TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MAKEFIELD

ZONING HEARING BOARD

MINUTES – SEPTEMBER 6, 2005

 

 

The regular meeting of the Zoning Hearing Board of Lower Makefield Township was held in the Municipal Building on September 6, 2005.  Chairman Kirk called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.

 

Those present:

 

Zoning Hearing Board:  Barbara Kirk, Chairman

                                                Paul Bamburak, Member

                                                Darwin Dobson, 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

 progress)

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 July 27, 2005.

 

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 July 26, 2005.  This

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 “Windsor” is

September 6, 2005                                                      Zoning Hearing Board – page 2 of 13

 

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 Windsor at Polo Run – it will be Polo Run. 

 

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 8/23/05.  Exhibit A-4 was

marked which is an 8 ½” by 11” color version of a Polo Run Sign dated 9/1/05.

 

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 Township Line Road and Yardley-Langhorne Road.

Ms. Trongone-Ciezki stated the sign shown in the latest document submitted is not

currently erected.   The Windsor at Polo Run signs are at those locations.  Ms. Kirk asked

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

settlement July 27, 2005.  The signs were in place when they first were involved. 

 

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. 

September 6, 2005                                                      Zoning Hearing Board – page 3 of 13

 

 

Ms. Kirk noted Exhibit A-3 shows a sign that is 9’4” from tip to tip and Exhibit A-4

shows 7’4” 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 Yardley-Langhorne Road entrance sign.  Exhibit A-4 represents the

sign to be placed on Township Line Road.  Ms. Trongone-Ciezki stated the Windsor sign

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 Township Line Road will be

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 Township Line Road would be re-done

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

sign on Township Line Road was never permitted.  Ms. Trongone-Ciezki stated she did

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 Yardley-Langhorne Road,

and they were asking for a second pair off Township Line Road.  Mr. Habgood was asked

September 6, 2005                                                      Zoning Hearing Board – page 4 of 13

 

 

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

submitted dated 9/1/05 which indicates the owner as Bozzuto & Associates and also 

names Ms. Trongone-Ciezki under the owner category.  This Application does include a

request for a wall-mounted ID sign on the Leasing Center Building.  This Amended

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 October 4, 2005; and this was acceptable to

Ms. Trongone-Ciezki.

 

Exhibit A-6 was marked which is a picture of the sign proposed for the Leasing Center.

This is an 8 ½” by 11” document dated 9/1/05 showing a sign marked “Polo Run Leasing

Center.”

 

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 matter to October 4, 2005. 

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 at 7010 Sheaf Lane, Fort Washington. 

 

The Application was marked as Exhibit A-1.  Attached was an 8 ½” by 14” Pool Permit

Plan dated 6/23/05 which was marked as Exhibit A-2. 

 

 

September 6, 2005                                                      Zoning Hearing Board – page 5 of 13

 

 

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 Applicant’s 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 7/18/05. 

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

September 6, 2005                                                      Zoning Hearing Board – page 6 of 13

 

 

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. 

September 6, 2005                                                      Zoning Hearing Board – page 7 of 13

 

 

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 Township’s 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. 

 

September 6, 2005                                                      Zoning Hearing Board – page 8 of 13

 

 

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

the left.

 

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

dated 6/23/05 which was marked as Exhibit A-2. 

 

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

Township harmless. 

 

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’

September 6, 2005                                                      Zoning Hearing Board – page 9 of 13

 

 

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 Ashley Road, down Ashley Road through the back of

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 Ashley Road and the setback of the fence is proposed to be 31’ 9 ½”

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

located.

 

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.

September 6, 2005                                                    Zoning Hearing Board – page 10 of 13

 

 

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

      easement area;

 

5)  That the construction of the fence along Ashley Road be at least 5’

       from the nearest edge of the sidewalk to where the fence will be

       constructed.

 

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

her knowledge.

 

The Application was marked as Exhibit A-1.  Attached to this was a Plan dated 8/5/05

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

sun.

September 6, 2005                                                    Zoning Hearing Board – page 11 of 13

 

 

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, 1354 Yardley-Newtown Road, asked the location of the property,

and it was noted that it is near Scammel’s Corner.  Ms. Hennessey had no further

questions.

 

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

some leeway.

 

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. Gianuzzi’s 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

dated 7/19/05 by the Township.  This was marked as Exhibit A-2.  It was noted there is

also a date of 8/5/05 by the Township on the Plan.  Mr. Habgood stated the first time the

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

 

September 6, 2005                                                    Zoning Hearing Board – page 12 of 13

 

 

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 8/15/05.  She feels it is also likely that they will ask for an

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 9/15/06. 

 

 

 

September 6, 2005                                                    Zoning Hearing Board – page 13 of 13

 

 

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

done.

 

 

There being no further business, Ms. Kirk moved, Mr. Bamburak seconded and it was unanimously carried to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 p.m.

 

                                                                        Respectfully Submitted,

 

 

 

                                                                        Barbara Kirk, Chairman