Matthew and Stephany McCauley's new home in Coplay came with a surprise.

Apparently the home was supposed to have off-street parking. The driveway was never installed, however.

The McCauleys learned of the requirement Aug. 30 when they received a notice of violation from the borough for not having off-street parking at their home, located at 57 N. Fifth St.

"No one plans to install a driveway on a home they just purchased," said Matthew McCauley at a zoning hearing Oct. 25. "It would put us under serious financial hardship."

The McCauleys came before the zoning hearing board to request a variance from the borough requirement for off-street parking.

Jeffrey B. Matzkin, zoning hearing board solicitor, asked McCauley if he had a backup plan should the board rule against him.

"My back-up plan would be to contact the media," McCauley said.

For McCauley, no backup plan was required because, after just less than an hour of testimony, the zoning hearing board voted unanimously to grant the variance.

"It means [the McCauleys] are not responsible," said Matzkin, explaining the decision after the hearing concluded.

Just who is responsible remains to be seen.

"That's part of why we're here," Matzkin explained to hearing participants. "We need a legal line to who is liable."

According to testimony by McCauley and Coplay Borough Zoning and Code Enforcement Officer Ron Helman, McCauley's home is one of four homes that are part of a recent subdivision. As part of the land development plan, each of the four homes was to have off-street parking.

However, Helman issued an occupancy permit for the McCauley home Aug. 9, despite the fact that it had no off-street parking, as required by the plans.

"That was a misunderstanding on my part," Helman said. "I didn't think it was required and it was my oversight."

He said he issued the occupancy permit based on the fact that the building itself met all requirements. He did not consider the rest of the lot.

"I didn't think that was an issue with that subdivision. I missed that on the drawing. It was an oversight," Helman said in response to repeated questions about the occupancy permit. "I can't give you any other reasons."

Testimony further indicated the builder originally had a June 16 deadline for installing the driveway and was granted a six-month extension by borough council in June.

McCauley said the notice of violation was directed at them, not the builder. In addition, at no point during the process of buying the house did the McCauleys learn a liability existed.

"This has been an ongoing situation that my wife and I kind of inherited," he said.

Neighbors Steve Smith and Beverly Miller want the McCauleys to get their off-street parking so that the number of vehicles on the street doesn't cause a parking headache for the entire neighborhood, they said.

"I think the neighbors were expecting a driveway to be there since it was approved ... and part of the subdivision. The deal was each home would have parking, off-street parking," said Smith, of 48 N. Fifth St.

"If I screw up something at work, I have to pay for it," Smith said.

Matzkin thanked Helman for his candor in owning up to his mistake.

Miller, of 40 N. Fifth St., said this was not a very good way to welcome someone to town.

Matzkin asked if McCauley objected to having a driveway installed if he did not have to pay for it.

McCauley said "no."

Testimony revealed a bond worth approximately $11,000, put up by the developer, exists as an assurance the work will be done, testimony indicated.

"If the borough wants to have a driveway put in they'll seek to have the developer put it in through the use of the bond," Matzkin said after the hearing.