|
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES OFNOVEMBER 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 - Present 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.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Stated for the record
The following application was
carried with notice preserved to 12/3/08:
**ZSPP/FCD01-08 JLJ&J
Marketing (Kids R Kids) – 217
Changebridge Rd. – B: 138, L: 8 – prel/final site plan/use variance and
associated c variances for construction of a child care center and medical
office (separate buildings) on the same lot. Notice Acceptable Act by: 12/25/08
NEW BUSINESS
ZC16-08 Calle, Juan – 36 Crescent Rd. – B: 148, L: 7 – front setback of
34.95’ existing and proposed where 45’ required for addition to single family
home - Notice Acceptable
ACT BY: 1/15/09
Present on behalf of the
applicant: Carmen Calle, applicant; Lawrence Korinda, AIA
Ms. Calle – sworn
Lawrence Korinda, AIA – sworn
The applicant is seeking one
variance for front setback of 34.94’ which is existing and proposed. The 2nd floor of the house is only
5’ in height, the applicant wishes to raise the roof for normal head room. There
is no viable way to improve the height of the 2nd floor without
requesting a variance. The house does
not have a basement. The only way to do
the work in compliance with the zoning ordinance would be to knock the house
down.
Mr. Denzler – One variance
requested for front setback front setback of 34.95’ existing and proposed where
45’ required due to the roof line being raised.
How does this fit in with the neighborhood. Mr. Korinda – There are mixed types of houses
in the neighborhood. Mr. Huelsebusch –
The engineering department may require a grading plan.
Open to public – None
Ms. Calle – We need the space
because we have 3 children and on child sleeps in our room now.
Closed to public
Page 2
11/5/08
Mr. Marinello – Will the
increase in the mass of the building look like it is falling into the
street. Mr. Denzler – No. Mr. Cartine – This property is on an arc
which would make it hard to comply with the zoning ordinance.
Motion to approve the
application, pre-existing non-conformity, blends in with the neighborhood,
grading plan if required by the engineering department made by: Dr. Kanoff; Second
by: Mr. Driscoll; Roll call: Yes - Buraszeski, Kanoff, Driscoll, Hug, Cartine, Moore,
Marinello
OLD BUSINESS
ZSPP/FDC07-08 Lowes (Avila/Nemeth GI
Auto) – 85 Bloomfield Ave. – B: 167,
L: 28-32; B: 178, L: 3; B: 179, L: 1 – pre/final site plan/use variance/bulk
variances for construction of Lowe’s Home Improvement Center and mixed use
retail building Notice Acceptable
ACT
BY: 1/29/09
Present on behalf of the
applicant: James Kelly, Esq., Kevin
Boswell, PE, Kevin
Bolger, Lowe’s Representative
James Kelly, Esq. – This project
is for a proposed retail use. It is the
GI Auto junkyard site currently. We will
be submitting revised plans and one change may affect notice. We originally had some road changes along
Chapin but we do not have ownership of the property. We will be asking for less than previously
requested. Mr. Marinello – If the
applicant is asking for less than not a problem with notice.
Kevin Boswell, PE –
sworn
The site is a 39 acre tract.
Currently occupied by GI Auto Salvage junk yard.
A1 – regional access plan Lowe’s shopping center
A2 – oblique aerial photo of lots dated 5-18-06
Mr. Marinello – Are the
conditions on the aerials as how the property exists today. Mr. Boswell – There are less cars on the
property. There is a disturbance of
about 22 acres for the auto lot, parking lot and single family home that exists
on the property. There is access from Bloomfield Avenue. There is no current access to the property
from Route 46.
A3 – proposed development concept dated 11/3/08
Mr. Boswell – Plan to
reforest existing disturbed areas, work within the flood zone regulations and
freshwater wetlands regulations. Propose
traffic control measure at Chapin and Bloomfield
Ave. A
concrete barrier that would not permit cars to exit left onto Bloomfield Avenue. Propose to cul-de-sac at Maple Ave to stop cut through traffic
that exists currently.
Kevin Bolger, Lowe’s
- sworn
Site Development Manager for
Lowe’s. Have worked close with Mr.
Boswell to make sure that the plan is in compliance with Lowe’s standards. The proposed site would have a Lowe’s store
and secondary retail store. Oriented the
site for safe and efficient access to and from the site, least amount of
grading, separation of truck traffic and customer traffic, we control our
trucks to the greatest extent possible.
Store hours are 6am-10pm Mon-Sat; 7am-6pm Sunday. Will work with the town as to the best time
for truck delivery such as 8am-8pm. Can
limit truck traffic to and from Route 46.
Standard parking lot lighting throughout site, lights turn on ½ before
open and ½ hour after closing. There is
also security lighting that will remain on throughout the night. All trash is done through a compactor and is
taken away every 3 days. Recycling done
on site. Typically locate 2 trailers
behind the store for pallets and used appliances; they are
Page 3
11/5/08
taken away once a week. Typically we have a standard outside
display. Seasonally we put plants
outside the garden center and snow blowers in the winter. We will work with the town on the outside
displays. It would take about 9 months
to construct.
A4 – rendering of the proposed building
Mr. Bolger – The building is
built with much better materials, there is a breakup of the façade.
A5 – 4 exterior elevations dated 2-14-08; updated
11/5/08
Perry Petrillo, AIA - sworn –
reviewed credentials
There is a standard plan that
we work with and we then work with the scheme of the community and come up with
a plan that fits Lowe’s design as well as the community. Typically Lowe’s buildings are masonry
buildings with a smooth face on side and rear elevations. The proposed building offers a multitude of
earth tone colors. The building will be
classical in nature. Forms breakup the
mass of the building and the roof heights change on the building.
Mr. Denzler – Have you built
other sites with secondary retail and how will that fit into the site. I would like an explanation of noise as it
relates to the generator/compressor units on the roof. Dr. Kanoff – Will the pollution on the site
create a longer construction time due to possible clean up measures. Mr. Hug – On the access to Bloomfield Avenue will the cars be able
to enter the site if they are coming down Bloomfield Avenue. Mr. DiPiazza – What is the effect of access
to emergency vehicles with the cul-de-sac on Maple Avenue. Mr. Driscoll – Concerned with truck traffic
leaving the site. Mr. Buraszeski – What
type of stores would be going into the separate retail building. Mr. Marinello – The town is concerned with
what happens when your user leaves, have had vacant retail buildings on town in
the past. Definition of Big Box as it
compares to other retailers. What other
uses are permitted behind the property. Want
to hear Route 46 design standards testimony.
Need testimony on traffic and customer circulation on site. Want history of approvals, most favored
nation status, challenges of retail planning, comparison to Lowe's in Westminster, MD.
Open to public for questions
only to be answered at the next meeting:
John Swauger 38 Bloomfield Ave –
sworn
Why do they need access to
and from Bloomfield Ave,
why can’t it be left for emergency access.
I would like more information on over flow lighting. Has DOT approval been given for access to the
property from Route 46?
Sylvia Wallach - sworn
Concerned with the safety of
the children in the area. Concerned with
the lighting spilling into our back yards.
Would like the cul-de-sac.
Barbara Burke – 22 Maple Ave –
sworn
Concerned with garbage
blowing on neighboring properties.
Arthur Weber – 3
John St. – sworn
The township has an ordinance
for permitted uses. Lowe’s (Big Box) is
not on that list. There is
age-restricted housing, storage facilities, etc. permitted. Does not want access from Bloomfield Avenue.
Carried with notice preserved
to 12/3/08
TRACK 2
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, 3/5/08, 5/7/08, 7/2/08 & 9/3/08 – Eligible: Mr. Buraszeski,
Dr. Kanoff, Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Cartine, Mr. Hug, Mr. Moore, Mr. DiPiazza, Mr.
Shirkey, Mr. Marinello ACT BY: 11/6/08
Present on behalf of the
applicant: Joseph Vena, Esq.
Present on behalf of the
opposition: Martin Newmark, Esq; Richard Schommer, PE; David Zimmerman, PP
Mr. Newmark – I represent
Chiraq Patel. Mr. Marinello – When where
you retained by the objector? Mr.
Newmark – About 6 weeks ago. Mr. Hug –
Didn’t the objector say that there was an attorney retained before that. Mr. Newmark – That was different counsel.
