Radnor Township Zoning Hearing Board Meeting Summary – April 16, 2026
Radnor Township Zoning Hearing Board Meeting – April 16, 2026
The Radnor Township Zoning Hearing Board met on Thursday, April 16, 2026, at 7:00 PM in the Radnorshire Room. Of the five scheduled appeals, Appeal #3233 was withdrawn by the applicant, Appeal #3251 was continued to the May 21, 2026 hearing, and Appeal #3256 was continued to the June 18, 2026 hearing. The board heard and acted on the remaining two appeals: #3262 (Lipton) and #3263 (Emerson Group). No public comments were offered during either matter.
Appeals Disposition
- Appeal #3233 (Elebah, 506 Chaumont Drive): Withdrawn by applicant.
- Appeal #3251 (Johnson, 215 W. Lancaster Avenue): Continued to May 21, 2026.
- Appeal #3256 (Hoplamazian, 20 Kinterra Road): Continued to June 18, 2026.
Appeal #3262 – Lipton, 12 Welwyn Road
- The applicants, Matthew Lipton and Kristen St. Martin Lipton, sought two variances from Section 280-109A: a 7-foot 6-inch driveway gate with 8-foot posts, and a 7-foot 6-inch deer fence using 6x6 timber posts.
- Applicant's counsel, Jamie John, presented exhibits A1–A7; the application was marked as Exhibit A8. Kristen St. Martin Lipton testified that she and her husband have owned the property since 2017, that the fence is intended to protect planned landscaping from deer, and that the gate adds security after a break-in. She said neighbors at 10 and 11 Welwyn Road support the project and submitted support letters.
- Daniel Bedell, a licensed landscape architect from Hess Landscape Architects, was accepted as an expert. He explained that the township's zoning officer permits deer fencing above 6 feet when metal posts are used, and that the requested timber-post section is limited to the most visible eastern lot line because a stormwater system prevents buffering plantings there. He also stated the gate is needed to complete the deer enclosure.
- Board discussion addressed whether cattle grates could be used across the driveway. One board member opposed the variances and suggested cattle grates, while another expressed safety concerns about grates for children on bikes and supported the variances because the timber posts better match the neighborhood character.
- Motion to approve both variances carried, with at least one dissenting vote.
Appeal #3263 – Emerson Group, 418 E. Lancaster Avenue
- The applicant sought two special exceptions: (1) under Section 280-101A(1) to change the existing nonconforming use to office use for Emerson Group's own headquarters, and (2) under Section 280-101A(2) to enlarge the building by replacing the flat roof with a sloped roof, adding approximately 2,200 square feet of floor area.
- Paul Bloomfield of Bloomfield Architects represented the applicant and was accepted to testify. He stated the building was constructed in 1964, contains 7,600 square feet (3,800 main level and 3,800 lower level), and is currently partly leased to a florist. He testified that the proposed roof would better match surrounding residential character, the footprint would not change, R5 height and setback limits would remain satisfied, and parking would be provided on the combined 418/420 property with 31 spaces for 418 and 17 for 420, one more than the combined requirement.
- Board and zoning officer concerns included: whether the existing nonconforming use should be measured as 7,600 or 3,800 square feet; whether the proposed 2,200 square foot expansion exceeds the code's 50 percent expansion limit (1,900 square feet if calculated from 3,800); whether parking calculations should include the lower level; and whether the increase in floor area triggers land development or planning commission review. The applicant had not consulted the township's director of engineering/community development, Mr. Norsini, on that question. The zoning officer stated he was unfamiliar with the applicant's above-grade-only parking methodology.
- The board split the application into two votes. The first special exception, to change the nonconforming use to office, was approved with all board members voting in favor. The second special exception, to enlarge the building/floor area, failed after several board members voted no citing inconsistent exhibits and unresolved questions about the 50 percent limit and required review processes.
Key Outcomes
- Appeal #3262: Variances approved.
- Appeal #3263: Special exception to change use to office approved; special exception to enlarge the building/floor area denied.
- Next Zoning Hearing Board meeting: May 21, 2026; applications for that meeting were due by April 21, 2026.
Meeting Transcript
2016 zoning hearing board uh uh refrador township would you please uh join me for the pledge of allegiance allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it's one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all regarding uh regarding tonight's agenda uh appeal number 32 3 has been uh withdrawn by the uh applicant appeal number 3251 has been continued to the May uh hearing which I think is May 21st. 21st, that's correct. Appeal number 3256 has been uh also continued to the June 18th hearing. So we have two matters uh left on the agenda for this evening. The first one is appeal number 3262, the applicant Matthew Lipton and Kristen St. Martin Lipton, property located at 12 Wellwyn Road and zoned uh agricultural conservation. Applicant requests a variance from section 280-109A of the code to install a seven foot six inch high driveway gate with eight foot high posts and a variance from 280 109A to install a seven foot six inch high deer fence with six by six timber posts. Is the uh applicant here Jamie John? I'll keep you my go J U N okay is the uh is is the speaker on or the microphone? Yes, okay. Good evening, Jamie John here on behalf of the applicant. Um as you've just stated, we're here for a couple variances. Uh we are seeking to install a deer fence that has timber posts as opposed to metal posts, and so in order for a deer fence to exceed six feet with timber posts, we need a variance. Uh, we are also seeking a variance from the height requirement for the gate and post, uh, which will also exceed the six foot limitation. I have two witnesses tonight uh and some exhibits. I will hand the exhibits up to the board briefly describe them and then we'll move on to the testimony. Are these different than what was in the packet? Some of that. I can hear you better, A here. Okay. I brought an extra. So I have a total of seven exhibits. Uh A1 is a proposed fencing layout plan. Uh A1, two, and three were included with our zoning application. If you look at the proposed fencing layout plan, the applicant intends to install deer fencing around the entire perimeter of the property, but we are looking for relief for that section that is highlighted in uh green on that plan. Exhibit A2 is a um is an elevation of the proposed gate and post. Exhibit A three are some site images that show uh our property as you approach it and sort of the location where the fence will be located. A4 is a image of the type of fence that or the type of uh gate and post that we are proposing, and the post as shown on that gate would also be the post that we will be using or proposing for the deer fencing. Exhibit A5 is a tax map, and I just wanted to show um the board some of the the properties that are adjacent to this area. So the deer fencing will actually go along our lot line where uh 11 well wind is across the street. Uh we actually our applicant owns uh zero Wellwyn Road as well, and then there is one other adjacent neighbor at 10 Wilwyn Road, and we have uh letters of support from the residents at 11 well at uh 11 Wellwyn and 10 Wellwyn Road, uh basically recognizing um the work that the applicant has done to beautify their property with the landscaping and uh their opinion that what we're proposing in terms of the fencing between 11 and 12 Wellwind, that they will be more in fitting with the character of the neighborhood. Exhibit A7 is our uh landscape architect C V. Does the board have any questions for me at this time regarding any of the exhibits? Okay, it's only um the section in green. In green. Isn't the rest of the fence going to be that height? The rest of the fencing will be utilizing metal posts. So um height's still an issue, isn't it? We have received the determination from the zoning officer that the township allows deer fencing to exceed six feet in height again as long as we use metal posts, and that's why I reiterate that because it's a deer fence that exceeds the six foot in height, that's why we need relief for the timber posts. Thank you. And you can just have a seat. Oh, sure. And you can use that one and you can use it. No, she's gonna swear you in and ask you. Okay. Or from the testimony you're about to give will be to treat the whole treatment. I swear. Thank you. And uh state the phone making. Kristen St.
openpublica.com