HILLSBOROUGH TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES Chairman Conard called the Planning Board meeting of to order at 7:30 p.m. Pledge of Allegiance. The meeting took place in the courtroom of the Municipal Complex. All stood for the Chairman Conard announced the meeting has been duly advertised according to the Section 5 of the Open Public Meetings Act, Chapter 231, Public Law 1975 ( Sunshine Law ). ROLL CALL Mayor Gloria McCauley Absent Greg Burchette Absent Committeeman Frank DelCore Absent Steven Cohen, Secretary Arrived 7:35 p.m. Douglas Tomson Present Arthur Stafford-Taylor Absent Sam Conard, Chairman Present Steven Sireci, Jr., Vice Chairman Present Marian Fenwick Present Tod Mershon (Alt. #1) - Present Daniel Marulli (Alt. #2) Present Also present were Robert Ringelheim, P.P., A.I.C.P., Township Planner; Eric Bernstein, Esq., Board Attorney (Eric M. Bernstein & Associates); William H.R. White, III, P.E., P.P., C.M.E., Board Engineer (Maser Consulting, P.A.); and Lucille Grozinski, C.C.R. OATH OF OFFICE Douglas Tomson Seat #5 (from Alt. #2) ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES ACCEPTANCE OF RESOLUTIONS PLANNING BOARD BUSINESS SPECIAL COMMITTEE REPORTS BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES Ordinance 2011-04- Ordinance to Amend the Stormwater Management Waiver Requirements Robert Ringelheim, P.P., A.I.C.P., Township Planner, said we have one ordinance that was introduced by the Township Committee and referred back to the Planning Board for consideration. The proposed ordinance implements the recommendation contained in the 2010 Amendment to the Stormwater Management Plan by permitting waivers from strict compliance, groundwater recharge, stormwater run-off quality, and stormwater run-off quantity requirements. A waiver can only be obtained if the Applicant agrees to provide a suitable alternative measure as identified in the Stormwater Management Plan or as identified by the Township Engineer and approved by the Township. The proposed ordinance also provides a section addressing the maintenance of detention/retention/recharge basins which had been previously inadvertently deleted. Eric Bernstein, Esq. noted Mr. Cohen arrived. No comments/questions. A motion to recommend Ordinance 2011-04 to the Township Committee for adoption was made by Vice chairman Sireci, seconded by Ms. Freeman. Roll Call: Ms. Fenwick yes; Mr. Tomson - yes; Mr. Cohen yes; Mr. Mershon yes; Dr. Marulli - yes; Vice Chairman Sireci yes; Chairman Conard yes. Motion carries. PUBLIC HEARING SUBDIVISIONS/SITE PLANS Thomas Mascia / SONIC File #10-PB-07-SRV Block 177, Lot 22B (New: Block 177, Lot 22.02) 838 Route 206 - Carried from January 13, 2011 without further notice. Mr. Bernstein announced Donald B. Whitelaw, Esq. is present on behalf of the Applicant so the hearing may continue. The opposing counsel is also present.
Ron Gasiorowski, Esq. said we left off with me cross-examining Mr. Litwornia and the public given an opportunity to ask questions of the witness. Mr. Bernstein said today I received a letter from your office, also copied to Mr. Whitelaw, relating to this application regarding representation. You previously indicated on the record that you were retained by Denise Acocella. You now indicate that Ms. Acocella has formed a non-profit corporation entitled, Save Our Neighborhood, Inc. Mr. Gasiorowski said that is correct. I represent that entity. Mr. Bernstein said let us state for the record that because counsel has indicated he represents the entity, the individuals are represented by him and therefore will not be permitted to speak at the time of the public portion. Mr. Bernstein then read the letter stating the names of the members for the record. Mr. Gasiorowski said it is my understanding is that these members can make a statement during the public portion of the hearing. Mr. Bernstein said my understanding of the Municipal Land Use Law is that when parties are represented by an attorney, they are represented by that attorney and therefore, that attorney is speaking on their behalf. Mr. Gasiorowski said that is not my understanding. I can call upon those people and ask them a question and have them state their reasons for objecting. My firm belief of the MLUL is that despite they are members of this group; they are still residents of this town and have a right to speak. Mr. Bernstein said we will cross that bridge when we get to it. Alexander Litwornia of Litwornia Associates, was reminded he is still under oath. Open to the Public No comments/questions David Zimmerman. P.P., of Morristown, N.J., was sworn in, gave his credentials, was qualified and gave the following testimony: I have been retained by your firm for testimony in this matter and I am being compensated for it. My preparation including reviewing the file at the Municipal Building, including the professional s reports and all documents in the file. I reviewed the Master Plan of Hillsborough Township, the Zoning Ordinance of Hillsborough, and I familiarized myself with the site and the neighborhood next to the site. I have been in attendance at the previous hearings and have familiarized myself with several Sonic facilities: Franklin Township on Route 27, Green Brook Township on Route 22, and in Little Falls/Totowa on