TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MAKEFIELD

ZONING HEARING BOARD

MINUTES – APRIL 18, 2006

 

 

The regular meting of the Zoning Hearing Board of the Township of Lower Makefield was held in the Municipal Building on April 18, 2006.   Mr. Malinowski called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.

 

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 3/22/99, last revised 2/11/06 was marked as Exhort A-2. 

 

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

April 18, 2006                                                             Zoning Hearing Board – page 2 of 12

 

 

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 Moon Drive and he would assume that the area between the lot line and Moon

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 – FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF NEWTOWN

 

Keith Brown, attorney, was present with Mr. David Lewis, representing the First Baptist

Church of Newtown.  Mr. Lewis was sworn in.  Mr. Toadvine stated the Application

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 Washington Crossing Road and Stoopville Road, and Mr. Lewis agreed.

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 Washington-Crossing Road and asked

how far the sign will be from the point which is the intersection of Washington-Crossing

Road and Stoopville Road, and Mr. Lewis stated it is approximately 600’ along

Washington-Crossing Road.  Mr. Brown noted Exhibit A-2 which shows this. 

Mr. Lewis stated the other sign will be approximately 850’ from the intersection of

Stoopville and Washington-Crossing Road.

 

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 Washington-

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 Lower Makefield Township

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 Lower Makefield and asked if any of them have ore than

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 Township Line Road and one from Yardley-Langhorne Road.

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 Stoopville Road and

if there was a sign only on Washington-Crossing Road, not be able to see that sign from

Stoopville Road, and Mr. Lewis agreed.  Mr. Brown stated this would also be true for

someone driving on Washington-Crossing Road, and Mr. Lewis agreed.   Mr. Kim stated

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 River Road to the River. 

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 River Road some of  homes you see

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 Ferry Road side to the proposed retaining wall on the River Road

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

Delaware River floodplain is very broad and the amount of fill in this instance is not as

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 Delaware River that are classified as floodplain soils.  He

stated this is entirely within the floodplain of the Delaware River.  Mr. Toadvine stated

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 Delaware River flow is minimal,

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 Delaware; and if each one made even a small change to the elevation, it could

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 Delaware River

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