ZONING HEARING BOARD
MINUTES OCTOBER 17, 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 #06-1374 DIANE & STEVEN BULLARD
Ms. Kirk stated this matter had been continued from the 10/3/06 meeting. The Board had
taken testimony with respect to this matter and took under advisement the Decision to be
granted by the Board. Ms. Kirk asked if there were any questions from members of the
Board of the Zoning Hearing Board Solicitor. There were none at this time.
Ms. Kirk moved, and Mr. Smith seconded to deny the Application. Motion carried with
Mr. Malinowski opposed.
APPEAL #06-1398 JERRY KAYE/BETTER LIVING PATIO ROOMS
Mr. Jerry Kaye, was present with property owners Linda and Robin Yonkin. All were
sworn in. The Application submitted was marked as Exhibit A-1. Included with the
Application was an impervious surface breakdown for the property, and this was marked
as Exhibit A-2. Also included was a Plan for the subject property showing the proposed
addition, and this was marked as Exhibit A-3.
October 17, 2006 Zoning Hearing Board page 2 of 6
Mr. Kaye stated he is the contractor, and their Appeal is due to the rear yard setback. He
stated the rear of the home is on a State road which requires that there be an 80 setback.
They will have 54.3 Ms. Kirk stated it appears that it would 54.3 on the left side but if
you look at the right side, it appears that it will encroach even more into the rear yard
setback. After reviewing his information, Mr. Kay agreed that the arrow was drawn on
the left side, but he believes he actually measured it on the right side. Ms. Kirk stated the
Township Code Enforcement Officer has taken measurements, and it appears that the
proposed setback from the collector road will be 49.5. Mr. Majewski agreed that this
number was approximately correct. Mr. Toadvine stated if this is correct, the Application
will need to be amended, and Mr. Kaye agreed that the Application should be amended
so that they are requesting a rear yard setback of 49.5 rather than 54.3. Mr. Toadvine
stated the Application is so amended.
Mr. Kaye stated there are two different right-of-ways the existing and the proposed in
case the State wants to widen the road at some point in the future. Mr. Toadvine stated
this would be the ultimate right-of-way. Mr. Kaye stated the measurements were based
on the ultimate right-of-way. He is not sure if the State will ever want to widen the road.
He stated there is actually an additional 13 between the ultimate and existing right-of-
way but they needed to go by the ultimate right-of-way for the dimensions presented.
He stated in reality there is an additional 13 to the actual cartway.
Mr. Habgood was asked the rear yard setback for this property notwithstanding the
collector road. Mr. Habgood stated based on the lot size, it would be 50. There was
discussion as to whether this lot was in the R-2 or R-3 Zone. Mr. Toadvine stated the
Application indicates it is R-3. Mr. Habgood stated it is zoned R-2. Mr. Toadvine stated
the Application is therefore incorrect when it states R-3, and Mr. Habgood stated this is
correct. Mr. Kay stated he was advised by an individual at the Township that this lot was
R-3 when he was preparing the Application. Ms. Kirk stated this does not matter
provided he cited the appropriate sections under the Code.
Mr. Kaye stated the other request they have is for impervious surface which they are
increasing by 5.28% over that which is permitted.
Mr. Kaye presented photographs of the house. He also presented a brochure showing an
example of what the room will look like although there will not be a front deck.
Mr. Toadvine marked individual photographs as Exhibits A-4 through A-12. Exhibit
A-13 was marked which is a brochure entitled Better Living
Patio Rooms of
Valley depicting the proposed room with the exception of the deck shown.
October 17, 2006 Zoning Hearing Board page 3 of 6
Ms. Kirk asked if the proposed addition will be built across the entire rear of the property
including the area where the wood deck is currently located, and Mr. Kaye stated this is
correct. He stated the wood deck will be removed. Ms. Kirk asked if they gave any
consideration to reducing the size of the proposed addition so that the impervious surface
would not be as great. She stated the square footage is very large for a single room
addition. She also stated she has a problem with the increase of impervious surface for a
900 square foot addition. Ms. Yonkin stated it will be two rooms. She stated one will be
a sunroom and one will be an addition to the bedroom. Ms. Kirk stated the brochure
would then not be accurate, and Mr. Kaye stated it is accurate as to the shape. He stated
there are few rooms that are 60 wide so they do not have a brochure to show this. He
stated the shape will be similar to what is shown in the brochure although it will be wider.
Mr. Yonkin stated it will be a sunroom, but there will be a partition in the middle.
Mr. Kaye stated he is not building the partition, and the Yonkins will do this after he is
done construction. Ms. Yonkin stated the bedroom portion will have glass outside and it
will open into the bedroom with a doorway. It was noted the existing house is a
one-story home with three bedrooms.
Mr. Kim asked if there is any hardship as to why they are asking for the Variance.
He stated a hardship could be if there was a family member who was handicapped, etc.
Mr. Kaye stated they like the outdoors but do not want to be outdoors, and with a
sunroom you feel like you are outdoors but are protected from insects. Mr. Kim asked if
the noise vibration from the glass was taken into consideration since they back up to a
State road. Mr. Kaye stated he feels they are far enough away from the road that it
should not be a hindrance.
Ms. Kirk stated the Plan shows high evergreens and she asked what they are. Mr. Kaye
noted the photograph marked as Exhibit A-5 which shows these trees.
Mr. Kim asked if consideration was given to a second story, and Ms. Yonkin stated they
purchased a ranch home on purpose so that they could retire there.
Mr. Kirk asked if they have added any impervious surface since they purchased the
property, and Ms. Yonkin stated they have not.
Ms. Kirk asked if there are other properties in the neighborhood which have this type of
addition, and Mr. Kaye stated she feels there is one approximately 1/8 a mile away.
Ms. Kirk asked how many homes are two-story in this area, and Ms. Yonkin stated she
feels there is only one other ranch on the street and a few on Valley, and most homes in
the area are two-story.
Mr. Kaye noted Exhibit A-12 also shows more of the stand of trees going across the rear
of the property along
trees in the rear, and Mr. Kaye stated there are approximately 22 to 23 trees. Mr. Kaye
October 17, 2006 Zoning Hearing Board page 4 of 6
stated he feels some of the trees were planted by the State since they go all the way down
beyond this property.
Mr. Kim stated he is concerned that in some ways they are asking for a large Variance for
impervious surface. He asked if there is a way for them to reduce the impervious surface
and still satisfy their needs. Mr. Kaye stated this would be up to Mr. and Mrs. Yonkin.
He stated the only way they could reduce it would be to reduce the size of the room.
Mr. Toadvine asked if they have any patios, large walkways, or a large driveway.
Ms. Kirk stated based on the impervious surface calculations provided, the driveway will
be slightly smaller than the proposed addition. Mr. Toadvine stated if they could
eliminate other impervious area, they could do this instead of reducing the size of the
proposed sunroom. Ms. Yonkin stated their vehicles do not fit in their garage and they
park in the driveway. Mr. Kim stated this is a large expansion and other than the
enjoyment of the property, there is not really a hardship. He stated they could reduce the
size of the sunroom. Mr. Yonkin stated he feels it would enhance the neighborhood as it
will make it look nicer.
Mr. Donaghy stated the Township would like to participate as a Party, although they are
not opposed to a grant of relief. They do feel that what is being requested is excessive.
Mr. Donaghy asked Mr. Majewski if he has done any calculations as to what is existing
and what the percentage would be if the requested relief were granted. Mr. Majewski
stated the current impervious surface on site is 19% and proposed would be 24.5%.
Mr. Toadvine asked when the house was constructed, and after review it was determined
the Plan indicates it was built in 1975.
