ZONING HEARING BOARD
The regular meeting of the Zoning Hearing Board of the
Zoning Hearing Board: Rudolph Mayrhofer, Vice Chairman
David Malinowski, Secretary
Paul Bamburak, Member
Greg Caiola, Alternate
Paul Kim, Alternate
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: Barbara Kirk, Zoning Hearing Board Chair
APPEAL #05-1306 – GARY R. O’CONNOR, ARCHITECT
Mr. Mayrhofer stated the Applicant is requesting a continuance until a future meeting and
if anyone is present to hear this Appeal, it will not be heard this evening. Mr. Toadvine
stated this will be continued by
the Board until
evening, Mr. Malinowski moved, Mr. Bamburak seconded and it was unanimously
carried to continue the matter to
APPEAL #05-1302 – ANTHONY K. AND MARTA JARAMILLO RANA
Mr. and Mrs. Rana were present with their attorney, Mr. Bane. Mr. Bane stated they
have submitted a revised Plan. Mr. Toadvine stated this will be marked as Exhibit A-3.
This is a Plan dated
comments of the last Hearing, the pool has now been moved away from the back line and
the increased impervious surface has been removed. They are therefore asking for no
increase in the impervious surface. He stated they presented their testimony at the last
meeting as to the history of the property. This is the first time Mr. and Mrs. Rana have
done any construction on the property since they purchased the property. Everything else
was already on the property when they purchased it. Mr. Mayrhofer stated the walkway
will be board with slats. Mr. Rana stated it will be a wooded deck.
Mr. Majewski stated he has looked at the proposal and does have some comments. He
stated the coping around the pool will be concrete and this is impervious surface. It is
125 square feet which is approximately .1%. Mr. Bamburak asked if the wooden deck as
described would be pervious, and Mr. Majewski stated he would like to know what
would be underneath the wooden deck. Mr. Rana stated it will be gravel or sand.
Mr. Majewski stated they could not have gravel that could be easily compacted.
Mr. Bamburak asked if there is a requirement for certain spacing between the slats.
Mr. Koopman stated if they are going to grant relief, one of the conditions the Township
would like to have imposed would be that the Township engineer have the opportunity to
review and approve the decking material to insure that it is pervious and also that the
Township engineer have the opportunity to review the pool drainage.
Mr. Majewski stated since they have moved the pool they still have some concerns that
they are altering the existing swale in the rear, and he feels a small retaining wall may be
necessary. Mr. Mayrhofer asked if this wall would not add to the impervious surface and
Mr. Majewski stated he feels it will. Mr. Majewski stated there will be some storage in
the pool before it overflows.
Mr. Toadvine asked if the Applicant would be willing to agree to the condition that it
would be subject to the Township engineer’s review and approval of the decking material
and the drainage plan, and Mr. Bane stated they would agree to this. Mr. Koopman stated
when they review the Building Permit, the Township engineer will review this.
Mr. Mayrhofer stated they could put the caveat in that if the drainage plan requires a wall
that this additional impervious surface would be acceptable. Mr. Toadvine stated the
property is currently at 25.37% impervious so with the addition of the coping it would be
.1% additional. If the Board is willing to grant a Variance it may be beneficial to indicate
that the increase from 25.37% impervious be permitted to go to 25.75% or 26% in order
to cover the coping and the possibility of the retaining wall. This was acceptable to
Mr. Koopman understanding that this would be approved if it is necessary. This would
also be based upon the Plan being reviewed by the Township engineer. This was
acceptable to Mr. Bane.
Ms. Fay Manicke, 529 Viscount, asked what they will put around the pool. She asked if
they will have to have fencing, and Mr. Mayrhofer stated they would have to have a
minimum five high fence.
There was no further public comment.
May 18, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board – page 3 of 9
Mr. Mayrhofer moved and Mr. Kim seconded to approve the request for a Variance from
the impervious surface coverage to allow for a maximum total amount of impervious
surface of up to 26% if needed. The Variance is contingent upon the Township
engineer’s review and approval of the proposed pervious decking material and the
drainage plan based on the location of the pool. If the Township engineer feels that it is
necessary, the Applicant would also be required to install some type of retaining wall.
Motion carried with Mr. Caiola, Mr. Kim and Mr. Mayrhofer in favor, Mr. Bamburak
opposed, and Mr. Malinowski abstained.
APPEAL #05-1303 – BERNARD AND ALISA DUPUY
Mr. and Mrs. Dupuy were sworn in. Mr. Toadvine noted the Application will be marked
as Exhibit A-1. The Plan dated 8/02/04 was marked as Exhibit A-2.
Mr. Dupuy stated they would like to encroach into the side yard from 15’ to 6’4”. They
are interested in building a two-car garage and would like to build it onto the side yard.
They need the additional space for storage for their boat, jet ski, motorcycle, etc. The
existing garage is too small. Mr. Dupuy stated they could build on the side as shown on
their Application or they could build toward the rear. They would prefer to build on the
side so that they can keep the rear yard open toward the woods.
Mr. Mayrhofer stated they knew when they purchased the home the way it was set up and
asked if they researched the fact that they would need a Variance. Mr. Dupuy stated they
did do this but in Morrisville where they previously lived the property line limit was 6’.
Mr. Mayrhofer stated it was incumbent on the resident to ascertain that the requirement
was 15’ and not 6’ and that anything less would require a Variance.
Mr. Kim asked if they are claiming a hardship because they currently have to rent storage
space costing them $260 a month to store recreational vehicles. Mr. Dupuy stated they
also have to store personal belongings. The boat and jet ski are stored in
added that if they cannot have the garage on the side, they will build it to the rear where
they do have space. They were trying to build it on the side as it would be less expensive
and they could maintain the view of the woods. They do have sufficient impervious
surface to build the garage. They are not building the garage to store a car. He stated
they also propose to add two rooms to the top of the garage as they need additional space
when relatives visit.
Mr. Mayrhofer stated he did visit the area and noted that the property at 13 Hilltop does
have a similar situation. Mr. Habgood stated a permit was issued for that property
approximately twenty-three years ago. Mr. Mayrhofer asked if he has discussed the
proposal with his neighbors, and Mr. Dupuy stated they did discuss this with the
May 18, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board – page 4 of 9
neighbors when they first moved in, and they had indicated this was fine. He stated they
then did the drawings and called them again to review them with them, but the neighbors
did not contact them. They have since seen it and have indicated they are now concerned
with the proposal and are opposed to it and are concerned that they will get water in their
basement. Mr. Dupuy stated he did advise them that he was going to apply for a
Variance; and if it is denied, they will build it on the back.
Mr. Majewski stated he did not realize that they are building on top of the garage when
he reviewed the plans. He stated since they will be so close to the property line, he is
concerned that the drainage may impact the neighbors on that side and they would
recommend that any of the roof leaders from the addition if approved, be directed toward
the front of the yard and the rear and not toward the side of the house. They would also
recommend that a temporary silt fence be installed along the property line during
construction to insure that run off does not go onto the neighbor’s property.
Mr. Toadvine stated this would be under the requirements of the Building Permit.
Mr. Majewski stated he is also concerned with having a two-story addition so close to the
property line. Mr. Caiola asked how close the adjacent house is to the property line.
Mr. Majewski stated he does not have a survey for the next house and would assume that
it would be a minimum of 15’. Mr. Mayrhofer asked how far away 15 Hilltop is from
their property line, and Mr. Dupuy stated he would estimate it to be 15’ to 18’. He stated
there are three large trees between the properties. He noted at that location they would
only have dormers so privacy would be respected. He would agree to divert water away
from his neighbor’s property.
Mr. Dupuy showed pictures of the area. He stated he is also willing to install a trench
and drain to diver the water to the front. Mr. Toadvine stated they have presented six
photos of the space between the two homes on the side of the house where they are
proposing the garage.
Mr. Koopman stated the Township has no position with respect to this Application.
Mr. Caiola stated Mr. Dupuy has indicated that his primary hardship is financial since
they would be able to construct the addition to the rear without a Variance and has
indicated that it would be more expensive to build it on the rear. He asked the difference
in cost, but Mr. Dupuy stated he did not have an exact figure on this. He stated they will
have to extend the roof line and have cinderblock work as well if they build to the rear.
Mrs. Dupuy stated it is also an aesthetic issue. She feels it would be better to continue
the roof line of the house and add on. Mr. Kim stated if they add it to the side, they
would also have more rear yard space; and Mrs. Dupuy agreed noting they did not want
to lose their view of the woods. She stated they also have a large picture window on the
rear which would be compromised.
May 18, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board – page 5 of 9
Mr. Paul Pflaumer, 29 Lower Hilltop, stated he has lived in the neighborhood for thirty-
eight years and his hope was to have a one car addition to the side of his home as well.
He was told several times that he would have to have a minimum side yard of 15’. He
asked if they grant this Variance, could he apply for a Variance as well. Mr. Mayrhofer
stated anyone can apply for a Variance, although there is no guarantee that it will be
Mr. Richard Havrilla, 15 Hilltop, stated they would be directly impacted by this.
He stated they have been in their home for ten years. He stated he likes the neighborhood
the way it is. He stated they plan to do work as well but they plan on doing everything
within the Ordinance as this makes a nice neighborhood. He stated aesthetically for them
it would probably be nicer to come to the side, but it would not be better aesthetically for
him. He stated he is concerned about water in his basement. He has had water in the
basement previously in hurricane conditions. Ms. Carol Havrilla stated after the
hurricane they needed improvements on the grading so that water would flow away from
their house. They hope to keep the basement dry. She stated they actively live in their
basement. She stated they are also concerned if it is only a aesthetic reason as it is an
infringement on their rights as property owners. She stated she would not be in favor of
any kind of Variance. Other than during Hurricane Floyd, they have not had water in
their basement. They are 25’ from their property line. Mr. Havrilla stated he feels them
should have bought a house where they did not need a Variance. He does not feel them
should infringe on the property rights of the next-door neighbor. Mr. Havrilla asked if
they are planning to increase the impervious surface, and Mr. Mayrhofer stated it will
increase the impervious surface, but they are not requesting a Variance to the impervious
surface requirements. Mr. Havrilla stated he would prefer that they build to the rear.
Mrs. Havrilla noted the large trees are on their property and the branches do extend into
the neighbor’s property. She asked if they could cut the branches that are extending onto
their property, and Mr. Toadvine stated they would have to consult an attorney on this.
Mr. Havrilla stated he feels if this is granted, it will have a domino effect and this will
continue throughout the neighborhood. Mrs. Havrilla stated they previous noted a
Variance for another property that was granted twenty-five years ago and those
individuals had eight children.
Mr. Kim moved and Mr. Mayrhofer seconded to deny the Variance because there is an
alternative means to achieve their goal that would not affect the neighboring property.
Motion did not carry as Mr. Kim and Mr. Mayrhofer voted in favor and Mr. Bamburak,
Mr. Caiola and Mr. Malinowski were opposed.
Mr. Caiola moved and Mr. Malinowski seconded to approve the Variance. Motion
carried with Mr. Bamburak, Mr. Caiola, and Mr. Malinowski in favor and Mr. Kim and
Mr. Mayrhofer opposed.
May 18, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board – page 6 of 9
Several people in the audience asked to speak, and Mr. Toadvine noted the record is
closed. He stated the Motion has been passed and anyone has the right to Appeal within
thirty days to the Court of Common Pleas in Doylestown.
APPEAL #05-1304 – KEN AND KAREN REBERT
Mr. and Mrs. Ken Rebert and their builder, Mr. Chuck Cooke, were sworn in. The
Application was marked as Exhibit A-1. A document of five pages including the Plot
Plan were marked as Exhibit A-2. The second Page is an As-Built Plan for
Mr. Rebert presented a photograph of the existing condition, and this was marked as
Exhibit A-3. This shows the rear of the property. Mr. Cooke noted the location of the
existing hot tub. On the plot Plan which has been presented it shows the existing slab
where the hot tub is located. This is a 16’ by 25’ slab, and they would like to put a roof
on this. They will encroach on the rear setback by 11’. The slab is currently in place.
Mr. Rebert stated they have owned the property for thirteen years and the slab was in
place when they purchased the property. Mr. Koopman stated a slab would be permitted
in the rear yard. Mr. Cooke stated they are not increasing the impervious surface since
the slab is in existence. The structure will be a single-story and they will have 8’ walls
and the roof line would be 11’ to 12’ at its peak. Mr. Cooke stated it will be used as a
Mr. Bamburak asked what is in the rear behind their property, and Mrs. Rebert stated
they are a corner lot. She stated there is a house to the left. Mr. Cooke stated there is a
house to the rear but he does not know how far away it is. Mrs. Rebert stated their
driveway is against the Rebert rear property line.
Mr. Kim asked for the hardship, and Mr. Rebert stated they would like more living space.
Mr. Toadvine stated it is a corner lot and therefore the house is situated in a place where
the rear yard is not as large as the typical lot.
Mr. Koopman stated the Township has no position on this Application.
Mr. Majewski stated they would ask that the drainage be addressed at the time of the
Mr. Sam Gitler, 1237
the structure will be sided to match the house. Mr. Cooke showed Mr. Gitler a picture of
the schematics which show that it will match the house. Mr. Gitler stated in the back
yard before the driveway, there are some sheds already in existence, and he asked if they
will remain. He also asked about the impervious surface. Mr. Cooke stated they have
May 18, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board – page 7 of 9
calculated the sheds into the existing impervious surface. Mr. Toadvine stated they are
not requesting an impervious surface Variance and are currently within the limits of the
Mr. Malinowski moved, Mr. Caiola seconded and it was unanimously carried to grant the
Variance as requested.
APPEAL #05-1305 – MICHAEL AND TAMMY BOUCHER
Mr. and Mrs. Michael Boucher were sworn in. The Application was marked as Exhibit
A-1. The drawing dated 11/5/04 was marked as Exhibit A-2. Mr. Boucher stated the
property is located on the corner of
seeking a Variance to Section 200-69(14)C regarding fences. They would like to erect a
fence in the buffer easement on one side of their home and on the sewer easement on the
opposite side of the home. The Site Plan submitted shows the proposed placement of the
fence and the material which will be used. On the left hand side, which is the buffer
easement, they would like to extend the existing 6’ fence. It is cedar tongue and groove
sandwich board. They would like to extend this to the end of the property line and turn
with one panel. They would continue for 92’ on the side of the property with a 4’ split
rail fence to include a row of upright yews for buffering purposes. He stated on the right
hand side of the property there is a sewer easement, and they would like to mimic what
they are doing on the left hand side and extend the current fence along the back with a
solid fence and to the front of the driveway with a 4’ high split rail fence. This would
match what they currently have.
Mr. Mayrhofer noted the four foot high fence and the yews and asked if this would
impede people being able to see coming out of
Mr. Majewski has looked into this, and it will not encroach into the sight distance.
Mr. Majewski stated it is approximately thirty feet off the road.
Mr. Boucher stated they are requesting this because they are adjacent to an arterial road
which has a great deal of traffic. They also get a fair amount of cut-through foot traffic
as well as trash and litter onto their property. They would also like to mitigate the noise
and enhance the look of their property. They are also expecting a baby and would like
the fence for safety reasons. He stated there is an adjacent property that has been under
construction/repair for over three years. They have had continuing concern with
construction debris and the appearance of this property. This is in the rear yard. He
noted there are also unregistered, uninspected automobiles in that yard which they have
to look at. There is also an unsecured open pit behind the fence which they feel is a
safety hazard which has been this way for over two years.
May 18, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board – page 8 of 9
Mr. Bamburak noted the vinyl mesh on the split rail fence, and Mr. Boucher stated it will
match the existing fence. He stated they feel this will help with debris coming onto their
Mr. Malinowski asked if they would agree to remove and replace the fence at their own
expense if the Township had to come in and do work, and Mr. Boucher agreed.
Mr. Koopman stated the Township has no position on this Application other than the
condition noted by Mr. Malinowski.
Mr. Tristram Heinz stated he is the owner of
of his property. Mr. Mayrhofer asked that he address the issue at hand. Mr. Heinz stated
he is concerned with the easement since his water and sewer come through that area as
well and if he has to repair anything, he would like this addressed. Mr. Toadvine stated
those lines are dedicated to the Township. Mr. Koopman stated the water line would be
owned by Pennsylvania American Water Company. Mr. Koopman stated Mr. Heinz
would not have the right to go onto Mr. Boucher’s property. Mr. Heinz asked if the
Township owns these easements as he is not sure if they have been dedicated.
Mr. Majewski stated this development has not been dedicated. Mr. Koopman stated the
Plans have been recorded. He feels the easement is owned by the Township although the
line may not have been dedicated yet. Mr. Heinz stated he feels shrubs would be more in
keeping with the Township regulations and be more aesthetic. Mr. Heinz asked about the
six foot high board fence and asked if this would impede on the sight distance from his
driveway. Mr. Majewski stated they have looked at this, and due to the right-of-way
away from the right-of-way line so there is sufficient sight distance in all directions.
Mr. Heinz stated he understands that
point, and Mr. Majewski stated it would never be widened to such an extent that it would
Mr. Kim noted the buffer easement and asked if there is a way to install the fence without
infringing on the buffer easement, and Mr. Toadvine stated they would have to bring it
Mr. Mayrhofer moved, Mr. Malinowski seconded and it was unanimously carried to
approve the Variance with the Condition that if for any reason access is needed on or
through the easement by the Township or any other entity that has ownership or control
of the easement, the Applicant agrees to remove and replace the fence at their own cost
May 18, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board – page 9 of 9
Mr. Malinowski moved, Mr. Caiola seconded and it was unanimously carried to cancel
the meeting of June 7, 2005 and have all business proposed for that meeting be continued
to June 21, 2005.
There being no further business, Mr. Malinowski moved, Mr. Bamburak seconded and it was unanimously carried to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 p.m.
David Malinowski, Secretary