EASTON, Pa. — Easton Planning Commission, and the public, had plenty of questions and concerns Wednesday about a proposal to reroute a stream on the site of a planned warehouse.
Enough, in fact, that the planning commission recommended against the city Zoning Hearing Board's decision to allow the move on the prospective site for Easton Commerce Park.
Easton City Hall was packed for Wednesday’s hearing, with many members of the Stop the Wood Ave. Warehouse group showing up in black clothing as a statement of solidarity.
Jeers, hisses and boos were prevalent during the presentation, with rounds of applause punctuating a contentious round of questions from the commission.
“There's been a lot of talk about permits, state or federal permits, DEP, and those all address compliance, but they don't determine whether this application meets Easton’s standards for suitability, safety and impact on our community."Easton Planning Commissioner Frank Graziano
City Planning Administrator Carl Manges detailed the proposed special exception, explaining it would allow relocation of an existing stream and the construction of a channel that would see at least part of the current underground waterway daylit.
While staff recommended approving the exception, the near three-hour meeting saw commissioners, in unity, ultimately recommend against it.
Rerouting a tributary
Developers behind the heavily contested project, which would largely sit in Wilson, sought the special exception to relocate the unnamed tributary to the Bushkill Creek, and to move certain flood control structures within the tributary to the creek.
“Our project will relocate the unnamed tributary, place it above ground, and include various other improvements, such as the construction of a 40-foot wide paved access road, a culvert for crossing of the tributary," Mark Kaplan, representing Easton Wood Ave Propco LLC, said.
It also would include adding various utility crossings, including a 12-inch water main, a gas main, multiple stormwater management pipes, stormwater management facilities and stormwater outfalls, Kaplan said.
Kaplan cited permits from the state Department of Environmental Protection and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System as justifications for the planning commission to grant the special exception.
Kaplan said that to engage in floodplain encroachments, the developer would require the PANPDES permit and the DEP water obstruction and encroachment permit, which he said were required to get other permits.
“It's our position that the extensive review process undertaken by my client in obtaining the approval of DEP to permit the channel location and floodplain encroachments, together with [Bogia Engineering’s] Don Haas’s maps, plans and reports demonstrating technical compliance, are probative and credible evidence that we meet the standards of the floodplain ordinance,” Kaplan said.
Haas said the suggested changes to the tributary and floodplain could be beneficial.
“We could modify the floodplain in there so that we actually lessen the burden downstream whenever there is a flood, as we know that that's happening more and more frequently," he said.
"So we actually take a chance for the waters to expand on the site before they go right into the Bushkill Creek."
Haas said that could help direct fish back up the tributary, “and there’s more biodiversity in the streams there.”
Commission members’ concerns
Planning commission member Kim Wagner raised concerns that the developer did not secure a joint permit and argued the permits highlighted by Kaplan were considered individual.
This drew ire from Kaplan, who said his firm had the necessary permits, though Wagner was not satisfied.
"That's pretty scary, the stuff I read.”Easton Planning Commission member Kim Wagner
“You need it," Wagner said. "You need to have that. That's what this says. You need to have the permits.
"I just sat and listened to the whole speech about you saying that we have to have everything and you don't have it."
Kaplan eventually said a joint permitted had been applied for, but Wagner contested, “but it’s not here today before us… this whole meeting should have been postponed.”
Wagner also pointed out that the property would have deed restrictions that would impact the project.
“So the deeds say you have deed restrictions," he said. "You're not allowed to dig through the soil. You're not allowed to do a lot of stuff for our health and our safety.
"That's pretty scary, the stuff I read.”
Wagner also raised concerns over the presence of creosote in the soil, and the potential for natural asbestos to be found in a serpentine rock wall.
She said she worried that particulate matter could get into the air and harm residents.
Furthermore, she highlighted elements of the submitted proposal which were lacking in necessary documentation.
'Trying to bypass that altogether'
Commissioner member Hubert Etchison said he agreed with Wagner’s opinions, and felt soil runoff into the water could be dangerous.
Etchison said he felt “zero comfort” that a core sample of the land had been taken from the area where the serpentine wall sits, in addition to issues related to the potential for sediment to cause health issues for residents.
“One of the issues that I have is that part of the role of this commission is to try and watch out for the safety and wellbeing of the general public," he said.
"Because I don't have a comfort level in terms of what's in the runoff that's going to result from this project, because I haven't had an opportunity to review all of these documents to make sure they all pass the smell test, because there have been a few documents that, in my opinion, don't, because the objector… opportunity has not been there because we just got this... I'm very, very concerned about the status of the special exception, and wanting to try to approve it."
'Bit of additional information' needed
Commission member Frank Graziano mainly raised issues on the potential for additional flooding, and though Haas reassured the plans would not lead to that problem, Graziano was not entirely persuaded.
Graziano also indicated he felt the developer had spent more time addressing permits than Easton’s standards for the project.
“There's been a lot of talk about permits, state or federal permits, DEP, and those all address compliance, but they don't determine whether this application meets Easton’s standards for suitability, safety and impact on our community,” Graziano said.
“That's why we have these seven special exemption criteria here. And it seems like you're trying to bypass that altogether with what you're saying about that part right there.”
Commission Chairman Ken Greene closed the main part of the session by highlighting that the developer may need to address Wagner’s numerous issues.
It also may need to present the zoning hearing board with more complete documentation to address concerns, Green said.
“I think you shared what you needed to share with us tonight, and certainly the permits are here," he said.
"But it's clear that the comfort of the people who are trying to make decisions on these things could use a little bit of additional information."
Public speaks out
Members of the public were even more direct in their critiques on the project as a whole, and the special exception, when they had their time at the podium
Stop the Wood Ave. Warehouse’s Colleen O’Neal called out Kaplan, alleging he was particularly contentious with Wagner during her questioning.
O'Neal asked that “if Mark Kaplan can't handle speaking respectfully to women in this room, that he be removed permanently.”
“The special exception that they're asking for will only hasten the cataclysmic demise of our region,” O’Neal said.
“They want to relocate a watercourse within a floodplain. They want to put a retention basin in a floodplain. They want to put part of a huge new access road in a floodplain.
"This doesn't even take into account the massive impervious surface created by the warehouse and the adjacent parking lots. This is ludicrous.”
O’Neal argued that the changes could result in Easton becoming more prone to flooding, especially in light of increased rainfall.
'How little they really care'
Resident Jennifer Rush said she was “shocked and appalled” by the developer’s defense that its work thus far provides it a right and privilege to reroute the tributary, which she felt could affect drinking water.
“The fact that they would come in here with the expectation that they were already entitled to do that, and that the commonwealth somehow empowered them to reroute a water source, a tributary, to our city's water, that makes me so concerned for what their intentions are."Easton resident Jennifer Rush
“The fact that they would come in here with the expectation that they were already entitled to do that, and that the commonwealth somehow empowered them to reroute a water source, a tributary, to our city's water, that makes me so concerned for what their intentions are," Rush said.
"What their intentions are in Easton, and how little they really care about the public welfare and public wellbeing."
Christa Kelleher, a hydrologist, also raised concerns about flooding in the area between the tributary and the Delaware River.
That area "is a really complex area in terms of flooding," Kelleher said. "So when we deal with flooding on Bushkill Creek, right, we have flooding that's coming down, but we also get backwater effects from the Delaware.
"So when we have that tributary coming in, right, that's going to potentially cause issues for that area between the tributary."
Wagner made the motioned against recommending the zoning hearing board grant the special exception, citing missing information from the special exception requirements, in addition to other commentary from the commission.
