BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING

BOROUGH OF WANAQUE

MINUTES

Regular Meeting
September 1, 2010

Salute to Flag: 8:05 PM.

OPENING STATEMENT:

This is a Regular Meeting of the Wanaque Board of Adjustment and adequate notice has been given and it has been duly advertised by the placement of a notice in the Suburban Trends and Herald News on January 17, 2010 and a notice thereof has been posted on the bulletin board in the Municipal Building and a copy thereof is on file with the Borough Clerk.

ROLL CALL: Chairman Jack Dunning, Vice Chairman William Grygus, Members Frank Covelli, Ed Leonard, Don Ludwig, Eric Willse, Jaime Landis, Joseph D’Alessio, Attorney Ronald Mondello, and Engineer Christopher Nash.

MEMBERS ABSENT: Peter Hoffman

APPLICATIONS: #ZBA-2010-01 – Robert A. Heitzman, Jr.
LOCATION: 27 Borman Drive, Wanaque, NJ (Block 261/Lot 12)
VARIANCE: Bulk Area Variance (CD 7/23//2010)

Attorney Mondello, after reviewing the Hearing Notice, Affidavit of Service and Notice for Publication, deemed the Application complete.

Edward Martin, Esq., 48 Ringwood Avenue, Ringwood, NJ, on behalf of the Applicant.
Application is for a bulk variance relative to a retaining wall. The wall has already been constructed. Witnesses who will be called to testify are Mr. Heitzman, engineering experts as well as a professional planner.

Initially, Mr. Heitzman had made an application to the Building Department, and dealt with Mr. Brusco, to obtain a building permit for a retaining wall. The permit was granted, however, it was granted relative to a wall that was ten feet in height. My client had retained a contractor who, in turned, worked with engineers to create the plans and those engineers submitted the plans. The wall was built higher than ten feet. My client will testify as to the circumstances regarding that and we are here this evening to seek a variance so the wall does not have to be deconstructed. The wall has been in existence since 2007 and there have been some issues with a few of the neighbors showing some concerns.

Attorney Mondello swore in Robert A. Heitzman, Jr., 27 Borman Drive, Wanaque, NJ.
Attorney Martin began questioning Mr. Heitzman, the applicant, for his testimony.
Mr. Heitzman testified that he and his wife own this property since 2001 and his wife has consented to this application. I hired CDS Landscaping of Wayne, who advised me he had his own engineer that would take care of the plans for the wall. I never met them, but I did see a representative come every once-in-a-while and inspect the overall work as it was going along. CDS did construct and complete the construction of the wall, but I never saw or reviewed the plans that CDS submitted to the Borough for the wall. The landscaper was the one who submitted the permits and I was not aware of any wall height ordinance.

The first time I became aware that the wall was built, in at least one section, higher than ten feet, was when the actual complaint was filed with me. The wall was completed in the beginning of August, 2007 and I believe I received the complaint almost two years later, April or May of 2009. I told the landscaper what I wanted and the landscaper went ahead and did the work. The landscaper never told me about any height restriction and he never said I had to get a final inspection. I thought everything was done and I paid the contractor in full.

Attorney Martin asked Mr. Heitzman if there were periodic inspections of the wall while it was being built. Mr. Heitzman testified yes and that he was getting letters from Johnson Soils, which was the company that was coming out and doing the inspections. CDS Landscaping was calling for the inspections as the wall was being built.

Chairman and Vice Chairman questioned the plan that was submitted to get the permit. The plan has a proposed keystone wall that had a three-foot bank that doesn’t exist. Mr. Heitzman testified it does and it is the one running the length to the left of the pool. That wall is there, it is partially torn down right now because of the pool work.

Member Ludwig stated that one of his concerns was that there should have been elevations listed. Whether there is a three-foot wall is moot and immaterial, because it is the rear wall that has a ten-foot height restriction. It is the contractor’s fault that he did not have this engineered properly and have some sort of finished floor elevation and, we would normally require this information of an applicant.

Member Covelli asked Attorney Martin if the applicant has retained an engineer for this project. Attorney Martin stated that there is an engineer here tonight that, he believes, will testify to having prepared plans for the ten-foot wall. He will also testify, from an engineering standpoint, that the plan I submitted with this application for a fifteen foot six inch wall, is sound.

Attorney Mondello marked (A-1) a photograph of a fill wall of Mr. Heitzman’s backyard. The photograph accurately depicts the condition of the yard at the time it was taken by Mr. Heitzman’s wife in August of 2007.

Vice Chairman Grygus brought up a stop work order on the pool. Attorney Martin said he was not legally entitled to address the pool issue. Attorney Mondello agreed stating he did not advertise for it, the applicant is free to either move the pool or come back to the Board at another time.

Chairman Dunning opened the proceedings to the public to directly question the applicant only on his testimony. No one appeared and the public portion was closed.

Attorney Mondello swore in Michael Marks, EIC Group, 420 Route 46 East, Fairfield, NJ.
Credentials: BS in Civil Engineering from Rutgers; MS in Civil Engineering from Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He has a current license in New Jersey. Also licensed in New York, Pennsylvania, Florida, North Dakota and Wisconsin. He has been qualified as an expert and offered testimony before Zoning and Planning Boards in other New Jersey towns, but not Wanaque.

Attorney Mondello questioned if Mr. Marks had any structural engineering experience.
Mr. Marks stated he has a general engineering license, but his specialty is structures.
Attorney Mondello accepted Mr. Marks as an expert in the field of engineering.

Mr. Marks testified that his firm, EIC, works with several landscapers; CDS being one. Sometimes they come to us and, we work through them, to do the engineering of a wall, sort of like a complete service to the homeowner. We were approached by Mr. Ehrmann of CDS Landscaping to design the wall. I designed the structure of the wall based on the information and marked-up plan from Mr. Ehrmann. I did the design calculations for the ten foot wall.

Mr. Marks, answering the questions of Attorney Martin, testified that he prepared the report/design calculations for the fifteen foot six inch wall, which Attorney Martin submitted with this application, which were created June 23, 2009. Since the wall height increased, I analyzed the fifteen foot six inch high wall and spoke to Mr. Ehrmann, who explained to me what was actually installed. The “reinforcement” he installed behind the wall was actually longer than what I had originally shown on my plan for the ten foot wall, and he put more layers. Using those parameters, I did a check of the wall, as built, and was found to work structurally and it was fine for all the imposed forces on it.

Attorney Martin questioned Mr. Marks about examining, in person, the wall since it was built. Mr. Marks testified that he has seen pictures of it. Since that time, a survey crew from my company has gone out and actually did the survey. Attorney Martin stated he had another expert who was more involved in the survey crew going out to the wall.

Attorney Mondello marked (A-2) the 15’-6” Design Calculations received in the Building Department on June 29, 2009 and Mr. Marks submitted it on June 23, 2009.

Mr. Marks stated, that within a reasonable degree of engineering certainty, the wall as it currently stands is a safe structure right now. Since this report and based on our surveyors going out, there was one little modification; the wall was actually built straight and not on a batter, which is acceptable. It works for the way it was constructed. When re-inspecting a wall that has been created already, you can check the batter through visual inspection. You can check the layers of re-enforcement that was actually put in by looking at the face of the wall since you can see it poking through the wall so you know they are there. You usually dig a test pit behind the wall to verify the length of re-enforcement that was put in and also have the contractor dig a test pit in front of the wall to verify the footing. However, I have not been asked to do this for this wall, but it still can be done.

Mr. Marks testified he was hired to design the wall. Quite often we do not do the construction inspection, and, I think in this case it was done by other parties. We do construction inspections on other cases where people ask us to do that. We were not asked in this matter, so I had no idea that the wall was built at a different height than the plan until two years later. Engineer Nash commented that this is a typical problem for engineers. We design something, hand it over to clients, and we are never called back, never see it being built, not asked to come look at it, so we don’t know how it is being built.

Engineer Nash has some fundamental issues with this matter. You prepared a design for a ten-foot wall and you gave it to a contractor. The contractor goes out to the site and, for some reason, he changes the design. The wall is 50/55% higher and he had the wherewithal to double up on the reinforcing and make it deeper. The design was for a ten-foot wall and, from the beginning, the contractor was building a wall that was fifteen-feet high. He knew it and there is no batter on it. It does not seem right that he would get a plan to build a wall a certain way and then build it a completely different way from the ground up. The other issue is “how it was built” because now no one has witnessed it. From the face of the wall, you can make some assumptions that there is reinforcing, but you don’t’ know how far back it was, and you don’t know what compaction went on during the construction of the wall. The wall is not the face of the wall, but from the base of the wall to the back of the fill and the reinforcements; the whole block. That is what the wall is. The face is just a paint job; you don’t know what is behind it. If no one witnessed it, or no certification issued, how do we know that it was constructed in accordance with acceptable engineering means, with proper compaction. The calculations are great, but what was built.

Engineer Nash asked if this Board can get a certification from Mr. Marks that he certifies that the wall is structurally sound. Attorney Martin commented that, what was submitted to the Board are serial reports from Johnson Soils relating to the issue of placement and compaction of the DGA and the grid zones behind the wall, a probe was used to check for soft areas and found none. The reports speak for themselves. I just want to put on the record that, it seems to me, some of what we are discussing does exist. I do believe that my expert, Mr. Marks, can, if the proper investigation is done, issue what Mr. Nash is seeking.

Vice Chairman Grygus questioned Mr. Marks if he ever visited the site either pre-design, during design or post design, personally. Mr. Marks testified “yes”. Pre-design I did. During construction, I did not visit the site.

Chairman Dunning summarized by asking Mr. Marks that you were hired by the landscaping company to provide a limited service; design the drawing, give it to him and that was the end of your obligation. Mr. Marks testified that was correct.
Engineer Nash questioned Mr. Marks if he was asked to design a wall at ten-feet high or were you asked to prepare a site plan to fit this site. Mr. Marks testified they were not asked to prepare a site plan for this project. I was asked to design a ten-foot high wall. My plan clearly stated what the parameters should be for that wall. In my experience, a survey showing the location of the wall giving a maximum height has been acceptable to get a building permit. Mr. Marks further testified that he never conferred with Johnson Soils during the construction of the wall and was never notified that they were changing the height of the wall.

Member Ludwig asked if a test pit was dug. Mr. Marks testified he did not do the test pit. It was his understanding from the reports that Johnson Soils did it. Member Ludwig questioned if anyone from Johnson Soils was present. Attorney Martin replied “no”.

Attorney Mondello questioned Mr. Marks that he is opining that the wall is safe based on reports from other experts. Mr. Marks testified “yes”. He has his report and also any observations that were made on the wall after the construction and information provided to me. I was not present when the wall was constructed.

Chairman Dunning advised that the Borough’s Zoning Code allows you to build a wall basically on the property lines. The wall, as built, is not on Mr. Heitzman’s rear property line. There is no required setback. Mr. Brusco accepted this as a working site plan because there was no problem with setbacks and the only thing they all stayed away from was the sewer easement that crosses into the back of Mr. Heitzman’s property. It looks like they set the wall far enough so that would not be a problem; otherwise they would have had to come up with a marked-out site plan because of the sewer easement.

Chairman Dunning opened the proceedings to the public to directly question this expert only on his testimony. No one appeared and the public portion was closed.

Attorney Mondello swore in David Newkirk, EIC Group, 420 Route 46 East, Fairfield, NJ.
Credentials: BS in Civil Engineering from New Jersey Institute of Technology. I am a licensed Professional Engineer with a current license in good standing in New Jersey and a principal of EIC Group, an engineering firm. He has been qualified as an expert and offered testimony before Zoning and Planning Boards in other New Jersey towns, but not Wanaque. He will be testifying as to civil engineering, as opposed to structural, and is accepted as an expert for this hearing.

Mr. Newkirk testified that he first became involved in this project when Mr. Heitzman contacted him in the Spring of 2010 to look at the property and give an opinion as to the affect, which the construction of the wall may have had on storm water run-off from his property to adjoining properties. It was my understanding that some of the neighbors complained that they thought the construction of the wall negatively impacted the drainage patterns in the area.

We sent our survey crew out to take topographic survey of the wall and the area below the wall. Based on that, we analyze the surface run-off patterns on the property and do calculations to determine what the run-off parameters are now. Even though I did not see the property before the wall construction, based upon the general topography in the area and the survey we have from 2000, we knew approximately what the pre-existing conditions were. We compared our analysis of the drainage as it exists today to the pre-construction conditions and come up with a quantitative assessment of what the difference of run-off would have been. Our conclusions are that the construction of the wall probably would reduce the amount of run-off from the site and base it on a number of criteria. Firstly, by flattening out this site, in general, you would slow down the storm water run-off so that would result in a slight reduction. The size of the site is so small, that the affect really cannot be quantified because our calculations don’t work for such a small area. In theory, it would reduce the run-off. The big difference we did find is that when the wall was constructed and the grading was put in top of the wall, the yard above the wall was actually held down below the top of the wall so, in effect, the top of the wall, in a heavy rain, will impound the water on top of the wall and that area of yard would have to fill up with a couple of inches of rain before it will spill over the wall. All of that water that is impounded, then percolates into the ground rather than running off. The way the wall was built there is a small retention basin on top of the wall, which would have a significant and measurable effect on the amount of run-off from the site. We also noted that most of the water on this site is percolated into the ground, not run-off.

Is water pressure a problem due to the fact that the wall is built fairly straight instead of pitched back? Mr. Newkirk testified that he would not expect the fact the wall is not battered to change the water pressure built up behind it. A battered wall structurally is stronger, and would require less reinforcement typically than a vertical wall because the weight of the wall is leaning back into the soil already, but it does not change the water pressure that would be built up behind it. Typically, the water does not get a chance to come at the face of the wall. It goes down the drain fill and out the drainpipes. If it gets blocked for any reason, it can come out through the wall also. If the wall was built at ten feet and the yard sloped to the wall, my estimation would be that the run-off would be greater than it is now.

A discussion ensued about water impoundment and the difference between the constructed wall and the construction of two separate walls (ten foot in front and five foot behind it). A discussion regarding the inground pool was also held.

Chairman Dunning opened the proceedings to the public to directly question this expert only on his testimony.

Attorney Mondello swore in Jim Loyer, 24 Schirra Drive, Wanaque, NJ – Mr. Loyer question Mr. Newkirk about the discharge drain/pipe coming out of the base of the wall and the volume of water that might come out of it. Mr. Kewkirk was unable to comment
in that he has not observed the flow coming out of the pipe on this property during a rainstorm. The Board wanted to know if Mr. Loyer had witnessed a large flow coming out of this pipe. Mr. Loyer testified that he has not been present during periods of heavy extended rains to observe it.

Attorney Mondello swore in Sandra Giorda Hanrahan, 5 Stafford Drive, Wanaque, NJ – Ms. Hanrahan questioned what type of fill was used? Attorney Martin advised that none of his witnesses at the hearing could answer this question.
The Board advised her that later on statements could be made. This public portion was for questions for the expert, Mr. Newkirk, only.

Discussions were held about why a representative from CDS Landscaping and Johnson Soils were not present for this hearing to give testimony.

Board took a break at 9:33pm
Board reconvened at 9:48pm with all Members present from original Roll Call.

Attorney Mondello swore in Ken Ochab, 1216 Fair Lawn Avenue, Fair Lawn, NJ –
Planning Expert who has appeared before this Board before and is accepted as an expert for this hearing in the field of planning.
Mr. Ochab has been at the site several times with Mr. Heitzman, is aware of the testimony given tonight and has reviewed the Borough’s Zoning Code as to retaining walls. He also took pictures and made some observations about the surrounding area and adjacent properties.

The variance for the height of the retaining wall is a C Variance, which means basically two criteria that can be used to discuss this type of variance. One is based on hardship, C-1 Variance or Hardship Variance. Hardship has to do with the shape of the property, unusual topographic conditions, or unusual circumstances related to a specific piece of property, which would make conformance to the Zoning Ordinance an undue hardship on the applicant. The second criteria that could be used is a C-2 Variance and that is basically where the benefits of granting the variance outweigh any detriment. In this case, it would basically have more to do with a useable rear yard area, improvement to the property, and possibly the adjacent properties. I will be testifying to both and the Board has the discretion to then decide which, if any, is appropriate.

Only a section of the wall, in the far left corner of the property, is greater than ten feet in height, a little over 1/3 (28% out of 75%). I believe this is due to the topographic conditions on the site.

Attorney Mondello marked (A-3) a picture board containing four separate pictures showing the wall and topography taken by Mr. Ochab several days ago. They accurately reflect the existing conditions today. The photographs depict the elevation, grade and vegetative buffer on the property.
C-1 Variance, Hardship – From the planning prospect, a contributing factor to this variance has to do with the slope of the land and the topography of the land behind the wall.

C-2 Variance – Improvement to Property – The wall certainly made the property more useable and also contributed towards the usability of property adjacent to the site, particularly on the downhill side where the two walls meet on the neighbor’s property and makes the neighbor’s property more useable because of water drainage. Visually, it is a neater presentation.

Negative Criteria – One is whether there is a substantial detriment to the public good. What is the impact on the surrounding properties? From a planning prospective, I don’t believe there is a substantial detriment to the public good, or no impact on the immediately surrounding properties. There is a good buffer between the edge of the wall and the property line. The second aspect is whether or not the granting of the variance would create a substantial impairment to the Zoning Code/Ordinance. I believe we have a unique circumstance and conditions which lend itself to the Board looking favorable upon the application without having to worry about creating an impairment to the Zoning Code.

Discussions were held about the surrounding properties and the walls presently built, and which may be built in the future in this area, based upon Mr. Ochab’s visual perspectives as a planner.

Chairman Dunning opened the proceedings to the public to directly question this expert only on his testimony. No one appeared and the public portion was closed.

PUBLIC DISCUSSION / COMMENTS ON THIS APPLICATION:

Attorney Mondello swore in Paul Perna, 26 Borman Drive, Wanaque, NJ – 16 year resident. My property is directly across the street from Mr. Heitzman. Properties in this area need these types of walls. In fact, the neighbor behind him has a twelve-foot high wall. He has two separate walls of six feet and eight feet high. Mr. Heitzman’s wall, in his opinion, is built soundly and the yard is in much better condition. Doesn’t feel it would be right to ask Mr. Heitzman to take down any part of his wall. Believes you can’t control the water situation on a hill/mountain.

Sandra Giorda Hanrahan, 5 Stafford Drive, Wanaque, NJ – 22 year resident.
Believes some of the issues presented in this application are deceitful. When building the wall, the applicant did not question how the water was going to affect anybody around or especially below him. She never had any water issues on her property before the wall was built. The water pours through the wall and there is water coming out of the pipe in the corner of the property. The water issue is a lot worse since the wall was put up. She complains the wall is massive, unsightly looking and the area was visually much more pleasing when the area was more open. She also is concerned about the change of the grade of the property and the structure of the wall. They dumped a lot of gravel and moved a lot of soil in and out of this property. Since the wall is porous, do we have to worry about mold in the future? She believes the wall should come down and return the open view area. What about putting in extra drainage to catch the water before it comes down onto the neighbors’ property? She is very concerned about the stability of the wall, especially being compromised having tons of dirt on top of it, especially with the pool work going on too.

Attorney Mondello marked nine pictures (O-1 to O-9) presented by Ms. Hanrahan, which accurate depict Mr. Heitzman’s property in various stages after the construction started. Pictures 1 and 2 were taken in 2007, picture 3 in 2008, picture 4 in 2008, picture 5 in 2008, pictures 6 and 7 in 2009, picture 8 in 2009 and picture 9 in 2009. Ms. Hanrahan took all the pictures except O-6 and O-7. She described the photographs for the Board. According to the tax map, her property does not abut Mr. Heitzman’s.

Engineer Nash explained what could be used and what was used per the plan as fill for the wall and the difference of each element, and the need for it.

Attorney Mondello swore in Mary Loyer, 24 Schirra Drive, Wanaque, NJ – Testified she took pictures 6 and 7 and they accurately depict the conditions of the property at the time they were taken. Resident since March 2009. Mrs. Loyer testified that photograph 7 was taken before the drainage work was done on her property. Our home inspection report had just mentioned that we might want to have some sort of drainage system put in, but we weren’t told that we had a pond in the backyard. The drainage system is working well. We never saw the water problem before or after the wall was built since we just moved in. She is concerned about the structure of the wall, not so much how it looks. As a new neighbor, she had nothing to compare it to and thought there might be a planned community behind the wall. She just loved the house they purchased.

Discussions were held about the certification of the wall. Whoever certifies the wall, be it EIC or Johnson Soils, will have to deliver a Certification that is acceptable to Engineer Nash. Whoever certifies the work are the ones “on the hook” in case of a structural failure.

Discussions also took place about better screening, with plants/plantings on the area that exceeds the ten feet; something taller than the ground coverage that is there. This may soften the wall, and stabilize the soil. Mr. Heitzman had no problem with this.

Attorney Mondello swore in Keith Watson, 25 Borman Drive, Wanaque, NJ – 3 year resident. The bottom left photograph that the Planner presented is from his property. We purchased our house because we did like the look of the house and neighborhood. They have no problem with the wall. It doesn’t create any detriment to them. It gives them privacy.

Jim Loyer, 24 Schirra Drive, Wanaque, NJ – Purchased the property in 2009. Concerned about safety and stability of the wall. The height isn’t that much of a concern. Is it structurally sound? If the Board allows the wall to stay in place, we would ask for a written statement that it is properly constructed and represents absolutely no threat to our property. As far as altered draining patterns, we have no history with the property so we don’t know if things are better or worse. In 2009, we did have some drainage issues as shown in the pictures, but we have had new drains put in the last month or so, but they have not been really tested this summer.

Attorney Martin had no need to cross-examine any of the public. He does, however, object to “hearsay” testimony.

Attorney Martin referenced the Johnson Soil Reports, especially June 1, 2009. Does this report address any of the concerns that Engineer Nash has raised about the certification? Attorney Mondello stated that these issues are to be dealt with between the engineers and, if they can’t come together and reach an agreement, then you come back before this Board.

Engineer Nash reviewed the reports. Johnson Soils did a series of inspections while the wall was being constructed. After the wall was constructed in June 2007, they took test pits in the fill area and measured a compaction density and indicated that there were no voids. This is not a certification. Engineer Nash would need a certificate that the wall was built in accordance with “such and such criteria and details”. A construction detail of the wall, which would be a drawing of the wall that was built, and then a certification saying that the wall was built in accordance with this detail and certify its structural integrity.

Discussions ensued about conditions for the Resolution. If the wall, or a portion, is deemed not safe or comes it down, it is a repair to an existing structure or would new appearance before this Board be necessary? Vice Chairman Grygus would also like plantings on the rear to be a condition of approval.

MOTION TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION, SUBJECT TO THE CRITERIA IN THE RESOLUTION, TO GRANT A C VARIANCE made by Member D’Alessio, seconded by Vice Chairman Grygus. Voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Vice Chairman Grygus and Member Covelli. Voting no were Members Leonard, Ludwig, Willse and Landis.
Motion Denied.

Board took a break at 11:40pm
Board reconvened at 12:04am with all Members present before the break, except Member Joseph D’Alessio, who left at the 11:40pm break.

PUBLIC DISCUSSION: None
RESOLUTIONS: None

CORRESPONDENCE: Parsco, Inc. (Gulf Station) has been approved by County & Borough – No issues per Chairman

VOUCHERS: submitted by Boswell Engineering on the Heitzman Application in the amount of $332.
MOTION TO APPROVE: made by Member Covelli, seconded byVice Chairman Grygus. Voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Vice Chairman Grygus, Members Covelli, Leonard, Ludwig, Willse and Landis.

MOTION TO APPROVE APRIL 7, 2010 MINUTES: made by Member Covelli, seconded by Member Vice Chairman Grygus. Voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Vice Chairman Grygus, Members Covelli, Ludwig, Willse and Landis. Member Leonard abstained.

ENGINEER’S REPORT: One new application on the Exxon Gas Station. Report will be forthcoming.

DISCUSSION: Chairman Dunning advised that the Board of Adjustment has to file a report with the Mayor & Council and the Planning Board on its active applications year to year. It hasn’t been done in the past, but we received a memo from Mr. Carroll with a copy of the statute as to why we have to do it. In 2009 we had two applications; we carried Englishman and Realty Associates for a good part of the year. We dismissed Realty Associates in August and we carried Englishman the whole year. Jennifer will type a letter in response.

MOTION TO APPROVE THE 2009 AGENDA OF APPLICATIONS: made by Member Covelli, seconded by Member Willse. Voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Vice Chairman Grygus, Members Covelli, Leonard, Ludwig, Willse and Landis.

DISCUSSION: The Board also received a memo from Mr. Carroll about reviewing the fees charged by our Board. We don’t set the fees; the Mayor & Council does. The fees were just changed when the new forms were prepared in 2008. Jennifer will type a letter in response.

MOTION TO ADJOURN AT 12:10 A.M.: Motion made by Member Covelli, and seconded by Member Ludwig. Motion carried by a voice vote.

____________________________________
Jennifer A. Fiorito
Board of Adjustment Secretary