ZONING HEARING BOARD
MINUTES – OCTOBER 5, 2004
The regular meeting of the Zoning Hearing Board of the
Zoning Hearing Board: Barbara Kirk, Chairman
Rudolph Mayrhofer, Vice Chairman
David Malinowski, Secretary
Others: Robert Habgood, Code Enforcement Officer
John Koopman, Township Solicitor
Drew Wagner, Township Engineer
Allen Toadvine, Zoning Hearing Board Solicitor
Absent: Pete Stainthorpe, Supervisor Liaison
APPEAL #04-1274 – SUNRISE DEVELOPMENT, INC.
Ms. Kirk stated this Application had been continued from the last Zoning Hearing Board
meeting of September 21. Since then the Board’s Solicitor received a letter dated 10/4/04
from the Applicant’s attorney asking for a continuation to the next meeting which will be
November 3, 2004 to give the Applicant additional time to work with the Township on
certain issues arising from this Appeal. The letter was marked as Board Exhibit #4.
Mr. Mayrhofer moved, Mr. Dobson seconded and it was unanimously carried to approve
a continuation until November 3, 2004.
APPEAL #04-1279 – AAA DEVELOPMENT & MANAGEMENT, INC.
Mr. Stephen Goldstein, attorney, representing the Applicant was present. Mr. Goldstein
stated the initial Filing requested a modification of the Condition that was attached to the
Special Exception granted for this property on 8/31/99. This is for the restaurant portion
of the building adjacent to the Hampton Inn. Mr. Goldstein stated he would like to
amend the Application. He stated when it was filed it was requested to remove the
hourly restriction so that the Dunkin Donuts could operate 24/7 which is consistent with
Dunkin Donuts National parameters. He stated they had conversations with Mr. Glenn
who operates the Hampton Inn who expressed concern with the 24/7 operation.
October 5, 2004 Zoning Hearing Board – page 2 of 8
Mr. Goldstein stated they would now like to request a modification of the current hourly
restrictions to allow them to open at 5:00 A.M. The request is to enable the Applicant to
open the business at 5:00 A.M. instead of 7:00 A.M. which is currently part of the
Condition which was attached to the grant of the Special Exception that governs this
Ms. Kirk asked if they still plan to close no later than 10:00 P.M. but operate seven days
a week. Mr. Goldstein stated they do want to operate seven days a week. He stated the
current restriction did not limit the days. He stated the prior Condition did permit them to
be opened until 10:00 P.M. Mr. Goldstein stated they would like to be able to be open
until 11:00 P.M. on Friday and Saturday nights if the Board is comfortable with this.
Mr. Malinowski asked if this would be a combination Dunkin Donuts/Baskin Robbins,
and Mr. Goldstein stated it will. There will only be one entrance door.
Mr. Joseph Glassman was sworn in and stated there will be one door and one line in the
facility. He stated to the right will be the Dunkin Donut area and to the left is the Baskin
Robbins area. There is one point of sale area in the middle. There will be one cash
register and the same employees working in both areas. There is one common seating
area and they share refrigerators, etc. He noted Dunkin Donuts and Baskin Robbins are
owned by one parent corporation.
Mr. Goldstein stated there are no exterior changes proposed other than the name on the
sign. It will be no different in size and they will not increase the number of signs from
what there is now.
Ms. Kirk asked if they are considering a drive-through service in the future, and
Mr. Glassman stated they are not. He stated this particular location does not lend itself to
Mr. Mayrhofer asked why they want to open at 5:00 A.M., and Mr. Glassman stated more
than 20% of their sales Nationally are between 5:00 A.M. and 7:00 A.M. He stated he
has a store in Richboro and the percentage is slightly higher than this. Mr. Mayrhofer
stated the employees will have to come earlier than 5:00 A.M., and Mr. Glassman stated
this is correct.
