ZONING HEARING BOARD
MINUTES –
The regular meting of the Zoning Hearing Board of the
Those present:
Zoning Hearing Board: David Malinowski, Secretary
Paul Bamburak, Member
Paul Kim, Alternate
Others: Robert Habgood, Code Enforcement Officer
John Donaghy, Township Solicitor
James Majewski, Township Engineer
Allen Toadvine, Zoning Hearing Board Solicitor
Grace Godshalk, Supervisor Liaison
Absent: Barbara Kirk, ZHB Chairman
Rudolph Mayrhofer, ZHB Vice Chairman
APPEAL #06-1364 – LISANNE NUGENT AND DANIEL SNYDER
Mr. Daniel Snyder was sworn in. Mr. Snyder presented a chart this evening and stated
on the chart the legends are reversed and the impervious coverage is represented by the
blue line and lot area is represented by the green bars. He stated they are in the R-2 zone
and would like to construct a 641 square foot addition to their home which will put them
over the permitted impervious surface. He stated the chart was prepared to show that for
all the other lot size brackets, they would be under the impervious surface permitted. He
stated the proposed impervious surface is 3,448 square feet and maximum allowed
according to the Ordinance is 2,880 square feet. Their lot size is 16,000 square feet.
Mr. Toadvine asked that he tell the Board about the addition they are proposing as well as
the current impervious surface. Mr. Snyder stated their current impervious is
approximately 18%.
Mr. Toadvine stated the Application submitted will be marked as Exhibit A-1. The Plan
that was attached dated
Mr. Snyder stated the house still has the original kitchen which was built in 1952. They
would also like to expand the kitchen by approximately five feet out the back and bring it
up to current standards. He stated they also have a screened-in porch which is not heated
or cooled and is in disrepair. They would like to take this down and reconstruct another
living area. To the right of the porch, there will also be a small office off the garage area.
This will be in addition to the screened-in porch. The other addition is an expansion to
the front porch. Currently it is only four feet wide so it is not useful. The proposed front
porch is 177 square feet. Mr. Snyder stated it is currently 60 square feet. They wanted to
bring it even to the front edge of the garage and go over ten feet to the left.
Mr. Kim noted the existing slate wall, and Mr. Snyder stated this goes from the driveway
to the back yard. Mr. Snyder stated he is not sure whether the shed is included in
impervious surface as the shed they have is on blocks. He stated the front porch will also
be redesigned so that it is on piers. There will be a roof over it. Mr. Bamburak noted the
slate walk on the right side of the property, and asked if they plan to install a door onto
the addition that attaches to the slate walk, and Mr. Snyder stated they will have a door
that will access the slate walk. Mr. Bamburak asked if they could eliminate that door and
the walk. Mr. Snyder stated while it would not harm the Plan, they feel their hardship is
created by the Ordinance itself as all other maximum impervious surfaces are greater than
their proposed impervious coverage.
Mr. Toadvine asked if the addition will be a one or two-story addition, and Mr. Snyder
stated there is one small two-story component which is making a laundry room off the
second-floor bathroom. It will be over the “ff porch” shown on the plan where there is a
small notch. Mr. Toadvine asked if they considered the fact that they were building over
the existing “ff porch” in their impervious surface calculations, and Mr. Snyder stated
they did and subtracted out everything.
Mr. Toadvine asked if Mr. Majewski agrees with the calculations, and Mr. Majewski
stated he calculated 21.5% for the proposed, and 17.5% is existing.
Mr. Toadvine noted the dimensions of the lot and stated they exclude the legal right-of-
way from
Drive is for the most part pervious. Mr. Majewski stated this is correct, but he believes
Mr. Snyder did his calculations to the legal right-of-way line. Mr. Toadvine stated while
this is correct, he did not do them to the road, and Mr. Majewski agreed. Mr. Toadvine
stated the Board should note that there is a substantial amount of area there that is
pervious that is not taken into consideration in the calculations. He stated while it should
not have been considered according to the Ordinance, it is still here.
Mr. Snyder stated the fact that they are in the highest lot size bracket has created this
problem. Mr. Majewski was asked the reason for this, and Mr. Majewski stated if you
had a very large lot and tried to put on 18% impervious, this would be quite substantial.
He stated if there is a smaller lot that is just above the threshold of the 15,000 square feet,
you do get hit a little harder on the impervious surface.
April 18, 2006 Zoning Hearing Board – page 3 of 12
Mr. Bamburak asked if the shed on piers counts toward impervious surface, and
Mr. Majewski stated it does.
Mr. Donaghy was asked and stated the Township has no position on this matter.
Mr. Kim noted the Plan and asked if he had to give something up to reduce the
impervious surface, what would it be as a 3.5% increase is significant. Mr. Snyder stated
the slate walk on the side could be given up although they would also have to give up the
door they have proposed. Mr. Toadvine stated the slate walk is 150 square feet.
Mr. Majewski stated if the slate walk of 150 square feet were removed, this would bring
it to 20.7% impervious surface.
Mr. Kim stated he is also proposing a significant increase to the front porch; and
Mr. Snyder stated while they could reduce this, he would prefer to eliminate the slate
walk. Mr. Majewski stated the existing front porch is approximately 90 square feet.
Mr. Snyder stated they have three young children who play in the front yard, and they
wanted to be able to sit out on the front porch.
Mr. Toadvine stated if they could calculate the area between the property line and Moon
Drive, they would not exceed the impervious surface coverage. Mr. Snyder noted there
are no sidewalks there. He also noted that if his lot were 3,500 square feet smaller, he
would not have to give up anything. He noted the slate walk is not continuous, and they
are slate pieces set into the grass. Mr. Kim asked if there is a certain distance apart the
blocks can be and not count toward the impervious surface. Mr. Majewski stated they
would consider the slate part of the walk to be impervious; and if there is grass between
the slate blocks, part of the number would not be impervious. Mr. Malinowski stated it
would appear that the walk is not truly 150 feet of impervious surface if this is the case.
There was no public comment.
Mr. Kim moved, Mr. Malinowski seconded and it was unanimously carried to approve
the Variance at 21.5%.
APPEAL #06-1366 –
Keith Brown, attorney, was present with Mr. David Lewis, representing the First Baptist
submitted will be marked as Exhibit A-1. Also received was a Plan dated 9/17/99, last
revised 5/20/02 which was marked as Exhibit A-2. This is the Plan which is noted Sheet
1 of 13. In addition there is another Plan dated 3/31/03, last revised 4/1/04 which was
marked as Exhibit A-3.
April 11, 2006 Zoning Hearing Board – page 4 of 12
Mr. Brown stated the property is the northwestern most corner of the Township. The
request that is being made is for two Variances from the Zoning Ordinance both with
regard to the installation of two signs – one for the number of signs as the Ordinance only
permits one, and the other is for the size of the two signs. The Ordinance permits up to
24 square feet and the request is for 26.5 square feet. Mr. Brown stated the property is
zoned R-1 and the total acreage is 19.5 acres.
Mr. Lewis stated the signs are two-sided signs and are both the same. A picture of the
sign was noted on the back of the original Application. A color picture of the sign was
provided this evening to the Board. This picture was marked as Exhibit A-4.
Mr. Brown stated the Church intends to install these two signs perpendicular to the flow
of traffic on
Exhibit A-3 was noted and shows where the two signs will be located. Mr. Lewis stated
the signs will be located parallel to the two entrance roads, approximately five to six feet
from the entrance roads and just inside the legal right-of-way. Both entrance roads have
decel/acel lanes. The signs will be within the required right-of-way way approximately
thirty feet from the edge of the main road.
