Board of Adjustment Minutes 6-1-11 Print E-mail




Montville Municipal Building, 195 Changebridge Road

8:00PM Regular Meeting

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


Stated for the record.


Richard Moore - Present                     Thomas Buraszeski - Present

Donald Kanoff - Present                     James Marinello - Present

Deane Driscoll - Present                     Keith Olsen (Alt #1) - Present

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

Gerard Hug - Present

Also Present:        Joseph Burgis, Planner

                                Stanley Omland, Engineer – absent

                                Bruce Ackerman, Esq.


Stated for the record

The following application was carried with notice to the 7/6/11 hearing:

*ZC5-11 Gray, Melissa – 6 Fawn Dr. – B: 125.4, L: 1 – variances for side setback and building coverage for addition and deck – Notice Acceptable


ZC36-09-7-11 –Marotto, Vincent – B: 71, L: 11 – 15 Millers Ln. – request for a change in the conditions of the resolution as it relates to storm water management & design waiver for driveway location – Notice Acceptable

Present on behalf of the applicant: Vincent Marotto & Lisa Marotto, applicants; Matthew Clark, PE

Lisa Marotto, applicant – sworn

Here to discuss the storm water management on our property and the driveway.

Mr. Matthew Clark, PE – sworn

Mr. Marinello indicated that the Board Engineer was not currently present so the board moved to minutes, invoices, resolutions and correspondence while Mr. Omland was being contacted.


Minutes of May 4, 2011- Eligible: Buraszeski, Hug, Kanoff, Moore, Shirkey, Olsen, Petrozzino, Marinello

Motion to approve made by Buraszeski, seconded by Moore; Roll call: Buraszeski, Hug, Kanoff, Moore, Shirkey, Olsen, Petrozzino, Marinello

Page 2



Burgis Associates – Trust for: $135, $67.50, $135, $978.75

Omland Engineering – Trust for: $375, $93.75, $156.25, $93.75, $168.75

Pashman, Stein – Trust for: $101.25, $1,647.00, $492.75, $135

Anderson & Denzler – Trust for: $210

Motion to approve made by Kanoff, seconded by Moore; Roll call: Unanimous


ZC4-11 Cooper, Douglas  –15 David Alan Way – B: 56, L: 23.3 – variance for rear yard of 32’

vs 50’ for deck – Approved – Eligible: Buraszeski, Hug, Kanoff, Moore, Shirkey, Olsen, Marinello

Motion to approve made by Buraszeski, seconded by Moore; Roll call: Yes - Buraszeski, Hug, Kanoff, Moore, Shirkey, Olsen, Marinello


ZC33-08 - Fille - B: 106, L: 8 - 19 Redding Pl. – request for 1 year extension to 6/2/12

Mr. Marinello asked the Board Planner whether there are any zoning changes affecting this property, which was answered “no”.

Motion to grant extension made by: Driscoll; Second by: Moore; Roll call: Yes - Buraszeski, Hug, Driscoll, Kanoff, Moore, Olsen, Petrozzino, Marinello; Abstained - Shirkey

The Board returned to the Marotto application.  Mr. Marinello stated that the board would proceed without the engineer but if there were engineering questions the application would have to be carried to another hearing.  Mr. Ackerman indicated that there were engineering issues that would have to be responded to by the Board Engineer as it relates to storm water management.  The applicant agreed.

Mr. Clark - Developed a lot grading plan to comply with the original resolution of approval, as part of that plan we proposed a subsurface infiltration system to comply with the zero rate of runoff ordinance.  We performed the soil tests and within 3’ we saw water and above that we saw mottling.  We contacted Mr. Russo with the results and we were requested to come back and request relief from the condition of the resolution as it relates to installing an infiltration system because we could not meet the criteria for installation of the system.  I have done calculations and the runoff rate is minimal and I believe any runoff from the addition would seep into the lawn or run towards Lincoln Street into the unnamed stream.  There will be no impact to our property or the neighboring property.   Across the street on Millers all the residences have drainage ditches that run into the same stream by Lincoln Street. 

