ZONING HEARING BOARD
MINUTES NOVEMBER 15, 2005
The regular meeting of the Zoning Hearing Board of the
Zoning Hearing Board: Barbara Kirk, Chairman
David Malinowski, Member
Paul Bamburak, Member
Dobby Dobson, Member
Paul Kim, Alternate Member
Others: Robert Habgood, Code Enforcement Officer
Drew Wagner, Township Engineer
Allen Toadvine, Zoning Hearing Board Solicitor
Absent: Rudolph Mayrhofer, Zoning Hearing Board Vice Chairman
Steve Santarsiero, Supervisor Liaison
APPEAL #05-1339 HALLEY AND DEBORAH GOULD
Ms. Halley Gould, Ms. Deborah Gould, and Mr. Frank Gould were sworn in.
Ms. Kirk stated the Application submitted will be marked as Exhibit A-1. Included with
that Application was a four-page document photo copied from the County Tax Map for
the parcel with two blow-ups of the parcel and a hand-drawn layout of the property in
question. This was marked as Exhibit A-2.
Ms. Deborah Gould stated they have four acres on their
and they would like to have their horses on their property.
Ms. Halley Gould stated they have four horses and she would like to have an accessory
building which would be built on the property. It would be higher than 15 so that they
can store the hay at that location.
Ms. Kirk asked Ms. Halleys Gould her age, and she stated she is fifteen. Mr. Toadvine
stated she can testify.
November 15, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board - page 2 of 16
Ms. Halley Gould stated they would also like to have a fence in the front yard higher than
3 as her horse can jump higher than 3. They would like the fence to be at least 5 high
and if this is not permitted, then at least 4 high.
Ms. Kirk asked where the horses are presently, and Ms. Halley Gould stated her show
horse is at
are at a friends farm in Pennington. Ms. Kirk asked if there is only a house on the
property, and Ms. Halley stated there is a house and a detached garage. They are
proposing to construct an accessory building of between 15 and 25 which will be
similar to a barn. Ms. Kirk asked if she intends to ride/exercise the horses on the
property, and Ms. Gould stated she would like to use the property to ride and exercise the
horses. Ms. Kirk asked if they propose to set up a corral for the horses, and Ms. Halley
stated she will.
Ms. Deborah Gould presented additional pictures of the property which is adjacent to
Manor Care Nursing Home. Adjacent to the subject property is another property which
they own on which there is a carriage house. There is another neighbor to the rear of her
property and they have three acres. She stated there are not a lot of people who will be
able to see or be affected by the horses. The photographs which were submitted this
evening were marked as Exhibit A-3 consisting of three pages of color photographs.
Mr. Wagner asked if there will be a fence for the paddock, and Ms. Halley Gould stated
there will. She stated the main pasture would be in the back in the woods. She stated
they are asking for a fence in the front yard which is closer to the road than permitted
because of the special setback and this would be used for a grass field. Mr. Wagner
stated there is a stream located in the northeast part of the property and he asked if the
fence would be near the stream. Ms. Gould stated it would be far enough away from it so
that if there is any eroding, it would not harm the fence or the horses. Mr. Wagner noted
with the stream there is a floodplain; and if the fence were to go into the floodplain, it
would require another Variance. Mr. Toadvine stated they are not asking for this relief.
Ms. Kirk asked the location of the proposed barn, and Mr. Toadvine noted it is shown
behind the garage on the drawing submitted. Ms. Deborah Gould stated the barn would
be 150 back from the road and 100 away from the parcel adjacent to theirs.
Ms. Kirk asked if they have any idea how high the barn would be, and Ms. Halley Gould
stated they would like it to be 18 high.
Mr. Toadvine asked where they are proposing the location of the fence in the front yard
relative to the road. Ms. Deborah Gould stated there are rear yard fences currently on
November 15, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board page 3 of 16
is a hedgerow and this would be taken down and the 5 fence installed. The fence would
be parallel to
the entire length of the property. Mr. Toadvine noted the drawing is not drawn to scale,
but it appears that the majority of the property is to the side and rear of the house. He
stated if they were to fence from the front edge of the house, how much acreage would
this give them. Ms. Deborah Gould stated they currently have 2 ½ acres of grass and the
rest is woodlands. She stated the stream comes in behind the house at two locations and
becomes one behind the house. Ms. Kirk asked if most of the rear of the house is
woodlands, and Ms. Deborah Gould agreed. She noted certain paddocks need to be
created. She stated they need a paddock where the barn is constructed and there should
be a pasture in reserve. They need to be fenced as well. She stated the horses will be fed
with hay and not grass. This is why they need the height in the barn to store the hay. The
front of the yard will be used for occasional recreational purposes because they do not
want them there all the time as they could tear up the turf. They would not be living in
the front yard.
Mr. Frank Gould stated they need the fence as a safety factor for children and because of
the traffic on the road.
Ms. Kirk asked the type of fence they are considering, and Ms. Deborah Gould stated
they would have to four rails so that the horses are contained n the property and will keep
people out. She stated they cannot do split rail fence and would need a PVC fence.
Ms. Halley Gould stated it would be similar to a split rail fence but it would be more post
and board. There will be no wire mesh between the rails.
Mr. Toadvine stated in reviewing the plot plan, it appears that no matter where a fence is
erected, there will be an issue of crossing the floodplain unless the Applicant is willing to
break the fence. Ms. Deborah Gould stated they can break the fence at the part closest to
the house, but they did want to take it all the way across.
Mr. Kim asked the main incentive for having the horses at their home. Ms. Deborah
Gould stated some of it is expense. She stated her daughter is a competitive rider and it
would also make it more convenient to have the horses on their property.
Mr. Bamburak asked that they sketch the location of the fence on the drawing as well as
the location of the stream, and Ms. Deborah Gould drew this on the Plan. She stated the
fence in the back would be 2 by 6 with mesh. This would also have to be 5 high.
This drawing was marked as Exhibit A-4. Ms. Kirk stated the Applicant has drawn the
proposed fencing along the property with full fencing across
the frontage along
Valley Road and various fencing toward the rear of the property and along the stream
areas, but not crossing into the stream. Mr. Toadvine stated the areas of the fencing is
delineated by dashed lines on Exhibit A-4. He added that the area of the stream is
November 15, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board page 4 of 16
wetlands and based on the existing vegetation, there could be a 50 buffer requirement on
either side. He stated if they intend to either cross or come within 50 of the limits of the
wetlands, they will need additional Variances. He asked if they have had the property
delineated by a soil scientist , and Ms. Gould stated they have not had this portion of
their property so delineated. Mr. Toadvine stated he would recommend that before they
proceed any further, they should have the property surveyed to determine the limits of the
wetlands and what buffering they feel is required depending on the vegetation.
Ms. Kirk asked if the Board were to consider the request at this point, they would have to
come back if the property fence falls within the wetlands or the buffer area. She would
be in favor of a request to continue the matter in order to have a soil specialist survey the
property and delineate a Plan as to where the buffers are and put on that Plan the exact
location of the proposed fencing would help the Zoning Hearing Board in rendering their
Mr. Bamburak stated he would also like to see a copy of the manufacturer's data sheet for
the fencing. Ms. Deborah Gould stated they do have this.
There was no public comment.
Mr. Toadvine asked if they have had conversations with their neighbors, and
Ms. Deborah Gould stated their most immediate neighbors are her parents who live on
the two acre parcel. The neighbor to the west has not expressed any concerns. The
people immediately across the street have indicated that they have no problem with the
proposal. She stated they have not discussed the proposal with Manor Care but she
understands they did get notice from the Township. She noted the Manor Care property
is significantly higher. She stated when the Manor Care property was built, she insisted
that they put a fence along the back and privacy screening so they cannot see each other.
Ms. Kirk asked how long they feel they would need to get the soils tested and a Plan
delineated. Ms. Deborah Gould stated she could contact DelVal as they have worked
with them previously. She stated she would like the matter to be continued in the
beginning of January.
Ms. Kirk moved, Mr. Bamburak seconded and it was unanimously carried to continue the
matter to 1/3/06 with the understanding that the Applicant will have the area surveyed by
a soils specialist with a specific Plan provided to delineate any wetlands and wetland
buffers and to provide a more concise Plan as to where the proposed fencing is actually to
be constructed on the property.
Mr. Toadvine stated it would be helpful to provide this to the Township prior to the
meeting so that it can be distributed in the packets to the Board prior to the meeting.
November 15, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board page 5 of 16
APPEAL #05-1340 WILLIAM AND CARLOTTA MONACH, SR.