Route 46. I reviewed the public notice and took advantage of the reports from the Planner and Engineer as part of this application and relied heavily upon them to make sure I have a clear itemization of the variances and exceptions. Mr. Gasiorowski asked in your opinion, did the legal notice for the applicant list all of the variances necessary for this matter. Mr. Zimmerman said I do not think so. I think one variance, technically an exception or waiver, involves Section 188-78 Freestyle Restaurants/Bars/Nightclubs, Section (e): The building structure and architecture shall be consistent with the general area and the vicinity of the project. Unusual or unconventional designs which would not be in harmony with the larger neighborhood are not permitted. It is my opinion that the applicant needs a waiver from that provision because what is being proposed may well be as unconventional as in this entire municipality. Exhibit O1-ID dated 02-10-11 - Copies of Photos were marked in and provided to the Board and Mr. Whitelaw. Mr. Zimmerman said the purpose of the photographs is to contrast the two existing Mascia Sonic facilities, one in Franklin, the other in Green Brook and a third Sonic facility on Route 46 in terms of the ordinance requirement. The remaining photos show the existing architecture of the buildings, approximately 1,000 ft. up and down Route 206 from the subject property. The last page is an aerial photograph of the larger residential neighborhood. The first page shows the Sonic at the Franklin site. It shows daytime and nighttime views of the building, car-hop areas, canopy, and some signage. The nighttime photos were taken approximately at 9:00 p.m. and show a highly illuminated site. Page two shows a similar facility in Green Brook, again showing daytime and nighttime views. I find the building a striking futuristic style that is meant to stand out and be eye catching to the traveling public. Indeed, Sonic Corporate describes it that way as well. The third page shows daytime and nighttime views of the Sonic in Totowa or Little Falls, on Route 46. All of the restaurants are pretty much the same and show the unique unconventional design that is the hallmark of the Sonic restaurant. The next several pages show photographs of the architecture of buildings in the general neighborhood. I would characterize them as country style, low key and somewhat muted in their architectural style. They do not stand out and are not unconventional. The last page is an aerial view. The large light industrial facility is well set back with very benign 2
architecture. In my opinion, what is proposed is in stark contrast to the architecture and building structures in the general area. I think this speaks to is the right use on the right property. From an architectural standpoint, I do not believe this use which is out of character, is not permitted. Mr. Gasiorowski asked do you believe the applicant should have sought some relief from the Ordinance for that exception. Mr. Zimmerman said in my opinion, the applicant needs relief in form of a waiver or exception from that section of the Ordinance because the applicant s architecture does not conform. I did not see such relief listed in the notice. I did not attend the first Sonic hearing but did read the minutes. I attended all of the other Sonic hearings for this application. This application has 3 facets of service: a drive-thru, a drive-up car-hop area, and seating. The notice did not reflect a drive-thru window which may be open past the hour of midnight. Mr. Gasiorowski said the notice states there are pre-existing conditions related to the size of the property which are nonconforming. If this application were to be approved, is it your understanding that the existing building will be demolished and if so, would the applicant be entitled to any protections with regard to the pre-existing conditions listed or would he have to prove his case all over again, as if it were a blank piece of property? Mr. Zimmerman said it is my understanding that the existing building will be demolished and the entire site will be renovated according to the plan submitted. In my opinion, because they are removing everything from the site, they have to apply and be granted numerous variances and exceptions. They should not be considered pre-existing with the exception of the size of the property, 1.5 acres where 2 acres is required in the C-1 Zone; the other is the lot width of 150 ft. where 200 ft. is required. I accept those as pre-existing because it does not seem practical for the applicant to purchase additional property. There are numerous variances and exceptions that would vanish if this was a different type of application. There are other permitted uses in the C-1 Zone that would not need the vast number of variances and exceptions sought by this applicant. There are several major categories of variances and exceptions associated with this application; one major category is buffering. There seems to be more in Hillsborough s Land Use Ordinance on buffering than on any other topic. Section 188-38 requires that when a restaurant of this nature abuts a single-family zone, there should be a 60 ft. buffer established on the subject property. In my opinion, that has not been established. The site plan