TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MAKEFIELD

ZONING HEARING BOARD

MINUTES – OCTOBER 4, 2005

 

 

The regular meeting of the Zoning Hearing Board of Lower Makefield Township was held in the Municipal Building on October 4, 2005. Chairman Kirk called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. She noted that this is a regularly-scheduled meeting, and the Board has no control over the schedule and was not able to cancel the meeting for the Jewish Holiday.  Due to the number of Applications, it was not possible to continue these to a later date.  She stated the Board will adjourn at 11:00 p.m.; and if they are unable to conclude a case by that time, they will ask that a continuance be requested.

 

 

Those present:

 

Zoning Hearing Board:  Barbara Kirk, Chairman

                                                Rudolph Mayrhofer, Vice Chairman

                                                David Malinowski, Secretary

                                                Paul Bamburak, Member

                                                Darwin Dobson, Member

                                                Paul Kim, Alternate (left meeting in progress)

 

Others:                                     Robert Habgood, Code Enforcement Officer

                                                Jennifer McGrath, Township Solicitor

                                                James Majewski, Township Engineer

                                                Allen Toadvine, Zoning Hearing Board Solicitor

 

Absent:                         Steve Santarsiero, Supervisor Liaison

 

 

APPEAL #05-1321 – DE NYSE SIGNS

 

Ms. Kirk noted that this matter was continued from the 9/6/05 Hearing.

Ms. Doreen Trongone-Ciezki was reminded that she was still under oath.

Mr. Richard Milne was present and was sworn in.  He stated he is owner and President of

Tam Arte.

 

Ms. Kirk stated at the last meeting it was noted that DeNyse had filed the Application,

but were no longer going to be involved in the Application.  The matter had been

continued to provide additional opportunity to speak with the new sign vendor. 

Ms. Trongone-Ciezki stated they want to keep the two signs at the back entrance, re-do

the sign at the Clubhouse, and maintain the signs in front. 

 

Ms. Kirk stated it appears they are requesting a Variance in order to permit two pairs of

entrance signs – one off Township Line Road and one off Yardley-Langhorne Road, and

October 4, 2005                                                         Zoning Hearing Board – page 2 of 14

 

 

an additional sign on the Clubhouse which will be a wall-mounted sign. 

Ms. Trongone-Ciezki agreed.  Upon questioning, it was noted that this wall-mounted sign

will be 47 ½” high and 84” wide.

 

Ms. Trongone-Ciezki stated the writing on the sign will change since Windsor at Polo

Run is the previous management company.  She stated on the second set of paperwork

that was submitted, there was a different logo showing a polo player and it will now say

only “Polo Run.” 

 

Ms. Kirk stated the entrance signs that say “Windsor at Polo Run” were already

constructed at both entrances, and Ms. Trongone-Ciezki stated this is correct.

 

Mr. Toadvine stated at the end of the last meeting, they wanted to make sure that the size

of the wall-mounted sign was as shown on the photo submitted which they now know is

84” by 47 ½”.  They also wanted to make sure of the size of the second set of entrance

signs.  Ms. Trongone-Ciezki stated she would like to keep the entrance signs the same

size, but would like to move them 60’ from the center line as required.  Mr. Milne stated

the overall dimension of the sign is 7’4” by 4’ 3 ½” tall.  Mr. Milne stated this is

approximately 30 square feet.

 

Ms. Kirk stated the size is not therefore an issue but the Variance is required as these

constitute an additional set of entrance signs along with the extra wall-mounted sign.

 

Mr. Toadvine stated the Zoning Hearing Board is not concerned about the lettering. 

They are only concerned about the size and location.

 

Ms. Kirk asked if there needs to be a formal modification to the Application, and

Mr. Toadvine stated this was done at the last Hearing, and the Amended Application was

marked as Exhibit A-5. 

 

Mr. Bamburak asked if both pairs of entrance signs will be the same size, and

Ms. Trongone-Ciezki stated they are the same size but they will be mounted differently. 

Mr. Milne stated all signs will be under 32 square feet.  He stated they are already

existing and he will only be modifying the lettering, and moving them back.

 

There was no public comment.

