TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MAKEFIELD

ZONING HEARING BOARD

MINUTES – SEPTEMBER 20, 2005

 

 

The regular meeting of the Zoning Hearing Board of the Township of Lower Makefield was held in the Municipal Building on September 20, 2005.  Chairman Kirk called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.  She noted that Mr. Caiola is present to hear testimony on Allegheny Valley Schools and will not participate in the three new Applications. She noted the Board will only hear testimony until 11:00 p.m. and those matters not concluded by that time will be continued to a future meeting.

 

Those present:

 

Zoning Hearing Board:  Barbara Kirk, Chairman

                                                Rudolph Mayrhofer, Vice Chairman (left meeting in

                                                 progress)

                                                David Malinowski, Secretary

                                                Paul Bamburak, Member

                                                Darwin Dobson, Member

                                                Greg Caiola, Alternate Member

 

Others:                                     Nancy Frick, Director Zoning, Inspection & Planning

                                                Robert Habgood, Code Enforcement Officer

                                                John Koopman, Township Solicitor

                                                Drew Wagner, Township Engineer (left meeting in

                                                 progress)

                                                Allen Toadvine, Zoning Hearing Board Solicitor

                                                Steve Santarsiero, Supervisor Liaison

 

 

APPEAL #05-1327 – STEVEN J. AND BARBARA L. SANTUCCI

 

Mr. and Mrs. Santucci were sworn in.  Ms. Kirk asked that the Application which was

submitted be marked as Exhibit A-11.  Attached to that was a two-page, hand drawn Plan

for the property entitled “existing porch with foundations and steps” and the second part

showing the front of the property.  This was marked as Exhibit A-2.

 

Mr. Santucci stated they would like to obtain approval for the reconstruction of the front

porch.  The reconstruction will consist of the same size and footprint as the existing

porch.  They would also like to add a roof and railing.  The existing porch is 8’ by 21’.

Mr. Santucci stated some of this is concrete and some is brick.  Mrs. Santucci stated the

top surface is fieldstone, some of which has settled so it is not level.  There are three steps

leading up to the porch, and they will have three steps after the reconstruction.

They will substitute brick/concrete for the fieldstone and on the edge they will have

 

September 20, 2005                                                    Zoning Hearing Board – page 2 of 30

 

 

bluestone border.  The steps after the reconstruction will come out no further than the existing steps.  They will add a roof and a railing.

 

Mr. Toadvine stated the setback will be 60’ once the construction is complete, and

Mr. Santucci stated it will be the same as it is now.  Ms. Kirk stated one corner is 60’ and

the other is 66’.  The steps do not count for the setback according to Mr. Toadvine.

 

Mr. Koopman stated the Township has no position on this Application.

 

Ms. Kirk stated this is a request for a Variance from the special front yard setback along

the Collector Road which would normally require 80’.  They are requesting a 60’ setback

due to the existing front porch.

 

There was no public comment.

 

Mr. Dobson moved, Mr. Mayrhofer seconded and it was unanimously carried to approve

a 60’ setback under Section 200-63 of the Special Setback Collector.

 

 

APPEAL #05-1328 – EDWARD AND SHARON GRIBBIN

 

Ms. Sharon Gribbin was present.  She noted her husband who was on the Application

passed away last week.   Mr. Ronald Richardson, 731 W. Melissa Circle, stated he was

present to provide Ms. Gribbin support this evening with regard to the Variance request. 

Ms. Gribbin and Mr. Richardson were sworn in. 

 

The Application that was submitted was marked as Exhibit A-1.  Attached to the

Application was an 8 ½” by 14” Plan for the property identified as Edward and Sharon

Gribbin for 761 W. Melissa, date stamped by the Township 8/17/05.  This was marked as

Exhibit A-2.

 

Ms. Gribbin stated they are applying for a 10’ by 14’ shed.  It would be a pre-built shed

to match the house.  They were going to put it on a stone base. 

 

Ms. Kirk stated the Variance was needed because the edge of the shed would be closer to

Edgewood Road than permitted by Ordinance.  It was noted the shed is not yet installed. 

The shed will be to the left of the deck.  Ms. Kirk asked if she spoke to any of her

neighbors and if they had any opposition.  Ms. Gribbin stated she did speak to her

neighbors, and they did not have any objection.

 

Mr. Toadvine stated the shed according to the Plan will be 90’ from the edge of the right-

of-way, and Ms. Gribbin agreed.  Ms. Kirk stated since this property has reverse frontage,

they are required to be 100’ from the right-of-way.

September 20, 2005                                                    Zoning Hearing Board – page 3 of 30

 

 

Mr. Koopman stated the Township has no position on this Application.

 

There was no public comment.

 

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

Variance to Section 200-63A to allow a 90’ setback from the Special Setback Collector.

 

 

APPEAL #05-1329 – RICHARD GEERS

 

Mr. Richard Geers and Ms. Louise Geers were sworn in. 

 

Ms. Kirk had the Application which had been submitted marked as Exhibit A-1.

Attached to this was an 8 ½” by 11” sketch estimate for the proposed garage which was

marked as Exhibit A-2.  She noted with the Application was a Variance Plan prepared for

the property by J. G. Park Associates dated 5/5/05 with a revised date of 8/5/05.  This

was marked as Exhibit A-3.

 

Mr. Geers stated they want to build an addition which would require a Variance for the

impervious surface.  They want to build onto the back of their home and a 22 by 22

square foot detached garage with driveway leading back to it.  They are also requesting a

Variance for the height of the garage.  He stated he wanted to increase the roof pitch and

he feels the 15’ permitted would allow them a three in twelve pitch and he wanted to go

slightly higher. 

 

Ms. Kirk stated the proposed garage seems to be 484 square feet, and Mr. Geers agreed. 

He stated the addition to their home would be 591 square feet and the driveway would be

1,154 square feet.  Ms. Kirk stated according to the Plan it appears that the proposed

driveway would be 1,830 square feet which is almost triple what is existing.  Ms. Kirk

asked if they could move the proposed garage closer to the property so that the

impervious surface for the driveway would be less.  Mr. Geers stated this would not

allow much room for them to pull out of the driveway given the swing necessary.  He

stated if they tried to back out of the garage, it would be very tight.

 

Ms. Kirk stated they are permitted under the Ordinance to have 29% impervious surface

which is a substantial amount.  With the proposed additions, they are looking for almost

another 10% above this which is a substantial amount of impervious surface coverage. 

Ms. Geers asked if they could plant trees or do something to help absorb the water.

Ms. Kirk asked if they could reduce the existing driveway that is there to reduce some of

the impervious coverage.  Mr. Geer stated there is a garage existing which will become

part of their dining room in the remodeling.  Ms. Kirk asked if they would need the

driveway to lead up to the front of the house.  Mr. Geers stated it is currently a double

wide driveway; and if it would become a single lane driveway, if a car was parked in that

September 20, 2005                                                    Zoning Hearing Board – page 4 of 30

 

 

passageway, they would have to move out onto the street in order to let a car out.  He

stated they wanted to leave the existing driveway the way it was in order to facilitate

movements.  He stated it would also require a curb cut because of the angle at the end of

the driveway.  He stated he was told that this would require additional permits to make a

curb cut. 

 

Mr. Mayrhofer asked when they purchased the property, and Mr. Geers stated they have

owned it since 1991.  He stated they have two children and were considering moving

particularly because of the airport noise but since this problem has abated they would like

to stay in this home as they love the neighborhood.  Mrs. Geers stated there are a lot of

children in the neighborhood and they would like to remain.  Mr. Geers stated they live in

the Maplevale Development and in the split levels, 99% of the living space is upstairs. 

They wanted to be able to use their downstairs as well.  Mr. Geers stated the way the

houses are built it is like living in a two-bedroom apartment.

 

Ms. Kirk asked if they could turn the proposed garage to remove some of the widened

area.  She stated if they bring the proposed garage forward and turn it so that the garage

doors would be facing the Harkins’ property, they could reduce at least 500 square feet of

additional impervious surface coverage.  Mr. Geers stated they would lose a tree and he is

not sure that they would have room to swing a vehicle around.  Mr. Wagner stated if they

made it a side-entry garage with doors facing the Harkins’ property, he feels they could

still save the tree, but he is not sure what they would gain by doing that as they would

still need between 20’ and 24’ to back a vehicle out of the garage. 

 

Mr. Toadvine stated the property is zoned R-RP and the maximum permitted impervious

surface is 13%.  He stated there was an R-2 zoning comparison on the Plan and this does

not apply.  Mr. Habgood stated it does apply because if this was a non-conforming lot

when R-RP was created, it falls back to R-2 requirements for setbacks and impervious

surface.  Mr. Koopman stated the Township has interpreted the Ordinance so that when

R-RP was adopted if these were originally R-2 lots, they could take advantage of the R-2

impervious surface, but this would only give them 29%; and while they are under that

slightly currently, with the additions proposed it would increase it to approximately 39%.

Mr. Toadvine asked how much of the existing macadam driveway could be removed if

they limited the width of the driveway to 12’ as opposed to 19’.  Mr. Wagner stated it

would be approximately 240 to 280 square feet.  Mr. Wagner estimated this reduction

would bring them to approximately 35% to 36% impervious surface.  Mr. Mayrhofer

asked if a 12’ driveway in the front suit them, and Mr. Geers stated he does have a large

truck.

 

Ms. Kirk suggested that they ask for a continuance and go back to J. G. Parks to see

where they could reduce impervious surface.  Mr. Koopman stated the Township would

be in support of this and he feels the Township engineer and Township staff would be

willing to work with the Applicant to see if there is a way to bring this down to

September 20, 2005                                                    Zoning Hearing Board – page 5 of 30

 

 

something which is more in line with what the Board of  Supervisors is comfortable with. 

He stated the Board of Supervisors is uncomfortable with a 10% impervious surface

increase over what is permitted. 

 

Mr. Toadvine noted the height of the proposed garage and Mr. Geer stated it would be

16’.  Mr. Koopman stated the Township would not have a problem with this request. 

 

Mr. Toadvine asked if there is any possibility of coming up with a pervious area for the

proposed driveway next to the garage.  Mr. Wagner stated there are alternative paving

technologies; however, the Ordinance states that vehicles have to be parked on a hard

surface.  Mr. Koopman stated the Township may be more receptive to a Variance for

parking a vehicle on a hard surface if there is a practical way to create a pervious

driveway that would work, and they could discuss this.  Ms. Frick stated she would happy

to work with them on this as well. 

 

Ms. Kirk noted they have eight matters scheduled for the next meeting of the Board

which is to be held on October 4.  She asked if they would agree to continue the matter

until October 18 which would give them thirty days to try to come up with a solution.

Mr. Geers agreed.

 

Ms. Kirk moved, Mr. Mayrhofer seconded and it was unanimously carried to continue the

matter until October 18, 2005. 

 

Mr. Mayrhofer and Mr. Wagner left the meeting at this time.

 

 

APPEAL #05-1311, APPEAL 305-1312, APPEAL #05-1313 – ALLEGHENY VALLEY SCHOOL

 

Mr. Bernard Schneider, attorney, and Mr. Regis Champ were present.

 

Ms. Kirk stated in accordance with the Municipalities Planning Code, the Applicant has

one hundred days from the date of the first Hearing to finish testimony unless an

Extension has been granted.  She stated Mr. Schneider has submitted a letter to the

Township Solicitor and Mr. DeGrezia who is representing some of the residents

requesting such an Extension.  Ms. Kirk stated she understands that Mr. Koopman has

objection to the Extension on behalf of the Township, and Mr. Koopman agreed.

Ms. Kirk noted Mr. DeGrezia is not present this evening.  Mr. Steve Pastor stated he is

present this evening to represent the residents, and they have no objection to the

Extension.  Ms. Kirk asked if any members of the audience who have requested Party

Status have an objection to the Extension, and none were noted. 

 

 

September 20, 2005                                                    Zoning Hearing Board – page 6 of 30

 

 

Ms. Kirk moved and Mr. Bamburak seconded that the Applicant’s request for an

Extension to complete the presentation before the Zoning Hearing Board be granted in

accordance with the Municipalities Planning Code. 

 

Mr. Toadvine stated he feels it would be prudent to include a time for the Extension since

under the Code if an Extension is granted to the Applicant, the same amount of time must

be afforded to all other Parties.  Ms. Kirk asked how many more witnesses he plans to

call, and Mr. Schneider stated he has one medical witness, one fact witness, possibly a

second fact witness, and a real estate expert.  He also plans to call Ms. Frick for some

records of the Township.  Ms. Kirk asked for an estimate as to how many more Hearings

he will need before he completes his case, and Mr. Schneider stated it would be at least

one more, and possibly two.  Mr. Toadvine stated he is assuming he is counting on a full

three and a half hours, and Mr. Schneider agreed.  Mr. Koopman suggested that they

provide a thirty-day Extension; and if they need additional time, they can give this at a

later time. 

 

Ms. Kirk moved to amend the Motion to grant the Extension until the end of November,

2005.  Mr. Bamburak seconded and the Motion as amended carried unanimously.

 

Mr. Toadvine asked when the one hundred days is up, and Mr. Schneider stated he

believes it is on September 29, 2005. 

 

Ms. Kirk stated a letter was sent by the Zoning Hearing Board’s Solicitor to the Counsels

involved attempting to schedule a special meeting.  October 3, October 12, October 13,

November 22, November 23, and November 29 were suggested.  After prior discussion,

Ms. Kirk stated she understands that October 12 is a date that is convenient.  Ms. Marilyn

Stein noted October 12 is a Jewish Holiday.  Ms. Frick,  Ms. Kirk, Mr. Dobson, and

Mr. Malinowski stated they were not available on October 12.  Mr. Schneider asked if

they could re-schedule the matters that have already been scheduled for the second

meeting in October since Allegheny has had to do this a number of times.  Ms. Kirk

noted they currently have two new Appeals and one matter continued from this evening.

Scheduled for October 18.   She stated perhaps any new matters that come in could be put

off until the first meeting in November. 

 

Ms. Kirk moved, Mr. Malinowski seconded and it was unanimously carried that should

testimony not conclude tonight, that this matter be continued until October 18, 2005.

 

Ms. Kirk stated she had requested in July that Mr. Schneider provide the Zoning Hearing

Board  with a copy of the Federal Fair Housing Act regarding reasonable

accommodations.  Mr. Schneider provided this tonight.

 

 

 

September 20, 2005                                                    Zoning Hearing Board – page 7 of 30

 

Mr. Koopman noted Mr. Champ was previously discussing the houses in Lower

Makefield Township and that Allegheny Valley School likes to purchase large homes

particularly homes with five bedrooms so that they can take one of the bedrooms and

convert it to a handicap bathroom and that houses with a large number of bedrooms allow

them to do this.  Mr. Koopman asked if they are familiar with the three homes that

Allegheny Valley School purchased in Lower Makefield, and Mr. Champ stated he is. 

He stated he saw them before they were purchased.  Mr. Koopman asked if Mr. Champ

was aware before they purchased  the homes that Lower Makefield Township’s

Ordinance had a provision in it that allowed a maximum of only five unrelated people

living together in a single-family home, and Mr. Champ stated he was not aware of this. 

Mr. Koopman stated the question had been asked of Ms. Dean as to whether the State

investigates any local Zoning and she testified that they do not.  Mr. Koopman asked

again if he did any investigation of local Zoning, and Mr. Champ stated he did not.

 

Mr. Koopman noted the Big Oak Road property.  Mr. Koopman asked if it is a ranch

home, and Mr. Champ agreed.  Mr. Koopman stated it was a three-bedroom home, and

Mr. Champ stated he felt there were four bedrooms with one bedroom being used as an

office/laundry room.  Mr. Koopman asked if this room was being used as a bedroom

when they purchased it, and Mr. Champ stated it was not.  Mr. Koopman stated there

would then be three rooms being used as bedrooms when they purchased it, and

Mr. Champ agreed adding that the owner explained to them that the office/laundry room

was the fourth bedroom.  Mr. Koopman noted this home has a full basement and he

understands that they plan to use the full basement space and convert the lower level into

three bedrooms for the house parents and the family of the house parents.  Mr. Champ

agreed. 

 

Mr. Koopman asked what Allegheny has budgeted or projected as costs for the

improvements to the Big Oak Road home.  Mr. Champ stated it is difficult to project

because of what has happened at Lower Makefield and the expense of the Building

Permit process and unanticipated expenses; however, he estimated it to be approximately

$150,000 in renovation costs.  Mr. Koopman stated they were previously discussing the

fact that the numbers sent to the State were projections including the cost of the home to

be about $600,000 including renovations.  Mr. Champ stated that the average cost for the

entire project of fourteen homes was $600,000 per home.  Mr. Koopman stated

Mr. Champ had indicated that many of the purchase prices of the homes were

significantly less than that and all of the Lower Makefield homes were purchased for

under $500,000, and Mr. Champ agreed.  Mr. Koopman stated he had also explained that

the difference was the estimated renovations, and Mr. Champ agreed.  Mr. Koopman

asked if there was ever a written budget for improvements to the Big Oak Road Home,

and Mr. Champ stated when they sent the projections to the State, they had not seen any

homes in Lower Makefield or anywhere.  He stated they were projections based on their

historical data on homes recently purchased in a number of areas and this is how they

based their projections to the State.  When the costs are finalized, new Budgets are

developed and they submit them to the State after the house is licensed and in operation. 

September 20, 2005                                                    Zoning Hearing Board – page 8 of 30

 

Exhibit A-29 was noted – Capital Summary Costs.  Mr. Koopman noted the purchase

price of $545,000 for property, land for $40,000 and a sub-total of $585,000. 

Mr. Koopman asked if this includes renovations, and Mr. Champ stated it does.

Mr. Koopman stated where they have indicated “purchase price” this does not actually

mean the price paid as it also includes the projected renovations.  Mr. Champ stated he

feels Ms. Dean understood that this included renovations.   Mr. Koopman stated he

indicated $150,000 was the projected renovation cost for the Big Oak Road property, and

Mr. Champ stated he was asked about this and he indicated that the projected average

cost was $600,000 a home.  Mr. Champ stated he cannot guarantee that the improvement

costs for this property will be $150,000.  Mr. Koopman stated when they submitted the

Budget to the State, they did indicate a number for renovations, and Mr. Champ stated

they estimated $150,000 a home for renovations.

 

Mr. Koopman asked the projected improvement costs for the other two homes, and

Mr. Champ stated they have submitted in the Building Permits actual bids that they have

from contractors which they feel are good.  He cannot testify tonight exactly what those

are although Ms. Frick should have this information.  He stated the Yardley Road house

improvements would be substantially less than $150,000.  Mr. Koopman stated he

understood that at that location the residents would all be ambulatory, and Mr. Champ

agreed.    Mr. Champ stated the Township has those amounts on the Building Permit, but

he does not have those numbers with him this evening.  He stated he feels $150,000 is a

good estimate for the Big Oak Road property.  For the N. Crescent Avenue property he

feels it would be approximately $100,000 to $120,000 and for the Yardley-Morrisville

Road property, he would approximate those costs for renovations to be $35,000.

Mr. Koopman stated if they add those numbers to the purchase price, they are all under

$600,000; and Mr. Champ agreed.

 

Mr. Koopman noted the N. Crescent property and asked if he is familiar with this

property. Mr. Champ stated it is a traditional two-story home.  Mr. Koopman asked if it

had four bedrooms, and Mr. Champ stated he feels there are two on the first floor and

three on the second floor. 

 

Mr. Koopman noted the Yardley-Morrisville Road property, and asked if this home had

three or four bedrooms, and Mr. Champ stated there are three bedrooms on the first floor

and an in-law apartment upstairs which would make it a four-bedroom home.

 

Mr. Koopman stated it appears that his testimony is that one home had five bedrooms

when they purchased it but the others did not, and Mr. Champ agreed. 

 

Mr. Koopman noted the N. Crescent home and asked if they are converting the fifth

bedroom (assuming there is a fifth bedroom) to a bathroom facility, and Mr. Champ

stated they did not need to convert any of the bedrooms in any of the homes to bathroom

facilities since because of the lay-out, there was substantial space outside of the bedrooms

to provide the adaptive bathroom.

September 20, 2005                                                    Zoning Hearing Board – page 9 of 30

 

Exhibit A-29 was again noted, and Mr. Koopman stated he had asked Ms. Dean questions

about the proposal and the Operating Budget which compared the four, five, and six

bedroom homes.  He asked how they arrived at the depreciation numbers.

Mr. Champ stated the CFO provided this.  Mr. Koopman asked who is the CFO, and

Mr. Champ stated it is Jerry Parfitt.  Mr. Champ stated he uses the formula that is

established by the Office of Mental Retardation.  Mr. Koopman stated they are using the

same number whether it is a four, five, or six bedroom home, and Mr. Champ stated he

feels they used the $600,000 average and depreciated it over twenty-five years according

to the regulations.  The numbers will change when they submit the actual Budgets. 

 

Ms. Kirk asked if Mr. Champ prepared any of the figures shown on Exhibit A-29, and

Mr. Champ stated he did not.  He stated they were prepared by the CFO of Allegheny

Valley School.  Mr. Koopman stated he feels the Township will have to subpoena

Mr. Parfitt as a witness.  Mr. Koopman asked whether a 501C3 uses straight line or

accelerated depreciation, and Mr. Champ stated he does not know.  Mr. Koopman asked

if Mr. Champ would be able to explain specifically how any of the numbers on

Exhibit A-29 were arrived at, and Mr. Champ stated he would not.  Ms. Kirk stated

Mr. Champ has already indicated that he does have any personal knowledge on this.  She

stated if the Township wishes to proceed with this line of questioning, they will need to

call a different witness.  Mr. Champ stated the numbers are derived from historical

numbers they have based on operations of existing facilities in Pennsylvania.  Beyond

that, he feels they should discuss this with Mr. Parfitt.

 

Mr. Koopman noted the last page of Exhibit A-29 which looks like the houses are shown

to have $40,000 allocated to land value and asked if he feels this is accurate for Lower

Makefield.  Mr. Champ stated he did not know.  He stated when this was presented, they

were not considering Lower Makefield.  Mr. Koopman asked if they depreciate land

value, and Mr. Champ stated they do not.  Mr. Koopman stated if this $40,000 is low, and

the land number is in fact higher, the depreciation number will be lower on the second

page, and Mr. Champ agreed. 

 

Mr. Koopman stated his original impression was that the people from the Greenwich

facility were going to be moved into the fourteen new homes; but he now has the

impression after the last Hearing that they also have a facility on Veree Road in Northeast

Philadelphia and one of the clients who was discussed will be relocated to Lower

Makefield from that facility and Mr. Champ agreed.  Mr. Koopman asked about the

Veree Road facility. 

 

Mr. Schneider questioned the relevancy.  Mr. Koopman stated what is now happening is

that the people are not just coming from Greenwich because it is being closed, they are

also coming from Veree Road; and he would like to know about that facility and how

many people are coming from Greenwich and how many from Veree.  He stated there are

different per diem costs he would assume for Veree and this becomes relevant to the cost

of the facilities, the State’s numbers, and what they are paying for these facilities. 

September 20, 2005                                                  Zoning Hearing Board – page 10 of 30

 

 

Mr. Schneider stated the only thing that is relevant about the people coming here are that

they have mental retardation.  He noted that if they were only proposing four people in a

group home, they would not have had to be in front of the Zoning Hearing Board.  He

stated under the Ordinance, mental retardation is not an issue and the only thing that is

relevant is that they are mentally retarded.  He stated Ms. Dean has already testified that

each location has its own per diem based upon the needs of the people at that location so

the per diem for Philadelphia Veree Road is not relevant to this proceeding.  He stated

nothing about Veree Road is relevant. 

 

Mr. Koopman stated this is totally incorrect.

 

Ms. Kirk stated she is going to overrule the objection and allow the Township some

latitude in this line of questioning but limited.

 

Mr. Koopman asked about the Veree Road facility, and Mr. Champ stated it is a 128 bed

ICF MR facility and falls under the same regulations as Greenwich.  He stated the

physical plant is different and it is updated, modern, and clean.  Mr. Champ stated the

clients served at this facility are basically the same as those served at Greenwich.

Mr. Koopman asked out of the fourteen group homes how many clients are coming from

Greenwich and how many from Veree Road.  Mr. Champ stated Greenwich had 84

people and he feels approximately 72 of the them are going to the group homes. 

He stated some people from Greenwich are going to go to Veree and will stay there. 

He stated they will replace the people who leave Veree.  It is therefore ten to twelve

people who are coming from Veree and going into one of the fourteen group homes and

ten to twelve will go from Greenwich into Veree.  Mr. Koopman asked if there is a

reason for this in terms of the level of abilities or disabilities, and Mr. Champ stated they

are trying to make homogeneous groupings and trying to accommodate the requests of

families.

 

Mr. Koopman asked how long Allegheny Valley School has owned Veree, and

Mr. Champ stated they have owned it since 1987.  Mr. Koopman asked the per diem for

Veree, and Mr. Champ stated it is approximately $185 a day.  He stated Mr. Parfitt would

have more specific information on this.

 

Mr. Koopman asked if there are plans to purchase a fourth group home in Lower

Makefield Township. 

 

Mr. Schneider objected due to relevance. 

 

Mr. Koopman stated they would like to know if there is a proposal to purchase a home

that may impact the financial and cost aspects. 

 

 

September 20, 2005                                                  Zoning Hearing Board – page 11 of 30

 

 

Mr. Schneider stated he does not see how it would effect the financial cost aspects any

more than any other home.  He stated the issue is not whether there are other homes

to be built,  rather the matter before the Board is their Appeals from Denial on three

specific homes. 

 

Ms. Kirk sustained the objection. 

 

Mr. Koopman stated the Applicant has a burden of proof and they have to prove

necessity.

 

Ms. Kirk stated there three Applications before the Board, and she has sustained the

objection.    Ms. Kirk asked if Mr. Pastor had any questions of Mr. Champ.

 

Mr. Pastor noted the testimony on vehicular traffic and parking and asked for an

overview of the number of permanent in-house personnel and the staffing coming each

day to each of the homes.  Mr. Champ stated there would be a house parent and possibly

a house parent and their family living at the home as permanent residents.  In addition,

you would have two staff on first shift from 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., two staff on second

shift from 3 p.m. to 11 p.m., and one staff on third shift from 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.

Mr. Pastor asked if any specialized personnel will be arriving weekly or monthly, and

Mr. Champ stated any specialized services would be done at the ATF (Adult Training

Facility) which is away from the home.  They will go there Monday through Friday.

 

Mr. Pastor asked if each home would have a vehicle to transport the residents other than

the in-home workers vehicles, and Mr. Champ stated there would be one vehicle for the

house.  This would be an InterVan which is an adapted Caravan. 

 

Mr. Pastor asked the roles of the staff at each facility.  Mr. Champ stated the shift

workers are responsible for the support and supervision of activities of daily living –

feeding, toileting, dressing, socialization and basic care issues.  He stated the first shift

people will leave with the residents to go to the workshop and stay with them during the

day.  The workshop is located in Trevose. 

 

Mr. Pastor noted the Budget for AVS which is prepared on a year by year basis, and

Mr. Champ agreed.  Mr. Pastor stated expenses occurring during own year would not

carry over to the next, and Mr. Champ agreed.  Mr. Champ stated they have to re-Budget

each year.  Mr. Pastor asked about Management and asked if the Management/

Supervisory control rests with Mr. Champ, and Mr. Champ agreed.  Mr. Pastor asked if

issues regarding the health, safety, and welfare of the residents rest with Mr. Champ and

Mr. Champ agreed.  Mr. Pastor stated Mr. Champ previously testified that there is no

adverse impact if there are six residents per home as opposed to four residents per home,

and Mr. Champ agreed. Mr. Pastor asked if the staff they have can handle the number of

people in the home, and Mr. Champ stated they can.  Mr. Pastor asked if there is a

September 20, 2005                                                 Zoning Hearing Board – page 12 of 30

 

 

requirement that the in-home caregiver have a family, and Mr. Champ stated it is not a

requirement but it is an Allegheny Valley School preference.  He stated Allegheny Valley

School is one of the few operators that uses house parents.  Mr. Pastor asked if they have

a family in the homes he feels there may be some distractions of the in-house caregivers

because they would have their own children to care for.  Mr. Champ stated the house

parent is the manager.  They are the management representative for the facility.  They

also have two other staff working with them on the shifts except for the night shift.  If

there is a distraction from their own child, they have staff available to help.  He stated the

house manager’s role is to manage or if someone would call out and a replacement staff

cannot be secured, the house manager would cover for that staff member.  Mr. Champ

stated they have done this for many years and the average length of stay for house parents

is eight years and most of them have children and this has not been a problem in the past.

