good option.

So with those four dimensional variances involving existing conditions. You're going to plant four trees in the front to address 595.14 leaves you requesting a 31 square foot per dwelling unit variance for each of the three new residential units.

Yes, please.

That's what it boils down to. Yeah.

Do you have any other questions for him?

No questions for the questions. Anything else you want to add?

No.

OK. Close the hearing.

You do want to attach as a condition to any approval you entertain the requirement that he install those four trees in the front. Okay. As we can do it, the Planning Commission did not. Okay. Who made the motion?

Mr. Penta made a motion to approve. Mr. Loebsack second with that condition.

All right. Ms. Penta? Aye. Mr. Loebsack? Aye. Mr. Civitella?

Aye.

Ms. Thomas? Aye.

It's been approved with the condition to add the four trees.

I definitely will do that. Thank you very much, board. Thank you. Good luck. Thank you.

Yeah. Are you ready?

Yep. All right. Open up the next hearing. Second survey to purpose, please.

All right, applications hereby made for a public hearing before the East End Zoning Hearing Board for a property known as 1100 Bushkill Drive, Zoning District River Corridor Block Class B. Special exception for an A12 mixed-use residential business and variances as follows. 59517C5 proposed an A12 mixed residential business, required a special exception. 59517D1 proposed building height of 62 feet, Required a maximum building height of 40 feet. 59517 F3 proposed shrubs along the street side of the building. Required street trees shall be planned along both sides of all streets in accordance with Chapter 5542 and as determined by the City Forester. 59517F6 proposed driveway to be 24 feet wide. Required driveways access via street and not an alley shall be no more than 10 feet wide. Above action is request to proceed with construction of a mixed-use residential commercial building for the redevelopment of existing property along Bushkill Drive. The appellant is Brandon Walker at 1 Oxford Center, Pittsburgh, PA 15219. The owner of the property is City of Easton at 123 South 3rd Street, Easton, PA. 25 adjacent property owners were notified. It was published in the press. and resolution from the Eastern Planning Commission, July 1st, 2026. Now, therefore, it be resolved that the Eastern Planning Commission grants conditional preliminary approval of the submitted plan titled the Foundry Site Development Plan provided that the applicant adheres to the following conditions. One, the plan shall comply with the planning staff's analysis memorandum dated June 22, 2026 and comply with all comments in the April 24th, 2026 letter from LVPC. Two, the Zoning Hearing Board grants a special exception and variances required with this application and subject to any conditions The zoning hearing board may impose all variances that have been addressed and submitted revisions shall be withdrawn on record. Three monuments and markers shall be verified and shown for all corners of the property. For a note indicating the site is not within the 100 year floodplain shall be added to the plans. Five, standard approved city certificates shall be added to the plans. Six, all additional comments and concerns of the city engineer, city forester, zoning administrator, fire department, and codes department shall be met. Seven, the plans shall not be recorded with the county of Northampton, Pennsylvania until all plan titles and certificates are endorsed by authorized signatures.

Thank you, Mr. Tillman. Is the applicant present? Yes. Anybody here for this hearing? Anybody that wishes to speak at this hearing, I need you to be sworn in now. If you're not going to be sworn in, you're not going to speak later.

Mr. Chair, this property was posted. I was getting to that. Oh, I'm sorry, sir.

Hi, y'all.

Counselor, if you could have your applicants give their names and address for the record, that'd be great.

Brandon, can you just make sure that's on? Yeah, there you go.

Hi, this is Mark Mulligan, VM Development Group, representing the Preferred Developer, address 1 South 3rd Street, 9th floor, Easton, PA.

Gretchen Rice, representing VM Development Group, 1 South 3rd Street, Easton, PA.

I'm sorry, your last name?

Rice, R-I-C-E. Oh, Rice.

OK. Thank you.

You may proceed.

And, sir, you are? Brandon Walker. I'm with HDR Engineering, the engineer for the project. And that would be Oxford Center, Pittsburgh, PA, 15219.

And before we proceed, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Tillman, can I just ask one thing just to get it on the record? Was there a determination made as to whether this property or any portion of it is located in the floodplain?

The back end where the stormwater Just just barely breaks the boundary of the floodplain 100-year floodplain We had discussions with the city and with Brandon Walker that will be relocated outside of the 100-year floodplain Good evening Thanks for seeing us this evening.

I just wanted to state for the record that We it came to our attention late on Friday and more into Monday even though we had gone before the planning commission and shown our plans and so on and we've been working with the city's team for better part of two years and this project's been in progress for five years and it's gone through a couple iterations that some members of the public did not like the facade design that we had proposed at this point in the project and that we are planning to meet with council next month and propose a variation on the shell of the building. But that is not to say that we are here tonight, though, to solidify the zoning requests that we have here tonight to try to then solidify the shell of the buildings so that we're all on the same page. So that's why we're proceeding this evening, and we're happy to take all the questions necessary at that council meeting and or at the next planning commission meeting as it relates to shell and design and scope of the exterior of the building. Thank you. As it goes to today and tonight's very limited scope, we're here to discuss this building. There are two. This is on one side, but it's separated by the street. So we're actually here for two applications. That is the current look of the shell as of Friday, which will most likely be changing in the month of September. That represents the parcel. If you'll notice what Duane was just talking about and being asked about is the storm system actually is shared on both properties and then goes through that all the way in the far right outlet is the outlet that was being discussed. It's barely inside the buffer. Technically DEP already granted us the the waiver to put it exactly there, but it's not a big deal when engineering looked at it. We can pull it back a few feet. It seemed to be some concern. It's no problem at all. We're here to try to please as many parties as possible. So the first thing we're here for tonight is the special exception, which is really just a figure of the fact we're in a special exception zoning corridor, which is the river corridor. And as that is, I just don't know if you remember, but the silt mill, every business was a special exception in the River Corridor. So we feel that we already have a lot of mixed use in the River Corridor, and we're hoping that that continuation of developing this actual Bushkill Corridor with mixed use is still in keeping with zoning compliance. So there's really not much more to say other than this is an accepted principle already all over the silt mill and was granted before. One of the two, actually three, right? We have three on this property variances, right? We have building height, that's the first one. The original proposal we proposed to the city back in 21 and then re-proposed in 24. The mic is not liking me. required us to get at least a 10-foot variance because we were doing a structure and then three floors above. Now we're just doing four floors, so it's basically the same. The reason that we are asking for at least 10 feet and possibly 20 feet, it's not quite 62, it's actually 60 feet when we actually looked at the plans more carefully by Just to explain it a little bit at a time the way that we would like to make the apartments instead of having eight-foot ceilings Which are very low more in keeping with the mill and other buildings in the corridor as you can see Building K and if everyone has visited the silk mill recently the big building D the large buildings They're also down the street you have Hummel lumber and then of course the paper mill all our tall buildings we believe those represent the masses of the buildings in the corridor, not the, you know, not the small homes and various other businesses that are located directly across the street. That's our, that's our feeling on it. And we would like to have apartments that had higher ceilings, 10 foot, which is why we're proposing going from 40 to 50 feet. That would be 10 feet outside of the current zoning request. We would also like to go an additional 10 feet. We have the support of the Carl Stewart Arts Trail here tonight. Jim Toy is here. He's the executive director. And we feel that it's important to show off the site. They're actually already planning on leasing the commercial space on the first floor as their trail office and gatherings place. And they would like to also have a roof deck where they can host parties and fundraising events to help the trail, which the city will be building after the fact. Really not on us. That's going to be on them to do all that along the river corridor on the edge of the property. And they would have liked us to do a roof deck. And in doing that, we would need the elevator to go to the roof, and we need at least one stair tower to go to the roof. That's the additional 10 feet. The reason it says 62 feet is that's technically the top of the building. But technically, it's occupied space under the zoning, which brings us down a couple more feet to what we'd actually be requesting. So we need 60 feet of zoning and 62 feet in reality. I'm not sure how that is exactly, if that makes any sense to you. So that really explains. One more. Go back. What are we missing?

