Resident confronts supervisors over pool‑deck variance process; board cites 33% impervious limit

During public comment the board heard an extended and contentious statement from Preston Stokes, who said he had revised a pool‑deck design for the Farmview community to avoid multiple variance requests and reduce impervious coverage. Stokes said he had been told by township solicitors to delay the zoning hearing and that subsequent communication from staff and solicitors had been sparse, leaving him unsure how to proceed.

Stokes asked that the board refrain from formally opposing his variance request so he would not face a contested hearing. He said he had already reduced the deck and pool dimensions and submitted new materials. “I’ve been able to get no response from anybody,” Stokes said. “Communication to me is a big thing… The amount of mixed signals I’ve gotten through the entirety of this process is, like, disrespectful.”

Township counsel and supervisors explained procedure and jurisdiction: variances are decided by the Zoning Hearing Board, and applicants may amend applications and resubmit. Solicitor Colby urged Stokes to file an amended application if he wants the board and staff to review revised plans before the hearing. The chair emphasized the township must follow the zoning ordinance limits and noted the impervious‑surface cap the township applies: “This isn’t up for negotiation, because your proposed property doesn’t comply with those limits, and I believe that it was specified that the limit was 33%,” the chair said, adding that the board’s position would not change without a formal filing and a hearing.

The exchange covered procedural steps: staff advised Stokes to submit an amended zoning application and supporting documentation (stormwater testing, revised plan), at which point the board could consider whether to oppose or participate at the hearing. Several supervisors offered practical advice and expressed empathy with the cost and time burdens of remodeling and zoning work.

Outcome: No formal change to township policy was made. Board members encouraged Stokes to submit an amended application to the Zoning Hearing Board and to work with staff to clarify outstanding technical documentation; the board reiterated that decisions about opposition are made after reviewing a completed application and are bound by the township code.

Why it matters: the exchange highlights procedural friction between residents seeking discretionary zoning relief and township staff processes; it also makes explicit the township’s hard cap on impervious coverage used in variance considerations.