The Robinson Township Zoning Hearing Board on Wednesday postponed until next month a decision on two next-door neighbors’ dispute over a wall separating their properties after both parties submitted evidence and pleaded their respective cases.
The dispute focuses on a wall Dimitrios Pantzoulas constructed on his property at 223 Waterford Drive, which borders John Richnavsky’s residence at 225 Waterford Drive.
Richnavsky urged township officials to force Pantzoulas to remove the wall, arguing it was constructed without the proper permits and was causing issues on his property.
The township sent Pantzoulas a notice of violation pertaining to the wall, to which he requested a variance to be considered at Wednesday’s Zoning Hearing Board meeting.
Both Pantzoulas and Richnavsky attended, with Pantzoulas accompanied by his fiancée Melissa Cekus and an attorney, Matt Morella of Morella Bencsics, and Richnavsky attending with Diane McConaghy, a real estate agent with RE/MAX Select Realty.
Pantzoulas’ attorney submitted site plans for the construction on Pantzoulas’ property, which included the installation of a pool surrounded by a 6-foot masonry wall. He argued that the plans had been approved with the inclusion of the wall, and that township code 255-4 requires that private pools be enclosed by “a fence, wall or similar enclosure not less than four feet in height” without large holes or gaps.
The violation notice that Pantzoulas received states that his wall violates township code 300-74, which regulates wall heights based on material. However, Pantzoulas’ property sits higher than Richnavsky’s, making the wall appear higher on Richnavsky’s side.
“The original property sloped significantly right down and back, and what we did is we had multiple levels engineered by Gateway Engineers to create very specific tiered spaces for different uses, so each level has its own purpose and is supported by the approved retaining walls,” Cekus said during her witness testimony.
While Morella did say that Pantzoulas did not obtain a specific permit to build the wall, he argued that the approval of the pool included the construction of the wall, and that Pantzoulas did not need a separate permit. The original plans for construction were submitted for permits several years ago, according to Cekus.
Cekus also expressed that she and Pantzoulas planned to finish the outside of the wall to make them appear “smoother” and “more aesthetically-pleasing,” as they had already done to the inside of the wall. Pantzoulas’ attorney submitted photos of the interior finish as evidence.
After Cekus finished her testimony, Richnavsky spoke to the board.
He argued the wall “disrupts residential character and intended openness, creates an oversized, out-of-scale structure in a low-profile district, violates the rights of neighboring residents to a peaceful environment, undermines the expectations of a taxpaying resident and sets a dangerous precedent for ignoring zoning rules.”
Richnavsky submitted photos of the wall from his side to the board, saying they featured vegetation damage and that sunlight was blocked by the wall. He then called on McConaghy to testify, to which Pantzoulas’ attorney objected on the grounds that she was not an appraiser and could not give an objective opinion on the value of the property.
McConaghy went on to describe how the wall could affect the marketability of Richnavsky’s property, recounting experiences when homebuyers were concerned with properties based on the surrounding environment. She said the wall could affect future buyers’ opinion of the property due to aesthetics, perceived loss of openness, concerns about future maintenance or other personal preferences.
Richnavsky did not say that he planned to sell the property at the present time.
After McConaghy’s testimony, Pantzoulas’ attorney brought up that Richnavsky had a security camera on his property pointed at Pantzoulas’ property, and that he and Cekus have a 3-year-old daughter and a right to privacy while on their property.
Richnavsky rebutted that Pantzoulas also had security cameras on his property at the same height, to which Pantzoulas said that his cameras don’t record sound and that he was concerned about what Richnavsky has “done with the video footage of my 3-year-old daughter.”
After another comment, Zoning Hearing Board Chairperson Michael Carr ended that line of discussion. Because Carr called in remotely to attend the meeting and both parties presented multiple pieces of evidence and testimony, he recommended the board take the issue under advisement until next month’s meeting to review the new information.
The Zoning Hearing Board will next meet at 7 p.m. Wednesday, July 15, at the township Municipal Complex, 5440 Campbells Run Road, to make a decision.
Leave a Reply