I just wanted to, for clarity, the building is 50 feet high.

Yeah.

There is a... very small elevator shaft and stair tower that would extend an additional 10 feet above that 50 feet. We could probably get four stories in the 40 feet requirement, but we would rather have a product that's got a 10 foot ceiling than an eight foot ceiling. I feel like that's a better quality product. I feel like that's better all around and in keeping with the other products and other buildings in the quarter as Mark mentioned. So we're not asking for a 62 foot building But the way the zoning code is written, you still need a variance to accommodate that elevator shaft and stair tower.

I'm glad you clarified that, because I was wondering where the extra 10 feet was coming from. Thank you.

And as Mark was saying, Building K, the silk mill is 73 feet. This building would be 50 feet.

If I may, though, just clarify, because I'm not quite clear now. The amenity on the roof. presumably will be fenced in or enclosed so nobody falls off the roof? No.

No, it'll have a fence. So you imagine the building is 50 feet high to the top of the parapet, let's say, and then 10 more feet for an elevator shaft and stair shaft for people to get in and out of that area. Then around that will just be open space with railings. Well, that's what I'm saying. It will be enclosed with railings. Oh, yes. I'm sorry. Yes, we're saying the same thing.

Roof deck will not be the entirety of the roof. Since there's only one entrance and egress to the roof deck, we're limited to, I think, 750 square feet.

750 square feet is the limit.

Which is a very small portion of the roof. So that area will be enclosed by some kind of fencing or railing.

Right.

Right.

I was hoping otherwise.

We don't want anyone to fall off. It would likely be centrally located in the center of the roof structure. So it wouldn't necessarily be on an edge.

That's what I'm trying to establish. So it will be set back so that from the street, it will appear as a 50-foot building, not a 60-foot building.

That is correct, other than the stair tower and elevator small block, which I'm not sure if you can see in the net. Yeah, you can see it. You can just barely see it, and we're going to paint it a different color, a lighter color, so that it disappears into the clouds. There to the right above the tree, you'll see the stair tower. Okay, well, there you go.

Perfect.

That's the idea. It's all been painted. Yeah, we'll paint it a lighter color. I was discussing with Duane this morning, we were discussing the aesthetics of the building. You can do things to change the appearance. Like next door, it appears to be five stories, but then they made the other stories a different color to change the appearance to help mitigate the height. Very good. OK. Oh. Just another view. Another view. OK. Again, we're going to be redoing the shell of the building. All right. OK, next variance, street trees. So this is, again, to what we feel is helping the trail and also the public and the corridor. We hope everyone will eventually see it that way. So we're looking for ways to, first off, calm the traffic. You get zooming down Bushkill. It's not considered really a residential street right now. And people get cooking, and they go right by. So doing on-street parking is absolutely a traffic calming scenario. And so that's first why we came up with it. Then, of course, now with the trail involved, the trail would like parking for the amenity of the trail. And at the soap mill, even though it's private parking and we've had to put up signs, and especially a few years ago when there was all those problems down at the soap mill with people coming from New York and parking, it became a problem. So we would have to sign it, which would mean that technically anyone who wants to use the trail would have to park on the street and then walk down to the end of the property and into the new bridge that's being erected in that location. So the street parking is the best parking for people to come and use the trail. Of course, people are probably going to park in the lot like they do at the silt mill, but we thought that the parking is important. The reason that's important to the street trees is we were unable, between the on-street parking and also the fact, if you'll look, actually go back a slide if you could, two slides. Actually no, that's good, go one more. Notice that the super high voltage power lines run next to the building, up above the building. So they're actually taller than the building. So we've had to pick trees that will grow to a certain height or they're going to get topped as it is. And so we've just been sensitive to having too many trees that are going to get topped at some point. We also want to mention that besides mitigating this with some bushes, because they're not going to grow as high or be difficult, we also have a great many trees being planted on this site, especially on the south side. Hundreds and hundreds of trees are being planted in the buffer between the building and the stream as per our NPDES permit. So we're looking at like 200 or 300 trees. So we are not having a lot of street trees. And there are, though, just inside, if you go back, yep. See, if you'll notice, only those three street trees are actual street trees under the designation street trees. But we've highlighted the trees that we're planting elsewhere that are directly within 10 feet of the street tree area, just on the other side of the sidewalk, so that you guys can get a better idea of the fact we are planting hundreds of trees on the site. Again, not even really the zoning ordinances per the NPDES permit. Any questions on? Any questions from the board?

OK.

So that's our thoughts on street trees. And then our last is hopefully a simple one with this project. So to have the proper two-way street, I should say parking, exits and exits, emergency vehicles, all the things that are important to get in and out of a site of this size on this side of the street, and not on the other side of the street, different zoning corridor, we're not allowed to have driveways that are more than 10 feet. And in this case, we're requesting 24 feet, which is a standard full-size two-way driveway, especially important at the west end of the site, where we're actually going to create an intersection where we're going to have crosswalks. Actually, the Planning Commission requested us do a proper designated crosswalk, a proper Penn.1, so that people from both sides of the site can share. and get over to the trail and so on and so forth. So we're requesting two driveway entrances that are 24 feet for emergency traffic and for pedestrian and our use, as well as probably public use, whether we like it or not. That's it, just those three variances. There was some discussion which we got a little confused. There was a plan review had gotten a little messed up and so it came out that we had like 10 variances. These are really, when we went back and got it organized, it's just these three for anyone who's wondering.

Okay, thank you.

Any questions from the board?

All right, then I'll take questions from the audience that were sworn in. And particularly, that is for the one special exception and for the three variances. That's where your questions should be or comments should be geared to. Right now, it can't. I mean, it's on this street. No. If you give your name and address for the record, please.

Hi, my name is Jennifer Talarico, T-A-L-A-R-I-C-O. I'm at 406 West Burke, East End 18042. I just had a question based on the drawings that have been distributed about the previously distributed plan and the current plan. I'm not actually technically sure if it's part of the existing variance discussion about the parking lot underneath and its relation to the flood zone. So I understand the... It was simply the stormwater adjustment that was in the 100-year flood zone and that has already been adjusted. Is it the case that the current plan being suggested is consistent with the prior distributed plan in terms of the impervious surface allocated to parking on this side of the Bushkill corridor?

We have a plan for you. One second.

No, Mark, I don't think that was her question. She's asking if this plan has changed from the previous plan. Correct. It has not, with the exception of just that.

It is not, but if you'd like to, I mean, if we can share with you the- It has not. It has not changed. Okay. And we're fully in compliance. There was some confusion, and we're well under the impervious coverage compliance that's required. Great.

Thank you so much. And I just want to also go on record, my questions or concerns that you may hear later have nothing to do with the facade.

No problem. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else?

Oh. Hi, I'm Jim Toya. I'm the executive director of the Carl Stirner Arts Trail.

I'm sorry. Sir, your name again?

Jim Toya, T-O-Y-A.

Thank you. And your address, sir?

238 Beacon Hill Road in Califon, New Jersey. I teach at Lafayette College as well. Very often here in Easton and feel like I live here more than I do in New Jersey. First of all, I just want to say we're very happy to have VM Development and Silk Mill as a stakeholder and people who have been working with the Arts Trail for the 15, 16 years that we've actually been in existence and They have done a lot of work with us to help us install artwork. They're great neighbors, and we really appreciate that. And I'm very excited. We're very excited about having the opportunity to be on the, not really a commercial building, but they have presence on the south side of Bushkill Drive there at the foundry. Very excited about that. So thank you guys for what you've been able to do so far, and we look forward to that in the future. My one question is about the trees. So I'm all for trees. We're an arts trail that's surrounded by art and nature. And we rely on the natural side of that. I just want to make sure there's going to be enough room for the artwork with the trees. That's a lot of trees.

I agree. So that's something when we get into actually the trail design with the city, we're going to need to. That's after this phase. But we are going to need to figure it out. There's a lot of trees required by NTP. And we've actually went for a waiver, right, Brandon? They wanted, like, 700 trees, and we were like, there would be nothing other than trees every, like, two feet. So they've agreed that that's kind of crazy. So we are, I mean, that's something you should definitely, as soon as we need to get to, yeah, you probably heard that tonight, and welcome back. But just saying, yeah, we're going to need to sort that out so that the trail can interweave. You know, we've talked about this for years. Yeah, absolutely.

We'll figure it out. Got it. Fair enough. Okay. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Anyone else?

My name is Bruce McCutcheon. I live at 619 West Lafayette Street. I'm also president of the $4 chapter of Trout Unlimited. I understand that the stormwater piece in the flood zone is going to be moved?

That's correct.

Is there a public record of your application and for stormwater management?

Absolutely. Yeah, absolutely. So one, it's going through the MPDS process. So it's actually an individual permit that is going through the County Conservation District. And just to give you an idea, we're right now in technical review comments.

So that permit has not been issued yet.

It is, we are addressing a few minor comments that have come out. Nothing really to the degree on stormwater. It was more some minor items of like addressing sizing of mulch sock and

Okay, but the question remains, is there a public view of that yet?

It is submitted into planning as well. A copy of it is submitted in through the planning department. But yeah, the permit for it would come through the conservation district.

Okay. As far as the Bushkill stream is concerned, not having a scrap metal plant there anymore is a good thing. But we are very concerned about what comes down we want to see improvement Correct for our beautiful stream not a detriment to it.

Yeah, and and understood Yeah, and that's that's that was the approach whenever going through the design and of course with the state regulations no matter what is a other meeting or reducing and discharge volume and peak flows. And we make sure to do that.

Are there retaining pools associated with this complex?

No, there isn't. Basically, and this maybe is getting outside of the purview of the zoning. Yeah, this is really a planning.

All that runoff is just headed right to the stream.

No, it's actually being, well, it's being collected in the storm system that's there. And-

I'm not exactly sure if this is this is a again if that's a planning question or a zoning question Yeah, we're so we're gonna be discussing this in front of planning and probably October 7th is what we're guessing and that's when or though between now and then you're more than you should go to you know and get a copy of the what we've submitted I mean, but everything meets the requirement from not just the local county conservation district, but also this had to be reviewed by PADEP. So we're meeting all the requirements. So again, planting all the trees, which of course now Jim is concerned about, et cetera. But yes, we're trying.

OK. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Anyone else?

Attorney Harding, do you have a thumb drive to give to the secretary of what you're going to be using?

I don't, but I can provide it. I'm not submitting these as exhibits or into the record. They're just for reference.

OK.

And I'm happy if there's an objection or anything.

Yeah, no, if you're not submitting them.

I actually was going to let Kurt speak first, because I think it's important that we remember why we're here and what the point of reviewing variances.

So Kurt Ely, 305 West Monroe Street in Easton, concerned resident. I'm going to ask permission to distribute. A copy of the Easton City Code sections on zoning variances and special exception review.

You're welcome to, but the board is intimately familiar with 595, 40C, and 40D.

But I'll be sharing to all of you. And I'll be providing copies to the applicant as well. And if a member of the public would like one, I'm happy to do that.

Yeah, we do have this. We have the whole book, yeah.

All right, for the record, what has been handed to us by Mr. Eli is ostensibly a reproduction of Because it doesn't look like a photocopy so a reproduction of section 595 dash 40 D of the Easton zoning ordinance and Chapter 298, Floodplain Management, Section 298-18G, and Section 595-40, although it's not marked as such, it is Section 40, Subsection C, relative to special exceptions, which I will mark as Exhibit 01.

Thank you. Thank you very much. I'd really love to read it, but I'm not going to do that. I'm going to assume that you are reading it and well aware of what it says. But the bottom line is a variance requires that there be specific issues about the property, got nothing to do whatsoever with whatever the applicant wants to do with the property. It's not about a hardship to the applicant We want our plan to have an extra five feet for this purpose or six feet for that. It's got to do with whether or not that property can be developed within the code or not. And this property has a huge number of uses and certainly plenty of opportunities. to be developed in the way that they would like without seeking a variance. And I'm very concerned about that process that allows for variances to occur or variances being granted when really they're the hardship of the applicant and absolutely not any hardship or problem with the site or property itself. This isn't just the law as it appears in our code, but it is virtually a quote of what appears in the municipality's planning code for the state of Pennsylvania. It's directed, it is the law, and I'm here just to ask if we could please follow the law. and not grant these variances for whatever the reason. They're in there. They're meant to be in this particular zone. And we ask that you allow for them to actually be the law of the zone. Please don't allow those variances. Thank you.

Good.

I would just simply say that since we've been doing this for 15 years and we've come before your board for many variances, that the silt mill, if not granted special exceptions or variances, would never have been redeveloped. Simple.

Thank you. It's great. We're not here to talk about the silk mill. We're here to talk about a very different property, which has plenty of potential. Thank you, Kurt. So my name is Cody Harding. Many of you know me. I live at 410 North 10th Street. I measured it today. It's approximately 1,800 feet from this site. I think We should revisit Bruce's question about the flood. Sorry, I think it was Solicitor Nitschke's initial question about whether or not this parcel is in the flood zone. And I know there's a, Mr. Mulligan has told us not to worry about it. We're moving the drainage facilities from the flood zone. But I think it is very important to note that the parcel is in the FEMA designated flood zone. The parcel line extends into the Bushkill Creek and clearly is in the blue zone AE, which is FEMA's flood hazard map. And so the question was not, is your construction in the flood zone? Is your building in the flood zone? Is your project zone that you've designated on your plans in the flood zone? The question is, is the parcel and consequently the stormwater runoff in the flood zone? And it is undeniable that this parcel on the south side of Bush kills Drive is in the flood zone and consequently it is our position that because the flood provisions and also stormwater provisions of the city code have not been considered this application is not ripe for presentation to the zoning board there is a litany of requirements that we all spent last year reviewing that need to be met before it can be presented for zoning including I know DEP was involved in the remediation of the site and reviewing it. I'm not sure that they've completed 102 and 105 permits. I could be mistaken. But we also were told that Mr. McCutcheon from the Trout Unlimited asked about what was happening with the stormwater. And we saw the applicant sort of stumble through their answer. We all know if you look at their plans, the stormwater is going to be channeled. from the north side of the property across Bushkill Drive into one facility, which will run all the way down into the Bushkill. They also would need a permit for the crossing of that stormwater across the State Road. Bushkill Drive is State Road 2019. I have seen no evidence that that's been accomplished. And numerous other requirements for this to be presented because it's in the flood zone. And so it's my position, it certainly isn't the only problem I have with this project, but it's the primary one, is that because the flood zone has been sort of talked around and ignored, we can even look at, here's the close, and now we're being told that this is being moved, But the flood zone is this squiggly little line there. You can see it at the bottom. It says FEMA flood zone. This is from the developer's own plan. Project boundary is an irrelevant sort of demarker that they've created.

The property line. So I mean,

We can talk about some other things, but I think the Zoning Hearing Board needs to be considering this as the primary concern and that this application should be deferred until they resolve all of the necessary prerequisites.

That's not what we're... We are here to hear what's in front of us right now. That's beyond our scope.

Your scope is to enforce the zoning provisions of the code. Correct.

And just because they say don't worry about it doesn't mean... What's in front of us right now is not what you're talking about. It is incomplete. That's your opinion.

It is not my opinion that it's in the flood zone. It is in the flood zone. OK. I don't want to, clearly we respectfully disagree, but I do think that the flood provisions need to be discussed. And if it is up to the zoning board to scrutinize those provisions and- Mr. Nitschke, is it up to us to do that?

Well, let me ask you this, Attorney Harding. Referring to what you have on the screen right now, 298.18a, no variance, shall be granted for any construction development use or activity within the floodway area district that would cause any increase in the BFE, which of course is the base flood elevation. Do you have any belief that what is being proposed will cause any increase? And then ultimately, I would ask the three individuals sitting at the appellant's table if that has been addressed and discussed with planning and with the city during the planning of this project.

I think that that's a great question. And I think that's a question that I was interested in asking. And so you're asking that for me. And I'm happy to move on and leave that question on the table to be answered later. I think for the sake of everyone's time, I'd like to just move on to one other point.

OK. So my question to you would be, no, you don't have any belief or any reason to believe that there would be any increase in the base flood elevation.

I would. I don't have any scientific evidence of that. Fair enough, yeah.

That's why I was asking. I didn't know if you did or not.

All I'm presenting is that regardless of the representations of the applicant, the flood provisions are invoked because this parcel is in the FEMA designated flood zone and therefore provisions such as 298-18 should be considered. I am not an expert who should be making the sort of assessment, but it's my analysis that this has all been ignored.

Might I suggest that we have these three individuals address this now while you're at the podium so that you don't have to come back up when they do address it in case you want to ask questions of them.

I assume they're going to tell me not to worry about it, but I don't see any reports available.

Well, let's not assume. Let's hear from them.

So yeah, again, to cover what was previously stated, we did look at actually pulling the outlet for the stormwater. There's actually a hydrodynamic separator inlet, what actually improves water quality for stormwater. Bushkill Creek from any of the collected runoff that is going to the storm system. But we've looked at that from a previous comment that was received through planning, and we're going to be able to adjust that back. So that is on the record here that we'll be able to eliminate that disturbance within the 100-year floodplain. I'm sorry, the 100-year flood zone AES depicted on the drawing. That is from the FEMA map that is imported in through FEMA's online web service. You get that shape file from them, so that's actually where it's supposed to be. As far as stormwater reduction quality, all those items, those are being addressed, again, through the 102 process that is submitted through the County Conservation District for us to get approval. is a reduction in peak discharge, reduction of volume, and through increase of water quality. And because it is an individual permit, we have to meet all three of those. And we have shown to the Conservation District that we do meet that criteria for this project. And so a effect would be a reduction in the discharge amount to Bushkill Creek during the peak design storms. And not to get too technical in it, but you analyze certain key design storms and look for a reduction in volume and in peak flow.

So, and I don't want to put words in your mouth, but just trying to interpret what you just said, is it my understanding that you're saying that this development, as it's being proposed with the system you're talking about installing, will actually decrease the base flood elevation instead of increasing it. Correct. And is there, to answer Attorney Harding's question, is there a report or a study or something of record that establishes that? And if so, with whom?

Yes, there is a post-construction stormwater management plan and calculations that were filed with the County Conservation District. And it's also available, it's been loaded to the planning website, so I'm assuming it's available.

Can I ask some clarifying questions? I was doing a lot of talking and I should have asked more questions initially. Is there any permeable pavement in this design?

No.

That's fine. Are there any rainwater retention, rain gardens?

This is getting along into the fact that it's an Act II site and the fact that it's going through a remediation process. Because the site and those areas that have to... You can't infiltrate in areas where you actually have an Act II site. So there's other measures through planting and soil amendments that we've reduced the runoff.

Was there any consultation with PennDOT for permitting running a stormwater across the state highway?

We're going through the process of actually getting a stormwater easement across Bushkill Drive.

Okay.

With PennDOT? We have to do a separate one with PennDOT for actually the lighting system. And we're going through that process currently.

So if I'm understanding correctly, all of the stormwater that's being channeled into the rainwater system will go into the Bushkill and somehow it's going to lower the base flood elevation? Yes. That seems to defy physics.

Well, no, water goes downhill.

You're adding water to the bush kill and it's going to be less likely to flow. Less than currently than less than today, yes. But there are no retention ponds on site. Correct. That sounds like magic. I would say it's just math. I'll move on off the flooding. I will move on off the flooding. I still argue that this is not ripe because of the parcel being in the flood zone. I'd like to talk about the impervious surface, which is another one of the zoning variances that I believe should be on their application that is not included. We've been told it's in the river corridor. This is the provision of the river corridor. Max pervious coverage, 30%. There are some exceptions, but I think it's important that we look at what that site looks like now. This is a Google satellite.

Let me interrupt you before you go any further. Mr. Tillman, has a determination been made that an impervious surface variance is necessary for this project?

Yes, it was determined, and it's not needed.

Do you want to question Mr. Tillman? I'm just curious how that's possible when we're looking at a site that significantly overgrown, full of crushed pavement, gravel, dirt, and that will be converted into predominantly a parking lot. I just don't understand how this isn't more than 30. I've had an architect look at this and tell me that from their assessment, it's about 38% impervious pavement on this parcel. The statement that I heard at the Planning Commission presentation was, Well, it's less than is there now, so we don't have to worry about it. And when I look at what's there now, it certainly doesn't seem less than a parking lot and a four-story building.

Um, the one thing I'd just like to point out is, um, that growth is probably only about an inch deep. Um, what is underneath is the remnants of, again, the scrap metal yard, the mining that was there before. That, that is rock underneath there. Um, for all intents and purposes, it is very solid, uh, I believe siltstone. Um, so where, how the site is being developed is actually to, um, We're going to bring in a lot of fill, but it'll be more of a, if you want to go on the USGS type classification, an AB type of soil. And that's actually being specified for the fill on the site, which should actually grab some absorption volume for those initial runoffs. And then actually with what you don't see there, what might be green there is weeds. If you would take note to the planting plan and the amount of actual trees that we're trying to add to the site to actually increase the coverage values.

Okay, so if I understand correctly, because there's stone under the dirt,

the impervious surface isn't going to be a problem. Other than the piles of asphalt and whatever, there's bricks and other stuff that are there.

We can all talk. I have two more questions and then we can talk about the other building, I guess. In your renderings, you showed sidewalks that seemed to extend all the way down Bushkill Drive. Do you plan to construct those sidewalks? It's my understanding there's no sidewalks in that area at all right now in the renderings that were presented. Yeah, go ahead.

So in conjunction with the City of Easton who has a corridor grant, there's a There's a they've received a grant for mobility and but in conjunction with them We are building a certain amount of sidewalk for them and then we're there building, you know We don't know exactly but there will be sidewalk. The goal is to Yeah, the goal was to extend Yeah, so we can't we can't quite get there but we're planning on doing as much sidewalk and you know And mobility is possible in the corridor.

Yes and then I think my last question is just I It's a series of questions. How many square feet of developable space is being built on this Southside property? Approximately.

Cubic feet? Square feet? I don't understand.

Square feet. Square feet of rental space. Can you guess? Or not guess, can you approximate?

It's not, I don't understand, because I don't understand the relevance.

I think from my reading of the plans, it's about 90,000 square feet of rentable square footage.

Okay.

Right? I mean, does that sound about right?

No idea, but keep going.

Well, do you know how much of it is retail or commercial space?

Well, I mean, so our plans have changed a little bit over the years because we, you know, I'll go, even though that's not part of this discussion, it's for the planning commission. Yeah, we are getting off the thing. But I'm just, I'll give you a quick, what we already discussed today earlier is, you know, we originally had planned, the trail was here saying they wanted 6,000 feet of commercial space and then they've reduced it to 1,500 to 2,000 feet, still slightly not sure yet on the south side. But then on the north side, for instance, there was a discussion of Nurture Nature had originally started off with us a couple years ago, and we did this whole design process with them where they were going to take 20,000 or 30,000 feet. Long story short, they ended up not being able to get their grant at the right time to do what they wanted to do, so that whole thing changed. But we're happy to discuss this in front of Planning Commission.

I'm sure that will be another discussion. Yeah, I think no for too much.

Tony Harding, could you leave that up for one second?

What's that?

Could you leave that picture up for one second?

Oh, sure. You want to leave this picture up?

Just for one second. I just, because I don't know if I had, I don't know if I got clarification on the impervious surface ratio and why that picture there is less than what I'm seeing on the plans.

So the soil composition underneath, what you see there is actually much more impervious, sorry, it's much more impervious, right, you got me thinking wrong, because it's really a compacted, very dense rock bed that's on top of that scrap yard that everything was sat on for many, many years. And so when you actually do the soil sampling, it's considered impervious coverage. And so what you're seeing in the way of greenery is weeds growing up like they grow through concrete, basically, or grow on concrete is what's been explained to us.

