Open public meeting statement: The meeting was called to order by Chairman, George Zitone, 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: Jason Dunn (As Mayor Designee), Charles Teufert, Sharon Tufaro, Glenn Barbagallo, Darren Ponce, Richard Innella, Ron Ruberto, Katherine Snyder, Glen Plotsky, George Zitone, Sharon M. Yarosz, the board secretary, William Haggerty, Esq., the board attorney and Michael O'Krepky, the board engineer. Those absent were: Gene Crawford (excused).

FLAG SALUTE

MINUTES

The Minutes of November 8, 2007 Land Use Board meeting were reviewed. A Motion was made by Mr. Innella and seconded by Mr. Barbagallo to approve the Minutes of the November 8, 2007 Land Use Board Meeting. Mr. Dunn, yes; Mr. Teufert, yes; Mrs. Tufaro, yes; Mr. Barbagallo, yes; Mr. Ponce, yes; Mr. Innella, yes; Mr. Ruberto, yes; Mrs. Snyder, yes; Mr. Plotsky, abstain; and Mr. Zitone, yes. The Motion was carried.

RESOLUTIONS

Minisink Reformed Church - LUB 07-08 - Block 18, Lot 17 - Clove Road - Amended Site Plan & Variance:

The Resolution was reviewed. A Motion was made by Mr. Barbagallo and seconded by Mr. Ponce to approve the Resolution of Minisink Reformed Church for an Amended Site Plan & Variance. Roll Call: Mr. Dunn, abstain; Mrs. Tufaro, yes; Mr. Barbagallo, yes; Mr. Ponce, yes; Mr. Zitone, yes; Mr. Ruberto, yes; Mrs. Snyder, yes; Mr. Teufert, yes; and Mr. Innella, yes. The Motion was carried.

Thompson Stone - LUB 07-10 - Block 42, Lot 1 - Minor Site Plan Waiver:

The Resolution was reviewed. A Motion was made by Mr. Barbagallo and seconded by Mr. Innella to approve the Resolution of Thompson Stone for a Minor Site Plan Waiver. Roll Call: Mr. Dunn, abstain; Mrs. Tufaro, yes; Mr. Barbagallo, yes; Mr. Ponce, yes; Mr. Zitone, yes; Mr. Ruberto, yes; Mrs. Snyder, yes; Mr. Teufert, yes; and Mr. Innella, yes. The Motion was carried.

APPLICATIONS CARRIED FROM A PREVIOUS MEETING

Red Hill Road, LLC - LUB 07-11 - Block 47, Lot 17 - Minor Subdivision:

Appearing before the board was the applicant's attorney, Todd Hooker, and the applicant's engineer, Ken Dykstra. Mr. Dykstra was sworn in by the board attorney.

Mr. O'Krepky indicated to the board that the only item for completeness that was missing from the application was a sealed copy of the survey, which he has received and recommends to the board that they deem the application complete.

A Motion was made by Mr. Barbagallo and seconded by Mr. Innella to deem this application complete. Roll Call: Mr. Dunn, yes; Mr. Teufert, yes; Mrs. Tufaro, yes; Mr. Barbagallo, yes; Mr. Ponce, yes; Mr. Innella, yes; Mr. Ruberto, yes; Mrs. Snyder, yes; Mr. Plotsky, abstain; and Mr. Zitone, yes. The Motion was carried.

Mr. Hooker indicated that this is a proposed subdivision of a 113 acre parcel of land on Red Hill Road. The proposal is to subdivide the property into 3 lots in the R3 Zone which requires a minimum lot size of 3 acres. The proposed Lot 17.01 will be a 3.3 acre lot. The proposed Lot 17.02 will be a 52.06 acre lot. The remainder Lot 17 presently developed with an existing house will be a 57.03 acre lot. There are no variances requested with this application. All the lots have adequate frontage. They have demonstrated adequate areas for sewage disposal for each of the proposed lots. They have also proposed a Stormwater Management solution for the property with infiltration. The wetlands for the property have been delineated and the development is proposed more than 170 feet away from any of the delineated wetlands. Mr. Haggerty questioned if the applicant received an LOI for the property. Mr. Hooker indicated they have not received an LOI, but they have delineated the wetlands by a qualified consultant and they expect a maximum NJDEP buffer of 150'. Mr. Haggerty questioned if the applicant intends to apply for an LOI. Mr. Hooker indicated that the applicant is not anticipating applying for an LOI.

Mr. Hooker reviewed Mr. O'Krepky's report dated November 6, 2007:

Α3. Bulk Requirements.≅ - The two proposed lots and remainder meet all the bulk requirements of the R-3 Zone. The applicant agreed.

Α4. RSIS Drainage.≅ - a. The proposed development and grading plans meet the water quality and quantity reduction standards of RSIS. The applicant agreed. b. I recommend a detail of the Berm be added to the plans demonstrating a side slope of 2:1 and minimum height of 12". The applicant agreed to accept the recommendation of the engineer and revise their plans accordingly. c. Recommend a drainage easement to be added to the proposed lots encompassing the berm, drainage swale and natural depression used for water detention and infiltration. The deeds and stormwater Maintenance plan should include these amendments. The applicant agreed to the recommendation.

Α5. Miscellaneous.≅ - a. This subdivision is subject to other agency approvals including but not limited to: Sussex County Health Department and Sussex County Soil Conservation District. The applicant agreed. b. The approach of delineating the wetlands by a Qualified Wetlands Ecologists and demonstrating that all construction is greater than 150' from wetlands is a sound approach. This action does not guarantee the property is not subject to NJDEP Regulations. The applicant shall take notice, the only way to ensure NJDEP compliance or lack of applicability is to obtain a NJDEP LOI. Mr. Hooker indicated that they have delineated the wetlands and the applicant is respecting the maximum DEP buffer of 150'.

Mr. Dunn questioned the applicant as to why the lots were laid out the way the are with 1 small lot and 2 large lots. Mr. Dykstra indicated that the existing lot was laid out because of the existing driveway and dwelling. The second larger lot was based on the view of the flatbrook area. He indicated that there is a large area of wetlands, however, the view is very scenic. He also wanted to retain a very large lot. He further indicated that the third lot, the 3 acre lot was a reasonable location for a lot which is on a very flat area near Red Hill Road. Mr. Dunn questioned Mr. Dykstra as to the purpose of the berm on the small lot. Mr. Dykstra indicated that the stormwater from this lot can go to a detention area which is located on the larger lot. Therefore, the berm prevents the water from directly running off into the wetlands. He further indicated that there is an easement already proposed on proposed Lot 17.02 for the recharge area. He noted that Mr. O'Krepky wanted the applicant to expand the easement to cover the berm and the swale located on Lot 17.01, which the applicant has agreed to do. Mr. Dunn questioned Mr. Dykstra as to how the board can guarantee that the applicant goes into Farmland Preservation and can this be made a condition of approval. Mr. Dykstra indicated that this is the intent of the applicant, however, he does not feel it can be made a condition of approval. Mr. Haggerty indicated that since the applicant conforms and there are no variances with this application, the board can not make that a condition of approval.

This mater was opened to the public.

Appearing before the board was Alicia Batko and who sworn in by the board attorney. Ms. Batko was concerned with the traffic on the road because of the narrowness of the road. She was also concerned with the construction traffic on this road.

There being no further public, this matter was closed to the public.

A Motion was made by Mrs. Tufaro and seconded by Mr. Innella to approve the Minor Subdivision requested by the applicant subject to the revisions requested and agreed to by the applicant in Mr. O'Krepky's report dated November 6, 2007. Roll Call: Mr. Dunn, yes; Mr. Teufert, yes; Mrs. Tufaro, yes; Mr. Barbagallo, yes; Mr. Ponce, yes; Mr. Innella, yes; Mr. Ruberto, yes; Mrs. Snyder, yes; Mr. Plotsky, yes; and Mr. Zitone, yes. The Motion was carried.

Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless - LUB 07-07 - Block 18.42, Lot 7 - Clove Road - Preliminary & Final Site Plan & Variance:

A letter was received from the applicant requesting an adjournment to the February 14, 2008 Land Use Board meeting without further notice.

