|
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES OF JUNE 4, 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 – Absent
Donald
Kanoff – Present James
Marinello – Present
Deane
Driscoll – Present Carl
DiPiazza (Alt #1) – Absent
Maury
Cartine– Present Kenneth
Shirkey (Alt #2) – Present
Gerard
Hug – Present
Also Present: William Denzler, Planner
Hank Huelsebusch, Engineer
Bruce Ackerman, Esq.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Stated for the record
The
following application was rescheduled with new notice required to 9/3/08:
ZC17-07
Malanga, William - B: 43, L: 4.01
– 4 Benefly Rd. – accessory structure setbacks;
rear
setback 17.48’ vs 20’; side setback of 9.21’ vs 20’
detached garage ACT BY: 7/14/08
OLD BUSINESS
Mr. Marinello stepped down and Mr. Cartine assumed the chair for the
following application:
ZC18-03 Ptaszek, Waldemar - 21 Rockledge Rd. – B: 13, L: 22 – construction of a single-family
residence – variances for lot size 18,564 s.f. vs 27,000 s.f.; front setback
25.2’ vs 50’; wall/fence height 9’ vs 6’; design exception driveway slopes
exceed 10%; development within steep slopes;; slope regulation in
environmentally sensitive area – Carried w/notice from 5/3/06; New notice
acceptable 4/27/07, carried with notice from 7/5/07, 9/5/07, 2/6/08 &
4/2/08 - Eligible: Mr. Buraszeski,
Dr. Kanoff, Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Hug, Mr. Moore, Mr. DiPiazza, Mr. Shirkey, Mr.
Cartine ACT
BY: 6/5/08
Present on behalf of the applicant: Steven Schepis, Esq.; Waldemar Ptaszek, Marc Walker, PE
Mr. Cartine – The objector is given 40 minutes for testimony and then
the public will be allowed to speak for 20 minutes. If any resident is represented by you, Mr.
Pearce, they will not be allotted time to speak, that is what you are here
for. What is remaining in your
testimony?
Mr. Pearce, Esq for the opposition. – We will have the completion of
Mr. Hudasko’s report and then reply to recent comments from Mr. Schepis.
Dennis Hudasko, PP – previously sworn
Requested a list of his exhibits that were marked in and the board
secretary repeated the previous exhibits that were marked into the record.
Mr. Pearce – We have submitted signed and sealed plans by Mr. Garrett
that Mr. Schepis questioned at a previous hearing.
Mr. Hudasko – In my opinion a variance is required for a 3 ½ story
building for this application. The
basement on this application does not meet the definition of a cellar. Cellars are usually for storage not living
area. That lowest
Page 2
6/4/08
floor should be counted as a story.
Mr. Ackerman asked Mr. Denzler for his opinion of Mr. Hudasko’s
interpretation. Mr. Denzler – I disagree
with Mr. Hudasko, the height of the building meets the Township ordinances for
stories. Mr. Hudasko – The slope of the
driveway will accelerate the flow of runoff which will cause erosion. This would cause substantial public
detriment. The retaining wall is not in
compliance with your code and will cause detriment to the grading and the Terra
forming and will do harm to the code itself.
Mr. Huelsebusch – That is an engineering concern and he is not an
engineer. On this particular site there
is a severe sight distance problem and if we allowed the applicant to have a
steeper driveway it would be a safety issue.
Mr. Hudasko – The fundamental presence of the zoning code is to protect
the surrounding area. Mr. Hudasko – The slopes make the 2 sides of
the street to have different character.
On the downside of the street, there are smaller homes that are
generally uniformly arranged.
Exhibit O10 –
aerial photo from the GIS mapping from DEP
Mr. Ackerman – Where is the site located on this map. Mr. Hudasko – It is not on there. Mr. Ackerman – So what is the relevance? Mr. Hudasko – To show that the area is
uniform.
Exhibit O11 – map
showing elevation line highlighted
Mr. Hudasko – O11 shows how far forward the house is placed. Example of what the applicant should have
provided to show a true depiction of what is proposed. This proposal violates the area
character. The massive terra forming
that will be done. The house would be at
a higher elevation than all the other houses on the street. This will be a mega structure that would be
built beyond any construction that I have seen in the Lake Valhalla
area. Mr. Huelsebusch – You said that
the footprints in the area are larger than the proposed house, it does not look
larger than the houses next to it. Mr.
