Permission to erect a new electronic sign at a Lehigh Valley Hospital Network facility along Cedar Crest Boulevard was denied in Salisbury Township.

The Salisbury Township Zoning Hearing Board, voted unanimously 5-0 to not grant variances for the sign at its meeting Jan. 5.

The zoners concluded the sign’s LED lighting would constitute a traffic hazard for vehicles along the busy Cedar Crest state highway.

Zoners were concerned Cedar Crest narrows from two lanes north to one lane north at the emergency center building where the sign is proposed.

Concern was expressed by zoners about the potential brightness of the sign for occupants of nearby businesses and residences.

Zoners said the sign would be out of character with other commercial signs in the vicinity.

During the approximate 2-1/2-hour hearing, several residents who live near the building and doctors who have offices near the building objected to the LED sign.

Zoners met in the township municipal building meeting room. The public and media signed up and observed and could comment via the Zoom online format. There were 28 participants listed on Zoom.

Atty. Williams J. Fries was the zoning board solicitor, substituting for Atty. Victor F. Cavacini.

Atty. Catherine A. Curcio, of Norris McLaughlin P.A. Attorneys At Law, represented Lehigh Valley Health Network.

Lehigh Valley Health Network appealed to the zoning board for a variance to construct a free-standing sign with an electronically-changing message at 1101 S. Cedar Crest Blvd.

The sign is proposed in a location where electronically-changing message signs are not permitted and there is not a vehicular entrance from a street (entrance required).

The applicant also seeks a variance for height (10 feet maximum permitted; 16 feet proposed), area of sign face (30 square feet maximum permitted; 81.25 square feet proposed) and setback (5 feet required; proposed unknown).

The property is in the township’s C1, office-laboratory zoning district.

Dallas Pulliam, vice president, real estate, LVHN, was one of the witnesses.

Objectors signed up on Zoom included Dr. Lawrence E. Glaser, 1110 S. Cedar Crest Blvd. and Justin Turk, and interested persons signed up on Zoom included Dr. Meredith Margolis, Dr., James Margolis, 1045 Cedar Crest Blvd.; Leonard Mozeko, Angela Mozeko, Joseph Ondek, Joe McDermott and Carolyn Marino.

Four emails concerning the sign were received and entered into the record.

LVHN leases the building which houses its Express Care facility. The sign would replace an existing sign. Another sign at the building was to be removed.

Pulliam said the sign would advertise the facility’s hours, services and public health announcements. The sign would change no more than every 10 seconds.

Dr. James Margolis said there is a private residence north of the building and Cedar Crest goes from two lanes to one lane at the building. He said there are numerous accidents in the vicinity, including an accident in May 2020.

“I am concerned with the brightness in general as to how it will affect my lifestyle,” Glaser said. “It’s bright. I am going to be directly across the street,” Glaser said of his office.

Atty. Kent Herman, chair, zoning hearing board, noted Salisbury Township Zoning Officer Kerry Rabold determined a traffic study was not required.

Also testifying was Edward T. Reed, owner, Reed Sign Company, Pennsburg.

“The message center is 2 feet by 6 feet, which is 12 square feet. It’s modest at best,” Reed said of the proposed sign.

“This proposed sign is to be 3 feet taller than the existing signs,” Reed said.

A rendering of the sign to scale was shown in the presentation. It would be 75 square feet, or 6 feet, 3 inches wide and 14 feet tall, with 2 feet high base.

The existing sign is 8 feet wide. The two existing signs total 60 square feet. The increase would be 30 square feet.

“The illumination and brightness is controlled by a photo eye. It changes depending on ambient light around it,” Reed said of the sign.

“In full sunlight, it’s brighter. If a thunderstorm rolls in, the sign level dims down. At night, it’s 25 percent of capacity,” Reed said.

“There’s eight levels of dimming that it progresses through during the day. It’s automatic. You can manually override them, if necessary,” Reed said.

“The sign that we’re proposing, there’s silver and blue. The only thing that would illuminate is LVH and Express Care and then messaging. We actually provide low light levels. We find they’re more readable,” Reed said.

There would be no scrolling, no animation and no flashing, twinkling or blinking, Reed said.

The sign would be a little bit further back from the road and would meet the setback requirement. “We would be 5 feet plus from right of way,” Reed said.

“We’ve installed hundreds of these and I haven’t received any complaints. I pride myself in not providing obnoxious signs,” Reed said.

“The sign package would be a lot less visible from that residence than the existing sign,” Reed said.

The cost of the double-sided sign would be “in excess of $30,000,” according to Reed.

Reed said his firm has installed “in excess of 200 signs for LVHN.”

Zoning Hearing Board Vice Chair Atty. Ian Baxter asked if there would be up-lighting. “No,” Reed answered.

In a letter dated Nov. 29, 2020, Ann Sprang, stated, “I strenuously oppose the appeal. It would be an eyesore and visible from American Boulevard.

“It would be a hazard. Such a sign is not permitted and the rules should not change,” Sprang’s letter stated.

A letter from Debbie Solomon stated, “I urge the board not to litter our neighborhood with an LED sign. I feel it will cause many more accidents and lead to property value decline.”

“A lot of the light from the EmergiCenter shines directly into my kitchen of my house along Webster Avenue,” McDermott said.

“I do have concerns about traffic. I am aware of the accidents at this intersection and at Lincoln [Avenue],” McDermott said.

“The biggest concern is the precedent. Zoning variances are normally granted for a hardship. I don’t see this as a hardship,” McDermott said.

“My objections are for the residents and commercial property owners, which would lower property values,” Marino said,

“In many ways, Salisbury Township remains a suburban oasis. That oasis is worth preserving,” Marino said.

“Cedar Crest is one of the township’s main streets. This street should not become Lehigh Street or MacArthur Road,” Marino said.

Leonard Mozeko submitted a PowerPoint presentation concerning the sign.

Mozeko’s objections to the proposed sign include: driver distraction, located at the merge of two lanes to one, impede northbound shoulder escape route, nighttime driver distraction, parallel streets are R-3, Cedar Crest Boulevard is C-1; LED prohibited in R-3 and C-1; existing signs in area are smaller, unfair to existing businesses, unwise precedent for township, not necessary, EmergiCenter well-marked, safety issues and devalues residential properties.

“I wouldn’t want the bank and Dr. Glaser to put up similar signs,” Justin Turk said.

“Couldn’t they just replace the existing sign?” Herman asked.

“We’re faced with a variance request because an electronic sign is not permitted in C-1,” Fries said.

“The ordinance requires a 10 feet maximum height. There’s 15 feet in extra square footage,” Fries said.

“There are four separate variance requests,” Fries said.

Fries said there was “no showing of hardship,” which is a stipulation to grant variances.

“I’m struggling to find a legal hardship to grant relief,” Herman said.

“And looking at the character of the neighborhood, there are other signs. This is something that would be materially different,” Herman said.

“I think they could probably keep a sign there and come back with another proposal,” Herman said.

“We have a responsibility to uphold the zoning ordinance, both residential and commercial alike,” Herman said.

“They can still keep a sign in that location,” Rabold said.

“We appreciate the thoroughness and the diligence of the hospital’s presentation,” Herman said.

Baxter made the motion, seconded by Zoner Ronald Evans, to deny LVHN’s variance requests for the sign.

“The variance requests are denied. The request did not meet the legal standard of legal hardship for the variances,” Fries said.

LVHN can appeal the zoning hearing board decision.

The township zoning hearing board is next scheduled to meet 7 p.m. Feb. 2.