Meeting Agendas & Minutes
Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes 04/25/11
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Morris Plains Board of Adjustment held on April 25, 2011 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 531 Speedwell Avenue. The following members were present:
Mr. John Conway
Mrs. Rosemary Lopez
Mrs. Ruth Mills
Mr. Roy Stewart
Ms. Joan Scaccia
Mr. David Schulz, Chairman
Mr. Leon Hall, Borough Engineer
Mr. William Denzler, Borough Planner
Mr. Michael Sullivan, Board Attorney
Absent: Mr. Martin Reilly
Mr. John Scagnelli
Mr. Michael Bozza
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG The meeting was called to order by Mr. Schulz. Mr. Schulz made the statement that adequate notice of this meeting has been published and posted in accordance with Chapter 231 of the Public Law of 1975, "Open Public Meetings Act."
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Schulz stated the next agenda item is approval of the meeting minutes of the Regular Meeting on March 28, 2011.
Mr. Conway moved the minutes be approved as revised, seconded by Ms. Scaccia.
Roll Call Yeas: Mr. Conway, Mrs. Lopez, Mrs. Mills, Mr. Stewart, Ms. Scaccia, Mr. Schulz Nays: None Absent: Mr. Reilly, Mr. Scagnelli, Mr. Bozza
COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLICMr. Schulz opened the meeting to the public to speak on matters other than those on the agenda. Hearing none, he closed this portion of the meeting to the public.
BA-1-11 - Gary Tahlmore – 81 West Hanover Avenue, Block: 33 Lot: 6 Mr. Schulz stated this matter is a continuation of testimony from the Board’s March 28, 2011 meeting. The applicant and his architect stated their names. Mr. Sullivan swore in the Board’s Professionals. He reminded the witnesses they continue to be under oath from the previous meeting. Mr. Leeb provided a summary of the application and recent revisions made, including reducing the height of the proposed structure, reducing the size of the proposed structure, reducing the building coverage, and reducing the impervious coverage. The size of the second floor was reduced by roughly 100 SF. Options were explored in an attempt to eliminate some of the variances being sought. He also commented on dry well(s) and roof leaders Mr. Hall asked about roof leaders and dry wells and asked where they are shown on the plans. He also referred to Mr. Leeb’s April 6, 2011 letter. Mr. Leeb provided details in connection with the proposed new dry well. He also advised that three windows were added to the right side of the proposed structure and two windows were added to the left side. All the windows have shutters. The color rendering attached to his April 6, 2011 letter is not the exact proposed garage, but it is similar in appearance. Mr. Hall, referring to his April 20, 2011 report, requested that some additional data be included on the detail of the plan such as the color of stone/rock and wood to be used. He requested that these items be earth tone in nature. Mr. Denzler suggested that a condition be included stating the materials be compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood. Mr. Leeb stated he anticipates his material colors will be earth tone in color. He commented on how the proposed structure will resemble a typical Victorian structure with stone at the base. Mr. Hall stated he is satisfied with what Mr. Leeb is proposing thus far concerning the color and stone work. He also recommended that the applicant consider installing two additional windows along the rear elevation to complement the other sides of the building. Mr. Leeb and Mr. Tahlmore both commented on Mr. Hall’s recommendation about rear windows. Both provided reasons why they did not want to do this. Mr. Hall apparently accepted their reasons against installation of the additional two windows. He recommended a condition prohibiting central heating and cooling and any plumbing and sewer facilities. Mr. Leeb replied that the applicant did want to install a slop sink, and he believed this was a reasonable request. Mr. Conway concurred with the applicant’s plan for a slop sink. Mr. Hall recommended the Board consider a condition for a deed restriction prohibiting the structure from being used as a dwelling in any form at any time in the future. The driveway paving detail needs to be added to the architectural plans. Mr. Tahlmore commented that he did not see a need for an escrow account; he believes the Construction Official would be the one performing the necessary inspections. Mr. Hall said there are elements of this application (dry wells for example) that will require inspections by him. Mr. Schulz stated that as an architect himself he is not familiar with architects or building officials inspecting dry wells. He supported Mr. Hall on his concerns for inspections by himself.Mr. Hall provided information on the procedure of his inspections, commenting that dry wells usually require a minimum of two inspections. Mr. Denzler commented on the three variances – building coverage, lot coverage, and building height. He asked how the building height was reduced. Mr. Leeb responded that a series of measures were taken and provided information on those efforts. Mr. Denzler asked about the applicant’s willingness to add some amount of landscaping in