Board of Adjustment Minutes 3-2-11 Print E-mail

MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP

 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

MINUTES OF MARCH 2, 2011

Montville Municipal Building, 195 Changebridge Road

8:00PM Regular Meeting

NOTE: No New Business to be conducted past 10:30 P.M.

STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

Stated for the record.

ROLL CALL:

Richard Moore - Present                     Thomas Buraszeski - Present

Donald Kanoff - Present                     James Marinello - Present

Deane Driscoll - Present                     Keith Olsen (Alt #1) - Absent[1]

Kenneth Shirkey - Present                  John Petrozzino (Alt #2) - Present

Gerard Hug - Absent[2]

Also Present:        Joseph Burgis, Planner

                                Stanley Omland, Engineer

                                Bruce Ackerman, Esq.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Stated for the record

The following application was carried with notice preserved to 4/6/11:

ZD4-10 – Patel – 299 Changebridge Rd. – B: 160.2, L: 15 & 17 – 2nd story addition to home in industrial zone/building height/FAR – Notice Acceptable                               ACT BY: 5/10/11

OLD BUSINESS

ZC16-10 Kaner, Suzanne  –12 Foremost Mountain Rd. – B: 130, L: 14 – variance  - detached garage construction variance required for existing lot size; existing depth of measurement; existing lot width; existing impervious coverage; proposed side yard 6.04’ where 20’ required; accessory structure height 16.42’ where 14’ allowed – Carried from 12/1/10 & 1/5/11 – Eligible: Buraszeski, Driscoll, Hug, Moore, Kanoff, Shirkey, Marinello                                          ACT BY: 3/3/11

Present on behalf of the applicant: Paul Bauman, PP; Jacob Soloman, AIA

Mr. Soloman – Previously sworn

Mr. Bauman, PP–sworn

The applicant re-noticed the property owners within 200’ with the proper side yard setback request.  Reviewed the variances for the board.  Side setback and accessory structure height requested.  Benefits outweigh detriments.  Facilitates parking on site.  Utilizes existing slab that was built in the 1970’s and garage was never built.  There is a shed on the neighboring property that violates the setback.  Applicant reduced the height from 19’ to 16.42’.  The applicant is no longer requesting a rear setback.   There is no internal garage on this house and if the garage was built in the 1970’s would not have required a variance.  This will be a better architectural design.  It will be more aesthetically pleasing.  Not a substantial difference for the allowable 14’ height.  Other properties are downhill from this property.  The street is


Page 2

3/2/11

higher than the structure so will not look out of place.  It will enhance the value of the property due to utility.  Small storage area above the garage is proposed. 

Mr. Burgis – How does the side setback facilitate parking on site?  Mr. Bauman – The town allowed the slab to be constructed and if moved additional impervious coverage would be required on site.  The slab exists.  Mr. Burgis – The location proposed does cause for less impervious coverage on site.  Mr. Omland had no comments.

Open to public – none

Mr. Shirkey – Was there storm water management proposed?  Mr. Soloman – There is no change in impervious coverage so storm water management not required.  There is no change to the course or volume of the water so it would flow as exists.  Mr. Omland – Do not see a material difference since the slab exists.  Mr. Shirkey – Can we mitigate the existing overage of impervious coverage?  Mr. Omland – There is some in the rear that could be removed; the driveway could be a little narrower, but that is the applicant’s proof to make it.  Mr. Buraszeski – Would it be better to have no gutters on the garage?  Mr. Omland – That may cause more erosion.  This is a small roof and a small building so its context is meaningless.  Mr. Driscoll – They could remove part of the paved area in front of the garage. 

Public portion closed

Motion to approve applicant did reduce variances requested; height variance is de minimis; no one from the public; slope of the property makes the variances less obvious made by: Kanoff; Second by: Driscoll; Roll call: Yes - Buraszeski, Driscoll, Moore, Kanoff, Shirkey, Petrozzino; No - Marinello

ZMISC1-11 The Columbia Inn – 29 Main Rd.  – B: 29, L: 41 – request to replace existing siding on upper level of building with brick to match existing brick on lower level of building

Aaron McDermott, applicant – sworn

Propose to make the brick meet the existing brick where siding exists.  Will come back in the future for change in signage. 

The DRC reviewed the application and approved it with the condition that if the brick does not match, frieze board would be required.

