BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MEETING
BOROUGH OF WANAQUE
MINUTES
JUNE 7, 2006
REGULAR MEETING
Salute to Flag:
This is a Regular Meeting of the Wanaque Board of
Adjustment and adequate notice has been duly advertised by the mailing of a
notice to the Suburban Trends and the Herald & News on the 6th
day of January 2006 and a notice 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, Members William
Grygus, Frank Covelli, Peter Hoffman, Don Ludwig, Ed Leonard, Art Koning, Eric
Willse, Attorney Ralph Faasse and Engineer William Gregor.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Member Ted Roberto
Application #11-05 Cosimo & Teresa Santoro, 1185 Ringwood Ave.,
Block 448 Lot 8.01 Bulk Variance & Use Variance:
Atty. Faasse received a fax today from Atty. Carlo Coppa asking to carry the
application to the July Meeting in order to resolve certain issues which
require a professional planner. Applicants are waiving any and all time
requirements with respect to this application.
MOTION TO CARRY APPLICATION TO THE JULY 5TH
MEETING: made by Member Grygus,
seconded by Member Willse, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus,
Covelli, Hoffman, Ludwig, Leonard, Koning and Willse.
Application #19-05 Biggio Brothers, Inc., 835 Ringwood
Ave., Block 306 Lot 7 Site Plan, Commercial & Use Variance (In-Active
Application):Atty. Faasse mentioned that the Board had agreed to only carry
this application for 90 days a couple of months back. It was decided to send a
letter to the applicant’s attorney saying that unless it is re-activated by
August 2, 2006 the application will be dismissed without prejudice and they
will have to re-notice if they re-activate the application.
MOTION TO CARRY APPLICATION TO THE AUGUST 2ND
MEETING WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE SECRETARY SEND A LETTER TO THE APPLICANT’S
ATTORNEY STATING THAT IF THE APPLICATION IS NOT RE-ACTIVATED BY AUGUST 2ND
THE APPLICATION WILL BE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION AND
THE APPLICANT WILL HAVE TO RE-NOTICE IF THE APPLICATION IS RE-ACTIVATED:
made by Member Grygus, seconded by Member Ludwig, voting yes were Chairman
Dunning, Members Grygus, Covelli, Hoffman, Ludwig, Leonard, Koning, and Willse.
Application #03-06 Robert Barrett, One Decker Rd., Block 413 Lot 29 Bulk Variance: A letter was received from the Barrett’s
asking to withdraw their application because their contractor has failed to
provide proof of license for their engineer.
MOTION TO DISMISS THE APPLICATION WITHOUT PREJUDICE
UPON THE APPLICANTS REQUEST TO WITHDRAW: made by Member Grygus, seconded by
Member Covelli, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Covelli,
Hoffman, Ludwig, Leonard, Koning and Willse.
Application #07-06 Eric J. & Kathleen Miceli, 20 Stephens Lake Road,
Bulk Variance: The applicants have asked to carry the application to the
July Meeting because they are currently working on all issues in order to meet
Engineer Gregor’s needs. The Board Secretary was told to send a letter to the
applicants that if they are not ready to proceed in July, the Board will need
an extension letter otherwise, the application will be dismissed without
prejudice.
MOTION TO CARRY APPLICATION TO THE JULY 5TH
MEETING AND IF THEY ARE NOT READY TO PROCEED AT THE JULY MEETING THE BOARD WILL
NEED AN EXTENSION LETTER OR OTHERWISE THE APPLICATION WILL BE DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE: made by Member Ludwig, seconded by Member Koning, voting yes
were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Covelli, Hoffman, Ludwig, Leonard,
Koning and Willse.
Application #09-06 Edward & Gail Marsh Sr., 12 Greenwood Ave.,
Block 428 Lot 1 Bulk Variance: Atty. Faasse asked Mr. Marsh if he received
a copy of the letter from Eng.
Gregor and Mr. Marsh said no. Eng.
Gregor said he spoke with Mr. Marsh’s surveyor and advised him of the
deficiencies on the plans and has not yet received revised plans. Chairman
Dunning gave Mr. Marsh a copy of the report from Eng. Gregor dated May 30, 2006.
Eng. Gregor said when he met with Mr. Marsh at his property, he advised Mr.
Marsh about the utilities such as sewers in the front yard shown in the side
yard and the surveyor hasn’t changed the plans yet.
Eng. Gregor said he hasn’t received any revised drawings
and the only revised drawing he has is dated April 24, 2006 that corrected the
error in the outbound boundary line, however, the sewer line is still shown on
the side of the house where it physically leaves the front of the house and
will have a major conflict with the proposed addition. Eng. Gregor
said the surveyor was notified about this problem. Atty. Faasse suggested that
Mr. Marsh sit down and read Eng. Gregor’s report and then later on if he has
any questions he can ask Eng. Gregor about certain issues.
Application #10-06 Nicholas Miuccio, 106 Monroe St.,
Block 439 Lot 1, Bulk & Use Variances: A letter was received from Mr. Miuccio
stating he has not received any
information from the engineer and asked to be carried to the July 5th
Meeting.
MOTION TO CARRY TO THE JULY 5TH MEETING:
made by Member Ludwig, seconded by Member Willse,
voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Covelli, Hoffman, Ludwig,
Leonard, Koning and Willse.
Application #12-06 Antonio & Maria Staropoli, 1283 Ringwood Ave.,
Block 464 Lot 27, Use Variance: A
letter was received from the applicant’s Attorney, Giuseppe C. Randazzo dated June 6, 2006 stating
he received a review letter from Eng.
Gregor and needs time to address the issues raised by Eng. Gregor.
Therefore, he is asking to carry the application to the July 5th
Meeting.
MOTION TO CARRY TO THE JULY 5TH MEETING: made by Member Grygus, seconded by Member
Ludwig, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Covelli, Hoffman,
Ludwig, Leonard, Koning and Willse.
Application #13-06 John & Dorothy DeDiminicantanio, 28
& 32 Greenwood Ave., Block 428 Lots 6-8, 9,10,11 & 13.01, Minor
Subdivision & Bulk Variances.
Attorney H. Shepard Peck, Jr., 139 Harrison Road, Suite 208, Glen Rock,
N.J. 07452 came forward on behalf of the applicant. Atty. Faasse said the
notice given was for Bulk Variances and not a Use Variance. Atty. Faasse said,
unless there’s a Use Variance involved, this Board does not have jurisdiction
over the Subdivision. Atty. Peck said this Board does have jurisdiction because
Gorge Drive
is not an officially dedicated accepted public street. Atty. Peck said he was
before the Planning Board for a conceptual review about a year and a half ago
and they told him when he is ready to file the application it should be filed
with the Board of Adjustment because of Gorge Drive. Atty. Peck said this Board
does have jurisdiction because this is a minor subdivision on an unofficial
street.
Eng. Gregor said, looking at the application, he sees
sewer shown on Greenwood Ave.
and a note saying that there’s water there as well. On Gorge Drive, he sees a portion of a water
service line, but no sanitary line or any notes regarding sanitary. Eng. Gregor
asked Atty. Peck to explain how is sanitary going to be provided to this lot.
Atty. Peck said the applicant proposes to run the water and sewer through the
proposed easement from Greenwood up to the house
on Lot 10 along the southerly sideline of Lot
11. Eng. Gregor suggested, for this application to be deemed complete, since
there’s no means at all of getting utilities there, that needs to be clarified
on the drawing. Eng.
Gregor said there’s a 10 foot wide easement shown, and asked if they are aware
that “DEP” requires a 10 foot separation between water and sewer lines. Mr.
DeDiminicantanio said he spoke to the Plumbing Inspector, the Borough Engineer,
Bill Kelly, and they said he only needs 2 feet. Eng. Gregor said he will be
preparing a full report and there are some minor issues as well.
Eng.
Gregor said he will be preparing a full report and
there are some minor issues as well.
Member Grygus said that the drawing submitted was very
busy and if the applicant could provide the Board with what currently exists
now with each lot and block and then what he proposes afterwards.
MOTION TO CARRY TO THE JULY 5TH MEETING
WITH THE PROVISION THAT THE APPLICATION BE RE-ADVERTISED AS A USE VARIANCE,
DENSITY ISSUE, RE-NOTIFY THE PUBLIC, AND REVISED PLANS BE SUBMITTED 10 DAYS
PRIOR TO THE MEETING: made by Member Ludwig, seconded by Member Covelli,
voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Covelli, Hoffman, Ludwig,
Leonard, Koning and Willse.
