ZONING HEARING BOARD
MINUTES – JUNE 21, 2005
The regular meeting of the Zoning Hearing Board of the
Those present:
Zoning Hearing Board: Rudolph Mayrhofer, Vice Chairman
Paul Bamburak, Member
Paul Caiola, Alternate Member
Others: Nancy Frick, Director Zoning, Inspection and Planning
Richard Habgood, Code Enforcement Officer
John Koopman, Township Solicitor
James Majewski, Township Engineer
Allen Toadvine, Zoning Hearing Board Solicitor
Steve Santarsiero, Supervisor Liaison
Absent: Barbara Kirk, Zoning Hearing Board Chair
David Malinowski, Zoning Hearing Board Secretary
APPEAL #05-1306 – GARY R. O’CONNOR, ARCHITECT
Mr. Gary R. O’Connor, Architect was sworn in along with property owners Charles and
Nancy Linzner. Mr. Mayrhofer noted this Appeal was continued from 5/18/05. The
Application was marked as Exhibit A-1. The drawing submitted was marked as Exhibit
A-2. Two additional drawings titled “Accessory Structure” marked A1 and A2 were
marked as Exhibit A-3.
Mr. O’Connor stated they are present to request a Variance to the 15’ height restriction
for accessory structures. He stated the existing dwelling does not have a basement or
attic space for storage, and they would like the additional height to provide storage above
the garage. The
existing house is a
pitches similar to what they are proposing for the garage, and they feel this will help
maintain the character of the site. Mr. O’Connor noted drawing A2 which shows the
profile if it were built 15’ high, and he feels it would look like an industrial garage and
would not be consistent with the
poster board of the existing home.
June 21, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board – page 2 of 19
Mr. Mayrhofer noted while it is an acre and half lot, he asked if they have discussed the
project with their neighbors to see if they had any issues. Mrs. Linzner stated it is a very
private property. The only neighbor whose property would look upon the garage was
contacted and she had no problem with the height and only asked about the trees.
Mr. O’Connor stated they are looking to build a structure 22’ 3 ½” high.
Mr. Mayrhofer asked the age of the house, and Mrs. Linzner stated the oldest part of the
house is well over two hundred years old and was the Carriage House for the farm owned
by the neighbor she mentioned earlier. She stated the Carriage House has been expanded
and changed by various residents over the last couple hundred years but there is nothing
below ground level in their house.
Mr. Mayrhofer asked what they will do with the second story of the garage, and
Mrs. Linzner stated it will be used for storage. Mr. Mayrhofer asked if the area will
be heated or cooled, and Mr. O’Connor stated it will not, and there will be no plumbing.
He stated the upper floor can only be accessed from inside the garage and it is not
intended to become something else in the future if that is of concern.
The poster board with the five photos of the property which was submitted this evening
was marked as Exhibit A-4.
Mr. Bamburak asked if the garage is visible from the road, and Mrs. Linzner stated you
can only see some of the white latticework which is in front of the carport from the
private drive and is not visible from the road. Behind the proposed garage is an extension
of the property that was the original farmhouse. That property fronts on
Mr. Linzner stated there are trees directly behind them. Mr. O’Connor stated there is a
good stand of evergreen trees.
Mr. Dobson asked if they have an intention to turn this into an apartment, and
Mr. Linzner stated they do not plan to do this and would be willing to have this as a
condition of approval.
Mr. Toadvine asked if there is any existing structure where this proposed garage is to be
constructed, and Mr. O’Connor stated there is not. Mr. O’Connor stated there are two
other structures adjacent to the proposed location which are actually on the other property
and were built by a previous owner. These are scheduled to be demolished with the
addition of the garage. The property does not currently have a garage.
Mr. O’Connor stated the height of the existing dwelling is approximately 30’. It is higher
than the proposed garage by approximately eight feet.
Mr. Koopman stated the Township has no position in connection with this Application. There was no public comment.
June 21, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board – page 3 of 19
Mr. Bamburak moved, Mr. Caiola seconded and it was unanimously carried to grant the
Variance for the height exception with the stipulation that there be no further conversion
to living space.
APPEAL #05-1307 – PIOTR BRYLA
Mr. Piotr Bryla was sworn in. The Application was marked as Exhibit A-1. The
schematic attached dated 11/23/94 was marked as Exhibit A-2.
Mr. Bryla stated he would like to construct a fence on his side property which will go
through the buffer easement. There is an existing rear fence in the easement. He stated
his neighbor received a permit for a similar fence to what he is requesting.
Mr. Habgood stated the prior owner of Mr. Bryla’s property did obtain Zoning Hearing
Board relief for the existing fence in the easement in the rear of the property.
Mr. Mayrhofer asked if there were any conditions attached, and Mr. Habgood stated there
were not to his knowledge.
Mr. Toadvine asked Mr. Bryla if he would agree to a condition that in the event access is
ever needed to the easement area, that he would be responsible for removing and
replacing the fence at his own cost and expense, and Mr. Bryla agreed. Mr. Mayrhofer
stated he would also like to see some kind of clearance beneath the fence so that it does
not impede drainage. Mr. Koopman stated usually they address this in connection with
drainage easement areas. Mr. Koopman stated they could require that the fence be
erected in such a way that it would not impede drainage in the buffer area.
Mr. Toadvine asked about the type of fence, and Mr. Bryla stated it will be aluminum
with 3” spacing between the slats.
