Property owner asks township to withdraw violation, says fence and driveway preexisted his purchase

Romual (identified in the record as Romual Darcatsky), the owner of a property on Manger Drive, told the board he filed a zoning hearing board appeal after receiving a notice of violation about a fence and driveway. He asked supervisors to reconsider the notice and said the township should base decisions on the property’s history and the ordinance language.

Darcatsky said he replaced a fence that existed before his purchase to protect an orchard on the roughly 36-acre property and that he registered the property as farm land. He argued the fence may fall under an agricultural exemption and cited the ordinance language he believes applies (quoted in the meeting as "section 5 25 dash 23 h 3 c"). On the driveway he said the access and driveway preexisted his ownership and that the work he did was ordinary maintenance to stabilize unsafe winter conditions; he referenced "Section 4 48 dash 16" as allowing ordinary repairs without new permits for driveways.

Darcatsky said he submitted the zoning hearing board appeal form on July 11 but had not paid the appeal fee and that he has photographs and documentation to show the historical location of the fence and driveway. He asked for the township to review the evidence and withdraw the notice so he could avoid unnecessary expense.

The Chair said staff had arranged a meeting with the office supervisors, the zoning officer, the owner of the zoning company and Darcatsky (and possibly his wife) to walk through his questions; the Chair reminded attendees that board members are not the zoning officer or the zoning hearing board. No enforcement outcome was announced; the township agreed to meet with Darcatsky to review his materials.

Next step: the township will hold the follow-up meeting with Darcatsky and staff to review the evidence and ordinance language; no formal enforcement action was recorded at the workshop.