Mr. Brown asked about the sign to be installed at
how far the sign will be from the point which is the intersection of Washington-Crossing
Road and
Mr. Lewis stated the other sign will be approximately 850’ from the intersection of
Stoopville and
Mr. Toadvine asked how far apart he two signs are from one another, and Mr. Lewis
stated he estimated it to be approximately 750’. Mr. Toadvine asked if the signs will be
illuminated, and Mr. Lewis stated they will be indirectly illuminated by flood lights.
Mr. Lewis added the signs are not visible from each other because of the corner of the
building. He stated
the property slopes down from Stoopville toward
Crossing Road.
Mr. Brown asked about the square footage of the signs, and Mr. Lewis stated it is 26.5
square feet. He stated there are two parts to the sign. He stated with regard to the larger
part, if you draw the smallest rectangle with a straight line across the top of the curved
portion of the sign it is six feet and 4 feet high, but the actual area of the sign is
approximately 22 square feet . He stated there is a small sign that hangs underneath
listing their Service times which is 2 ˝ square feet. He stated they wanted to have
flexibility to just replace the smaller sign if they change their Service times.
April 18, 2006 Zoning Hearing Board – page 5 of 12
Mr. Toadvine asked Mr. Habgood if the Church were in the Commercial District would
the signs be permitted as of right, and Mr. Habgood stated they would with regard to the
size, but they would only be permitted one sign. Mr. Toadvine noted the provision for
signs that are 500’ apart, and Mr. Habgood stated this is for off-premises signs.
Mr. Kim asked what size sign is permitted, and Mr. Toadvine stated it is 24’ square feet.
Mr. Bamburak asked when they do the calculations, do they consider it as a rectangle or
the actual size of the sign, and Mr. Habgood stated they consider it as a rectangle.
He stated if it is a free-standing sign, you only count one side of the sign, provided both
sides are exactly the same.
Mr. Brown asked Mr. Lewis if the illumination lights shine toward the road or effect
travel, and Mr. Lewis stated they will be pointed toward the signs. The signs would not
interfere with a clear sight triangle as they are well off the roadway and inside the legal
right-of-way. They will be constructed of durable materials, and the Church will keep
them in good condition and repair at all times. They also intend to comply with all
construction standards of the Township Building Code. Mr. Brown stated there is also a
requirement in the Lower Makefield Township Zoning Ordinance that the Church is
required to comply with all requirements of State standards noting that both of the signs
will be located along State Highways. Mr. Lewis agreed and stated he has reviewed the
State requirements.
Mr. Lewis stated in addition to the
standards, the State requirements that the sign may not prevent or appear to prevent
movement of the traffic and these signs do not. They will not have a flashing or moving
light. The lighting is not being used in a way that would direct rays of light to any
portion of the main traffic way. The signs will not having moving parts. They will not
be erected on trees or on rocks.
Mr. Kim asked Mr. Habgood about the request for two signs and noted there are other
Churches and organizations in
one sign as he is concerned about the precedent of approving two signs. Mr. Habgood
stated this is the first request for two signs by such an organization since he has been at
the Township. Mr. Toadvine noted they have had this request previously by Polo Run
and he feels the issue turns on how many Churches in the Township have two separate
entrances from two different roads. He stated this was the situation with Polo Run as
they had an entrance from
Mr. Kim stated the request for two signs is to advertise or state the nature of the
establishments and not because they have two entrances. Mr. Lewis stated they have an
unusual piece of property since they have fairly large frontages on two State highways
and they would like to show the purpose of the building on both of the main highways.
Mr. Brown asked if it would be possible to drive by the
property on
if there was a sign only on
someone driving on
April 18, 2006 Zoning Hearing Board – page 6 of 12
his concern is that they do not want the Township to have signs all over the streets for
advertising and asked if they could have only one sign provided it was permitted to be
26.5 square feet. Mr. Lewis stated he feels the Variance for two signs is more important
than the size of the size. Mr. Kim asked why they should be permitted to have two signs
when other organizations can only have one. Mr. Lewis stated the property is fairly large
and has frontages on two State highways and they feel to adequately identify the facility
from both major roads, they need the two signs. He stated the entrances are quite far
apart from each other and you cannot see one sign from the other road. Mr. Kim stated
he feels there are many organizations that may feel the same way.
Mr. Bamburak stated he does not feel they are proposing two many signs if they are only
proposing one sign on each main road. He does not feel it is being used as an
advertisement. Mr. Toadvine stated he also feels it is a safety issue as far as identifying
the entrance in sufficient time. Mr. Bamburak stated he is more concerned that if there is
only one sign and someone misses it, it may create a problem if there is only one sign and
they miss the entrance and make a u-turn.
Mr. Donaghy stated the Township has no position on the matter.
There was no public comment.
Mr. Bamburak moved and Mr. Malinowski seconded to grant the two Variances as
requested.
Mr. Kim stated he is still concerned with setting a precedent by allowing more signs per
establishment and there is a set standard. He is concerned that other establishments will
come in indicating they have a corner property which they need to advertise in order to
increase the maximum knowledge for their establishment. He stated he feels one sign
that other establishments have lived by should remain as is. Mr. Bamburak stated these
are two entrances on two different streets and feels it is a safety issue and not an
advertisement issue. Mr. Kim stated the Church members would know where the
entrances are. Mr. Brown stated there are new people coming to the Church every
Sunday who do not know exactly where they are located. Mr. Kim stated he does not
feel it has to be two big signs and they could have a small sign or painted pavement
directing the route of the traffic and only one sign advertising the organization. He stated
having two signs is not the only method for resolving the safety issue. He stated he is not
concerned with the size of the sign, but is concerned with precedent setting of having
more advertising space. Mr. Bamburak stated each case stands on its own.
Motion carried with Mr. Bamburak and Mr. Malinowski in favor and Mr. Kim opposed.
April 18, 2006 Zoning Hearing Board – page 7 of 12
APPEAL #06-1365 – THOMAS J. COOPER
Mr. Thomas Cooper was present and was sworn in. Mr. Toadvine noted Exhibit A-1 will
be marked and is the Application which was submitted. The three-sheet Plan dated
9/28/05 was marked as Exhibit A-2.
Mr. Cooper stated they would like to mitigate their exposure to floods by raising their
home. In the course of doing this, they will need fill in the flood zone. He noted
Mr. Toadvine provided him information prior to the meeting that some of the Variances
they were requesting may not be necessary.
Mr. Kim asked if they need a height Variance, and Mr. Majewski stated based on his
review of the Plan, Sheet A-1, the difference in elevation between the proposed roof peak
and the existing grade line is less than 35’ so it appears that they will not need the height
Variance.
Mr. Toadvine marked as Board Exhibit B-1 which is a letter dated 4/3/06 addressed to the
Lower Makefield Township Board of Supervisors from the Township engineer.
Mr. Toadvine asked if the Township has an opinion on this appeal, and Mr. Donaghy
stated the Township would like to be a Party to determine more information regarding the
Application. He stated he will also have some questions this evening.
Mr. Cooper stated they are required to raise the house 1 ˝’ above flood elevation and the
basement and garage must be at grade. Since the garage will be under the kitchen
addition, they must elevate the height a couple of feet further than they are mandated by
FEMA. Mr. Toadvine asked if this is an existing house, and Mr. Cooper stated it is.
They are removing the existing kitchen addition and putting a new kitchen addition on
and also removing the garage. He noted the second page where they show the new
kitchen with the garage underneath it. Mr. Toadvine asked what caused the fact that they
are now raising this, and Mr. Cooper stated they were impacted by the flood and had
more than 50% damage to their home and FEMA requires that it must be raised if they
want to rebuild. He stated they could sell it back to the Government, raise it, or move it.
Mr. Kim asked why they are asking for permission to fill and grade the floodplain and
stated they could raise the house to compensate for the flood. Mr. Cooper stated they
wanted to remove the garage because it is close to the creek and there are erosion issues
and they wanted to move the garage away. Since they were raising the house, they felt it
would be a good idea to install the garage under the new addition . They need a certain
amount of clearance in the garage for the cars to fit and this dictated the height of the
house. They also want to preserve the look of the house as it is now. The grade would be
one foot and six which is approximately what the grade is
from
They also have some sinkhole issues that have shown up since the last flood and they
April 18, 2006 Zoning Hearing Board – page 8 of 12
want to make sure that the grading is such that they do not have water sitting and creating
another sinkhole. They want to keep the water off the foundation under normal
conditions. They also have to have the garage floor such that water does not run into it so
it has to be graded away from the garage. This is why they want to bring in fill.
Mr. Kim stated he is concerned with filling and disturbing the natural slope of grading
which is there to preserve the nature of the community. Mr. Cooper stated he feels this is
what they are trying to do.
He stated if you drive on
no longer fit into the neighborhood because they are 13’ in the air and do not look
appropriate. He stated they are trying to prevent this. Mr. Toadvine stated the more they
raise the house, the more fill they would create. He understands that the Township and
Township engineer are concerned with the raising of the home and as a result of this, the
additional fill that is being created. He asked if they could quantify the area of
disturbance and the amount of fill. Mr. Cooper stated he feels the Township engineer
quantified the amount of fill as 600 cubic yards. Mr. Toadvine asked where this fill will
take place, and Mr. Cooper stated it is shown on the second page from the proposed
retaining wall on the
side only. Mr. Toadvine asked if that area would change in size if the house were not
raised as high as they are proposing to raise it. Mr. Cooper stated they are stuck with the
height of the garage and this dictated the amount they needed to raise the house. He
stated they will have 7 ˝’ clearance in the garage under the beam. Mr. Toadvine asked if
there is an existing basement in the house, and Mr. Cooper stated there is. Mr. Kim
asked if the basement is a storage area or part of a family space, and Mr. Cooper stated it
is a workshop which he uses for a hobby.
Mr. Kim stated if they raised the house a little more and requested a Variance for the
height, he feels it may be better than filling the natural resource area and asked which the
Township would be more in favor of. Mr. Toadvine stated he does not feel raising the
house more will create any less fill, and Mr. Cooper stated it would create more fill.
Mr. Bamburak asked why they would not want to have fill. Mr. Majewski stated in
general filling of the floodplain could impact someone downstream. He noted the
big an issue as it would be in a smaller floodplain such as a stream. He stated any
disturbance of the floodplain is of concern however. Mr. Toadvine stated it is 100%
protected. Mr. Bamburak noted the retaining wall, and Mr. Cooper stated it is a
substantial drop off. Mr. Bamburak noted they will be able to see the foundation from
the back of the house, and Mr. Cooper agreed.
Mr. Kim asked Mr. Donaghy why the Township is not in favor of the Variance and what
they are looking for as a solution. Mr. Donaghy stated they are not saying that they are
against or for the requests and are indicating additional information needs to be provided
which Mr. Cooper is providing in part during this testimony. They would also like the
April 18, 2006 Zoning Hearing Board – page 9 of 12
Township engineer to have the opportunity to review the testimony and possibly make
some suggested revisions to the Plan. Once the Supervisors have had the opportunity to
consider the testimony and additional information regarding the Plan, they will then
decide whether to support or oppose the Application. Mr. Donaghy stated they would
like a continuance until the next meeting so that Mr. Majewski and the Board of
Supervisors can review the Application further.
Mr. Toadvine stated four Variance were requested, but it now appears that they are now
dealing only with three. He noted the major Variance is for the fill as the other two will
occur anyway. Mr. Majewski stated with regard to disturbance of soils abutting the
Delaware River Floodplain, he does not feel this is applicable since this is for soils that
are outside the floodplain of the
stated this is entirely within the floodplain of the
there would therefore only be two Variances – the resource protection for the wetlands
watercourse buffers and the fill.
Mr. Majewski noted the proposed addition and asked if it would be possible to have a
step down from the kitchen addition into the existing portion of the house as this would
then permit them to lower the height of the house being raised by 1 ˝ ‘, and they would
still be 3’ or more above the flood elevation. Mr. Cooper stated he feels the issue is with
the basement being at grade with FEMA, and he can provide information on this. He
stated he feels they are at this height because the slab has to be at grade and then you get
the ultimate height by having to get a car into the garage. Mr. Majewski stated he agrees
that FEMA requires that the garage cannot be below existing grade. Mr. Majewski stated
he assumes they are matching the floor elevations of the kitchen into the existing portion
of the house, and Mr. Cooper agreed. Mr. Majewski stated his suggestion is possibly
they could drop two steps down into the existing portion of the house so that it would
only be raised up 4 1/2 ‘ rather than 6’. Mr. Cooper stated this would then turn the
basement into a crawl space. He stated the existing basement is under an existing portion
of the house and when they mitigate, they have to put the slab on grade so if the slab is on
grade for both the garage and the house and they lower the house two feet, it would turn
the basement into a crawl space. There was discussion as to whether it was a requirement
whether or not the basement slab had to be on grade. Mr. Cooper stated he feels it is a
requirement. He stated there are flood vents that have to be installed on at least two walls
a certain distance above grade. Mr. Toadvine stated he feels by definition a basement is
below grade. Mr. Cooper stated by FEMA’s definition, they are not allowed to have
basements. Mr. Toadvine stated Mr. Majewski is asking that they explore whether the
architect the possibility of stepping down two steps for the kitchen into the dwelling.
April 11, 2006 Zoning Hearing Board – page 10 of 12
Mr. Majewski stated they will have to check into the FEMA regulations. Mr. Cooper
stated he would prefer not having to climb up into their kitchen, but he would be willing
to discuss this further.
Mr. Majewski stated currently they show a proposed four to one grade outside of the
house. He stated if they were three to one, they could reduce the amount of fill by 5’.
Mr. Koopman stated he does not disagree, but the issue is the purpose of the fill. If it is
to preserve the look of the house as it relates to the neighborhood, they could make it a
one foot and two and it could be a vertical wall. He stated he feels the idea was they
were trying to mitigate the house without making it look like a house that has been
mitigated. He stated they felt the minimum slope they would try to achieve was
something that would match the terrain and the surrounding area. The slope from River
Road to the River would be similar. Mr. Malinowski stated he feels the amount of
disturbance this will make in relation to the
and Mr. Majewski agreed although it is still a disturbance to the floodplain which is not
desirable. Mr. Donaghy stated they could also argue that there are numerous properties
along the
have an impact and this is why they have the regulations.
Mr. Majewski noted the sidewalk leading up to the front of the house, another going to
the right side of the house, and a third to the left side of the house. He asked if all three
sidewalks are necessary. Mr. Cooper stated he feels they are. He stated they have an
unusual roof which is a concrete tile roof with no gutters. He stated they show gravel on
this Plan, but what they hope to put up between the sidewalk and the house is River
stone. He stated the reason the sidewalk goes this way is because they have no gutters
and when it rains the water spills off. Mr. Majewski stated while impervious is not an
issue, if they pulled away the sidewalk, they could bring the grading closer to the house
and reduce the amount of fill. Mr. Bamburak asked why they do not have gutters, and
Mr. Cooper stated this type of roof would crack if they were to have gutters which
needed to be maintained by walking on the roof or leaning a ladder up against it.
Mr. Majewski noted the proposed driveway and stated it appears to be quite large given
the fact that they have a garage. He stated it seems they have enough space to access the
three-car garage as well as two more parking spaces off to the side nearest the stream and
a significant turn-around area. Mr. Cooper stated he has two teen-age sons who both
have cars. The turn-around is needed as when you back out of the garage, you need this
to get around without coming into the retaining wall. Mr. Cooper stated the driveway
could be 10’ wide going out to the street.
Mr. Bamburak noted Items # 5 through #9 in his letter, and Mr. Majewski stated these are
some minor items that need to be corrected on the drawings. Mr. Cooper agreed to
provide Mr. Majewski’s letter to his engineer. Mr. Malinowski also asked that the
Township engineer also provide another letter to the Zoning Hearing Board once they
meet outlining what has and has not been resolved.
April 11, 2006 Zoning Hearing Board – page 11 of 12
Mr. Toadvine asked the size of the existing house in terms of square feet of living space.
Mr. Cooper stated this is in the Plan. It is a two-story home. Mr. Majewski stated the
Plan did not scale right in certain areas so he feels the square footage of living space
needs to be verified.
Mr. Bamburak asked if he is deleting his shed, and Mr. Cooper stated it is.
Mr. Donaghy asked if he has an existing basement, and Mr. Cooper stated he does.
Mr. Donaghy asked if he will have to alter the grade of the existing basement and
Mr. Cooper stated they have to fill it and start the grade form that point up.
Mr. Donaghy stated the Township would request that this matter be continued until
Mr. Cooper provides to Mr. Majewski the additional information requested and
Mr. Majewski has the opportunity to review that information. Mr. Cooper stated he feels
all the information related to the Variance exists. Mr. Toadvine stated Mr. Majewski had
some suggestions that he asked Mr. Cooper to discuss with his architect. Mr. Cooper
stated they would still need the same Variances, and Mr. Toadvine stated they would
need to determine the amount of fill. He stated in terms of the
floodplain, the quantity is very small; but in terms of the issue of a Variance and how the
Township views this, it is a different story since the Township requires 100% protection.
Mr. Donaghy stated Mr. Cooper has also not established a basis for a Variance under the
strict provisions of the Ordinance; although this does not mean that once some of the
issues are addressed, the Township might not withdraw its objection. He stated if they do
not address these issues, he feels they will take the position that Mr. Cooper has not met
all the legal requirements for a Variance from the floodplain. Mr. Toadvine stated the
other issue is the Board of Supervisors was not previously fully aware of what
Mr. Cooper was proposing. Now that he has explained this, Mr. Donaghy must discuss it
with the Board of Supervisors who will decide whether or not they will oppose.
Mr. Donaghy stated part of this information will be Mr. Majewski’s determination and
recommendations.
Mr. Malinowski stated if the Zoning Hearing Board were to approve his requests this
evening and the Board of Supervisors decided they did not have sufficient information
and the Zoning Hearing Board made an error in approving it, the Township could take the
Zoning Hearing Board to Court and the Application would be delayed for as long as it
takes the Court to make a decision. The alternative is for Mr. Cooper to agree to a
continuance and provide the time for the Board of Supervisors to review the information
and they may decide not to oppose the Application. Mr. Cooper agreed to the
continuance.
Mr. Majewski suggested that Mr. Cooper’s engineer contact him to discuss the Plan.
April 18, 2006 Zoning Hearing Board – page 12 of 12
Mr. Kim moved, Mr. Bamburak seconded and it was unanimously carried to continue the
matter to May 15, 2006.
Mr. Toadvine stated if there are any changes or modifications to the Plan, they should be
provided to Mr. Habgood in sufficient time to get them to the Zoning Hearing Board
before the meeting on May 15, 2006.
OTHER BUSINESS
Appeal #06-1357 – Dana Weyick, Gary Cruzan and Residents
Against Matrix
Mr. Toadvine stated he feels they should fix a date for this matter as it has been continued
for some time. He suggested they schedule the matter for May 15, 2006 although it may
be settled by that time. Mr. Bamburak asked the downside for not scheduling a meeting,
and Mr. Toadvine stated there is not really a downside, although the Zoning Hearing
Board Secretary did ask that it be scheduled. It was noted that the Board of Supervisors
is still negotiating this matter. After discussion it was agreed to wait until the Board of
Supervisors votes on this matter.
There being no further business, Mr. Bamburak moved, Mr. Kim seconded and it was unanimously carried to adjourn the meeting at 9:10 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
David
Malinowski, Secretary