Minutes of the Planning Board of the Township Of Hanover September 18, 2018

Transcription

1 Page 1 of 36 Minutes of the Planning Board of the Township Of Hanover Chairman Eugene Pinadella called the Work Session Meeting to order at 7:01 PM in Conference Room A and The Open Public Meetings Act Statement was read into the record. Board Secretary, Kimberly Bongiorno took the Roll Call. In attendance were Members: Absent were Members: Also present were: Byrne, Deehan, De Nigris, Dobson (Arrived at 7:11 PM), Mayor Francioli, Glawe, Olsen, and Critchley, Ferramosca, and Nardone Attorney for the Board Michael Sullivan, Township Engineer Gerardo Maceira, and Township Planner Blais Brancheau The Chairman reviewed the agenda. The minutes from 9/11/2018 are being deferred to a later date. Mr. Brancheau - Explained to the Board the corrections he made to his report for TTJ. - TTJ got SPEC approval to upgrade their façade. - Reviewed the Stanberry concept. A discussion has been had to adjust the municipal boundary between Parsippany and Hanover. Mr. Brancheau - Reviewed existing conditions and the access critical to this whole project - Described the portions that would be in Parsippany. The concept for Hanover portion at this time is a 120 room hotel with parking on all four sides. Two different versions of the concept were shared. Mayor Francioli - There would be no shared taxes. - It falls within the same tax rate as Hanover has now as well as room taxes. The Board reviewed the two designs.

2 Page 2 of 36 PUBLIC BUSINESS Parsippany Side proposed parking deck and retail on the ground floor with apartments above. The Board prefers the plan dated 1/23/18, TRU Hotel concept plan. Mayor Francioli - It is not an extended stay hotel. In regard to the TTJ application Mr. Maceira will speak with El Di Simone regarding shrubbery maintenance on the Helfhand Property. called the Public Meeting to order at 7:31 PM and read the Open Public Meetings Act into the record. The Board Secretary, Kimberly Bongiorno, called the roll. In attendance were Members: Absent were Members: Also present were: Byrne, Deehan, De Nigris, Dobson, Mayor Francioli, Glawe, Olsen, and Critchley, Ferramosca, and Nardone Attorney for the Board Michael Sullivan, Township Engineer Gerardo Maceira, and Township Planner Blais Brancheau I. MINUTES September 11, 2018 The minutes for September 11, 2018 were deferred to a later date. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1) CASE NO APPLICANT/OWNER: ANTHONY CIULLO LOCATION: 35 HANDZEL ROAD WHIPPANY BLOCK: 8202 LOT: 4 ZONE: R-40 Board Action Date September 30, 2018 Applicant is proposing to subdivide the existing lot and demolish the existing older single family dwelling to create two (2) lots, wherein each newly created lot will provide for the new construction of a single family dwelling. Applicant is also seeking six (6) new C variances. Case partially heard and carried from June 19, 2018.

3 Page 3 of 36 Rosemary Stone-Dougherty Attorney for the applicant - Reviewed how she will proceed this evening. - Will be calling to testify again and he will go over some revisions that have been made since the last appearance before the Board. - Also has Mr. John McDonough there tonight to provide planning testimony. Fredrick Meola testified at the June 19, 2018 hearing and is still under oath. Blais Brancheau and Gerardo Maceira testified at the June 19, 2018 hearing and are still under oath. - Since the last hearing he has visited the property three times. - Met with the neighbors directly behind the subdivision. - Exhibit A-1: Plan of subdivision, 2 sheets of the 35 Handzel Road minor subdivision revision date 8/15/ The neighbors behind the proposed subdivision are concerned with water going on to their property. - The solution to this will be to put a berm on the rear property line. - The plan shows a 6 inch berm but the neighbors would like it to be taller so they have no issue making it a 12 inch berm. - Based on the soils drywells do not work. - So, the main concerns that the neighbors had were regarding water and drainage on the site. - They were overall concerned with what would happen to their property. - The three visits you made were to talk to the neighbors and test the soils to see what would work. - Correct. - The soils that are there would be a bucket. - They will fill up with water and evaporate in the spring and then one storm and they will be filled up again until next spring. - What we have decided to do is connect all of our roof leaders to the front catch basin on the westerly side of the property. - The other catch basin is on the easterly side just past the property line so we will also connect roof leaders into there. - All of the water will run into the sewer system that the town has.

4 Page 4 of 36 - And with that being said did you do anything with the grading as far as the concern of the neighbors to increase the height of the berm? - Yes we have increased the height. - The grades are relatively flat so you wouldn t really see a 12 berm so there is a note above it so everyone is aware it is there. - And you did research into the sewer easement that runs parallel to the property? - Yes and one other thing came out that was proposed was they asked us to fill the landscaping that is along the property line which we have agreed to do. - We have a note that we will provide additional landscaping to fill in between the evergreens that are there so it will be a solid line of trees. - While investigating the property and testing the soil you also looked into the concern regarding the sewer easement and if there was any drainage there as well correct? - Yes, Mr. Coppolla who is the first owner of the house remembers it. - Checked with the engineering department and has a portion of the town storm drainage system. - When you examine it, we saw a pipe that we did not know where it goes where the catch basin is that we were going to tie in to. - It shows a pipe going out the rear that we could not find the end of. - Mr. Coppola said there is a drain in the easement at the back of the property. - Not the owner today, but the owner prior was worried about rodents coming out of the drain so he covered it over and threw dirt on top of it. - If we can find it my client is willing to uncover it and clean it up. - But there is supposed to be a drain back there according to the neighbor. - An opening or a swale?

