ZONING HEARING BOARD
MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 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
Paul Kim, Alternate Member
Others: Robert Habgood, Code Enforcement Officer
John Donaghy, Township Solicitor
James Majewski, Township Engineer
Allen Toadvine, Zoning Hearing Board Solicitor
Absent: Grace Godshalk, Supervisor Liaison
APPEAL #03-1235A CARA MIA INC.
Ms. Kirk stated this matter was continued from 9/19/06. At the last Hearing, the Board
concluded all testimony. The Board requested that the Township, Applicant, and other
interested parties submit Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for the Board to
consider. The Board did receive proposed Findings of Fact from Mr. VanLuvanee,
representing the Applicant, along with Memorandum of Law from John Koopman, on
behalf of the Township, and Summary of Facts and Conclusions of Law from James
Bray, an interested Party opposing the Application. Ms. Kirk stated that after reviewing
the proposed Findings of Fact and having an Executive Session for fifteen Minutes prior
to the start of this evenings meeting to discuss some of the legal issues involved in the
case, the Board is prepared to consider a Motion.
Ms. Kirk moved and Mr. Smith seconded that in the matter of Cara Mia Inc. on remand
from the Court, that the request for Variances from Section 200-61C, Section 200-
51B(6), Section 200-21, Section 200-64, and Section 200-B(4)C1 be granted in
compliance with the Amended Plan as submitted to the Board as designated as Exhibit
A-16 and further that the tracks of
the Township and the opposing Party.
December 5, 2006 Zoning Hearing Board page 2 of 6
Motion did not carry as Ms. Kirk and Mr. Smith were in favor and Mr. Bamburak,
Mr. Kim, and Mr. Malinowski were opposed.
Mr. Malinowski moved, and Mr. Bamburak seconded that the Appeal be denied.
Motion carried with Mr. Bamburak, Mr. Kim, and Mr. Malinowski in favor
and Ms. Kirk and Mr. Smith opposed.
APPEAL #06-1403 YARDLEY-MAKEFIELD FIRE COMPANY
Edward Murphy, attorney, was present on behalf of the Fire Company. The Application
submitted was marked as Exhibit A-1. Submitted with the Application was an 8 ½ by
14 Plan entitled Yardley-Makefield Fire Company dated 10/31/06. This was marked as
Exhibit A-2. Mr. Murphy presented a series of photos which were marked as Exhibit
A-3a through A-3d.
Mr. Murphy stated the property involved is currently being used by the Yardley-
Makefield Fire Company as its Woodside Substation. He stated it was the subject of a
prior Decision of the Zoning Hearing Board in 12/84 when relief was granted by an
earlier Board to permit construction of the Substation and certain Variances were granted
from the impervious surface ratio. Subsequent to the Decision in 1984, the facility was
constructed. Exhibit A-2 represents an As-Built Plan of the existing one-story brick fire
house and the related parking facilities surrounding it.
Mr. Murphy stated the Fire Company has received a proposed offer of donation of an
1,800 square foot one-story pole barn that is located across
the various sides of the pole barn. He stated the Fire Company is interested in accepting
the donation of the pole barn; and if the Zoning Hearing Board would approve, will
relocate the pole barn from its present location across
Substation site that is depicted on Exhibit A-2. Mr. Murphy noted the far left area on
Exhibit A-2 at the rear of one of the parking areas where they have identified the
suggested location for the pole barn and the dimensions of it as well as the dimensions of
the setbacks from the side and rear property lines. They will be 35 from the
northernmost property line and 70 from the rearmost property line.
Mr. Murphy stated under the provisions of the Ordinance, accessory structures cannot
exceed 15 in height, and the pole barn in question is 21 in height. They are therefore
looking for relief from the height of the accessory structure provisions of the Ordinance
to permit the re-location of the pole barn to this location. Mr. Murphy stated the Fire
Company intends to use the pole barn for storage of fire apparatus and other equipment
which they do not currently have room to store at any of their facilities.
December 5, 2006 Zoning Hearing Board page 3 of 6
Mr. Gene R. Cadwallader was sworn in and stated he is the Treasurer of the
Yardley-Makefield Fire Company. He stated during the 1984 Hearing, he testified as
Chairman of the Building Committee. Mr. Cadwallader stated he agrees with the
summary Mr. Murphy presented to the Board.
Ms. Kirk asked how grant of the Variance will impact the impervious surface ratio
previously granted. Mr. Murphy noted Exhibit A-2 which indicates that the existing
impervious surface is 43 ½. The re-location of the pole barn would increase it by 1 ½%
so that the total impervious surface will be 45%. Pursuant to the 1984 Decision, they can
go to 65% so they are well within the limits previously established by the Zoning Hearing
Mr. Bamburak noted the dashed line and the notation to the right that states minimum
building setback line. Mr. Murphy stated this is for principal structures. He stated
accessory buildings are permitted to be located closer. He asked Mr. Cadwallader if there
is an existing buffer between the rear of the proposed location for the pole barn and the
common property line with the residential properties to the east, and Mr. Cadwallader
stated there is. He stated when they built the building they planted trees and the trees
well cover the back area.
Ms. Kirk asked if the Applicant would be agreeable to a Condition that the pole barn be
used strictly for storage of fire apparatus and related equipment, and Mr. Cadwallader
stated they would agree to this Condition.
Mr. Donaghy stated the Township is not participating in this matter.
There was no public comment.
Mr. Smith moved that the Variance be granted.
Ms. Kirk moved to amend the Motion to include a Condition that the proposed accessory
structure be used strictly for storage of fire apparatus and related equipment.
