Open public meeting statement.  The meeting was called to order by Chairman, Richard Innella, and a statement was made that the meeting was duly advertised and met all of the requirements of the Open Public Meetings Act.  Those present were:  Mark Utter, Ted Brace, Glenn Barbagallo, George Zitone, Ron Ruberto, Gene Crawford, Katherine Snyder, Charles Teufert, Richard Innella, Sharon M. Yarosz, the board secretary, William Haggerty, Esq., the board attorney, and Michael O’Krepky, the board engineer.

Those absent were:  Sharon Tufaro (excused) and Darren Ponce (excused).

MINUTES

It was noted that the February 8, 2007 and March 8, 2007 Land Use Board Minutes were not yet prepared.

RESOLUTIONS

Crown Aggregates, LLC – LUB 06-18 – Block 5, Lot 21 – Site Plan:

The Resolution was reviewed.  A Motion was made by Glenn Barbagallo and seconded by Ted Brace to approve the Resolution for an Application by Crown Aggregates for a Site Plan.  Roll Call:  Ted Brace, yes; Glenn Barbagallo, yes; Ron Ruberto, yes; Gene Crawford, yes; Katherine Snyder, yes; and Charles Teufert, yes.  The Motion was carried.

NEW APPLICATIONS

Laura McDonald – LUB 07-04 – Block 1, Lot 24 – “C” Variance:

Ron Ruberto stepped down from this application.

Mr. Haggerty indicated that he spoke to Mr. O’Krepky regarding this application.  He noted that one of Mr. O’Krepky’s concern was whether the property would be in the flood area of the Delaware River.  Mr. Haggerty indicated that it would be the applicant’s risk.  Mr. Haggerty further indicated that there is an encroachment of the applicant’s shed on the neighbor’s property and it is also a private road variance, since it is on an unimproved road.  However, this property and house existed and the property is safe for emergency vehicles with the existing house. 

Appearing before the board was the applicant’s attorney, Michael Meltzer.

Mr. O’Krepky indicated that pursuant to his report dated April 12, 2007, he did receive the sealed plans as requested and the application is complete.

A Motion was made by Glenn Barbagallo and seconded by George Zitone to deem this application complete.  All were in favor.  The Motion was carried.

Mr. Meltzer indicated that the applicant has a summer cabin that is fairly small and she wants to expand it.  Due to the size and topography of the lot, there is really no other way to put an addition as designed on the plan submitted which require some variances for setbacks which are relatively minor in comparison to the way it exists now.  The ultimate result of this addition would be a better house, more aesthetically pleasing.  The applicant does not intend to change the use of the cabin.  She does not intend to convert the cabin from a summer cabin to a year round cabin.  She intends to keep it as a summer cabin. 

Mr. Barbagallo questioned approximately how far above the Delaware River is the existing house.  Mr. Meltzer had Ron Ruberto sworn in by the board attorney as a witness.  Mr. Ruberto indicated that the house is approximately 100 feet from the Delaware River.  Mr. Meltzer indicated that when this issue came up in Mr. O’Krepky’s report, he ordered a flood search, however, he has not received it as of this evening.  He further agreed with Mr. Haggerty that this is the owner’s risk. 

This matter was opened to the public.  There was no public participation.  This matter was closed to the public. 

Mr. Haggerty indicated that the shed is encroaching on the adjoining property and should be moved within the property lot lines and the required setback (10’ off property line).  The applicant’s attorney agreed.

A Motion was made by Glenn Barbagallo and seconded by Ted Brace to approve the “C” Variance request for a Front Yard Setback of 4.8’; a Side Yard Setback of 9.9’/23.9’; Maximum Lot Coverage of 2.6%; and a Private Road Variance.  There was also a condition of approval that the applicant move the shed in the property lot lines within 10’ off the property line or remove the shed completely.  Roll Call:  Mark Utter, yes; Ted Brace, yes; Glenn Barbagallo, yes; George Zitone, yes; Gene Crawford, yes; Katherine Snyder, yes; Charles Teufert, yes; and Richard Innella, yes.  The Motion was carried.

Mr. Meltzer asked the board if the applicant can proceed with construction prior to the reading of the Resolution.  A Motion was made by Ted Brace and seconded by Glenn Barbagallo to waive the reading of the Resolution.  Roll Call:  Mark Utter, yes; Ted Brace, yes; Glenn Barbagallo, yes; George Zitone, yes; Gene Crawford, yes; Katherine Snyder, yes; Charles Teufert, yes; and Richard Innella, yes.  The Motion was carried.

Ron Ruberto returned to the meeting

Judith Ann Armstrong Zernhelt – LUB 07-05 – Block 16, Lot 12.06 & 12.04 – Minor Subdivision & Variance:

George Zitone stepped down from this application.

Appearing before the board was the applicant, Judith Ann Armstrong Zernhelt, and her attorney, John Stieh.  Mrs. Zernhelt was sworn in by the board attorney.

Mr. O’Krepky indicated that the application is complete.  He further indicated that the only issues of substance are the fact that if the lot line adjustment is approved it will improve the two properties in the sense that they will not have the pool encroaching the two property lines.  He pointed out that the common driveway that will remain does not conform with the driveway ordinance because the driveway is not in the center of the common area easement.  Although the common driveway resides on Lot 12.06, the other lot 12.04 would have an easement for the use.  It does not meet the standards within the common driveway ordinance.  He suggests that the applicant request a variances from this ordinance because he sees no other way to adjust the property line other than the way it is proposed.  Mr. Innella indicated that were the driveway is located is in the best possible spot for site distance.  Mr. O’Krepky indicated that he did not review the application for site distance because it is a County Road.  He is making reference to the distance from the property line to the edge of the pavement.  He referred to Ordinance 76-30, C (5) easements should be 25’ and the pavement should be centered within the easement.

Mr. Haggerty indicated that this is a pre-existing condition.  The driveway is where it has historically been.  He reviewed section 76-30 of the ordinance and it states that the driveway shall be 16’ with 2’ graded in stone shoulder have a minimum width of 25’.  This could be required as a condition of approval.

A Motion was made by Gene Crawford and seconded by Glenn Barbagallo to deem this application complete.  All were in favor.  The Motion was carried.

Mr. Stieh indicated that his client was before the board for a lot line adjustment between two pieces of property owned by Mrs. Zernhelt, one of which was her father’s home and one is her own home.  He further stated that the advantage of the lot line adjustment is that it will correct the lot line going through her swimming pool, but it will also make the lot conforming.  Her lot will go up to 3 acres and her father’s lot will go down slightly from 5.5 acres to 5 acres.  They do not have the road frontage along River Road, which is the variance that has been applied for.  This will allow the properties to remain as they are.  There is no new construction and there are no site distance problems. 

Mr. Haggerty summarized this application.  This is a Minor Subdivision/Lot Line Adjustment with a frontage variance for Lot 12.06.  However, they are making the one lot conforming as to area.  The driveway is going to stay where it is now.  The other issue is the common driveway as described earlier.  He indicated if the common driveway that is there now is adequate and has been adequate he feels there is no issue other than preparing an appropriate easement agreement.  Mr. Stieh indicated that he will be preparing this easement agreement.  The board has the right to make the applicant comply with the 25’ width.  Mr. O’Krepky indicated that this is not really his concern.  His concern it is supposed to be centered having the appropriate distance from the edge of the pavement for snow removal, etc.  He is making reference to the pavement being so close to the property line and just making sure that the appropriate variances are requested associated with this. 

Mr. Haggerty questioned Mrs. Zernhelt if the driveway area could be widened or moved further into Lot 12.06 if necessary.  Mrs. Zernhelt indicated that it could.  She further indicated that this is where the driveway has traditionally been since approximately 1970.  She further stated that 2 cars can pass on this driveway without any problems and there has never been any run off problems. 

Mr. O’Krepky indicated a solution from this is to show the easement as prescribed in Section 76-30 of the Township Ordinance being the center line of the pavement right-of-way so the easement will be on both properties.  This way the application would conform.  The applicant agreed.

Mr. Brace asked the applicant if they had a problem with no further subdivisions.  The applicant did not have a problem with this condition.

This matter was opened to the public.  There was no public participation.  This matter was closed to the public.

Mr. Haggerty summarized the application.  The applicant will eliminate the common driveway issue by complying with the common driveway ordinance providing a width of easement 20’.  This modification will be made.  The approval would be subject to the variance for frontage on Lot 12.06.

A Motion was made by Ted Brace and seconded by Gene Crawford to approve the Minor Subdivision Application and Variance request with the following conditions:  No further subdivisions and a driveway easement of 20’.  Roll Call:  Mark Utter, yes; Ted Brace, yes; Glenn Barbagallo, yes; Ron Ruberto, yes; Gene Crawford, yes; Katherine Snyder, yes; Charles Teufert, yes; and Richard Innella, yes.  The Motion was carried.

George Zitone returned to the meeting.

OLD BUSINESS

COAH Status – Inclusionary Ordinance:

Mr. Utter indicated that at the last Township Committee meeting there was a Motion to pass the Inclusionary Ordinance for second reading.  However, the committee was advised by the township attorney and planner not to pass the ordinance at this time due to the court rulings on COAH. 

Accessory Structure Ordinance and C-2 Zone (Highway Commercial Zone) Permitted Uses:

A memo was received from the Zoning Officer, Sharon Tufaro, with regard to the Accessory Structure Ordinance.  She indicated that the ordinance states “the total of the floor or ground areas of all accessory buildings, if more than one, shall not exceed the floor or ground area, which every is smaller, of the principal building on the same lot.”  Mrs. Tufaro indicated to the board in her memo that “if more than one” is her question.  The way the ordinance was written the first accessory building can exceed the primary size.  In addition, she feels that farmland assessed properties should be exempt from this paragraph.  The board agreed that “if more than one” should be deleted.  It was also agreed that the farmland assessed properties should be exempt. 

A memo was received from the board secretary that in the ADPP Resolution it stated:  “The site would comply with the remaining conditions in the conditional use ordinance except for the condition.  Requiring that service stations be separated by a minimum of 2000 feet.  This condition was declared to be invalid by Hon. Reginald R. Stanton in a previous application…”  She indicated in her memo that in September, 2001 the board reviewed a revision to the Ordinance to remove this “2000 foot” requirement based on Judge Stanton’s decision.  However, it was put on hold because his decision was being appealed.  The appellate court upheld Judge Stanton’s decision.  However, this portion of the Ordinance was never removed from the township’s permitted uses. 

A Motion was made by Ted Brace and seconded by Glenn Barbagallo to approve a revision to the Accessory Structures Ordinance to take out “if more than” and Farmland assessed properties are exempt and to recommend this to the Governing Body for approval and adoption.  Also to approve the correction to the C2 Permitted Uses and to recommend that Ordinance to the Governing Body for approval and adoption.  All were in favor.  The Motion was carried.

Fence Ordinance:

A memo was received from the Zoning Officer, Sharon Tufaro, with regard to the Fence Ordinance.  She indicated the existing fence ordinance is in need of review for a possible omission with respect to the exemption of Tennis Courts and Agricultural purposes relating to height requirements.  The old fence ordinance stated that tennis courts and agricultural lands were exempt from the height provision and according to her notes; she believes this should have stayed in the ordinance.  The revised fence ordinance page 2, number 4, states that all fencing except for agricultural purposes would only be exempt from setbacks.  The original exemption was taken out entirely.  She further stated that she does not know if this was the intention of the board to do so, however, she feels it would and could create a hardship for the agricultural property owners for the need of proper height for fencing in certain areas for their land for protection of the plantings. 

Mr. Ruberto indicated that there is a farm in the township where the owner is going to cut down cedar trees and put them up and stretch the fence in between the trees, which some has been done.  The trees are at different heights, crooked, some bent left, and some bent right.  The fence is plastic and 10’ high.  He feels that there should be some restrictions on agricultural fences.  A lengthy discussion was held with regard to this issue.  Mr. Haggerty indicated that there can be some kind of language put in the ordinance that the post must be uniform.  A discussion was held with regard to the height requirement for agricultural fences.  The board felt that an 8’ fence would be sufficient for agricultural.  The fence will be exempt for agricultural purposes as to setbacks.

This matter was opened to the public.

Appearing before the board was Mr. Eisner.  He indicated that he is the owner of the fence that Mr. Ruberto was referring to.  He acknowledged that the fence post are not perfectly straight.  He indicated that the fencing he is using is a deer net.  It is a black plastic.  He feels this is needed to keep the deer out.  He agreed that a minimum of 8’ would be sufficient for farming.  Ms. Snyder questioned if he could use barbed wire fencing instead.  Mr. Eisner indicated that this would be more expensive.

Appearing before the board was Reginald R. Cole.  He indicated that for agricultural fences, the barbed wire fences are dangerous to the deer.

This matter was closed to the public.

This matter will be carried to the next regular meeting of the Land Use Board.

VOUCHERS

A Motion was made by George Zitone and seconded by Glenn Barbagallo to pay the following vouchers:

KSM Engineering, P.C. regarding ADPP (escrow) in the amount of $150.00; and

KSM Engineering, P.C. regarding Zitone Construction (escrow) (06-17) in the amount of $75.00; and

KSM Engineering, P.C. regarding Zitone Construction (escrow) (06-24) in the amount of $75.00; and

KSM Engineering, P.C. regarding Masset (escrow) in the amount of $112.50; and

KSM Engineering, P.C. regarding General Administration (March) in the amount of $300.00; and

KSM Engineering, P.C. regarding Zitone Construction (escrow) (07-03) in the amount of $34.13; and

Dolan & Dolan regarding Zitone Construction (escrow) (06-17) in the amount of $129.68; and

Dolan & Dolan regarding Zitone Construction (escrow) (06-16) in the amount of $61.43; and

Dolan & Dolan regarding Masset (escrow) in the amount of $95.55; and

Dolan & Dolan regarding High Point (escrow) in the amount of $464.10; and

Dolan & Dolan regarding Crown Aggregates (escrow) in the amount of $354.90; and

Dolan & Dolan regarding Biccum (escrow) in the amount $54.60; and

Dolan & Dolan regarding Anthony (escrow) in the amount of $27.30; and

Dolan & Dolan regarding General Administration (February) in the amount of $563.80

Roll Call:  Mark Utter, yes; Ted Brace, yes; Glenn Barbagallo, yes; George Zitone, yes; Ron Ruberto, yes; Gene Crawford, yes; Katherine Snyder, yes; Charles Teufert, yes; and Richard Innella, yes.  The Motion was carried.

CORRESPONDENCE

The correspondence was reviewed.  No formal action was taken.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

The meeting was opened to the public.  There was no public participation.  The meeting was closed to the public.

ADJOURNMENT

Having no further business, a Motion was made by Glenn Barbagallo and seconded by Gene Crawford to adjourn the meeting.  All were favor.  The Meeting was adjourned.

Minutes prepared by:
SHARON M. YAROSZ
Land Use Board Secretary