Township of Montville

MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP

 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 3, 2010

Montville Municipal Building, 195 Changebridge Road

8:00PM Regular Meeting

STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

Stated for the record.

ROLL CALL:

Richard Moore – Present                                   Thomas Buraszeski – Present

Donald Kanoff – Present                                   James Marinello – Present

Deane Driscoll – Present                                    Carl DiPiazza (Alt #1) – Present

Maury Cartine– Present                                     Kenneth Shirkey (Alt #2) – Present

Gerard Hug – Absent

Also Present:        William Denzler, Planner

                                Hank Huelsebusch, Engineer

                                Bruce Ackerman, Esq.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Stated for the record

Swearing in of Professionals

OLD BUSINESS

The following applications were carried to the dates noted:

**ZC25-08 Caggiano, Lou Carl – Hog Mountain Rd. – B: 33, L: 32 – variance for construction of a single family home on an unimproved road and front yard not on public street

                                                                                                                                ACT BY: 4/8/10

**RESCHEDULED TO: 4/7/10

**ZC25-09 Failla, Vincent – 4 Berlin Ln. – B: 100.1, L: 8 – variance rear setback for deck 23.8’ vs 50’– Notice Acceptable                                                                                          ACT BY: 4/8/10

*CARRY WITH NOTICE TO: 3/18/10

ZC16-09 Van Duyne Properties –17 Van Duyne Ct. – B: 82.12, L: 36 – rear setback 40’ where 75’ required (47.1’ existing); side yard setback 18.4’ where 27’ required; building stories for addition to single family home – carried w/notice from 11/4/09 – Eligible: Buraszeski, Cartine, Driscoll, Kanoff, Hug, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello                   ACT BY 2/4/10

Present on behalf of the applicant: Steven Schepis, Esq.; Philip Trovato, applicant; James Cutillo, AIA; Frank Matarazzo, PE

Mr. Schepis – The plans have been modified to eliminate the stories variance and side setback variance on right hand side; and have increased the rear setback to 40’.  Requesting a side setback variance of 18.4’ where 27’ required and rear setback of 40’ where 75’ required.  Prepared a certification as an exhibit.

A2 – Property and Zoning History

Mr. Schepis – The lot is less than 15,000 s.f. in a zone that requires 43,750 s.f.  The original zoning ordinance for the township required a 10,000 s.f. lot size with a rear setback of 25’.  In 1957 it was rezoned to 21,000 s.f. with a rear setback of 45’.  In 1977 it was rezoned again to 27,000 s.f. with rear setback of 50’.  The present zoning indicates a 43,750 s.f. minimum lot size with 75’ rear setback.  Currently the R-15 zone within the Township requires a 15,000 s.f. lot size with a 40’ rear setback.  The subject lot is 14,889 s.f. and proposes a rear setback of 40’ which is more in line with the R-15 zone. 

Frank Matarazzo, PE – previously sworn

A-3 – colorized plan last revised 1/4/10

Mr. Matarazzo – A3 shows the existing house on the property with the addition to the rear of the property, the front of the property and the porch to the front of the property with the redesigned driveway.  We have shortened up the addition in the back in order to comply with the side setback on the southerly side.  The addition on the 2nd floor is notched in to meet setback.  The applicant proposes a row of evergreen trees to provide screening for the house to the east. 

A4 – aerial photo of Van Duyne Court depicting houses in the area

Mr. Matarazzo – A4 provides the lot area and building footprint for the lots in the surrounding area.  There is a 99’ setback from the proposed addition to the house to the rear of the property.  The addition at the 99’ is a one story addition.  I prepared a planning analysis of the surrounding area and reviewed for the board.  The basement area is a high crawl space.   The applicant wishes to add a 2nd level to the house and bring it up to speed with the surrounding area.  The lot is currently undersized as it relates to lot area, lot setback and lot depth.  The existing house is currently in a non-conforming location, it is located further back on the lot than it should be.  Any addition to this house would require a variance.  The proposal is in keeping with the neighborhood.  There is no substantial detriment to the public good.  The proposed additions provide ample room between the subject house and house to the rear of the property.  The applicant proposes Norway spruce along property line.  The applicant agrees to comply with the Board Engineer’s report. 

James Cutillo AIA – sworn

Propose to convert the existing ranch to a 1 ½ story house.  If the house was constructed at a lower grade than it could have had a full 2nd story constructed. In order to not have 3 stories we had to put dormers into the roofline.  The addition to the rear is about 20’ high from grade and is proposed to be a family room.  The front addition is about 24’ high.  The stairs on the side have been removed to comply with the side setback.   There is a covered front porch proposed to the front of the house. 

Mr. Schepis – Mr. Denzler raised concerns with the calculations of the floor area below.  We do not believe we need a stories variance and we will agree to satisfy the zoning officer that we will comply with the stories ordinance and will withdraw the application for stories variance.

                A5 – colorized version of floor plan

Mr. Cutillo – We did not count the fireplace and other areas that are not living area.  If we are required to go back to the original square feet we will comply.

Mr. Trovato, applicant – sworn

When my wife and I bought the property we put it into an LLC because it was an undersized lot and we instructed to do that.  Mr. Trovato reviewed the neighboring properties using the photos

submitted to the board previously with the application.  We built our house 6 years ago.  We decided we wanted to have my in-laws move next door so we bought the property.  Unfortunately, they passed away and the present desire is to have my parents live next door.  We are concerned with the aesthetics since we live next door.   We decided to invest in the property so that one day, when we will have to sell, that we will get back on our investment what we put in.  It is a very basic modular home currently. 

Mr. Denzler – What is the total square footage for the 2nd floor?  Mr. Cutillo – 1,276 s.f.  Mr. Denzler – I disagree with the notes stated on the plan.  The 40% that Mr. Cutillo is using is not accurate because he is using a sloped roof over the 2nd floor and the 1st floor where the 2ndnd floor not the entire area of the house.  Mr. Cartine – Does it accomplish a purpose?  Mr. Denzler – It keeps down the mass of a structure.  They may have to come back before the board for the stories variance if they cannot satisfy the zoning official.  floor is smaller than the 1st.  You are using the roof area over the 2

Mr. Huelsebusch – The applicant has agreed to provide a site plan showing a drywell for zero increase in runoff.  Recommend the turnaround area be made more practical and they have room on the property to do that.  Mr. Matarazzo – Agreed.  Mr. Huelsebusch – Trees to be 8’ high on 8’ centers.

Mr. Marinello asked objecting attorney if he had any questions.  He indicated that there were no questions.

Mr. Marinello – The applicant has eliminated request for stories variance, must satisfy this with the zoning officer.  Mr. Driscoll – Three bedrooms?  Mr. Cutillo – 4 bedrooms.  Mr. Shirkey – This house is over 2,000 s.f. on a smaller than 15,000 s.f. lot where the surrounding lots are twice the size and the houses are about the same.  Mr. Matarazzo – It think the proposed square footage of the house is fine.  Mr. Shirkey – Are there any drainage issues on the property, will the trees be bermed?  Mr. Matarazzo – No there will be no berm. 

Open to public

Mr. Frank Pisano, Esq for the Nordman’s, the rear yard neighbors.  This is a massive house on an undersized lot.  A 2’ increase in the rear setback does not make much of a difference.  This proposal will still affect the light, air an open space to the Nordman’s property.  There have only been minor changes to the plan.  The Nordman’s have lived in the house for more than 40 years.  Mr. Schepis – Mr. Nordman sold the property to my client, I understand his concern but the history shows the lot size was there.  This house clearly does not belong in the neighborhood as it exists and there is someone willing to bring the property more into conformance with the neighborhood. 

Mr. Cartine – Proposing a 40’ setback now and there is a 99’ setback between the 2 houses.  That must mean there is a 59’ rear setback to the Nordman’s which does not meet today’s ordinance requirement either is that correct?  Mr. Schepis – Yes. 

Closed to public

Mr. Cartine – It doesn’t matter who is going to live in the house, it only matters that there is some type of a hardship to the property.  Mr. Marinello – The applicant is currently asking for a rear and side yard setback variance.  There were other changes to the plan that brought it closer to being in conformance.  Dr. Kanoff – I don’t think I have enough information to vote due to the stories calculation issue.  Mr. Marinello – If we are not approving the stories variance which was withdrawn and they can’t meet the requirements they can’t build the house.  Mr. Cartine – What if the zoning officer misses it?  The plans submitted have a violation to the ordinance. 

Mr. Schepis – Requested to carry the application to submit a plan modification showing  conformance with stories.

Carried with notice to: 4/7/10 extension of time to: 4/8/10

ZSPP/F/D04-08 Optasite Towers (co-locater AT&T Wireless) – 78 Boonton Ave. – B: 1, L: 29 – request for extension of approvals to 10/1/10 with no further extensions to be granted –Eligible: Buraszeski, Driscoll, Cartine, Hug, Kanoff, Shirkey, Marinello – Corrected request for extension.

Mr. Ackerman – There is a clarification of name of application listed as AT&T on this extension that was approved at last months hearing.  This action is to clarify the name of the applicant and later in the meeting can adopt the resolution granting the extension of time.

Motion to grant extension with clarification of name from AT&T to Optasite made by: Mr. Moore; Second: Buraszeski; Roll call: Yes - Buraszeski, Driscoll, Shirkey, Marinello; Abstain - Cartine, Kanoff

NEW BUSINESS

ZC32-09 Allen/Widup – 18 Hewlett Rd – B: 113 L: 16.2 – variance for rear setback of 59.73’ where 75’ required for construction of tri-level deck – Notice Acceptable ACT BY: 2/12/10

Present on behalf of the applicant: Mr. David Widup, Applicant

Mr. Widup – Sworn

We wish to build a sunroom on top of our deck and to build some deck to have access to the sunroom.  Propose a 3 tiered deck that requires a variance of 59.73’ rear setback where 75’ required.  The proposed deck minimizes the view from the neighbors on both sides.

Mr Denzler – Reviewed the variance requested for the board.  There appears to be additional area to the right which would allow you the same size deck which could stay within the setback.  Mr. Widup – It would create more of a visual impact to the neighbor because the house is set further back and the decks would be facing each other.  Mr. Denzler – But it would be conforming to the ordinance.  Mr. Huelsebusch – If the application is approved you will need a certification indicating that there will be zero runoff.  Mr. Huelsebusch – Is there any underground fuel storage tank.  Mr. Widup – There is a propane tank underground.  Mr. Huelsebusch – It is in the critical water resource district which does not allow underground storage tanks. 

Mr. Denzler – Do not see a hardship to the property because the deck can meet the rear setback.  Do not see additional benefits under C2.  Mr. DiPiazza – Could you put a row of trees for privacy?  Mr. Widup – Yes.  Mr. Driscoll – There is a drop to the rear of the property.  Mr. Widup – The drop from the sun room is about 12’ but gets steeper toward the back of the property.  Mr. Denzler – The house is not set straight on the lot so the rear of the house is at an angle.  Mr. Buraszeski – Since house is turned on property, does it affect the size of the deck allowed?  Mr. Denzler – The proposed deck is closer to one setback since it is angled on  property.  The right side gives you more room to build a deck.  The proposed deck is over 700 s.f.

Open to public – none - closed

Dr. Kanoff – This deck can be built without a variance.  Mr. Cartine – No one needs a deck this large that creates a setback variance.

Motion to deny the application, can be built in compliance with the code, no hardship shown made by: Kanoff; Second: Cartine; Roll call: Yes - Buraszeski, Cartine, Driscoll, Kanoff,, Moore, DiPiazza, Marinello

Transcription company present for the following application.

ZSPP/FD28-09 T-Mobile - B: 167, L: 13 – 34 Maple Ave – Preliminary/Final Site Plan/D Variance/C variance filing – construction of a 100’ monopole with 9 antennas and 3 equipment cabinets within a 20’x30’ compound – Notice Acceptable                  ACT BY: 2/12/10

Present on behalf of the applicant: David Solloway, Esq.; Ben Shidfar, RF Engineer, Mark Nidel, RF Expert; Thomas Malavasi, PE; Timothy Kronk, PP

Mr. Solloway – Reviewed the proposal for the board.  Have submitted a design with and without tree-pole.  Not a permitted use in the zone; need a height variance; need a side setback variance to route 80 of 29’ where 50’ required. 

Mr. Ackerman – The other applications were called Omnipoint.  Mr. Solloway – They are Omnipoint.  Mr. Ackerman – So the approval for the area would be for Omnipoint/T-Mobile.

Ben Shidfar, RF Engineer – Sworn

T-Mobile has made a determination that there is a service need for this area.  There is unreliable service in this area. 

                A1 – coverage map with overlays

Mr. Shidfar reviewed the area for the board.  Showing 43 Stiles Lane as not on the air yet, showing coverage from site in Parsippany, site in Fairfield and the water tank on Changebridge.  Coverage is non-existent in area of proposed site.  The water tank signals are blocked from the hill near Route 80 and the site in Fairfield is too low to reach this area.  Propose 100’ monopole.  There are no existing structures in the area that can be used for this purpose.  Mr. Cartine – There are more than a few larger than one story buildings along Old Bloomfield which is right there.  The gap in coverage would be complete with the proposed 100’ monopole.  The coverage will not go passed Route 80 and will never reach Changebridge Rd. 

                A2 – aerial photo of surrounding area with existing T Mobile sites superimposed on photo

                A3 – aerial photo of surrounding area

Mr. Shidfar – Indicated that Horseneck Road will never have coverage from this site or any other site currently approved in the area.

Mark Nidle, RF Compliance Expert – sworn

Reviewed report dated 6/30/2009 as it relates to FCC standards.  Assuming this site is transmitting all the time the worst case scenario is .1262 which is less than 2/10 of 1%.  It is in compliance with the FCC regulations and NJ State regulations. 

Thomas Malavasi, PE - sworn

Reviewed the site for the Board. There is no generator proposed, battery backup will be used.  There is no lighting lit 24 hours.  There is a work light on the cabinet.  No water or sewer service required.  Compound proposed at 20’x30’.

                A4 – plan showing 3 10x20’ areas for other carriers to put their cabinets on site to allow for co-

                                location

Mr. Malavasi – The additional compounds for co-locators would be installed passed our compound.  There is no other room on site to move the pole so the side setback variance to Route 80 would be required.  There will be no interference with parking or circulation on site.  There will be zero increase in runoff from this proposal.  Have plans with tree type tower if the board desires.  The pole as well as the tree pole can be made taller if required, up to 130’.

Timothy Kronk, PP – sworn

On October 30, 2009 I did a balloon test on the proposed site.  The applicant proposes a 100’ monopole with 9 antennas.  The property is 10.4 acres.  Require a use variance for use not permitted in zone and height variance as well as a side setback where 50’ required and propose 29’.  The site is designed for co-location.  There are no other existing tall structures in the area which will fill the coverage gap.  There are no permitted zones in the area.  This is a particularly suited property for this use.  Benign commercial use, unmanned facility, no traffic or parking demands, will be in compliance with all FCC and DEP requirements. 

                A5-8 – photo boards of balloon test done on property 10/30/09

Mr. Kronk – Reviewed the photos for the Board.  Photos indicate balloon test in photos on left and computerized version of antenna inserted into photo on right from various locations.  The applicant can build a tree-type structure if the Board requires.  There is no substantial detriment to the pubic good and the proposal promotes the general welfare of enhanced telecommunication services.  The benefits outweigh the detriments. 

Open to public

Barbara Burke – 22 Maple Ave. - sworn

There are residences in that area. This is just one more thing added to this area where things keep being added.  We will see it and who knows how much more will be added to it in the future.  Mr. Cartine – Do you prefer the tree pole or the naked pole.  Ms. Burke – The tree I guess but this would be one more thing added to this area that would decrease the value of my house that I have lived in all my life and my father all his life before that. 

Mr. Denzler – Mr. Kronk, your exhibit shows 100’ pole but the engineer testified that the pole can be added on to about 130’, have you considered what this site would look like at 130’ with additional users on the pole? Mr. Kronk – No but at 100’ we can put 2 or 3 users at a lower height.  The visibility would be the burden of the potential co-locators in the area.  Mr. Denzler – There are residences in the area, how come there are no pictures from that area?  Mr. Kronk – We used the greatest visibility areas.  Mr. Denzler – If the pole was raised to 130’ would additional bracing be required?  Mr. Malavasi – No additional bracing required.  Mr. Denzler – You said there were no existing structures high enough in the area, what about the 4 story structure recently approved on Hook Mountain Road?  Mr. Shippard - That was not looked at, I do not make the real estate deals. 

Mr. Huelsebusch – You will have to provide certification that there would be zero runoff.  Mr. Malavasi – Will provide.  Mr. Huelsebusch – You need stream encroachment permit?  Mr. Malavasi – Yes.  Mr. Huelsebusch – Any co-locator would have to obtain permits also.  Mr. Malavasi – Yes.

Mr. Cartine – Mr. Denzler were you talking about the Hook Mountain Care site?  Mr. Denzler – Yes.  Dr. Kanoff – How close is this tower to the closest residence?  Mr. Ackerman – Was your study done for built out site or for this user only.  Mr. Nidel – This user only.  Mr. Ackerman – You stated that T-Mobile’s typical minimum is 90’.  Mr. Shidfar – No at the other site it works at 90’, but it can work at 90’ on this site.  Mr. Shidfar was asked if the Hook Mountain Care Center site would be a better site for this use.  Mr. Shidfar - I cannot render a meaningful opinion at this time.  Mr. Ackerman – If we give you to another meeting you could figure that out?  Mr. Shidfar - Yes.  Mr. Ackerman – Did you look into the swamp area to keep it further away from the residential homes?  Mr. Shidfar – This is the only property that we could enter into a deal on.  Mr. Malavasi – The closest residential property is 500’ away.   Mr. Malavasi – By moving it into a swamp there would be more of an environmental issue there. 

Mr. Driscoll – I think you should look into Bayer building or Hook Mountain Care Center sites.  Mr. Solloway – We can check into the other sites. 

Mr. Marinello – Requested approval from the board to go past 10:30PM with new testimony, unanimous

Mr. Moore – This tower has the potential for 7 carriers if pole is built out to 130’?  Mr. Malavasi – Yes.   Mr. Cartine – Would like to see more sites reviewed in the area.

Closed to public

Carried with notice preserved to 5/5/10 with extension of time to 5/6/10

ZC22-09 Ravella, Rosemary – 195 Boonton Ave. – B: 3, L: 2.1 – slopes and impervious coverage variance for addition to single family residence – Notice Acceptable ACT BY: 2/16/10

Present on behalf of the applicant: Rosemary Ravella, applicant; Steven Cuppa, AIA; Gregory Nelia, PE

Ms. Ravella – sworn

Propose an addition to my house do put the master bedroom on the first floor due to a car accident I had that damaged my legs.

Steven Cuppa, AIA –sworn

The house was constructed in the mid 1960’s.  The only access iS from Boonton Ave up a winding driveway.  The users of the home access the house through the garage and up a flight of stairs.  The need for the master suite on the 1st level is for access for Ms. Ravella.  The opportunity to add on can only be done in the location shown.  The other rooms will remain unchanged and will remain as bedrooms.  There is no other house visible in the surrounding area. 

Gregory Nelia, PE – sworn

Reviewed the site for the Board.  The lot is currently undersized for the zone and there is a series of steep slopes on the property.  The building coverage conforms to the township ordinances.  Impervious coverage variance required due to the existing topography requiring a winding driveway and numerous retaining walls.  Propose 2 story building addition.  DEP Permit has been acquired for this property and will be submitted.  Requesting impervious coverage variance for 24.28% where 13% allowed.  Topography creates a site specific issue.  Variance requested for steep slopes.  Require a small variance for 100 s.f. disturbance in the 25% area where no disturbance allowed.  Do not believe we are harming the intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance since this area would have been disturbed initially when the retaining walls were built.  Proposing a seepage pit within the driveway to have zero runoff. 

Open to public – none

Mr. Denzler – Variance requested from impervious coverage 13,050 s.f. allowed where existing 22,902 s.f. over and propose 23,672 s.f..  Calculated into the impervious coverage is 4,448 s.f. of  Boonton Ave right of way.  Impervious coverage calculations also include 1,620 s.f. of wall coverage.  No disturbance of slopes allowed in the 25% or greater area and 100 s.f. proposed to be disturbed.  Mr. Denzler – Is there any other location on site the addition can be built?  Mr. Cuppa – The other 3 sides of the house abut 2 story space so this is the only location.  There is no real front door to the home.  Mr. Denzler – Are you adding a bedroom.  Mr. Cuppa – No it will remain a 3 bedroom home the other room will be turned into a sitting room. 

Mr. Shirkey – The patio doors from the proposed master bedroom don’t come out onto a patio or deck?  Mr. Cuppa – No patio or deck is proposed.  Mr. Marinello – Any way to reduce impervious coverage by using pavers?  Mr. Denzler – A large amount of driveway would have to be removed and due to the size and grade of the driveway it is not practical. 

Closed to public

Mr. Cartine – Does not seem to be an excessive improvement to the property, the driveway is creating the impervious coverage issue and they couldn’t do anything without being in the slopes.

Motion to approved, property is severely topographically difficult, driveway creating impervious coverage, no other location for addition, slope disturbance is necessary no other way to do it , improvement not significant subject to board engineer conditions made by: Cartine;  Second: Buraszeski; Roll call: Yes - Buraszeski, Cartine, Driscoll, Kanoff,, Moore, DiPiazza, No - Marinello

MINUTES:

Minutes of January 6, 2010 Eligible: Cartine, Kanoff, Hug, Buraszeski, Driscoll, Shirkey, Marinello

Buraszeski – On the 2nd page, in the last paragraph, change properly to proper; and on page 8 under Youssef add in that the motion was to deny and under DeBlasio add the motion was to approve.

Motion to adopt as amended made by: Buraszeski, Second by: Driscoll. Roll call: Yes- Unanimous

 Cartine, Kanoff, Buraszeski, Driscoll, Shirkey, Marinello

INVOICES:

Pashman Stein – O/E for: $262.50, $981.25, Trust for: $343.75; $1,093.75, $406.25, $681.25, $1,668.75, $3,093.75, $850, $343.75, $125, $681.25

William Denzler & Assoc. – O/E for: $125; Trust for: $156.25, $343.75, $500, $62.50, $31.25, $281.25, $218.75, $62.50, $31.25, $62.50, $62.50, $468.75, $437.50, $187.50, $281.25, $156.25

Bricker & Assoc. – Trust for: $500, $1,375.00, $2,000, $1,000.00, $500

Johnson, Murphy – Trust for: $180. $90, $180

Omland Engineering – Trust for: $2,362.50, $202.50

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

Page 9

2/3/10

RESOLUTIONS

ZSPP/FDC29-09 – Omnipoint (T-Mobile) – Cooks Ln. – B: 41, L: 1 - preliminary/final site plan/Use variance for another 7’ high extension to an existing 110’ high monopole.  A total of nine (9) antennas are proposed.  Associated improvements include the installation of a multiple equipment cabinets. Eligible: Buraszeski, Driscoll, Cartine, Hug, Kanoff, Marinello – Approval Resolution

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

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 – Eligible: Buraszeski, Driscoll, Cartine, Hug, Kanoff, Shirkey, Marinello – Approval Resolution

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

ZSPP/F/D04-08 Optasite Towers (co-locater AT&T Wireless) – 78 Boonton Ave. – B: 1, L: 29 – request for extension of approvals to 10/1/10 with no further extensions to be granted –Eligible: Buraszeski, Driscoll, Shirkey, Marinello - Granted

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

CORRESPONDENCE

ZC6-09 Caparulo, Celeste – 27 Glenwood Dr. – B: 15.01, L:14 – requested to withdraw application

Board secretary explained to the board that the above captioned applicant withdrew their application.

ZCD28-06 Lignac, Alex – 18 Glen Terrace – B: 9, L: 13 – requests extension of approvals to 12/31/10

Mr. Denzler indicated that there were no changes to zone for this property.

Motion to grant extension to 12/31/10made by: Kanoff; Second: Driscoll; Roll call: Unanimous

OTHER BUSINESS

Planning Board Liaison comments

The planning board had two meetings scheduled in January. The first meeting was reorganization, the second meeting was cancelled.   The main issue right now is to continue review of master plan.  The Planning Board is focusing on main corridors in town with exception of Route 202. 

Mr. Marinello stated that Mr. Daughtry indicated that he was not going to be at this meeting to give the board an update from the Township Committee but was going to send the alternate liaison.  The alternate was not in attendance.

Mr. Marinello – I have received a letter from Township Counsel written to the Township Committee on whether or not the Township Committee should sue the Board of Adjustment based on their approval of Holiday at Montville.  There was a close vote but they decided not to sue the board. 

If you have questions on the conflict policy previously received please ask Mr. Ackerman. 

Page 10

2/3/10

The professionals were released.

Motion to go into closed session to discuss personnel issues made by: Kanoff; Second by: Buraszeski; Roll call: Unanimous

Upon return from close session Mr. Marinello asked the board members to advise the Land Use Office if they have to step down on any application that may be on the agenda in March in case Planning Board members may need to be requested to sit in replacement.  Mr. DiPiazza stated he has to step down an application scheduled next month.  Mr. Driscoll indicated that he would let the Land Use Office know next week as to if he needs to step down on any applications for next month. 

There 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 March 3, 2010.

_______________________________________

Linda M. White, Sec.