Loading...
2012-02-21 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes App fAu Q As sup(ntT-T) alga REGULAR MEETING BUFFALO GROVE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 21, 2012 Chairman Entman called the Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. on Tuesday, February 21, 2012 in the Council Chambers of the Village Hall, 50 Raupp Boulevard. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Commissioner Cesario Commissioner Steingold Commissioner Windecker Commissioner Lesser Commissioner Shapiro Commissioner Au Chairman Entman Commissioners Absent: None Also Present: William Raysa, Village Attorney Brian Sheehan, Deputy Building Commissioner Carol Berman, Deputy Building Commissioner Lester Ottenheimer,Village Trustee Andrew Stein, Village Trustee APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 17, 2012 minutes: Com. Windecker made a motion to approve the minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting held on Tuesday,January 17, 2012. Corn. Au seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Cesario, Steingold, Windecker,Au, Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN —Lesser, Shapiro Motion Passed 5 to 0, 2 Abstentions. Minutes approved as submitted. OLD BUSINESS 1205-1211 W. DUNDEE ROAD, AETNA DEVELOPMENT — SIGN CODE, SECTIONS 14.20.030 and 14.20.070, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING TWO (2) ADDITIONAL ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 21, 2012 PAGE 1 of 12 11 1 1 �I v V GROUND SIGNS ON THE PROPERTY: ONE (1) GROUND SIGN TO BE LOCATED ALONG `.J DUNDEE ROAD WITHIN TWO HUNDRED FIFTY (250) FEET OF AN EXISTING GROUND SIGN LOCATED ON THE SAME SIDE OF THE STREET AND THE SECOND GROUND SIGN TO BE LOCATED ALONG ARLINGTON HEIGHTS ROAD THAT WOULD BE LOCATED WITHIN TWO HUNDRED FIFTY (250) FEET OF THE GROUND SIGN ALONG DUNDEE ROAD FOR 1205-1211 W. DUNDEE ROAD Mr. David Mangurten, KMA & Associates, 1161 Lake Cook Road, Suite C, Deerfield, Illinois 60015, was present and sworn in. Mr. Mangurten explained that the request for the ground signs has been revised. They have removed the request for the second ground sign along Arlington Heights and reduced the size of the ground sign along Dundee Road. The ground sign along Dundee Road will be located one hundred nineteen (119) feet from the existing Walgreens ground sign. The Plaza Verde ground sign and the Melting Pot ground sign have been removed from the property. The proposed Starbuck's coffee shop will require three (3) directional signs, a pre-menu board and a menu board ground sign. The directional signs will comply with the Sign Code requirements. Mr. Mangurten addressed a concern of the February 8, 2012 Appearance Review Team (ART) meeting. He advised that he was informed by Starbuck's that the necessity of the pre-menu board is to keep traffic moving and to allow customers to add to their orders. There would be two (2) cars between the pre-menu board and the menu board in the drive through lane. Mr. Mangurten reviewed the proposed Landscape Plan dated January 18, 2012. The entire site will be heavily landscaped. The Dundee Road ground sign has been reduced from eleven (11) feet to nine (9) feet in height and will consist of a dark bronze background with white lettering on a brick base. The curb line of the roadway is located approximately five (5) feet below the site. It is important for traffic to see the ground sign. Mr. Mangurten referenced the traffic study that was provided to the Plan Commission. The proposed menu board ground sign and pre-menu board ground sign will be constructed in a dark bronze material. The directional signs for Starbuck's shall have dark bronze bases for consistency. The directional signs will be less than four (4) feet in height. Ch. Entman read the Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Brian Sheehan dated October 4, 2011 which states: "I have no comments on the proposal." Ch. Entman read the ART minutes of September 21, 2011, October 11, 2011 and February 8, 2012 into the record. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 21, 2012 PAGE 2 of 12 Ch. Entman asked Mr. Mangurten if Starbuck's would possibly relocate the menu board L.J sign in the future. Mr. Mangurten stated that Starbuck's informed him that they have no intention of relocating the menu board sign in the future. Corn. Cesario stated that he was concerned about the excessive number of signs previously proposed. He commends the Petitioner on the revisions to the proposal. Com. Lesser agrees with Com. Cesario and is in favor of the revised proposal. He asked Mr. Mangurten if there is any intent to reintroduce a Plaza Verde ground sign in the future. Mr. Mangurten replied no. Com. Lesser asked Mr. Mangurten if the landscaping will adhere to the proposed landscaping plan. Mr. Mangurten stated that the final landscaping will be completed as shown on the landscaping plan. Com. Lesser stated that he has some concern regarding screening the menu board signs from the roadway. Mr. Mangurten stated that the menu board signs are setback and will be screened from the roadway. Mr. Raysa advised the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) that there was some concern at the Plan Commission meeting regarding pedestrian safety through the drive through lane. Mr. Mangurten advised that students will be crossing Dundee Road with traffic moving at approximately forty (40) mph. Pedestrians will be crossing the drive through lane with traffic moving at three (3) mph. They can install signs warning pedestrians of traffic. Corn. Shapiro stated that he is concerned about pedestrian safety and asked if a railing can be installed around the north end of the building to keep pedestrians out of the drive through lane. Mr. Mangurten stated that the north patio area of the building will be completely enclosed with a guard rail as it will be used for outdoor seating. Mr. Mangurten stated that he would like to have his Engineer talk to the Village Engineer regarding safety signage or devices at the pedestrian crosswalks. They will adhere to the Village Engineer's recommendation. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Corn. Lesser made the following motion: I move we recommend to the Village Board to grant the amended request made by Aetna Development Corporation, 200 West Madison Street, Chicago, Illinois 60606, for variance of Sign Code, Section 14.20.030, pertaining to Business Districts; and Section 14.2.070, pertaining to Ground Signs, for the purpose of allowing additional ground signs on the property: one (1) ground sign to be located along Dundee Road within two hundred fifty (250) feet of an existing ground sign located on the same side of street; Li ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 21, 2012 PAGE 3 of 12 and to allow a menu board ground sign and a pre-menu board ground sign that would LJ be located within two hundred fifty (250)feet of the ground sign along Dundee Road for the property located at 1205-1211 W. Dundee Road. The variances are subject to the following conditions: 1. Subject to the Village Engineer's memorandum dated October 4, 2011; 2. Subject to the Appearance Review Team (ART) minutes dated September 21, 2011, October 11, 2011 and February 8, 2012; 3. The signs are to be installed pursuant to KMA Drawing No. 2.1 dated February 3, 2012, KMA Drawing No. 2.2 dated February 3, 2012, KMA Drawing No. 2.3 dated February 3, 2012, KMA Drawing No. 2.4 dated February 3, 2012, KMA Drawing No. 2.5 dated February 3, 2012 and Landscaping Plan dated January 18, 2012. 4. Safety signage or devices installed at the pedestrian crosswalks in the drive through lane subject to Village approval. Pursuant to Sign Code, Section 14.44.010,Subsection A. Corn. Shapiro seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Cesario, Steingold,Windecker, Lesser,Shapiro, Au, Entman L'' NAY—None ABSTAIN —None Motion Passed 7 to 0. Item to appear on the March 19, 2012 Village Board agenda. NEW BUSINESS 950 BUSCH PARKWAY, XTREME TRAMPOLINES —SIGN CODE, SECTIONS 14.20.050; 14.20.070 AND 14.20.180, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING BOTH THE TEMPORARY IDENTIFICATION GROUND SIGN AND THE PERMANENT GROUND SIGN TO BE LOCATED CLOSER TO THE PROPERTY LINE THAN PERMITTED. Ch. Entman read an email sent by Ivy Israel, Dubin Singer PC, 70 West Madison Street, Suite 4500, Chicago, Illinois 60602 on behalf of Eric Beck, Xtreme Trampolines, to Brian Sheehan dated February 21, 2012 requesting to Table the variation proposal until the next Zoning Board of Appeals. There were no questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Corn. Lesser made a motion to Table the request made by Xtreme Trampolines, 950 Busch Parkway, for variance of Sign Code, Section 14.20.050, pertaining to Industrial ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 21, 2012 PAGE 4 of 12 Districts; Section 14.20.070, pertaining to Ground Signs; and Section 14.20.180, Li pertaining to Temporary Identification Signs, for the purpose of allowing both the temporary identification ground sign and the permanent ground sign to be located closer to the property line than permitted, to the March 20, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting. Com. Au seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Cesario, Steingold, Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro, Au, Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN —None Motion Passed 7 to 0. Item Tabled to the March 20, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting. REVIEW OF PROPOSED SIGN CODE REVISIONS Mr. Sheehan reviewed the modifications made to the proposed Sign Code revisions based on the comments of the December 21, 2011 ZBA meeting. The proposed Sign Code and revisions were then presented to the Plan Commission. Additional modifications were made based on comments from the Plan Commission. The Village would like the Zoning Board to review the modifications and make a recommendation to the Village Board. Com. Windecker advised that he has an issue with Section 14.40.080 allowing Sign Code variations to be granted by the Plan Commission. He would like clarification of what that Section really means. Mr. Sheehan advised that the specific Section was added in an attempt to streamline the process, by allowing a Petitioner that is already appearing before the Plan Commission on a separate zoning action; such as a variation to the setback requirements, etc. to have the Plan Commission hear the variance request for signage as well. This would hopefully make the process more "user friendly" and eliminate the Petitioner from having to appear before two (2) separate Commissions. Com. Windecker advised that the revision states that the sign variation request would be distributed to the Zoning Board for comment. He asked what that means. Mr. Sheehan advised that the intent was to distribute all of the information on the request to the Zoning Board Commissioners for comment. The comments or suggestions from the ZBA would then be forwarded to the Plan Commission and would be included for the record during the public meeting at the Plan Commission level. Corn. Windecker asked if a Zoning Board Commissioner has a concern should they send those concerns to the Appearance Review Team (ART), which meets during the day and not at night. Mr. Sheehan stated that any concerns could be distributed and discussed at the ART meeting, or if a Zoning Board member wanted to be heard in public,that member would ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 21, 2012 PAGE 5 of 12 also have the option to provide comment to, or attend the Plan Commission meeting, L✓ which is an open public meeting, and make any comments that they wish to. It is correct that the ART does meet during the day, which may preclude some ZBA members from attending in person due to work schedules, etc. Com. Windecker asked if this would be a change of what is presently done in some cases. Mr. Sheehan stated that this is a new proposed process and it would definitely be a change from what occurs presently, which is why is has been brought to the ZBA's attention for discussion and comment. Corn. Cesario agrees with Com. Windecker and believes that by including Section 14.40.080 the Village is not being consistent. Some signs would go before the ZBA; other signs may go before the Plan Commission. It would be an inconsistent way of addressing a single issue. As much as he loves efficiency he would have a hard time supporting this Section. Com. Steingold asked what the motivation is to let a Petitioner chose between the Plan Commission and the ZBA. Mr. Sheehan responded that it was not necessarily done in order to give the petitioner a choice, but that the intent was to allow the petitioner to complete their request(s) in a single process, based upon the fact that they were already appearing before the Plan Commission on a related Zoning action. The motivation is that the Village has heard concerns regarding the amount of time that a petitioner must spend in order to go through the current multiple Commission process. That is the reason why this modification has been proposed. Corn. Windecker stated that it means that the ZBA would be discussing issues in a forum other than a meeting and there is no option for dialog, or to know what the other members of the ZBA feel about a request and what their comments are. Then, if a ZBA member wants to attend an ART meeting, they would have to attend during the day because the ART does not meet at night. Then the ZBA is being told to attend a Plan Commission meeting if they want to present comments. The ZBA might as well handle it like they do now and then have the matter go to the Village Board for final approval. Mr. Sheehan stated that if this is the feeling of the ZBA, than that is what should come from this meeting and what the vote should reflect. Corn. Lesser stated that if the reason behind this change is due to receiving complaints from Petitioners that the process is too cumbersome, he understands that. He has been on the ZBA for a long time and has also been a Petitioner for his clients in his capacity in his business for a long time. He is frequently on the other side of the dais as a Petitioner. He believes that generally Petitioners understand that there is a process. Generally, Petitioners complain about the process, no matter how long, or how streamlined it is. He agrees with the comments of the other Commissioners and would not support Section 14.40.080. LI ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 21, 2012 PAGE 6 of 12 Ch. Entman asked Mr. Sheehan if he knows how many, or what percentage of, signage �../ requests would be or would have been heard by Plan Commission under this Section,for instance, in the last year? Would this provision have taken six sign requests to the Plan Commissioner? Mr. Sheehan stated that he does not know off the top of his head, but specifically, the sign proposal heard earlier tonight for the Plaza Verde East/Aetna Development plan, that potentially could have been one since Aetna Development appeared before the Plan Commission for specific zoning requests. Ch. Entman stated that was a good example as it gives him some perspective on the type of matters that, under this proposed language, would go to Plan Commission with, what he calls, the ZBA's informal input or attendance at an ART meeting. Ch. Entman believes that it makes sense, even though it may be a little cumbersome and take some time, to continue to have the ZBA handle all of the sign variance requests so that there is a fresh set of eyes or expertise reviewing the request. Based upon this he also would not be in favor of Section 14.40.080. Com. Shapiro agrees with Corn. Windecker that since the ART meets in the middle of the day, it makes it very difficult for many of the ZBA commissioners to attend the meetings. He is not sure how much of a delay the ZBA process actually causes if you look at the size and scope of some of the projects. He also agrees with Com. Cesario that by splitting the work among different Boards, there might be different results which would result in less overall consistency. Li Corn. Lesser believes that there would be a lot more participation of ZBA members at ART meetings if the ART meetings were not scheduled midday. If they were first thing in the morning or at the end of the day, the Commissioners might be able to work their schedules around them to try and attend. These meeting are usually in the middle of the day and he,for one,would make an effort to be there if they were more convenient. Corn. Au agrees with the other Commissioner. She does understand the issues Petitioners can have with the ZBA, especially since the ZBA meets only once a month. The problem is not because there is an extra step, the problem is that if something gets Tabled it is Tabled for an entire month. Then there is another fifteen (15) days before it can go before the Village Board. She can see where that frustration can come from. She asked if something cannot be resolved during a regular meeting, can the ZBA from a sub- group to meet on just that issue in order to expedite the process. She believes that there can be solutions other than including Section 14.40.080. Ch. Entman responded that sometimes if a Petitioner that appears before the ZBA is not prepared to answer questions, Tabling the request allows the Petitioner time to prepare a response or provide additional documentation, knowing that the next meeting is a month away. He takes that into consideration in what he does for a living. That if you don't get something done, or get your point across when you have the opportunity, it ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 21, 2012 PAGE 7 of 12 may take a long time and extend the process. He believes that until he can think of .J something that might accommodate people a little better, it is incumbent on a Petitioner to take into consideration the time limitations, the structure, the procedure and the protocol and do the best they can within that framework. Corn. Lesser stated that one way to expedite the process would be instead of the ZBA making recommendations to the Village Board, and then having the Petitioner go to the Village Board for final approval, to allow the ZBA to make the final decision. If the Petitioner does not agree with the decision, than the Petitioner would be able to appeal the decision to the Village Board. That would be one way that process could be expedited. Com. Cesario stated that he has been thinking about all the times over the last year that the ZBA has rejected or the Petitioner has withdrawn or Tabled a request. He cannot recall a single instance when it was so superficial that it could have been resolved immediately or was resolved immediately. Typically it is a number of months for the Petitioner to fix it. Based on that, he does not feel that the bottleneck is the once a month meeting. What the ZBA has seen indicates that is not the problem. Com. Windecker stated that he recalls Twin Rinks Sign Code variation request in which everything had to be done in a hurry and everybody had to rush to get it done. To date, the sign is still not up. He would have thought that the permit would have expired by now as well as the variance. Mr. Sheehan advised that the Petitioner obtained the permit before the six month expiration which then allows them additional time in order to install the sign. Mr. Sheehan stated that in response to some of the earlier comments, if there is a specific issue or item that the ZBA wished to meet on, or continue to a special session; that is something that the ZBA currently could chose to do. The ZBA could meet a second time in a month in order to hear a specific case that is already open for public hearing. The ZBA would need to continue the public hearing to a date certain and announce the date during the public hearing and publish for it. He would suggest that based on the comments of the Commissioners, The ZBA should move forward and recommend approval of the Sign Code revisions with the deletion of Section 14.40.080. Ch. Entman reviewed the highlights of the other significant changes. He asked if there were any comments concerning the trademark issue. Ch. Entman inquired about the reason behind the trademark issue. Com. Steingold reviewed the legal aspects of trademarked logos and non-trademarked logos and his rationale for requesting its removal. Ch. Entman asked if there were any comments regarding the revisions to electronic message signs. Ch. Entman stated that he is not in favor of reducing the rate of change ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 21, 2012 PAGE 8 of 12 from the previous 20 seconds down to ten seconds. He would like to keep it at twenty \.J seconds. Corn. Shapiro stated that twenty seconds is not unreasonable. He also believes that restricting the electronic signs to one color, red on black, seems unreasonable with all of the technology that exists today. He believes that restricting the hours, illumination and messages that appear on the signs is reasonable.The number of requests will accelerate based on the fact that these signs are becoming less expensive and are becoming more attractive to businesses. Com. Lesser stated that the ZBA is granting a variance for these signs. By granting a variance,the Petitioner is supposed to demonstrate hardship and unique circumstances. The ZBA can place additional conditions on these signs when granting a variance including the color, the hours of illumination, the message, etc. The ZBA can control any aspect of the sign. The question is what does the ZBA want. He, personally, would not like to see any reader board signs anywhere in the Village. That is his opinion. Just because the technology exists does not mean that the Village has to see it proliferate throughout the Village. Ch. Entman believes that the Village should maintain, at least for now, as much control over the electronic message signs as the Village feels is necessary in order to maintain a handle on them. At some point in time, the regulations could be modified. It is prudent ci not to give up too much control too soon,only to have regrets later. Com. Lesser stated that the only people that he is aware of that have benefited as a result of the electronic message signs are the sign companies. Corn. Shapiro believes that control should be maintained concerning hours of illumination, animation or any kind of movement. He also believes that the issue of restricting color should be revisited. Ch. Entman responded that he does not have a list, in his mind, of offensive colors. But, because of that he would be hesitant to give up the control. He would like to see what is being proposed and be able to determine if it is acceptable. Ch. Entman asked Mr. Sheehan what the ZBA is being asked to approve in reference to the electronic message signs. He sees that the time between screen changes has been reduced from twenty seconds to ten seconds. Mr. Sheehan advised that reducing the timing between screen changes was a suggestion made by the Plan Commission. Every electronic message sign will still only be allowed by variation with the exception of menu boards and gas price signs. Petitioners would still have to come before both the ZBA and the Village Board for final approval.The intent of this section was to create some type of uniformity, something for the ZBA and Village Board to refer back to, when a variation is ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 21, 2012 PAGE 9 of 12 being considered because in previous circumstances, the ZBA has struggled to recall what was granted previously. This would just provide some type of frame work or guidance with which to craft the variance.The variance would still be a requirement and the restrictions could be modified as the situation dictated. Com. Lesser advised that under the proposed rules, a businesses would be allowed an electronic message signs in their windows that would be limited to six square feet, or two by three. Mr. Sheehan added that those windows signs would also be limited, with no scrolling, flashing, or strobing. The window signs would have to be static for a certain period of time, which currently is proposed at ten seconds. Corn. Windecker asked Mr. Sheehan how he feels about the proposed Sign Code. He feels bad that Mr. Sheehan would have to enforce the new Sign Code because he feels that Mr. Sheehan has a problem enforcing the current Sign Code. Mr. Sheehan stated that he does not have a problem enforcing the current Code; he has a problem enforcing the current Code to Corn. Windecker's standards. Corn. Windecker discussed several on going issues relating the property maintenance at the Town Center. Corn. Windecker added that maybe enforcement wasn't taking place because the Village needs to use the Town Center for the Art Festival. Com. Windecker went on to discuss other signs that are still up for businesses that have been vacated. Mr. Sheehan reiterated that he does not feel there will be an issue enforcing the new Sign Code. Com. Shapiro asked, besides being notified by Com. Windecker, if the Village gets notified when a business goes out to be able to enforce the removal of signs. Mr. Sheehan stated that the Village becomes aware of businesses being vacated in many ways. The property owner or manager generally does not contact the Village immediately, but either by inspectors noticing that a business is gone or other avenues the Village becomes aware of the vacancy. The problem is that generally the person responsible for the sign is long gone and is not coming back to remove the sign. So then it becomes the responsibility of the landlord to remove the sign.The landlords are crying poor due to the economy right now. The only recourse the Village has at that point, if the landlord/owner does not remove the sign, is to issue a citation and take them to court to enforce the removal of the sign. In most cases the Village tries to work with the shopping center management instead of creating an adversarial relationship. The Village has met with the management of Town Center and has discussed the Village's frustration concerning the signage with them. They are aware of the issues, not that they have taken any drastic action to correct it since the Village has met with them, but it is something that the Village is working with them on. The Village does not turn a blind eye to these issues, but tries to enforce the code within reason. Corn. Shapiro asked if there is any official means that the Village is notified, such as a requirement that the landlord notify the Village of businesses that have gone out, especially if there are signs that need to be removed. Mr. Sheehan stated that there is no official program. The ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 21, 2012 PAGE 10 of 12 Code requires that the sign be removed within sixty days of the business vacating the `.J space. But the problem is that if the tenant fails to act,then the responsibility falls to the landlord. Most of the management companies are aware of the requirements, based on previous contact with the Village. Com. Lesser stated that generally a tenant either moves willing to a new location,taking the sign with them so they do not need to spend the money on a new signs, or the tenant goes out of business. If the tenant goes out of business they do not have any money. Then it falls in the hands of the landlord. The Village is limited to taking them to housing court. The Village works with the landlords to try and get compliance rather than hauling them into court. It is a tough predicament. Com. Cesario asked about Section 14.36.060 concerning Removal by the Administrator. Mr. Sheehan stated that the Village generally has not pursued that because it would entail the Village hiring outside contractors and then sending the debit to collections and trying to get reimbursement through collections. Com. Cesario stated that then there would be a collectable lien on the property. This would be an avenue available to the Village whether it is distasteful or not. Com. Lesser added that generally a sign will stay up until a new tenant moves into that space. It would be great if the landlords cooperate and spend the money and remove the signs, but they don't. Ch. Entman stated that it is his understanding that the ZBA has issues with the proposed revisions concerning Section 14.40.080. It is also his understanding that the ZBA has issues with changing the timing requirements of electronic message sign to ten seconds. The ZBA would like to keep the screen changes at twenty seconds. He asked if there were any additional issues. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. Com. Windecker made the following motion: I move we recommend to the Village Board to approve the proposed Sign Code revisions with a draft date of February 9, 2012 subject to the following: 1. Change Section 14.20.070.C.6 to read as follows: Messages shall not change more frequently than once every 20 seconds; and 2. Section 14.40.080 is stricken. Corn. Lesser seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Cesario, Steingold, Windecker, Lesser,Shapiro, Au, Entman NAY—None ./ ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 21, 2012 PAGE 11 of 12 ABSTAIN — None Motion Passed 7 to 0. Item to appear on the March 19, 2012 Village Board agenda. ANNOUCEMENTS Mr. Sheehan reminded the Commissioners that they should have received their invitation to the Volunteer Reception to be held on Sunday, March 4, 2012 at the Arboretum and that they should contact the Village Managers office to R.S.V.P. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Corn. Lesser and seconded by Corn. Windecker. Voice Vote —AYE was unanimous. Ch. Entman adjourned the meeting at 8:55 P.M. Submitted by, J ie Kamka Recording Secretary ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 21, 2012 PAGE 12 of 12