NEWTOWN TOWNSHIP ZONING HEARING BOARD

MUNICIPAL BUILDING - 100 MUNICIPAL DRIVE

NEWTOWN, PA 18940

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2002

7:30 PM


Approval of the Minutes of October 3, 2002: Mr. Carver moved to approve the minutes of October 3, 2002. Mr. Lenihan seconded and the motion passed 4-0.


 The Newtown Township Zoning Hearing Board met on Thursday, October 3, 2002 in the Newtown Township Building. In attendance and voting were John Lenihan, Secretary; Michael Leone and Franklin Carver, Members.  Also in attendance were James J. Auchinleck, Jr., Esq., Solicitor; Thomas Harwood, Zoning Officer and Jackie Robbins, Stenographer. 

Call to Order 

Mr. Lenihan, acting as Chairman,  called the meeting to order at 7:30 PM. 

Pledge of Allegiance 

Approval of Minutes of September 5, 2002 

Mr. Lenihan noted that page two, paragraph two should read "November 14, 2001". 

Mr. Leone moved to accept the minutes of September 5, 2002, as amended. Mr. Carver seconded and the motion passed 3-0. 

The Agenda was reviewed. 

Application of Crossing Community Church (569-02)

Application of HQ Global Workplaces, Inc. (565-02)

Application of LaStalla, LLC (566-02)

Application of Pryda, LLC (573-02)

Application of William Manning for Jodi Smith (568-02)

Application of John W. Melsky, Estate of Ruth Melsky (567-02)

Application of Jim Ostrowski (571-02)

Application of Mike and Michele Riley (570-02)

Application of Brian D. Shea (572-02) 

Application of John W. Melsky, Estate of Ruth Melsky 

Mr. Auchinleck advised the Board that he had correspondence from Wayne Kordis, attorney for Mr. Melsky, requesting a continuance to November 7, 2002. 

Mr. Carver moved to continue the application of John W. Melsky, Estate of Ruth Melsky to November 7, 2002. Mr. Leone seconded and the motion passed 3-0. 

Application of Crossing Community Church 

Mr. Leone read into the record the application of Crossing Community Church requesting a variance from Section 803(B-16)(8) of the Joint Municipal Zoning Ordinance of 1983 to permit a single family to two family residential conversion in the OR District. The subject property is 80 Lower Silver Lake Road in the OR Office Research District. 

Mr. Joseph Carracapa represented the applicant in this matter. 

Mr.  Lenihan asked if anyone present wished to be a party to this application. There was no response. 

Mr. Gerhardt Laemmle, property manager of Crossing Community Church, was sworn in. 

Mr. Carracapa explained that Crossing Community Church occupies 14 acres on Lower Silver Lake Road at the Newtown By-Pass. He said that there are two separate residential buildings on the property, and that the Church would like to convert one of them to a two family dwelling. The building was built in 1815, and is three stories. The Church plans to build a small efficiency or one bedroom apartment on the top floor of this building. The apartment will meet all other zoning requirements; only the conversion requires a variance. 

Mr. Laemmle said that he lives in the other house on the property. The home to be converted will have parking for six cars, and is 50 feet from the Church parking lot. A window will be converted to a door on the third floor to provide a separate entrance. An outside staircase will be erected to the apartment, covered by a roof to the last five steps at the bottom. The landing on the stairs will be 8X10 feet to allow for furniture to be brought into the apartment. The apartment will be 840 square feet. The interior stairs will be removed and the opening sealed off. 

Mr. Lenihan asked who presently occupies the house, and if the Church has plans for the rental of the apartment. 

Mr. Laemmle explained that Mr. and Mrs. Aaron King and their three children live in the house. The Church intends to rent the apartment to a Church member, a single woman. He said that the Church rents the properties to Church members, or occasionally to visiting missionaries. The Church intends to retain ownership of the property as a rental unit for Church members, and does not intend to sub-divide the lot and sell it. 

Mr. Carracapa said that the Church would agree to that being a condition of the variance. 

Mr. Leone asked what other buildings are on the property. 

Mr. Carracapa said that there is a main Church building, a storage building, two residences, a plantation house used for Church offices, and a barn used for storage and for youth ministry activities. 

Mr. Leone asked what the third floor to be converted is used for now. 

Mr. Laemmle replied that it is used as an extra bedroom for the tenants of the house and for Church storage. He said that there is a peaked roof, with a height of twelve feet at the highest point. The roof line will be extended to cover the outside stairwell. 

Mr. Harwood had no comment on this matter. 

Mr. Leone moved to grant a variance from Section 803(B-16)(8) of the Joint Municipal Zoning Ordinance of 1983 to permit a single family to two family residential conversion in the OR District with the conditions that the property not be sub-divided and that the occupants of the apartment be affiliated with the Crossing Community Church. Mr. Carver seconded and the motion passed 3-0. 

Application of HQ Global Workplaces, Inc. 

Mr. Leone read into the record the application of HQ Global Workplaces, Inc., Pitcairn Properties Incorporated, requesting a variance from Section 1403(D)(1)(c) of the Joint Municipal Zoning Ordinance of 1983 to permit each individual short term lessee to operate under a blanket certificate of occupancy instead of securing individual certificates of occupancy. The subject property is 41 University Drive, Suite 400, in the OR, Office Research Zoning District.. 

Mr. John Ryan represented the applicant in this matter. 

Mr. Lenihan asked if anyone wished to be a party in this matter. There was no response. 

Mr. Jim Longon of HQ Workplaces, Inc., and Ms. Stacy Carr, office manager, were sworn in. 

Mr. Ryan entered as exhibits the following:

Exhibit A-1       Application for Hearing

Exhibit A-2       Agreement of Lease, Newtown Venture IV Assoc. and HQ Newtown

Exhibit A-3       HQ Certificate of Occupancy

Exhibit A-4        Letter from Thomas Harwood re individual certificates of occupancy

Exhibit A-5        HQ License Terms and Conditions

Exhibit A-6        Section 1403.C.3 Joint Municipal Zoning Ordinance 

Mr. Ryan explained that HQ Global Workplaces does not sub-let office space to sub-lessees. He said that HQ provides office space and office services, such as conference rooms, secretarial staff, copying, and telephones to business people for short term use. The customers sign a license agreement to use the office space and to share common areas. He pointed to paragraph 5 of the licensing agreement which states that it is not a lease or an interest in real property. He said that the arrangement that the customers have with HQ can be compared to the arrangement of guests to a hotel, but rather than bedrooms, they have contracted for office space. HQ controls the property setting. Mr. Ryan said that this arrangement has recently been upheld by the Philadelphia courts as not a landlord/tenant arrangement, but a licensing arrangement.

Mr. Longon said that his clients sometimes require very quick service. He may have a client ask for office space for later that same day. The Newtown Township certificate of occupancy process can take days, at best, and this would be an undue hardship to his business. 

Mr. Ryan stated that because HQ controls the premises at all times, that there is not a change in occupancy. He said that there are over 400 HQ Workplaces in the U.S., and he has not been required to provide separate certificates of occupancy in any other municipality. 

Mr. Longon said that there are no structural changes within the offices as clients come and go. Most do not bring their own furniture. HQ offers a menu of services and month to month licensing. 

Mr. Leone asked how many different businesses use HQ at any given time, and what is the length of stay. 

Ms. Carr said that HQ occupies 2/3 of the fourth floor of the building. She said that there are as many as 70 clients at any given time, although not all are in offices at the same time. In a typical day there may be 30 people on the premises. She said that some large firms have long term use agreements as a place for traveling business people. They will have agreements with the parent HQ organization to use HQ offices throughout the world. Many businesses also use HQ as a test market headquarters for a few months or a year. They also provide such services as video conferencing and color copying, and for that clients may only come in for a few hours. 

Mr. Harwood had no comment on this matter. 

