Loading...
2011-11-15 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes gpFA� 0 D REGULAR MEETING AS sautrrrEAThI l t-711 . BUFFALO GROVE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 15, 2011 Chairman Entman called the Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. on Tuesday, November 15, 2011 in the Council Chambers of the Village Hall, 50 Raupp Boulevard. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Commissioner Cesario Commissioner Windecker Commissioner Shapiro Chairman Entman Commissioners Absent: Commissioner Steingold Commissioner Lesser Commissioner Au Also Present: Brian Sheehan, Deputy Building Commissioner William Raysa, Village Attorney Trustee Les Ottenheimer APPROVAL OF MINUTES October 18, 2011 minutes: Corn. Windecker made a motion to approve the minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting held on Tuesday, October 18, 2011. Com. Shapiro seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Cesario, Windecker, Shapiro, Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN —None Motion Passed 4 to 0. Minutes approved as submitted. OLD BUSINESS CHEVY CHASE BUSINESS PARK, HAMILTON PARTNERS —REVIE W OF EXISTING FOR RENT, SALE, LEASE SIGNS LOCATED AT 1098 JOHNSON DRIVE AND LAKE COOK ROAD AND MILWAUKEE AVENUE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 15, 2011 PAGE 1of12 Mr. John Johnson, C. Johnson Sign Company, 9615 Waveland Avenue, Franklin Park, IL �./ 60131, was present and sworn in. Mr. Johnson explained that they are requesting a six (6) month extension for the leasing sign located at 1098 Johnson Drive and the leasing sign located at the intersection of Lake Cook Road and Milwaukee Avenue. Ch. Entman read the letter submitted by James Lang, Hamilton Partners, dated October 26, 2011, which authorizes Mr.Johnson to act on his behalf. There were no questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Corn. Windecker made a motion to grant a six (6) month extension for Chevy Chase Business Park, Hamilton Partners, for the "For Rent, Sale or Lease" signs located at 1080- 1098 Johnson Drive and at Lake Cook Road and Milwaukee Avenue. Petitioner to appear at the May 15, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting for a status review of the signs. Corn. Cesario seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Cesario, Windecker, Shapiro, Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 4 to 0. Item to appear on the May 15, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals agenda. 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 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 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 Ch. Entman read a letter addressed to Brian Sheehan and Julie Kamka submitted by Mr. David Mangurten, KMA & Associates, 1161 Lake Cook Road, Deerfield, Illinois 60015, dated October 31, 2011 which states: "Please inform the ZBA that my client, Aetna Development Corporation has requested that our November 15, 2011 appearance be tabled until their request for a special use associated with a drive through is heard at the December Plan Commission." ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 15, 2011 PAGE 2 of 12 There were no questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Corn. Shapiro made a motion to Table the request made by Aetna Development Corporation, for variation of Sign Code, Sections 14.20.030 and 14.20.070, for the purpose of allowing two (2) 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 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. Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Cesario, Windecker, Shapiro, Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 4 to 0. Item Tabled to the December 20, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals agenda. NEW BUSINESS 604 CAREN DRIVE, JOSH PACKER — FENCE CODE, SECTION 15.20.040, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING THE EXISTING SIX (6) FOOT SOLID WOOD FENCE TO REMAIN AS CONSTRUCTED ALONG THE SIDE PROPERTY LINES. ONE BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE HOUSE AND EXTENDING EAST TO THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE, THEN TURNING NORTH TO THE REAR PROPERTY LINE, THEN TURNING WEST ALONG THE REAR PROPERTY LINE A DISTANCE OF APPROXIMATELY EIGHT (8) FEET; AND ONE BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE HOUSE AND EXTENDING WEST TO THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE, THEN TURNING NORTH A DISTANCE OF APPROXIMATELY THIRTY TWO (32) FEET Mr. Josh Packer, 604 Caren Drive, was present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on October 31, 2011 was read. Mr. Packer explained that he recently purchased this home that is along a bike path. He owns another home in Buffalo Grove on Lyon Court. He has lived in Buffalo Grove his entire life. There was an existing chain link fence and there was no privacy. They would be in the backyard and people would just walk by and look into the yard. At one point, he had timed how long people would look into the yard. Sometimes it would be four (4) to five (5) minutes that people could view into the yard. He has two (2) small children and his family likes to spend time outside in the yard. The reason he constructed the fence and did not get the permit is because he was under the impression that since ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 15, 2011 PAGE 3 of 12 nothing was changing structurally about the fence he did not need a permit. He used the `./ existing metal posts from the chain