The first zoning hearing board case Sept. 9 was a continuation of 921 Beverly Ave. owner Michael Kurtz’s request for a variance to reduce the parcel. Kurtz also owns the adjoining property at 1917 W. Union Blvd.

The Beverly rear yard is non-conforming, with code being 35 feet, and the yard being 32 feet, and 12 feet of that yardage would be reassigned to the West Union Boulevard lot. Kurtz says he wishes to build a driveway.

A procedural question arose: Should Kurtz be taking his case to the planning board first? Darlene Heller said it was most common to see the hearing board first, then to go to the planning commission. Attorney Terry Fehl said that while that order is not require by law, it is customary for such a case to go to the hearing board first. Kurtz opted to proceed.

Board member Jim Schantz asked whether the value of the Beverly Street property would be negatively affected by the reduction of the yard size.

Kurtz said he felt he could recover at least what he spent on the property, so any reduction in value “would not be drastic.”

When asked to describe any hardship caused by the current state of the property, Kurtz described the loss of backyard caused by the location of the driveway on the Union Boulevard property. He could not describe any hardship to the Beverly Avenue property.

The board went into executive session. Upon their return, they voted 3-2 to approve Kurtz’s request for the variance, conditional to his proceeding to take his case to the Planning Commission.

The next case was 124 E. Morton St. This is the site of Lehigh University’s Health Science Technology Building. The request was for variances related to an illuminated sign at the top of the building. The back-lit sign will be built into the top floor of the building, which will be devoted to maintenance.

The university was asking for an operating hours variance, and a dimensional variance for the sign.

Associate Vice President for Facilities Services and Lehigh University Architect Brad Stringfellow described two purposes for the building: Research labs, and the new College of Health. He said the site of the building, at East Mifflin and Webster streets, was chosen for both its proximity to Lehigh’s existing research facilities, and its nearness to the local community.

The proposed sign would be on the southwest corner of the building, integrated into the wall, facing Morton Street, and North Bethlehem. It would be between 82 and 96 feet. The university was asking for the sign to be illuminated whenever school was in session. The sign’s letters would spell out Lehigh.

Board member Peter Schneck asked if the community would be entering the building for health services.

Stringfellow replied the building would not be used for community clinical services, but for nutrition counseling and similar services.

Board member Terry Novatnick questioned why the sign variances were not “part of the original request,” i.e., the overall plans for the building.

The response was that the sign design had evolved over time, as the plans for the building design progressed.

Board member Jim Shantz question the large size of the sign, asking, “ Would it hurt if it was smaller?”

Stringfellow answered he felt the size of the sign was appropriate for the building.

Board attorney Terry Fehl asked whether Lehigh was asking for specific illumination hours, and whether the light from the sign would be visible from residences across the street.

Stringfellow said it might be.

When asked if an illumination study had been performed, David Feth, of Olsen HGA answered, “No, we have not done any foot candle illumination studies.”

Board Chairman William Fitzpatrick asked Feth for his opinion.

Feth replied, “Morton Street would see very little, if any, light, because of the difference in heights of the buildings.”

Board member Peter Schneck asked if residents of the senior citizens’ high rise 300 feet from the building would be able to see light from the sign.

Stringfellow said the light would not be vibrant, as it will shine through perforations in the letters. He also said he would be willing to accept a restriction on lighting the sign between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.

Board member Jim Schantz pointed out that would reduce the operating hours of the sign by 80 percent.

Stringfellow said that would be acceptable, but Lehigh would like to be able to operate the sign outside those restrictions during special events.

After a brief executive session, the board voted to approve Lehigh’s variances.

Terry Fehl was replaced by Erich Schock as board attorney for the remainder of the meeting.

The next case was 27 West Ettwein St. Lisa and Michael Arrechia were seeking a dimensional variance to construct an above ground pool in their yard, closer than code allows to the front of the property, due to a slope in their yard.

To place the pool within code, Lisa explained they would need to remove a depth of 32 inches of soil to make the pool level. This would also put the pool “closer to our back neighbors. “

She described the pool as 15 feet wide and 30 feet long. A tall hedge lines the front and West side of the property. At a 12-inch setback, only 11 inches depth of soil would need to be removed.

Board attorney Schock was familiar with the neighborhood. He asked if the setback of the house was typical for the block, and nonconforming to code.

Zoning Officer Craig Pfeiffer responded affirmatively.

Schock said, “The setback of the house could be zero feet, but a pool has to be set back 20 feet?”

Pfeiffer replied that yes, a setback of 20 feet is required for a pool if a property lacks a rear yard. He added that the Residential Transitional zoning district is “special, because there are no front yards.”

Lisa affirmed, “We don’t have a front yard.”

Board member Peter Schneck pointed out that “excavating could be an issue for the hedges.” He asked if the pool would be in ground or above ground. Lisa confirmed it would be above ground. Pfeiffer pointed out the zoning ordinance does not differentiate between in ground or above ground pools.

Board member Linda Shea Gardner asked if power lines run above the property. Lisa said there are none.

Only one neighbor, Mike Daniels, of 33 West Ettwein St., commented. He said he had “no complaints” concerning the pool.

The board approved the variance request, with the condition that if the hedgerow is damaged during construction, it would be replaced with a four-foot tall fence at the front and sides of the property.

Board Chairman Fitzpatrick asked lightly if Mr. Daniels would be allowed to use the Arrechias’ pool.

The last case before the board was 315 West Broad St. Owner Joel Moyer was seeking a use variance to convert a multi-use home to a single family dwelling. He explained that while the building was used as an office and an apartment, it had “not been chopped up.” He added that the adjoining properties are residential.

Attorney Schock asked for clarification that the building had not been converted, but was used as an office.

Zoning officer Pfeiffer affirmed the lower portion of the building was used as an office by the previous owner, who also used the upper floors as a residence. He added the age of the building predates the zoning ordinance.

Board member Schneck asked Moyer if it would be difficult to rent the building as an office.

Moyer said, “It could be (an office), but I feel it would shine as a single family home.”

Board member Shantz noted the building floorplan showed a kitchen in the rear of the first floor.

Moyer explained the kitchen was “ripped out prior” to his ownership.

Shantz asked if there were gas lines to the building.

Moyer replied, “No, but I want to convert the property to gas.”

Chairman Fitzpatrick said, “Describe the parking in the back.”

Moyers said the area was “stone, with grass coming through.” He stated his intent to improve the parking area.

Attorney Schock asked if Moyer would have to renovate the building if he wished to divide it.

Moyer said no matter what he did with the building, it needed renovations.

Attorney Schock asked the zoning officer if code modifications would be needs. Pfeiffer said yes. Schock asked if an office would be a permitted use. Pfeiffer said it would not be.

Attorney Schock asked Moyer what the character of the neighborhood is.

Moyer said it is “a mix” of residential and commercial properties.

After deliberation, the board voted to approve Moyer’s relief, with the condition that the rear parking area be accepted by the city engineer.

The Zoning Hearing Board will have its next meeting Sept. 23.