www.briellenj.com
A Community by the River

Borough of Brielle, NJ


June 8, 2010

August 18 2010

June 8, 2010

Tuesday, June 8, 2010
BRIELLE PLANNING BOARD TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 2010

The Regular meeting of the Brielle Planning Board was held on Tuesday, June 8,
2010 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 Nicol, Councilman Frank Garruzzo, Thomas Condon, James Harman, Thomas Heavey, James Langenberger, Charles Sarnasi, Tim Sigler, James Stenson, Terre Vitale

Absept -- None

Also present were Michael Rubino, Board Attorney, Alan Hilla, Jr., Board Engineer and Karen S. Brisben, Recording Secretary, as well as Dennis Cantoli, Esq., alternate Board Attorney. There were 15 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 May 11, 2010 meeting were then approved on a motion by Councilman Garruzzo, seconded by Mr. Stenson and approved by voice vote, all aye.

CORRESPONDENCE:

All Board members received a copy of a letter written by Mr. Rubino to Mark Aikins, Esq. re: use of McCarthy's parking lot for Harpoon Willy's Restaurant. Mr. Rubino explained that he had gotten a request from Mr. Aikins, who represents, Harpoon Willy's Restaurant, to allow an outside deck. As there were objectors to this and this property is located within the Wall Township line, Mr. Rubino felt they should apply to the Wall Twp. Board of Adjustment first and, if they received that approval, they should then come to Brielle for permission to use part of McCarthy's marina parking lot for extra parting in the marina's off hours. Mr. Rubino said he has spoken about this with Mr. Condon and he agreed; it really was the applicant's choice but he felt they should go to Wall first. This was the reason for the letter to Mr. Aikins stating which direction they should go.

INFORMAL HEARING:

Mr. Condon moved the agenda around slightly to allow the informal hearing to take place as/this would be short and the Board had a full agenda. Thus, Sal and Sam Chiarella of Rella's Restaurant on Route 71 came forward to get the Board's input on the possibility of putting up a small readerboard sign in front of their restaurant, it would

be an LED sign. Sal Chiarelfa said they are allowed signage here, they have one fixed sign and would like a sign similar to the one at Borough Hall only on a smaller scale; they would not exceed what they have now with the small disposable signs they tie up under the fixed one. They will be able to change the wording on the LED sign and there would not be any flashing or animation as per code due to traffic safety issues and they are aware of the information on this.

Mr. Chiarella felt this type of sign will be more aesthetically pleasing than the disposable ones they get from liquor distributors. The words would be 4 to 5 inches tall and the sign would cost about $20,000. This restaurant has changed hands in the past years and they want to create an identity for theirs; they would also be able to announce meetings there, weddings, safety notices, etc. on a two-sided sign.

Mr. Chiarella also offered to have the sign timed so it is not lit all night and he emphasized the help it can give in doing an Amber Alert and other safety emergency notices if needed. He commented that they have spend about $30,000 over the past 8 months in advertising over the radio and felt the sign would help their business. There are no variances requested, they want to use this modern technology rather than use the free signs from the beer companies.

Mr. Condon noted that it almost looks like it belongs, according to the drawing submitted. Mrs. Brisben said that she asked Sgt. Kitchenman, the Traffic Safety Officer, to take a ride past Rella's and give her a verbal opinion on this; he did and said he had no problem as this sign would be about the same sign as the disposable one that is there daily and does not appear to be a traffic hazard.

The Board then went into comments. Mrs. Vitale has no problem with this, however, Mr. Sigler was concerned that if the Board allows this they will have other businesses coming in for the same thing; he did not want to see this happen in Brielle. Mr. Chiarella commented that if Charlie Brown's Restaurant wanted to do this they would need a variance. Councilman Garruzzo had no problem with it, his only concern was with the timing, he did not want to see the sign change too quickly to distract drivers and commented that, in this economy, he would like to see Rella's be successful. Mayor Nicol had no problem with it and Mr. Heavey encouraged the Chiarella brothers to submit an application and perhaps give the Board pictures of signs of this type that other restaurants in the area use for comparison. Mr. Langenberger would be in favor of an application if the sign were timed to go off late evening and not be on all night. Mr. Harman was not in favor of having this type of sign in Briefle and Mr. Sarnasi agreed with him, however, Mr. Stenson felt this is good and would be for it. Mr. Condon said he was on the fence but, after seeing the application and pictures and explanation of the sign he would be in favor of seeing an application come in.

Mr. Rubino reminded all that this informal application is not binding and recommended to the applicants that they stipulate all they spoke of this evening in a formal application so the Board is clear on what will be erected and how it will work.

NEW BUSINESS:

The Board then turned to an application for variance for Block 68.01, Lot 1, 815 Riverview Drive, owned by Compass Venture Capital, LLC, to allow construction of a second story addition to the principal structure. Lot Width - 125 feet required, 112 feet existing and proposed, 13 foot variance requested. Front Setback (Cherokee Lane) - 40 feet required, 25.35 feet existing & proposed, 14.65 foot variance requested. Front Setback (Pearce Lane) - 40 feet required, 11.33 feet existing, 14.29 feet proposed, 25.71 foot variance requested.

The fee of $300 was paid, taxes are paid to date and property owners as well as the newspaper were properly notified.. Mr. Timothy Middleton, Esq. came forward to represent the applicant. He explained this is a straightforward application, the applicant wants to put a second story on an existing home that has existing variances. He had Gregory Cox as an expert witness to testify.

At this time Mr. Robert Houseal came forward as a property owner within the 200 feet and he felt the public notice was deficient, as well as the agenda, as there are more variances required for Cherokee Lane & Pearce Lane. Mrs. Brisben said Mr. Middleton followed the letter of the Zoning Officer's Letter of Denial which lists the variances; Mr.
Middleton agreed. Mr. Hilla, who is also the Zoning Officer as well as Board Engineer, said he was not aware of any other variances needed and felt his report was accurate. Mr. Rubino read the public notice and said the wording, as written, was correct with the variances listed. Mr. Houseal said he just wanted to make sure the property owners have the proper notification.

Mr. Heavey then made a motion that the jurisdictional requirements have been met, this was seconded by Mrs. Vitale and unanimously approved, all aye.

Mr. Gregory Cox then came forward and was sworn in, he is a Licensed Professional Architect in N.J., graduated in 1980 and received his NJ license in 1984; he has been before various Boards as an expert witness and has been before this Board before, he is here this evening as an Architect and Planner. The Board accepted him as an expert witness.

He stated this property is located on Riverview Drive and is bordered by Cherokee Lane and Pearce Lane and there is an adjoining property to the northwest. Mr. Rubino marked as Exhibit A-1 a Monmouth County Aerial map, A-2 were photos of surrounding properties, A-3 the site plan submitted with the application, A-4 pictures of the property and A-5 a colored rendering of the plan.

Mr. Cpx said this is a single story ranch and Exhibit A-3 shows the existing survey and plan showing the existing variances. Mr. Middleton spoke and said the applicant is 'proposing to build a second story above this footprint. Mr. Cox said the ranch style home was built between 1957 and 1963, the entry is off Cherokee Lane. The proposed addition will be a second floor over the existing footprint of the house with

no increase in that`footprint, they want to make a craftsman style home. He noted that the second floor will actually be smaller than the first floor as they have "stepped in" on the Pearce Lane side and also created just a dormered area over the garage. He said - the setback off Pearce Lane will be 11.33 feet for the first floor and 14.29 for the second floor.

He then referenced the exhibit showing the other homes in the area, a home to the right, a home to the left and a home to the far left; all these are larger so the proposed addition will fit in this area. Mr. Middleton said the variances can be granted without impact to the air, light and space and will not be a detriment to the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Cox agreed and told the Board the existing home is very structurally sound and it would be a "greener" way to go to put on a second floor rather than raze the structure itself.

The first floor has 1,940 square feet as well as a 446 square foot garage, a total of 2,386 square feet. The second floor will be 1,697 square feet which included a twostory entry foyer as well as a bonus room over the garage, the second floor will be 71% of the footprint of the first floor. When done, there will be 3,500 square feet of living space which is similar to 5 bedroom homes in this area.

Mr. Sarnasi questioned a possible error in the survey setbacks and Mr. Cox agreed, the left side is incorrect but the right side is correct. He also explained that the variance needs were created when Pearce Lane and Cherokee Lane became actual streets of the Borough. Mr. Sarnasi then asked about the low grade of the home and Mr. Cox said this property is not in a flood zone, they are a little bit lower than Pearce Lane so they are going to maintain dry wells; right now the basement is dry. Mr. Harman asked if this home will be for family use or for resale and the answer was resale. Mr. Condon asked if this will be a 2 story or a 1 1/2 story and Mr. Cox said it will be a 2 story and a real attic.

