Supersized home at issue at Marple zoning meeting

A supersized home construction project that is believed to violate building codes has Broomall residents in that area hoping the township stands up against a public official and businessman.

The home at 2 Willowbrook Road is owned by Marple Newtown School Board member Nick Reynolds, who owns township businesses, including Delco Steaks, Marple Public House and the Splash LLC pool complex.

This past week dozens of residents attended a zoning board hearing on Reynolds’ request for variances after Marple Township shut down the project in August.

“It is just too large. When you look at that house compared to any around it, it is three times the size,” said Bob Duncan who lives across from the home. “It needs variances from all four sides. Building coverage and impervious surface variances. I’ve been doing zoning for over 40 years and had never seen one that required that much relief.”

Duncan was zoning officer in Lower Merion for over 25 years.

Typical split level homes in the neighborhood are about 1,800-square-feet while the new house has a footprint that is 3,900 square feet, with a total square footage that would be nearly double that.

Duncan said neighbors had a meeting to discuss the variances and they decided as a group to oppose it, and since he has extensive zoning knowledge is acting as a spokesperson.

Reynolds, a life-long Marple resident, and his wife, Alana, purchased the home in February for $600,000. It is located in the R1 Zoning District. In April, the couple began a project to enlarge the existing structure to house their family of five.

From the ground up

After submitting plans, contractors began work on the home. As work moved along from what was originally a project to enlarge the existing home, complaints from residents brought officials to the property weekly until Aug. 22, when the township entered a stop work order after the zoning violation issues came to a head.

Following the stop work order, Reynolds requested variances for the side, front and rear yard as well as exceeding the maximum impervious surface coverage.

In October, Reynolds sent a letter introducing himself to his new neighbors. He noted his businesses and his involvement in local civic organizations including starting the Marple Civic Organization.

He also told his new neighbors that the family who had been living in Newtown Square could no longer live in their old home after the tragic death of a son and the memories it incurred.

The couple said they were hopeful their new neighborhood was the perfect place where their children could bike and walk to friends’ houses and would bring happiness into their broken hearts.

This past week a large number of residents attended the zoning meeting to hear if the variances would be approved.

Many of the residents directly affected, those living within 1,000 yards signed up to become party to the application giving them the right to appeal any decision.

At the meeting, Duncan did not comment, though he did note that alternative zoning board member, Steve Reynolds, needed to be disqualified from the hearing because of a family relationship to the applicant.

Lee Stivale, representing Reynolds, said his client acted in good faith on the project. He said the couple had invested almost $700,000 of value into the property.

He said the township had watched work go on for months without acting on it, and therefore acquiesced to the project and the variances should be granted on a legal principle of estoppel.

In April, plans were submitted and at multiple times contractors were given the green light to continue with construction, he said.

“This applicant is entitled to a variance by estoppel,” Stivale said during the hearing.

Stivale did concede the structure the way it sits, does impede into the setbacks but he said the building permit was issued, and at the end of the day they should be given a variance.

Devil’s in the details

John McBlain, representing Marple Township, countered there was no evidence presented that the house couldn’t be built there due to an inability to conform to zoning requirements, a common reason zoning boards grant relief.

McBlain said that in April, the township believed the plans conformed to the zoning requirement, but as construction moved forward that was shown not to be correct.

Those plans set the size of the building envelope, and zoners relied on those plans, which were relied upon by a known architect, Michael Noonan, who is also a member of the township planning board.

McBlain said estoppal only comes into play after long term negligence by a municipality, which this was not.

McBlain said multiple site plans for the project that were submitted were wrong and the applicant refused to let the township engineer look at the issues and survey in August, just before the project was stopped.

McBlain said the township had to take the extraordinary action of filing in Delaware County Court to stop work until Reynolds fixed the problems, or applied for a variance, which is what they are now doing.

One issue was the fact that the property, which sits on a corner lot, has two front yards. With two yards, one front yard has to meet the setback and the second has to meet 2/3 of the setback, Duncan said.

The original plan called for the new home to be rebuilt using the existing split level structure, however as partial demolition got underway, termite and water damage made that impossible. Reynolds was given permission by zoning officials to remove all of the existing home but the application would continue to move forward as a renovation despite the original structure no longer remaining.

Township officials complained that after the original approval in April, zoning officials did not get any calls from the builders to come inspect the project, which is commonly how projects are inspected, so they went out to the site and found there already been a foundation and footers begun without inspection and that what was being outlined was not in conformity to the plan nor the zoning.

Who said what?

McBlain called Zoning Officer Joseph Romano, who said that between May 8 and Aug. 22 he was at the site approximately once a week following up on neighbors complaints about issues at the site.

After learning of a footer inspection by another township zoning employee, Romano went out and looked at the project, but didn’t keep documentation of the report. At that time he contacted the architect around June 14 about the issue with the zoning infractions.

Stivale claimed Romano spoke to the architect about supplying an updated plan, additional documentation to “make this go away.”

Romano said that is not true, it was to fix the problem.

“I said we need to fix this,” Romano said.

Romano said that by July, the foundation walls for the structure were in place and work was continuing. He knew at this time the building was not in compliance but did not issue a notice to stop the project.

Romano also had a conversation with Reynolds and told him the property was not in compliance.

McBlain asked Romano if the building permit was issued on a second site plan. The answer was yes, but it, too, was incorrect, Romano said.

Romano said the building under construction is not the building in the revised plan.

After additional inspections they determined the building was not being built in conformity with the approved plan.

On Aug. 21 Romano again spoke to Reynolds.

“I told Nick, let’s stop and straighten this out, and went up the next day and confirmed everything,” Romano said.

On Aug. 22, the township issued a notice of violation and stop-work order. Romano allowed workers to finish the shingles and Tyvek to make the building weather tight but no additional work could be done.

After more than an hour of testimony at the hearing and with the lawyers stating they have hours of testimony remaining, officials said they would take up the matter again in November.

Originally Published: October 25, 2024 at 7:02 a.m.