Mr. Auchinleck suggested that the Board could vote to grant relief, and that he will further research the matter as to whether a variance or an interpretation of the Joint Municipal Zoning Ordinance is needed. 

Mr. Carver moved to grant relief to permit individual short term licensees to operate under a blanket certificate of occupancy issued to HQ Global Workplaces. Mr. Leone seconded and the motion passed 3-0. 

Application of LaStalla, LLC 

Mr. Leone read into the record the application of LaStalla, LLC, Robert Shasha, Newtown Assoc., owners requesting a variance from Section 1104(B)(6) and 1106(H)(4)(a) of the Joint Municipal Zoning Ordinance of 1983 to permit a novelty sign to be displayed at a restaurant entrance and to allow an additional individual establishment sign. The subject property is 18 Swamp Road, Lovett Barn, in the PC Planned Commercial District. 

Mr. Peter Immordino, owner and Mrs. Elinor Campbell of the Newtown Township HARB were sworn in. 

Mr. Lenihan asked if anyone wished to be a  party to the application. There was no response. 

Mr. Immordino explained that he has a large statue at the entrance to his restaurant, and that he has met with Mrs. Campbell about satisfying any HARB requirements before applying for this variance. 

Mrs. Campbell said that she and Mr. Immordino had agreed that if the statue were moved to the area of the former barnyard, behind the bocce court, it would be less visible from the street. There are bushes and strawberry plants in this area, and they will grow to almost completely hide the statue from view in a short time. Mrs. Campbell said that Mr. Immordino has also agreed to face the statue toward the restaurant, rather than toward the street. Such placement will satisfy HARB requirements, and they will not object to a variance being granted. 

Mr. Immordino noted the agreed upon location on the application, entered as Exhibit ZHB-1. 

Mr. Harwood had no comment on this matter. 

Mr. Lenihan noted that La Stalla is permitted two signs. He asked if they intend to put up an additional sign. 

Mr. Immordino said that the Workbench has the other sign. He said that he has a sign over the entrance of the restaurant, but that he does not need another sign. He will not be using the sign when Workbench vacates. 

Mr. Lenihan moved to grant a variance from Section 1104(B)(6) and 1106(H)(4)(a) of the Joint municipal Zoning Ordinance of 1983 to permit a novelty sign to be displayed at a restaurant entrance and to allow an additional individual establishment identification sign, with the condition that the variance be limited to the novelty sign pictured in the application, that it be moved to the location specified in Exhibit ZHB-1, and that there be no wording or lettering on the sign. Mr. Carver seconded and the motion passed 3-0. 

Application of Pryda LLC 

Mr. Leone read into the record the application of Pryda, LLC requesting a variance from Section 603(A) and 803(E-16)(1) of the Joint Municipal Zoning Ordinance of 1983 to permit E-16 use and use D-1 commercial conversion in the TC district. The subject property is 159 Sycamore Street, in the TC Town Commercial District. 

Mr. Thomas Crawford, a member of Pryda, LLC, was sworn in. 

Mr. Lenihan asked if anyone wished to be a party to this application. 

Mr. Vincent Lombardi of 125 and 123 North Sycamore Street said that he wished to be a party to this application. 

Mr. Crawford explained that he has purchased the red duplex on the corner of Sycamore and Jefferson Streets, with the intention of renovating the building as office space for his law practice. He said that it is an odd shaped lot, backing onto a creek. The building has been neglected and is in need of major repair. He said that the building had been an ice cream shop at one time, then an electric supply shop. During the time that it was an electric supply  shop, the owner, Mr. Plummer, lived on one side of the building and had his shop on the other side. There are still shelves and electric supplies in the shop portion of the building, and there is a store front style window. Upon the death of Mr. Plummer, Mrs. Plummer remained in the house but closed the business. She has tried unsuccessfully to sell the property. Two deals that fell through involved a bank and a coffee shop. Mr. Crawford said that the property has a long history of being a commercial property, rather than a residential property. 

