Open public meeting statement: The meeting was called to order by Chairman, George Zitone, and a statement was made that the meeting was duly advertised and met all of the requirements of the Open Public Meetings Act. Those present were: Jason Dunn (As Mayor Designee), Charles Teufert, Sharon Tufaro, Glenn Barbagallo, Darren Ponce, Richard Innella, Gene Crawford, Katherine Snyder, George Zitone, Sharon M. Yarosz, the board secretary, William Haggerty, Esq., the board attorney and Michael O'Krepky, the board engineer.Those absent were: Ron Ruberto (excused) and Glen Plotsky (excused)

FLAG SALUTE

MINUTES

The Minutes of January 10, 2008 Land Use Board Reorganization Meeting were reviewed. A Motion was made by Mr. Barbagallo and seconded by Mrs. Tufaro to approve the Minutes of the January 10, 2008 Land Use Board Reorganization Meeting. Mr. Dunn, abstain; Mr. Teufert, yes; Mrs. Tufaro, yes; Mr. Barbagallo, yes; Mr. Ponce, yes; Mr. Innella, yes; Ms. Crawford, abstain; Mrs. Snyder, yes; and Mr. Zitone, yes. The Motion was carried.

It was noted that the January 10, 2008 Regular Meeting Minutes were not yet completed.

RESOLUTIONS

Red Hill Road, LLC - LUB 07-11 - Block 47, Lot 17 - Minor Subdivision:

The Resolution was reviewed. A Motion was made by Mr. Barbagallo and seconded by Mr. Dunn to approve the Resolution of Red Hill Road, LLC for a Minor Subdivision. Roll Call: Mr. Dunn, yes; Mr. Teufert, yes; Mrs. Tufaro, yes; Mr. Barbagallo, yes; Mr. Ponce, yes; Mr. Innella, yes; Mrs. Snyder, yes; and Mr. Zitone, yes. The Motion was carried.

Francis Biccum - LUB 06-22 - Block 5, Lot 50 - 29P Steenykill Road - Variance:

The Resolution was reviewed. A Motion was made by Mr. Innella and seconded by Mr. Teufert to approve the Resolution of Francis Biccum for a Variance. Roll Call: Mr. Dunn, yes; Mr. Teufert, yes Mrs. Tufaro, yes; Mr. Barbagallo, yes; Mr. Ponce, yes; Mr. Innella, yes; and Mrs. Snyder, yes. The Motion was carried.

APPLICATIONS CARRIED FROM A PREVIOUS MEETING

Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless - LUB 07-07 - Block 18.42, Lot 7 - Clove Road - Preliminary & Final Site Plan & Variance:

Mr. Haggerty presented to the board a proposal to have Charles A. Hecht provide expert radio frequency engineering services on behalf of the township. The proposal requires $3,000 in escrow to be deposited with the township. Mr. Haggerty indicated that he has spoken to the applicant's attorney and the objector's attorney and neither of them have a conflict with Mr. Hecht. He further indicated that the applicant's attorney had not objection to the escrow amount of $3,000 and he will authorize that this check be sent out to the township to supplement the escrow account.

A Motion was made by Mr. Barbagallo and seconded by Mr. Innella to approve the proposal and to hire Mr. Hecht to provide expert radio frequency engineering services on behalf of the township. Roll Call: Mr. Dunn, abstain; Mr. Teufert, abstain; Mrs. Tufaro, abstain; Mr. Barbagallo, yes; Mr. Ponce, yes; Mr. Innella, yes; Ms. Crawford, yes; Mrs. Snyder, yes; and Mr. Zitone, abstain. The Motion was carried.

A letter was also received from the applicant's attorney requesting to carry the above application to the March 13, 2008 Land Use Board meeting without further notice. A Motion was made by Mr. Barbagallo and seconded by Ms. Crawford to carry this application without further notice to the March 13, 2008 Land Use Board Meeting. All were in favor. The Motion was carried.

NEW APPLICATIONS

Clint & Gina Rosenfeld - LUB 08-02 - Block 48.01 - Lot 21.02 - Height Variance:

Appearing before the board was the applicants, Clint and Gina Rosenfeld. Mr. and Mrs. Rosenfeld were sworn in by the board attorney.

Mr. O'Krepky indicated that this application is complete. A Motion was made by Mr. Barbagallo and seconded by Mr. Teufert to deem this application complete. All were in favor. The Motion was carried.

Mr. Rosenfeld indicated that they purchased the above property some time ago. Subsequent to this they picked out a home, a 2 story modular home. His builder, Ben Hogan, submitted the building permit to the township. He indicated that 10 days into the building permit process, they ordered the home. When they went to get the building permit at the township, it was brought to their attention that the house exceeded code for height. The house was 37' 8" and the code is 35'. He stated that the house was already completed and was ready to be delivered on January 14th, however, this did not occur. He indicated that they do have a permit for the foundation. However, they have not yet broken ground on the foundation because they were waiting to here the outcome of this hearing.

Mr. Haggerty questioned the applicant's as to the sequence of dates as to when the permit was submitted and when they were informed that they need a variance. Mrs. Rosenfeld indicated that they submitted the building permit application on December 5, 2007 and on January 2, 2008 they were informed by the building department that they exceeded the height allowed by ordinance. Mr. Haggerty questioned the applicant that they ordered the house 10 days after the submission of the building permit and was notified by the township on January 2, 2008 about the height problem, was the house put together that quickly. Mr. Rosenfeld indicated that it was. Mr. Haggerty questioned the applicant's as to the size of their lot. Mrs. Rosenfeld indicated that the lot is 4.401 acres. Mr. Haggerty questioned the applicant the distance from the road to the proposed location of the house. Mr. Rosenfeld indicated that from the end of the cul-de-sac to structure is approximately 300' and from Fox Hollow Road it is approximately 567' to the driveway. Mr. Rosenfeld indicated that because of the topography of the land, it slopes from back to front, the front facing Fox Hollow. The top of the property is flat. Therefore, the footprint of the home is actually to the back of the property. Mr. Haggerty referred to photographs submitted by the applicant with the application. He indicated that the first photograph taken in the summer of 2007 shows the property with some trees cut down. Mr. Rosenfeld indicated that this photograph was taken from the driveway area to where they are proposing the house location. Mr. Haggerty marked this exhibit as Exhibit ΑA-1". Mr. Haggerty referred to the second photograph which was also taken during the summer of 2007 which shows the property from the beginning of common driveway and indicating that the home will not be visible from Fox Hollow Road. Mr. Haggerty marked this photograph as Exhibit ΑA-2". Mr. Haggerty questioned the applicant if they have their septic permit. Mr. Rosenfeld indicated that they do have an approved septic permit.

Mr. Innella questioned if the township has received any input from the fire marshal or fire department saying that they do not have a problem with this and that they will be able to fight any type of structure fire. Mr. Haggerty indicated that this request is only a couple of feet higher than the required height of 35'. Mr. Rosenfeld indicated that this is not living space, it is a crawl space in the attic. Mr. Teufert indicated that any truck the township has would have to come up the driveway to the garage side of the house, the peak roof is on the far side of the house, you wouldn't being using a truck from there to get to that roof height. Mr. Innella questioned if the builder could come up with any kind of scenario to change the roof line. Mr. Rosenfeld indicated that when this issue was brought to our attention, the house was already completed and waiting for delivery.

Appearing before the board was the applicant's builder, Ben Hogan, who was sworn in by the board attorney. Mr. Hogan indicated that he did have a conversation with the modular company about changing the roof line. He indicated that the entire second floor, which consists of three modules, would have to be discarded. The roof has been built on the units and each unit, itself, has a portion of the roof constructed and attached that is combined with a ceiling, attic space, and plywood.

Mr. Dunn questioned Mr. Haggerty as to the definition of height in Montague Township. Mr. Haggerty read from the ordinance book from Section 76-29a: ΑMeasured from the lowest point of the finished grade to highest point of the structure.≅ He further indicated that there is a discrepancy in the ordinance book. Under the definition section of the ordinance height is described as ΑThe vertical distanced measured from the average finished grade at the front of the building to the highest point of the roof for flat roofs and to a point half way between the eves and ridge for gable and hip roofs.≅ He feels the board needs to follow Section 76-29a description. A lengthy discussion was held with regard to actual height of the house from the finished grade. It was determined that the height from the finished grade to the highest point of the structure will be 38.5'. Mr. Dunn indicated that an as-built should be submitted to building department prior to the issuance of a c/o.

Mr. O'Krepky indicated in reviewing the approval of this subdivision from which this lot was created, there was a condition to have individual drainage treatment systems on each property. The applicant needs to amend the site plan to treat the drainage on site with simple depressions to deal with the drainage and also the recharge according to new RSIS rules. He indicated that he has discussed this with Mrs. Rosenfeld to have their professional contact him to in order to satisfy this condition of prior approval. Mr. Haggerty indicated to the board that this can be a condition of c/o on this application.

This matter was opened to the public.

Appearing before the board was Reginald R. Cole who indicated that he is an adjacent owner to this property and is in favor of the application. He also indicated to the board that the ordinance book has two conflicting descriptions of height. He also noted to the board that there are several houses in the township that are over 35'.

Appearing before the board was Emma Masset who indicated that she is an adjacent owner to this property and is in favor of the application. She further stated that this property is 900' from Fox Hollow Road.

There being no further public participation, this mater was closed to the public.

A Motion was made by Mr. Teufert and seconded by Mr. Barbagallo to approve the Height Variance not to exceed 38'6" from finished grade and with the following conditions: 1) An as-built is furnished to the building department to show the height not to exceed 38' 6" and 2) To show the drainage. Roll Call: Mr. Dunn, yes; Mr. Teufert, yes; Mrs. Tufaro, yes; Mr. Barbagallo, yes; Mr. Ponce, yes; Mr. Innella, yes; Mrs. Crawford, yes; Mrs. Snyder, yes; and Mr. Zitone, yes. The Motion was carried.

The applicant also requested that the board waive the reading of the resolution in order that the applicant may submit the building permit and begin construction. A Motion was made by Mr. Barbagallo and seconded by Mrs. Tufaro to Waive the Reading of the Resolution. Roll Call: Mr. Dunn, yes; Mr. Teufert, yes; Mrs. Tufaro, yes; Mr. Barbagallo, yes; Mr. Ponce, yes; Mr. Innella, yes; Mrs. Crawford, yes; Mrs. Snyder, yes; and Mr. Zitone, yes. The Motion was carried.

ADPP Enterprises, Inc. - LUB 08-01 - Block 2, Lot 6 - Route 23 - Preliminary & Final Site Plan:

Appearing before the board was the applicant's attorney, Greg Meese, and the applicant's engineer, Calisto Bertin. Mr. Bertin was sworn in by the board attorney. Mr. Bertin gave his qualifications to the board and was accepted as an expert witness.

Mr. O'Krepky indicated that the applicant has addressed the completeness items in his report and recommends that the application be declared complete. Mr. Haggerty indicated that the legal notice was sufficient.

A Motion was made by Mrs. Tufaro and seconded by Mr. Barbagallo to deem this application complete. Roll Call: Mr. Dunn, yes; Mr. Teufert, yes; Mrs. Tufaro, yes; Mr. Barbagallo, yes; Mr. Ponce, yes; Mr. Innella, yes; Ms. Crawford, yes; Mrs. Snyder, yes; and Mr. Zitone, yes. The Motion was carried.

Mr. Meese indicated that the applicant is before the board to demolish two non-conforming structures (there are 2 residential structures on the property) which is located in the C2 zone. The applicant's want to re-develop the site with a conforming service station. There are some existing non-conformities, which will remain, one being lot area, and one being lot depth. The applicant is seeking variances for the front setbacks for the gasoline canopy over the fuel pumps as well as for the size of the free standing sign. The applicant is proposing a service station with five (5) fueling dispensers together with a convenience store with 1860 square feet with a canopy above the fuel dispensers. The site will be landscaped and re-developed. The property is an odd shaped property, which almost a triangle with a steep grade to the rear of the property which cuts off the development potential for anything in the rear and centers it on the highway frontage. The property is on Route 23 North in close proximity to Interstate 84. Under the township's zoning, service stations are a permitted use subject to certain conditions. The applicant does comply with all of those conditions, except one which condition is a proximity condition which was declared invalid by Judge Stanton on a recent decision.

Appearing before the board was the applicant's engineer, Mr. Bertin. Mr. Bertin testified that the property is located on the northbound side of Route 23. North of the property, next door, is the Chase Bank, across the street is McDonalds, and there is a shopping center behind them. This is an oddly shaped lot, it is triangular in shape. There is 200' feet on one side, approximately 300' on the next side and approximately 160' deep at its apex. The site is 29,247 square feet, which is undersized. The size requirement for this zone is 40,000 square feet. There are two existing structures on the property and there is a paved area. The topography of the property is unique. There is a 7' to 9' grade change just across the frontage on Route 23 and in the back corner of the property, the site rises quite dramatically. The applicant is proposing to remove the existing structures on the property. He submitted to the board Exhibit ΑA-1" which is a Landscape Rendering plan prepared by Bertin Engineering Associates dated February 13, 2008, which is a simplified site plan to show the board what is proposed. The applicant's are proposing an 1800 square foot building in the back corner of the site and it will be a convenience store with parking spaces in front of the store. Towards Route 23 there is a trash enclosure with a propane tank next to it. The applicant has already gotten the permits from the State for this propane tank. Moving towards the front of the site they are proposing a canopy with 5 dispensing islands, 3 on the first row and 2 on the second row. There will be 3 underground fuel storage tanks, each 10,000 gallons in size. Two of the storage tanks will be for regular product and one would be split for the super and diesel product. The site is set up for automobile traffic. They can get a delivery truck through and there is a truck path plan prepared, but it is not the intension of the applicant to service trucks. One of the dispensers will have a diesel hose for automobiles. He explained to the board the difference between an automobile diesel dispenser and a truck diesel dispenser. The automobile diesel dispenser will dispense at about 9 to 10 gallons a minute, where a truck dispenser will dispense at 30 gallons a minute. There is a proposed loading zone for the convenience store for the front. They are proposing to cut into the hill at the rear of the property adjacent to the handicapped parking space. The retaining wall will start at nothing by Route 23, but as they get to the back of the property, it is a little over 7' at the building. As you move to the back of the building, the grade drops down again, so the building will be nestled into the hill and it will be about 6' at the rear westerly corner of the property. He indicated that the building, itself, conforms with the side yard and rear yard setback requirements. The applicant's are requesting a front yard setback for the canopy. The front yard setback requirement for this zone is 60', the proposed canopy is only 9' off the setback line. The canopy is there for a roof over the dispensing area, to keep the place clean from rain, ice and snow and to keep the area lite. He indicated in his experience, canopy's are usually permitted closer to the front property line then a building. He further stated that this canopy is in keeping with some of the other canopy's on this road, specifically, the station across the street which has a 7' setback from the right-of-way line.

Mr. Bertin indicated that the township code has certain conditions for service stations. He referred to Section 76-72e of the Montague Township Codes. The code states that gas stations are a permitted use, approval is required by the planning board with the following special conditions: 1) The entrance and exit driveways shall not be graded in 24', nor be closer to any property line. This is subject to a DOT permit and the driveways will not be greater than 74'. He indicated that the DOT requires that they be more than 12' from the sidelines. He indicated that the applicant will comply with this in the plans they will provide them. 2) This item deals more with repair garages, which is not applicable to this applicant because there will not be repairs at this location. 3) This again talks about the service or repair of automobiles which does not apply to this applicant. 4) The storage of gasoline or flammable oils in bulk shall conform to NJ State, Sussex County and Federal Regulations. He indicated that the applicant will comply with all the state, federal and county regulations. 5) No building permit for any such establishment shall be issued within a distance of 200' feet to a school, church or other place where there is 50 people or more, which is not applicable to this application because they are not within 200' of a place of assembly. It also states in this paragraph that no new service stations are to be allowed within 2,000 feet of an existing one. Mr. Meese indicated that the court has found that this portion of the ordinance is invalid as he indicated earlier.

Mr. Bertin indicated that the applicant is also proposing some substantial drainage improvements, landscaping improvements, and lighting. The applicant does have to mitigate the drainage, they are increasing the impervious area. The are proposing to put in a subsurface detention system for both the canopy drains, the building drains and the yard drainage. He indicated that the township's engineer, Mr. O'Krepky, brought up an issue in his report with regard to water quality. He indicated that it is his understanding of the state code that if you do not create more than a 1/4 acre of new impervious area, you don't have to provide water quality. The applicant, however, is willing to provide this information as requested by Mr. O'Krepky. By water quality, he is referring to some kind of treatment system to remove suspended solids from the water before it is discharged either into the ground or into the drainage system. In this case it will be the State drainage system.

Mr. Bertin referred to the Landscaping plan which calls for maintaining the tree line on top of the hill except for the area being disturbed for the retaining wall. They are proposing along the northerly line behind the building to put austrian pines. He indicated that previously they planted 16 arborvitaes. They are proposing to install some shrubs along the curb line by the parking spaces. The rest of the site will be grass or some kind of flowering grass on top of the retaining wall so they do not have to mow it. They will have a septic system in here so they are trying to locate that in an area of lawn so they do not have to put it underneath the pavement.

Mr. Bertin indicated that there will be lights underneath the canopy which will be similar in kind and intensity to the other canopies on the street. The township engineer did make a comment in his report about shielding the lights and the applicant will provide actual physical shields on the street side. This is not on the plan, but they will revise the plan to show this. Mr. Meese questioned Mr. Bertin if the lights could be recessed in the canopy. Mr. Bertin indicated that they could, however, all the other canopies on the street do have the exposed lenses and this is what the applicant is proposing. He indicated that the shields can be inside the fixtures. Mr. Meese questioned Mr. Bertin if there is any adjacent uses that would be impacted by the lighting. Mr. Bertin indicated that in his opinion there are no adjacent uses that will be affected by the lighting.

Mr. Bertin referred to the vehicle movement plan which was sheet C2.6 of the site plan. He indicated a truck can park along the retaining wall and fill the tanks or it can actually pull through the middle of the canopy and continue its travel northward and it can actually make a left turn to leave the site should that be required. Mr. Bertin referred to Exhibit ΑA-2" which is a Garbage Truck Circulation Plan prepared by Bertin Engineering Associates dated February 13, 2008. He indicated that the garbage truck could drive right through the center of the canopy assuming it's a front end loader and load at the trash enclosure, then back up a little bit and then pull right out. Mr. Bertin referred to the signage for traffic flow. He indicated that the site is designed for one way traffic flow. They will have signage with arrows and signs to indicate this. Each driveway shown on the plans is intended to be one way, on the south side the entrance and on the north side the exit.

Mr. Bertin submitted to the board Exhibits ΑA-3" and ΑA-4" which are similar buildings as proposed by the applicant. He indicated that Exhibit ΑA-3" is a building that is on Route 10 in Randolph; Exhibit ΑA-4" is a computer generated rendering to show the sign that is proposed for the front side of the building. He indicated that the sign is indicated on the plan, but not shown because the sign and the name had not been designed at the time of the preparation of the plans. He also submitted to the board Exhibit ΑA-5" which is a plan of the proposed building elevations prepared by Retail Design Studio dated November 16, 2007. He indicated that is this actually page C4.2 of the site plan, however, they have added the Αfresh start express≅ sign. He indicated the proposed building will be a chalet look with some stone access and clapboard signing on the front, side and rear, and a glass facade. The gable ends shown in the front is a wood truss which would repeat through the building. Therefore, when you are inside it is all open. On the rear side of the building to give it some light is kalwall, which is a translucent material which you can't see through, but it allows light to come through the building. On the inside there will be lights on the wall. On the side facing the street, there are a couple of windows so that a blank wall is not facing the street with two sets of doors which are the electrical components. He indicated that the building is 1860 square feet of which 1000 square feet is a back room for storage for the walk in cooler, the area behind the counter, the bathrooms and utility rooms. Therefore, there is not a lot of floor area. He indicated that this convenience store would be the typical mart selling items that would include some automobile items, as well as snacks and soft drinks, cigarettes, coffee, etc. There will be no cooking or dinner on the premises.

Mr. Bertin referred to the signage on the property. They are proposing signage on the canopy, on the building, as well as a single free standing sign. He indicated that the single free standing sign is 82.75 square feet and the ordinance only allows 40 square feet. He noted that the other service stations on the street are much bigger, 2 or 3 times larger than what this applicant is proposing. The Valero sign is 176 square feet, the Luk Oil is 224 square feet. The ordinance requirement is just too small. The applicant wants to provide the identification of the site and the prices. In order to make the price sign of any reasonable size so that someone can see it, they need a larger sign. Mr. Bertin submitted to the board Exhibit ΑA-6" which is a colored detail of the sign and the canopy. The brand of fuel for this site will be Shamrock. He indicated that the proposed building sign is only 37 2 square feet, but the ordinance allows you to cover 20% of the face, which in this case would be 140 square feet. Therefore, if you add the 140 square feet that they are allowed for the building and the 40 square feet that they are allowed for the free standing sign, this would be 180 square feet. The building sign is 37 2 square feet, the free standing sign is 82.75 square feet, and the 2 signs on the canopy for a total of 58 square feet which is a total sign area 178.25 square feet.

Mr. Bertin indicated that the applicant has made an application to the Department of Transportation, a permit has already been obtained for the propane tank, the County Planning Board has waived approval, and they have applied for a soil conservation permit

Mr. Bertin indicated that in Mr. O'Krepky's report he indicated that the retaining wall should be designed by an engineer and submitted to him for review, which he agrees to supply.

Mr. Innella was concerned with the area of the garbage disposal and how a truck would back up to leave the site. He questioned Mr. Bertin as to where this truck would have to back up to in order to leave the site. Mr. Bertin indicated he would have to back up into the canopy area. Mr. Innella was concerned if there were fueling cars there at that time. Mr. Bertin indicated that they are hoping that the pick up will be during off peak hours. He also suggested moving the loading zone and put it in front of the trash enclosure and move a parking space in front of the building which is better. Mr. Innella indicated that he is also concerned with the loading area and the trucks backing up into the canopy areas to leave the site. Mr. Meese questioned Mr. Bertin as to how many deliveries a week does a station like this have for fuel, the convenience store and the trash. Mr. Bertin indicated that the fuel delivery will be 2 times a week on average, the trash pick up will be 2 different pick ups for garbage and recycling which is once a week each, and the convenience store, all the dry goods is bought in bulk from the distributors which will be once a week and the newspaper will be daily. Mr. Zitone questioned Mr. Bertin if fuel trucks and delivery trucks have to go under the canopy to deliver and if a car is at the pump is there enough room for a truck to get between the car and the pumps to deliver. Mr. Bertin indicated that there was. He also indicated that they can go between the pumps and the retaining wall, however, a fuel truck may have to wait if there is a car at the pump to pull through. Mr. Barbagallo questioned Mr. Bertin as to the height of the canopy. Mr. Bertin indicated it was 15'.

Mr. Teufert questioned Mr. Bertin as to the square footage of the existing structures on the property. Mr. Bertin indicated that the existing structures are approximately 1600 square feet. Mr. Teufert questioned if the propane tanks are for vehicles or barbeque tanks. Mr. Bertin indicated that the propane tanks are for barbeque tanks. He questioned if there will be a provision for re-filling RV tanks that are under a motor home. Mr. Bertin indicated that he did not know the answer to this. He indicated that if it was allowed, he would imagine that the applicant's would do this. Mr. Teufert indicated that he was concerned with a 40' RV pulling a trailer and trying to maneuver through this site.

Mr. Dunn questioned Mr. Bertin if a tractor trailer or an RV with trailers going southbound, will they be able to make a left into the site, which is a very sharp angle. Mr. Bertin indicated that it is a sharp angle, but it is wide enough. They are proposing an 11' shoulder, a 12' lane and another 12' lane and 11' shoulder.

Mr. Teufert questioned Mr. Bertin as to the setback of the Valero station canopy across the street from this site. Mr. Bertin indicated that that canopy is setback 7' from the right-of-way line and this applicant is requesting 9' from the right-of-way line. Mr. Teufert indicated that he was concerned that the board would be creating a choke point directly across the street from one another. Mr. Teufert indicated that there is some talk about Route 23 getting a center lane which may mean that the shoulders are going to go away to put that in, how would this affect this property. Mr. Bertin indicated that by putting in the center lane may take away the shoulder or they may still want an 8' shoulder which would push the curb line or they may keep it in the right of way. Mr. Meese questioned Mr. Bertin if there will still be suitable setback to the state from the traveled way if the DOT would take that existing shoulder. Mr. Bertin indicated that the setback to the curb line now is 20' which is sufficient.

Mr. Dunn questioned as to how many cars the site can stack when they are waiting for fuel because he is concerned about blocking the entrance. Mr. Bertin indicated that assuming that all the islands are filled, they could stack 4 cars on each island and possibly 2 cars on the side, which would be approximately 10 to 12 cars stacking.

Mr. Haggerty questioned if the convenience store could be reduced in size to help with the maneuvering around this lot. Mr. Bertin does not feel that making the building smaller would change anything with circulation on the lot. Mr. Haggerty questioned if there will be an air pump for tires and where will this be located if they do. Mr. Bertin indicated that they will have the air pump which can be located near the propane tank.

Mr. O'Krepky referred to item Α4a≅ of his report dated February 6, 2008 which requests that the retaining wall be designed by an engineer, which the applicant agreed to. He indicated that in addition to this there is a requirement in the International Building Code that anything above 30" requires fencing to prevent people from walking up there. He wants to point this out to the board because he does not think it is anyone's intent to put a fence directly on top of the wall. The applicant in trying to conform with the fence ordinance, will also from an aesthetic stand point would like to stay away from putting the fence directly right on top of the wall. He suggests that once the wall gets to 30", then there is a fence that goes back and there can be some landscaping between the fence, the property line and the wall. Mr. Bertin indicated that they can install a fence 6' behind the wall and landscape in front of this if this is acceptable to the board. Mr. Bertin suggested a chain link fence or a post and rail fence. Mr. O'Krepky indicated that it must meet the IDC. The applicant agreed.

Mr. O'Krepky referred to item Α4b≅ of his report referring to the lighting plan which was addressed by the applicant's engineer

Mr. O'Krepky referred to item Α4c≅ of his report which states that Αthere are no signs shown on the plan to indicate the traffic pattern≅, which the applicant also testified to in previous testimony. He indicated that he read the review letter from DOT and it appears that the applicant will have to supply substantial traffic details to them.

Mr. O'Krepky referred to item Α5" of his report relating to Stormwater, which the applicant's engineer testified that he will supply the information requested in his report. He indicated he was concerned with item Α5b≅ of his report which states Αthe underground detention chambers have adequate inspection ports, but it is unclear if chambers can be properly maintained.≅ He would like to see more details relating to this issue, which the applicant's engineer has agreed to supply. He indicated that in terms of stormwater quantity, it appears that the plan has met these requirements. The stormwater quality has to do with the increase in impervious coverage. He indicated that this project is clearly not an acre of disturbance, but there is some existing impervious coverage on the site and they are only proposing an additional .22 disturbance. He believes the site can meet these requirements and this issue will be resolved between him and the applicant's engineer.

Mr. Dunn questioned Mr. Bertin about the details of the pavement on the property. Mr. Bertin indicated that the concrete pavement is 6" generally, but over the tanks there will be 8".

This matter was opened to the public.

Appearing before the board was Ursula Leo, Esq., on behalf of Petrozino, LLC, an objecting party to this application. The objectors are owners of Luk Oil.

Ms. Leo questioned the applicant as to how many feet undersized is the lot and what is the required minimum lot area in the zone. Mr. Bertin indicated that the lot is 10,752.1 square feet and the required minimum lot area is 40,000 square feet. She questioned Mr. Bertin if the applicant attempted to acquire any adjoining lots to make the lot conforming. Mr. Bertin indicated that he did not know. She questioned Mr. Bertin as to what the existing front yard setback is and the proposed setbacks. Mr. Bertin indicated that the existing setback is 21.4' and the applicant is proposing 60' for the building and 9' for the canopy. She questioned Mr. Bertin as to the setback for the nearest pump to the front yard setback and the required front yard setback. Mr. Bertin indicated that the nearest pump would be 18' from the front yard setback and the required front yard setback is 60'. She questioned Mr. Bertin if there was no convenience store on the property, could they locate the canopy further back on the property further away from Route 23. Mr. Bertin indicated that if they removed the building, they could slide the canopy towards the rear and north of the property which provide a larger front yard setback. Ms. Leo questioned Mr. Bertin as to how many gas stations are in the adjacent area. Mr. Bertin indicated that there are 2 on the southbound side and 2 others on the northbound side. Ms. Leo questioned Mr. Bertin as to who is exactly across the street from this site. Mr. Bertin indicated that McDonald's is directly across the street. Ms. Leo questioned Mr. Bertin as to how high is the canopy. Mr. Bertin indicated that the top of the canopy will be 18' off the ground. Ms. Leo questioned Mr. Bertin if this will permit tractor trailers and garbage trucks to go through. Mr. Bertin indicated that yes it will because there is 15' underneath the canopy. Ms. Leo questioned Mr. Bertin if they were providing signs to permit access from the south end of the property. Mr. Bertin indicated that this is their intension to have one driveway as an entrance and one driveway as an exit. Ms. Leo questioned Mr. Bertin if vehicles are traveling south, would they have to make a left into this site. Mr. Bertin agreed. Ms. Leo questioned Mr. Bertin if a vehicle is making a left into the site, where will they be on Route 23, will they be in traffic at that time. Mr. Bertin indicated that any traffic making a left will be close to the center double yellow line to make a left. Ms. Leo questioned Mr. Bertin if they are dealing with a steep grade on this property. Mr. Bertin indicated that they are dealing with a steep grade. He stated that the grade does drop from the south driveway to the canopy and then they try to level it off. Ms. Leo questioned Mr. Bertin as to the purpose of the retaining wall located in the rear of the property. Mr. Bertin indicated the purpose of the retaining wall was to deal with the grade on the hill behind them. Ms. Leo questioned Mr. Bertin if the wall could be pushed back any further and if it could, would it allow for a more conforming front yard. Mr. Bertin indicated it could be pushed back to allow for a more conforming front yard. Ms. Leo questioned Mr. Bertin, if this lot was not undersized could there be 2 way traffic in this station. Mr. Bertin indicated that it could be possible, however, they try to set up stations for one way traffic flow usually at the request of the DOT. Ms. Leo questioned Mr. Bertin if he testified that 4 cars could be stacked to the entrance driveway. Mr. Bertin indicated that 4 cars could be stacked from the island closest to the entrance driveway to the entrance driveway. Ms. Leo questioned Mr. Bertin when 4 cars are stacked will this prevent any cars that are stacked from exiting along the access strip. Mr. Bertin indicated that they can exit through the access strip along the right-of-way which will by-pass the traffic at the pumps and they can also go through the center of the canopy without interfering with the islands. These are referred to as by-pass lanes. Ms. Leo questioned Mr. Bertin as to the unique condition of the property that requires a larger sign. Mr. Bertin indicated that no so much a unique characteristic of the property, it is just the characteristic of the use. Ms. Leo questioned Mr. Bertin with regard to the signage, could he alter the distribution of the signage so it would comply with the ordinance requirements. Mr. Bertin indicated that they could always comply, however, it would not be beneficial. Ms. Leo questioned Mr. Bertin if he knew what time garbage pick would be on the property. Mr. Bertin indicated that he does not know and does not know how much say he has with the garbage company, but they would like it to be not during peak hours. She also questioned as to when deliveries would be made to the property. Mr. Bertin indicated he did not know, it would be throughout the day. Ms. Leo questioned Mr. Bertin about his comment that the delivery trucks could use the handicapped spot for deliveries; she was concerned where a handicapped person would park if there was a delivery truck. Mr. Bertin indicated that the delivery trucks would probably park along the retaining wall in the area behind the handicapped space and the handicapped space is not located along the wall. The handicapped space is located 18' from the wall which is more than enough room for any size truck to park. She questioned Mr. Bertin if they were requesting preliminary and final site plan approval this evening. Mr. Bertin indicated that they were. Ms. Leo questioned Mr. Bertin if the stormwater calculations that were discussed earlier, have they been submitted to the board's engineer for review. Mr. Bertin indicated that he has not provided this information yet because they prepared it as not being a major development to meet these regulations. He further indicated that if it turns out that it is a major development, then they would just provide another piece of equipment in their drainage system to comply, rather than coming back for final approval. This is something that can be worked out between the engineers. He further indicated that if the board's engineer requires that the applicant provide this, they will provide it.

There being no further public participation, this matter was closed to the public.

Mr. Haggerty questioned if the customer base that they will have will it be predominately from Route 84 and Port Jervis. Mr. Bertin indicated what they anticipate with this site would be that they would be getting the northbound returning traffic. Although a lot of customers will come from New York State.

Mr. Haggerty stated that the property owner to the north of the property is Chase bank with parking immediately along the property boarder which makes it impossible for the applicant to purchase land. Mr. Bertin agreed. Mr. Haggerty questioned Mr. Bertin to the south could the applicant acquire land from that property owner or does the topography restrict them. Mr. Bertin indicated that even if the applicant did acquire the property and they moved the canopy back, they are looking at a wall that would quickly grow to 18' to 20' tall. He further indicated that this is the unique characteristic of the property that they would use to justify the variance.

Mr. Teufert questioned Mr. Bertin if he looked at this lot with another type of commercial structure, could he construct one that met all the requirements of this site. Mr. Bertin indicated that they could meet the setback requirement, but the undersized lot and lot depth exist.

The board took a break at 10:00 p.m.

The board reconvened the meeting at 10:10 p.m.

Mr. Meese indicated that there seemed to be some concern with the board members as to the dumpster location. During the break Mr. Bertin designed a relocation of the dumpster location to the other side of the building. Mr. Bertin submitted to the board Exhibit ΑA-7" which was a Vehicle Turning Path prepared by Calisto Bertin, P.E. dated November 26, 2007 and was marked up to show a relocation of the dumpster location. He indicated that they have moved the trash enclosure into the hillside of the building so that all deliveries would stay along the retaining wall on the east side of the property and any backing up would be in an area where there would be few cars. The trash enclosure between the building and the propane would be eliminated. The retaining wall would have to get a little bit taller around the trash enclosure.

Appearing before the board was the applicant's planner, Roger DeNiscia. Mr. DeNiscia was sworn in by the board attorney. Mr. DeNiscia gave his qualifications to the board and was accepted by the board as an expert witness.

Mr. DeNiscia indicated that he reviewed the plans and the application and the applicant is requesting approval to redevelop an existing residential site and to replace a residential site with a service station/retail use combination. There are certain bulk variances required. He submitted to the board Exhibit ΑA-8" which is board with 8 photographs of the site and some of the surrounding areas. He referred to the first photograph of the site which was taken from the south. The most important characteristic is that the site is located along Route 23, which is a State highway. The second important characteristic is that the site has a triangular shape which was discussed by the engineer in detail. The third important aspect is the fact that the site has irregular topography. The area shown in photo one behind the building and photo 2 to the right you can see the embankment. The front of the site is fairly regular, but the rear of the site is fairly steep. Another important characteristic of the site is that the site is already developed with 2 residential buildings. These buildings are fairly old and are not in good condition and the site is not maintained in good condition which is primarily because the site is located on Route 23 which is not ideally suited for residential use. With respect to the shape, the size and the topography of the lot, the zoning standards are designed for regular lots in terms of topography and shape, a rectangular lot. The applicant has a triangular lot with some unusual topography, therefore, you can anticipate some problems when talking about zoning. The area is an important factor in the way this site is used, even regardless of the zone. Route 23 is a State highway and is close to Route 84 which is an interstate highway with very high traffic volumes that are constant. He indicated that it is typical that an area around an interchange where an interstate highway connects to a state highway is usually a place where you would find service stations. The property across the street is a McDonalds which gets traffic off the interstate. Just south of McDonalds and opposite the site is the Luk Oil station and to the other side of McDonald's is the Valero station which is developed with a canopy which is a little larger than what is being proposed on this site and is substantially closer to the road. On the same side of the site, is the Chase Bank, the Gulf Station and the Citgo Station, which are all in response to the intersection of Interstate 84 and Route 23. The character of this area is predominately business related to the highway. This proposal is consistent with the land use character of the area and the zoning that the community has established with the area. This site is located in the C2 Highway Commercial Zone District. The C2 District does not permit residential uses. Therefore, this property has an existing non-conforming use. The C2 District does specifically permit service stations. This application will be eliminating a non-conforming use and replacing it with a permitted use. This is one of the most important achievements in zoning. He indicated that the C2 District has a set of development standards of 2 kinds, one of the special standards is designed for service stations. This application meets all of the special design standards for service stations. He indicated that this would indicate to him that this site is suitable and appropriate for service stations because the ordinance lists some standards and this application meets every one of those standards. However, there are other bulk standards for the C2 district for all uses. This application is deficient in 3 of them, 2 of which are existing conditions which are the size of the lot and lot depth and the third variance for the setback requirements. With respect to the existing conditions, it would be very difficult for the site to be expanded to meet the minimum lot size requirement for the purpose of behind the site is a hillside and the shopping center parking lot. Even if the property was acquired, it could not be used unless the topography was eliminated, therefore, there is no practical reason to acquire the additional property. He indicated that the front setback for the canopy is caused directly from the lack of depth on the site and the topographic condition that require that the site be built in front of the embankment.

Mr. DeNiscia referred to the variances required with regard to the signs. He referred to the other uses on the surrounding properties shown on Exhibit ΑA-8" which were Luk Oil's sign, Valero's sign and the other service station signs. He indicated that every one of them is very similar to what is being proposed with the exception that all of the other signs are larger in area than what the applicant is proposing. He indicated that these types of signs are required in order to convey the message that is needed to have motorist identify the site and to move out of the traffic stream onto the site in a safe way.

Mr. DeNiscia indicated that all of the above mentioned variances, none of them would compromise the function and operation of the site as it relates to a service station. He indicated that the Valero and Luk Oil canopies both do not meet the minimum front yard setback as required by the ordinance, which they both obtained a variance from this board. Therefore, this is in keeping with the general condition of the neighborhood. He indicated that granting these variances would not have an adverse negative impact on the surrounding area, in fact, the opposite is true of this site. This proposal would have a positive impact on the surrounding area, by eliminating the non-conforming use, by putting a use that is permitted, by modernizing and upgrading the site by improving the visual appearance and aesthetics of the site. He indicated that the site also complies with the NJDOT access standards for service and it is appropriately located along the State highway which would also indicate to him that there would be no impact with respect to either its location or traffic.

Mr. DeNiscia indicated that this application would meet the criteria for granting the bulk variances that are being requested pursuant to the Land Use Law under section 40:55D-70(c1)(c2). Under paragraph c1 the board can grant bulk variances if those variances are caused by physical conditions that uniquely affect the site which this application has conditions of topography, size and shape of the site that can not be expanded or changed that are actually causing the variances especially for the front yard setback. Under paragraph c2 alternatively the board could grant the same variances if granting those variance represent planning benefits and those benefits outweigh any substantial detriments. He indicated he previously explained the benefits in his testimony. He believes these are benefits not only as a result of his explanation, but also because they directly advance the purposes of planning that are listed in the Land Use Law under Section 40:55D-2 and specifically those purposes under paragraphs a, g, h and i. In connection with this, it is also his opinion that there are absolutely no substantial zoning detriments associated with this application of granting the variances.

Mr. Barbagallo questioned the applicant if there are any traffic studies that have been done on how additional traffic of entering and exiting the site is going to affect the other businesses, especially the Tri State Mall where there is already a problem. Mr. DeNiscia indicated that since they are on a State Highway, NJDOT has jurisdiction over giving access permits for uses on highways and they have a very specific set of standards. It is always his opinion, if the site either meets their standards or a permit is granted, that this would indicate that the site is safe and that there are no traffic impacts. He does not feel that NJDOT would allow a site to be used if it was going to create a traffic problem for either the highway or any nearby use.

Mr. Teufert questioned Mr. DeNiscia if the canopy is essential to dispensing fuel. Mr. DeNiscia indicated that it is not essential, but he thinks it is very important for protection, keeping ice and snow out from under where the fueling is, and providing light. He further indicated that throughout the state at the Public Work Departments, there are canopies over the fueling stations and this is not for consumers. He indicated that the Petroleum industry considers it safer and a better operation to shield or cover the fueling area because it is a hazardous material. Mr. Teufert questioned if the pumps are considered structures or is the island considered a structure. Mr. DeNiscia indicated that the pumps are not structures, but the islands are considered structures. Mr. Teufert questioned the applicant if there is any reason this property could not be used for a different purpose, and if there is a deed restriction which prevents another type of business within this envelope. Mr. DeNiscia indicated that this site could be used for any permitted use in the C2 district. Mr. Teufert questioned if any of the other allowed uses would need variances to build on this property. Mr. DeNiscia indicated that any allowed use proposed on this site would still need the same variances as requested by this applicant, except possibly the setback variance for a building.

Ms. Crawford was concerned the way the access to the entrance of this station is right across the street from the exit from McDonalds. Therefore, people coming south on Route 23, people making a left turn into this property may be blocking the traffic coming out of McDonalds. Mr. DeNiscia indicated that if NJDOT approved the access permit, it must be acceptable. Ms. Crawford questioned the applicant if there is anyway this entrance could be shifted so it would not be right across the street from the McDonald's exit. Mr. Bertin indicated that the short answer is yes and they will bring this issue up at the NJDOT meeting. Ms. Crawford questioned if the applicant has a NJDOT permit for this project. Mr. Bertin indicated that it is in the process and the application has already been filed.

Mr. Teufert indicated that there has been testimony that coming off of Route 23 there is a grade coming down. He questioned the applicant that during ice and snow is there a possibility of someone sliding into a pump. Mr. Bertin indicated that with respect to the grade of the ingress driveway there is no potential of this because this is one of the purposes of having a canopy. He further indicated that the grade is steepest at the entrance driveway and then it levels off as they get within 30' of the canopy, therefore, the area around the canopy is level. Mr. Teufert questioned Mr. Bertin as to how steep the grade is. Mr. Bertin indicated that it was approximately 12% to 14% coming into the property. Mr. Teufert questioned if this is steep enough to prevent a problem to the undercarriage of a tractor trailer. Mr. Bertin indicated that what happens is the tractor trailer is coming down the highway which is at 5 or 6 percent then it is getting a little steeper and then it is leveling off and it will not create a problem for the undercarriage.

Mr. Dunn indicated that in reviewing the site he does not see a lot of opportunity to provide shrubs, bushes and trees, but this site is very light on the landscaping and the board is trying to make this corridor look good. He would like to see more landscaping provided. Mr. Bertin indicated that the applicant will provide this to the board.

This matter was opened to the public.

Appearing before the board was Ursula Leo. Ms. Leo indicated that Mr. DeNiscia sited condition Αh≅ of section 2 of the Municipal Land Use Law which states: Αto encourage the location and design of transportation routes which will promote the free flow of traffic while discouraging location of such facilities in route to which result in congestion or blite.≅ She question Mr. DeNiscia as to how this development meets this condition. Mr. DeNiscia indicated that by locating a service station on a State Highway where it is permitted by the zoning ordinance and meeting the DOT access permit standard, this would indicate that the site is appropriate and suitable and it is located and designed to enhance traffic flow. Ms. Leo question Mr. DeNiscia if it was his testimony that any application that obtains DOT approval, it would meet condition Αh≅ of the section 2 of the Municipal Land Use Law. Mr. DeNiscia indicated that he feels it would be pretty hard not to. He feels if DOT says that a site or a highway is safe, he would rely on this if he was either an applicant, a planner or a community. He feels if the DOT thinks the site is safe and gives a permit, he would accept this as a planner. Ms. Leo questioned Mr. DeNiscia that he is siting this condition as something that is a benefit and a goal that this project, itself, is meeting the traffic. Mr. DeNiscia indicated that this was correct. Ms. Leo questioned him if a gas station is a light or a heavy traffic flow use. Mr. DeNiscia indicated that at times it could be a heavy traffic flow use because its servicing motorist. She questioned Mr. DeNiscia if there is anything that would prohibit trucks from entering this project. Mr. DeNiscia indicated that because the fuel delivery truck can get onto the site, and as explained by Mr. Bertin that tractor trailers could be able to enter the site, he feels that trucks would be allowed to enter the site. Ms. Leo indicated that in Mr. DeNiscia's testimony he indicated that a goal of planning is to get rid of non-conforming uses, she questioned him if he would also agree that a goal is to make use as conforming as possible. Mr. DeNiscia agreed. She questioned him if the applicant could make this more conforming by increasing the front yard on this property. Mr. DeNiscia indicated that not with the service station in this configuration. He indicated that by eliminating the canopy, it could eliminate the setback variance. She questioned if they got rid of the convenience store, could they increase the front yard by moving the canopy back. Mr. DeNiscia indicated that it is quite possible that if they changed the scope of the design on the site, you could eliminate the front yard setback, however, he is not sure. He further stated that they could not comply with the ordinance because of the lack of depth on this property. Ms. Leo indicated that it would make it more conforming with a greater front yard. Ms. Leo indicated that in Mr. DeNiscia's testimony he indicated that there would be no use in acquiring the adjoining properties. She questioned if the applicant tried to acquire any portion of the adjoining properties. Mr. DeNiscia indicated that he did not know. Ms. Leo indicated that in Mr. DeNiscia's testimony he referred to the topography and how this can't be dealt with. She questioned Mr. DeNiscia wasn't the purpose of the retaining wall to deal with the topography on the site. Mr. DeNiscia indicated that it is to deal with it minimally just to retain it and to hold it back to achieve a little bit more level area and depth so that that setback of fuel islands and the canopy would be maximized. He further stated that as shown on the plans there is quite a depth that will remain on this steep slope area. Ms. Leo questioned if the retaining wall could be moved further back to deal with the topography further. Mr. DeNiscia indicated that Mr. Bertin stated previously that you could eliminate the entire slope area and build a retaining wall behind the development which would be approximately 20' high. This would level the entire site. Ms. Leo questioned if the applicant did do this, then maybe the adjoining property may be useful. Mr. DeNiscia indicted that it would not be useful because the adjoining property is still 20' feet higher. Ms. Leo indicated that Mr. DeNiscia stated in his testimony he spoke of the sizes of the canopies for the surrounding stations, she questioned him if this is a sufficient justification to grant a variance. Mr. DeNiscia indicated that it does not have any bearing on granting the variance, he was just stating the facts of what the character of the area is. She questioned if the same is true for the size of the signs. Mr. DeNiscia indicated again, this would not be justification to granting the variance. Ms. Leo questioned how would a truck coming in for deliveries be able to get into the site if there were cars stacked up. Mr. Bertin indicated that this stack up would only occur during rush hours and the gasoline would be delivered much later at night. Ms. Leo questioned if they would be willing to make this a condition that deliveries would be a night. Mr. Bertin indicated that they would be willing to do this. She questioned as to how many deliveries for gasoline would there be at this site. Mr. Bertin indicated approximately 2 2 deliveries on average per week. Ms. Leo questioned the affect of this canopy 9' from the front yard what impact this will have on the neighborhood aesthetics. Mr. DeNiscia indicated that current design of the site has a negative impact on the neighborhood because the site and the buildings are not in good condition. He further stated by looking at the proposal submitted, it would result in the substantial aesthetic or visual benefit. By looking at the other canopies in the area, whether they are 9' or not, they are very close to the roadway and they do not appear to have any negative impact. Ms. Leo questioned if more landscaping would be possible if there was not a convenience store on the property. Mr. DeNiscia indicated that the less that was developed on property, of course, would provide more landscaping.

There being no further public, this matter was closed to the public.

Mr. Haggerty questioned Mr. DeNiscia about the use of a convenience store and gas station, is this a common theme of development. Mr. DeNiscia indicated that these uses combined serve motorist on the road and eliminate the need for multiple stops. He feels it is appropriate and it is recognized in the zoning ordinance because there is no prohibition and, of course, it is common throughout. He indicated that all of the surrounding gas stations in the area have a convenience store associated with it.

Mr. Zitone indicated that he would like to have the board planner review this application and also have a traffic study done on this property. Mr. Haggerty indicated that Mr. O'Krepky should review the stormwater issues on this property.

A Motion was made by Mr. Barbagallo and seconded by Mr. Innella to carry this application to the March 13, 2008 Land Use Board meeting without further notice in order for the board to have the township's planner review this application, have the board engineer review the stormwater management, and to review the landscaping of this site. All were in favor. The Motion was carried.

VOUCHERS

The vouchers were reviewed. A Motion was made by Mr. Ponce and seconded by Mr. Innella to approve the following vouchers:

1) KSM Engineering regarding General Administration (January) in the amount of $250.00; and

2) KSM Engineering regarding Biccum (Escrow) in the amount of $156.25; and

3) Dolan & Dolan regarding General Administration in the amount of $61.43; and

4) Dolan & Dolan regarding General Administration (December) in the amount of $54.60; and

7) Dolan & Dolan regarding Club Drive Law Suit in the amount of $436.80; and

8) Dolan & Dolan regarding Cellco (Escrow) in the amount of $184.28; and

Roll Call: Mr. Dunn, yes; Mr. Teufert, yes; Mrs. Tufaro, yes; Mr. Barbagallo, yes; Mr. Ponce, yes; Mr. Innella, yes; Ms. Crawford, yes; Mrs. Snyder, yes; and Mr. Zitone, yes. The Motion was carried.

CORRESPONDENCE

The correspondence was reviewed and no formal action was taken.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

The meeting was opened to the public. There being no public participation, the meeting was closed to the public.

ADJOURNMENT

Having no further business, a Motion was made by Mr. Innella and seconded by Mr. Teufert to adjourn the meeting. All were in favor. The meeting was adjourned.

Minutes prepared by:

SHARON M. YAROSZ
Land Use Administrator