Ms. Kirk asked about deliveries. Mr. Goldstein stated Hampton Inn was concerned about
this as well. Mr. Glassman stated Dunkin Donuts has a unique distribution set up, and
they get deliveries from the distribution center once a week. He is not sure what day they
will get their delivery at this location; but it will be one day a week for approximately one
and a half hours. This is when they get all of their weekly supplies. He stated if they
should run out of something at this location, they would be able to get it from the
Richboro location. Mr. Goldstein stated the individual from Hampton Inn did not want
October 5, 2004 Zoning Hearing Board – page 3 of 8
this delivery to take place before 7:00 A.M. Mr. Glass stated they would like to request
that the delivery not be before 9:00 A.M. Mr. Goldstein asked that if the Board approves
the request, that they make it a Condition of Approval that the eighteen-wheeler delivery
not be before 9:00 A.M. Mr. Glassman stated twice a month they get a Pepsi delivery
similar to what the existing use is receiving. They would agree to this delivery being
after 9:00 A.M. as well. Mr. Glassman stated they also get a delivery of donuts. This
will be delivered daily before 5:00 A.M. and will be from the Richboro location which is
the producing store.
They will warm up the product only at the
location. They will not receive any supplies to do the actual baking at the Lower
Mr. Goldstein asked the location where deliveries will be made, and Mr. Glassman stated
they will be made to the service door which is in the rear and will not interfere with the
customer door or the Hampton Inn. The donut delivery will be approximately 4:00 A.M.,
and the vehicle used is similar to the size of a FedEx truck. Mr. Glassman stated this
delivery usually takes only ten minutes.
Ms. Kirk asked if there are any other vendors which make deliveries. Mr. Glassman
stated there will also be a Baskin Robbins delivery once a week, and they would be
willing to agree to the same restrictions.
Ms. Kirk asked about the signage, and it was noted no modifications to the restrictions as
imposed on the prior Approval are requested.
Ms. Kirk asked how soon they anticipate opening, and Mr. Glassman stated they would
hope to open six weeks from the time the Building Permit is issued.
Ms. Kirk asked about the number of employees. Mr. Glassman stated this varies.
He stated they like to employ people from the community and they have a number of
high school students who work for them and a number of other part-time people. During
their busiest time, they would have between five to eight people, and they will always
have between two to three people in the store. They always have someone who is “serve-
safe” on the premises. This is an individual with training in the handling of the facility
with regard to health issues.
Ms. Kirk asked if the distribution center will honor the delivery time restriction, and
Mr. Glassman stated they will.
Mr. Koopman stated the Township has no objection to the starting time being modified to
5:00 A.M. and to the facility being open seven days a week.
October 5, 2004 Zoning Hearing Board – page 4 of 8
Ms. Marietta Nicholson, representing the Hampton Inn at
PA 19067, asked to be considered a Party to the Appeal. Ms. Nicholson stated the
Hampton Inn wanted the facility to be closed at 10:00 P.M. including weekends.
Mr. Goldstein this was not his understanding from his conversations with the
representative from the Hampton Inn.
Ms. Kirk moved, Mr. Malinowski seconded and it was unanimously carried that the
Zoning Hearing Board grant the request that the hours of operation be expanded from
Monday through Thursday opening at 5:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. and Friday and Saturday
from 5:00 A.M. to 11:00 P.M. subject to the following Conditions: That all deliveries
made via tractor-trailer, eighteen-wheeler, or similar vehicle not occur earlier than
9:00 A.M. That there be no exterior renovations to the facility, and that the exterior
remain, except for the placement of the signs, as presently existing. That all other
Conditions previously imposed by this Board’s decision of 8/3/99, not specifically
modified, remain in full force and effect. If they are to open on Sunday, hours of
operation should be 5:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M.
APPEAL #04-1281 – TOM AND RITA BATES
Tom and Rita Bates were sworn in. Ms. Kirk noted the Application submitted which was
marked as Exhibit A-1. Attached to that Application is an 8 ½” by 14” hand-drawn Plan
of the premises in question which was marked as Exhibit A-2. Attached to the
Application is the Notice issued by the Township’s Zoning Department disapproving the
request for the permit.
Mr. Bates stated they would like to build a 16’ by 23’ addition to the rear of their house.
This will include a bedroom and bath. The property is off
street on the right after crossing the Canal. By adding this addition, they will increase the
impervious surface 171 square feet over the limit. Mr. Wagner stated he has reviewed
the calculations and they are satisfactory. Ms. Kirk stated they are permitted 24% and
will increase it to 25.14%. Mr. Bates stated this is a ranch home. There are currently two
bedrooms and the addition will actually be expanding one of the bedrooms.
Ms. Kirk asked if they had any problems with the recent flooding problems, and
Mr. Bates stated they did not. Ms. Kirk asked if they discussed their proposed plans with
their neighbors on either side, and Mr. Bates stated he did, and they had no opposition.
Mr. Koopman stated the Township has agreed to leave this decision to the Zoning
There was no public comment.
October 5, 2004 Zoning Hearing Board – page 5 of 8
There was discussion on which Section of the Ordinance applies to this Application.
Mr. Wagner stated when the property was developed it was R-2 and recent Zoning
changes have made it RRP. Mr. Toadvine stated he feels it is a decision made in the
Zoning Office as to whether they are going to apply the current Zoning or the Zoning at
the time of construction.
Mr. Dobson moved, Mr. Mayrhofer seconded and it was unanimously carried to grant the
Variance from Section 200-23B to allow an increase in impervious surface to 25.14%.
APPEAL #04-1283 – MICHAEL MONTGOMERY & JUDITH DANIELS
Ms. Kirk stated while this Appeal is listed as Appeal #04-1282 on the Board’s Agenda,
on the actual Application, it is listed as Appeal #04-1283 and they will use this number
on the Application for clarity purposes.
Mr. Montgomery and Ms. Daniels were sworn in. Ms. Kirk stated the Application
submitted will be marked as Exhibit A-1. Attached to the Application is an 8 ½” by 11”
document entitled “Survey and Plan of
was marked as Exhibit A-2. Behind this is an 8 ½” by 11” photograph of the premises in
question with measurements attached, and this was marked as Exhibit A-3. Ms. Daniels
stated she has an updated version of this which she distributed this evening. The updated
version was marked as Exhibit A-4.
Ms. Daniels stated they would like to construct a small deck on the side of their house on
the side of the new addition. It will be 14’ long and 12’ wide. The drawing shows where
it will be located. She stated the property line is 19’ 10” from the wall of the house and
there is a sewer easement 29’ from the house.
Ms. Kirk stated they are requesting a Variance from the side yard setback requirements.
Mr. Wagner stated it appears that the sewer easement is approximately 10’ from the
house and the property line is 19’ from the house. Ms. Kirk stated the Plan shows an
existing deck and she asked if this deck has been removed. Ms. Daniels stated where it
says “Proposed Deck” this is an additional deck which they are requesting permission to
construct. Ms. Daniels stated there is currently nothing there. She noted the Exhibit as
shown does not show exactly where the deck will be located. She stated they are
proposing that the additional deck be exactly on the other side of the existing deck which
is at the rear of the property. Ms. Kirk noted the existing deck appears to be 14’ by 14’.
She stated next to this is an addition, and they are proposing to add a deck next to the
addition which deck will be 14’ by 12’. All of it will be at the rear of the property and off
to the one side. The proposed deck is 14’ by 12’. Mr. Toadvine asked if the new deck
will be centered upon the door, and Ms. Daniels stated it will be “almost” centered on the
October 5, 2004 Zoning Hearing Board – page 6 of 8
door. She stated if they do not put in the deck, there will be a very large drop off the addition. She stated she has an elderly father living with them and the new deck will
permit him not to have to go up and down stairs.
Mr. Mayrhofer asked when they built the addition, and Ms. Daniels stated it was
approximately two to three years ago. Ms. Daniels stated originally they were going to
put in stairs but her father cannot go up and down stairs. They are proposing a wooden
deck with concrete footers. No overhang or enclosure is proposed.
Ms. Kirk noted Exhibit A-4 and asked who took the measurements. Ms. Daniels stated
the contractor took these, and she checked it against the survey Plan.
Mr. Rollins Raudenbush, the contractor, was sworn in.
Mr. Mayrhofer noted the sewer easement is centered on the property line with 10’ on
either side of the property line. Mr. Koopman stated this is correct, and the Plot Plan
indicates that there is approximately 19’ from the existing edge of the house to the
property line. Mr. Mayrhofer stated if they are going 12’ out, there will only be 7’10”
from the property line which would be into the sewer easement. He stated they always
had a policy that if something needs to be done in the easement, the homeowner would
have to pull up the structure at their own cost.
Mr. Koopman stated one of problems is that they have not asked for a Variance from the
requirement to construct something over the sewer easement. Ms. Daniels stated she did
request this, and the Township told them that they would put this into the same Variance.
Mr. Mayrhofer stated it is the Applicant’s responsibility to fill out the Variance.
Ms. Kirk stated they are asking for a Variance from Section 200-22 from the side yard
Setback; and in light of the testimony, it appears they are now asking to amend the
Application to include a Variance for the sewer easement. Ms. Daniels agreed.
Mr. Toadvine asked if they have determined that it is in the sewer easement.
Ms. Kirk asked that Mr. Raudenbush give testimony as to the measurements and location
of the sewer easement. Mr. Raudenbush stated he put in the Application for the Variance
and the individual at the Township indicated there was a sewer easement. He asked if he
had to put in another paper for this, and the Township representative indicated that they
would put it in with this Variance and the check they paid would cover both.
Ms. Kirk asked how much it will encroach into the side yard setback. Mr. Raudenbush
stated it will leave 7’10” and will encroach into the side yard setback 7’2”.
Mr. Wagner stated they will encroach into the sewer easement by 2’ and into the side
yard setback by 7’10”. There is a 15’ side yard setback requirement.
October 5, 2004 Zoning Hearing Board – page 7 of 8
Ms. Kirk asked who holds the sewer easement. Mr. Koopman stead Mr. Zarko and
Mr. Hoffmeister indicated it is a
Mr. Hoffmeister were able to advise what is in the easement or exactly where it is
located. Mr. Koopman stated
he feels they need to contact
exactly where it is.
He stated he did try to contact
response. Mr. Mayrhofer stated if they allow the Applicant to encroach, it could be just
the overhang of the deck that is in the easement.
Mr. Wagner asked about the construction of the deck. Mr. Raudenbush stated they could
cantilever the deck and set it back 2’. He stated the manhole sits over about 3’ into the
neighbor’s side of the property line. Ms. Kirk asked if Mr. Raudenbush contacted
Township about the sewer easement, and he stated he did not. Mr. Mayrhofer asked if
they encroach into the sewer easement, would they encroach with the overhang of the
deck and leave the pilings outside the easement, and Mr. Raudenbush stated he could do
Mr. Koopman asked how high the deck will be off the ground, and Mr. Raudenbush
stated it is approximately 17”. Mr. Koopman stated if there is a 20’ wide vehicle, it will
cause a problem. Mr. Toadvine asked if they could scale the size of the deck down from
12’ to 10.’ Ms. Daniels stated while she could do this, she would prefer not to have to do
so. Mr. Mayrhofer
stated possibly they should postpone this matter until
has an opportunity to review this matter. Ms. Kirk stated even if the Board were inclined
to grant the Variance, if something occurs and
easement, the Applicant will have to move the deck at their cost. Ms. Daniels stated she
where the deck will be and she does not feel there should be a problem. Ms. Kirk stated
there is a pipe that runs underground. Ms. Daniels stated she would assume that the pipe
is running along the same line as the manhole, and the Board advised her that this cannot
be assumed. Mr.
Mayrhofer stated they should contact
would agree to an encroachment into their easement.
Ms. Kirk suggested that they request a continuance to the next Board meeting to have a
chance to speak to someone in
Mr. Toadvine stead if they went to 10’, it would only be a 2” encroachment.
Ms. Daniels agreed to modify the deck so that it would only be 10’ wide and there will be
a 2” encroachment into the sewer easement.
Ms. Kirk stated when the Zoning Hearing Board is asked to entertain encroachments into
sewer easements, the Board generally does impose a Condition that if the owner of the
easement needs to get to that property, the Applicant will be responsible for removing
any obstructions at their cost and expense.
There was no public comment.
October 5, 2004 Zoning Hearing Board – page 8 of 8
Mr. Mayrhofer moved, Mr. Malinowski seconded and it was unanimously carried to
grant the Variance for a side yard encroachment of 5’2” and an encroachment into the
sewer easement area of 2”. If the owner of the easement needs access to the easement,
the Applicant is responsible to remove any structures within the easement at the
Applicant’s sole cost and expense.
Ms. Kirk stated the next meeting of the Zoning Hearing Board will be held on
November 3, 2004 which is a Wednesday.
There being no further business, Ms. Kirk moved, Mr. Malinowski seconded and it was unanimously carried to adjourn the meeting at 8:30 p.m.
David Malinowski, Secretary