Planning Board Minutes 8-13-09 Print E-mail


7:30 PM Start

195 Changebridge Road, Montville Municipal Building

Minutes of August 13, 2009

No New Business to be Conducted Past l0: 00PM


Mr. Maggio - absent                           Mr. Karkowsky – present

Mr. Sandham - present                         Ms. Nielson - present                          

Mr. Lipari - absent                             Mr. Lewis - present

Mr. Hines - absent                          Mr. Canning - present

Mr. Visco – present                            Mr. Speciale (alt#1) - present

                                                            Mr. Tobias (alt#2) – entrance noted






Ms. Nielson updated Planning Board on the coordination of the lease of 86 River Road with Board of Ed/Fire Dept. noting that the building will be renovated entirely with a truss roof and parking lot lighting in accordance with township standards.  Details are still being negotiated.


Discussion of HPRC Inventory Listing w/HPRC

Present:  Kathy Fisher, Chair present

Ms. Fisher asked about the time frame for updating the master plan inventory so the HPRC can gel with this timetable?

Mr. Daughtry, liaison of HPRC, spoke to the past 1 ½ years noting there was some disconnect with historic sites and the proper process, which has led to frustration on HPRC’s part.  The HPRC is advisory to Planning Board.  Anticipated some of this discussion would be about background and record keeping issues which were uncovered but that the overall goal is to get a document from Planning Board to Township Committee that addresses and resolves some of these issues. 

Mrs. White summarized Mr. Oostdyk’s discussion on the ordinance, listing and master plan. 

Ladis Karkowsky:  the Planning Board is always open to all activities of the HPRC and where we have conflicts, it makes it harder to perform jobs at hand. 

Joe Burgis:  Have had several meetings with subcommittee of master plan, and anticipate 6 to 9 months from tonight for public hearings. 

Kathy Fisher:  there are sections that must be in the Master Plan under the HPRC.  There is additional work needed since 1987.  Mr. Burgis indicated that the PDF document from HPRC should be forwarded to him. 

(Note:  Mr. Tobias entered)

Ms. Fisher indicated that they looked at other towns where there was a good master plan.  Discussion ensued on what the ordinance should contain.  Originally taken the current HPRC list, and double checked them.  HPRC can be done in 6 to 9 months.  HPRC is only a part of the master plan.  This project for Planning Board is a huge undertaking, and it will be at least another 8-10 months. 

Mr. Karkowsky noted we will invite the HPRC to the master plan subcommittee.  Ms. Fisher indicated what they also need to add is criteria to the sites for designation.

Mr. Karkowsky asked that these documents be sent to Mr. Burgis as well as Land Use.  Mr. Burgis will revisit this issue. 

Ms. Nielson indicated that she understands Ms. Fisher met with Mr. Oostdyk, and is working out the list issues, but is requesting that all records be given to the township for retention, and that all of these HPRC records should be given to the Township Land Use Offices.  Mrs. Fisher indicated she would give a copy, and if more is needed, will submit same.  It was requested that all documents be submitted to the township. 

Mr. Karkowsky concluded with the fact that once we see Highlands, we will be able to see timetables that are imposed on us, and if there are any other questions to feel free to call him or Mrs. White. 

Reports from Board Liaisons (carried – no reports given):

Board of Adjustment – Larry Hines 

Board of Health – Lawrence Tobias

Environmental Commission – Vic Canning 

Water & Sewer – Arthur Maggio 

Historic Preservation Commission – John Visco 

DRC – Deb Nielson  

Site Plan/Subdivision Committee – Russ Lipari Chair

Regional Drainage Study Committee – Russ Lipari, Ladis Karkowsky

Traffic & Traffic Subcommittee – Russ Lipari

Economic Development Committee – Gary Lewis, Tony Speciale

Open Space Committee – Ladis Karkowsky, Russ Lipari, Deb Nielson

Master Plan/COAH 3rd Round – Ladis Karkowsky, Russ Lipari, Deborah Nielson, Gary Lewis & John Visco (alt) – Update

Cross Acceptance Committee – Ladis Karkowsky, Russ Lipari  

Highlands Legislation Review Committee – Gary Lewis

Appointment to Fire Department Districts – Russ Lipari Towaco; Tony Speciale  for Pine Brook, Art Maggio for Montville


Presentation by Joe Burgis, Planner

Highland’s council is required to prepare 7 different reports to help to decide if we want to opt into Highland’s program.  These modules result in data gathering process but don’t lead to any definitive conclusion.  Mr. Burgis is presently preparing a matrix on pros and cons as to opting into process.  The Planning Board must hold two public meetings of Goals and objectives before 9/1/09 and prior to October 1, public meeting on Housing plan.  These hearings are to be public meetings not public hearings, and are to get public input and are meant to inform public what we are doing.

Module 3 as of yesterday COAH and the Highlands came to a new agreement that allowed those municipalities who will by in prior to December 8th, extending it to June of next year.  They added another six months.  Reason for this is recognition of charging new housing needs and these numbers just now are being published.  We received our numbers about a week ago.  Some haven’t received them, so makes it difficult to prepare a housing element by December in just receiving info.

Module 5 highlights:  goals and objectives requiring incorporation into master plan.  There are 88 townships in Highlands, with 77 of them going thru plan conformance process; 11 already said they wanted nothing to do with this process.  Regional master plan covers 1300 sq. miles, with half in preservation, the other half in planning area.  .  Regional master plan covers 1300 sq. miles, with half in preservation, the other half in planning area (38 acres is in preservation and 72% in planning area).  We are obligated to impose restricted environmental regulations for that entire portion in the preservation area.  It is our option as to whether we want to impose these controls in the planning area of Montville.  This is first step in entire process.  This plan reflects all goals and objectives and the plan element on housing, conservation, utilities, circulation, community facilities, EDC, HPRC, etc. Each of the elements has specific goals and objectives.  In many respects, a lot of our goals in master plan address it, but there is a more restrict environmental focus than our master plan.

4-5 areas of importance:  option of cluster development regulatory control thru the regional master plan for all residential zones.  In quite a number of our residential, we have cluster zoning provisions, which isn’t a significant change here, but will need to fix the one we currently have if we want to buy in

Density:  this isn’t publicized but if you buy in, use variance for density, there is added lying of processing and in addition to zoning board reviewing density variances, the variances may also need to b e reviewed by Highlands’s council.

The issue of housing plan:  for Montville, COAH has given us 316 housing units, and we are working on Highland’s number, and calculated that our number under Highlands would be 107 units, and are still refining this, noting our construction department’s numbers vs. what the state’s DCA numbers indicated. Mr. Burgis elaborated on vast difference when translating this to our calculations, noting it is a reduction of 35 COAH units. 

Ms. Nielson asked for clarification.  Mr. Burgis indicated this is current projection of growth share, and wanted confirmation on surplus from prior years.  Ms. Nielson asked that the numbers projected shouldn’t be released until the formula is finalized and these numbers with a comparison chart be clearly reflected, along with matrix for opting in/opting out.  We have to make a decision no later than December 8th. 

Mr. Burgis continued:  If you choose to opt in, you don’t need housing plan for another six months.  If we choose not to opt in, then the housing plan for Montville must be submitted.  No decisions are made on this issue, but planner should be prepared to respond to introduction of a housing element with notice to protect against litigation.  A housing plan should be developed in November so that the document could be prepared in advance.

Mr. Lewis asked:  based on data reviewed, is the COAH number firm, or can you go back to COAH and say ‘look at this data’, isn’t there an option that this higher original number be adjusted.  Mr. Burgis: the highlands’ number is not firm.  You are entitled pursuant to COAH to adjust downwards, and there are set criteria to adjust numbers down, but if you adjust based on environmental constraints, you can use the data collected from the Highland’s process to support intention.  The lower number, noted Mr. Burgis, would be part of plan submitted.  Mr. Karkowsky:  isn’t it true that some information Highlands based their criteria on is incorrect?  Mr. Burgis:  when you look at original land map, they did identify areas that were not able to be developed as developable. 

Mr. Sandham:  what are deadlines? 

Mr. Burgis:  if you buy into highlands, you have until June 10, 2010 to file housing plan; if you choose not to participate, you have to file a housing plan with COAH by December 8, 2009, and he would be receiving an adjustment from that figure given asking for a discussion with COAH staff. 

Mr. Burgis:  Noted that at next Monday’s meeting, he intends to get some answers from the Highland’s at that time.  He noted he has attended four of these meetings, and the questions from most all in attendance center on the sole focus of affordable housing issue. 

He noted that on the back of the report, there is a map attached and depending on type of nonresidential use, there is a large laundry list of uses not allowed in the district, and although sometimes you have permitted local uses, in the Highlands’ they will be prohibited (see pages 94-97).  Some are surprising, most significantly area warehousing, gas stations, but in certain limited areas, these uses won’t be permitted under Highlands.

In each instance, real thrust of this document, is the goals and objectives with more environmentally conscience with forestry resources, open waters, critical habitat, lake management, water resource quality and wellhead protection.  There are categories to which goals and objectives may affect this township.

This process must be made open to the public.  Mr. Karkowsky opened to the public, hearing none, Mr. Sandham asked if election occurs and changes happen at that level, are these rules subject to legislation or can governor change rules.  Mr. Carroll:  these rules are to be adopted thru administrative process, and legislation can eliminate them, so yes, there is gubernatorial control over abolishment of rules, and thru appointment, can change philosophy.  Concerns Mr. Carroll voiced was that the legislation changes rules after working hard, and if township opts in and accepts home rule, and then have another COAH rule is reinstated, there is no way to bind in the future, so this is something of concern but as pointed out, policy could move in a different direction.  Mr. Burgis elaborated that affordable housing is constitutional right.  Mr. Carroll:  how can how highland’s trump constitutional laws.

Mr. Lewis:  section of Highland’s plan that talks to net water deficient, this area could be a result of areas that are outside of Montville’s border, yet they are asking Montville in this town to limit their develop in these areas regardless of what happens outside this area.  Mr. Omland:  accurate about disappropriate function of boundary lines. 

No public comments

Closed to public in a Motion made by: John Visco

Seconded by:  Gary Lewis

Roll call:  Unanimous

Mr. Burgis asked the secretary to forwards the summary minutes of this hearing to the Highlands.  Secretary concurred.




PMISC09-26 Ryan Michaels Academy – 9 Church Ln. – B: 123, L: 12 – 3,949 s.f. school for children with autism - 8am – 6pm M-F – 6 employees – no signage requested at this time

Waiver was approved unanimously subject to compliance with agency reports, use letter stipulations, and no signage in a Motion made by:  John Visco; seconded by Jim Sandham. 

PMISC09-27 Edelman Law Office – 150 River Rd. Unit B4A (800 s.f.) & B4B (1,200 s.f.) – B: 123, L: 21 – law office use – 8am-8pm – Sun-Sat – 5 employees – signage in compliance with approved theme

Waiver was approved unanimously subject to compliance with agency reports, use letter stipulations, and sign theme approved in a Motion made by: Deb Nielson, seconded by John Visco. 

PMISC09-29 Acupuncture 4 Your Health – 150 River Rd. Unit C5-4B – B: 123, L: 21 – 1,093 s.f. Acupuncture - 1 employee – 10am-6pm Mon-Fri – signage in compliance with approved theme

Waiver was approved unanimously subject to compliance with agency reports, use letter stipulations, and sign theme approved in a Motion made by:  Tony Speciale, Seconded by John Visco

PMISC09-30 Phoenix Marketing – 54 Indian Ln East – B: 30, L: 15.1 – 3,100 s.f. mezzanine for storage and office for client audits – no additional employees – no change in operation – no additional signag3

Waiver was approved unanimously subject to compliance with agency reports, use letter stipulations, and no signage in a Motion made by:  John Visco, seconded by Gary Lewis




Minutes of 7/23/09 – Deb Nielson, Victor Canning, Larry Tobias, Gary Lewis, Art Maggio, John Visco, Larry Hines, Russ Lipari

Subcommittee minutes of 6-25-09

Master Plan minutes of 6-25-09

Subcommittee minutes of 7/14/09

Subcommittee minutes of 7/21/09

Master Plan minutes of 7/23/09

Approved unanimously in a Motion made by:  Gary Lewis; seconded by John Visco


Omland Engineering: $438.75, $303.75

Burgis Assoc. – Trust for: $93.75, $468.75

Michael Carroll, Esq. – Litigation for: $310; $503.75

Approved unanimously in a Motion made by:  Tony Speciale; seconded by Jim Sandham


Etemadipour - B: 41, L: 20 – 5 Benefly Rd. - Transition Area – Waiver

Mr. Omland indicated this is a Single lot development – sees no issues

OLD BUSINESS (51:08 meter start of hearing)

Mr. Carroll swore in board professionals

PMSP/F07-10 – Block: 159, Lot: 6 – K&K Subdivision – originally approved 7/24/08 – Remand hearing on ‘traffic calming’ devices only.  No notice required

Michael Sullivan, Esq.  July 24, 2008 the Planning Board adopted a resolution creating 10 new SF homes with a thru road from Windsor to Woodmont.  Residents filed litigation and the matter was heard by Judge Bozonnelis June 11th, 2009.  The judgment upheld the board’s decision, remanding it back to this level for traffic control or calming devices if any.  This hearing is back here on this limited scope as to what the Board is considering as to traffic calming devices.

Exhibit A1 – Resolution marked in

June 11, 2009 – A2 exhibit – Judge Bozonnelis findings

As a result of judge’s decision, submitted is a plan that reflects two alternatives, as well as a narrative to the other concepts indicated.

Arthur Elias, PE – credentials accepted – reviewed traffic calming layout dated July 23, 2009. 

Alternate 1 plan

Alternate 2 plan

Third option narrative

Northern side of subdivision discussed.

Alternate one discussed:  looked at putting in a central island and revising curb line to go around island.  The plan was reviewed by Pine Brook Fire Dept., and in developing this, used the turning movement in order to assess what type of island and curb is needed. In looking at cart way, there is not much restricted movement, so introduced speed tables some either side of the island.  Inside center of island is low maintenance vegetation.  Not proposed to put in concrete.  Maintenance would be that of the municipality.  If planted correctly, very little weeds come thru.

Signage also proposed on either end of island to direct traffic to go around right; sign at speed table ahead noting advance warnings for speed table.   Center part of island could be landscaped; sharp curb would have some kind of treatment so that the fire trucks can ride over.

Alternate two reviewed as to the shape and designs. 

Alternate three was just to put two speed tables in roadway with appropriate signage.

August 5th report of Mr. Omland discussed.  RSIS waivers would be required for alternate one or two.  His report indicates he prefer alternate number 1. 

Comments 7 indicates that the township could leave roadway as conventional 28’ width thru road and should excessive cut thru occurs, the town could take in a separate engineering estimate to require this improvement to be bonded, and deferred for a future date should township find there is a traffic problem in this area.

Mr. Elias indicated this would be a problem since they would have to put features already and also voiced concerns on where driveways off the lots would be in this area.  The applicant would be preferred decision not be deferred.

Mr. Karkowsky:  is this where applicant was instructed to look at the speed calming.  Mr. Omland:  it was but his understanding would be on site, since off-site would be ROW taking from other homeowners.  Both designs indicated mountable curb.   

Mr. Omland:  the plans developed were in conjunction with his office and consistent with what he would want to be developed.  Since memo was developed, he spoke with Tony Barile and Tom Mazzaccaro and they preferred the chicane design since the avoidance of speed tables was better, and this forces you to slow down due to the shape, and when you add speed table, this adds more maintenance.  Mr. Omland indicated he looked at the issue, and that speed table does slow down speeding.  Mr. Omland not married to either plan, but the island must be maintenance free, with pavers and tree guide although not as junipers, but applicant indicated they would consent to whatever the township requires.  Mr. Sullivan:  applicant concurred. 

4 alternates reviewed by Mr. Omland.

Mr. Lewis:  a 14’ cart way in option 2, concerns noted on snow on curb, what does profile look like, where depressed portion of this island meet standard height curb, piece of deliver truck and can’t mount it clearly, do you hit head on the curb.

The area that the fire truck cannot traverse over is a slightly elevated for two areas.

Mr. Tobias:  chicane design questions:  is there is a special treatment on this.  He indicates he advocates cars going on slowly, that you have to make sure you can ride up sloping curb and not disrupt any features, and request would be mountable curb for entire inlands with this design.

Mr. Sandham:  He feels the second option may better protect children and residents in this area.

Ms. Nielson:  She likes option 1, noting it looks like it provides more flexibility to have a pleasing affect for the resident.

Mr. Sandham:  how effective would be speed tables?  Mr. Omland indicated it is a raised table that you have a curb header that lists you up and slopes down and feels this is a credible method of speed control.  He also noted that the Chicane alternate design isn’t common to the area. 

Mr. Lewis suggested we go with Alternate No. 1.  Mr. Karkowsky asked if the applicant will provide pavers and trees.  Mr. Sullivan concurred..

Opened to public…

Brian Fleisig, Esq. resident voiced his statements indicated he also represented some property owners with this case before the Judge.  He noted the Judge indicated in some comments made after his decision that speed tables may be a good option but this is up to the Planning Board.  He encouraged the Planning Board’s addressing speed control, and concern of what the members in area had since it is active pedestrian area.  Discussing this, the residents are in favor of alternate no. 1 with speed table which should be effective noting this issue is a safety and quality of life issue. 

This is a new development area, and when you go into this area, Windsor Drive has a slope going down, so would also request the Planning Board in addition of alternate no. 1, ask that the township consider putting two stop signs… at the end of Windsor Drive and Sylvan Drive, noting he feels a stop sign would be in order.

Mr. Carroll:  this is an off site matter, and Planning Board could voice their opinion to ask that there be two stop signs one at end of Sylvan and one at end of Windsor.  Both Mrs. Nielson and Mr. Sandham indicated that these comments will be taken back to administrator and police dept.  

Mr. Lewis:  wished we were in a position to include these items in resolution, and unfortunately that this wasn’t asked of Planning Board from the residents in the beginning. 

Mrs. LeBlanc – handed in a 3 page statement on off-site improvements Planning Board should consider.  She talked about traffic calming devices and safety of children requesting the Planning Board consider the off site improvement requests drawn up.  Mr. Carroll:  if it requires off site, this is not function of this Planning Board.

Mr. Sandham:  noted these are valid concerns but this is more of a Township Committee function.  This group cannot speak to this.  Township Committee would be anxious to give this a review. 

Driveway locations are shown.  Grade is more than 3% but doesn’t require signage.

Resident 40 Windsor Drive – Jeff Schenkel – indicated he prefers Alternate #1 design.

No further public

Motion made to close to public by:  Gary Lewis

John Visco closed to public

Roll call:  unanimous

Stan Omland noted that the alternate designs will not change any lot lines.  Township officials indicated low maintenance: paver and trees

Board members polled:  Victor Canning:  option 1, Tony Speciale and Larry Tobias, Option 1, Jim Sandham prefers 2, but will go with residents request for option 1, and Deb Nielson, Gary Lewis, John Visco and Ladis Karkowsky opted for the oval design shown on Option 1.

Gary Lewis:  Are there sufficient engineering details to submit, tree guard details, and approval subject to planner and engineer?  Ms. Nielson:  Make sure tree is able to sustain salt and at least 3 ½ in. caliper. These revisions would be subject to review and approval of the board planner and engineer. 

Gary Lewis:  Approve Alternate No. 1 design

Seconded:  Jim Sandham

Roll call:  unanimous

PSPP/FC95-06-09-03 MILAN – 13 Hook Mountain Rd. – B: 175, L: 4 – amended site plan with variances –Notice Acceptable & carried w/notice                                             ACT BY: 10/1/09

John Sullivan, Esq.

Mrs. White summarized subcommittee this morning, noting concerns with the alteration of the site without an executed lease to allow off site parking.  Three witnesses: 

Greg D’Allermo, owner

Mr. Greg D’Allermo sworn – operating since l995.

He explained restaurant operations.  The type of restaurant would be a steak house type feel; plan provides for a reconfigured parking area, and he is proposing employees to park off site which is located on Old Bloomfield Avenue for 13 parking spaces at the location for his employees only. 

A1 Lease agreement executed:  a 3 year term with a 3 yr. right to renew, and that this would be terminated on a 90 day notice which is a provision the owner insisted upon.

If the application is approved, and during course of this, the lease is revoked, the applicant would reduce the occupancy permitted to bring it into compliance with the lack of the 13 spaces.  This number is adequate and would address nighttime peak hours.

Valet parking would be done by employees only, and the parking spaces across the street would be for employees parking.  Valet parking is every day.  There are tenants at the parking across the street.  Applicant was advised that these tenants had their business hours at 9-5. 

A2 – list of tenants located at 28 Old Bloomfield Avenue – marked into evidence.

Mr. Karkowsky voiced concerns that some of the tenants shown may operate later than indicated. 

A full review of the lease agreement must be made.  This is a lease and questions concerns voiced as to whether or not this proposal for off site parking is in compliance with our ordinance.  The applicant is required to seek variances for less than parking on site, and must condition site plan approval on existence of adequate parking:  the lease does have a 90 revocation provision.   

Joseph Gates, AICP – licensed architect and appeared before on this site back in l995.  Credentials accepted.  Mr. Gates was sworn.

Sheet A4 basement plan & second floor plan reviewed:  at lower level there will be a 16’ vestibule addition, and other yellow portion remains the same; no change in lighter areas, addition portion is the darker yellow, with a 2’ sliver which squares off the upstairs, but the only difference is the creation of the new entrance.  Everything else is the same.

Net page which is light yellow is existing footprint with the dark area, in middle, the addition created over the existing deck area (open deck with canopy/open) but has same 2’ strip to line up with existing building.

Primary entrance will be in rear where it has been for 14 years, with vehicles and customers coming around building and valet will take the car coming out back lot and is consistent with the l995 site plan.

Kitchen remains same; will be modified as to finishing’s, the main floor will have renovation to a new bar, moving the bar out of back left and will have new bathrooms which will be barrier free; coming from grand entrance, one of the design aspects that the owner wanted was to create an identity of the entrance, and although customers are addressed thru the rear, the applicant wanted a view from the street since now the building has no front door.  Vestibule will have open stairway and also will serve as fire exit and would want to create a nicer visual aspect.  Existing deck at front right but will be a new roof constructed with a matching gable, and a small portion of deck on right that will be enlarged.

Fire exits discussed. 

Total number of square footage increased:  208 sq. ft. of area within; new deck 12’

X 26’4”.  Lower deck that was original entrance is removed so in essence this deck area was put on as a trade off. 

Steeple will be removed and a new gable on right side over existing deck area added, and this is the area where canopy will be removed.  The new square footage is entry.  As part of changes on front:  windows will be removed and lower left vestibule will bump out.  Existing steps and deck which steps up are removed from area and the entire front will be entirely landscaped and changed.  There will be seasonal seating on upper deck.  Steeple is being removed.  This site is not part of the HPRC listing.

Handicap access with regards to parking spaces discussed.  There is a new plan that overlaps the board professional comments which require two additional spaces across from driveway for those to park their own vehicles since there are occasions that some may have handicap vehicle without a permanent chair.  These two spaces would be for someone to drive to these spaces.  There are two additional spaces at corner.  Spaces will serve primary entrance. 

Total capacity is 212 patrons (does not include decking) table layout is substituting of tables during this time with outside seating since occupancy could not exceed 212.  Prior approval was 137 patrons.  It was noted the applicant did receive additional land from township which allows for more expansion, and he is now providing off site valet parking.  There are 212 allowed for patron occupancy with 13 employees.

Mr. Omland:  is there any way to enhance this back elevation with a sense of entry and presence other than a normal door.  One of the dominoes affects is that there is a loss of interior space if designs are changed in this location, explaining these to the Board.

Signage – Hudson will be the new name of facility.  Sign is in rear elevation and this is a long row of wall which gives more of a presence.  Does sign meet ordinance?  Mr. Gates indicated that the plans itself and the jug handle is small and existing sign is lost in building.  There will be variances for sign required.  Location of front sign discussed as to visibility from Rt. 46

Roof top appliances screened in front, and in rear there is a parapet wall and top of units would peak over top of parapet, but there is no one who will see these rooftop units.  Mr. Omland felt the adjacent houses will see them, and Mr. Gates indicated he can increase screen wall another two feet.

Applicant requested to submit a written response to the changes made on the plan and future revisions as it relates to the DCA response in letter of August 6, 2009 and the revisions to parking plan.  The DRC rendered a report, and the applicant was also requested to send a landscaping plan to Mike Kopas, the DRC’s landscape review agent so that he can review the plantings to make sure they will survive along this corridor. 

Joseph Glembacki, Planner – present indicated he would follow up.

Due to time constraints, this application was carried to 9/10/09 with notice preserved.  Motion made by:  Tony Speciale, seconded by Jim Sandham.  Roll call:  Unanimous

Clarification question:  the plan reflects 88 spaces on site, does not include off site parking spaces, but due to DCA requirement of additional handicap spaces, the parking will be 85 spaces.  Applicant asked to get all information to board professionals as soon as possible to avoid delays in September.

CESARE STEFANELLI – Soil Movement Hearing - BL 59.01, L: 8.05 & 8.08 – (Montville Acres) – River Road – Notice acceptable – would prefer to carry application

Due to time constraints, this application was carried with notice to September 10, 2009





Meeting adjourned unanimously in a Motion made by:  Jim Sandham, seconded by Victor Canning.

Meeting adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

Linda M. White


With explanation

With explanation

With explanation

Last Updated ( Friday, 11 September 2009 )
< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack