ZONING HEARING BOARD
MINUTES – DECEMBER 6, 2005
The regular meeting of the Zoning Hearing Board of Lower
Makefield Township was held in the
Zoning Hearing Board: Barbara Kirk, Chairman
Rudolph Mayrhofer, Vice Chairman (left meeting
in progress) (not Voting on AVS)
David Malinowski, Secretary
Paul Bamburak, Member
Greg Caiola, Alternate (Voting only on AVS)
Others: Robert Habgood, Code Enforcement Officer
John Koopman, Township Solicitor
James Majewski, Township Engineer
Allen Toadvine, Zoning Hearing Board Solicitor
Steve Santarsiero, Supervisor Liaison (joined meeting
APPEAL #05-1311, APPEAL #05-1312, APPEAL #05-1313 –
Mr. Bernard Schneider, attorney, was present. Ms. Kirk stated this matter was continued
from 11/1/05, and it is her understanding that Mr. Schneider has finished his presentation.
Mr. Schneider stated this is correct except for Closing. He stated he has a Brief prepared
which he submitted to the Board this evening. Mr. Schneider agreed to provide a copy to
Mr. Pastor. Mr. Toadvine stated Mr. Pastor contacted him to advise that he would not be
able to attend this evening but has put together several pages of concerns that have been
expressed by his clients, and he asked that the Board consider those concerns in making
their decision. Mr. Schneider had no objection to having the document admitted into
evidence, and the document from Mr. Pastor dated 12/5/05 was marked as Exhibit P-2.
Mr. Schneider stated while he does not object to the submission which he views as a
Brief, he does not agree with the arguments.
December 6, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board – page 2 of 14
Ms. Kirk stated the Township initially entered its appearance in opposition, and
Mr. Koopman stated this is incorrect. He stated the Township only asked for Party Status
and made it clear throughout the proceedings that their purpose in seeking Party Status
was to ascertain what the facts were with respect to Allegheny’s claim with regard to
reasonable accommodation. Ms. Kirk asked the Township’s position at this time, and
Mr. Koopman stated the Township does not intend to present any witnesses. He stated the
Board of Supervisors’ opinion is the same as it has been throughout the proceedings that
the question of Variance or accommodation is within the purview of the Zoning Hearing
Board, and it is up to the Zoning Hearing Board to make that decision if they feel it is
Ms. Kirk asked if any members of the public not represented by Mr. Pastor who had
requested Party status wish to make a statement at this time.
Mr. F. William Natale,
planner. He stated he represents different Municipalities in different venues and most
times Municipalities hire him to assist them in writing Ordinances. He stated the
residents hired a professional to testify and the Applicant kept objecting. He stated the
attorney for the Applicant allowed his client to commit something wrong by practicing
engineering without a License and allowed somebody from the public to make testimony
before the Zoning Hearing Board regarding parking. He stated many times organizations
requirements of the
in a bedroom and allow a 16” radius between the two beds and 36” around the bed as it
would not fit. Ms. Kirk stated they are not present to discuss building requirements.
Mr. Natale stated they are discussing allowing them to do something against the
Ordinance because of monetary reasons. He stated he heard them state they were
benevolent, but he feels they are slumlords as they will put two handicapped people in a
bedroom that is 10’ by 10’ and putting a family in an apartment in the basement below
the water table. He stated he does not feel slumlords should be in our community. He
stated he does not feel the Township has objected to what they want to do provided they
were within the Ordinance. He stated they want to make money by putting more people
in the residence than what could be held, and this is why the Ordinances were written.
He stated he hears that they want a quick answer as if they lose before the Zoning
Hearing Board, they will go before a Federal Judge. He stated if the Zoning Hearing
Board says “No,” he feels they should go before a Judge and let the Judge make a
decision that he wants to have tenements built and has no concern for handicapped people
and will put two in a bedroom. He asked that the Zoning Hearing Board reject the
Application as presented.
December 6, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board – page 3 of 14
Mr. Mike Gershman,
He stated he has personal experience with people suffering from mental and physical
infirmities and understands what the issues are. He stated he read the Township has
passed an Ordinance limited the area where sexual predators can live in the community,
and he is concerned that any exception made for AVS may open the door for dangerous
people in the future such as those rehabilitating from drug addiction and the like. He
feels this could become an issue if AVS sells any of these homes in the future or at some
other home in the Township.
