Zoning Hearing Board Meeting – February 17, 2026

Chairman Michael Civitella announced the order of hearings for the evening. The board would hear nine cases total, including properties on Center Street, Cattell Street, North Third Street, North 13th Street, Northampton Street, and multiple properties on Philip Street.

Solicitor Robert Nitchkey explained this was an appeal by Nicholas Zawarski requesting various variances for new construction. The applicant had requested a continuance last month and submitted another deferment request due to legal counsel conflict.

The board voted unanimously to continue the hearing to March 16, 2026 at 6:00 PM.

Vote: Approved continuance (Loebsack, Thomas, Civitella, Vulcano-Hall all voted yes)

Application for variance from setback requirements for solar energy panels at 843 Cattell Street. The ordinance requires solar panels be set back minimum 3 feet from roof edges for firefighter safety access.

Applicant: Nicole Reiner
Property Owner: Adam and Suzanne Newsbomb
Issue: Applicant did not appear at hearing

The case was continued from last month when the applicant was supposed to bring a contractor to explain the installation. The board tabled the hearing until the end of the meeting. The applicant never appeared.

Applicant: Lafayette College (represented by attorney Stephanie Cobbell)
Witness: Lauren Daniels, Project Manager
Property: Buck Hall, home to Weiss Theater on Lafayette College campus

Variance Requested:

Section 595-34H-2A-1B: Limited duration sign of 298 square feet (reduced to 231 sq ft). Maximum allowed is 12 square feet. The banner would be 192 inches wide by 224 inches tall (revised from original 234 inches), commemorating the college’s bicentennial anniversary in 2026.

Key Testimony:

• Banner will be temporary, displayed only through December 31, 2026
• Made of 30% open vinyl mesh material
• Will be hung on Buck Hall with hidden anchors, no damage to building
• Building facade is approximately 2,400 square feet total
• Banner will not be lit or flashing
• Historic District Commission already approved the sign
• Property is highly visible along Route 22 approaching campus

Board Discussion: Board member Matthew Loebsack questioned why the sign displays just “200” rather than “200th anniversary” or “bicentennial.” Daniels explained the design includes dates 1826-2026. Member also questioned the math on square footage, which was clarified showing the reduction from the Historic Commission submission.

Vote: Approved with condition banner comes down by December 31, 2026 (Loebsack, Thomas, Civitella, Vulcano-Hall all voted yes)

Applicant: Arty Tika Salajamani (purchaser)
Witness: Giovanni Scott
Business: Cozy Contracting and Whitaker Roofing and Siding

Variance Requested:

Section 595-17B: F1 trade contractor’s use (not a permitted use in this zoning district)

Key Testimony:

• Company operating in Lehigh Valley since 1969, currently has locations in Allentown and Wilson
• Seeking third location in Easton for sales team and office staff
• Building previously used as auto body shop
• No construction equipment or materials will be stored on property
• Only service vehicles for workers who don’t take trucks home (5-6 trucks maximum)
• Office use Monday-Friday, 8am-5pm
• Property has approximately one acre with ample off-street parking
• Veteran-owned and operated company

Board Action: Solicitor Nitchkey clarified the application was processed as F1 trade contractor use, but actual use appears to be primarily office. Board granted variance with specific condition that only work trucks for employees who don’t take them home may be stored on property – no excavators or other heavy equipment.

Vote: Approved with conditions regarding truck storage (Vulcano-Hall, Loebsack, Civitella, Thomas all voted yes)

Applicant/Owner: GWG Rock LLC (represented by attorney Steve Gatusian)
Witnesses: Andrew Ginsburg (owner representative), Chris Lang (civil engineer, Carroll Engineering)

Variances Requested:

• Section 595-20F-8: Building footprint of 10,682 sq ft (requires footprint not greater than 15% of adjoining properties’ footprint)
• Section 595-20F-3: No public plaza or common area (required for multi-story development over 10,000 sq ft footprint)

Project Description:

• Six-story mixed-use building with 50 apartment units
• First floor: structured parking (20 spaces) plus approximately 800 sq ft commercial space
• Floors 2-6: approximately 10 apartments per floor
• Additional 10 parking spaces leased off-site at ballet studio
• Non-amenity building targeting workforce housing

Zoning Analysis by Director Dwayne Tillman:

Calculated average footprint of adjoining principal structures:

