ZONING BOARD OF
MINUTES OF JUNE 1, 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.
Moore - Present
Thomas Buraszeski - Present
Kanoff - Present
James Marinello - Present
Deane Driscoll - Present Keith Olsen (Alt #1) - Present
Shirkey - Present John
Petrozzino (Alt #2) - Present
Hug - Present
Also Present: Joseph Burgis, Planner
Stanley Omland, Engineer – absent
Bruce Ackerman, Esq.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
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 –
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,
to approve made by Buraszeski, seconded by Moore; Roll call: Buraszeski, Hug, Kanoff, Moore, Shirkey, Olsen, Petrozzino,
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
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
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.
–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
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
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
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, Kanoff,
Olsen, Petrozzino, Marinello ACT
Present on behalf of the applicant: Mahesh Patel,
applicant; Carmine Campanile, Esq.; Fredrick Meola, PP
Mr. Driscoll certified to the
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
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
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 –
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.
re: Land Use Advisory Committee
Marinello – Please submit your comments to the Land Use Advisory Committee as
soon as possible.
Mr. Marinello left the
Mr. Buraszeski assumed the
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:
Kanoff, Moore, Shirkey , Olsen,
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
Mr. Driscoll certified to the
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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. –
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
Dennis O’Brien – previously
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. -
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
Donald Bauman – previously
Exhibit ODB-1 marked in – pictures taken on Memorial
Mr. Bauman complained about
certain activities on site and that liquor was not allowed outside the bar by
Gladys Nemirow – previously
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.
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.
Board Liaison Update – Mr. Driscoll – The Planning Board discussed the
elimination of garage on Marotta property and creation of a new garage.
being no further business the board unanimously adjourned.
Jane Grogaard, Recording Secretary
Certified true copy of minutes adopted at Zoning Board
meeting of June 16, 2011.
Certified to 5/4/11 hearing
Certified to 5/4/11 hearing
Certified to 3/2/11 & 4/6/11 hearings
Certified to 3/2/11 hearing