Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Resolutions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Allendale land use board adopts two resolutions and clears amendment to a prior approval
Summary
The Allendale Land Use Board approved minutes and two resolutions tied to prior approvals, and accepted an amendment to an earlier approval after applicants reported structural problems found during demolition. Votes were recorded by board members during a public meeting.
The Allendale Land Use Board voted Wednesday to adopt minutes from its previous meeting and to approve two resolutions related to earlier land-use approvals, and it accepted an amendment to an existing approval after applicants reported structural issues discovered during demolition.
Council summarized application file 2025-12 (resolution 25-25), submitted by Michael Maul and Dana Marino, as a substituted, more limited approval that replaces an earlier, larger project; council told the board the applicants agreed on the record that “one replaces the other” and that the two approvals cannot both coexist. The board moved and recorded affirmative voice votes from Vice Chairwoman Bergen, Board member Petrino, Board member Dallow, Chairman Siko and Board member Butler to adopt the resolution.
The board likewise granted application file 2025-13 (resolution 25-26) for James and Dana Bole of 415 Canterbury Drive, which the board described as a reduced-scope follow-up to an earlier 2022 approval. Council explained the 2025 filing was “lesser in scope,” about 400 square feet smaller than the earlier approval; the board voted to adopt the resolution with the same affirmative responses recorded.
During public hearings the board also addressed an amendment request for an earlier approval (application 2025-06, 310 Eastale Avenue). The applicant’s representative said demolition revealed that exterior cement block walls were not properly adhered to the foundation, requiring removal and reconstruction. Counsel told the board that although the change might have been administratively approvable, staff recommended the matter come before the board out of an abundance of caution. The board voted to accept an amendment to the prior approval and directed staff to prepare a new resolution reflecting the enhanced relief required by the reconstruction.
The board’s actions were procedural and technical; no fines, penalties or novel policy changes were adopted at the meeting. The board will issue the adopted resolutions in final form to the applicants and post them to the municipal records as required.