My understanding would be that if weeds can grow through it, it's not impervious service. But I'll conclude my remarks with just saying that these are not necessary variances. These are variances that they would like because it will maximize the profitability and the density of this site, and that also the flood zone provisions of our own code have not been enforced. So thank you for your time.

Thank you. Were you sworn in?

Hi. My name is Richard Sparshatt. I live at 917 Hillside Avenue. I'm sorry. S-P-A-R-S-H-A-T-T. And your address again, sir? 917 Hillside Avenue in Easton. 917 Hillside? Yes. Thank you, sir. So my question was really about the variance for 10 feet for apartments, and I think that is nice.

I'm sorry, the variance for what? 10 foot for apartment ceilings. Okay.

And I agree, I think it is nice to have apartments with 10-foot ceilings. But I would question why that wasn't thought about at the beginning. And if they want apartments with 10-foot ceilings, then it should be a three-story building, not a four-story building. And my second question really, just to help educate me, is the nature of mixed use. I presume there's a purpose for mixed use, or I guess this is my question. Is there a purpose for mixed use, as in is it really there to support the needs of the people in the building, or is there some other reason that the building should be mixed use? That was just to educate me, really. That was all.

We're not here for use variance.

Fine. Okay. So then my first question really is why the variant should stand to have apartments at 10-foot ceilings. If they want apartments at 10-foot ceilings, then they should have three stories of apartments, not four. Thank you. Thank you.

It's actually a good question. So our goal was to keep the mass of the building in keeping with the other masses of the buildings in the rest of the corridor. And so we're... we're thinking that that seems to be in line with everything else.

But if you wanted to mitigate this project to better conform with our zoning ordinance, could you do three stories?

Yes and no. So the idea is that do you want, I guess the idea is, well, of course, you can build anything. It's a new building. So the answer is yes, I guess, in the short term of it. But the long of it is if you want a project in keeping with the corridor, And so that is what we were going for, was in keeping with the corridor.

I'd like to have a project that's more in line with the zoning code than the corridor. Sorry.

We could, in theory, do a four-story building with eight-foot ceilings. It's not a density issue necessarily, because that's what we would likely end up with. We're just trying to produce a better product. The other option would be where we don't have a height restriction on the opposite side of the building, or opposite side of the street is to potentially go even higher. So we were trying to make them more balanced on either side of the road.

I'm just trying to get to, Mr., Attorney Hardy had mentioned about the profitability of this project, and that's kind of what I'm getting at. It's just why we have to go four stories instead of three. Would it be not profitable to do three stories?

Did I just understand you to say that Across the street, you could go higher under the ordinance. Correct. And you're trying to keep the buildings consistent from one side of the street to the other.

It's still higher on the north parcel, as you'll see when we get to the next hearing. But it could be potentially even higher, I think. So to speak to the profitability, when we responded to the city's RFP, Multifamily or mixed-use rather was requested in that RFP from the city as was an extremely dense site That was specifically the request and so we're attempting to meet that density requirement and spread it out over both parcels as best as we could Thank you

Approximately how high could they go?

Yeah, so the ANR is 90 feet.

For the record, we could build the building across the street to 90 feet, and we tried to mitigate building that to 90 feet because we think that is a little too tall.

So between the two buildings together, if it was a matter of profitability, you could increase the height of the other one to maximize?

We could. We just don't think it would be good as a product, correct. And it would really screw up the massing of the corridor. Thank you.

Any other questions from the board? No further questions. I don't know if you have anything. Oh, wait. I'm sorry. There's more people. My fault. Please.

Hi, my name is Toni Mittman, 36 North 3rd Street, Easton, Pennsylvania. My concern about this whole thing is zoning is supposed to protect the character of our neighborhood and the character of our city. And Easton is very historic, College Hill and downtown and the whole thing. And Bushkill Drive is a very passive, quiet connector between College Hill downtown and into Fork's Township. And it hasn't changed ever. And at great city expense, the city of Easton was able to purchase Easton iron and metal and is in process of doing remediation of the Brownfield site. So this is not about the developer and the whole project. It's about an opportunity for the city of Easton, which right now currently retains ownership of that tract of land. How many acres is it? Acres. About.

developable, I think five.

But I've always loved that piece of land because on the north side, there's an escarpment along the back of the lot. And so having raised four children on College Hill for 35 years, I'm very aware of the lack of open space, not only on College Hill, but in all Eastern's neighborhoods. So if it were up to me, I'd put nothing there except a wonderful park with the escarpment and climbing and all of that. And so if that opportunity were to be available, I think that'd be wonderful. That would be my vote, but it's not one person's decision. But if it's developed, There are ways to do it with the developer and there's no one that loves the SILP project more than I do because I worried about it 58 years ago and had it in my initial slideshow 58 years ago and then Phil and the Governor Rendell and everything got it done with Mark. We've never met but I know it's nice to meet you. So anyway, it's an opportunity because over the years I've met very many wonderful consultants and there's one in particular that could really resolve and bring a wonderful project to that land with the developer and the City of Eastern and that is Phil Myrick in New York. One time I invited Fred Kent to come to Easton to speak from Project for Public Spaces in New York, and he came to Easton and addressed 200 people at the Hotel Easton. And so Fred Myrick was with Fred Kent and Project for Public Spaces in New York for many years, and now he has his own consulting firm. And the website is philmyrick.com. Phil, M-Y-R-I-C-K dot com. And I think if you look at that, it's the process that he does of It's almost like a charrette, like a design charrette with all the stakeholders and all the parties involved. Really looking at the land and the context with College Hill and Easton and open space, need for whatever. It's a process that I feel is always missing, not only with this project, but with everything. When I look out the window, that's too much. It's just too much. And more is being built right next door. So when the next building is, we won't even see that building because of the one that's right here. So new construction is a whole different thing than historic preservation. And so new construction on cleared land, of which we have very, very little in Easton, this particular lot, because of the Carl Stern Arts Trail and the Bushkill Creek and the whole thing about quality of life and livability, this is an opportunity to do the right thing. And when I see these renderings of these kinds of apartment complexes, I think we'd all hate to see another error on that beautiful, passive Bushkill Drive. And it's a chance that I think if you bring out an outside professional to really sit down with everyone and say, okay, what is this land? How does it fit in? You know, Lafayette College could have bought it. It'd be wonderful.

They're all sorts of different things. I don't want to be rude, but what you're talking about is other possibilities that to this point have not come to fruition. No one else has stepped up. All of these individuals, Lafayette hasn't expressed interest. The gentleman from New York hasn't stepped up. It's been in its existing condition for how long?

Well, you're right. What you're addressing does not really... Well, it's a zoning question because variances... I would suggest and encourage you to table this so that... so that it buys time to really sit down and say, you know, look, look, because zoning is very important, and your vote is very important, and there's a developer here who's done a beautiful job on silk, there's no question about it, it's magnificent, of national and global importance, very rare that a project like that would ever happen anywhere. So it's wonderful. And so I think something like this just, it's very jarring. And so since it is a zoning question, I would just urge you to table it tonight and just, if anyone's interested in contacting Phil Myrick and just talking with him and bringing in someone like that who's so well-versed on bringing parties together on zoning issues and quality of life and development. So that's my comment. Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Hello, everybody.

Caron Anderson, that's C-A-R-O-N Anderson, S-O-N, 630 West Burke Street. I've been an Easton resident since about 1986 and up on College Hill since about 1989. And I guess I have a question first. At the silk mill, the apartments there, how high are the ceilings?

Ma'am, that has nothing to do with why we're here tonight.

We're making a lot of comparison to the other buildings in the corridor.

12 feet.

12 feet, okay. And I guess my concern is, like, with all the electrical, heating, all that kind of stuff, if I was looking at an apartment, just me personally, I would want an 8-foot ceiling and not a 10-foot ceiling, and I regret having a house with a 10-foot ceiling because the economy is killing us. Anyway, a couple others. I just wanted to say one thing that I get confused between the left and the right-hand side, and I guess we're talking about the left-hand side of... Bushkill versus the right-hand side which butts up against I think it's actually College Hill and I'm not going to stay for that discussion I don't have a ride home but college hill has always been a community neighborhood association and i did a little bit of googling and i guess you can find answers to almost anything whether you believe them or not on google but it says on average that if you're an apartment dweller you move every two to two and a half years if you own your property you're likely to stay for twelve and a half or more years depending on your age and i'm really sad to see apartments going in, butting up against a neighborhood with all that historical significance with long-term residents. And it bothers me a lot. And it probably isn't a variance issue. It's just a personal sighting. The other thing is traffic. I've heard everything from 40% to 50% increase on Bushkill, which isn't very well used right now. But if you go down West Lafayette Street at 8 o'clock in the morning, the cars are already getting to 13th Street. The cars are already backed up. beyond the YMCA. And if you come off 22 on the highway to 13th Street at rush hour, the cars are already backed up onto Route 22. And I'm very concerned about the traffic you know, that's increased traffic that's gonna be, it's gotta go somewhere. It's either gotta go to 13th Street, it's gotta go to 3rd Street, which is often flooded, by the way, on Bushkill Drive. I've had to detour around West Lafayette Street to get down to 13th Street. I can see the impact being quite significant with all those units being going in there and all the people. on the traffic pattern, whether or not it increases Bushkill by 40%, it's going to increase the problems on the other two areas and the little, I guess it's a causeway or a bridge going over 13th Street. I think it's going to be, personally, I think it'll be a nightmare. That's the end of my discussion. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Anybody else? Seeing no one else care to respond to anything or sum up,

I'll sum up that, you know, we have done a lot of renovation in the city, and I think our record speaks for the fact we care, which is why we're also, you know, we want to try to be open and answer everyone's questions. You know, we've invested basically our adult lives working here and raising, you know, and I'm fully invested in the City of Easton more than anyone wants to be. So I will simply say that we think we're doing the best we can. We heard some of the comments tonight, and like I said, we heard some of the comments earlier, and we'd like to do some redesign on the buildings, but that doesn't affect tonight's hearing. But I would say that we feel we've presented a good project, and we believe that we can meet all the criteria of this board tonight that's necessary, and we think we've balanced it as best we can, and we appreciate your your thoughts and hope that you'll vote in favor of our request. And thank you. Thank you. Close the hearing.

So who is the motion?

Me. Mike. And then Ms. Panto.

Me and then Mr. Loebsack second. Oh, Pam. I'm sorry. Pam did.

I'm sorry. Mr. Civitella.

Aye.

Ms. Panto. Aye. Mr. Loebsack.

Aye.

Ms. Thomas. Aye.

McGrann.

Thank you.

Yeah. Five minute break.

The youngster needs to go.

Yeah, I know.

No, I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about this youngster.

Oh, we have a minute break? Oh, OK. OK. We taking five or? Taking five. OK.

Oh, hold on. It's just taking its time. It says please wait. You're a little too

So my coach has got me playing this 14-year-old kid. No, it's fine. Actually, I beat him handily. Imagine Florida from 10 a.m. to noon. It's like 110 in the shade. And the thing is that I don't know, I'm 51. I don't know I'm 51. So I'm out there and I'm like, oh, I'm killing him. And then I sat down in the shade and I'm like, oh my God, I think I'm going to die. I was so, I lost eight pounds. Because you sweated it all out.

Mostly sweat.

I lost three pounds of weight and five pounds of water playing this guy. I couldn't believe I beat him. That's the first thing. My coach is like, you're killing it. Because he wants me, he's trying to get me into competitions. And I'm like, whatever. Nice.

Uh-oh, did we break something?

It might have been... I don't... Do you know, like... I don't know. Okay.

Just... Yeah.

Okay.

Don't do it. Don't touch it. Just let Dwayne come back. I need a...

Put his laptop on top. I think it held this down.

It's too early. It's too late for water. I need to keep me up. I've been up since 4.30.

Oh, yeah. Okay.

Well, you know, we share everything. Including backwash, apparently.

You broke it?

No, it worked.

Yeah, I don't know if it was him setting the laptop on there or just timed out or something like that. Is it coming back on? Oh, wait, is the TV on? No. It should be on.

Push up.

No, it didn't die. It just needs to wake back up.

Oh, I see it.

Yeah, you have to wake the Autobot.

Yeah, and it said, yeah, then it said it was like there's a problem with your PC diagnosing.

Oh, just now?

Yeah, but now it works.

We hit some buttons and it turned on.

I think it was maybe when the lawyer put the buttons on. Yeah, we just have to, I just have to open the north one, but it should.

Is it extended? Yeah, let me look.

Yep.

Well, we tried to beat it, and it was trickling, nothing crazy, and all of a sudden it just opened up on us.

