A Community by the River

Borough of Brielle, NJ

May 12, 2009

July 08 2009

May 12, 2009


TUESDAY, MAY 12, 2009

The Regular meeting of the Brielle Planning Board was held on Tuesday, May 12, 2009 at 7:30 pm in the Brielle Borough Hall, 601 Union Lane. After a moment of silent prayer and a salute to the flag, roll call was taken:

Present Mayor Thomas B. Nicol, Councilman Frank A. Garruzzo, Thomas
Condon, James Harman, James Langenberger, Charles Sarnasi, James Stenson, Terre Vitale

Absent Thomas Heavey, Tim Sigler

Also present were Michael Rubino, Board Attorney and Karen S. Brisben, Recording Secretary. There were approximately 50 people in the audience.

Chairman Condon then called the meeting to order and declared a quorum. He announced that, in compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act, notice of this Body’s meeting had been sent to the official newspapers of the Board fixing the time and place of all hearings.

The Minutes of the April 14, 2009 meeting were approved on a motion by Councilman Garruzzo, seconded by Mayor Nicol and approved by voice vote, all aye with Mr. Harman, Mr. Sarnasi & Mr. Stenson abstaining .


The Board received copies of the Pretrial Memorandum: Township of Wall vs. Brielle Planning Board & Omnipoint Communications. Also received were a series of letters from Michael Ping to Albert Ratz & Brielle Police Department re: Alpha-Omega building. Mr. Rubino noted that Mr. Ping’s letters were addressed to the appropriate officials with the Planning Board being copied but this is not in this Board’s jurisdiction.


As the continued hearing on the ice cream shop application was going to be lengthy, the Board heard New Business first and turned to the application for Minor Site Plan/Change of Use/Variances for Block 25.01, Lot 3, 600 Union Avenue, owned by 606 Union Avenue, LLC, change from real estate office to nail salon. Variances Front Setback (Bradley Avenue), 30 feet required, 19.8 feet existing, 10.2 foot variance existing & proposed. Side Setback 10 feet required, 9.85 feet existing & proposed. Minimum aisle space 13 feet wide front two diagonal spaces are 7 feet wide, 6 foot variance existing & proposed. Paving/parking 7 of the 9 spaces are partially within the Bradley Avenue right-of-way. Loading Space 14 feet x 55 feet required, none existing & proposed. Landscaping 5 feet wide area along all property lines required. Front and both sides do not conform, existing & proposed. Use Variance Residential Use on second floor in Commercial Zone.

As this matter involved a Use Variance the Mayor and Councilman had to step down off the dais.

The proper fees for this application were paid, taxes are paid to date and both the newspaper and property owners within 200 feet were properly notified. Mr. C. Keith Henderson, Esq. came forward to represent the McKeon family. He explained that this building was built back in 1958 and all conditions are pre-existing other than the paving of Bradley Avenue which they wish to do.

Mr. Hilla commented that he would not have had them come before the Board for this if it were not for the apartment use on the second floor, which is what most businesses on Highway 71 have; this apartment has also been there since 1958.

At this time James and Ken McKeon came forward to be sworn in, as well as Board Engineer Alan Hilla. Mr. Ken McKeon said there have been no changes to this building since 1958 and his grandmother lived in the apartment until 2001 when she passed away, now another family member lives there. The downstairs used to be a real estate agency and they now have a new tenant with a nail salon. As no Board members had any questions the meeting was opened to the public for questions to Mr. McKeon. As there was no response, that portion of the hearing was closed.

The next person to come forward and be sworn in was Charles Gilligan, a Licensed Engineer and Planner who was familiar with the Board and was accepted as an expert witness. Before Mr. Gilligan started his testimony, Mr. Rubino marked the Site Plan as Exhibit A-1, dated 4/15/09 and submitted to the Board on 4/30/09. Exhibit A-2 was a subdivision signed in 1962 by Mayor and Council. Mr. Hilla’s letter of 4/29/09 was marked as Exhibit PB-1 and his letter of 5/4/09 as Exhibit PB-2.

Mr. Gilligan said he had reviewed the land use approvals and agreed with Mr. McKeon’s testimony. He said there is a right-of-way access on Bradley Avenue owned by the Borough and the applicant is asking to pave this to keep down dust; there are 9.5 spaces needed and there will be 10 spaces so that is in compliance. As far as the front setback, Bradley Avenue and Union Avenue frontage has existed this way and the parking aisle on Union Avenue is paved. There is no loading zone and the Bradley Avenue side of the building is used for this and will continue as such. The landscaping along the property line does not conform and is existing this way. In regards to the Use Variance, Mr. Gilligan questioned this term as this was done back in 1958 when the Zoning was different. He said there could not be another business on the second floor as there would not be enough parking, the current configuration has been this way for years.

Mr. Rubino asked if this property is particularly suited for the proposed use and Mr. Gilligan said yes. Mr. Henderson asked about a test for the Use Variance and Mr. Gilligan explained that the 1962 subdivision map shows the apartment on the second floor. Mr. Henderson noted that Route 71 was widened years ago so the frontage here went from 39 to 31 feet, the front setback did conform at one time. Mr. Gilligan also testified there would be no negative impact on the Zone Plan of the town.

Mr. Gilligan then went over the Board Engineer’s report and noted that for item #2, the Trash Area, the existing trash area is shared with the property to the south and they are okay with a cross easement. In item #3 Mr. Hilla recommends changing the parking in the front of the building but the applicant would like to keep it as it is. Item #5 concerns the paving of Bradley Avenue and they will comply with the Engineer on paving requirements. Item #8 speaks of a 10x32 foot rip-rap apron and they will comply with this. Mr. Rubino commented that he did not think a nail salon would need a loading zone and Mr. Gilligan agreed.

Mr. Gilligan said there are two parking spaces on Union Avenue that come in opposite of traffic; an option would be to green it up but they would lose two spaces. It is tight but it has always been there and one can pull out forward. Mr. Sarnasi asked how far out will the paving go and the answer was about 35 feet. Mr. Sarnasi then asked about the pitch and was told it will go easterly into gravel. Mr. Condon asked if the pavement will meet the building to the north and the answer was yes; Mr. Condon then asked if Bradley Avenue is used as a loading zone will that inhibit parking and Mr. Gilligan said no, there is plenty of parking.

At this time the hearing was opened to the public for questions to Mr. Gilligan. As there were none and no Board members had any further questions, that portion was closed. Mr. Henderson then briefly summed up the application and felt that they have valid non-conforming variances.

The hearing was opened for the last time, this for questions or general comments. Hearing none, the public portion was closed. As the Board was satisfied with the application and had no further comments, a motion was made by Mr. Langenberger, seconded by Mrs. Vitale, to approve the application as presented, with compliance with the Board Engineer’s reports. The following roll call vote was then taken:

Ayes: Thomas Condon, James Harman, James Langenberger, Charles
Sarnasi, James Stenson, Terre Vitale

Noes: None


The Board then went back to Old Business and to the continued hearing for Change of Use for Block 17.01, Lot 9, 501 Union Avenue, owned by R.D. Brkal, LLC, change from real estate office to Ice Cream Shop. Variances required. Before starting this, the record should reflect that the Board members that missed the April hearing all received a CD of the meeting and listed to this application and were, therefore, eligible to vote; they are Thomas Condon, James Harman, Charles Sarnasi and James Stenson.

Mr. Michael Landis, Esq. and Mr. Charles Gilligan came forward to continue this application. Mr. Gilligan presented Exhibit A2, an aerial view of this Route 71 location, courtesy of an aerial map from the NJDEP. Mr. Gilligan had marked all the commercial uses that back out onto a right-of-way, starting with Monmouth Marine which backs out onto Union Lane, then Kessler Associates which backs out onto Longstreet Avenue. He continued on to the Ward Wight site which backs out onto Bradley Avenue, Bird Seed & Such and the bakery across the street from them both back out onto Harris Avenue; the Stained Glass Shop backs out onto Woodland Avenue and the Bagel Shop backs out onto Route 71. On the west side there is Newman’s Iron Works, Carlson’s Glass and Brielle Animal Clinic, all back out onto a right-of-way property. He finished by showing the stores on Higgins Avenue that back out onto that street. He said that this all shows that this situation, at the applicant’s location, is pretty common in Brielle.

He then commented on Mr. Hilla’s report and noted that the 17 variances listed are all existing, there are no new ones proposed: The curb cut on Harris Avenue can’t be changed, the trash enclosure, while not fenced in, is closed on two sides and is well hidden, all setbacks are existing, one parking space goes over the property line. In regards to the four-foot walkway, they have wheel stops on Harris Avenue, otherwise the four feet would become four feet six inches; these can be made larger is they remove landscaping. The parking spaces will be used for a Loading Zone in off-peak hours, the landscaping is existing as is with the buffer. These are all hardship variances and they lawfully exist with no detriment to the Zone Plan. Mr. Landis asked Mr. Gilligan to explain the hardship and Mr. Gilligan said all this is pre-existing; they are not expanding this in any way, there will be no detriment to the Zone Plan and there are no negative criteria; this use is allowed in this zone. He also measured the surrounding streets: Agnes Avenue is 30.5 feet wide, Park Avenue is 33 feet wide, Woodland Avenue is 30 feet wide, Harris Avenue is 31 feet wide and Bradley Avenue is 30 feet wide.

Mr. Gilligan then presented a series of photos, which were marked as Exhibit A-3 through 7, to show parking configurations in other ice cream places: Take a Dip Parlor in Sea Girt (A-3), the Manasquan Dairy Queen (A-4), Sweet Cow in Manasquan (A-5), Susan Murphy’s Ice Cream Shop in Spring Lake Heights (A-6), as well as Hoffman’s Ice Cream along Route 71 in Spring Lake Heights (A-7). Mr. Rubino also marked Mr. Hilla’s report of 4/6/09 as Exhibit PB-1.

Next to be sworn in was James Cali, the applicant. He looked at Exhibits A-3 through A-7 and noted the parking as follows: Take a Dip Parlor, no parking lot, cars park on the street; Manasquan Dairy Queen, roughly 18 spaces; Sweet Cow shares the lot with other businesses; Susan Murphy’s is on a residential street, their lot holds 2-3 cars; Hoffman’s Ice Cream has 18 spaces. Mr. Gilligan also noted Strollo’s in Point Pleasant Beach but did not have a picture or information on that site.

As there were no Board questions, the meeting was opened to the public for questions only to Mr. Gilligan or Mr. Cali. Allison Campanelli of Harris Avenue came forward, was sworn in, and wanted information on the garbage area. Mr. Gilligan said the main opening is on their side and is not enclosed but they will put a gate on this area. Maureen March came forward, was sworn in, and asked if surrounding property owners were informed they were purchasing property next to a Commercial Zone when they bought their homes. Mr. Gilligan said the Commercial Zone has been there for a long time and they should have known this. Pat Cave was next to come forward and be sworn in, she said that no commercial use goes until 11:00 p.m. Is it okay to be open that late in this Zone? Mr. Gilligan said the other businesses may not be open that late but it is allowed in this zone. Mr. Rubino agreed and did not know of any time restrictions for the Commercial Zone. Mr. Gilligan emphasized that this applies to all businesses in that zone. Mr. James Mannion came forward and was sworn in, he asked if there will be a chance to make comments and was told yes, at the end of the testimony. As there were no further questions, that portion of the hearing was closed.

Mr. Brian Fahey, Esq., then appeared to represent objectors, Walter & Heather Valentine of 607 Harris Avenue who live two doors away. His first witness was Alan Licwornia from Medford Lakes, NJ who was a professional engineer, planner and certified noise analyst. Mr. Licwornia had graduated from Rutgers with a Civil Engineering degree and has worked for 30 years in site plan design for commercial use in many places in New Jersey and has appeared as a Traffic Engineer. Mr. Rubino asked about the certification as a sound analyst and Mr. Licwornia said he is certified in this field and has done various designs in Burlington County as well as worked on noise analysis for airports, JFK being on of them. The Board accepted him as an expert witness.

Mr. Landis had a problem with the sound analyst certification as well and asked to have his license explained, he has dealt with acoustic experts but never sound analysis. Mr. Licwornia said this is a license for testimony before any Boards on sound regarding bars, airports, etc. Mr. Landis stilled questioned the need for this but Mr. Rubino felt the Board should listen to his testimony; Mr. Landis wanted to go on record as objecting to this procedure and it was so noted.

Mr. Licwornia said he reviewed the plan and various letters and reports as well as visiting the property. The Ordinance calls for a lighting plan and there was no report on this so he felt this was incomplete. He considered this a Minor Site Plan and, if so, there should be a signed and sealed survey submitted and again said this application is not complete. He did not agreed with the parking spaces number, he said the applicant used retail facility regulations and not restaurant use; fast food or restaurant use requires more parking spaces. Retail use is 1 space per 200 square feet and, even though restaurant use is not clearly shown, it usually is a higher ratio, 1 space per 100 square feet; he did say there is no fast food definition in the Ordinance but felt the higher parking standard should apply, this would make this site short by 8-9 spaces.

Mr. Fahey mentioned one of the variances that references the property line existing within a parking space. Mr. Licwornia said this means trouble as cars stick out into the right-of-way. Parking would be backing out onto the street and these, technically, are not legal spaces and the DOT would never give permission for this. If there is an accident, the Borough would be responsible as part on the space is on the Borough right-of-way. He said the Planning Board cannot give permission for this use here, it has to be approved by Mayor and Council; now that the Borough is aware of this they have to remedy this situation, it can’t be left there. Mr. Fahey asked if this can be grandfathered and the answer was no, this is an illegal use of land. Mr. Fahey asked if backing out onto a right-of-way unusual and Mr. Licwornia said this happens a lot in a place like a Wa-Wa, office use would not have this. Now there will be a lot more action and intensity of use at this site.

He went on to say there are residences and apartments and other business in this area and this will be a more intense use. There are no curbs or sidewalks and a smaller back yard so there will be more use of the front yard. Mr. Fahey asked about the pedestrian use and circulation. Mr. Licwornia said there are bumper blocks but no lighting so the blocks become a hazard; there is also a 2-4 foot overhang and there is not a new survey to show conditions now to show how far it is to the sidewalk, they need to meet ADA standards and the Board does not have the authority to grant a variance for this, it is a Federal regulation.

Mr. Fahey asked what type of people will come to this store and the answer was people with children; this is why safety becomes more important and the parking issue could be a problem. If they park across the street kids will run across the road to get to the ice cream store. Mr. Fahey asked about the residential character of the area and Mr. Licwornia said there is curbing and a sidewalk across the street but further north there are no curbs or sidewalks so people will walk in the street, this will mean more children walking on the street which is an unsafe condition. Mr. Fahey asked how this could be remedied and the answer was for the town to put in curbs and sidewalks but it would mean a whole new design for this building.

Mr. Fahey then had remarks on the loading/unloading zone and that a shed blocks the garbage area. Mr. Licwornia agreed and did not know how they are going to get in and out of the enclosure, they will have to move trash cans and this area is very near the residential area. The State standards for noise decibels is 65 decibels to 10 pm and 50 decibels between 10 pm and 7 am; every 3 decibels equals double the sound. Garbage trucks required a 120 foot distance, not to exceed the decibel limit; he did say the State is trying to change this. Mr. Landis objected and wanted to know why we would care if the State is trying to change this rule? Mr. Licwornia said they are trying to take the garbage trucks out of the equation, however, right now they violate this ruling if they come on this site. Mr. Condon asked what happens if they stay on the street and was told that would be no violation. Mr. Langenberger asked if a garbage trucks comes on a private property that is a violation? Mr. Licwornia said no, this applies to how far they are from the residential area when they do their work. Some towns are being sued over this so the State is trying to alleviate this problem.

Mrs. Vitale asked if a truck pulls in there every day that would be a violation? Mr. Licwornia said he did not know but if a commercial truck pulls in it may cause a violation and the adjacent property owner can enforce this if he wants to.

Mr. Fahey then asked about the lighting plan and Mr. Licwornia said there should be lighting from 4 pm to 11 pm at night. Mr. Fahey commented that the previous occupant, the real estate office, needed less lighting.

Councilman Garruzzo went back to the parking issue and asked if it was Mr. Licwornia’s testimony that if anyone parks there it is illegal due to the lot line issue and the answer was yes due to the way this is marked. Mr. Fahey said Councilman Garruzzo was not allowed to entertain this issue as he is Council-President, but Mr. Rubino felt he can; Mr. Hilla reported on this and it was noted in his official report to the Board.

Mr. Licwornia said the site plan is in violation and the Borough should take care of this as the spaces are illegal. Mr. Condon noted this site will have a more intense use and asked him if he had ever done studies as far as banks and ATM uses. Mr. Licwornia said it varies depending on the bank and how large it is, the Bank of America would be a more intense use. Mr. Condon said he was trying to do a comparison as the Bank of America is right next door to this site. Mr. Licwornia said the peak hours for the ATM would be Friday from 5 to 7 pm and Saturday from 10 to noon, about 60 cars an hour.

Mr. Condon asked if they put in curbs and sidewalks how would they use those parking spots and Mr. Licwornia said he did not design this, they may have a depressed curb and put in a sidewalk that works; there could be parallel parking but he did not know what this would gain and again said he did not calculate or design this plan and was not hired for this.

At this time the hearing was opened to questions to Mr. Licwornia and Mr. Landis asked about the spaces standing out illegally. He asked if that would not be true on just about every other of the sited noted earlier that one has to back out of? Mr. Licwornia said they were outside of the right-of-way. Diane Schaljwa came forward and was sworn in. She asked about federal violations and would that apply to the lot across the street; Mr. Licwornia said no, cars go over bumper blocks and this narrows the width of the sidewalk here to less than 4 feet which is a violation. She felt there would be a lot of businesses in town that have this problem.

Mr. Landis said this is getting complicated as far as the ADA testimony. In this case it is being said that if this is allowed it is a potential liability. Mr. Gilligan said the handicapped parking space is by a 5-foot walkway and is not a problem; there is 6 feet that allows for this hang-over and they can move the landscaping tie and totally comply with the ADA. Mr. Licwornia said the ADA has to comply with walking to the site and Mr. Gilligan countered with the fact that there are no sidewalks on most of the streets in Brielle. Ms. Schaljwa then said she did not understand about the noise levels. They have not yet opened so how can one complain about the noise? Mr. Landis said they were discussing the noise of a garbage truck but Ms. Schaljwa questioned general noise. Mr. Licwornia said there would be noise from cars coming in with radios on, doors slamming, etc.

Mr. Thomas Pair then came forward and was sworn in. He noted that there is a fast food bakery and bagel shop down the street and asked if they should be closed down because they do not meet the standards? Mr. Licwornia said those projects are not in front of the Board at this time. Mr. Pair felt that if this store does not comply then, basically, a lot of stores could be sued. Mr. Licwornia went back to the ADA requirements and that the standards have to be met and enforced in Federal Court. A citizens group can enforce this in that court; if a matter comes before a Board, it can be changed as the town has to comply.

Mr. Hilla asked about the noise statutes speaking about continuous noise but Mr. Licwornia said it applies to impulse noise, too, anything you can measure. Mr. James Mannion of 624 Harris Avenue came forward and was sworn in. He asked if they did make this conform and put in a wider walkway and there is an incident after that, can the Borough still be sued and the answer was yes. As there were no further questions that portion of the hearing was closed.

The meeting was then opened for general comments: Ms. Schaljwa came forward again and stated this was a positive change for the town, there are a lot of empty stores now and if a store can be filled, it should. She knows James Cali who will run the store and he is a responsible person; she also commented that adults like ice cream as well as kids. She felt this is being made out to be a horrific thing and it is not, if you live near a commercial zone you have to expect this.

Lois Nealon of Longstreet Avenue came forward and was sworn in. She has lived here for 40 years and remembers back in the 1970s when there were 2 fast food restaurants on Route 71; she, too, felt this was a having an ice cream parlor was a positive thing. She did not know if the lighting would be a problem and commented that, as far as ATM use at the bank, it seems to be busy from 7 to 11 pm. The Highway is zoned Commercial and has been forever; if someone buys a house close to this zone they have to expect commercial use.

Samantha McWilliams of Harris Avenue came forward and was sworn in. Her family lives on the other side of Highway 71 where there is a bakery and hair salon; they worried about the parking when those businesses came but it has all worked out, she would like to see more life in town.

Corey Cole of Fisk Avenue was next to be sworn in and commented on the ADA testimony. His Dad helped write the ADA requirements, which were designed to help people with physical disabilities and not to shut businesses down. We need more businesses and, as a Police Officer, he felt there is more of a problem with the Bank of America building.

Pat Cave came back again to speak and was concerned with kids coming out of the parks on skateboards and bikes, there is a problem with this now; Mr. Cali will be out in the parking lot dealing with these kids more than any car parking problem.

Concetta Alvarez came forward and was sworn in. She has lived in Brielle for 10 years and also felt this was a positive thing. Harris Avenue is full of kids and is a family neighborhood; these kids now have to leave Brielle and go to Manasquan to get ice cream, they ride their bikes on streets with no sidewalks and are okay. She lives two blocks from the Sand Bar and was aware of this when she bought her home on Brielle Avenue; however, it was her choice to live there. If they opened an ice cream store on her street she would be for it and ended by saying “let’s get back to America”.

Jim Mannion again came forward and first thought this was a great idea; then he remembered about 10 years ago when people wanted to put a bike path on Riverview Drive and that became a bad idea. He would love to see an ice cream shop in town but did not know if it could be here; he saw legal troubles and hoped this does not become a contentious issue.

