ZONING HEARING BOARD
MINUTES – MARCH 15, 2005
The regular meeting of the Zoning Hearing Board of the
Those present:
Zoning Hearing Board: Barbara Kirk, Chairman
Rudolph Mayrhofer, Vice Chairman
David Malinowski, Secretary
Paul Bamburak, Member
Greg Caiola, Alternate (not participating)
(left meeting in progress)
Paul Kim, Alternate (left meeting in progress)
Others: Robert Habgood, Code Enforcement Officer
Jennifer McGrath, Township Solicitor
James Majewski, Township Engineer
Drew Wagner, Township Engineer
Allen Toadvine, Zoning Hearing Board Solicitor
Steve Santarsiero, Supervisor Liaison
APPEAL #04-1274 –
Ms. Kirk stated this matter was continued from 2/1/05 and all testimony was concluded.
The Solicitors for both the Applicant and the Township submitted Memorandum of Law
with proposed Findings of Fact to the Board, and the Board is in a position to render a
decision. Mr. Kim was asked to participate in the Decision as he was the member who
heard the testimony and Mr. Malinowski was excused and did not participate in the
Decision. All Board members indicated they did read the briefs presented.
Ms. Kirk moved, and
Mr. Mayrhofer seconded for the property located at
1) That the Applicant will provide all landscaping and buffering for
the property as required by the Zoning Code;
March 15, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board – page 2 of 15
2) That the units for residents suffering from dementia be restricted
to the first floor rear quadrant as presented during the Hearings;
3) Any and all deliveries to the proposed facility be at the rear of the
property and there shall be no deliveries before 6 a.m. or after
11:00 p.m.
As to the request for the Variance to increase the impervious surface coverage to 19.75%, it is moved that it be granted subject to the following condition:
1) That the Applicant construct a two-story facility at the property
as presented and shown on Exhibit A-11.
Motion carried with Mr. Bamburak, Ms. Kirk, and Mr. Mayrhofer in favor and
Mr. Dobson and Mr. Kim opposed.
Mr. Kim was excused and Mr. Malinowski returned to the table. Mr. Caiola and
Mr. Kim left the meeting at this time.
APPEAL #05-1300 – THOMAS J. MACK CONSTRUCTION
Mr. Thomas Mack,
Avenue, were sworn in. Mr. Gordon stated he is the owner of the property.
The Application submitted was marked as Exhibit A-1. This includes a single-sheet Site
Plan dated 1/25/05 which was marked as Exhibit A-2.
Mr. Mack stated the property is at
on the Plan of Makefield Terrace. Mr. and Mrs. Gordon have owned the property since
2001. It is zoned R-2 and consists of .95 acres. They are requesting a Variance to erect a
906 square foot detached garage. They are converting the existing garage into a family
room. The need relief from Ordinance Section 200-23 for impervious surface. The
maximum allowed on the property is 18% or 7,421 square feet. The existing impervious
surface is 24.7% or 10,191 square feet. The existing dwelling was built in 1905 and the
impervious includes the dwelling, driveways and rear driveway to a rear service road,
walks, and patio and exceeds the allowable impervious surface. Improvements on the
property pre date the 1979 and 1994 Ordinances. They will reduce the ratio to 23.9% or
9848 square feet. They will achieve this by removing the driveway to the rear service
road and the concrete apron. They will reduce the impervious surface by 1,272 square
feet and a net reduction with the new garage of 343 square feet. The stone will be
removed and grassed over.
March 15, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board – page 3 of 15
Ms. Kirk noted the section on the Plan that is highlighted as to become a concrete patio
and asked what is there currently. Mr. Gordon stated this is part of the home. Mr. Mack
stated only the concrete patio will remain and this is included in the existing impervious
surface. Currently there is a structure on this which will be removed but the slab will
remain.
Ms. Kirk stated the Board received a memo from the assistant to the Township engineer
dated 2/28 and he suggested there may be 800 square feet of a driveway that could be
removed. Mr. Mack stated they did not receive this memo. Mr. Wagner stated this is the
section between the proposed garage and the existing dwelling.
Mr. Mayrhofer stated all of these structures were there before they had the Zoning Codes.
Mr. Mack stated the house and existing garage were built in 1905. With regard to the
structure in the back, they do not know whether there was a patio there or not.
Mr. Gordon stated the back driveway has been there for as long as the neighbors can
remember.
Mr. Mayrhofer asked Mr. Gordon has discussed the proposed construction with his
neighbors and if they had any problems currently with any water flow or impervious
surface. Mr. Gordon stated he did speak to the immediate neighbors and no one had any
problem. Mr. Mayrhofer asked if there any water flow problems, and Mr. Gordon stated
there are not.
Mr. Gordon stated although the house does have an existing garage, it was not engineered
with today’s cars in mind, and they do not really have a functioning garage.
There was no public comment
Mr. Bamburak moved, Mr. Mayrhofer seconded and it was unanimously carried to approve the Variance for impervious surface as requested.
APPEAL #05-1299 – THOMAS J. MACK CONSTRUCTION
Mr. Thomas Mack was present with Mr. Edward Murphy, attorney. Mr. Mack was
reminded that he was still under oath.
Mr. Murphy stated this is with regard to an Appeal from the Decision of the Code
Enforcement Officer of the Township. He stated he feels the burden is on the Township
to proceed first. Ms. McGrath stated the Board of Supervisors has voted not to oppose
this Application.
March 15, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board – page 4 of 15
Mr. Murphy stated the Application is in response to the Appeal which was marked as
Exhibit A-1. Attached to that Application is an outline of relief and reasons justifying the
grant thereof which is part of A-1. He also attached a 1/14/04 Notice of Disapproval
from the
was marked as Exhibit A-2. Ms. Kirk asked if the date is correct, and Mr. Murphy stated
while the actual date shown is 1/14/04, this was an error and it should be 1/14/05.
Ms. Kirk noted this is a three-page document and attached to that disapproval was one
page from the Stipulation by Court Order and a Section of the Township Zoning
Ordinance. Mr. Murphy noted the copy of the 6/4/96 Order of the Court of Common
Pleas of
by the Township as well as the property owner and the Applicant at that time, William
Stitt. Mr. Garton executed on behalf of the Township and Mr. Murphy executed on
behalf of Mr. Stitt. This was marked as Exhibit A-3. This includes the Declaration of
Restricted Covenants dated 2/22/94 which was marked as Exhibit B. This was between
Mr. Stitt and the Township which was an Exhibit to that Stipulation.
Mr. Mayrhofer asked that the drawing dated Grading and Tree Removal Plan be marked
separately and this was marked as Exhibit A-4. Mr. Murphy stated this is for Tax
Parcel #20-53-43 dated 6/25/03 with a last revised date of 11/11/04. He stated this is a
single-sheet Plan prepared by J. G. Parks. Mr. Murphy stated Exhibit A-4 is the Plan
that accompanied the Building Permit Application Mr. Mack submitted that was rejected
by the Township in January of this year and has given rise to this Appeal. Mr. Murphy
noted a copy of the deed dated 8/17/04 regarding this property which was marked as
Exhibit A-5. Ms. Kirk asked if this is Mr. Mack individually, and Mr. Murphy stated this
is correct.
Ms. Kirk stated since the Township is not opposing this, they should present their
evidence as to why Mr. Mack should be considered a property owner and not a property
developer which gives rise to the impervious surface coverage.
Mr. Mack stated he lives at
Mack Construction. He has been a builder for thirty years. He stated he is a building
contractor and they build and renovate structures. He is the legal owner of the property
which is the subject of the Application. The Deed marked as Exhibit A-5 was noted, and
Mr. Mack stated this is the date he took title to the property.
Mr. Murphy stated the property was at one time a portion of a much larger property, and
Mr. Mack agreed. That larger property was the subject of the Stipulation entered into by
his predecessor and the Township which was marked as Exhibit A-3. Mr. Murphy asked
if Mr. Mack was in any way responsible for the subdivision of that property, and
Mr. Mack stated he was not. Mr. Mack stated that to his knowledge Mr. Stitt was the original Subdivider. Mr. Murphy asked Mr. Mack if he ever subdivided a property in
March 15, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board – page 5 of 15
Development Plans. Mr. Murphy asked if he has ever built any homes in Lower
Makefield and Mr. Mack stated he has built four to five homes and all were individual
lots for which a Building Permit was submitted as was in this case.
Mr. Murphy noted the Building Permit marked as Exhibit A-4 and stated the impervious
surface proposed was 12.4%, and Mr. Mack agreed. The proposed single-family home
he was going to construct on the property did contemplate the construction of a deck.
Mr. Mack did have conversations with Mr. Habgood as to whether or not the construction
of the deck would count against the impervious surface, and he indicated it would not as
long as it did not have any weed control under the deck. He intended to construct the
deck consistent with that in mind. Mr. Mack calculated the amount of impervious square
that would still be available to a subsequent purchaser and still not exceed the amount
permitted, and this would be 6/10ths of 1%. This would be approximately 230 square
feet. This available area would be sufficient to construct a 10’ by 20’ patio if a
subsequent property would so desire without still exceeding the 13% allowed.
Mr. Murphy asked if as part of the discussions with the Township did Mr. Mack suggest
to the Township that any future homeowner of the property would be required to submit
to the Township their acknowledgement that there was .6% impervious surface left, and
Mr. Mack stated he did not but is aware that Mr. Murphy did have this conversation.
Mr. Mack stated he feels this would be an extraordinary request to be asked to do this
since no one else has to do it, but he would reluctantly agree. Mr. Mack stated it is
possible that he may move into this property with his family or he may sell it to another
party.
Mr. Murphy asked why he has elected to move forward with this rather than wait to find
a buyer. Mr. Mack stated considering the conditions that have arisen, he is concerned
that any agreement he would enter into with a buyer, he would not be able to give them a
finish date.
Ms. Kirk noted Exhibit A-4 and asked if besides the proposed deck this also includes
walkways and driveways in the impervious surface, and Mr. Mack stated they have been
included. Ms. Kirk asked if he is proposing only one single-family dwelling, and
Mr. Mack agreed. Ms. Kirk asked if he will agree to a proposed condition of disclosure
on impervious surface to a subsequent purchaser, and Mr. Mack, stated that while he will,
he does not understand this request. He stated he has built forty to fifty homes and has
never been requested to do this.
Mr. Habgood stated it is the practice of the Township that when a development is being
built, the builder is allowed so much impervious surface and the homeowner is allowed
3% over this. If the building goes over this, they do require a letter from the proposed
homeowner to use some of the 3%. Ms. Kirk asked why they would consider Mr. Mack a
developer when he made the Application rather than a property owner. Mr. Toadvine
asked that Mr. Habgood be sworn in if he is giving testimony.
March 15, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board – page 6 of 15
Mr. Habgood was sworn in and stated his past record with the Township was that he has
built houses in the Township as well as done renovations. He stated they were also
concerned that part of the 3% that the homeowner would be entitled to would have
already been used by the builder. Mr. Habgood stated if a homeowner has contracted
with a builder, the builder would still have to comply with the impervious surface
requirements.
Ms. Kirk asked how the Application was submitted. Mr. Toadvine stated Thomas J.
Mack Construction was the Appellant. Mr. Habgood stated the owner on the Application
is Mack and the contractor is Thomas J. Mack Construction. Ms. Kirk stated he did make
application in his individual name; and Mr. Habgood stated while this is correct, the
mailing address was
Mr. Mayrhofer stated he reviewed the Lower Makefield Code and noted the definition of
Developer. He asked if Mr. Mack is considered a developer based on that definition.
Mr. Toadvine stated this is the ultimate issue which the Zoning Hearing Board has to
decide. He stated he could discuss this with the Zoning Hearing Board in private as he
would not feel comfortable rendering a legal opinion on the ultimate issue in public.
Ms. Kirk asked if any members of the audience wished to comment or become party to
the Application. Mr. Loren Danzis, attorney from Fox Rothschild, was present and stated
he represents Mr. Kenneth F. Brandt and Ms. Susan Brandt. Mr. Kenneth Brandt was
sworn in and stated he resides at
property. Mr. Danzis stated it is their opinion that this issue has been resolved and the
Order specifically stated that the Appeal of Kenneth and Susan Brandt and John
Middlebrook and Deborah Mather is sustained. Ms. Kirk stated she understands from
the reading of the Stipulation, that it was dealing with two parcels remaining that were
vested in Mr. Stitt’s name. Mr. Toadvine stated he is referring to an Appeal previously
filed with the Zoning Hearing Board and then appealed before the Court of Common
Pleas. That document has not been marked as an Exhibit or offered into evidence.
Ms. Kirk asked if Mr. Danzis had copies of this to present to the Board, and Mr. Danzis
stated he did have one copy. It was noted this would not be a sufficient number.
A recess was taken so that copies of this and other documents Mr. Danzis requested be
copied could be made for Mr. Danzis at his expense.
The meeting was reconvened, and Ms. Kirk stated they should clarify if Mr. Danzis’
client is asking for Party status. Mr. Danzis stated they are requesting party status for all
the Appellants. Mr. Toadvine stated this is a new matter, and if he is representing other
individuals he needs to clarify who he is representing. Mr. Danzis stated at this Hearing
he is just representing Mr. Brandt but in previous litigation there were others.
Mr. Toadvine stated previous litigation is not considered and he should indicate who he is
representing in this matter. Mr. Danzis stated he is representing Mr. and Mrs. Brandt and
March 15, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board – page 7 of 15
Deborah Mather and John Middlebrook. Addresses were requested for the parties, and
Mr. Danzis asked Mr. Brandt to describe to the best of his knowledge where Deborah
Mather and John Middlebrook reside. Mr. Brandt stated his own property is
immediately adjacent to the subject parcel. Mr. Brandt stated the Mather/Middlebrook
residence is across
Mr. Brandt is #20-53-43-4. Mr. Brandt was shown Exhibit A-4 and showed his property
which is to the left. Ms. Kirk asked where in relation to the parcel was the Mather/
Middlebrook residence. He noted Tax Parcel #20-53-43-1 on the Plan shown as being
owned by James and Carol Sigler. It was determined that the Mather/Middlebrook
address was
Mr. Danzis stated they would like to enter into evidence the Order dated 1/4/05 from the
Court of Common Pleas. Ms. Kirk asked the offer of proof for this Exhibit. Ms. Kirk
asked the relevance of that Exhibit being entered before the Board on this Application.
Mr. Danzis stated it was an Order of the County relating to the subject property for a
Variance for the same issue that is currently before the Board. Mr. Murphy objected.
Mr. Toadvine asked to review a copy of the Order which was tentatively marked as
Exhibit P-1, and he was provided a copy. Upon review, Mr. Toadvine stated it is an
Order dated 1/4/05 in the matter of Kenneth F. Brandt and Susan Brandt and
John Middlebrook and Deborah Mather versus Zoning Hearing Board of Lower
consolidated under Docket #04-02159. Mr. Toadvine stated the Order refers to a Land
Use Appeal and that the Appeal is sustained and the Decision
of the
Township Zoning Hearing Board announced 1/20/04 concerning the lands of
Mr. William E. Stitt, known and identified as Tax Parcel #20-53-043 is hereby reversed
and Variance granted thereby is denied.
Mr. Toadvine stated he had asked that Mr. Habgood pull the original file that was the
subject of that land use Appeal. Mr. Danzis and Mr. Murphy were shown the Appeal
which was filed to the Zoning Hearing Board, Appeal #03-1230. The Appellant was
Thomas J. Mack, with the owner of the property shown as Bill Stitt. Mr. Danzis and
Mr. Murphy agreed that the Appeal shown is the subject matter of the Land Use Appeal
filed in the Court of Common Pleas in
was marked as P-1. It was suggested that this be referred to as the Zoning Application
and it was marked as Exhibit B-1.
Mr. Toadvine stated he is assuming Mr. Danzis’ argument is that the Order marked as
Exhibit P-1 impacts the Decision of the Zoning Hearing Board tonight, and Mr. Danzis
agreed. Mr. Toadvine noted that the Appeal that was marked as Exhibit B-1 (the
Application) requested a Variance from the impervious surface ratio to 15.6%.
Mr. Toadvine stated he believes at the Zoning Hearing Board meeting on January 20,
2004, that the Zoning Hearing Board granted the Variance for this particular parcel that is
March 15, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board – page 8 of 15
being discussed tonight. Everyone agreed. Mr. Murphy stated the Variance that was
granted was less than what the original Application showed and there was a modification.
The Variance granted was 14.1% which still exceeded the 13% permitted under the
Ordinance. Mr. Toadvine stated the fact that the Court of Common Pleas reversed the
Zoning Hearing Board Decision has nothing to do with the Appeal this evening since
they are not dealing with a request for a Variance to the impervious surface.
Ms. Kirk asked Mr. Danzis if the Order that was entered by
the
the Land Use Appeal following the Stitt Zoning Decision was after submission of briefs
and argument before the Court in
submitted by the appellants – Mr. and Mrs. Brandt, Ms. Mather, and Mr. Middlebrook.
Mr. Murphy stated Mr. Stitt elected to abandon the Appeal and then sold the property to
Mr. Mack. No brief was submitted by Mr. Stitt.
Mr. Danzis stated he would also like to submit the Appellant’s Memorandum of Law.
Mr. Murphy objected, and Ms. Kirk sustained. Mr. Danzis stated they have nothing else
to submit.
Mr. Danzis stated Mr. Brandt would like the opportunity to be heard and to ask
Mr. Mack questions. Mr. Brandt stated Mr. Stitt had this parcel for sale and Mr. Mack
and Mr. Stitt decided to jointly - Mr. Murphy objected. Ms. Kirk overruled. Mr. Brandt
stated that they indicated to him that they planned to have Mr. Stitt contribute the
property and Mr. Mack would build a house that would be a spec house and they would
then find a buyer. Mr. Brandt stated Mr. Stitt owned the property behind this parcel and
was granted many Variances to this piece of property. Ms. Kirk stated as she understands
what was submitted to the Zoning Hearing Board that there was one Variance request to
increase impervious surface and no other, and Mr. Brandt agreed. He stated he is talking
about the original one that allowed this property to be subdivided. Ms. Kirk stated that
was a decision that was already decided and processed through the Court. Mr. Brandt
stated now they are trying to sell this as a spec property. He stated the way the property
is being designed, it is set forward and not in line with the other homes. Ms. Kirk stated
currently the property is vacant, and Mr. Brandt agreed. Mr. Brandt stated it is his
opinion that they are trying to maximize the financial value rather than trying to put the
house at a proper size to fit the property. He stated he has no objection to something
being built, but feels that anything more than 10% will not allow anyone to put anything
else on the property. He stated people may want to put in a pool, deck, patio, etc, and
they will not be able to just for the sake of economics of the builder. He feels the purpose of the Zoning laws is to protect the neighbors.
Ms. Kirk stated under the Zoning Code, had an individual other than Mr. Mack purchased
this property and wanted to build on the property, they would be permitted to build up to
13% as the owner of the property. Mr. Brandt stated he does recognize this and stated
that individual would then have input into how it would be developed. Now the people
who purchase it will have no choice.
March 15, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board – page 9 of 15
Mr. Danzis stated that Mr. Mack testified that he had built between forty to fifty homes,
and Mr. Mack agreed. Mr. Danzis asked how many were suitable for him to live in, and
Mr. Murphy objected due to relevance. Mr. Danzis stated Mr. Mack previously testified
that he might live in this home, and Mr. Mack stated this was his testimony. Mr. Danzis
asked him if it is likely that he will live in this home, and Mr. Mack stated it is a
possibility. Mr. Danzis asked if it was a possibility that he would live in any of the other
forty to fifty homes that he built. Mr. Murphy objected. Mr. Danzis stated Mr. Mack
testified that he might live in this home and asked how long he would intend to live in the
home. Mr. Murphy objected. Mr. Danzis asked if it is a home he plans to “flip.”
Ms. Kirk stated they did hear Mr. Mack’s testimony that he may move in and no further
testimony on whether he would keep it or resell it. Mr. Murphy stated his client is not
making any representation that he will move into the home and he would prefer that the
Zoning Hearing Board consider this with the understanding that Mr. Mack will not reside
in it. Mr. Murphy stated he does not feel it is relevant whether or not Mr. Mack plans to
live in the house.
Mr. Danzis noted Section 200-7 defines a developer. He stated Mr. Mack is seeking a
Variance as an Agent for the landowner, Mr. Stitt. Mr. Toadvine stated there is no
Variance being sought. Ms. Kirk stated Mr. Stitt no longer owns the property. The
property is owned in the name of Thomas Mack, an individual not the corporate entity.
She stated the Deed that was submitted as Exhibit A-5 shows that Mr. Mack purchased
this property on August 17, 2004 and it was transferred from William Stitt to Thomas
Mack. She stated on the last page it certifies that the address of the grantee is Thomas J.
and Susan Mack at
Mr. Mack’s company. It went to Mr. Mack individually. Mr. Danzis apologized noting
he was referring to another document. Mr. Danzis stated it is the opinion of the
Appellants that he represented that Mr. Mack is only a developer and does not intend to
live in the house and if he does live in it, will only do so for a limited time to meet the
specific language of the Ordinance.
There was no other public comment. Testimony was closed on this matter.
Ms. Kirk moved, Mr. Dobson seconded and it was unanimously carried that after hearing
the testimony presented and in light of the documents submitted by the Applicant in this
Application and in further consideration of the definition of a developer and development
as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance, the decision of the Zoning Officer should be
overturned and Mr. Mack should be considered an owner of the property and permitted to
build up to 13% as permitted in the Code. Mr. Mack’s Appeal is sustained.
Mr. Danzis asked if they will entertain a Motion regarding the acknowledgment of a
future purchaser of this land in writing that the 13% is virtually used up. Ms. Kirk stated
this is not a condition of the Motion.