Mr. William Monach was sworn in. Ms. Kirk marked as Exhibit A-1 the Application
which was submitted. Included with the Application was a pool lay out and grading plan
dated 3/31/04 with the last revision dated of 9/20/05. This was marked as Exhibit A-2.
Mr. Monach stated he is present as he has replaced an in-ground swimming pool which
has been on the property since 1980. The pool was protected by a special cover that was
a safety cover. At this time, due to the impervious surface issue it was presented to
Anthony & Sylvan Pools that they would also put a safety cover on. They negotiated this
and it was part of the contract; however, when they were faced with the less than
adequate decking around the pool, they indicated that they would not be able to put the
safety cover on and he would have to go to an alternative method which was a less safe
Mr. Toadvine stated according to Exhibit A-2 it appears that the existing impervious
surface on the site currently is 44.5%. He stated while this is what is was, he is proposing
to decrease this to 31.25%. Mr. Toadvine stated this will result in a net decrease of
approximately 13%. Mr. Toadvine added that the maximum permitted impervious
surface is 29% so he will be 2.27% over what is permitted but well under where they are
currently, and Mr. Monach agreed. Mr. Dobson stated it appears they are removing
some existing impervious surface, and Mr. Monach stated they will remove the shed, five
feet of the driveway, and some crushed stone area that is being removed as a way to come
closer to compliance with the impervious surface requirements. Ms. Kirk asked if the
concrete deck around the pool will be smaller than it was, and Mr. Monach agreed it will
be much smaller.
Mr. Wagner stated he agrees with the existing and proposed calculations.
Ms. Kirk asked if the pool has already been installed, and Mr. Monach stated it has.
Mr. Monach submitted a photograph of the cover he wishes to have installed as well as
the alternative which he feels would be very unsafe.
Ms. Lisa Pellegrino,
adjacent to this property. She stated after they purchased their home in February of 1993
they discovered that the back of their property was flooding whenever it rained, and they
saw a gulley under the fence and the water was coming from the adjacent property at 261
extensive work in their rear yards. She stated the records indicated that the paperwork
had been filled out and approved including topographic maps. She was advised that the
grading plans outlined were okay and they should not be getting any flooding. She was
told that the homeowners had done what they had been required to do and that possibly
November 15, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board page 6 of 16
the soils had settled or eroded in a way that had not been anticipated. She was advised
that the problem was hers. Ms. Pellegrino stated they advised that she could file an
official complaint against their neighbors but they decided not to do this and seek other
alternatives first. She stated she had subsequent discussions with the Township engineer
who recommended that they plant trees or shrubs along the rear property line so that they
could absorb the excess water which they did although this did result in the loss of being
able to use several hundred feet of their rear yard. She stated when she first saw that the
neighbors were taking out the old pool and installing a new one, they were hopeful that
re-grading of the property would alleviate the run-off problems and they could reclaim
the use of the back portion of their yard. She stated they then received a letter from the
Zoning Hearing Board indicating that they were going to increase the impervious surface
beyond what is permitted and they are therefore concerned.
Ms. Kirk stated the property was at 44.5% before the Pool was replaced. With the new
pool installed and some additional impervious surface being removed, the impervious
surface will decrease to 31.27% which is a 13% reduction of what had been covered at
the property. She added the reason that they had to come before the Zoning Hearing
Board was because under the Code, even with the removal of some impervious surface,
he is still above what is permitted. Ms. Kirk asked if Ms. Pellegrino has noticed any
difference in the water run off since the pool has been replaced. Ms. Pellegrino stated
they have not, but final grading has not taken place. She is concerned that two to three
years from now, the same erosion or settling problem will take place. Mr. Toadvine
stated this Board does not approve the Plans and the Plans will be reviewed by the
Township engineer with regard to the grading. The Zoning Hearing Board is being asked
to grant a Variance in connection with the impervious surface coverage. He stated it will
not be an increase in the impervious surface, and in fact will be a substantial decrease and
approximately 30% of the impervious surface will be removed according to the Plan and
there should therefore be fewer run-offs. He stated if there is a grading problem the
Zoning Hearing Board cannot address this.
Mr. Monach stated his property, from a grading standpoint, is lower than the neighbor
behind him. He stated he also gets the run off Ms. Pellegrino is getting when his
neighbor backwashes his pool. He stated his home was dug 1 deeper in the ground
than it was supposed to be. He stated he has an 8 ceiling in his basement because they
dug it lower. He stated his property was also not graded well and his run-off is not very
good. Mr. Monach stated he also intends to grade the entire area.
Ms. Kirk recommended that he and Ms. Pellegrino talk about the issue to see if they can
come up with a mutually agreeable solution to help improve the problem.
Mr. Dobson moved, Mr. Bamburak seconded and it was unanimously carried to approve
the Variance to Section 200-27B to allow impervious surface of 31.27%.
November 15, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board page 7 of 16
APPEAL #05-1341 - IVAN J. PUNCHATZ
Mr. Ivan Punchatz, Ms. Rochelle Punchatz, and Mr. Karl Perella, contractor, were sworn
in. Ms. Kirk stated the Application that was submitted will be marked as Exhibit A-1.
Included in the packet was an 8 1/2 by 11 Plan for the property which has existing
impervious surface calculations included and this was marked as Exhibit A-2.
Mr. Toadvine stated it appears that this is an Application which results in a net decrease
in impervious surface. Ms. Kirk asked Mr. Wagner if the Township engineers office
agrees with the calculations submitted, and Mr. Wagner stated they do.
Mr. Punchatz stated they would like to add a bump-out on their kitchen. They would like
to put the addition next to the deck which would result in an addition of 98.17 square
feet. He included in the Application that this would be a .7% increase, and he now
realizes that it would be a .56% increase. Alternatively, he included an alternative plan
that if an addition would not be acceptable, they would take off as much as the Board
required of the patio which would add additional cost to the project of at least $5,000 so
he would prefer to install the addition of 98.17 square feet as shown. He stated the
property slopes and there is only one neighbor between himself and the catch basin. He
did discuss this project with the neighbor who indicated he had no objection.
Ms. Kirk stated the impervious surface calculations that were provided on the Plan with
the Application show a removal of a patio of 180 square feet, and they are now asking
that this not have to occur. Mr. Punchatz stated when the architect did the calculations,
they did it as if they had taken this out. His Application was to add on, but as alternative
if the Board required it, they would agree to take out the patio at an additional cost.
Ms. Kirk asked if the concrete patio as shown on Exhibit A-2 has a wooden deck over it,
and Mr. Punchatz stated this is correct.
Mr. Toadvine asked Mr. Wagner if Section B applies since the property was built prior to
1987, and Mr. Wagner agreed. The maximum impervious surface permitted is 18%.
Mr. Toadvine asked how they got to the existing 24%. Mr. Habgood stated they only
have records for the home and the fence. There was no record of the patio or the wood
deck and no record of permits being issued for these two items. Mr. Punchatz stated
these were on when they purchased the property. He stated it appears that the patio was
original. He stated they purchased the home in 1990 and they felt the deck was probably
three to four years old at that time.
November 15, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board page 8 of 16
Ms. Kirk asked if the proposed addition is a one-story addition, and Mr. Punchatz agreed.
There was no public comment.
Mr. Dobson moved, Mr. Malinowski seconded and it was unanimously carried to
approve the Variance to Section 200-23B to allow impervious surface ratio of 25.29%.
APPEAL #05-1342 STEPHEN G. AND BONNIE L. MYERS
Mr. Stephen Myers, Ms. Bonnie Myers, and Mr. Paul Lenher, Pennoni, were sworn in.
Ms. Kirk marked the Application that was submitted as Exhibit A-1. Also submitted with
the Application was a Plan prepared by Pennoni dated 8/15/05 which was marked as
Exhibit A-2. Included with the Application was a separate letter submitted by Mr. and
Mrs. Meyers dated 9/27/05 as additional information as to why the Application is before
the Board, and this was marked as Exhibit A-3.
Mr. Myers stated they live in the floodplain between the
He stated they had flooding last September which did some damage and flooding in April
which did significant damage which resulted in more than 50% of the cost of the
construction. They wish to elevate the house approximately 6 ½ feet to be out of harms
Ms. Kirk asked if they will be doing concrete blocking, and Mr. Lenher stated the walls
will be built according to FEMA requirements which are reinforced concrete block walls
with flood vents installed which allow equalization of the floodwaters on the inside and
outside of the home. The area underneath the home which is a crawl space now will be
filled with stone and a concrete slab so everything will be above grade.
Ms. Kirk asked how the exterior will look, and Mr. Lenher stated they will install
planting to hide the walls. There will also be a high landing to get into the house.
Ms. Kirk asked about the stairway for the entrance to the house, and Mr. Lenher stated it
will be broken into landings and they try not to exceed twelve to thirteen steps.
Ms. Kirk stated they requested a Variance to Section 200-22, and Mr. Habgood stated
this is for encroachment into the side yard setback. Mr. Toadvine stated the setbacks are
the same as the existing structure, and Mr. Lenher agreed. Mr. Lenher stated there is an
existing shed which houses the heating system for the house and this will be
reconstructed the same size and elevated as this is a FEMA requirement. It will be at the
same setback as it is currently.
November 15, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board page 9 of 16
Ms. Kirk asked about the deck attached to the house, and Mr. Lenher stated a deck is
proposed to be added to the house at the back. There is a deck that goes to the side with a
door that goes into the heating room which is elevated and this will not extend any further
than does the current shed.
Mr. Bamburak noted two other accessory buildings on the property and Mr. Lenher stated
they will not be raised.
Ms. Kirk asked how high the building will be once it is elevated, and Mr. Habgood stated
it appears it will be 27 to 28 above grade and does not exceed the permitted building
height under Section 200-22.
Mr. Toadvine asked if they are only raising the existing home, and Mr. Lenher stated they
are raising the existing home and the deck on the back is being added. The deck in the
front allow access to the house.
Ms. Kirk asked how long Mr. and Mrs. Myers have been living at the property, and
Mr. Myers stated they have lived there since 1988.
There was no public comment.
Mr. Bamburak moved, Mr. Kim seconded and it was unanimously carried to approve the
Variances as requested.
APPEAL #05-1343 JANE M. YEUROUKIS
Ms. Jane M. Yeuroukis was sworn in. Also present was Don Marshall, attorney.
Mr. Marshall stated the Application is for the property at
1.18 acre parcel in the R-RP Zone comprised of three tax parcels. He stated
Tax Parcel #20-47-115 contains the Applicants home and outbuildings, Tax Parcel
#20-47-114-46 is a wooded vacant lot next door, and Tax Parcel #20-47-123 is the River
frontage lot on the far side of
Exhibit A-1 was marked which is the Plot Plan that was submitted as part of the
Application. This Plan is dated 3/10/04. Exhibit A-2 is a copy of the last Deed of
Record. Exhibit A-3 was marked which is the Application for Building Permit which is
the subject of the Application. Exhibit A-4 was marked which is the Building Permit
Rejection and the basis for the rejection. The date of the rejection was 4/7/04.
Mr. Marshall reviewed what is currently on the property. He stated the property is served
by public sewer but has well water. Ms. Yeuroukis stated they do have public water but it
is not connected to the main house.
November 15, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board page 10 of 16
Mr. Marshall noted Exhibit A-1 which shows the 100 year flood plain. He stated the
elevation in this area for the 100 year floodplain is 31.1 and this property is outside of
Mr. Marshall stated they currently have board fencing in the front of the property and the
photos submitted show this fence. It is a 4 tall fence and they are asking permission to
replace that fence and continue it across what is the frontage of the vacant lot next door
and into the lot to where it currently exists. He stated the fencing on the property on the
property currently is board fencing across the lot that contains the improvements and also
runs all the way up
frontage of the vacant lot. It then turns the corner in the westerly direction to the second
X on the plans as split rail fence and is then board fence to the rear. He stated the
Applicant received Permits to put the board fence up because that would be behind the
front yard requirement. The Ordinance permits 3 fences in the front yard. They are
seeking permission to allow her to replace the fence as depicted on the photographs with
the same fence and continue to run it to where it meets that same fence on her vacant lot
Ms. Kirk stated based on Exhibit A-4 which is the rejection letter, it appears the board
fence is 6 high. Ms. Yeuroukis stated this was an error as she does not want a 6 high
fence in the front or she would not be able to see the River. She stated it is 6 high on
each side of the property and across the back. The only place she would like it to be 4
high is across the front. Mr. Marshall stated the 6 high fence that exists along the side
yard the one on the easterly side against Tax Parcel #20-53-46-2 is a legal fence
because this is a side yard. However, the Zoning Officer was pointing out in the letter
and seeking a Variance for it. He stated on the true front yard which is
would like a 4 high fence which is a 1 Variance over what is allowed. He stated the 6
fence steps down to 4 at both sight distances on the corners of Richard and River Roads
and at the corner of the neighbors property because her driveway is in that location. The
board fence along
fencing, and Ms. Yeuroukis stated she and her husband installed it approximately fifteen
Mr. Bamburak asked the reason they are requesting a 4 high fence rather than the 3
which would be permitted, and Ms. Yeuroukis stated she has a large dog and the 4 will
permit her to only see the tops of cars going by.
Ms. Kirk stated the Application states that the property was acquired April 1 of 2002, and
Mr. Marshall stated this was a transfer of her husbands estate to Ms. Yeuroukis.
Mr. Marshall stated this is a corner lot with two road
frontages. He stated
heavily traveled road and a solid fence would provide a noise barrier and keep the pets in.
November 15, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board page 11 of 16
He stated they do not believe the fences as proposed would alter the character of the
neighborhood, and this is the minimum Variance necessary to afford relief.
Mr. Marshall asked to put into the record a letter which was marked as Exhibit A-6 which
is a letter from a neighbor that she does not oppose the Application. He also asked
Ms. Yeuroukis if she had a discussion with Mrs. Fabian, her immediate neighbor who is
most affected by this fence about the installation; and Ms. Yeuroukis stated she did and
she had no objection.
Mr. Toadvine stated the portion of the fence for which they are seeking relief is the
portion which parallels
approximately twenty to thirty feet. Mr. Toadvine asked if they are also seeking relief
for the portion of the fence along the entire length of
stated this portion exists and is referred to in Ms. Fricks letter for which there does not
appear to be any permits in the file, and this is why they have asked that the Board ratify
the existing fence. This portion will not be replaced. It is 6 high and steps down at the
corner for sight line purposes.
Mr. Toadvine stated the Township engineer has indicated that there is a problem with the
sight triangle and the fence at the intersection of
stated if the Zoning Hearing Board is so inclined, this issue would need to be addressed.
Mr. Wagner stated under Section 200-60A, a 25 clear sight triangle is required at this
intersection and at the current location they are encroaching into this by about 5.
Mr. Marshall asked if they took the fence corner at Richard and River Roads and angled
it to pick up the 5, would this resolve the problem, and Mr. Wagner agreed.
Ms. Yeuroukis stated she has lived there eighteen years and there has never been an
accident on that corner caused by this condition. Mr. Marshall stated he feels the
appropriate condition would be to satisfy the Township engineer as to the clear sight
triangle and they would be willing to do so.
The Application was marked as Exhibit A-7.
There was no public comment.
Ms. Kirk moved, Mr. Bamburak seconded and it was unanimously carried that the
Application as presented be granted subject to the Condition that the Applicant construct
the fence at the corner of Richard and River Roads in such manner to provide the clear
sight distance of 25 as required.
November 15, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board page 12 of 16
APPEAL #05-1345 PATRICK M. AND KIM ANNE BRENNAN
Mr. Marshall stated this is his case, and the Applicants are not present. He stated he has
been advised this evening that there is a second Application which has been filed which
is scheduled to be heard on December 6. Ms. Kirk stated based on paperwork provided to
her it appears that another Appeal was filed for the same property but a different issue
although she understands they are somewhat related. Mr. Marshall stated that because he
is not sure how the forty-five days are running, he would suggest that they open this
Hearing and then continue it to December 6. Ms. Kirk suggested that rather than opening
a Hearing with not Applicants present, based on the paperwork that has been submitted
that the Appeal was filed October 14, 2005 and the next Hearing is December 6, 2005
and it would therefore meet the requirements under the MPC.
There was no one present regarding this Application.
Ms. Kirk moved, Mr. Bamburak seconded and it was unanimously carried that based on
the information provided by Mr. Marshall that the matter be continued to 12/6/05 to be
heard at the same time as the additional Appeal field by these Applicants.
APPEAL #05-1344 SALLY FINEBURG
Ms. Sally Fineburg was sworn in. The Application was marked as Exhibit A-1.
Attached to the Application was a flood map of the subject property which was marked
as Exhibit A-2. Also submitted was a one-sheet Plan of the property dated 6/28/05 which
was marked as Exhibit A-3.
Ms. Fineburg stated she is a life-long resident of
purchased her first home this summer at
the 100 year floodplain. She stated she is requesting a Variance to the Ordinance in order
to erect a 6 high, red cedar, shadowbox fence made of one by six inch boards which
alternate. The fence would not impede the water should it rise up and it would go right
through the fence. It would also be two to three inches off the ground so that it does not
Mr. Toadvine asked if there any other neighbors who have substantially similar type
fences, and Ms. Fineburg stated there are some shadowbox fences in the area as well as
stockade fences in the neighborhood. She stated there is also a picket fence.
Ms. Kirk asked for a description of a shadowbox fence, and Ms. Fineburg stated this is a
one by six inch board six inches wide and one inch thick and on one side of the fence
you have a one by six board, a space of one by six, and another one by six board. On the
opposite side of the fence there is also this alternating pattern. Ms. Kirk stated it appears
November 15, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board page 13 of 16
that it would appear to be a solid fence but the boards are offset, and Ms. Fineburg
agreed. She stated if you look straight at it, it appears to be solid, but if you look on the
side, you can see straight through it.
Ms. Kirk stated they have indicated that they will need to put in thirty-four posts, and
Ms. Fineburg stated they have estimated it will be 272 feet and they will be 8 sections
which equals approximately 34, 4 by 4 posts. She stated when she looked at the
disturbance this would cause, it will be approximately one tenth of 1% of her total
property that she will be disturbing.
Ms. Kirk asked if she is proposing that the section of the fence that is coming off either
side of the house be 6 high, and Ms. Fineburg stated the whole fence is 6 high.
Ms. Kirk stated she feels this would require an additional Variance because it is in the
front yard. Mr. Toadvine stated provided it is from the front of the house back, it is
considered side yard.
Mr. Jim Biesiada,
looked at the back of his property to see how this was surveyed. He stated there are a
number of evergreen trees which line the back of their properties, and it appears that from
where the stakes are located, the trees are in the middle of where the stakes will be
placed. He stated there is also a swale in this area and the run off from a number of
homes comes through this area. He stated the evergreen trees are absorbing a lot of water
and he is concerned with the impact of the posts on the trees which could result in a
major water problem if the trees are disturbed.
Ms. Fineburg stated there is one tree at the corner on the far left behind the shed, and
there is a root that they will cut around and the rest of the roots will not come into play.
She stated the trees will remain on Mr. Biesiadas side as they are on his property.
Ms. Kirk asked if she would agree to a Condition that the fence be constructed in such a
manner so as to not disturb the existing tree at the rear corner of her rear property, and
Ms. Fineburg agreed. Mr. Bamburak asked if they have identified any other roots that
they will have to build around, and Ms. Fineburg stated when the professional went
through., he did not see any additional issues.
Mr. Biesiada stated this area is eroded and it is the lowest point in the neighborhood.
He stated all the run off comes to this area and the roots are above ground. He feels the
whole line of trees will be disturbed. Mr. Bamburak stated she has already testified that
the fence will not be against the ground. Mr. Biesiada stated he is concerned with the
impact on the roots and feels they will have a major problem if the trees are gone. He
stated this neighborhood was built with the homes very close together and there are
numerous trees in the area. He stated there is only one access area to get a vehicle to this
area and if the fence is put in no vehicle will be able to get into the back area of four
homes. Mr. Toadvine asked why they would need to get a vehicle to the rear of the
November 15, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board page 14 of 16
property, and Mr. Biesiada stated there may be an emergency. Mr. Toadvine asked if the
houses did not have street frontage, and Mr. Biesiada stated they do but the ability to get
a vehicle behind any of the homes would be taken away.
Ms. Kirk asked if there are fences on the properties on either side of her property, and
Ms. Fineburg stated the Gottleibs have a partial fence on the back of their yard and part
of their yard has a fence on the side from an adjacent yard. She stated she did discuss the
matter with the individuals behind her and they did not have a problem.
Mr. Kim stated his only concern is setting a precedent to disturb the floodplain even if it
is only a small disturbance. Ms. Fineburg stated there are numerous fences in the area
and she did highlight in a drawing of her area where there are fences in the neighborhood.
Ms. Kirk asked if the entire property is in the floodplain, and Mr. Wagner stated it is.
Mr. Toadvine stated Mr. Wagner had indicated earlier that up to 15% of a trees root
mass can be disturbed without affecting the tree, and Mr. Wagner agreed. Mr. Toadvine
stated this proposed disturbance is clearly not near 15%.
Mr. Bamburak asked if Mr. Wagner is familiar with the swale in the rear of the property,
and Mr. Wagner stated he is not. Ms. Fineburg stated she has not had a problem with the
Mr. Toadvine noted the one-page document the Applicant submitted will be marked as
Exhibit A-4 and indicates all the properties in the general vicinity of the subject property
that have fences and they are highlighted in yellow. Mr. Kim noted Exhibit A-4 and
asked if the yellow properties are also in the floodplain, and it was noted they are.
Mr. Toadvine stated some of the fences may have been erected prior to the Ordinance
being established. Mr. Biesiada stated he has lived in the neighborhood for seven years
and is unaware of anyone who has installed a fence in this time. He stated the fences
shown are very old. He stated he has also never seen a shadowbox fence in the
neighborhood. He stated the pitch of Ms. Fineburgs yard runs to the swale and the pitch
of his yard is flat. He stated the trees are at the lowest point and this is where the water
Ms. Kirk moved and Mr. Dobson seconded that the Application for a 6 red cedar fence
be granted subject to the following conditions: That there be at least a 2 clearance from
the bottom of the fence to the ground and further that the fence be constructed in such a
way so as not to disturb the roots of the larger tree at the rear southwest corner of the
subject property. Motion carried with Mr. Kim opposed.
November 15, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board page 15 of 16
APPEAL #05-1346 SHELLEY RICHIE
Ms. Shelley Richie was sworn in along with Ms. Tammy Fick who stated she is a friend
who has helped Ms. Richie do research on the property.
The Application was marked as Exhibit A-1. Included was an 8 ½ by 14 Plan for the
property which was marked as Exhibit A-2.
Ms. Richie stated she currently lives a town home in
the property at
the home with the intention of building a fence so that her dog would have room. She
understands the property is 100% FEMA approved. She would like to install a fence in
the rear yard. She is proposing a split rail fence with green wire mesh. It will be 4 high
and will have two five foot gates across the driveway and in the back of the property a 4
gate that will lead further back to the rear of the property. The property is in the 100
Mr. Kim stated on the Application it states this fence will approve the property.
Ms. Richie stated she feels it will increase the property value.
Ms. Kirk asked if she has purchased the property at this time and Ms. Richie stated she
has closed on the property. Ms. Kirk asked if they will provide clearance at the bottom,
and Ms. Richie stated they are asking that it be to the ground. It was noted that it will
have wire mesh.
There was no public comment.
Mr. Bamburak moved and Mr. Malinowski seconded to approve the Variance as
requested. Motion carried with Mr. Kim opposed.
APPEAL #05-1347 JOHN MIDDLEBROOK AND DEBORAH MATHER
Mr. Toadvine stated Mr. Murphy is listed as the Attorney of Record but is not present this
Ms. Deborah Mather was sworn in. The Application was marked as Exhibit A-1.
Included with the Application was a Plan prepared by J. G. Parks dated 10/10/05 which
was marked as Exhibit A-2.
Mr. Wagner stated he agrees that the existing impervious surface is as shown on the
Application which is existing of 25.77% and they are proposing 24.97%.
November 15, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board page 16 of 16
Ms. Kirk stated they have an existing in-ground pool which they intend to replace with a
new pool. Ms. Mather agreed and stated it must be replaces as it cannot be repaired.
Ms. Kirk stated based on the Application, the Pool that is being replaced is slightly larger
than the pool they are proposing to install. Ms. Mather stated the pool they currently
have is no longer made as it is over twenty years old. It will be replaced with a pool that
fits in with that dimension so that they can use one wall. They will remove some of the
concrete although it will have essentially the same coping around the pool.
There was no public comment.
Ms. Mather stated they did discuss this with their neighbors on either side and they had
Ms. Kirk moved, Mr. Bamburak seconded and it was unanimously carried that the
Application be granted as submitted.
There being no further business, Mr. Malinowski moved, Ms. Kirk seconded and it was unanimously carried to adjourn the meeting at 9:30 p.m.
David Malinowski, Secretary