 

Ms. Kirk moved, Mr. Dobson seconded and it was unanimously carried that the

Application for Variance be granted so that the existing sign that has been designated as

Exhibit A-3 shall remain in its current size and height with a change of lettering. That an

additional entrance sign will be permitted off of Township Line Road in such form as

submitted with the Amended Application showing a height of 3’4” with a total width

 

October 4, 2005                                                         Zoning Hearing Board – page 3 of 14

 

 

of  7’4”, and that the Applicant be permitted to have a wall-mounted sign at the

Clubhouse designating the Leasing Office not to exceed the measurements of 84”

by 47.5”.

 

 

APPEAL #05-1330 – JAMES AND NANCY KELLY

 

Ms. Kirk noted that Mr. Mayrhofer is a neighbor of Mr. and Mrs. Kelly and will not

participate in this matter.  Mr. Paul Kim, Alternate, will sit in on this Application.

Mr. Daryl Janzer, Contractor, was present along with James and Nancy Kelly, all of

whom were sworn in. 

 

The Application which was submitted was marked as Exhibit A-1.  Submitted with the

Application was a Plan prepared for the residence dated 8/8/05, last revised 8/18/05. 

This was marked as Exhibit A-2. 

 

Mrs. Kelly stated they have owned the home for fourteen years and currently are

at 23.9% impervious surface which is the maximum allowed in the area.  The home is

forty-five years old, and they were told by other homeowners in the area that the existing

patio was added at the time the home was built which put it over the permitted

impervious surface.  She stated they have added nothing further until now.  They would

like to remove 102 square feet of existing impervious surface and construct an addition to

their home.  They wish to expand their kitchen and laundry room.  The proposed addition

is 240 square feet which will result in a net impervious surface of 24.7%.  She stated the

existing patio is concrete and this was included in the 23.9% existing impervious surface. 

The proposed additional will be a single-story addition.

 

Mr. Toadvine stated the Applicant is adding 138 square feet of impervious surface.

 

Ms. Kirk noted this area is in the RRP District, but the R-2 calculations apply since the

residence was existing before the RRP was created.

 

Ms. Kirk asked about the slope of the property, and Mrs. Kelly stated in the rear it is flat,

but in the front it does slope toward the street. 

 

Ms. Kirk asked if the neighbors were contacted, and Mrs. Kelly stated she did speak to

her neighbors and they had no objection. 

 

Mr. Janzer stated he will be doing the work.  He stated they are doing a slab foundation

and will not be excavating any dirt other than for the footings.  The grade will not

change.

 

There was no public comment.

October 4, 2005                                                         Zoning Hearing Board – page 4 of 14

 

 

Mr. Dobson moved, Mr. Bamburak seconded and it was unanimously carried to grant a

Variance to Section 200-23b to allow an impervious surface ratio of 24.7%.

 

Mr. Kim left the meeting at this time, and Mr. Mayrhofer heard the remaining Appeals. 

 

 

APPEAL #05-1331 – ORLEANS HOMEBUILDERS, INC.

 

Mr. Edward Murphy, attorney was present with Mr. Bill Briegel.  Mr. Murphy stated they are seeking relief so as to permit the extension of a sanitary sewer line.  He stated the property was previously owned by the Bucks Central Church who was granted a Special Exception by the Zoning Hearing Board as well as some other minor relief.  He stated the Church’s financial condition changed, and they sold the property.  Now the Application proposes the construction of five new homes accessed from a cul-de-sac off Route 532.  He stated in the rear most portion of the site, there is a proposed extension of an 8” sanitary sewer line.

 

Mr. Toadvine marked as Exhibit A-1 the Affidavit of Posting.  The Application was

marked as Exhibit A-2.  The Plan dated 4/13/05, last revised 6/7/05 was marked as

Exhibit A-3. 

 

Mr. Murphy noted Exhibit A-3 which shows the Subdivision Plan on the left-hand side. 

On the right-hand side is a blow-up of the area for which the relief is being sought.  This

includes an area of Waters of the Commonwealth and a wetlands/water course buffer.

He stated the purpose of extending the sewer line in that location is because it is

consistent with the recommendation of the Township sewer consultant and Sewer

Administrator since it will provide an extension from the public sewer line in the adjacent

Brookside Subdivision.  If the line were to be located at any other location, they would

have needed five grinder pumps and/or a pump station; and the Township was not in

favor of this.  The area where the sewer line is to be constructed is in an area which will

provide the least amount of disturbance and has been recommended by the Township. 

He stated the Application shows that they will have a 50’ disturbance from the Waters of

the Commonwealth and 584 square feet area of disturbance for the water course buffer. 

He stated no portion of any wetlands will be disturbed.

 

Ms. Kirk stated the Application submitted shows that the disturbance in the water course

buffer area will be 534.4 square feet.  Mr. Murphy stated he agrees that it is as the Plan

shows and not as he previously testified. 

 

Mr. Greg Glitzer was sworn in and stated he is a Licensed Professional engineer in the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, employed by the Gilmore Office.  He has been

licensed in Pennsylvania since 1991.  He is a Civil Engineer with Gilmore and manages

the Land Development Dept. consisting of eighteen design professionals engaged in

October 4, 2005                                                         Zoning Hearing Board – page 5 of 14

 

 

preparation of Land Development projects.  His office prepared the Subdivision Plan

which is the subject of this evening’s Application.  He concluded with Mr. Murphy’s

summary this evening. 

 

Mr. Murphy asked if there are any other reasons why the location of the sanitary sewer

line as proposed is appropriate, and Mr. Glitzer stated the most important reason for the

routing is the consistency with the design approved by the Township and recommended

by the Township’s Water and Sewer consultant to provide a stub in an easement that

would serve this property.  He stated this location is the lowest location where they could

provide a gravity system.

 

Ms. Kirk asked about the section of the sanitary sewer line that will be crossing the

Waters of the Commonwealth, and Mr. Glitzer stated while he would describe this as a

ditch, it is a regulated waterway that connects a broader wetland upstream to a pond

downstream.  It will be underneath the ditch at a depth of approximately 6’.  The ditch

itself is approximately 2’ deep.  It is not an active ditch on a regular basis.

Ms. Kirk asked if they have to submit a request to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for

approval, and Mr. Glitzer stated this would fall under one of the DEP General Permits. 

This Permit has not yet been applied for pending approval of the request this evening. 

Mr. Murphy stated any approval could be subject to approval by other agencies having

jurisdiction.   Mr. Glitzer stated they did receive today the Bucks County Conservation

District’s approval of the erosion control plan which is a pre-requisite before getting the

General Permit.

 

Mr. Toadvine noted the area of encroachment and area of disturbance and asked if post

construction, the area will be restored to its pre-construction condition, and

Mr. Glitzer stated it is a temporary disturbance.  There will be no surface structures in the

buffer or the ditch.

 

Ms. Kirk asked if they would agree to a Condition that any post-construction disturbance

will be restored to the pre-construction non-disturbed area, and Mr. Murphy agreed.

 

There was no public comment. 

 

Ms. Mayrhofer moved, and Ms. Kirk seconded to approve the request subject to the

Condition that the wetland buffer area to be disturbed will be restored to the pre-

construction condition to the extent possible.  Motion carried with Mr. Malinowski

opposed.

 

 

 

 

 

October 4, 2005                                                         Zoning Hearing Board – page 6 of 14

 

 

APPEAL #05-1332 – HARRY J. HART/RICHARD MC MANUS

 

Mr. Edward Murphy, attorney, was present and stated the Zoning Hearing Board

considered an Application for this parcel in 2003 and relief was granted so as to permit

the construction of a single-family dwelling on the property. 

 

Mr. Toadvine noted his office has represented Mr. McManus in the past and will

probably do so in the future.  He stated he does not feel he needs to recuse himself.

Ms. Kirk asked if the Applicant had any objection to Mr. Toadvine continuing as the

Solicitor, and Mr. Murphy stated there is no objection.

 

The Affidavit of Posting was marked as Exhibit A-1.  The Application was marked as

Exhibit A-2.  Exhibit A-3 was marked and is the Plan that accompanied the Application

which is a single-sheet Plan identified as “Zoning Plan of Tax Map Parcel 20-30-67

prepared for Harry Hart dated 8/1/05.

 

Mr. Murphy stated when the Zoning Hearing Board granted relief several years ago, it

contemplated the construction of a single-family home within a given footprint.  The

Applicant did obtain a Building Permit following receipt of that prior Decision and

constructed a home that was slightly smaller than the home that was contemplated by the

original Application that was approved.  The house that was constructed has a smaller

front porch than was proposed; and in lieu of the full front porch across the entire width

of the home, a smaller deck is proposed to the rear of the home in an area that is already

existing macadam.  The net result is that the footprint is slightly smaller now than that

which was approved in 2003.

 

Ms. Kirk stated the Zoning Hearing Board is not charged to deal with building footprints

and questioned what was requested when they came before the Board in 2003. 

Mr. Toadvine stated a Variance was granted from Section 200-13 to allow a minimum

net lot area of 9.89 acres instead of the required minimum 3 acres; a Variance from

Section 200-13 to allow minimum lot width of 92.83’ instead of required minimum of

250 square feet; a Variance from Section 200-51B1b to permit construction of a single-

family residential dwelling within the floodplain; and a Variance from Section 200-57e to

permit a residential use within a floodplain.

 

Ms. Kirk asked if the proposed deck is being constructed within the floodplain, and

Mr. Murphy stated it is because the whole house is.  He added that none of the relief  that

the Zoning Hearing Board granted in 2003 changes as a result of the modification of the

building footprint he has described this evening.

 

Ms. Kirk asked why this is before the Zoning Hearing Board, and Mr. Murphy stated it is

his understanding that it is the Township’s policy that if there is any modification to the

Plan that was approved by the Zoning Hearing Board, they need re-approval by the

October 4, 2005                                                         Zoning Hearing Board – page 7 of 14

 

 

Zoning Hearing Board.  Ms. Kirk asked if this Application was permitted to the Board of

Supervisors under Land Development, and it was noted it was not since this was not

required as it was a single lot and not considered to be Land Development.

 

A five-minute recess was taken for the Board to consult with their attorney.

 

The meeting was reconvened. 

 

There was no public comment.

 

Ms. Kirk moved, Mr. Dobson seconded and it was unanimously carried that after

reviewing the Board’s prior Decision granted in this matter, it is found that Decision

encompasses the proposed modifications as suggested by the Application and that it is

permitted under the Board’s prior Decision as shown on exhibit A-3.

 

 

APPEAL #05-1333 – STEVEN AND JUDITH WILLARD

 

Mr. Steven Willard was sworn in.  The Application submitted was marked as

Exhibit A-1.  The Plan that was submitted prepared by J. G. Parks for Tax Map Parcel

#20-9-7 dated 8/3/05 was marked as Exhibit A-2.

 

Mr. Willard stated he is constructing an addition and will encroach in the side yard

setback.  He stated they are required to have a setback of 25’.  He is encroaching on his

father’s property which is adjacent to his home. 

 

Ms. Kirk stated it appears that the encroachment would be approximately 8’ so the side

yard will be 17.2’at the narrowest part as opposed to the 25’ required.  She noted the Plan

shows a minimum side yard proposed of 12.2’, and Mr. Willard stated this is a typo.

 

Ms. Kirk asked the type of addition, and Mr. Willard stated it is a two-story addition with

a living room and a bedroom up top.

 

There was no public comment.

 

Mr. Bamburak moved, Mr. Malinowski seconded and it was unanimously carried that the

side yard Variance be approved as requested. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

October 4, 2005                                                         Zoning Hearing Board – page 8 of 14

 

 

APPEAL #05-1334 – MICHAEL B. FREIBRUN

 

Mr. Michael B. Freibrun was sworn in.  The Application submitted was marked as

Exhibit A-1.  Included with that Application was an impervious surface break down

prepared by Mr. Freibrun and his contractor, and this was marked as Exhibit A-2. 

A hand-drawn sketch showing the proposed patio was marked as Exhibit A-3. 

The As-Built dated 6/19/70 was marked as Exhibit A-4. 

 

Mr. Toadvine stated the Zoning Hearing Board was provided a letter from Mr. David

Horowitz addressed to Mr. Malinowski.  He stated the Zoning Hearing Board

acknowledges receipt of the letter noting that Mr. Horowitz, 367 Ramsey Road, is in

favor of the Application.  He was unable to attend due to the Jewish Holiday.

Mr. Freibrun stated Mr. Horowitz lives two doors away to the left of his property. 

 

Mr. Freibrun stated he purchased the home fifteen months ago.  They would like to

construct a paver patio with walkways.  They have taken up some concrete that was

existing.  He noted Exhibit A-3 and stated they pulled up the existing concrete by the

driveway and around the back to the side of the house.  There will be an increase of 437

square feet of EP Henry pavers.  He stated he was working with a contractor and did get

Permits for the deck and the rest of the work that was done, but he did not know as a

homeowner that he needed a Permit for the pavers.  He stated the contractor advised him

that they needed a Permit for the pavers as well.  He stated they stopped the work and

they would like permission to complete the project.  Mr. Freibrun stated they are

permitted to have 18% impervious surface. The house was built in 1970 and he purchased

it a year ago.  When he purchased the home, it was at 21.2%.They are proposing to

increase the impervious surface to 23%. 

 

Mr. Majewski stated the numbers he calculated were slightly different than those

submitted.  He stated he feels the existing impervious surface is 20.3% and the proposed

impervious surface will be 22.7%.  He stated they are different on the house dimensions

and walkway dimensions.  Mr. Toadvine asked Mr. Freibrun if he would agree with the

numbers Mr. Majewski has testified to; and Mr. Freibrun stated he worked with his

contractor on the numbers and tried to re-calculate the numbers his contractor had. 

 

Mr. Toadvine asked how the property got to 20.3%.  Mr. Habgood stated there was a

Permit for the porch addition that was put on the rear of the house.  There was also a

Permit for the deck.  Mr. Toadvine stated it would appear that at the time it was

Permitted, the impervious surface allowed was greater than 18%, and Mr. Habgood

agreed that there was a different requirement in the past than what there is currently.

 

Ms. Kirk noted Exhibit A-3 specifically the left side of the driveway and asked if this is

an existing walkway.  Mr. Freibrun stated this is a concrete walkway that is in front of the

house.  On the other side there is a 6’ by 12’ section, and Mr. Freibrun stated this is also

October 4, 2005                                                         Zoning Hearing Board – page 9 of 14

 

 

concrete and he does not feel the contractor added this in when he did his calculations. 

He stated this is an existing basketball court.  He showed pictures of this section.  

Mr. Majewski stated the 6’ by 12’ section was not counted when he did the calculations

so he feels they are now in agreement with the numbers that are shown in the Application

which would be 21.2% existing, and proposed of 23%.

 

Ms. Kirk noted the area on the side of the enclosed porch and asked why there is such a

large section, and Mr. Freibrun stated he did this so that it would be symmetrical.

Ms. Kirk asked if he would consider shaving it off so that it was not all pavers between

the deck and the porch and on the other side as well in order to reduce some of the

impervious surface.  Mr. Toadvine stated there is 84 square feet where the old basketball

court is located and asked if he would be willing to remove this.  Mr. Freibrun stated he

planned to remove this next year, but cannot afford to do so at this time.  Ms. Kirk stated

this would take it down from 437 square feet to 353 square feet.  Mr. Majewski stated

this 6’ by 12’ section would only be 72 square feet and would bring them to 365 square

feet.  Mr. Majewski stated this would reduce it to 22.8%.

 

Ms. Kirk asked if the EP Henry pavers will be cemented between the pavers, and

Mr. Freibrun stated it will be sand.  Ms. Kirk asked how water flows on the property, and

Mr. Freibrun stated it is flat in the rear and slopes in the front.  He did discuss the project

with his neighbors who indicated they had no problem. Mr. Toadvine noted Exhibit A-4

shows how the water flows around and toward the front of the house and out onto the

road. 

 

Mr. Toadvine asked Mr. Freibrun if the Board were inclined to grant the Variance, would

he agree to a Condition that he remove the 72 square feet of concrete where the

basketball court is located, and Mr. Freibrun asked if he could do this in the spring.

Mr. Toadvine stated if the Board grants the Variance with this Condition, he would not

get a Permit until he removes the 72 square feet.  Mr. Freibrun stated provided they do

not care how he removes it, he would agree to do so.  Mr. Majewski stated it must be

restored to grass. 

 

Ms. McGrath stated the Township would have no opposition if the approval were

conditioned upon the removal of the area Mr. Toadvine has specified of 72 square feet.

 

Mr. Dave Hoyer, 369 Ramsey Road, was sworn in and stated he has no objection to what

Mr. Freibrun wants to do and feels the work they have already done has been great.

 

Mr. Dobson moved, Ms. Kirk seconded and it was unanimously carried to approve a

Variance to Section 200-23b to allow impervious surface of 22.8%.

 

Ms. Kirk stated Mr. Freibrun should understand that this will require the removal of the

72 square feet.

October 4, 2005                                                       Zoning Hearing Board – page 10 of 14

 

 

APPEAL #05-1335 – JAMES AND NANCY FELL

 

Mr. James Fell was sworn in.  The Application was marked as Exhibit A-1.  Attached to

the Application were calculations concerning impervious surface coverage for the

project, and this was marked as Exhibit A-2.  Mr. Fell stated he prepared this.  Attached

to the Applications was also an As-Built prepared by Tri-State Engineering last revised

5/14/79 with a stamp of approval by a consulting engineer dated 6/5/79.  This was

marked as Exhibit A-3.

 

Mr. Fell stated he needs two Variances – one for impervious surface and also for a

setback.  He stated on the back of his home is a dilapidated sunroom measuring 10’ by

15’.  He has a corner property.  He stated they purchased the property in 1996 and they

now have the funds to repair it.  They are asking permission to extend it 5’ further than

the existing sunroom so it will be 15’ by 16’.  Mr. Toadvine asked what the setback

would be if this were granted.  Mr. Fell stated he had difficulty calculating this because it

is a corner lot.  Ms. Kirk stated it appears they have 49’ on one side and 45’ on the other

side for their rear setback.  Mr. Majewski stated it would be at right angles to the property

line.  Mr. Majewski was given time to review this calculation.

 

Ms. Kirk stated based on Mr. Fell’s calculations, he has determined that he will be at

20.68% impervious surface, and that they are currently at 20.22%.  Ms. Kirk asked if he

has added any other areas of impervious surface, and Mr. Fell stated the driveway was

extended by 5’ when it was refinished.  This was done in 2000.  Mr. Kirk asked if this

was included in the calculations, and Mr. Fell stated it was. 

 

After review, Mr. Majewski stated the setback to the rear of the property would be

37 ½ feet, and 50 feet is required.  Mr. Fell stated he did have a difficult time calculating

this so he would agree with the engineer.  Mr. Majewski stated he calculated the existing 

impervious surface to be 21%, the Applicant is showing 20.2%, and Mr. Habgood is

showing 21.4%.  The sunroom addition would result in 80 square feet additional

impervious surface to replace and enlarge the existing sunroom. 

 

Mr. Fell agreed to accept the Township engineer’s calculations that he will be

encroaching into the rear setback and will have a setback of approximately 37 ½  feet. 

Mr. Toadvine stated since there is some uncertainty as to the setback, if the Board is

inclined to grant the Variance, he would suggest that they grant a rear setback of 37 feet

rather than 37 ½.  He also suggested that they Grant a Variance to permit an additional 80

square of impervious surface rather than a specific percentage since there are a number of

different numbers. 

 

There was no public comment.

 

 

October 4, 2005                                                       Zoning Hearing Board – page 11 of 14

 

Ms. Kirk moved, Mr. Bamburak seconded and it was unanimously carried that the

Variance be granted from Section 200-22 to permit a rear yard setback of 37’ and a

Variance from Section 200-23 to permit a Variance to increase impervious surface

coverage by 80 square feet.

 

 

APPEAL #05-1336 – ROY AND ABBY POWELL

 

Mr. Roy Powell was sworn in.  The Application was marked as Exhibit A-1.  Also

submitted was a sheet of calculations for impervious surface, and this was marked as

Exhibit A-2.  The plan prepared by J. G. Park Associates entitled Plan of Survey for Tax

Map Parcel 20-22-73 dated 8/10/05 was marked as Exhibit A-3. 

