ZONING HEARING BOARD
MINUTES – JULY 5, 2005
The regular meeting of the Zoning Hearing Board of the
Zoning Hearing Board: Barbara Kirk, Chairman
David Malinowski, Secretary
Paul Bamburak, Member
Greg Caiola, Alternate Member
Paul Kim, Alternate Member
Others: Robert Habgood, Code Enforcement Officer
John Koopman, Township Solicitor
James Majewski, Township Engineer
Allen Toadvine, Zoning Hearing Board Solicitor
Steve Santarsiero, Supervisor Liaison
Absent: Rudolph Mayrhofer, Zoning Hearing Board Vice Chair
APPEAL #05-1311, APPEAL #05-1312, APPEAL #05-1313 –
Ms. Kirk stated the Board’s Solicitor received a letter from the Applicant’s attorney
indicating that he was on his way to the Township from
cancelled due to bad weather. As a result of the flight delays, he was unable to attend
this evening. The letter dated 7/5/05 was marked as Exhibit E-5.
Ms. Kirk moved, and Mr. Bamburak seconded to continue the Appeals to the Special
Meeting of 7/13/05 at 7:00 p.m. for further Hearings and Testimony. There was no
public comment, and the Motion carried unanimously.
APPEAL #05-1314 – KARIN HAGIOS
Ms. Karin Hagios was sworn in. She stated the property is located at
The Application submitted by Ms. Hagios was marked as Exhibit A-1. Attached to the
July 5, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board – page 2 of 9
Application was an 8 ˝” by 11” sheet showing five photographs. This was marked as
Exhibit A-2. Also included with the Application was an 8 ˝” by 14” Plan of the property
entitled “Trench Replacement Detail,” and this was marked as Exhibit A-3.
Ms. Hagios stated she would like to install a three board, split-rail fence on the long
stretch in the front yard. She stated she has a long, narrow lot. She stated she was not
aware that this was a corner lot that was subject to different Zoning requirements.
Ms. Hagios stated she would like to have a four foot high fence with the intention of
using it to contain two dogs in the yard. She stated the Zoning Ordinance permits the
fence to be only 3’ high. The fence will be set back far enough from the road so that it
will not impact the intersection. She stated since it is a split rail fence, it should not
present a visual obstruction. She stated the house is 147 years old and she feels this type
of fence will fit in with the historic nature of the property. She stated the mailbox and
driveway are on the long side of the rectangular on
fence will encompass the entire property. Currently there is a 6’ high stockade fence in
one section in the rear along with a 4’ split rail fence and a gate in the back yard.
Currently there is nothing on the long side of the lot. The entire lot is one Tax Parcel.
Ms. Hagios stated she has additional pictures which include photos of a similar property
submitted this evening to Mr. Toadvine.
Mr. Toadvine noted Exhibit A-3 is highlighted in yellow and orange. Ms. Hagios stated
the yellow was highlighted to identify the road and the orange is the proposed new fence.
Mr. Caiola asked how far the fence will be from the street, and Ms. Hagios stated it will
be approximately 15’.
Mr. Kim asked which side is required to have fencing of only 3’high. Mr. Koopman
stated the house fronts on
Mr. Koopman stated the secondary front yard (West Ferry) can have a 6’ foot high fence.
Exhibit A-4 was marked which is one sheet with three photographs. Exhibit A-5 was
marked which is one sheet with three photographs. A-4 was noted and Ms. Hagios stated
this shows the house as it currently exists. Ms. Hagios stated when she took the top
photograph showing the house, she was standing in the field shown in the bottom picture.
The second photo was taken from the
shed. The bottom photo was taken from the house looking out to the road. Exhibit A-5
shows examples of the split-rail fencing she intends to construct. Ms. Hagios stated these
are pictures of a corner lot in
she plans to use.
July 5, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board – page 3 of 9
Mr. Koopman stated the Township has no formal position. He did ask about the wire
mesh proposed, and Ms. Hagios stated she intends to install 2” by 4” welded wire, powder green coated which she feels will blend into the landscaping. She feels this will
be safe for the dogs and make a nice appearance.
There was no public comment.
Mr. Kim stated he is concerned that the proposed height of the fence will not contain the
dogs. Ms. Hagios stated she does not feel they will jump the fence as they are mellow
dogs and they will not be left out in the yard unattended. She stated they are also
registered with the Township and micro-chipped as well.
Mr. Bamburak moved, Mr. Caiola seconded and it was unanimously carried to grant the
Variance as requested.
APPEAL #05-1315 – DAN AND SHEILA ADAMCZYK
Dan and Sheila Adamczyk were sworn in. Ms. Adamczyk noted the property is located
The Application was marked as Exhibit A-1. Included with this was a one-page
document entitled “Zoning Permit Plan prepared by Anthony Sylvan Pools” dated
3/28/05, and this was marked as Exhibit A-2. Ms. Kirk stated the Board received this
evening a memo from the Assistant to the Township engineer directed to the Code
Enforcement Officer dated 6/30/05, and this was marked as Exhibit B-1. A copy of this
was provided to the Applicants this evening for their review.
Ms. Adamczyk stated their request is for additional impervious surface. They are
currently at 24%, and they are requesting 31%. She stated they are building a pool and a
Ms. Kirk stated under the Zoning Ordinance, they can increase the impervious surface
from 24 1/2% to 28%. She asked why they need more than this. Ms. Adamczyk stated
they went with a smaller pool so that they could have a larger patio surface.
Mr. Kirk noted Exhibit A-2 and asked the dimensions of the concrete patio that will be
around the pool, but Ms. Adamczyk was not certain. She stated she understood from
Sylvan Pools that it was to be three feet all the way around and a larger surface on the
right hand side. Mr. Majewski stated the larger surface appears to be 15’ out from the
side of the pool and 25’ long.
July 5, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board – page 4 of 9
Mr. Kim asked why they need such a large patio. Ms. Adamczyk stated they decided to
have a smaller pool so that they could have a larger area for entertaining. Mr. Kim stated
they are requesting a large increase in impervious surface and stated they could decrease
the patio which would reduce the impervious surface. Ms. Adamczyk stated they do not
feel it is much more than what is permitted. Ms. Kirk stated they are requesting a
Variance and they need to prove to the Zoning Hearing Board that there is a hardship
because of the way that the property is configured that prevents them from meeting the
requirements. She stated their desire to have a larger patio does to constitute a hardship.
Ms. Kirk stated they do have another 3 ˝% that they can increase automatically, and they
are looking for another 3% above and beyond that. Generally, the Board is not inclined
to grant a 3% increase above what is allowed and they look for the minimum amount that
is required. Ms. Adamczyk stated they could get a bigger pool.
Ms. Kirk asked if there is any impervious surface on the property that could be eliminated
to narrow the increase they are seeking. She asked if they would like to go back to
Sylvan Pools to discuss this. Ms. Adamczyk stated she is concerned that this has already
taken this long. She stated they could probably eliminate the circle in the front. Mr. Kim
stated they could also have a patio that would be pervious rather than concrete, and they
may wish to discuss their options with their architect/builder and then come back to the
Board with an alternative Plan. Ms. Kirk stated if this is their desire, they can request
that the Hearing be continued to the next Board meeting which is July 19.
Mr. Koopman stated the Township is opposed to the Application in its current form
because the increase in impervious surface they are requesting is excessive in the
Township’s view. He stated the other concern is that Mr. Habgood and Mr. Majewski
feel that the Plan as proposed provides for impervious surface in excess of 31%.
Mr. Majewski stated they did calculate the proposed and existing to be approximately
32% so the Applicant will need to double check this.
Ms. Kirk noted Exhibit B-1 indicated that the impervious surface will exceed the 31.2%
shown on their Application, and they should discuss this with Sylvan Pools as well.
Ms. Kirk stated the memo also indicates that the Township is concerned about how the
storm water will be directed off the property and they should address this as well with
Mr. and Mrs. Adamczyk asked for a continuance until 7/19/05.
Mr. Koopman stated their Plan shows the construction of a new sidewalk out the back of
the house and they stop short of the driveway. He asked if this is correct.
Ms. Adamczyk agreed. Mr. Koopman asked what will be in the area between the
sidewalk and the drive, but Ms. Adamczyk stated they did not get this far in their plan.
She stated she wanted a patio off the sliding glass door to the pool. Mr. Koopman stated
the Township’s concern is that the sidewalk could not be extended to the driveway
July 5, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board – page 5 of 9
without additional impervious surface over and above what the Plan shows. He
suggested they look into this as well.
Mr. Malinowski moved, Mr. Caiola seconded, and it was unanimously carried to continue
the matter until July 19, 2005.
APPEAL #05-1316 – JOHN L. RUSS, III
Mr. John Russ was sworn in. He stated he resides at
was marked as Exhibit A-1. Attached to the Application was a one-page As Built Plan
for the property last dated 12/18/00 which was marked as Exhibit A-2.
Mr. Russ stated he would like a Variance to install a 4’ picket PVC fence in the back yard
of the property. It will only take in two-thirds of the back yard. It will extend from the
rear of the house, through the back yard and will run through an easement. This is a 20’
wide storm sewer easement. Mr. Koopman stated he feels the Township holds this
easement and feels this is a storm sewer easement which includes an underground pipe.
It is a storm sewer pipe and not a sanitary sewer line. He stated it is part of the
stormwater collection system for the development.
Mr. Toadvine asked if it is a swaled area, and Mr. Majewski stated there is a slight swale
and there is a
Ms. Kirk asked how much clearance will be provided between the bottom of the fence
and the ground, and Mr. Russ stated it would be 3” to 4”. He will have one gate
alongside the house and an 8’ gate as well. There will be 1 ˝” gaps in the pickets.
Mr. Koopman stated the Township has no objection as long as the usual conditions
regarding fences in the easements are attached along with another condition that the
erection of the fence will not in any way disturb the underground stormwater pipe.
They would also request that the usual condition that the installation of the fence would
not impede stormwater flow and drainage in the area and that if the Township has to
access the water line, that any replacement and reconstruction of the fence would be at
the homeowners’ expense. Mr. Russ stated he would agree to these conditions.
Mr. Kim stated the fence exceeds the landscaped buffer, and asked for more information
about this buffer. Mr. Majewski stated this the landscaped buffer than can be seen from
evergreen trees. Mr. Russ stated the fence is well within this area.
There was no public comment.
July 5, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board – page 6 of 9
Mr. Caiola moved, Mr. Malinowski seconded and it was unanimously carried to grant the request subject to:
1) The construction and installation of the fence will not interfere with the underground sewer within the easement area;
2) There shall be at least 2” gap between the ground and the bottom of the fence;
3) If the easement holder needs access to the property, that the fence will be removed at the homeowners’ sole cost and expense.
APPEAL #05-1317 – THOMAS J. MACK CONSTRUCTION
Mr. Thomas Mack was sworn in. He stated the property owners are Mr. and Mrs.
Michael Gordon who are away on vacation, but he does have their authority to be present
The Application was marked as Exhibit A-1. Attached to the Application were two 8 ˝”
by 11” sheets depicting the proposed garage, and this was marked as Exhibit A-2. Also
included was a Site Plan dated 1/25/05 which was marked as Exhibit A-3.
Mr. Mack stated the property is Tax Parcel #20-54-72, 911 N. Pennsylvania Avenue on
the Plan of Makefield Terrace. It is zoned R-2. He stated the Zoning Hearing Board
granted an Appeal on this property in March of 2005 (Appeal #05-1300) for impervious
surface. Currently they are requesting a Variance to Section 200-69A(14)(a) Accessory
Uses and Accessory Structures, Residential Accessory Buildings, Structures, and Fences
which states that the height of an accessory building shall not exceed fifteen feet.
Mr. Mack stated they were unaware of this provision at the time of their last Appeal or
they would have included it at that time. The proposed structure is a little less than 24’
from finished floor to the peak on the outside. He stated the height of the structure is for
aesthetic reasons to fit the garage in with the period of the construction of the original
dwelling. He stated the space above the garage is unfinished attic space with pull-down
stairs. There are no plans for finishing the attic in the future, and he does not believe that
the height of the attic aggregate would comply with the Code for finishing that space.
Mr. Mack stated there are various other detached garage structures in the immediate area
that pre date the Ordinance which exceed the fifteen foot maximum. He stated these
include a four-car garage adjacent to this parcel with a residential unit above it which is
approximately 24’ in height, and several other properties within 500’ which exceed the
fifteen foot restriction including
Mr. Mack stated they feel the new structure will complement the existing home. It will be
a two-car garage with a small storage area on the side. There will be a stone driveway
July 5, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board – page 7 of 9
Ms. Kirk asked if the prior Application before the Board in March for impervious surface
was related to the construction of this garage, and Mr. Mack stated it was, but he was not
aware of the height restriction.
Mr. Bamburak asked the height of the house, and Mr. Mack stated it is 38’.
Mr. Toadvine asked if there is an existing garage, and Mr. Mack stated there is an
existing garage in the main structure of the house that is being converted into a family
room. The request to exceed the maximum permitted height is based solely on aesthetics.
Mr. Koopman stated the Township is opposed to the Application because they feel the
height is excessive. Mr. Koopman stated they feel a two-car garage could be constructed
in compliance with the Ordinance with some kind of peaked roof to meet aesthetic
concerns. Mr. Koopman asked if the homeowners intend to use the unfinished attic space
for storage. He noted that Mr. Mack had indicated that there are pull-down stairs. After
review of the Plans, Mr. Mack stated there is an attic scuttle and not pull-down stairs. It
is a “hatch.” Mr. Koopman asked if the storage area will be floored, and Mr. Mack stated
it does not appear to be so on the Plans, but he cannot testify as to what they may do in
the future. He stated there is an attic in the house and a full basement. He stated the
reason for the height is purely aesthetics, and not needed for storage.
Mr. Koopman stated the Township is opposed to the Application for the reasons stated.
Mr. Toadvine asked the height of the ceiling in the garage, and Mr. Mack stated it is 10’
from the finished floor to the underside of the ceiling material. Mr. Toadvine asked if
they reduced this, could they reduce the height of the overall structure and still maintain
the same roof pitch, and Mr. Mack agreed. Ms. Kirk asked if Mr. Mack has the authority
to agree to this, or would he need to confirm this with the homeowners. Mr. Mack stated
he feels he has the authority to do this.
Ms. Kirk asked the height of the existing garage, and Mr. Mack stated the interior is 12’.
The existing garage is attached to the house. Mr. Mack was asked if the surrounding
properties have attached garages of this nature, and Mr. Mack stated directly behind then
is a very large garage structure as well as the other structures testified to previously.
Ms. Kirk asked Mr. Mack if he has the authority to accept a Condition that the space
above the garage cannot be converted or used in any way as a residential dwelling unit,
and Mr. Mack stated he can agree to this.
There was no public comment.
July 5, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board – page 8 of 9
Ms. Kirk moved, Mr. Bamburak seconded and it was unanimously carried to approve the Variance request for a maximum height of 22 feet subject to the following Conditions:
1) That the storage space, as testified by the Applicant, above the garage shall not be at any time converted or used as a residential dwelling unit;
2) That the space above the garage be maintained for storage as presented by the Applicant.
APPEAL #05-1318 – DENNIS AND MARIA SALAMANDRA
Mr. Tom Fischer, builder, and Mr. Dennis Salamandra were sworn in. The Application
was marked as Exhibit A-1. Attached to the Application was a one-page Plan for the
property located at
and Decks” which was marked as Exhibit A-2. Also attached was another Plan for the
property designated as “Proposed Addition” which was marked as Exhibit A-3.
Mr. Fischer stated they are requesting a Variance from the setback. The existing setback
is 40’. They would like to do some renovations to the house which would encroach on
the current setback. They are requesting a setback of 36.6” for the rear of the house.
They would like to change the architectural style of the house and intend to go from a
contemporary style to a more traditional
change the style and the function of the house, they are requesting to encroach in the rear
yard. The room sizes and lay out will change with the architectural style and they are
requesting this additional space in order to perform the alterations.
Ms. Kirk stated it appears that they will replace the existing sunroom, deck and brick
patio. Mr. Fischer stated it will encompass where the existing sunroom is located. He
stated the existing sunroom is a ten foot addition. He stated the patio and the deck will be
removed so they are actually decreasing the impervious surface in the rear of the
property. Ms. Kirk stated they will also reduce the encroachment as well when they
remove the deck and the patio.
Mr. Fischer presented architectural renderings of the property. Exhibit A-4 was marked
which is the front elevation, and Exhibit A-5 was marked which is the rear elevation.
Mr. Koopman stated the Township has no position on this Application.
There was no public comment.
Ms. Kim moved, Mr. Caiola seconded and it was unanimously carried to grant the
Variance as proposed.
July 5, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board – page 9 of 9
There being no further business, Mr. Malinowski moved, Mr. Caiola seconded and it was
unanimously carried to adjourn the meeting at 8:35 p.m.
David Malinowski, Secretary