NEWTOWN TOWNSHIP ZONING HEARING BOARD

MUNICIPAL BUILDING - 100 MUNICIPAL DRIVE

NEWTOWN, PA 18940

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2002

7:30 PM


Approval of the Minutes of  November 7, 2003 

Mr. Lenihan moved to accept the minutes of November 7, 2003. Mr. Carver seconded and the motion passed 3-0-1, with Mr. Ragan abstaining.    Mr. Lionetti moved to adjourn at 9:30 PM. Mr. Carver seconded and the motion passed 4-0.


The Newtown Township Zoning Hearing Board met on Thursday, November 7, 2002 in the Newtown Township Building. In attendance and voting were Mario Lionetti, Chairman; John Lenihan, Secretary; Franklin Carver and Michael Leone, members. Also in attendance were James J. Auchinleck, Jr., Esq., Solicitor; Thomas Harwood, Zoning Officer; and Jackie Robbins, Stenographer. 

Call to Order

Mr. Lionetti called the meeting to order at 7:35PM. 

Pledge of Allegiance 

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 Agenda was reviewed. 

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

Application of Joseph Dunn and Patricia Dunn (580-02)

Application of Michael DiNardo and Jennifer Fowler (577-02)

Application of Raymond J. Menna and Mary Menna (578-02)

Application of Honora Rockar (574-02)

Application of Greg and Barbara Roedler (579-02)

Application of Gerald Katzoff, Durham Road Associates (576-02)

Application of Newtown Center Associates (575-02) 

Application of Joseph Dunn 

Mr. Lenihan read into the record the application of Joseph Dunn and Patricia Dunn, owners, requesting a variance from Section 404(B) and 404(C) and a Special Exception under Section 1208(C)(2) of the Joint Municipal Zoning Ordinance of 1983 to permit construction of a bedroom addition, screened porch, two car garage, and a breezeway with a 20.24% impervious surface ratio where 12% is the maximum; a 12.5 foot side yard setback where 24 feet is required; and a 35.4 foot aggregate side yard setback where 64 feet is required and to permit expansion of a building on a non-conforming lot. The subject property is 181 Durham Road in the R-1 Medium Density Residential Zoning District. 

Mr. Joseph Dunn was sworn in. 

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

Mr. Dunn explained that his house is a small ranch house on the west side of Durham Road. It was built in 1965 on a 1/2-acre lot. It is not part of any development. He said that the bedrooms are small, there is only one small bathroom, and there are only a few small closets. There is no garage, and he must store his trash bins and lawn equipment outside. He further explained that his expansion plans are similar to expansions of other older homes on his street.  

Mr. Lenihan asked if the house is occupied now, and if the applicant planned to live in the house. 

Mr. Dunn said that he would be moving into the house with his wife and his son, who is away at college, when the renovations are complete. 

Mr. Leone asked if the garage could be built closer to the house to conform to the side yard setback requirements. 

Mr. Dunn said that he wanted to build the garage over the already paved car pad to eliminate the need for additional impervious surface. 

Mr. Harwood had no comment on this matter.

Mr. Lenihan said that he visited the site and noted that the home had been built before the Ordinance, with a 20% impervious surface ratio, and he did not see any problems with run-off. 

Mr. Lenihan moved to grant a variance from Section 404(B) and 404(C) and a Special exception under 1208(C)(2) of the Joint Municipal Zoning Ordinance of 1983 to permit construction of a one bedroom addition, screened porch, two car garage and breezeway with a 20.24% impervious surface ratio where 12% is the maximum; a 12.5 foot side yard setback where 24 feet is required; a 35.4 feet aggregate side yard setback where 64 feet is required and a Special Exception to permit expansion of a building on a non-conforming lot. Mr. Leone seconded and the motion passed 4-0. 

Application of Michael DiNardo and Jennifer Fowler 

Mr. Lenihan read into the record the application of Michael DiNardo and Jennifer Fowler, requesting a variance from Section 402(B) of the Joint Municipal Zoning Ordinance of 1983 to permit subdivision of a 6.09 acre parcel into two lots, one of which will be 2.679 acres (1.679 acres to remain as open space) where three acres is required. The subject property is 49 Stoopville Road in the CM Conservation Management Zoning District.  

Mr. Don Marshall represented the applicants in this matter. 

Mr. DiNardo and Ms. Fowler were sworn in. 

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

Mr. Marshall entered as Exhibit A-1 a plan for 49 Stoopville Road. He explained that the property currently has a small dwelling, a garage and a shed that encroach on the ultimate right-of-way of Stoopville Road. The applicants would like to sub-divide the lot into two lots and live in the existing house on lot one while building a house on lot two. After completion of the new house the applicants will move to that house and sell lot one, either with the existing dwelling, or after demolishing the buildings and building another new house. 

Mr. Marshall entered as Exhibit A-2 a copy of the deed to the property. The deed shows that title goes to the centerline of Stoopville Road. The plan shows the existing right-of-way and the ultimate right-of-way. The ultimate right-of-way runs through the existing dwelling. It is the applicants' intent to sub-divide the property to the legal right-of-way, creating two lots, one 3.49 acres and the other 2.81 acres. The property is triangular in shape with 660 feet of frontage on Stoopville Road. 

Mr. Marshall said that a small stream runs through the property and that the Planning Commission is considering changing the Ordinance to require a 100-foot setback from streams. The plan for lot one complies with this proposed change in the Ordinance. Lot two is planned at less than 3 acres to comply with all setback requirements. 

Mr. Marshall said that all building plans for lot two comply with all impervious surface requirements, setback requirements and height requirements. The only variance required is for the lot less than 3 acres. 

Mr. DiNardo confirmed all that Mr. Marshall had presented. He also agreed that as a condition of approval he would agree to dedicating the ultimate right-of-way to the Township. 

Mr. Marshall presented Marlboro v. Fiechter that found that a municipality cannot require the dedication of an ultimate right of way. 

Mr. Carver asked if the properties are connected to sewers and municipal water. 

Mr. DiNardo said that lot one is serviced by public water and sewer and that the septic system is disconnected. Lot two can be connected when the new house is built. They hope to complete building of the house within one year. 

Mr. Leone asked what size house is planned for lot two and if the house on lot one is vacant. 

Mr. DiNardo said that they intend to move into the house on lot one after completion of some repairs, and to build a house of about 4,000 square feet on lot two. 

Mr. Lenihan said that he had visited the site and thought that the .321 acres of relief was not a problem. 

Mr. Harwood had no comment. 

Mr. Carver moved to grant a variance from Section 402(B) of the Joint Municipal Zoning Ordinance of 1983 to permit subdivision of a 6.09 acre parcel into two lots, one of which will be 2.679 acres (1.679 acres to remain as open space), where three acres is required with the conditions that lots one and two not be further sub-divided and that at the time of construction of a new home on lot one, said home conform to all setback requirements and that area in the ultimate right-of-way be dedicated to Newtown Township. Mr. Leone seconded and the motion passed 4-0. 

Application of Raymond J. Menna and Mary Menna 

Mr. Lenihan read into the record the application of Raymond J. Menna and Mary Menna requesting a variance from Section 405(B) and a Special Exception under Section 1208(C)(2) of the Joint Municipal Zoning Ordinance of 1983 to permit construction of a 29.8 by 16 foot one story addition and an 8 by 14 foot shed resulting in a maximum impervious surface ratio of 18.57% where 13% is the maximum permitted and to permit expansion of a building on a non-conforming lot. The subject property is 417 Sterling Street in the R-2 High Density Residential Zoning District. 

Mr. Auchinleck advised the Board that the subject property is located at 417 Taylor Avenue, and that because the incorrect address appeared in the advertisement and notices were sent to neighbors of the wrong address, the matter must be re-advertised for the December meeting. 

Mr. Lionetti moved to continue the application of Raymond J. Menna and Mary Menna to December 5, 2002. Mr. Leone seconded and the motion passed 4-0.     

Application of Honora Rockar 

Mr. Lenihan read into the record the application of Helena Rockar requesting a variance from Section 401(C) (St. Andrew's Briar Final Plan) of the Joint Municipal Zoning Ordinance of 1983 to permit construction of an 11 foot by 18 foot Henry Paver patio at the rear of an existing house, resulting in a 44 foot rear yard setback where 50 feet is required. The subject property is 2 Blayze Court in the CM Conservation Management Zoning District. 

Ms. Helena Rockar was sworn in. 

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

Ms. Rockar explained that she wished to build an E.P.Henry Paver patio in her rear yard, but the setback requirements were such that no patio could be built. She said that none of her neighbors had any objection to her plans.  

Mr. Lenihan said that he had visited the site and noted that the walkway to the rear had already been installed. 

Ms. Rockar said that the walkway did not require a variance and that the Codes Office advised her that she could begin this portion of the project. 

Mr. Lenihan said that the property backs onto a retention basin, and is about 500 feet from St. Andrew's School. There is a tree line between the property and the school. He said that because this does not involve an impervious surface issue he did not think the setback was a problem. 

Mr. Harwood had no comment in this matter. 

Mr. Leone moved to grant a variance from Section 401(C)(St. Andrew's Briar Final Plan) of the Joint Municipal Zoning Ordinance of 1983 to permit construction of an 11 foot by 18 foot Henry Paver patio in the rear of the existing house resulting an a 44 foot rear yard setback where 50 feet is required. Mr. Carver seconded and the motion passed 4-0. 

Application of Greg and Barbara Roedler 

Mr. Lenihan read into the record the application of Greg and Barbara Roedler requesting a variance from Section 405(C)(Newtown Grant Final Plan) of the Joint Municipal Zoning Ordinance of 1983 to permit construction of a 16 foot by 22 foot one story 3-season patio room resulting in a 15 foot rear yard setback where 30 feet is required by Section 405(C) amended to 25 feet by Newtown Grant's Final Plan. The subject property is 36 Cottonwood Street in the R-2 High Density residential Zoning District. 

Mr. Greg Roedler and Mr. Peter Tettermer, patio room contractor, were sworn in. 

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

Mr. Roedler said that he does not use his backyard and would rather have a patio room as a rec. room for his teenage daughter. He would need the room to be 16 feet by 22 feet to accommodate a pool table.  He said that his is an end unit townhome with an easement between his and the next nearest building. The plans call for the room to be primarily glass with knee high siding that will be the same as the rest of the house. 

Mr. Lenihan said that he had visited the site and noted a 10-foot by 14-foot concrete slab  in the yard where the room will be. He asked if the patio would be built over the slab. 

Mr. Roedler said that the room will be built over the slab, and that the concrete will not be removed. 

Mr. Leone said that he had visited the site and felt that the townhome is very close to its neighbors and that the development was becoming too crowded. 

Mr. Roedler said that the room will be glass and will seem light and open. He pointed out that his next-door neighbor has the same room. He said that none of his neighbors object, and he wanted the enclosed room for privacy because his yard is open and used as a pass through for lawn services and children on bicycles. He has received approval from the Newtown Grant Homeowners Association. 

Mr. Carver asked if these were the only two houses in this section with such additions. 

Mr. Lenihan said that he noted a number of other patio rooms and three season rooms along this street. 

Mr. Harwood had no comment. 

Mr. Lionetti moved to grant a variance from Section 405(C)(Newtown Grant Final Plan) of the Joint Municipal Zoning Ordinance of 1983 to permit construction of a 16 foot by 22 foot one story three season room resulting in a 15 foot rear yard setback where 30 feet is required by Section 405(C) amended to 25 feet by Newtown Grant's Final Plan. Mr. Carver seconded and the motion passed 3-1 with Mr. Leone voting nay. 

Continued Application of John W. Melsky, Estate of Ruth Melsky 

Mr. Lenihan read into the record the application of John W. Melsky, Estate of Ruth Melsky, requesting a variance from Section 401(B) and a Special Exception under 1208(C)(1)(a) and 1208(C)(2) of the Joint Municipal Zoning Ordinance of 1983 to permit a single family house without combining two contiguous parcels on a lot 1.385 acres where 3 acres is required and to permit a building/expansion on a non-conforming lot. The subject property is Stoopville Road in the CM Conservation Management Zoning District, tax map parcel number 29-7-3. 

Mr. Martin J. King is representing the applicant for the portion of testimony given by his law partner, Wayne N. Cordes, who is both a witness and represents the applicant in this matter. 

Mr. Lionetti asked if anyone present wished to be a party to this application. Mr. John Van Luvanee, representing Leo Holt and Julie Loften, owners of tax map parcels 29-7-1 and 29-7-2, the adjoining properties, asked for party status in this matter. 

Mr. Cordes was sworn in. 

Mr. Cordes stated that he has been an attorney in Newtown for 30 years with the firm of Cordes King, L.L.P. He represents John W. Melsky, executor of the Estate of Ruth Melsky. Mr. Cordes said that Mr. Melsky wished to purchase and build a home on a 1.385-acre lot, currently owned by the Estate of Ruth Melsky. He contacted Mr. Harwood about this matter after being told in the Codes Office that there are not separate forms for an application for a zoning use permit. 

Mr. Cordes entered as Exhibit A-1 a letter to Mr. Harwood dated March 3, 2002, detailing his request for a Zoning Use Permit or in its stead, that said letter be considered a formal application for a use permit. 

Mr. Cordes said that following this letter he had a telephone conversation with Mr. Harwood on March 26, 2002, at which time Mr. Harwood advised him that he must use the Township Building Permit form for his application. 

Mr. Cordes entered as Exhibit A-2 his covering letter dated April 3, 2002, and the "Application for a Zoning Use Permit" using Newtown Township's Building Permit form. 

Mr. Cordes said that in response to this letter and application he had a telephone conversation with Mr. Harwood on April 15, 2002, during which conversation Mr. Harwood requested the plans for the lots, or in their absence, the separate deeds and plans for the sewer lines. 

Mr. Cordes entered as Exhibit A-3 his faxed letter and cover sheet, along with attached copy of the plan relating to sewer easements. 

Mr. Cordes stated that these lots were purchased separately, with lot one, tax map parcel 29-007-003, 1.136 acres recorded on October 3, 1950 in County Deed Book 0971, page 0516, and the second lot, tax map parcel 29-007-003, 1.385 acres recorded on September 5, 1956 in County Deed Book 1329, page 0391. Both lots were acquired by Stephen A. Melsky and Ruth J. Melsky prior to the first zoning ordinance in 1959. 

Mr. Cordes entered as Exhibit A-4 his letter dated July 18, 2002, asking the status of the Application for Zoning Use Permit. 

Mr. Cordes said that he had not had a reply to his application, mailed in April. He entered as Exhibit A-5 a Notice of Zoning Disapproval from Newtown Township, with post-it note dated July 25, 2002. 

Mr. Van Luvanee asked the date of the Notice of Zoning Disapproval, and if the Post-it note was part of the Exhibit.  

Mr. Cordes said that the Notice was dated April 15, 2002, however the copy with the Post-it, signed by Kristie, was received in his office July 29, 2002. This was the only copy he had received. 

Mr. Van Luvanee noted that the Township's copy of Exhibit A-2 had a Township time stamp dated July 22, 2002. He asked Mr. Cordes if the letter had been re-mailed. 

Mr. Cordes said that because he had not received a response to his April 3, 2002 letter, he had sent another copy on July 18, 2002. 

Mr. Van Luvanee asked if, as attorney for the Estate of Ruth Melsky, he had been involved in handling any tax bills for the property, and if the property received two tax bills for the two parcels. 

Mr. Cordes said that he had received only one tax bill for the entire combined parcel. 

Mr. Van Luvanee entered as Exhibit H-1, the Joint Municipal Zoning Ordinance of 1983, as amended through August 1989 regarding Conservation Management Districts,  which is the same as today. 

Mr. John Melsky was sworn in. 

Mr. Cordes entered as Exhibit A-6, a certified copy of the deed dated October 3, 1950, for the Melsky home, and Exhibit A-7,  a certified copy of the deed dated September 5, 1956 for the adjoining vacant lot.  

Mr. Melsky stated that he resides at 784 Linton Hill Road. He wishes to buy the vacant lot from his mother's estate to build a new home for himself. The adjoining property is the home he had been raised in. Mr. Melsky stated that he had lived in the home for 28 years and his parents had lived there until their deaths. His mother died in 2001. The vacant lot had been farmed by his family until 1987. 

Mr. Cordes entered as Exhibit A-8, a photograph taken November 2, 2002, showing the Melsky home at 238 Stoopville Road, and Exhibit A-9, a photograph of the vacant lot showing a line of trees delineating the property line. 

Mr. Melsky stated that a cornerstone marks the two lots, and that the trees were planted by his father in 1995 to show the property line. 

Mr. Cordes entered as Exhibit A-10 a photograph of the Stoopville Road frontage, with the property marker visible, and Exhibit A-11, the rear property line. 

Mr. Melsky stated that his parents' home has a lawn, but the vacant lot has mown weeds.  

Mr. Cordes Entered as Exhibit A-12, a photograph taken from the center of the vacant lot.  

Mr. Melsky pointed out that there have been no improvements to the vacant lot such as landscaping, fences or buildings. He said that it had been his father's intent to leave the lot unimproved until such time as one of his children chose to build on it or perhaps he would build a new house for himself. 

Mr. VanLuvanee objected, as Mr. Melsky's parents cannot be cross-examined. 

Mr. Auchinleck said that he would allow the testimony. 

Mr. Melsky said that his parents always considered these two separate lots. 

Mr. VanLuvanee objected. 

Mr. Auchinleck said that he would allow the testimony. 

Mr. Melsky said that it had been considered two separate lots. He had signed two sewer easement agreements for the property as executor, for two sewer lines. 

Mr. VanLuvanee asked if Mr. Melsky had looked at the tax map at other parcels in the immediate area.

Mr. Cordes entered as Exhibit A-13 a Bucks County Tax Map, showing the area in question. He noted that there had been recent construction on lots 19-1, 19-5, and 19-6. 

Mr. VanLuvanee objected, as Mr. Melsky does not have relevant information as to when lots were acquired. 

Mr. Auchinleck said that he would allow this testimony. 

Mr. Melsky said that lot 19-1 was created as a separate parcel a few years ago, lots 19-5 and 19-6 were separated three years ago. The owner is a friend of Mr. Melsky. He said that tax map parcel 29-7-19 had been split into lots 19-1, 19-2, 19-3, 19-4, 19-5, and 19-6. All had been granted approval to sub-divide in the last few years. 

Referring Mr. Melsky to Exhibit A-9, he asked if the grass looked green on both sides of the property line. Mr. Melsky said yes. 

Referring to Exhibit A-10, which looks toward the Holt property, Mr. Van Luvanee noted that both sides of the property line are maintained. 

Referring to Exhibit A-11, Mr. Melsky said that the greener area is the Holt property. 

Mr. VanLuvanee asked when Mr. Melsky's father discussed building a home on the vacant lot.  

Mr. Melsky said that he thought it was 1988.

Mr. VanLuvanee asked what other properties did the Melsky family farm. 

Mr. Melsky said that they farmed the Holt, formerly Johnson, property, their own land, a portion of which is in Upper Makefield, and the Neiman property on Creamery Road.  

Mr. VanLuvanee said that an agreement of sale had been entered for properties owned by the Estate of Ruth Melsky. He asked if an application has been made to sub-divide. 

Mr. Melsky said that he did not know. 

Mr. Auchinleck said that the 1950 Deed shows that the property was owned by John and Bertha Melsky. 

Mr. Melsky said that his grandparents owned parcel 4, which is in Newtown and Upper Makefield. His parents were given a corner of the lot to build a home, and later purchased the vacant lot from Edwin Johnson. 

Mr. Auchinleck granted a five-minute recess to allow Mr. Van Luvanee to speak with Mr. Harwood. 

Mr. VanLuvanee said that he had spoken with Mr. Harwood, and would like to question Mr. Harwood on the complete file, which is not available at this time. He would like to request a continuance so that he can bring the entire file to be questioned. 

Mr. Cordes objected, stating that the Township had the right  to present its documents this evening. 

Mr. VanLuvanee said that his clients have the right to question Mr. Harwood on the entire file.  

Mr. Auchinleck suggested that Mr. Harwood be sworn in, and if questions remain after his testimony, the matter could be continued. 

Mr. Harwood was sworn in. 

Mr. Harwood entered as Township Exhibit T-1, an initialed copy of his memo, dated September 10, 2002. He said that each member of the Zoning Hearing Board had been mailed a copy of this memo prior to the October 3, 2002 meeting.  

Mr. Harwood entered as Township Exhibit T-2, a Notice of Zoning Disapproval, dated April 15, 2002. 

Mr. VanLuvanee asked Mr. Harwood why Township Exhibit T-2 does not have a signature, but Applicant Exhibit A-5, the same document, is signed by Mr. Harwood. 

Mr. Harwood said that A-5 was mailed to Mr. Cordes, and T-2 was printed from a word processor. T-2 is not a photocopy of the paper sent to Mr. Cordes, but a second computer printout. 

Mr. VanLuvanee asked if the printout was generated at the same time as A-5 and physically added to the file, or if it was printed out in anticipation of the hearing tonight. 

Mr. Harwood said that he was not sure when the file was prepared. 

Mr. Cordes asked if Mr. Harwood had sent the Notice on April 15, 2002. 

Mr. Harwood said that he had not personally mailed the Notice on April 15, nor had he personally mailed the second copy, with a post-it note, sent on July 19, 2002. Both copies were mailed by an employee in his office, without covering letters. 

Mr. VanLuvanee, referring to the reason for denial on T-2, asked if  the applicant had asked instead for a second house on the 2.521-acre tax map parcel 29-7-3, would application have been allowed. 

Mr. Harwood said that the Ordinance only allows one house per lot. 

Mr. Cordes said that these are two separate lots, but if they were one lot, could he have applied for a variance to sub-divide and build a second house. 

Mr. Harwood said that at this time three acres are required for each house, and the applicant must comply with the three-acre requirement. He said that he does not know if a variance would have been granted. 

Mr. Auchinleck asked if Mr. Harwood had signed a new notice in July. 

Mr. Harwood said that the July notice is the same as the notice sent in April. He said that he does not recall signing the notice in July. 

Mr. VanLuvanee again asked to continue the matter in order to question Mr. Harwood on the entire file and to question Kristie, who had signed the yellow note attached to Exhibit A-5. 

Mr. Lionetti moved to continue the hearing in this matter to December 5, 2002. Mr. Lenihan seconded and the motion passed 4-0. 

Application of Gerald Katzoff, Durham Road Associates 

Mr. Lenihan read into the record to application of Gerald Katzoff for Durham Road Associates requesting a variance from Section 502(B) and 903(B)(5)(b) of the Joint Municipal Zoning Ordinance of 1983 to permit three 2-story buildings with a 35.6% impervious surface ratio instead of the maximum 30% permitted and to allow disturbance of 55% of woodland areas where only 50% disturbance is permitted. The subject property is 416 and 434 Durham Road in the PS-2 Professional Services Zoning District. 

Mr. John VanLuvanee represents the applicant in this matter. 

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

Mr. VanLuvanee explained that this is the third time the applicant has appeared before the Zoning Hearing Board. He said that in December they had requested variances for impervious surface and parking requirements in order to accommodate traffic movement suggested by the Township Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. Since that time the property has received conditional use approval, however the Township Traffic Engineer has asked for a different traffic configuration for traffic between this and adjoining parcels. 

Ms. Mary Ellen Saylor of  Pickering, Corts and Sommerson was sworn in. 

Ms. Saylor said that she has been a Civil Engineer, licensed in New Jersey and Pennsylvania for fourteen years. She is familiar with the zoning requirements for  the PS-2, Professional Services Zoning District and with the Joint Municipal Zoning Ordinance of 1983. She said that she is the engineer for this property and had previously testified before the Zoning Hearing Board requesting an impervious surface ratio variance. 

Mr. VanLuvanee entered as Exhibit A-1, the old plan for this property, on which the Zoning Hearing Board decision granting a variance, dated January 3, 2002, was based.  

Mr. VanLuvanee said that the property had been granted preliminary land development approval and conditional use approval by the Board of Supervisors with the condition that reciprocal easements be granted by the adjoining property owner. 

Mr. VanLuvanee entered as Exhibit A-2 a fax of a draft of  the Conditional Use Approval. 

Ms. Saylor stated that she had participated in meetings discussing the preliminary plan. She further stated that she, and her firm, are the Civil Engineers for the development of the adjoining parcel, which is also being developed as offices. She said that when the Township changed Traffic Engineers, the new engineers, Pennoni Associates, recommended a different configuration for the internal roadways on the two properties.  

Mr. VanLuvanee said that Durham Road Associates had agreed to the suggested  changes provided they were able to obtain Zoning Hearing Board approval. 

Mr. VanLuvanee entered as Exhibit A-3, a copy of his letter to Jerry Smith of Pennoni Associates, with the attached proposed new plan, as submitted to the Zoning Hearing Board for consideration tonight. 

Mr. VanLuvanee entered as Exhibit A-4 the plan prepared by Pickering Corts and Sommerson, based on the Township Engineer's suggestions, as outlined in the proposed plan in Exhibit A-3. Mr. VanLuvanee explained that the new plan calls for an additional 3.5% impervious surface ratio and an increase in woodland disturbance of 5%. He said that there was no change to the buildings or the rest of the parking areas. This is necessary to accommodate the new interconnect between this parcel and the adjoining parcel. No other variances are required. 

Mr. Harwood had no comment on this matter. 

Mr. William McMennimon was sworn in. 

Mr. McMennimon said that he is President of the Newtown Grant Homeowners Association. He said that he had met with representatives of Durham Road Associates and they had agreed on certain accommodations in landscaping, lighting and buffering with adjoining homes. He asked if the relief sought would interfere with the agreed upon accommodations. 

Mr. VanLuvanee said that the application before the Board tonight did not in any way affect the agreements made with Newtown Grant. 

Mr. Auchinleck explained that buffering, lighting and landscaping were matters considered by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors during the Land Development process. He said that the Zoning Hearing Board was only dealing with the impervious surface and woodland disturbance matters. 

Mr. Lenihan moved to grant variances from Section 502(B) and 903(B)(5)(b) of the Joint Municipal Zoning Ordinance of 1983 to permit construction of three 2-story office buildings with a 35.6% impervious surface ratio instead of the maximum 30% permitted and to allow disturbance of 55% of woodland areas where only 50% disturbance is permitted. Mr. Leone seconded and the motion passed unanimously. 

Application of Newtown Center Associates 

Mr. Lenihan read into the record the application of  Newtown Center Associates requesting a variance from Section 602(B)(1) and 1002(D) [Village at Newtown Phase II Final Plan] of the Joint Municipal Zoning Ordinance of 1983 to permit construction of an addition to a shopping center resulting in a 72% impervious surface ratio where 50% is allowed and 68% is existing. The subject property is South Eagle Road in the PC Planned Commercial Zoning District. 

Mr. John VanLuvanee, representing the applicant, requested a continuance to December 5, 2002. 

Mr. Lionetti moved to grant a continuance to Newtown Center Associates to December 5, 2002. Mr. Carver seconded and the motion passed 4-0. 

Mr. Lionetti moved to adjourn. Mr. Lenihan seconded and the motion passed 4-0. 

 

Respectfully Submitted:

 

___________________________________
Mary Donaldson, Recording Secretary