|
MONTVILLE
TOWNSHIP
ZONING BOARD OF
ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES OF March 5, 2008
Montville
Municipal
Building,
195 Changebridge Road
8:00PM Regular Meeting
STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
Stated for the record.
ROLL CALL:
Richard
Moore – Present Thomas
Buraszeski – Present
Donald Kanoff – Present James
Marinello – Present
Deane
Driscoll – Absent Carl
DiPiazza (Alt #1) – Present
Maury
Cartine– Present Kenneth Shirkey
(Alt #2) – Present
Gerard
Hug – Present
Also Present: William Denzler, Planner
Hank Huelsebusch, Engineer
Bruce Ackerman, Esq.
Eric Keller,
Traffic
PE
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Stated for the record
The
following application was rescheduled to 5/7/08 at the applicant’s request with
new notice required:
ZC3-07
Badami, Christopher –
28
Montville Ave. – B: 51.02, L: 12 – construction of
a 2 ½
story dwelling with variances for front setback 15’ vs
35’ required/side setback 6’ vs 13.88’ required/extension into yards 26” where
18” permitted for fireplace location/maximum building coverage 1,586 s.f. vs
1,541 s.f. permitted/maximum impervious coverage 3,467.5 s.f. vs 3081.4 s.f.
allowed/accessory structure setback 20’ rear and side setback required 5’ rear
and 5’ side setback proposed/accessory structure coverage 484 s.f. vs 162 s.f.
allowed – carried w/ notice from 8/1/07- Eligible:
Kanoff, Cartine, Hug, Driscoll, Buraszeski, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello
- New Notice required. ACT
BY: 5/8/08
OLD BUSINESS
ZSPP/FDC10-89-29-06
Hook
Mountain
Care
Center –
Hook Mountain Rd. -
B: 159, L: 4 - preliminary/final site plan/use variance/bulk variances for
construction of a 4 story, 75,538 s.f. Assisted living facility containing 120
nursing beds and 60- residential health care beds. Use variances required for
height and use not permitted in zone.
Bulk relief requested for maximum building coverage, total lot
impervious coverage, wall heights and signage, along with disturbance of steep
slopes and off-street parking setbacks. Carried
with notice from 7/5/07, 9/5/07 & 11/29/07
– Eligible: Mr. Buraszeski,
Dr. Kanoff, Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Cartine, Mr. Hug, Mr. Moore, Mr. DiPiazza, Mr.
Marinello ACT BY: 3/6/08
Mr. Shirkey certified to the 7/5/07, 9/5/07 & 11/29/07 hearings
Present on behalf of the applicant: Joseph Vena, Esq.;
Rocco
Palmiere,
PE; Nicholas Verderse,
Traffic
PE
Mr. Vena – Tonight we will present traffic testimony as it relates to
the entrance way.
Rocco Palmieri,
PE – sworn – credentials accepted
Page 2
3/5/08
Mr. Palmieri – Submitted revised site layout plan and grading plan on 2-25-08.
Exhibit marked in:
A5 – colorized version of 2-25-08 site plan
Mr. Palmieri – The only changes were to the entrance way, the remainder
of the plan remains as previously reviewed.
The driveway has been realigned to allow for right turn into the site for
emergency vehicles. The entrance has
been widened to make it a safer intersection.
A sidewalk has been added from
Hook
Mountain Road to the existing stairway. The stairs will lead up to the main parking
area and a pedestrian cross walk will be installed. There will be 2 tiers of retaining walls that
will be 8’ in height and a variance will be required. There will be 6’ of separation between walls and
evergreen plantings will be installed for screening of a portion of the wall. The
applicant is attempting to provide a safer entryway into the site.
Nicholas Verderese,
Traffic
PE – sworn – credentials accepted
We have redesigned the driveway to allow for a 90 degree
intersection.
Exhibit marked in:
A6
– fire truck turning plan – dated 3-5-08
A
7 - passenger vehicle turning plan dated 3-5-08
Mr. Verderese – Reviewed the exhibits for the Board. Proposing a right turn into the site. Automobiles can make the right turn while a
vehicle is simultaneously leaving the site.
Exhibit A6 shows that a fire truck can enter the site, but will need to use
the entire roadway to do this. The fire
truck will have to travel over the center line but that is not unusual. There is an area on the inside of the radius near
the detention basin that allows for snow to be placed out of the driveway. There are some open grassed areas on site
that will allow for snow to be placed.
