|
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
|