So we'll see. There's a couple of laws I can go to. If not, I just have to pay money.

I mean, they're good. It's fun to watch them.

We're going to call the hearing back to order. You ready? I'll open up the next hearing.

Secretary, with a purpose, please. All right. Applications hereby made for a public hearing for the Eastern Zoning Hearing Board for property known as 1111-1113 Bushkill Drive Zoning District. Adaptive reuse block class B variances as follows 5 9 5 22 D proposed bill to line of 17 feet required bill to line of 5 feet 5 9 5 17 f3 proposed shrubs along the street side of the building Required street trees shall be planted along both sides of all streets in accordance with chapter 5 5 4 2 and as determined by the City Forester The above action is request to proceed with the construction of a mixed-use residential commercial building for the redevelopment of an existing property along Bushkill Drive. The appellant is Brandon Walker at 1 Oxford Center, Pittsburgh, PA 15219. The owner is the City of Easton at 123 South 3rd Street. 25 adjacent property owners were notified and it was published in the press.

Mr. Tillman, I see the applicant is present. I'm going to ask anyone that wants to talk at this hearing to be sworn in now, please. Mr. Tillman, this property was posted? Yes, it was. Thank you.

Good evening again. Hi. Oh, Dwayne did read this. You're done, Dwayne, right? Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay.

I did the same thing last time. Okay.

Sorry, too many of these hearings. Hi. Okay. So here, we're here for just two variances, one similar to the south side, which is, again, street trees and shrubs and parking. And then a new discussion, which is a little odd. So our build two line is supposed to be five feet from the edge of the building. So basically, you open a car door. you're going to practically hit the building. So for instance, we went with about 17 to 20 feet. Also, the road is curved, so it's 20 feet and then 17 feet on the ends approximately. But for instance, the marquee, any building over three or four stories, you're not going to want five feet between the curb and the face of the building. So we just feel it's a better design feature. But yeah, we can go through the slides. Sorry, I'm a little off. So anyway, OK, there's the parcel. JUST SO YOU KNOW, IN COMMENTS THAT WE RECEIVED, WE RELOCATED THE STOREFRONT FOR THIS ON THE ACTUAL STREET FACE. AND THEN THE FIRST, LIKE I SAID, THE FIRST VARIANCE WE'RE DEALING WITH IS THE BUILD 2 LINE, WHICH BECAUSE OF THE CURVATURE OF THE ROAD IS 20 FEET IN THE CENTER AND APPROXIMATELY 15 AND 17 ON THE ENDS. And we just feel it's better practice to not have the cars be directly right up against the building, as it would be like in a downtown corridor.

Did I see, do you plan to install sidewalks there?

Yes, there'll be sidewalks there. There'll be bushes. Again, we're underneath the power lines, again, in some spots. So there's trees on the ends. We'll get to that in the next. And there's bushes in that area. Yeah.

So the build two line is currently right along the curb, the proposed curb for the parking. So to be five feet away from that, we would have a five foot sidewalk. But as Mark mentioned, if you were to open a car door, you would take up almost three feet of that. And clearly having a multi-story building up against only five feet between the curb and the building at face, it's very tight. As a point of reference, the marquee here is an 18 foot sidewalk from curb. to the front of building. So they have about a three-foot strip for unloading and loading, and then a 15-foot sidewalk, which allows for some of the seating that they have outside. But that feeling, just for a point of reference, is close to what we're proposing here.

And furthermore, not just the marquee, but pretty much every building, three stories, this building, marquee, they're all over 15 feet. That doesn't seem correct, but that's why we're requesting the relief. I guess we'll move on. That's our, any questions on that? Okay. Street trees, sorry, I did them backwards. Sorry, the slides, she's like, what are you doing? So again, the same discussion we had on the south building and then in keeping to try to keep the north and the south side looking the same. We have only three street trees that are physically in the street. as really street trees are. And then we've highlighted additional trees that we have that are very close to the street. And again, we're planting not on this side where there's not going to be hundreds of trees because you have the cliff face coming down, but we are going to be keeping all the mature trees that we can and then planting along the cliff face along the back. So we're just, again, trying to request as many street stalls of parking for public use of the trail. which is why we're doing the street trees the way we're doing them. And that's really, that's it for variances on this site. Any questions from the board?

I'll take some comments from the audience. Yeah, they were. Anybody? Okay.

Does the board have any questions?

No further questions you want to sum up? Thank you for your consideration and respectfully request that you vote in favor of hopefully these two variances. Thank you. Thank you.

This is obviously less than the other one, so it's less than the other one. That makes sense. I don't know. Yeah. Some of it doesn't make sense. And again, I'm fine with the shrubs.

I like shrubs.

I like shrubs. Yeah, boys. All right, is there a motion?

Mr. Thomas, you get it.

You got it. Put your name on that. You'll go down in history.

Hey, Mr. Thomas.

Ms. Thomas? Aye. Mr. Loebsack? Aye. Mr. Civitello?

Aye.

Ms. Panto? Aye.

All right. Speak granted. Good luck. Thank you very much. Actually, the eggs make my house look better. I don't know.

I'm going to open up the next hearing. Secretary to purpose, please. Applications hereby made for a public hearing before the Eastern Zoning Hearing Board for a property known as 36 South 12th Street Zoning District West Ward Block Class C. Variance is as follows. 59515D proposed existing lot width of 16 feet required a minimum lot width of 18 feet. 595.15. F3, proposed no street trees required. Street trees shall be planted along streets in accordance with Chapter 554.1 and as determined by the City Forester. 595.33.B, proposed zero off-street parking spaces required, two off-street parking spaces. 595.15.D, proposed existing impervious coverage of 68%. required maximum impervious coverage not to exceed 50%. The above action is a request to proceed with the conversion of a single family residential to two units. The appellant is Jose Portes at 36 South 12th Street, East MPA 18042. The owner is Jose Portes and is that Bernice Rodriguez. 69 adjacent property owners were notified, and it was published in the press.

Thank you, Mr. Hillman. Is the applicant present? Anybody that wishes to speak at this hearing, I'm going to have you sworn in now. Mr. Tillman, this property was posted? Yes, it was. Mr. Nitschke.

Sir. It's the one by my house. I'm sorry?

It's the one by my house. Oh.

Folks, I have been alerted by our board chairman that he lives two doors from this property, so he will recuse himself from participation not only in the hearing, but in this vote.

OK.

Thank you. Who is the vice?