Open to pubic – none – closed

Motion to approve subject to compliance with the DRC report made by: Driscoll; Second by: Kanoff; Roll call: Unanimous

Mr. Marinello stepped down on the following application and Mr. Buraszeski assumed the chair:

ZSPP/FCD25-06-05-09 Lake Valhalla Club – Vista Rd. – B: 11, L: 29 - preliminary/final site plan/Use & Bulk relief and design waivers for lighting for volleyball area – first hearing 11/4/09, carried with notice from 12/1/10  – Eligible: Buraszeski, Driscoll, Kanoff, Hug, Moore, Shirkey , Petrozzino                                                                                       ACT BY: 3/3/11

Mr. Petrozzino certified to listening to the tapes of the previous hearings.

Present on behalf of the applicant: Steven Schepis, Esq.; David Egarian, PE; Adrian Humbert, PP

Mr. Schepis – Quickly reviewed the application for the board.  The applicant proposes a phasing plan.


Page 3

3/2/11

Mr. Egarian, PE – previously sworn

Originally we submitted 3 plans; we have created 2 new sheets showing the phasing plans.  Phase 1 consists of all improvements existing and proposed that do not need Highlands or DEP approvals; Phase 2 is all improvements that require DEP approvals and Highland’s exemptions.  There is a separate sheet strictly for Phase 1 improvements only.  The listing of those improvements can be readily identified.  There is another separate sheet strictly for Phase 2.  The revision dates were not drafted on the plan but will be revised accordingly.  Sheet #3 shows Phase 1 improvements as: near wooded area of Crooked Brook will have 45 overflow parking spaces; replacing fence in kind; by the maintenance building area building a 4’ fenced in area and getting approvals for the existing 6’ fenced in area, removal of outdoor storage behind maintenance shed; existing fence along Vista Rd, existing paver walkway; existing rail road tie wall, 2 proposed employee parking areas; near the gravel travel way between the tennis court and Crooked Brook propose 9 guest parking spaces, retaining wall and concrete bollards around utility poles; by paddle court area relocating propane tanks with fenced in enclosure; propose 13 parking spaces; existing wood deck adjacent to paddle court; at pavilion building propose indoor bathroom; replacement of paver walkway; along shoreline existing swim team light, existing paver patio at lifeguard shed, relocation of lifeguard shed, existing fire pit, existing 4 parking spaces by boat launch; club house area interior modifications, tent over existing patio, proposed sound trap enclosure over existing steps; volleyball court/vacant cottage area,  existing sand volleyball courts, relocate outdoor showers, proposed 2 10’ poles for hoistable volley ball net,  relocate post and rail fence onto property, interior modifications to cottage; near ball field proposed 213 overflow parking spaces, and 9 overflow parking near tennis court; no additional impervious coverage required for Phase 1 improvements.

Mr. Egarian reviewed Phase 2 – Near the rear of the clubhouse propose paver patios and some paver patios to the west and the 5’x5’ gate house within the grassy area on the property.  There is a wood deck that was constructed; paver patio by equipment shed and retaining wall for erosion problems that was installed. 

Mr. Burgis – We had a discussion with the applicant’s experts last week.  The gatehouse will require a variance because you cannot have a structure in the front yard.  Mr. Burgis – Is the existing fencing in the right of way?  Mr. Schepis – We have come to an agreement with the township that if the township engineer finds these improvements needing to be removed we will work with the township either removal of same or easements to be granted.  Mr. Egarian – 2’ of the tennis court encroaches in the right of way and the fence near the volleyball court will be moved outside the right of way.  Mr. Omland – The encroachments are not easily remedied.  Mr. Barile’s letter says that he is amenable to allowing private encroachments by the applicant into the Vista Road right of way to remain, in return for easements from the applicant to the Township of public improvements (road pavement)extending beyond the rights of way of Vista Road and Lake Shore Drive, onto the applicant’s property.  Mr. Omland – There is a whole host of title issues in the area, some not on the applicant’s property.  Mr. Omland – The applicant has revised plans as it relates to our comments.  Issues still outstanding would be title issues and parking.  Mr. Omland reviewed the Environmental commission memo of today’s date.  #1-4 should be done; remainder must be answered by the applicant and DEP.  Mr. Schepis – We will have DEP approvals before any improvements done that would require additional impervious coverage.

