TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MAKEFIELD

ZONING HEARING BOARD

MINUTES – JUNE 5, 2007

 

 

The regular meeting of the Zoning Hearing Board of the Township of Lower Makefield was held in the Municipal Building on June 5, 2007.  Vice Chairman Malinowski called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.

 

Those present:

 

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. O’ROURKE

 

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,

“Plot Plan – Lot 26 – Maplevale,” and this was marked as Exhibit A-2.  Also attached

were various drawings of the proposed structure, and this package was marked as Exhibit

A-3.

 

 

 

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 father’s 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

screen.

 

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

impervious surface.

 

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 1980’s, 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%

impervious. 

 

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 Edgewood Road which is a Collector Road.  The proposed patio

will be encroaching by approximately 26’ in one area. She added their development has

approximately five houses which also back up to Edgewood Road; and the request is not

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 Collector Road. 

 

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

from a Collector Road, while a deck or patio would need 100’. 

 

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

“bump-out.” 

 

Mr. Donaghy stated the Township is not participating in this matter.  There was no public

comment.

 

Mr. Smith moved and Mr. Gruen seconded to grant the Variance to encroach by

approximately 24’. 

 

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

18%. 

 

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

years ago.

 

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

public comment.

 

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.

 

 

                                                            Respectfully Submitted,

 

 

 

 

                                                            David Malinowski, Vice Chairman