ZONING HEARING BOARD
The regular meeting of the Zoning Hearing Board of Lower
Makefield Township was held in the
Zoning Hearing Board: Barbara Kirk, Chairman
Paul Bamburak, Member
Greg Caiola, Alternate Member
Others: Robert Habgood, Code Enforcement Officer
John Koopman, Township Solicitor
James Majewski, Township Engineer
Drew Wagner, Township Engineer (left meeting in
Allen Toadvine, Zoning Hearing Board Solicitor
Steve Santarsiero, Supervisor Liaison
Absent: Rudolph Mayrhofer, Zoning Hearing Board Vice Chair
David Malinowski, Zoning Hearing Board Member
Paul Kim, Zoning Hearing Board Alternate Member
APPEAL #05-1321 DeNYSE SIGNS
Ms. Doreen Trongone-Ciezki, Agent for the owner was present. Ms. Kirk asked if the
Applicant, DeNyse Signs was present, and Ms. Trongone-Ciezki stated they are not
present and sent her to appear. Ms. Trongone-Ciezki was sworn in. She stated she is
Vice Present of Bozzuto Management, Agent for Polo Run Holdings, which is the new
owner of the property. Ms. Kirk stated since the time the Application was filed, it
appears that General Investment and Development Company is no longer the owner of
the property, and Ms. Trongone-Ciezki
stated this is correct as of
The Application was marked as Exhibit A-1. Attached to the Application was an 8 ½
by 14 Plan designated as Polo Run
date-stamped by the Township
was marked as Exhibit A-2.
Ms. Trongone-Ciezki asked that they consider their Application for signage. They are
the new owners and want to do what is right by the Township. She stated they need to
change names on the signs as they
will now be Polo Run Apartments and
associated with the old ownership. They would like to reduce the size of the signs at the
rear entrance but keep them in place since it would be a hardship to them to remove them.
She stated they have two entrances to the property which are far apart from each other
and it is difficult to direct people to the site. They feel it is also important for emergency
personnel to have these signs as well.
Ms. Trongone-Ciezki stated she felt they had sent revised information, but Ms. Kirk
stated the only document they have is a sketch of the lay-out showing the two entrances
and the interior of the complex. Mr. Habgood stated they did receive a document on
Friday but it came in with another Application which he assumed was a new Application
for the Complex and not simply additional information for the Application being
considered this evening. Mr. Habgood stated the document that was received was a lay-
out of the proposed signs. He stated it is similar to what was photo-copied with the
Application so the Zoning Hearing Board does have the proposed sign lay-out.
Ms. Trongone-Ciezki stated the name was changed on the new copy, but the format and
styling of the sign would be the same as shown on the document the Zoning Hearing
Board already has. It
will not be
Mr. Toadvine asked that the new documents be marked as Exhibit A-3. This is an 8 ½
by 14 color version of the Polo
Run proposed signed dated
marked which is an 8 ½ by 11
color version of a Polo Run Sign dated
Ms. Kirk asked if the signs have been installed. Ms. Trongone-Ciezki stated the signs
that are in place today were put up recently although she is not sure of the exact date.
She stated when they did their search, they found that they were not in compliance, and
they were going to apply for the Variance. It was then up to her company to complete the
process. Ms. Kirk asked if the signs that say Polo Run Apartment Homes are currently
located at the entrances at
Ms. Trongone-Ciezki stated the sign shown in the latest document submitted is not
currently erected. The
how long ago those signs were installed, but Ms. Trongone-Ciezki did not know. She
stated they were involved with the property from the beginning of July and made
Mr. Toadvine asked Mr. Habgood if there is a previous Application for Polo Run in the
Zoning Hearing Board files, but Mr. Habgood did not know. Mr. Toadvine stated he
recalls that some time ago Polo Run did come before the Zoning Hearing Board for a sign
issue and there may be a file from a previous Application. Mr. Koopman stated while
this may be correct, it appears from the sign packet that came in on Friday, that they are
larger signs than what were requested in the original filing before the Board now.
Mr. Koopman stated it appears they are seeking an Amended Application. Mr. Toadvine
asked if an Amended Application was filed on Friday, and Mr. Koopman stated it is
difficult to tell what it is.
Ms. Kirk noted Exhibit A-3 shows a sign that is 94 from tip to tip and Exhibit A-4
shows 74 which is similar to what was included with the Application. She asked if they
are now asking for two different sized signs. Ms. Trongone-Ciezki stated she
understands that at the entrance there are signs that are mounted on a brick wall, and they
want to keep those as well as the back entrance signs for the reasons already stated.
Exhibit A-3 is the
sign to be placed on
is at that location. They actually want to make this sign smaller in order to meet the
Township guidelines. The sign they are proposing on
physically smaller than what is there today. Ms. Trongone-Ciezki stated there was also
supposed to be an Amendment to the Variance request for the sign on the Clubhouse
which currently exists but does not indicate that it is the Clubhouse, and they would like
it to state this. She was also advised that the Clubhouse sign was never approved.
Ms. Kirk stated because it is unclear what is being requested and no Amendments were
submitted, she would recommend that Ms. Trongone-Ciezki discuss the matter further
with the Applicant and clarify what needs to be done to insure that everything has been
submitted to the Township and the Board knows what is being requested. Ms. Trongone-
Ciezki stated the sign company does not want to continue on with this job and it is up to
her firm to complete the project. She stated she has had discussions with another local
sign company they have used in the past who is willing to proceed with this project.
Ms. Kirk suggested that the Hearing be continued until Ms. Trongone-Ciezki consults
with the new sign company and files the necessary Amendments so the Zoning Hearing
Board has before them everything that is being requested.
Mr. Toadvine asked Ms. Trongone-Ciezki if it is their intention to change the facing of
the signs only and are not making them any larger; and in fact may make them smaller.
Ms. Trongone-Ciezki stated the entrance sign on
with the same type sign but they would be smaller to meet the size requirement. The
wording would change. They would like to keep signs at both entrances and add the
Clubhouse identification sign. Mr. Toadvine asked how it came to her attention that the
not know this. She was only told that she should fix the problems. Mr. Koopman stated
it does not appear that it was ever permitted by the Township.
Ms. Kirk asked if Mr. Habgood could pull the file. Mr. Habgood stated this started in the
spring when the Township noticed that two additional signs were installed without
permits being obtained from the Township. This was done by the prior owner of the
complex, and the Township was trying to work with them. They did apply for an
Application for a Variance to keep the signs at that location. Mr. Habgood stated the
Zoning Ordinance states that they are only allowed one pair of development signs for this
type of development. He stated they already had one pair off
and they were asking for a second
to look through the Zoning Hearing Board files to see if this matter was previously
considered. Mr. Koopman stated Ms. Frick may also have some recollection of this.
Mr. Toadvine agreed to look through his records as well.
Mr. Toadvine stated along with the new diagrams, there was an Amended Application
names Ms. Trongone-Ciezki under the owner category. This Application does include a
request for a wall-mounted ID sign
Application was marked as Exhibit A-5.
Mr. Toadvine stated Ms. Trongone-Ciezki should clarify what is being requested; and if
they are using a new sign company, they should become involved in the process before
she comes back before the Board. Ms. Trongone-Ciezki stated representatives from the
new sign company are willing to come in. She also stated DeNyse Signs is willing to
give the new sign company all of the Plans even though they themselves do not want to
continue to be involved in the project.
Mr. Toadvine expressed concern with the time limits noting he would not want the Board
to reschedule the matter until Ms. Trongone-Ciezki has everything in place. It was
agreed to continue the matter to
Exhibit A-6 was marked which is a picture
of the sign proposed for the
This is an 8 ½ by 11 document dated
Ms. Kirk asked if they need a letter substituting the Applicant since prior information was
filed under DeNyse Signs. Mr. Toadvine stated provided the owner is present, there
should not be a problem.
Ms. Kirk moved and Mr. Bamburak seconded to continue the
There was no public comment, and the Motion carried unanimously.
APPEAL #05-1322 JOE AND MELISSA HALL
Ms. Melissa Hall and Mr. Jason Martin were sworn in. Mr. Martin stated he is a family
friend and is an attorney residing
The Application was marked as Exhibit A-1. Attached was an 8 ½ by 14 Pool Permit
Ms. Hall stated they would like to install an in-ground pool. She stated their permit was
denied for impervious surface and also for an issue with the fence; although she was
advised by the pool contractor that this was taken care of provided they re-submit.
She stated they have a patio in the rear that is 350 square feet, and the proposed pad they
need to put around the pool is 350 square feet. They are asking permission to take out the
patio and receive credit for this impervious surface and then install the pad around the
pool. It would therefore not be an increase in existing impervious surface.
Ms. Kirk asked if there will be a concrete deck around the pool. Mr. Martin stated it is
350 square feet of coping around the pool. The concrete deck is an existing deck which
has been there for approximately twenty years. It was in existence when they purchased
the home. It came to their attention that there was never a permit granted for that deck.
Mr. Toadvine asked the existing impervious surface, and Mr. Majewski stated it is
approximately 25%. He stated the Applicants calculations show 24.79%. Mr. Toadvine
stated they would therefore be requesting approval of 25% impervious surface coverage.
Ms. Hall agreed and they would agree not to install any more impervious surface than is
currently existing. Mr. Hall stated the engineer did indicate that the issue with
impervious surface is drainage, and he did not feel their plans would cause any more run
off and would only maintain the existing condition or could improve it. Ms. Kirk asked
how the property slopes, and while Ms. Hall stated she was not sure, she stated the
property is relatively flat. Mr. Majewski stated it is fairly flat and goes from east to west.
Mr. Toadvine asked if they know when the property was built, and Mr. Koopman stated
Mr. Habgood has indicated it was built approximately thirty years ago. Mrs. Hall stated
they have owned the property for two years and have not added any impervious surface
during the time they owned it.
There was no public comment.
Mr. Caiola moved, Mr. Bamburak seconded and it was unanimously carried to approve
impervious surface of 25%.
APPEAL #05-1323 ALAN LEWIS
Mr. Alan Lewis was sworn in. The Application was marked as Exhibit A-1. Attached to
that is a Plan entitled Plot Plan
for Lewis Residence Swimming Pool, last dated
This was marked as Exhibit A-2.
Mr. Koopman stated the Township is opposed to this Application. He stated the
Township understands that the permitted impervious surface is 18% and that the current
impervious surface is approximately 18%. The increase being requested would bring it
up to approximately 24% which would be a 6% increase which the Township feels is in
excess of what should be permitted.
Ms. Kirk stated that normally there is a five member Board, but this evening there are
only four members present. In the event that they go through the testimony and there is a
split vote, the Application would be denied. She stated since the Township is in
opposition, testimony could be fairly lengthy. She asked if Mr. Lewis would like to
proceed this evening or continue it to the next Board Hearing with the anticipation that
there could be five members present at that time. Mr. Lewis stated he would like to
proceed at this time.
Mr. Lewis noted the Zoning regulations under Section 200-23B state that they are
allowed 18% for their property. He stated their property was built before 1987. He
stated Section 200-23A discusses properties that do not apply to paragraph B and these
would be allowed 24% impervious surface for his lot size. He stated he is asking
permission to increase the impervious surface to that amount. He stated currently they
have a 4 by 4 step outside the rear door. He stated the bulk of their request is for a patio
and some other miscellaneous things they want to add because the concrete contractor
will be on site.
Ms. Kirk stated it appears that Mr. Lewis is indicating that if his home were built after
1987, and if he were a developer, he would have been permitted to have 24% impervious
surface. Mr. Lewis stated the developer is allowed 21%, and the owner can then go up to
24%. Mr. Kirk stated it appears that Mr. Lewis then had plans drawn up to the extent that
he would use 24%. Mr. Lewis stated the Plans submitted were drawn up specific to the
Zoning so that they would have something to reference. He stated there was a previous
Application that they are not present to discuss this evening for the swimming pool, and
this was used as a base line.
Mr. Toadvine stated the Board needs to know what he wishes to install at the property
which will create a 6% increase in the impervious surface. Mr. Lewis stated the bulk of
this would be a porch and the remaining would be the additional apron that they want to
put around the pool that they could not put in when they submitted the original
Application. They also wanted to connect the porch to the driveway and install a base for
a shed. There is also an additional piece that was missing from the driveway that the
developer could not put in because he had used up the original impervious surface.
Mr. Toadvine asked if these are shown anywhere on Exhibit A-2, and Mr. Lewis noted
those locations on the Exhibit.
Mr. Toadvine asked if they currently have a pool, and Mr. Lewis stated they do not. He
stated there is a Permit in for a pool but at this point, they have only received a phone call
that it is approved. The pool has been approved with 18 coping around it which used up
the remaining half of a percent which brings them to 18% impervious surface.
Mr. Toadvine stated the reason there is a difference between Sub-Section A and
Sub-Section B under the impervious requirements is because the newer developments
have been designed to accommodate the additional impervious surface that is allowed
whereas the older developments have not. This is the reason why there are two different
calculations. He stated when an Applicant comes before the Zoning Hearing Board to
request a Variance, one of the requirements is that you request the minimum Variance
necessary in order to accomplish their result. He stated it seems that Mr. Lewis has
picked the 24% number and designed around it, which does not appear to be the
minimum necessary to accomplish his results. Mr. Toadvine suggested that Mr. Lewis
consider modifying his request in terms of the total impervious he is requesting.