Mr. Toadvine stated on the Application they indicated under Paragraph 6, Item 2 the
non-conforming structure be altered and enlarged, and he asked why they referenced
this. Mr. Kaye stated this was the wording referred to in the Section referenced in their
Application. Mr. Habgood stated the reason for the Variance request for relief on the
non-conformity is due to the rear yard setback. He stated this is a reverse lot and
normally you are required to have an 80 rear yard. The existing home is already non-
conforming as it is already within that encroachment. The addition will increase this
non-conformity. For reverse frontage, the rear yard has to maintain an 80 setback, and it
is currently 65.54 on one side and 70 on the other.
Mr. Donaghy stated the Plan indicates that there is a 3 by 23 sidewalk and the driveway.
Ms. Yonkin stated the concrete sidewalk goes from the drive to their porch, and it was
there when they purchased the home. Mr. Donaghy asked if there are any shed, patios,
concrete block areas, etc. that are not shown on the Plan, and Ms. Yonkin stated only
what is shown in the pictures. They do not have a shed. Mr. Donaghy asked what is
currently behind the rear of their house, and Ms. Yonkin stated they have a wood deck
and a sidewalk. Mr. Donaghy asked if the sidewalk be removed, and Ms. Yonkin stated
they were hoping to shift it to the side. The existing wood deck will be removed.
October 17, 2006 Zoning Hearing Board page 5 of 6
Mr. Donaghy asked if the proposed addition were used only as a sunroom, would it be
sufficient if it were only half the size they propose, and Ms. Yonkin stated it would not
serve their purpose. She stated they wanted to have access to the sunroom from the
bedroom, kitchen and living room.
Mr. Donaghy stated he understands that they are currently residing at the property, and
Ms. Yonkin stated this is correct and they have lived there for two years. Mr. Donaghy
asked if they would be able to continue to use the property if the Variance were not
granted, and Ms. Yonkin stated they could.
Ms. Yonkin asked what size they would have to reduce it to meet what they are asking.
Mr. Donaghy stated he would not be able to provide a specific number. Mr. Kim asked
what size they could live with yet still maintain their functionability of expansion.
Ms. Kirk stated a decision does not have to be made on this tonight, and if the Applicants
need additional time to consult with Mr. Kaye, the Board would be willing to grant a
continuance to give them time to explore other options in trying to reduce the impervious
surface. There was discussion on how they could reduce the sunroom. Mr. Toadvine
stated they may also want to consider the possible removal of some existing impervious
surface elsewhere on the property if they want to keep the size of the sunroom as
proposed. Mr. Toadvine stated he does not feel the Board has as much of an issue with
the rear yard setback as they do with the impervious surface. Mr. Donaghy stated the
depth of the sunroom is 50 and possibly they could reduce this by a few feet and this
would help decrease the impervious surface.
Mr. and Mrs. Yonkin asked that the matter be continued so that they could review this
and see if they can come up with a modification. Mr. Kaye asked that the matter be
Mr. Kim asked if the State would decide to expand the road, what would happen to the
property, and Ms. Kirk stated if they take the extra 13 that is part of the right-of-way,
the rear of the property would be 13 closer to the road. Mr. Toadvine stated it would
still be 49.5 as this was measured to the ultimate right-of-way. Mr. Majewski stated it is
actually greater than that since the road itself is approximately 14 wide in that area and
the ultimate right-of-way is 40 from the center line so the edge of the pavement is
approximately 26 from the right-of-way to the edge of pavement; so they actually have
Mr. Kaye stated when he measured from the center of
toward the house, he realized that the stand of trees shown would still remain after the
road was widened if the State decided to widen the road.
Ms. Kirk moved, Mr. Bamburak seconded and it was unanimously carried to continue the
matter to the Boards Hearing of November 21, 2006.
October 17, 2006 Zoning Hearing Board page 6 of 6
Ms. Kirk stated there are no new Appeals scheduled for the next regular meeting to be
held on November 6. Mr. Smith moved, Ms. Kirk seconded and it was unanimously
carried to cancel the meeting of November 6, 2006.
There being no further business, Ms. Kirk moved, Mr. Smith seconded and it was unanimously carried to adjourn the meeting at 8:25 p.m.
David Malinowski, Secretary