www.briellenj.com
A Community by the River

Borough of Brielle, NJ


June 14, 2016

August 24 2016

June 14th, 2016

BRIELLE PLANNING BOARD

TUESDAY, JUNE 14, 2016

The Regular meeting of the Brielle Planning Board was held on Tuesday, June 14, 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 Thomas Condon, Eric Lapham, Stacey Montalto, John O’Donnell, Charles Sarnasi, James Stenson, Terre Vitale

Absent Mayor Thomas Nicol, Councilman Frank Garruzzo, James
Langenberger, Tim Sigler

Also present - Karen S. Brisben, Recording Secretary, Joe Clark, Esq., Board Attorney and Board Engineer Alan Hilla Jr. from Avakian Engineering. There were approximately 50 people in the audience and the Coast Star reporter recorded the meeting.

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.

The Minutes of the May 10, 2016 meeting were approved on a motion by Mr. Stenson, seconded by Mr. O’Donnell and approved by voice vote, all aye.

CORRESPONDENCE:

All Board members had received the March/April 2016 issue of the NJ Planner.

OLD BUSINESS:

The Board considered approval of a Resolution for Use Variance/Site Plan for Block 20.01, Lot 23, 301 Union Avenue (site of Jimmy’s Subs), applicant Verizon Wireless, to allow a Small Network Node on the roof of the existing structure. As all had received a draft copy and there were no changes, the following was presented:

WHEREAS, New York SMSA Limited Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (“Applicant”) has applied to the Planning and Zoning Board (“Board”) of the Borough of Brielle seeking Minor Site Plan/Use Variance for Block 20.01, Lot 23, known as 301 Union Avenue, owned by Cesaro & Daniela Schiano (Jimmy’s Subs), in the Commercial Zone 1 (C-1), to allow a Small Network Node on the roof of the existing structure which consists of 2 antennae, equipment cabinets, an electrical panel, a telco panel, a GPS unit and various support equipment;
WHEREAS, This application requires the following variances:
Side Yard Setback 10 feet required, 6.93 feet existing, 7 feet proposed for GPS/rail/telco/cabinet/platform,
Side Yard Setback 10 feet required, 6.93 feet existing, about 8.5 feet proposed to base of hoist; and
WHEREAS a prior hearing was held in this matter, at which time Applicant’s application was denied, with suggestions made by members of the Board as to improvements that could be made;
WHEREAS, Applicant has incorporated additional screening in this Application, and has presented it to the Board for review;
WHEREAS, The Board considered the following documents that were presented at the prior hearing, and which were adopted by reference in the present Application:
Jurisdictional Packet;
A-1 Drawing Number Z-2 “Zoning Maps and Zoning Schedule;”
A-2 Drawing Number Z-1 “Site Plan and Notes;”
A-3 Drawing Number Z-4 “Roof Plan and Equipment Plan;”
A-4 Drawing Number Z-5 “West Elevation;”
A-5 Shelton Expert Report;
A-6 Brielle Map of Existing Site Coverage without Proposed Node (Page 11 of Shelton Report);
A-7 Map of Coverage with Node (Page 12 of Shelton Report);
A-8 RF Study;
A-9 Photographs 1 and 1A from Photographic Simulations prepared by David Karelbach, PP, PC;
A-10 Photographs 2 and 2A from Photographic Simulations prepared by David Karlebach, PP, PC;
A-11 Photographs 3 and 3A from Photographic Simulations prepared by David Karelbach, PP, PC;
A-12 Photograph demonstrating screening;
January 12, 2015 Zoning Permit Denial; and
PB-1 Engineering Report of Allan P. Hilla, Jr., P.E., P.P., of Leon S. Avakian, Inc; and
WHEREAS, The Board considered the following documents that were presented at the hearing held on May 10, 2016:
A-13 Photograph demonstrating screening;
A-14 Site Plan;
A-15 Sheet Z4 indicating the slope on the roof of the building is pitched back towards the building; and
WHEREAS the Board held a hearing on May 10, 2016, and at that time Applicant adopted testimony from the prior hearing and also heard testimony from Applicant as follows:
Mr. Chris Cirrotti of Parsippany, N.J. was accepted as an expert witness. At the prior hearing, Mr. Cirrotti referred to Exhibit s A-1, A-2 and A-3 and testified that the S/W quadrant of the building will be the platform and the N/E corner will have an antenna 2 feet above the roof. The platform will have handrails for safety, a GPS antenna and lights, cable to the antenna across the roof to the N/E corner where there will be a ballast mount, the second antenna will be mounted on the side of the building. Mr. Cirrotti further indicated that there will be an access ladder along the westerly side and not the south side as shown on the original plan, they did this to eliminate one variance for side yard setback. The hoist will be next to the safety ladder and there will be safety railing. There will be telco boxes on the wall along the west side elevation.
The next sheet, marked Exhibit A-4, sheet Z-5 shows the westerly elevation of the building with the equipment platform and GPS node and antenna; the second antenna is closer to the front or east side of the building. The ladder will have an anti-climb device and will have locked access. There will also be an emergency generator hookup for a generator to be brought to the site if needed.
Mr. Cirrotti testified on May 10, 2016 that the site plan (Exhibit A-15) showed lower screening than previously planned, and also demonstrated the locations of the antennae, which were ballast weighted for anchorage to the roof. The testimony also indicated that the setback for the front antenna from the front and side of the building would exceed the height of the antenna. Mr. Cirrotti also indicated that the operation would remain unmanned, with inspections occurring every 4-6 weeks.
Mr. Jim Shelton was previously called as a witness regarding Radio Frequency. He was accepted as an expert by the Board, and testified that as set forth in Exhibit A-5 and A-6 there are current capacity issues, and that the node will assist in addressing them. He then referred to Exhibit A-7, which is page 12 of his report, and indicated that the node would address capacity issues as seen in the Exhibit. Mr. Shelton further testified that the actual antenna is only 24 inches tall.
Additionally, Mr. Shelton testified that, as set forth in Exhibit A-8, radio emissions from the site will be 4.77% of FCC standards at the site location, and that the percentage would drop further from the building.
On May 10, 2016, Mr. Shelton reiterated his prior testimony regarding RF emissions.
David Karlebach, with a Masters in Planning from Rutgers and who is a Licensed Professional Planner in NJ was accepted as an expert witness. Mr. Karlebach previously testified that there are large arborvitaes on the west side of this property abutting Lot 22, they are about 15 feet high so there is a buffer on the west side. Mr. Karlebach also indicated that there are two pre-existing, non-conforming uses present that relate to Minimum Lot Frontage and Minimum Side Yard.
With respect to the D Variance for the wireless telecommunication use Mr. Karlebach stated:
1) The public interest is at stake and the general welfare is served. Mobile phones are used for emergencies and this will benefit the town in several ways by being faster and by lessening response time. Mr. Karlebach also indicated that everyone, not just Verizon customers, will benefits. Additionally, Mr. Karlebach testified that there are 300,000 towers in the country and 400,000 emergency calls a day from mobile phones, so this site is well suited for use. Because the site contains a commercial building in a commercial zone, there is no need to build a new tower, the site is ready for use with minimal construction.
2) Detrimental Effects Mr. Karlebach noted that aesthetics would suffer as a result of the application. In support, he referred to Exhibits A-9, A-10 and A-11 and stated that the photographs of existing and proposed conditions show that the proposed node is not out of character and that the roof equipment currently existing on the Oyster Bar exceeds what is proposed here. Mr. Karlebach further testified that there will be no effect on the light and air, that the node is unmanned and needs very little servicing or traffic, that there is no noise, vibration, dust or fumes, and that the node complies with FCC regulations and will not interfere with other uses.
3) Mr. Karlebach acknowledged that the Board can impose reasonable conditions for Applicant to consider.
4) Detriment to the Public Good Mr. Karlebach did not see any detriments or impairment to the Zone Plan. He finished by stating that this is a reasonable location;
On May 10, 2016, Mr. Karlebach also testified that the screening of the node would be lower than previously presented and that very little of the installation would appear above the screen. He further testified that there would be a canister antenna on the front and back of the building, both of which would be safely anchored. He further informed the Board that the access ladder would have a locking cage feature to prevent unauthorized access on the roof.
WHEREAS, after each witness, both the Board and members of the public were permitted to ask questions; at the end of the hearing, the meeting was opened for public comment.
WHEREAS the Board, after carefully considering the documents, testimony, responses to questions from the public and the Board, and public comment, has made the following factual findings and conclusions of law:
1. The Borough Of Brielle Planning And Zoning Board has proper jurisdiction to hear the within matter.
2. The subject property is located at Block 20.01, Lot 23, known as 301 Union Avenue, owned by Cesaro & Daniela Schiano (Jimmy’s Subs), in the Commercial Zone 1 (C-1);
3. The application for Minor Site Plan/Use Variance would allow a Small Network Node on the roof of the existing structure which consists of 2 antennae, equipment cabinets, an electrical panel, a telco panel, a GPS unit and various support equipment;
4. The application requires the following variances:
Side Yard Setback 10 feet required, 6.93 feet existing, 7 feet proposed for GPS/rail/telco/cabinet/platform,
Side Yard Setback 10 feet required, 6.93 feet existing, about 8.5 feet proposed to base of hoist;
5. A use variance requires an applicant to present both positive criteria and negative criteria. The Municipal Land Use Law authorizes local zoning boards to grant a use variance where: (1) “special reasons” exist for the variance (the positive criteria); and (2) the variance can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and will not substantially impair the intent and purposes of the zone plan and zoning ordinance (the negative criteria). N.J.S.A. 40:55d 70(d).
6. Where a proposed use is determined to be “inherently beneficial” to society, the positive criteria and negative criteria requirements are less stringent. “Inherently beneficial use” means a use which is universally considered of value to the community because it fundamentally serves the public good and promotes the general welfare. Such a use includes, but is not limited to, a hospital, school, child care center, group home, or a wind, solar or photovoltaic energy facility or structure.
7. Numerous decisions of New Jersey courts have recognized that mobile communications facilities are usually an inherently beneficial uses. See, e.g., New Brunswick Cellular Tel. Co. v. Borough of South Plainfield Bd. of Adjustment, 305 N.J. Super. 151, 166-67, 701 A.2d 1281 (App. Div. 1997) (finding proposed 90-foot steel monopole used to hold cellular antennas was inherently beneficial use);  Nynex Mobile Communications Co. v. Hazlet Tp. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 276 N.J. Super. 598, 609, 648 A.2d 724 (App. Div.1994) (holding that cellular transmission antenna to be annexed to 130-foot water tower constituted inherently beneficial use);  New Brunswick Cellular Tel. Co. v. Township of Edison Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 300 N.J. Super., 456, 469-71, 693 A.2d 180 (Law Div.1997) (finding proposed 80-foot monopole used to hold cellular antennas was inherently beneficial).
8. Also relevant to the determination of the suitability of a telecommunications site is the Telecommunications Act’s mandate that “The regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities by any State or local government or instrumentality thereof shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services.” Here, the proposed node will fill a gap in the current coverage for residents, as well as mobile users traveling through the municipality. As a result, the positive criteria associated with a use variance is likely to be considered presumptively satisfied.
9. The negative criteria is resolved by balancing the benefits of the project against any detriments, considering whether any detrimental effect can be reduced by imposing reasonable conditions, and then determining after weighing of the positive and negative factors (as ameliorated by the conditions) whether the grant of the variance would cause a substantial detriment to the public good.
10. With regard to factors such as EMF radiation, the Radiation Act has preempted the Board’s consideration of EMF radiation emissions that fell within applicable government safety standards. Additionally, the Telecommunications Act likewise has preempted local consideration of EMF radiation emissions. As the Supreme Court noted in Smart SMR Of New York, Inc. d/b/a Nextel Communications v. Borough Of Fair Lawn Board Of Adjustment -
To guide local land use agencies and the lower courts in deciding cases involving the location of such facilities, we offer the following further guidelines. Generally, the issuance of an FCC license should suffice for a carrier to establish that the use serves the general welfare. * * * Concerning the negative criteria, the Radiation Act and the Telecommunications Act have virtually preempted local consideration of radiation emissions. Proof of an adverse effect on adjacent properties and on the municipal land use plan, moreover, generally will require qualified expert testimony. Bare allegations that the construction of a tower or monopole will cause a decline in property values rarely will suffice.
11. The Board finds that the Applicant has demonstrated that the positive criteria are satisfied and that the negative criteria, if any, will not cause a substantial detriment to the public good.
WHEREAS, after being offered the opportunity to examine each witness and to comment upon the application, no member of the public came forward to do so;
WHEREAS, five (5) affirmative votes were needed for approval pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70(d) and upon roll call vote, the Board voted 6-1 in favor of granting the application;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Board of the Borough of Brielle, that Applicant’s application for Minor Site Plan/Use Variance is approved, subject to the following conditions:
a. Applicant shall pay all taxes and other applicable assessments, costs and fees to date, as applicable.
b. Applicant 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.
Adopted on a roll call on a motion by Mr. Stenson, seconded by Mr. O’Donnell and then by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Thomas Condon, Stacey Montalto, John O’Donnell, Charles Sarnasi, James Stenson

Noes: None

Not Eligible to Vote: Eric Lapham, Terre Vitale

The Board then turned to the approval of a Resolution for variance relief for Block 125, Lot 2, 628 Spruce Place, owned by Paul & Lisa Nolan, to allow the construction of a front, wrap-around porch addition. As all Board members, as well as the applicants, had received a draft copy and there were no changes recommended, the following was presented for approval:

WHEREAS, Paul and Lisa Nolan (“Applicants” or separately “Applicant”) have applied to the Planning and Zoning Board (“Board”) of the Borough of Brielle seeking a front yard setback variance for property located at 628 Spruce Place in the Residential Zone 2 (R-2), and known as Block 125, Lot 2 (hereinafter “property” or “parcel”), on the tax map of the Borough of Brielle; and
WHEREAS, This application specifically seeks a front yard setback variance as follows:
Front Yard - 40 feet required, 40 feet existing, 37.25 proposed;
WHEREAS, The Board considered the following documents presented at the hearing in connection with this application:
Jurisdictional Packet;
A-1 Front Porch Extension Plan;
A-2 Photographs of current porch; and
Zoning Denial Letter dated April 11, 2016;
WHEREAS, the Board held a hearing on May 10, 2016, as follows:
1. Applicant Paul Nolan came forward and was sworn in. Applicant testified that he is the owner of Block 125, Lot 2. Applicant indicated that he wishes to construct a wrap-around porch to increase its functionality and to make a more aesthetically pleasing structure for the neighborhood. Applicant explained that due to the plans for creating the wrap around porch, a front yard setback variance was necessary and that 37.25 feet was proposed, as opposed to the 40 feet required by Ordinance.
2. With regard to the application, the Board indicated general assent to the plans and the construction, but had no specific questions of Applicant.
3. The hearing was opened to the public and, no members fo the public being present, was promptly closed.
4. A motion for approval was made and seconded by and was approved by roll call vote 6 in favor, 0 against.
WHEREAS the Board, after carefully considering the evidence presented by the applicant and of the adjoining property owners and general public, if any, has made the following factual findings and conclusions of law:
a. Applicant satisfactorily demonstrated that the minor setback encroachment would add to the overall character of the neighborhood and would allow for additional functionality of the structure, without negatively impacting the environs.
b. Applicant demonstrated that the subdivision and variances would not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the zoning plan and ordinance. The granting of the requested variance would not conflict with the Borough’s Master Plan.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Board of the Borough of Brielle, that Applicant’s application for a minor subdivision and variances is approved, subject to the following conditions:
a. Applicant shall pay all taxes and other applicable assessments, costs and fees to date, as applicable.
b. Applicant 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. Applicant may not enclose the porch in any manner.
Adopted on a roll call on a motion by Mr. Stenson, seconded by Ms. Montalto and then by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Thomas Condon, Stacey Montalto, John O’Donnell, Charles Sarnasi, James Stenson, Terre Vitale

Noes: None

Not Eligible to Vote: Eric Lapham

NEW BUSINESS:

It was now time for the Board to hear an application for a Use Variance for Block 52, Lot 1, 1.01, 622 Green Avenue, site of Waypoint 622 Restaurant, owned by Waypoint 622, LLC. Front Yard Setback 30 feet required, 22.1 feet provided to existing building; 9.6 feet provided to covered patio column. Loading Space located in front yard and not screened in. Sign Setback 50 feet required, 37.4 feet provided. Driveway Curb Cuts 5 feet minimum required, less than 5 feet provided. Parking 148 spaces required, 40 spaces provided. Use Variances also required for new catering facility and multi-use marine complex.

John Jackson, Esq. came forward stating Waypoint 622 had come before the Board back in November as the Zoning Officer had issues and it was determined that they did, indeed, have to appear before the Board. He said he has been an attorney for 30 years and is always amazed by how complex some matters can be under the Municipal Land Use Law. There is a lot of nuance to this application and it’s difficult; they have conditional use, permitted use, in a C-2 Zone where a restaurant sits as Commercial Use. Are they asking for an expansion, a conditional use, etc?

Also, there are different standards for either a Planning Board or a Zoning Board. The Conditional Use is being applied which he feels is judgmental and there are several bulk requirements as well. The jurisdictional issue is about the Conditional Use criteria. They are 1) promoting use of the waterfront, 2) have a design that is compatible to the area, 3) the proposed use will have no adverse impact on properties in the neighborhood; they feel this actually enhances the area there are things to do and places to go in this area of Brielle, 4) there is adequate off-street parking and the testimony will show that the client also owns Hoffman’s Marina so parking is available. The same owner owns Hoffman’s which is off peak in summer as boats are no longer in dry dock, 5) there is no adverse impact and buffer, they do have adequate landscaping.

They had a problem last year with bands but said that when Union Landing Restaurant was there they always had bands; Waypoint is now very popular and people have complained. They now have, on the northeast corner, installed a sound wall and also installed a sound system which is controlled by the house. Any band that plays has to plug into their sound system, which is hard-wired by a control system that can only go so high. They also have put a plastic canopy in place to help with the noise.

Mr. Jackson then started to read a statement from Mayor Nicol, but Mr. Michael Rubino, Esq., an objecting attorney, rose and stated the Mayor’s Statement cannot be read. Mr. Clark agreed and said while this may not be illegal, it is not proper. Mr. Rubino said this application involves a Use Variance and the Mayor cannot sit on the Board to hear this, so his statement cannot be read. Mr. Jackson just said the Mayor said this problem exists and has to be addressed.

He then went on to state Council adopted an Ordinance that ameliorated the noise problem; band can only be 3 pieces, no drums, can pay up to 10:00 p.m., no later than one a.m. This is all part of the learning curve and it has been addressed, they have done what Council said.

He then went back to the conditional use criteria and said that 6) lighting is not an issue; and between the deck and water steps were put in. His engineer met with the Chief of Police and have received notice that the Fire Zone Striping plan is approved, it is signed by the Police Chief, The Borough Administrator, the Fire Chief and other officials.

He felt they have met all the conditional use criteria, the changes they have made are nominally different than what was there. The changes in the deck were all allowed by the Zoning Officer and built that way, whether it increases seating is not the issue. They are not deficient in parking, they do have Hoffman’s East, Hoffman’s West and Waypoint, all owned by the same entity. If you look at the C-2 Marine Commercial Zone it states it is there to promote boating, fishing and marine uses.

He then presented a photo of a view from the water which shows Hoffman’s East, Hoffman’s West and Waypoint, it can be seen as a whole and this hits the use here squarely. The docks were upgraded by Mr. Grafas, the owner, as well as the pilings and this brings in higher end boats which help support the area; this is now one of the jewels of the area these docks have been part of Brielle’s history and he noted the Fishing Family day that was held last week, also a Shark Tournament and people are coming into town for this type of activity, then they eat in the restaurants. Mr. Jackson said this area has been changing and he remembered when the Shipwheel and Casablanca were here, there is a better demographic now. He stated the birds’ chirping is now louder than the bar music. The outside patio area was a coy pond and they will show photos of this area now; there are no drinks served here and this will be discussed.
Waypoint 622 feels they have done everything they can do to make people happy, some people may still be angry but they have done their best.

At this time Mr. Dennis Collins, Esq., came forward and said he represents two families on Leslie Avenue. He suspected Waypoint did not use those properties when noticing property owners within 200 feet. If they are bringing up the issue of parking at Hoffman’s, then those property owners within 200 feet of that area should have been notified. He said there are deficiencies in this application and, if you use a property in an application you have to notify those property owners within 200 feet; he commented there is nothing in Mr. Hilla’s report on this either. Mr. Collins said there is a jurisdictional issue here, to take a portion of a property that’s meets a Conditional Use means this Board can’t hear this.

Mr. Rubino came forward as well and felt that, as soon as the applicant wants to introduce a parking lot next door, this should be reviewed; he agreed with Mr. Collins that the property owners here need to be notified, they need to go now to a combined Site Plan, that is necessary and, if not, there is no jurisdiction to hear this application.

Mr. Jackson said the provisional he is relying on is right out of Borough Ordinance, Section 21:53, subsection ib, proof that sufficient parking spaces are available within walking distance. This is the only request in the Ordinance, a separate application does not have to be done.

Mr. Condon asked how many spaces are there in total and Mr. Jackson said Mr. Lowrie, one of the experts to testify, will answer that. Mr. Condon then asked when the season begins and ends and Mr. Jackson said from May to September. Mr. Condon did not feel there is enough parking, there are 12 boats still in dry dock here. Mr. Jackson said his experts will provide the proof.

Mr. Collins again stated this is another property and all people within 200 feet should be noticed; he reminded everyone this was carried from March. Mr. Jackson said they did address the parking at Hoffman’s and they are not changing the site; if they need to notify people within 200 feet they can do it at a later time, this matter was addressed by the Engineer, Police Chief and Zoning Officer and the Ordinance does not require notice, that may only apply to virgin land with an easement but cars have parked here for years. Mr. Jackson said Mr. Rubino objected to his first notice and now wants to derail this and this is what objectors do. He felt they have a sound application.

Mr. Collins felt he was entitled to review the parking at Hoffman’s and how this will impact that area, he did not feel they had enough parking on that lot for Hoffman’s and the restaurant; this application did not include shared parking and he knew nothing about it. Mr. Rubino spoke about the defect in the notice the first time, he said the applicant may be doing a good thing but jurisdiction is in conflict here. Mr. Jackson said they are a Conditional Use Variance, not a D variance and the conditions at the site have to be looked at and negative criteria has to be addressed as well. They are not being overwhelmed by a restaurant use here, they have plenty of boat slips to support the restaurant, they are not over saturating the market. The berth ratio for the boats can support a walkway to the restaurant, it’s nothing to do with noticing property owners within 200 feet. Mr. Clark said he looked through the Ordinance and felt that Mr. Jackson was right, parking within a reasonable area; Mr. Jackson said they can submit that proof tonight. Mr. Clark then said he felt they have to address the Hoffman’s property.

Mr. Condon felt they had a notice issue and will have to resubmit plans. Mrs. Brisben spoke up and reminded the Board there are 5 applications waiting to be heard, they have been pushed back for this hearing tonight. Mr. Jackson said he did not understand and Mr. Condon explained that these applications have to be heard and Mr. Clark agreed. Mr. Condon also mentioned that there may be an issue if Hoffman’s Marina is included as some of the Board may have a conflict. Mr. Clark then decided that this hearing has to be postponed again and be re-heard, the Board does not have the jurisdiction to hear it this evening.

At this time people starting to speak out from the audience with problems they have and Mr. Condon told them to call the police if they see a problem, or go to a Council meeting if they have a problem with parking issues.

Mrs. Brisben spoke again and said the Board could not hear this application again until possibly September. Mr. Clark suggested using this summer to meet with all the attorneys and get these problems ironed out before the next hearing date; the Board can even have a special meeting date if needed. Mr. Jackson said he would be willing to meet with the opposing attorneys and Mr. Clark to hash out all issues; they are trying to not delay this, they have high priced experts here this evening that need to be paid and do not want to go through this again.

The audience was told that this meeting is being postponed and new notices will be sent out when they are to appear before this Board again, hopefully by September.

As there was no other business to come before the Board, a motion to adjourn was made by Mr. Stenson, seconded by Mr. O’Donnell and unanimously approved by the Board. The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m.

_________________________
Karen S. Brisben
Recording Secretary

Approved: July 12, 2016





 

RELATED LINKS