link fence and put a wood facade on the posts. Therefore, he did not understand that he needed a permit. The fence was installed. It is not completed as he is doing the work himself and he is not an expert. While in the process he was in touch with the Building Department who informed him that he was in violation of the Ordinance. He stopped doing any work and began the variation process. Ch. Entman read the Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Brian Sheehan dated November 1, 2011 which states: "I have no comments on the proposal." Ch. Entman asked if Mr. Packer purchased the home recently. Mr. Packer stated that he purchased the home in May of this year but did not move in until July 1, 2011. Ch. Entman confirmed that there was an existing chain link fence and asked how tall the chain link fence was. Mr. Packer stated that the chain link fence was between four (4)to five (5) feet tall. Ch. Entman confirmed that Mr. Packer attempted to construct a six (6) foot wood privacy fence. He stated that the fence, as installed, is not installed properly. Mr. Packer agrees that the fence is not installed properly and all of the work that would have been done cosmetically and structurally was stopped. The fence is not something that he is proud of at this point. He would just like to get the matter resolved so he can finish what needs to be finished on the fence. Com. Windecker stated that the fence that is up now is totally unacceptable. The posts are not forty two (42) inches in the ground and it does not appear that there are posts between the wooden panels. On three (3) panels there appears to be metal piping holding the panels up and the fence is tilted which is a safety hazard to the neighbor. He also stated that the Petitioner has applied for the variance for the safety of the children, but along rear next to the bike path the fence is still chain link. The fence needs to be made safe, which means that posts will need to be put in correctly. He would not approve a variance until a plan has been submitted to the Village detailing how the fence will be corrected. Currently the fence is a safety hazard not only to the Petitioner and his children but to the neighbor next door. Mr. Packer stated that he agrees with Corn. Windecker. The fence was not final. Several things became clear as the process was going on. The metal posts are not holding the wooden fence panels. As winter is approaching he can see that the rear will not be covered in foliage as in the spring or summer. He will need to address that as well. He agrees that the fence looks awful and is unacceptable. He understands now that he needed to get the variance to allow him the height of the fence then apply for the permit to ensure that the fence is constructed correctly. His intention is to get the variance for the height and then he will address the structural aspect of the fence. Com. Windecker stated that the Petitioner needs to show the Building Department a plan of what will be done to correct the structural soundness of the fence. Mr. Packer stated that he believes a permit would still be required if the variance is granted. Corn. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 15, 2011 PAGE 4 of 12 Windecker stated that a permit would still be required since a permit was not secured prior to installing the fence. He would like a plan submitted to the Building Department as to how the fence will be corrected structurally. He would recommend that the fence be removed immediately because it is a safety hazard which creates a health hazard. Variances are granted based upon the health, safety and welfare of the residents. Corn. Shapiro stated that the variance request is to allow the existing six (6) foot fence to remain as constructed. The problem is that the fence cannot remain as constructed. Mr. Packer agrees and stated that he did not put that on his application. Corn. Shapiro suggested taking down the panels, lay them flat and in the spring start anew. He does not believe that the existing posts would hold the fence up in any kind of wind. Mr. Packer stated that the fence, as it is now, is not sustainable. Corn. Shapiro confirmed with Mr. Sheehan that the Ordinance does allow certain types of six (6) foot fences. Mr. Sheehan stated that a six (6) foot fence has to be semi- transparent. The variance request is for a solid six (6) foot wood fence. He added that within the permit process there would be a requirement that the posts go down forty two (42) inches deep. That plan would be submitted and satisfied during the permit and inspection process. Corn. Cesario stated that is appears that the Commissioners are in agreement that the fence would need to be taken down and constructed in a manner that complies with the Code requirements. Mr. Packer asked about the next steps. Mr. Sheehan stated that if there is an affirmative vote then the Building Department would work with the Petitioner on the permit to be sure that the necessary information is obtained, such as the post holes and what the metal posts would be replaced with. Mr. Packer stated that since the weather is about to change dramatically, he would like to get the process going before the ground is frozen and be able to get the fence done before the winter. Ch. Entman stated that the issue is that the Petitioner cannot get the matter resolved at this meeting. The Petitioner will need to come back. Also, he would not approve a six (6) foot solid wood fence. The Petitioner has the right to have a six (6) foot fence under the Ordinance depending on the type of fence. If the Petitioner is going to put up a fence that the Ordinance allows then he cannot object to that, but if the fence is going to be anything other than that, he would not approve a six (6) foot fence. The Petitioner will need to follow up with the Village to revise what is being proposed and get everything in order, continue the permit process and see where it leads. He advised the Petitioner that based on the comments of the other Commissioners it appears that the Petitioner should Table the request to the next meeting. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 15, 2011 PAGE 5of12 Mr. Sheehan stated that if the style of fence is changed the Petitioner would not need to reappear before the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA). Mr. Packer asked about cutting the fence down to five (5) feet in height. Ch. Entman stated that if the fence is cut down to five (5) feet then a variance would not be required. At six (6) feet, a variance is not required for certain style fencing. The Petitioner will have to determine what style of fence would be put up to determine if a variance would still be required, and if so, the Petitioner could return at the next meeting. Mr. Packer stated that his purpose of pursuing the variance was much more general in nature than specifically to the fence constructed. He asked the ZBA to imagine that there is no fence currently and he is coming to the ZBA requesting a variance for a six (6) foot fence. This is really what he is asking. Ch. Entman stated that the determination is done at the Building Department level. When a Petitioner appears before the ZBA they are typically requesting something that the Ordinance does not allow. Then during the public hearing, the ZBA will advise the Petitioner of their feelings regarding the request. The ZBA cannot give advisory opinions and cannot say what they may do in the future. But the Petitioner can determine based on the comments what the ZBA may or may not be thinking. As requested, it does not appear that the Commissioners will approve the request as presented. Mr. Packer asked if it is because the fence is six (6) feet or because the ZBA does not like the fence. Ch. Entman stated that he does not like it because it is six (6) feet and because it is not proper. Other Commissioners have stated that they do not like it because it is just not constructed properly. Mr. Packer asked the ZBA to use their imagination and image that there is nothing there and then use judgment. Ch. Entman stated that if there were nothing there then the Petitioner would not be before the ZBA. Mr. Packer stated that he has his answer, the ZBA does not like the way the fence looks. Ch. Entman reiterated that the Petitioner would not be before the ZBA because the fence would not be up already. The Petitioner would be at the Village level. Someone does not appear before the ZBA unless they have a request that they want, then they seek a variance. Mr. Packer stated that he has applied for a variance on a theoretical fence and the ZBA is telling their opinion and not taking it to a vote. Ch. Entman asked the Petitioner if he would like to Table the matter or have the ZBA vote on the request. Mr. Packer stated that he would like the ZBA to vote. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Com. Shapiro made the following motion: I move we grant the request made by Josh Packer, 604 Caren Drive, for variance of Fence Code, Section 15.20.040, pertaining to Residential Districts, for the purpose of allowing the existing six (6) foot solid wood fence to remain as constructed along the side property lines. One beginning at the southeast corner of the house and extending ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 15, 2011 PAGE 6 of 12 east to the side property line, then turning north to the rear property line, then turning Li west along the rear property line a distance of approximately eight (8) feet; and one beginning at a point on the west side of the house and extending west to the side property line,then turning north a distance of approximately thirty two (32)feet. Subject to the Village Engineer's memorandum dated November 1, 2011. The Petitioner has demonstrated hardship and unique circumstances. The fence will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare and will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Corn. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—None NAY—Cesario, Windecker, Shapiro, Entman ABSTAIN —None Motion Denied 4 to 0. Findings of Fact attached.The Petitioner was advised of their right to appeal this decision to the Village Board within fifteen (15) days. 1691-1697 & 1701 WEILAND ROAD, BG CAR WASH MANAGEMENT - SIGN CODE, SECTIONS 14.20.030; 14.20.070 AND 14.40.145, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING AN OFF-PREMISES GROUND SIGN LOCATED AT 1691-1697 WEILAND ROAD AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING AN OFF-PREMISES GROUND SIGN LOCATED AT 1701 WEILAND ROAD; AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING THE TENANT PANEL SIGN FACE TO BE REPLACED WITHOUT A VARIANCE Mr. John Imreibe, BG Car Wash Management, 1701 Weiland Road, was present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald October 31, 2011 was read. Mr. Imreibe explained that he is trying to take steps to correct some of the variance requests of the past. The existing ground signs were granted variances for certain aspects in the past. The Exhibit previously presented showed the existing signs with the existing graphics. It was brought to his attention that his tenant, Dunkin Donuts, has a new tenant panel that they would like to change on the ground signs. When they applied for the permits, they were advised that a new variance was required. Instead of letting Dunkin Donuts go through the process, he thought the most effective way was to change the variance by mitigating further variances should that tenant change or should they have a logo change in the future. He is just trying to streamline that aspect of the permit process by not having to apply for a variance every time they want to change their tenant panel. He does not believe that they will be looking to change it again any time soon after this, except based on changes to the corporate image. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 15, 2011 PAGE 7 of 12 Ch. Entman read the Appearance Review Team (ART) minutes dated November 4, 2011 `✓' into the record. He also noted the revised November 4, 2011 minutes sent under separate cover with the memorandum dated November 8, 2011. Corn. Windecker asked which ground sign Mr. Imreibe wants to change the Dunkin Donuts tenant panel on. Mr. Imreibe stated that Dunkin Donuts wants to change just their tenant panel on both ground signs. Com. Windecker stated that there are two (2) separate properties and two (2) separate signs. Mr. lmreibe stated that they have always been the two (2) separate lots. It was brought to his attention during this process that previous variations granted were only applied to one (1) address. When he purchased the properties back in 2006, he bought them as two (2) separate properties. Originally it was one (1) property when the buildings were originally constructed in the late 1990's. Com. Windecker confirmed with Mr. lmreibe that these are two (2) separate lots with two (2) separate signs. Corn. Windecker stated that now the Petitioner wants to change both tenant panels for Dunkin Donuts, even though Dunkin Donuts only occupies space on one (1) lot. Mr. Imreibe stated that he believes that the property was subdivided prior to him purchasing the property back in 2006. He believes that back then there was some talk that the Dunkin Donuts franchisee might purchase the property that they occupied. He bought the property as two (2) separate lots. There are two (2) separate deeds. Corn. Windecker advised that the Petitioner appeared before the ZBA for a tenant panel for the car wash in 2007. In 2009 the Petitioner was back before the ZBA because he wanted to change the price of the wash as shown on the signs. The ZBA granted approval to allow only the car wash price to be changeable copy. At that time, the ZBA stated that the Dunkin Donuts panels would stay as they existed on the ground signs. Then a couple months ago, the Petitioner requested multiple signs for the 1691-1697 Weiland Road property. At some point during that request, the ZBA recommended utilizing one (1) of the ground signs for the tenants in that building for which Mr. Imreibe chose not to do so. Now, the Petitioner is requesting to change the Dunkin Donuts panels with a different image. He does not have an issue with that. He does have an issue with allowing a generic panel because then anything can be put in those signs. The ZBA does not want to lose control over what is put up on those ground signs. He may entertain a request if it is Dunkin Donuts and they are the same size in the same location and they follow the same color scheme. As long as it is for Dunkin Donuts, then the Petitioner may not have to come back for another variance. But if the tenant panels would be for another tenant, the ZBA would want to review it. Mr. Imreibe stated that initially when he was told that he needed a variance he said that, if it were necessary, he would come in and do this as a property owner on behalf of Dunkin Donuts. It was staff's recommendation to approach it this way so that he does not need to keep coming back before the ZBA and spend the fees each time this happens. He hopes that this will not happen very frequently. Dunkin Donuts just signed a ten (10) year lease. Corn. Windecker stated that he would take that into consideration. However, anything ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 15, 2011 PAGE 8 of 12 can happen. If there is a new tenant and the new tenant does not want that size panel LI and wants the car wash panel, then what? No one knows what could happen in the future. Corn. Cesario stated that no one appreciates the value of efficiency more than he does. But there is sufficient complexity in this case. The Petitioner has been before the ZBA several times over the years. There is a lot of stuff going on with this property. He would not feel comfortable with a carte blanch approval for any future changes within the tenant panel box parameters. He would agree with Corn. Windecker and it would be a concern for him to grant a permanent future exemption for anything that falls within the tenant panel box. He is supportive of granting Dunkin Donuts approval to change the panels. Mr. Imreibe stated that he is not asking for a tenant panel that will change frequently. Whomever the tenant may be that wants to occupy that panel space on the signs would have to apply for permits. He is not trying to ask for a tenant panel that will be changed on a regular basis. Ch. Entman stated that this property has been before the ZBA a lot. The Petitioner is putting a lot of work into the property. Having the Village in charge at the permit level is very comforting. They know what they are doing. The ZBA likes to have the ability to review things as needed at this level in case there is an issue that the ZBA wants to -/` address. The ZBA does not want to make more work for themselves and would like to streamline the process not only for the Village but for the Petitioners as well. He believes under these circumstances the ZBA would like to be able to have the ability to review things as they come up. Dunkin Donuts will be around for a while. But if the tenant did change the ZBA would like the ability to provide their input. Hopefully it will not be a burden on the tenant or the Petitioner as the property owner. The ZBA would like to keep control for now. Ch. Entman asked the Commissioners if there were any issues with the request for the off-premises signs.There were no comments. Corn. Windecker stated that there are four (4) offices of approximately the same size rented. Dunkin Donuts used to occupy the entire building. Any of the four (4) tenants may turnover rapidly. He believes that it might be better to utilize the ground sign on the property at 1691-1697 Weiland Road, as previously recommended, for the tenants in the commercial building. In the meantime, he would like to control the signage. It appears that with Dunkin Donuts having a ten (10) year lease, the Petitioner will not need to return to the ZBA for a while. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 15, 2011 PAGE 9 of 12 Ch. Entman stated that nothing is forever. The ZBA has changed over the years. For now the ZBA will keep the approval process the way it is. The ZBA can proceed with the request for the off-premises signs. Mr. Imreibe withdrew the part of his request pertaining to changing the tenant panels without a variance and amended his request to allow Dunkin Donuts to change the existing tenant panels on both ground signs pursuant to Exhibit "F" submitted with the application.The remainder of the request stays as presented. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Corn. Shapiro made the following motion: I move we recommend to the Village Board to grant the amended request made by BG Car Wash Management, LLC, 2711 Mannheim Road, Des Plaines, Illinois 60018, for variance of Sign Code, Section 14.20.030, pertaining to Business Districts; Section 14.20.070, pertaining to Ground Signs; and Section 14.40.145, pertaining to Off- Premises Signs, for the purpose of allowing an off-premises ground sign located at 1691- 1697 Weiland Road; for the purpose of allowing an off-premises ground sign located at 1701 Weiland Road; and the for the purpose of allowing the tenant panel face to be replaced on both ground signs pursuant to Exhibit "F". Subject to the ART minutes dated November 4, 2011. Pursuant to Sign Code,Section 14.44.010,Subsection A. Corn. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Cesario, Windecker, Shapiro, Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN —None Motion Passed 4 to 0. Findings of Fact attached. Item to appear on the December 5, 2011 Village Board agenda. 500 HALF DAY ROAD, BMO HARRIS BANK - SIGN CODE, SECTIONS 14.20.030 AND 14.20.080, FOR THE PURPOSE OF REPLACING THE EXISTING EAST ELEVATION WALL SIGN THAT DOES NOT FACE THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY WITH A NEW WALL SIGN Ms. Diana Roberts, Icon Identity Solutions, 1418 Elmhurst Road, Elk Grove Village, Illinois 60007, was present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on October 31, 2011 was read. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 15, 2011 PAGE 10 of 12 L/ Ms. Roberts explained that Harris Bank is going through a name change. They would like to replace the existing wall sign on the east elevation of the building with a new wall sign which reads the new name, BMO Harris Bank. Ch. Entman read the ART minutes dated November 4, 2011 into the record. Ch. Entman also noted the Letter of Authorization dated September 23, 2011. There were no questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Corn. Windecker made the following motion: I move we recommend to the Village Board to grant the request made by Icon Identity Solutions, 1418 Elmhurst Road, Elk Grove Village, Illinois 60007 on behalf of BMO Harris Bank, 500 Half Day Road, for variance of Sign Code, Section 14.20.030, pertaining to Business Districts; and Section 14.20.080, pertaining to Wall Signs, for the purpose of replacing the existing east elevation wall sign that does not face the public right-of-way with a new wall sign. Subject to the ART minutes dated November 4, 2011. L' Pursuant to Sign Code, Section 14.44.010,Subsection A. Corn. Shapiro seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Cesario, Windecker, Shapiro, Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN —None Motion Passed 4 to 0. Findings of Fact attached. Item to appear on the December 5, 2011 Village Board agenda. ANNOUCEMENTS Mr. Sheehan advised that the Sign Code revisions will be on the December 20, 2011 agenda. There are several other items on the agenda for December. Members from the Plan Commission will be invited to attend as well. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Corn. Windecker and seconded by Corn. Shapiro. Voice Vote—AYE was unanimous. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 15, 2011 PAGE 11 of 12 .J Ch. Entman adjourned the meeting at 8:25 P.M. Submitted by, th (,)110Mti-e _ IR 1 ie Kamka cording Secretary L ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 15, 2011 PAGE 12 of 12