ZONING HEARING BOARD
MINUTES AUGUST 15, 2006
The regular meeting of the Zoning Hearing Board of the
Zoning Hearing Board: Barbara Kirk, Chairman
David Malinowski, Secretary
Paul Bamburak, Member
Gregory Smith, Member
Others: Robert Habgood, Code Enforcement Officer
John Donaghy, Township Solicitor
(for Appeal #06-1374 only)
James Majewski, Township Engineer
Allen Toadvine, Zoning Hearing Board Solicitor
Absent: Rudolph Mayrhofer, ZHB Vice Chairman
Grace Godshalk, Supervisor Liaison
APPEAL #06-1374 DIANE & STEVE BULLARD
Jennifer McGrath, attorney, was present on behalf of the Township as Township solicitor.
Ms. Kirk stated this matter was continued from June 20, 2006 when there was not a
quorum present. Thereafter Mr. and Mrs. Bullard had asked several additional
continuances due to conflicts. No testimony has been taken in this matter at this point.
Diane and Steve Bullard,
was marked as Exhibit A-1. Included with that Application was an As-Built Plan for the
subject property dated 3/29/06, and this was marked as Exhibit A-2.
Mr. Bullard stated they are requesting a Variance for overfill in a certain section that has
come up on the survey by Mr. Pelke. Mr. Pelke was not present to testify this evening.
Mr. Bullard stated the reason the overfill occurred was that two days prior to the
completion of the project, Mr. Pelke came out and marked, according to the original
survey, where the limits were for the fill. He added that the last two days of the project
were extremely busy with a large number of trucks delivering dirt. There were two
bobcats on site to push the dirt around and fill the hole according to the survey. He stated
they had originally planned on going one more day with deliveries of dirt, but at that
August 15, 2006 Zoning Hearing Board page 2 of 14
point he stopped it because he felt they were close enough and it would not be necessary
to have any more dirt. They spent the next two days grading the dirt according to the
Plan. While they were close, they were a little over according to the drawing.
Mr. Toadvine asked if it is true that as a result of the fill project, they disturbed in excess
of the maximum permitted disturbance of the steep slopes which was 15%, when in fact
they disturbed 32%; and Mr. Bullard agreed.
Ms. Kirk asked where the fill was placed on the property, and Mr. Bullard stated it was
placed in the center and distributed forward from there. He presented pictures which
show the property since it was seeded and stabilized. Four photos were marked as
Exhibits A-3, A-4, A-5, and A-6.
Mr. Bullard stated after the project was completed and the Township did a survey and
found that there was an overage, they applied for a Variance. He stated they were
requested by the Township to seed it and stabilize it, and they did this right away.
Ms. Kirk asked the purpose of the fill, and Mr. Bullard stated it was to eliminate a 45
hole in their yard brought about by a borrow pit from the Canal. He stated 100 years ago,
they dug out that section of the property to build the other side of the Canal. He has been
The purpose for filling hole was primarily safety. Ms. Kirk asked who marked the areas
of the steep slopes, and Mr. Bullard stated they marked them together with Mr. Pelke
who was the original surveyor and did the Grading Plan.
Mr. Toadvine asked how many cubic yards of dirt were brought in, and Mr. Bullard
Ms. Kirk asked if they received anything in writing from the
historical society to verify the information he testified to, and Mr. Bullard stated he did
not. He stated they
told him the next step would be to go to
something written down to finish the research.
Ms. Kirk asked if they contacted anyone at the Bucks County Conservation District
before the project was started, and Mr. Bullard stated Bucks County Conservation has
been to the site a couple of times and approved the project product. He stated the
Department of Environmental Protection has also been to the site three times.
Mr. Malinowski asked what the site looked like before it was filled, and Mr. Bullard
stated it looked like a U-shaped hole in the ground that had a direct drop off of
approximately 40 to 50 feet straight down to the Canal. It was U-shaped with the open
part of the U on the Canal and going back from there.
August 15, 2006 Zoning Hearing Board page 3 of 14
Mr. Toadvine noted a copy of the Grading Permit which was issued which shows the
existing features. He stated it appears the elevation for the area runs from 40 to between
75 and 80. Ms. Kirk stated a copy of that material was provided to the Board by
Mr. Habgood in a packet including his memo to the Board dated 5/30/06. This packet
was marked as Exhibit A-7.
Ms. Kirk stated at the time Mr. Bullard submitted the Application for the Permit, a
separate Plan prepared by J. G. Park was submitted, and Mr. Bullard agreed.
Ms. Kirk asked why it was difficult to stay within the parameters of what was set forth in
the Plan which was approved for the Permit. Mr. Bullard stated during the last three days
of the project approximately 75% of the dirt was delivered so it was extremely busy and
hectic; and while they marked it out ahead of time, they felt they had come in right on the
mark. Ms. Kirk asked if anyone from J. G. Park was on site, and Mr. Bullard stated
they were there to mark it. He noted the location where they were over and added they
marked around the perimeter of the U shape and there is an open space in the back of the
U facing the Canal on the right where there is level spot which was extremely hard to
judge because it could not be marked unless it was checked by a survey.
Mr. Toadvine stated they have disturbed 17% more of the steep slopes and asked
Mr. Majewski what that area would be in terms of square feet. Mr. Majewski stated his
calculations show it to be 11% greater than the 15% allowed or 26%. He stated the
additional disturbance is approximately 6,000 square feet or 0.15 acres. Mr. Toadvine
asked if they could restore the steep slopes, and Mr. Majewski stated they could take the
dirt back out. Mr. Toadvine asked if there has been any additional run off created as a
result of the fill, and Mr. Bullard stated there has not. He stated the hill and the area have
been stabilized and the grass is growing.
Ms. McGrath stated the Township is requesting Party status. She stated she was asked by
the Township to gather information and report back to the Board of Supervisors, and they
will then decide whether or not they will oppose it. She noted she is present as Conflict
Counsel for the Township. Ms. McGrath asked when they purchased the property, and
Mrs. Bullard stated they purchased it three years ago. Ms. McGrath asked the current use
of the property, and Mr. Bullard stated it is residential. They noted they also have a pool
on the property. Ms. McGrath asked if it is one parcel, and Mr. Bullard stated it is.
Ms. McGrath asked their intent for the property and why they removed the steep slopes
and graded it out. Mr. Bullard stated it was a safety factor and having a 45 to 50 drop
off around the side of their yard was a safety factor. He stated by filling it in, it also
enhanced the property in general.
Ms. McGrath asked if they Plan to subdivide the property, and Mr. Bullard stated at this
point this do not. Ms. McGrath asked if they would be willing to agree as a Condition of
the Variance to not subdivide the property. Mr. Bullard stated he does not feel
subdividing the property has anything to do with the Variance. Ms. McGrath asked if
August 15, 2006 Zoning Hearing Board page 4 of 14
they have Plans right now to subdivide the property, and Mr. Bullard stated they do not.
Ms. McGrath asked if they would be willing to agree as a Condition of getting the
Variance not to subdivide the property, and Mr. Bullard stated that has nothing to do with
the Variance on the hole what his intention long term or short term is on his property.
Ms. McGrath asked if he would be willing to agree as a Condition of granting the
Variance not to subdivide the property. Mr. Bullard stated he will not answer the
question. Mr. Toadvine stated he assumes that by not answering, he is not agreeing to
Ms. McGrath asked if they could still use the property for their home without the
Variance, and Mr. Bullard agreed.
Ms. Kirk asked when they received notice from the Township that the actual grading was
exceeding that which was permitted under the Permit. Mr. Bullard stated it was on the
last couple days as the project was being completed. Mrs. Bullard stated she feels it was
in May since their first Hearing was scheduled for June. Ms. Kirk stated she assumes that
by then the bulk of the dirt had already been filled in on the property, and Mrs. Bullard
agreed. Mr. Majewski stated it was actually the beginning of March and not May.
Mr. Toadvine asked Mr. Bullard when he applied for the Grading Permit, was a
calculation performed at that time as to how much fill would be brought to the property,
and Mr. Bullard stated there was. He stated then Mr. Majewski came back and wanted
another estimate; and they both agreed to 11,000 cubic yards of dirt, and this is what the
Permit was based on. 11,000 cubic yards was brought in. Mrs. Bullard stated they had to
write out an additional Permit. Mr. Habgood stated there was not an additional Permit
issued it was a revision of the Permit that was originally issued. Ms. Kirk noted the
Permit they are looking at as part of the Application and asked if that was the original
Permit, and Mr. Habgood agreed. Ms. Kirk stated there is then a later Permit that
modified the May Permit. Mr. Habgood disagreed. He stated the original Permit shows
that the additional information for the increased total was added to that Permit.
Ms. Kirk stated there is not a copy of that information with the packet provided, and
Mr. Habgood stated there is not. Ms. Kirk asked Mr. Habgood if he agreed with
Mr. Bullards statement that the 11,000 cubic yards was what was included as part of the
revision, and Mr. Habgood agreed.
Ms. McGrath asked Mr. Majewski if the property as it exists if the Variance were
granted, would the Bullards need further Variances to subdivide the property, and
Mr. Majewski stated he does not believe so. She asked Mr. Majewski if excess fill could
be removed, and Mr. Majewski stated this would be an option to restore the steep slopes
and re-establish where the slopes were. Ms. McGrath asked what this would involve, and
Mr. Majewski stated it would involve taking loaders and earth-moving equipment and
loading it back into the trucks and trucking it off to another location. Mr. Toadvine asked
if it could also be done by redistributing the dirt on the site as opposed to removing it
August 15, 2006 Zoning Hearing Board page 5 of 14
from the site; and Mr. Majewski stated while this may be possible, the site has a number
of restrictions since there are woods and other categories of steep slopes that are between
15% and 25%. He
so it would be difficult to redistribute it.
Ms. Kirk asked if the condition of the property existed prior to the current Zoning
Ordinance, and Mr. Majewski agreed.
Mr. Malinowski asked if they were to take the excess dirt away could they do it from the
site or would they have to come down the Canal, and Mr. Majewski stated they would
have to come down through the Bullard property as they could not come down the Canal.
Ms. Kirk asked if there was any public comment, and Ms. B. J. Rassler approached.
Mr. Bullard stated he would like to ask a question prior to public comment being taken.
He stated when he came to the Zoning Hearing Board Hearing
School, there was a ruling by the Board that the only people allowed to comment were
those within three blocks of the sites being considered. He stated he assumes that this
rule applies as well in this case. He stated Ms. Rassler is not a resident of Lower
Makefield and does not reside on
if the same rules apply this evening as they did for
should not be allowed to speak. Ms. Kirk stated if she is an adjacent property owner who
received Notice of the Hearing, she has the right to make a comment or participate in the
Bullard stated she is not a resident on
Ms. B. J. Rassler, joint owner of
Road, was sworn in. She requested Party status.
Ms. Rassler stated she also abuts this ravine which previously existed. She stated she
moved into the Township thirty years ago and her three small children and all their
friends played in the ravine without incident. She questions if there is any history of
accidents occurring in this ravine in the last one hundred years. Ms. Rassler stated the
ravine abutted her property and went to the Canal. She stated approximately one year
ago Mr. Bullard had Mack-sized dump trucks come down their street and dump dirt into
the ravine. She asked Mrs. Bullard what they were doing and she indicated they got
some free dirt and were filling in part of the ravine. Ms. Rassler asked if they had
surveyed the property, received a Permit from
DEP or the Bucks County Soil Conservation Department and she indicated no to all
questions. Ms. Rassler had suggested that they stop the work until they obtained the
appropriate documentation. Ms. Rassler stated several days later she saw Mr. Bullard
who stated to her, it was his property and he will do whatever he wants on his property.
August 15, 2006 Zoning Hearing Board page 6 of 14
She stated that he advised her, Mark my words, I will fill in that ravine; and I will build
a house. Ms. Rassler stated he has now completed the first part of his comment.
Ms. Rassler stated the ravine was huge and she commented on the number of dump
trucks coming down
dump trucks would dump the dirt and the gate on the truck would then crash.
Mr. Toadvine stated this has already taken place, and they are now dealing with the issue
of the Variance request. He asked that she limit the testimony to the issue at hand.
Ms. Rassler stated now they want the Township to grant a Variance so that the nightmare
they created will be okay. She stated this is the first step in a number of Variances that
they will be asking for. She stated she would welcome trucks coming back to the
property undoing what never should have been done in the first place.
Mr. Bob Shellenberger,
subject property, was sworn in. Mr. Shellenberger stated he has a copy of the 3/12/06
Board of Supervisors Minutes when this matter was discussed. He read from the Minutes
where Mr. Bollard stated that every step of the way he had a Grading Permit and
complied with every single Township Ordinance, that the amount of overfill dirt came to
approximately 1,000 cubic feet, and that he was in full compliance with the Grading Plan.
Mr. Shellenberger asked Mr. Majewski if the Bullards ever confided to him what their
long-term Plans were for property. Ms. Kirk stated Mr. Shellenberger should address
himself to the Board. Mr. Shellenberger stated he feels it is a known fact that they plan
on building on the property. Mr. Shellenberger stated Mr. Bullard advised the Board of
Supervisors that he complied with the Grading Plan, and it is now obvious that he did not.
He assumes that he hired competent engineers to run the project, and either Mr. Bullard is
badly mistaken or lied; and he would like to see the mistake corrected.
Mr. Malinowski asked how he would like to see the mistake corrected, and
Mr. Shellenberger stated he would like them to remove the dirt.
Mr. Anthony Russo,
was sworn in. Mr. Russo stated he has lived in the area for twenty-seven years and does
not feel people should be permitted to do things without Permits. He stated this project
was started without a Permit, and there is overfill of more than 11,000 feet.
Mr. Majewski stated he feels that they have less than 11,000 cubic yards and they are
within the Permit. Mr. Russo stated this is different than what he said previously that
they were slightly over. Mr. Majewski stated without doing calculations, he had thought
they were over based on the extent of the disturbance that they had done; but the
calculations have been done and double checked and show that they are within the
Permit. Mr. Russo stated he does not feel that they should use the Board or the Township
for their own personal gain to fill the ravine in, zone it, build a home, and then sell it.
Mr. Donald Lex,
a lot in back of this ravine in 1956 and built their home in 1961 where he has lived since.
August 15, 2006 Zoning Hearing Board page 7 of 14
He stated he, the Rasslers, and the Bullards adjoin the ravine. He stated they paid extra
for the lots as they felt it was going to remain open space. He stated they never felt
anyone would do what has been done or that the Township would allow it. He stated
they paid a premium price for their lots because of this open space which is now gone.
He stated the next step is that they will build houses on it. Mr. Lex stated he has different
calculations than Mr. Majewski. Mr. Toadvine asked if he was an engineer, and
Mr. Lex stated he was a Mathematics teacher for thirty-five years. Mr. Toadvine stated
Mr. Majewski is the Township engineer, and they will defer to his calculations.
Mr. Bamburak asked what was so attractive about the ravine apart from the fact that there
was no house there. Mr. Lex stated it was attractive because it was open space.
Mr. Bamburak stated while it is nice to have open space, it was someones property; and
people have the right to do what they want with their property. Mr. Lex stated the
attraction was that it was not going to be built on because it was 30 deep and no one
could have imagined that this would happen or that there was no Ordinance in the
Township to stop it. Mr. Lex stated he feels they have made a violation of the law and
every ounce over should be taken out.
Ms. Shanley Rassler,
ago she lived at
ravine. She stated the ravine was a place for animals, plants, etc. and she feels this is
why everyone was in favor of keeping the ravine.
Ms. Kirk closed testimony.
Ms. McGrath stated they would request that the matter be continued.
Ms. Kirk moved, Mr. Bamburak seconded and it was unanimously carried to continue the
matter until September 19, 2006 in order to present the information to the Board of
Ms. Kirk asked that Mr. Bullard return at that time as the Township may wish to present
APPEAL #06-1383 SANDY S. SPEICHER
Ms. Kirk reminded Ms. Speicher that she was still under oath since testimony began in
July, 2006. She stated at that time the Board had requested that she explore alternatives
with her architect to help reduce some of the existing impervious surface. Ms. Kirk
stated she understands that they have now submitted a revised Plan to the Board dated
8/11/06 indicating that she has modified some of the features in the proposed addition.
This document was marked as Exhibit A-4.
August 15, 2006 Zoning Hearing Board page 8 of 14
Ms. Kirk stated based on Exhibit A-4, this impacts only the impervious surface that she
was requesting; and she would still need a 35 rear yard setback as opposed to the
required 40. Ms. Speicher stated this is incorrect; and she will not be touching the rear
yard. Ms. Kirk asked if she is withdrawing her request for a rear yard setback, and
Ms. Speicher stated she is.
Ms. Kirk stated at the last Hearing, all agreed that the existing coverage at the property
without the addition is 32%, and Ms. Speicher stated this is correct. Ms. Kirk stated
based on what has been submitted to the Board, Ms. Speicher will keep the same 32%;
and Ms. Speicher agreed. She stated she will not change anything and will only build
upon the existing impervious surface. She will build 10 out of the driveway and go up
and make a loft.
Mr. Majewski stated he has reviewed the information provided by Ms. Speicher
concerning the existing impervious surface and her proposal; and Mr. Majewski stated
with the configuration of the garage over the existing driveway, there will be no change
to the impervious surface.
Mr. Donaghy stated the Township has nothing further at this time.
There was no public comment, and the testimony was closed.
Ms. Kirk moved, Mr. Bamburak seconded and it was unanimously carried that the
Application for a Variance to Section 200-23B for increased impervious surface of 32%
be granted as submitted by the Applicant.
APPEAL #06-1389 ROBERT J. NAWALINSKI
Mr. Robert Nawalinski and Ms. Mary Colleen Nawalinski,
The Application submitted was marked as Exhibit A-1. Included with the Application
was the survey Plan last dated 6/19/06, and this was marked Exhibit A-2.
Ms. Kirk stated based on the information provided in the Application, they intend to
construct an addition onto existing impervious surface. Mr. Nawalinski stated it is partial
existing impervious surface. Ms. Kirk stated based upon their proposal, the addition will
be 160 square feet, of which 60 square feet is already existing impervious surface so that
the overall increase is 100 square feet of impervious surface which is approximately ½%.
Mr. Nawalinski agreed. Ms. Kirk stated they are currently at 28% impervious surface,
and they are only requesting a ½% increase.
August 15, 2006 Zoning Hearing Board page 9 of 14
There was no public comment.
Mr. Malinowski moved, Mr. Smith seconded, and it was unanimously carried to grant the
Variance as requested.
APPEAL #06-1390 CRAIG J. AND BARBARA A. RADVANY
Edward Murphy, attorney, was present with Mr. Craig and Barbara Radvany who were
sworn in. Mr. Murphy stated this is precursor to a Minor Subdivision for the property
that Mr. and Mrs. Radvany have owned for the last ten years. He stated this involves two
lots from a 1947 Subdivision known as
The Application was marked as Exhibit A-1. Mr. Murphy stated this included a Plan
identified as the Zoning Variance Plan dated 6/30/06, and this was marked as Exhibit
A-2. Mr. Murphy stated he also has photographs to submit one set was marked as
Exhibit A-3 and the other was marked as Exhibit A-4.