At this time the hearing was opened to the public for questions to Mr. Cox and Mr. Houseal of 608 Rankin Road came forward. He asked about the distance from Riverview Drive to the home and why there is not a variance needed there; Mr. Middleton said the house is 58.78 feet from Riverview Drive. Mr. Houseal then asked about the height of the home and Mr. Cox said it will be 34.10 feet high and this was measured from the crown of Pearce Lane as that was the highest point; Mr. Rubino said then the house will comply with the height limitation of 35 feet and Mr. Cox agreed.

As Mr. Houseal felt this was really a 2 h story home, he asked what would prevent someone from making the attic a habitable space. Mr. Middleton said the Resolution will allow a 2 story home so a 2 %2 story home will not be allowed and they would not be able to get a building permit for it. Mr. Cox said that, under the Ordinance, a 2 1/2 story home would be allowed, but they are asking for 2 stories only.

Mr. Houseal then asked if they could comply with the 40 feet setback required for Cherokee & Pearce, how much width would the house be with no variances and Mr.

Cox reminded all that this is a nonconforming structure on a nonconforming lot. The actual building area would be 29.3 feet wide. Mr. Houseal asked if Mr. Cox had measured roof heights in the area and Mr. Cox said no, he felt this home will fit in with the neighborhood, one neighbor is approximately 5 feet from the right-of-way on Pearce Lane and they are more; the other neighbor is 26 feet and they are about the same; also they are closer to Riverview Drive than the applicant's house is. -

Mr. Houseal commented that one of these homes was granted a variance 25 years ago and Mr. Condon said that was 25 years ago, he asked Mr. Houseal to address this application. Mr. Middleton said the measurements they did were based on a Google Mqp. It was asked if the second story addition can be built that will comply with the setbacks and Mr. Cox said yes, but it would look "weird". Mr. Houseal asked if it is possible to remove the dormer by Pearce Lane which reduce the size of the addition and Mr. Middleton said yes, they could. Mr. Heavey commented that they would still have the first floor existing variance.

Mr. F-)ouseal asked if the home would be more conforming if they pulled in the addition and Mr. Cox said yes; Mr. Condon then asked if they would still have to come before this Board if they did build a conforming addition and Mr. Cox said yes, they are exceeding 40 feet side yard setbacks in this late 50s ranch which has a low pitched roof and one of the aesthetics is to steepen the roof and for this reason they would have to come before the Board. Mr. Hilla agreed and told the Board if they had a fully conforming addition they would not have to be here. Mr. Cox then showed the Board the area that could be a second floor with no variances and it would be very small.

Mr. Jerry Barton came forward and was confused over the variances requested. Mr. Rubino explained they are here because the 15# story of the home violates the setbacks required. Ms. Susan Villana of 813 Riverview Drive came forward and said she was a neighbor, her concern was if this plan does not happen, can this home be taken down and two lots created? Mr. Middleton said no, they are here for the addition only.

As there were no other questions, that portion of the hearing was closed and Mr. Middleton summed up the application. This is a classic C-1 variance which has a hardship due to the location of the structure. The Ordinance came into being in 1985 so they need variance relief and they do not want to have to take down the existing home; a conforming second story would not fit in here and there will be no negative impact on the neighbors or Zoning Ordinance.

Before taking a vote, the hearing was opened to the public for general comments and Mr. Hoqseal came forward and was sworn in. He did not see any reason why the addition cannot be reduced, it will not impair the look of the home; he would like to see the attic at 6'8" high only so the roof would be lowered and this will keep living space from being created, most homes in this area are only two stories. He still had an issue with the setbacks from Cherokee Lane and Pearce Lane.

As there were no other comments from the public, that portion of the hearing was closed and the Board went into discussion. Mr. Sarnasi felt it will be a good looking house, a little overwhelming with the roof but it is within the zoning allowed, he would lean toward approval if it were stipulated in the Resolution the attic would never be a livable space. Mr. Harman felt the Architect took everything into consideration and agreed to the application with the stipulation that the attic be non-habitable space; Mr. Langenberger and Mr. Heavey agreed with the comments made. Mrs. Vitale noted there will be only 16% lot coverage so she was all for it, Mr. Sigler agreed the addition could be brought in but he felt that would actually be detrimental. Councilman Garruzzo and Mayor Nicol agreed with the rest of the Board as well as Mr. Condon.

