WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES
May 22, 2006
The Washington Township Board of Zoning Appeals met in regular session on May 22, 2006 in the Meeting Room of Washington Township Government Center. Members of the Board present were Mr. Horine, Mrs. Mulligan, Mrs. Fischer, Mr. Smith (as alternate), and Mr. Chifala (as alternate). Mr. Khouri was excused.
Call to order at 7:00 p.m.
Mr. Horine explained the hearing format and voting procedure.
The Oath was administered by Mr. Horine.
MOTION - Mrs. Fischer moved the minutes of April 24, 2006 be approved as submitted.
Motion seconded by Mrs. Mulligan.
VOTE - Mr. Horine, yes; Mrs. Mulligan, yes; Mrs. Fischer, yes; Mr. Smith, yes; Mr. Chifala, yes.
Case A-1463 - William M. Hilt, 1686 Penbrooke Trail
Request is for a variance to decrease the side yard set back from the required 20 feet (20’) to twelve and one-half feet (12.5’) to allow for an addition, located in a Single Family Residential (R-2) zoning district.
Jack Kuntz, Zoning Inspector, presented the case.
Applicant represented by William Hilt, 1686 Penbrooke Trail. Mr. Hilt is the owner of the property.
Mrs. Fischer – Questioned the type of building materials to be used.
Mr. Hilt – Stated the building materials will consist of brick and will match the existing structure. The roof will have dimensional shingles.
Mr. Smith – Asked if the existing garage will be converted into a living space.
Mr. Hilt – No.
Mr. Smith and Mr. Horine – Both questioned the number of doors
Mr. Hilt – It will have one eight foot (8’) door and a single walk-in door on the side of the structure.
Mrs. Mulligan – Asked the applicant if the garage is expanding an additional 800’ for a total of 1,200’?
Mr. Hilt – Yes.
Mr. Smith – Questioned if there will be only one door?
Mr. Hilt – Yes. The rest of the space will be for woodworking.
Mr. Smith – Asked if the doors are the same?
Mr. Hilt – Indicated that the new door will be one foot (1’) higher.
Mr. Horine – Asked about the roof pitch.
Mr. Hilt – The pitch is 10:12. The existing structure is 5:12, so the addition will be higher.
Mr. Smith – Asked how much living space is in the house?
Mr. Hilt – Stated there is 2,400 square feet of living space
Mrs. Mulligan – Indicated that she would like to see a drawing of what the addition will look like. She also questioned if the neighbors were notified?
Mr. Kuntz – Yes, the neighbors were notified.
Public hearing closed.
Citizens voicing concerns, question and comments included: None.
Board remarks, concerns, and questions included:
Mr. Smith – Has concerns about the garage being twenty-two feet (22’) wide. Also concerned with the amount of garage space versus the amount of living space. Feels it is a high ratio. He is also concerned with future home occupations.
Mrs. Fischer – Noted that their decision cannot be based on future owners of the property.
Mr. Smith – Does like the idea of using the structure for storage. Feels that the board can put conditions on the request to make it a good fit.
Mrs. Mulligan – Reiterate that she would like to see what the structure will look like. Feels the structure is too big and it is basically a six-car garage.
Mrs. Fischer – The applicant’s testimony states the structure will have one door and will be used for storage.
Mr. Chifala – Has a concern with the roof line.
Motion - Mr. Horine moved in Case A-1463 to table applicant’s request for a variance to decrease the side yard set back from the required 20 feet (20’) to twelve and one-half feet (12.5’) to allow for an addition, located in a Single Family Residential (R-2) zoning district, in order to allow applicant time to submit the building elevations.
VOTE - Mr. Horine, yes; Mrs. Mulligan, yes; Mrs. Fischer, yes; Mr. Smith, no; Mr. Chifala, yes.
Case A-1463 tabled.
Case A-1464 – Craig and Brigitte Hatfield, 1690 Lago Mar
Request is for a variance to allow an accessory structure to be located in the front yard for a single family residence located in a Planned Development Residential (PD-R) zoning district.
Jack Kuntz, Zoning Inspector, presented the case.
Applicant represented by Brigitte Hatfield, 1690 Lago Mar.
There was discussion amongst board members differentiating the government jurisdictions.
Citizens voicing concerns, question and comments included:
Kevin Coressel, 1689 Lago Mar Drive – Stated he was hired to do some work for applicant. He gave an outline. Indicated the contractor led them astray with the process. He discussed the conversations between the owner and officials of Washington Township Zoning and Montgomery County Building Regulations who informed the owners that they could not put the detached structure in the front yard.
Mr. Horine – Asked who it was he spoke with from zoning?
Mr. Coressel – Jack Kuntz. Mr. Coressel stated his concerns with starting a precedent.
Mrs. Fischer – Reassured that the Board decides requests on a case by case basis.
Mr. Coressel – Offered drawings and specifications to the Board.
Mrs. Hatfield – Stated that Mr. Coressel’s drawings were too expensive.
Mr. Chifala – Asked if the specs noted that zoning was necessary.
Mr. Coressel – Yes.
Corrine Beam, 9315 Ambershire Drive – Stated her opposition to the request. Feels that applicant should have checked with the township first. She also noted that this is applicant’s second variance on the property. She also has a concern that the safety cover cannot always be closed. Ms. Beam submitted a letter to the Board.
Emily Ponner, 9420 Parkside Drive – Ms. Ponner is the homeowners association’s representative of the trustees. She indicated that plans were not approved by the homeowners association and she spoke with Mr. Hatfield. She has received many complaints from neighbors. Feels that Mr. and Mrs. Hatfield knew they were required to submit plans and they chose to ignore it.
Mr. Horine – Asked what the homeowners association would think if a couple members of the homeowners association have a problem with the location.
Mr. Chifala – Recalled Ms. Ponner stating that she would have originally overlooked it.
Mrs. Ponner – Stated she is working with the applicant on an entry sign easement in their yard. She told them the placement would be overlooked if they received no complaints. However, they have received numerous complaints.
Richard Moyer, 9309 Ambershire Drive – Lives behind the applicant. Feels that once they are finished it will fit in nicely. He has had applicant’s electrician and plumber do work for him and he trusts their work 100%.
Mrs. Fischer – Asked about county inspections for these jobs.
Mr. Kuntz – Explained the procedures with the county.
Mr. Chifala – Asked the applicants about specifications with the required zoning noted on it?
Mr. Hatfield – Stated he received only the drawings. Mr. Hatfield went into detail about the electrical and plumbing. He also answered neighbor’s concerns and discussed details of the building materials.
Mr. Smith – Questioned what type of building materials are used?
Mr. Hatfield – Indicated they were the same as the house.
Mrs. Mulligan – Asked who built it?
Mr. Hatfield – There were separate contractors on the job.
Mr. Chifala – Once again, Mr. Chifala asked what applicants did when they found out that they needed zoning approval?
Mrs. Hatfield – She stated she did not remember that statement. She discussed her conversation she had with Mr. Kuntz at the house.
Mr. Hatfield – Discussed Mr. Coressel’s safety concerns and specifications.
Mr. Smith – Asked if he has hired his own general contractor and what his background is.
Mr. Hatfield – Discussed his background.
Mrs. Mulligan – Indicated that with his background, he should have been aware of the process.
Public hearing closed.
Board remarks, concerns, and questions included:
Mr. Smith – Feels the applicants are not at fault; however, feels they are responsible.
Mrs. Mulligan – Stated that since he acted as the general contractor he should have known.
Mr. Chifala and Mr. Smith – Discussed the process.
Mrs. Fischer – Agreed with Mr. Smith that applicant acted in good faith.
Mr. Horine – Is sympathetic to Mr. Smith’s point; however, he would approve with conditions.
The board once again discussed the process.
Hearing closed.
Motion - Mr. Smith moved in Case A-1464 to approve applicant’s request for a variance to allow an accessory structure to be located in the front yard for a single family residence located in a Planned Development Residential (PD-R) zoning district, subject to: 1) the structure to be sided with the same materials and color to match the house; and 2) the electrical and plumbing must meet Montgomery County’s inspections and codes.
Motion seconded by Mrs. Fischer.
VOTE - Mr. Horine, yes; Mrs. Mulligan, no; Mrs. Fischer, yes; Mr. Smith, yes; Mr. Chifala, yes.
Case A-1464 approved with modifications.
Meeting adjourned. A tape recording of this proceeding is on file in the Zoning office.
Dan Horine, Acting Chairman
Washington Township Board of Zoning Appeals