Application #09-06 Edward & Gail Marsh Sr., 12 Greenwood Ave.,
Block 428 Lot 1, Bulk Variance:
Mr. Marsh came forward again and was asked if he read Eng. Gregor’s
report and he responded by saying yes. Mr. Marsh said Eng. Gregor had
several discrepancies on his part which Mr. Marsh disagreed with. First of all
he said, this is not a two-story addition and said he
lives on a mountain where mountain rock goes into his cellar, and what he is
proposing is an above ground cellar and a one-story addition on top of it.
Chairman Dunning said on the plan it calls it a two-story addition. Secondly
Mr. Marsh said, he is not in an R-10 Zone and is in something like SD 3 or RD 3
and has no clue what zone he’s in. Eng. Gregor and Chairman Dunning
both said Mr. Marsh’s surveyor called it a two-story addition in an R-10 Zone
on the plan. Eng.
Gregor looked up the property on a zoning map and told Mr. Marsh he is in an
RD-3 Zone and told Mr. Marsh to advise his surveyor of that information. Eng. Gregor
added that Mr. Marsh’s property is in an overlay district which he thinks means
is that Mr. Marsh is in an R-10 District and there is an area provided that you
can do additional zoning. Eng.
Gregor said he will confirm that with the Borough Clerk and if its different, Eng. Gregor will amend his report
and will advise Mr. Marsh’s surveyor Mr. Miceli as to the outcome. Mr. Marsh
said Item #1 in Eng.
Gregor’s report says revised survey/site plan shows the corrected metes and
bounds for the property and one without improvements should be there to; Mr.
Marsh said that was submitted the first time then he received Eng. Gregor’s
report saying it needs improvements. Mr. Marsh threw away the 20 copies because
they weren’t acceptable and now Eng.
Gregor has 20 new copies of what was acceptable but now its
not acceptable because of whatever. Eng. Gregor said he never received
the survey without the improvements shown on it and Mr. Marsh said he
absolutely did because that was the first survey that was given. Eng. Gregor
told Mr. Marsh he needs a survey and a variance or site plan. Mr. Marsh said he
submitted everything Eng. Gregor asked for such as drawings etc. Eng.
Gregor said the Board can’t proceed until the drawings are corrected.
MOTION TO CARRY TO THE JULY 5TH MEETING:
made by Member Ludwig, seconded by Member Covelli, voting yes were Chairman
Dunning, Members Grygus, Covelli, Hoffman, Ludwig, Leonard, Koning and Willse.
Application #14-06 Dave & Jill Szanto, 4 First St., Block
218 Lot 4, Bulk Variance:
Mr. Szanto came forward. Eng. Gregor said that the note on
the drawing said the existing lot coverage exceeded the permitted requirements
in town. Therefore, Eng.
Gregor went back and checked the resolution back in 2003 that Mr. Szanto
received for an addition to his house and part of that resolution was to remove
the existing garage. Eng.
Gregor said that garage has not been removed yet and Mr. Szanto said he is
still working on the house and has stuff stored in the garage. Eng. Gregor said
Mr. Szanto’s engineer took credit for the coverage being in excess of the
requirements in showing the comparative coverage before and after and is not in
accordance with what this Board approved and is misleading to the Board and the
drawings should be corrected to remove that. Eng. Gregor added, that when he
did a site inspection of the property, the engineer showed a 10 ft. separation
between the existing house and the proposed garage. Eng. Gregor looked at the existing
survey that was done in April 11, 2006 and it doesn’t show the stairway on the
side of the garage. Eng.
Gregor said he needs a corrected survey of the property as it is today with no
improvements and then he needs a plan that matches the survey that shows the
proposed improvements. Mr. Szanto asked if he could eliminate the garage
tonight and just go for the pool. Eng. Gregor said the existing framed deck is
labeled as 12½ ft. X 20 ft. and that’s not what’s drawn on the plan; it is
significantly larger and asked Mr. Szanto if he knew what size the deck was and
Mr. Szanto said no. Mr. Szanto asked if the deck itself be considered lot
coverage because it’s under 4 ft. high. Eng. Gregor
said he would check the ordinance to make sure. Chairman Dunning told Mr.
Szanto what the Board needs is the original document that was approved in 2003.
The new survey with the improvements shown doesn’t agree with that document.
Chairman Dunning told Mr. Szanto to get the revised plans back to the Board 10
days before the meeting.
MOTION TO CARRY TO JULY 5TH MEETING:
made by Member Ludwig, seconded by Member Covelli, voting yes were Chairman
Dunning, Members Grygus, Covelli, Hoffman, Ludwig, Leonard, Koning and Willse.
RECESSED AT 9:01 P.M.
RECONVENED AT 9:11 P.M.
Application #21-05 Mary Frances Fennelly & William Fennelly,
6 Oak St.,
Block 425 Lots 13 & 14 Bulk Variance:
Attorney
Steven Schepis, Fiedler & Schepis,
L.L.C., 504 Valley Road,
Wayne, N.J. 07470 came forward on behalf of the
applicant. Atty. Schepis
proceeded to say this
property is in an R-10
Zone. This application seeks two variances associated with the configuration of
the existing lot; the lot is presently 105.27 ft. in depth where as 120 ft. is
required and they are proposing a front yard setback of 20 ft. at the closest
point because of the unusual front property line as it comes into the lot at a
point of 20 ft. whereas 30 ft. is required; most of the house conforms with the
30 ft. setback required. The plans have been modified according to the Board
Engineer’s requirement and have been resubmitted and reviewed by Eng. Gregor and Eng. McClellan is here tonight to
answer questions.
Eng.
McClellan came forward and was told he is still under oath. Eng. McClellan said
a cover letter dated April 21, 2006 from his firm submitted revised plans
entitled “Variance Map/Individual Lot Development Plan” (all members received
copies) with a date of July 20, 2004 and last revised date of April 20, 2006.
The plan was revised because of the comments received at the April 5th
Board of Adjustment Meeting. Eng. McClellan proceeded to say the changes were
as follows: Redesign of the Septic System, Wall Material chosen called “Stone
Strong System”; because of these two changes, it permitted the engineer to revise
the grading in the rear yard, to reduce the height of the wall where it was 8
ft. will now be 6 ft. and will run for about 30 ft. and then the wall descends
down and becomes 4 ½ feet and as it continues in a southerly direction the wall
terminates at about ½ foot in height and as you go northerly and up in an
easterly direction the wall descends down to a negligible height of ½ ft. as it tapers back into grade. There
also is a reduction in disturbance that is down to 9,724 sq. ft. Also submitted
where drainage computations, excerpts from the “Stone Strong System” website,
and also an exhibit that responds to the Borough’s Ordinance for total adjusted
disturbance area.
Eng.
McClellan proceeded to address Eng.
Gregor’s report of April 28, 2006. With regard to Items #1 through #5 are
commentary and Eng.
McClellan doesn’t think those items need a comment from him. Item #6 & #7
sort of go together and there in response to the submission of the TADA Exhibit
that was prepared in accordance with Section 98-76 of the Borough Code and they
would be allowed to disturb 8, 432 sq. ft. and they have come up with a total
disturbance area of 19,754 sq. ft. and that would require a Design Waiver from
that section of the ordinance and is necessary for them to develop this
property. Item #8 Storm Water Management Plan and Drainage Calculations have
been provided for the proposed improvements and calculations should be
supplemented with a method of calculation to determine the CN numbers utilized
and they certainly will comply with that and provide the information to Eng.
Gregor. Item #9 with regard to an attempt at mitigation has been provided to
prevent the concentration of runoff; Eng. McClellan said because of the scope
of development on this property they are outside the definition of what the
State of N.J. refers as to Major Development and they are proposing less than ¼
of an acre of new impervious area and are also proposing less than 1 acre of disturbance,
therefore, that would put them outside of those regulations. However, they do
have an obligation to protect the downstream neighbor and as an alternative to
that type of design they have been proposing a mechanism to restore the runoff
from this property. Eng. McClellan said he and Mr. Fennelly had the opportunity
to walk the site and learned a few more things as to the way the water runs off
onto the property and Mr. Fennelly has expressed that he would be interested to
discuss with the neighbors their concerns. Item #10 with regard to Eng. Grgor’s
report dated April 28, 2006, referring to the stability calculations for the
proposed retaining wall system this must be signed and sealed. Eng. McClellan
understands that if the Board acts favorably they would employ the manufactures
of this product to provide the computations and submit them. Item #11 with
regard to any action by the Board must be condition on approval of the revised
septic design plan by the Borough of Wanaque Board of Health and compliance
with N.J.A.C. 7:9A. Eng.
McClellan said he certainly understands that and will comply.
Member Grygus asked about the wells in the vicinity of
the site and Eng. McClellan
said the closest well that they are aware of is located on Block 425 Lot 25 and is in excess of 150 ft. from the location of
the septic system.
Eng.
McClellan stated that back in February they submitted the current plan at that
time to the Police Department, Fire Department and the First Aid Squad. The
Police Department did respond formerly with a letter and had conversations with
the Fire Department but nothing in writing and at the time of the last meeting
he hasn’t heard back from the First Aid Squad. Eng. McClellan said he has with
him tonight a letter from the Scott Montegari, Fire chief of the Wanaque Fire
Department stating that the Fire Department has no objections. This letter was
marked Exhibit A-5.
A long discussion took place about the storm water and
soil erosion and how will it affect the site and the surrounding homes. A wall design specific for this site must be
submitted signed and sealed and that design will contain the 6” curbing above
the grade and will have all the calculations as Eng. Gregor described to assure
no over topping and won’t surcharge and won’t push out; those calculations have
to be prepared and submitted and accepted. Eng. McClellan said if the Board
would act favorably on this plan that would be a condition of approval because
that’s a substantial expense. They would ask the Board to consider the illustrated
wall details simply for the purpose of explaining what material and what type
of system will be used and he understands that they have to provide the Board
with the appropriate details and it will be in accordance with the intention of
it being 6” above the grade.
Atty. Schepis said they could offer up to the Board a
Deed Restriction in favor of the Borough that would limit the grading on the
property to what has been approved by the Board with a provision that a
restriction would be enforceable by the Borough and should the property owner
or anyone violate the grading as approved that the Borough could enforce it in
a court of equity and that the violator would attend to the court costs and the
legal fees of the Borough in enforcing that restriction. Atty. Schepis
continued by saying, they not only could they give the Borough the Deed
Restriction but also an “As-Built” showing that it was built precisely to what
was approved.
Member Covelli asked about the safety issue with the wall
and what would be on top of it. Eng.
McClellan said there would be a 4 ft. fence installed on top of the wall.
Chairman
Dunning mentioned he was concerned with the wall and fence because anything
accumulating there like leaves etc. would create a problem for the water flow.
Eng. McClellan said there is no doubt, this area would have to be maintained
and if this is neglected for years it can be a problem and possibly the Deed
Restriction might have a say in that.
OPEN TO PUBLIC:
Rita Barriero, 9 Shady Ave., Haskell, N.J. came forward and was sworn in
by Atty. Faasse. Ms. Barriero’s concern is once the
house is built and they sell it and then there are new owners, what happens to
anything that is agreed upon now? Atty. Faasse said they will have Deed
Restrictions and if Ms. Barriero and any of the neighbors enter into any type
of agreement that would then be approved by their attorneys. Ms. Barriero said
hiring an attorney would be an expense to her. Atty. Faasse suggested she and
the neighbors should sit down with the applicant and his engineer and discuss
their concerns. Ms. Barriero’s main concerns are
about flooding out the neighboring properties once this proposed house is
built. Member Covelli said to Ms. Barriero that there is a slope in the
property currently, therefore, there is a runoff issue and the benefit of
meeting with the applicant is the fact that she has an opportunity to have an
input on something that currently she doesn’t have. Atty. Faasse added, that
the Board is not trying to make Ms. Barriero do anything, they’re just
suggesting that this might be to her mutual advantage, and if there is a water
condition now and they do build that house you would want to minimize whatever
effect its going to have on the neighboring properties.
Sherry Bachmann, 8 Oak St., Haskell, N.J. came forward and was sworn in
by Atty. Faasse. Ms. Bachmann said regarding the runoff, she is worried about
it coming more onto her property. She has a crawl space that gets seepage and
is worried the condition will only get worse. Eng. McClellan said the elevation
on her property is about 104 and the proposed site elevations are well below
that, therefore, the changes of topography on the proposed site will not affect
her. Ms. Bachmann also asked why there is not a sideline variance requested. Eng. McClellan
said that is because they are in compliance with the sideline and the
requirement is 15 ft. and on her side they are proposing 26.9 ft. Another
concern of Ms. Bachmann is the condition of the road which is
currently pretty bad and with construction vehicles and more traffic it will
only get worse; as it is they can’t get the road maintained. Ms. Bachmann said
there are pot holes all the way up the entire road and the rest of the road is
a dirt road and she and her neighbors have trouble already getting up the road.
Ms. Bachmann also said as it is, two cars can’t even pass through the road.
Atty. Faasse asked Ms. Bachmann if she or her neighbors have ever gone to the Mayor & Council to ask them to improve the roadway and
she said no but it could have been addressed by one of her neighbors at one
time. Another concern of Ms. Bachmann was the type of fence that would be put
on top of the wall. Eng.
Gregor said he didn’t like the idea of a split rail fence because children can
slip through them and that any wall of appreciable height he would recommend be
a chain link fence.
Atty.
Schepis told the Board that Eng. McClellan might have a potential conflict with
the July 5th Meeting and is not really sure yet, therefore, if there
is a conflict with Eng. McClellan’s schedule Atty. Schepis will try and give
the Board as much notice as he can. Atty. Schepis decided to give the Board an
extension through the August 2, 2006 Meeting.
MOTION TO CARRY TO THE JULY 5TH MEETING: made by Ludwig, seconded by
Member Grygus, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Covelli,
Hoffman, Ludwig, Leonard, Koning and Willse.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION: None/Closed
RESOLUTION ON APPLICATION #02-06 “Wanaque Landscaping
& Garden Supply” 1434 Ringwood Ave., Block 478 Lot 3 Interpretation of the
Borough’s Zoning Ordinance and a Certificate of Non-Conforming Use:
MOTION TO APPROVE: made by Member
Covelli, seconded by Member Hoffman, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members
Covelli, Hoffman, Leonard, Koning and Willse. Members Grygus and Ludwig not
qualified
RESOLUTION ON APPLICATION #06-06 Puccio, 45 Grove St., Block
240 Lot 15 & 18 Minor Subdivision &
Bulk Variance:
MOTION TO APPROVE: made by Member
Hoffman, seconded by Member Leonard, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members
Hoffman, Leonard, Koning and Willse. Members Covelli and Ludwig not qualified.
RESOLUTION ON APPLICATION #08-06 William & Peggy
Craig, 26 Bergen Ave.,
Block 312 Lot 14 Bulk
Variance:
MOTION TO APPROVE: made by Member Ludwig, seconded by Member Koning, voting
yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Hoffman, Ludwig, Leonard, Koning and
Willse. Member Covelli not qualified.
CORRESPONDENCE: No questions asked.
VOUCHERS: submitted by Eng. Gregor for Services Rendered for the 2nd
quarter of 2006 for $900.00, Application #09-06 Marsh for $197.00, Application
#10-06 Miuccio for $203.00, Application #12-06 Staropoli for $203.00,
Application #08-06 Craig for $247.50, for a Grand Total of $1,750.50.
MOTION TO APPROVE: made by Member Ludwig, seconded by Member Covelli, voting
yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Covelli, Hoffman, Ludwig, Leonard,
Koning and Willse.
VOUCHERS: submitted by Atty. Faasse for office time on “Wanaque Landscaping &
Garden Supply for $255.00 and Resolution for $275.00, Application #19-05 Biggio
Brothers for telephone conference call, letter to Atty. Nemeth, Judge McVeigh
and Atty. Michael Kates for $270.00, General Expenditures for May & June
for $600.00, Resolutions for Application #06-06 Puccio for $135.00 and
Application #08-06 Craig for $135.00 for a Grand Total of $1,670.00.
MOTION TO APPROVE: made by Member Covelli, seconded by Member Ludwig, voting
yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Covelli, Hoffman, Ludwig, Leonard,
Koning and Willse.
MINUTES: from the May 3, 2006 Meeting.
MOTION TO APPROVE: made by Member
Ludwig, seconded by Member Koning, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members
Grygus, Hoffman, Ludwig, Leonard, Koning and Willse. Member Covelli not
qualified.
ENGINEER’S REPORT: None to report.
DISCUSSION: None
MOTION TO ADJOURN: at 11:06 P.M. carried with a voice
vote.
________________________
Gerri
Marotta
Board
of Adjustment Secretary