Weekday data for parking is higher than weekend. During the weekday you have full complement
of employees where weekends there are fewer employees. There is no significant spike on the
weekends. We met with the fire
departments since the last hearing. They
were comfortable with the turning movements of the fire truck on A6. The only
item related to traffic circulation is that they wanted us to increase the
canopy to 13’ which we will do. They
were comfortable with the circulation on site.
Mr. Palmieri – There are portions of other proposed walls that are
higher than the proposed new 8’ walls which were noticed previously. The justification for seeking the variance is
under C2, where benefits outweigh any detriments. The change was to make the intersection on
Hook Mountain Road
be a safer intersection, we had to move the roadway and the walls are
required. We added landscaping between
the 2 tiers, added the sidewalk as required by the board. Mr. Marinello - You have to amend the
application for the 3 walls. Mr. Vena –
Agreed.
Mr. Keller – Any passenger vehicle coming in can make a right
turn? Mr. Verderese – Yes. Mr. Keller – I received the plans late so I
did not have time to do a full review, the original traffic study analyzed the
site as no right turn in. Have you
revisited the traffic counts for what is now proposed? Mr. Verderese –Yes, I ran traffic analysis
and will submit prior to the next hearing.
Mr. Keller – Will the site distance be improved with the proposed
intersection. Mr. Verderese – Yes. Mr. Keller – So there won’t be the need for
traffic to turn around on side streets?
Mr. Verderese – Correct. Mr.
Keller – Did you look at small tractor trailers? Mr. Verderese – We can look into that but I
am comfortable that if a fire truck can make the turn so could a small tractor
trailer. Mr. Keller – You do have food
service so I would like to see that information. Mr. Verderese – Will supply. Mr. Huelsebusch – This is a better plan for
access for vehicles and pedestrians. The
pedestrian improvements are great on the site but the pedestrian access along
Rt. 46 and Hook Mountain may need to be improved which would have to be up to
the Township Engineer. Mr. Huelsebusch –
Suggest a snow removal plan be put in place.
Mr. Verderese – We will provide.
Page 3
3/5/08
Mr. Denzler – Proposing identification sign in right of way which is
prohibited, is there an alternative location for the sign? Mr. Palmieri – We would have to push it to
the west and back. Mr. Denzler – Will
there be changes to the grade with the driveway relocation? Mr. Palmieri – There are no significant
changes.
Open to public
Geoff Evans, Esq – Opposition attorney
Did you perform any studies on weekend vs weekday trips at the
applicants other facilities. Mr.
Verderese – No I used published dated.
Mr. Evans – Were there any other parking differences on weekends vs
weekdays? Mr. Verderese – There are more trips in and out of site but employee
demand on weekends are less. Mr. Evans –
Was there an attempt at making walls at 6’ with additional wall? Mr. Palmieri – We evaluated it and it was
better to disturb less land and provide the proposed walls at 8’. Do not see a significant impact to the
area. The walls will not be seen from
the roadway. Mr. Evans – Is there safety
measures so no one falls off a wall. Mr.
Palmieri – The wall is in a wooded area that is in its natural state and is not
an accessible area. Mr. Evans – Is there
a handrail on the pedestrian walkway along the driveway? Mr. Palmieri – It is not a handicapped
accessible walkway but we will look into a handrail for safety purposes.
Debra LaBlanc – previously sworn
Since the driveway is now accessible for emergency vehicles will you
need any other access points? Mr.
Verderese – It is unlikely that the other 2 access points will be used if the
driveway is not blocked but it is a benefit to have other access to the site in
an emergency. If the fire department
required us to do improvements along the access road we would add gravel or
whatever they required.
Richard LaBlanc – previously sworn
I am concerned with number of ambulances that would visit the site. Mr. Verderese – I would assume they would not
have their sirens blaring once they come off
Hook Mountain Road. There are no engineering numbers on how many
times an ambulance would visit the site that would be more of an operation
item. It would not change my traffic
analysis.
Michael Sutton – previously sworn
It is my understanding that the ambulances visit the
Chelsea 4 times a day. This is an assisted living/nursing home where
the people require more care. What kind
of strain will it put on the Montville Ambulance service volunteers? Mr. Buraszeski – This facility has there own
medical people on staff which is believe is different from the
Chelsea.
Board Secretary – They testified in July that they have a contract with
their own ambulance services for emergency 911 services.
Efzal Amanat –
25 Sylvan Dr.
- sworn
I am concerned that there will be more visitors on the weekends.
Mark Platinsky – previously sworn
Would like to know where the private emergency vehicle facility is located
and which route will they take?
Mr. Buraszeski – Requested Mr. Keller to look into his database on
weekend vs weekday parking on assisted facility sites. Mr. Keller – Will include in next
report. Mr. Moore – Is there any
additional lighting plan for the stairwell?
Mr. Palmieri – I will get that information to the board. Mr. Shirkey – I have never seen a plow truck
operator plow uphill. Mr. Verderese – We
will supply a snow maintenance plan. Mr.
Cartine – Why didn’t you do an analysis of your own facilities traffic as it
relates to weekday vs weekend, and see how it compares to the book numbers since
you have real life experience. Mr.
Verderese – We can do it if requested by the Board. Mr. Cartine – Would like to see it for next
time.
Page 4
3/5/08
Due to time constraints the application was carried with notice preserved
to: April 2, 2008 with an extension of time to act granted to: April 3, 2008
TRACK 2
ZC24-06
Kapitula – 10 Old Ln. – B: 21.01, L: 35.04 – construction of a
single family home on a vacant lot variance requested maximum wall height of 10’
where 6’ allowed and slopes - carried
with notice from 12/5/07 - Eligible: Kanoff, Driscoll, Buraszeski, Cartine,
Hug, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello ACT
BY: 3/6/08
Mr. Shirkey certified to the 12/5/07 hearing.
Present on behalf of the applicant: Steven
Schepis, Esq.; Frank Matarazzo, PE, PP
Mr. Schepis did a quick overview for the
Board. Previous subdivision granted on
this property in 1986. Slope variance
required due to additional slope regulation.
Requesting wall height/fence height variance. 6’ high retaining wall with 4’ high safety
fence on top. Requesting slopes relief.
Frank
Matarazzo,
PE, PP - sworn
Exhibit
A2 – colorized grading and utility plan sheet 2 of 5 latest revision 2-20-08
Mr. Matarazzo – Increased the size of the
drywell and added new curb along proposed driveway for the purposes of catching
stormwater surface runoff. The runoff
will discharge toward the stormwater system along
Old Lane.
Eliminated need for one wall height variance. Propose 3 tanks 8’ in diameter to be located
in the corner of the proposed driveway.
It is a vacant lot that slopes downhill from the back of the property to
the front. Stormwater sheet flows toward
the roadway; there is no existing curbing along the street line. The existing inlets along the street are
clogged and don’t accept the amount of water running off the property. With the proposed construction, the storm water
runoff will be better managed. The
amount of surface runoff from the site will be dramatically reduced. The project meets the zero net increase to
water runoff as required by the township ordinances. By providing the stormwater management
proposed on site there will be a benefit to the surrounding properties.
Exhibit
A3 – copy of original slope map which was part of the 1986 subdivision
application
Mr. Matarazzo – A3 shows that the slopes on
this property are the same as the other 2 lots in the subdivision. The other 2 lots have been developed. Our development will have the house closer to
the road with lesser of an impact to the slopes, less impervious coverage and a
smaller house is proposed.
Exhibit
A4 – photo of house immediately to the
west of the subject property
A5
– photo of other house within the 1986 subdivision
A6
– aerial photo from the county sketched in location of proposed house on
subject
property
Mr. Matarazzo – Reviewed the photos for the
board. The height of the wall in the
front yard of the 2nd house has a 7’ high retaining wall with a 3’
fence on top. The wall and the fence was
required due to the topography of the lot.
The other 2 lots that are part of the original subdivision are fully
developed with the houses to the rear of the property. The slopes have been dramatically disturbed
on the other 2 lots. The front yards
were regraded, trees were removed.
Proposed lot has smaller house than surrounding houses in the
neighborhood. There is no negative
impact on the zone plan as it relates to the height of the walls/fence. We meet all other bulk requirements. There will not be any substantial negative
impact to the neighbors due to the walls.
There will be a reduction from stormwater runoff from the property so
that will
Page 5
3/5/08
be a benefit to the surrounding area. There
is no way to develop the site without slope disturbance. We designed the site to minimize slope
disturbance.
Open to public
Mr. Marinello – Mr. Berkowitz you can put
your questions on the record and the applicant will answer at the next hearing
due to time constraints.
Bernard Berkowitz attorney for Gina Wirtenberg
-
6 Old Ln.
We do not have specific questions at this
time, but will probably be hiring an expert for the next hearing.
Mr. Huelsebusch – Would like a maintenance manual
be submitted for detention system.
Mr. Schepis – We are finished with our
case. The applicant would like to
proceed with a vote tonight. Mr.
Berkowitz – We would like to present our objections. Mr. Schepis – We will not sign an extension
of time so if the board carries it I will pursue an automatic approval.
Mr. Buraszeski – Can’t we vote on the
application? Mr. Ackerman – You are
faced with an objector that has not had the opportunity to speak. The time allowed for the hearing is over and
the objector would not have the opportunity to have his expert testify this
evening anyway. Mr. Ackerman – Mr.
Schepis, if you insist on a vote even though you have not allowed for the
objector to speak you will compel the board to vote and most likely it would be
to the negative. Mr. Schepis this
meeting was noticed; they had an opportunity to cross examine. Mr. Ackerman – The board chairman stated that
there is no time for the objector to testify this evening. Mr. Cartine – I requested previously what the
grade would be in front of the driveway and I have not heard an answer. Mr. Matarazzo – It will be 4’ x 2’ wide flat
grade on the driveway but have also added 2 more inlets on the driveway.
Mr. Marinello – We have never been forced
into a vote without hearing the public’s full objection in the time allowed. Mr. Hug – If there was more time available to
the applicant would the objector have the expert available or would he ask for
an adjournment to get his expert here? Mr.
Marinello – He was told ahead of time that there would not be time for his
expert. Mr. Schepis – The applicant does
not have the time to carry any further, the applicant will be finished with
this property after tonight.
Mr. Buraszeski – Based on the testimony
provided by the applicant they are trying to mitigate an existing
condition. What the applicant is doing
is in compliance with what the town ordinance and is consistent with other
improvements in the neighborhood. The
lot itself has a lot of challenges. The
slopes of the 3 lots approved in the sub division in 1986 are consistent, there
was no other place to put the house, We have heard this twice, the lot has had
many challenges and the applicant is trying to comply to the best of his
ability with the ordinances. This lot is
no different from the other homes on the street. The applicant demonstrated that there was no
other place to put the house. Motion
made by: Mr. Buraszeski
Second by: Mr. Hug
Mr. Wirtenberg - Our professional could not
be here, we have drainage issues that need to be resolved. We were told that we
could bring him in April.
Mr. Marinello – We have objectors, I have not
opened to public or taken unsworn comments from the public. Mr. Cartine – Well the motion is not complete
yet. Mr. Marinello – Frankly, we are out
of time and we have a motion and a second on the table.
Dr. Kanoff – Requested Mr. Ackerman’s opinion. Mr. Ackerman – The only time that his board
had an applicant that did not want to sign an extension, the board has not
heard full testimony, and was compelled to vote. When the board does not have the full record
the published opinions show that the board should deny it and the courts can
remand it back to the board for continuance.
If you did not make a motion the application would be automatically
approved. The vote in favor has problems
to the public and objector
Page 6
3/5/08
that could be appealed by the court. Mr. Cartine – Just because the applicant has
some urgency, we have not heard a reason as to why this vote is an emergency to
vote today. I don’t understand why we
feel compelled to get to a yes vote because the applicant says we need to do it
now.
Mr. Buraszeski –Based on attorney advice I
withdraw my motion, Mr. Hug withdrew his second.
Mr. Schepis – I have discussed this with my
client and will sign an extension for 1 month
The application was carried with notice preserved
to 4-2-08 with an extension of time to act granted to 4-3-08
TRACK 3
NEW BUSINESS
ZSPP/F27-05-31-06 DAB Associates –
43
Bellows Ln. – B: 41, L: 15 – pre/final site plan 6
unit
town
homes – variances for impervious coverage 17,649 s.f. vs 13,300 s.f. allowed, parking
setback
to street 11’ vs 25’, environmentally sensitive areas regulation of slopes –
Notice
Acceptable ACT BY: 3/6/08
Present on behalf of the
applicant: Robert Hueston, Esq.; George James, PE, PP
Mr. Hueston – This is the
second part of a bifurcated application that was approved in 2006. There will be 6 buildings on site. Variances requested for variances for impervious
coverage 17,649 s.f. vs 13,300 s.f. allowed, parking setback to street 11’ vs
25’, and environmentally sensitive areas regulation of slopes.
George James, PE, PP –
previously sworn
Exhibit A1 –
colorized site plan
A2 – environmental constraints
colorized map
Mr. James – Much of the site
is taken up by the wetlands. There is
relatively limited space to place the buildings. The parking setback waiver requested due to
location of detention basin. We will
only be disturbing 425 s.f. of slope greater than 25%. The impervious coverage variance is due to
the driveway accessing lots with a common driveway which puts the site over
allowable coverage. Stormwater system to
pick up roofs of buildings and parking area to infiltration basin and then discharged
piped to the rear of the property. DEP
has already approved this. The sanitary
line is located in front of the building.
No spillage from lighting off site.
Propose a 6’ fence along property line on access road side of
property. Ornamental fence will be
proposed along detention basin. Mr.
Huelsebusch – The fence should be black in color. Mr. James – There will not be basements in
the buildings. Mr. Hueston – If we agree
to the Township Engineer’s report then this would make the property a corner
lot with additional variance for setback.
Mr. Marinello asked for a
motion to take new business past 10:30pm.
Motion to go past 10:30 with new business made by: Dr. Kanoff, Second: Mr.
Hug Roll call: Unanimous.
Mr. Marinello – We would need
additional information on the issue of it being a corner lot.
Open to public
Robert Rasp –
42 Bellows Ln -
sworn
What is the size of the
parking area. Mr. James – There are 1
car garages in each unit, 2 parallel spaces at the front of the property and 9 other
spaces including handicapped space in the front. It is a standard
Page 7
3/5/08
town house design. Due to the environmental constraints of the
property, the units are proposed in the location shown. Mr. Rasp voiced concerns about effect on
Bellows Lane due to
construction vehicles.
John Bott –
53 Bellows Ln -
sworn
Providing trees along access
road? Mr. James – 6 trees proposed. Mr. Bott – Concerned with paving of the
access road and people speeding.
Mr. Denzler – How is this
development going to address solid waste and recycling? Mr. James – Private cans that they would have
to put out for pickup. Mr. Denzler – Reviewed
the request for the board, suggest additional landscaping along 2 parking
spaces out front. Slopes were man
made. Ornamental fence to be installed
along detention basin and solid wood fence to be installed along access
drive. Mr. Denzler – Do you have a time
when lights would go off at night in the parking lot? Mr. James-
Probably 11pm. Mr. Huelsebusch – Recommend
you consolidate stormwater calculations on 1 sheet for construction plans. Mr.
James – Will comply. Mr. Hug – Would
prefer a fence that is more open along access road.
Mr. Marinello – The
application will be subject to Design Review Committee review of fence along
access road, as well as landscaping. Mr.
Hueston - We would provide 6’ high evergreens instead of the fence, if the
board would like. Mr. Marinello – The application will be subject to DRC
input.
Motion
to: Approve the application with no fence along access road, trees instead,
subject to design review committee review made by: Dr. Kanoff; Second by:
Moore; Roll call: Yes - Kanoff,
Cartine, Hug, Buraszeski, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello
TRACK 4
ZC30-06 Ambrose
- B: 106, L:
20 – 30 Barney Rd
– addition to single family home variance for front setback of 32’ vs 45’
required; rear setback of 46.42’ vs 50’
required; side setback of 14.9’
vs 16.3’ required; combined
setbacks of 32.8 vs 35.1’ required Notice Acceptable
ACT BY: 4/4/08
Present on behalf of the
applicant: Albert Zaccone, PP AIP; Mary Ambrose, applicant
Mr. Zaccone, PP AIP - Sworn
This is an undersized
lot. Existing ranch built in 1955
approximately 1,700 s.f. Existing
non-conforming setbacks. Rear setback is
just a corner of the building due to severe angle of the rear yard. Looked at many other options and this better
suited the site. Looking to square up
the front of the house. Side setback combined and side setback there are no
changes. Front setback only change is
cover over porch. Rear setback will
encroach 3’ 7” into setback on a corner of the building. No detriments to the zone ordinance or
neighborhood. Will be improvement to the
neighborhood.