Mr. Murphy noted Exhibit A-2 which identifies
Mr. and Mrs. Radvany. Exhibit A-3 shows a number of photos of the various elevations
of the Radvany home. Three of the four photographs on Exhibit A-3 depict the
screened-in porch which is the subject of this evenings Application. He stated Exhibit
A-2 also identifies
prominent features in the photographs is a large tree which is shown as a 12 magnolia on
shown on the lower photograph of Exhibit #A-4.
Mr. Murphy stated the property total is approximately 1.3 acres. He stated in the R-2
District where this property is located, the minimum lot size is 16,500 square feet. He
stated Lot #1 is nearly double that size and is slightly
over 32,000 square feet, and
is 25,300 square feet. He stated the issue this evening does not deal with the Subdivision
of a lot into a smaller lot than what the Ordinance would require. Mr. Murphy stated the
issue is whether or not Mr. and Mrs. Radvany can maintain the existing screened-in porch
that is shown on Exhibit A-3. Mr. Murphy stated the porch has existed since the house
was built in 1949.
He stated the Subdivision Plan is in large measure being driven by the desire of Mr. and
Mrs. Radvany to provide a home for their daughter and son-in-law who are currently
law when they return from
August 15, 2006 Zoning Hearing Board page 10 of 14
Mr. Murphy stated the requested relief they seek involves a side yard Variance so as to
maintain the existing screen-in porch shown on Exhibit A-3. He stated in anticipation of
this, the home that is proposed on
maintaining the minimum 15 side yard, and they are showing a 22.7 side yard on the
side of the line adjacent to the porch. They have shown a front-entry garage proposed for
Mrs. Radvany are also prepared to provide appropriate buffer and screening between the
porch and what they feel will be their new home so as to further provide additional
privacy for the owners of
existing trees will be removed.
Mr. Murphy marked another photograph as Exhibit A-5 which shows a perspective of
Lot #2 standing at the rear of the lot and looking forward
stated any home that would be constructed on
Mr. Murphy stated Mr. and Mrs. Radvany did speak to all the property owners
immediately abutting their property and across
difficulty with the proposal. He stated the porch was a feature that was not uncommon in
this neighborhood. He stated the house directly across the street from Mr. and Mrs.
Radvany has almost the same elevation and similar porch.
Ms. Kirk asked if the dividing property line were shifted
then have to come before the Zoning Hearing Board for a Variance as to minimum lot
the lot as shown does meet the 110 minimum lot width. Mr. Toadvine stated these are
existing lots previously created in a Subdivision. Mr. Murphy agreed, although he noted
they are slightly re-configuring the vacant lot. He stated he does have a copy of the 1947
Plan which he marked as Exhibit A-6. He stated this property was originally two lots and
will still be two lots. Ms. Kirk asked if his clients did a Deed of Consolidation for the
two lots when they purchased the property, and Mr. Murphy stated they did not and he
feels that may have been done years ago before they acquired the property. Mr. Murphy
stated he feels the Deed conveying the property always had both lots in one Deed. He
stated these are Lots #23 and #24 as indicated in the Application.
Mr. and Mrs. Radvany indicated that they heard Mr. Murphys summary, and indicated
that it was accurate. Mrs. Radvany stated they do love the side yard porch and would like
to be able to maintain it.
Mr. Donaghy stated the Township would like to participate as a Party, but they are not in
Donaghy asked if there is any request for dimensional relief on
and Mr. Murphy stated there is not. Mr. Donaghy stated he assumes they would agree to
provide buffering on
August 15, 2006 Zoning Hearing Board page 11 of 14
stated this is correct, and they would agree as a Condition of any Minor Subdivision Plan
that the additional landscaping and buffering would be depicted on that Plan.
Mr. Donaghy asked if they would agree that any driveway on
other than in the side yard between Lot #1 and
agree to this; and if it is agreeable to Mr. Majewski, the driveway location that is shown
on Exhibit A-2 is the location they would propose. They would agree to work with
Mr. Majewski on this. Mr. Donaghy asked if the porch were to remain 3.1 from the side
yard, how would they propose to maintain that side of the porch and asked if they are
proposing an access easement for maintenance since there is limited room to provide for
maintenance. Mr. Murphy stated while he had not considered this, they would be willing
to entertain some type of access or maintenance easement and would agree to include this
on the Subdivision Plan.
There was no public comment. Testimony was closed.
Ms. Kirk moved and Mr. Bamburak seconded that the request for a Variance from the
side yard setback for proposed
1) That the proposed Subdivision as depicted on Exhibit A-2 be the Subdivision Plan provided to the Township for approval subject to those comments as required by the Township engineer and to meet the Township engineers satisfaction;
2) That the Applicants shall provide such landscape buffering between the two proposed dwellings subject to the Township engineers satisfaction.
Mr. Murphy stated the Townships Ordinance in Section 200-105 has a six-month
limitation on obtaining a Variance. Because they still have to go through the Subdivision
process, he would ask that they run it from the time they have all their Permits associated
with the Subdivision since they do not feel they will be done the Subdivision process in
six months. Mr. Toadvine asked if one year would be sufficient, and Mr. Murphy stated
he felt this would be sufficient.
Ms. Kirk moved to amend the Motion to include the grant of a Variance from that
Section of the Zoning Ordinance that would require the Applicant to submit a Building
Permit within six months from the grant of Variance to extend it for a period of one year.
Mr. Bamburak seconded the Motion to amend, and the Motion as amended carried
August 15, 2006 Zoning Hearing Board page 12 of 14
APPEAL #06-1391 ROBERT & ESTHER HILZER AND B & J BUILDERS
Mr. Robert Hilzer,
marked as Exhibit A-1. Attached were two sheets entitled, As-Built Grading Plan for
the subject property and these were marked as Exhibit A-2.
Ms. Kirk stated they are requesting a Variance from Section 200-27B to allow increased
impervious surface from the required 18%. She asked the amount of impervious surface
he is proposing, and Mr. Hilzer stated he feels it is 60 square feet since it is a 5 by 12 ½
addition for the bathroom expansion on the front of the house. Ms. Kirk asked if this is
the only addition that is being proposed, and Mr. Hilzer stated there is also the issue of
the existing patio which was built in 1995 and this goes to the second Variance as to the
setback from the collector road.
Ms. Kirk noted the second sheet of the As-Built Grading Plan which was provided shows
several notations one being the proposed addition for bathroom expansion 5 by 12.5
which would total 62.5 square feet. Further along in what appears to be the rear is
another notation marked Addition 14 by 6, and Mr. Hilzer stated they obtained a
Variance for that in 1995 and constructed that at that time. It is not a part of this
Application. Ms. Kirk stated to the far left there is another notation for a garage addition
of 6 by 24, and she asked if this has already been built. Mr. Hilzer stated this was built
in 1995 as well.
Ms. Kirk asked the existing impervious surface at the property. Mr. Majewski stated the
Sketch is difficult to read but both he and Mr. Habgood agree that they are requesting a
0.4% increase over what is existing. Ms. Kirk asked if they feel they are looking for
anything that is in the 30% range of impervious surface, and Mr. Majewski and
Mr. Habgood stated they are not.
Mr. Toadvine asked why there is an issue with the collector road since it appears it is
already being violated by the existing patio. Mr. Habgood stated the Permit for the
addition in the rear yard and the addition on the side yard was just for those additions and
there was no Permit on record for the construction of the patio. The patio is encroaching
into the special setback and this does require a Variance. Mr. Toadvine stated it does not
encroach any further than the addition, and Mr. Habgood agreed it does not. Ms. Kirk
stated it appears that it is a matter of housekeeping, and Mr. Habgood agreed.
Ms. Kirk stated the patio currently exists and it encroaches into the collector road special
setback as it is 68 rather than the required 80. Ms. Kirk asked who constructed the
patio, and Mr. Hilzer stated he had the builder construct it. Ms. Kirk asked if he was
under the impression that a Permit was being obtained for it, and Mr. Hilzer stated he
was. Ms. Kirk asked the name of the builder, and Mr. Hilzer stated it is the same builder who is building the proposed addition.
August 15, 2006 Zoning Hearing Board page 13 of 14
Mr. Donaghy stated the Township would like to participate in this matter as a Party but
not necessarily to oppose. He asked if Mr. Hilzer was aware that there may be an
encroachment into the side yard setback by this bathroom addition, and Mr. Hilzer stated
he was not aware of this. Mr. Majewski stated if the Plan that was provided is correct, it
shows that the existing house is located at 15.0 feet off the property line; and due to the
angle of the property compared to the house, the addition will slightly encroach over that
by approximately 1.5 feet, so the side setback will be 13.5 feet to the front corner of the
bathroom addition. Ms. Kirk asked if Mr. Hilzer agreed with this, and Mr. Hilzer stated
he would defer to Mr. Majewski. Ms. Kirk stated because of the angled position of the
property line, the upper right corner of where the proposed bathroom addition will be,
they will not be able to meet the 15 requirement although the bottom part of the addition
will meet this requirement. Mr. Hilzer stated he does not feel the drawing is accurate.
He stated he is not going out to the line of the front of the house and is going out 5 rather
than 6.6. Mr. Toadvine asked if it goes all the way out to the side of the house, and
Mr. Hilzer stated he feels the dimension there is 12.5 Mr. Toadvine stated it may not
actually encroach. Mr. Majewski stated based on the 15.0 dimension, it will encroach
although it may be slightly less than the 1 ½ that he calculated.
Ms. Kirk asked Mr. Hilzer if he would like to amend the Application to include a
Variance from the side yard setback to allow a 1.5 encroachment if necessary, and
Mr. Hilzer stated he would.
There was no public comment. Testimony was closed.
Ms. Kirk moved, Mr. Smith seconded and it was unanimously carried that the Variance
from Section 200-27B be granted to allow an increase of impervious surface by .4%; that
a Variance from Section 200-63A be granted to permit a
for the existing patio; and that there be a Variance to permit a side yard setback
encroachment of 1.5 for the proposed bathroom addition as presented by the Applicant.
Ms. Kirk stated there was an Application before the Board for an Assisted-Living Facility
to be constructed at Stony Hill and Heacock Roads known as Sunrise Development.
They were requesting Special Exceptions and Variances. She stated the Application was
granted by the Zoning Hearing Board but was Appealed to Bucks County Courts by both
the Township as well as individual residents within that area. There has now been a
Stipulation entered between all of the Parties which would settle the Land Use Appeal
keeping the Special Exception and Variances that the Zoning Hearing Board granted, but
August 15, 2006 Zoning Hearing Board page 14 of 14
reducing the number of units and beds at the proposed facility to 76 units and no more
than 90 beds as opposed to the original 110 requested. Ms. Kirk stated the Zoning
Hearing Board now needs to decide whether or not to authorize Mr. Toadvine to sign the
Stipulation on behalf of the Board.
Ms. Kirk moved and Mr. Bamburak seconded that Mr. Toadvine be authorized to sign the
Stipulation and return it to be filed with the Court.
Mr. Bamburak asked if the building will be smaller, and Ms. Kirk stated they will limit
the number of units and beds to limit the number of residents. Mr. Toadvine stated there
was also an issue as to whether it would be a two-story or three-story facility, and it has
been agreed that it will be a two-story facility which required them to get a Variance for
the impervious coverage but made for a more aesthetically-pleasing facility.
Motion carried with Mr. Malinowski opposed.
There being no further business, Ms. Kirk moved, Mr. Bamburak seconded and it was unanimously carried to adjourn the meeting at 9:15 p.m.
David Malinowski, Secretary