 

Mr. Powell stated his family purchased the home a few months ago and would like to

make some additions.  They would like to expand the size of the family room which

would be 14’6” long by 12’ wide.  They would like to have a patio surrounding that

which would be a 3’ band on the length of the 14’6” and another 15’ on the opposite side

of this, although he would be open to decreasing this if this is important.  He stated they

would also like to install a 10’ by 20’ shed and a 16’ by 32’ pool.  He understands the

impervious piece of the calculation is the surrounding cement which would be 320 square

feet as it is a three foot band around the pool.  He stated he does have a curving drive and

it was difficult for him to determine the base line, but he feels they have 16.7%

impervious surface, and they are requesting another 982 square feet which would bring

them to 21.1% and this is the Variance they are requesting.

 

Mr. Powell stated there are also two setback issues.  He stated they are adjacent to

Edgewood road and are required to have an 80’ setback which would abut the house and

a 60’ setback for the pool. 

 

Ms. Kirk asked why he used to determine the numbers shown on Exhibit A-2 for the base

number.  Mr. Powell stated he looked at the survey and did the best he could to measure.

 

Ms. Kirk asked Mr. Habgood for properties that are already built, are calculations for

those properties included in Township files when there is a Building Permit issued.

Mr. Habgood stated for new homes built from the late 1980’s forward, the developers are

required to submit As-Builts and these include impervious surface calculations.  He

stated there are not calculations provided for homes prior to that time.  Mr. Habgood

stated for this property, there is an As-Built Plan but it does not include the impervious

surface calculations as this was not required when the house was built.  Mr. Habgood

stated when he looked at the new home Permit, the As-Built shows an Easement on the

property as well on the right side.  He stated it is a 30’ easement, 15’ on the Powell’s

property and 15’ on his neighbor’s.  It is a sanitary sewer easement in the area where the

proposed shed would be located.  Mr. Toadvine stated he would have to move the shed

over 5’. 

October 4, 2005                                                       Zoning Hearing Board – page 12 of 14

 

 

Mr. Majewski stated he as significant differences in his calculations from what

Mr. Powell has shown.  Mr. Majewski asked the location of the carport and Mr. Powell

showed this on the Plan.  He stated it is a driveway.  Mr. Powell stated he may not have

counted this in his calculations. 

 

A short recess was taken to provide Mr. Majewski time to review the calculations.

 

When the meeting was reconvened, Mr. Majewski stated based on his calculations using

the Plan submitted, the existing impervious surface is 18.4%.  He agreed with the

proposed construction square footage the Applicant has submitted and this would

increase the impervious surface to 22.8% impervious surface. 

 

Mr. Powell stated he has not added any impervious surface since moving into the

property.  There was further discussion on the family room expansion.  Mr. Powell stated

currently the family room is very narrow. This will be a single-story room.  They also

propose a concrete pad off the addition.  They wanted a 3’ band on the other side of the

addition.  He would be willing to reduce the piece adjacent to this.  He stated he could cut

it in half if they desire which would reduce it by 120 square feet.  Mr. Majewski stated

this would bring them to 22.2% impervious surface or 861.5 square feet.  Mr. Powell

stated he is proposing a 3’ wide concrete area around the pool.  Mr. Mayrhofer asked the

purpose of the 3’ wide patio, and Mr. Powell stated it would be for chairs, etc. 

 

Mr. Toadvine asked if there is a limit on the size of shed permitted, and Mr. Habgood

stated there is not but they must meet impervious surface requirements.  Ms. Kirk asked

if the shed will be on footers, and Mr. Powell stated it is on a gravel surface and tied

down with metal stakes.  There will not be concrete underneath.  The shed is

approximately six to eight feet and slopes about six feet at the sides.

 

Mr. Toadvine asked if they could get a smaller, shed, and Mr. Powell stated he has

ordered this already, but he could reduce this as well. 

 

 

Ms. Kirk asked if the Board would grant relief for 811.5 additional square feet, he could

manipulate this the way he chooses, and Mr. Powell agreed.

 

Ms. Kirk asked about the setback requirements which as shown on the Application will

be 80’ as opposed to 100’ which is required.  Mr. Habgood stated it is shown on the

approved Linen as an 80’ special setback for this property.  He feels the addition will be

69’ from the rear property line as opposed to 80’.  The shed would be 14’ away and the

Pool would fall under Section 200-70 and this would be approximately 25 ½’ away rather

than 60’.  Mr. Fell agreed with these calculations.

 

 

October 4, 2005                                                       Zoning Hearing Board – page 13 of 14

 

 

Ms. McGrath asked what the patio will be used for, and Mr. Powell stated it would be for sitting, reading, and patio furniture.  She also asked what they would store in the shed,

and Mr. Powell stated it would for Christmas decorations, personal items, and general

storage.  Ms. McGrath asked if they have a basement, and Mr. Powell stated they do.

Mr. Toadvine asked if there is a minimum setback requirement for the shed from the

pool, and Mr. Habgood stated it has to be at least 10’ away from the water’s edge.

Mr. Toadvine stated if they have a smaller shed, it would eliminate the issue with the

easement, reduce the impervious, and keep tem 10’ away from the pool.  Mr. Powell

agreed to move the shed to adhere with the requirements.

 

Mr. Mayrhofer asked if there would be a problem with granting the Variance to the

easement were he to ask for that this evening.   Mr. Toadvine stated normally they deal

with fences in the easement.  Mr. Powell stated they do have to replace the fence to

comply with the Code for the pool, and asked if this would require another process

similar to this evenings.  Ms. Kirk stated it would if it encroached into the easement. 

Mr. Habgood stated a fence is permitted in a special setback.  Mr. Powell stated there is

an existing fence which apparently does encroach into the easement.  Mr. Toadvine asked

if he obtained a Permit for the fence, and Mr. Habgood stated the Township has no record

of a Permit for the fence.  Ms. Kirk asked if the fence surrounds the entire property, and

Mr. Powell stated it does.  Mr. Toadvine stated at the current time it appears that the

fence is on the adjacent property line, and Mr. Powell stated this is why he had the yard

surveyed, and he will move it back onto his own property when he replaces it. 

Mr. Mayrhofer suggested they consider the fence at this time so Mr. Powell does not

have to come back before the Board when he replaces it.    Mr. Powell stated he is not

aware of any manholes or inlets on his property.  Mr. Toadvine asked if the Board were

inclined to grant a Variance in order to permit construction of the fence over the

easement, would Mr. Powell be willing to agree to a Condition that in the event the fence

had to be removed for access by the easement holder, he would be solely responsible for

the cost of removing and replacing it if and when necessary.  Mr. Powell agreed. 

Ms. Kirk stated the Condition would also be placed that the bottom of the fence would

have to be 2” above ground,  and Mr. Powell agreed.  Mr. Majewski stated this is a

sanitary sewer easement which is held by the Township.

 

Ms. McGrath stated the Township would like to see a smaller increase in impervious. 

As to the issue of the fence, she stated she is not at liberty to address this as the Board of

Supervisors did not discuss this.  Mr. Toadvine stated the Supervisors have not had any

problems with this in the past.

 

Ms. Kirk stated it appears Mr. Powell is requesting an Amended Application to include

the ability to install a fence within the sanitary sewer easement under Section 200-

69(14)C, and Mr. Powell so requested. 

 

There was no public comment.

October 4, 2005                                                       Zoning Hearing Board – page 14 of 14

 

 

Ms. Kirk moved and Mayrhofer seconded to grant a Variance to increase impervious

surface coverage at the property by 811.5 square feet.  That the Application for a

Variance to Section 200-63 be granted to allow an encroachment in the Special Setback

of 69’ as well as 14’ for the installation of the proposed shed.  That a Variance from

Section 200-70A1 be granted to allow an encroachment in the Special Setback

of 25 ½’ for the proposed area, and that a Variance from Section 200-69(14)C be granted

to allow the construction of a replacement fence within the sanitary sewer easement area

as on record at the Township subject to the following Conditions:  That the proposed

fence will be installed along or within the Applicant’s property lines as shown on Exhibit

A-3, that the proposed fence be at least 2” above the ground along the easement area, and

that if the easement holder needs access to the easement area, that the Applicant will be

solely and completely responsible for removal of the fence and reconstruction of the

fence at his sole cost and expense.  Motion carried with Mr. Malinowski opposed.

 

 

There being no further business, Mr. Mayrhofer moved, Mr. Dobson seconded and it was unanimously carried to adjourn the meeting at 9:30 p.m.

 

                                                            Respectfully Submitted,

 

 

 

                                                            David Malinowski, Secretary