Borough of Brielle, NJ
| February 23, 2016
February 23rd, 2016
|BRIELLE PLANNING BOARD
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2016
The Regular meeting of the Brielle Planning Board was held on Tuesday, February 23, 2016 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 Langenberger, Eric Lapham, Stacey Montalto, John O’Donnell, Charles Sarnasi, Tim Sigler
Absent – James Stenson, Terre Vitale
Also present - Karen S. Brisben, Recording Secretary, Joe Clark, Esq., Board Attorney, and Board Engineer Alan Hilla Jr. from Avakian Engineering. There were 10 people in the audience.
Mr. Condon 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. He also announced that the Informal Hearing for property at 645 Woodland Avenue was being postponed again, by the applicant, until the May meeting of the Board.
The Minutes of the January 12, 2016 meeting were approved on a motion by Councilman Garruzzo, seconded by Mr. Sarnasi and approved by voice vote, all aye.
The Board turned to the approval of a Resolution for a Final Major Subdivision for Block 25.01, Lot 6.01 & 7.01, 522, 528 & 528 ½ Longstreet Avenue, owned by Richard & Myra Strucek.
As there were no changes or recommendations to the draft copy sent to all members and the applicant’s attorney, the following was presented for approval:
WHEREAS, RICHARD AND MYRA STRUCEK (“Applicants”) have applied to the Planning and Zoning Board (“Board”) of the Borough of Brielle for Final Major Subdivision approval for an application that was approved back in 2009 but never finalized for the property located at 522, 528, 528 ½ Longstreet Avenue, in the Residential Zone 3 (R-3), and known as Block 25.01, Lots 6.01 & 7.01 (hereinafter “property or parcel”), on the tax map of the Borough of Brielle; and
WHEREAS, The Board considered the following documents presented at the hearing in connection with this application:
a. Jurisdictional Packet;
b. Engineering review letter from Alan P. Hilla, Jr., P.E. dated January 7, 2016;
c. Applicants’ Package:
i. Final Major Subdivision Map dated 11/22/15;
ii. Preliminary Major Subdivision Plat dated 1/27/09;
iii. Design Grading Plan dated 11/22/15;
iv. Soil Erosion Plan dated 11/22/15; and
v. Construction Details dated11/22/15.
WHEREAS, the Board held a hearing on January 12, 2016, and the Board, after carefully considering the evidence presented by the applicant and of the adjoining property owners and general public, has made the following factual findings and conclusions of law:
1. Mr. Hilla explained this application is perfunctory because there has been no change to the zoning from 5-6 years ago.
2. Mr. Michael Henderson of C. Keith Henderson & Associates presented the application on behalf of Applicants and indicated as follows:
a. Applicants are seeking Final Major Subdivision approval for an application that was approved back in 2009 but never finalized.
b. In 2009 there was an application for a Minor Subdivision and a Major Subdivision.
c. The Minor Subdivision was completed and finalized, the Major Subdivision was not due to the state of the economy at that time; Applicants now wish to finalize the Major Subdivision.
d. The plan submitted to the Board by Applicants is not different from the 2009 plan.
3. Mr. Henderson indicated Applicants were aware of the Engineering Review Letter prepared by Alan P. Hilla, Jr., P.E. dated January 7, 2016 which letter noted the following.
a. The Preliminary Major Subdivision Plat, still reflects a four (4) lot subdivision. Applicant must provide a Final Major Subdivision Plat, eliminating the lot already created via Minor Subdivision perfection (Lot 7.01), and only depicting the (3) lots subject to final approval through this application. Mr. Hilla opined that the Board should condition any approval on the provision of this document.
b. Development of the lots will entail the creation of two (2) to three (3) road openings per lot and that this sort of development tends to create a washboard effect upon the pavement surface along the frontage of such lots. Mr. Hilla opined that the Board should elicit testimony from the Applicant regarding this item, and consider requiring some form of enhanced trench restoration or milling and paving to eliminate the effects of the requisite trenching.
c. The Board should condition any approval on the review and approval of all lot numbers by the Borough Tax Assessor prior to perfection.
d. As this application is for Final Major Subdivision approval, the Applicant will be required to perfect this subdivision by map which must address the following:
i. Appropriate lot numbers; and
ii. Coordinate values for monuments to be set.
e. During the Preliminary Approval hearing in 2009, Applicants represented that all lots would be developed in complete conformance with the development criteria for the R-3 Zone. Mr. Hilla recommended that the Board consider carrying through that stipulation as a specific condition of approval so that said stipulation is easily enforceable going forward.
4. Mr. Henderson addressed the points in Mr. Hilla’s report and stated that the final plan submitted to the Board does show the lot approved by the Minor Subdivision (7.01), and that it can be removed from a final map.
5. Mr. Henderson further stated that with regard to the road openings, the Strucek’s intend to sell the lots as is, and the buyers would be responsible for the roadway openings.
6. Mr. Hilla stated that Applicants proposed resolution regarding roadway openings would become the Borough’s responsibility to enforce, whereas the Board could make it a bondable improvement.
7. Applicants were hesitant with bonding because it may have an impact on sale.
8. Applicants ultimately agreed to put three bonds in place and, when sold, the new owners could provide a replacement bond.
9. Mr. Henderson agreed to verify the new lot numbers with the Assessor, and that Applicants will do a final map for approval with the correct lot numbers and monuments.
10. Mr. Henderson further noted that the Resolution from March 2009 indicates agreement that any homes will be built within the R-3 standards and that it can be a condition of approval.
11. The hearing was opened to the Board for questions. In response to a Board question, Mr. Henderson indicated that Applicants provided notice to all property owners within 200 feet.
12. The hearing was then opened to the public for questions; there were none and that portion was closed.
13. The hearing was opened for general comments; there were none and that portion was closed.
14. Board Member Garruzzo then made a motion to approve the Final Major Subdivision subject to Applicants obtaining bonds, submitting a revised plan with the proper lot numbers and monuments shown, and complying with any other requirements as outlined in Mr. Hilla’s report; the motion was seconded by Mr. Sarnasi and approved by roll call vote:
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Board of the Borough of Brielle, that Applicant’s application for Final Major Subdivision approval is approved, subject to the following conditions:
a. Applicants shall pay all taxes and other applicable assessments, costs and fees to date, as applicable.
b. Applicants shall comply with all requirements and outside approvals as may be required from the Borough of Brielle or any other governmental authority not otherwise disposed of by this application.
c. Applicants shall obtain bonds relating to potential roadway openings, as agreed to by Applicants during the hearing in this matter on January 12, 2016.
d. Applicants shall verify the new lot numbers with the Assessor, and shall create and file a new map indicating the correct lot numbers and placement of monuments.
e. Any construction of new homes shall be in complete compliance with the standards in the R-3 zone.
A motion to approve the above Resolution was made by Councilman Garruzzo, seconded by Mr. Langenberger and then by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Mayor Thomas Nicol, Councilman Frank Garruzzo, Thomas Condon, James Langenberger, Stacey Montalto, John O’Donnell, Charles Sarnasi
Not Eligible to Vote: Eric Lapham, Tim Sigler
The Board turned to an application for variance & possible Use Variance for Block 60, Lot 14, 15 Crescent Drive, owned by Daniel Keating. Lot Coverage – 20% allowed, 24.75% proposed, 4.25% variance requested. Lot Depth – 125 feet required, 75 feet existing & proposed. Accessory Side Yard Setback – 6.77 feet required, 5.91 feet existing. Accessory Rear Yard Setback – 13.67 feet required, 8.78 feet existing. Floor Area Ratio - .50 allowed, .5048 proposed; Use Variance required.
The proper fees were paid, taxes are paid to date and the property owners within 200 feet as well as the newspaper were properly notified. Kevin Starkey, Esq. came forward to present this application for Mr. Keating.
He started by stating he did not think this application needed a Use Variance and he has spoken to Mr. Hilla about this issue, the Floor Area Ratio; Mr. Hilla says this project has this over .50 but Mr. Starkey feels it is less than .50 so no Use Variance is required. Mr. Hilla spoke and felt that the Board should hear the application and then this matter can be discussed.
Mr. Starkey said he had two witnesses that will testify. The applicant wishes to demolish the home and build a new home & make the existing garage smaller which will eliminate the Side Yard Setback variance request. The rest of the variance requests are existing, so really this application is here for going over on lot coverage.
At this time Mr. Charles Lindstrom was sworn in, Professional Planner & Engineer, having an address of 136 Drum Point Road, Brick. He has been an Engineer since 1979 and is licensed in NJ; he graduated from Lafayette College & the NJ Institute of Technology. The Board accepted him as an expert witness. Mr. Lindstrom stated this is an irregularly shaped lot that consists of 13,985 square feet on Crescent Drive and has a home and a free standing garage. The plan is to take down the home and constructing one that is FEMA compliant; the existing home has a basement which is now not allowed. The existing garage will be reduced in size, there is a wing to it that will be removed.
In the middle of the property will be an inground pool, 20x26 feet, it will be between the home and the garage and will comply with the Zoning Ordinance. Also, the new home will meet all requirements and another variance, for side yard setback, will be removed. The only variance needed is for lot coverage; the home will comply, it is the garage that creates the overage. Mr. Starkey asked if there will be a basement in the new construction and Mr. Lindstrom said no, there are new rules after Hurricane Sandy and this creates a need for storage in the garage. He also commented that all utilities have to be above the flood zone.
He then went over the Engineer’s report – 1) the lot depth is deficient, it is 138 feet deep where 150 feet is needed; 2) they are over on lot coverage; 3) Floor Area Ratio will be addressed by the Architect; 4) the garage is pre-existing; 5) in regards to grading the site is flat; they have done soil borings and will be using dry wells underground which will make the runoff less than what is there now. Mr. Lindstrom said this will be done to the Engineer’s satisfaction. He also noted there is an existing bathroom in the garage. He then went on to say there will be either a cartridge filter or backwash for the pool, if they decide on a backwash they will put in another dry well.
Mr. Langenberger asked Mr. Hilla if there will be a problem with drainage and Mr. Hill answered that what Mr. Lindstrom is proposing is okay. Mr. O’Donnell asked the distance from the pool to the garage and the answer was 8.67 feet. Mr. O’Donnell asked if it should be 10 feet and Mr. Hilla answered that is the requirement from the principal structure to the pool. There isn’t anything in the Ordinance for accessory uses and that would be a Construction Code issue. Mr. Lindstrom said if this is a concern they can move the pool more towards the home as it is 13 feet in distance there.
Mr. Sarnasi asked how much would you need to reduce the garage to have it conform and Mr. Lindstrom said the garage would have to be eliminated, there would only be 9 feet of square footage left after the home. He stated they are removing 250 square feet from the existing garage, so it will be 633 square feet. Mr. Condon asked if the mechanicals will be in the garage and Mr. Lindstrom said the architect can answer that.
As there were no more Board questions, the meeting was opened to the public for questions only to Mr. Lindstrom. Mr. Peter Wegener of 10 Crescent Drive came forward and was sworn in. He asked what the front setback was and Mr. Lindstrom said 30 feet; Mr. Wegener then asked how far back the pool will be and was told 31 feet, actually almost 40 feet to the actual pool. Mr. Wegener then asked about the setbacks for the garage and was told 5.91 feet on the east side and 6 feet on the north side. Mr. Wegener then said that all pools on Crescent Drive are in the rear yards and asked if they considered putting this pool in the rear yard. Mr. Lindstrom said no, it is behind the front yard setback and it could be screened, the owner may want privacy as well.
Mr. Michael Centrella of 22 Crescent Drive then came forward and was sworn in. He did not understand how the pool is in the front yard. Mr. Lindstrom said it’s not really in the front yard. Mr. Centrella said it looked like it was in the front yard to him. He then stated this is a new garage that was built and wanted to know if it was okay to have a bathroom put in; Mr. Lindstrom said that is existing. Mr. Centrella said he was not happy with the pool and wanted to know if there will be a fence and enclosure? Mr. Lindstrom said they are proposing a 4 foot fence and it will be an open fence but it has not yet been purchased; he said there are no variances needed for this pool to be constructed. Mr. Hilla spoke and said they could have up to a 6 foot fence here. Mr. Centrella asked if the home can be put in lengthwise so the pool can go in the back and Mr. Lindstrom said he would have to look at the architecturals, if they did this they may have to design a different type of home and that may need more variances. Mr. Starkey asked if they did a lengthwise home would it have to be larger and the answer was yes.
