|
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
|