Mr. Crawford said that he felt that for the property to be considered a residential property is a hardship. He said that the history of the building has been primarily commercial, and that the current renovations to the whole of Sycamore Street make the location most suitable for office space. 

Mr. Lenihan asked how long has it been since the building was last in commercial use. 

Mr. Crawford said that he thought it had been about seven years. 

Mr. Carver said that he believed that Mr. Plummer had died, and his shop closed, at least ten years ago. 

Mr. Lenihan asked Mr. Crawford how many employees would occupy the offices. 

Mr. Crawford said that there would be about six people in the offices. He said that he is removing the garage, which HARB has confirmed has no historical significance, and would be able to provide about 12 parking spaces. 

Mr. Leone said that Mr. Crawford was asking for a variance 603(A) and 803(E-16) commercial conversion. He said that he did not think that this was in fact a conversion to commercial use, but a D-1, office use. 

Mr. Lombardi was sworn in. 

Mr. Lombardi said that he thought that the Zoning Hearing Board was not the proper venue for deciding this matter. He said that he thought that Mr. Crawford should first have to appear before the Planning Commission for conditional use, then again before the Planning Commission with a sketch plan which would then need approval from the Board of Supervisors. He said that a land development plan must be submitted to the Planning Commission, at which time such matters as parking, curbing, landscape buffering, sidewalks, internal driveways, etc. would be reviewed. He said that this particular property slopes toward the creek and matters of impervious surface must be considered. The plans must also meet with the approval of the Sycamore Street Improvement committee. 

Mr. Lombardi entered as Exhibit L-1 the Heritage Conservancy letter re the Tyrol property at 223 Sycamore Street, dated February 24, 2000. Mr. Lombardi said the letter serves as an example of the issues covered during the Conditional Use process. He said that Tyrol is the fifth property on Sycamore Street to be developed using the Conditional Use Process 

Mr. Lombardi entered as Exhibit L-2 The Joint Municipal Zoning Ordinance Article VI, Section 603. Mr. Lombardi said that the Ordinance permits by Conditional Use in the TC District, 603 (A)(2)(f), Office, use D-1. He said that the applicant should not be before the Zoning Hearing Board but the Planning Commission as the office use of TC properties is a permitted use by Conditional Approval. 

Mr. Carver asked why the Supervisors did not bring this point up at their meeting when the Zoning Hearing Applications were reviewed by their solicitor. 

Mr. Lombardi said that some of the Supervisors thought that this might be a "glitch" in the Ordinance, and there was not time to review the matter before this evening's meeting. 

Mr. Lenihan said that in the past applicants have appeared before the Zoning Hearing Board to be sure that their intended plans are allowed before going through the land development process. 

Mr. Auchinleck said that the applicant has asked for a variance for a conversion from a residential use. 

Mr. Lombardi said that the applicant is currently working on the property without a permit. 

Mr. Crawford said that he intends to be a good neighbor and to comply with all of the Township requirements. He explained that he has a demolition  permit, and had begun the conditional use application process, but had been told by the Codes office that he would first need a commercial conversion variance. He said that he was asking the Zoning Hearing Board for either a variance for a commercial conversion or an interpretation of the Joint Municipal Zoning Ordinance. 

Mr. Crawford said that he intends to comply with HARB on all the work being done, and has already met with Mrs. Campbell. He said that he understands that his project is subject to all Newtown Township requirements, and it is not his intention to circumvent these requirements. 

Mr. Lombardi asked if Mr. Crawford had permits for electric, plumbing and carpentry being done at the property. 

Mr. Crawford said that he has a demolition permit, and the work being done is only demolition. The carpentry work is only to keep the building intact as walls are being removed. 

Mr. Lombardi entered as Exhibit L-3 the joint Municipal Zoning Ordinance Article VIII, Section 803.E-15.3. Mr. Lombardi said that the ordinance states that a commercial conversion is also a conditional use in the TC District. 

Mr. Crawford said that he is requesting an interpretation, as he has been told by the Codes Office that a variance would be required before his other permits could be issued., 

Mr. Harwood was sworn in. 

Mr. Harwood said that the issue is the conversion of the building from a residential use. He said that the building has not had any commercial use in at least ten years; that it is a detached single family residence. He said that a demolition permit had been issued several months ago, and that the property is to be inspected tomorrow. He said that this property will require land development approval because of the slope of the property, the parking issues and street access. 

Mr. Auchinleck advised the Board that the Ordinance does not provide for conversion from residential to D-1 Office use. 

Mr. Harwood said that the applicant needs to seek relief for D-1 use. 

Mr. Auchinleck advised the Board that this is not a commercial conversion, which would be to E-1,3,4,5,8 or 20, all retail uses. 

Mr. Harwood said that the property had been a residence, converted to a commercial use in 1960, and has not existed as a commercial use in many years. It is now a residence. 

Mr. Crawford said that although it has not been actively a commercial use, it has not been used at all. The commercial area of the building has not been used as residential, and all fixtures of the commercial establishment have remained. 

Mr. Auchinleck advised the Board that he did not believe that this is a commercial conversion of a residence. He said that the commercial conversion is limited to E-1,3,4,5,8 and 20. This is a D-1 office use which is a permitted use with conditional approval. He also said that this property is also subject to compliance with the requirements of the Sycamore Street Improvement committee. 

Mr. Carver moved to deny the application of Pryda LLC for a variance from Section 603(A) and 803(E-16)(1) of the Joint Municipal Zoning Ordinance to permit E-16 use and D-1 commercial conversion in the TC District because Section 803(E-16) is not applicable to the subject property as 803(D-1) use as a professional law office is permitted as a conditional use in the TC District with Conditional Use approval and Land Development approval from the Board of Supervisors. This application will be held open for amendment should the review process reveal that other zoning relief is required. Mr. Leone seconded and the motion passed 3-0. 

Application of William Manning for Jodi Smith 

Mr. Leone read into the record the application of William Manning for Jodi Smith requesting a variance from Section 405(C) of the Joint Municipal Zoning Ordinance of 1983 to permit construction of a 28  foot by 40 foot two story addition resulting in a 19% impervious surface ratio where the maximum permitted is 13% and a special exception under Section 1208 (C)(2) to allow expansion of a non-conforming building on a non-conforming lot. The subject property is 90 Linden Avenue in the R-2 High Density Residential Zoning District. 

Mr. William Manning, contractor and Ms. Jodi Smith, owner, were sworn in. 

Mr. Lenihan asked if anyone wished to be a party to this application.

Mr. Phil Neuhardt, a neighbor at 58 German Avenue, was sworn in as a  party to the application. 

Mr. Manning said that Ms. Smith wished to put a 28 X 40 foot extension onto the existing house. He said that the plans are in the early stages, but he felt that he should apply for a variance to see how much additional impervious surface would be allowed. He said that the existing driveway is to be removed, and a 1 1/2 car garage with a shorter driveway will be added. The preliminary plans call for an additional 1120 square feet to be added to the building for a total square footage of 1981 square feet. 

Mr. Lenihan asked Mr. Manning to better explain the plan for the proposed garage and driveway. 

Mr. Manning said that the garage will be a deep one car garage, with room for steps into the house and some storage. The driveway will use the same curb cut, but will turn around for a side entry garage. 

Mr. Leone asked if 19% impervious surface is the minimum that Mr. Manning would need. 

Mr. Manning responded that the plans could be modified if less impervious surface is granted. He said that the plans  will call for opening up the inside of the house as well as adding to the house. He said that it will be a cape cod style house with a dormered second floor, not a tall, two story house with attic. 

Mr. Neuhardt asked to see the plans for the house. He asked what the setbacks would be. 

Mr. Manning said that the front yard  setback would be 31 feet and the side yard would be 24 feet. 

Mr. Neuhardt asked if Ms. Smith would be living in the house. 

Ms. Smith said that she is living elsewhere during the construction but plans to move into the house when it is finished. 

Mr. Nuehardt said that he did not think the current size of the house constitutes a hardship because the previous residents, the Dingle family lived in the 861 square foot house with their five children. 

Mr. Nuehardt also expressed concern about the construction phase of the expansion. He questioned Mr. Manning about storage of equipment and supplies, and asked about maintaining the mature trees on the property. 

Mr. Manning responded that all construction equipment and vehicles would use the existing driveway and be removed nightly and that supplies would be stored in the yard and covered with tarps. He said that there were many dead branches and overgrown trees on the property. The property would be cleared of debris and fallen branches; three mature trees would be removed for the addition. 

Mr. Nuehardt said that he has lived in the neighborhood for 24 years, and has worked in construction. He said that he is concerned that the character of the neighborhood be maintained. He said that he is concerned about the disruption caused by the construction phase and also about the size of such a large house on the property. He is very concerned about removal of mature trees.  He requested that the Board uphold the Zoning Ordinance in this instance. 

Ms. Smith said that she understands that the construction will be disruptive, but that such projects are being undertaken throughout the neighborhood, with the result being improvements to old and sometimes neglected properties. 

Mr. Leone asked if it would be possible to put the entrance to the garage at the front of the house and save some impervious surface that way. He calculated that a front entry garage would save about 2% impervious surface. 

Mr. Auchinleck advised the board that they could approve an increase in the impervious surface ratio but that the applicant would decide how to plan the use of the impervious surface. 

Mr. Harwood said that he was concerned about the turn-around area into the garage. He said that as drawn, it did not look as though it would satisfy the code inspector. 

Mr. Lenihan said that he understood Mr. Neuhardt's concern for the disruption in the neighborhood, but agreed that by today's standards the size of the house does seem like a hardship. 

Mr. Lenihan moved to grant a variance from Section 405(C) of the Joint Municipal Zoning Ordinance of 1983 to permit construction of a 28 foot by 40 foot addition resulting in an impervious surface ratio  of 17% where the maximum permitted is 13%, and a Special Exception under Section 1208(C)(2) to allow expansion of a non-conforming building on a non-conforming lot, with the condition that the maximum height of the addition not exceed 24 feet.  Mr. Leone seconded and the motion passed 3-0. 

Application of Jim Ostrowski 

  Mr. Leone read into the record the application of  Jim Ostrowski requesting a variance from Section 401(B) and 1000(E)(4) (Eagle Glen Final Plan) of the Joint Municipal Zoning Ordinance of 1983 to permit construction of a 160 square foot storage shed resulting in a 3 feet rear yard setback where 12 feet if required and a 25.63% impervious surface ratio where the maximum allowed is 20%. The subject property is  3 Amy Circle in the CM Conservation Management Zoning District. 

Mr. Jim Ostrowski and Ms. Denise Ostrowski were sworn in. 

Mr. Lenihan asked if anyone present wished to be a party to this application. There was no response. 

Mr. Ostrowski said that at the time that he was applying for an application for a permit to put in a pool and patio he was told that he would need a variance for impervious surface. His pool plans that were submitted for that variance did not include the shed that had been part of the plans that he had initially submitted for the permit. He was granted a variance for 25% impervious surface for the pool and patio with a retaining wall only. He has already installed the shed, which exceeds the impervious surface ratio by .63%, and is only 3 feet from his property line. His property backs onto Newtown Grant common ground, not directly onto a rear neighbor's property. 

Mr. Harwood had no comment in this matter. 

Mr. Lenihan moved to grant the variance from Section 401 (B) and 1000(E)(4) (Eagle Glen Final Plan) of the Joint Municipal Zoning Ordinance of 1983 to permit construction of a 160 square foot storage shed resulting in a 3 foot rear yard setback where 12 feet is required and a 25.63% impervious surface ratio where the maximum allowed is 20%. Mr. Leone seconded and the motion passed 3-0. 

Application of Mike and Michele Riley 

Mr. Leone read into the record the application of Mike and Michele Riley requesting a variance from Section 401(C) (Pheasant Pointe Final Plan) of the Joint Municipal Zoning Ordinance of 1983 to permit construction of a 15 by 30 foot  patio resulting in a 30 foot rear yard setback where 40 feet is required. The subject property is 7 Timothy Drive in the CM Conservation Management Zoning District. 

Mr. Larry Konyvicks  of K&S Greenday, Landscape Contractors, was sworn in. 

Mr. Lenihan asked if anyone wished to be a party to this application. There was no response. 

Mr. Konyvicks said that he is the contractor on this project. Mr. Riley was not able to stay for the meeting. He said that he did not know when he built the patio that there was a 40 foot setback requirement. He said that he had not looked at the permit before beginning the job. The patio is already installed. To remove the patio and rebuild it to meet the 40 foot setback requirement would cost $15,000. 

Mr. Konyvicks submitted as Exhibits A-1 and A-2, letters from Mr. Goerbel and Mr. Anhalt, the adjoining neighbors, stating that they do not object to the patio setback. 

Mr. Leone asked if Mr. Konyvicks was the contractor for the patio at 8 Alexander Way, which was before the Zoning Hearing Board in September for the same setback variance. At that time the homeowner said that the contractor had been unaware of the setback requirement. 

Mr. Konyvicks said that his brother had built that patio. They have since combined their businesses. He also noted that a fence would be installed around this property. 

Mr. Harwood had no comment in this matter. 

Mr. Carver moved to grant a variance from Section 401(C) (Pheasant Pointe Final Plan) of the Joint Municipal Zoning Ordinance of 1983 to permit construction of a 15 foot by 30 foot patio resulting in a 30 foot rear yard setback where 40 feet is required. Mr. Lenihan seconded and the motion passed 2-1, with Mr. Leone voting nay. 

Application of Brian Shea 

Mr. Leone read into the record the application of Brian Shea requesting a variance from Section 405(B) and 405(C)  of the Joint Municipal Zoning Ordinance of 1983 to permit construction of a 13 feet by 17 feet patio and a 15 feet by 19 feet two story addition resulting in an 18.4% impervious surface ratio and a special exception under Section 1208(C)(2) to permit expansion of a building on a non-conforming lot. The subject property is 572 Sterling Street in the R-2 High Density Residential Zoning District.

Mr. Brian Shea and Ms. Jan Shea were sworn in. 

Mr. Lenihan asked if anyone wished to be a party to this application. There was no response. 

Mr. Shea pointed out that he was also seeking a variance for a 37 foot rear yard setback, where 40 feet is required. 

Mr. Shea said that he would like to add a two story addition to his home for an additional family room downstairs and an enlarged master bed and bath upstairs. He would be building over the existing patio and would like to replace it with a new patio. He said that his four children had grown up and required a room to watch television and entertain friends. He said that his property had a 20% maximum impervious surface ratio that had been changed to 13% by the Joint Municipal Zoning Ordinance of 1983. The house currently has a 16.7% impervious surface ratio, and is a non-conforming building. 

Mr. Leone said that he had visited the site and thought that the property is large enough that the addition would not be an intrusion on the neighbors, nor should water run off be a problem. 

Mr. Harwood had no comment in this matter. 

Mr. Leone moved to grant a variance from Section 405(B) and 405(C) of the Joint Municipal Zoning Ordinance of 1983 to permit construction of a 13 feet by 15 feet patio and a 15 feet by 19 feet two story addition resulting in an impervious surface ratio of 18.4% and a rear yard setback of 37 feet, and a Special Exception from Section 1208(C)(2) to permit expansion of a building on a non-conforming lot. Mr. Carver seconded and the motion passed 3-0. 

Mr. Lenihan moved to adjourn at 11:10PM. Mr. Carver seconded and the motion passed 3-0. 

 

Respectfully Submitted

 

 

_____________________________
Mary Donaldson, Recording Secretary.