Mr. Gershman stated he is also concerned with the parking arrangement at the Big Oak
Road property. He stated they did not discuss the parking plan for this property.
He stated he resides directly across the street from the
and the parking plan described for the other two properties will not suffice for the Big
Oak Road property. He stated the property has a two-car wide driveway leading to a
garage; and given the number of vehicles to which they have testified will be parked at
this property regularly, there is no way they could use this facility unless the parking area
is changed in some way. He stated there could also be regular parking in the street or
there could be shuffling of cars in and out of the driveway during shift changes. He
stated the workers for the later shifts could arrive when workers from earlier shifts are
still at the property. He stated this will be an intrusion to he and his neighbors as the
roadway will be impassable during the duration of any car shuffling.
Mr. Gershman stated he is also concerned with the pool on the property. He stated AVS
has admitted that they cannot be certain that the residents will always stay on the
property; and while this is understandable, he is concerned about the welfare of the
residents with regard to the pool. He stated the use of the pool by several residents
simultaneously will result in an unusual noise level and will change the character of the
neighborhood during the summer months. He asked that the Zoning Hearing Board
seriously consider asking AVS to remove the pool.
Mr. Gershman stated he understands that AVS is requesting that a reasonable
accommodation be made to permit six residents as opposed to four. He stated a
reasonable accommodation can be made based on a benefit to the residents or a financial
hardship. He stated AVS has indicated that the increase in number of residents is not a
benefit to the residents. With regard to financial hardship, he stated there was testimony
that no request for the State program has ever been denied; and if this is the case and
AVS has now owned the property for almost a year, he questioned why AVS would not
request additional funds in the next fiscal year from the appropriate State Departments so
as to move only four residents in per house. He stated they argued that the six-resident
scenario is temporary, and he feels that it would be worthwhile to request the additional
funds if AVS is suffering from a financial hardship. He questioned why it is so critical
December 6, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board – page 4 of 14
for six residents to live in each house and whether it is truly temporary. He noted AVS
only submitted the six-bed proposal which met the State’s minimum requirements, and he
does not feel that this will be a short-term situation.
Mr. Gershman stated AVS made numerous claims with which others disagreed, and he
felt that these claims would be substantiated in some way. He asked that the Board
review the notes to insure that what was claimed is in fact true. He stated some of the
claims were surprising; and since they were stated under Oath and are relevant to the case
that AVS is making, he hopes that they have been verified. He requested that the Board
attach consequences to violations of any agreement with AVS that should occur. He
noted specifically that if AVS states that cars will not be parked on the street, should this
occur, he feels there should be consequences. He stated given what he has seen with
regard to AVS’ behavior, he is concerned about a home owned by an organization that
lashes out when things do not proceed according to their plan. He stated he is also
concerned that AVS will be punitive to
reductions to four residents in these type of homes,
experience this reduction as punishment for AVS not getting its way without opposition.
He stated he is also concerned that AVS will also reduce funds for the upkeep of the
Ms. Kirk moved, Mr. Malinowski seconded and it was unanimously carried that the
testimony and record be closed.
Ms. Kirk stated the Board will render its Decision within the timeframe as prescribed by
the Municipalities Planning Code. Mr. Schneider asked if there is a chance that the
Board may make a decision this evening, and Ms. Kirk stated they would first have to
have an opportunity to review the contents of the legal Briefs and discuss same with their
Solicitor. She could not state at this time whether or not a Decision would be made this
evening. Mr. Koopman asked if they do not make a Decision this evening would the
matter be placed on their Agenda for the meeting on December 20, 2005, and Ms. Kirk
stated it will not.
APPEAL #05-1345 AND APPEAL #05-1350 – PATRICK M. AND KIM ANNE BRENNAN
Ms. Kirk stated Appeal #05-1345 was continued from a prior Hearing, and she suggested
that the Board also hear Appeal #05-1350 at the same time as this is another Application
filed by the same Applicant.
