A new sign at Cedar Crest Professional Park and a new home on South Mountain received approvals May 18 from the Salisbury Township Zoning Hearing Board.

The hearing was held via the Zoom platform to avoid a scheduling conflict with the municipal building meeting room use May 18 as a polling place. Zoom listed 20 participants. Jessica Mondello was court stenographer.

In June, township meetings are to resume in-person. However, the June 1 zoning hearing is canceled because no appeals were filed for that hearing.

In the first case, an appeal was sought at 1243 S. Cedar Crest Blvd. by Cedar Crest Professional Park VII, LP for a variance to construct a free-standing sign with a sign face of 100 square feet (30 square feet permitted) and a height of 11.5 feet (10 feet permitted). The property is in the C1, office laboratory zoning district.

After the approximate one-hour hearing, the zoning board voted 5-0 to approve the appeal for the sign, with Zoner Hearing Board Vice Chairman Attorney Ian Baxter making the motion and zoner Thomas Spinner seconding the motion to bring the appeal up for a vote.

“We have an existing sign that literally sits in the middle of the driveway at the entrance. That’s not a good position for the sign,” Bryan Ritter, of Jena Engineering Corp., representing the professional park management and owners said.

“The goal is to move the sign slightly to the south off the driveway,” Ritter said.

A Penn Pizza sign and a Cedar Crest Professional Park sign are to be removed. The 100-foot new sign would replace the combined 142 square feet.

“What we’re trying to do is put those three signs on one sign,” Ritter said.

“People coming off I-78 will know where to go. If they wish, they can come in the north entrance, not the main entrance,” Ritter said.

“It will be an internally-illuminated sign,” Ritter said. The sign’s lighting would be turned off at 11 p.m.

Zoner Joe Kovach asked if the sign would have moving messages. Ritter said it would not.

Baxter asked about the site plan. Drawings of the proposed sign and photos of existing signs were shown.

Zoner Nicole Ortiz asked about a Miller Keystone sign. It won’t be removed, Ritter said.

The new sign meets setback requirements.

Spinner asked about the level of illumination.

“It will conform to applicable Salisbury Township rules for signage,” Ritter said.

Salisbury Township Planning and Zoning Officer Kerry Rabold said of the sign and the appeal, “Had all the buildings been on a single lot, it might have been approved.”

The professional park is composed of several free-standing office buildings.

Zoning Hearing Board Chairman Kent Herman asked about the hardship burden of the appeal, saying, “I think we have to do a little thought about that issue.

“The removal of three signs for a better located and improved sign would be an improvement,” Herman said.

Zoning Hearing Board Solicitor Attorney Victor F. Cavacini of Gross McGinley, LLP, said, “It would be a considerable improvement.”

“It will remove some visual clutter along that part of Cedar Crest Boulevard,” Herman said.

Cavacini asked about the property owner. He was told David Rothrock is a managing member of Cedar Crest Professional Park VII, LLP.

Jack McNulty, director, property management, Jones Lang LaSalle, was authorized to represent the office park owner.

“Getting the new sign out of the sight triangle, aesthetically, is more pleasing. I think it’s an improvement,” Kovach said.

“I worked for several years at 1245 [Cedar Crest Boulevard] and you can’t see anything around that sign, even though there is a light.” Baxter said, adding, “This is certainly an upgrade.”

“I had an appointment [at Cedar Crest Professional Park] today. That sign in the island is a little awkward,” Ortiz said.

“I am concerned about signs in the area for the future,” Ortiz said.

“I think it’s a pretty good upgrade,” Ortiz said of the new sign.

“I think it’s an improvement and will improve the safety conditions,” Spinner said.

“The ordinance is pretty restrictive. I think the board is safe with providing relief,” Cavacini said.

“We can impose a condition that the signs said to be removed will be removed?” Herman asked.

“Absolutely,” Cavacini said.

The second appeal for 3139 Ironwood Lane by Michelle Lee sought a variance to construct a one-story, single-family detached dwelling within the required front yard setback (50 feet required, 26 feet proposed). The property is in the conservation residential zoning district.

The zoning board approved the appeal 5-0 with Ortiz making the motion, seconded by Spinner to bring it to a vote after an approximate one-hour hearing.

William W. Witman, of Witman Engineers and Consultants, LLC, represented Lee, who lives in Fountain Hill.

Several residents, David Mooney, Jon Seaman and Joseph Gaither, who live in the vicinity of the property, spoke.

Lee bought the property in April from Lyle Cope.

Baxter asked about finalizing the property purchase. He was told closing was contingent on zoning relief.

“This maintains the 50-foot setback from wetlands. The wetlands are fairly large,” Witman said.

In July and August 2020, Acer Associates, LLC, determined the wetlands location, which are at the back of the proposed house.

“We’re committed to maintain the wetlands, which is required not only by the township but by the Lehigh Valley Planning Commission,” Witman said.

Baxter asked about plans for the house.

“It’s a single-story home with a two-car garage,” Witman said.

“When we did our calculations, it did not appear to have anything to do with the steep slope requirements,” Rabold said.

An old foundation on the property would be removed.

Rabold said buildings must be 50 feet from wetlands. An accessory structure such as a shed could be built closer to wetlands, but nothing can encroach on wetlands.

Placing the house far enough from the wetlands results in the 26-foot front yard setback.

The house would be 1,500-square-feet.

An elevated sand mound septic system would be used.

“My concern is water runoff. There already is a lot of runoff,” Mooney said.

“Her next step would be to get a grading permit. Those would all be addressed in the next step,” Rabold said.

Seaman asked if a two-story house could be built so that it would have less of a footprint.

“The single story is because I am in my 50s and I am looking for a home that I can age into,” Lee said.

Seaman asked about a grading permit.

“You are welcome to write a letter to me,” Rabold said, adding she would pass it along to the township consulting engineer, David J. Tettemer of Keystone Consulting Engineers, Inc.

“Because it’s a single home, they are not required to have SALDO [Subdivision And Land Development Plan],” Rabold said.

Seaman asked about runoff concerns.

“Regulations require that they cannot cause harm to other properties,” Rabold said.

“There was two- to two-and-one-half inches of water and a 100-foot-wide stream going over my property,” Seaman said concerning a storm.

“If you have problems in the neighborhood, I recommend you bring that to the board of commissioners,” Rabold said.

“I don’t think it would look out of character,” Mooney said of the proposed house.

“I am not opposed to the setback,” Mooney said, noting Seaman’s property is not that far back and his property is not that far back from the road.

“We are very concerned about the water runoff. I am concerned about the hardship that could occur to other properties,” Mooney said.

Cavacini asked about the lot size.

Rabold said it’s 2.355 acres.

Cavacini asked when the property was subdivided. He was told Woodland Hills, with an existing single lot, was prepared in 1990 and approved in 1992.

Cavacini asked when the setback ordinance was enacted.

Rabold said 2015 revisions to the township zoning ordinance added environmental regulations.

“It does seem to me that there are unique characteristics of the lot,” Herman said.

“I don’t think anybody is suggesting that a single-family home is out of character,” Herman said.

“I think the variance should be granted,” Herman said.

“Setbacks are different depending on what zoning district you live in,” Kovach noted.

“This tract was in existence before 1960 and it came to its current configuration in 1992,” Baxter said.

“I’m convinced and comfortable accepting the applicants’ testimony regarding hardship,” Baxter said.

“Some of the other homes on that road appear to encroach on what would be the setback requirements,” Baxter said.

“I think there has been a hardship shown,” Ortiz said.

“The home seems to fit in with the neighborhood,” Spinner said.

“Substantiate hardship and the home is in keeping with the neighborhood,” Herman concluded.