Board of Adjustment minutes 11-5-08 Print E-mail



Montville Municipal Building, 195 Changebridge Road

8:00PM Regular Meeting


Stated for the record.


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.



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


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


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


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


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


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


                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


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


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 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


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


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


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


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



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.


Last Updated ( Thursday, 04 December 2008 )
< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack