Board of Adjustment Minutes 1-6-10 Print E-mail

MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP

 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

MINUTES OF JANUARY 6, 2010

Montville Municipal Building, 195 Changebridge Road

8:00PM Regular Meeting

STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

Stated for the record.

ROLL CALL:

Richard Moore – Absent                                   Thomas Buraszeski – Present

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

REORGANIZATION

Appointment of Temporary Chairman – Motion to appoint Ms. Grogaard as Temporary Chair made by: Kanoff; Second by: Hug.  Roll call: Unanimous.

Appointment of Chairman – Motion to appoint James Marinello made by: Kanoff, Second by: Hug,; Roll call: Unanimous

 

Mr. Marinello reviewed the letter sent by the Township Committee about the 3 year term suggestion for chairman positions.  Dr.  Kanoff indicated that Mr. Marinello was the choice for chairman

Moved to close nominations: Hug, Second by Cartine; Roll call: Unanimous

Appointment of Vice Chairman – Motion to appoint Mr. Buraszeski made by: Mr. Cartine Second by: Mr. Hug, Roll call: Unanimous. 

Appointment of Secretary & Assistant Secretary – Motion to appoint Linda White as Secretary and Jane Grogaard as Assistant Secretary made by: Dr. Kanoff, Second by: Mr. Driscoll, Roll call: Unanimous

Appointment of Recording Secretary - Motion to appoint Jane Grogaard as Recording Secretary made by: Dr. Kanoff, Second by: Mr. Cartine, Roll call: Unanimous

Mr. Marinello – We had previously  discussed 90 day appointments for the planner and engineer and to set a flat feeof $100 for site visits for professionals; and rates are to remain the same $125/hr.

Appointment of Board of Adjustment Attorney & execution of Professional Service Agreement – Motion to appoint Bruce Ackerman, Esq. from Pashman Stein made by: Dr. Kanoff; Second by: Mr. Hug, Roll: Unanimous

Appointment of Board of Adjustment Engineer & execution of Professional Service Agreement with above amendments– Motion to appoint R. Henry Huelsebusch, PE from Bricker and Associates for a 90 day interim appointment made by: Dr. Kanoff, Second by: Mr. Hug, Roll call: Unanimous

Appointment of Board of Adjustment Planner & execution of Professional Service Agreement with above amendments – Motion to appoint William Denzler, PP from William Denzler & Associates for a 90 day interim appointment made by: Dr. Kanoff, Second by: Mr. Cartine, Roll call: Unanimous

Designation of Meeting Nights for Board of Adjustment as follows:

                           

1st Wednesday of every month @ 8PM

                                               

January 6, 2010                                                     July 7, 2010

February 3, 2010                                                   August 4, 2010

March 3, 2010                                                       *August 19, 2010 (Thursday)

*March 18, 2010 (Thursday)                              September 1, 2010

April 7, 2010                                                          October 6, 2010

May 5, 2010                                                           November 3, 2010

June 2, 2010                                                           December 1, 2010

                                                                                January 5, 2011

               

*additional meeting if needed

               

Motion to adopt made by: Mr. Hug; Second by: Dr. Kanoff, Roll call: Unanimous

Designation of Official Newspaper for Legal Purposes

a)The Daily Record & The Citizen of Morris County

b)  The Star Ledger

Motion to adopt made by: Dr. Kanoff, Second by: Mr. Hug, Roll call: Unanimous

               

Adoption of By-Laws

Mr. Marinello – Considerations: Suggest that the Board memorialize their past practices that special meetings can be accommodated after first case is heard at a regular board meeting based on justification of need. 

Mr. Ackerman – Suggested wording to be added as it relates to an applicant’s request for modification of an approval as follows:

Rehearing. Any applicant or other interested person may, within 20 days after the publication of notice of the decision, move the Board for a rehearing of the matter by filing an application in the form of a letter addressed to the Board containing a brief statement of the grounds relied upon.  If the motion is granted by the Board, it shall fix a date for rehearing and shall required the moving party to give notice to all persons who participated in the original hearing or hearings, upon such terms as the Board may deem adequate.  The Board may grant a rehearing on its own motion when unusual circumstances so require in the interest of justice.  

