A plan for a single residence along Chestnut Hill Road in a westernmost area of Salisbury Township near Emmaus has been tabled for a second time by the township zoning hearing board.

Zoners voted 4-0, with one hearing board member absent, to table the plan for a single-family house on a 1.16-acre property at 87 Chestnut Hill Road owned by Benjamin Hoffman.

The plan is scheduled to be reviewed at the next zoning board hearing 7 p.m. Oct. 3 in the township municipal building, 2900 S. Pike Ave. The plan was first tabled at the Aug. 1 zoners’ meeting.

The hearing board, by consensus, recommended the house be slightly repositioned on the lot to provide for a larger driveway turning area so a vehicle would not be required to back onto Chestnut Hill Road.

Brian Spray, of Integrated Engineering, Quakertown, representing Hoffman, who was amenable to the recommendation, said he would rework the plan and present it to zoners.

Spray said there are a number of steep slopes on the property, another factor which figured into the recommendation for repositioning the house on the plan.

“Directly along Chestnut Hill Road, there are a number of steep slopes, all more than 25 percent,” Spray said.

“I believe Mr. Hoffman has come up with a great design that minimizes the slope disturbances,” Spray said. “It is a very innovative design and it is in the spirit of the ordinance in that it minimizes disturbance.”

Spray sought a special exception and variances for the plan. Zoners didn’t vote on these because the plan was tabled.

The site is in the R-2 District, a Low Density Residential District that provides for mostly single-family detached housing.

Salisbury Township Director of Planning and Zoning Cynthia Sopka noted, ”We do have a new zoning ordinance and it addresses the high water table.”

David J. Tettermer, Salisbury Township consulting engineer, of Keystone Consulting Engineers, sat in on the hearing at the recommendation of Atty. Victor F. Cavacini, zoning board solicitor, of Gross McGinley, LLP.

“I’ve looked at the plans and I have a couple of concerns,” Tettemer said. “My first concern is the steep slopes.

“My primary issueis: How are you going to access Chestnut Hill Road? Backing out onto collector roads is prohibited,” Tettemer said.

“We don’t want anybody backing out onto Chestnut Hill Road,” Cavacini said.

“You’re going to need 40 feet [driveway width]. You can’t use the garage for anything but parking. Nobody parks on the driveway. Not visitors, boats,” Tettemer said.

Tettemer suggested moving the location of the house 10 feet to the west would provide more room for driveway turnaround.

“We don’t object to what the township engineer said,” Spray said.

“We want to make sure what is constructed there is safe during construction and after,” Tettemer said.

Variances sought for sections of the township zoning ordinance that apply to the plan include:

•Location of an enclosed floor must be at least six inches about the seasonal high-water table.

•Disturbance of slopes is needed to allow development of a single building.

•Disturbance of slopes more than 25 percent is not permitted.

•Slopes of more than 30 percent will not be altered or disturbed.

•The maximum slope from excavation or earth fill shall be three-feet horizontal to one-foot vertical.

In other business at the Sept. 5 meeting, zoners voted 4-0 to accept the withdrawal of an appeal by Jeffrey T. and Rebecca Russell, requesting a variance for 2602 Lindberg Ave. to construct an additional residence as their primary residence on their 16-acre property.

The existing residence would be used for the care of aging parents.

The property is located in the R-2 Low Density Residential Zoning District of the township.

Asked township Zoner Edward Hare, “Doesn’t this beg for a subdivision?”

Replied Cavacini to the Russells, “You’re asking for a use variance. The ordinance only permits one residence per lot.”

“I would feel better about a second deeded lot,” Hare said. “I don’t know that this passes the test for a variance.”

“There’s no hardship,” Cavacini said.

Said Tettemer, “It’s a minor subdivision. They’re very straight-forward. You’d have to go to the planning commission.”

Said Sopka, “It’s a little more expeditious.”