Log In


Reset Password
LEHIGH VALLEY WEATHER

One lot of proposed Lehigh Parkway subdivision rejected in Salisbury

One lot of a proposed three-lot subdivision in Lehigh Parkway North was rejected unanimously 7-0 by the Salisbury Township Planning Commission.

Planners also voted 7-0 in separate votes to table the plan and to grant a time extension for the minor subdivision at 2169 Overhill Road until Feb. 15, 2022, to allow the owner to revise the plan into what apparently will become a two-lot subdivision.

An overflow crowd estimated at 80 filled the meeting room to standing room only and spilled out into the lobby of the municipal building for the approximate one-hour and 20 minute portion, which began 7:40 p.m., of the Oct. 12 planners’ meeting.

The preliminary-final site plan and request for deferrals and waivers was made by Samuel Brill, represented by Attorney Jeffrey S. Fleischaker of Engel, Wiener, Bergstein & Fleischaker, Allentown, along with Joseph Rentko, principal, Black Forest Engineering, LLC., Coplay.

One of the township residents, Robert Bennett, was represented by Attorney Thomas H. Dinkelacker, of Norris McLaughlin P.A., Attorneys At Law.

Toward the end of the meeting, when Salisbury Township Planning and Zoning Officer Kerry Rabold asked how many of the residents would attend a subsequent meeting concerning the subdivision, hands shot up in the air from a majority of those in the room. “I guess I’ll have to find a bigger venue,” Rabold said.

Fleischaker, representing Brill, contended the third lot is permitted.

Dinkelacker said the lot is not permitted.

The half-dozen or so residents who spoke said the subdivision plan would alter the character of the upscale neighborhood on Salisbury’s west side.

The project proposes to subdivide one existing residential lot of 99,776-square-feet into three parcels of 30,069-square-feet, 30,048-square-feet and 39,643-square-feet for the development of one single-family detached dwelling on each lot. The property is in the R1, Rural Residential zoning district.

Salisbury Township Engineer David J. Tettemer of Keystone Consulting Engineers, Inc., read from his Oct. 4 review letter, which he said included 18 comments.

Tettemer noted there is a dwelling and a garage on the property and the plan calls for removal of the house but not the garage.

Tettemer listed a number of deferrals and or-waivers for the project being requested.

Lot three, Tettemer said, does not meet the township depth-to-width ratio requirement. Tettemer said planners would need to discuss that. The second item needed for discussion is an existing deed.

“Those [items] determine what can be done with the property,” Tettemer said.

“There are certain restrictions on use of properties. The township doesn’t enforce restrictive constraints. That would be a private issue the property owners would have to address,” Salisbury Township Planning Commission Solicitor Attorney John W. Ashley said. “The township cannot stop development on the property. The question is how intense can it be developed? Lots one and two meet the depth-to-width township requirements,” Tettemer said.

In her zoning review letter, Rabold said, “Lot three does not meet zoning requirements.”

Dinkelacker said a petition opposing the project contained 191 signatures, representing 115 properties.

“No building except a private residence shall be constructed on the property. All building shall be confined to one residence. This plan has to state that there are deed restrictions. You have one lot subject to a deed restriction,” Dinkelacker said.

“Private deed restrictions do not need to be shown on the plan and are not enforced by the township,” Tettemer said.

“What we’re proposing is consistent with what is in the community,” Fleischaker said.

Among public comments:

“For people who claim to like the neighbors, they’re making enemies,” Benjamin Kline said, speaking on behalf of his parents.

“Overhill Road is very unique. It’s a pristine look. Seeing the heart of it being subdivided is a crime,” Arnaldo Bertola said.

“I chose to retain the character of the Lehigh Parkway,” Robert Bennett said.

The Nov. 9 planning commission meeting is canceled, according to a notice on the township website.

PRESS PHOTOS BY PAUL WILLISTEIN From left: Joseph Rentko, Black Forest Engineering, LLC.; Samuel Brill, owner-developer and Attorney Jeffrey S. Fleischaker appear at the Salisbury Township Planning Commission Oct. 12 meeting.
An overflow crowd attends the Oct. 12 Salisbury Township Planning Commission meeting in the municipal building meeting room.
Salisbury Township Consulting Engineer David J. Tettemer says lot three of a proposed subdivision does not meet the township depth-to-width ratio requirement.
Attorney Thomas H. Dinkelacker speaks on behalf of residents opposing the proposed subdivision.
Salisbury Township Planning Commission Solicitor Attorney John W. Ashley tells the planning commission, “There are certain restrictions on use of properties. The township doesn't enforce restrictive constraints. That would be a private issue the property owners would have to address.”