Vacation or Modification.  At any time after the adoption of a resolution granting a variance, any person having an interest in such decision may move the Board for an order vacating or modifying any term or condition of said decision by filing with the Board a petition in the form of a lettering setting forth the reasons therefore and the grounds relied upon.  If the petition is granted, the Board shall fix a date for the hearing and the movant shall give notice of such hearing in the same form and manner as required in the case of original petitions.  The Board, on its own motion may in a proper case similarly order all parties in interest to show cause at a time and place fixed in the notice why the terms or provisions of any variance ought not be vacated or modified. 


Mr. Driscoll indicated that modifications should be done case by case.  Mr. Cartine and Hug indicated that it should be in the by-laws. 

Mr. Marinello – As it relates to special meetings, if it is determined by the Board that the application cannot be heard in a reasonable amount of time at a regularly scheduled hearing a special meeting may be granted after an initial hearing before the Board at a regularly scheduled hearing. 

Discussion ensued on adopting the By laws with the addition of the modification of approvals but hold further discussions on wording for special meetings to the February hearing.

Motion to adopt bylaws as amended with modification of approval wording made by: Dr. Kanoff, Second by: Mr. Buraszeski, Roll call: Unanimous

Adoption of Annual Report

Mr. Cartine – I  had discussions with a Township Committee member that the Board accepted reductions in variances as opposed to denials and she did not understand that prior to our conversation.

Motion to adopt annual report made by: Mr. Hug, Second by: Mr. Buraszeski, Roll call: Unanimous

Mr. Buraszeski made a motion to appoint Dr. Kanoff, Mr. Hug and Mr. Marinello to the Invoice Review Subcommittee; Second by: Mr. Driscoll.  Roll call: Unanimous

Mr. Buraszeski made a motion to appoint Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Hug and Mr. Marinello to the Master Plan Subcommittee; Second by: Mr. Driscoll.  Roll call: Unanimous                    

               

Mr. Buraszeski made a motion to appoint Mr. Driscoll as Planning Board Liaison Second by Mr. Hug, Roll call Unanimous

Swearing in of Professionals

OLD BUSINESS

The following applications were carried to the dates noted:

*ZC20-09 Iulo, Marie –40 Brittany Rd. – B: 139.04, L: 12 - Building Coverage 3,155 sf permitted 3,324sf proposed; Impervious Coverage, 6,310sf allowed 7,152sf proposed; Rear Yard Setback: 50’ required 47’ proposed – Carried with notice from 10/7/09                 ACT BY: 3/4/10

*CARRIED WITH NOTICE TO: 3/3/10

 *ZSPP/FCD25-06-05-09 Lake Valhalla Club – Vista Rd. – B: 11, L: 29 - preliminary/final site
plan/Use & Bulk relief and design waivers for lighting for volleyball area – carried w/notice from 11/4/09 – Eligible: Buraszeski, Driscoll, Cartine, Hug, Kanoff, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello                                                                                                         ACT BY: 4/8/10

*CARRIED WITH NOTICE TO: 4/7/10


NEW BUSINESS

ZSPP/FDC29-09 – Omnipoint (T-Mobile) – Cooks Ln. – B: 41, L: 1 - preliminary/final site plan/Use variance for another 10’ high extension to an existing 100’ high monopole.  A concurrent application (MetroPCS proposed to extend pole to 110’ resulting in a total pole height of 120’). A total of nine (9) antennas are proposed with a height of 122’ (centerline height of 120’).  Associated improvements include the installation of a multiple equipment cabinets.  Notice Acceptable                                                                                                               ACT BY: 2/12/10

Court Stenographer present for this application.

Present on behalf of the applicant: James Pryor, Esq.; Ben Shidfar, RF Engineer; Dave Collins, Radio Signal Compliance; Frank Colasurdo, AIA, Christopher Nevill, PP

Mr. Pryor – Applicant requests to extend the monopole at Cooks Lane 10’ higher than the Metro PCS application for extension of the monopole by 10’ which was approved at last months meeting.

Ben Shidfar, RF Engineer - sworn

Exhibit A1 – coverage map

Mr. Shidfar – Existing 100’ tower with Nextel and AT&T existing on the tower, approval granted for 10’ higher last month for Metro PCS and we wish to raise 10’ higher to be a total height of 120’ for T-Mobile. 

Exhibit A2 – existing service map

Mr. Shidfar – Reviewed A2 for the Board indicating the coverage gap for T-Mobile.  Reviewed color coded transparent overlay.

Mr. Shidfar – Proposal provides for significant coverage in the existing gap of service.  The height extension is required to relieve coverage gap.  No desirable alternatives in the area.  Equipment cabinets visited once every 4-6 weeks.  Site remotely monitored.  Complies with all FCC standards and regulations. 

Dave Collins, Radio Signal Compliance - Sworn
This site will meet all requirements for FCC regulations and standards with all four carriers. 

Frank Colasurdo, AIA - sworn

Reviewed site plan last revised 5/29/09 6 sheets.  This is a 17 acre parcel.  Reviewed surrounding neighborhood for the Board.  Requesting a 10’ extension of pole to a total of 120’ in height.  Propose 9 antennas.  3 equipment cabinets proposed.  No water or sewer required for this use.  The site is remotely monitored 24/7.  No noise, smell, smoke, or traffic.  Will meet all state building codes.  In my opinion, no structural upgrades or modifications will be required.  Mr. Ackerman – Are you a licensed structural engineer?  Mr. Colasurdo – No, it is my professional opinion as an architect and the structural report will be submitted with the construction permits. 

Christopher Nevill, PP – sworn

Monopole located in the I-1A zone.  D variance requested.  Height variance for 120’ where 100’ allowed.  Site has existing structure makes it particularly suitable for the project. 

Exhibits A3,A4 & A-5 – photos of site

 

Mr. Nevill reviewed the photos with simulation of all 4 co-locaters on the existing monopole.  Additional height will not have substantial detriment to zone plan and zone ordinance.  Positives outweigh negatives for this site on this proposal.

Mr. Denzler – The antennas are going above the top of the tower?  Mr. Shidfar- No, need 10’ separation between the users below.  Mr. Denzler – So you could work with 3’ lower than requested. 

Mr. Denzler – Back up power proposed?  Mr. Colasurdo – Battery backup for 4 hours, if longer they would wheel in a generator until power turned back on.

Mr. Huelsebusch – Will you install before Metro PCS?  Mr. Colsurdo – No.  Mr. Huelsebusch – Your map indicates a gap to remain within Montville, is there plans for another tower?  Mr. Shidfar – Not that I am aware of.  Mr. Ackerman – Is there anything in a fall zone for the proposed?  Mr. Colasurdo – No, with the exception of the cabinets.  If the wind becomes strong enough, the monopole will kink and then the wind velocity is lower.

Mr. Hug – How high is high enough?  The next application on tonight’s agenda is for this tower also.  Mr. Marinello – Our concern is where does it stop, why is 120’ more justified than 110’ and when someone comes in for 130’, how high is too high.  Mr. Pryor – If next month an applicant comes in for 130’ it is the burden of proofs they have to meet.  It depends on the facts of each case.  Mr. Colasurdo – This monopole has seen its maximum at 120’.  Discussion ensued on frequency, terrain and line of sight and how they affect coverage.  Mr. Hug – Why wouldn’t you look into another location to build a new pole in order to achieve complete coverage at a lower height.  Mr. Shidfar – We have researched the area and this was the best coverage location.  We also look for existing structures to modify before constructing new poles.  Mr. Pryor – It is a more difficult case to propose a new monopole when there is an existing pole that can be modified.  Mr. Shifar – Every tower that I have worked on in the past 8 months has been 120’ tall. 

A6 – Montville municipal map

Mr Shifar – Reviewed the wetlands within the Township for the board.  For the proposed site 100’ would have worked but that slot is taken.  Mr. Buraszeski – Would you agree to 117’?  Mr. Shifar – Yes, we would agree to 117’.   Mr. Denzler – There would be less of a visual effect if spaced evenly thus the reason for the 117’.  Mr. Buraszeski – As Planner for this board what is your opinion?  Mr. Denzler – I do not have a problem with the 117’, I have seen higher.  Mr. Driscoll – Agree to use common colors as other users?  Mr. Shifar – Agreed. 

Mr. Colasurdo – With the proposed application the pole will be at 102% capacity with an additional 13% allowed that will still provide for the pole to meet state building codes.  Mr. Pryor – There may be a case in the future that will decide that the height is too high.  This is not the case.  There is no public opposition.  This is a case that should be approved for an extension.

Open to public – none - closed


Motion to approve the application subject to a height of 117’, coloration of pole/antenna to be same as existing colors, revised plans to be submitted, all agency findings, all conditions of approval for all applicants on site to be completed,  made by: Cartine; Second by: Driscoll; Roll call: Yes - Buraszeski, Driscoll, Cartine, Hug, Kanoff,  Marinello No - Shirkey

ZSPP/FDC30-09 – Verizon Wireless – Cooks Ln. – B: 41, L: 1 – pre/final site plan/use variance for co-location on existing monopole at the centerline height of 77’ and installation of equipment shelter within exiting compound area - Notice Acceptable                                ACT BY: 2/12/10

Court Stenographer present for this application.

Present on behalf of the applicant: David Solloway, Esq.; Mr. Colasurdo, AIA; Chelsea Bancroft, RF Engineer; Paul Dugan, EMF Safety Expert

Mr. Solloway – Application to co-locate on existing monopole at 77’ in height.  Nextel and AT&T are already on the pole and Metro PCS and T-mobile approved.  We are the low height on the monopole.  Not a permitted use in the zone.  Requesting use variances and site plan for this application. 

Ms. Bancroft, RF PE – sworn

Verizon has a gap in coverage in this area. 

A1 – coverage map with 3 layers

Ms. Bancroft – Reviewed A1 for the Board showing gap in coverage and proposed coverage.

Paul Dugan, EMF Safety Expert- sworn

This proposal will meet all FCC requirements and standards.  Anywhere near the base of the monopole will be well below 1% of the guidelines.

Mr. Colasurdo, AIA – sworn

Plans depict all cabinets existing and recently approved including tonight’s T-Mobile application along with the proposed Verizon wireless cabinets.  Verizon uses equipment shelters that are prefabricated off site.  Motion sensor light located outside of shelter for safety for maintenance worker when visiting site at night.  Unmanned site, no sewer or water.  Remotely monitored.  Routine maintenance visits every 4-6 weeks.  To be built in accordance with all building codes.  The structural analysis indicates that the pole would fail at 122%.  Additional upgrades would be required as it relates to structure.  Mr. Solloway – Upgrades would have to e in compliance with all building codes.  Mr. Colasurdo - Diesel generator for backup power proposed on site.

Mr. Masters, PP - sworn

Reviewed D variances requested for the Board.   Site is ideally situated for coverage objective.  Located in a non-residential zone district.  Unmanned facility.  Existing structure, propose co-location.   Site particularly suited for proposed use.  Monopole is significantly setback from primary road. 

A2 – photo board of site and photo simulations showing co-location on existing pole.

Mr. Masters - Reviewed A2 for the Board.  The visual impact is significantly inconsequential.  Co-location on existing pole benefits out weigh detriments as opposed to construction of a new pole. 

Open to public – none – closed

Mr. Denzler – What does Verizon operate at?  Ms. Bancroft – 800-mhz.  Mr. Denzler – Why are antennas higher than others?  Ms. Bancroft – If we use smaller ones than this height may not work for us? 

Mr. Denzler – Daytime testing of generator during the week acceptable?  Mr. Colasurdo – The generator will be tested between the hours of 8Am-1PM Mon-Fri on non-holiday days.  There is spill containment for the shelter. 


Mr. Huelsebusch – Do you have containment for a spill for someone filling the tank on the diesel generator?  Mr. Colasurdo – Will comply with all spill containment requirements.  Mr. Huelsebusch – Plans to be revised to show all structural upgrades. 

Mr. Buraszeski – Can a less obtrusive mounting bracket be used?  Mr. Culasurdo – Propose 12 antenna so face is larger, can remove metal grating walkway and use t-arm brackets.  Mr. Buraszeski – Capacity to be added to report not to be more than 105%. 


Motion to approve the application co-location of existing tower, subject to removal of metal grating, revised plans as requested, spill containment measures, revision of structural report, testing of generator during non-holiday weekday hours made by: Kanoff; Second by: Buraszeski; Roll call: Yes - Buraszeski, Driscoll, Cartine, Hug, Kanoff, Shirkey, Marinello    

MINUTES:

Minutes of December 2, 2009 Eligible: Cartine, Driscoll, Hug, Moore, Buraszeski, Kanoff, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello

Motion to adopt made by: Mr. Buraszeski, Second by: Mr. Hug. Roll call: Yes- Unanimous

INVOICES:

Bricker & Assoc. – Trust for: $375, $375, $750, $750, $125, $93.75, $62.50, $312.50, $281.25, $1,000, $187.50, $562.50, $625

William Denzler & Assoc. – Trust for: $62.50, $531.25, $187.50, $187.50, $312.50, $62.50, $125,$343.75, $312.50

Pashman, Stein – O/E for: $281.25; Trust for: $393.75

Motion to approve made by: Dr. Kanoff, Second by: Mr. Hug, Roll call: Unanimous

Mr. Marinello – Introduced Mr. Daughtry, Township Committee Liaison.  Mr. Daughtry indicated he wished to speak in closed session

RESOLUTIONS

ZSPP/FD35-08 – MetroPCS – Cooks Ln. – B: 41, L: 1 – pre/final site plan use extension of existing pole by 10' and co-location on the pole and new equipment shelter – Eligible: Buraszeski, Cartine, Driscoll, Kanoff, Hug, Moore, Marinello – Approval Resolution

Motion to: Buraszeski; Second by: Driscoll; Roll call: Yes - Buraszeski, Cartine, Driscoll, Kanoff, Hug, Marinello

ZSPP/FD17-09 – MetroPCS – Changebridge Rd. – B: 160.2, L: 23 – site plan/use variance for installation of antennas on an existing water tank and construction of an equipment cabinet – Eligible: Cartine, Driscoll, Buraszeski, Kanoff, Marinello - Approval Resolution

Motion to adopt: Buraszeski; Second by: Kanoff; Roll call: Yes - Cartine, Driscoll, Buraszeski, Kanoff, Marinello

 

ZC23-09 Mastrangelo, Anthony –10 Boonton Ave. – B: 2.02, L: 3 – variance front setback 48’ (existing and proposed) where 75’ is required and side setback of 17.66’ (existing and proposed) where 30’ is required for addition and porch – Eligible: Cartine, Driscoll, Hug, Moore, Buraszeski, Kanoff, Marinello – Approval Resolution

Motion to adopt: Buraszeski; Second by: Driscoll; Roll call: Yes- Cartine, Driscoll, Hug, Buraszeski, Kanoff, Marinello

ZSPP/F23-08 Eli Youssef – preliminary/final site plan – B: 81, L: 2 – pre/final site plan – Eligible: Driscoll, Buraszeski, DiPiazza, Marinello - Denial Resolution

Motion to adopt made by: Buraszeski; Second by: Driscoll; Roll call: Yes - Driscoll, Buraszeski, Marinello

ZC11-09 DeBlasio – 122 Waughaw Rd – B: 21.01, L: 18.04 – variance for front setback of 54.1’ vs 75’; rear setback of 37’ vs 75’; building height of 3 stories where 2 ½ stories allowed addition to single family home and deck - Eligible: Cartine, Driscoll, Hug, Moore, Buraszeski, Kanoff, – Approval Resolution

Motion to adopt made by: Buraszeski; Second by: Driscoll; Roll call: Yes - Cartine, Driscoll, Hug, Buraszeski, Kanoff

CORRESPONDENCE

ZC14-09 Wei, Zibiao – 44 Taylortown Rd. – B: 15.2, L: 14 – rear setback 36’ vs 50’ for deck and sunroom – Carried with notice from 10/7/09  - Eligible: Buraszeski, Cartine, Driscoll, Kanoff, Hug, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello – APPLICANT REQUESTED TO WITHDRAW THE APPLICATION WITHOUT PREJUDICE

ZSPP/F/D44-04 AT&T Wireless – 78 Boonton Ave. – B: 1, L: 29 – request for extension of approvals to 10/1/10

Motion made by: Buraszeski with condition of no more extensions to be granted beyond this date; Second: Driscoll; Unanimous

OTHER BUSINESS

Mr. Marinello – Planning Board liaison report to be on every agenda from now on.  We have a commitment to more training, attorney to reinforce with board members.  Members to visit sites and if cannot get to site someone to report on record.  We have a commitment to better scheduling and have already taken steps to get professional reports in earlier and at less cost.  Need to be updated on conflicts of interest and stepping down on applications.  Mr. Ackerman – We expect that the member will do the right thing if there is any aspect to an application whether it is a family member, anyone you have a financial interest in including religious organizations, intangible relationships (close friendships or alumnus from same school).  Rely upon the individual to ask the question and if you have to ask the question you have to think long and hard on if you should step down. I will commit to writing what the law says.

