The Radnor Township Zoning Hearing Board met on September 17, 2026, to consider five appeals. The meeting included public testimony, board deliberation, and votes on several variance and special exception requests. Below is a summary of each agenda item.
The applicants sought a variance from §280-30E to construct a 124-square-foot first-floor addition within the rear yard setback (existing nonconformity: 25.2 ft vs. required 30 ft) and a special exception from §280-101B(1) to enlarge a nonconforming dwelling. At the hearing, counsel clarified they were only seeking the variance. The applicants argued hardship due to the home’s age (1940), lack of first-floor bedroom/bath, and steep, narrow stairs that made it difficult for elderly relatives. The architect testified the addition minimized impact, used existing impervious area, and proposed landscaping to screen the addition. Neighbors Christina and Brendan Berland (14 Barley Cone Lane) were granted party status and opposed the appeal, citing available conforming alternatives, potential water runoff, and increased proximity. The board discussed whether the hardship was self-created and whether the relief was de minimis. No vote was taken; the record was kept open for the applicants to respond to the neighbors’ written brief. The matter was continued to a future date.
The applicant appealed the Zoning Officer’s July 21, 2026 determination that a proposed third-party operation of academic, athletic, cafeteria, and dormitory facilities was not a principal permitted use in the PI district. The applicant contended the determination was unsolicited and improperly issued. Counsel requested production of the Zoning Officer’s supporting materials and testimony from the Township Solicitor. The Township opposed, arguing the determination was properly issued after a request for interpretation. The board agreed to schedule a special hearing dedicated to this complex matter, waiving MPC deadlines. No decision was reached. The matter was continued to a date to be set.
The applicant sought a variance from §280-15C to allow a 12 ft 2 in front yard setback (required 60 ft) and a special exception from §280-15E to allow a 30 ft 6 in rear yard setback (existing nonconforming 40 ft) to construct a two-car attached garage. The property is a triangular corner lot; the house is slab-on-grade with no basement. The applicant testified that conforming alternatives would require longer driveways, more impervious coverage, and tree removal. The engineer presented hypotheticals showing triangular lots have 39% usable buildable area vs. 64% for rectangular lots. A neighbor across the street supported the project. One neighbor spoke in opposition, citing encroachment and neighborhood character. The board voted 3-0 to deny the appeal, finding the hardship not proven and the variance excessive (12 ft remaining front setback).
The applicants requested a variance from §280-25D(1) to permit a roof over an existing front porch, encroaching an additional 3.2 ft into the nonconforming side yard setback (resulting in 10.69 ft vs. required 15 ft). The home is oriented sideways on a shared driveway; the proposed roof is similar to that of a neighboring home. The applicants testified they had lived there 22 years and neighbors had no objection. The board voted unanimously to approve the variance, finding the relief minimal and consistent with the neighborhood.
The applicants sought a variance from §280-30E to allow a 25.08 ft rear yard setback (required 30 ft) for a one-story, 13 ft x 14 ft addition and a five-foot porch roof. The home is 1,764 sq ft; the addition would create first-floor living space for aging in place and grandchildren. The existing rear yard is already constrained by the home’s location relative to other setbacks. The applicants noted the addition would not extend as far as a neighboring addition and that neighbors had no concerns. The board voted unanimously to approve the variance.
Meeting of uh Radner Township's zoning hearing board. Uh please join me in or join us in the uh budget budget. One location for all the first item on the agenda is uh appeal number thirty-two sixty-eight. It was uh continued from July 17th, uh 2026. The the uh appellants, Eric uh out to know out to new, and uh Brook uh hammock property located at 12 Barley Cone Lane and zoned R for residential applicants seek the following relief from the Radner Township zoning ordinance, a variance from section uh two eighty-thirty uh uh capital E in Parens to uh construct an addition within a portion of the rear yard and a special exception from Section 280-101B1 to enlarge the non-conforming single family dwelling, which will increase the existing rear yard nonconformity. Is the applicant here? Yes, good evening, Jamie. John here on behalf of the applicant. I have some exhibits. I'll hand them out to the board uh before I begin. Let me ask you a question. Yes. Uh the advertisement asked for a special exception and uh and a variance, but I noticed that your appeal application 3268. I think it says on page two, a variance of the code 280-280-30 uh capital E in threads to construct an addition with a portion of the rear in the in the portion of the rear yard and second was a variance from code section two eighty-01B1 uh B to enlarge the non-conformity uh in a single family dwelling, which will increase the existing rear yard conformity. Essentially, they're the same as what was published in the agenda, except that you're asking for a variance and a variance, not a variance and a special exception. You want to clear that up on the record? Yes. So uh we actually are just seeking that uh variance from code section two eighty thirty E. We do not need a variance or special exception um under the non-conforming provisions. Special exception. Is that correct? That's correct. Thank you. Exhibit A1 is an area of the property and the surrounding neighborhood. Um, sort of in the center of the page is a red roofed uh shed, and that is on our property as part of this project. We're proposing to remove that shed. Exhibit A2 shows um it's an as built plan of the property. It shows the existing single family dwelling. It also shows the red roofed shed that I just mentioned. Um the existing dwelling is non-conforming to the rear yard setback. The requirement in the R for residence district is 30, and the current rear yard is 25.2. Um the shed is also non-conforming, and that accessory structures need to be three feet from the side yard and the rear yard. Currently it's basically on the rear property line. Uh what is the uh uh the vintage of the house that's there? The home was constructed according to the county records in 1940. Would that be before the current zoning ordinance? I believe there have been amendments. Um I don't know off the top of my head what the date of the zoning ordinance is. Well, was it made uh uh non-conforming as a result of the current zoning ordinance? It's not it's non-conforming to the current. I don't know at what point exactly it became nonconforming. Okay, thanks. Exhibit A3 is the proposed overlay site survey plan. Um it shows the shed to be removed and it shows the proposed addition. It will be a single story addition, and uh it may be a little bit hard to differentiate, but the cross-hatched portion, which is 124 square foot feet, that is the portion that requires the rear yard setback variance. Uh the portion that is to the side of the home because it meets the side yard setback requirement of 12 feet, that does not require any relief. Exhibit A4 is a close-up of this portion of the lot. It also shows the proposed um landscaping along the property line as well as some removal of existing impervious. Exhibit A5 are uh four sheets of photos of the property and the uh adjacent properties. Exhibit A6 is the C V of our uh expert um architect.