View Other Items in this Archive | View All Archives | Printable Version

A regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury was held on the above date at 7:30 p.m. with Chairperson Gail Robortaccio presiding.  After a salute to the Flag, the chairperson read the “Open Public Meetings Act”.

 

BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:  Gail Robortaccio, Kathy DeFillippo, Mark Crowley, Joyce Dargel, Barbara Kinback, Robert Church.

 

ABSENT:  Robert Kurtz, Scott Meyer.

 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF PRESENT:  Larry Wiener

 

Also present:  Dolores DeMasi, Secretary; Tom Potere, Zoning Officer

 

Minutes of 11/7/05

 

Ms. Dargel made a motion to approve the minutes.  Ms. Kinback seconded.

 

Roll as follows:  Ms. Dargel, yes; Ms. Kinback, yes; Mr. Church, abstain; Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms. DeFillippo, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

RESOLUTIONS

 

BA-51-05 – DAVID YUN – SMALL EMPIRE  - USE VARIANCE FOR SKATEBOARD FACILITY LOCATED ON RT. 206, BLOCK 7601, LOT 21 IN OR-5 ZONE

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

 

Approved: November 7, 2005

Memorialized: December 12, 2005

 

                WHEREAS, David Yun-Small Empire has applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to operate a skate board park requiring a use variance and related relief for premises located at 178 Route 206 North and known as Block 7601, Lot 2.01 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in the an “OR5” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-7.33 of the Roxbury Township Land Use Ordinance; and

                                WHEREAS, the Board, after carefully considering the evidence presented by the applicant and having conducted a public hearing has made the following factual findings:

1.         The matter was initially called for public hearing at the October 17, 2005 meeting.

2.         The applicant appeared without counsel. It was apparent the real party and interest was a corporate entity and thus under the Court Rules, the applicant must be represented by counsel.

3.         The applicant is a prospective tenant of Tymark, LLC, the owner of the property and prospective landlord of the subject site.  The attorney for Tymark, LLC, Grace Bertone, Esquire, appeared at the public hearing and noted that she did not represent the applicant.  The matter was carried without further notice to the November 7, 2005 public hearing with the understanding that the applicant would appear with counsel.

4.         At the 11/7/05 public hearing, Edward Bilinkas, Esquire, represented the applicant.

5.         David Yun, a principal of Small Empire testified at the public hearing. Mr. Yun indicated that he wanted to create a “skate park” at the subject premises. It would be about 9,000 square feet and include an associated pro-shop (8,000 square feet skating and 1,000 square feet retail).

6.         Mr. Yun noted there were about 62 parking spots on-site and he indicated, at most, 15 spots would be needed for his business. The facility would be for skateboarders and in-line skaters-all inside.  He stated that he believed 15 spaces would be adequate. Mr. Stern, the Township Professional Planner, noted 40 spaces would be required for 9,000 square feet.

7.         The total building is 23,000 square feet.

8.         Mark Wehrenberg, the landlord, testified at the public hearing. He testified as to existing conditions.

WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the relief requested by the applicant can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the Zone Plan and Zoning Ordinance of the Township of Roxbury for the following reasons:

1.        The Board finds this proposed recreational use to be very similar in nature to the recreational use previously approved for the site. The Board notes its finding from resolution BA-40-91 and those findings of fact substantially apply to this applicant’s proposed use of the premises. It is a unique use and not the type of use ordinarily contemplated in a Zoning Ordinance. Clearly, this site can accommodate the use, and the hours of operation, and in particular the peak hours, work very well with the other uses on-site.

2.        The proposed use shows a need in the community for a skate board facility and will provide a recreational opportunity in what is anticipated to be a safe and wholesome environment.

3.        The use of this location as a skateboard facility will not impair the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 7th day of November, 2005 that the approval of the

within application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:

1.                                  While the Board will not require a formal site plan (most of the improvements are internal and most of the present infrastructure can be simply be reutilized), the applicant shall implement the following prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy/Approval:

a.         Applicant shall revise the plan to show the location of outdoor litter and trash receptacle(s).

b.         Applicant shall post appropriate signage indicating no skating or congregating in the parking lot or other areas outside the building.

c.         Applicant shall update all traffic signage/stripping and lighting on-site. Same shall be depicted and reviewed by the Township Planner.

d.         Applicant shall extend the sidewalk in front of the building to provide adequate pedestrian flow as indicated on the plan.

e.         Applicant shall provide an interior sketch and floor plan.

 

2.                                  All of the above items (a-e) shall be reviewed and approved by the Township Professional Staff prior to the issuance of a building permit and/or Certificate of Occupancy.

3.                                  Applicant shall pay all fees, sureties, and escrows required by Ordinance.

4.                                  Subject to the review and approval of all other governmental agencies with joint and/or concurrent jurisdiction over the subject matter of the within application.

 

Ms. Dargel made a motion to approve the resolution.  Mr. Crowley seconded.

 

Roll as follows:  Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms. Kinback, yes; Ms. DeFillippo, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

BA-52-05 – CELLULAR TELEPHONE COMPANY – USE AND SITE PLAN FOR WIRELESS ANTENNA LOCATED IN ROXBURY MALL ON THE MEDICAL BUILDING, BLOCK 5004, LOT 8 IN B-3 ZONE

 

In the matter of Cellular Telephone Company d/b/a AT&T Wireless

Case No. BA-52-05

 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

 

Approved: November 7, 2005

Memorialized: December 12, 2005

 

                WHEREAS, Cellular Telephone Company d/b/a AT&T Wireless have applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to construct a wireless communication facility for premises located at 275 Route 10 and known as Block 5004, Lot 8 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “B3” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-7.26 of the Roxbury Township Land Use Ordinance; and

                WHEREAS, the Board, after carefully considering the evidence presented by the applicant and having conducted a public hearing has made the following factual findings:

  1. Michael Levine, Esquire of Pitney, Hardin, LLP, represented the applicant.
  2. The applicant is a provider of wireless telecommunication facilities.
  3. The property in question involves Block 4004, Lot 8, which is slightly over eight acres located in the easterly portion of the Roxbury Mall.  The applicant is proposing to locate its wireless communication equipment (antennae and related equipment cabinet) on the roof of the fourth story office building on the easterly portion of the Roxbury Mall.  The B2 Highway Business District adjoins the property to the north and east.  The R3 residential district adjoins the property to the east and south with adjacent residential homes backing up to the subject parcel.
  4. The applicant is seeking a “d” variance and minor site plan approval to install three wireless communication antenna arrays (12 antennas total) and an equipment cabinet mounted on the roof.  As originally proposed, the antennas would extend 6’ above the existing mansard roof parapet and be located behind “stealth” panels matching the existing roof color.  The equipment cabinets are proposed to be located within a 10’x 25’ lease area and do not extend beyond the existing roof parapet.  All wires would be routed within the building and it is noted that the application does not increase the footprint of the building and the applicant is not proposing any site improvements.
  5. Prior to the initial public hearing the applicant submitted the following exhibits:

Prepared by Clough, Harbour & Associates, LLP

-Sheet T01, Title Sheet, revised 6/15/05

-Sheet S01, Existing Conditions Site Plan, revised 6/15/05

-Sheet S01A, Existing Conditions Site Plan, revised 6/15/05

-Sheet S02, Radius and Zoning Map, revised 4/20/05

-Sheet S02A, 500 Ft. Radius Map, revised 6/15/05

-Sheet C01, Roof Plan, revised 4/20/05

-Sheet C02, Building Elevation, revised 4/20/05

-Sheet C02A, Building Elevation, revised 4/20/05

-Sheet C03, Structural Details, revised 8/25/04

 

Prepared Mega Engineering, Inc./Mercator Land Surveying, LLC

 

-Sheet 1 of 2, Topographical Survey Plan, dated 4/19/05

-Sheet 2 of 2, Topographical Survey Plan, dated 4/19/05

 

Prepared by Edwards and Kelsey, Inc.