Open to public – none –
closed
Mr. Denzler – You added a
turnaround area? Mr. Zaccone – Yes. Mr. Huelsebusch- You need to dedicated 25’ to
the centerline of the road. Mr. Zaccone
– Yes.
Motion
toapprove, diminimus change to front setback, side setbacks are a continuation
of existing non-conformity, rear yard is a hardship due to property shape,
subject to dedication of right of way, in keeping with the neighborhood, and
construction of turnaround made by: Mr. Cartine; Second by: Hug
Roll
call: Yes -Kanoff, Cartine, Hug,
Buraszeski, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello
Page 8
3/5/08
MINUTES:
Minutes
of February 6, 2008 - Eligible: Kanoff, Driscoll, Cartine, Buraszeski, Hug,
Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello
Motion to adopt made by: Mr. Buraszeski,
Second by: Mr. Hug, Roll call: Yes- Kanoff, Cartine,
Moore, DiPiazza, Hug, Buraszeski, Shirkey,
Marinello
INVOICES:
Pashman Stein – Trust for: $312.50, $125, $312.50
Shapiro & Croland – O/E for: $59, Trust for:
$31.25, $75, $31.25
Bricker &
Assoc. – Trust for: $750, $375, $312.50, $100, $312.50, $3,250, $437.50
William Denzler & Assoc. – Trust for: $62.50,
$31.25, $218.75, $31.25
Johnson, Murphy – Trust for: $165
Motion to approve made by:
Dr. Kanoff, Second by: Mr. Hug, Roll call: Unanimous
OTHER BUSINESS
ZC12-06 DeRocco –
20
Horseneck Rd. – B: 125.06, L:9 – dismissal
Motion to dismiss without
prejudice made by: Mr. Hug; Second by: Mr. Buraszeski; Roll call – Kanoff,
Cartine, Hug, Buraszeski, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello
ZC11-05 Walsh –
14
Morris Ave. – B: 50, L: 14 - dismissal
Motion to dismiss without
prejudice made by: Mr. Hug; Second by: Mr. Moore; Roll call – Kanoff, Cartine,
Hug, Buraszeski, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello
RESOLUTIONS
ZC14-07 Danzi, Dominick – 86 Stonybrook Rd. – B: 3,
L: 13.1 - addition to single family home variances for side setback of 38’
where 44.2’ required; building height of 3 stories where 2 ½ stories allowed –
Eligible: Yes - Kanoff, Driscoll, Cartine, Buraszeski, Hug, Moore, Marinello -
Approval Resolution
Motion to adopt made by: Mr. Hug;
Second by: Mr. Buraszeski; Roll call:
Yes – Kanoff, Cartine,
Buraszeski, Hug, Moore, Marinello
ZC22-07 Pante, Anthony –
10
Eagle Dr. – B: 39, L: 78.09 – construction of a
conservatory to
existing home – variance for rear setback 42’
where 50’ required – Eligible: Kanoff, Driscoll,
Cartine, Buraszeski,
Hug,
Moore,
Marinello – Approval Resolution
Motion to adopt made by: Mr. Buraszeski; Second by: Mr. Moore; Roll
call: Yes – Kanoff, Cartine, Buraszeski, Hug, Moore, Marinello
Page 9
3/5/08
ZSPP/CD24-97-03-06 Allbrite
Car Wash -
11 Bloomfield Ave.
- B: 162, L: 3 – request for
extension of approvals to February 6, 2009 -
Eligible: Buraszeski, Kanoff, Driscoll, Cartine, Hug,
Moore,
Marinello – Granted
Mr. Buraszeski – Allbrite erected a new canopy on the
property. Mr. Marinello – The board
secretary will alert the zoning officer.
Motion to adopt made by: Mr. Buraszeski;
Second by: Mr. Moore; Roll call: Yes – Buraszeski,
Kanoff, Cartine, Hug, Moore, Marinello
CORRESPONDENCE
None
There being no further business there was a motion to
unanimously adjourn made by Mr. Hug, Seconded by: Mr. Cartine; Roll call –
Unanimous
Respectfully submitted,
Jane Grogaard
Recording Secretary
Certified true copy of minutes adopted at Zoning Board
meeting of April 2, 2008.
_______________________________________
Linda M. White,
Sec.
|