5 Page 5 of 36 - No they say it is a grate back there. - The neighbor said he threw ¾ inch piece of wood on it and then covered it with dirt. - So the net result after your visits to the site, you feel that this exhibit that you ve put together here shows that the applications proposed development will not in any way exacerbate any drainage issues for any of the neighbors correct? - No it s actually going to be a benefit to the neighbors because of the berm and the roof leaders all going into the storm drain and the street so it will actually be reducing what is going off the site today. Mr. Byrne - Asked if any of the Township Professionals reviewed this plan. - No because we have been going back and for with the Coppola s. Mr. Byrne - I would like our Township Professionals to review this plan. - I am concerned that fixing this problem for one neighbor may create a problem for another property. - Is concerned that the Township Professionals have not had a chance to review the proposed plan and the new berm and drainage. - The drains that you have on the property, are they at the low points of the property? - Are they there to collect surface water? - The two drains are along Handzel Road. - The pipe along Handzel Road going in a west to east direction is an 18 inch pipe catch basin in the road on the gutter line. - The other catch basin is on the gutter line where the easement is by the neighbor s property. Mayor Francioli

6 Page 6 of 36 - Those catch basins are in the street though? - Yes that is correct. - How far away are they from the proposed buildings? - The westerly catch basin is roughly 20 feet west of the edge of the house. - The easterly catch basin is approximately in the ballpark of 45 to 50 feet away from the east edge of the house. Open to public for questions Don Burdorf 39 Handzel Road, Whippany - Is concerned with the effect of the 12 inch berm with the drainage towards his property. - If that drain is found and uncovered it should not be a problem. Mr. Burdorf - I am not aware of a drain or anything. - According to Mr. Coppola the people prior to you covered it over. - And what if it is not found? - If it s not found, and I spoke to my client anticipating this question being asked, he is willing to put another catch basin about 25 feet to the west of the one that is there and then run a pipe to the rear and put a drain right at the end of our property. - That will catch all of our water. Mr. Burdorf

7 Page 7 of 36 - Where is the drain in relation to the berm? - The drain is just below the berm. - We will be going over this with the engineering department to make sure the grading will be right so the water does get to that drain. Mr. Burdorf - Where that berm is there is a sanitary manhole cover there so would it make sense that the sewer drain is right next to that? - The plans look like it is just to the east of it and until we find the actual cover we won t know exactly where it is. Mr. Burdorf - But that is only going to collect water going straight at it right? - What you tend to do with a storm drain is you ditch the ground so that everything goes to it. Mr. Sullivan - Mr. Maceira that drain that is being questioned about existing do you have any knowledge of it being there? Mr. Maceira - No, we have not been able to field verify if it is there or not. - I have heard the same comments as Fred has about it being there. Mr. Sullivan - And it is allegedly located not on the subjects property? Mr. Maceira - It is allegedly on the neighbor s property. - On 39 Handzel Road s property on lot 31.

8 Page 8 of 36 - On the sewer easement itself. Mr. Maceira - We are not sure if it is in the sewer easement or just next to it. - But again, we have not been able to verify the location. - My recommendation number 3 in my report had in essence required the same kind of treatment whether it is on the subject s property, lot 4 or lot 31 to provide a new drain along that low property line to catch that storm water so it would not affect the neighbors. - So in the end it is kind of the same thing it just depends on whose property we are putting it on. - If this application weren t approved, would you still require that? Mr. Maceira - I don t believe I have any standing to require that of a private property owner, because I do not have an easement there. Closed to the public - At this time we would like to call Mr. John McDonough. John McDonough Planner for the Applicant - Sworn in by the Board Attorney - Lives at 101 Gibraltar Drive, Morris Plains, NJ. - Gave a professional overview and his license is still in good standing. Ms. Stone-Doughtery - Mr. McDonough, you ve had the opportunity to go out to the property and you have met with the client correct? Mr. McDonough - Yes I have.