At this time Mr. Sarnasi made a motion to approve the application, as presented, with the stipulation that the attic space never be used as a livable area, this seconded by Mr. Harman and approved by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Mayor Thomas B. Nicol, Councilman Frank Garruzzo, Thomas Condon, James Harman, Thomas Heavey, James Langenberger, Charles Sarnasi, Tim Sigler, Terri Vitale

Noes: None

Not Eligible to Vote: James Stenson (Alternate member)

The Board then took a five minute recess so the next applicant could get set up and the alternate Board Attorney could take his seat on the Board.

The Board reconvened for an application for a Minor Subdivision for Block 48.01, Lots 9, 9.01, 10, 10.01, known as 314 % & 316 1/2 Fisk Avenue, owned by Michael Vesuvio. All properties must front on an improved 50-foot right-of-way - one parcel will be land-locked. Lot Size (Lot 9) - 11,250 square feet required, 7,493.53 square feet proposed, 3,756.47 square foot variance requested. Lot Size (Lot 10) - 11,250 square feet required, 6,576.25 square feet proposed, 4,773.75 square foot variance requested. Lot width (Lot 9) - 75 feet required, 50 feet proposed, 25 foot variance requested. Lot Width (Lot 10) - 75 feet required, 50 feet proposed, 25 foot variance requested. Lot Depth (Lot 10) - 125 feet required, 121.22 feet existing & proposed, 3.78 foot variance requested. Front Yard (Lot 10) - 30 feet required, 20.21 feet proposed, 9.79 foot variance requested. Side Yard (Lot 9 west) - 10 feet required, 6.97 feet existing, 3.03 foot variance requested. Side Yard (lot 9 east) - 10 feet required, 7.70 feet existing (as deck is greater than 3 feet above adjacent grade). Side Yard (Lot 9 Accessory) - 5 feet required, 3 feet existing, 2 foot variance requested. Rear Yard (Lot 9) - 35 feet required, 19.26 feet existing, 15.74 foot variance requested. Lot Coverage (Lot 9) - 20% maximum allowed, 26.63% proposed, 6.63% variance requested. Lot Coverage (Lot 10) - 20% maximum allowed, 23.31% proposed, 3.31% variance requested. Building Height (Lot 10) - 35 feet, 1 1/2 stories maximum allowed, 38.33 feet and 3 stories proposed. Roof top mechanical equipment to be screened from view - air conditioning equipment to be located on a rooftop platform behind a 38" guard rail.

Mr. Dennis Cantoli, Esq. was to represent the Board in this matter as Mr. Rubino had a conflict with the applicant; also, Mr. Heavey left the dais due to a personal matter to attend to.

Mr. Louis Felicetta, Esq. came forward to represent Michael Vesuvio, the - applicant and owner. The fee of $1,400 was paid, taxes are paid to date and the property owners & newspaper were properly notified.

Before starting, Mr. Felicetta asked that several exhibits be marked: A-1 was the Architect's rendering, A-2 survey dated 7112104, A-3 Title Binder from Coastal Title, A-4 1985 survey, A-5 amendment to Contract of Sale, A-6 Tax Map of October 04, A-7 Tax Bill, A-8 updated survey, A-9 Memo from Ben Montenegro regarding lot merger, A-10
metes & bounds description, A-11 three letters of April 2010 to adjacent property owners asking if they wish to sell or buy footage.

Mr. Tim Middleton, Esq. came forward at this time stating he is representing Nancy Boiles who owns lot 11. He was here to make an argument that most of these documents will bog this application down; he appeared before this Board 1 % years ago and argued that these lots had merged, the lots were subdivided back in 1957 by the Mayor and, therefore, under the law, they are now merged. The applicant will state he believed that when he bought the property in 2004 he thought he had two lots and Mr. Middleton argued this had nothing to do with this application. There is a statute that says the applicant should have gotten documentation from the Planning Board that they approved thip subdivision and the information being submitted does not promote the zoning now in this Borough.