There was no public comment
Mr. Bamburak moved, Mr. Caiola seconded and it was unanimously carried to grant the
Variance with the stipulation that in the event access is ever needed to the easement area,
that the property owner would be responsible for removing and replacing the fence at his
own cost and expense and that the fence be erected in such a way that it will not impede
drainage in the buffer area.
APPEAL #05-1309 – PICTURE PERFECT HOME IMPROVEMENTS
Mr. Adam Elmer and Mr. Mark Weaver from Picture Perfect Home Improvements and
property owners Mark and Donna Stawrosky were sworn in. The Application was
June 21, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board – page 4 of 19
marked as Exhibit A-1. The schematic that was attached dated 5/3/76 was marked as
Exhibit A-2.
Mr. Toadvine advised the Applicants that there are only four Board members present and
this is a five-member Board. As a result, they will need three out of four favorable votes
in order for their request to be approved. He stated if they so desire, they have the option
to request that this matter be continued to the next meeting when there would be five
members present. If they proceed tonight, they will be proceeding with the knowledge
that they will need three out of four favorable votes. The Applicants agreed to proceed.
Mrs. Stawrosky stated her Mother-In-Law lives with them and all of their bedrooms are
on the second floor. They would like to construct an In-Law suite on the first floor so
that she will have more freedom and not have to be upstairs in her existing bedroom
when the rest of the family is not home. She cannot prepare her own meals and they do
have someone come in during the day when they are not home.
Mr. Toadvine stated the Application indicates that they are requesting a Variance from
the impervious surface ratio as well as rear and side yard Variances. Mr. Elmer stated the
required rear setback is 50’ and they are requesting that it be 24’. Mr. Weaver stated the
side yard requirement is 15’ and they are requesting that it be 7’. Mr. Mayrhofer asked if
they could lay out the room differently so that they would not need the side yard setback.
Mr. Elmer stated they are putting the addition on the corner of the house. He provided a
one-sheet document which was marked as Exhibit A-3 showing the rear elevation of the
property depicting the proposed addition. Exhibit A-4 was marked which is the floor
plan of the existing dwelling and proposed addition.
Mr. Toadvine asked about the impervious surface. Mr. Mayrhofer stated if the lot size is
16,445 square feet the existing impervious surface would be 18.38% and after
construction of the addition of 600 square feet, it would bring it to 3,622 square feet
which is 22.02% or a 3.65% increase. Mr. Elmer agreed with these figures. It was noted
that 18% is permitted for this property.
Mr. Caiola asked the location of the adjacent neighbor’s house which will be impacted by
the addition. Mr. Weaver stated the house is approximately 25’ to 30’ from the fence
line. Mr. Elmer stated the property runs on an angle and as you get closer to the back
part of the addition, it gets closer to the property line. Mr. Elmer stated at the shortest
point he feels it will be 50’ to the adjacent house. Mr. Toadvine asked if it is correct that
the neighbor they are referring to has his rear yard abutting the proposed addition as
opposed to their side yard, and Mr. Elmer agreed that this is correct. Mr. Koopman stated
the neighboring property is a corner lot and that house
fronts on
Mr. Mayrhofer asked what other alternatives they have considered, and Mrs. Stawrosky
stated they have not considered any other alternatives yet. Mr. Mayrhofer asked if they
June 21, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board – page 5 of 19
have discussed this project with their neighbors, and Mrs. Stawrosky stated they did not
discuss it with the neighbor who fronts on
the neighbor to their rear; however they did discuss it with other neighbors who indicated
they did not have a problem.
Mr. Mayrhofer asked if they could reduce the amount of impervious surface, and
Mr. Elmer stated they could shrink down the size of the addition. The addition will
include one bedroom, one bathroom, and a living area. There will be no kitchen.
Mr. Caiola noted the proposed new kitchen on the Plan, and it was noted that this does
not have anything to do with the new addition.
Mr. Koopman stated the Township is opposed to the increase in the impervious surface.
He stated initially they had a concern with the side yard, but assuming the neighboring
property owner whose house fronts on Ramsey has no objection, he does not feel that the
Township will pursue that objection. The Township is however concerned about the
increase in impervious surface where there is proposed an approximately 4% increase in
the impervious surface coverage. He stated the Township does not have a problem with
an In-Law suite and feels this is an appropriate use; but in this case, they object to the
significant increase in the impervious surface. Mr. Koopman stated the Plan shows a 12’
by 10’ addition and asked if this is the kitchen addition. Mr. Elmer stated this is correct.
This will be walled off from the In-Law suite. The In-Law suite is 20’ by 24”.
Mr. Koopman asked the size of the living space area of the In-Law suite, and it was
noted it is 12’ by 20’. Mr. Koopman stated there may be a way to reduce the impervious
surface by either reducing the addition or eliminating other impervious surface on the
property. He stated the Township is opposed to the increase in impervious surface
because of their concern with stormwater run off.
Mr. Mayrhofer asked when the home was built, and it was noted it was built in 1978.
Mr. Mayrhofer asked if they would like to look into revising the Plan and then come back
with Plans showing less impervious surface. Mr. Elmer stated they could reduce the
addition and just have the bedroom and bathroom which would reduce the addition to 240
square feet and bring the impervious surface down to 20.6%. Mr. Koopman stated he
feels the Township would find this acceptable.
Mrs. Stawrosky stated they would be willing to reduce it and amend the Application
reducing it for an increase in impervious surface to 20.6%. Mr. Mayrhofer stated this
will probably also change the setback requests as well. Mr. Weaver stated he feels they
would be closer to 10’ to 12’ from the side property line and it was agreed that they
would provide a minimum of 10’ on the side yard and 36’ on the rear. This was
acceptable to the property owner.
Mr. Richard Kelly,
large addition to the house and they do not see why it cannot be brought into
June 21, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board – page 6 of 19
conformance with the setback and drainage requirements. He stated there is currently a
good deal of run off from this property onto his property; and with the addition, he feels
there will be even more run off. Mr. Mayrhofer sated they have agreed to reduce the
addition to 240 square feet and the setback on the side will now be at least 10’ and
possibly more depending on how they work it out. The rear yard setback will be 36’ and
will be brought in closer to the Applicant’s home. Mr. Kelly stated he feels they should
build it within the Zoning requirements, and Mr. Mayrhofer stated the way the house is
laid out on the property it is not possible to construct the addition within the Zoning
requirements. This is why they are requesting an exception. Mr. Kelly was shown on the
Plan what they now propose. Mr. Toadvine asked if it is correct that Mr. Kelly’s rear
yard abuts the Applicant’s side yard, and Mr. Kelly agreed. Mr. Kelly stated that if it is
no closer than 10’, this would be acceptable to he and his wife.
Mr. Caiola moved, Mr. Mayrhofer seconded and it was unanimously carried to grant a
14’ rear yard Variance, a 5’ side yard Variance, and permitting 20.6% of impervious
surface.
APPEAL #05-1310 – JIGNESH N. PANDYA
Jignesh N. Pandya and Mital Pandya were present and were sworn in.
The Application was marked as Exhibit A-1. The attached drawing was marked as
Exhibit A-2. This is the As-Built Plan dated 11/19/01 and shows the proposed fence.
Mr. Pandya stated on the rear of his property he has an easement and a huge ditch in the
area. He stated he has two small children and other children come to the property and he
does not want them to get hurt. He stated he would like to have the fence to protect his
family. He is requesting a Variance to place the fence over the drainage easement.
Mr. Toadvine stated Mr. Pandya has highlighted in yellow on Exhibit A-2 the proposed
location of the fence. He asked if the only area where the fence will be on the easement
is on the left hand side of the drawing, and Mr. Pandya agreed. All other areas where the
fence is proposed are permitted. It was noted this is a 30’ wide drainage easement.
Mr. Toadvine asked the type of fence he proposes to install, and Mr. Pandya stated he
proposes a black aluminum fence which will be 6’ high. It will not be solid and there
will be spaces between the vertical slats. Mr. Toadvine asked if there will be space at the
bottom. Mr. Pandya stated it will touch the ground. Mr. Mayrhofer stated they want to
insure that the fence will not impede drainage from the property, and Mr. Pandya agreed.
He would also agree to a condition that if necessary to gain access to the easement, he
would be willing to remove and replace the fence at his own cost and expense.
Mr. Koopman asked what is within the easement and asked if there is an underground
pipe. Mr. Pandya stated he feels it is a pipe which connects it to the basin in the back.
June 21, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board – page 7 of 19
Ms. Frick stated there is an underground drainage pipe. Mr. Koopman suggested that
there be a condition attached to the grant of the Variance that the installation of the fence
will not disturb any of the underground pipes or utilities, and Mr. Pandya agreed.
Ms. Frick asked if there is any way to determine how deep the drainage pipe is, and
Mr. Majewski stated the Township plans would show this. Mr. Koopman stated it may
be appropriate to have the Building Permit Application reviewed by the Township
engineer, and Ms. Frick stated they have already made note of this.
There was no public comment.
Mr. Mayrhofer moved, Mr. Bamburak seconded and it was unanimously carried to grant
the Variance subject to the construction of the fence not interfering in any way with the
underground pipe and/or utilities in the easement, that in the event that access is needed
to the easement by the Township or any other holder of the easement, that the Applicant
would be responsible for removing and replacing the fencing at their own cost and
expense, and that the construction of the fence in no way impede surface water drainage.
OTHER BUSINESS
Appeal #04-1259 – Robert Widmer Grant of Extension
Mr. Mayrhofer stated they received a letter from Mr. Murphy asked for an extension of
the Variance granted to Robert Widmer until 10/1/05. Mr. Mayrhofer moved,
Mr. Bamburak seconded and it was unanimously carried to grant an Extension until
10/1/05.
Appeal #04-1269 – James Armetta Grant of Extension
Mr. Mayrhofer stated they received a letter from Mr. James Armetta owner of Christine’s
Restaurant requesting an extension. It was noted that he did not give a specific date for
the extension. Mr. Habgood stated he currently has a Building Permit in for review.
It was agreed to provide the extension until the end of August.
Mr. Mayrhofer moved, Mr. Caiola seconded and it was unanimously carried to grant an
Extension until 8/31/05.
APPEALS #05-1311, #05-1312, AND #05-1313 –
Mr. Regis Champ, President and CEO of Allegheny Valley School was present with
Mr. Bernard Schneider, attorney, representing the Applicant.
June 21, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board – page 8 of 19
The Application for Appeal #05-1311 was marked Exhibit A-1. The attached schematic
dated 5/23/05 for the property at 2100 N. Crescent Boulevard was marked as Exhibit A-2.
Mr. Toadvine stated Mr. Schneider is representing Appeal #05-1311, Appeal #05-1312,
and Appeal #05-1313. Mr. Schneider stated he would like to consolidate these three
Appeals into one Hearing. He stated he has six witnesses present and most of the
testimony will be applicable to all three properties. He would make it clear which
property he is referring to and he feels this would speed up the proceedings.
Mr. Toadvine agreed with this proposal. He stated there are people present in the
audience who may be asking for Party status, and he would like them to come forward
and give their name and address and indicate which property they are concerned with.
Mr. Toadvine stated he and Mr. Schneider did have a conversation this afternoon
concerning the fact that only four Board members would be present this evening. As he
explained earlier in the evening to one of the other Applicants, Mr. Schneider was given
the opportunity to have the matters continued until there was a full Board; and
Mr. Schneider had indicated that he wished to proceed. Mr. Toadvine stated he assumes
they will not finish this matter tonight and as long as it is acceptable, he would like the
opportunity for the other Board members to be able to review the transcript of tonight’s
meeting and participate in the future. Mr. Schneider was agreeable to this.
Mr. Mayrhofer stated it is possible he may not be present at future meetings, and in this
way those other Board members could possibly take his place, and Mr. Schneider agreed.
Mr. Schneider asked that those coming forward for Party status indicate what effect they
expect this Application will have on their property so that he can challenge standing if
necessary. Mr. Toadvine reviewed Party status. Mr. Toadvine suggested that they first
get the names and addresses and make a brief statement as to their objection and once this
process is done they can make those documents part of the record. Mr. Schneider stated
he would need more than a brief statement of their objection. He stated he would also
need to have a statement as to what they expect the effect of this Application to be on
their property because if there is no effect on their property, they have no standing and he
needs the ability to object to that. Mr. Toadvine stated he does not feel that is something
that can be accomplished by having the Secretary take names, addresses and the brief
statement. He suggested that they provide their names and addresses and the Appeal
about which they have a concern and once they have accumulated that list, Mr. Schneider
would be given the opportunity to question each individual as to how it affects them and
challenge or not challenge their Party status. Mr. Schneider stated he would reserve the
right to do this after he presents the main part of his case. Mr. Schneider stated the
number of interested people may dwindle after they hear testimony that may resolve their
concerns.
June 21, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board – page 9 of 19
Mr. Koopman stated the Township is requesting Party status. He stated he feels they
need to know up front who will be a Party since those who have Party status also have the
right to cross examine witnesses and participate in the proceedings. Mr. Koopman stated
he feels they should resolve this up front and not delay it to some subsequent proceeding.
Mr. Koopman stated he feels they should briefly state up front what their concern is, and
Mr. Schneider can be given the opportunity to cross examine and the Board can
determine up front whether people have Party status or not so they know when they go
through the witnesses whether they have the right to cross examine and ask questions.
Mr. Schneider stated he understands Mr. Koopman’s proposition and in general agrees
with this; however, he has had experience in front of Zoning Hearing Board’s attempting
to open group homes and has learned that a lot of people’s concerns are addressed by
testimony and after hearing the testimony they are no longer as interested in participating
in the proceedings. Mr.
Schneider stated
willing to meet with any community group at any time to answer questions about the
group home. He stated they have found that such meetings have a very good effect in
allaying concerns of property owners near the property.
Mr. Christopher H. DeGrezia, attorney from Drinker, Biddle & Reath, stated he is present
on behalf of a group of residents. He stated he estimates there are at least forty families.
He was only retained Friday and has not met with and confirmed that each of those on the
lists he was provided is really part of the group which has retained him. He has a list of
names and addresses. He stated they are concerned about the impact on their properties.
He stated they will also present a number of hours of planning testimony. Some of these
people on the list include those currently in line to sign up for Party status. Mr. Toadvine
stated if those people on the list are present and are having Mr. DeGrezia represent them,
they do not have to list their names for Party status with the Secretary.
A recess was called while those present were given the opportunity to either meet with
Mr. DeGrezia to confirm his representation or to sign up for Party status with the
Secretary.
When the meeting was reconvened, Mr. Toadvine stated that for the past hour they have
been taking names and addresses of those individuals requesting Party status and securing
a list of those neighbors represented by Mr. DeGrezia. Mr. Toadvine marked as Exhibit
B-1 a two-page list entitled, “List of Group Members Neighbors Concerned About
Zoning.” Mr. Toadvine noted these are the individuals represented by Mr. DeGrezia.
This indicates next to their name the specific property they are concerned with. Exhibit
B-2 was marked which is a two-page document entitled “Party Status #05-1311 – 2100
N. Crescent” and this is a list of individuals who have requested Party status for that
Appeal. Exhibit B-3 was marked which is a one-page document entitled “Party Status
Party status for that Appeal. Exhibit B-4 was marked which is a one-page list entitled
“Party Status #
June 21, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board – page 10 of 19
requested Party status for that Appeal. A copy of these documents was supplied to
Mr. Koopman, Mr. DeGrezia, and Mr. Schneider.
Mr. Toadvine stated Mr. Schneider and the Board have agreed that the matters can be
consolidated.
Mr. Schneider suggested that they mark the Applications and the schematics for the other
two properties. Exhibit A-3 was marked which is the Application for Appeal #05-1312.
Exhibit A-4 was marked which is the Big Oak site Plan dated 5/23/05. Exhibit A-5 was
marked which is the Application for Appeal #05-1313. The site Plan for
dated 5/18/05 was marked as Exhibit A-6.
Mr. Schneider asked the Board to determine whether it has jurisdiction over the Zoning
Officer’s determination that they did not comply with the Building Codes as opposed to
the Zoning Ordinance. In all three of the Appeals he would argue that the Zoning
Hearing board does have jurisdiction. He stated these are noted in the Appeal under
Questions five and eight, Argument B. He stated the Municipalities Planning Code states
that a Zoning Ordinance may permit, prohibit, regulate, restrict, and determine the
erection, construction, repair, maintenance, alteration, raising, removal, and use of
structures. This is Section 603B2 of the Municipalities Planning Code. Mr. Schneider
stated that under the Township Ordinance, the Zoning Officer has to make a
determination before a Building Permit can be issued that the Sections of the Building
Code have been met. He stated in this case Inspectors, who work for the Building
Department as opposed to the Zoning Department, made a determination that their
Applications did not meet certain regulations of the Building Code and not the Zoning
Ordinance. One of the reasons for the Zoning Officer turning down their Application for
a Building Permit was the fact that they did not meet those Building Ordinances. He
feels the law is clear that a Zoning Ordinance is not determined by the caption of the
Ordinance. He stated it merely has to cover matters that are permitted to be covered by
the Municipalities Planning Code in the Zoning Ordinance. He stated they have the
Zoning Officer applying Building Codes, and you have Building Codes incorporated into
the Zoning Ordinance. He feels these matters are part of the Zoning Ordinance, and
therefore the Zoning Hearing Board has jurisdiction over the Appeal. He stated under the
Zoning Code, the Zoning Hearing Board has jurisdiction over the Appeal. He stated the
Municipalities Planning Code gives the Zoning Hearing Board jurisdiction to determine
these issues.
Mr. Schneider stated his other argument is that under the Fair Housing Act, the
Municipality has an affirmative duty to grant reasonable accommodations from any rules,
regulations, or Ordinances that deprive them of an equal opportunity to live in a
residential dwelling of their choice. He stated some of the deficiencies as they
understand them that the Zoning Officer relied upon in the Building Code are subject to
reasonable accommodation. He noted they have been told that their shower stalls do not
June 21, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board – page 11 of 19
comply because there is not a seat in the shower stall for the disabled residents to sit on.
Mr. Schneider stated their shower stalls have been specifically designed to allow direct
wheelchair access so that they wheel their seat into the shower stall and it would be a
reasonable accommodation to state while they do not have a seat built in, they are
wheeling the seat in. They feel that the Township has to give reasonable
accommodations if they prove their case. Mr. Schneider stated the Township has to have
a process for them to claim reasonable accommodation. He stated since the Zoning
Hearing Board has jurisdiction over Appeals from the Zoning Officer’s decision, the
Zoning Hearing Board would be the correct Board to give that reasonable
accommodation.
Mr. Toadvine stated that during the break while the residents were registering, he
discussed this matter with the Zoning Hearing Board members and reviewed the legal
implications, and he believes it is the consensus of the Board that they do not have
jurisdiction to decide a Building Code regulation and/or violation or deficiency and will
not decide that issue in connection with this Appeal. Mr. Mayrhofer affirmed this
statement.
Mr. Schneider stated he has a number of documents to enter into evidence. Exhibit A-7
was marked which is a copy of the Zoning Ordinance Section 200-7 – Definition of
Family.
Exhibit A-8 was marked which is a copy of the Zoning Ordinance Section 211, Sub-
Sections A and B which pertains to the permitted uses in the R-RP Zone and uses by
Special Exception.
Exhibit A-9 was marked which is a copy of the Zoning Ordinance Section 200-15 A & B
which is permitted uses and uses by Special Exception in R-1 Districts.
Exhibit A-10 was marked which is a copy of the Zoning Ordinance Section 200-20 Sub-
Sections A & B which are permitted uses and uses by Special Exception in an R-2 Zone.
Exhibit A-11 was marked which is a copy of the Zoning Ordinance Section 200-24 Sub-Sections A & B which is permitted uses and uses by Special Exception in an R-3 District.
Exhibit A-12 was marked which is a copy of the Zoning Ordinance Section 200-27 Sub-Sections A & B which are permitted uses and Special Exceptions in an R-3M District.
Exhibit A-13 was marked which is a copy of the Zoning Ordinance Section 200-32 Sub-Sections A & B which are permitted uses and uses by Special Exceptions in an R-4 District.
June 21, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board – page 12 of 19
Exhibit A-14 was marked which is a copy of the Zoning Ordinance Section 200-36 Sub-Section A which is permitted uses in an H-C District.
Exhibit A-15 was marked which is a copy of the Zoning Ordinance Section 200-39 Sub-Section A which is permitted uses in a C-1 District.
Exhibit A-16 was marked which is a copy of the Zoning Ordinance Section 200-42 Sub-Section A which is permitted uses in the C-2 District.
Exhibit A-17 was marked which is a copy of the Zoning Ordinance Section 200-45 Sub-Section A which is permitted uses in a C-3 District.
Exhibit A-18 was marked which is a copy of the Zoning Ordinance Section 200-48 Sub-Section A which is permitted uses in an O-R District.
Exhibit A-19 was marked which is a copy of the Zoning Ordinance Section 200-68 Sub-Section 26 Nursing Home which establishes conditions to have a Special Exception for a Nursing Home and defines a Nursing Home.
Exhibit A-20 was marked which is a copy of the Zoning Ordinance Section 200-87, 88 and 89, Sub-Sections A through F of 89 which deal with administration and enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance.
Exhibit A-21 was marked which is a copy of the Zoning Ordinance Section 200-98 which deals with the Applications for Special Exceptions.
Exhibit A-22 was marked which is a copy of the Zoning Ordinance Section 200-104 which sets forth the procedures to be followed in a Public Hearing for a Special Exception.
Exhibit A-23 was marked which is a copy of the Zoning Officer’s determination as to the 2100 N. Crescent Boulevard property. This is dated 5/3/05 and attached to it is the referred to rejections or deficiencies from the Building Department.
Exhibit A-24 was marked which is a copy of the Zoning
Officer’s determination dated 5/5/05 of
Exhibit A-25 was marked which is the copy of the Zoning
Officer’s determination dated 5/17/05 on the
June 21, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board – page 13 of 19
The Exhibits were accepted by the Board. Mr. Schneider agreed to make copies available
to Mr. DeGrezia.
Mr. Regis Champ was sworn in and stated he is employed by
where he is the President and CEO. He stated
corporation and is a charity registered under Section 501C3 of the Internal Revenue
Code. Mr. Champ stated their mission is to provide residential care and life support
services for people with mental retardation. They provide 24/7 residential care providing
all levels of care for each individual in a variety of residential settings from small one or
two-person settings, three to six bed group homes, up to facilities with 120 to 160 people.
Mr. Champ stated the services they provide include full support of activities of daily
living such as feeding, bathing, attending to them if they go to a social event and
providing support supervision at all times. Their normal activities at the house could
include playing games, shopping at the local community, attending church, social events,
sporting events, etc. Their staff also provide cooking, cleaning, and laundry services.
Other than residential care they also provide general health care services by physicians,
nurses, occupational and physical therapy, and run adult training facilities where they
would go during the day for sheltered employment, adult activities, and retirement
activities.
Mr. Schneider asked how many residential care facilities
operates in
facilities serving approximately 825 clients. They have approximately 2200 employees.
Mr. Schneider stated they have facilities across the State
in Allegheny,
Mercer,
Mr. Champ stated he was named CEO in 1980 and became President and CEO
approximately eight years ago. As President and CEO he is responsible for the overall
operation of
open the houses in
deciding what areas they wanted to move into considering the demographics of the area
and sending those demographics to real estate organizations and trying to locate the
homes. He reviewed every home that was presented including visiting the homes and
making the offers along with helping to design the renovations. He stated they needed
homes for six people with mental retardation and some physical disabilities. He stated
there are house parents in all their group homes which could be a single individual or
more typically a married couple many of whom have one or two children of their own
who live in the house as a family with the handicapped people. He stated they look to
purchase fairly large homes. He stated the house parents are critical to their operation as
they are the neighbors who are consistently in the home and are managers of the group
home. The house parents they are looking for are stable and mature and they like to have
married couples with children because this is typically a stable family. They look for
June 21, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board – page 14 of 19
communities with very good
they are looking for. He stated if the house parents have a young child and are satisfied
with the
period of time. He stated across the State their house parents average eight years with the
company and some considerably longer. It would be rare that any house parents would
be with them for less than five years. He stated they also had a cost parameter including
the cost of renovations. They submitted all this information to real estate people who
then find them properties for Allegheny to review. He stated they were able to find three
very nice homes in
Mr. Schneider asked what other positions Mr. Champ has held
with
School. Mr. Champ stated he started thirty-four years ago as the Director of Social
Services. He was responsible for admissions to the facility and individual plans for the
clients. He was also Chairman of the Inter-Disciplinary Committee and met with all the
professionals on the staff including doctors, therapists, and house parents and put together
plans of care for the individual clients. He also met with their families and provided
family counseling. He chaired a number of additional Committees that were required
under the regulations. In 1976 he was named the Administrator of the Pittsburgh Campus
which is a 186 bed facility on a 100+ acre campus comprised of group homes, larger
units, and recreation facilities. In 1980 he was named CEO of the entire organization.
As the Administrator of the Pittsburgh Campus he was responsible for the complete
operation of that facility including budgeting, renovations, capital improvements, fund
raising, meeting with the Parents Association, sitting on numerous committees including
Human Rights, Planning, etc.
Mr. Schneider asked about positions Mr. Champ he has held with other providers of
residential services for people with mental retardation in the past. Mr. Champ stated he
was the Executive Director of the Idlewood Children’s Center which was one of the
earliest group homes in
described as Administrator of the Pittsburgh Campus. He stated he was responsible for
planning the Budget, did admissions, all social service work, ran the Planning
Committees and the Committees that put together the plan of care for the clients, and met
with all the families.
He also did all the interaction with the State and
Mr. Schneider asked how many facilities Mr. Champ has been directly involved with
opening, and Mr. Champ stated approximately eighty-six. He has been involved with
every group home they have opened. He stated when he was first hired with
facility to make sure all the regulations were met including building regulations. He was
also responsible for filling the beds and establishing the
Budget. He stated
County had also requested them to open a program in an area where a facility had been
closed for ten years and they opened up a sixty-three bed, highly-specialized unit for
younger children with critical medical problems; and he was involved with this facility.
June 21, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board – page 15 of 19
He stated he was also involved in taking over and reopening approximately six facilities
ranging from facilities with twenty-eight beds to one hundred forty beds. He stated these
were facilities that for one reason or another had been decertified by the State of
Because of
financed care and their success with that, they were asked by the State on a number of
occasions to take these facilities over, reorganize them, get them back on solid footing,
and get back their certification from the Federal Government and the State.
Mr. Champ was asked about his Education. He stated he has a Masters Degree in Social
Work from the
Administration which he received in 1975. His Undergraduate Degree was a Bachelors
of Science in Political Science/Pre-Law which he received in 1970 from Duquesne.