Mr. Clark –We are requesting the relief from the condition of the resolution relating to the storm water management requirements.   The Marotto’s are also looking to get relief from 50’ offset from an intersection for the driveway to come off Lincoln instead of Millers.  We have 13.5’ to the intersection.  Millers Lane has more traffic.  Lincoln services one lot to the rear.  For safety reasons the location coming off Lincoln is a better location than the Millers Lane access.   There is no place to park the cars for visitors on Millers Lane side due to drainage swale and Lincoln allows for a 20’ wide driveway to allow for off street parking for visitors.  Pulling into the garage can be done with a few maneuvers. 

Mr. Burgis – They are asking for a design waiver.  The Master plan has no plans for Lincoln in the future.  Mr. Clark – There is really no traffic on Lincoln so I do not see why the 50’ would be required.  It’s a 20’ right of way and there is no vegetation blocking the view.  Mr. Clark – The applicant will be grassing the

Page 3


old driveway to reduce the impervious coverage accordingly.  Mr. Burgis questioned the traffic safety of the 13’ from an intersection.  Mr. Clark – The only vehicles that would go down Lincoln would be the homeowner.  There is plenty of room to back out and be safe. 

 Open to public – none

Mr. Hug – Why can’t the garage door face toward Lincoln Street?   Mr. Clark – The applicant wants to keep a frontage look off Millers and the architect says it works best with the interior layout this way.  Mr. Clark – The garage depth is only 12’.  This is an appropriate balance working with the parameters we have to work with.  Discussion ensued on the size of the garage.

Vincent Marotto – sworn

If we were to rotate the garage toward Lincoln, there is a basement in that location and we would have to come out further to make it a garage.  Mr. Shirkey – As shown it is not a functional garage so you could change the door and still have a non-functional garage that has better access. 

Mr. Marinello – Is a K-turn possible?  Mr. Clark – It is possible but it is a 20’ wide driveway.  Mr. Marinello – I need to know for safety reasons if a car will be backing out of there.  Need a comparison between the safety of having the 20’ driveway as opposed to a narrower driveway with a K-turn further away from the intersection.  Is there any alternative to the location of the driveway?  Mr. Ackerman – Can you explain in the engineers report what he meant by swapping out inlet curb pieces with water quality, can you explain that?  Mr. Clark – I was hoping he would explain that to me, there are no inlets in the area.     Mr. Buraszeski – How much less impervious coverage do you need on site to eliminate the storm water management issues?  Mr. Clark – 804 s.f.  Mr. Burgis – I was under the impression that they would be making a left into the garage but since it is not a serviceable garage, the side entrance on Lincoln is a better way to go. Mr. Moore had engineering questions.  The applicant agreed to come back to work on the board’s concerns.

The application was carried with notice preserved to 6/16/11.

ZMS/D4-10 – Patel – 299 Changebridge Rd. – B: 160.2, L: 15 & 17 – 2nd story addition to home in industrial zone/front setback/lot line change – carried w/ notice from 4/6/11 & 5/4/11 – Eligible: Buraszeski, Hug, Driscoll[1], Kanoff, Moore, Shirkey, Olsen, Petrozzino, Marinello                                                                                                                                                               ACT BY: 6/2/11

Present on behalf of the applicant: Mahesh Patel, applicant; Carmine Campanile, Esq.; Fredrick Meola, PP

Mr. Driscoll certified to the 5/4/11 hearing.

Carmine Campanile – We will no longer need a height variance, we will be at 30’ exactly.  The only variances requested are expansion of non-conforming use for addition to a single-family home in an industrial zone and front yard setback.  We also are asking for a lot line change. 

Mr. Ackerman – Is this structure in the Township right-of-way?  Mr. Campanile – The stairs are in the right-of-way, and about 6” of the structure.   It has been there 40 years.  Mr. Ackerman – Do you have someone to testify to the fact that it was there before the right-of-way dedication?  Mr. Campanile indicated that he will provide the right-of-way dedication for the next hearing. 

Frederick Meola, PP – sworn

Page 4


                Exhibits marked in:

                A2 – aerial photo October 2010

                A3 – series of photos of property

Mr. Meola – Across the street are residential homes, immediately next to the property is a tire warehouse, there is a stream behind the property.  The property is tucked into the corner of the I-2 zone.  Mr. Meola reviewed the photos in exhibit A3 for the Board.  The wall around the patio area can be removed and the pilasters can remain for lighting.  The dormered area is used for storage currently.  Mr. Marinello asked for comments on improvements since 1966.

                A4 – 1970 aerial photo 

                A5 – 1966 aerial photo

Mr. Meola – the 1970 photo shows the industrial properties surrounding this property were not built upon but the 4 homes across the street were.  On the 1966 photo it appears that the house was there in 1966, the photo is grainy.  The assessor records do not indicate when the home was built. 

                A6 – colorized version of front side and rear view of the home as proposed

Mr. Meola – Described the proposed front side and rear views of the application.  Mr. Meola - Described the current condition of the structure.  The front door opens into a bedroom currently.  Propose a 2nd story addition for 4 bedrooms and change the 1st floor bedrooms into a personal prayer room. 

Mr. Meola – The proposal is to add additional property to eliminate an existing rear yard variance and reduce the impervious and building coverage on the property along with the floor area ratio on the property.  The property is only 80’x200’, it is very shallow and wide which makes it difficult to build upon.  Feel this home is a smaller, modest home for the area and the applicant needs more space. The homes across the street are not as close to the road as the applicant’s but they are close to the road. 

Mr. Meola – There is a section of woods next to the property with environmental constraints along with the brook.  It is surrounded by industrial uses.  No substantial detriment to public good. 

Open to public – none – closed

Mr. Olsen would like to know the standards for the residential area across the street in comparison to the standards for this lot.  Need to hear more testimony on the portion of the property within the right-of-way.  Mr. Buraszeski – Would like to see basement plan.  Mr. Ackerman – On the rear lot do you have an LOI for that lot?  Mr. Campanile – No. Mr. Ackerman – Will DEP allow for the removal of the structures on the rear lot?   Mr. Marinello – What variances would be required to build on the rear lot with the lot line change?  None of the houses across the street are 2 stories.  Mr. Shirkey – All the other houses in the neighborhood are smaller and further set back from the road.  Mr. Shirkey – What is the number of improvements done on this property without proper permits.  Mr. Burgis – Need to have more testimony on the master plan since it is only 6 months old.

Carried with notice to the 7/6/11 hearing with an extension of time to act to 7/7/11.

Discussion re: Land Use Advisory Committee

Mr. Marinello – Please submit your comments to the Land Use Advisory Committee as soon as possible.

Page 5


Mr. Marinello left the meeting.

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  – first hearing 11/4/09, carried with notice from 12/1/10,  3/2/11, 4/6/11, & 5/4/11  – Eligible: Buraszeski, Driscoll[2], Hug[3], Kanoff, Moore, Shirkey , Olsen[4], Petrozzino                                                                                        ACT BY: 6/2/11

Present on behalf of the applicant: Steven Schepis, Esq.; David Egarian, PE; Adrian Humbert, PP; Anthony Garrett, AIA; Thomas Fleishell, President of Board of Governors for Lake Valhalla Club

Mr. Driscoll certified to the 5/4/11 hearing.

Mr. Schepis – The Fire Chief approved the location of the guard house.  The Board of Health approval is still valid.  The Traffic Safety Officer will allow for the parking on the ball fields without valet parking during the 3 major events as previously testified to, but a police office shall be present to help people across the street. 

                A12 – required reports summary updated dated 6/1/11

Mr. Schepis – Mr. Thomas Fleishell will describe the nature of improvements proposed and answer any questions.

Mr. Ackerman – Are you still not asking for a D1 variance.  Mr. Schepis – I applied for and noticed for a D1 variance also, but we believe it is not applicable.  I believe what we have is an expansion of a non-conforming use. 

Mr. Mann  - My objection is that we believe that the manager of the club would have more first hand knowledge on the operation of the club than a member of the board of directors. 

Mr. Shirkey – Is Mr. Schepis going to answer the questions from the last hearing?  Mr. Schepis – I cannot answer any more than what I have already submitted.  Mr. Buraszeski – We need documentation as to the expansion of membership and the start of an auxiliary membership.  In 2007 the applicant indicated that there would be no more increase in membership and now there are social memberships, etc.  We need to see facts on paper.  Testimony changes from witness to witness.  Mr. Ackerman – You can come back with the written documentation.

Mr. Thomas Fleishell – president board of governors – sworn

The club is a non-profit corporation.  There are presently 400 members who are broken down by family memberships or single memberships.  There are about 1,600-1,700 people that are members.  Estimate 90% of the members are residents of Montville Township.  There are non-resident memberships, senior memberships, honorary memberships, auxiliary membership and house membership.  The house membership is a limited use membership and they are only allowed to use the bar and restaurant facilities, not allowed to participate in sporting events or activities.  The family membership is full membership of immediate family of the household to use all the facilities and clubhouse.  The restaurant and bar are open to non-members and members alike. If a non-member wants to book an event at the club they are permitted to do that.  They are allowed to have weddings, birthday parties, etc. 

Page 6


Mr. Buraszeski – Previous testimony indicated that only members could use the facility.  Mr. Fleishell – Anyone can use the facility.  Mr. Hug – What about the social membership?  Mr. Fleishell – We do not have a social membership we have an auxiliary membership.  Mr. Hug – Read the website information from the Lake Valhalla Club indicating that a social membership would be required for weddings, parties, etc.  Mr. Fleishell – The employees may call it a social membership.  Mr. Buraszeski – We are receiving a lot of conflicting information and we just want to get to the truth.  Mr. Fleishell – The By-Laws use a specific name, the employees are referring to the auxiliary membership.  The auxiliary membership allows for a non-member to book an event.  A non-member must become a member to book an event.  There is a reduced fee for the person to book an event and use the restaurant and bar for 1 year. The auxiliary members have to pay cash.   Mr. Hug – Does that fee reduce the costs of the affair?  Mr. Fleishell – No.  Mr. Hug – Requested the General Manager and the Treasurer to be present at the next hearing. 

Mr. Fleishell - Montville Township and the Board of Education also have parties at the club.  Mr. Schepis – What is the purpose of the auxiliary membership.  Mr. Fleishell - We have overhead costs at the facility, and we have allowed the use of the facility to members and non-members.  This was developed to charge a stipend for a smaller party; a wedding or larger party would require an auxiliary membership.  Mr. Ackerman – Where is the break point?  Mr. Fleishell – Over $5,000.  Mr. Ackerman – How many larger parties did you have in 2010?  Mr. Fleishell – About 50 or 60.  Mr. Ackerman – When did that change?  Mr. Fleishell – We have always had parties about once a week.  Prior to the restaurant expansion in 2006, we had antiquated cooking facilities.  It was not adequate for the members.  We upgraded the kitchen and got better talent in the kitchen with the better facilities and were able to serve people more efficiently.  More members would show up more consistently.  There is a larger demand on parking since the improvements due to the larger turnout.  We did not want to park the cars on the street, so we historically parked cars by and behind the tennis courts and on 2 or 3 occasions we had to park in the softball fields. 

Mr. Fleishell – The back space of the 2nd floor is used by the employees and the front space was used for storage.  The club would like to enhance the amount of office space by moving it to the front of the building and use part of the back space as offices and conference rooms.  There are quite a few committees associated with the club, and they usually have to use the restaurant area and use dividers to get a little privacy.  We are just looking to change storage space to office space.  The main entrance to the club that faces Vista Road, that door provides access to the ballroom area and there is no vestibule to block noise, air conditioning, or heat to escape.    The Club would like to enclose portico to make a buffer area.  The tent structure was to give relief from the hot sun to the members to allow them to eat in the shade.  The tent came about in 2005. The Club is asking the board to allow the tent to remain as a fixture facility.  Mr. Hug – So that gives you the ability to have more people at a banquet function?  Mr. Fleishell – No, we can only handle so many people at a party based on kitchen demand - approximately 200 people.  Mr. Hug – I guarantee there was more than 200 people at the Woman’s Club function a few weeks ago.  Mr. Fleishell – They ran their own show.  Mr. Hug – Would like numbers as to how many large parties are held during the year in the afternoon.  Want to know how many core members, not auxiliary members, have large parties during the year. 

Mr. Fleishell – The cottage was originally used for club caretaker and was rented out to individuals as a residence.  The Club is trying to get a more functional use out of it, so we want to use it for lockers, bathrooms, showers and warming kitchen.   Requesting sand volleyball court to be approved. Was previously an open sand area.  Planted vegetation along Vista Road to block volleyball court.  Propose a guard house at the front entrance of the building.  Previously, he was at a table with an umbrella, trying to make a more permanent structure for shelter.  The deck by the paddle tennis courts, there are 3 courts and a paddle hut.  There was a walkway previously between courts.  We thought the deck would work better for travel between courts.  The Pavilion structure is a summer concession stand; there is a porch with tables.  The swim meets are held in this area.   We have no bathrooms in this area.  Propose 2 bathrooms on the porch which is enclosed by a roof.  The building would not get any bigger.  The paver patio expansion was in front of the clubhouse, pavers installed by lifeguard stand, just upgrading appearance, had flagstone there previously. 

Page 7


Mr. Fleishell – Discussed the parking areas proposed.  Want to keep the parking off the street.  Moving the employee parking more internally on the lot so as not to disturb the neighbors close by. 

Mr. Burgis – Will you be submitting statistical information as the board has requested?  Mr. Fleishell – I will discuss with counsel.  Mr. Schepis – I will prepare a handout.  Mr. Ackerman – The handout is requested to be submitted prior to the next hearing.  Mr. Shirkey – I want answers to my questions from the last meeting prior to the next hearing.  Would also like to have the person that deals with the day to day operation of the club to attend the next hearing. Mr. Burgis – How many weddings, bar mitzvahs, etc per year since 2001.  Mr. Buraszeski – We are looking to see how the expansion of the club affected the activity on site.  Dr. Kanoff – I want answers to my questions from last month as well. 

Mr. Hug wanted to know if there was a kitchen facility in the cabin.  Mr. Fleishell – The appliances proposed are a small refrigerator and microwave.  Mr. Hug – Were monies for the social membership used to reduce the fees of someone having an affair there?  Mr. Fleishell – No.  Mr. Schepis will clarify.  Mr. Hug – The social membership was created about 2 years ago correct?  Mr. Fleishell – Correct.  Mr. Petrozzino – What will limit you from having an event during the time you expect high membership volume?  Mr. Fleishell – When you have an outside function you have the interference of membership activities and weddings, etc so when we have a big function we will not be serving dinner to the members.   We have very few weddings during the summer time.  Mr. Moore - Were the Township or the Board of Education required to apply for an auxiliary membership?  Mr. Fleishell – No.  Mr. Buraszeski – The volleyball courts, was there any consideration from moving them further away from Vista Road for safety reasons.  Mr. Fleishman –Needed enough space away from the children’s play area.   

Mr. Buraszeski – Would like to know about the Club’s insurance policy.  Mr. Burgis – What is the tipping point for keeping the integrity of the club and it turning into a wedding hall?  Mr. Fleishell – Where we are right now would be a good number. 

Open to the public

Josh Mann, Esq.

I request a copy of the requested documentation as a courtesy.  There are unbelievable inconsistencies in the testimony of this application.  Mr. Mann stated to Mr. Fleishell that Mr. Garrett did testify regarding the appliances in the cottage, in your letter to the members you stated that the appliances would be in there and Mr. Garrett indicated that they would not.  Mr. Fleishell – The Board of Governors thought it was a good idea and then it was decided not to include it in the plans to the board.  Mr. Mann – There is a history here of the Board of Governors allowing things to be done without approvals from the Township. Mr. Mann – What about the 18 items on the plan that were installed without prior approvals?  Mr. Fleishell – We did not think they were significant enough to require a permit.  Mr. Schepis – It is not 18 items it is about 3 or 4 items.  Mr. Mann – What about the fire pit?  Mr. Schepis – It was ripped out.  Mr. Mann – Who enforces the rules at the club?  Mr. Fleishell – The General Manager and his staff. 

Mr. Mann – What documents did you review before your testimony?  Mr. Fleishell – I reviewed the budget reports that breaks down the revenue generated from the membership.  Mr. Mann – Did you go back to when the zoning ordinance was passed?  Mr. Fleishell – No.  Mr. Mann – Are you familiar with trends in membership.  Mr. Fleishell – I have only been on the board 4 years.  Mr. Mann – What year was the auxiliary membership instituted?  Mr. Fleishell - Around 2010.  Mr. Mann – How many members are from Montville?  Mr. Fleishell – I do not know.  Mr. Mann – Are the auxiliary members in the membership directory?  Mr. Fleishell – No.  Mr. Mann – How many special events do you have on a weekend in the spring and fall?  Mr. Fleishell – 2 to 3.   Mr. Mann – The club has always had non-member events?  Mr. Fleishell – That is my understanding.  Mr. Mann – It was your testimony that there have been 50-60 functions a year since you have been there is that correct?  Mr. Fleishell – I am sure historically it is not the same, it depends on the economy.  Mr. Mann – What would happen if you did not have the auxiliary

Page 8


membership parties?  Mr. Fleishell – Revenues would drop.  Mr. Mann – Would membership dues increase?  Mr. Fleishell – Yes. Mr. Mann – So the auxiliary membership is used to keep members’ dues down?  Mr. Fleishell – Yes. 

Ron Liebewitz – Treasurer Lake Valhalla Club - sworn

The Club revenue is $2.9 million.  Event revenue is about $950,000.00.  We are non-profit for social clubs.  As long as we keep revenues under 35%, we will remain non-profit.  There is a 15% limit for general public which allows us to allow parties for Montville Township, Board of Ed, and Kiwanis.  We have a $5 million dollar property insurance & $6 million facilities insurance policy.  Mr. Hug – Did you not at the last hearing tell me that you wrote the letter about the warming kitchen in the cottage?  Mr. Liebewitz – Yes but it is going to be just a microwave and refrigerator.  Mr. Hug – So I did not misconstrue the conversation.  Mr. Liebewitz – Ok.  Mr. Hug – Did I not ask you if the money for the social memberships went towards the cost of the affair and you said yes it is and that is what the IRS instructed us to do?  Mr. Liebewitz – There has been no change to the use of the club, if you have a party over $5,000 you need to have an auxiliary membership.  Mr. Petrozzino – Why can’t you just have non-members have parties, why do you need social memberships?  Mr. Liebewitz – We need to comply with IRS regulations, when you have a party at a club you have to have a connection to the club.

Michael Coombs – 12 Lake Shore Dr. – sworn

Is the 35% social memberships?  Mr. Fleishell – No.  Mr. Coombs – This is a recreational club and if you start taking in revenue from outside functions the IRS takes away the non-profit status.  Last year the IRS told them they can offer a membership outside the club to keep the revenue down, it that true?  Mr. Fleishell – We followed the recommendation of the IRS auditor and we are in compliance with the regulations.

Dennis O’Brien – previously sworn

Interesting that an IRS auditor would tell you how not to pay taxes.  Is it your testimony that the social membership came about because of the revenue amounts.  Mr. Fleishell – He said this would put us in compliance with IRS regulations.  Mr. O’Brien – Is the police department aware of parking in the grove too?  Mr. Schepis – Yes it was explained in great detail. 

Ronald Young - 101 Waughaw Rd. - sworn

Do you have business memberships?  Mr. Fleishell – No one recognized by the by-laws, do not know if a member pays by a check from their business.  Mr. Young – Will the grove be lit?  Mr. Fleishell – If we get approval for parking it would be required.  Mr. Young – That would be on until late at night and would affect the neighborhood.  Mr. Fleishell – It would not affect the neighboring properties.  Mr. Young – Could private parties be allowed in the proposed conference room upstairs.  Mr. Fleishell – It can be done but we won’t allow it. 

Donald Bauman – previously sworn

                Exhibit ODB-1 marked in – pictures taken on Memorial Day

Mr. Bauman complained about certain activities on site and that liquor was not allowed outside the bar by the rules.

Gladys Nemirow – previously sworn

No cash is allowed at the club to discourage outside people from coming in, how long has the club been accepting cash at the bar?  Mr. Fleishell – The bar accepts cash, check and credit cards and our liquor license is a general license which tells us we have to sell to the public. Mrs. Nemirow – Instead of putting a glass enclosure by the door can you just lower the decibels within the club?  Mr. Fleishell – I have seen you dancing when the amps are in use and it did not seem to bother you.  Mrs. Nemirow – Did not see the reason for the security hut, it decreases the visual integrity of the club.

Page 9


Al Poleo – previously sworn

Could it be that the revenue increased over the past few years because the club is charging more and not that there are more people and events?  Mr. Fleishell – That is a true statement since we have been doing the renovations we are able to charge more for the outside functions, the number of events and the number of people remain the same. 

Carried with notice preserved to 6/16/11 with an extension of time to act to 6/17/11.




Planning Board Liaison Update – Mr. Driscoll – The Planning Board discussed the elimination of garage on Marotta property and creation of a new garage.

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 June 16, 2011.


Meghan Hunscher, Sec.

[1] Certified to 5/4/11 hearing

[2] Certified to 5/4/11 hearing

[3] Certified to 3/2/11 & 4/6/11 hearings

[4] Certified to 3/2/11 hearing


Last Updated ( Monday, 20 June 2011 )
< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack