{
    "document_id": 12446,
    "page": 3,
    "width_pt": 612,
    "height_pt": 792,
    "rotation": 0,
    "pipeline_version": "paddleocr-vl-1.6+paul-48",
    "engine": "paddleocr_vl",
    "source_run_id": 12558,
    "item_count": 8,
    "counts_by_type": {
        "text": 8
    },
    "build_ms": 2,
    "items": [
        {
            "id": "p3.1",
            "order": 1,
            "type": "text",
            "bbox": {
                "l": 68.88,
                "t": 719.76,
                "r": 531.6,
                "b": 688.8
            },
            "text": "seeking simple final approval again as an amendment. This approval when granted required the applicant to realign the road because it comes in at the angle when it intersects."
        },
        {
            "id": "p3.2",
            "order": 2,
            "type": "text",
            "bbox": {
                "l": 68.16,
                "t": 678,
                "r": 541.92,
                "b": 280.8
            },
            "text": "Mr. Gram MacFarlane was sworn in. Professional Engineer, Certified Municipal Engineer.\nLicensed in the State of New Jersey. Mr. MacFarlane stated that Exhibit A1 shows the site Block 401 Lot 9 with the frontage on Write Debow Road and Kolendorski Road. There was an easement from Lot 9 to one of the adjoining properties which are Lot 3, which sits behind lot 9. Lot 3 is a landlocked parcel that does not have any direct street frontage or street access. The applicant easement benefits Lot 3. When the site plan was designed that was not accommodated in the original design. It was uncovered a little bit later. Exhibit A2 shows the site plan that was originally approved by the Board. It did not provide any direct access to Lot 3. Exhibit A3 shows the revised plan. The applicant is proposing a driveway from Kolendorski Road along the perimeter of the site to adjoining Lot 3. Mr. MacFarlane does not know what will be proposed on Lot 3, the intersection may need to be wider or something along those lines, but the applicant's proposal will be conditioned in the Resolution. The Board would have an opportunity to review both of the street intersection designs when contemplating a development for that subject lot. Exhibit A4 shows which entity would be responsible for which portion of the driveway to be constructed. What's shown in green would be required as part of this application, the development of Block 401, Lot 9 would provide full access to the project. The second part is a yellow part, which would be the extension of that access driveway to service Lot 3. The agreement between the property owners is that the owner of Lot 9 would construct the improvements that service this site plan that the Board's considering. The owner of Lot 3 would be required to construct the extension from its terminus about at the end of the first building back to service Lot 3 so that would be a private agreement between the two owners. It should be spelled out in line with the Resolution. The Ordinance requires 10 feet buffer along the property line and the curb. The plan does provide that 10 feet buffer. The applicant had several meetings with the County and has submitted design plans to the County for the intersection improvement. Significant progress is made."
        },
        {
            "id": "p3.3",
            "order": 3,
            "type": "text",
            "bbox": {
                "l": 69.36,
                "t": 270.72,
                "r": 207.36,
                "b": 256.8
            },
            "text": "Open to public comments."
        },
        {
            "id": "p3.4",
            "order": 4,
            "type": "text",
            "bbox": {
                "l": 68.64,
                "t": 245.28,
                "r": 503.76,
                "b": 231.36
            },
            "text": "Public comments closed. Motion by Burnstein/Flemming is all in favor of the present."
        },
        {
            "id": "p3.5",
            "order": 5,
            "type": "text",
            "bbox": {
                "l": 68.88,
                "t": 219.36,
                "r": 353.28,
                "b": 205.44
            },
            "text": "Mr. Hudak said looks like minor changes need to be done."
        },
        {
            "id": "p3.6",
            "order": 6,
            "type": "text",
            "bbox": {
                "l": 68.88,
                "t": 193.2,
                "r": 538.56,
                "b": 163.44
            },
            "text": "Motion to approve amended approval: Burnstein/.Flemming yes: Dr. Campbell, Mr. Burnstein, Mr. Herman, Mr. Canderozzi, Mr. Flemming, Ms. Demarzo, Mr. Haring, Mr. Hudak"
        },
        {
            "id": "p3.7",
            "order": 7,
            "type": "text",
            "bbox": {
                "l": 69.6,
                "t": 152.16,
                "r": 425.28,
                "b": 137.52
            },
            "text": "Application Block 5101, 5201, 5301, Lots 52 and 53, Hampshire Hills"
        },
        {
            "id": "p3.8",
            "order": 8,
            "type": "text",
            "bbox": {
                "l": 69.12,
                "t": 126,
                "r": 527.52,
                "b": 78.48
            },
            "text": "Mr. Klee stated that the application is pretty simple. The applicant is looking to amend a prior approval associated with the Hampshire Hills development to eliminate fencing around the drainage basins."
        }
    ],
    "excluded_furniture": {
        "first": [],
        "last": []
    }
}