Attorney Joseph Piperato, representing Frederick H. Silver, appeared before the Catasauqua Zoning Hearing Board Sept. 17 to respond to a letter he received from Eugene Goldfeder, Catasauqua borough manager and zoning officer.

Silver is president of Medical Device Development Inc., and owner of Silver Manor Adult Living Apartments, a fire-damaged property at the corner of Race and Front streets in Catasauqua.

When asked by zoning board Chairman Todd Richards to present his case, Piperato set off a series of legal arguments involving the attorneys in attendance.

"We have no case to present," said Piperato. "The borough must show that the violations identified in the letter are valid."

Piperato explained Silver is trying to sell the building, damaged by a fire in May and now vacant, through a realtor.

He said Silver received a letter from Goldfeder, dated July 24, alleging marketing comments Silver had published in the realtor's Multiple Listing Service (MLS) are inconsistent with the use granted by the borough for the property.

Attorney Alison Wasserman represented the borough's solicitor in this matter.

The property is located in a DC-Downtown Commercial zoning district.

The permitted use for the building stems from a ruling by the zoning board in 1988.

Piperato claimed and presented evidence that the zoning board approved the property as a rooming house in 1988.

A rooming house designation was the only viable option available to the board at the time.

Goldfeder stated after the hearing there were other conditions placed on the property that further clarified its permitted use.

The borough's zoning ordinance was rewritten in 2004. It reworked zoning districts and allowed provisions for personal care facilities which were not in the 1988 ordinance.

The agreements with Silver Manor were grandfathered, but any new uses require zoning board approval.

The letter to Silver indicated a proposed hotel or apartment use is inconsistent with the current approved use.

Personal care homes and assisted living facilities are not permitted there, but a nonconforming use was permitted by the zoning board in its 1988 decision.

Piperato asked that the borough show where the violations alleged in the letter exist.

"I can't believe we have a violation notice based on a marketing entry in the listing," he said.

Piperato sparred with Wasserman and Goldfeder over an interpretation, with both sides using points and counterpoints that justified their position.

Eventually, the proceedings and arguments lasted long enough for Zoning Hearing Board Solicitor Attorney Emil Kantra II to comment.

"We can argue about these procedural items and it can become a procedural nightmare," he said.

Kantra indicated he was inclined to side with Piperato, believing no actual violations were committed.

He suggested the two parties meet separately to address the problem.

Kantra suggested the letter from the borough be withdrawn and rewritten to address the borough's concerns.

Goldfeder cited instances where property in the borough was sold with a particular zoning in mind, but the zoning was neither approved before the sale or could not be approved by the board.

In his explanation of the letter, he indicated it was only intended to alert the property owner that aspects of the advertising were misleading and were not included in the variance which had been granted in 1988.

Both parties agreed to meet separately and iron out their differences. If necessary, they will return to the board for further consideration.

Goldfeder said after the meeting some aspects of the borough's case were not presented before Kantra shut off the debate.

Goldfeder said he was not at liberty to publicly discuss those details since this was an ongoing matter.