Easton City Council members opted to table a decision on whether to enact a batch of zoning changes that have drawn concerns from some residents, the Lehigh Valley Planning Commission and the city’s own planning commission, who worry the changes open the door to new development that would change the city’s character.
Opponents are largely focused on aspects of the proposal that would increase the allowable footprint of buildings from 8,000 square feet to 16,000 or 24,000 in some circumstances; would allow for more impermeable surfaces, and loosen the design requirements for new buildings to fit in with their surroundings.
The decision to table came after Councilman David O’Connell introduced amendments that would bring the zoning changes more in line with a recommendation from the city planning commission. If his amendments, which reduced the maximum building footprint size back to 8,000 square feet, are approved, the amended zoning changes would have to go back through the city’s planning process.
Council members will take the zoning changes and O’Connell amendments back up at their meeting on July 8.
Stephen Nowroski, Easton’s director of planning and codes, said the initiative was announced in January 2019. He said Tuesday that the existing code has inconsistencies and standards that do not reflect current development practices, forcing desirable projects to seek variances.
He also said that the zoning favored by critics would make it harder for low and moderate income families to improve their properties.
“The standards favored by the objectors will also stymie the city’s revitalization efforts,” he said.
Before the meeting, O’Connell said the city’s zoning ordinance has been working up to this point, and he doesn’t see the need to change them. He didn’t think he’d support the changes put forth by Nowroski.
“I think it could have a very detrimental effect on how the city gets developed,” he said.
His amendments were supported by state Rep. Bob Freeman, D-Northampton, who helped create the city’s original zoning codes in 2007. Freeman said the changes would help restore some of the city’s award-winning design standards.
Mayor Sal Panto said he supports Nowroski’s proposal, noting many properties don’t follow the code and have a footprint larger than 8,000 square feet. He said the impervious surface requirements would make it hard for people on the South Side or West Ward to make improvements, such as adding sheds to their properties.
“I will protect the local historic district in the downtown, but I’m very cautious about painting that same brush across all our neighborhoods,” he said.
City staff has removed some of the contentious language from the earlier proposal, including parts that would increase density in the College Hill neighborhood.
In its June meeting, the city’s planning commission recommended approval of the zoning ordinance, but only if the council made a myriad of changes. The planning commissioners’ concerns were largely focused on the increases in impervious surface and enlargement of building footprints in downtown, said Planning Commission Chairman Charles Elliott.
“We felt that there was too great a risk in large scale development, which would incentivize demolition of historic structures downtown and alter the historic character and fabric of the downtown,” he said.
Morning Call reporter Michelle Merlin can be reached at 610-820-6533 or at mmerlin@mcall.com.