Mr. Marinello – We should all have a working familiarly of the existing master plan.  We are a Board of Adjustment and not a policy board if there is a question on where we can and cannot go as it relates to the master plan we should ask for input from the Land Use Office and our Planner.  We are dedicated to this process in keeping it in tune with what’s happening beyond our meetings.    In the past we had a strong liaison from the Township Committee that attended every meeting and knew where we stood and we lost that a long time ago.    We should invite reports from planning board or other board.  If the Board itself or our board professionals think we need them we should be made aware of that so we can solicit reports.

 

Mr. Marinello – If any Board member thinks we have not gotten enough information from testimony to make a vote, indicate same and we will request the additional information. 

Mr. Marinello asked Mr. Daughtry if he wanted to make any comments on the record at this point.

Mr. Daughtry – Basically, you just covered everything that I had questions on for open session comments.  The discussions at the Township Committee basically the key word that came out of the Township Committee discussions was to “re-focus”.  Some Township Committee members did not want to re-appoint anyone that was up for re-appointment but minds were changed.  If you have the slightest concern about conflict you should ask counsel.  I have one item that we need to discuss in closed session.  You covered every point that the Township Committee came up with. 

Mr. Hug- Suggests that if we do not get certificates of qualifications from applicant’s experts before the meeting they should not be allowed to testify unless they testified us before.  Mr. Marinello – Maybe we can make it a completeness item.  Mr. Cartine- If not licensing should be put their licenses and credentials on the record.  Mr. Marinello – If they testified us before the have to say when and what application. 

Mr. Hug – Late reports are unacceptable from our professionals.  Present a problem to the Land Use Department; it is a disservice to them and to the applicant.  Also, responses from an applicant should be in no less than a week prior to the meeting.   Mr. Marinello – Can let applicant testify but no decision made until thorough review done so they can be carried to another hearing.  Mr. Buraszeski – Did we go overboard with helping residents achieve their goals with some reduction?  Mr. Marinello – Some applicants won’t come here because we are known to be a tough board.  We can go back over the annual report to see if we went off balance but it is a balancing act.  Mr. Cartine indicated that he carries his reference books with him so he can look it up at meetings if he has a question. 

Mr. Marinello – I would wish in the future to have a more active liaison from the Township Committee which I think we will have now. If there is an issue or question from the Township Committee it should be brought up either through counsel or through meetings with the board chairs and the Township Committee so feedback is not interpreted as interference and so it can be acted upon quickly so they can get their confidence back.  Mr. Daughtry - We will build on that, this was not handled well. 

Mr. Daughtry – Asked Ms. Grogaard when an applicant can get on a meeting at this point.  Ms. Grogaard indicated that there is an extra meeting scheduled based on possible need for residents and the next open meeting would be the third week in March for residents if needed due to an abundance of residential applications.  Mr. Daughtry - Maybe the Board should consider twice monthly meetings if needed for scheduling.  Mr. Marinello – Typically we schedule a 13th meeting for an as needed basis and typically they were not needed.  We have a 14th meeting scheduled this year too if needed.  There was a time that everybody got on an agenda but nobody finished.  Mr. Hug - There is also no way that if 4 or 5 applicants are scheduled and they drop off at the last minute that more can be called up to be put on.  Mr. Marinello – Maybe we should add additional 2 applicants as an on-deck schedule, we add on one or two and tell them that they are there if someone drops off but probably won’t get heard.  Ms. Grogaard – That will be costly to the applicant and if not heard it moves them to even later meeting dates due to intermediate scheduling.   

The professionals were released

Motion to go into closed session to discuss personnel issues and to allow the Township Committee Liaison  to join in on closed session  made by: Buraszeski; Second by: Driscoll; Roll call: Unanimous

 

Upon return from close session and being no further business the board unanimously adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

Jane Grogaard

Recording Secretary

Certified true copy of minutes adopted at Zoning Board meeting of February 3, 2010.

_______________________________________

Linda M. White, Sec.

Certified to 11/4/09 hearing

 

Last Updated ( Thursday, 04 February 2010 )
 
< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack