ZONING HEARING BOARD
The regular meeting of the Zoning Hearing Board of the
Zoning Hearing Board: Rudolph Mayrhofer, Vice Chairman
Paul Bamburak, Member
Greg Caiola, Alternate Member
Paul Kim, Alternate Member
Others: Richard Habgood, Code Enforcement Office
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 #05-1303 – BERNARD AND ALISA DUPUY
Mr. Mayrhofer announced that the Applicants have requested a continuance.
Mr. and Mrs. Richard Havrilla were present with regard to this Appeal. Mr. Mayrhofer
stated this matter will be continued to Wednesday, May 18. Mr. Havrilla asked what
would happen if he were not able to attend that meeting. Mr. Toadvine stated they could
send a letter to the Zoning Hearing Board. He noted the Board will entertain letters
although they do not carry the same weight as actual testimony. Mrs. Havrilla asked if
they knew yesterday that it would be continued since she reviewed the file yesterday and
was not advised of this. Mr. Toadvine stated the Board cannot act on a continuance until
the meeting. Mrs. Havrilla asked if they will send another letter about the next meeting,
and it was noted they will not send out any further notice.
Later in the meeting, Mr. Mayrhofer moved, Mr. Caiola seconded and it was
unanimously carried to continue the matter at the request of the Applicants. The matter
will be held on
APPEAL #05-1302 – ANTHONY K. AND MARTA JARAMILLO RANA
Exhibit A-1 was marked which is the Application. Exhibit A-2 was marked which is the
drawing/grading plan prepared by
Mid-State Engineering dated
Mr. David Bane, attorney, was present representing Mr. and Mrs. Rana who were sworn
in. Mr. Rana stated before they purchased the home they discussed with the Realtor who
checked with the Township on the specifics for installing a pool. Mr. Koopman objected
as this is third party testimony from the Realtor who is not present today. Objection was
sustained. Mr. Bane stated they did notice that there were other houses in the
neighborhood which had pools, and they did not feel this would be an issue they had to
Mrs. Rana stated they would like to install a pool because they have three children who
are swimmers, one of whom will be
Games. They also wanted to have their children grow up in the back yard where they
could see them and spend time with them. When they visited the neighborhood they
noticed a number of the homes did have in-ground pools similar to what they are
requesting to be able to build. They hired a contractor to install the pool and they then
applied for the permit and realized that there were some technicalities that did not fit in
with the building of the pool, particularly with respect to the amount of impervious
surface. She stated this was not previously made clear to them.
Mr. Rana stated the 18% impervious surface rule came into effect in 1984 and the homes
in this area were built in 1979. He stated it was already over 18% when it was built.
Mr. Koopman stated the Township would like to be a party to the proceeding. He stated
the Township Board of Supervisors is aware of some of the concerns of the Applicant
since they were addressed in the Application. He stated 18% impervious surface is
permitted and the property is already at 25%. They are requesting to go to over 28.5%.
The Board of Supervisors is opposed to any increase to the impervious surface.
Mr. Mayrhofer asked if this house was built prior to the impervious surface requirements,
and Mr. Koopman stated the Township has had impervious surface requirements prior to
the time this house was built. Mr. Habgood stated for this Zoning District, the
development as a whole was considered, and they did not take it for each individual lot.
This did not start that until 1987. When the home was built, it was based on 15%
impervious surface for the entire development. There was nothing required on an
individual basis as he understands it.
Mr. Mayrhofer asked for the history of permits for this property. Mr. Habgood stated
there is a permit for an addition for a sunroom on the right rear of the home which was
Mr. Toadvine asked if there were requirements for impervious surface calculations when
the permit for the sunroom was issued, and Mr. Habgood stated there was not.
Mr. Koopman asked if there is any information in the files about when the patio and
walkway were installed, and Mr. Habgood stated there is not. Mr. Rana stated they were
there when they purchased the house.
Mr. Mayrhofer asked if there is a plot plan for this house, and Mr. Habgood stated they
do have this. The sunroom addition was added after this time as well as a brick patio and
rear walkway. Exhibit A-2 was noted, and Mr. Toadvine stated it appears that the only
items on that Plan that were not part of the original As-Built were the sunroom addition,
brick patio, and walkway to the rear. The original As-Built did not show the front walk
either but it did show the driveway.
Mr. Majewski was sworn in and it was noted he is the Township engineer. The letter
from Mr. Wagner to Mr. Habgood
to the Applicant this evening. This document was marked as Exhibit T-1. Mr. Koopman
stated this notes the additional impervious surface request which is consistent with the
Application. Mr. Majewski stated it also notes their concern that since the Pool will be
approximately ten feet from the property line, there will not be sufficient room to create a
swale between the proposed coping on that side of the pool and the property line without
impacting the neighbors. Mr. Majewski stated based on the grading shown on the Plot
Plan, it shows that the water will go to the side of the pool north of the house and onto
their neighbor’s property. Mr. Koopman stated he has indicated that here is not sufficient
room to create a swale to mitigate this situation.
Mr. Mayrhofer asked the width of the coping, and Mr. Majewski stated it scales to four
feet. This would result in only six feet to the property line. At the eastern corner of the
pool, there is a 2 ½’ to 3’ drop off. Mr. Koopman stated the walkway around the pool is
4’ all the way around. There is also a wider area on the south side.
Mr. Kim asked if they moved the pool, how much would they need to provide sufficient
grading. Mr. Majewski stated they could adjust it to the south. Mr. Koopman stated
there is a requirement that the pool must be ten feet from any structure. In order to do
this, they would have to move the pool back further away from the house as well and
down toward the south to make extra room between the pool and the property line.
Mr. Toadvine asked what would be the sufficient distance from the northern property line
in order to eliminate this issue. Mr. Majewski stated they would need approximately
another ten feet. Mr. Toadvine stated it appears that if it were twenty feet from the
northern property line, the issue with the swale would be eliminated, and Mr. Majewski
stated this is correct. Mr. Koopman noted this does not address the impervious surface
issue. Mr. Koopman stated they are proposing to go from 25.4% to 28.8% impervious
Mr. Toadvine asked Mr. Bane if the Applicants would be willing to agree to a Condition
that the pool not be located any closer than 20’ from the northern property line. Mr. and
Mrs. Rana agreed to this Condition. Mr. Bane asked how all the other pools were
approved. Mr. Koopman stated without looking at the files, they do not know if they had
the same size house, same size driveways, etc. Mr. Toadvine stated this is a very large
pool compared to what else may be in the neighborhood. Mr. Mayrhofer asked if they
would consider reducing the size of the pool noting that 20’ by 40’ is quite large.
Mr. Rona stated he is not sure. He stated if they looked at his property, they would see
that all the drainage ends up on his property. He noted the drainage easement on the
property. He stated all the other homes’ water ends up on his property. Mr. Majewski
stated it does go onto the neighbor’s property before it comes back onto this property.
Mr. Toadvine stated Mr. and Mrs. Rana have indicated already that they do not have a
problem with moving the pool.
Mr. Mayrhofer stated the other issue is impervious surface. They are requesting an
additional 580 square feet which is over 3%. The Zoning Hearing Board would like to
see them eliminate some existing impervious surface to mitigate what they are proposing
to do. He asked if they would like to look into this further and then come back to the
Board, and Mr. Rana agreed. Mr. Toadvine stated if the walkways around the pool is
reduced to three feet, this would also eliminate some impervious surface. Mr. Koopman
stated if they have questions about what is impervious and what is not, they can talk to
Mr. Habgood about this. Mr. Kim asked the size of the brick patio, and Mr. Rana stated
he feels it is about 332 square feet with the walk.
Mr. Bane stated they appreciate the Board’s direction and would like more time to
resubmit this and scale it back somewhat and come in at the next meeting with a revised
Mr. Roger VanZant, 529 Viscount, stated their rear yard abuts the rear yard of the Ranas.
He stated his is the property onto which the drainage water runs. He stated he strongly
objects to the Pool. He stated his yard is at the bottom of the slope which starts at
showing the ground going upwards toward the Rana Property. These pictures were
shown to the Board. Mr. VanZant noted the location of his property on Exhibit A-2.
Mr. Toadvine stated Mr. VanZant has shown that his property abuts the rear property line
of the Rana property. He is due east of the Rana property. Mr. VanZant stated he also
has a letter from a neighbor who was unable to attend this evening who also objects to the
Pool. This was provided to the Board. Mr. VanZant stated a tree line does separate the
two properties. Mr. Kim asked Mr. VanZant if he has any current water problems, and
Mr. VanZant stated during a heavy rainstorm, the water cascades down the slope. They
do have a swale that collects most of the water, but they still get some water in the
Mr. Mayrhofer read into the record the letter provided from Dr. and Mrs. Andrew Lester,
the Zoning Board meeting concerning an Appeal by the homeowners at 530 American
Way and we do have some major concerns regarding the pool. We were told that this
letter would act as representation of our view on the matter. It would seem unlikely that
we would complain since we have a pool; however, as far back as our installation, there
was a question of pervious versus impervious due to the amount of water that collects in
our back yard and the surrounding area. We were allowed to use only pervious materials
- no concrete at all. Our house is downhill from this property and during rain storms we
have a run off problem from
past few years. This problem has increased over the years; therefore, we are extremely
concerned about the installation of a pool. We are afraid that this addition will only
intensify an already existing problem which we finally have under control. We are not
trying to be unfriendly; however, this poses a significant problem for all of us who live
downhill from this property. Therefore, please consider this letter a strong objection to
the construction of a pool at said property.” This letter was marked as Exhibit O-1. A
copy was provided to the Applicant’s this evening.
Mr. Mayrhofer asked that Mr. and Mrs. Rana look at the impervious surface, the location
of the pool, and any drainage issues.
Mr. Rana stated the drainage swale is existing. Mr. Mayrhofer stated possibly the
Township can provide a larger Plan so they have a better understanding of the entire area.
Mr. Kim stated even though the swale is there, they are adding additional impervious
surface. Mr. Rana stated he does not know how they could re-engineer the swale.
Mr. Toadvine stated they are not asking them to do this. Mr. Mayrhofer stated they are
asking them to try to cut back on the impervious surface so that it will cut back on the
water. Mr. Caiola stated they would like to see them try to minimize the impact on the
Mr. VanZant stated the reason they purchased this home was because of the tranquility of
the neighborhood and a pool of any size will disrupt this. He stated the Township has a
Community Pool which is within walking distance from this property.
Mr. Mayrhofer moved, Mr. Bamburak seconded and it was unanimously carried to
continue the Appeal to
Appeal #04-1285 – Gregory/Robin Frank – Request for Extension
Mr. Toadvine stated Mr. and Mrs. Frank have written a letter
requesting an extension for the Variance which was granted
Mr. Mayrhofer moved, Mr. Bamburak seconded and it was unanimously carried to grant a six month extension.
There being no further business, Mr. Mayrhofer moved, Mr. Kim seconded and it was unanimously carried to adjourn the meeting at
Rudolph Mayrhofer, Vice Chairman