December 6, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board – page 5 of 14
Don Marshall, attorney, was present. Mr. Patrick M. Brennan and Ms. Kim Anne
Brennan were sworn in.
Mr. Marshall stated this Application deals with the property
Avenue, Tax Parcel #20-31-8 and #20-31-18. The property is divided by
The property is 1.8 acres and is zoned R-RP. He stated it was developed originally when
zoned R-2 and it has on it currently a single-family residence served by public sewer and
The Plot Plan dated 10/11/05 was marked as Exhibit A-1. The proposal is to relocate the
driveway that services the property and build a new two-story garage with a footprint of
900 square feet. They need relief from Section 200-6914A to allow a garage over 14’ in
height and not located in the one quarter of the lot furthest from the street. The second
relief sought is from Section 200-58 to allow the garage and driveway relocation in the
100 year floodplain. The third relief sought is from Section 200-61C for setback from
resource protected land. He noted the entire lot is located in resource protected land. The
fourth relief is Section 200-14 which is the impervious surface requirements. He stated
for the R-RP Zone 13% is permitted. This lot was developed as R-2 which has an 18%
impervious coverage permitted, and the Applicants seek to allow impervious coverage of
Mr. Marshall stated the second Application resulted after the first Application was filed.
He stated the Applicants applied for a Permit to construct the driveway improvement, and
the Zoning Officer denied that Permit on the basis that part of the driveway is located on
a sewer easement. They have Appealed that determination; and in the alternative, are
seeking a Variance. He added he is not certain that this is a Variance that the Board can
grant as it is part of the Land Development Ordinance.
Mr. Marshall asked that both matters be consolidated. Ms. Kirk moved, Mr. Malinowski
seconded and it was unanimously carried to approve the request for consolidation.
Ms. Kirk noted in the second Application there was reference to a 4/99 Easement
Agreement executed by the Applicants with the Township, but it was not attached.
Mr. Marshall stated he will provide all the Exhibits which will make this clear.
Exhibit A-1a was marked which is an undated Building Plan prepared by Edward L.
Ms. Kirk noted Exhibit A-1 is a Grading Plan and was submitted with the first
Application. She stated there is a photo copy of that Grading Plan that was submitted
with the second Application but there are additional notations on this which were not on
the original Grading Plan. It was agreed that this would be marked as Exhibit A-1b.
December 6, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board – page 6 of 14
Exhibit A-2 was marked which is the last Deed of Record.
Ms. Kirk asked the Township’s position, and Mr. Koopman stated the Township has no
position on this Application.
Exhibit A-3 was marked which is a brochure called Smart-Vent. Mr. Marshall stated
there will be testimony regarding the installation of this system which allow flood water
to run through the garage.
Exhibit A-4 was marked which is a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Leroy Alexander, who are
the immediate neighbors to the north, evidencing their review of the matter and the fact
that they have no objection to the same.
Exhibit A-5 was marked which is a letter dated 11/14/05 from Mr. and Mrs. Frank Hume,
who are the immediate neighbors to the south, indicating that they have no objection to
Exhibit A-6 was marked which is a letter from the Township Code Enforcement Officer
dated 11/3/05 which is the denial letter for the Permit for the driveway which gave rise to
the second Appeal.
Exhibit A-7 was marked which is the Deed of Easement referenced in the Application
between Mr. and Mrs. Brennan and the Township granting the Sewer Easement that runs
on the property.
Exhibit A-8 was marked which is a letter dated 11/1/05 from
Makefield executed by Henry Hoffmeister, Sewer Administrator, which is a permission
letter to encroach on the Sewer Easement with four conditions imposed which the
Applicants will testify that they are willing to comply with.
Exhibit A-9 was marked which are the relevant provisions of the Subdivision and Land
Development Ordinance which is what is referenced as the reason for the denial.
Mr. Marshall noted Exhibit A-1 which is the Grading Plan for his property, and
Mr. Brennan stated this Plan accurately depicts his property which is 1.8 acres. On the
River side of the property it is totally unimproved and goes down to the River.
