- Easton Zoning Hearing Board on Monday denied an application for a multi-unit development on College Hill
- Developers sought only two variances, including an allowance to build three-story mid-rise structures
- Community members packed council chambers and celebrated when the proposal was shot down
EASTON, Pa. — College Hill residents celebrated after the Easton Zoning Hearing Board shot down a proposal for a 412-unit development following 2 1/2 hours of presentations, questions and complaints Monday night.
The proposed nine-building mid-rise, which would sit at 300 Morrison Ave., was brought to the board by Broughal-Devito LLP seeking a set of variances at the hearing.
Residents packed City Hall’s council chambers, with several standing around the rim of the room, to listen in on the presentation and offer comments and questions to those representing the backers for the project.
“We were all very pleased. I’ve lived at 201 Morrison Avenue since 1972, when my father built that house, now I live a block up the street. This neighborhood means a lot to us, and you could see with the people that turned out – I believe it was all Morrison Avenue but for one or two homes, Pine Trail, a bunch of homes on Paxinosa Road, Chestnut Ridge was here in force, even people down on Lafayette Street – we have a very tight neighborhood.”College Hill resident Ralph Bellafatto
While the project originally required a variety of variances, attorney Jim Preston began the hearing by whittling the list to just two: a variance to allow a mid-rise building as opposed to a low-rise, and a building height of 50 feet — 10 above the set limit.
Extensive presentation
The board eventually opted to shoot down the requests, but not before an extensive presentation on the property led by Preston and featuring expert opinions from Mark Bahnick and John Wichner.
“What we’re going to be doing here this evening is trying to explain the impetus for requesting this,” Preston said. “What you’re going to find out on the record is that this site has an existing building on it, and was used as an office use.
"We’re going to be developing primarily in that area, and as you come down away from the building use, you’ll be approaching a rather steeply sloped area, and we don’t intend to go near that area.”
According to zoning protocol, the total property area would allow for developers to construct 778 units. Because of the slopes, backers chose to dial back the total to a flattened area occupied by the old Cigna building, near the Forks Township border.
“What we’re trying to do is work with the zoning hearing board to allow us to develop that flat portion of the site with a higher building. The result being twofold: there is no increase in density —in fact, we’re about at half of what’s allowed — and then also, this plan would enable us to preserve extensive areas of environmentally sensitive steep slope."Mark Bahnick, partner and branch manager for Van Cleef Engineering Associates’ Allentown office
Mark Bahnick, partner and branch manager for Van Cleef Engineering Associates’ Allentown office, went over fine details of the project with the board and audience, detailing the preference to situate the buildings on the flat surface and offering easier development and better views.
“What we’re trying to do is work with the zoning hearing board to allow us to develop that flat portion of the site with a higher building," Bahnick said.
"The result being twofold: there is no increase in density —in fact, we’re about at half of what’s allowed — and then also, this plan would enable us to preserve extensive areas of environmentally sensitive steep slope."
Residents raise concerns
Several residents, including Councilman Roger Ruggles, a professional engineer, raised numerous questions about the plan, in particular the impact on traffic on the nearby roads.
Wichner, who works for McMahon Associates and specializes in traffic engineering and transportation planning, fielded numerous questions on the subject.
“The morning peak hour, the ITE would suggest it generates 151 total trips in the morning peak hour — again, that is entering plus exiting – and 198 trips in the afternoon peak hour, again, entering plus exiting."John Wichner, of McMahon Associates
Wichner compared the total number of trips entering and exiting the premises based on its use — the previous use of the property as an office location, the plan that called for 778 units, and the proposed 412-unit development.
The Institute of Transportation Engineers’ Trip Generation Manual helped compute the figure, Wichner noted, with the 412-unit plan showing the lowest figure.
“The morning peak hour, the ITE would suggest it generates 151 total trips in the morning peak hour — again, that is entering plus exiting – and 198 trips in the afternoon peak hour, again, entering plus exiting,” he said.
The morning peak would be 7 to 9 a.m., and the evening 4 to 6 p.m.
But the intersection of George Street and Morrison Avenue proved to be a far more contentious point for the public, with Wichner suggesting a stop sign be placed northbound on George as it approaches Morrison.
Decision gets applause
Several residents raised concerns about the prospect, many saying the increased traffic along the roads was dangerous enough, and the potential for accidents would increase exponentially in inclement weather because of the incline of George Street.
Following brief commentary from BNE Real Estate Group partner David Pantirer, in which he showed similar projects underway in New York, audience members took turns questioning the panel.
While some points were waved off by Zoning Board Chairman Michael Civitella — those inquiries touched on non-zoning topics, including potential for crime and safety of schoolchildren — traffic remained a chief concern, particularly with the choice to use the existing access point and the potential driveway expansion.
Wichner defended the decision to use the existing access to Morrison Street, saying there were no other viable options because of Lafayette Street’s steep slope.
After more than an hour of hearing concerns, the board debated for several minutes, then denied the application, to the applause of the remaining crowd.
'Disingenuous presentation'
Resident Ralph Bellafatto, an attorney whose property sits close to the site, said the core concern of the local residents was development of the property into a setup that deviated from the allowed uses, noting the issues on height, density and increased traffic.
“This was a money grab and, in my opinion, a very disingenuous presentation, trying to scare people, saying, ‘Give it to us, because what we could put in here might be worse.’”Resident Ralph Bellafatto
Bellafatto said he was pleased with the unified effort of the neighborhood to appear at the hearing and weigh in on the matter.
“This was a money grab and, in my opinion, a very disingenuous presentation, trying to scare people, saying, ‘Give it to us, because what we could put in here might be worse,’” Bellafatto said.
“We were all very pleased. I’ve lived at 201 Morrison Avenue since 1972, when my father built that house. Now I live a block up the street. So this neighborhood means a lot to us.
"And you could see with the people that turned out — I believe it was all Morrison Avenue but for one or two homes, Pine Trail, a bunch of homes on Paxinosa Road, Chestnut Ridge was here in force, even people down on Lafayette Street. We have a very tight neighborhood.”
