November 15, 2012

Mr. Pappano said that the house had two bedrooms and it was perfect for him and his two daughters while they were young. He said that now that they are older, he needs the additional space for another bedroom so that they can have sleep-over’s and play dates with their friends. Ms. Weiss stated that one of the Planner’s concerns was the location of nearby neighbors. Chairman Neuer stated that Mr. McCann, one of Mr. Pappano’s neighbors, was here and asked if any other neighbors were present; secing none the Chairman stated for the record that there was no opposition. Mr. Buechler stated that the Planner also talks about a ditch and asked Mr. Pappano if it was on his property or not. Mr. Pappano stated that his Architect will answer that question. Mr. Buechler asked Mr. Pappano if he was going to match the materials used for the addition to the existing house; Mr. Pappano said that they are going re-side the entire house and replace the roof. Chairman Neuer opened the floor to the public for questions to be addressed to this witness. There were no more questions for Mr. Pappano. Mr. Gogan presented site plans with a revision date of 10/18/12. Chairman Neuer asked to have the site plan drawings C-1 to A-7, with a revision date of 10/18/12, marked as Exhibit A-1 for identification. Mr. Gogan referred to sheet C-1 and noted where Mr. Pappano and Mr. McCann’s property lines abut. He stated that the “ditch” was never on Mr. Pappano’s property line. Chairman Neuer asked Mr. Gogan if the ditch was ever part of his client’s property when they ran their calculations; Mr. Gogan stated that it was surveyed as off of the property. Mr. Sussman asked Mr, Gogan if he prepared Exhibit A-1; Mr. Gogan replied yes. Mr. Sussman referred to an arrow on the tax maps of drawing C-2 of the plans and asked Mr. Gogan if he put the arrows there; Mr. Gogan replied yes. Mr. Sussman referred to the tax maps on drawing C-2 of the plans and asked Mr. Gogan who put the two tax maps together, Mr. Gogan said that someone in his office prepared the tax maps. Mr. Gogan stated that he first thought it was a ditch on the property line and then he realized that there was no ditch there. He said that it is just a low line area of the property that redirects the storm water into West View Road. Mr. Gogan stated that there is a change to the impervious coverage. He said that on the

re. He said that it is just a low line area of the property that redirects the storm water into West View Road. Mr. Gogan stated that there is a change to the impervious coverage. He said that on the original application he had measured the impervious to the curb line. Mr. Gogan said that after concurring with Mr. Lepore, the impervious should only extend to the front property line. He stated that after recalculating the impervious coverage they will be under the 45% as allowed and they will not need the “C” variance. Mr. Gogan began detailing the storm drain, on drawing C-3, stating that it will allow for any overflow. He also detailed the tree protection fence that will be installed if needed. Mr. Gogan stated that the applicant is proposing a modest addition to his home and that the building will still be within the same ratio with the improved lot area. 6]