 

-Visual Impact Assessment, dated 10/1/04

 

Prepared by Bechtel/Cingular Wireless Services, Inc.

 

-RF Exposure Analysis

-Neighboring Site Propagation, undated

-Composite Site RF Propagation, undated

  1. The Board received a report dated 10/17/05 from Thomas Bodolsky, Pequest Engineering.  The Board also received a report dated 10/14/05 from the Township Planner, Russell Stern.
  2. At the 10/17/05 public hearing, the applicant called two witnesses.  Its first witness was its radio frequency engineer, Vishal Kataria.  Mr. Kataria was qualified as a radio frequency expert.  Mr. Kataria presented two exhibits, which were marked A-1 and A-2.  Mr. Kataria utilized the exhibits to describe what he characterized as the applicant’s cellular telephone service.  A-1 depicted the existing gap.  Mr. Kataria related and pointed out other approved wireless sites that are on line on the applicant’s network in Roxbury.  He then presented A-2, which showed the anticipated coverage provided by the installation of the instant site.  Mr. Kataria stated that there was a significant gap in coverage and that the proposed facility would adequately cover that gap so as to provide reliable cellular telephone service.  Mr. Kataria indicated that the applicant had made a search of suitable sites and found the instant site to meet the criteria necessary for resolving the gap in the network.
  3. Mr. Kataria then reviewed the projected radiation from the radiation to be emitted from the proposed antenna.  He testified that the level of radiation would be considerably below the FCC standards and would comply even in a worse case scenario by a significant factor.  He stated same would not present a health hazard from radiation when installed in accordance with the plans. 
  4. The applicant’s second witness was its site engineer, Peter McTygue.  Mr. McTygue was qualified as a licensed professional engineer.  His firm was the author of the plans that were submitted to the Board.  Mr. McTygue indicated at the public hearing that he had an opportunity to review Mr. Stern’s report.  Mr. Stern had questioned whether there might be an alternative to mounting the antenna on the roof behind a stealth screen as originally proposed by the applicant.  Mr. McTygue presented exhibits A-3 and A-4, which were 10/10/05 plan revisions indicating an alternate plan for locating the applicant’s antennas.  He noted the proposal would be similar to a wireless communication facility operated by a competitor at a three story building on the opposite side of the mall adjacent to Route 10.  The antenna would be attached to the mansard roof and painted the same color as the mansard roof as was done in the other application.
  5. There was an extensive colloquy between the Board, the applicant, and the municipal planner as to exactly what steps could be taken to make the proposed antennas as “stealthy” as possible including utilizing the stealth fiberglass material as part of the mansard roof.   The matter was carried to the 11/7/05 public hearing with the understanding that the applicant would attempt to fine tune the issues raised by the Board at the next hearing.
  6. The matter was continued to the 11/7/05 hearing.  The applicant submitted additional exhibits existing and proposed:
    1. A-5 – visual depictions Highland Avenue
    2. A-7 – existing and proposed lettering
  7. Mr. McGygue was recalled and discussed the final intersection of the plan, which provided for antennae located and colorized on the mansard roof as depicted on A-5.  A cross section was depicted on A-4.
  8. James Dowling, Professional Planner with Edwards and Kelcey, opined it was an appropriate wireless variance, affording good coverage, reutilizing existing infrastructure, and minimally intrusive (not higher than the roof).  Mr. Dowling reviewed exhibits A-5 – A-12.
  9. When the meeting was open to the public, none of the neighbors who were present testified in opposition to the application.

                WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the relief requested by the applicant can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the Zone Plan and Zoning Ordinance of the Township of Roxbury for the following reasons:

  1. The Board finds the applicant has met its burden of proof under the Municipal Land Use Law and the local Ordinance.
  2. The applicant has established that there is a significant gap in coverage.  The applicant has established that the proposed location would essentially cover the gap in coverage.  The applicant also established that there were no other locations where a wireless telecommunication facility would be a conforming use and would also cover the area in question.
  3. The applicant also established that there were no locations in a zone where a wireless telecommunication facility is permitted as a conditional use that would cover this gap in coverage. 
  4. The applicant’s proposal is consistent with the spirit and intent of the Township Ordinance.  This proposed location is similar to the facility the Board approved at the opposite end of the shopping center.  The applicant has shown a willingness to make this facility as “stealthy” as possible.  The photographs and computer graphic simulation(s) all demonstrate that this will be an innocuous facility.  Without knowing that the antennae were in place, it will be extremely difficult for a casual observer of this building to even discern the presence of a wireless telecommunication facility.
  5. The Board notes the extensive review of its engineering consultant and the engineering consultant’s request for general repairs and upgrades to the overall site.  The Board cannot find a nexus between the requested upgrades, most of which involve normal maintenance issues in the scope and limits of the applicant’s proposed activity.  The Board does direct that the secretary of the Board send a copy of the engineer’s report together with a copy of this resolution to the owner of the shopping center so that the owner is put on notice of the conditions identified by the engineering consultant prior to any other applications involving development in this shopping center. 

                                NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 7th day of November, 2005 that the approval of the within application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:

  1. Applicant to provide an updated structural analysis prior to the installation of this facility. 
  2. The antennae shall be located as depicted on the revised drawings.  The antennae mounting shall pierce the mansard roof and shall not be any higher than the roof. All visible structure shall be painted to nearly the exact same color as the existing roof so as to be camouflaged as much as possible. 
  3. All equipment cabinets shall be located so as to be behind and not higher than the existing mansard type wall structure.
  4. All visible building equipment shall be painted to match the building.
  5. All wires/cables shall be routed within the building.
  6. The height of the GPS antenna should be noted and graphically depicted on the elevation drawings below the mansard parapet roofline.
  7. Applicant shall comply with Section 13-7.829 requiring mandatory Mount Laurel Development impact fees as applicable.

 

Ms. Dargel made a motion to approve the resolution.  Ms. DeFillippo seconded.

 

Roll as follows:  Ms. Dargel, yes; Ms. DeFillippo, yes; Ms. Darling, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

BA-53-05 – MARIE FRANCISCO – VARIANCE FOR DECK LOCATED ON KINGSLAND RD. BLOCK 11002, LOT 43 IN R-3 ZONE

 

In the matter of Marie Francisco

Case No. BA-53-05

 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

 

Approved: November 7, 2005

Memorialized: December 12, 2005

 

 

 

                WHEREAS, Marie Francisco has applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to construct a deck and an addition requiring bulk variance for

premises located at 318 Kingsland Road and known as Block 11002, Lot 43 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “R-3” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-7.819 of the Roxbury Township Land Use Ordinance; and

                WHEREAS, the Board, after carefully considering the evidence presented by the applicant and having conducted a public hearing has made the following factual findings:

  1. The applicant is the owner and occupant of the single-family home on site.
  2. The subject premises are a lakefront home in the Kingsland community. 
  3. The applicant was proposing to legalize the construction of a deck to the rear of the applicant’s property. 
  4. Applicant received a letter of denial dated 4/25/05 from Tom Potere, the Zoning Officer.
  5. The Board received a report dated 11/3/05 from the Lake Hopatcong Commission. 
  6. The applicant stated she would comply with the recommendations of the Lake Hopatcong Commission as noted in their report of 11/3/05 and as set forth in the conditions of approval attached to this application.
  7. Much of the existing decking is in the area of existing impervious coverage and will provide the applicant with an updated more esthetically pleasing means of transition from the main house to the lake and an area to enjoy outdoor lakefront living.
  8. The applicant needs relief from the Zoning Ordinance in that the 50’ lake buffer is not being maintained.  The applicant’s proposal will result in a 5’ to 7’ setback from the high water mark of the lake.

                WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the relief requested by the applicant can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the Zone Plan and Zoning Ordinance of the Township of Roxbury for the following reasons:

  1. The applicant’s proposed deck is actually replacing a dilapidated patio area.  Same provides an esthetic upgrade comparable to what the applicant has done with approved construction at the subject premises. 
  2. The Board notes the implementation of the recommendations of the Lake Hopatcong Commission shall mitigate any possible negative impact associated with development close to the lake.  The Board further notes this improvement is similar to the existing pattern of lakefront development in this area of Roxbury

Township.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 7th day of November, 2005 that the approval of the within application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:

  1. Applicant shall during construction utilize the best “management practices” by directing any additional water runoff onto a grass lawn or by infiltration into the ground.  Applicant shall prior to obtaining a Certificate of Approval shall demonstrate to the construction official and/or township engineer compliance with this recommendation.
  2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, applicant shall provide a stormwater management plan and a soil erosion plan utilizing control silt fencing and hay bales until full vegetative cover is established.
  3. Applicant shall also be responsible for ensuring that construction related debris or silting shall not take place during construction and shall supervise site cleanups at the end of each workday.

 

Ms. DeFillippo made a motion to approve the resolution.  Ms. Dargel seconded.

Roll as follows:  Ms. DeFillippo, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Ms. Darling, yes; Ms. Kinback, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms.  Robortaccio, yes.

 

BA-54-05 – CATHERINE FRENCH – VARIANCE FOR SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR SHED LOCATED ON EMMANS RD., BLOCK 4501, LOT 7 IN RR ZONE

 

In the matter of Catherine French

Case No. BA-54-05

 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

 

Approved: November 7, 2005

Memorialized: December 12, 2005

 

 

 

                WHEREAS, Catherine French has applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to maintain a shed requiring dimensional variances for

premises located at 170 Emmans Road and known as Block 5601, Lot 7 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “RR” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-7.1901D7b, 13-7.905A of the Roxbury Township Land Use Ordinance; and

                WHEREAS, the Board, after carefully considering the evidence presented by the applicant and having conducted a public hearing has made the following factual findings:

  1. The applicant is the owner and occupant of the single-family home on site.
  2. The applicant and the co-resident of the home have constructed an 8’x8’ shed located on the northeasterly side of the existing home.  The location of the proposed shed was depicted on a plot plan attached to the application as well as digital photos attached to the application.
  3. The applicants stated they constructed the shed in total ignorance of the zoning requirements.  They were now seeking ex post facto approval of same.  
  4. Applicant received a letter of denial dated 8/30/05 from Tom Potere, the Zoning Officer.
  5. As noted by Mr. Potere, the shed requires relief from the Zoning Ordinance and that the shed is required to have a 20’ side yard setback whereas the existing setback is 2’ and the shed is also required to be 10’ from the existing principal structure (the house).  The shed is 2’ from the house.
  6. The applicant stated there was really no other reasonable location to locate a shed on the property.  The rear yard sloped and was at a much different elevation from the front yard.  Locating this type of shed in the rear yard would render it of little utility and feasibility and that the equipment in the shed was designed primarily for use in the front yard.
  7. The applicant further stated that the shed was substantially buffered by an existing   retaining wall located behind the shed that ran onto the adjoining neighbors property.  Looking at the shed from the rear one could only see part of the roof.
  8. An adjoining property owner testified in opposition to the application.  She felt the shed was too close to the property.  She did produce photographs, which tended to support the applicant’s contention that the unique circumstances (there are three similar lots in a row) made the requested relief very unobtrusive.  The adjoining neighbor had recently subdivided her property into two very narrow lots.  The lots in question are to the east of the applicant’s property and the homes on each of these improved lots do not line up.  That is, they are at a diagonal and there is about 80 to 100 feet distance between the location of the shed and the applicant’s rental property on the adjoining lot.  It is further noted the house the applicant built is also set back in a similar manner.    

                WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the relief requested by the applicant can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the Zone Plan and Zoning Ordinance of the Township of Roxbury for the following reasons:

  1. The Board finds the topography and the narrowness of the applicant’s property to be hardships peculiar to the premises.
  2. The Board further finds that the applicant’s proposed location is a better alternative than trying to locate a conforming shed in the rear of the property.  A shed in the rear of the property would have little utility and would have more of a visual impact on the adjoining neighbors property. 
  3. The evidence and photos clearly indicate that this 8’x8’modest shed will have no impact on the adjoining property.
  4. The Board’s grant of this variance in no way is an endorsement of the applicant building without permission.  The Board, nevertheless, finds that the applicant has met its burden of proof under the Municipal Land Use Law, as noted above.

                                NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 7th day of November, 2005 that the approval of the within application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:

  1. Applicant to secure all permits as necessary.
  2. Applicant shall not locate any accessory structures in the rear yard as long as this shed is being utilized.
  3. Applicant is encouraged to plant some buffering landscaping to the rear of the shed, and if the adjoining neighbor should be so inclined, the applicant is encouraged to do some additional planning on the side of the shed.

 

Ms. Kinback made a motion to approve the resolution.  Mr. Crowley seconded.

 

Roll as follows:  Ms. Kinback, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Ms. Darling, yes; Ms. DeFillippo, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

AGENDA

 

BA-50-05 – OLIVER PUIG/JOHN LOMBARDI – VARIANCE FOR SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR DECK LOCATED ON LEE AVE. BLOCK 11804, LOT 4 IN R-3 ZONE

 

The applicant was not present.

 

Ms. Dargel made a motion to deny the application without prejudice.  Ms. DeFillippo seconded.

 

Roll as follows:  Ms. Dargel, yes; Ms. DeFillippo, yes; Ms. Darling, yes; Mr. Church, yes; Ms. Kinback, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

BA-56-05 – CHARLES BAUTZ – VARIANCE FOR ADDITION TO EXISTING HOME LOCATED ON KINGS HIGHWAY, BLOCK 9909, LOT 2 IN R-3 ZONE

 

Charles and Tina Bautz were sworn in.

 

Mr. Bautz said they are planning an addition to their single family home to make it more practical for their use and to add square footage.

 

Ms. Dargel said this property seems to share a common driveway.  What is the width of the paper street?

 

Mr. Bautz said it is 50 feet wide, and is 11 feet off the right of way of the paper street.  If they were to widen the road, the grass area would encroach.

 

Ms. Dargel said the house faces Kings Highway.  With the change proposed, will it still front on Kings Highway?

 

Mr. Bautz said yes.

 

Ms. Dargel asked if the garage will be any closer to 9th Street than it is now.

 

Mr. Bautz said no.

 

Ms. Dargel said there are pretty steep slopes on the property.

 

Mr. Bautz said he has spoken with Mike Kobylarz, Township Engineer.  The rear of the property behind me contains steep slopes.  For my property and the portion that will be disturbed, there are no steep slopes.

 

Ms. Dargel said there is a letter from Mike Kobylarz dated 11/14/05 stating the proposed area of disturbance doesn’t contain steep slopes greater than 15%.

 

Ms. DeFillippo asked about the paper road.  I went down toward 1st Avenue.

 

Mr. Bautz said that is the first road where you make a left.  The second left was paved at one time the width of not more than one vehicle.  That was used initially for access to the quarry. 

 

Ms. DeFillippo asked how the addition will be connected.

 

Mr. Bautz said the house will be connected to the garage with a jog and there will be a small addition off the back of the garage.

 

Ms. DeFillippo asked where Mitchell Road is.

 

Mr. Bautz said he does not know exactly where it is.

 

Mr. Potere said most of the streets back there are paper roads.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

No one stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Ms. Dargel made a motion to approve the application.  She stated this is an aesthetic upgrade and will be an improvement.  Mr. Crowley seconded.

 

Roll as follows:  Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms. Kinback, yes; Mr. Church, yes; Ms. Darling, yes; Ms. DeFillippo, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

The meeting was adjourned by motion at 8:00 p.m.

 

                                                            Dolores A. DeMasi, Secretary

 

lm/