Zoning Hearing Board – March 16, 2026

Chairman Michael Civitella opened the zoning hearing board meeting. The secretary read the notice of public hearing for the first application.

Application for variance at 800 Seitz Street, Southside zoning district. Applicant Grace Flores requested relief for impervious surface of 56% (maximum allowed is 50%) to replace existing driveway with concrete driveway and gravel parking pad. View on Google Maps →

Variance Requested:

• Section 59514D: Proposed impervious surface of 56% vs. required maximum of 50%
• Purpose: Replace existing driveway with new concrete driveway and section of gravel pad for additional parking

Grace Flores appeared with her cousin Daisy Flores as translator. The property was posted and 20 adjacent property owners were notified.

Solicitor Robert Nitchkey noted that the applicant’s original letter requested both an impervious surface variance and a side yard setback variance. However, Zoning Officer Dwayne Tillman confirmed that the applicant now complies with the side yard setback requirement (4 feet from property line), so only the impervious surface variance remained under consideration.

There was initial confusion between the applicant and zoning officer regarding the gravel pad placement, which was clarified through discussion. The gravel pad will maintain a 4-foot setback from the fence line, with grass in between.

The applicant explained the need for additional parking spaces for family vehicles, including construction work trucks. The property includes a two-car garage (which will not be used for vehicles) plus four parking spaces outside: two on the concrete driveway and two on the proposed 18×24 gravel pad.

Key Details:

• Total of four vehicles to be parked outside (two construction trucks, two personal vehicles)
• Residents: Grace Flores, her ex-husband, stepson, daughter, and two children
• Business: Men’s home remodeling/construction company operates from the address (office use only, no customers visiting the property)
• No commercial vehicles stored in garage; outdoor parking preferred for convenience

Solicitor Nitchkey suggested that the applicant could meet the 50% impervious surface requirement by reducing the gravel pad from 18×24 feet to 18×18 feet—cutting 6 feet off the depth. Zoning Officer Tillman confirmed this modification would bring the property into compliance with the ordinance.

Standard city parking space dimensions are 9 feet by 18 feet, so an 18×18 gravel pad would still accommodate two vehicles while meeting code requirements.

The applicant agreed to make this modification, which would eliminate the need for variance approval.

Russell Fell of 403 West Grant Street asked questions about permits for the driveway and whether the family would continue parking on the street despite having off-street spaces. He also inquired about potential dumpsters and commercial activity on the property.

The board clarified that no dumpsters would be on the property, and the zoning remains residential. The construction business operates administratively from the address but involves no customer visits, deliveries, or commercial activity at the property itself.

The hearing for 800 Seitz Street was closed. Because the applicant agreed to reduce the gravel pad dimensions to comply with the 50% impervious surface requirement, the board did not need to vote on the variance request.

Solicitor Nitchkey initially suggested denying the application without prejudice to allow the applicant to return with a revised plan, but the board determined this was unnecessary since the applicant could proceed with the compliant 18×18 gravel pad without board approval.

The applicant may proceed with construction once the dimensions are reduced to meet code requirements.

Application for property at 1123 Center Street in the Southside Innovation zoning district. Applicant Nicholas Zawarski of ABDA Properties on Center LLC requested multiple variances to construct a three-story, 12-unit mid-rise apartment building. View on Google Maps →

Variances Requested:

• Section 59514F6: 24-foot-wide driveway (maximum allowed is 10 feet)
• Section 59514F8: Building footprint of 5,538 sq ft, which is 80.6% larger than the 1,028 sq ft footprint of the adjoining property at 1109 Center Street (ordinance requires footprint within 15% of adjoining properties)
• Section 59514B: Use variance for A9 residential mid-rise (not a permitted use in Southside district)

Five adjacent property owners were notified. Attorney Chad DeFelice represented the applicant, with witnesses including Nicholas Zawarski (applicant), Andrew Bull (Hanover Engineering), and other team members.

Attorney DeFelice provided opening remarks explaining that the 24,300 square foot property (180 ft x 135 ft) has remained vacant for an extended period. The lot was previously subdivided into six parcels with approved plans for six twin units (12 total dwelling units, two-family buildings) around 2022-2023, but that development never proceeded.

The property is located at the southern edge of the City of Easton, bordering Williams Township. Immediately to the south and southeast are large industrial warehouses (15,800 sq ft and 68,000 sq ft respectively). To the north are residential twin homes. Across Center Street to the east is a parking lot for industrial use.

Applicant Nicholas Zawarski testified that in all research, the property has never been developed and has remained vacant as long as records show.

Zawarski explained that the previous owner obtained approval for six twin units (12 total dwelling units) through Planning Commission without needing Zoning Hearing Board review, as the design met all requirements by-right. However, that development was never constructed.

Previous Plan Characteristics:

• Six two-family buildings pushed close to adjoining properties
• Side yard setback as close as 4 feet from neighboring property line
• Shared parking lot in rear with problematic circulation patterns
• Individual unit ownership with separate trash collection at each building
• 63% impervious coverage

The applicant purchased the property from the entity that had acquired it from the original developer. No construction or earth movement ever occurred under the previous approval.

The applicant presented plans for a three-story, 12-unit apartment building positioned on the southern portion of the lot, away from residential neighbors to the north.

Building Specifications:

• Building footprint: 5,538 square feet (significantly smaller than adjacent industrial buildings)
• Units: Nine 2-bedroom units (~1,300 sq ft each) and three 1-bedroom units (~950 sq ft each)
• Proposed rents: 1-bedroom starting at $1,400/month, 2-bedroom starting at $1,800/month
• Total impervious coverage: 48% (compared to 63% in previously approved plan)
• Distance from northern property line: 57 feet (building to property line) and 66-67 feet (building to building)

The building was deliberately placed in the southeast corner of the property to create maximum separation from residential neighbors and provide a transition zone between industrial uses and single-family homes.

Zawarski explained the request for a 24-foot-wide driveway (vs. the 10-foot maximum in code) based on safety and engineering standards.

Justification for 24-Foot Width:

• 10-foot width is very narrow for two-way traffic and creates safety concerns
• 24 feet allows easier ingress and egress for two-way traffic
• Improved access for emergency vehicles
• Lehigh Valley Planning Commission recommends 24-foot driveways for projects of this type
• City’s subdivision and land development ordinance specifies 24 feet for buildings like this
• Driveway positioned to align with Hazel Street (20-foot-wide public right-of-way) across Center Street to minimize conflicting traffic movements

Board Member Pam Panto asked whether the driveway would have lane demarcation. The applicant indicated this is not typical but would be amenable if the board required it.

Andrew Bull of Hanover Engineering provided technical testimony on the site plan, setbacks, and landscaping.

Key Technical Details:

• Building located 10 feet from Glendale Street right-of-way (south)
• Building positioned 5 feet from Center Street right-of-way (east)
• Building situated 57 feet from northern property line; 66-67 feet building-to-building distance
• Proposed landscaping: 44 total plantings, with 38 located as buffer between development and residential property to the north
• Landscaping also proposed along front of building and to the south
• Centralized trash collection area (dumpster) in rear of parking lot eliminates need for 12 individual trash receptacles along street
• Parking lot circulation improved compared to previous six-unit plan

The property to the north (1109 Center Street) is owned by an LLC and is approximately 9-10 feet from the common property line.

Engineer Andrew Bull emphasized that the proposed 12-unit apartment building would have less impact than the previously approved six twin-unit development.

Comparison Points:

• Same number of dwelling units: 12 units in both plans
• Lower impervious coverage: 48% (proposed) vs. 63% (previously approved)
• Better parking circulation with single entity ownership vs. potential six-owner cross-easement complications
• Centralized trash collection vs. 12 separate collection points
• Greater distance from residential neighbors
• Cleaner, more efficient site design

Bull stated this project would be “a better fit for the area” and “a good project for the city of Easton.”

Board members noted that the site plan preserves significant green space on the property rather than maximizing building footprint. Board Member Pam Panto observed substantial green areas to the north and west of the proposed building.

The property is bordered by:

• South: Industrial warehouse buildings in Williams Township (municipal boundary is centerline of Glendale Street)
• Southeast: Additional industrial warehouse
• East (across Center Street): Parking lot for industrial use
• North: Residential twin homes, some owned by LLCs, with large side yards
• West: Empty field

Applicant noted that Williams Township is reviewing a proposal for a 272,000 square foot warehouse to the west, for which a courtesy copy was sent to Easton Planning Commission.

Attorney DeFelice addressed the variance request for building footprint exceeding 15% of adjoining property footprint—the most legally complex variance in the application.

Key Arguments:

• The adjacent residential building (1109 Center Street) is only half of a twin structure (1,028 sq ft) on its own separate lot, creating an unusually small comparison baseline
• The applicant’s lot is 720% larger than the adjoining residential lot (24,300 sq ft vs. much smaller parcel)
• Proposed building (5,538 sq ft) is substantially smaller than industrial buildings to the south (15,800 sq ft and 68,000 sq ft)
• Building placement maximizes distance from residential neighbors while providing transition zone from industrial to residential uses
• Property has remained vacant indefinitely because permitted uses don’t work practically on this unique lot
• The ordinance section is intended to prevent overshadowing of residential properties—this design accomplishes the opposite intent by moving the building away from residential neighbors
• Hardship was not created by the applicant but by the property’s location at the edge of industrial and residential zones

DeFelice argued this is precisely the type of unique circumstance where the variance should be granted because the proposed building better serves the ordinance’s intent than strict compliance would.

One of the property owners/applicant team members provided comparative analysis to put the footprint variance in perspective:

Building Footprint Comparisons:

• Proposed building: 5,538 square feet
• Adjoining residential (1109 Center Street): 1,028 square feet (half of twin structure)
• Industrial building to south: 15,800 square feet
• Industrial building to east: 68,000 square feet
• Proposed warehouse in Williams Township: 272,000 square feet

The speaker emphasized that while the proposed building is 80% larger than the immediate residential neighbor, the applicant’s lot is 720% larger than that residential lot. In the context of surrounding industrial buildings, the proposed building is modest in scale and serves as an appropriate transition between uses.

The hearing for 1123 Center Street was closed. The board did not deliberate or vote during the public session. Chairman Civitella asked about potential conditions but did not specify any at that time.

The board will issue a written decision after deliberation. Roll call indicated all board members present: Pam Panto, Matthew Loebsack, Michael Civitella, and Linda Thomas.

Attorney DeFelice thanked the board and wished the applicant good luck.