ZONING HEARING BOARD
The regular meeting of the Lower Makefield Township Zoning
Hearing Board was held on
THOSE PRESENT ZONING HEARING BOARD BARBARA KIRK
OTHERS ` ALLEN TOADVINE
APAPEAL #04-1276 – THOMAS J. MACK CONSTRUCTION
Application was marked as Exhibit
A-1,. As built survey was marked as
exhibit A-2. Mr. Mack advised that he
previously was granted variances regarding setbacks to construct a house and
garage. They have now found this was
built 18” outside the property line.
Property is located at Pine Grove and
The Township had no position.
Motion made by Mr. Mayrhofer granting variance for 38.45’ setback as presented. Motion seconded by Ms. Kirk and carried.
APPEAL #04-1277 – THOMAS J. MACK CONSTRUCTION
Application was marked A-1. Plan submitted with the application “Building addition permit plan dated 6/19/04 was marked as Exhibit A-2.
Mr. Koopman requested party status on behalf of the Township. He also advised that the township engineer provided a letter indicating that Mr. Wagner does not agree with the calculations set forth in the application. He feels existing impervious is 21.4. With addition propped it will be 32.1 and they are permitted is 20%. Mr. Mack stated he has not had an opportunity to review the letter and requested time to review this information.
Motion mad by Ms. Kirk moving this appeal to the end of the agenda. Motion seconded by Mr. Dobson and carried.
APPEAL #04-1278 – CHRIS PRATICO AND EILEEN SENNETT
Lee Rockafellow appeared together with applicant Chris Pratico. Application was marked as Exhibit A-1. Plan for lots 20-46-126 and 20-46-184 dated 2/6/03, revised 4/14/04 was marked Exhibit A-2. Mr. Rockafellow advised he received the township engineers’ letter and reviewed the same. He then gave background on the previous application. He explained that they now want to divide the property into 3 lots with the same stipulations as were indicated in the previous application. All the neighbors are supporting the proposal which is in keeping with the neighborhood. If not subdivided it would remain rental units. Mr. Rockafellow stated that under the new proposal he has two potential buyers.
Ms. Kirk noted some of the conditions were no new construction on the premises an d no alteration to the existing barn. Mr. Rockafellow stated the existing barn was original proposed to be a separate lot with the condition that it could not be sold separately unless converted to a single family home. This barn will now remain with the main house.
Mr. Koopman stated the Board of supervisors had concerns even with the conditions regarding the number of lots and size of the same. The township has no objection to the grant of relief as per the revised plan, subject to various conditions.
Ms. Kirk stated this is a new hearing and wants a clean record and therefore she wants the applicant to testify as to the requested relief. The township can then indicate what it is seeking.
Mr. Pratico stated that after concerns of the township the applicant is resubmitting an application leaving the barn with the main house. Although this is more difficulty to sell it will not be a hardship. The ability to sell the two houses now gives their family substantial relief. He noted his father did all the maintenance and now they have been paying about $13,000/$14,000 per year to maintain. The only stipulation that is something which the Township is requiring which they don’t have presently is for lot 3 to hook up to water.
Mr. Rockefeller stated lots 1 and 2 have water and sewer. Lot 3 has sewer and well water but the pipes have been run. Ms. Kirk asked if this has been before the board on subdivision. Mr. Koopman advised subdivision plan has not been submitted until the variances are received. Ms. Kirk stated this Board only deals with zoning issues and does not want to deal with subdivision issues. She requested Mr. Pratico refer to the Township engineer’s letter of 8/10/04 and testify as to the variances being requested. Mr. Toadvine suggested the zoning hearing board confirm through the applicant that the variances shown n Exhibit A-2 match the variances indicated by the township engineer’s letter of 8/10, noting that even the township engineer’s letter is not specific.
Mr. Toadvine suggested the zoning haring board confirm that the variances shown n A-2 match the variances indicated by the 8/10/04 township engineer letter. Mr. Wagner noted item D is variance to Section 200-65 with a new configuration and he does not believe this applies.
Ms. Kirk requested Mr. Rockafellow verify that the letter sets forth those variances which are being requested in conformity with what is shown on A-1. Mr. Rockefeller stated he believes it does. Referring to letter dated 8/10 he noted #1 refers to maximum density. He noted this is a 3 acre lot. Mr. Toadvine explained this is the net buildable site area. Mr. Koopman noted the plan is not specific as to the extent of the relief. Mr. Toadvine stage it is and tells what each lot needs.
Mrs. Kirk noted A-2 has a grid showing the zoning requirements and what is proposed for each of the 3 named lots with corresponding lots 1a, 22a and 31. There is also a 12 item list of the variances requested from the Township zoning ordinance. Mr. Toadvine stated they do not need Item #10 of the 12 variances and therefore only need 11 variances. It was agreed item 10 as shown on A-2 can be deleted.
Mr. Rockefeller noted previously they agreed lot 1a would be combined with lot 1 and 2a with 2 and 3a with lot 3, for calculation of the buildable area. Ms. Kirk stated these lots would be subject to a deed restriction or some other type restriction that there could be no separate construction or building on 1a, 2a and 3 b and they would not be sold separately .
Mr. Rockafellow advised that the applicant agrees with the list of conditions received from Mr. Koopman. Regarding #9 he would request that there be a stipulation that it must be connected within 2 years of the time of sale. Ms. Kirk questioned if this is a subdivision issue. Mr. Toadvine advised in many instances the zoning hearing board has requested the applicant connect to water and sewer. Mr. Koopman stated because of the size of the lots the board is concerned with on lot systems. He does not think the township has an objection to a two year delay in hooking to public water. He noted the township does not require them to cap the well Mr. Koopman stated the Township has no objection to grant of variances subject to conditions being attached so they run with the land. Mr. Mayrhofer asked how this will be done. Mr. Koopman stated it will be the zoning officers obligation to make sure all the conditions of the variances have been complied with.
Document presented by the township listing conditions was marked as T-1.
Regarding condition #7, the barn would not be used for commercial, office purpose. Testimony indicated this was being used for personal use of the family as an office.
Mr. Mayrhofer asked why lot 2 is being left and not included in lot 3. Mr. Pratico stated there is a building which goes across the back. This new lot 2 is a large lot. Lot 1 has river frontage and lot 3 is off the road.
Motion made by Ms. Kirk that the application of Chris Pratico and Eileen Sennet be granted variances as set forth in exhibit A-2 subject to the conditions as set forth in Exhibit T-1 with the following additional conditions:
1) that the barn on lot 2 shall not be used at any time for business or commercial purposes and will be used strictly by whoever purchases it for personal use as an office;
2) that condition #9 on T-1 be modified that lot 3 be connected to pubic water within 2 years at the time of conveyance of that lot to a new homeowner with the understanding that lots 1 and 2 are already connected to public water and sewer;
3) that there be n new construction on lots 1, 2 or 3;
4) that the applicant has withdrawn the variance as requested in item #10 as set forth in Exhibit A-2.
Motion seconded by Mr. Mayrhofer and carried.
APPEAL #04-1277 – THOMAS J. MACK
Mr. Mack appeared together with Dr Richard Troll and Susan Troll. Letter dated 8/12/04 from Pickering Corts and Sommerson as it related to this appeal was marked as Exhibit T-1,. Mr. Mack asked about the overhang being included in impervious for the dwelling. Mr. Wagner asked if underneath the overhang is grass and r. Mack advised it is. Mr. Mack requested they amend application to request relief of 21.7% impervious. He stated applicant agrees to removing flag stone path and approximately 60 sq ft. Ft of the driveway to bring the impervious to 4,093. He noted the impervious for the dwelling was incorrect and therefore is requesting 21.7% which equals an increase of .3%. Dr. Troll advised they will be giving up flag stone path and reduce driveway by 09 sq. ft in order to allow construction of addition to rear which will be one story. This will be used to expand the kitchen and family room.
Mr. Koopman stated he understanding the application is being amended to 21.7% and township has no objection.
Motion made by Mr. Mayrhofer approving impervious to 21.7%. Motion seconded by Mr. Dobson and carried.
Letter has been received from Edward Murphy, Esq. requesting that the 9/7/04 hearing of Sunrise development be continued to 9/21/04. Said letter was marked as Exhibit B-2.
Motion made by Mr. Mayrhofer granting continuance to 9/21/04. Motion seconded by Mr. Dobson and carried.
Motion made by Mr. Dobson canceling meeting of 9/7/04. Motion seconded by Mr. Mayrhofer and carried.
There being no other business motion made by Ms. Kirk to adjourn. Seconded by Mr. Dobson and carried. The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
David Malinowski, Secretary