Open to public for this witness

Ken Nemeth – 12 Vista Road – sworn

The increased compaction of the soil and pavers would increase the runoff from the property.  Mr. Egarian – The amount of impervious areas that need approval by DEP are areas of pavers throughout the site and the net increase is 1,539 s.f.; these pavers were installed in areas that were previously gravel and Highlands considers gravel to be impervious.  The topography runs east to west along Crooked Brook; the parking lot drains to an inlet and runs to Crooked Brook and there is sheet runoff that runs from gravel area between the tennis court and Crooked Brook and that runs toward Crooked Brook.  The additional parking is currently graveled and woodchips and that will not change.  We are not increasing gravel in that area and are not taking down any trees in that area.  A wood beam guide rail is the only proposal in that area.  Mr. Nemeth – The ball field would not be compacted?  Mr. Egarian – That is a grassy area and do not see how


Page 4

3/2/11

compacting that area would increase the impervious coverage for the few times a year that it would be used.  Mr. Nemeth – By the maintenance garage you said that you would replace the fence and putting a new fence to screen, what are you screening?  Mr. Egarian – The outdoor storage existing is to be removed and agree to condition of no outdoor storage on site. 

Josh Mann, Esq for neighbors

The additional parking areas would be used once or twice a year?  Mr. Egarian - Near the ball fields but Mr. Staiger is going to testify on that issue. 

Donald Bauman – 10 Lake Shore Dr. – sworn

There has been overflow parking on Valhalla and Vista Roads with an empty parking lot at the club. 

Rob Unice – 36 Valhalla Rd – sworn

Overflow parking adjacent to the field and within the ball field happens everyday; much more than once or twice a year. 

Gladys Nemirow - sworn

There was never any gravel where the pavers were installed.

Mr. Bauman – Do not understand why grove area is allowed for parking.

Mr. Schepis – Many of the people that have spoken are represented by the attorney maybe they can ask their questions through their attorney.  Mr. Ackerman – Submit a list of neighbors who you represent.  Mr. Mann – Do not see the need, they should be able to talk since they live there.  Mr. Ackerman – It is accepted protocol that counsel asks the questions and they will have ample opportunity to make comments at the end.  Please submit a list before the next hearing.  Mr. Mann – I will take that into consideration.

Mr. Shirkey – Why would the improvements that the applicant put in without approvals not be subject to Highlands approvals?  Mr. Egarian – In 2006 the impervious coverage was fixed and highlands approvals were granted at the time of the application for addition to the clubhouse.  Dr. Kanoff – Will DEP approvals be a condition of the resolution.  Mr. Ackerman – Yes.  Mr. Petrozzino – How much would the runoff be affected by compacting the soil?  Mr. Omland – If the cars drive over it every day it will compact and take on an impervious coverage; it depends on the soil composition and how often it would be driven over.  If it was frequently used there is no means to measure compactness; it is not quantifiable, there will be a change but how much cannot be measured.  Mr. Buraszeski – Are the parking areas in the grove and the ball field calculated in the impervious coverage requested?  Mr. Egarian – I do not recall; will have that answer at the next hearing. 

Discussion ensued on the location of the propane tank in relation to the guardhouse.  Mr. Schepis – Utility mark outs will be done.  Does not conflict with the site plan, can leave it to construction official at building permit process.  Mr. Buraszeski requested clarification of variance vs design waivers for this application from Mr. Burgis.  Behind the paddle tennis hut there is a port a john and a shed and a fence enclosure with propane tank that are not shown on the plan.   Mr. Egarian – The port a john will go away if application approved.  Mr. Buraszeski – The handicapped spots are configured differently than shown on plan; fire pit not shown on plan; gate in that area not shown on plan; gravel road east of the entrance not shown on the plan and was it part of the impervious coverage calculations. 

Carried with notice preserved to 4/6/11 with an extension of time to act to 4/7/11

Mr. Marinello returned.


Page 5

3/2/11

ZSPP/FC28-08-13-10 Holiday at Montville – 29 Vreeland Ave. – B: 52.03, L: 19, 21 & 22 – site plan & variances           - carried from 10/6/10; carried with notice from 12/1/10 & 1/5/11 Eligible: Buraszeski, Driscoll, Hug, Moore, Kanoff, Shirkey, Marinello                                               ACT BY: 3/3/11

Mr. Petrozzino certified to listening to the tapes of the previous hearings.

