ZONING HEARING BOARD
MINUTES JUNE 5, 2007
The regular meeting of the Zoning Hearing Board of the
Zoning Hearing Board: David Malinowski, Vice Chairman
Jerry Gruen, Member
Gregory Smith, Member
Paul Kim, Alternate
Anthony Zamparelli, Alternate
Others: Robert Habgood, Code Enforcement Officer
John Donaghy, Township Solicitor
James Majewski, Township Engineer
Allen Toadvine, Zoning Hearing Board Solicitor
Ron Smith, Supervisor Liaison
Absent: Paul Bamburak, ZHB Secretary
APPEAL #06-1410 NORMAN P./PATRICIA K. OROURKE
Mr. Toadvine stated this matter has been continued and should have been formally
continued at the last meeting; however, there was not a quorum present so no Motion
could be made.
Mr. Smith moved, Mr. Gruen seconded and it was unanimously carried to continue the
matter until August 7, 2007.
APPEAL #07-1424 MARK CHEREPKO
Mr. Mark Cherepko was sworn in. The Application submitted was marked as Exhibit
A-1. Attached to the Application was a three-page document with the first page titled,
were various drawings of the proposed structure, and this package was marked as Exhibit
June 5, 2007 Zoning Hearing Board page 2 of 6
Mr. Cherepko stated he is trying to construct a screened porch to be attached to the back
of his house. He is requesting a Variance for impervious surface. Mr. Cherepko stated it
is a by-level home which he purchased ten years ago. He stated when he purchased the
home it already as addition on it as well as an extensive driveway which went to the side
of the house. He stated he has not added any impervious surface to the property since he
purchased it. He is requesting the Variance so that he can enjoy the rear yard with his
two small children. Mr. Cherepko stated the pictures provided show a screened patio at
his fathers home which he helped construct. He is trying to do everything himself.
Mr. Malinowski asked the amount of the existing impervious surface. Mr. Habgood
stated the Application shows they are requesting 25.8% which is close to what he also
calculated. The existing impervious surface is 24.2%, and the maximum amount
permitted for this lot size is 18%.
Mr. Cherepko stated he is adding a 21 by 12. He stated there are temporary cement
tiles currently in the area similar to foot pavers which are coming up, and these will be
removed. When he purchased the home ten years ago, the impervious surface was
24.2%, and the pavers were there when he purchased the house. The existing pavers
actually go out 14 so he will actually have less impervious surface than there is
currently. Mr. Gruen asked if he included the pavers in his existing impervious surface
calculations, and Mr. Cherepko stated he did not. Mr. Toadvine stated if he had included
the pavers in his calculations, he would be at 25.8% so he is in fact not really adding any
additional impervious surface.
Mr. Gruen stated on the Application he shows a 21 by 9 front patio and asked if they
are using it, and Mr. Cherepko stated they are. Mr. Gruen asked if they could not screen
this in, and Mr. Cherepko stated he would rather not as this area has stairs which go up to
the front door and it would also be difficult due to the existing large window to attach a
Mr. Gruen stated there is a portion of the driveway which goes all the way to the back of
the house, and he stated if he removed a portion of the driveway he could request less of
a Variance. Mr. Cherepko stated he has a boat which he stores on the side of the house in
the winter. Mr. Gruen stated he could put the boat on the grass. Mr. Habgood stated he
could not do this as it would be a violation as a recreational boat must be stored on
Mr. Toadvine asked what the impervious requirements were for the lot twenty years ago,
and Mr. Habgood stated it would have been 15%; but when the Township changed the
impervious requirements in the 1980s, 3% additional was granted for this lot size.
Mr. Malinowski stated the patio which will be screened will go over the area where there
are existing pavers; and Mr. Cherepko agreed. Mr. Malinowski stated it appears that he is not requesting any more impervious than he has currently.
June 5, 2007 Zoning Hearing Board page 3 of 6
Mr. Majewski asked if there is grass between the paving stones, and Mr. Cherepko stated
while there is not grass, there is moss. He stated there is a small space between the
stones. Mr. Majewski stated he feels the existing condition would be 80% to 90%
Mr. Zamparelli asked about the rainspouts, and Mr. Cherepko stated as shown on the
drawing the rainspouts go away from the house on the right hand side, they go to the
east and on the left hand side, they go north.
Mr. Donaghy stated the Township is not participating in this matter provided that the
requested relief will not exceed that which is on the Application of 25.8%.
There was no public comment.
Mr. Kim moved and Mr. Smith seconded to approve the Variance requested not to exceed
25.8% impervious surface. Motion carried with Mr. Gruen opposed.
APPEAL #07-1425 KATHLEEN/ARTHUR PEAKE
Ms. Kathleen Peake was sworn in. The Application filed was marked as Exhibit A-1.
Attached to the Application was a one-sheet Plan entitled As-Built Dwelling Plan dated
received by the Township 4/20/07. This was marked as Exhibit A-2.
Ms. Peake stated they are applying for a Variance to encroach into the 100-foot setback
as the house backs up to
will be encroaching by approximately 26 in one area. She added their development has
approximately five houses which also back up to
uncommon as houses on their side of the street have patios, decks, sheds, etc. She stated
the way the house was built, the back of the house abuts the 100 setback so anything
added onto the house would be encroaching.
Mr. Toadvine stated the Plan shows the encroachment to be 24, and Ms. Peake agreed
that this is correct. She added the request is for a patio. Ms. Peake stated they are going
off the side of the house so that they are actually requesting less than those who went off
the back of the house.
Mr. Gruen asked why there is a 100 setback, and Ms. Peake noted that it is because they
back up to a
Mr. Kim asked why they need the bump-out as it appears from the Plan that the
breakfast extension would be the 100, and they could have the patio not extend out to the
breakfast nook, and still serve their purposes. Ms. Peake stated it would be very tight to
fit a grill and table as this would only give them 10.
June 5, 2007 Zoning Hearing Board page 4 of 6
Mr. Toadvine stated if the Applicants decided to install a pool in the rear yard, they could
encroach by 40 under the Ordinance as a pool would only have to maintain a 60 setback
Mr. Smith asked if the deck will be at grade, and Ms. Peake stated there will be a landing
when you come out and two steps down and then another step down from the deck to the
ground. The bump-out will not have a step down. There will be a step down to the
Mr. Donaghy stated the Township is not participating in this matter. There was no public
Mr. Smith moved and Mr. Gruen seconded to grant the Variance to encroach by
Mr. Gruen stated he assumes they would have to come back if they decided to screen this
in, and Mr. Toadvine stated they would not since they are approving the encroachment.
Motion carried unanimously.
APPEAL #07-1426 ELAYNE KLEIN
Ms. Elayne Klein was sworn in. The Application submitted was marked as Exhibit A-1.
Included with the Application was a one-sheet Plan entitled Zoning Permit Plan dated
2/5/07 with a last revised date of 3/26/07. This was marked as Exhibit A-2.
Ms. Klein introduced her husband Murray and her son, Scott. Ms. Klein stated they are
requesting a Variance for the handicap walkways they installed to accommodate their
son, Scott and a patio that was existing which they demolished and extended.
Mr. Malinowski asked what brought them to the Board since these were already installed.
Ms. Klein stated they came to the Township to put a roof over the existing patio, and the
Township requested a Plot Plan. She stated when the Plot Plan was presented, the
Township saw the walkways which had been installed. She stated they have lived in the
home for over twenty-six years. When their son, Scott, was injured, they installed the
walkways to accommodate him and provide an even surface. They did not know they
needed to request permission for this.
Mr. Toadvine stated the impervious surface calculations on the Plan show the original
survey at 22.3% impervious surface, existing impervious surface of 24% and proposed
impervious surface of 24%; and Mr. Habgood stated the existing and proposed are the
same as the walkways were included when the most recent survey was done. The
June 5, 2007 Zoning Hearing Board page 5 of 6
Township checked their records, and they did not have Permits for this, so they are going
from 22.3% to 24%. Mr. Habgood agreed that the impervious surface calculations are
correct as shown on the Plan at 24%. For their lot size in this Zone, they are permitted
Mr. Gruen asked the width of the walkways, and Ms. Klein stated it is wide enough to
accommodate a wheelchair. Mr. Habgood stated it appears that they are 3 wide which is
a standard width for a walkway. Ms. Klein stated they were installed approximately four
Mr. Smith noted the driveway on the Plan, and stated it appears to be a 14 wide
horseshoe and goes back to the garage as well. Ms. Klein agreed, and stated it was like
this when they moved in. She stated the house is more than 60 years old, and they have
lived their almost 27 years.
Mr. Donaghy stated the Township is not participating in this matter. There was no
Mr. Kim moved, Mr. Zamparelli seconded and it was unanimously carried to approve
impervious surface of 24%.
APPEAL #07-1427 JOHN AND CHRISTA SPERA
Mr. and Mrs. Spera were sworn in. The Application submitted was marked as Exhibit
A-1. Attached to the Application was a one-page Building Permit Plan dated 9/24/06,
and this was marked as Exhibit A-2. Also included is a package of nine pages, and this
package was marked as Exhibit A-3.
Mr. Spera stated they are requesting a Variance for impervious surface as they would like
to convert the existing patio surface to indoor living space. This will be an extension to
the family room to accommodate their growing family. They would also replace the
existing patio roof with new roofing materials that would be in line with the new roof to
go over the enclosed patio. Mr. Spera stated they will remove 168 square feet of existing
patio surface to reduce the overall impervious surface which is currently over the 18%
permitted. Mr. Toadvine stated what is currently existing is 24.4%, and they are
proposing 23.4% after construction.
Mr. Toadvine asked how long they have lived in the home, and Mr. Spera stated they
purchased it two and a half years ago. Mr. Toadvine asked if all existing impervious
surface was there when they purchased the home, and Mr. Spera stated it was; and they
have not added anything. Mr. Habgood stated it appears a prior owner did work without
a Permit as there is no record of the walkway or patio shown on the Plan. Mr. Toadvine
June 5, 2007 Zoning Hearing Board page 6 of 6
asked what the impervious was on the As-Built, and Mr. Habgood stated this house was
built before the Township required As-Builts.
Mr. Majewski reviewed the Plans with Mr. Spera. He stated there is 20 of covered patio
with a flat roof and on either side is a brick patio which the previous owner installed.
After review Mr. Majewski stated it appears that the numbers submitted are correct.
Mr. Donaghy stated the Township was participating only to clarify some of the issues
which Mr. Majewski has reviewed. Mr. Donaghy asked if the 12 by 36 area is all
impervious surface, and Mr. Spera stated it is. He stated they will remove 168 square
feet and enclose the balance. There is no area where they will be creating additional
impervious surface other than where the impervious exists.
There was no public comment.
Mr. Smith moved, Mr. Gruen seconded and it was unanimously carried to grant
impervious surface of 23.4%.
CANCEL JULY 3, 2007 MEETING
Mr. Gruen moved, Mr. Kim seconded and it was unanimously carried to cancel the
July 3, 2007 meeting as no Appeals are scheduled.
There being no further business, Mr. Gruen moved, Mr. Smith seconded and it was unanimously carried to adjourn the meeting at 8:10 p.m.
David Malinowski, Vice Chairman