March 15, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board – page 10 of 15
APPEAL #04-1254(A) – JOHN C. MCGINN, J.C.MCGINN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
Mr. John VanLuvanee, attorney, was present with Mr. Chris McGinn, and Mr. Mark
Buckwalt, engineer.
Ms. Kirk stated this was continued from the last Board Hearing of 2/15/05. Ms. Kirk
asked the Township’s position on this Application. Ms. McGrath stated the Township
would only ask with regard to the Wetlands Variance that if the Zoning Hearing Board should determine that they are entitled to relief, that a Condition be imposed regarding
mitigation of the disturbed wetlands. She presented a proposed condition.
Mr. VanLuvanee stated he has been made aware of the proposed Condition and it is
acceptable. He stated they did discuss this with the Board of Supervisors on an
informational basis at their meeting on March 7, 2005; and the Board requested this
condition and they agreed to it. Ms. Kirk noted the memo of March 11, 2005 to
Ms. Frick the Zoning Officer from Mr. Buchwalt; and Mr. VanLuvanee stated the intent
of this memorandum was to confirm that the Applicant was in agreement with the
condition.
Mr. Toadvine stated this matter was previously scheduled for February 15, 2005 and
continued at the request of the Applicant’s attorney. It was continued from the 2/15/05
meeting to tonight again at the request of the Applicant’s attorney. Ms. Kirk stated an
Application had been submitted to the Zoning Hearing Board under Appeal #04-1254
which was then amended by Mr. VanLuvanee representing the Applicant which is
actually what is being heard tonight. Mr. VanLuvanee agreed.
Mr. VanLuvanee stated this Application arises out of an Application for approval of an
eight-lot Subdivision proposing seven new residences on approximately thirty acres. The
property is referred to as the Minehart property and is located on the northeast corner of
the intersection of
filed showing eight lots. They subsequently asked for a continuation of the Hearing and
had a series of meetings with the Township representatives in an effort to address some
of the engineering concerns related to the project as a whole. They then revised the Plans
and re-submitted them and prepared an Amended Application. They learned prior to the
Zoning Hearing Board’s January meeting that the Board of Supervisors had voted to
oppose the Application and for that reason they continued the Hearing and had further
meetings with Township representatives. Several of the Variance Applications relate to
utility connections. One of the major reasons for the Application is that this property has
an existing sanitary sewer interceptor that goes through the property and serves the
Dolington Estates property. Mr. Minehart granted the easement for the benefit of
Dolington Estates after consultation with the Township. That easement was put through
an area of wetlands and wetland margins prior to the time those resources were regulated
March 15, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board – page 11 of 15
to the extent they are currently under the Ordinance. In order to connect to the sanitary
sewer interceptor because of the location, two of the Applications for Variance relate to
utility connections to the sewer line. Ms. Kirk asked if this will flow to the Neshaminy
Interceptor. Mr. VanLuvanee stated he believes it will. Mr. Toadvine stated he
understands that the Moratorium has been lifted.
Mr. VanLuvanee stated they have four Variance requests. He stated two of the lots need
a Variance to cross wetlands and wetlands buffer to connect to the interceptor. As a
result of meetings with the Sewer Authority, it now appears they will be able to utilize
Mr. Minehart’s force main and avoid that Variance if they can satisfy the engineers.
They will therefore ask for a Variance subject to the Condition that if they can connect to
the force main, they will not utilize that Variance. Another Variance is just a short
wetland buffer crossing so that one lot can connect by gravity to the interceptor. The
third Variance relates to the water line. They will bring public water to the Subdivision
down
must cross the stream which impacts wetlands and wetland buffers. If the Water
Company determines they should put it on the south side of the road, they may not need
this Variance. This would therefore be a Conditional Variance as well. The last
Variance relates to the access driveways for the two lots shown on the right hand side of
the Plan. Mr. VanLuvanee stated they had proposed an alternative on the Application
which would be a common driveway, but the Planning Commission and Board of
Supervisors were not in favor of the common driveway and would prefer two driveways.
This does mean they will encroach on the wetlands. They agreed to mitigate on a one-to-
one ratio on site. This is the subject of the Condition Ms. McGrath presented this
evening.
The Amended Application was marked as Exhibit A-1. Submitted with this were the
Plans that Mr. VanLuvanee referred to as prepared by Schoor DePalma, dated 8/8/03, last
revised 2/7/04. These were marked as Exhibit A-2. Mr. VanLuvanee stated he also
submitted a series of smaller Plans and he asked that those be marked separately tonight.
Mr. Mark Buchwalt was sworn in and stated he is employed by Schoor DePalma.
He is individually a registered engineer in the
served as the project engineer for this Subdivision depicted on the Plan and submitted
with the Application. He personally has been involved in the preparation of the Plans
including the Exhibits.
Mr. Buchwalt stated the property is approximately thirty acres located at Woodside and
and sewer. Mr. VanLuvanee asked about the natural features on the property.
Mr. Buchwalt showed a colored copy of the Site Plan which was submitted. The
property is bisected by a stream which runs generally from the northwest to the southeast.
March 15, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board – page 12 of 15
On either side of the stream, there are wetlands and wetland buffers as defined by the Zoning Ordinance. Dotted lines were shown on either side of the stream and these show
the wetland buffers which would be the extent to which they would be allowed to disturb.
He stated there is an existing sanitary sewer line that runs through the wetland buffer
from Dolington Estates to
served by public sewers and is in the portion of the Township that is proposed to be
served by public sewers.
Mr. Buchwalt stated the development is also proposed to be served by public water. The
nearest public water is currently within
Estates for
they indicated the way they want the project served. Mr. VanLuvanee stated one of the
Variance relates to
Exhibit A-3 was marked which is the Grading and Erosion Control Plan dated 8/8/03, last
revised 10/11/04 prepared by Schoor DePalma – Sheet 4 of 9. Mr. Buchwalt stated this is
a copy of the Grading and Erosion Control Plan and he has colored in the area where they
have wetland buffer and wetland disturbance. This was filed with the Amended
Application. The coloring on the Plan highlights the four areas for which the Amended
Application seeks Variances.
Exhibit A-4 was marked which is entitled Wetland Disturbance Plan #1 which was
prepared by Mr. Buchwalt. Mr. Buchwalt stated he took the larger plan and did a blow
up designating the area of the buffers to be disturbed and the actual wetlands to be
disturbed. Mr. Buchwalt showed on Exhibit A-3 where the area shown on A-4 is
physically located. Mr. Buchwalt stated originally they requested a Variance for this in
order to connect gravity sewers to the interceptor running on the other side of Core
Creek. They did consider alternatives and met with the Township engineer,
Mr. Hoffmeister, and Mr. Zarko. They discussed the possibility of going across the
Transcontinental Gas Line with a pump system. Mr. Zarko and Mr. Hoffmeister were
not in favor of this. They suggested that he investigate the possibility of connecting to
Mr. Minehart’s force main. His office did perform some calculations to determine
whether this was feasible. The letter received from CKS indicates that they have
reviewed the submission made by Mr. Buchwalt and made preliminary conclusions on
the feasibility of the connection. Mr. Buchwalt stated they indicated that it would be
possible to take the sewer line outside the buffer and connect to the force main and tie it
in with Mr. Minehart’s property and eliminate the need to cross the wetland buffer. This
letter was marked Exhibit A-5. It was noted these are only preliminary conclusions and
the engineer still needs to satisfy certain conditions before they will approve this, one of
which is approval from the DEP. Mr. Buchwalt stated they have briefly discussed this
with their client, but would like to discuss it at more depth. If they are permitted to
connect to the force main, they would not have to encroach on the wetland buffer or the
March 15, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board – page 13 of 15
wetlands. This is for Lots #3 and #4. Mr. VanLuvanee stated they would request a
Variance subject to the Condition that if it is possible to make the connection, they would
not use the Variance.
Mr. VanLuvanee noted Wetlands Disturbance Plan #3. This was prepared by
Mr. Buchwalt and was marked as Exhibit A-6. Mr. Buchwalt noted on Exhibit A-3
where Plan #3 is located which is to the west of
and there is no encroachment into the wetlands. The purpose of the Variance it to tie a
gravity sewer lateral into the sewer line. The sewer line is located in a wetland buffer.
They did discuss alternative to this with Mr. Zarko and Mr. Hoffmeister. Mr. Buchwalt
stated they discussed the possibility of installing a grinder pump and going to Dolington
Estates to tie in at that location. Mr. Zarko and Mr. Hoffmeister asked that they purse the
Variance Application rather than the grinder pump.
Plan #4 was presented which was marked as Exhibit A-7. Mr. Buchwalt showed on the
large Plan the area that was shown on Exhibit A-7. He stated this is around the culvert on
wanted them to bring the water from
frontage of the property. They indicated that they wanted to put it on the north side
initially, but have now indicated they may want it on the south side. If it is on the south
side, they would still need to encroach on wetland buffer or wetlands so the Variance that
is requested will most likely be needed on either side. He stated they do not feel they can
tell the Water Company which side of the road this should go on.
Plan #2 was marked regarding the driveways. This was marked as Exhibit A-8. The area
involved was highlighted on Exhibit A-3. It is on the east side of the property and relates
to the driveways for Lots #5 and #6. They have calculated the wetland disturbance and
wetland buffer disturbance that would be necessary. Mr. Buchwalt stated there is no
other way to access the northern part of the property. With the single driveway, they
could avoid wetland disturbance, but the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors
were not in favor of this. They would still have impacted wetland buffers with that
option. Mr. Buchwalt stated he did attend the meeting of the Board of Supervisors and
the Board proposed that there be mitigation either on site
or at the
door. Mr. Buchwalt stated his office has investigated this on site and located an area
where they could do the mitigation. This would be subject to the Township engineer’s
confirmation. This area was shown on the Plan.
Mr. Buchwalt stated in designing this Plan they did try to minimize the encroachments
into the wetlands and wetland buffers and they feel they have mitigated as much as
possible . He feels the Variance are the minimum needed to afford relief.
Mr. VanLuvanee stated they are no longer requesting a Variance to permit a shared
driveway. The driveways will be separated slightly and are part of the individual lots.
There was no public comment, and the testimony was closed.
March 15, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board – page 14 of 15
Ms. Kirk moved that in the Application of John C. McGinn, the amended Application for the property located at the northeast corner of Lindenhurst Road and Woodside Road identified as Tax Parcel #20-3-28 and #20-3-28-2 moved that the Variances requested from Section #200-51.B(4)(b) and #200-51.B(4)(d) to permit three crossings of the wetlands and wetland buffers and one crossing of the wetland buffer only be granted as set forth in Exhibit A-3 subject to the following conditions:
1) That if the proposed Lots #3 and #4 cannot be connected otherwise
to the sewer system as proposed by the Applicant outside the
wetland area and buffer, that the Variance be utilized;
2) That the Applicant will agree to mitigate the loss of wetlands to take
place either on site in the buffer area or at another remote location
at the discretion of the Township and Township engineer on a one-
to-one ratio to the loss of the wetlands;
Mr. VanLuvanee stated with respect to
many feet they would need as a Variance if they must put the water line in on the south
side. He requested consideration so that he does not have to file a separate Application if
the Water Company comes back and indicates they want it on the south side. He stated
they would agree to minimize the encroachment in a manner consistent with the design
plan. They do not own any property on the south side. Mr. VanLuvanee stated he is
concerned that the Variance is specific to what is shown n the plan, but if the Water
Company flips it, he would prefer not to have to come back to the Zoning Hearing Board.
Ms. Kirk added a third Condition as follows:
3) That the Variance for disturbance of the wetlands identified as
Wetlands Disturbance Plan #4 as set forth in Applicant’s
Exhibit A-7 be granted subject to the approval of the
appropriate water utility company and to the extent that the
water utility company recommends a water connection further
south as proposed on Exhibit A-7 that the Variance be granted.
Mr. Mayrhofer seconded and the Motion carried unanimously.
March 15, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board – page 15 of 15
OTHER BUSINESS
Appeal #04-1240 –
Ms. Kirk stated the Board received a request from Mr. Murphy dated 3/14/05
concerning Appeal #04-1240 –
rendered its decision in April of 2004 which was extended at its meeting in January, 2005
until March 15, 2005. Mr. Murphy is requesting an additional extension not to exceed
sixty days since a Revised Building Permit Application was submitted to the Township
and they want to insure there is sufficient time to make sure the Application can be
processed and approved without the Variances being expired.
Mr. Dobson moved, Mr. Bamburak seconded and it was unanimously carried to grant the
request for Extension as set forth in Mr. Murphy’s letter of March 14, 2005.
Cancel Zoning Hearing Board Meeting of April 5, 2005
Ms. Kirk stated it has been brought to her attention that there are no new Appeals
required for the Board’s meeting of April 5, 2005. Mr. Dobson moved, Mr. Bamburak
seconded and it was unanimously carried to cancel the meeting of April 5, 2005.
There being no further business, Mr. Dobson moved, Mr. Malinowski seconded and it was unanimously carried to adjourn the meeting at 9:30 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
David
Malinowski, Secretary