AUGUST 3, 2004



The regular meeting of the Lower Makefield Township Zoning Board was held on Tuesday August 3, 2004 in the Lower Makefield Township Municipal Building.  Ms. Kirk called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m.



                                                                                                Rudolph Mayrhofer

                                                                                                Darwin Dobson

                                                                                                David Malinowski


                                    OTHERS                                             Allen Toadvine

                                                                                                Pete Stainthorpe

                                                                                                Doug Maloney

                                                                                                Drew Wagner



Ms. Kirk requested that all phones and beepers audible signals be turned off.  She also advised that the meeting would adjourn at 11:00 p.m.  Any items not completed at that time will be continued until the next meeting of the board




Letter was submitted to the Board’s solicitor dated 7/3/04 by Edward Murphy, Esq., attorney for the applicant, requesting this matter be continued for period of time to 9/7/04.  Said letter was marked as Exhibit B-1.  Mr. Maloney advised the township is not in opposition to the continuance. 


Motion made by Mr. Malinowski  continuing matter to 9/7/04. Motion seconded by Mr. Dobson and carried.  Ms. Kirk advised the audience this matter will be heard on 9/7/04.




Application submitted 5/25/04 was marked as exhibit A-1.  Site plan prepared for the property and received 5/265/04 was marked as exhibit A-2.  Previously a letter from the applicant requesting the matter be continued to this evening’s date was marked as Exhibit B-1.


Ms. Aris advised that she is requesting permission to put an addition on her home.  This is needed for health purposes noting that her husband has problems with his back and she is a cancer survivor and medications keep her fatigues.  They would like to put a room next to the dining room and kitchen which would be used by them as a sitting room.    Ms. Kirk noted this is a sunroom 16 x 20’ which would be put on the rear of the building.  She noted there is also a deck.  Ms. Aris advised this will be an open deck adjoining the sunroom.    Mr. Mayrhofer asked if this is a concrete patio and Ms. Aris advised presently there is an area which has concrete.  Mr. Mayrhofer questioned if this concrete impervious has been subtracted out since part of the addition will be built on it and Ms. Aris advised it has.


Anthony Enourato was sworn to testify and he advised he is a friend and also the person who helped prepare measurements for the application.  Upon questioning he advised that the addition will be built over  the existing patio.  Under the new addition there will be a new slab.    Mr. Mayrhofer noted that the total of the addition is 328 sq. ft and patio calculation should be removed to show a net addition of 120 sq ft.  The new deck  will be the same elevation as the addition which is approximately 2’ off the ground.    Ms. Kirk asked how much of the concrete patio could be removed and Mr. Enourato advised they could remove the 200’ sq. ft.  The deck will not be built over the patio but will have grass under it.  After reviewing the calculations it was agreed total impervious increase is 120 sq.ft.


Ms. Kirk noted according to the ordinance they are only permitted to have 13% of impervious but calculations appear to be working on 18% and she questioned why.    Mr. Mayrhofer noted this property is between the canal and river and to some extent the Board has used 18% as the norm.  Total impervious however for this property is 4,754 sq ft. which equals approximately 27.6%. He noted, however that everything they have precedes applicable zoning.    The applicant is adding less than 1%


Ms. Kirk asked if the pool, shed and structures were eon the property when Ms. Aris purchased it.  Ms. Aris advised she added all of these items.  There were two other owners before her and she purchased the property in 1973.  Ms. Kirk asked Mr. Wagner if appropriate permits were issued for this work and Mr. Wagner advised he is unsure.  Ms. Aris advised when they put the pool in (1986) they applied for a variance which was approved.  The existing shed is 120 sq. ft.


Mr. Maloney advised the township is opposed to impervious surface ratio.  Mr. Mayrhofer stated it is only 120 sq. ft addition of net impervious.  


Mr. Maloney noted it appeared from the application that the net addition would be 929 sq. ft.  Mr. Maloney referred to the comments showing features and stated he is unclear if this is a proposed additional walkway.  Ms. Aris advised this walkway exists around the pool.    Ms. Kirk noted existing items include a 200 sq. ft for the existing patio where the sunroom is proposed.  New addition is not an additional 320 sq. ft. but increase of 120 sq. ft. which equals 0.7%.  Mr. Malone advised the Board of Supervisors has not had an opportunity to discuss this new information. 


Ms. Kirk asked how Mr. Enourato is related to applicant and he advised he is a friend for many years and assisted in preparing the application and is familiar with the numbers on the plan.


Motion made by Mr. Mayrhofer approving setback of 85.12’ and increase of impervious to 26.5%.  Motion seconded by Mr. Dobson and carried.





Application was marked as exhibit A-1.  Three page plan entitled “As built dwelling plan for Stewarts Field at Yardley Lot #3” was marked as Exhibit A-2. 


Mr. Fried advised this is request for installation of fence in back yard which will be an additional 25’ into the landscape buffer which will take the fence  to the inside base of the berm on Edgewood Road.  Fence is proposed for safety and security.  Mr. Mayrhofer asked if other houses have similar fence and location and Mr. Fried advised not in his development but in the adjoining development.  Fence will be the same distance in as the fences in that development.  This will be a 76’ privacy fence in the rear with the top being lattice.  Ten feet along the sides from the back they will continue at that height and drop down to 4’ as it comes back toward the house.  The house has a walkout basement and they will go beyond these steps.  This fence will be white vinyl.  With the buffer and berm the fence will be slightly visible from Edgewood Road.  Mr. Fried noted that there is substantial vegetation.  He also advised he spoke with his neighbors who are in favor of this request.


Mr. Toadvine asked how far in would the fence be from the rear property line.  Mr. Fried there is 100’ from the back of his house to the property line.  He believes it will be 75’ from the back of his house.  His property line goes out to the bike path but the fence will encroach 25’ into the buffer area.  Ms. Kirk asked if there should be an amendment to the application for encroachment into rear yard setback and Mr. Toadvine advised that fences doe not apply.  He also noted that A-2 shows the rear portion of the house and proposed location of the fence within the berm. 


Mr. Maloney advised the Board of Supervisors was concerned that the fence not be on top of the berm and now has clarification that this is not the case.


Motion made by Ms. Kirk granting variance to permit construction of fence to encroach 25’ into landscape buffer as set forth in exhibit A-2.  Motion seconded by Mr. Dobson and carried.





Mr. & Mrs. Gorecki appeared before the board.  Application was marked as Exhibit A-1.  8 ½ x 11 plan of lot 114 was marked as exhibit A-2.  Impervious surface breakdown as marked as exhibit A-3.


Mr. Gorecki  advised they would like to construct a sunroom on the back.  They have an in ground swimming pool and would like to be able to see children  in the yard and also have access into the house.  They are also requesting an overhand on the front of the house to keep the elements out.


Ms. Kirk noted the increase in impervious is for addition and under the code this is 13% but calculations used was 18% as the allowable rate.  Mr. Joseph Tretter, who appeared with the applicants, advised that 18% is what he was told by township staff.  Mr. Mayrhofer advised this property is between the canal and river and is 13%.  He noted this house was probably built in 1971.  Mr. Gorecki advised the survey shows this is in the 500 year flood zone and thought this was the reason they were allowed 18%.  Mr. Mayrhofer advised this ha nothing to do with the impervious surface.


Ms. Kirk noted based on calculations they have 20.46?% impervious. Mr. Tretter advised he did measurements for impervious.  Mr. Gorecki advised presently in front there is a cement slab of 4’ x 5’ for 20 sq. ft. Mr. Toadvine advised this is actually 36 sq. ft.  Mr. Gorecki advised they propose to expand the front porch and have an overhand.  This requires an encroachment into the front yard setback of 2’.  Mr. Toadvine noted the existing setback is 45’.    He noted the expansion to the front portion is not an encroachment into the side yard. This will be 10’ x 6’ so it will be wider but distance out will not be any greater so there is no encroachment.  It was also noted the rear yard has a 100’ setback and the house is already within that setback. Because they are putting in addition they are encroaching an additional 11’ into the setback.  Mr. Toadvine noted this is not even 11’ because one side of the house bumps out 2’ so it is a 9’ encroachment.  He asked what the measurement is from the proposed addition to the property line.  Mr. Wagner advised it is scaled approximately 62’ to the new addition.  To the existing it is 71’. 


Mr. Gorecki advised at the time of the addition they would be constructing a new wood deck which will be open.  The addition is a one-story addition.


Mr. Mayrhofer requested they review the impervious surface calculations.  He noted originally they have 3,377 sq. ft. of impervious.  Additional square footage is 176’ with a net effect of the porch of 24’ and open deck of 200 which equals 3,777 sq. ft.  He noted the open deck is not impervious because it will have dirt under it.  The only impervious is 176 sq. ft. Ft for the addition and the net effect of the proch of 24 sq. ft for total of 2300 sq. ft. for a total of 3,577 sq. ft.  Mr. Wagner noted there are errors in the existing.  The pool skirting should be 236’ and house should be 1,950 sq. ft.  Total impervious is 3,490  which equals 21.15%.  With new addition of 200 sq. ft this will be 22.36% or a total increase of 1.21%.  Ms. Kirk asked if they have added anything to this property and Mr. Gorecki advised they have not.  This is the only new construction  they will be putting on the property.  They have lived in this house for 5 years with one previous owner.


Mr. Maloney advised the board was not opposed to the setback variance but is opposed to the impervious.  He asked if there is any impervious presently existing which they could remove.  Mr. Gorecki advised there is not.  Front walkway is 45’ long and goes to the front sidewalk which is 2’ wide and always used.  Mr. Mayrhofer noted this walkway is actually 3 ½’ wide.    Mr. Mayrhofer noted they are only adding 200 sq. ft and Mr. Maloney noted that he thought the supervisors felt this was 396 additional sq. ft. 


Motion made by Mr. Dobson granting variance to section 200-13 to permit rear yard setback of 62’; and variance to section 200-13 to permit front yard setback of 45’; and variance to section 200-14 to increase impervious surface coverage to 22.36%.


Motion seconded by Mr. Mayrhofer and carried.



Mr. Maloney left the meeting at 8:15 p.m.





Mr. Siegrist appeared together with Suzanne Matarese and Joe Cimino.  Application was marked as exhibit A-1.  Plan prepared for property was marked as Exhibit A-2.  Ms. Matarese advised they want to install a screened porch off the kitchen.  They have owned the home for 10 years and would like to be able to enjoy being outside more often. 


Mr. Siegrist advised when he applied for a permit he was told they were outside the building envelope by 4’ on the northwest side and 9’ on the southwest corner due to the location of the house on the property.  The sunroom will be a one-story addition.  Deck will not be enclosed and will be placed on area which is shaded on the plan.  Sunroom will be 14’ x 14 and deck will be 10’ x 8.  Mr. Cimino advised they would be able to put the grill on the outside of the deck.  The deck will come out to balance out side of the house before it “juts” in.  Mr. Mayrhofer noted this is approximately 8’ x 10’.  This is technically a rear yard setback.  Mr. Toadvine noted the building envelope is set up for a 15’ setback.  Rear yard requirement is 40’.  Building envelope is set with that being the side yard.  Mr. Wagner advised when there is a corner lot they are allowed to make one a side yard even though it is a rear yard.  Proposed encroachment is 6’ leaving a 9’ side yard.    Ms. Kirk noted the application states encroachment of 9’.  Mr. Toadvine noted plan shows 6 and 8’ measurements.  8’ is portion within the building envelope and 6’ is outside.  After reviewing the plan it was agreed this is request for 6’ encroachment.


Motion made by Mr. Dobson granting variance to section 200-25B to allow for 9’ side yard setback.  Motion seconded by Mr. Mayrhofer and carried.





Application was marked as Exhibit A-1.  8 ½ x 11 plan of property was marked as Exhibit A-2.


Ms. Hufnal-Miller advised they have an existing screened porch attached to the house which was built in 1941 and they plan to change this to a 3-season porch.  They are not changing the footprint of the building.  Mr. Toadvine asked about the deck.  Ms. Hufnal-Miller advised the deck was built 10 years ago when they obtained a variance for an addition and deck but the contractor only got a permit for the addition not the deck.  Now they are reapplying for variance for the deck even though this now exists.


Motion made by Mr. Dobson approving variance as submitted.  Motion seconded by Mr. Mayrhofer and carried.



There being no other business motion made to adjourn.  The meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m.


                                                            Respectfully submitted,




                                                            David Malinowski, Secretary