ZONING HEARING BOARD
MINUTES – APRIL 17, 2007
The regular meeting of the Zoning Hearing Board of the
Zoning Hearing Board: Paul Bamburak, Secretary
Gerry Gruen, Member
Gregory Smith, Member
Paul Kim, Alternate Member
Anthony Zamparelli, Alternate Member
Others: Robert Habgood, Code Enforcement Officer
John Donaghy, Township Solicitor (left meeting in
James Majewski, Township Engineer
Allen Toadvine, Zoning Hearing Board Solicitor
Ron Smith, Supervisor Liaison
Absent: Barbara Kirk, Zoning Hearing Board Chair
David Malinowski, Zoning Hearing Board Vice Chair
APPEAL #07-1419 – JOANNE R. GUINIVEN
Joanne R. Guiniven was present and was sworn in. The Application submitted was
marked as Exhibit A-1. Attached to the Application was a set of Plans with the relevant
Plan being the one sheet entitled Zoning Plan dated 3/5/07, and this was marked as
Exhibit A-2. Mr. Toadvine stated she is present seeking a Variance for impervious
Ms. Guiniven stated she purchased the property in July, 1994. Everything that is on the
property on the survey was as she purchased the property. She stated she understands
everything was there in 1984 when the house was built and the pool was installed. She
stated she understands this was before the Zoning changes which were made in 1994.
Mr. Toadvine stated it appears that she is testifying that Exhibit A-2 reflects the existing
impervious surface, and this existed at the time of her purchase; and Ms. Guiniven
agreed. She stated she added nothing. She is the sole owner of the property.
Ms. Guiniven stated she would like to enlarge the kitchen and dining room going out to
the back and the side. She stated there is an existing wooden deck which she will take
April 17, 2007 Zoning Hearing Board – page 2 of 8
down and replace with something. Ms. Guiniven stated she did speak with a contractor
after she submitted her proposal and was told that her current deck is impervious surface
because it has a vinyl liner; but if she put in a deck without a vinyl liner, it would not be
considered impervious surface.
Mr. Toadvine asked the location of the deck; and it was noted it is the area on the Plan
which states “existing deck to be removed.” She stated part of the deck will have to be
removed because the house will be extended over it, and she will probably re-shape the
deck. She stated she will take the existing deck down and install a new one, but whatever
she would install would be pervious if this were required. She stated she would prefer to
put in a flagstone patio, but in order to make it more amenable as to impervious surface
she would agree to put in something that was pervious.
Ms. Guiniven presented new impervious surface calculations this evening, and stated
with the new calculations, she would stay at the impervious surface she is now. The one
page document containing calculations of existing impervious and proposed pervious and
impervious surfaces was marked as Exhibit A-3. Mr. Toadvine stated with the new
calculations it shows that the existing impervious coverage is 21.5% impervious surface;
and based on the revisions, she is proposing 21.6%. Ms. Guiniven stated she had
originally requested 22.2%; but as a compromise, she would be willing to do 21.6%.
Mr. Bamburak asked if the revisions would meet her needs; and Ms. Guiniven stated they
would. Mr. Bamburak stated one of the goals of the Board is to grant the minimum relief
possible that would accomplish what the Applicants are trying to do.
Mr. Toadvine stated she is at 21.5%, and if the Zoning Hearing Board were to grant some
minor increase up to 22% impervious surface, would this help her; and Ms. Guiniven
stated it would.
Mr. Gruen asked if the shed is part of the calculations; and Ms. Guiniven stated she
believes it is. She stated the shed was on the property when she purchased the property.
Mr. Gruen asked about the stone wall, and Ms. Guiniven stated she did put this in to hold
back dirt that was falling down. She stated it is a small dry stack wall.
Mr. Majewski stated he does not feel the shed was included in the impervious surface
calculations. Mr. Habgood stated the calculations he got were very close to what they
submitted at 22.2%, and this included the shed.
Mr. Gruen asked if she uses the pavers from the driveway to the road, and Ms. Guiniven
stated they do get used for people parking the street who use them to walk up.
Mr. Bamburak stated if these were to be removed, she could use that impervious surface
or minimize the amount she is asking for. Ms. Guiniven stated had not given that thought
but feels she would rather give up the back than the front.
April 17, 2007 Zoning Hearing Board – page 3 of 8
Mr. Toadvine stated the Board would set a number for impervious surface, and she can
do with it as she wishes.
Mr. Gruen noted the drive is 15’ wide, and Ms. Guiniven stated it is about two-cars wide.
Mr. Gruen stated possibly she could remove 12” to 18” of the driveway and install gravel
along the edge which would eliminate some impervious surface. Mr. Donaghy stated the
driveway must be a hard surface to be part of the driveway; and even if it was gravel, it
would be considered impervious. Mr. Majewski stated if they put in River Jack stone, it
would not be considered impervious.
Mr. Kim asked the maximum permitted impervious surface for the property, and
Mr. Habgood stated it is 18%. Mr. Toadvine stated 25 years ago, the permitted was
probably 24% to 25%. Mr. Kim asked if she or her neighbors have any groundwater or
water retention problems; and Ms. Guiniven stated during the most recent storm, she did
have spots on the property where there is water, but she did not get water in her home.
She stated she is at the low point. She did discuss this project with her neighbors on
either side. Mr. Kim stated they want to make sure that by increasing her impervious
surface, they do not impact water problems. Ms. Guiniven stated someone did mention
installing a rain garden as part of the water management system.
Mr. Donaghy stated the Township would like to participate in this matter, although they
are not necessarily opposed. He stated they would like to see the impervious surface kept
to a minimum. Mr. Donaghy asked if the Revised Plan at 21.6% would be satisfactory to
Ms. Guiniven; and she stated it would. Mr. Donaghy asked if the pavers in the front
were not there, could someone access the house by walking up the driveway; and
Ms. Guiniven stated they could, but she stated she feels it would detract from the
appearance of the house.
There was no public comment. Testimony was closed.
Mr. Smith moved and Mr. Gruen seconded to grant a maximum impervious surface of
Mr. Kim asked if they could grant her 22% to allow her some flexibility. Mr. Gruen
stated he feels they are being generous by granting 21.6% since she is already over what
is permitted, and he does not feel there is a hardship since she can obtain what she wants
by other means. He would have reduced it, but would agree to go along with 21.6%.
Mr. Kim moved to Amend the Motion and grant maximum impervious surface of 22%.
Motion to amend died for lack of a Second.
Motion as originally stated carried unanimously.
April 17, 2007 Zoning Hearing Board – page 4 of 8
Mr. Donaghy left the meeting at this time.
Appeal #06-1410 – Norman P/ Patricia K. O’Rourke
Mr. Bamburak asked if anyone was present for this matter this evening. No one was present. Mr. Toadvine stated this matter was originally continued until this evening, but it has now been officially continued to May 17, 2007
APPEAL #07-1420 – RICHARD T. AND MARILYN QUAKE
Edward Murphy, attorney, was present with Richard T. Quake who was sworn in. The
Application submitted was marked as Exhibit A-1. Attached to the Application was a
one-sheet Plan entitled “Proposed House Addition” dated 5/06, last revised 12/06, and
this was marked as Exhibit A-2.
Mr. Murphy stated they are requesting relief to permit construction of a 600 square foot
addition to the home located at the corner of
Mr. Murphy marked as Exhibits A-3 through A-8 a series of photographs which were
distributed this evening. Mr. Quake stated he took the photographs two weeks ago. They
represent the condition of the subject property. Exhibit A-3 shows the front of the home
Exhibit A-5 is a photo slightly toward
Exhibit A-6 is a photograph from near
Road looking to the end of the home that faces
standing on the corner of Delaware Rim and
It was noted the property is zoned R-2. The lot is slightly more than 32,000 square feet.
Mr. Quake stated he uses the property as his home. The size of the home is accurately
reflected in the photographs. It is a split level. They have private water and sewer.
Mr. Quake stated he purchased the property in 2001. Exhibit A-2 which is the Plan
identifies on it the current level of impervious surface on the property which is 10.5%.
Mr. Quake stated if permitted, they propose to construct a 30’ by 20’ sunroom which
would be an addition of 600 square feet.
Exhibit A-2 was noted, and Mr. Quake stated they would like the location to be on the
eastern side which is the
April 17, 2007 Zoning Hearing Board – page 5 of 8
house. Exhibits A-7 and A-8 were noted which indicate the area between the end of the
property addition and where the edge of the cartway of
On Exhibit A-2 in the center middle of the page, there is a dimension that indicates 54.2’
from the edge of the blank end of the building to the ultimate right-of-way of Woodside
Road, and this is the condition which exists today. Exhibit A-2 also indicates that the
dimension, if the proposed addition were to be constructed as described, would result in a
setback from the ultimate right-of-way of
edge of paving shown on A-2 to the ultimate right-of-way it is 30’, so that currently from
the edge of the home to the edge of paving of
addition were approved, the dimension would be reduced to 72.5’.
Mr. Murphy asked why they selected the blank end of the home to construct the addition;
and Mr. Quake stated they did so because it was the blank end and also because it is the
largest open piece of property they have. He stated the way the home is situated on the
lot, it would progress naturally as the house steps down.
Exhibit A-4 was noted, and Mr. Quake showed the location of the septic system which
includes a drain field and a tank. It is to the rear of the patio. Mr. Quake showed on
Exhibit A-2 the location of the tank which is in the rear yard almost in the center of the
existing home approximately 25’ off the back building. The tile field is behind the tank
to the rearmost portion of the lot.
Mr. Toadvine asked the cartway width of
Mr. Murphy stated he has asked Mr. Majewski this question, and he will defer to him.
Mr. Majewski stated the cartway of
from the center line of the road to the edge of pavement on the Applicant’s side of the
property. He feels it
is slightly wider on the other side of
shoulder on that side that is approximately 8’ wide. It is an 80’ right-of-way.
Mr. Murphy stated Exhibit A-2 shows that from the edge of paving to the right of-way
line it is 30’, and Mr. Majewski stated he felt it was 28’ rather than 30’. Mr. Toadvine
stated the front yard setback for this Zone is 40’, and Mr. Majewski stated this would be
true if it were not subject to the Special Collector setback. Mr. Murphy noted there is a
Highway Classification map in the Township, and
is identified as a
Mr. Quake agreed. Mr. Quake stated he understands that the reason they are present this
evening is to seek relief to permit him to encroach into the Special Setback.
Mr. Quake stated he is now aware that his existing home is non-conforming and it is
closer than 80’ from the edge of the right-of-way. He stated he found this out when they
submitted for review of the Plans.
April 17, 2007 Zoning Hearing Board – page 6 of 8
Exhibit A-5 was noted, and Mr. Gruen noted a large tree in the photo. He asked to be
shown this tree in Exhibit A-7, and Mr. Quake showed him the tree in Exhibit A-7.
Mr. Gruen asked how far it is from the house, and Mr. Quake stated it is 40’ to 45’ away.
Mr. Gruen asked if they considered the possibility of putting the sunroom further into the
property to be even with the chimney which would not require as much of a Variance.
Mr. Quake stated he would have to move trees, and the drain field would be in that
location. He stated he is concerned they the proposal being made by Mr. Gruen could
also impact the roots of the tree. Mr. Gruen stated he feels they will disturb the roots
anyway. Mr. Murphy stated he also was concerned about trying to provide as much
distance from adjacent properties as possible, and Mr. Quake agreed. He stated originally
they were going to put it on the garage side, but it would have been too close to the
neighbors. They would also like to maintain the continuity of the house. Mr. Gruen
stated he feels they could move it 10’ over and they would gain 10’ on the corner.
Mr. Kim stated architecturally, he did not feel it would look as well. Mr. Quake stated
the roof line would also be very choppy.
Mr. Kim asked about collector roads, and Mr. Toadvine stated arterial and collector roads
are defined in the Ordinance and special setbacks are required as theoretically, these are
major roads and in the future, there may be a need to widen the roads so they have special
Mr. Majewski stated he did review the Plan, and generally what is depicted is accurate.
The matter was opened for public comment.
Mr. Jules Sghiatti asked when the setback line changed from 40’ to 80’, and
Mr. Toadvine stated he feels it was 1987. Mr. Sghiatti asked if the homeowners have to
be notified when there is such a change, and Mr. Toadvine stated they do not. He stated
this was done throughout the Township based on roads which they felt would have high
traffic impact in the future.
Mr. Neil Russo stated he owns the property beyond the lot, and he wants to make sure the
contour of the land will stay the same so the drainage remains the same; and Mr. Quake
stated it will. Mr. Murphy stated this will also be subject to review by the Township
engineer as part of the Building Permit process.
Testimony was closed.
Mr. Kim moved, Mr. Smith seconded and it was unanimously carried to grant the
Variance to allow a 600 square foot addition with a front yard setback of 42.5’.
April 17, 2007 Zoning Hearing Board – page 7 of 8
APPEAL #07-1421 – STONY HILL OFFICE DEVELOPMENT, II, L.P.
Jeffrey Garton, attorney, was present with Mr. Jeffrey Ruviaso, who was sworn in.
The Application was marked as Exhibit A-1. Attached to the Application was a plan for
Café 790 dated 11/16/06 which was marked as Exhibit A-2. Mr. Toadvine stated he
explained to the Board that Mr. Garton will be laying out the purpose of the Application
for the Board, and his client will then confirm those facts. Mr. Garton stated Exhibit A-3
is the Affidavit of Posting.
Mr. Garton stated the property is located in the Office/Research Zoning District, and the
building is Building #2 located in the
office development with approximately 375,000 square feet. In Building #2, which is
the purpose of providing food service to the tenants that exist within the office complex
and within walking distance of Floral Vale. He stated the Ordinance permits a restaurant
by Special Exception; however, the size of the facility will be only 1,500 square feet, it
will have only 48 seats, and there will be no waitress service. The Applicant intends to
operate the facility five days a week from approximately 7:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. but times
could be adjusted due to time of the year or special events. There will be no weekend
service. There is no cooking on site, although some items will be heated. Mr. Garton
stated the Applicant is doing this as a convenience to the tenants. They also believe the
cafeteria will reduce the amount of traffic in the area as people will not have to drive
elsewhere to have lunch. Mr. Ruviaso agreed to what was stated by Mr. Garton.
Mr. Toadvine asked if the project complies with all requirements of Section 200-98(3)
A through F, and Mr. Ruviaso it does.
Mr. Toadvine stated the Zoning Hearing Board did receive from the Planning
Commission a memorandum dated 4/10/07 which was marked as Exhibit B-1.
In it the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Plan with several
Conditions. Mr. Toadvine stated he believes the Applicant has indicated they would
abide by those Conditions. Mr. Garton stated the Conditions from the Planning
Commission are slightly different. He stated the Conditions he has provided to the
Zoning Hearing Board are similar to what he summarized as far as the Applicant’s
testimony. He would suggest that the Conditions be modified by what he provided to the
Zoning Hearing Board today. He stated at the Planning Commission meeting the
Applicant was not expecting some of the questions as that was more of a planning issue
as opposed to operation issues; and they did not have the exact information available at
that time as to hours of operation, number of seats, etc.
April 17, 2007 Zoning Hearing Board – page 8 of 8
Mr. Toadvine stated there is a Condition from the Planning Commission that there be no
food preparation on site; and the Applicant is suggesting language to the effect that cold
sandwiches will be made on site, and that there be no cooking on the premises except for
heating up soups, hot sandwiches, and other similar food offerings. Mr. Toadvine stated
these Conditions are highly unusual in a Special Exception. He stated the Zoning
Hearing Board should also recognize that if they impose these Conditions, he would
question who would police them. He feels it would be better to provide a blanket
Condition that the Applicant would not have extensive food preparation on the premises.
Mr. Garton stated he feels the Planning Commission was concerned that there would be a
restaurant; and while they could by Special Exception have a restaurant, he feels that the
clearest way to avoid what they are concerned with is to state “no weekend service, and
no waitress service.” He stated these two Conditions would dictate what would happen
with the space. Mr. Toadvine agreed.
Mr. Smith asked about the patio, and Mr. Garton stated this is not included in the
Application. There was discussion on the signs, and Mr. Garton stated they had been
asked about signs along
window, but only after the appropriate Permits are received.
There was no public comment.
Testimony was closed.
Mr. Smith moved, Mr. Gruen seconded and it was unanimously
carried that the Special Exception be granted subject to the following
1) Space to be allocated is 1516 square feet;
2) There be no more than 48 seats in the area;
3) No external advertising signs;
4) No waitress service
5) Hours of operation will be 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday.
There being no further business, Mr. Smith moved, Mr. Gruen seconded and it was unanimously carried to adjourn the meeting at 8:35 p.m.
Paul Bamburak, Secretary