Mr. Brennan stated the Plan also shows the flood elevation which is 43.5 and there is no
portion of his property that is not below the 100 year floodplain. Currently there is a one-
story dwelling on his property. It is built on a slab and there is no basement. Mr. Brennan
stated the driveway currently enters to the far north side of the house directly from River
Road as noted on the Plan. It wraps around slightly to the north side and ends at the back
part of the house. The shaded portion on the Plan is existing. The walkway shown on the
Plan is proposed.
December 6, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board – page 7 of 14
Mr. Brennan stated they wish to build a garage because they have no storage. He stated
they have three cars, yard equipment, etc. and would like to store these in the garage.
They would like to utilize the house for their growing family and use the upper portion of
the proposed garage for storage noting it is not practical to have a basement because of
their location in the floodplain. They do not intend that the second floor of the garage
would be living space.
Mr. Brennan stated they would like to extend the driveway around to the back. He added
that their neighbors have this and it allows them to back up and then pull forward onto
River Road rather than having to back out onto
would propose to stay on the north side as it is already existing in this area. If they went
to the other side it would require removal of a large tree and there is a significant grade
Mr. Brennan stated where they have proposed the garage is almost the highest point on
the property. With regard to the height relief, they are seeking 22’ which is being
requested so that they can accommodate storage on the second floor. They are also
seeking relief from the Ordinance requirement that garages be in the rear one quarter of
the lot since if they were to do so, this would encroach on the special setback from the
impervious surface. Mr. Brennan noted his entire lot is in the 100 year floodplain, and
the proposed location for the garage is the only suitable location on the site because it is
one of the highest areas, is consistent with their neighbor’s garage, and allows them to get
around to back of the house and enter the garage straight in and then pull forward out of
the property onto
Mr. Marshall noted the Plan marked as Exhibit A-1A noting the rectangles on the
elevations marked as Smart Vents. Mr. Brennan stated these allow water to flow freely
through the garage in the event of a flood. This is an engineered system. Mr. Brennan
stated these will be constructed within the block walls of the garage. He stated although
they are not shown on the door, if the Building Inspector required this, they would be
willing to agree to this at the Building Plan stage.
Exhibit A-3 was noted, and Mr. Brennan stated these are the specifications for the Smart
Vents. The last page was noted which is the certification from the engineer as to
requirements under the National Flood Insurance Program. Mr. Brennan stated while
they are only required to have five vents for a 900 square foot building, they are
Mr. Brennan stated they are also seeking a Variance from the setback requirements from
the Resource Protected land, noting that his entire lot is in the Resource Protected land
and it would be impossible to do anything on the lot without violating that special
December 6, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board – page 8 of 14
With regard to impervious surface, Mr. Brennan stated his lot was originally developed
as an R-2 lot which allows 18% impervious surface, but was re-zoned to Resource
Protected. They are seeking impervious surface of 15.9% which will exceed the
Ordinance by 2.9%. Mr. Mayrhofer asked if the 15.9% includes the portion on the River
they would be under the requirements; but the Ordinance states it must be treated as a
separate lot if it is divided by a road. Mr. Brennan stated it is not possible for him to
comply with the Ordinance with regard to the impervious surface if he is going to wrap
the driveway around to the garage. He stated the vast majority of the increase is in the
Mr. Brennan stated he has had discussions with his immediate neighbors who are aware
of his plans and wrote the letters which were marked as Exhibits A-4 and A-5.
Mr. Brennan stated the impervious coverage they are seeking is the minimum they can
seek and still have the garage and have the turn-around as well.
There was discussion on the Sewer Easement. Exhibit A-1 was noted, and
Mr. Brennan stated the easement is located at the northerly property line. It is the dotted
line shown on the Plan. The driveway will not go over the line; but it is encroaching on
the easement granted to the Township which was marked as Exhibit A-7. Mr. Brennan
stated when they granted the Easement, he reserved the right to utilize the property for
any purpose not inconsistent with the sewer line. He stated the Township asked them to
grant the Easement so they could extend the sewers. He stated the Township came to
them and asked them to grant the Easement to which they agreed but noted that in the
future they wanted to construct a garage with a driveway.