The next person to come forward and be sworn in was Laurie Centrella of 22 Crescent Drive. She asked if it is legal to have a bathroom in the garage and Mr. Hilla answered that it is. She said the garage was built two years ago and why does it not have correct setbacks; Mr. Condon told her that cannot be answered by Mr. Lindstrom, the application is for the existing conditions. Mr. Lindstrom said the garage does not meet the setbacks, perhaps a variance was given for the construction of the garage, he did not know.
As there were no more questions from the public that portion of the hearing was closed and Mr. Jeffrey Schneider, Architect, came forward and was sworn in. At this time some of the exhibits were marked, Exhibit A-1 was the plot plan submitted with the application, A-2 is the architectural plan. Then Mr. Schneider gave his background – he is an architect in NJ and Vermont, has a Masters from the University of Texas and also attended the University of Illinois. The Board accepted him as an expert witness.
Mr. Starkey asked about the garage being reduced and Mr. Schneider agreed it was, there is a small wing to the side that will be removed. There will be some mechanicals in the garage, he believed the heating unit will be in there. He said there is a bathroom on the ground floor that will stay and the pool equipment will be installed in the rear of the garage. He said the home will be a seashore type and he did one across the street on Crescent Drive, this will be a very nice home that will fit in; 2 ½ stories but it really will be 2 stories and an unfinished attic with a section of the attic being tall enough to walk around. This new home resembles the layout of the current building, they are not really changing the configuration of the home. He also said the pool will not be seen from the street, they are going to put in landscaping. To put this home in another location would be very difficult to do and need many variances. Mr. Starkey noted shrubs are shown on the plan and Mr. Schneider said there will be shrubbery and open space above it.
In answer to a question from Mr. Starkey regarding stairs, Mr. Schneider told the Board they did not want pull down stairs to get to storage so they are putting in a fixed staircase, the upper space cannot be lived in, there is no basement and the attic space is low. Mr. Starkey then asked if the new home will be narrow and the answer was yes, the west side had to be made narrower to meet the setback. The next set of plans were marked as Exhibit A-3, an elevation plan. Mr. Schneider said they were concerned about the streetscape, there will be open space on top as the home recedes into the yard and goes from 2 ½ stories to 2 stories. The home has only 3 bedrooms so there is not overdevelopment. Mr. Starkey asked about the garage and Exhibit A-4 was presented, a garage plan. Mr. Schneider showed the part of the garage to be removed and he said the garage will match the home in design with the same materials and details.
They then went into Floor Area Ratio with .50 being the maximum allowed. Mr. Schneider said he had a discussion with the Board Engineer and he broke down each floor, there is a total of 6,574 square feet or 47.69% of the Floor Area Ratio, which is allowed. Mr. Hilla said they are excluding the headroom of 5 feet or less in the attic and Mr. Schneider said yes, they counted everything at 5 feet high or more. Mr. Hilla said that is in keeping with the intent of the Ordinance for the Floor Area Ratio, but the Ordinance itself does not read this way. He agreed with Mr. Schneider’s calculations.
Mr. Sarnasi asked about the height of the home and was told that from the crown of the road it is 35 feet. Mr. Hilla said he checked this measurement and it is correct. Mr. Condon asked about the mechanicals in the garage and will they be raised above the flood plan; Mr. Schneider said yes. Mr. Condon asked if this was going from a two-car garage to a one-car garage what would be the percentage of lot coverage and the answer was it would go from 5% coverage to 2.5% coverage.
As the Board was finished with questions, the hearing was opened to the public for questions to the Architect. Mr. Peter Wegener of 10 Crescent Drive again came forward and asked about Exhibit A-1, the plot plan; it was shown to him. He said it was testified that Mr. Schneider built one other home on Crescent Drive and asked if it is usual to have a swimming pool in the front yard as opposed to the rear yard. Mr. Schneider said he has done this sometimes for unusually shaped lots and he did not see the pool as an issue here, it will be screened. Mr. Wegener asked if they considered putting it behind the home and Mr. Schneider said this is not a normal lot and this was the best place for it. Mr. Wegener asked if there is a rectangular area behind the home and Mr. Schneider said there is 60 feet and the home is about 37 feet back from that. Mr. Wegener asked about the setback for a pool and Mr. Hilla said 10 feet from side and rear; Mr. Wegener then asked about the pool size and was told it will be 26x20 feet. Mr. Wegener then reasoned it could fit in the rear yard and Mr. Schneider said it is possible. Mr. Wegener asked if they considered the neighborhood when the house was laid out and Mr. Schneider said yes. Mr. Wegener asked if there is no other home with a pool in the front yard on Crescent Drive and Mr. Schneider answered he did not check on that but it is possible. Mr. Wegener asked if the shape of the home can be changed and Mr. Schneider said “not really”, they have to comply with the setbacks. Mr. Wegener then asked if they did change the home they would need variances and the answer was yes, it would not fit in the neighborhood as it would need more variances. He also noted the home that is there now not does not meet today’s standards. Mr. Wegener asked if they considered the impact of this pool in the value of other homes and Mr. Schneider again said they are not asking for any variances for the pool construction at all. He said it will be an improvement to the neighborhood; it will be finished and landscaped.
Next to come forward was Doane Kelly of 18 Crescent Drive, who was sworn in. He said the property that was built by Mr. Schneider across the street complied with the Zoning, he wanted to know if they tried to make this home comply as well. Mr. Schneider said they are using the same pattern that exists now, they are just adding a swimming pool. They have setback issues and are trying to use open space. Mr. Kelly noted the landscaping in the winter will show the pool and they will see it across the street. Mr. Schneider said they may be able to put in shrubs that stay green in the winter, it can be dressed up with appropriate landscaping; he felt this was the best use of the site. Mr. Kelly asked if he considered acoustics as this pool is in the front yard and Mr. Schneider said he was not an acoustical engineer.
Mrs. Laurie Centrella came forward again and asked if this home will be a year around home or a summer home and Mr. Schneider said it will be a year around home.
As there were no more questions from the public, that portion of the hearing was closed. Mr. Condon asked if they took the garage down would they be here tonight and Mr. Schneider said that garage is the issue with this application.
At this time the hearing was again open to the public, this time for general comments and Mr. Doane Kelly of 18 Crescent Drive again came forward. He welcomed any new investments on Crescent Drive and left the judgment to the Board. He said their objection is the pool in the front yard, this is not in character with Crescent Drive or even Brielle. Mr. Peter Wegener of 10 Crescent Drive also said his objection is the pool in the front yard even though it is not subject to variances. This project impacts the neighborhood and is not consistent and he felt this will have a negative impact as it impairs the character of the neighborhood. He said he is an attorney and is representing himself and Mr. Anthony Knapp who lives across the street.
Mrs. Laurie Centrella of 22 Crescent Drive said one of the neighbors did not receive any notice of this hearing. Mrs. Brisben had the file at hand and looked up the affidavit of service & proof of mailing and told Mrs. Centrella a certified letter was sent to them. Mrs. Centrella said these neighbors have a handicapped child and this may be a problem. Mr. Condon reminded her she cannot speak for her neighbors. Mrs. Centrella asked that this hearing be carried so more neighbors who could not be here tonight can speak. Mr. Condon asked her for her opinion on this application as time was moving on and she said to put the pool in the back yard, that is the objection of a lot of neighbors. The pool is better in the back yard.
As there were no other comments that portion of the hearing was closed and the Board went into discussion. Mr. Starkey did say they notified everyone that was on the list of property owners within 200 feet and Mrs. Brisben agreed that proofs of mailings were submitted for all.
Ms. Montalto asked Mr. Clark what is the Board’s jurisdiction on the placement of the pool and Mr. Clark said the pool complies with the Zoning Ordinance and no variances are needed. Ms. Montalto then said the issue is lot coverage in excess of 20% and she had no objection to that. However, she hated to see this home come down but she realized it does not conform. She felt the new home will fit in and did not think the Board has any jurisdiction to have the pool moved. Mr. Sigler understood they were losing a storage area as the basement was being removed and could see the need for the garage and they do not need permission for the pool. Councilman Garruzzo agreed the pool is not the issue, the Board is looking at bulk variance relief and he does not have a problem with that; there may be a noise issue but the pool will be fenced and landscaped so he was okay with the application. Mayor Nicol could appreciate the noise concern and they may erect a better fence along with appropriate trees and shrubs, this can be helpful by quite a bit.