Mr. Smith agreed to amend the Motion. Mr. Malinowski seconded the Motion as
amended, and the Motion carried unanimously.
APPEAL #06-1404 DAVID AND NANCY WILLARD
David and Nancy Willard,
in. The Application submitted was marked as Exhibit A-1. Attached to the Application
was a two-page, 8 ½ by 14 Plan showing the proposed fence entitled, As-Built Plan
December 5, 2006 Zoning Hearing Board page 4 of 6
Mr. Willard stated the rear yard of their property has a drainage easement 30 in width
that extends for the length of the rear of the property for approximately 172. He stated it
represents about half of the back yard. They would like to install a fence as shown in the
drawing that would extend into the easement area to the back of the property. They
would like to install a pool and keeping the fence out of the easement area would restrict
where the pool could go and the amount of space they would be able to use. He stated
they recognize that if the Township would need to get into this area, he would have to
remove it and make any repairs. He stated they would also agree to maximize the
drainage through the easement area. He stated the fence company indicated they could
do this by keeping it 2 or higher by putting fence wire below the permanent fence they
would like to construct.
Ms. Kirk stated on the Application they indicated that there would be a minimum of 2
between the bottom of the fence and the ground. Mr. Willard agreed. Ms. Kirk asked
about the easement area, and Mr. Willard stated it is a cement underground pipe. He
stated there is also an inlet which is shown on the drawing as well as other inlets up
further to the adjoining properties.
Ms. Kirk asked if there is an existing fence, and Mr. Willard stated there is a little fence
in the left corner on an adjoining property.
Ms. Kirk asked if the Township owns the drainage easement area. Mr. Majewski stated
the neighborhood is not dedicated yet although it will be dedicated shortly.
Mr. Majewski stated it will stay as a 30 easement after dedication. Mr. Majewski stated
the developer has requested dedication, and he believes they have completed all issues
needed to get dedication, and the Township will at some point in the future accept
Mr. Toadvine asked if there is a homeowners association, but Mr. Willard stated there is
not. The development is called Prospect Manor.
Mr. Toadvine asked if the construction of the fence in the easement area would impact
dedication, and Mr. Majewski stated he did not believe so.
Ms. Kirk asked if the Board would grant the request, to the extent that the developer
would require the Applicant to submit or acknowledge anything in order to have the area
dedicated, would they be willing to do so. Mr. Willard asked what this would entail.
Mr. Toadvine stated the Township may indicate to the developer that they are not going
to accept dedication until the developer has a letter from the Applicant indicating that
they received a Variance and Permit from the Township approving the fence and that
they recognize that they may have to remove the fence if necessary for Township access.
Mr. Willard agreed to this Condition.
December 5, 2006 Zoning Hearing Board page 5 of 6
Mr. Kim asked if they understand that there can be no other permanent structures such as
pool decking within the easement area, and Mr. Willard stated he understands this.
Mr. Kim asked if they recognize that all costs of replacement or the repair of the fence
would be at the homeowners expense if the Township needed to access the easement
area, and Mr. Willard agreed.
Mr. Donaghy stated the Township is participating for the purpose of assuring that a
Variance if granted would be subject to Conditions already discussed. Mr. Donaghy also
asked that the installation of the fence be at the minimum height that would permit water
flow subject to approval of the Township engineer.
Mr. Majewski stated earlier the Applicant had mentioned that the fence company
indicated they could raise the fence higher than 2 and put down BOCA Code grating
below that, and he would prefer to see this. He would like to see 4 in this case. This
was acceptable to Mr. Willard. He stated he would even go higher if necessary.
Mr. Donaghy stated they would not want it to be so high that a child could get through,
and Mr. Toadvine stated they are going to put in grating. Mr. Willard stated they would
like to be able to keep the fence level.
There was no public comment.
Mr. Bamburak moved that the Variance be granted subject to the following Conditions:
1) That the bottom of the fence be a minimum of 4 above grade equipped with a
grating subject to the approval of the Township engineer;
2) That if the fence ever has to be removed, it will be done at the sole cost of the
Ms. Kirk asked to amend the Motion to include the following two Conditions:
3) That there be no other construction or installation of any other type of
accessory or other structures within the easement area;
4) That the Applicants will cooperate with the developer and the Township
and sign as required any documents necessary in order to facilitate the
dedication of the easement area to the Township.
Mr. Bamburak agreed to the amendment. Mr. Kim seconded the Motion as
Amended. The Motion carried unanimously.
December 5, 2006 Zoning Hearing Board page 6 of 6
Appeal #06-1386 Robert and Nancy Stoker Request for Extension
Ms. Kirk stated a letter was submitted to the Township Code Enforcement Officer
dated December 1, 2006 requesting that the Variance previously granted by the Board on
7/18/06 for increased impervious surface be extended for an additional six months
Mr. Toadvine stated there were two issues for which they were pulling Building Permits,
and a copy of the Building Permit was attached for rear yard additions for a patio and
Mr. Kim moved, Mr. Smith seconded and it was unanimously carried to approve the
Extension until 5/31/07.
Cancel 12/19/06 Meeting
Ms. Kirk stated the three matters previously scheduled for 12/19/06 have agreed to be continued to 1/3/07.
Mr. Bamburak moved, Mr. Kim seconded and it was unanimously carried to cancel the 12/19/06 meeting.
There being no further business, Mr. Malinowski moved, Mr. Smith seconded, and it was unanimously carried to adjourn the meeting at 8:15 p.m.
David Malinowski, Secretary