Mr. Brennan stated when they sought the Permit for the installation of the driveway it
was denied on the basis that it violated Section 178-56 of the Subdivision and Land
Development Ordinance as noted in Exhibit A-6. Mr. Brennan stated he discussed the
matter with the Sewer Authority, and they issued the letter which is marked as Exhibit
A-8. He stated Mr. Hoffmeister advised him of the conditions which include: the
driveway could not extend any further than 5’ into the easement area, no fencing or trees
could be placed over the easement, if the Township finds they need to disturb the
easement and disturb the driveway, it would be his responsibility to restore it and not the
Township. Mr. Brennan stated he would agree to all of these conditions. Ms. Kirk asked
if he agreed to a condition that there would be no paving over the 2 ½ “ force main, and
Mr. Brennan stated they also agreed to this Condition as well.
Mr. Marshall stated when the Zoning Officer denied the Application, he suggested that
Mr. Brennan could go to the Zoning Hearing Board to Appeal the decision, and
Mr. Brennan agreed and this is why he filed the second Appeal that is the subject of the
Application. In the alternative, he has asked for relief if the Zoning Hearing Board finds
December 6, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board – page 9 of 14
that the Zoning Officer’s determination was correct. He stated he is aware that the
Zoning Hearing Board does not have jurisdiction over the Subdivision and Land
Development Ordinance. Mr. Marshall asked if he has had discussions with Mr. Brennan
as to whether or not Mr. Brennan’s project is either a Subdivision or a Land
Development, and Mr. Brennan stated they have had this discussion. Exhibit A-9 was
noted which defines the applicability of that Ordinance to be Subdivisions and Land
Developments and defines those. Mr. Brennan stated his project is neither. He feels the
citation for the denial of the Permit is not applicable to his Application as the Ordinance
does not apply. If the Zoning Hearing Board were to grant the other Variances and
impose as a condition the conditions imposed by the Sewer Authority, he would be
agreeable to those conditions.
Mr. Marshall moved all his Exhibits which were admitted.
Mr. Brennan stated there are some unique physical circumstances related to his property
as the entire property is in the R-RP Zone, entirely within a floodplain, the existing non-
conforming house is in such a location that the only way to access it is on the northerly
side, and it is divided by a road and therefore they do not get the benefit of full
impervious surface mathematics. Mr. Brennan added that the existing house is very
small with no basement and no storage capacity. He stated the location they have
proposed is the only viable location on the lot. He stated the entrance proposed from the
road is the best place to enter as opposed to the southerly side. He noted they are also
trying to protect the special Canal setbacks of the Ordinance by not placing the garage in
the rear of the property. He stated he did not create the hardship being created by the
unique circumstances on the lot and did not build the house. He stated this is the
minimum Variance necessary to grant the relief in order to provide storage and a garage
for the property. The garage is consistent with the neighborhood and will not have an
adverse impact on neighboring properties.
Ms. Kirk asked the height of the house on the property, and Mr. Brennan stated it is a
one-story dwelling with an A-frame roof. He estimated it is 16’ high or less. The
proposed garage will be approximately the same height when you take in the height
difference of the property as it does slope in the back. He stated they would also like to
build a second story onto their house in the future. Ms. Kirk stated it appears that even
though the new garage would be taller, the visual effect would be that the structures were
approximately the same height. Mr. Marshall stated from the dimensions shown, it
appears that the house roof line will actually appear higher.
Ms. Kirk asked if they could have a 15’ high garage with a 10’ ceiling and a 5’ space for
storage. Mr. Brennan stated this would be a hardship as it would not provide sufficient
storage area for his growing family. Ms. Kirk stated they are proposing a three-car
garage and to store all three vehicles and gardening equipment in the garage, and
December 6, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board – page 10 of 14
Mr. Brennan agreed. She asked how many feet would be available on the second floor
for storage. Mr. Brennan stated he assumes it would be the complete dimension of the
garage minus the slope of the roof. Mr. Toadvine asked the proposed height of the
ceiling in the garage and the area between the ceiling and the peak. After review of the
drawing, it was estimated it would be approximately ten feet high in the storage area to
the peak. Mr. Brennan stated they also need to consider the collar ties.
Ms. Kirk asked the impact to their home from the severe storms in April and the prior
September, and Mr. Brennan stated they were 100% unaffected.
Mr. Toadvine asked Mr. Marshall if they would be willing to incorporate the Conditions
outlined by Mr. Hoffmeister into a Deed, and Mr. Marshall suggested that they do this to
the satisfaction of the Township Solicitor as a Deed Restriction may be a better way to
There was no public comment.
Ms. Kirk moved, Mr. Bamburak seconded and it was unanimously carried that with
respect to Appeal #05-1345 that a Variance be granted from Section 200-6914A to permit
the construction of a garage of 22’ high and not within the one quarter portion of the lot
furthest from the abutting street as shown in Exhibit A-1, that a Variance be granted from
Section 200-58 to allow construction of the proposed driveway and garage within the 100
year floodplain, a Variance from Section 200-61C be granted to permit construction
within the Resource Protection area, and a Variance to Section 200-14 be granted to
permit impervious surface coverage of 15.9% for the construction of the proposed
driveway and garage subject to the condition that at least seven Smart Vents be installed
within the foundation of the proposed garage as set forth in Exhibit A-1a.
Ms. Kirk moved, Mr. Bamburak seconded and it was unanimously carried that with respect to Appeal #05-1350 that the Applicants be granted a Variance from the Section of the Code regarding the R-RP District to extend the driveway within 5’ of the sewer sanitary easement area granted to the Township by an Easement dated 4/99 subject to the following Conditions:
1) That the proposed driveway shall not extend further than 5’ within the
easement area and that at no time shall there be paving over the
2 ½” force main pipe;
2) That no fencing, and/or trees or other landscaping shrubs be placed
within the easement area;
December 6, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board – page 11 of 14
3) That if the Township or any of its agents are required to enter
the easement area to replace, maintain, or repair the existing
sanitary sewer easement line that the property owner shall be
solely and completely responsible for any damages to the
driveway that would result from that repair or replacement
and further that the property owners hold the Township, its
agents, assigns, and contractors harmless from any damages;
4) That all of the Conditions set forth in this Decision be made a
Record by a Restriction to the existing Deed subject to the
approval of the Township solicitor and engineer with the cost
for the preparation and Recording of that Deed to be paid by
the property owners.
Mr. Santarsiero joined the meeting at this time.
APPEAL #05-1348 – STEELWAY CELLAR DOORS
Mr. Harold Hassell and Ms. Geneva Hassell, property owners
were sworn in.
The Application was marked as Exhibit A-1. Included with this Application was an As-
Built Plan for the property dated 12/19/02. This was marked as Exhibit A-2.
Mr. Hassell stated they are seeking a request to impede into the 80’ setback at the north
end of their house in order to install Bilco doors to support a second point of egress from
the basement. The
house has reverse frontage onto
required to have an 80’ setback from that road. They are proposing to be 72.83’ from the
road. Mr. Hassell stated they are finishing the basement; and in order to meet the Code,
they need to have a second point of egress. In order to do this Steelway will install Bilco
Mr. Toadvine stated he would suggest that they make it 72’.
Mr. Koopman stated the Township has no position on this Application.
Mr. Bamburak moved, Mr. Mayrhofer seconded and it was unanimously carried to
approve the Variance to the special setback to permit 72’ setback.
December 6, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board – page 12 of 14
APPEAL #05-1349 – COREY JACKLIN
Mr. Corey Jacklin and Ms. Donna Jacklin were sworn in.
The Application submitted was marked as Exhibit A-1. Submitted with the Application
was a Plan of Lot #16 last dated 6/25/99 which was marked as Exhibit A-2. Also
submitted were six individual black and white photos of the area in question and these
were marked as Exhibit A-3.
Mr. Jacklin stated they are requesting a Variance from the 5’ fence requirement for a hot
tub. He stated because of the height of the deck structure, it meets the intentionality of
the five foot rule as it provides a barrier so that a child could not get up on the deck. He
noted they are also installing a 5’ fence on the stairs leading up to the deck.
Ms. Kirk asked if they will enclose the deck in any way, and Mr. Jacklin stated they will
not, and it will be open as is. He stated there will be a 5’ gate on the landing so that it
meets the Building requirements so it swings open properly over a flat surface. He stated
this gate will have the 2” slat requirement of the fence requirement and will have a lock.
Ms. Kirk asked if this gate will be level with the top railing at the top of the deck, and
Mr. Jacklin stated there are approximately ten steps up to the landing and at the top of the
landing is where they will put the 5’ high gate. Mr. Toadvine stated there are five steps
from the landing to the deck, and Mr. Jacklin agreed. He stated there are 7” risers so that
it would be 2.9’. If the gate is 5’ tall, it would therefore not be higher than the railing on
the deck which is 3’ high. Mr. Jacklin stated they are going to enclose with a 2” lattice
along the stairs going from the steps to the third support pole.
Mr. Koopman stated the Board of Supervisors is not taking any position in this matter.
There was no public comment.
Mr. Mayrhofer moved and Mr. Bamburak seconded to approve the request as presented
with the Condition that the Applicant install a 5’ gate on the landing with a child-proof
lock. Motion carried with Ms. Kirk opposed.
Ms. Kirk stated it appears that there are no Applicants pending presently for the Board’s
meeting of December 20. Mr. Bamburak moved, Mr. Malinowski seconded and it was
unanimously carried to cancel the meeting of December 20, 2005.
The Board adjourned to Executive Session in order to review the Brief submitted by
Mr. Schneider and the letter submitted by Mr. Pastor.
December 6, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board – page 13 of 14
Mr. Mayrhofer left the meeting at this time.
The meeting was reconvened at 9:25 p.m.
APPEAL #05-1311, APPEAL #05-1312, APPEAL #05-1313 –
Ms. Kirk stated the Board has been meeting in Executive Session and has reviewed the Briefs submitted by the Applicant in this matter along with the document marked as Exhibit P-2 submitted by Mr. Pastor on behalf of some of the neighbors opposed to the Applications.
Ms. Kirk moved, Mr. Malinowski seconded and it was unanimously carried as to Appeal #05-1311 for the property at 2100 N. Crescent Boulevard, that the property is a single-family residence and grant a Variance to the Applicant from the definition of family as set forth under the Township’s Zoning Code whereby a maximum of ten people be permitted to reside at that property being six mentally-retarded adults, a house parent, with possibility of a house parent spouse and two children subject to the Condition that the Applicants will comply with all other applicable Federal, State, and Local statutes, laws, rules, and regulations concerning the property.
Ms. Kirk moved, Mr. Malinowski seconded and it was
unanimously carried as to Appeal #05-1312 for the property at 1110 Big Oak
Road, that the property is a single-family residence and grant a Variance to
the Applicant from the definition of family as set forth under the Township’s
Zoning Ordinance to permit no more than ten people to reside at that property
being six mentally-retarded adults, a house parent, with possibility of a house
parent spouse and two children subject to the Condition that the Applicants
will otherwise comply with all other applicable Federal, State, and Local
statutes, laws, rules, and regulations concerning the property. Also moved that the Board finds that the
Ms. Kirk moved, Mr. Malinowski seconded and it was unanimously carried as to Appeal #05-1313 for the property at 1203 Yardley Road, that the property is a single-family residence and grant a Variance from the definition of family as set forth in the Township’s Zoning Ordinance to permit no more than eight people to reside at the Yardley Road property specifically being six mentally-retarded adults, a house parent, and possibly a house parent spouse or a child subject to the Condition that the Applicants will comply with all other applicable Federal, State, and Local statutes, laws, rules, and regulations concerning the property.
December 6, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board – page 14 of 14
Mr. Schneider noted the
kitchen and on Crescent there was a pre-existing finished basement and they did not
address this. He asked if this was intentional, and Ms. Kirk stated it was. She stated pre-
existing basement is a Building Code issue over which the Board has no jurisdiction, and
based on the Board’s review of the Notes and Records on this matter, there was no
testimony as to a second, pre-existing kitchen at the
Mr. Malinowski moved, Mr. Caiola seconded and it was unanimously carried to adjourn the meeting at 9:25 p.m.
David Malinowski, Secretary