With the Catasauqua Borough Council's recent approval of a plan to purchase the FL Smidth property, borough Solicitor Jeffrey Dimmich is hard at work ironing out the final details on real estate titles to finalize the purchase. In the meantime, a new wrinkle has presented itself, with a challenge from a well-known Lehigh Valley developer.

At a June 18 Catasauqua Zoning Hearing Board hearing, Abraham Atiyeh of Catty Holdings LLC filed a challenge to the amendments to the borough zoning ordinance, enacted in March, to allow for apartments in the Waterfront Overlay District (WOD), in which the 12-acre FL Smidth property is located.

The Smidth land is near property where Catty Holdings plans to open a senior care facility in the former My Home building at 124 Bridge St., following property settlement in October. The company signed a sales agreement with the current owner in May.

Although final settlement on the property is months away, Atiyeh's company began making payments in May, and a large sign posted on the property now proclaims it to be the site of Catasauqua Manor Assisted Living Facility.

Catty Holdings also owns the former Wachovia Bank building next door and a nearby parking lot at 520 N. Front St., across from the FL Smidth land.

Zoning board Solicitor Emil Kantra said the purpose of the hearing would be to establish whether Catty Holdings has standing to present its case. This means Atiyeh's company has to prove that he is an aggrieved party as a result of the ordinance amendment.

Attorney William Malkames, representing Catty Holdings, questioned the company's CEO, Mickey Thompson, and Atiyeh about plans for the Bridge Street property.

The main issue they have with the WOD ordinance revision is its allowance for an increased number of housing units and the affect higher-density housing will have on parking and traffic in the neighborhood.

In his testimony, Thompson claimed his company is aggrieved by the borough's enactment of the amendment.

"We would have issues with people parking on our parking lot," he said. If drivers visiting apartments along Front Street park in the company's lots, it would be difficult to provide the home's residents and employees with adequate parking spaces, he said.

Representing the borough's interests at the hearing were attorneys Tom Dinkelacker and Al Stirva.

"It's our position there is nothing here that aggrieves Catty Holdings LLC with regard to the ordinance," Dinkelacker said. "If you're buying parcels of land after the ordinance is passed … that is relevant to whether the property owner can be aggrieved."

According to testimony by Catasauqua Borough Manager Eugene Goldfeder, the council had voted to approve the ordinance March 4, and it became effective March 25.

In his testimony, Atiyeh said he is concerned about the amendment because it could allow for 200 apartment units.

"They are over-developing," he said. "There is a parking problem down there." He also expressed concerns about the added traffic causing a hazard for elderly residents of his facility.

Goldfeder said the original WOD allowed for single-family dwellings, townhouses and live-work units with first-floor storefronts and apartments on upper floors. The amendment in March allowed for apartment buildings without commercial enterprises on the bottom floors.

He said the maximum number of apartments allowed on the land, according to the original zoning ordinance, is seven per acre.

This was not altered by establishment of the WOD or its amendments, he said. So the maximum number of apartments units that could be developed on the property is 84, not 200.

The borough's and Atiyeh's attorneys are currently drafting written briefs with their arguments for the hearing board's review.

A decision is expected to be made by the hearing board at a July 16 hearing at the borough's municipal building.