PINE HILL PLANNING/ZONING BOARD MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 14, 2008
CALL TO ORDER:
FLAG SALUTE:
SUNSHINE STATEMENT: This is a regularly scheduled meeting of the Pine Hill Planning Board and has been duly advertised in and is in full compliance with the Sunshine Law.
ROLL CALL: Mayor Costantino, Mrs. Costantino, Mr. Castor, Councilman Green, Mr. Harris, Mr. Reilly, Mr. Whipps
ABSENT: Mr. Gallgher, Mr. Waddington,
ALTERNATES: Mr. Hallworth, (absent) Mr. McCauley (present)
Mr. Hartman (present)
Mr. Hartman will be seated as a voting member.
A motion was made by Mr. Harris to approve the minutes of January 10, 2008 and was seconded by Mr. Castor, all others “ayed”. MOTION CARRIED.
A motion was made by Mr. Harris to approve correspondence and was seconded by Mr. Castor, all others “ayed” MOTION CARRIED.
There were no resolutions:
APPLICATIONS:
Metro PCS Pennsylvania was not going to be heard this evening it will be heard in March.
JOHN CALLAHAN ( Branch Avenue ) USE VARIANCE
Mayor Costantino and Councilman Green excused themselves due to this being a use variance. Mr. Alan Nickerson, Esq. represented the applicant.
Mr. Callahan was then sworn in, Mr. Alan Bradley was also in attendance as the Planner, The property is located on Branch Avenue, it is known as Lots:;78, Block: 1-28, it located across from Chalet Apartments. The zone is in a business district, the application is to permit a landscaping facility for retail and to allow flex space for office warehouse. Mr. Bradley was sworn in and Mr. Bradley gave his presentation.
Mr. Ippolito from Pennoni Associates stated that Mr. Callahan is proposing on the landscaping side he is proposing a retail garden center, which falls under general retail merchandising store and there are several types of categories, a retail garden center would be a permitted use. He is also proposing offices (professional) which are allowed under the zone. The uses that are not allowed are the landscaped contracting business and the warehouses aspects, they are only allowed under the industrial zone. The limited business districts he would need a use variance for the landscape contracting business and the warehouse use.
The equipment that will be on the property will be a small converter which moves mulch, stone, etc., there will be some deliveries of some large trucks when the material is delivered, but that is more like a bi-weekly basis, this is just a basic landscape company. Across the front of the property there will be a nice buffer but this will be part of the site plan when the applicant comes back. There will be a hot house for the annuals and the perennials, but many of the questions will come back when they apply for the site plan. The site will probably be done in two (2) phases the landscaping/construction business will come in first and then the flex space, they hope to come in with the site plan and show the grading plan. The type of vehicles will be just your basic pick ups, small dump trucks for deliveries, vans, etc.
Mr. Castor stated that nine out of ten times when you get involved in this type of a business they end up with containers, trailers, etc. sitting all other the place. Mr. Carlamere, Esq. stated that because the applicant is coming with two distinct phases not dealing with the usual phase I and phase II, the applicant first wants to come in with a general use variance that would permit landscape construction and the warehousing, as part of the flex office, it is his opinion to the Board that you can if you are inclined to feel that the general scope of the proposed use by the applicant meets the tests and you are inclined to approve it but there are reservations that he is hearing from the Board members so his opinion is the Board can as part of this process put some conditions and restrictions in the granting of the use variance as to such things as outside storage, overnight parking trucks and those sort of things, standards that might not be in the ordinance but the Board is concerned because this is a use variance in that area
that if you are going to do flex office space warehouse you do not want to see outside storage of plumbing equipment or trucks parked, trash, etc.
A motion was made by Mr. Castor to open the floor to the public and was seconded by Mr. Harris, all others “ayed”. MOTION CARRIED.
Page 3
A motion was made by Mr. Harris to close the floor to the public and was seconded by Mr. Whipps, all others “ayed”. MOTION CARRIED.
A motion was made by Mr. Whipps to approve this application based on the discussion that was heard this evening in addition to the fact that when the flex spaces get going they have to come before the Board for approval for the uses. Mr. Carlamere, Esq. stated that we marked “A-1” as an exhibit, the approval if passes will approve a landscaping construction use, and the applicant is saying that the resolution is appropriate to locate that use on the site as preliminarily reflects on “A-1”, the warehouse/office warehouse structures will be permitted but if the use that is going to go into any of those structures is not permitted in the LBD zone that use has to come before the Board before it can be approved. Plus this is subject to site plan approval. A second was made by Mr. Harris, all others “ayed”. MOTION CARRIED.
Next on the Agenda is a conceptual by Fieldstone Associates. Mr. Carlamere, Esq. told the Board they may recall Fieldstone has been before the Board previously for an application that involved a site in the redevelopment zone, they were going thru preliminary and final approvals for that site. Fieldstone now requests that the Board to consider eliminating specific or amend what uses are permitted in the redevelopment zone, jurisdiction lies with the Planning Board, the Board's authority is basically is to make a recommendation either yes or no to Mayor & Council if Mayor & Council is going to entertain the Board's recommendation if it is favorable the public hearing will also have to take place. This issue was before the Board previously as initiated by Mayor & Council and the Board addressed it then that in a sense does not prevent Fieldstone from coming directly to the Board with a more presentation to plead its cause and see if the Board would be inclined what its request by way of recommendation to Mayor & Council. It is informal in a sense and does not require public advertising at this stage other than the notice that has been published by the Boro. Mr. Whipps asked what was the result of the Board's decision when it first came before the Board, and Mr. Carlamere, Esq. stated that the Board rejected it. Mr. Castor asked if this was the auto parts and yes it is. Mayor Costantino and Councilman Green then came back to the dais. Mr. Harris stated that he believed at that time there was some questions as to the legality to present this request, not only from the Board but also from some people in the public, it was a question as to whether notification should be provided, and whether it was continuation of he hearing and it generated some misunderstandings. Ms. Lynn McDougal, Esq. is representing the applicants.
Page 4
It was stated that no public notice was required because what the applicant was proposing was that the Planning Board consider a recommendation to the Boro Council to modify the redevelopment plan which is already in place, in which the applicant did they got their approvals and it did require public notice which they did give. What will happen it goes back to Boro Council for an adoption in accordance with the recommendations, then after that Fieldstone would come back before the Board officially with some amended plans and then the Board would amend the approvals, in the instance public notice would then be given.
It was stated that as the Board all knows this is a redevelopment project and the relationship originally began back in December 2004 when Pine Hill Boro Council asked the Planning Board to investigate certain properties and determine if they met the criteria for inclusion in the redevelopment area, Council consequently a few months later added a few more parcels to the redevelopment. These parcels of land in the study area included a portion of the old Bromley Estates project, which failed quite a few years ago due to financial problems with the owners. Some of the projects were filled but the remainder of the property was not although some site improvements were made and a few other things were done to the land. The planning board conducted its investigation of the study area and recommended to Boro Council that the area be designed as a redevelopment area, and this happened in March 2005 thereafter at the end of the month, Boro Council accepted the Planning Board's recommendation and adopted a resolution designating the area be a redevelopment area, throughout this whole process Fieldstone Associates had expressed an interest in the redevelopment area and in cooperative effort in Fieldstone and the Boro, Fieldstone prepared the redevelopment plan and created the special plan unit residential zone. The redevelopment plan was adopted by Boro Council in the beginning of May of 2005 and there was a first and second reading which officially placed the ordinance.
This project was approved for 115 age restricted residential units and 30 market rate townhouses as well as one single family detached home, because the request tonight and the presentation tonight largely focuses on the age restricted of the townhouses. In August 2006 the Board granted final approval for the units, since that time Fieldstone has been obtaining its outside agency approvals and putting the rest of the plans and approvals in place for the project. Ms. McDougal, Esq. stated that Pine Hill and Fieldstone have been working together for a number of years and the redevelopment project is beneficial to both the Boro and Fieldstone.
Page 5
A few years ago Fieldstone completed the purchase of the old Bromley Estates parcel and at the end of December completed the purchase of the junkyard parcel so they own the large majority of the land that is in the project. The redevelopment agreement calls for the purchase of the Boro lots by Fieldstone as well, all of this was done and intended to be done by private transactions. The buildings on the properties are to be demolished and cleaned up and residential dwellings constructed and all put into service, which will create tax revenue to the Borough in addition with this development, will come payment of $500.00 per unit to the Boro for recreation fees. Fieldstone is here tonight to request that the Planning Board consider recommending to Boro Council the lifting of the age restriction for the 115 residential units in the project. Fieldstone is willing to limit the fiscal impact to the Boro by reducing the number of bedrooms in the 30 townhouses from the permitted 4 bedrooms to 2 bedrooms and a den. The request is made in light of the real estate market in general has deteriorated and the market for age restricted homes does not support the project. The alternative to the age restriction, which Fieldstone is proposing, is 115 rental dwellings in the same buildings as shown in the site plan, and is an overall age-targeted project. Fieldstone believes that the better solution for the Boro and Fieldstone is the development of the rental units and the projects, not only would Fieldstone then develop the project but it would stay involved in maintaining the project by owning and managing the site. The site will be maintained by one owner rather than a homeowners association.
To provide detail and support for this request they have a presentation from the Architect Ed Nitrovich and Phil Rown from Economic Development Associates and Art Corsini, an owner. Mayor Costantino asked when the $100,000.00 is payable and the $500.00 is payable. Ms. McDougall, Esq. stated it was her understanding that the $500.00 per unit will be paid when permits are pulled and the closing for the Boro lots is acquired under the redevelopment agreement but it depends on whether the project will be proceed. If the project moves forward they will close on the Boro's properties. The $100,000.00 is to purchase the Boro property.
The $500.00 is per unit and it comes to $72,500.00. Mr. Whipps asked if we really needed to sit through the architect's presentation, he stated that was done already, what he wants to hear is the hardship that Fieldstone is bringing here, that is the only thing that will convince him to switch him to rentals. Mayor Costantino stated that he felt we should hear it, Mr. Whipps stated that it is 8:45 and it is Valentine's Day.
Page 6
Mr. Corsini, stated that one of the critical things that they are asking for this evening is to lift the age restriction is they really want to show the Board that as the units are developed, they are really going to be exactly the same, the site plan does not change at all. The units are really age targeted and they are not conducive to families of school age children.
Mr. Nitrovitch showed plans to the Board and explained that the project includes 5 three (3) story multi family buildings, four (3) story townhouse clusters, one story detached garages, one single family building. The overall account for this site is 145 units.The parking will be about 290 spaces, which amounts to about 2 spaces per unit. The 5 three (3) story buildings each contain 23 units per building a total of 115 units, the parking within the buildings is 60 spaces that is 12 parking spaces per building. All units are two bedroom two bath units. There are three different floor plans ranging in the area of 1,020 sq. ft. to 1,197 sq. ft. It includes a laundry area with a washer and dryer side by side. There was a lengthy discussion as to the design of the units.
Mr. Carlamere, Esq. asked if the townhouses that are proposing are going to be 2 bedroom, 2 bath units with a den, and the townhouses are for sale, so they will be individual owners but there will be one owner for the five buildings, they are reducing the bedrooms from 4 to 2 bedrooms.
Mr. Rowan stated that there has been a melt down for the Senior Housing.
Mr. Harris stated that the approved plan would generate all the monies taken in, an alternate plan would generate more and he stated that he was not negative it was positive on that respect. He agreed that this project is something that we never had he has seen some of the facilities and it is above what we normally exceed, so he was not knocking it in that respect, but there has to be pluses and minuses. There is also going to be questions as to whether this property will become a Section 8.
Mayor Costantino stated that he had a question to the Attorney could this property go Section 8 without Borough approval, Mr. Carlamere, Esq. stated that he didn't believe that it would need Borough approval, for an owner to rent. Mayor Costantino stated that he thought the HUD people, the Section 8 people wouldn't give approval unless they went into the private program and made some guarantees. Mr. Carlamere, Esq. stated that he was not sure of that, if he had to give an answer he thought he did not believe it would require Boro approval for an owner to get approved as a Section 8 unit.
Page 7
The applicant stated that they would not have a problem putting in a Deed restriction on the property that without Council's approval it can't go into Section 8. Mayor Costantino re-iterated to the applicant that they are willing to put in writing that in the event they are considering lower income that Council would have to approval, and the reply was absolutely.
It was then stated by some of the members along with Mr. Carlamere, that they weren't sure that would be legal, it may be unconstitutional.
There was then a recap on what the applicant believed would be all the advantages. Mr. Harris stated lets go back to the original plans, it was once a junk yard, an eye sore that is a liability, Mr. Castor stated it is not called a junk yard, it is called a salvation yard, now this is something different and you have to look at it in that vein, what would you rather have. There is a plus and minus to look at both sides as per Mr. Harris. Mr. Whipps, then stated he had a previous engagement and he had to leave.
Mr. Harris stated he brought that up because he is sure there are other questions. The applicant stated he would like to re-cap the application, his name was Art Corsini, from Fieldstone Associates. They stated they wouldn't be here this evening if the economic division of the Real Estate Market wasn't in the state it is in today and one of the things that they wanted to emphasize when they gave the comparisons assumptation number two when you look at the approved plan they would really be in a position if they were denied tonight that their only economic salvation for this project is to build the thirty town homes that has four bedrooms, and shelf the 115 multi family units until the age restricted market came back, it may come back in five years, seven years, he didn't know, but it doesn't look good. He stated that if the Board were to vote tonight and give a positive recommendation and send to Council they can get this project on line much faster, and even if there are school age kids there is going to be enough funds to cover the costs. The advantages of the project is the first thing they are going to commence the demolition of the existing buildings and start construction ASAP., as soon as they work out the details, there is such a demand right now for this type of rental product, it is unbelievable.
$100,000.00 to the Boro for the Boro properties within the next sixty days, the construction fees that will be generated. You will have stimulants for local contractors and full time employment, they will have a full time property manager on site, an assistant and possibly three or four maintenance people, they will be full time jobs, they typically go with local people because they know the area and they are close in case there is any type of problem, they can be there, they have a system set up where they have seven days a week, 24 hours a day maintenance people.
Page 8
The MUA fees come to $3,225.00 per unit for $470,850.00, that is just the Pine Hill MUA. There are also another $3,400.00 fees for the County.
They will have all their permits pulled by 2008 and you will have another $72,500.00. It will have a limited effect on Boro services and school district. It is an upscale project in Pine Hill Boro, very unique, something that the Boro will be very proud of for several generations. Typically the demographic of young professionals one of the things that they didn't touch on their demographic that they are going to attract typically has a high disposable income as he stated earlier, even to get into the apartments you have to have 3 ½ times the monthly rent, they will spend money in the Boro. Mr. Corsini wasn't sure if the Boro had an inspection of apartments and he stated that they mandate a one year minimum lease but they encourage a two year lease, they don't like transits they don't do month to month nor do they do three months, they do a minimum of one year lease, and every year they would be willing to work with the Boro to create an ordinance that every time they turn over a unit, the Boro would be able to send in the inspector to do an inspection. They would also work with the Boro to develop an inspection report at their cost and expense, and that can be do thru an independent third party or one of the Boro's consultants, Engineer, etc. The replacement fund would be $57,500.00 annually, $500.00 times 115 units every year goes into this fund compounded monthly over two million one hundred and seventy nine and fifty dollars up to 20 years. The other fortunate thing that is here is they are in the re-development area, so they have flexibility to do these things, if this was a normal zone they wouldn't even be here. No one wants a vacant piece of land that still shows that pulls in less than $3,000.00 per year there is no economic development here. The action that is taken here tonight by the Board does not show a precedence for other age restricted applications. He stated that they want to build in our town.
Mr. Harris stated that he had to agree with the drying up of the Senior Homes market, because people are moving from the State. If he were to sell his home his taxes are over $5,000.00 if he were to go into a Senior Complex his taxes would be double and that would be $500.00 per month out of his income. If he took the money from his home he would probably rent one of the apartments.
Mr. Carlamere, Esq. reiterated that the jurisdiction that this Board has is the Board is either inclined to agree with the request. The Board can only make a recommendation to Mayor and Council, and then Mayor and Council will make the decision, they go through the advertising of public notice, etc. and they make the decision.
Page 9
There will also be public hearings, and then they would come back before the Board to amend the site plan approval. Mr. Carlamere, Esq. stated what he understood the applicants were seeking was the removal of the age restriction element and the modification of the town homes to 2 bedrooms and a den.
Mr. Castor stated that his only concern was that the Board had approved over 200 units that have been approved at two other locations, and Mr. Hartman stated sure are, for Senior Citizens, but Councilman Green stated that they are not in the re-development issue. A motion was made by Councilman Green to approve this request and was seconded by Mayor Costantino, all others “ayed”, with the exception of Mr. Hartman, who voted “no”. MOTION CARRIED. This motion was to make the recommendation that Mayor and Council consider amending the ordinance as it relates to this redevelopment zone to remove the age restricted element and to impose the two bedrooms and den to the townhouses. Mr. Carlamere, Esq. stated that in the drafting of the recommendation to Mayor & Council should have some reference to the re-development agreement that it has to be amended accordingly to impose any other elements that Mayor & Council may consider. Mayor Costantino stated that approximately the $99,000.00 is part of the agreement and the $500.00 per unit in lieu of recreational maintenance fund.
A motion was made by Mr. Harris to open the floor to the public and was seconded by Mr. Castor. Patricia Brooks from Chalet Apartments asked the Board if they could change a couple of units into town homes. Mrs. Costantino stated that she felt Chalet Apartments should come before the Board with an application.
A motion was made by Mr. Harris to close the floor to the public and was seconded by Mayor Costantino, all others “ayed”. MOTION CARRIED.
A motion was made by Mr. Castor to adjourn and was seconded by Mayor Costantino, all others “ayed”. MOTION CARRIED.
Respectfully,
Fran Reilly
Secretary PI
Application #
Applicant: John Callahan
Property: Block 78 Lots 1 thru 28
Branch Avenue
APPLICATION FOR USE VARIANCE
BOROUGH OF PINE HILL
MEMORIALIZING RESOLUTION
OF
PLANNING/ZONING BOARD GRANTING A
USE VARIANCE
WHEREAS. On February 14 th 2008 , the Planning/Zoning Board of the Borough of Pine Hill, Camden County , New Jersey , considered the above application for a use variance. The applicant intends to develop a landscape retail and construction facility with flex office and warehouse units on the site referenced. The applicant was represented by E. Allen Nickerson Esq., and
WHEREAS. The applicant having submitted a conceptual plan prepared by Addison G. Bradley, Professional Planner, Landscape Architect, dated January 25 th 2008, and the conceptual plan having been presented to the Board and the Board's engineer Alan J. Ippolito P.E. of Pennoni Associates, Inc. Board Engineer, and the following having been determined;
a. That the existing Zone Classification is LBD, Limited Business District. The zone does not permit the landscape construction and warehouse use intended by the applicant. Property is located in the area of Branch Avenue at Third Avenue (proposed for vacation). The application seeks a use variance for this intended use.
b. The following persons gave testimony for the applicant; Addison G. Bradley – Architect and John Callahan – applicant.
c. The applicant has not submitted sufficient plans for preliminary site plan review. The applicant intends to submit the required plans if the use variance is approved. The applicant must provide the required notice to the public if a site plan application is filed. The applicant intends to apply for site plan approval for a landscape retail and construction facility and flex office and warehouse complex as disclosed on the conceptual plan. The conceptual plan was marked A-1 into evidence at the hearing.
d. There was extensive testimony received. The Board expressed serious concern over the equipment to be used for the landscape construction business as well as the type and number of trucks for delivery at the warehouse units, off site loading and outside storage of material. The applicant recognized the Board's concern. The applicant gave testimony of his intent to grade the area, stabilize the existing slope and the construction will put the office use up front as shown on the conceptual plan. The landscape storage area will be located in the rear of the property as shown on plan marked A-1
e. The applicant testified that the storage of outside material would be limited to the landscape business and that the storage of the bulk material would be limited to the northwest corner of the site as reflected on the conceptual plan. The Board determined that this would be appropriate and would be the least impact on sight from Branch Road .
f. The Board also expressed intent to reserve any comment on the site specifics for the site plan application. The Board stated that they would be concerned over sufficient buffering, outside storage in the office and warehouse area. The Board also expressed that in granting this application any approval would be limited to the uses that are permitted in the LBD District.
g. The application was opened to the public and there was no public testimony presented.
h. The Board also determined that granting the use variance request will not be a substantial deviation from the intent and purpose of zoning for the area and will not cause a substantial detriment to the community, does encourage senior housing development and promotes the general welfare of the community of Pine Hill.
NOW THEREFORE, after considering the foregoing, it is herein RESOLVED that the above application for a use variance to permit a landscape construction and warehouse use, in addition to the intended landscape retail garden center and office use, is hereby GRANTED.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that as a condition of this approval, the Board reserved comments on issues dealing with appropriate Buffer area for the site, Buffer for outside storage, especially around the warehouse use, load and un-loading area, trash containers. The applicant has not submitted sufficient plans for preliminary site plan review. The applicant will submit required plans for site plan approval, with the required notice to the public if a site plan application is filed.
ATTEST: BOROUGH OF PINE HILL
PLANNING BOARD
_________________________ _____________________________
FRAN REILLY, SECRETARY NANCY COSTANTINO, CHAIRPERSON
The undersigned, Secretary of the Borough of Pine Hill Planning Board, hereby certifies that the above is a true copy of a resolution adopted by the Board on the 14 th day of February 2008.
___________________________
Fran Reilly, Secretary
Pine Hill Planning/Zoning Board
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING BOARD FOR THE
BOROUGH OF PINE HILL, CAMDEN COUNTY , NEW JERSEY RECOMMENDING
AMENDMENT TO THE PERMITTED USES IN AN AREA PREVIOUSLY
DESIGNATED A REDEVELOPMENT ZONE TO REMOVE THE AGE RESTRICTED ELEMENT AND
TO LIMIT THE PROPOSED PLAN DEVELPMENT TO TWO (2) BEDROOM TOWN-HOME AND
TWO (2) BEDROOM RENATL UNITS
WHEREAS, The Planning Board did previously conduct an investigation and did hold a public hearing to determine a redevelopment area pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40A:12-5 & 6, and the statute and laws of the State of New Jersey, which area consist of certain lots located within Block 17, 17.01, 17.02 and Block 18 and Block 24.01, along Hickstown Road and Lake Avenue, and as designated on the Redevelopment Plan and Zoning Map adopted entitled “Special Planed Unit Residential Development”, and
WHEREAS. The Planning/Zoning Board of the Borough of Pine Hill did previously recommend an amendment to the adopted Redevelopment Plan and Zoning Map, and
WHEREAS. The recommendations of the Planning/Zoning Board were adopted and Fieldstone Associates LP was named Redeveloper with agreements on acquisition of certain Borough owned lots, demolition, recreation funding and area clean-up, and
WHEREAS, The Planning/Zoning Board has now been requested to consider a second amendment to the approved Redevelopment Plan and Zoning Map to remove the age requirement for active adults age 55 and older for the multi family units in the Special Planned Unit residential development (SPURD) zone and to simultaneously to impose a limitation upon thirty (30) single family townhouse units, whereby such thirty (30) units shall not have greater than two (2) bedrooms, plus one den. There shall be a two (2) bedroom maximum on the 115 apartment units.
WHEREAS. The Planning/Zoning Board did properly advertise and did hold a public hearing on February 14 th 2008 on the issue of the proposed amendment, and
WHEREAS. Fieldstone Associates LP did appear before the Board for presentation and was represented by Lynn Blessing McDougall Esq.. Testimony was also presented by Arthur J. Corsini Jr. of Fieldstone Associates LP and Philip Rowan from Economic Development Associates, and
WHEREAS. Positive testimony was presented on the redevelopment project improvements, property clean-up advantages, recreation program funding advantages, and
WHEREAS. The Board received testimony that the proposed amendment, if recommended and approved by the Borough Council would result in an application for an Amended Preliminary and Final Subdivision and Site Plan approval to the Board to reflect (i) the elimination of the age restriction on the 115 multi-family condominium units in favor of a single-owner of the parcel with apartment buildings in the same number and location as the approved site plan with such apartment units being limited to two (2) bedrooms; and (ii) the imposition on the 30 fee simple townhouse units of a limitation to two (2) bedrooms, plus a den, and
WHEREAS. The Board determined that the requested amendment was properly before the Board and the recommendation was appropriate and not adverse to the intent and purpose of zoning in the area and would have no significant impact on the immediate community.
NOW THEREFORE, it is herein RESOLVED by the Planning/Zoning Board of the Borough of Pine Hill that the Mayor and Council of the Borough of Pine Hill amend the Redevelopment Plan in accordance with the within Resolution.
ATTEST: BOROUGH OF PINE HILL PLANNING/ZONING BOARD
_______________ ___________________________
Fran Reilly Nancy Costantino
Secretary Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a Resolution adopted by the Borough of Pine Hill Planning/Zoning Board at a meeting held on February 14 th 2008
___________________________
FRAN REILLY, Secretary
BOROUGH OF PINE HILL
PLANNING/ZONING BOARD