The Salisbury Township Zoning Hearing Board voted 5-0 to deny a billboard to be erected along Martin Luther King Jr. Drive.

The ruling at the May 2 hearing upheld the decision of Salisbury Township Director of Planning and Zoning Cynthia Sopka, who denied the application for Munhel Makhoul, manager, Vanessa Holding Co., to place the billboard.

Makhoul appealed Sopka’s ruling to the hearing board, but zoners denied his appeal with their vote after about one hour and 15 minutes of testimony by Sopka and Makhoul, questions by the board and comments from some of the estimated 27 residents in the audience at the hearing held in the meeting room of the township municipal building.

The billboard was proposed for an R-1 Rural Residential Zoning District. Makhoul requested a use variance on a non-conforming lot. The billboard was to be triangular-shaped. The property is 9,000-square feet.

A billboard is not permitted in a residential zoning district in the township.

The minimum lot size in the R-1 District for a single-family dwelling is 30,000 square feet.

Makhoul, under questioning by the attorney representing him, Atty. Ronald E. Corkery, said he bought the property at a Lehigh County sheriff’s sale in September 2016. After the hearing, Corkery told a reporter for The Press Makhoul purchased the tract for $3,500.

The property has no access to a cul de sac at Yorkshire Drive, to the south of the property, nor to Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard on the north side of the land. The property is located toward the western terminus of Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard at 24th Street.

Among several residents, most of whom live in Lehigh Parkway North, which is south of the site, who spoke, Atty. Marla J. Melman, of Scoblionko, Scoblionko, Muir, Bartholomew & Melman, a law firm in Allentown, and who lives with her husband, Dr. Jay Melman, along Barnsdale Road, asked if there were other billboards in the vicinity.

Atty. Melman also said the billboard was proposed for a neighborhood with “some of the highest-value residences in Salisbury Township.”

Said Dr. Melman of the billboard, “This would be a detriment.”

Among the 10 items submitted as exhibits at the hearing, Corkery showed several photos of the tract that purported to depict steep slopes, swales and lack of vehicle access.

According to testimony, the property is about 330 feet at its highest point and descends as much as eight feet.

During the testimony, Corkery explained the triangular property was too small for placement of a house and a property owner is allowed to make “reasonable use of a property,” and the only possible use for Makhoul’s property was to place a billboard on it.

“This is the only reasonable use for this parcel of land,” Corkery told zoners.

The proposed 12- by 24-foot billboard was to have been non-digital. Initially, it was stated the billboard would be 10 feet off the ground and, with a 12-foot-highsign, rising to a height of 22 feet. Makhoul said he could and would reduce the height.

During testimony, after some residents complained about potential light spillover from the billboard, Makhoul said he would withdraw his decision to light the billboard with a timer set 5 until 10 p.m. daily, and instead wouldn’t light the sign at all. He also said he could plant trees and shrubs at the back, or south side, of the tract, to shield the view of the billboard from residents’ homes and yards.

The billboard was to be V-shaped, with two panels, “one that you would see heading west on MLK and one that you would see heading east on MLK,” according to Corkery. The front width was to have been approximately three feet and the back width about six feet.

Several residents raised concerns about the billboard being a distraction to motorists on busy MLK, which has a posted 35 mph speed limit and has some curved sections of roadway.

Atty. Kent H. Herman, of King, Spry, Herman, Freund & Faul, a resident in Lehigh Parkway North, is a former Salisbury Township commissioner and was president of the Lehigh Valley Planning Commission. Herman cited a Pennsylvania Supreme Court case study, spoke about the residential character of the neighborhood, noted the property is landlocked and asked whether or not technical stipulations were available concerning the billboard lighting.

“Skip the lighting,” Makhoul responded.

At another point during the hearing, Makhoul testified, “I’m not trying to do the wrong thing. I agree that it’s a residential neighborhood.”

Concerning the property, Makhoul said, ”I thought of all kinds of options. I thought of a mobile home.

“I feel it’s [a billboard] the best use of this property,” Makhoul said.

“It’s the only possible use,” Corkery reiterated. “The law states every property has a use.”

Atty. William J. Fries, solicitor for the zoning hearing board, referring to several sections of the township zoning ordinance prior to the zoners’ vote, cited the need to “protect property values” and to “avoid the creation of a visual distraction to motorists.”

Zoning hearing board member Edward Hare said, “I understand all the logistics. But I find it hard to accept that an advertising billboard is a good fit for this neighborhood. It just doesn’t fit.”

Hare made the motion for a vote to be taken to deny the appeal, seconded by zoning board member Todd Laudenschlager.