|
MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP
ZONING BOARD OF
ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES OF April 7, 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 – Present
Also Present: Joseph Burgis, Planner
Stan Omland, Engineer
Bruce Ackerman, Esq.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Stated for the record
Adoption of Professional
Services Agreement for Stanley Omland, PE;
Omland Engineering
Motion made by: Buraszeski;
Second by: Driscoll; Roll call: unanimous
Mr. Marinello stated that he appreciated
the dedicated service of Mr. Huelsebusch and Mr. Denzler over the years. Mr.
Marinello then welcomed Mr. Omland to the Board.
Swearing in of Professionals
The following application was
carried with notice preserved to 6/2/10:
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: 6/2/10
The following application was
carried with notice preserved to 5/5/10:
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& 2/3/10 –
Eligible: Buraszeski,
Cartine, Driscoll, Kanoff,
Hug,
Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello ACT
BY 5/11/10
OLD BUSINESS
NONE
NEW BUSINESS
ZC25-08 Caggiano, Lou Carl – Hog
Mountain Rd. – B: 33, L: 32 – variance for
construction of a
single
family home on an unimproved road –
Notice acceptable ACT BY:
4/8/10
Present on behalf of the
applicant: Steven Schepis, Esq.; Lou
Carl Caggiano, applicant, Frank Matarazzo, PE
Mr. Schepis – The applicant
is requesting a variance to construct a house that does not front on an
approved or improved road.
Mr. Matarazzo, PE
- sworn
A1 – colorized version of grading plan sheet 2 of 5
Mr. Matarazzo – Reviewed the location
of the property for the Board. The lot
is accessed by Hog Mountain Road
off Taylortown Road. The property does not have frontage on Taylortown Road. There is a pond on the property. There is a dam on the property. Property is located in the R-80 zone. There is a 25’ wide water main easement
running along property owned by Boonton Water Company. Hog Mountain
Road is paved up to 150’ short of the property,
remaining is dirt road which we propose to pave as a driveway. Propose to wrap the driveway around the dam
wall up to the house. There currently exists
only a foundation on the property.
Propose a septic system and to be serviced by public water from Taylortown Road
through Montville
Township. Propose a fire suppression line that will tap
into the existing line on Taylortown
Rd. Inside
the house will have to be sprinkled.
A2 – certification by Mr. Matarazzo on how the lot
came to be
Mr. Matarazzo – Reviewed the deeds
as far back as possible on the property.
Found a deed from 1950 on this property which recites the property as it
is today. This lot existed at least 2
years before the original ordinances of Montville Township. The fire department has reviewed and approved
the application as well as the traffic safety officer and the Water and Sewer
department. Propose a drywell northeast
of the proposed house. Propose an
underground detention system. The system
is designed so that there will be a slight decrease in stormwater runoff from
the existing conditions.
Mr. Schepis – The Town of
Boonton request plans to be revised to include signs existing on property and
request emergency access to the property.
I forwarded a draft easement to the Town of Boonton for that access.
A3 – draft easement for access from Town of Boonton
Mr. Marinello – Since we will
not conclude tonight we will get our questions out for you to answer at the
next hearing.
Mr. Burgis – We did not
prepare a written review since Mr. Denzler did a report where a variance is
requested for lot frontage on approved road.
Mr. Schepis – The lot predates the ordinance so believe that variance is
not required though it was noticed for.
Mr. Omland – My concerns are outlined in my memo of today’s’ date. Do you anticipate blasting? Mr. Matarazzo – No. Mr. Omland – Applicant must protect the water
main if blasting is required. Mr. Schepis
– The applicant consents to comply with blasting policy. Mr. Omland – Was the proposed easement
reviewed by the Town of Boonton Water Department? Mr. Schepis – I do not think they had the
opportunity yet, it was drawn up and submitted today. Mr. Omland – The concern is with the
underground detention system that may affect the dam’s core. The dam safety study done by CMX needs to be
submitted along with approvals from DEP.
Have you received any approvals from DEP? Mr. Matarazzo – Wetlands permits were
applied for but not received yet.
Mr. Omland – Is the existing
driveway completely in the easement? Mr.
Matarazzo – Our property line runs down the middle of the dirt road. Mr. Omland – Address all items outlined in my
memo before the next hearing.
Open to public
Landie Simone, 101B Taylortown Rd. –
sworn
Concerned that the portion of
Hog Mountain before this site is only 12’
wide and wonder if emergency vehicles will be able to access the site. There is a lack of dam safety studies in the
file. The area floods periodically,
concerned with flooding to my aviary where I raise bees near the pond. Concerned with tree removal and community
mail boxes that would be in the way of where they are to widen the right of
way. I did not see details of the
proposed improvements to the road. Did
the HPRC review this application?
Dr. Kanoff – Is the driveway
located on someone else’s property since it is shown outside property line?
Baroue Kadda - 99 Taylortown Rd. -
sworn
Concerned if there are
improvements to the dam would it affect our properties downstream.
Mr. Marinello asked Mr.
Burgis to submit background on the intent and purpose of the ordinance that
restrict building single family homes without frontage or without a yard on an
improved yard as it relates to the masterplan for this property Do you have any background on whether it is a
buildable lot since it was here before the ordinances came into effect. Requested report from HPRC. Mr. Ackerman –
Requested proofs that the right of way existed prior to the ordinance since not
noted in the early deeds. Mr. Buraszeski
– Will the owners of lot 28 have to grant consent in order for the applicant to
install the improvements that the fire department requested. Mr. Driscoll – How can access occur to the
lot without crossing the yellow line?
Carried with notice to 6/2/10
with an extension of time to act to 6/3/10
ZSPP/FD33-09 Nextel of New York - B: 1, L: 29 – 78 Boonton
Ave. – Preliminary/ Final Site Plan/D Variance
filing co-location on existing tower – Notice acceptable ACT BY: 5/18/10
Present on behalf of the
applicant: Richard Schneider, Esq.;
Rosario Conelli, RF Engineer; Mark Nidle, FCC compliance expert, Joseph Sullivan, PE; William Masters, PP
A transcription company was in
attendance for this application.
Mr. Schneider – The applicant
is requesting to co-locate on an existing tower which was previously approved
with 3 other co-locators on the property.
This is the 4th carrier proposed. 7’x11’ equipment shelter proposed. The original resolution had a condition that
4 carriers co-locate on this tower so no new towers would need to be constructed. D variances required.
Rosario Conelli, RF Engineer
– sworn
Exhibit marked in
A1 – map with overlays indicating
gaps in coverage
Mr. Conelli – Reviewed A-1
for the board. He reviewed other locations
of existing Nextel sites within Montville
and surrounding areas. Nextel has FCC
licensing. There is a large gap in
service along Boonton Avenue. Locating on this existing tower will provide
reliable coverage for this area. Propose
height is 112’ on the existing tower.
Mark Nidle, FCC compliance
expert - sworn
Reviewed his report of FCC
compliance previously submitted to the Board.
It is a cumulative analysis of all locators on site. .4147 is the level from this site which is
250 times below FCC requirement.
Joseph Sullivan, PE – sworn
Reviewed the site plan that
was previously submitted to the board. Reviewed
all previous approvals on site for the board.
The compound is situated to the rear of the property which is in excess
of 23 acres. Existing monopole is 145’
in height to the highest branches and will locate the antennae at 112’. AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile were
previously approved on this site. 12 antennas
proposed. Compound was designed to
accommodate 4 equipment shelters. No
generator. One 42 watt motion censored
light on cabinet for safety. Site
visited once every 4-6 weeks.
William. Masters, PP -sworn
I was the planner on the
original approval on this site. Property
is located in the I-2 zone. One antenna array
on the pole currently, two others approved and condition of resolution
indicates that 4 carriers to be on pole.
Requesting Use variance for Use not permitted in the zone, height variance and a variance for multiple
principal uses on one site. Suitable
site for the proposed use. Existing structure
co-location, not a new structure.
Non-residential zone. Large
lot. 4th carrier on existing
monopole. Existing developed lot. Previously approved for this use for three
other carriers. This use serves the
general welfare of the public. Insignificant
visual impact.
A2 – photo simulation board of tower from several
views
Mr. Masters – Reviewed A-2
for the board. Visual impact is
aesthetically inconsequential. Not
detrimental to public good. Benefits
outweigh detriments. Height of existing
structure is not being extended past what has been approved initially. Previous approvals have been granted on this
site for multiple principal buildings on one lot. Equipment compound not be extended past what
was approved originally. The recent rezoning
approval for certain lots in the area to residential is not affected by this
proposal. The setback to the subdivision
is a 150’ reduction to the closest point of the equipment compound from what
was previously approved.
Open to public – none
Mr. Marinello – This is an
existing pole but will look less like a tree with added antenna. If the main use of the property was different
would it affect your opinion of the propriety of the application? Mr. Burgis – No. Mr. Shirkey – Why are the antenna horizontal
instead of vertical? Mr. Conelli - They
are vertical like the other antennas.
Mr. Ackerman – Did you do
drive-by testing for gap in coverage?
Mr. Conelli – Yes. Mr. Ackerman –
Have you looked at other sites in the area?
Mr. Conelli – There are no other sites in the area? Mr. Ackerman – Will another site be required
in the future? Mr. Conelli – This site
will complete coverage in Montville
Township.
Closed to public
Motion to approve the
application, co-locating on existing pole at a lower height, no public opposition;
positives outweigh negatives, antenna to match color of existing antennas made
by: Dr. Kanoff; Second by: Driscoll; Roll call: Yes – Cartine, Driscoll, Kanoff,
Hug, Buraszeski; Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello
ZC02-10 –Fiorenzi, Chris – B: 59.02, L: 8 – 7 Old Farm Ct. – accessory structure
setback/ principal setback to natural gas easement variances associated with
as-built- non-conformities as required for the final CO for the in-ground pool
recently constructed – Notice acceptable
ACT
BY: 6/29/10
Present on behalf of the
applicant: Chris Fiorenzi, applicant;
Steven Schepis, Esq.
Mr. Schepis – Initially there
were a number of variances requested, we have reduced the variances to
accessory structure setback. Propose to
reduce deck and walkways considerably. There
is a gas easement located next to the property so variance requested for same
even though the house was constructed within that setback which is a
pre-existing condition.
Mr. Burgis – There is a
provision in the ordinance that says pools are not calculated in accessory
structure coverage and they meet that requirement
Chris Fiorenzi, applicant –
sworn
A1 – colorized version of site plan.
A2 – series of photos of the property
Mr. Fiorenzi – The cabana was
built after the pool was constructed and I did not follow the plan
exactly. Thought it was more aesthetic
the way it was constructed. Was not
aware that there was a 20’ requirement for rear setback where it was
constructed at 18.7’. Reviewed photos
for the board. The cabana is open on one
side and closed on the other three. Have
water and bathroom in cabana. Door in
back 3’x5’ area for pool equipment. Mr.
Schepis – The nature of the deviation from the ordinance in only a little over
1’. Location more aesthetically
pleasing, applicant was unaware of the setback requirement. Safer location since further away from
pool. Further away from street and house
to allow for more light, air and open space.
No negative impact on neighboring properties. There is a wall of green to the rear of the
property buffering the neighboring properties.
He brought the plan into compliance with building and impervious
coverage.
Mr. Burgis – There are more
than 40’ between adjoining accessory structures, there is extensive landscaping
to the rear of the property. Meets
overall intent of the ordinance.
Open to public – none –
closed
Mr. Cartine – Was there any
other location on the property that this could be placed without requiring a
variance? Mr. Burgis – Yes. Mr. Cartine – Is there a hardship to the
property? Mr. Burgis – No. Dr. Kanoff – Does not agree with building and
then coming in for approvals. Mr. Hug –
What is the structure attached to the cabana to the left? Mr. Fiorenzi – A 2’x4’ enclosed shower. Mr. Hug – Where does it drain? Mr. Fiorenzi – To the house. Mr. DiPiazza – When was the pool built? Mr. Fiorenzi – 2005. Mr. DiPiazza – And the cabana? Mr. Fiorenzi – 2005, I got a letter stating
that I never received a CO and was required to submit an as built drawing to
find I was in variance. Mr. Shirkey –
When were the photos taken? Mr. Fiorenzi
– A couple of weeks ago. Mr. Shirkey –
You would not have been here if you had a permit for the cabana in this
location. Mr. Shirkey – Would you agree
to a condition to maintain the landscaping buffer to the rear? Mr. Fiorenzi – Yes.
Mr. Cartine – Do not see a
hardship to the property or any C2 proofs.
Mr. Buraszeski – He is creating an improvement to the property due to
reduction in deck and impervious coverage which exists over the allowable. Mr.
Shirkey – I do not believe he has a building permit for this structure in the
first place.
Motion to approve, de minimus
setback, reducing existing variances on site, benefit by making building an
impervious coverage fully compliant made by: Mr. Buraszeski; Second by: Driscoll;
Roll call: Yes –
Driscoll,
Kanoff, Buraszeski; Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello; No – Cartine & Hug,
ZC35-09 –Como III, Daniel – B: 116, L: 33
– 12 Cedar Rd. – front yard setback of 30.67’
where 60’ is required for new home – Notice Acceptable ACT BY: 6/29/10
Present on behalf of the
applicant: Steven Schepis, Esq, Joseph
Mianecki, PP, PE, Daniel Como III, applicant
Mr. Schepis – The property is
located in the R-20A zone, exists undersized.
Propose single family dwelling which meets all requirements except front
setback due to a right of way being involved which expands the front setback
requirement. There is currently no
intended road improvements on Cedar
Road proposed.
Joseph Mianecki, PP, PE –
sworn
Reviewed the property for the
Board. Propose 3,100 s.f. single family
dwelling. Front setback of 30.67’
proposed where 60’ required to the centerline of the right of way. The building will be located 45’ to the front
property line.
A1 – colorized variance plan
A2 – colorized GIS map
Mr. Mianecki –The house size
is in conformance with neighboring houses.
There used to be a home on the property which was removed in 2007. The area where the house was has been graded
off and seeded. The lot is pretty well
devoid of trees. Described location of
houses in the surrounding area.
Undersized lot on 20’ wide right of way.
Keeping house in line with other houses on the street. If moved back it would violate the rear yard
setback. No detriment to zone plan or
zoning ordinance. Minimal tree removed,
lot is clear and graded. Propose 2
drywells, did test pits, found depth of rock at 3’-4’ so drywells not good for
this lot. Can do above ground system to
be reviewed and approved by the board engineer.
Will meet 0% net runoff requirements.
Located in CWR zone, but during test pits, no water found at 4’ down.
Mr. Burgis – Need for fencing
on top of retaining wall? Mr. Mianecki –
In lieu of fencing propose a 3’ wide mulch strip with plantings. Retaining walls go from 6’ at rear of house
to 2’. Propose barberry which is a
thorny plant for top of walls. Not
located near a pedestrian area. Mr.
Burgis – If he had to push house back, the house depth would have to be reduced
to about 22’. Mr. Omland – Are there
other solutions other than drywells, such as chambers to get water back into
the groundwater. Mr. Mianecki – Tried to
do more of a rain garden. Mr. Omland – Rain
garden to be reviewed by the township engineer for approval. Mr. Mianecki – Request not to install the
150’ turnaround since driveway is essentially a dead end street, will comply
with remaining items in the engineers’ report.
Mr. Omland – Insufficient information on stormwater management as to
whether it will comply. Mr. Omland –
Have no problem with the 150’ turnaround exception requested.
Open to public
Darren Beyer, 10 Cedar Rd. –
sworn
Concerned with water
problems. What is wall to be made
of? Mr. Mianecki – Modular block, like
keystone.
Mr. Marinello – Does the
Board have enough information on this application to consider a vote? Mr. Cartine – Undersized lot, dead end
street, in keeping with the neighborhood but I don’t like water issues. The only people that can make the water issue
work are their experts and our experts so condition it in the resolution. Mr. Shirkey – Can you tier the wall to the
rear and to the right to make it less than 6’.
Mr. Mianecki – Yes. Mr. Schepis –
We can plant evergreens to screen it from the neighboring property to
buffer the wall. Mr. Cartine – What happens if the deer eat
the bushes or they die? Mr. Ackerman –
We cannot request performance bonding since not a commercial application. Mr. Marinello – Can ask for a 1 year bond for
guarantee that installed and kept alive.
Motion to approve subject to
6’ wall to left of property to be topped with thorn vegetation subject to
approval of engineer and tier of the wall to the right side , no more than 4’
in height not meaning to comply with distance between walls, drainage plan to
be approved by the engineer that will create 0% net runoff, landscaping, 1 year
bond for wall planting, no requirement for 150’ turnaround, property
constrained by right of way, staking/structural put in bushes that are
camouflaged made by: Cartine; Second by: Kanoff;
Roll call: Yes – Cartine, Driscoll, Kanoff,
Hug, Buraszeski; Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello
ZSPP/FD17-09-6-10 – MetroPCS – 331 Changebridge
Rd. – B: 160.2, L: 23 –amended site plan for
relief from condition of resolution for installation of sidewalk – Notice
Acceptable
ACT
BY: 7/3/10
Present on behalf of the
applicant: Joseph O’Neill, Esq.; Gary
Musciano, AIA
Mr. O’Neill – Requesting to
amend a condition of approval to install sidewalks for a cellular installation
on an existing water tank previously approved.
Installation of sidewalks would be very expensive and very difficult.
Gary Musciano, AIA – sworn
A1 – topographic survey of area along Changebridge Rd
Mr. Musciano – Metro PCS had
approvals for installation of antennas on this site and was required to install
sidewalks along frontage of Changebridge
Rd. The
frontage is about 652’ long and the grade drops off substantially toward the
building. There are driveways that would
have to be crossed. The installation
would be about $60,000. Large amounts of
fill would be required. Would have to
raise a fire hydrant, water valve, manhole, utility lines, etc. Ask the board to reconsider the condition of
installation of sidewalks.
A2 – aerial photo of Changebridge road between Rt. 46
and Stiles Lane
Mr. Musciano – There is not a
lot of sidewalks existing along Changebridge
Road. There
are no shops in the immediate area to walk to and there is no bus service along
Changebridge. It is not a residential neighborhood;
it is large buildings set far apart.
Ronald Reinerdson, PP – sworn
Mr. O’Neill – Mr. Reinerdson
was retained today. Mr. Reinerdson –
Installation of sidewalks are not practical for this site. There is a sidewalk close to the building
existing. The original site plan from
this site was from the early 1960’s and it did not require sidewalks along the
road frontage. This application is not
related to the entire site.
Mr. Burgis – Sidewalk
construction is requested in the master plan.
Currently proposing a new master plan and will be asking for a sidewalk
trust fund. In their application the
installation of the sidewalk was $30,000 and tonight they indicate it is
$60,000. Is there another reason other
than the applicant does not want to build it?
Mr. Reinerdson – We have a mature site plan here, the sidewalk fund is
not on the books yet. The sidewalks do
not give proper aesthetics to the area.
Metro PCS only leases 150 s.f. of the site. Mr. Burgis – Would suggest the engineer and
myself go out on site and determine if a sidewalk should be put on site or
not. I believe something can be
provided. Mr. Omland – This is your chance
to get sidewalk on the property. It is part of the master plan.
Open to public – none
Mr. Cartine – I don’t think
anything changed from our original approval.
Mr. Hug – I don’t think levying against Metro PCS is fair, think the
owner should be required to install if they want Metro PCS as a tenant. Mr. Moore – Agreed with Mr. Hug. Mr. Cartine – It should be between the
landlord and the tenant as to how the sidewalks are installed. Mr. Marinello – If there is going to be a
major problem with grading and moving of hydrants, utilities, etc. then it does
not outweigh the burden. Mr. Ackerman – It
goes towards degree of the 2 uses on the property, not just the single user. Mr. DiPiazza – We have a master plan that
should not be ignored. Mr. Shirkey – Not
an unreasonable request, can be worked out between owner and tenant.
Mr. O’Neill – Would like to
remind the board that the applicant is going to be located 150’ away from the
required sidewalks. In 1997 you approved
the original application. In 2001 there
was an additional co-location that was not required to put in sidewalks and the
sidewalk plan was in effect at that time.
It is remote to require sidewalks to this applicant who has no right
under his lease to do this. Conditions
are supposed to be related to the applications before you. If the property owner was making changes to
the property as a whole it would be understandable but his is a minor portion
of the site.
Closed to public
Motion to deny the request
for removal of the condition of the resolution for installation of sidewalks, consistent
with master plan, safety issues and not unduly burdensome to the property as
used overall made by: Kanoff; Second by: Buraszeski; Roll call: Yes – Cartine, Driscoll, Kanoff, Buraszeski;
DiPiazza, Shirkey, No – Marinello, Hug, Moore
MINUTES:
Minutes of March 18, 2010
Eligible: Buraszeski,
Cartine, Driscoll, Hug, Kanoff, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey
Motion to adopt made by: Buraszeski,
Second by: Driscoll. Roll call: Unanimous
INVOICES:
William Denzler & Assoc.
– Trust for: $93.75, $187.50, $156.25, $93.75, $375
Omland Engineering – Trust
for: $641.25
Bricker & Associates –
Trust for: $187.50
Motion to approve made by:
Dr. Kanoff, Second by: Mr. Hug, Roll call: Unanimous
RESOLUTIONS
ZC20-09 Iulo, Marie –40 Brittany Rd.
– B: 139.04, L: 12 – variance for building coverage/ impervious coverage –
Approved – Eligible: Cartine, Driscoll, Kanoff, Hug, Moore,
DiPiazza, Shirkey, Buraszeski
Motion to adopt made by: Buraszeski;
Second by: Moore;
Roll call: Yes – Cartine,
Driscoll, Kanoff, Hug, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Buraszeski
ZC25-09 Failla, Vincent – 4
Berlin Ln. – B: 100.1, L: 8 – variance rear
setback for deck 23.8’ vs 50’ – Denied – Eligible: Cartine, Driscoll, Kanoff,
Hug, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Buraszeski
Motion to adopt made by:
Kanoff; Second by: Driscoll; Roll call: Yes – Cartine, Driscoll, Kanoff, Hug, DiPiazza,
Shirkey, Buraszeski
ZEXT27-05 DAB Associates – 43
Bellows Ln – B: 41, L: 15 – request for extension
of approvals to March 6, 2011 – Granted – Eligible: Cartine, Driscoll, Kanoff,
Hug, Moore,
DiPiazza, Shirkey, Buraszeski
Motion to adopt made by: Buraszeski;
Second by: Moore;
Roll call: Yes – Cartine,
Driscoll, Kanoff, Hug, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Buraszeski
Mr. Marinello – Mr. Lewis
from the Planning Board is in attendance tonight. Mr. Marinello asked Mr. Daughtry why high
school students no longer attend meetings.
Mr. Lewis will look into it but they do come to the planning board.
Mr. Daughtry – We need to
have one source showing where all the carriers, heights, locations and where cell towers are existing in the township.
OTHER BUSINESS
Planning Board Liaison
comments
Mr. Driscoll – The Board did
not meet.
ZC9-09 Gallagher, James – 6 Stiles Ln. – B: 145, L: 38 –dismissal
Motion to dismiss the application made by : Buraszeski ; Second
by: Hug; Roll call: Yes - Cartine, Driscoll, Kanoff, Hug, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Buraszeski,
Marinello
CORRESPONDENCE
NONE
Continued discussion of
possible Board conflicts and potential need for Planning Board members to
participate in hearing(s). – Not Discussed
Motion to go into closed
session to discuss personnel issues made by: Buraszeski; Second by: Kanoff;
Roll call: Unanimous
Upon
return from closed session and 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 May 5, 2010.
_______________________________________
Linda M. White,
Sec.
Certified
to 11/4/09 hearing
Certified to 11/4/09 hearing
|