shows a detention basin in the buffer area and retention basin structures in the detention basin area. As a consequence there is going to be activity associated. It really does not address the spirit and intent of a buffer area from a zoning and planning perspective. I do not think it satisfies the specific technical requirements that there be no structure activity in the buffer area. Mr. Gasiorowski read the definition of structure from the Hillsborough Code. Mr. Zimmerman noted the structures within the detention basin. The applicant would require a waiver from that requirement in the ordinance. Waivers are exceptions refer to requirements in the site plan ordinance; variances refer to requirements in the zoning section of the ordinance. Being that it is a retention basin rather than what one might expect in a buffer area with berms or trees and foliage to provide a buffer or a screen. Instead you have construction, spillway and flow channel. In my opinion this not only violates the technical requirements of the Ordinance but violate the spirit and intent of having a buffer. Mr. Gasiorowski asked would the size of and/or the necessity of that buffer be effected if in fact the structure as well as the impervious surface being placed on the property were reduced. Mr. Zimmerman said the C-1 Zone has a maximum coverage of 45%, whereas the applicant is proposing 55.7%. If the impervious cover were reduced, they might have a need for a smaller retention basin and thereby provide the required buffer and buffer material in the 60 ft. However, if they were to reduce the impervious cover they would not have sufficient parking for the site to function since they are already short on parking. As for the sign, the Ordinance allows a maximum of 40 sq. ft. for a freestanding sign; 81.3 sq. ft. is being proposed. Additionally, a total of at least 9 wall signs is being proposed; 2 are allowed. Exhibit O2-ID 02-10-11 - Sign Photos Mr. Zimmerman said page 1 shows the existing Sonic sign at Little Falls or Totowa. It was taken from two different perspectives. Page 2 shows three existing fast-food restaurants in Hillsborough. You have been extremely successful in achieving conformity of the signs all along the Route 206 corridor. As far as I can see all of the signs conform with the Ordinance and are all 40 sq. ft. and under. I do not recommend the sign variances being requested. I agree with the opinion of the Planner, provided in his report. This use is too intense, requires too much blacktop and requires too much for the size of this property. In my opinion it would be an appropriately sized piece of property for most of the uses in the C-1 Zone. However, because of the uniqueness of this use with its car-hop canopies, the parking and drive-thru, etc., it does not fit on this piece of property. As a comparison, Wendy s has 1.1 acres, Burger King has 1.17 acres, and McDonalds has 1.17 acres. They all fit on their sites because they do not have what Sonic has. There may be another site in Hillsborough that could fit this use and not require variances. Exhibit O3-ID-02-10-11 Site Plan with Color Highlights 3
Mr. Zimmerman reviewed the site plan, as previously described and reviewed the variances and exceptions requested by the applicant. If you were to eliminate the canopy like a more conventional restaurant, most of the variances would be eliminated. It is not that the shape of this lot is not able to provide a reasonable use but that this use cannot be accommodated by this site. Exhibit O4-ID 02-10-11 List of Variances and Waivers Mr. Zimmerman said I have put together a list of the variances and waivers required from the reports of Bob Ringelheim and Bill White, along with some others I have noted. The applicant has not put anything on the record to date to substantiate the variances they are requesting. There is one c (1) variance related to hardship. There are five c (2) variances where the applicant needs to prove the benefits outweigh the detriments. Mr. Zimmerman then reviewed the criteria for a c (2) variance and his opinion on why the noted criteria were not proven: specific piece of property vs. the zone; are the purposes of the MLUL promoted; provide adequate light, air and open space; to promote a desirable visual environment through creative development techniques and good civic design and arrangement. I do not think this building provides an attractive visual environment for the area. The granting of the variances would only benefit the applicant, not to the community. He also reviewed the Master Plan Re-examination Report of 2008 in relation to this application. There is nothing in the Master Plan that would commend the adoption of any of these variances, exceptions or waivers. In my opinion, what is proposed is contrary to the specific wording and policies expressed in the Master Plan. IT is my opinion that the variances are generated by the fact that there is too much on too little property; they cannot comply and do not meet the spirit and intent of the site plan ordinance. This application is the most intense use permitted in the C-1 Zone. I do not see anything in your Zoning Ordinance, Master Plan or the site plan before us that would commend this application for approval. Break Mr. Whitelaw asked Mr. Zimmerman to explain his understanding of the size of the building envelope for a conforming application. Mr. Zimmerman said the front yard setback for a building from Route 206 and Oxford Place is 90 ft.; the side yard setback is 50 ft. I did not calculate the building envelope but it would leave a 10 ft. building envelope. Mr. Whitelaw said so it is your testimony that a 10 ft. building envelope is not driving the variances. Mr. Zimmerman said I said it is something to be considered and that there would be some infringement into the setbacks but that does not absolve the variances needed for the car-hop buildings which are approximately 10 ft. away. Mr. Whitelaw said any commercial builder is going to come in and ask for a building wider than 10 ft, correct? Mr. Zimmerman said yes. Open to the Public No comments/questions Mr. Gasiorowski said there is a question as to whether or not members of the non-profit organization would be able to speak in way of comments. I am of the opinion; the board attorney is of the opinion they cannot. Mr. Bernstein said for the record, let me read to the Board Section 27-3.4, Cox on Land Use Law: Objectors may appear individually and ask questions or make statements at proper times. On the other hand, objectors may appear by an attorney at law, and if such is the case all questions must be put by the attorney at law, and if such is the case all questions must be put by the attorney and any testimony given by the objector should be given in response to questions posed by his attorney. If a number of objectors jointly hire an attorney, then the bard and all other parties are entitled to have a list of the objectors so represented filed with the board. Such objectors can then properly be heard only through their attorney, although each of them may testify as long as their testimony is not repetitive. I would also indicate they will be subject to cross-examination by the applicant s counsel and by the board. Mr. Gasiorowski said you are referring to a commentary by Cox, not to a reference to the MLUL. Having said that, I will call the members of the group who would like to be asked questions by me and give testimony. Denise Acocella of Oxford Place was sworn in and answered Mr. Gasiorowski s questions as follows: I am the person who initially retained you to represent me individually. I am a resident who lives within 200 ft. of this project. I have some comments, not questions to offer. I believe the Sonic does not fit into this location. There are 22 waivers and variances. The Township has rules and regulations to protect the resident which the town should abide by. There are a lot of people who do not want this at this location. You can see that by the number of people who have come out to these 5 meetings. That does not mean we would not want it in another location. The applicant s traffic expert said it would not create a lot of traffic but it will. The look does not fit in with the more rural buildings. There is going to be a lot of noise too. 4
David Cole of Oxford Place was sworn in and answered Mr. Gasiorowski s questions as follows: I was present at all of the hearings. I agree with the thoughts express by Ms. Acocella. Additionally, my concerns are the traffic on Route 206 which is currently abominable at best and would only worsen with the amount of traffic this type of business would bring. My other concern is the noise. The location of the garbage dumpsters too close to the residences. I am also concerned with the noise from the power washing since I heard it was very loud. Siobhan O Brien of Ashwood Terrace was sworn in and answered Mr. Gasiorowski s questions as follows: I have been present at all of the hearings and am an objector to this application. I have heard all of the comments already offered. The only thing I would like to add is that I am concerned with the trucks that will be coming in and out of that property at all hours of the day and night. I am also concerned about parking because I feel people are going to park on Oxford Place, lining the street up and down because you are not going to be able to park in the lot. I think that would be a real hardship for our neighborhood. James McDonnell of Oxford Place was sworn in and answered Mr. Gasiorowski s questions as follows: I am part of the group who has retained you to represent us. I am 30 ft. from the site. My property runs 109 ft. along the same lines as the proposed Sonic property and is just across the street. I have been at all of the hearings and have heard all of the comments. I would like to add my concern with the lighting plan. They have 19 canopy lights at 100 watts; 5 area lights at 400 watts; and 5 rear lights at 250 watts, totaling 3,350 watts. I only live 30 ft. across the street so I think that is going to be a problem for me and my neighbors. I would also like to comment that I find it hard to believe that some 19 year old is going to listen to a 15 year old when they tell them to turn their music down so I do not think Sonic really has a plan to stop that kind of loud noise coming into our houses. Mr. Whitelaw said you mentioned you looked at the lighting plan. Did you notice there were 0 ft. candles at the rear property line? Mr. McDonnell answered he did not see that. Martin Faynor, III of Oxford Place was sworn in and answered Mr. Gasiorowski s questions as follows: I feel the same way as everyone else who spoke before me. What they are trying to do is put something on a piece of property that is not suitable. I think our quality of life is going to be harshly impacted. I moved my kids from New Brunswick to Hillsborough because it is one of the best places to live. I think it would be a definite mistake on your part if you allow all of these variances and waivers to go through. Mr. Gasiorowski said there have been a total of 19 people identified, including these 5 people coming forward. Everyone agreed that the comments of those individuals be reflective of all of those people who are members of the organization. Mr. Whitelaw recalled B.W. Skapinetz, P.E. of Dynamic Engineering, still under oath said the following: A letter was issued by the DEP back in January regarding a visit that took place subsequent to our filing of the application to them for a letter of absence. I testified to that in my first round of testimony. The DEP went out and did their typical review, walked the lot and wrote a general letter indicating they feel there is an area on site that was under their jurisdiction, meaning there could be wetlands. As of yesterday, our wetlands consultant met with a representative of the DEP, Andy Clark, who wrote the letter identifying they had potential jurisdiction and that there is a strip of wetlands at the back end of the property. Mr. Gasiorowski said I object to this testimony and do not know what they are looking to prove with it. Mr. Whitelaw said we are not looking to prove anything but are advising the Board of what we discovered yesterday from the DEP because we made a submission of no wetlands; the DEP found wetlands and we are so advising the Board. Mr. Gasiorowski said if that is so that would mean these plans have to be redrawn to establish buffers and/or the like. 5
Mr. Whitelaw said that may be so. Mr. Skapinetz is advising the Board as to what we have found to be the state of facts. We do not know what is going to happen in terms of a revised site plan or not. Mr. Gasiorowski said I appreciate your candor but wish you would have raised the issue at the beginning of the hearing rather than now. What it means is that the plans that were submitted are inaccurate. Mr. Whitelaw said that is absolutely not what it means. The plans were absolutely accurate but may have to be amended, as does happen very often. Mr. Skapinetz continued. A site-walk was done yesterday with Mr. Clark and it was determined that the wetland line that exists runs parallel, using a reference point of the 6 ft. stockade fence that runs along the common property line, and was measured about 20 ft. off of that mark from the back of the diner property, running parallel with the property line and cutting in as it reaches Oxford about 20 ft. off of the rear line is wetlands. It is a wetland line that would have a 50 ft. buffer so 20 ft. plus 50 ft. runs a buffer line into the existing buffer and runs through our proposed basin. So, what happens as a result of that issue? The first 20 ft. for which we show a berm, the berm now moves out of the way in that first 20 ft. The next 50 ft. does not change much but we can plant a buffer and add trees which is permissible. We can replant a buffer 50 ft. wide of trees. What happens with the basin? As I testified originally, the basin was not designed because of an increase to impervious coverage; this plan reduces the impervious coverage as compared to existing conditions. We only have the basin because what we are doing is taking stormwater, piping it and bringing more of it to Oxford than what currently now sheet flows off to the rear corner. That can be mitigated in two ways: by allowing water to sheet flow off in that direction; or put an underground basin instead of an above ground basin which would be more of an expense to Mr. Mascia. The later was an option originally but we chose to but an above ground basin in because it is less expensive. We would no longer have a basin for as wide of an extent we do now and would have a 30 ft. strip to relocate that 6 ft. berm and add additional landscaping. From an engineering standpoint, there would just need to be a redesign. So now there would be a natural 70 ft. buffer planted with some natural vegetation before the parking lot. As a condition of approval, we would need to file for a formal Letter of Interpretation which would mean showing flags on a plan, submitting an application to DEP and have them take 4 to 6 months to review it. Mr. Gasiorowski said I am going to move that all of his testimony be stricken from the record; it is pure hearsay. When you listen to this witness speak he refers to meeting that took place on the property and refers to comments which the supposed representative of the DEP made; that person is not here today, and he is giving us a generalized comment about how he feels this problem can be resolved but has not submitted plans to be reviewed by the engineer, and suggests to the Board that you can make it a condition of approval. What am I supposed to cross-examine him on; he does not have a plan to show where these lines are and has no plan to show the Board an underground detention basin would work under this piece of property. of this testimony should be before this Board. Mr. Bernstein said I would indicate that Mr. Skapinetz s testimony is what he has told you relative to meetings. We never have government officials attending a Board meeting when they have had meetings, site-walks and interpretations with the applicant. The presence of a representative of the DEP is not necessary. I do not disagree with counsel s comment relative to being able to inquire from the engineer how this is going to mark out. To the extent of that issue and a few issues I have, I want to take a few minutes to speak with Mr. White and Mr. Ringelheim. Mr. Gasiorowski said I agree with the comment made about having a representative from the DEP. However, the DEP would come forward with a Letter of Interpretation and conduct hearings to determine where the wetlands are. of that has been done in this case. Mr. Bernstein said I am unaware in all of my years of practice of the DEP conducting a formal hearing on an LOI. Secondly, the applicant does have an application to continue to advise this Board as part of an ongoing application of a change in conditions so that the Board is not making a decision in a vacuum. Therefore; I would like to discuss the matter further with the Board s professionals. Break Mr. Bernstein said I had a conversation with Mr. White and Mr. Ringelheim relative to the matter. We all concur that based upon the engineer s testimony that we are going to need to see a revised drawing relative to the location of the wetlands and the impact thereof, relative to the proposal being made. Therefore, I indicated to applicant s counsel that the recommendation is to have the site plan revised and that we would not recommend that the Board consider the testimony as a subject condition and therefore it is their decision as to whether or not they wish to push the issue, being that the clock runs out tonight. The applicant can ask for a vote, as is or submit a revised plan. It is my understanding that a revised plan will be submitted and they have granted an extension to the March 10 th meeting. Mr. Gasiorowski said I am going to request that the Board vote on this matter with the plan you have before you. The applicant had the opportunity prior to the commencement of this meeting to write to the Board that they have discovered changes and say they need to come in with a revised plan. He did not do that. We spent 3 hours this evening, my client has spared great expense, their testimony was completed and the applicant did not ask to reopen his case. I am demanding, and I am not saying it impolitely, that the Board vote on this. If the Board approves it, fine or if denied, he would come back with a new application. 6
Chairman Conard said this plan is not on the table right now; it is being amended. Mr. Gasiorowski said the plan has not been withdrawn and a new plan submitted. Deny the application and let him come back with a new plan. Mr. Bernstein said with all due deference to counsel, it is not his decision whether or not the Board will or will not approve the application. It is still controlled by the applicant in conjunction with the Board. It is not the objector s determination to tell the Board to approve or deny this application as submitted. Based on the fact that an extension has been granted and an amended plan is going to be considered, the applicant wants the Board to consider with the amendment. It is then up to the Board what it wants to do on March 10 th. It was not a wasted evening. He told Mr. Gasiorowski that at some point your witnesses had to finish their testimony, your clients have testified, and those member of the public not represented by you will still have the opportunity to speak at the appropriate time, and you will have the opportunity to choose to question, relative to the plan, and the Board will have a full plan and be able to decide one way or the other and try to prevent a litigation matter if such a vote happens tonight. Mr. Gasiorowski objected. Mr. Bernstein said the Board has the right in its capacity to make these types of determinations; I believe it has made such. If the Board is willing to grant the extension to March 10 th, that is a Board decision. If the Board does not wish to grant the extension, that is also the Board s decision. The applicant is asking for the extension to March 10 th, the Board s professionals are also asking for the extension to review the plans because they believe when the Board ultimately decides one way or the other that it needs to know exactly what it is approving or not approving. A motion to carry the application to March 10 th with no further notice was made by Ms. Fenwick, seconded by Dr. Sireci. All in favor Aye. Opposed. Mr. Gasiorowski said I would ask that I be given a copy of the plan when submitted and a copy of the full review by the professionals as to its efficacy. Mr. Bernstein asked Mr. Whitelaw to provide a copy of whatever he provides to the Board to Mr. Gasiorowski directly. The reports of Mr. Ringelheim and Mr. White will be provided to all parties, where applicable, as is customary. CORRESPONDENCE Graziano, Piasecki & Whitelaw, LLC letter of February 8, 2011 ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:56 p.m. Submitted by: Debora Padgett Planning Board Clerk 7