9 Page 9 of 36 - I filled you in regarding the concerns that the Board had at the last meeting. - Can you just jump in, I know you have reviewed the Township Planners memo and the supplement memo; can you just jump in and tell us what your analysis of the neighborhood is? Mr. McDonough - Gave an analysis of the neighborhood. - Whenever we are dealing with an application such as this from a planning standpoint, where we have a subdivision to create two lots that are undersized in the context of the zone not only in lot area, but also in lot width, analytics always become the key. - From the planning end we always look at the tables. - Your planner Mr. Brancheau has done just that for the Board and given what is a reasonable analysis from multiple vantage points, looking at a 200 foot ring, looking at the entire length of Handzel Road. - I have done some analytics of my own which is also a reasonable approach to this application. - The second part of the analysis is what the appropriate study area is, what is the neighborhood. - What I d like to share with the Board first is the analytics because based on the analytics that I have looked at, they back up what the applicant is proposing. - The lot size relief is actually greater than the lots that are being looked at in the study area, and the lot width is also greater as well. - In the first exhibit it will be a little difficult to see which lots I am pertaining to but it is just to provide some analytic evidence to show that compliance with what was just said was met through my calculations. - Exhibit A-2: Handzel Road lot comparison table. Mr. McDonough - I actually call this old Handzel Road lot comparison table because I looked at a very old isolated portion of old Handzel Road, what I am calling old Handzel Road, a section of Handzel Road that was all really built together at one time. - Handzel Road was built in two parts. - Back in the 50 s when this area was first built, Handzel Road came in at a very strict gridlike pattern. - The houses were cookie cutter like we would typically see built post-world War II. - In the late 70 s and early 80 s a new form starts to take place on the perimeter where we are looking at a distinctly different pattern. - Looking at the 20 or so lots that would constitute what I call old Handzel Road, or the old Handzel Road neighborhood, they actually do stack up with what the applicant is proposing.

10 Page 10 of 36 - The applicant is proposing a lot area of 16,875 sq. ft. and a lot width of sq. ft., both of which are above what we see as the average lot area and the average lot width when compared to those other 20 lots. - The second part will be to give the Board some visuals. - Exhibit A-3: Planning Exhibits for Anthony Ciullo 2 pages. - The front page is a map with the applicant s lot in green. - The second page is some photographs. - Mr. McDonough, please explain to the Board the details on page 1 of the exhibit. Mr. McDonough - It is a simple tax map of the community with some colorization. - In bold outline is the subject property. - We are showing where the proposed subdivision would be. - If you were to look at an aerial photograph of this neighborhood from 1953 what you would see would be Handzel Road up to that sewer easement. - You would also see the development of Alanon Road. - They were the first that were cut in in the area and the pattern continues to the south. - Everything to the north and east and everything associated with Bee Meadow Parkway was not there in This was the typical 50 s post-war layout, very efficient, very strict geometry, everything is parallel and everything follows the same sort of pattern. - There are 20 lots from On the south side we run from block 8201 lot 1 to block 8201 lot On the north we run from block 8202 lot 4 to block 8202 lot Those are the lots that we looked at for our analytical analysis. - There were woods to the east and woods to the north but that changed drastically in the 1970 s and 80 s when the rest of the developments in the area started being built. - We see more cul-de-sacs and more curving linear roadways. - The lots start to get wider, the roads start to get wider, sidewalks start to pop up and as you can see that is not the case with this portion of Handzel Road. - There is a distinct difference between the old portion of Handzel Road versus the newer portion. - There are lots on the opposite side of old Handzel Road which were approved by subdivision just a few years ago. - Those are lots and which was a parcel that was exactly the same size as the subject parcel, and was proposed and approved by a 9-0 vote. - They were lots the same exact size that the applicant is proposing so there would be some neighborhood unity in that regard. - What we show in green on the map, from a statistical standpoint, is that 15 out of the 22 lots would be equal or less than the 16,869 sq. ft. lot area the applicant is proposing. - That would be 68% which is a statistical majority. - The second page shows some photographs taken about two months ago.

11 Page 11 of 36 - In the upper left-hand corner you can see that there is a picture of what one of the older homes would look like in the older section of Handzel Road. - At the top on the right is the subject s lot and you can see that it is a very spacious lot for the neighborhood. - Frames 3 and 4 are showing newer construction on old Handzel Road. - This is the subdivision that is on the other side of the street. - These are the twin homes that were constructed on the opposite side of the street, the point here is what you see in the photograph is essentially what you will get with the subdivision we are proposing. - There was a cap on the dwelling sizes as a condition of their approval at 3,200 sq. ft.; we would make the same stipulation here. - This will simply be in harmony with the newer construction on the street. - I agree with Mr. Brancheau that this is not a hardship case. - This is clearly a C2 variance which allows Boards to grant approval if it is a better zoning alternative for the property. - Believes that the benefits of the application outweigh the detriments. - There is a case that is on point with this application known as the Calvman case which was a subdivision to create two lots that had lot widths that were not conforming with the zoning requirement and the court upheld the approval there finding that it improved neighborhood harmony and was a better zoning that having a McMansion in that neighborhood. - The court found that 2 smaller homes were better than one big home. - The benefits of this application would be a better neighborhood harmony benefiting the general welfare. - The project will promote a pleasant visual environment. - The older home would be replaced by two newer homes. - There would be an advancement of purpose M; it would be a more efficient use of the property. - It is substantially cleared so it is not a situation where they would be removing a lot of trees and wooded area. - On the negative side, the proposed subdivision will have no detrimental effects on the public good. - There would be no detriment or undermining of the zone plan. - At the end of last year the Board made a recommendation that many lots on this road be rezoned to R-15 which comes on the heels of the approval for the subdivision on the other side of the street. - Just to stop you for a second, you said something that was a little inaccurate; they were looking to rezone to an R-30 not an R-15. Mr. McDonough - I was going to clarify, a certain push was made in the area to move to an R These lots would be totally conforming if they were in an R-15 but they were not recommended for that, they were recommended to be an R-30 zone.

12 Page 12 of 36 - For the reasons that I have given I believe that this is a better solution for the property. - Also just to note the subdivision across the street was also recommended for an R-30 zone. - There is also relief related to the setback. - Mr. Brancheau in his report has given the Board the justification for that. - There is also compatibility compared to the setback on the rest of the street. - Mr. Brancheau mentioned in his first report in June on page 5 that on the adjacent lot on the left lot 5 block 8202 the setback is 48.5 ft. the applicant is proposing 60.2 ft. where the required is 75 ft. so this is a greater setback than lot 5 but it is a smaller setback than the two lots to the right, 80.6 ft. on lot 30 and 76.9 ft. on lot The applicants proposed setback is almost in the middle of the left and the right setback. - I believe that the application has met its burden under the statute and the statutory test is actually met here based on those facts. - Would you agree that it is no longer 1953? Mr. McDonough - Yes I would agree with that. - Would you also agree that the properties surrounding this lot as it now exists are much larger than what is being proposed? Mr. McDonough - Yes, and Mr. Brancheau has given you the analytics in that regard. - The lot immediately next to it is larger, the lot immediately behind it is larger, the lot across the street is larger, and the lots along Bee Meadow Parkway, Glenbrook, and Kensington are all larger. - This area merged into another area that was developed more recently than the old Handzel Road as you proclaimed. - Would you agree that this Board has put zoning on this property, is in the R-40 zone at this point? Mr. McDonough - Yes.

13 Page 13 of 36 - And we have on the reexamination report that we did agree that it should become an R-30 zone. - Looking at the entire neighborhood, by reducing these to become 2 of the smaller lots except for some of the old Handzel Road lots, we are not keeping in what the intention was of this Board in this Township in trying to create a new zone and create new capabilities with larger properties. - Our changing from an R-40 to an R-30 our hope was that some of the smaller lots would be combined to make larger properties that might meet the requirements of the zone. - And that is part of the proper approach for a Planning Board in a Township with their zoning, is that not correct? Mr. McDonough - Everything you say is factually true I have a response to it but the short answer is yes. - I understand you have a response to it. - We normally look at lots within two hundred feet of the property. - You selected lots because of their size because that makes sense for this application. - I m not so sure that s the proper way to look at this, I think we need to look at the overall area and understand the intent that we were trying to do which was improve on the neighborhood that was developed in 1953, and I think we have done that as you can see by the surrounding area and the surrounding lots to what is being proposed here. - I believe Mr. Brancheau in that if this were to be approved they would be two of the smaller lots in the area, is that not correct? Mr. McDonough - Again that depends on what we are calling the area. - Based on Mr. Brancheau s analysis, yes. - My qualified yes Mr. Chairman, is the association with these two lots is with old Handzel Road not new Handzel Road and the reason I say that is they were all built at the same time together, they were all built as one integrated thing. - The subdivision of this lot would keep in the pattern with those lots when they were created. - But that is adverse to what we are trying to accomplish in this area is it not, if you look at our zoning and what we are attempting to do by zoning. Mr. McDonough - If I were looking at it in the total context of the zone, yes. - But with respect to this particular piece of property, and again a variance is meant to be particular not general, if I were to purely look at this application from a top down standpoint

14 Page 14 of 36 and see the way everything is plotted there, then obviously yes, I would say this lot is not, from an analytical standpoint, on par with the numbers that Mr. Brancheau is giving. - In the real world however the association is with those lots on old Handzel Road which is how this reads from the ground level, not the air. - I ll accept your interpretation. - Does anybody else have questions of this witness? Seeing none on the Board questions were opened to the public. Don Burdorf 39 Handzel Road - They mention about comparing the improvements at 22 and 23 which is up the street, my questions are related to that property was a fairly level property, there is no sewer easement and there are no trees up there. My house has 25 trees that are in jeopardy from this subdivision and the property severely slopes towards my house, so what did you do with your analytics in regards to those things? Mr. McDonough - Bear in mind there is building envelope associated with this particular piece of property. - The applicant is not violating that building envelope. - Is your property the one to the right or to the rear? Mr. Burdorf - It is to the east. Mr. McDonough - To the east, okay that would be lot It is the lot immediately to the east which is downhill of the subject property. - The point is, in terms of the building wall grading that is associated with this development is not encroaching any closer towards your property than what could be, than where the box could go if it were just one box. - We are talking about two boxes, but that second box is no closer than where one box could go. - So I guess the answer to your question is the zone plan contemplates a building where you re concerned about. Mr. Burdorf - But what does it do to help me with my trees and my storm water run-off?

15 Page 15 of 36 Mr. McDonough - I understand this has been dialogued with about the storm water. - The trees I think is certainly something that can be looked at from a tree-save standpoint but again, the applicant is not proposing anything that would not be allowed to happen if it were going on a conforming development in terms of your trees. Mr. Burdorf - But if you put a driveway six feet from the trees, what happens to the trees and the roots and the drip lines when you re proposing something like that? Mr. McDonough - Again, the applicant can certainly work with you in that regard but the applicant is not proposing a driveway that is any closer than it is allowed to be from the zone plan. Mr. Burdorf - When you mentioned building something other than two homes, you mention building a very large home; can you just build a normal size home on there? Mr. McDonough - Hypothetically you could put any box on this piece of property, from a physical planning standpoint yes, but there are certainly market influences that would jeopardize the smaller home. Mr. Burdorf - A smaller home compared to what kind of a home? Mr. McDonough - A home that fills the entire building envelope. Mr. Burdorf - Okay thank you. Closed to the public - Are there any members of the Board that have any questions for this witness? - Seeing and hearing none I will close this portion of the meeting.

16 Page 16 of 36 - Counselor, do you have any more witnesses? - I was going to call the applicant just one more time. Anthony Ciullo 24 Katherine Drive, Whippany Applicant - Testified at the June meeting and is still under oath. - Mr. Ciullo, I know we spoke many times since the June meeting and there were a couple things that you wanted to bring to the Boards attention just to help clarify some of the concerns that the Chairman had raised or regarding when you purchased the property in 2017 and what your initial thoughts were and where you re at now with the property and the application that is with us today, is that correct? Mr. Ciullo - That is correct. - I bought this home in July of 2017 and my intentions were to build a modest sized home for myself and potentially sell the other piece of property to help support the cost of construction. - As I got more engulfed in this whole process I determined that the best solution for me with this property would be to apply for this subdivision and obviously build a modest sized home for me and my family. - Just so the Board hears this from you since it was referenced in the last application you were willing to stipulate that your house and any potential house built on the lot if it were to be approved would be stipulated that it would be no larger than 3,200 sq. ft. Mr. Ciullo - Yes the homes are going to be basically identical, no larger than 3,200 sq. ft. with the garage. - Taking out the garage you are looking at about a 2,700 sq. ft. home, it is a very modest sized home. - My intentions at this point are literally to build two homes, one of which is going to be for me and my family and the other is to actually invite my brother who has expressed an interest to move into the property, he has actually been renting in East Hanover for the past 12 years and is tired of renting and my mother as well. She is 83 years old and she lives in Parsippany and rents a very small apartment. - I also have two other siblings that live in town.

17 Page 17 of 36 - I was invited to move in to Whippany by my sister, who lives on Bee Meadow Parkway, she s been living on that street for about 25 years. - I ve been a homeowner and a resident for about 20 years. - About 11 years ago I invited my other sister to move to town so it s really my dream to keep my siblings together, keep a close eye on my mom as she is getting older, and build two modest sized homes on Handzel. - Looking at the dynamics of this whole application, I m not a builder and I don t know a lot about this process, but my whole thought process was directly across the street on a small angle there was a similar sized property that was subdivided and if you look at those homes they are beautiful; they make the street look amazing. - There is another house up the road that has recently been constructed, so there has been like a renaissance of people buying homes and either knocking them down or revitalizing them and bringing more modernization to the Township. - Being in the Town 20 years and driving up and down these streets I see a lot of subdivisions taking place and it just makes the township look beautiful. - It is inviting new families and new homes into the Township. - My application is only as good as the one that precedes it, the one right up the street, 22 and So I hope that you will be fair and just with me and I respectfully request your approval on this subdivision. - Mr. Ciullo, did I hear you right you are now living on Katherine Drive? Mr. Ciullo - Yes. - You purchased a home there? Mr. Ciullo - No I did not. - You re renting? Mr. Ciullo - Yes I am renting. - As I mentioned in my last testimony I was living on Bee Meadow Parkway and the landlord at the time decided to move back into the home.

18 Page 18 of 36 - This all happened within the last 30 days so I had to pack up my house and I found a nice modest home on Katherine Drive. - You own the property on Handzel Drive? Mr. Ciullo - I do. I have owned it since July of Why didn t you move into that? Mr. Ciullo - As I stated in my last testimony I was going to do some modernizations and some upgrades but bringing in contractors, it was just so much stuff that I needed to do, it was just going to be way too costly to improve it. - We would probably spend just as much rehab it as we would to just construct a new home. - At the June meeting you indicated what you stated tonight. - That in July of 2017 you purchased this property, and that you were aware of the zoning, but you did not quite understand what it meant, is that accurate? Mr. Ciullo - That is true. - It s not my business, all I saw was a house came on the market, we were renting on Bee Meadow and I just got excited. - I love Hanover Township; I want to stay in town. - Our goal, our vision, was to build a nice modest sized home for me and my three children. - So this property came up, we drove by, and I was floored by the size of the property. - It just felt like it didn t fit on the street. - So my wheels were spinning and I said this could be an opportunity and then I saw the houses across the street and thought that if they can approve that subdivision on the nonconforming lot, why would the Board not honor that for me which is directly across the street. - Just for the record, I didn t represent you when you bought the home correct.

19 Page 19 of 36 Mr. Ciullo - No you did not. - Most residential real estate attorneys probably don t even discuss zones and what those impacts are when you are purchasing a home. Mr. Ciullo - It really didn t mean much to me, R-30, R-40, R-15, these were just numbers to me. - All I saw was a huge parcel of land which was just a little shy of an acre, I thought that was a tremendous piece of property so why not build two homes and generate some great tax revenues. - By building two homes it will triple the tax revenue for Hanover Township. - Tax revenue is not a concern of this Board. - We don t look at financials that s up to the Township Committee, they can deal with the financial end of it, and we deal with the planning end of it. - In more fairness, in more sincerity, tax revenue you probably really didn t think about, it was just purchasing the property and being able to build your dream home and then through the course of this process we ve learned a lot of things you had no idea about. - As I understand your testimony to the Board, the plea is this is something you still intend to keep in the family; you re not subdividing these for sale, you re not subdividing these for any purpose but the Ciullo s family use. Mr. Ciullo - Right, it s my dream right now to be close to my sister on Bee Meadow, I have a sister that lives on Maple Shade, I want to get both my brother and my mom from renting and put them next door to me where I can keep an eye on my mom. - Counselor, there is no legal way that this town can ensure that that property would stay with the hands of this family. - Into perpetuity, absolutely not.

20 Page 20 of 36 - But I do think that it is important sometimes that since all of the Board members here yourselves are residents, you understand the driving force behind it. - We understand the town. - We also understand the number of properties that we ve rezoned over the years where people have said exactly the same thing and have been sold to others outside of their family. - So that is something that we have to take into consideration. - Does any member of the Board have questions of this witness? Seeing none questions were opened to the public. Seeing and hearing none questions were closed to the public. - Counselor would you like to summarize? Mr. Sullivan - Do you have any more witnesses? - No. Mr. Sullivan - I don t think you ever addressed or had any objections to the comments in Mr. Maceira s May 14 th memo or Mr. Brancheau s June 19 th memo items B-1 through 6. - In the event that the application is approved and they were opposed as conditions, is there any issue in respect to them? - I don t think you went over them with - I thought we went over Mr. Maceira s. Mr. Sullivan - If you could just confirm that there is no issue with them. - There is no issue with Mr. Maceira s memo correct?

21 Page 21 of 36 - No I don t think so. Mr. Maceira - Just the only thing that might be a little bit unclear is again item 3 with that drainage system whether having this information regarding whether it exists or not. Mr. Sullivan - That item can be at your discretion, regarding the possibility of that other basin correct? Mr. Maceira - Correct, if the applicant is agreeable to that. - We would stipulate to that yes. Mr. Sullivan - Mr. Brancheau s memo, the first one? - The first one which is dated June 19 th, and is comments 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. - One is not an issue. - Number two is not an issue. - Number three, is the existing utility hole in the rear yard of proposed lot 4.01 to remain or is it being removed? - That is an all closed hole. - So we would stipulate that it is being removed. - Number four I believe s updated testimony clarifies that the soil logs do not propose that the dry well would work so therefore we were talking about tying it into the catch basin.

22 Page 22 of 36 - Number five, I believe, you already addressed the suggestion to add some fill and raise the ground elevation on the east of proposed lot 4.02 where it is adjacent to lot 31 correct? - I believe so. - Number six, yes we will correct the inaccuracy. - Yes, number five we can stipulate to as well. - And I do not believe that the updated planning memo supplement had any updated conditions unless I m remembering wrong. - Thank you. Opened to the public for comments Florence Coppolla 6 Glenn Brook Court, Whippany - Sworn in by the Board attorney. - Requested letting her son-in-law speak for her. Fredrick Stillwagon 72 Forest Way, Morris Plains - Sworn in by the Board Attorney. - We testified at the June 19 th meeting objecting to 4 of the 6 variances and our main concern was the runoff and the ground water. - Since then we have had a number of interactions with the applicant and his team. - I would like to just say that they have been very transparent and open to addressing the concerns of Flo and Tom Coppolla and that was with the issues of water. - There were four things that between the two of us we agreed to and those are represented in the plans that have been displayed today, Exhibit A-1. - That includes the pitching of the driveways towards the street, the roof leaders running to the catch basins near the street, the berm at the back of the property and it shows in the plans six inches and I think we already addressed agreeing to move that to twelve inches, and the planting of some trees and shrubs along the back edge. - With those conditions being met, Flo and Tom would like to remove their objection. Mr. Sullivan - the pitching of the driveways toward the street, I don t know if you mentioned that but that is part of the plan?

23 Page 23 of 36 - Yes it is part of the plan. - Than you. - Would anyone else like to come up? Don Burdorf 39 Handzel Road - Sworn in by the Board Attorney. - Just to summarize too, the twelve inch berm might protect my neighbors but it makes it worse for me. - If you notice the street, it pitches down and over towards their property so more water would come towards me and what usually went over to their property would now come over to mine. - I don t know a lot about the analytics that was talked about tonight but I live at the property and I ve been a resident and around for 45+ years here in Hanover. - My sister still lives in town; she s a school teacher at Bee Meadow. - But I just know from living there that it is a lot different than the other subdivision up the street. - That is flat and there is no real water runoff there. - I have 25+ trees between the properties and I haven t heard anything about what is going to be done to protect those. - I just think that running the water to the street and pitching the driveways is fine but that just takes care of the water from the roof, it doesn t really do anything with other impervious improvements like driveways and patios. - I m just not really comfortable about what I ve heard and how it is going to affect my property and how it will change the landscaping. - They are moving houses up a little bit; it is not going to be the same. - Not that I am against doing something different, but putting two houses on this particular lot on this part of Handzel is different than all the other analytics that were spoken about today, the properties aren t the same. - If the applicant were stipulate than any grading plan that would be done for the property would be reviewed by the Township Engineer to make sure that it does not bring any additional water onto your property, which is s testimony, would that give you some reassurances regarding the development? Mr. Burdorf

24 Page 24 of 36 - I m relying on our Planning Board to make that decision for me; I don t know what that s going to do. Closed to the public - Would anyone on the Planning Board like to make a comment? Mr. Byrne - I can t see the plan from here so there was testimony, but I have never seen the plan. - So the testimony based on that plan went right over my head. - I don t believe that a stipulation, for me, would be sufficient to vote on this matter. - The drainage issue is so serious here that I can t vote on this without it being reviewed and approved by our Board Engineer. - I don t know how the rest of the Board feels, but after the fact for me is not sufficient. - This is too important to be stipulated. - My second comment is the subdivision up the street has 75 ft. lots on both sides. - That is different; this lot has 150 ft. lots on both sides and 150 ft. lots across the street so it is a much different environment than the lot up the street. - You can always be selective in your testimony about what you want to compare your lots to when you are comparing your lots to older homes that are further up the street. - I am not moving anything but I am recommending that the Board deny this application. - In looking at all the testimony and listening to Mr. McDonough who I thought did a very adequate job on behalf of his client. Mr. Olsen - I have a question, was there a grading plan done? - No, we made the changes on these plans, but the final grading plans have to get approved by the engineering department. - One of my thoughts was after hearing the gentleman s comments was that we could put curbing on the driveway to help deflect the water. - The answer is there is no grading plan at this time. Mr. Olsen

25 Page 25 of 36 - When the grading plan is done, it might help that 39 Handzel Road, if he could see that or if he hears it from our engineering department. - At this point I agree with Member Byrne. - We ve listened to a lot of testimony. - I think Mr. McDonough did a very nice job for his client in referring to the 1953 nature of Handzel Road. - The problem is our zoning is R We have intended to improve this entire area and as you can see from the surrounding properties from this lot and around the Berkshire Road areas, we have done that with the zones. - In addition we ve recognized that R-40 in certain instances on certain pieces of property in this area may be a little too great. - That we have recommended in the reexamination report that the zoning go to R And our hope has always been that we can improve the neighborhood, not continue to let it decline based on what was done in 1953 which no longer exists. - As a result I would encourage the Board for a denial on this property. - At this point I will entertain a motion for denial. Mayor Francioli - Before you do that, I have a problem with this entire water issue that our professionals have not had an opportunity to examine and get their professional views. - I m not sure it is going to make a difference. Mr. De Nigris - Whether it does or not I d like to hear what their professional view is. - We ve heard a lot of testimony, we know there are water problems, and we know that this is not the type of zoning that we wanted for this area. - As a result I am requesting a motion for denial of this application, do I have it? - Counsel, I hate to interrupt but Mr. Chairman was going to let me have a conclusion that I didn t get to have somehow in all this.

26 Page 26 of 36 - I asked you for that. - Right but then we jumped right in to public comments. - You decided to confer with one of the public instead. - I didn t realize I gave my right up to have a conclusion. - I thought you had done your conclusion; as a result that s why I went by. - I apologize. Mr. Sullivan - Mr. Chairman I have no issue if the council wants to speak, unless the other members disagree. - I think we should allow her to do it, I think there was a misunderstanding as to how it was proceeding so go ahead. - And I apologize Mr. Chairman, I didn t read you properly I apologize. - I had just wanted to say in conclusion that we have been in front of the Board now twice as Mr. Chairman and the Board members are aware. - The application for minor subdivision presented by my client tonight is one that has been in the process, reworked, worked with the neighbors, worked with the issues that are on the site, and I understand the concerns with many of the Board members in regards to the grading and the drainage issues. - I ve been in front of this Board and the Board of Adjustment and I ve worked with the Township Engineer on many, many occasions on many projects and the applicant has stipulated that any additional items that were referenced in the Engineers memo would be met.

27 Page 27 of 36 - Certainly any grading plan, were there to be a positive vote on this application, would be done in the course of an approval before it would ever get to the point of construction and permits. - I understand the dilemma this Board has as far as what is the neighborhood essence here that determines whether or not this lot would be in harmony with the rest of the neighborhood. - We strongly feel that Mr. McDonough s presentation and the area that was proposed based on how the township was constructed, the roads as they were developed, and the later section of Handzel that came along even from that aerial view looking down, supports that. - So we really hope that the Board is considering the overall dynamics of this allocation. - Don t simply look at the lot on one side or the other side, but look at the entire section of the old road. - I know that all of you have been out there more than I ve ever been in my lifetime and once you take that bend you can certainly see the difference from the old section to the new section. - While I applaud the Board on wanting and hoping that over time these undersized lots would somehow turn in to bigger lots, the reality is every lot on this street is fully developed. - The chances of there being vacant land that was somehow turned into a bigger lot, while that s a great intent and goal and purpose, it s probably not that likely down the road, and what you see in this old section of Handzel Road is the development and this is the last lot that could be subdivided. - We are not setting a precedent here, it s not like every neighbor can come in and do this and make this neighborhood smaller, and this is it. - This is the last homeowner with the last big piece of property and I really respect Mr. Chairman and members of the Board even though your views may be different than ours but we hope that you can see that bigger picture on this application and thank you so much. Mr. De Nigris - Thank you. - My only thing is here is an opportunity to fulfil what we are trying to do, and if we don t at some point take a stand, we ll never get there because we will continue it and continue it. - So here is an opportunity to fulfil the R-30 wish that the Chairman mentioned. - But what you are saying is forget that, and I m not sure I agree with you. - Still looking for a motion to deny the application. Member Byrne - I would make a motion to deny the application. - The testimony on the drainage for me is inadequate and it is insufficient for me that it is done after the fact. - The testimony that is similar to the subdivision up the street, the subdivision up the street has 75 ft. lots on either side.

28 Page 28 of 36 - This lot, were it to be subdivided, would be surrounded by 150 ft. lots so I move denial of the application. Member Byrne moved to deny the application and Member De Nigris seconded the motion. Members Olsen, Byrne, De Nigris, Mayor Francioli, and voted in favor of denying the application. Members Deehan and Dobson voted against denying the application. The application was denied. The Board took a five minute break. 2) CASE NO APPLICANT/OWNER: OKSANA KHRAPKO LOCATION: 31 KEARNEY AVENUE WHIPPANY BLOCK: 8501 LOT: 14 ZONE: R-15 Board Action Date OCTOBER 25, 2018 Applicant is seeking a minor subdivision in order to transform the existing lot into two lots and construct one new single family dwelling on each new lot. Each new house will have a driveway, attached two car garage, landscaping, fencing, and customary residential lighting. Applicant is seeking C variance relief for minimum lot width. 100 feet is required and 75 feet is proposed for each new lot. Steven Schepis Attorney for the Applicant - The application is to subdivide an existing lot. - They are not seeking minimum lot area requirement relief. - They cannot meet the lot width and the building setback. - Gave an overview of the application and what the applicant is looking to build and what currently exists on the lot. - The lot is currently 30,000 sq. ft. and located in an R-15 zone. - Were this to be approved we would build two homes, one on each lot that is fully conforming to the zone. - If this is approved a condition of the approval would be that the current home that is dead center on the property be knocked down and removed. Blais Brancheau and Gerardo Maceira were sworn in by the Board Attorney. Peter Korzen Engineer for the Applicant - Sworn in by the Board Attorney.

29 Page 29 of 36 - Gave professional background. - Reviewed the boundary survey and gave an overview of the lot and how it exists today. - The lot is currently 150 x 200 feet. - There are existing utilities in the area. - There are several mature trees around the property. - Reviewed the subdivision plan dated 5/7/2018 with the Board. - Each lot will be 15,000 sq. ft. - There is a 49.4 ft. front yard setback, 18 ft. side yard setback, and 40 ft. rear yard setback. - Reviewed the conceptual dwelling plan. - Each dwelling would have a two car front loading garage. - A deck is proposed in the rear. - Utilities are all going to be underground per the code. - Drainage is currently uncontrolled but that will be changed, roof drains will be connected to a drywell system in the front yard of each lot. - The only variance being requested is for lot width as they are proposing 75 ft. and 100 ft. is required. - Reviewed the 9/17/2018 Township Engineers review letter. - They are able to accommodate all of the requirements in the review and the supplemental reviews. - The pending memo of the Hanover Sewerage Authority and they would be able to meet all of their requirements as well. - They will address the landscaping that was noted in the Arborists review. - The surveyors comment on 8/7/18 regarding a note change about a corner marker will be complied with. - In regards to the Planners Review dated 9/17/2018 they can meet the three comments. Mr. Brancheau - There is a 190 day deadline to file for a subdivision, is that a problem? Mr. Schepis - That is not a problem, there has already been a discussion with the current tenant and they are aware of what is being planned. Opened to the public Seeing and hearing none Closed to the public Lisa Phillips Planner for the Applicant - Sworn in by the Board Attorney. - Gave professional background. - Approved as a Professional Planner by the Board.