Mr. Lewis asked if there is a number which the Board would find acceptable.
Mr. Koopman stated the Townships position in the past has been that they look very
carefully at anything over 2%. He added that the storm water system for Mr. Lewis
development was designed for 18%. He suggested that Mr. Lewis go back and discuss
this with his contractor and come back with an Amended Plan if he desires, unless he is
prepared to make a recommendation on an Amendment this evening.
Mr. Lewis asked if they would consider an increase of 4% rather than 6%. Ms. Kirk
stated they must show that the property is such that there is a hardship created by the
condition of the property that prevents the homeowner from being able to use it.
Mr. Lewis stated there is only a four foot square slab for a porch, and he cannot put in
any more than an 18 pool apron. Mr. Toadvine stated there are other materials which
could be used other than concrete for a porch that would be pervious. He stated he could
have a wooden deck. Ms. Kirk stated if they would propose a wooden deck rather than
concrete, they would remove a large portion of the impervious surface issues. Ms. Kirk
asked if he would like to go back and discuss the matter with the contractor. Mr. Lewis
stated no arrangements have been made with the contractor. He would like to propose
maintaining the concrete porch and add the additional 18 around the pool which would
result in approximately 4% additional impervious surface.
Ms. Kirk asked Mr. Majewski if he concurs with these calculations. Mr. Majewski stated
the additional 18 coping around the pool would be approximately 200 square feet. The
concrete behind the house would be a total of 530 square feet, less the existing 16 square
feet of the pad which would result in 514 square feet. This would be a total of 714 square
feet which would be a 3.4% bringing the property up to 21.4%. Mr. Majewski stated
there is also some discrepancy between the numbers shown by the Applicant and what
the Township calculated. He stated the Applicant indicated their existing impervious
surface was 18%, and he calculates it to be 16.2%; but they also have an additional 1%
that has already been approved for the pool coping. If you add the additional coping
around the pool and the pool coping already approved as well as the new concrete pad
directly behind the house, it would equal 20.6% impervious surface.
Mr. Toadvine asked if Mr. Lewis would be willing to amend his Application so that he
was requesting an increase in the impervious surface so as to construct the new concrete
deck immediately behind the house and an additional 18 coping around the pool which
would bring the property to a total of 20.6% impervious surface. Mr. Lewis agreed.
Ms. Kirk stated this will eliminate the impervious surface shown on the Application to
There was no public comment.
Mr. Caiola moved, Mr. Bamburak seconded and it was unanimously carried to approve
impervious surface up to 20.6% impervious surface.
APPEAL #05-1324 STEVEN J. TOTO
Mr. Steven J. and Ms. Nina Toto were sworn in. The Application submitted was marked
as Exhibit A-1. Included with this Application was an 8 ½ by 14 Pool Permit Plan
Mr. Toto submitted photos this evening and these were marked as Exhibit A-3. A-3
consists of a one-page narrative and three color photographs.
Mr. Toadvine reminded the Applicants that there are only four Board members present
this evening and they could ask that the matter be continued if they so desired. Mr. Toto
stated he would like to proceed this evening.
Mr. Toto stated they are requesting permission to construct a fence in the sanitary sewer
easement. He stated the easement is 15 and runs the width of their rear yard which he
has calculated to be 16% of their rear yard. Mr. Toto stated they would agree that if the
fence ever needed to be taken down, they would do so at their expense and hold the
Ms. Kirk asked who owns the easement, and Mr. Koopman stated he assumes that the
Township has taken dedication of this sanitary sewer easement. Mr. Toadvine asked if
there are any inlets involved. Mr. Wagner stated there are manholes; however, Mr. Toto
stated there are no manholes or openings of any sort in his section.
Mr. Toto stated they would like to install a 6 high solid board cedar fence for privacy.
At the base they would allow the necessary 2 for drainage. He stated in looking at how
their home is situated as noted in the color photos submitted, they need guidance as to
what is considered their front and rear yard since they have a corner property. He stated
the house faces Dawn Lane but they have a side entrance garage that comes off Ashley
Road. He stated they are aware that in the front yard they are only permitted to have a 3
high fence. Ms. Kirk asked if they are proposing a privacy fence around the entire
property, and Mrs. Toto stated they are not it would only be in a portion of what they
consider to be their rear yard. She stated the pictures show where they propose to install
the fence and they have no intention of putting it from the driveway forward to what they
would consider their front yard. Ms. Kirk stated based on what was submitted with the
Application, there is section highlighted in blue for the proposed fence which starts at the
rear of the building, across toward
the home and back up the side. Mrs. Toto stated the very back of the house is not
actually on Ashley, and it is the side that is on Ashley. They are not proposing anything
to be erected in the area where you walk out the front door. Mr. Toto sated there is a 56
right-of way along
so it exceeds the required setback. The fence will run 82 and their property continues
another 138 to the intersection. The fence will not impede the line of sight.
Ms. Kirk asked if they made Application to the Township for the construction of the
fence. Mr. Toto stated the Pool Permit was approved with a fence going around the pool.
However, since that time, they have decided to apply for a Variance for a privacy fence
as well. Ms. Kirk asked if they made an Application for a permit for the privacy fence to
the Township, and Mr. Toto stated only as it was included on the Pool Permit. Ms. Kirk
asked if he had discussions with any Township representatives as to whether or not there
would be an issue installing the privacy fence. Mr. Habgood stated they did discuss the
fence with the Township. Mr. Koopman stated he understands that the reason it was
turned down was because the fence was in the easement. Ms. Kirk stated it appears that
it had nothing to do with the front or side yards as she understands from Ms. Frick based
on prior testimony that with a corner lot wherever the front door faces out, is what
Ms. Frick considers to be the front yard for fence purposes. Mr. Koopman stated
Ms. Frick and Mr. Habgood would consider this fence to be within the side yard on this
property and would permit it to be 6 in height in this area. Mr. Habgood stated Mr. Toto
had not yet submitted a permit for installing a privacy fence. He did submit and received
approval for a pool. Following that he had discussions with the Township about
installing a fence in the easement and what would need to be obtained to permit this.
Mr. Toto stated he was told by the Township that every corner lot is looked at
individually, and it was suggested that he apply for a Variance. Mr. Toadvine stated
there is no Variance to grant other than the construction of the fence within the easement
as the Township has indicated that the front of the house is where the front door is
Mr. Toadvine asked about the set back of the fence from the sidewalk, and Mr. Toto
stated it would be set back five to six feet. Mr. Wagner stated there are no sight issues
with the fence as proposed at the location shown.
Ms. Kirk stated the only issue before the Board is therefore construction of the fence
within the sanitary sewer easement.
There was no public comment.
Ms. Kirk moved, Mr. Bamburak seconded and it was unanimously carried to approve a
Variance to permit construction of a privacy fence within the sanitary sewer easement
area subject to the following Conditions:
1) That installation of the fence will not disturb or interfere with the
the existing drainage pipe;
2) That the fence be constructed so to permit a 2 gap between the
the bottom of the fence and ground level to permit water run off;
3) That if for any reason the owner of the easement needs access to that
easement area, the fence will be removed at the sole cost and expense
by the property owners;
4) That the property owners will relieve the easement owner of any
liability issues involved with the construction of the fence across the
That the construction of the fence along
from the nearest edge of the sidewalk to where the fence will be
Mr. Wagner left the meeting at this time.
APPEAL #05-1325 McGOVERN & SON AND CHARLES DIXON/RUTH KIRK
Mr. John McGovern, contractor, Mr. Charles Dixon, and Ms. Ruth Kirk property owners,
were sworn in. Ms. Barbara Kirk noted she is not related to the Applicant, Ruth Kirk, to
The Application was marked as Exhibit A-1. Attached to this was a Plan dated
which was marked as Exhibit A-2.
Mr. McGovern stated they are requesting permission to increase the impervious surface.
Currently existing is 18.6% impervious surface. He stated they would like to add two
patio covers one is an 8 by 8 patio cover to cover the front entranceway, and the other
is a 10 by 20 patio cover over the existing deck and back door. These are aluminum
sheets which would go over the existing entranceway. There would be no walls. It will
be a roof only to keep off the rain and snow, and to enable them to sit outside out of the
Mr. Bamburak asked if there is existing concrete over which these will be installed.
Mr. McGovern stated there is existing concrete at the front entrance and in the rear it is
an existing deck and some concrete and walkway coming out the back door.
Mr. Toadvine asked if the front patio is an 8 by 8 concrete pad, and Mr. McGovern
stated it is not exactly 8 by 8 and he showed the Board a picture of this area. Ms. Ruth
Kirk stated ice was collecting on the pad in the front of the house all winter long.
Ms. Ruth Kirk noted the cover which will go over this area is basically the same size as
the concrete below it. Mr. Toadvine asked how much of the 10 by 20 in the rear is
already concrete. Mr. McGovern stated very little of that area is concrete. He stated the
cover will go over the existing wood deck and the concrete sidewalk.
Ms. Cheryl Hennessey,
and it was noted that it is near Scammels Corner. Ms. Hennessey had no further
Mr. Majewski stated according to his calculations they will have 19.5% impervious
surface. Mr. Toadvine suggested that they grant 19.7% impervious surface to give them
Mr. Dobson moved, Mr. Bamburak seconded and it was unanimously carried to approve
impervious surface of 19.7%.
APPEAL #05-1326 VITO GIANUZZI
Mr. Dan McCarty was present on behalf of Vito Gianuzzi, who is his father-in-law. He
was sworn in and stated he has Mr. Gianuzzis authority to make decisions on his behalf.
The Application was marked as Exhibit A-1. Attached to that was an 8 ½ by 11 Plan
also a date of
Plan came in was a Building Permit Application which was returned and then they
submitted it with the Zoning Hearing Board Application.
Mr. McCarty stated there is an existing porch that they would like to take down and
rebuild it as the existing porch is in disrepair. Mr. McCarty stated the existing porch did
not have a permit. They need a Variance from the rear yard setback. Permitted is 50
and they are proposing 47 from one corner. Mr. Habgood stated they are also over what
is permitted for impervious surface and no permit was ever issued for the existing porch.
Ms. Kirk asked when the porch was originally constructed, but Mr. McCarty did not
know. Ms. Kirk asked how long his father-in-law has lived at the property, and
Mr. McCarty stated he is the original owner and purchased it at least thirty years ago.
He feels the porch was constructed approximately twenty years ago.
Mr. Koopman stated the existing and proposed impervious surface would be the same so
the Zoning Hearing Board could legitimize the existing impervious surface. Mr. Habgood
stated he feels they are at 20% impervious surface and 18% is permitted. Ms. Kirk noted
the advertisement did not make a request for an impervious surface increase.
Mr. Toadvine stated nothing will change since it is a reconstruction. Ms. Kirk noted that
it was never a permitted construction. Mr. Koopman stated the Township does not have
any objection to an Amendment to the Application to include the impervious surface
Variance request and noted there are no neighbors present this evening in opposition. He
stated they are not proposing an increase to what is currently existing. Ms. Kirk stated
her only concern was the way the Application was advertised. Mr. Toadvine stated the
Applicant would be proceeding with this at their risk as it was not advertised properly.
Mr. McCarty was willing to proceed and will include an Amendment to the Application
to allow the additional impervious surface. Ms. Kirk stated this will now cover the issue
not only dealing with the rear yard setback but also that this is additional impervious
coverage on the property that does not conform with the Code.
Mr. Habgood stated after further review of the calculations, they are currently at 23.4%
impervious surface. It was noted that this condition has existing for at least twenty years.
Ms. Kirk stated proceeding in this way, clears the issues and makes sure there is a clean
record on the Township file.
There was no public comment.
Ms. Dobson moved, Mr. Caiola seconded and it was unanimously carried to approve a
47 rear setback and impervious surface of 23.4% which is existing.
OTHER BUSINESS Appeal #04-1254(A) John C. McGinn Request for Extension
Ms. Kirk stated they have received a request for a six-month Extension via letter from
Mr. VanLuvanee dated
additional six-month Extension after this. Mr. Koopman stated the Township has no
objection to the Extension noting that the matter does involve a Subdivision Application.
Mr. Dobson moved, Mr. Bamburak seconded and it was unanimously carried to grant a
one-year Extension to
There was discussion about the possibility of having Zoning Hearing Board Approvals
have an expiration of one year rather than six months. Mr. Toadvine stated this would
require the Board of Supervisors to change the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Kirk asked if it
would make sense to bring this to the Supervisors attention. Mr. Toadvine stated the
reason there is a set expiration is to ensure that the Applicants expedite the Building
Permit Application process and to make sure that the Ordinance does not change so
dramatically between the time the Variance is granted and when the work is actually
There being no further business, Ms. Kirk moved, Mr. Bamburak seconded and it was unanimously carried to adjourn the meeting at
Barbara Kirk, Chairman