James Abbott of Woodland Avenue came forward and was sworn in, he was born and raised in Brielle and has coached kids in town. He has 4 boys and would rather see them go across the street for ice cream than ride to Manasquan. They go to Salerno’s now and can see the kids going from Salerno’s to this store to get ice cream.

As there were no further comments, the Board then heard closing comments from the attorneys. Mr. Fahey noted there was a lot of information presented and there is a lot of emotion here which should not be. This site is in a Commercial Zone and this is not the point, this is not about Mr. Cali or anyone it is about the law. The requirements say the site has to comply and, while an ice cream parlor is allowed it should not be on this site; this is an inappropriate use of this property. While the Board has authorization to provide some variances, this use does not work on this site and that’s the law.

Mr. Landis felt it was a good application and has many pre-existing variances; he felt this business will give a needed shot in the arm to Brielle.

Mr. Langenberger asked Mr. Rubino if this gives them legal issues as to parking and Mr. Rubino said the Borough Attorney, Mr. Montenegro, has to address this through Mayor and Council and this has been stated in Mr. Hilla’s report; it is an issue for the Governing Body, not this Board. Councilman Garruzzo then questioned whether he or the Mayor could vote on this, he felt they couldn’t but Mr. Rubino said they could. Mayor Nicol agreed with Councilman Garruzzo and could see a conflict if this goes before the Council and he would abstain on the voting. Mr. Langenberger asked if that would apply to him as a Borough Official and Mr. Rubino said no as he would not be voting with Mayor and Council on this issue.

The Board then gave their comments: Mr. Langenberger lives near this site and has no problem other than the parking issue. He felt they need businesses in town; Mr. Rubino said they need to meet the ADA requirements. Mr. Harman agreed with Mr. Langenberger and would like to see the hours limited to 10 pm; he, too, was concerned with the parking and Governing Body. Mr. Stenson wondered if this be re-worked with parallel parking even if it lessens spaces, it would create another variance. Mr. Sarnasi said he would be in favor if there was some lighting done as he was concerned for the kids on bikes and he would like to see a designated area for bikes. Mr. Landis said they are having a bike rack by the door and will put in two lights there. Mrs. Vitale asked if it were possible to put some sort of buffer by the trash enclosure and Mr. Gilligan said he has photos of this area and there is landscaping there. Mrs. Vitale agreed with the other Board members about the lighting and parking. Councilman Garruzzo did not feel comfortable with commenting on this issue due to his position on Council . Mr. Condon asked about buffering and Mr. Gilligan said there are acoustical fences but he did not know if they would work here.

Mr. Condon questioned the certified survey that was to be with the application; Mrs. Brisben gave the entire file to Mr. Rubino who went through it and found one copy of a certified survey dated 12/13/07, with a raised seal; the Board members had received a copy of this.

Mr. Condon said he wrestles with the concerns on the safety issues. The variances are pre-existing and he believes this will have a positive impact and would like to get the Board’s feelings on the closing time for the store. Mr. Langenberger noted there is nothing in the Ordinance on closing times and Mr. Rubino asked Mr. Landis is there is any objection to be limited to a 10 pm closing. Mr. Landis said they are proposing to be open from 10 am to 10 pm weekdays and from 10 am to 11 pm on the weekends. Mr. Cali spoke and said if the Board wants 10 am to 10 pm for all 7 days that was okay with him, the hours may be less in the winter months. Mr. Condon felt that 11 pm on the weekends was reasonable and the Board agreed with him.

As there were no further comments or discussion, Mr. Langenberger made a motion to approve this application with ADA requirements in place, proper lighting and a bike rack and the Governing Body to address the parking issue. This motion was seconded by Mr. Stenson and approved by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Thomas Condon, James Harman, James Langenberger, Charles
Sarnasi, James Stenson, Terre Vitale

Noes: None

Abstain: Mayor Thomas Nicol, Councilman Frank Garruzzo

Mr. Landis asked if the applicant can apply for the proper permits before the Resolution is passed in June to expedite his opening of the store. Mr. Fahey said he had no problem with this as long as a final CO was not issued before the Resolution is approved; the Board agreed with this also.

As there was no other business to come before the Board, a motion to adjourn was made by Mr. Condon, seconded by Mrs. Vitale and unanimously approved, all aye. The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 pm.

Karen S. Brisben, Recording Secretary