Mr. Schneider asked about licenses held with regard to residential care facilities for
people with mental retardation. Mr. Champ stated he is a Licensed Nursing Home
Administrator. He stated this was a License that was previously required by Medicaid
but is no longer required. He stated he also has ongoing training requirements which he
must meet. He stated
they have a training program at
required to meet and he needs to do new training programs and review old training
programs every year in order to maintain the nursing home license. He stated this must
be renewed every three years, and he needs to take approximately seventy-eight
continuing education credits to maintain that.
Mr. Schneider offered Mr. Champ as an expert witness in the residential care of the
mentally retarded as well a facts witness.
Mr. DeGrezia agreed to stipulation Mr. Champ as an expert witness.
Mr. Koopman asked if Mr. Champ is a Medical Doctor, and Mr. Champ stated he is not.
Mr. Koopman asked if he has any degrees in the field of medicine or physical therapy, or
any related health care type field. Mr. Champ stated he has the degrees he testified to and
he did take Health related courses in his Masters Program. Mr. Koopman asked if he
personally holds any licenses, and Mr. Champ stated he does have the License of Nursing
Home Administrator. This was obtained in approximately 1980. This license is no
longer necessary. The license is considered dormant and he would renew it by writing a
letter indicating that he wants to renew the license. It went dormant approximately two
years ago, and he currently holds no active licenses.
Mr. Koopman asked if
group home endeavors for which they are seeking approval in
Township. Mr. Champ stated they get licenses for each of the facilities that they operate
individually. The group home facilities are licensed by the Department of Public
Welfare. They are licensed as intermediate care facilities if they are in fact intermediate
June 21, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board – page 16 of 19
care facilities, but they also have a number of other designations. Some of them are
considered Waiver Homes.
The ones they are discussing for
ICF/MR (Intermediate Care Facility for the Mentally Retarded). They do not currently
have that license yet for the three locations in
Mr. Koopman asked if Mr. Champ has been qualified as an expert in the field of
residential care facility anywhere in the Courts of the
Mr. Champ stated he has not.
Mr. Koopman asked Mr. Schneider for a definition of the field of expertise for which
he is trying to qualify Mr. Champ. Mr. Schneider stated he is asking that he be
considered qualified as an expert in the field of residential care of the mentally retarded.
He will be asking him questions about living arrangements for mentally-retarded people
based on his experience, about the benefits of residential care for people with mental
retardation, questions about financing of the residential care facilities in particular the
financing related to the homes they are proposing to open, and his experience and
opinions on the operation of homes and how those homes effect communities where they
are located.
Mr. Koopman asked Mr. Champ if he has been published in any recognized literature,
magazines, etc. having to do with residential care of the mentally handicapped, and
Mr. Champ stated he has not.
Mr. Koopman stated he would like to reserve the right to object to certain areas of
testimony. He stated he does not have any objection to Mr. Champ’s testimony to the
extent that it applies to administration of the facilities, and possibly the financial end; but
to the extent that the testimony would get into what he feels is appropriately medical
and/or planning testimony, he would like the right to reserve this. He feels the offer that
Mr. Schneider made is overly broad based on the qualifications he has heard.
Mr. Toadvine stated the request was to qualify Mr. Champ as an expert in the field of
residential care for the mentally retarded and did not talk about planning, etc.
Mr. Koopman stated he is concerned that some of the areas they will discuss will go well
beyond the areas which Mr. Koopman feels Mr. Champ should testify to. Mr. Koopman
stated he does not feel he is qualified to testify to all the areas Mr. Schneider has
suggested since some of them may involve medical opinions.
Mr. Toadvine stated they are trying to determine what category Mr. Champ falls into in
terms of an expert. Mr. Schneider stated as part of his case for a request for a reasonable
accommodation he has to show either therapeutic value of residential placement or
financial hardship upon Allegheny Valley School by denial of the request for reasonable
accommodation. Mr. Schneider stated the Zoning Hearing Board is going to want to
know about the impact of the group homes on the neighborhood, and Mr. Champ would,
June 21, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board – page 17 of 19
based on his experience with other houses, testify to this as well. He feels this would be
more of a fact witness than an expert witness, and Mr. Toadvine agreed. Mr. Schneider
stated both expert and fact would be in the area of financing, and based on his training
with a Masters in Social Work and his experience in the field of residential care for the
mentally retarded, he is qualified as an expert to testify as to the therapeutic value of
residential living.
He stated under
Mr. Champ has either by training or experience knowledge that is greater than the
ordinary lay person that would be helpful to the Board in making determinations on the
case. He feels he would be an expert in the therapeutic area. Mr. Koopman stated this is
one of the areas he does not feel he is qualified to testify to as he has no medical
experience in any field, and usually when you discuss therapeutic value, you should have
some kind of degree in a related medical field such as psychology, physical therapy, etc.
He stated Mr. Champ’s expertise is in Social Work. Mr. Koopman stated he also feels
some financial matters may be beyond his expertise since he is not an accountant.
Mr. Koopman stated this is why he would like to reserve the right to object as they
proceed. He stated he feels he will not object to most of what Mr. Champ will be
testifying. He feels it would still be appropriate to reserve to the Township the right to
object if they get into certain areas such as therapeutic value. He feels they would need
to have someone with some expertise in the medical field or psychiatric field.
Mr. Schneider stated he disagrees and feels when you have spent your career running
residential care facilities for the mentally retarded, have a degree in Social Work, and
have dealt with the kind of experiences Mr. Champ has dealt with, that this kind of
experience is exactly the kind of experience which under the rules of evidence allow you
to testify as to the social therapeutic value of residential living.
Mr. Schneider asked if Mr. Champ has been qualified as an expert witness in this field by
other Zoning Hearing Boards, and Mr. Champ stated he has.
Mr. Koopman stated asked if Mr. Champ will be referring to any expert treatises or
expert knowledge he has gained through education or study to serve as a portion for his
opinion. Mr. Champ stated he would like to discuss what he has learned through
experience as well as his education over the past thirty-four years involved with
residential facilities for people with mental retardation. Mr. Koopman asked if he will be
relying upon anyone who is a recognized expert in the field who is published in the field
and who has testified in Court proceedings as a recognized expert, and Mr. Champ stated
he will be testifying based on his own personal experience. Mr. Koopman stated he
objects to this as he feels he would be a fact witness, but not an expert witness.
Mr. DeGrezia stated with retard to a residential care facility, he would agree with the
Township on the medical testimony and the impact on the neighborhood as he does not
feel Mr. Champ is an expert or a planner.
A short recess was taken at this time.
June 21, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board – page 18 of 19
Upon reconvening the meeting, Mr. Schneider stated that prior to the Board rendering a
decision on Mr. Champ, he would like to ask Mr. Champ if he is a qualified mental
retardation professional, and Mr. Champ stated he is. He stated they refer to this as a
QMRP which is a designation that is given through Federal and State regulations to
individuals who have at least two years’ experience working with people with mental
retardation and have a certain type of degree – Social Work Degree being one of those.
The duties of a QMRP are to put the life plan together. This plan includes pulling
together the medical disciplines, behavioral disciplines, physical therapy, and whatever
the client needs, and making decision about which information is used in developing the
plan. As part of the planning process he has to make determinations as to what is
beneficial for the treatment of the people with mental retardation. He stated you pull
together the team of professionals and put it together in a plan to make sure that the
professional information is consistent with the needs of the clients. As part of this
decision, Mr. Champ makes determinations as to whether a placement has therapeutic
value for the person with mental retardation. He stated you do the plan specifically to
determine what type of placement and therapies they need.
Mr. Mayrhofer stated the Zoning Hearing Board has determined that based on thirty-four
years of experience, Mr. Champ is an expert witness.
Mr. Toadvine stated the next regularly-scheduled meeting of the Zoning Hearing Board is
planned for Tuesday, July 5 and currently there are five other Appeals scheduled for that
night. He suggested that the Zoning Hearing Board look into the possibility of
scheduling a special meeting on a night that the Zoning Hearing Board does not normally
meet to consider this matter only. He stated Wednesday, July 13 has been suggested
although they would have to finalize this date. He would suggest that they continue the
matter until July 5 and hopefully they would be able to hear some additional testimony on
this matter after the other Appeals are heard. Prior to July 5, they can possibly come up
with a date certain for a special meeting possibly on July 13. Mr. Schneider stated
July 13 is satisfactory. Mr. DeGrezia stated their planner does have a conflict on July 13.
Mr. Toadvine stated he does not feel that they would get to that point by July 13.
Mr. Schneider stated the ruling on jurisdiction has eliminated some of his witnesses, but
he would still have four witnesses. Mr. Toadvine stated he will try to determine the type
of Applications currently scheduled for July 5 and how long they may take to consider.
Mr. Mayrhofer expressed concern with the distance that Mr. Schneider, Mr. Champ, and
their witnesses have to travel and asked if they are going to be able to give them
sufficient time to make it worth their while to return on July 5. Mr. Toadvine stated
within the next few days they will try to determine how much time the scheduled appeals
will take on July 5 and try to firm up the July 13 date.
June 21, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board – page 19 of 19
Mr. DeGrezia stated he would like to have his planner available to listen to their planning
testimony. Mr. Toadvine stated if they continue to try to schedule meetings to
accommodate everyone, they will not be able to proceed. Mr. Mayrhofer stated
Mr. DeGrezia can provide his planner with the testimony that is given that night if he
cannot be present. Mr. Mayrhofer stated he feels they need to move the project along.
He stated if people in the audience would like to get together separately with Mr. Champ
he would like to see that this is done. Mr. Schneider stated Mr. Champ’s number is
412-299-7777 and they can call at any time. He stated if anyone wants to set up a
meeting, they would be happy to do so. They would be willing to meet at the
Building or in individual homes. Mr. Mayrhofer asked if Mr. DeGrezia would like to see
that this is done, and Mr. DeGrezia stated he will discuss this with his clients. One
gentleman asked why this was not offered prior to this time. Mr. Mayrhofer stated it is
being offered at this time. Mr. Schneider stated they will meet with any community
group, but they will not allow Mr. Champ to meet with an attorney advocate as part of
that group. He stated the property owners could discuss with their attorney whatever they
hear at the meeting, but he does not want the attorney himself involved and the attorneys
present understand this.
Mrs. Ludlow,
present. Mr. Toadvine stated Mr. Champ would not have his attorney present.
Mrs. Ludlow stated it is their attorney that is advising them and she feels he should be
present. Mr. Toadvine stated it is an ethical consideration.
Mr. Chris Escher asked if they will have standing to cross examine. Mr. Toadvine stated
those who have requested Party status will be questioned by Mr. Schneider as to their
Party status and provided they maintain their Party status, they will have the right to cross
examine.
Mr. Mayrhofer moved, Mr. Caiola seconded and it was unanimously carried to continue the matter until July 5, 2005.
There being no further business, Mr. Mayrhofer moved, Mr. Bamburak seconded and it was unanimously carried to adjourn the meeting at 11:10 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Rudolph Mayrhofer, Vice Chairman