between the rear of the building and the fence. This would break up the mass of the rear of the building. The landscaping will grow. Mr. Tahlmore replied that no one would really see it. Mr. Denzler stated that if the Board does approve this application that the proposed fence be shown on the plan as to location and height and construction detail. Mr. Tahlmore stated he does not believe the proposed fence is a part of the application. He does not object to showing the fence on the plan. The Board Secretary advised that the applicant’s fence application will be given to the Zoning Officer for approval. Cross discussion about any need to include the proposed fence on the plan and other ways the fence can be addressed within a resolution. Mr. Schulz opened this portion of the meeting to questions from the public on this matter. Hearing none, he closed this portion of the meeting to the public. Mr. Schulz opened this portion of the meeting to comments from the public on this matter. Hearing none, he closed this portion of the meeting to the public. Mr. Leeb provided additional details about the proposed garage. Mr. Sullivan asked Mr. Hall about his request for additional detail on the proposed seepage pit (2a). Is there sufficient information on the plan now? Mr. Hall replied that the dry well Has been addressed and he is satisfied. Cross discussion about the proposed garage being two stories versus if it were just one story with significant commentary by Mr. Leeb. Several Board members stated they are pleased with the revisions to the plan and applaud the efforts of the architect and the applicant in making them happen. Mr. Sullivan stated that if there is a motion to approve, it would be subject to Mr. Hall’s April 23, 2011 memorandum as amended by tonight’s discussions. This included eliminating item 2(b)(c) and modifications to some of the language. A condition would be added that the proposed rear fence will be indicated on the plan. He added that the plumbing will be limited to a slop sink, faucet and an outside hose bib. Mr. Conway moved that this application be approved as modified and subject to the conditions discussed, seconded by Mrs. Mills.
Roll Call Yeas: Mr. Conway, Mrs. Lopez, Mrs. Mills, Mr. Stewart, Ms. Scaccia, Mr. Schulz
Absent: Mr. Reilly, Mr. Scagnelli, Mr. Bozza
Motion carried. Mr. Schulz advised that the Resolution will be memorialized at the Board’s May regular meeting.
BA-2-11 – EJK Realty, LLC – Route 10 East and Candlewood Drive Block: 115 Lots: 1,2,3,4,5
Mr. Schulz stated this matter is a continuation of testimony from the Board’s March 2011 regular meeting. Mr. MacArthur greeted the Board stating his name and law firm affiliation and provided information regarding proposed witnesses and what those witnesses would be presenting at tonight’s meeting. At Mr. Schulz’s request he summarized the testimony and proceedings from the Board’s March 2011 meeting. Mr. Schulz asked if any Board member had any questions for Mr. McSweeney from last month’s meeting. There were no questions from Board members. Mr. Sullivan swore in the Board Professionals. Mr. MacArthur called Mr. Kloss. Mr. Sullivan reminded Mr. Kloss that he was sworn at the Board’s March 2011 meeting and that he is still under oath. Mr. Kloss stated he is still the 100 percent owner of the subject property. He provided an overview and update on the status of this project, particularly the efforts to identify additional tenants. He also commented on the driveway, the parking lot area(s), access from the parking lot to the businesses, and ADA requirements. Mr. Sullivan referred to the Board’s July 2010 Resolution and that it mandated that the use of the 20,000 SF building be strictly limited to being a wholesale distribution center facility. At that time parking variances had been sought based upon parking requirements for retail and a wholesale facility. Variances were granted based on specific use of certain buildings. He read Condition #1. If there is a desire to change the use to retail, the applicant must return to the Board to seek relief from applicable conditions and request parking variances. Mr. Kloss asked that if he were to have a tenant such as Sleepy’s, would this use meet the approval of the Board. Mr. Sullivan stated he would need more detailed information in order to determine if they met the definition of a wholesale distribution center. He referred to Section 13-2.1 of the Land Development Ordinance: “a wholesale distribution center or facility as a business establishment for the sale and distribution of merchandise to retailers or jobbers rather than to consumers.” Direct sales to consumers would not be permitted. Mr. MacArthur referred to an earlier question from Mr. Denzler as to what tenants the applicant might be seeking. They are prepared to discuss this matter tonight, including issues relating to the parking study completed last year. He stated it is a specialty, low intensity retail that has a parking characteristic similar to the wholesale requirement. Mr. Sullivan stated the applicant will need relief from the prior condition of the Board in order to proceed with this proposal. The best time to do this is when a specific tenant is identified and the relief is needed. An application will need to be made at that time. Cross discussion about the issue of the type of tenant permitted in the 20, 000 SF building, wholesale use versus retail use, conditions contained in a prior Resolution(s), and a letter received by the Board. The primary commentators in this discussion were Messrs. Denzler, Hall, Kloss, MacArthur, and Sullivan. Mr. Kloss provided commentary on his opinion relating to wholesale versus retail. He also commented on various circumstances relating to building issues, building permits, and signage. The Board Secretary provided additional information regarding the building permits that were issued and what these permits were for. Mr. Kloss discussed issues relating to signage and the installation of signage. He offered several alternate ways of proceeding with the issues relating to the proposed signage. He also presented his reasons for why he believes his site requires largest signage he would be permitted because of the size of his site and the fact that there are multiple businesses as opposed to just one business. He referred several times to the gas station (Ceglia) adjacent to him providing comparative information between his site and the gas station site. Cross discussion concerning issues relating to signage such as area and height. General brief discussion in connection with Exhibits entered into evidence thus far, what they represent and the Exhibit numbers. In response to a question from a Board member asking when an applicant comes before the Board and raises a comparable issue, to what extent does this information have to be officially confirmed, Mr. Denzler stated that from a planning perspective, each site stands on its own. He replied that he would have to review the Ceglia Resolution to determine exactly what was approved. Mr. Hall commented on issues relating to existing signs in the immediate area (along Route 10 from Route 53 east to approximately Route 202) of the applicant’s site. He also said that the applicant did not research existing signs in the immediate area in order to compile data for the signs. Therefore, he has no sense of the precise details of signage in the immediate area. Mr. MacArthur referred to testimony provided by Mr. John A. Palus, a principal of Dynamic Engineering, 1904 Main Street, Lake Como, New Jersey, on March 26, 2007. He believes this testimony provides information that may be helpful at this point in time: “Concentrating on Route 10 eastbound and as part of the Borough of Morris Plains, there are a number of signs that we looked at. Starting primarily from east to west there was a Stop & Shop sign, a Super Stop & Shop sign just east of 202. That sign was for 110, 77.9 square feet at a height of 24.6 and a maximum width of 10.67 feet and a maximum vertical of 7.3 feet. To the west of that, there was a Kohl’s and Shop Rite sign representing two tenants. That area was 229 square feet, the height was 27.25. The maximum width was 18 feet and the maximum vertical dimension was 18 feet as well. There was also a sign for two tenants, one was Jersey Boy Bagels and one was Florentine Grill Italian Restaurant. That was 24.4 square feet at a height of 6.7 feet. There was also a Jiffy Lube sign that was approximately 42 square feet at a height of 23 feet. And then there was also the Candlewood Suites sign which had an area of 62.5 square feet at a height of 8 feet. Essentially, the majority of the signs represent 12 square feet or greater per tenant.” Continuing, Mr. MacArthur referred to Mr. Hall’s April 20, 2011 letter, particularly text relating to signage and asked Mr. Kloss a series of yes/no questions. Mrs. Lopez commented that in connection with the testimony of Mr. Palus – since he is not present – there is no opportunity to ask him any questions or to obtain any additional information. Mr. Sullivan agreed that inserting this testimony is somewhat problematic in that Mr. Palus is not present and not available for cross examination. He believes the applicant is requesting the 27’ height sign variance because the proposed 27’ high sign is a more aesthetically pleasing sign. Extensive additional cross discussion about the proposed signage, including that a Board member recommended adhering to what was initially approved and if it would be possible to see the signage that was approved previously. Mr. Hall commented on the architectural plans and the details shown on those plans approved in 2007. Mr. Schulz commented that new business requirements for the applicant may have occurred over the past several years. Mr. Schulz opened this portion of the meeting to questions from the public of this witness. Hearing none, he closed this portion of the meeting to the public. Mr. Daniel J. Dougherty provided his name, stating he is from Dynamic Engineering Consultants, 1904 Main Street, Lake Como, New Jersey. He reviewed the site plan revisions, stating that dimensional corrections have been done as well as architectural details for the freestanding sign. He provided information relating to a meeting with GPU regarding the transformer location on the currently approved plans, which was determined to be not acceptable to GPU. GPU has requested that the location be changed, and Mr. Dougherty included detailed information on what is presently being proposed. He also advised that the proposed 132 parking spaces would decrease to 131 parking spaces and commented on parking issues in general. Mr. Hall asked about the GPU determination that the transformer location had to be changed from a location behind the building because they have a concern about a turn or the angle on the feed line. Is GPU aware of the proposed alignment for the electrical feed? Mr. Dougherty stated this is correct. He does not believe that GPU considers his data and is unsure if they are aware of alignment detail. Mr. Kloss provided additional information that he is aware of concerning the electrical feed to the site. Mr. Hall stated that if there is an approval tonight for an amended site plan, the utility plan needs to be amended to reflect testimony from this meeting. It will be “cleaner” if the plans show exactly what GPU wants, and apparently Mr. Kloss knows what GPU wants. Mr. Dougherty next discussed ingress issues for the parking lot area, parking in general, and whether the traffic and/or turning radius is improved at all with the transformer location being changed. Mr. Dougherty replied that it does not improve the turning radius, the turning movement. It does make the first stall on the east side much more accessible. Sight distance will not be impaired. Mr. Sullivan raised the subject of B3 of Mr. Denzler’s memorandum. Is this still an outstanding item? Mr. Denzler responded that he is satisfied based on the testimony provided. Cross discussion about parking lot issues, including potential maneuvering issues. Mr. Dougherty commented on the retaining walls. He was indicating Wall #3. He advised there is a typographical error on the lighting design. There will be 17 fixtures for the freestanding lighting versus the 18 indicated. Mr. Sullivan pointed out that Item B1 of Mr. Hall’s report was not discussed. Mr. Hall replied that he thought there would be another witness to testify on this. Mr. MacArthur responded that he believed this was addressed at prior meetings. There is an existing Agreement with the Borough concerning the strip of property. The applicant is not fighting this and will relinquish the strip when it is asked for. Mr. Sullivan referred to the 2008 Developer’s Agreement, but there was no resolution to this to his knowledge. At some point this will have to be addressed. He asked Mr. Hall for comment. Mr. Hall commented on the changes that have occurred between 2007 to now. A 9’ strip should be dedicated to the Borough for future Route 10 right-of-way improvements. He also commented on morning rush hour traffic and the impact the new Dunkin Donuts will likely have. He read an excerpt from the Master Plan Re-Examination Report, Circulation Plan Element, NJDOT Congestion Relief Plans, page 24, Item #2: “Widening of Eastbound Route 10 Between Route 53 and Route 202. Road widening to accommodate a third travel lane and ingress access is proposed to ease chronic eastbound queing and volumes currently found along this portion of Route 10 in the Borough. As it pertains to road widening, the Borough should continue its policy of acquiring right-of-way along this portion of Route 10 to facilitate the recommended approvals. Any new development application before the Borough should include provisions for right-of-way dedication.” He stated this is compelling language in a Master Plan. Mr. MacArthur commented on this text. He pointed out that there is no information concerning the number of accidents that occurred in 2007 along this same stretch of roadway when the initial approval was given. The Board cannot measure against anything – is it worse, better or the same. Whatever accidents took place in the past 18 months are not the result of what the applicant is proposing for this site. The applicant is completely willing to abide by the terms of the Developer’s Agreement that was signed in 2008. He commented on several problems that this creates for Mr. Kloss; for example, the mortgage holder will not allow this. There is nothing in ordinance concerning the Developer’s Agreement which authorizes this – nothing about demanding a property right from an applicant. Mr. Sullivan stated that since the Circulation Plan Element was adopted by the Planning Board in 2008 and established a policy, have there been any right-of-way grants to municipalities or the State in accordance with this? Mr. Hall stated absolutely. Aires Jewelers is one in which the Planning Board demanded a 10’ or 12’ foot wide dedication. Mr. Conway commented that things have changed between this applicant’s first application and the current application. What was agreed to a time ago may not be acceptable any longer. The applicant should give consideration to this. Mr. MacArthur replied that an agreement was negotiated on this subject. The applicant is not refusing to give this right-of-way when NJDOT asks for it. Mr. Sullivan asked if the applicant gives the right-of-way dedication and the road is widened as planned, will there be a benefit to this property owner as part of this road work. Mr. Hall responded that in his opinion there would be a benefit in that there would now be three lanes of traffic traveling eastbound in front of the applicant’s site. Overall traffic congestion along this stretch of roadway will be reduced and will allow for easier maneuvering across the lanes of traffic and off the roadway will be safer. Mrs. Mills asked if an applicant does not dedicate right-of-way area to the Borough, wouldn’t the State just take it for the proposed third lane? Mr. Sullivan replied that the State could always do this. He believes the current thinking is that it is easier for purposes of future road widening to accumulate the properties now versus a condemnation process at a later date. Mr. Hall advised that the Mayor and Council are actively pursuing the NJDOT to have this third lane installed. He submitted an informal application (a request to be placed on their priority list) in February 2011 to the NJDOT and listed those area properties where right-of-way property has been dedicated to the Borough. Mr. Sullivan commented on whether the Board is bound based upon the 2008 Agreement – he does not believe so – since it was based on situations and facts at that time. Secondly, there is a history and past policy of doing that. If it went to litigation, it would be an interesting issue. However, he believes there is a clear benefit to the applicant if a third lane is installed. He agrees the applicant would be giving up some property rights, but in return a clear benefit is received. Mr. MacArthur does not concur with the opinions of Messrs. Hall and Sullivan. Mr. Kloss asked if the other businesses are giving the property for free to NJDOT. Mr. Hall responded that the businesses he mentioned are deeding the right-of-way to the Borough of Morris Plains. Mr. Kloss provided additional commentary regarding the right-of-way dedication request and mortgage(s). Mr. Sullivan asked who the property owner is. Mr. MacArthur replied his name is Joseph Longo. He referenced a letter from a law firm (Lindabury, McCormick & Cooper) signed by Joseph E. Imbricaco, Esq. addressed to Mr. Kloss advising they are the attorneys for Mr. Joseph J. Longo, mortgagor, holding a first mortgage lien on the above property owned by Edward Kloss , Jr. The letter states they are advising Mr. Longo not to consent to the transfer of 12’ of property along Route 10 on the mortgage. Cross discussion concerning approval and agreement. The Board’s approval that was memorialized in 2007 indicates that an issue was transferred to the governing body. Mr. Schulz opened this portion of the meeting to questions of the witness. Hearing none, he closed this portion of the meeting to the public. Matthew Welch, a project manager with Stonefiled Engineering Design provided an address of 36 Ames Avenue, Suite 2B, Rutherford, New Jersey. He was sworn in by Mr. Sullivan. Continuing, Mr. Welch stated he has never been a witness before this Board. He then proceeded to provide information on his qualifications. He stated he provided a letter dated April 11, 2011 to the Board. Mr. Welch provided commentary on parking analysis. Mr. Hall asked about morning peak hour trip generation and whether it would be a fair statement that Dunkin Donuts would have a higher peak trip generation into and out of the site in the morning than a retail use. Mr. Welch replied it would depend on the retail use. Most typical retail uses have their peak generation during the afternoon and on Saturday peak hours. He would agree that Dunkin Donuts would generate a higher morning peak generation into and out of the site than a general retail use. Mr. Hall stated he tends to agree with the expert’s testimony in terms of wholesale use whether it is 20,000 SF with one tenant or with three tenants. The parking demand does not change significantly, and he confirmed this in a discussion with another traffic engineer. Mr. Conway asked if there were three retail tenants in the 20,000 SF building would the parking analysis be different. Mr. Welch replied that it would not if they are all similar and low intensity retailers. Mr. Hall asked for a restating of the question. Mr. Conway restated his question to ask how it would be different if there were three retail tenants versus three wholesale tenants. Would the parking analysis be the same? Mr. Welch responded it would depend on the retail use. The lower the intensity of a retail business (a furniture showroom) versus a higher intensity retail business (a convenience store). Mr. Denzler asked about parking standards for a furniture store as contained in Mr. Welch’s April 11, 2011 memorandum. Are there other wholesale uses that would have more parking demands than were indicated. Mr. Welch stated this was the only use he found in the manual that was similar to what they are discussing. Whether it is a furniture or other type of business that has a showroom, these are low intensity businesses. Mr. Schulz opened this portion of the meeting to questions from the public of this witness’s testimony. Hearing none he closed this portion of the meeting to the public. Mr. Daniel McSweeney, who was sworn in at a prior meeting, provided an address of 409 Washington Boulevard, Sea Girt, New Jersey. Mr. MacArthur referred Mr. McSweeney to an April 19, 2011 letter of Mr. Denzler. Mr. McSweeney discussed signage fronting Route 10 as well as additional signage that would be on the easterly elevation facing the parking lot. He believes that the number of signs proposed is not excessive especially in light of (1) the size of the property and (2) the construction of some 34,000 SF of building area on the site. He raised the subject of the definition of wholesale. His recollection is that as part of the traffic study, there was specific mention that the wholesale use for the building would be based on a parking standard of one space for each 400 square feet. This is a wholesale building requirement. He read from Parking Standards - Schedule E from the Borough’s ordinance, “Off-Street Parking Requirements” and you check wholesale, it says: “Wholesale establishment, furniture and appliance store, motor vehicle sales, building materials store and similar hard goods sales. . .” All of these uses would require one parking space for 400 square feet. It was always the intent of the applicant that the tenant would be a wholesale establishment or one of the uses that falls in the parking standard contained in the ordinance. Continuing, Mr. McSweeney commented that a low intensity retail business generally would not have customers coming to the store frequently, maybe several times a year or perhaps only once or twice over several years. It is his opinion that the proposed signage is very reasonable for the site. Mr. Sullivan asked about the maximum number of signs and what number of signs is permitted at the south elevation. Mr. Denzler replied it would be two signs versus three signs. Mr. Hall stated that on the south elevation, the ordinance does not permit any signs, and the applicant is proposing three signs of 39 SF each. On the east elevation, the one facing Route 10, one wall mounted sign is permitted. If there a architectural features that break up the face of the building into distinct architectural sections, then there can be one sign per section. Under this section of the ordinance, he believes there are two variances required. Mr. Schulz asked if the final number of businesses that will be in the building is uncertain at this time, can the question relating to the number of signs be answered now. There appears to be no way to know now exactly how many signs ultimately may be needed. Mr. Denzler commented on the off-street parking – the one space per 400 – is Mr. McSweeney saying the furniture store or the appliance store would be wholesale. Mr. McSweeney said he is saying it is a different use with the same parking standards. Cross discussion about the 20,000 SF building tenant being wholesale or a similar use. Early on mention was made of a Staples or Staples type business being in this structure. Mr. McSweeney also asked why would there be a desire to limit the use in a building that has been vacant for a long time and is an eyesore. The applicant’s goal is to identify a good tenant or tenants which he believes would be in everyone’s best interest. Why limit the uses in this building if there are other good uses that require the same parking standards? Mr. Schulz opened this portion of the meeting to questions from the public. Hearing none, he closed this portion of the meeting to the public. Mr. MacArthur requested a two-minute recess. Mr. McArthur requested an amended application and stated the applicant is withdrawing the variance request. Mr. Schulz stated this now leaves two matters for discussion by the Board. He suggested two separate discussions and two separate votes. These two are: (1) signage on the building and (2) amended site plan approval. Mr. Sullivan summarized the signage issues.
In connection with the variances relating to the building mounted signage, Mr. Stewart moved to approve, seconded by Mrs. Mills.
Roll Call Yeas: Mr. Stewart, Mr. Schulz
Nays: Mr. Conway, Mrs. Lopez, Mrs. Mills, Ms. Scaccia
Absent: Mr. Reilly, Mr. Scagnelli, Mr. Bozza
Motion failed. Mr. Schulz stated the motion failed and therefore the variances are denied.
Mr. Conway moved to approve the site plan application as indicated with the exceptions indicated by Mr. Sullivan and includes the request for the dedication as recommended by Mr. Hall, seconded by Mrs. Lopez.
Roll Call Yeas: Mr. Conway, Mrs. Lopez, Mrs. Mills, Mr. Stewart, Ms. Scacci Mr. Schulz
Absent: Mr. Reilly, Mr. Scagnelli, Mr. Bozza
Motion carried. Mr. Sullivan provided information as to what the Resolution will reflect.
CORRESPONDENCE AND BILLSMrs. Mills stated there are several bills: (1) membership in the New Jersey Association of Planning and Zoning Administrators for Karen Coffey – $45.00; (2) William Denzler & Associates – Professional Services for March 2011 - $28.75; (3) New Jersey Planning Officials – Class A Dues - $360.00 (split between the two Boards); and (4) 19 Municipal Land Use Law Books - $285.00. Mrs. Mills moved that the bills as read by approved for payment, seconded by Mr. Conway.
Roll Call Yeas: Mr. Conway, Mrs. Lopez, Mrs. Mills, Mr. Stewart, Ms. Scaccia Mr. Schulz
Absent: Mr. Reilly, Mr. Scagnelli, Mr. Bozza Motion carried.
Escrow ReportThe Board Secretary presented her review of the Escrow Report and answered the questions as raised. Mr. Hall asked how escrow will proceed in light of the amount of time three professionals spent at this meeting. The Board Secretary stated she will request additional funds from the applicant, EJK.
There being no further business, Mr. Conway moved the meeting be adjourned, seconded by Mrs. Lopez. Voice vote. All in favor. Motion
Karen M. Coffey Commission Secretary
Maureen Sullivan Recording Secretary