Easton Zoning Hearing Board Meeting – February 10, 2026

Solicitor Robert Nitchkey called the continued Zoning Hearing Board meeting to order and announced housekeeping items.

• Sign-in sheet available on roll-top desk for anyone wishing to speak, ask questions, comment, or receive a copy of the board’s decision
• Solicitor requested permission to dispense with reading the purpose of the hearing, which was granted by both attorneys

Solicitor Nitchkey raised the issue of a board member who is ill and wishes to participate remotely via live stream and telephone. This led to a lengthy legal debate between the attorneys.

Objector’s Position (Attorney Gary Asteak):

• Neither the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code nor the Easton zoning ordinance provides for remote appearances by ZHB members
• Remote participation was allowed during COVID due to exigent circumstances, but no such circumstances exist now with a quorum present
• Board members making final decisions should be present in person to assess witness credibility
• Raised concerns about equity: if remote participation allowed for board members, should public also be allowed to participate remotely?
• Noted this would be the first time a ZHB member participated remotely and no policy has been established

Applicant’s Position (Attorney Chad DeFelice):

• Sees no prejudice to objectors from remote participation
• Board member was present at first hearing
• Remote participation has become commonplace in other municipalities since COVID

Attorney DeFelice requested a 10-minute break to research the remote participation issue. The board took a recess while both attorneys researched the applicable law.

Solicitor Nitchkey presented findings from legal research conducted during the break regarding remote participation authority.

Key Legal Findings:

• Senate Bill 841 of 2020 allows Pennsylvania zoning board members to participate remotely in hearings under state law
• Local government bodies including zoning hearing boards may use authorized telecommunications (video/telephone) for meetings
• Remote members can participate in discussions, voting, and count toward a quorum
• Some boards have fully adopted virtual formats; others like Philadelphia’s ZBA use hybrid models where public participation is remote but board members may be required to attend in person
• Municipalities may have returned to in-person requirements, while others continue with hybrid or remote options
• Solicitor stated he is not aware that the City of Easton has taken action to require in-person participation after Senate Bill 841

Continued Debate:

• Attorney Asteak countered that Senate Bill 841 was predicated upon exigent circumstances of COVID and emergencies
• Asteak argued the City has not adopted a policy to permit hybrid or remote participation and has been requiring in-person presence since COVID
• Asteak questioned whether the board has allowed remote participation and voting in the past (answer: No)
• Solicitor’s position: Senate Bill 841 supersedes what is in the zoning ordinance and MPC, giving the right to participate remotely unless the municipal body overturns it

The discussion turned to whether public commenters could also participate remotely if board members are allowed to do so.

• Attorney Asteak asked if public will be permitted to participate remotely
• Noted the room was filled on the first hearing night but not tonight, suggesting other individuals may have wished to participate remotely had they known it was available
• Applicant indicated they have someone who could not be here this evening and is also ill
• That person had provided a written statement to be entered on their behalf
• Solicitor offered the option to call the person to see if they could participate remotely rather than submitting the written statement
• Applicant’s counsel declined, preferring to provide the written statement

Attorney Asteak raised concerns about the procedural implications of allowing remote participation without an established policy.

• Creates an awkward situation as there may have been other individuals who would have participated remotely had they known the opportunity was available
• First hearing night the room was filled; tonight it is not
• Questions whether this would be the first time a ZHB member participated remotely
• Unclear if City Council permits votes or participation by members who don’t attend, or whether medical excuses are required
• Emphasized there has been no policy established for remote participation

Attorney DeFelice requested to go off the record to discuss the matter. The parties engaged in an extended off-record discussion to reach a resolution.

Solicitor Nitchkey announced the resolution reached by the parties to avoid continued debate on the remote participation issue.

• Appellant’s counsel requested a new hearing date when everyone is available
• New hearing date set for Thursday, February 26, 2026 at 6:00 PM
• Motion made and approved by board members: Pam Panto, Matthew Loebsack, and Linda Thomas voted to continue the hearing

Solicitor Nitchkey clarified the notice requirements for the continued hearing.

• Because the new hearing date was announced on the record, the City will be spared the expense of re-advertising the hearing
• No new notices will be sent out to parties
• Director of Planning and Codes Dwayne Tillman confirmed the property will be reposted with the new hearing date

With no further questions, Solicitor Nitchkey concluded the meeting. The hearing will reconvene on Thursday, February 26, 2026 at 6:00 PM.