EASTON, Pa. — After hours of plan presentations, expert testimony and deliberation, Easton Planning Commission on Wednesday rejected plans for a million-square-foot warehouse.
Commissioners presented their final deliberations and opinions on the proposal for Easton Commerce Park, a mega-warehouse intended to be constructed on 1525 Wood Ave.
They brought a litany of reasons to oppose the project.
“I'm just so proud of our entire community for stepping up and doing what's right. It just took all of us, and I'm just so proud of everybody and our officials and all the time that planning took to go through all these documents, and I'm just so grateful for just everybody bringing their skill set."Stop the Wood Ave. Warehouse's Colleen O'Neal
The meeting concluded with board member Frank Graziano III presenting a motion to deny the land development application, listing the deficiencies.
“Number one: required special exception, not granted," he said. "Number two, HOP has not approved an access design, unresolved. Number three: noise study incomplete and non-compliant.
"Number four: transportation impact study deficiencies and infeasible mitigation. Number five: submitted plans and supporting maps do not match.
"Number six: geology, land suitability and environmental remediation, incomplete. Number seven: unsafe and unmitigated truck routing into residential neighborhoods.
"Number eight: speculative use and unknown end users result in unreliable impact studies.”
Board Chairman Ken Greene added a few more reasons for the rejection.
“First, that there was no analysis provided upon the physical effects of roadway systems," Greene said. "Second, that there was no approved special exception for relocating a water course in the floodplain and so forth that ... would be approved by the zoning hearing board.
“Third, that on submission requirements that I noted that the applicant did not adequately respond to Lehigh Valley Planning Commission's concerns about sustainable transportation infrastructure capacity.
"And then fourth, that alternatives to the proposed project, including an appropriately sized and scoped project, as outlined in the LVPC letter, were also not included.”
Kim Wagner also offered additional reasoning, including issues with blasting at the site, issues with the aesthetics and delineation of lots in the plan, maintaining the site’s natural terrain and conflicts between the plan and the Environmental Rights Amendment.
The commission voted unanimously to reject, with the amendments.
Attorney Marc Kaplin, representing developer Scannell Properties, offered no comment after the decision.
Colleen O’Neal with Stop the Wood Ave. Warehouse, an organization that was pivotal in providing expert testimony to the board and highlighting issues with the plan, said she was thrilled.
She joined a standing ovation after the denial.
“I'm just so proud of our entire community for stepping up and doing what's right," O'Neal said.
"It just took all of us, and I'm just so proud of everybody and our officials and all the time that planning took to go through all these documents.
"And I'm just so grateful for just everybody bringing their skill set. And I'm just so proud. It's a beautiful moment for our city and for our region."
'A key bedrock'
During the deliberation, each commissioner enumerated issues, the bulk of which were compiled into the final motion.
Board solicitor Jeremy Clark said he and solicitor Joel Scheer will have to collect all commentary from the deliberation to be included in the official rejection.
Greene began the meeting highlighting the extensive work of the commission, including review of 150 documents spanning 1,200 pages and 16 hours of expert testimony over the course of nearly 16 months.
He also commended the public for its engagement in the process.
“I offer this as evidence of what volunteer public servants continue to add to the vitality, the integrity and the interests of this city,” Greene said.
“I want to thank those members of the public who have attended these meetings and regularly voiced their earnest thoughts and provided compelling evidence to confirm those thoughts.
"Your participation is a key bedrock that makes our local government work at its best.”
Deliberation
Greene then went into his list of discrepancies, including that there is no end user for the facility in the plans — meaning it could become a sortable Hi-Q fulfillment center, which would produce far more than the anticipated 232 truck trips per day.
The “applicant produced no assessment report addressing the impact on the physical condition of existing streets and the burden of accommodating as many as 348 truck trips per day on narrow access roads which were not designed for heavy volumes of tractor-trailers,” Greene said.
Ron Shipman also expressed heavy concerns about traffic and roadways, particularly the potential to route truck traffic to Route 22 via 13th Street.
“With all of this travel up there, it should be going to 25th Street, which is already equipped to handle truck traffic on and off," Shipman said.
"13th Street is not ready now and will not be without a great deal of money being spent to change that current access and entrance to 22.”
Shipman said the developer allegedly offered $250,000 to alleviate any issues with the road, though, which he characterized as an unusual method to address the issue.
“The $250,000 is an admission on their part that the changes on 13th Street are going to be enormous and they may not work,” he said.
Other points of contention
Graziano reviewed a number of points of contention, including the lack of a special exception from Easton’s Zoning Hearing Board regarding the moving of a brook.
Also, the lack of a Highway Occupancy Permit from the state Transportation Department or a complete noise study, incomplete traffic data that was only collected on one day in February, inconsistency among various plans and more.
Wagner came prepared with a half-hour speech delineating an exhaustive list of issues with the project, including the varying number of plots on the property, which ranged from nine to 13, depending upon the plan.
Wagner also said there were the missing or incomplete permits.
“We need a conditional letter of map provision from FEMA, a Highway Occupancy Permit, the document 99 investigation letters, a blasting activity permit, an air quality permit," she said.
"It's unclear if they have the federal section 404401 permits.
“The site plan says there's a well on site that needs to be located onto the plans, and they need a well decommissioning permit. The Act 537, a waiver from a different municipality, is not valid in our jurisdiction, so the planning module would be required.
“The NPDES permit would also be required to have an additional storm pollution prevention plan, part of the Clean Water Act that we do not have.
"And the State 401 water quality certification and the Federal Coastal Zone Management Area permit application statuses are still unclear and the documentation is outstanding.”
Problems with plans
Wagner also said the submitted plans were difficult to analyze. She described them as “illegible and uncoordinated,” and listed numerous other issues.
They included the potential that development at the site could cause asbestos to become airborne — a topic presented at Monday’s Zoning Hearing Board.
Wagner also listed prohibited activities, such as those that “give off noxious odors, disturb the tranquility in large area by making loud noises, have the obvious potential of poisoning the air or water of the area and similarly, having clear effects upon the general public and are otherwise detrimental to the health welfare of the public.
“And such uses are specifically prohibited from all areas of the city," Wagner said. "And I think I've made my point.”
“We're taking this as a victory of a huge battle. But it's a long war, and we are prepared to continue to fight.”Colleen O’Neal with Stop the Wood Ave. Warehouse
Hubert Etchison rounded out the group’s commentary, saying he felt the project did not match the character of the neighborhood, landscaping plans were inadequate, the noise study “lacked both credibility and real-world realism,” an incomplete traffic study and a lack of construction phase plans.
“The applicant was provided extensive leeway in terms of due process and presenting their case," Etchison said. "So too, the applicant often refused to provide clear answers to questions posed by the planning commission members.
“Placing aside any acrimony, my review focuses on the information that was or was not presented and the requirements of the SALDO and provides remedies for these issues and deficiencies where possible.”
The developer can appeal the decision, and O’Neal and her group said they're aware that the opposition can and will continue.
“We're taking this as a victory of a huge battle," O'Neal said. "But it's a long war, and we are prepared to continue to fight.”