Mr. Cantoli said the exhibits are marked for identification and can be addressed at the time of discussion if the appropriate document should be submitted and testified to. Mr. Felicetta said this is a straightforward application; they will ask for C-1 and C-2 variances. He felt the documents he submitted are essential as they show hardship as the applicant, Borough and Professionals all felt these are two lots. They are asking for Minor Subdivision and Minor Site Plan approval. Mr. Vesuvio bought the property and thought he bought two separate lots and Mr. Felicetta felt this is in keeping with the Municipal Land Use Law. If they have two small lots they can build two small homes instead of one large one, which would be more in keeping with this neighborhood of small homes.

He wanted to address the Minor Subdivision first and then the Minor Site Plan if the subdivision was approved. Mr. Middleton did not think the Board can do this without considering all the variances requested for, these are undersized lots and the Board has to take that into consideration; the variances are what is dictating this. Mr. Felicetta disagreed and felt this can be taken in two parts. Councilman Garruzzo asked if they could get the Minor Subdivision but not get the variances and Mr. Cantoli explained they are asking for a bifurcation of the application; first the subdivision and then the variances. Mr. Condon felt that if the Board grants the subdivision they can make the

stipulation that any homes built will have to conform and Mr. Cantoli agreed they can do that.
Mr. Sigler commented that once the Board accepts the Subdivision they can build and Mr. Cantoli said if the Board grants the subdivision it is saying these are conforming lots, the Board is making them so. Mr. Sigler said the existing home would still need lots of variances so he didn't think this would work. Mr. Felicetta said they are asking for a subdivision and will then address the building of a new home, they want to keep the existing one. Mr. Sigler said that, as it stands now without the subdivision, the existing home will comply. Mr. Cantoli felt the Board should hear this as one whole thing and work it out that way and the Board agreed with him, Mr. Sigler saying he could not see how you can to it any other way.

Mr. Felicetta said he had a number of witnesses here this evening and he would like to call Christine Cafone to start the testimony. Christine Nazzaro Cafone then came forward and was sworn in, giving her address as 125 Half-Mile Road, Red Bank. Before she started, Mr. Langenberger asked if she was a relative of the Cafone family that lives on Fisk Avenue and she said she was not. She then told the Board she is a Licensed Professional Planner in N.J. and has testified before this Board about 15 years ago, she has worked for other firms and now has her own business; the Board accepted her as an expert witness.

She agreed that the application is straightforward, for a Minor Subdivision with variances. Mr. Cantoli then marked her exhibit as A-12, a Google aerial map of properties within 200 feet, the red outlined property is the subject of this application. The properties around it in blue are nonconforming on lot width and the ones in yellow are nonconforming in width and area, they are undersized and there are 13 yellow ones that do not meet the square footage requirements, the blue ones do not have 75 feet lot width, so 65% of the properties within this 200 foot range do not meet the standards of the R-3 zone.

Mr. Felicetta asked about positive criteria and Ms. Cafone said they need variances to create a new lot for a new home and this use will benefit this zone; also, the height variance they are seeking is less than 10% under the C-1 variance. She felt there is an obligation to present this to the Board and the Board can grant this as it is not affecting the Municipal Land Use Law. She felt this is a hardship case by "reason of extraordinary or unique situation" as stated in that law, this is State wording and is very rigid and can be applied here. She also said there are a series of exhibits marked all showing these to be two properties.

Mr. Middleton objected to the reference to the law as he felt part of the Statute wording was left out but Mr. Felicetta did not feel there was an objection until the exhibits were presented. Mr. Middleton said this Statute relates to topography and shape of land and not to a purchaser's understanding when he purchased it. Mr. Condon made the decision to let Ms. Cafone proceed with her testimony.

She went on to say the Board can grant the C-2 variances as there are 3 criteria to back up a C-2 variance need, as stated in 40:55d of the Municipal Land Use Law: Paragraph A: Promoting general welfare. This application will do that as it will create two buildable lots and this will give light, air and space; one large home will not allowed this and to this extent this promotes general welfare.
Paragraph E: Will establish appropriate population density. This will be an appropriate density for this area because 65% of the homes are nonconforming.
Paragraph I: Desirable visual environment. Two small homes will contribute to desirable visual environmental with better curb appeal, smaller homes are in this area with townhomes on the corner,

Mr. Condon asked about the Google map and on the n/e side where there is a yellow line, he wanted to know if that was one house and the answer was yes. He then commented that this is one large home and Ms. Cafone had said two smaller homes will fit in better, yet this existing house fits in this neighborhood. Mr. Felicetta said he did not know if this home fits in the lot size and there could perhaps be a larger home. Mr. Cantoli said if this home straddles the lot line with two lots on one parcel, then the yellow line should be removed. Ms. Cafone understood the question and she will research it, if it is in error it will still change very little.

