TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MAKEFIELD

ZONING HEARING BOARD

MINUTES – DECEMBER 6, 2005

 

 

The regular meeting of the Zoning Hearing Board of Lower Makefield Township was held in the Municipal Building on December 6, 2005.  Chairman Kirk called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. noting that the Board will adjourn at 11:00 p.m.; and if it appears that the Board will not be able to hear an Appeal by that time, the Applicant will be given an opportunity to request a continuance to the next meeting.

 

Those present:

 

Zoning Hearing Board:              Barbara Kirk, Chairman

                                                Rudolph Mayrhofer, Vice Chairman (left meeting

                                                 in progress) (not Voting on AVS)

                                                David Malinowski, Secretary

                                                Paul Bamburak, Member

                                                Darwin Dobson, 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

                                                 in progress)

                                               

 

 

APPEAL #05-1311, APPEAL #05-1312, APPEAL #05-1313 – ALLEGHENY VALLEY SCHOOL

 

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

appropriate.

 

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, 1102 Irving Road, was present and stated he lives next to the

facility on Big Oak Road.  Mr. Natale stated he is a professional engineer licensed in

Pennsylvania and New Jersey and a Certified Municipal engineer and a professional

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

such as Allegheny Valley School come in so they do not have to meet some of the

requirements of the ADA.  He stated this does not require them in a bedroom to have two

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, 1502 Esther Lane, across the street from the Big Oak Road facility. 

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 Big Oak Road property driveway,

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 Lower Makefield Township and the neighbors of

the Lower Makefield Township properties.  He is concerned that if there are ever

reductions to four residents in these type of homes, Lower Makefield will be the last to

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

Lower Makefield homes and asked that the Zoning Hearing Board protect them from this

possibility.

 

 

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 at 1311 N. Delaware

Avenue, Tax Parcel #20-31-8 and #20-31-18.  The property is divided by River Road. 

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

water. 

 

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

15.9%. 

 

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.

Kellner, Architect. 

 

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

the Application.

 

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 the Township of Lower

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 River Road which is dangerous.  They

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

difference. 

 

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

Delaware Canal and  would also be in a lower elevation and result in additional

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 River Road.

 

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

proposing seven. 

 

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

setback.

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

side of River Road, and Mr. Marshall stated it does not.  He stated if they counted that,

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

new driveway. 

 

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

proceed.

 

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 of 1268 Wilshire Drive,

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 Dolington Road and they are

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

doors. 

 

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.

 

 

OTHER BUSINESS

 

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 – ALLEGHENY VALLEY SCHOOL

 

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 Big Oak Road property contains a second kitchen that was a pre-existing, non-conformity to that structure at the time of the Application.

 

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 Yardley Road property where there was also a pre-existing

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 Yardley Road property.

 

 

Mr. Malinowski moved, Mr. Caiola seconded and it was unanimously carried to adjourn the meeting at 9:25 p.m.

 

                                                            Respectfully Submitted,

 

 

                                                            David Malinowski, Secretary