Hampton Zoning Board grants two setback variances; several hearings continued pending surveys

The Hampton Township Zoning Hearing Board on May 26 granted two variances allowing deck additions to encroach into required front-yard setbacks and heard four new or continued variance applications that the board left pending while it verified measurements and easement locations.

The board, chaired by Kevin Barley, announced written decisions granting Case No. 26-05 (application on behalf of John Wang) and Case No. 26-06 (William and Laura English). In announcing Case No. 26-05, Chairman Kevin Barley read the board’s written findings and said the requested variance "is the minimum that will afford relief and will represent the least modification of the ordinance at issue." Secretary David Moran recorded his concurrence; Mr. James Tomazich and Chairman Barley also voiced concurrence on the record.

Why it matters: the rulings resolve two routine setback disputes but explicitly state the approvals are specific to the properties and carry no precedential value. That limits reliance by other property owners who might seek similar relief.

What the board heard: Four hearings followed. At 5190 Ranalli Drive, applicants Matt and Alli Shaginaw asked for a variance for a replacement shed that, they said, sits on an existing reinforced slab and was rebuilt after metal sheds were damaged in storms. Mr. Shaginaw testified he upgraded an existing two-inch slab to a six-inch reinforced pad and said relocation would require removing large, mature oak trees and extensive grading. The Township took no position on the application and a neighbor, Robert Mahaffey, spoke in support.

At 3090 Woodland Road, Margaret Reidy and Ira Handler presented a request to place a detached garage forward of the home’s leading edge. They told the board topography and the location of a 23,000-volt overhead line constrained feasible building areas and that Duquesne Light had set mandatory clearance requirements. Board members pressed for verified plans after staff noted the application and plan figures did not match; Mr. Handler agreed to submit confirmed dimensions to the Township.

At 3903 Sweeney Road owner David Mullinary, through attorney Jason Farrelly, sought variances for a six-foot front-yard fence (where four feet is allowed), a shed and an above-ground pool that involve a narrow adjoining parcel. Mullinary said his survey omitted a sanitary sewer right-of-way that affects the fence line and offered to move posts to flagged easement markers. The board and staff focused on two distinct constraints: a sanitary-sewer easement that runs parallel to the road and the Township’s 50-foot highway right-of-way (measured as 25 feet from the road center). Board members repeatedly said they would oppose any permanent fence placed within the Township right-of-way. Because of inconsistent measurements, absent a freshly verified survey and exact setback numbers, the board continued the case and asked the applicant to supply a survey showing measured distances from the center of Highland Avenue and from property lines.

At 3930 Kahn Avenue, Edward Csellar sought a side-yard variance for a 16-by-24 garage sited where small lots constrain placement. Mr. Csellar said the proposal uses an existing gravel pull-around driveway and that adjacent neighbors had indicated support. The Township took no position. The board closed the record and said it would issue written decisions within the statutory 45-day window in its next meeting.

Quotes that capture the meeting: • "The variance request is the minimum that will afford relief," Chairman Kevin Barley read from the board’s written decision announcing Case No. 26-05. • Responding to technical questions about easements and right-of-way, property owner David Mullinary said: "When I built the fence I didn't realize my survey doesn't show the sewer right-of-way on there. So I didn't realize I was in that right-of-way." • On plan discrepancies for the Reidy/Handler garage, Mr. Handler told the board: "We'll certainly do that," when asked to provide verified dimensions to the Township.

Next steps: For the two cases decided tonight (26-05 and 26-06) the board entered written decisions describing conditions and emphasizing no precedential value. For the hearings that lacked sufficient measured data — especially Case No. 26-09 — the board continued the matters and asked applicants to file verified surveys and precise measurements ahead of the next meeting so the board can quantify any dimensional variances it might grant.

The board closed the record at 8:35 p.m.; members said they will typically issue written decisions at the next Zoning Hearing Board meeting within the statutory 45-day period.