A Motion was made by Mr. Barbagallo and seconded by Mr. Innella to carry this matter to the February 14, 2008 Land Use Board meeting without further notice. Roll Call: Mr. Dunn, yes; Mr. Teufert, yes; Mrs. Tufaro, yes; Mr. Barbagallo, yes; Mr. Ponce, yes; Mr. Innella, yes; Mr. Ruberto, yes; Mrs. Snyder, yes; Mr. Plotsky, yes; and Mr. Zitone, yes. All were in favor. The Motion was carried.

NEW APPLICATIONS

Francis Biccum - LUB 06-22 - Block 5, Lot 50 - 29P Steenykill Road - Variance:

Mr. Zitone and Mrs. Yarosz stepped down from this application. Mr. Barbagallo took over as Chairman of the meeting.

Appearing before the board was the applicant, Francis Biccum, and her engineer, Joseph Greenaway. Mr. Greenaway and Ms. Biccum were sworn in by the board attorney.

Mr. O'Krepky indicated that the application is complete and the requested waivers by the applicant are acceptable. The waivers are: Soil Erosion/Sediment Control Application; NJDOT/NJDEP applications; Copy of Sussex County Health Department Application; Tax Map Sheet Number; Provisions for certification of approvals; NJDEP LOI; Building Floor Plans; Graphic/Written Description of Area; and Description of Alternatives. Mr. Haggerty indicated that the applicant is not adding any bedrooms and there are no signs of wetlands on the property and he agrees that the waivers requested are acceptable.

A Motion was made by Mr. Innella and seconded by Mr. Dunn to deem this application complete with the requested waivers by the applicant. Roll Call: Mr. Dunn, yes; Mr. Teufert, yes; Mrs. Tufaro, yes; Mr. Barbagallo, yes; Mr. Ponce, yes; Mr. Innella, yes; Mr. Ruberto, yes; Mrs. Snyder, yes; and Mr. Plotsky, yes. The Motion was carried.

Mr. Haggerty indicated that the applicant is requesting approval of work that has already been completed. She is requesting setback variances.

Mr. Ruberto indicated that Lots 53 and 52 were not noticed. Mr. Haggerty indicated that it was up to the applicant to obtain a 200' list from the Tax Assessor. If the Tax Assessor made an error on the list, it is not the applicant's issue. Mr. Greenaway submitted to the board attorney the proof of notice. Mr. Haggerty indicated that the notice given was sufficient and is compliant with the list that was submitted to them by the Tax Assessor. Mr. Greenaway indicated that Lot 53 is part of Lot 54, which was noticed.

Mr. Barbagallo questioned the applicant if there is a legal easement for the gravel road which is connected to Steenykill Road which is shown on this map. Mr. Greenaway indicated that this is a private road which has been a common use for as long as the properties have been there. He indicated that there is no indication of right-of-way or right-of-way width, ownership or maintenance agreements. Mr. Haggerty questioned if the Municipality maintains the road. Ms. Biccum indicated that the township does not maintain this section of the road off of Steenykill Road. Mr. Barbagallo questioned how far off of Steenykill Road is this common driveway. Mr. Greenaway said approximately 1500' to 1800'.

Mr. Greenaway indicated that the applicant is before the board for a variance for an addition that was built on the house in 2006 in an effort to improve the property and the surrounding area. He further indicated that there was a 6' stockade fence and 4' stockade fence in places installed added around the perimeter of the property. He indicated that the 4' stockade fence installed along the roadway does hinder the viewing of the house. He further stated that there was also a large deck added onto the house which also needs a variance.

Mr. Haggerty questioned the applicant as to the use of the addition. Ms. Biccum indicated that they added 2 rooms onto the house, 1 den and 1 bedroom. Mr. Haggerty questioned if the number of bedrooms were increased in the home. Ms. Biccum indicated that the number of bedrooms did not increase. Mr. Dunn questioned what the septic design was for. Mr. Greenaway indicated that it was designed for 2 bedrooms and it was a new septic system installed in August, 2006 with full County approvals.

Mr. Ruberto indicated that the block wall was installed on Lot 53. Mr. Greenaway indicated that the face of the wall is not encroaching onto the corner onto Lot 53, what is encroaching there is an approved septic design wall that is encroaching. Mr. Barbagallo indicated that this is a block wall with a 6' stockade fence over top of it and he feels this would have to be brought back into the property line. Ms. Biccum indicated that the septic design prepared by Allen Campbell indicated it needed a fence on the wall. Ms. Tufaro indicated that according to the ordinance, a fence installed on a berm, the height calculation includes the height of the berm so the total height of the fence and berm do not exceed the maximum height provision of the ordinance. Mr. Haggerty indicated that the fence height is from the ground, which the applicant would need a variance for the fence height. Mr. Greenaway indicated that the height of the berm is approximately 3' and the fence is approximately 6'. Mr. Haggerty questioned Mr. Greenaway that he had submitted to the board 8 photographs with the application submission and do these photographs accurately show the property as it is today. Mr. Greenaway indicated that they do accurately show the property as it is today. Mr. Haggerty questioned why there was a fence installed on the block wall. Ms. Biccum indicated that the septic design required either a fence or rail on top of the block wall because of the drop. She further indicated that the fence or rail requirement on the septic design required to be 4'. Mr. Dunn questioned the applicant as to why she installed a 6' fence in this area. Ms. Biccum indicated that she has a dog that she wanted to keep him inside the property. She further indicated that she has an electric fence around the 4' part of the fence. She also indicated that she was attacked and she is more secure with a higher fence and the dog. Mr. Dunn questioned if the fence blocks the view of the house from the road. Mr. Greenaway indicated that the photographs submitted with the application depict the front of the house which shows no blockage of the view from the house to the road, which is photograph #3. He further indicated that photograph #7 also shows that there is no blocking of the view to rear of the property as well. A lengthy discussion was held with regard to an easement for the private road that goes through the applicant's property. Mr. Haggerty indicated that the board can not require the applicant to do this because it would require cooperation from all of the other property owners. Ms. Biccum indicated that this property and the surrounding property was and still is basically owned by family members and has been in her family for approximately 50 to 60 years.

Mr. Dunn questioned the applicant as to surrounding the lots in the neighborhood and how they compare in size and development to the subject lot. Mr. Greenaway indicated that all the lots in this area are approximately the same size. He indicated that 10 of the lots that surround the subject property are 1 acre or less. He further stated that the subject lot and the adjoining lot are approximately 1/4 of an acre and two other lots within the area of the subject property, one is 2.9 acres and one is 29 acres. He stated that the entire area is relatively flat, therefore, there are no slope constraints for any of the properties in the area. Mr. Dunn questioned Mr. Greenaway if the impervious coverage on this lot is similar to some of the other lots in the area. Mr. Greenaway indicated that the subject lot is approximately 20% and maybe a little bit more on the smaller lots. However, the lots with an acre, the percentages go down to 5% to 8%. He indicated that the subject lot is 20% at the present time, and the requirement is 10%.

Mr. Teufert questioned if the site plan for septic required a fence on top of the wall. Ms. Biccum indicated that the site plan for the septic did require a fence. He further questioned if the site plan was approved by the township. Mr. Haggerty indicated that a septic design is approved by the County Board of Health. Mr. O'Krepky indicated that the retaining wall and fence may have been on the septic design, however, the County only reviews the septic design. If the plans require a wall on it, they may require the applicant's engineer to seal it to verify that it was done correctly. Mr. Haggerty indicated that even though the septic design required a fence, the fence does require a zoning permit through the township.

A discussion was held with regard to the retaining wall encroachment on the neighbor's property. Mr. Greenaway suggested to the board, if the variance was granted, it could be a condition of approval that the applicant approach the adjoining property owner for an easement first to see if this would be successful, prior to the reconstruction or moving of the retaining wall. He further indicated that the moving of the wall may affect the functioning of the septic system because now your disturbing soils and moving the wall closer to the septic bed which may not be in the best interest of the neighborhood.

Mr. Dunn questioned the applicant as to why the addition was built the way it was and if they explored conforming with the required setbacks. Ms. Biccum indicated that her husband (now ex-husband) built the addition and the deck and she assumed that permits were taken out. Mr. Teufert questioned the applicant prior to the addition and the deck what was on this side of the house. Ms. Biccum indicated that a small deck was there and grass. She showed to the board where the prior deck was located which was shown on the original site plan submitted by the applicant and was within the area of the new deck. Mr. Dunn questioned Mr. Greenaway if the placement of the addition had to be located where it was built for the layout of the house to work. Mr. Greenaway indicated that yes it did.

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

Mr. Haggerty summarized this application and indicated that it is the applicant's burden to provide proofs to establish entitlement to the variance. The applicant had a functional home on the lot already, therefore, it is difficult for the applicant to establish hardship under the ordinance. The other option for the applicant is a C2 Variance to try to establish that the benefits would outweigh any detriments. The applicant has indicated that the house is a two bedroom house, it would be maintained as a two bedroom house. Although the house is bigger, the functioning of the house has not changed that much. There is a number of variances required: 1) Fence Height. The septic design called for a 4' fence and the fence installed was a 6' fence; 2) Fence Setback 3) Retaining Wall setback; 4) Setback variances for the addition; 5) Setback variances for the deck.

Mr. Haggerty questioned the applicant as to how long the 2 sheds shown on the site plan have been there. Ms. Biccum indicated that the 2 sheds shown have been there for more than 30 years.

A discussion was held with regard to the retaining wall encroachment. Mrs. Tufaro questioned if there can be a time limit requested by the board to obtain an easement from the neighbor. Mr. Haggerty indicated that 90 days from the memorialization of the Resolution is sufficient.

A discussion was held with regard to the height of the fence. Mr. Haggerty indicated that there is a 4' retaining wall with a 6' fence. The rest of the property the fence is at different heights in different areas. Mr. Greenaway indicated there is an area with the 6' fence; and the front viewing of the house is 4'; along the rear property line is also 4'. Mr. Haggerty indicated that the board could approve that the fence not be more than 4' which is constructed on top of any wall, which would still need a variance. Ms. Biccum has indicated that the hardship for the taller fence is to keep in her dogs. Ms. Snyder indicated that the applicant testified that she does have an electric dog fence around the areas were the fence is 4' and asked the applicant if she couldn't just put the electric fence on the berm area where the fence is higher. Ms. Biccum indicated that sometimes the dog does find her way around the electric fence. She also indicated that the privacy and the security of the higher fence is why she installed it. She indicated that she is a single mother and feels more safe with the higher fence. She indicated that she did put the 4' fence in front of the house so that the property would not look like Fort Knox.

Mr. Teufert indicated to the board that the request for the setback variance for the addition and the deck is appropriate due to the size of the lot. Mr. Dunn indicated that he would like to see that the fence be brought down to 4' on the retaining wall, since this is what the engineer designed for the septic plan. A discussion was held with regard to the setback of the fence also. It was noted that the fence ordinance requires the fence be 3' off the property line for maintenance of the fence. The applicant has installed the fence right on the property line. Mr. Greenaway indicated that the property to the right of the subject property, there is an existing chain link fence going up that property that the neighbor had built. The applicant just built her fence inside the chain link fence by a couple feet.

Mr. Barbagallo polled the board with regard to the height of the fence. Mr. Dunn indicated that he is concerned about setting a precedent, however, he feels it is appropriate to have a 6' fence in the areas that the applicant has it because it protects her backyard and it does not cause a detriment to the public. Mr. Teufert indicated that he does not have a problem with the 6' fence where it is. Mr. Innella indicated that he does not know at this time. Mr. Ruberto indicated that he feels the fence should be 6' as required in the ordinance, except for where the wall is, it should be 6' total. Mr. Haggerty questioned the board if they feel 2' would be adequate. Mr. Ruberto indicated that the height of the wall should be determined. He knows that 42" is code and the board needs to determine if this is a safety issue. Mr. Haggerty indicated that a 4' fence in this section should be adequate for safety reasons. Mrs. Snyder felt the fence on the wall should be brought down further. Mr. Ponce indicated that the fence should be brought down to 4' on the berm. Mr. Plotsky indicated that the fence does look nice and well built, however, he is concerned about setting a precedent. He feels that on the berm, if the applicant cuts down the wood stockade fence, the applicant will accomplish the safety part in terms of anyone exiting the property. He also stated that a 4' stockade fence on a 4' wall, therefore, it is an 8' fence coming from the outside in, therefore, you have the 6', plus security. Mr. Barbagallo indicated that he is not bothered by the 6' fence. Mr. Innella indicated that he is bothered that this application is before the board after the construction has taken place. He indicated that the structure, itself, does not bother him that much, it is on a small lot. He feels that some minor modifications to the fence is appropriate due to the years that the board has spent on the existing fence ordinance. He feels that lowering the fence to 4' on the berm would be a sufficient request of the board. He also stated that he does not feel the 6' fence on the berm does not look bad.

A Motion was made by Mr. Plotsky and seconded by Mr. Teufert to allow a 4' stockade portion of the fence anywhere where there is 2' or more of berm or other structure underneath the fence so that the total height of the fence remains at 6' or less and to allow the 4' fence not to be further increased and to grant the variance for the setback requirement subject to the encroachment issue so that the entire fence is either on an easement or on the applicant's actual property and to be completed within 90 days of the memorialization of the Resolution. Roll Call: Mr. Dunn, yes; Mr. Teufert, yes; Mrs. Tufaro, yes; Mr. Barbagallo, yes; Mr. Ponce, no; Mr. Innella, yes; Mr. Ruberto, yes; Mrs. Snyder, yes; and Mr. Plotsky, yes. The Motion was carried.

A Motion was made by Mr. Dunn and seconded by Mr. Teufert to approve the setback variance request for the addition. Roll Call: Mr. Dunn, yes; Mr. Teufert, yes; Mrs. Tufaro, yes; Mr. Barbagallo, yes; Mr. Ponce, yes; Mr. Innella, yes; Mr. Ruberto, yes; Mrs. Snyder, yes; and Mr. Plotsky, yes. The Motion was carried.

A Motion was made by Mr. Teufert and seconded by Mr. Innella to approve the setback variance for the deck. Roll Call: Mr. Dunn, yes; Mr. Teufert, yes; Mrs. Tufaro, yes; Mr. Barbagallo, yes; Mr. Ponce, yes; Mr. Innella, yes; Mr. Ruberto, yes; Mrs. Snyder, yes; and Mr. Plotsky, yes. The Motion was carried.

Mr. Haggerty indicated to the applicant that if she obtains an easement from the neighbor, the variance map will need to be revised showing the easement. In the alternative, if an easement can not be obtained and the wall is moved, the map must be revised to show that it is within the applicant's property. He further indicated that the easement will have to be reviewed by him. It was also noted by Mr. Haggerty and the board that if the wall is moved, it can be on the property line as approved by the board for the fence.

Mr. Zitone and Mrs. Yarosz returned to the meeting. Mr. Zitone took over as Chairman of the meeting.

NEW BUSINESS

Order of Agenda:
Mr. Teufert requested that the Order of the Agenda be moved around to put all the board business at the beginning of the agenda. The board agreed.

Return of Escrow Money:
A Motion was made by Mr. Barbagallo and seconded by Mr. Teufert to return the escrow money to the applicants as listed on the attached Memo from the board secretary dated December 13, 2007. Roll Call: Mr. Dunn, yes; Mr. Teufert, yes; Mrs. Tufaro, yes; Mr. Barbagallo, yes; Mr. Ponce, yes; Mr. Innella, yes; Mr. Ruberto, yes; Mrs. Snyder, yes; Mr. Plotsky, yes; and Mr. Zitone, yes. The Motion was carried.

Mountaintop Road:
Mrs. Tufaro indicated that she had a Zoning Application for a construction of a new home on Mountaintop Road. Upon review of the application and what the applicant provided her with, she was not comfortable issuing a Zoning Permit based on the fact that Mountaintop is an unimproved road. The applicant submitted to her a Resolution from 1988 it stated that it was a township, improved road, which it clearly is not. The board indicated that there was an applicant who came before this board on this road for an unimproved road variance. This applicant had to pave the road, which he did to construct the home. Mr. Haggerty indicated that even if the road was improved in 1988, it is not improved now and he feels that the applicant should get relief from this board to prove it is safe for emergency vehicles. Mr. Dunn questioned if this is a private road or a township road. Mr. Barbagallo indicated that it was a private road, but he believes it was turned over to the township, however, this portion of the road was never improved by the township because there was no development there. The board agrees that this applicant should appear before the board for an unimproved road variance.

VOUCHERS
The vouchers were reviewed. A Motion was made by Mr. Ponce and seconded by Mr. Innella to approve the following vouchers:

1) KSM Engineering regarding General Administration (November) in the amount of $300.00; and

2) KSM Engineering regarding Crown Aggregates (Escrow) in the amount of $75.00; and

3) KSM Engineering regarding Red Hill Road, LLC (Escrow) in the amount of $412.50; and

4) Dolan & Dolan regarding Club Drive, LLC (Lawsuit) in the amount of $252.53; and

5) Dolan & Dolan regarding General Administration (October) in the amount of $477.75; and

6) Dolan & Dolan regarding Biccum (Escrow) in the amount of $54.60; and

7) Dolan & Dolan regarding Cellco (Escrow) in the amount of $232.50; and

8) Dolan & Dolan regarding Minisink Reformed Church (Escrow) in the amount of $54.60; and

9) Dolan & Dolan regarding Red Hill Road LLC (Escrow) in the amount of $68.25; and

10) Dolan & Dolan regarding Williams (Escrow) in the amount of $573.30; and

11) Fred Suljic regarding Williams (Escrow) in the amount of $320.00; and

12) Fred Suljic regarding Cellco (Escrow) in the amount of $320.00; and

13) C&L Land Surveys regarding Zoning Map reprints for Plan Endorsement Submission in the amount of $70.00; and

14) Dolan & Dolan regarding Club Drive LLC (Lawsuit) in the amount of $955.50; and

15) Dolan & Dolan regarding General Administration (Oct. & Nov.) in the amount of $445.10; and

16) Dolan & Dolan regarding Cellco (Escrow) in the amount of $88.73; and

17) Dolan & Dolan regarding Highpoint (Escrow) in the amount of $40.95; and

18) Dolan & Dolan regarding Minisink Reformed Church (Escrow) in the amount of $170.63; and

19) Dolan & Dolan regarding Red Hill Road LLC (Escrow) in the amount of $27.30; and

20) Dolan & Dolan regarding Thompson (Escrow) in the amount of $163.80; and

21) Dolan & Dolan regarding Biccum (Escrow) in the amount of $27.30; and

22) New Jersey Planning Officials regarding 2008 Dues in the amount of $295.00.

Roll Call: Mr. Dunn, yes; Mr. Teufert, yes; Mrs. Tufaro, yes; Mr. Barbagallo, yes; Mr. Ponce, yes; Mr. Innella, yes; Mr. Ruberto, yes; Mrs. Snyder, yes; Mr. Plotsky, yes; and Mr. Zitone, yes. The Motion was carried.

CORRESPONDENCE

The correspondence was reviewed and no formal action was taken.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

The meeting was opened to the public.

Appearing before the board was Stephanie Jansen. Ms. Jansen indicated that she was a property owner on Mountaintop Road and was told it was a unimproved road and would have to appear before the board for a private road variance. She indicated that the Resolution referred to by Mrs. Tufaro states that Mountaintop Road is a township owned road. It states that it is an improved public street. Mr. Haggerty stated that based upon the condition of the road at the present time, it is clearly not improved. He further indicated that if this township approved a zoning permit to build a residence on this road and then the applicant has trouble getting a fire truck or ambulance up this road, it would irresponsible for the township. He feels if the board made a mistake in 1988, he does not feel it should be compounded now with someone to potentially have a problem. Mr. Haggerty indicated that he will have to contact the Municipal Attorney to review the records of the township to verify the status of this road. Mr. O'Krepky indicated that in terms of existing roads the town has maintained roads that do not meet RSIS Standards, there are portions of many roads that do not meet the current RSIS standards. There is not a requirement in the law that states at any given moment every single foot of road that has been dedicated to the township must meet RSIS standards. It is perfectly legal and fine that the town can have a portion of a right-of-way or a complete right-of-way that may be dedicated to the township, but isn't completely meeting the RSIS Standards. Ms. Jansen indicated that there is tar and chip under this right-of-way from years ago.

There being no further public participation, the meeting was closed to the public.

ADJOURNMENT

Having no further business, a Motion was made by Mr. Teufert and seconded by Mr. Ponce to adjourn the meeting. All were in favor. The meeting was adjourned.

Minutes prepared by:

SHARON M. YAROSZ
Land Use Administrator