Mr. Langenberger asked Mr. Clark if the pool was taken off the plans for tonight and the Board approves the variance for lot coverage, can Mr. Keating come in next week and see the Zoning Officer for a pool permit? Mr. Clark said yes, they can get the pool. Mr. O’Donnell agreed with all that has been said and Mr. Sarnasi stated he did not like the pool and thinks it is an additional problem, he would rather see it moved but he was okay with the rest of the application. Mr. Condon also was not a fan of where the pool is going to be and he hoped it can be shielded. As far as lot coverage, he was not in favor of this application. He understood the need for the garage and the flood elevation issue but the Zoning Ordinance states 20% coverage maximum and he felt that 25% coverage was too much.
At this time Mr. Condon asked for a motion to approve or disapprove this application and Councilman Garruzzo made a motion for approval, this seconded by Mr. Langenberger and then by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Mayor Thomas Nicol, Councilman Frank Garruzzo, James Langenberger,
Eric Lapham, Stacey Montalto, John O’Donnell
Noes: Thomas Condon, Charles Sarnasi, Tim Sigler
The last application for the evening was for a Use Variance for Block 31.01, Lot 3, 529 Woodland Avenue, owned by Charles Gilligan, to permit mixed Commercial and Residential Use.
The proper fees were paid, taxes are paid to date and the property owners within 200 feet as well as the newspaper were properly notified. Before the hearing started, both Mayor Nicol and Councilman Garruzzo left the dais as they are not eligible to hear a Use Variance.
Mr. Charles Gilligan of Gilligan Engineering came forward and was sworn in, he is the owner of this property and it was purchased by him in 1995. He has since vacated the office space and moved into a home office. He explained it was two apartments when he bought it and was residential in use even though it is in the C-1 Zone, right on the border to the R-4 Residential Zone. He presented a copy of the tax map highlighting the different zones and said that, in this particular area of the C-1 Zone, he is the only one that is purely commercial, the rest are mixed use as commercial/residential. His proposal is to be able to be all commercial or commercial/residential.
The cover sheet of his plans were marked as Exhibit A-1, Exhibit A-2 was a blow -up of the site plan and the floor plan was marked as Exhibit A-3. There will be no renovations to the exterior and the inside would need a cook-top for residential use. Right now there are two rooms on the second floor; he suggested one room for living and one room as a closet. The site is suited for residential use and fits right in the neighborhood, there is no negative criteria and he felt this variance can be granted without any detriment to the public good.
Mr. Condon asked if this property was once owned by Arno Schwarz and the answer was yes, it was used as a residential use with 2 units. Mr. Langenberger felt that a bedroom on the second floor would have to have a door so it would have to be changed around. Mr. Gilligan showed him the floor plan and said there would be separate doors. Mr. Sarnasi noted only 4 parking spaces and asked if that worked here and Mr. Gilligan said yes. He had 5 employees at one time and did not have a problem, there is on-street parking here. Mr. Sarnasi asked about a fire problem with windows and Mr. Langenberger said they need to be 5 feet; Mr. Gilligan said he will check with the Construction Code Official on this.
Ms. Montalto asked if the property is being used now and Mr. Gilligan said no, he has been out of there over a year; he also commented that everyone that looks at it sees it as residential use. Mr. Sigler asked about a separate entrance for upstairs but Mr. Gilligan said no, but he can put a door at the front of the stairs. Mr. Gilligan also told the Board that no food service or medical service at this site is allowed.
As there was no one in the audience there was no need to open the meeting for questions or comments so the Board went into discussion. Mr. Langenberger felt this can be a great starter home for a young couple. As there were no other comments from Board members a motion for approval was made by Mr. Langenberger, seconded by Mr. Sigler and then by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Thomas Condon, James Langenberger, Eric Lapham, Stacey Montalto,
John O’Donnell, Charles Sarnasi, Tim Sigler
As there was no other business to come before the Board, a motion for adjournment was made by Ms. Montalto, seconded by Mr. Lapham and unanimously approved, all aye. The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
Karen S. Brisben, Recording Secretary
Approved: March 8, 2016