Mr. Felicetta told the Board if the subdivision is granted it would satisfy the "Flexible C" and Positive Criteria. Mr. Cantoli went back to the testimony on the C-1 variance need and Ms. Cafone said she started to explain it further but then Mr. Middleton objected. This applicant, prior to taking title, went through a number of steps to prove there are two lots. The Borough attorney said they were two lots, the Real Estate Ad stated two lots for sale, there are. two tax bills, and the prior owner always had two lots; one prospective purchaser only wanted to buy one of the lots. She felt these points picture a good faith attempt to find if these were two lots and this cannot be divorced from this application, all documents are relative to this case. Mr. Felicetta then said that Mr. Vesuvio was in the audience and was here to testify.

Mr. Cantoli said the Statute, when talking about circumstances, does refer to property size, the issues raised to not affect the property. This Board is not bound by an opinion of the Borough Attorney four years after the purchase, those reasons do not protect the C-1 Statute. Mr. Felicetta said it does deal with "unique or exceptional circumstances" and he felt it applies here, due diligence was done and two lots are shown. Mr. Cantoli said the Board also has to recollect the applicant has an obligation to come to the town to prove a subdivision was properly done through the Planning Board and Mr. Middleton agreed as well as Mr. Hilla. However, Mr. Felicetta said the applicant went through steps, even applying to the Planning Board years ago for two lots and that check was returned as the Borough records showed two lots.

Ms. Cafone said she did not misquote the Statute regarding C-1, the last paragraph says "unique circumstances". Mrs. Vitale asked if there is any other case law in using this Statute the way she is and Mr. Felicetta said the Board can use its discretion in this but that is why the Statute is written like that; the Flexible C variance

application would allow the Board to make that call. Mr. Middleton spoke and said the Board does not have the right to correct a wrong, if the applicant got a letter from a realtor it does not apply here. Mr. Felicetta said they are asking the Board to look at the facts. Mr. Hilla asked for a little more research on Exhibit A-12, the Google map and Mr. Sigler asked if they could also get lot coverage. Ms. Cafone said they could not get lot coverage figures as they would have to go on the actual properties, they can just give the area information.

As the time for this hearing this evening was up, Mr. Condon asked to carry it to the July 13th meeting of the Board, however, Mr. Cantoli said he will be on vacation and will not be able to come back until the August 10th meeting. Mr. Felicetta was agreeable to this as one of his expert witnesses also could not attend in July; he also stated they will waive the time period for approval in this matter. At this time it was stated to the Board and audience that this matter is being carried to the Tuesday, August 10th 2010 meeting of the Planning Board and no further legal notice will be given.

Before adjourning, Mr. Langenberger wanted to bring up some of the uses in the Gateway Zone that should be allowed, there are stores that are not rented and now a Pet Grooming Salon that is there will have to come in for a variance. He felt this Board should recommend to Mayor and Council that the uses in the Gateway Zone should be expanded; Councilman Garruzzo agreed.

Mr. Hilla said they did look at this and one of the concerns was if this can be done without amending the Master Plan. He felt the uses are subjective and can be added or deleted if Mayor and Council see fit to do this, have a "change of use" procedure and permit uses in this zone. We seem to trip over this change of use issue and he would like to meet with Mr. Rubino, Mrs. Brisben and Committee to set this up. Mr. Langenberger did not want to see another business close because of this and Mr. Hilla said the Dog Grooming Salon could apply for a variance and he had spoken to the property owners' attorney to do this and the occupant is also aware of this.

Mr. Langenberger wanted to know what the next step was and Mr. Hilla said they need a meeting about the procedure and do this with the Community Development Committee. The Board was agreeable to this action and Mr. Hilla was going to look into it.

As there was no other business to come before the Board, a motion to adjourn was made by Council Garruzzo, seconded by Mayor Nicol and unanimously approved, all aye. The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 pm.
Approved:

a/NAY/Fe-A,
Ken S. Brisben, Recording Secretary

 

RELATED LINKS