 

Mr. Pastor stated there were questions about Veree Road and Mr. Champ indicated this

was a 128 bed facility with approximately ten to twelve people moving from that facility

into one of the fourteen group homes.  Mr. Pastor asked if there are available beds at the

Veree facility such that if one of the homes in Lower Makefield did not exist, there would

be space at the Veree facility.

 

Mr. Schneider objected based on relevance.

 

Mr. Pastor stated the relevance is that this is not mandated that they have to have six

residents, and in fact they indicated four is preferable and it is their choice to ask for six. 

He noted if there is another facility that can house these people, it makes that choice

completely voluntary as opposed to necessary.

 

Mr. Schneider stated it is not voluntary as they entered into a Contract with the State

which they are bound by and whether or not there is housing elsewhere, does not change

the fact that they are asking for six in the Lower Makefield houses.

 

Ms. Kirk allowed the question to be answered.

 

Mr. Champ stated they are licensed for 128 beds at Veree Road, and the facility is full.

Mr. Pastor asked if they have other clients coming in that they have not discussed.

Mr. Champ stated the residents are currently housed either at Greenwich or Veree Road. 

The fourteen new facilities comprise 84 beds. 

 

Mr. Pastor noted the 1110 Big Oak Road property.  He stated Mr. Champ indicated

previously that he believed this property is a three to four bedroom facility, and

Mr. Champ stated Big Oak Road is a four bedroom home.  Mr. Champ stated they plan to

add bedrooms in the basement for the houseparent families.  Mr. Pastor asked if any of

the renovations planned will be for the house parent family. 

 

September 20, 2005                                                  Zoning Hearing Board – page 13 of 30

 

 

Mr. Schneider stated he feels they may be getting into the Building Code issues over

which the Zoning Hearing Board indicated they have no jurisdiction.  Ms. Kirk stated if

this is a general questions, she will allow the answer.

 

Mr. Champ stated in the basement there is an existing large living area and an eat-in

kitchen area.  They will add a bathroom and three bedrooms.  There is also an area for the

furnace and the sprinkler system. 

 

Mr. Pastor stated Mr. Champ has testified that they did no research on the Lower

Makefield Zoning and Mr. Champ agreed.  Mr. Pastor asked if any research was done as

to what permits and approvals were necessary to undertake the types of improvements

just described by Mr. Champ, and Mr. Champ stated they knew they had to get a

Building Permit.  Mr. Pastor asked if any work was commenced prior to applying for the

Building Permit, and Mr. Champ stated there was work done by the Contractor.

Mr. Pastor asked why work was done before the Permit was obtained. 

 

Mr. Schneider objected to this as it is a Building Code issue.  Ms. Kirk sustained.

 

Mr. Pastor noted the pool at the Big Oak Road facility and stated that prior testimony

indicated that the pool would be made available to the residents and the workers, and

Mr. Champ agreed.  Mr. Pastor asked about the pool dimensions, and Mr. Champ stated

he feels it is approximately 15’ by 30’.  Mr. Pastor asked the depth of the pool, but

Mr. Champ did not know.  Mr. Pastor stated his questions with respect to the pool have to

do with safety issues which are within the purview of Zoning.  He asked if the residents

of the facility are going to have access to the pool, and a staff member would have to be

with them, would this not pose an additional danger to the other residents who would

then have less supervisory control.  Mr. Champ stated he does not feel this would reduce

the level of supervisory care for the other residents.  Mr. Pastor asked if other staff

members will come in when the pool is in use and Mr. Champ stated they will not. 

Mr. Pastor stated he finds this confusing as a resident using the pool would need

supervision and this would reduce the one-to-one supervision of the residents.

 

Mr. Schneider objected as he feels he is testifying rather than asking questions.

 

Mr. Pastor stated his question is he is questioning Mr. Champ’s answer.  Ms. Kirk stated

Mr. Champ has answered this question.

 

Mr. Pastor asked if they have any plans to make safety modifications to the Pool, and

Mr. Champ stated there are no changes to the Pool required or necessary.

 

Mr. Pastor noted the N. Crescent Road property, and asked if work was commenced prior

to obtaining a Building Permit.

 

September 20, 2005                                                  Zoning Hearing Board – page 14 of 30

 

 

Mr. Schneider objected.  Ms. Kirk allowed the Applicant to answer the question.

 

Mr. Champ stated demolition was done to the building.

 

Mr. Pastor asked if work was done to the Yardley Road property before a Permit was

issued, and Mr. Champ stated the contractor did demolition at that property as well.

 

Mr. Pastor noted all three properties border major road systems in Lower Makefield

Township, and Mr. Champ agreed.  Mr. Pastor asked if Allegheny Valley School has

undertaken any traffic studies, and Mr. Champ stated they have not.  Mr. Pastor asked if

they have undertaken a study to determine if the shifts should change so as not to conflict

with heavy traffic times, and Mr. Champ stated they do not feel this is required or

necessary and they did not undertake such a study.

 

Mr. Pastor noted the Yardley Road property and asked if it is possible for the number of

vehicles they have discussed to be accommodated on the property and turn around so that

they can pull out onto Yardley Road, and Mr. Champ stated there is sufficient room.

Mr. Pastor asked the size of the driveway, but Mr. Champ was not sure.  He stated he has

been to the property many times and pulled into the driveway and backed his vehicle

around.  They also had a van there and parked a number of cars there and were able to

back the vehicles around and pull out straight onto the road.  He stated they do not want

to back out of the driveway.  He stated they tested this with three vehicles and a pick-up

truck.

 

Mr. Pastor asked if they have inquired as to the School bus schedule and routes, and

Mr. Champ stated they have not.    Mr. Pastor noted the N. Crescent and Big Oak Road

properties are both on bus routes.  He asked if this would cause Mr. Champ to want to

change the shift schedules so as to keep additional traffic off the road at this time.

 

Mr. Schneider objected since Mr. Pastor has not established that it is on the bus route.

 

Mr. Pastor offered this as a hypothetical question, and Mr. Champ stated the School bus

schedules would not cause them to change their shift schedule.

 

Mr. Pastor stated Mr. Champ indicated that they try to keep the residents homogeneous,

and Mr. Champ stated they try to make sure the groupings are homogeneous which

includes personality, social factors, medical complications, likes and dislikes, and what

the families want.  Mr. Pastor asked if the groups could change over time, and

Mr. Champ stated they could.  Mr. Pastor asked how often they would change, and

Mr. Champ stated probably it would not change as often as the neighbors would.

 He stated some of their residents will be at the same location for their entire lives.

He stated many of their residents have been at the same location for twenty-five to thirty

 

September 20, 2005                                                  Zoning Hearing Board – page 15 of 30

 

 

years.  They consider it a lifetime placement, and it would have to be something very

dramatic to change that.

 

Mr. Pastor asked if any of the residents are predisposed to running away, and Mr. Champ

stated they are not.  Mr. Pastor asked if they are predisposed to inappropriate behaviors,

and Mr. Champ asked for a definition of “inappropriate.”  Mr. Pastor stated his definition

would be physical abuse or sexual abuse, and Mr. Champ stated they would not be so

predisposed.  Mr. Pastor stated the Pennsylvania Department of Health provides

information regarding facilities throughout the State and there are incidences where

residents of Allegheny Valley Schools have eloped.  He noted a facility in Elmwood with

citation dated 1/25/05 indicating that when an individual eloped, the staff was not always

available to prevent them from running into traffic.  Mr. Pastor noted that Mr. Champ has

just testified that their residents are no predisposed to this.

 

Mr. Schneider objected noting this misstates the record and is without foundation as

Mr. Champ indicated that none of the residents of these homes were predisposed to this.

 

Ms. Kirk sustained the objection.

 

Mr. Pastor stated his prior question was that the residents may change over time, and he

is concerned that these homes are on major roads and there is a possibility that someone

who may come in to live at the home at some point may be predisposed to this behavior. 

He stated this presents a safety issue. 

 

Ms. Kirk stated Mr. Pastor can raise this in final argument.

 

Mr. Pastor asked about disposal of waste at the facilities.  Mr. Champ stated they would

dispose of waste the same way anyone in the neighborhood would dispose of waste. 

Mr. Pastor asked about infectious waste, and Mr. Champ asked for a definition of

infectious waste.  Mr. Pastor asked about medications that would be provided to the

residents via injection.  Mr. Champ stated he does not believe that this would be done as

the staff cannot give injections. Mr. Pastor asked what would be done if that were

necessary.  Mr. Champ stated it would have to be done by nursing staff at the ATF during

the week; or if it was an emergency, they would go to the hospital.  Mr. Pastor noted his

concern about general waste, assuming the Application is approved, with that number of

adults on the property which will generate a larger amount of waste than normal, and his

concern about the safety of the children of the neighborhood because of the different

types of waste associated with this facility.

 

Mr. Schneider stated there is no objection at this point, and Mr. Pastor has no reason to be

explaining and arguing for his question.

 

Ms. Kirk stated this is argument that needs to be reserved for the conclusion of the case.

September 20, 2005                                                  Zoning Hearing Board – page 16 of 30

 

 

Mr. Pastor stated his specific question is that they have no plans to handle any special

waste associated with the clients. 

 

Mr. Schneider objected due to lack of foundation as it has not been established that there

is any special waste for these properties.

 

Ms. Kirk asked Mr. Champ if he anticipated any special waste for any of the three

properties, and Mr. Champ stated they do not.

 

Mr. Pastor noted the Budgets.  He stated there has been testimony that Allegheny Valley

School has elected not to pay the local or School taxes, and Mr. Champ stated in Lower

Makefield Township this is correct.  Mr. Pastor asked if the residents have a right to

question Allegheny Valley School about their plans for the Township, and Ms. Kirk

stated the residents have already requested Party Status to the Application.  Mr. Pastor

asked why Lower Makefield Township will be treated differently by Allegheny Valley

School from the other Municipalities where they are located.  Mr. Champ stated

Allegheny Valley School has never requested a tax exemption for any of their group

home properties in Pennsylvania; but they have never experienced the expenses they have

in Lower Makefield except for one other Municipality.  At that Municipality because of

the extraordinary expense that they had not anticipated, they told the Municipality that

they would take a sum total of those costs which they consider excessive costs and total

them up and request an exemption, and maintain that exemption until they were paid

down.  He stated at the other Municipality it came to approximately $80,000 and since it

was $10,000 a year for taxes, they told the Board up front that they would apply for an

exemption.  He stated they had never done that before in the history of the School.  

 

Mr. Pastor stated it appears that because Lower Makefield Township has exercised its

right to ask questions, that they will act in a punitive manner and not pay the taxes.

 

Mr. Schneider objected as this is argument.  Ms. Kirk agreed that this is argument.

 

Ms. Kirk stated that any member of the audience who is not represented by Mr. DeGrezia

or Mr. Pastor and who has requested Party Status may question the witness.

 

Mr. F. William Natale, 1102 Irving Road, stated he is a professional engineer licensed in

the State of Pennsylvania.  He stated Mr. Champ is testifying about traffic; and since he is

not a licensed professional engineer in the State of Pennsylvania, he is not allowed to

make testimony on this.  Ms. Kirk stated at the conclusion of the case, Mr. Natel could

make this argument.  She stated at this point they are limiting it to any questions of

Mr. Champ. 

 

Mr. Schneider asked that the witness establish his standing to participate in

the proceedings.  After review of the list of those requesting Party Status, it was noted

September 20, 2005                                                  Zoning Hearing Board – page 17 of 30

 

 

that Mr. Natel’s name was not on the list for the Big Oak Road property which is the

property he is concerned with.  Ms. Kirk asked if Mr. Natale was present at the Hearing

in June when they asked those requesting Party Status to sign, and he noted he was not.

He stated he was not present until the July meeting.  Mr. Schneider stated he has no

objection to Mr. Natale seeking Party Status but he must show standing in order to have

Party Status.  Mr. Natale was asked where his property is located in connection with the

1100 Big Oak Road property, and Mr. Natale stated he is approximately 1500’ feet from

the property.  Mr. Schneider asked how the granting or denial of the Appeal will affect

Mr. Natale’s property.  Mr. Natale stated he is concerned about the traffic that comes

through, and he is concerned with the safety and welfare of the people within and

surrounding that area.  Mr. Schneider stated he does not feel that he has established

standing for himself.  Ms. Kirk overruled and allowed Mr. Natale to have Party Status.

 

Mr. Natale stated he wants to know if Mr. Champ did a boring or soils test to determine

the elevation of the water table in that area.  He asked that since it will be a change in

usage, have all the issues or disabilities been noted prior to the purchase of the home.

 

Mr. Schneider objected noting irrelevance with regard to the first question.  He stated the  

second question has to do with Building Code issue which the Board has determined not

to take jurisdiction over. 

 

Ms. Kirk sustained. 

 

Mr. Harold Kaufman, 1113 Jack Road.  Mr. Kaufman asked why they removed

approximately fifteen to twenty trees from the property.  He stated since that was done he

now gets water on his property.  Mr. Toadvine stated this portion of the proceedings is to

allow those who have asked for Party Status and are unrepresented to ask Mr. Champ

questions that relate to his direct testimony.  Mr. Kaufman asked why they removed the

trees.

 

Mr. Schneider objected based on relevance to the Zoning issues before the Board since

the only issue in the Zoning Code concerning water relates to impervious surface and this

does not go to impervious surface.  Ms. Kirk allowed Mr. Champ to answer the question.

 

Mr. Champ stated there were a large number of trees on the property.  He stated the

owner of the house told them as a disclosure that he had some concerns with some of the

trees and branches falling on the roof.  They had an arborist come in and review the trees

and the arborist recommended that a number of the trees be removed immediately as

some were completely hollowed and they presented a danger.

 

Mr. Kaufman asked if they can do something to stop the water run off, and Ms. Kirk

stated this is not related to what Mr. Champ has testified to. 

 

September 20, 2005                                                  Zoning Hearing Board – page 18 of 30

 

 

Ms. Teresa Cahill, 1108 Irving Road, stated she is less than 1500’ feet from the property.

Mr. Schneider asked the affect this would have on her property.  Ms. Cahill stated she is

on the corner of Esther Lane in the middle of a busy street.  She stated she has a

developmentally-delayed daughter and is knowledgeable about people with disabilities. 

Mr. Toadvine stated Mr. Schneider has asked what impact the Allegheny Valley School

will have on her property, and Ms. Cahill stated it will have no impact except that she is

concerned about safety issues in the neighborhood.  She stated she welcomes people with

disabilities into the neighborhood but is concerned about the “three-ring Circus.”

 

Mr. Schneider objected noting Ms. Cahill has already testified it will have no affect on

her property. 

 

Ms. Kirk stated she will allow Party Status standing and allow her to ask her question.

 

Ms. Cahill stated she is concerned about people living in the basement.  She stated there

was no kitchen in the basement prior to the house being sold.  She stated she does not feel

people should live in a basement with no windows. 

 

Ms. Kirk stated the renovations fall under the Township Building Code, and the Zoning

Hearing Board has no authority to hear those issues.

 

Ms. Katherine Simons, 1206 Yardley Road, stated she is across the street from the

Yardley Road property.  Mr. Schneider had no objections.  Ms. Simons stated Mr. Champ

indicated these are life-long placements and had previously testified that he will

eventually move from six residents to four residents.  She asked if his comments that

these are life-long placements will change this.  Mr. Champ stated he did testify that two

people would have to move from the house; and while this is not exactly what they like to

do, over the next seven years two of the people from each house will have to leave.  He

stated the families involved have been told of this.  He stated they do know the people

who will be leaving and they do not feel those people will be affected by this move. 

Ms. Simons asked if they would want to mitigate that trauma to the resident by having it

start out with four residents as he previously testified that it would be traumatic to move

someone.  Mr. Champ stated he does not feel he indicated that it would be traumatic for

them to move.   

 

Ms. Judith Kauffman, 1113 Jack Road, stated she lives behind the Big Oak Road house.

She stated there was no kitchen in the basement.   She stated if the put in another kitchen,

does that not make it a two-family house. 

 

Ms. Kirk stated the Application before the Zoning Hearing Board is an Appeal of the  

denial of the Zoning Officer’s determination that the number of people proposed to live

in each of the facilities exceeds the number of unrelated individuals that are allowed

under the Zoning Code.  She stated creation of a kitchen does not necessarily convert this

September 20, 2005                                                  Zoning Hearing Board – page 19 of 30

 

 

into a two-family residence.  The renovation of a kitchen falls under the Building Code

which is outside the purview of the Zoning Hearing Board’s jurisdiction.  Mr. Toadvine

stated part of this Application does not request the installation of a second kitchen.

Mr. Schneider stated part of their Application on Big Oak Road does deal with a kitchen

because the kitchen was there.  Many people in the audience indicated this was incorrect.

Mr. Koopman stated it appears that this is a Zoning issue before the Board, and the Board

should take testimony on it.  Mr. Schneider stated to the extent that they are denied the

right to continue the use of the kitchen, it is their opinion that they are being

discriminated against based on handicap.  Mr. Toadvine asked if they are installing the

kitchen, and Mr. Schneider stated they are not installing it as it exists.  Mr. Koopman

stated they have not heard testimony to that effect. 

 

Ms. Cahill stated there was not a second kitchen in that house.

 

Ms. Kirk stated they are going through a process allowing those who do not have an

attorney to come up and ask Mr. Champ questions based on his direct testimony.  She

stated if there are disagreements or arguments as to what Mr. Champ testified to, these

items are reserved until the end.  She stated this is a Judicial proceeding similar to matters

before a Judge. 

 

Ms. Kaufmann asked if she is allowed to ask if there was a stove in the downstairs

kitchen, and Mr. Champ stated he believes that there was an old stove in the downstairs

kitchen. 

 

Mr. Michael Gershman, 1502 Esther Lane, stated he lives across the street from the Big

Oak Road property.  Mr. Schneider had no objection.  Mr. Gershman stated they have

indicated that they would move two of the residents into another facility within seven

years.  He asked what would happen if the State funding decreased and Mr. Champ stated

he would not move the two people.  Mr. Gershman asked the process within Allegheny

Valley School to handle complaints.  Mr. Champ stated there is an internal investigation

frequently tied to an external investigation by the State.  It is fully investigated and

reported depending on the type of problem.  Mr. Gershman asked if Mr. Champ is made

aware of all complaints, and Mr. Champ stated he is although there may be some low

level issues that might not get to him.  Mr. Gershman asked if there are any he might not

be aware of at this time, and Mr. Champ stated this is possible.  Mr. Gershman asked if

he was aware of any complaint made against Allegheny Valley School about noise or

excessive traffic, and Mr. Champ stated the House Managers are told if there are any

complaints from area residents, they have to advise their Administrator who would then

tell Mr. Champ.  Mr. Gershman asked if there are any assurances in place that they all

follow that procedure.  Mr. Champ stated they do have policies in place.  He stated they

also have serious orientation for House Managers.  Mr. Gershman asked if there are cases

where these procedures have not been followed, and Mr. Champ stated there may be as

they have almost three thousand employees.  Mr. Gershman asked if there may have been

September 20, 2005                                                  Zoning Hearing Board – page 20 of 30

 

 

complaints made about noise or excessive traffic which  Mr. Champ is not aware of, and

Mr. Champ stated he has testified that this is possible although it is very, very unlikely. 

He stated if the neighbor who made the complaint does not get the response they want, he

assumes they will call him or go onto his Website.  Mr. Gershman stated the request is

for an exception to allow six mentally-retarded residents to live in these homes and one

of the requirements is to show benefit to the residents, and he asked how it would be a

benefit to the six residents to live there as opposed to four.  Mr. Champ stated these

people are currently living in a large institution and this move is a tremendous

opportunity for the six people who will now live in a home.  Mr. Gershman stated in

order to be granted reasonable accommodation, he understands that one of two conditions

must be met – one is financial hardship, and the second is that there is a benefit to the

residents. 

 

Mr. Schneider stated he feels he is asking for a legal conclusion.

 

Ms. Kirk agreed as this is beyond what Mr. Champ is able to answer as he is a fact

witness.

 

Mr. Gershman asked if they are requesting reasonable accommodation on the basis of

financial hardship, benefit to the residents, or both. 

 

Mr. Champ stated he feels that the answer is yes as to both.  Mr. Gershman asked how

the exception he is requesting is of benefit to the residents.

 

Ms. Kirk stated he has answered this question and indicated it benefits them as being

moved from an institution to a smaller facility. 

 

Mr. Caiola stated he is not moving four to six.  He is moving one hundred twenty to six.

 

Mr. Gershman asked if Mr. Champ testified that any proposal submitted to the State

needed to be Budget neutral, and Mr. Champ stated he did.  Mr. Gershman asked how

many Budgets they submitted to the State.  Mr. Champ stated there were two – one for a

four bed and one for a five or six bed group home.  Mr. Gershman asked how many of

these were Budget neutral, and Mr. Champ stated the four-bed proposal was not Budget

neutral.  Only one part of the second proposal was Budget neutral which was the one for

the six bed proposal.  Mr. Gershman stated Mr. Champ indicated that any Budget had to

be Budget neutral.  He asked if Mr. Champ would agree that he gave the State little

choice but to accept the single part of the one proposal that was submitted which met the

most minimal requests.  Mr. Champ stated the State has a number of choices and did not

have to agree with anything he submitted.  Mr. Gershman asked if the State is free to

accept something that he did not propose, and Mr. Champ stated the State can do what

they wish within the law, and they have more leverage than he does.

 

September 20, 2005                                                  Zoning Hearing Board – page 21 of 30

 

 

A short recess was taken at this time.  The meeting was reconvened at 10:00 p.m.

 

Mr. Vlad Krememets, 1106 Irving Road, stated he is 1500’ from the Big Oak Road

property.  After review it was noted, he was not on the list for Party Status. 

Mr. Schneider asked what affect Allegheny Valley School will have on his property if

this Appeal is granted.  Mr. Krememets stated it will not have any affect on his property

but will have an affect on his children and he is concerned about their safety and well

being.   Mr. Schneider objected to his standing because it has no impact on his property

and the affect on his children has been taken care of under the Code since if they had only

five unrelated people living in the property, there would be no objection as the Board of

Supervisors has made the determination of the safety factor by allowing these kinds of

homes provided it is five.  Ms. Kirk overrule the objection and allowed Mr. Krememets

to have Party Status.

 

Mr. Krememets asked about the safety of the people living in the basement since there

are no windows or doors in the basement. 

 

Mr. Schneider stated this is a Building Code issue.

 

Ms. Kirk stated she will allow Mr. Champ to answer the question.  Mr. Champ stated the

lower level will be for the house manager.  He stated the Plans they have submitted

completely comply with Life Safety Division for both the people living upstairs and

downstairs.  All the windows coming out of the basement are escape windows and he

suggested that probably not too many homes in the community have this.  The homes will

also be sprinklered so there is a minimum of twenty minutes coverage in the house.  They

also have two means of egress from the house even though only one is required.  He feels

the lower level of this house is probably safer than 99% of the homes in the Township.

 

Mr. Krememets asked if they have procedures in place that would insure that each client

is visiting the site with a caregiver.  Mr. Schneider asked for a clarification of the

question.  Mr. Champ stated there is an individual plan for each resident of the house. 

That plan would state very clearly whether someone needed to have twenty-four hour

visual contact with the staff or if they could stay by themselves to watch television, etc. 

He stated they would take into account their disability and their needs.  He stated they

would know which clients would need constant visual supervision and which ones do not.

Mr. Krememets asked if Mr. Champ is aware of any accidents with the clients, and

Mr. Champ stated there are accidents with people with multiple handicaps – tripping,

falling over, wheelchairs falling over, etc.  Mr. Krememets asked if they had any cases

where a client was left unattended and this caused an accident, and Mr. Champ stated this

could happen.  He noted accidents also happen in a normal home where a mother may not

be constantly watching a two or three-year old child.  Mr. Krememets asked if a client

would be outside the residence unattended.  Mr. Champ stated if part of the plan was that

a client could sit outside and did not need 24-hour supervision such a situation could

September 20, 2005                                                  Zoning Hearing Board – page 22 of 30

 

 

occur.  He stated the people he knows who will go into these homes could be sitting

outside in a wheelchair, etc.  Mr. Krememets asked if there are any dual diagnosis

individuals, and Mr. Champ stated three are not.  He stated they are people with mental

retardation.  Mr. Krememets asked if he is aware that  in 90% of the cases MR comes

with MH such as schizophrenia.  Mr. Champ disagreed.   

 

Mr. Dan Tartagni, 22 Edgewood Road, stated he is inquiring about the property on

N. Crescent.  Mr. Schneider asked how far his property is from the N. Crescent property,

and Mr. Targagni stated he is approximately 20 yards adjacent to the property.

Mr. Schneider stated he has no objection.  Mr. Tartagni asked about modifications to the

outside of the property such as fencing, handicap ramps, etc. and Mr. Champ stated at

that home there would be one handicap ramp coming out the back exit which would be

the same width as the sidewalk.  Mr. Champ stated he does not recall that anything is

required in the front.  He stated when they do handicap ramps in a neighborhood setting,

they are done so that they are camouflaged.  Mr. Tartagni stated this is a small side street

near a very busy Edgewood Road.  He stated on Saturday or Sunday with the amount of

people who will be residing at the home he assumes there will be a large number of

visitors.  He stated he is familiar with the driveway which could fit only four to five cars

maximum.  He asked where the other vehicles would park.  Mr. Champ stated he does

not feel there will be many visitors at that home.  He stated while some families do come

visit, it is fairly rare.  He stated other families do come to pick up people.  He does not

feel there will be any unusual traffic. 

 

Ms. Kirk asked why they would not expect a lot of families to visit at that facility on

N. Crescent, and Mr. Champ stated of their existing population, they have about 5% of

their families who are actually involved with the residents, and this is fairly typical.

Mr. Tartagni stated his other question had to do with things happening to the outside of

the property that the residents should be made aware of.  He stated he is also concerned

about the traffic issues.  Mr. Champ stated he feels that the people living at this facility

except for the house parents will be in wheelchairs or at least five will be.  Mr. Tartagni

asked how much activity there is at their homes typically at night.  Mr. Champ stated if

there was a medical emergency with their client he feels they would call 911 just as

anyone else in the neighborhood would.  Mr. Toadvine stated he feels the question is do

they experience a high degree of medical emergencies at the group homes, and

Mr. Champ stated they do not. 

 

Mr. Schneider was asked for re-direct.  Mr. Schneider noted the Big Oak Road home and

asked their plans concerning how many people will live there other than the clients.

Mr. Champ stated the maximum number they would have there would be a husband and

wife, two children, and six residents.  At N. Crescent it would be the same.  At the

Yardley Road property, they would have a  husband and wife and six clients.  There are

no rooms available there for children. 

 

September 20, 2005                                                  Zoning Hearing Board – page 23 of 30

 

 

Mr. Schneider asked if there was a kitchen in the basement when Allegheny Valley

School purchased the Big Oak Road property.  Mr. Champ stated there is a large room in

the basement that was used as a gathering room with a large bar.  There were also two

rooms between that room and the garage.  One of the rooms housed the boiler/heating

system and the other housed what they referred to as their “summer kitchen.”  It was an

old kitchen.  All the pluming was there.  There was a sink and he believes there was a

stove there, as well as cabinets and counters.  He stated there was a gap where the washer

and dryer had been and this was moved to the upstairs in the bedroom closet that they

were using as the laundry/office area. 

 

Mr. Schneider asked if the basement was finished when they purchased the house on

N. Crescent, and Mr. Champ stated it was completely finished.

 

Mr. Schneider asked if there was an in-law apartment on the second floor when they

purchased the home on Yardley Road., and Mr. Champ stated it was a full in-law

apartment with a kitchen. 

 

Mr. Schneider stated Mr. Champ had indicated that some of the residents may be brain

injured and asked for a further explanation.  Mr. Champ stated he would rather they ask

this of the physician to describe this properly.  Mr. Schneider asked if these are traumatic

brain injuries or injuries related to being mentally retarded.  Mr. Champ stated he would

need further explanation on this question.  Ms. Kirk asked what Mr. Champ knows about

the clients that have brain injuries.  Mr. Champ stated he has read all of their Plans (ISP),

and has met the people.  Ms. Kirk asked if they are ambulatory, and Mr. Champ stated

they do have people with brain injury who are ambulatory.  He does not know the exact

number of the proposed residents for the three homes who would be ambulatory who

have brain injuries.  Ms. Kirk asked if any of the clients proposed for the three homes that

have brain injuries that are not ambulatory, and Mr. Champ stated he is sure there are.

 

Mr. Schneider asked if there are any special treatments needed for these clients related to

the brain injuries, and Mr. Champ stated he doubts this as he does not feel the brain

injury is a primary problem with any of these people as he recalls. 

 

Mr. Schneider stated Mr. Champ was asked by Mr. Koopman on cross-examination about

his personal knowledge of the complaints about the swimming pool at the Big Oak Road

property.  Mr. Schneider presented the Exhibit which had been marked as Exhibit A-33. 

Mr. Schneider asked when Allegheny Valley School first received any notice of any

problems with the swimming pool at the Big Oak Road property. Mr. Champ stated they

received written notice on 8/17/05.  Prior to that they had no notice of a problem with the

swimming pool that came to him.  Mr. Champ stated Exhibit A-33 is a notice from Bucks

County Department of Health stating that there was a complaint made regarding an

unmaintained swimming pool at 1110 Big Oak Road.  It also includes copies of the

envelope in which that complaint came.   The letter itself is dated 6/24/05.

September 20, 2005                                                  Zoning Hearing Board – page 24 of 30

 

 

Mr. Schneider noted the address on the envelope, and Mr. Champ stated it was not

directed to the correct Municipality or Zip Code.  Mr. Champ stated he received this on

August 17, 2005 at 1:09 p.m. and this explains why he did not have knowledge of this

when Mr. Koopman questioned him about this previously. 

 

Ms. Kirk stated based on her notes it seems that Exhibits A-29 through A-32 were not

previously admitted, and Mr. Schneider moved for their admission.  Ms. Kirk noted

Exhibit A-29 is the proposal to the State from Allegheny Valley Schools, Exhibit A-30 is

the 11/04 Agreement with the State, Exhibit A-31 is the Job Description for a House

Manager, and Exhibit A-32 is the Job Description for a House Manager Aide.  There

were no objections to these documents being admitted.  Exhibit A-33 was shown, and

there were no objections to Exhibit A-33 being admitted.

 

Ms. Kirk asked Mr. Champ if prior to receiving the letter from the County of Bucks had

he seen the swimming pool at the Big Oak property, and Mr. Champ stated he had.

Ms. Kirk asked if it was filled with water or covered.  Mr. Champ stated the pool was

covered.  Ms. Kirk asked how much of the cover was filled with water.  Mr. Champ

stated the entire surface of the pool was covered with water as the cover was sunk down

into the pool possibly six to seven inches.  He stated it was not full of water, but there

was sitting water as it had rained recently. 

 

Mr. Schneider asked if they had the problem corrected, and Mr. Champ stated he had his

staff contact the Department.  He stated they had seen a notice on the door that had been

put there sometime in June.  When a staff member made rounds there a few days after

that, he noticed the sticker on the back door which is not the door they usually come

through.  The notice had a number for them to contact.  The staff member called the

gentleman from the Health Department and he indicated that they had received an

anonymous complaint that the pool was sitting and the water was polluted.  The

gentleman indicated that the water was not polluted but asked that they correct the

problem and they indicated they would pump it off and he indicated this would be fine.

He stated when Mr. Koopman brought up this matter, he had not received notice and a

few days later they received the letter which had been sent to the wrong address. 

 

Mr. Koopman noted the swimming pool issue and stated Mr. Champ indicated that one of

his employees became aware of the complaint prior to Mr. Champ receiving the letter,

and Mr. Champ agreed.  Mr. Koopman stated this was the end of June or early July, and

Mr. Champ agreed.  Mr. Koopman stated that Mr. Champ had indicated in testimony that

if someone gets a complaint, that normally he is advised, and Mr. Champ stated this was

his testimony.   Mr. Koopman stated the complaint was reported verbally in June or July,

and  Mr. Champ agreed.  Mr. Koopman stated it would appear that Mr. Champ was aware

of this when he was cross-examined by Mr. Koopman but he had not received it in

writing, and Mr. Champ agreed.

 

September 20, 2005                                                  Zoning Hearing Board – page 25 of 30

 

 

Mr. Koopman noted the kitchens and asked if Mr. Champ himself saw these kitchens,

and Mr. Champ stated he did see them before they purchased the properties.    

Mr. Koopman asked if they checked before they purchased the homes to see if the

kitchens had been permitted by Lower Makefield Township, and Mr. Champ stated he

did not.  He stated they were told by the owner of the Big Oak Road property that the

kitchen was there from when he bought the house.  Mr. Koopman asked if he checked to

see if there were permits for it, and Mr. Champ stated he did not.  He added he did not do

it at Yardley Road either and that addition (in-law suite with kitchen) was just done the

last couple of years.  He stated the attorney who owned that home did inform them that

he did receive all the Building Permits, but Mr. Champ did not see copies of them. 

 

Mr. Koopman asked if the ATF (Adult Training Facility is owned or operated by

Allegheny Valley School, and Mr. Champ stated it is operated by Allegheny Valley

School.  Mr. Koopman asked if costs associated with that facility are included in their

Budget which is part of Exhibit A-29, and Mr. Champ stated it is under the Day Program

Category.  Mr. Koopman stated when they previously discussed Exhibit A-29, they

discussed apportioned costs, and Mr. Champ has indicated that nursing services were

included in this, and Mr. Champ agreed.  Mr. Koopman asked if they have nurses on

Allegheny staff, and asked if they have nursing services available for the clients in the

homes.  Mr. Champ stated the nurses are available if this would be required but because

the residents are at the ATF every day, this is where the nursing services are scheduled. 

There is no schedule for the nurses to go out to the homes on a daily basis.  Mr. Koopman

stated the apportioned nursing costs that are in the Budget are related to the nursing

facilities at the ATF, and Mr. Champ stated they have a number of nurses portioned off

for all the homes.  While the med suite is at the ATF, they apportion those costs out. 

 

Mr. Koopman asked if they have food deliveries or trucks going out to the homes, and

Mr. Champ stated they do not.  They use the local supermarket.

 

Mr. Pastor asked who explained to Mr. Champ that there was a second kitchen at the Big

Oak Road property, and Mr. Champ stated he saw it and the owner and the Realtor

explained the kitchen situation to him.

 

Mr. Schneider called Jill Morrow who was sworn in.  She stated she is a licensed

Physician in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  She stated she attended the University

of Pennsylvania and graduated in 1984.  After Medical School, she did an Internship and

Residency at New England Medical Center which is also Boston Floating Hospital and

finished in 1987.  She has two Board Certifications – one in Pediatrics and a Sub-

Specialty in Developmental Pediatrics. 

 

Mr. Schneider asked Dr. Morrow to explain the relationship between the practice of

Pediatrics and Developmental Disability and Mental Retardation.  Dr. Morrow stated

Developmental Pediatrics is part Psychiatry, part Neurology, and part Pediatrics.  As

September 20, 2005                                                 Zoning Hearing Board – page 26 of 30

 

 

Pediatricians they spend a lot of time in Medical School learning about Adult Medicine

and then they do Pediatrics in their training.  She stated they are usually the people who,

at least in the past, would be asked to care for adults with developmental disabilities

partly because they are used to working with people with all levels of disabilities and all

developmental levels and partly because they have an understanding of the genetic and

genetic disorders which they learn in their Pediatric residency.  She stated many of the

Developmental Pediatricians are Medical Directors either at the State level or at a facility

level like one of the ICFMRs.  Mr. Schneider asked if Mental Retardation is a

developmental disability, and Dr. Morrow stated it is. 

 

Mr. Schneider asked where she is currently employed, and Dr. Morrow stated

she is the Medical Director for the Office of Mental Retardation and the Office of Social

Programs for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  She has been there for six years.  She

stated she provided the clinical consultation to some of the Licensing issues for the

various Licenses that DPW does.  She also provides clinical consultation and supervision

at the State run ICFMRs.  She stated for the community homes, she does oversight of

some of the clinical activities such as medication administration courses, training around

medical issues and medical conditions some of them specific for people with mental

retardation and developmentally disabilities and others of a more general topic.  She

stated she also works with people with mental retardation as well as people with other

developmental disabilities that some people with mental retardation have such as autism,

cerebral palsy, etc.  Mr. Schneider asked if she has any duties surrounding the living

arrangements with people with mental retardation, and Dr. Morrow stated she does not

directly do this but she does consult with the licensing people and with the people who

run the ICFMR programs related to clinical input for many of the residential places.

 

Mr. Schneider asked what she did prior to taking the position with the Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania, and Dr. Morrow stated after completing her Fellowship which was done at

St. Louis University in Missouri, she came to Penn State UniversityHershey Medical

Center and was the Director of Pediatric Rehab so she did Developmental Pediatrics,

Cerebral Palsy Clinics, Spina Bifida Clinic, a Neuro-Developmental Clinic which was

both diagnostic and helping with programming for both children and adults.  She stated

she also ran an eighteen-bed, in-patient rehab unit for individuals with brain injury as

well as children who had Spina Bifida and were post-surgery.  She remained there part-

time and started a developmental clinic at a local teaching hospital in Harrisburg which

she ran for approximately seven years.

 

Ms. Kirk asked Dr. Morrow how long she was at Hershey Medical Center, and she stated

she was there one year full-time and stayed three years part-time which would have been

1994. 

 

 

 

September 20, 2005                                                  Zoning Hearing Board – page 27 of 30

 

 

Mr. Schneider asked for any other practice history.  Dr. Morrow stated she worked with

Dauphin County around early intervention and clinical and diagnostic issues for children

with early intervention services.  She also continues to have a small consulting practice in

the Northeast corner of the State primarily for pre-Schoolers who have a range of

developmental disabilities.  She stated this would be children who are less than three

years old who have delay.  Some of them may end up with Mental Retardation, or they

may not. 

 

Mr. Schneider asked if she was licensed in any other States, and Dr. Morrow stated she

was licensed in Massachusetts and had a license in Missouri.  These are no longer active

as she does not use them any longer.  Mr. Schneider asked if she held any teaching

positions, and Dr. Morrow stated she was teaching faculty at Hershey Medical Center

both when she was there full-time and also when she was with the Hospital in Harrisburg.

 

Mr. Schneider asked if she has authored any publications, and Dr. Morrow stated she has

- some of them dealing with Mental Retardation as well as other developmental issues. 

She has also given lectures in the area of developmental disabilities and rehab.  Currently

she does more around adult issue and adult topics.

 

 

Mr. Schneider asked if people with development disabilities are generally followed

throughout their life by their Pediatrician, and Dr. Morrow stated this is now changing

although there was a period of time when that did happen.  She stated many of the sub-

specialty clinics still see adults who they saw as Pediatricians for general medical issues,

but they encourage that they transition their care to an Internist or a Family Practitioner. 

Mr. Schneider asked if Dr. Morrow has followed children with development disabilities

into adulthood, and Dr. Morrow stated she did with some of them as well as adults who

she would see new as adults with developmental disabilities including mental retardation.

 

Exhibit A-34 was shown which is Dr. Morrow’s Resume which she felt accurately states

her experience and publications.  This was offered for admission and was accepted.

 

Mr. Schneider offered Dr. Morrow as an expert witness on mental retardation.

 

Mr. Koopman stated in terms of the timeframe, Dr. Morrow indicated that she finished

her Internship in 1987, and Dr. Morrow stated she finished her Residency in 1987.  She

stated this was Internship plus Residency which was three years but was a single

program.  Mr. Koopman asked if she then went to the Fellowship in St. Louis, and

Dr. Morrow stated she actually had a year in between starting her Fellowship and was

clinical faculty at St. Louis University initially and then started her Fellowship which was

in Developmental Pediatrics. 

 

 

September 20, 2005                                                  Zoning Hearing Board – page 28 of 30

 

 

Mr. Koopman asked if there is a Board Certification or Sub-Certification for physicians

who deal directly with people with Mental Retardation, and Dr. Morrow stated there is

not and it is included in developmental Pediatrics and there is no adult equivalent at this

point.  There is no sub-specialty that is specific for people with mental retardation.

Mr. Koopman asked if there are any sub-specialties that deal with mentally retarded

adults other than developmental Pediatrics as a sub-Specialty, and Dr. Morrow stated

Neurology would not be a sub-Specialty –it would be a Specialty.  Mr. Koopman stated

in terms of Board Certifications or Specialties of Physicians dealing with Mental

Retardation, there would be Developmental Pediatrics and Neurology.  Mr. Koopman

asked Dr. Morrow if she is certified in Neurology and Dr. Morrow stated she is not.

Mr. Koopman asked what other Certifications or sub-Certifications would there be for

Physicians who regularly deal with clients with Mental Retardation.  Dr. Morrow stated

people with Mental Retardation are just like everyone else and if they have a cardiac

problem, they go to a Cardiologist.  If they need general care, they would go to a General

Physician.  She stated there are no sub-Specialties for Cardiology and Mental

Retardation.

 

Ms. Kirk asked if there are any other Certifications in the field of Medicine besides

Neurology that would deal with adults with Mental Retardation.  Dr. Morrow said there is

the potential that any Specialty in Adult Medicine would care for an individual with

Mental Retardation, but this does not make them an expert in Mental Retardation. 

Ms. Kirk stated Dr. Morrow is being offered as an expert to testify based on her

background of Developmental Pediatrics for the area of Mental Retardation.  She asked

Dr. Morrow, in her experience, what other area of Medicine could be offered as an expert

witness in that area.  Dr. Morrow stated Neurology, Psychiatry, or Psychology.  Other

than that sometimes the Rehab Physiciants get involved although not typically. 

 

Mr. Koopman stated normally children are told to see someone other than a Pediatrician

once they are eighteen.   He stated Dr. Morrow indicated that this did not happen with

Mentally-Retarded people in the past and they would stay with the Pediatrician into

adulthood although she indicated this does not happen as much as it used to.  Dr. Morrow

stated many people in the Medical Director positions working with people with

Developmental Disabilities are Pediatricians.  She stated they do encourage people to go

to a Adult Physicians for their general care in the community, but there are places where

the Pediatricians are still providing care for Adults.  Mr. Koopman asked about care for

the Mental Retardation issue, and whether it would be common for Pediatricians to work

with a Mentally-Retarded adults with respect to the Retardation issues.  Dr. Morrow

stated it would not be uncommon for a Developmental Pediatrician to do so, but probably

not a General Pediatrician in terms of the programming questions. 

 

Mr. Koopman asked Dr. Morrow if she dealt with adults with Mental Retardation in her

Internship and Residency, and Dr. Morrow stated she did and as a Resident in the

Emergency Room she would see the adults who came in who were followed by the

September 20, 2005                                                  Zoning Hearing Board – page 29 of 30

 

 

Pediatric services.  Mr. Koopman asked if she regularly treated Mentally-Retarded adults

for issues pertaining to Mental Retardation, and Dr. Morrow stated she did not as a

Resident but she did get a sub-Specialty after her Residency.  This was in 1988 to 1991. 

Mr. Koopman asked if during the Fellowship years did she regularly treat adults with

Mental Retardation, and Dr. Morrow stated she probably did not do so regularly.  She

stated the most common places they would have seen adults would have been in the

Cerebral Clinic and the Spina Bifida Clinics. 

 

Ms. Kirk stated this witness is being offered as an expert in the area of Mental

Retardation and Exhibit A-34 clearly shows that she is a Medical Director for the Offices

of Mental Retardation and Social Programs for the Department of  Public Welfare in

Harrisburg since 1994 to the present time.   She asked if Mr. Koopman is disputing
her qualifications.   Mr. Koopman stated he is trying to get some of the background of

what she did before this and what her training is.  Mr. Koopman stated Dr. Morrow

indicated that after her days at Penn State/Hershey, for seven years she went into private

practice.  Dr. Morrow stated she worked at the teaching Hospital.  She stated it is listed as

Pinnacle in her resume because the clinic she was working at became Pinnacle Health

Center.  Mr. Koopman asked if she regularly treated adults with Mental Retardation

during those seven years.  Dr. Morrow stated she did provide consultation with the family

practitioners although she did not provide the direct care.  She then moved to the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and started working for them in September of 1999.

Dr. Morrow stated this is her current position.  She stated the Office of Mental

Retardation part is primarily people with Mental Retardation but they may also have

Cerebral Palsy and other developmental disabilities.  The Office of Social Program is

primarily adults with physical disabilities but some also have mild Retardation.

Mr. Koopman asked if there are other Physicians at the State level who deal with

Mentally Retarded adults, and Dr. Morrow stated there are Medical Directors or Physical

Supervisors at each of the State Centers.  There are also Medical Directors at many of the

ICFMR programs. 

 

Mr. Pastor asked if Dr. Morrow’s Certification is for diagnoses or behavioral or physical

issues.  Dr. Morrow stated Developmental Pediatrics involves a broad range of

developmental disabilities which includes cognitive disabilities, behavioral disorders like

ADHD, and they see individuals with mental illness such as Bi-Polar Disorder,

depression, and people with physical disabilities.  She stated the doctors could also have

some experience in rehabilitation so they see people with different kinds of brain injury

whether it is congenital, infection, pre-natal, post-natal, child abuse, car accidents, etc. 

 

Mr. Vlad  Krememets, 1106 Irving Road, asked who would be more qualified and

experienced to deal with an adult Mentally Retarded population a behavioral psychologist

or a physician.

 

 

September 20, 2005                                                  Zoning Hearing Board – page 30 of 30

 

 

Mr. Schneider objected to the question as it does not go to Dr. Morrow’s qualifications.

 

Ms. Kirk sustained.  She stated at this point they are accepting only questions relating to

Dr. Morrow’s educational and professional experience.

 

Mr. Krememets asked if she has any qualifications in behavioral psychology. 

Dr. Morrow stated behavioral psychology and learning about behavioral disorders,

cognitive testing and all those areas of psychology were part of her developmental

Fellowship. She stated they worked with the Psychology Department. 

 

There were no objections to Dr. Morrow being qualified as an expert in Mental

Retardation and allow the admission of Exhibit A-34.

 

Mr. Kirk stated this matter will be continued until October 18, 2005.

 

 

OTHER BUSINESS

 

Approve Extension of Appeal #04-1259 – Robert Widmer

 

Ms. Kirk stated the Board has before it a request from Mr. Murphy on behalf of Robert

Widmer for Appeal #04-1259.  A letter was directed to Mr. Toadvine asking that the

Board extend the Variance previously granted until six months from October 1, 2005

since the Subdivision Plan was just approved and the building lot  has not yet been sold. 

No Permit has been applied for.  She noted a previous Extension had been granted from

June 22, 2005 to October 1, 2005.

 

Ms. Kirk moved, Mr. Caiola seconded and it was unanimously carried to grant the

request for a six month extension from October 1, 2005.

 

 

There being no further business, Mr. Bamburak moved, Mr. Caiola seconded and it was unanimously carried to adjourn the meeting at 11:15 p.m.

 

                                                                        Respectfully Submitted,

 

 

 

                                                                        David Malinowski, Secretary