Hudasko – I suggest that the board ask for the scale since the scale was off in
Mr. Steck’s report. Mr. Pearce – The
board previously asked the applicant to come back with those numbers and they
have not done that to date. Mr. Hudasko
– I noticed that the building in Mr. Steck’s report was drawn backwards so I
checked the scale and it was off. Mr.
Ackerman – What is the footprint? Mr.
Huelsebusch – Approximately 2,300 s.f.
Mr. Hug – What is the footprint of the neighboring houses on that side
of the road. Mr. Hudasko – That is not my
expertise. Mr. Hug – But you testified
that it was larger? Mr. Hudasko – I
reviewed the tax records. Mr. Hug – What
is the square footage of the neighboring houses? Mr. Hudasko – I do not know. Mr. Hug – Did you not review the tax
records? Mr. Hudasko – Yes but I don’t
want to waste our few precious moments on this issue. Mr.
Pearce – I have information on that but it is the applicants’ responsibility to
supply the information. Mr. Cartine – If
you have the facts why not submit it? Mr. Pearce – It is the applicant’s
responsibility to submit the information as requested by the Board.
Mr. Hudasko – The substance of my testimony is that Mr. Steck’s report
shows the house being grossly larger than the area, the scale is not correct
and their height calculations are not correct.
The variances only allow for a special allowance for the applicant. This variance should not be granted because the
applicant has not exhausted its remedies since he has not purchased additional
land from the neighbor to alleviate the variances requested. There were a number of comments on my report
by the applicant. There is no logic or
alternative rational from these comments and it was done by an engineer
commenting on a planners report so he is not qualified. There is no right for anyone in this town to
dig a hole as big as they like or build a mound as larger as they like. It is a clear separate choice. If you lower the wall by 3’ to meet the
ordinance then the applicant cannot meet the side yard setback. The applicant has not responded to the need
for a variance in #5 of my report he said he meets some other code not Montville’s code; he is
quoting an international code. Mr.
Ackerman - The applicant states that they meet Montville’s code as well as the International
Residential Code. Mr. Hudasko – Bulleted
comments in his report as previously testified to before the board. Mr. Ackerman – Your bullet comments are the
same as the testimony. Mr. Hudasko –
Obviously Mr. Walker did not understand my report due to his response to my
report. Mr. Hudasko was allowed to
complete his bulleted remarks and his testimony was concluded.
Mr. Huelsebusch – He made a statement on the 10% slope of the driveway,
that is an engineering issue not a planning issues. Mr. Denzler – There is no building height
issue, disagree that this is a terra forming operation; the application
presented by the applicant represents the township requirements.
Open to Public for those residents not represented by Mr. Pearce
Page 3
6/4/08
Mr. Doench - sworn
Not in favor of the application.
Bill Trautman – 14
Rockledge Rd. - sworn
There is a question as to whether there is enough water in
the area to support this application.
The yield of the wells along Rockledge runs around ½ gallon to 10
gallons per minute. This lot would be
built very close to the well at 13
Rockledge Rd.
This could cause trouble with water to 4 or 5 other neighbors
Sue Trautman – 14
Rockledge Rd. – sown
47 Lenape Drive has a huge amount of fill dumped on the property and
a storm came and washed a good amount of fill into Lake Valhalla. Lake
Valhalla will have to
spend a lot of money to dredge that fill out of the lake. Any construction above the existing homes
will cause water problems to the lower homes.
Kathy Fisher – 49 Rockledge - sworn
There are deed restrictions that run with the land. There are covenants on removal of dirt. There are to be no fence or structures on the
properties.
John Regan – sworn
Grew up on Lake
Valhalla and now live in
Towaco. The footprint is not the real
concern here it is the height of the building that is the concern. It is a peaceful area. The structure proposed will be an eyesore to
the neighbors and to the people at the lake itself. Mr. Cartine – Do you live in the area? Mr. Regan – I grew up there but I am a
member.
Janelle Cristman – member of Valhalla Civic Association - sworn
Concerned with a building that does not conform to the community. There is a restriction on construction to
maintain the pristine appearance of the lake.
The house should conform to the other buildings in the area. Also I am concerned with traffic safety in
that area.
Oxsana Dziadiw - sworn
Concerned that there be some sensibility for the quality of the
area. Request the board look at the
scope of the environment.
Bill Kelly – 16 Rockledge
Rd. - sworn
Who will maintain the traffic control device? Is it common for residential home to have one
of these devices?
Jerry Abere – 47 Rockledge
Rd. – sworn
Concerned with the traffic safety by the hump in the road.
Closed to public
Mr. Hug – Is there a way the applicant can get together with the
neighboring property owner to purchase an easement to alleviate the driveway
issue. Mr. Cartine – Something is going to be built
there sooner or later. It would be nice
if there was some kind of concession.
Mr. Cartine – Mr. Schepis are you done with your case? Mr. Schepis – I am not sure Mr. Pearce is
done. Mr. Pearce – Mr. Marieneiss will
need 15 minutes and my closing statement will need ½ hour. Mr. Schepis – When is the next hearing. Discussion ensued on the next available
hearing date.
The application was carried with notice preserved to 8/6/08 with an
extension of time to act to 8/7/07
NEW BUSINESS
NOTE: Mr. Marinello resumed the chair
Track 2
ZC25-07
Schachman, David - B: 59.01, L: 8.03 – 35 Kanouse Ln. – maximum building
coverage of 3,273 s.f. where 3,226 s.f. is allowed; maximum impervious coverage
of 6,941 s.f. where 6,452 s.f. is allowed for pool patio/walkway – Notice Acceptable ACT
BY: 6/5/08
Present on behalf of the applicant: David Schachman, applicant
Page 4
6/4/08
David Schachman – sworn
I hired a pool contractor to install the pool and was deceived. I was naïve and I had him handle the permits
and the as-builts. He did what I wanted
him to do and he said he was doing it legally.
Mr. Marinello – What have you done since you found out about the
variances. I have not done anything; I
would like it to remain as constructed.
There is no drainage issue. My
neighbors are here to testify. Mr. Ackerman
– What is special about your property that would allow for us to grant a
variance on the property if you came here before the improvements were
installed and how would you justify it.
Mr. Schachman – The area around the pool is to allow for the pool cover
and the other area is for entertainment purposes. Mr. Denzler - The construction file shows
conforming coverage and the as built indicates a variance. There was expansion around the pool and deck
area. Have you done any comparison as to
what was built and what is in the area?
Mr. Schachman – We all have similar sized pools and patios, but I have
more area around the pool. Mr.
Huelsebusch – A drywell would be required.
Open to public
David Cherkoff - sworn
The job done is beautiful. There
is no drainage problem to my property. I
do not see any puddles in his back yard.
Eddio Zanpaglione – 33
Kanouse Ln. – sworn
Job was completed in May 2007, my property lies below his and I have no
water problems. The property behind us
is unoccupied.
Public portion closed
Mr. Cartine – Is there some type of reduction of the impervious
coverage that can be done to make it more amenable? Are there other pools in the neighborhood
that have similar building coverage? Mr.
Denzler –If the angled right side of the raised patio was removed then the
building coverage would be met. To meet
the impervious coverage ordinance, removal of the turnaround area would be
required. Mr. Huelsebusch – They have 2
turnaround areas.
Mr. Marinello – Impervious coverage variances are taken seriously
before this board. We have always
required applicants to do something that is reasonable. Mr. Cartine – If the turnaround would be
removed in the front how much would be recaptured on impervious coverage? Mr. Denzler – Almost 600 s.f. so the walkway
could be extended and the front turnaround could be removed. Mr. Schachman – If I have to take something
off I would agree to that. Mr. Marinello
– We are not as concerned with the raised patio as the impervious
coverage.
Motion to approve the applicant’s request for a variance for building
coverage because it is de minimus and that the impervious coverage must comply
with the ordinance made by: Mr. Cartine;
Second by: Mr. Driscoll; Roll call: Yes - Dr. Kanoff,
Mr. Cartine, Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Hug, Mr. Moore, Mr. Shirkey, Mr. Marinello
Track 3
ZC05-08
Armenti, Gary – 1
Sunrise Way – B: 130, L: 20 – construction of an addition on existing single
family home; front yard setback of 39.3’ vs 50’ along Pine Brook Rd – Notice Acceptable
ACT BY: 7/17/08
Present on behalf of the applicant: Gary Armenti, Applicant
Mr. Armenti -sworn
My house is a rather small house and we have 3 daughters. We cannot put the addition out the back since
the kitchen is located there. We are on
a corner lot so we have to meet 2 front yard requirements. If we were not on a corner lot we would not
be here. Mr. Denzler – The front setback
requirement on a corner lot to the Pine
Brook Rd side requires a variance. What alternatives were considered? Mr. Armenti – If the addition was constructed
to the rear of the house there would have to be an undersized hallway to
connect the addition. Mr. Marinello- Would the addition cause a visual problem.
Mr. Denzler – No but if approved would request a condition that only one story
addition could be built. Recommend a
turnaround area and they would still meet requirements for coverage. Mr. Huelsebusch – Does the new plan show the
driveway saving the tree? Mr. Armenti –
Yes and there is a K turn
Page 5
6/4/08
included. Mr. Huelsebusch – Recommend
a grading plan by a surveyor or engineer be submitted. I believe it can be done. Mr. Armenti indicated he had a grading plan
and showed it to the board professionals.
The professionals did not have this plan prior to the meeting for a
complete review.
Open to public – none – closed
Mr. Hug – I visited the site and this is a better zoning alternative.
Motion to approve the application
subject to a grading plan submitted to engineering department, drywell
to be installed, turnaround area, and limit the addition to one story made by: Mr. Hug; Second by: Mr. Driscoll; Roll call:
Yes - Dr. Kanoff, Mr. Cartine, Mr.
Driscoll, Mr. Hug, Mr. Moore, Mr. Shirkey, Mr. Marinello
Track 4
ZC24-07
Kroll, John – 75
Passaic Valley Rd – B: 124.3, L: 13 – addition to
single family residence variance for front setback of 30.1’ (existing and
proposed) where 50’ required – Notice
Acceptable
ACT BY: 7/25/08
Present on behalf of the applicant: John Kroll, applicant
John Kroll – sworn
We purchased the property a couple of years ago. There is an existing non-conforming front
setback. We are trying to conform to
the character of the neighborhood. Since
we are going up on the existing setback a variance is required. Mr. Denzler – 50’ is required in the zone and
30.1’ exists. Variance required due to 2nd
floor addition, the majority of the addition is conforming. Mr. Marinello – Is the setback consistent
with the other houses in the neighborhood.
Mr. Denzler – Yes. Mr. Denzler –
The size of the house is consistent with the neighboring properties. Not out of character with the
neighborhood.
Mr. Huelsebusch – There are 4 trees that need to be removed to improve
site distance, note to be added to the plan regarding the drywell and any
underground storage tanks must be removed.
Open to public
Rudy Tipner – 79 Passaic
Valley Rd. -sworn
I think that the application is a major improvement to the area.
Closed to public
Motion to approve the application subject to removal of 4 trees for
sight distance to be reviewed and approved by board engineer , add note to plan
as to location of drywell, removal of underground storage tanks, enhancement to
neighborhood and not further increasing existing setback made by: Dr. Kanoff; Second
by: Mr. Driscoll; Roll call: Yes - Dr. Kanoff,
Mr. Cartine, Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Hug, Mr. Moore, Mr. Shirkey, Mr. Marinello
Track 5
ZSPP/FDC33-06-02-08
Casha, Lawrence & Debra – 115 Horseneck Rd. – B: 139.03, L: 7.03 – amended
preliminary and final site plan/use/bulk variances in order to occupy 1,367
s.f. of basement level of existing 2 story office building – FAR of 27.23%
where 25% is allowed; off street parking of 80 spaces (existing & proposed)
where 104 required – Notice Acceptable ACT BY: 8/17/08
Present on behalf of the applicant: Geoff Evans, Esq.; Larry Casha,
Esq.; Joseph Mianecki, PE; David Bauman, PP
Lawrence Casha, applicant - sworn
Geoffrey Evans, Esq. – Requesting 2 variances, 1 for FAR and 1 for parking.
What are the changes to the building?
Mr. Casha – There are no changes to the building exterior. One existing tenant has employees doubled up
in offices and they would like additional offices. We would like to build out a portion of the
westerly side of the lower portion of the building. The area is sprinkled and there are 2 fire
stairwells and an elevator. I apologize
for not appearing at the last application hearing. We can address the concerns of the board from
the last application. We have made
Page 6
6/4/08
substantial changes to the plan that was previously reviewed. The FAR variance requested is smaller. We will meet all building and fire
codes. Mr. Evans – An issue was raised
at the last hearing about the parking on site.
Exhibit marked in
A1
– summary of parking results on the property done by Mr. Casha
Mr. Casha – During the entire months of April and May and on June 3rd
on odd number work days we did a time study as to open parking on site. These are peak months for us. Since the township does not allow parking
along side streets for the high school they were parking in my lot. I have
spoken to the principal and I have not had a problem since. Spectators for the baseball games also park
in my lot. I have added those cars in my
counts into my report. There are
currently 80 spaces and we have the ability to put in 15 more spots which are
currently grass. There is plenty of
spaces on site now but will install additional 15 spaces if the board
requires. The lowest number of open
spaces during the time the counts were done was 21 parking spaces. The average number of open spaces without the
15 banked statements was 31 open spaces.
Sharon Daniels – Tenant at 115 Horseneck rd. – sworn
Founder of Diligent Partners. We
are a software service company. The Montville office is our
financial department. Would like to
occupy the new space as well as the current space. We need additional meeting space and storage
space. There would be no more additional
need for parking since there will not be additional employees. Mr. Ackerman – Do you have a limit to the
number of people that the basement area would use? Mr. Casha – I do not intend to overcrowd,
there will not be additional employees.
Michael Duddy –sworn
Tenant in the building since it opened.
No problem with finding parking for my patients or employees.
Joseph Mianecki, PE – sworn
Reviewed the variances requested.
FAR of 27.23% where 25% allowed.
Propose 95 spaces where 104 required.
Planning Board was concerned with stormwater management at the time so
we were allowed to bank the 15 spaces. Do
not find any of the traffic counts done by Mr. Casha to be out of
character. If the property was not
subdivided then an FAR variance would not be required. The original plan was to have the 2 buildings
on one lot.
Mr. Marinello – Do you have a copy of the shared parking
agreement? Mr. Evans – Yes.
Mr. Denzler – Reviewed the variances for the board. There is a 600 s.f. reduction from the
previous request. Recommend that the 15
banked parking spaces be constructed or have the traffic safety officer decide
if the spots need to be installed at a later time. The peak hours were not done during the peak
hours of the bank. I think the site can
accommodate the additional office space.
Mr. Casha – The parking decreases during lunchtime because everyone in
our building is going out to lunch.
Paul Bauman, PP - sworn
The proposal will not be a detriment to the zoning ordinance. There is no change to the exterior of the building,
no change in parking, no change to neighborhood. There is a surplus of parking on site. Applicant will add additional 15 parking
spaces if the board required. The
shared parking agreement is unusual and new to the township. It is safer to have the employees spread out
instead of the current overcrowded condition.
We are not changing the occupancy on site.
A2 – shared
parking agreement with Lakeland Bank
Mr. Huelsebusch - I happened to be on site in May and there was only
about 12-15 open spaces on site. I
recommend that the 15 spaces be installed
Open to public – none
Mr. Driscoll – I spoke to the vice principal and he stated that some of
the students were using Mr. Casha’s parking lot. In my opinion, I think you should continue to
bank the spaces or at least a part of them; it would ruin the landscaping on
the site. Use maybe 5-7 spaces and leave
it up to the traffic safety officer to decide if additional spaces are require.
Mr. Casha – Would like to keep the spaces banked now and if the traffic safety
officer said we need to build the spaces we would. Do you agree to comply with the number of
employees (6) previously approved by the planning board when the applicant
applied for in the waiver of site plan for tenancy in this building? Mr.
Page 7
6/4/08
Casha – Do not remember a number of employees restricted on this
tenant, there are 10-15 employees. Mr.
Marinello – This is not a complete parking agreement, our attorney needs to
review the remainder of the agreement. Mr.
Cartine – Should be allowed to use the number of people allowed by building
code in the basement.
Motion to approve the application, the FAR is de minimus, no increase
in size of building, increasing the amount of space that is occupied, if not
subdivided there would not be a FAR issue, there is a shared agreement for
parking, unless traffic safety requires additional parking not to be installed,
subject to access by township officials to inspect, subject to review by board
attorney of the shared parking agreement made by: Mr. Hug; Second by: Mr. Driscoll
Roll call: Yes - Dr. Kanoff, Mr. Cartine, Mr.
Driscoll, Mr. Hug, Mr. Moore, Mr. Shirkey, No - Mr. Marinello
MINUTES:
Minutes
of May 7, 2008 - Eligible: Mr. Buraszeski, Dr. Kanoff, Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Cartine, Mr. Moore, Mr.
DiPiazza, Mr. Marinello
Motion to adopt made by: Dr. Kanoff,
Second by: Mr. Driscoll, Roll call: Yes- Mr. Driscoll, Dr. Kanoff, Mr. Moore,
Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Shirkey, Mr. Marinello
INVOICES:
Pashman, Stein – O/E for: $200, $281.25; Trust for:
$343.75, $725, $93.75, $437.50, $125, $125
William Denzler & Assoc. – O/E for: $312.50,
$62.50, $187.50, Trust for: $312.50, $312.50, $312.50,
$437.50, $375, $218.75, $125, $1,000.00, $62.50,
$93.75, $93.75, $187.50, $218.75
Bricker & Assoc – O/E for: $250; Trust for: $375,
$500, $312.50, $750, $562.50, $875, $1,250.00, $406.25
Omland Engineering – Trust for: $506.25
Johnson, Murphy – Trust for: $165
Anderson & Denzler – Trust for: $67.50
Motion to approve made by:
Dr. Kanoff, Second by: Mr. Hug, Roll call: Unanimous
RESOLUTIONS
ZC03-08 Mason – 12
Lenape Dr. – B: 9, L: 27 – construction of a one
story addition and deck –
variance
for side setback of 13’ (2.97’
exists) vs 20’ Approval
Resolution – Eligible: Mr.
Buraszeski,
Dr. Kanoff, Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Cartine, Mr. Moore, Mr. DiPiazza
Motion to adopt made by: Mr. Cartine;
Second by: Mr. Driscoll; Roll call: Yes – Kanoff, Driscoll, Cartine, Moore
ZC16-07A Bassil – 2 Herrman Way – B: 82.11, L: 8 – rear setback of
38.4’ where 75’ required for sunroom addition – Approval resolution – Eligible: Mr. Buraszeski, Dr. Kanoff, Mr. Driscoll, Mr.
Cartine, Mr. Moore, Mr. DiPiazza, Mr. Marinello
Motion to adopt made by: Mr. Driscoll;
Second by: Mr. Cartine; Roll call: Yes –
Dr. Kanoff, Mr.
Driscoll, Mr. Cartine, Mr. Moore, Mr. Marinello
ZSPP/FCD/ZMN35-06 – Anton Co. – 1275
Bloomfield Ave. – B: 181, L: 1 – request for one
year extension of approvals until November 7, 2008 - Granted
Motion to adopt made by: Mr. Driscoll;
Second by: Mr. Moore; Roll call: Yes – Dr. Kanoff, Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Cartine, Mr. Moore, Mr.
Marinello
ZC02-07 – Marilyn Bott – B: 28, L: 13
– 122 Jacksonville Road – Request for a one year
extension to construct house until June 5, 2009 - Granted
Motion to adopt made by: Mr. Driscoll;
Second by: Mr. Moore; Roll call: Yes – Dr. Kanoff, Mr. Driscoll,
Mr. Cartine, Mr. Moore, Mr. Marinello
Page
8
6/4/08
Z/FSPDC23-02 -Morris Plaza
- B: 57.01, L: 6 - 350 Main Rd. –
request for extension of approvals to June 4, 2009 - Granted
Motion to adopt made by: Mr. Driscoll;
Second by: Mr. Moore; Roll call: Yes – Dr. Kanoff, Mr. Driscoll,
Mr. Cartine, Mr. Moore, Mr. Marinello
OTHER BUSINESS
None
CORRESPONDENCE
None
There being no further business there was a motion to
unanimously adjourn made by Mr. Driscoll, Seconded by: Mr. Cartine; Roll call –
Unanimous
Respectfully submitted,
Jane Grogaard
Recording Secretary
Certified true copy of minutes adopted at Zoning Board
meeting of July 2, 2008.
_______________________________________
Linda M. White, Sec.
|