• 505-507 Northampton Street: 2,339 sq ft
• 525 Northampton: 2,195 sq ft
• 520 Church Street: 1,748 sq ft
• 20 South Fifth Street (Rock Church): 6,750 sq ft
• Average: 3,246.75 sq ft
• Permitted range (±15%): 2,759.74 to 3,733.76 sq ft
• Proposed: 10,682 sq ft (approximately 200% over maximum)

Applicant’s Arguments:

• Property has been vacant indefinitely – infill site difficult to develop
• Rock formation on site increases development difficulty
• Site located outside 600-foot garage distance, requiring on-site parking
• Public plaza not appropriate for residential building
• Economic feasibility requires this scale
• Parking requirement: only 23 spaces required by code for downtown mixed-use; providing 30 total (20 on-site + 10 off-site)

Board Discussion:

Extensive discussion on whether 200% variance from footprint requirement constitutes “minimum variance necessary.” Board questioned:

• Why 50 units rather than fewer to reduce footprint?
• Alternative of public plaza versus common area for tenants
• Building size relative to Nature Nurture Center across street
• Precedent concerns for future development

Board member Matthew Loebsack expressed concern about granting such a large variance. Member Pam Panto noted this would fundamentally alter character of area.

First Vote (Motion to Deny):

Civitella and Vulcano-Hall voted YES (to deny)
Loebsack and Thomas voted NAY
Result: 2-2 tie vote = DENIAL

Second Vote (Motion to Approve):

At applicant’s attorney’s request, board took second vote on motion to approve.
Loebsack and Thomas voted YES (to approve)
Civitella and Vulcano-Hall voted NAY
Result: 2-2 tie vote = DENIAL

Final Outcome: Application DENIED due to tie votes

The board prepared to hear five related cases for affordable housing development on Philip Street. Solicitor Nitchkey explained the process: each hearing would be opened separately, applicants would incorporate testimony from the first hearing into subsequent hearings to avoid repetition.

Applicant/Developer: Greater Community Development Corporation (Pastor Philip Davis)
Engineer: Richard Roseberry, Carroll Engineering
Builder: Tuskes Homes

All witnesses sworn in collectively for all Philip Street hearings.

Property: 130 Philip Street
Zoning: Southside Block Class B
Applicant: Richard Roseberry, Carroll Engineering
Owner: Greater Community Development Corporation
Representatives: Pastor Philip Davis, Richard Roseberry (engineer)

Variances Requested:

• Section 595-14F-2: No sidewalks (code requires minimum 5-foot sidewalks on both sides of street)
• Section 595-14F-3: No street trees (code requires street trees per Chapter 554-2)
• Section 595-14F-4: Front-loaded parking (code requires off-street parking in rear of buildings)

Project Description:

• Eight total units proposed across five properties on Philip Street
• Duplexes (semi-attached structures)
• Affordable housing for first-time homeowners at 100% AMI and below
• Four units at 100% AMI (approximately $250,000)
• Four units at 50% AMI (approximately $200,000-$225,000)
• Deed restrictions for 5-10 years to maintain affordability
• Builder: Tuscus Homes (premier local builder)
• 1,500 square feet, 3 bedrooms, 2.5 baths per unit

Project Funding/Partners:

• Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency (acquisition money)
• Northampton County (HOME funds)
• City of Easton (ARPA money, approximately $500,000)
• City installed sewer line (previously no sewer serving this area)
• PA Department of Community & Economic Development (Neighborhood Partnership Program for down payment/closing cost assistance)

Engineer Testimony (Richard Roseberry):

Professional credentials: Licensed engineer in 6 states including PA, AICP certified planner

Exhibits presented (marked as A1 and A2):

• A1: CV/credentials
• A2: Aerial photo and site photos showing existing conditions, proposed elevations

Hardship Arguments:

Front-loaded parking:

• No alley access behind properties (unlike properties west of Folk Street)
• Lot width only 30 feet (minimum required: 28 feet)
• Build-to line requires houses 5 feet from property line
• Physically impossible to provide driveway to rear on 30-foot lot
• All existing houses on Philip Street have front-facing garages (photos provided)
• Consistent with neighborhood character

No sidewalks:

• No existing sidewalks on Philip Street
• Only 7 feet between property line and edge of road in front of 130 Philip
• Road pavement actually touches property line in some locations
• Physically insufficient room for buffer strip, sidewalk, and house at required 5-foot setback
• Would not change neighborhood character (no sidewalks exist currently)

No street trees:

• No existing street tree pattern in neighborhood
• Insufficient width between road and required build-to line
• Note: Developer stated they will plant trees where possible, just cannot comply with strict ordinance location/spacing requirements (behind curb at 50-foot intervals)

Lot Specifications (130 Philip):

• Lot width: 30 feet (meets 28-foot minimum)
• Lot depth: approximately 60 feet
• Front facade: approximately 2,400 square feet
• Proposed sign: 231 square feet (less than 10% of facade)
• Rear yard: 30 feet (meets requirement)
• Backyard area: approximately 30 x 30 feet for children’s play

Public Comment – OPPOSITION:

Dr. Dione McMillan-Thorne (151 Philip Street, family has lived there 50+ years):

• Concerns about traffic congestion on narrow street
• Philip Street serves as emergency access when Highlands development gate opens during Route 611 flooding or snow
• Safety concerns for children (current and future residents)
• Street already cannot accommodate two cars passing simultaneously
• Sidewalks would improve safety even though none exist currently
• Concern about property value impact from affordable housing designation
• Suggested reducing from 8 units to 4 to reduce density

Preston McMillan (151 Philip Street):

• Suggested reducing units to allow side driveways to rear garages
• Noted rear-garage access would be safer (pulling out vs. backing out)

Beth Norman (151 Philip Street co-owner, resides at 715 West Wilbury Street):

• Echoed safety concerns about children playing in street
• Emphasized emergency access route issue
• Noted landscape character change from single-family homes to duplexes
• Property value concerns

Brandy Goodwin (151 Philip Street co-owner, resides at 1051½ West Lincoln Street):

• Emphasized street is physically too narrow for two cars to pass
• Adding 8 units = potentially 16 more drivers
• Highlands gate opens without notice during snow/floods
• Concerns not limited to three specific variances but overall development impact
• Property value and generational wealth concerns

Public Comment – SUPPORT:

Councilman Frank Pintabone (Vice Mayor, City of Easton):

• Grew up half-block away, owns property at 109 Palmer Street
• City toured the street and confirmed no sidewalks, street trees exist
• All existing homes have front driveways/garages
• Two homes built in last few years also have no sidewalks, front garages, no street trees
• City invested nearly $500,000 ARPA funds plus installed sewer infrastructure
• Other southside developments (like Confluence) are market-rate; these are desperately needed affordable units
• City supports the project

Applicant Response to Opposition:

Pastor Philip Davis:

• Purchased lots from Bill Houston and Alfred Dean Jones (long-standing African-American community leaders)
• Previous sellers shared their own struggles purchasing homes, saw value in affordable housing
• Held community meeting about year ago with ~150 southside residents, shared all plans
• Goal: serve maximum number of families within city regulations
• Only 10 houses currently on entire Philip Street block
• Not creating excessive congestion relative to existing conditions
• New construction by Tuscus Homes will not decrease property values – comparable homes selling for $500,000
• These homes priced $200,000-$250,000 with deed restrictions (5-10 years)
• After restriction period, become normal housing stock

Richard Roseberry (Engineer):

• Dead-end street, emergency gate only opens during Route 611 flooding/snow
• Parking requirement: only 23 spaces required by code; providing 30 (20 on-site in garages + 10 leased off-site at ballet studio)
• Duplexes are permitted use in this zoning district
• $166/square foot price point is consistent with Southside market comparables for new construction

Board Discussion:

Concerns raised:

• Safety of children with no sidewalks
• Street congestion with only 5-foot driveways (one car width)
• Potential for street parking overflow
• Emergency vehicle access

Clarifications:

• Board confirmed no alley access, making rear parking impossible
• Requiring sidewalks would create inconsistency (neighbors don’t have them and wouldn’t be required to install)
• Front-loaded parking is neighborhood norm
• Duplexes are permitted use; board cannot deny based on building type
• Backyard play areas are approximately 30×30 feet per unit

Street Parking Condition Discussion:

Board extensively discussed whether to prohibit street parking in front of new properties. Ultimately decided to add condition prohibiting on-street parking directly in front of the properties to address congestion concerns.

Vote: APPROVED with condition that no parking is permitted on the street in front of the property
(Civitella, Vulcano-Hall, Loebsack, Thomas all voted YES)

Property: 132 Philip Street
Variances: Same three variances as 130 Philip (no sidewalks, no street trees, front-loaded parking)

Applicants incorporated testimony from 130 Philip Street hearing into the record. No additional testimony presented.

Board Question: Clarification that with 5-foot driveway, only one car can fit. Applicants confirmed understanding that purchasers will know the parking limitations.

Vote: APPROVED with same conditions as 130 Philip (no on-street parking in front of property)
(Thomas, Civitella, Loebsack, Vulcano-Hall all voted YES)

Property: 134 Philip Street
Variances: Same three variances (no sidewalks, no street trees, front-loaded parking)

Applicants incorporated testimony from 130 Philip Street hearing. No additional testimony.

Vote: APPROVED with same conditions (no on-street parking)
(Thomas, Loebsack, Civitella, Vulcano-Hall all voted YES)

Property: 136 Philip Street
Variances: Same three variances (no sidewalks, no street trees, front-loaded parking)

Note: Address confusion clarified – city GIS does not match county GIS. Sequential addresses are 130, 132, 134, 136, 138 per county records, though city system shows some as “Zero Charles Street.”

Applicants incorporated prior testimony.

Vote: APPROVED with same conditions
(Civitella, Loebsack, Thomas, Vulcano-Hall all voted YES)

Property: 138 Philip Street (listed as second “136 Philip Street” in application due to GIS discrepancy)
Variances: Same three variances (no sidewalks, no street trees, front-loaded parking)

Applicants incorporated prior testimony.

Vote: APPROVED with same conditions
(Civitella, Loebsack, Thomas, Vulcano-Hall all voted YES)

Property: 142 Philip Street (listed as “Zero Charles Street” in application)
Lot Size: 40 feet wide x 60 feet deep

Variances Requested:

• Section 595-14D: Rear yard setback of 10 feet (required: 30 feet)
• Section 595-14F-2: No sidewalks
• Section 595-14F-3: No street trees
• Section 595-14F-4: Front-loaded parking

Additional Variance Explanation (Rear Setback):

Engineer Richard Roseberry explained this wider lot (40 feet vs. 30 feet) allows for consistent structure design with other units while converting what would be rear yard into additional side yard. This provides:

• Same total open space around property
• Uniform appearance along street
• Potential for future homeowners to add 10×20 parking pad on side without variance (200 sq ft additional impervious coverage permitted)
• Approximately 45 feet separation from existing houses to proposed houses

Applicants incorporated testimony from 130 Philip Street for the three common variances.

Vote: APPROVED with same conditions
(Thomas, Civitella, Loebsack, Vulcano-Hall all voted YES)

Property: 144 Philip Street (listed as “Zero Charles Street”)
Lot Size: 40 feet wide x 60 feet deep

Variances:

• Section 595-14D: Rear yard setback of 10 feet (required: 30 feet)
• Section 595-14F-2: No sidewalks
• Section 595-14F-3: No street trees
• Section 595-14F-4: Front-loaded parking

Applicants incorporated testimony from previous Charles Street hearing (142 Philip) regarding rear setback variance, and from 130 Philip for other three variances.

Vote: APPROVED with same conditions
(Civitella, Loebsack, Thomas, Vulcano-Hall all voted YES)

Property: 140 Philip Street (vacated portion of Charles Street, listed as “Zero Charles Street”)
Note: This property was not in all board members’ packets but was a valid application.

Variances:

• Section 595-14D: Rear yard setback of 10 feet (required: 30 feet)
• Section 595-14F-2: No sidewalks
• Section 595-14F-3: No street trees
• Section 595-14F-4: Front-loaded parking

Engineer Roseberry explained the address confusion: the property is on a vacated portion of Charles Street that the city vacated and conveyed to the developer. Since it had no street address, the application used “Zero Charles” designation. This explains the jump from 138 to 142 Philip in the sequence.

Variances identical to 142 and 144 Philip Street. Applicants incorporated prior testimony.

Vote: APPROVED with same conditions
(Civitella, Loebsack, Thomas, Vulcano-Hall all voted YES)

All hearings concluded. The board heard 13 cases total (including the two continued/tabled at the beginning). Meeting adjourned at approximately 9:20 PM.