Homeowners Fight for Variance Amid Permit Controversy

In a recent government meeting, discussions centered around a variance request from a local homeowner, Todd Diapac, who presented a case regarding the construction of a patio that allegedly did not comply with township ordinances. Diapac, representing himself and his wife, detailed their frustrations with the permitting process, claiming that they had followed all necessary steps by hiring a third-party company, ZLM, to manage their permit application.

Diapac explained that the permit was issued nine months after the patio was completed, leading to confusion and a lack of clarity regarding compliance with local regulations. He emphasized that the delay and subsequent issues were not due to any negligence on their part, but rather a miscommunication between ZLM and the township. The couple has invested over $40,000 in the project and is now seeking a variance to avoid potential demolition of the patio, which they argue poses safety concerns due to structural modifications that would be required.

During the meeting, Diapac highlighted that most of their neighbors had not pulled permits for similar work, raising questions about fairness and consistency in enforcement. He argued that penalizing them for following the rules while others did not would be unjust. The couple also expressed concerns about potential damage to their property and that of their neighbors if they were forced to alter the patio.

The board members engaged in a dialogue about the specifics of the case, with some questioning the legal implications of the variance request under Section 10.0312 of the township's ordinances, which allows for exceptions. The discussions underscored the complexities of local zoning laws and the challenges homeowners face when navigating the permitting process.

As the meeting concluded, the board members were tasked with considering the merits of the variance request, weighing the homeowner's arguments against the township's regulations and the potential impact on the community. The outcome of this case could set a precedent for how similar situations are handled in the future.