Present on behalf of the applicant: Steven Schepis, Esq.; Robert Gannon, Applicant; Mark Walker, PE; James Cutillo, AIA

Mr. Schepis - DEP approved waterline extension; submitted planning board approval of another site that 20’ cart way was approved off Horseneck Rd. 

Mr. Walker, PE – Previously sworn

Have submitted revised sheet 3 of 20. 

                Exhibit A8 – colorized version of plan submitted to board.

Mr. Walker – This plan is similar to the Use variance approved plan.  A/C units all fit within the designated setback lines; there are no shared driveways proposed; all units are 1 ½ story units similar in height and size to the ones shown at use variance; common area and gazebo is proposed at the beginning of the circle; interior of circle grass area has been expanded; the distance of the gazebo from the dwellings has been increased; the common area and gazebo will be landscaped as previously proposed; there are 8 unit areas that are larger than the other units areas; no variances are requested; this plan is consistent with the plan approved under the use variance.  The water and sewer department and fire prevention had no problems with water extension and DEP issued a water extension permit for the project; we have not received the sewer extension permit yet because they take a little longer. 

James Cutillo, AIA – previously sworn

Reviewed revisions to the plan; reduced the height of the structures by the pitch of the roofs and removed all of the dormers.  Meet all requirements for height and story. 

Mr. Burgis – They meet the story requirements of the ordinance.  Mr. Burgis – Describe the distance from the gazebo to the closest housing unit.  Mr. Walker – The use is a passive use; if it was a housing unit it would be 12’ away but the gazebo is 30’ away.  Mr. Buraszeski – 3 of the A/C units are in the front yard; are they allowed?  Mr. Burgis – An accessory structure is not allowed in the front yard of the street line and this is a private roadway and not considered under the ordinance.   Mr. Burgis – Safety is increased by narrowing the road on this one-way road.  Mr. Burgis – Have been concerned with the 12’ between buildings since I started on this project but that was approved under the use variance. 

Mr. Marinello – What is the spatial effect of the units as per height?  Mr. Cutillo – This is an undulating site and the home designs change with that and the floor elevations change with the topography of the lot to keep consistency.    Mr. Marinello – Is the landscape plan completed?  Mr. Walker – The site layout plan can be done in a week or two.  Dr. Kanoff – What will make it look like there are no A/C units in the front yard?  Mr. Walker – We will be proposing landscaping around the units in the front yard to be approved by Mr. Burgis’ office.  Mr. Burgis – Unit 5 can be moved out of the front yard.  Mr. Walker – We are trying to keep the A/C units away from the outdoor living space as well.  Mr. Shirkey – At use the applicant was bound by COAH; what is he bound by now?  Mr. Burgis – The same 6 units as he proposes in this plan.  Mr. Shirkey – What would be an acceptable reduction to decrease the density on site?  Mr. Burgis – Still required to have a 20% set aside of affordable units. 

Mr. Shirkey – Concerned that the loft spaces do not have natural light or air.  Mr. Cutillo – We meet all the criteria based on building codes; could not be a bedroom but only certain types of rooms require natural


Page 6

3/2/11

lighting.  Mr. Shirkey – Would like to see a deed restriction on no exterior revisions to roofline.  Mr. Schepis - The plans submitted would be the plans that can be built since it is not a subdivision. 

Mr. Gannon – previously sworn

The loft area would probably be an office.  Mr. Schepis – What you see in the architectural plans would be incorporated into the deeds. 

                A9 – rendering of proposed units

Mr. Cutillo – A-9 represents the exact distance between residences and location on street. 

 

Mr. Omland – The control of these buildings is tight, will these unit limit lines be part of an easement map or condo association map?  Mr. Schepis – Yes.  Mr. Omland – Will they be shown by metes and bounds?  Mr. Walker – No, we will have 12’ separation.  Mr. Omland – This is a tight sight, the units are maxed out to setback lines, the applicant should be urged to include full disclosure that nothing can be added to these buildings and the open space must be kept open.  There is no fixed line.  Mr. Schepis – We will designate those lines by metes and bounds.  Mr. Ackerman – What are the limits of the common area use?  Mr. Schepis – There will be association guidelines.  Mr. Omland – You will show 6’ setbacks to each line?  Mr. Schepis – Yes.

Open to public

Nick Masone – 74 Jesse Ct – previously sworn

Which A/C units are in the front yard?  Mr. Walker - Units 14, 10, 5, 8, 31, 29 & 30.  Mr. Masone – The ones in the rear will meet the rear setback?  Mr. Walker – Yes.  Mr. Masone – Can you put the ones in the rear in the front 13, 14, 15 & 16?  Mr. Buraszeski – Unit 15 is in the rear and the remainder is in the side.  Mr. Walker – There is also a 4’-6’ high retaining wall in that area. 

Shelly Baron – 19 Gabriel Dr. – sworn

In favor of the application. 

Marsha Goldstein – 78 Jesse Ct. – previously sworn

Would like to see what the units would look like from my home. 

                A10 – area map of proposed project in relation to Longview

Mr. Walker showed the plan to Ms. Goldstein and indicated where her unit was in relation to the project.  Mr. Walker – Unit 16 would be behind Ms. Goldstein’s property and will not have a walkout basement.  Mr. Cutillo – It will be a Verona design.

                A11 – cross section sheet 13 of 20 dated 11/8/10

Mr. Walker – The site section shows the proposed dwelling, the existing property line; the existing grade, the existing structure on Longview Estates with the existing deck.  The view is shown on this plan.  Mr. Walker – The brush will not be removed since it is on Longview’s property.  Ms. Goldstein – I only object to the density of the project.

Closed to public

Mr. Schepis summed up testimony.  Suitable site for this project.  Density was previously approved.  The Township is counting on these 6 COAH units as part of their obligation.  What we show here is basically what we showed at Use variance.  The one-way street was a recommendation from the traffic safety officer


Page 7

3/2/11

and board engineer.  Water extension was approved by DEP.  No imposition on school system.  No one under the age of 17 will be able to stay in these units and only 55 and older can purchase the units.  Mr. Burgis’ landscape professional will work with the applicant on landscaping plan and is comfortable leaving this subject to approvals. 

Mr. Marinello – The soil removal application is not part of this application, it is a separate application. 

Motion to approve the site plan application, no variances requested, made changes as requested by board and neighbors, granting RSIS and water line extension exceptions, enhancement to the neighborhood, subject to deed restrictions as it relates to no exterior modification of roof lines and no dormers to be added in the future, limited common areas to be designated by metes and bounds descriptions, plot to be submitted at footing, open areas to be kept open, subject to all requirements of the professionals, made by: Driscoll, Second by: Kanoff; Roll call: Yes –Driscoll, Moore, Kanoff, Shirkey, Petrozzino, Marinello, No - Buraszeski

ZSOIL14-10 Holiday at Montville – 29 Vreeland Ave - B: 52.03, L: 19, 21 & 22 – soil movement  - carried from 10/6/10; carried with notice from 12/1/10 Eligible: Buraszeski, Driscoll, Hug, Moore, Kanoff, Shirkey, Olsen, Petrozzino, Marinello

Carried with notice to 4/6/11

NEW BUSINESS

None

MINUTES:

Minutes of January 5, 2011 Eligible: Buraszeski, Driscoll, Moore, Kanoff, Shirkey, Marinello, Petrozzino

Motion to adopt made by: Buraszeski, Second by: Driscoll. Roll call: Yes- Unanimous

INVOICES:

Burgis Assoc. – Trust for: $281.25, $62.50, $287.50, $31.25, $62.50, $187.50, $125, $281.25, $93.75, $156.25, $843.75, $31.25

Omland Engineering – Trust for: $875, $531.25, $500, $406.25, $93.75, $125, $281.25, $31.25, $125, $93.75, $93.75, $125, $250, $187.50

Anderson & Denzler – Trust for: $414, $280, $276

Pashman, Stein – Trust for: $31.25

Motion to approve made by: Kanoff, Second by: Driscoll, Roll call: Unanimous

RESOLUTIONS

ZC34-09-21-10 DePalma, Frank – 18 Valhalla Rd. – B: 20.1, L: 33 – rear setback 42.7’ where 50’ require addition – Approval Resolution – Eligible: Buraszeski, Driscoll, Hug, Moore, Kanoff, Shirkey, Marinello

Motion to adopt made by: Buraszeski; Second by: Driscoll; Roll call: Yes - Buraszeski, Driscoll, Moore, Kanoff, Shirkey, Marinello

ZSOIL5-10-20-10 Lodhi – B: 21.01, L: 35.04 – 10 Old Ln. – soil movement application –Approval Resolution – Eligible: Buraszeski, Driscoll, Hug, Moore, Kanoff, Shirkey, Marinello

Motion to adopt made by: Buraszeski; Second by: Driscoll; Roll call: Yes - Buraszeski, Driscoll, Moore, Kanoff, Shirkey, Marinello


Page 8

3/2/11

ZC36-09 –Marotto, Vincent – B: 71, L: 11 – 15 Millers Ln. – front/rear setback variances for addition to single family home –Approval Resolution – Eligible: Buraszeski, Driscoll, Hug, Moore, Kanoff, Shirkey, Marinello

Motion to adopt made by: Buraszeski; Second by: Driscoll; Roll call: Yes - Buraszeski, Driscoll, Moore, Kanoff, Shirkey, Marinello

ZC25-08 Caggiano, Lou Carl – Hog Mountain Rd. – B: 33, L: 32 – variance for construction of a single family home on an unimproved road – Approval Resolution – Eligible: Buraszeski, Driscoll, Hug, Kanoff, Moore, Shirkey            

Motion to adopt made by: Buraszeski; Second by: Driscoll; Roll call: Yes - Buraszeski, Driscoll, Kanoff, Moore, Shirkey

CORRESPONDENCE

ZSPP/FDC10-89-29-06 Hook Mountain Care Center – Hook Mountain Rd. - B: 159, L: 4  - request for extension of approvals until 12/3/11

Motion to grant extension to 12/3/11 made by: Driscoll; Second by: Shirkey; Roll call: Yes - Buraszeski, Driscoll, Moore, Kanoff, Shirkey, Petrozzino; No - Marinello

ZSPP/F27-05-31-06 DAB Associates – 43 Bellows Ln. – B: 41, L: 15 - request for extension of approvals until 3/6/12

Motion to grant extension for one month to get additional information from the Planner to see if any changes were made to the area due to recent master plan adoptions made by: Driscoll; Second by: Buraszeski; Roll call: Yes - Buraszeski, Driscoll, Moore, Kanoff, Shirkey, Petrozzino; Marinello

OTHER BUSINESS

Mr. Driscoll – I want to include in our By-Laws discussion on items not on the agenda that evening like the planning board does. 

Discussion ensued on the pros and cons of adding this to the By-Laws. 

Mr. Ackerman to draft revised by-laws for next meeting for discussion at the next meeting.

Discussion re: change in By-Laws

Ms. Hunscher requested that the submission of revisions should be submitted 10 business days to the board professionals and 10 days prior to scheduled hearing for revisions to the Land Use Office.  Mr. Omland - This is for major revisions not minor ones.

Mr. Ackerman to revise by-law wording and bring back next month for discussion.

Discussion re: Subcommittee

Mr. Marinello - Would a subcommittee be helpful at this board.  Mr. Omland – Only for a major site plan after use was approved otherwise it would be inappropriate.  Consensus - No subcommittee

Discussion re: Task Force

Township Committee passed a resolution for a task force.  Seeking volunteers from public and both land use boards.  Driscoll volunteered and Mr. Marinello volunteered. 


Page 9

3/2/11

Motion to go into closed session to discuss personnel issues made by: Driscoll; Second by: Kanoff; Roll call: Unanimous

Upon return from closed session the board proceeded with business.

Discussion re: Professional Services Agreement

Adopt professional services agreement for Burgis Associates until the end of 2011 at rate stated.

Motion to adopt professional services for agreement Burgis Associates to end of 2011by: Kanoff

Second: Driscoll; Roll call: Yes - Buraszeski, Driscoll, Moore, Kanoff, Shirkey, Petrozzino; No - Marinello

Planning Board Liaison Update

Mr. Driscoll reviewed last months planning board applications. 

There being no further business the board unanimously adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

Jane Grogaard

Recording Secretary

Certified true copy of minutes adopted at Zoning Board meeting of April 6, 2011.

_______________________________________

Meghan Hunscher, Sec.



[1] Absent with explanation

[2] Absent with explanation

 
Last Updated ( Thursday, 07 April 2011 )
 
< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack