Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Noise Complaint topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Caro family withdraws Zoning Hearing Board appeal of Wildwood Road car-wash noise violation; will proceed to magistrate
Summary
The Caro family withdrew an appeal to the Hampton Zoning Hearing Board over a December 2025 noise Notice of Violation for their Wildwood Road Extension car wash, after raising a jurisdictional objection; the township offered a $600 refund and the applicant said it will pursue the matter in magisterial court while pursuing engineering fixes including overnight bay closure and noise-mitigation materials.
An appeal filed by the owners of the Wildwood Road Extension car wash over a December 2025 noise Notice of Violation was withdrawn at the Hampton Township Zoning Hearing Board meeting on March 24. Attorney Mark Griffith, representing the Caro family, had argued the Notice cited Chapter 202 of the township code rather than the Zoning chapter (Chapter 310), and therefore the proper venue for enforcement is the magisterial court rather than the zoning board.
Township Manager Brian Jeroski told the board the applicant could withdraw the zoning appeal and be reimbursed the $600 filing fee so the matter could be refiled before a magistrate. "The applicant is actually welcome to withdraw their appeal to the Zoning Hearing Board on this. And I actually reimburse you the 600 bucks. And then we can just go through the magisterial process," Jeroski said. The applicant agreed to the approach.
Griffith told the board his clients had retained an acoustical engineering firm, BABICHacoustics, and were already pursuing interim and longer-term measures to reduce noise from the automatic tunnel bays. "We will shut bay two down at night, turn it off," Griffith said, adding the firm is modeling options such as weather‑rated vinyl mass panels (a material with a reported 0.75 absorption coefficient) and possibly a canopy with a sound‑attenuating layer. The team is targeting a 10–12 decibel reduction from the measures under study.
Nearby residents Frank and Adrienne Bello said the noise has measurable effects on sleep, health and enjoyment of their property; Adrienne Bello noted she has lived at the property since 1995 and disputed the applicant's characterization of past measurements. "This is impacting sleep, health, and the enjoyment of our property," Frank Bello told the board.
Chairman Kevin Barley noted the board made no finding on the jurisdictional arguments during the meeting. The Notice of Violation stands, and the matter will proceed at the magisterial level after the applicant withdraws its zoning appeal. The board's public record indicates the township and the applicant will continue to exchange documentation about what was provided to the owner and what records the township holds regarding prior measurements.
The withdrawal resolves Case No. 26-04 for the Zoning Hearing Board but leaves enforcement and factual determinations to the magistrate process. The applicant indicated it is prepared to make modifications while the legal proceedings continue.