David Zimmerman, PP – sworn
Have visited the site, read
minutes, listened to Mr. Steck’s testimony, read the file, master plan and
zoning ordinance of Montville
Township. Mr. Hug – Wouldn’t it make sense for a report
to have been submitted so the Board could read it. Mr. Newmark – Mr. Steck did not submit a
report so I did not feel compelled to submit a report. Mr. Zimmerman – The 60 bed assisted living
section of the application is not an inheritably beneficial use and has not received
a certificate of need. To the best of my
knowledge a 120 bed nursing home certificate of need has been issued in 2007
but not for the 60 bed assisted living part of the application. Mr. Ackerman – Are you suggesting that it is
required. Mr. Newmark – Mr. Steck stated
in his testimony that this is an inherently beneficial use which was proven by
the certificate of need, that certificate of need establishes only 120 bed
nursing section, ,the 60 bed assisted living section is not under that certificate
and does not become an inherently beneficial use. A case has not been made for 180 beds. Mr. Hug – If 120 beds were asked for would
your client still object to the application?
Mr. Newmark – He has not yet decided.
Mr. Zimmerman - I see
substantial detrimental effect to the plan.
3 houses could be constructed that would abut my client’s property which
is less detrimental than a parking lot with lighting and traffic. In the past, when the nursing home was in operation,
there were residents that went off the property and rang neighboring
doorbells. The objector would like
security fencing installed on 3 sides of the property so no one could come on his
property. The proposed sizes of the
evergreen trees are not tall enough due to the topography of the neighboring
properties. Would prefer 10’-12’
evergreens be installed. This use is not
permitted in a residential zone.
Mr. Zimmerman - This
application could not meet the requirements for a zone in which it is allowed
within the township. This project is an
over intensification on this property. There
was nothing in Mr. Steck’s testimony that justifies this size building on this
site. The property is not suitable for
this use. It is not compatible to the
neighborhood. It is more than the 35’
allowed in height. In the 1990
application there was a certificate of need for the 120 and the 60 bed
facility. The area in 1990 was
significantly less developed than it is today.
This application is not consistent with the zone plan or zoning ordinance.
Mr. Vena – You indicated you
listened to the transcript of Mr. Steck’s testimony. Mr. Zimmerman – Yes, I also reviewed the
plans at the municipal building this morning.
Mr. Vena – Does the certificate of need for the nursing home meet the
standards for inherently beneficial use?
Mr. Zimmerman – Yes. Mr. Vena –
Your client would like higher trees? Mr.
Zimmerman – Yes. Mr. Vena – Did you
check the height of the trees in the most recent plans? Mr. Zimmerman – Yes. Mr. Vena – Do you know exactly how much of
the building is 40’ high; it is not a major part of the building correct? Mr. Zimmerman – Correct. Mr. Vena – Did you see fencing on the plan
dated October 21st. Mr.
Zimmerman – No I did not. Mr. Vena – the
plan contains a fence 6’ high along 2 sides of the property.
Page 5
11/5/08
A 17 – colorized current plan indicating fence on
property.
Mr. Vena – It is to the left
and the rear of the property. Mr.
Zimmerman – Prefer a cyclone fence and for it to be on 3 sides of the
property. Mr. Vena – There is a proposed
stockade fence along the subject
property and your clients’ property correct? Mr. Zimmerman – Correct. Mr. Vena – You are aware that a nursing home
has been on this property for many years.
Mr. Zimmerman - Yes . Mr. Vena – You are aware that in 1990 the Board
of Adjustment approved a similar building for this site. Mr. Zimmerman
- Yes.
Mr. Denzler – Do you think
that every non-conforming lot in the master plan must be made conforming? Mr. Zimmerman –No, this site was pointed out
in the master plan and if appropriate to make conforming then do so. Mr. Denzler – There are 8 zones allowing
nursing homes and only 2 of those have FAR of 15%. Only part of the building is over 35’ and
there is a foot note also indicates that no building shall be higher than
40’.
Mr. Huelsebusch – Did you
state for the record the type and height of fencing you would like? Mr. Zimmerman – 6’ chain link. Mr. Ackerman – Chain link is not
permitted.
Mr. Newmark – Requested clarification
of the easement. Mr. Vena – We do not
own the easement, it is the Township’s easement and can use it as they
want.
Richard Schommer, PE - sworn
Do not think the emergency
access from the Windsor Drive
property is necessary. Mr. Marinello –
Do not see the expertise of this witness to indicate how many accesses are
needed for this site. Mr. Schommer – Would
like to see the use of the access limited to fire equipment, object to
ambulances. Would like to see truck
traffic avoid the rear of the property.
Would like employee parking to be moved so to limit activity close to
the residential properties. Perhaps
deferred parking can be indicated to see if spaces are needed after the
building is constructed. Would like to
see the trees in the rear of the property enlarged to 10’-12’. Would like a conservation easement along the
westerly side of the property. Would
like maintenance guarantee for plantings along that side of the property. Would like a planting schedule be
submitted. Would like to see security
fencing along 3 sides of the property.
Dr. Kanoff – Do not see the
necessity for 3 sides of the property to be fenced. Mr. Cartine – Have you heard of this type of use not being an
inherently beneficial use? Mr. Zimmerman
– No. Mr. Hug – Do you know the rear
yard of your client’s property? Mr. Zimmerman
- 40’-60’. Mr. Hug – So you indicated
that an average rear yard is 100’ it does not pertain to your client’s
property.
Open to public for questions
for the experts that have spoken tonight – None
Mr. LaBlanc – Previously
sworn - submitted supplement to power point presentation that was submitted at
the previous hearing
O-3 – supplement to power point presentation that was
submitted
Mr. Vena – As a matter of
point this presentation presents statements on nursing homes and I do not know
his expert background on nursing homes so I may object during his
presentation.
Mr. LaBlanc – There was no
lawful use of that site since 1996. The
development will lower my property value.
Diminish the use of our back yard due to lights and noise. Use not in character with the
neighborhood. The driveway is not safe
for year round access. There was no
longer approval on the property. Mr.
Ackerman – There was a 1998 approval very similar to the request this evening
and the houses were built at that point.
Mr. LaBlanc - Should the board approve the application I have included a
list of items we would like to have conditioned upon the application. Would like our privacy protected during
construction. Want our 60’ trees/root
system protected on our property. Request
that Windsor
Page 6
11/5/08
Drive access be left as grass
pavers and used only for Fire access.
Want assurances that noise and odor will not affect us.
Mr. Newmark – I am looking at
a resolution reflecting action taken on February 3 1999 which is an extension
of the previously approved application back in 1992. The 1998 application was not indicated in
this 1999 extension. Mr. Ackerman –
There was a Use variance resolution and Preliminary Site Plan and was approved
in 1998. Mr. Newmark – This application
should stand on its own merits not on previous applications and approvals. The inherently beneficial use aspect of this
application is, according to Mr. Steck, based on the certificate of need. The certificate of need the applicant has is
for 120 nursing facility; it says nothing about assisted living. There is no justification for inherently
beneficial use to support the size and height of this building or the assisted
living aspect of the site. This proposal is far greater as it relates to
impervious coverage than allowed. There
are no proofs that establish entitlement for a 3-4 story building. If approved, Mr. Ackerman would be hard
pressed to put together a resolution with hard facts that a court would take
into consideration based on this application.
In other permitted zones for this use this project is too big to meet
the requirements of a zone that allows its use.
Suggest you deny the application, perhaps the applicant will come back
with a trimmed down version that would be less objectionable.
Mr. Hug – The objector’s
experts have made some good points. A
proper inventory of the trees to be installed should be submitted. Will there be window air conditioners? Mr. Vena – No. Mr. Hug – Concerned with first responder
service. Mr. Marinello – Can condition
that the Montville First Aid Squad not be responsible for emergency or
non-emergency services to the site. Mr.
Hug – The facility should go into a contract with a first responder
service. Mr. Jacobs – We see that
private contractors respond quicker than first aid squads so we will have a
contract with a private contractor. The
Montville First Aid Squad will not be taxed.
Mr. Vena – We have a
certificate of need that says this is an inherently beneficial use. Within the normal operation of these
facilities people go from assisted living to nursing care. This is a more accommodating use for the
community to get benefit from. The
residential health care is part in parcel of the nursing home section of the
facility. This building is no bigger
than the 1998 and 1990 approvals. There
is a security fence, there is no need for a fence along the bottom of the
property. There will be a Wonder Guard
system which will not allow the residents to leave because they will have
bracelets on and will not permit the doors to open. The applicant has accommodated every
condition that the board and experts have requested. Request an approval of the application
Closed to public
Mr. Buraszeski – Want to
condition that Windsor Road
easement is for emergency access only. Mr.
Cartine – It has always been a residential zone, the approvals extended through
1997 were at the time when the houses were built, then approved in 1998. Mr. Buraszeski – There is no roof top
equipment correct? Mr. Denzler –
Correct. Mr. Ackerman stated that the
board can condition a copy of the emergency service contract be submitted to
the township every year to prove that they have a separate emergency
service. Mr. Hug – No release of CO
unless an emergency service company be contracted. Mr. Buraszeski – This property existed when
the houses were built.
Mr. Ackerman – Reminded the
Board that during testimony there was discussion that the applicant submit
sound readings to meet the state standards for noise, you may want to consider
limiting truck access to the property toward the front of the property, whether
you want to replace employee parking, whether you want to include a
conservation easement on westerly side of property, placing time limits on
lighting facing residential side, defer parking, and timing or testing. Mr. Buraszeski – I would include snow removal
discussions. Mr. Hug – All agency and
professional reports.
Page 7
11/5/08
Motion to approved the
application subject to sound readings, moving employee parking away from
westerly side of building if it can be done, detailed tree planting plan to be
submitted, limiting truck access, conservation easement, time limits on
lighting, deferred parking to be revisited at the end of construction for
additional 9 spaces, certificate of insurance and submission of contract for
emergency services, all professional and required reports agencies, snow
removal plan submission, stockade fence as shown on plan, made by: Mr. Moore; Second
by: Mr. Driscoll; Roll call: Yes - Buraszeski, Kanoff, Driscoll, Hug, Cartine, Moore,
DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello
MINUTES:
Minutes of October 1, 2008 -
Eligible: Moore, Kanoff, Cartine, Driscoll, Buraszeski, Moore, Shirkey,
Marinello
Motion to adopt made by: Mr. Buraszeski,
Second by: Mr. Driscoll, Roll call: Yes- Moore, Kanoff, Cartine, Driscoll,
Buraszeski, Moore, Shirkey, Marinello
INVOICES:
Pashman
Stein – Litigation for: $710, O/E for: $200, Trust for: $125, $250, $2,175.00
Anderson
& Denzler – Trust for: $472.50
William
Denzler & Assoc. – Trust for: $281.25, $156.25, $31.25, $31.25, $250,
$718.75, $187.50,
$218.75, $62.50, $812.50, $281.25
Bricker
& Assoc. – Trust for: $750, $312.50
Motion to approve made by:
Dr. Kanoff, Second by: Mr. Hug, Roll call: Unanimous
RESOLUTIONS
ZC09-08 Corham, Todd – 7
Roome Rd. – B: 108, L:4 – side setback 16.13’ required 8.67’ proposed; front
setback 45’ required 42.17’, and driveway setback proposed addition to single family home –
Approval Resolution – Eligible: Moore, Kanoff, Cartine, Driscoll, Buraszeski,
Hug, Marinello
Mr. Ackermen indicated that
council for the applicant that all porches and decks be open at all times. Mr. Schepis requested that it be limited to those
decks and porches that are encroaching.
M.r Denzler – my intent that it was the front deck be limited.
Motion to adopt as amended to
limit front deck from being enclosed made by: Buraszeski; Second by: Driscoll;
Roll call: Yes – Moore, Kanoff, Cartine, Driscoll, Buraszeski,
Hug, Marinello
ZC20-08 Krause– 20 Mary Dr. – B: 86, L: 10 - construction
of addition to single family home side yard setback of 14.82’ where 20.7’
required; combined sides of 29.7’ where 35’ required and maximum building coverage
of 2,853 s.f. where 2,650 s.f. allowed - Approval
Resolution – Eligible: Moore, Kanoff, Cartine, Driscoll, Buraszeski, Hug
Mr. Cartine – I have an
amendment. Page 2, paragraph 3, should
be building coverage, not lot coverage.
Motion to adopt as amended made
by: Buraszeski; Second by: Kanoff; Roll call:
Yes – Moore,
Kanoff, Cartine, Driscoll, Buraszeski, Hug
Page 8
11/5/08
ZSPP/FCD04-08 Optasite Towers - B: 1, L: 29 – 78 Boonton Ave – Preliminary/Final
Site Plan w/variances – installation of a wireless communication facility –
145’ high monopole, 24 antenna (12 per user), 25’x100’ compound area containing
up to 4 equipment buildings; Use variance; 2 principal buildings on 1 lot;
height 145’ vs 30’ allowed; accessory structure setback 5’ vs 25’; accessory
structure side yard 142’ vs 145’ allowed –carried with notice from 7/2/08 –
Approval Resolution - Eligible: Moore, Kanoff, Cartine, Driscoll, Buraszeski,
Moore, Shirkey, Marinello
Motion to adopt made by: Buraszeski;
Second by: Moore;
Roll call: Yes – Moore, Kanoff, Cartine,
Driscoll, Buraszeski, Moore, Shirkey, Marinello
ZCD28-06 Lignac – 18 Glen Terr –
B: 9, L: 13 – request for extension of approvals and removal of dwelling to
12/31/09
Mr. Ackerman indicated that an
email was received today from the Board of Health Director indicating that the
health department is currently before the local courts with the applicant for
failure to connect the present dwelling to the sanitary sewer line. This
connection was to have taken place by 9/1/06 however extensions were provided
by the Board of Health on two occasions with the last one coinciding with the
original Bd. of Adj. time line of 12/31/07. When this time frame for
sewer connection was not met, notices were sent in February, 08 and follow-ups
done in July, 08. With no response from the homeowner, summonses were
issued in August. A court ordered connection was to have been completed
within 20 days of October 27. As of today, this work has not yet been
completed. The health department is not
adverse to your extension consideration for the Bd. of Adjustment application,
however it is felt the sewer to the existing home needs to take place since it
is apparent that all past time frames have not been met and this connection
extension can not remain open-ended. The connection fee has been paid to
the water and sewer department and will not be recharged for the new
home. The only additional cost to the homeowner will be to connect the
sewer lateral to the new home if and when it is ever completed.
Motion to adopt with the
condition that they connect to the sewers made by: Buraszeski; Second by:
Driscoll; Roll call: Yes – Moore,
Kanoff, Cartine, Driscoll, Buraszeski, Moore, Shirkey, Marinello
OTHER BUSINESS
ZSPP/FCD19-08
Verizon Wireless– 23 Taylortown Rd. – B: 34, L: 12.01 – withdrawn
The
Verizon Wireless application was withdrawn by the applicant.
ZSPP/FCD18-98-10-07
St. Pius Church - B: 82, L: 10.01 - 24 Changebridge Rd. – request for
extension of approvals to July 5, 2009
Motion to grant extension made by: Hug; Second by: Cartine; Roll call: Yes – Buraszeski, Kanoff,
Driscoll, Hug, Cartine, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello
ZAC38-06 Lynch
- B: 100.1, L: 9 – 36 Two Bridges
Rd. – request for extension of approvals to
January 3, 2010
Motion to grant extension made by: Hug; Second by: Cartine; Roll call: Yes – Buraszeski, Kanoff,
Driscoll, Hug, Cartine, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello
Page 9
11/5/08
CORRESPONDENCE
2009
Tentative Budget for Board of Adjustment
Any questions call the Land
Use Office.
2009 Tentative Board of Adjustment Meeting Date
Schedule
Any questions call the Land
Use Office
Discussion re: reappointments Driscoll and DiPiazza
Please
fill out your forms if you wish to be reappointed to the Board.
Motion
to go into closed session to discuss personnel made by: Driscoll, Second by:
Hug; Roll call: Unanimous
Upon return from closed
session and 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 December 3, 2008.
_______________________________________
Linda M. White, Sec.
|
