Loading...
2009-05-19 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes A DOD owEB REGULAR MEETING A5 S'' 'W (9I gokfi BUFFALO GROVE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 19, 2009 Chairman Entman called the Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting to order at 7:34 P.M. on Tuesday, May 19, 2009 in the Council Chambers of the Village Hall, 50 Raupp Boulevard. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Commissioner Stein Commissioner Dunn Commissioner Windecker Commissioner Lesser Commissioner Shapiro Commissioner Au Chairman Entman Commissioners Absent: None Also Present: Brian Sheehan, Deputy Building Commissioner William Raysa, Village Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES April 21, 2009 minutes: Corn. Lesser made a motion to approve the minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting held on Tuesday, April 21, 2009. Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE — Stein, Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro, Au, Entman NAY — None ABSTAIN — Dunn Motion Passed 6 to 0, 1 Abstention. Minutes approved as submitted. BUSINESS 331 LINCOLN TERRACE, LARRY AND DENISE WEIDNER — ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 17.40.020, FOR THE PURPOSE OF BRINGING THE EXISTING HOUSE INTO CONFORMANCE CONCERNING A DEFICIENCY IN THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACKS EQUAL TO THE PROPOSED ADDITION; AND TO CONSTRUCT A SECOND STORY ADDITION AND A FIRST STORY FRONT PORCH BOTH OF WHICH WOULD ENCROACH A DISTANCE ON FOUR (4) FEET INTO THE REQUIRED TWENTY-FIVE (25) FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK BACK; AND WOULD ENCROACH A DISTANCE OF SIX (6) INCHES INTO THE REQUIRED SIX (6) FOOT NORTH SIDE YARD SETBACK; AND WOULD ENCROACH A DISTANCE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 1 of 11 — May 19, 2009 OF EIGHT (8) INCHES INTO THE REQUIRED SIX (6) FOOT SOUTH SIDE YARD SETBACK; AND WOULD REDUCE THE REQUIRED TWELVE (12) FOOT COMBINED SIDE YARD SETBACKS BY ONE (1) FOOT TWO (2) INCHES Mr. Larry Weidner, 331 Lincoln Terrace, was present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on April 29, 2009 was read. Mr. Weidner explained that his mother-in-law will be moving in with them and they need the second story for his mother-in-law. They would also like to add a front porch since his mother- in-law likes to sit out on a porch. The house as it exists is already encroaching into the side yard setbacks. They are not adding onto the side. Ch. Entman read the Village Engineering memorandum addressed to Brian Sheehan dated May 4, 2009 which states: "I have no comments on the proposal." Ch. Entman stated that the existing house appears not to be in conformance because of a deficiency in the required side yard setbacks. He asked Mr. Sheehan about it. Mr. Sheehan stated that when the zoning was overlaid on the existing properties, there are a number of homes in that area that have deficiencies in the side yard setbacks. Ch. Entman reviewed the requested variations. Comm. Dunn stated that in the letter dated April 14, 2009 submitted with the application there appears to be a word missing in the second sentence. She asked what that word is. Mr. Weidner reviewed the letter and advised that the missing word is "death". His brother-in-law was living with his mother-in-law and his brother-in-law died. Com. Dunn asked about the materials that the addition would be constructed of. Mr. Weidner stated that the addition would be sided. The house has a brick front, but the rest would be siding. Ch. Entman asked if the Petitioner has spoken with any neighbors. Mr. Weidner stated that he has spoken with a few neighbors and there were no objections. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Corn. Windecker made the following motion: I move we grant the request made by Larry and Denise Weidner, 331 Lincoln Terrace, for variance of Zoning Ordinance, Section 17.40.020, pertaining to Area, Height, Bulk and Placement Regulations, for the purpose of bringing the existing house into conformance concerning a deficiency in the required side yard setbacks equal to the proposed addition; and to construct a second story addition and a first story front porch both of which would encroach a distance on four (4) feet into the required twenty-five (25) foot front yard setback back; and would encroach a distance of six (6) inches into the required six (6) foot north side yard setback; and would encroach a distance of eight (8) inches into the required six (6) foot south side yard ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 2 of 11 — May 19, 2009 setback; and would reduce the required twelve (12) foot combined side yard setbacks by one (1) foot two (2) inches. Subject to the Village Engineer's memorandum dated May 4, 2009. Materials to match the existing construction in like kind and quality. Pursuant to plans and specifications submitted to and approved by the Village. The Petitioner has demonstrated hardship and unique circumstances. The proposed addition will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare and will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Corn. Dunn seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Stein, Dunn,Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro, Au, Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 7 to 0. Findings of Fact attached. Permit may be issued in fifteen(15) days—June 4, 2009. 882 COUNTRY LANE, DAVID AND PATTI KRIVO — ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 17.40.020, TO CONSTRUCT A SUNROOM THAT WOULD ENCROACH A DISTANCE OF ONE (1) FOOT INTO THE REQUIRED THIRTY (30) FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK Mrs. Patti Krivo, 882 Country Lane, and Mr. Scott Rissky, Champion Windows, 549 W. Lake Street, Elmhurst, Illinois 60126, were present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on April 29, 2009 was read. Mrs. Krivo explained that they would like to add a sunroom with a spa pool to be used as she has rheumatoid arthritis. The spa pool was recommended. Ch. Entman read the Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Brian Sheehan dated May 5, 2009 which states: "I have no comments on the proposal." Ch. Entman confirmed that the Petitioner is requesting an all season sunroom with an exercise spa for medical reasons. Corn. Windecker asked if the sunroom would contain heat, electric and lighting. Mr. Rissky advised that the room would contain all of those. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Corn. Stein made the following motion: I move we grant the request made by David and Patti Krivo, 882 Country Lane, for variance of Zoning Ordinance, Section 17.40.020, pertaining to Area, Height, Bulk and Placement ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 3 of 11 —May 19, 2009 Regulations, for the purpose of constructing a sunroom that would encroach a distance of one (1) foot into the required thirty(30) foot rear yard setback. Subject to the Village Engineer's memorandum dated May 5, 2009. Materials to match the existing construction in like kind and quality. Pursuant to plans and specifications submitted to and approved by the Village. The proposed sunroom would not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare and will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Com. Lesser seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Stein, Dunn, Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro, Au, Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 7 to 0. Findings of Fact attached. Permit may be issued in fifteen(15) days—June 4, 2009. 1312 CROSSFIELD COURT, SCOTT AND CORTNEY DELEVITT — FENCE CODE, SECTION 15.20.040, TO CONSTRUCT A FOUR (4) FOOT PICKET FENCE BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE HOUSE AND EXTENDING SOUTHWEST A DISTANCE OF FIFTEEN (15) FEET, THEN TURNING SOUTHEAST TOWARDS THE REAR PROPERTY LINE, RUNNING PARALLEL WITH THE HOUSE, A DISTANCE OF SEVENTY-TWO (72) FEET; SAID FENCE WOULD BE LOCATED TWENTY-TWO (22) FEET PAST THE BUILDING SETBACK LINE AND EIGHT (8) FEET FROM THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE, THEN TURNING NORTHEAST AND RETURNING TO THE BUILDING SETBACK LINE Mr. Scott Delevitt and Mrs. Cortney Delevitt, 1312 Crossfield Court, were present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on April 29, 2009 was read. Mr. Delevitt explained that they have a creek to the east and Thompson Boulevard to the south. They have two small children, a four(4) year old and a six (6)month old. They would like to feel safe about letting them play in the back yard. Ch. Entman read the Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Brian Sheehan dated May 6, 2009 which states: "I have no comments on the proposal." Corn. Windecker stated that the Petitioner is looking for safety for the children but the north side of the property will not be fenced. What will prevent the children from going around the fourteen (14) foot length of fence to the creek or behind that fence to the street. Mr. Delevitt replied that they are planning on bringing the fence further to the west on the north side to prevent that from happening. Corn. Windecker advised that the Plat submitted with the application is not a complete drawing. Mr. Delevitt stated that the drawing is complete except for on the north side where the fence stops. They initially planned on bringing the fence further west to prevent what was stated. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 4 of 11 —May 19, 2009 Ch. Entman stated that whatever is not beyond the building line does not need a variance. He had \.J the same question about why the fence did not connect. Corn. Windecker confirmed with the Petitioner that the fence would be for safety. Com. Au asked about why the fence needs to be beyond the building line as opposed to on the building line. Mr. Delevitt stated that they would severely cut off their property if they built the fence on the building line. They have landscaping that goes all the way back almost to the easement. Corn. Stein stated that on the Plat it appears to be a large amount of land and he was curious as to why it was needed to enclose so much. He visited the property and saw the trees and the landscaping that really cut off the use of the land. He understood the proposed placement of the fence. Normally, in these types of situations on a corner, the Board would not approve enclosing as much that is being requested. In this case,he supports the request. Ch. Entman stated that typically with a corner lot people want to maximize the use of their land. The Board has to balance that with where they would like the fence to be. The property has a nice lot size. The backyard is not deficient. He has a hard time going beyond the building line with the size of the lot. The fence could be placed on the building line and satisfy the safety issue. He cannot support the request beyond the building line. Mr. Delevitt responded that he has landscaping and trees. He would be cutting his back yard in half if he built the fence on the building line. Ch. Entman stated that the choice of whether the Petitioner wants a fence and where to put it for the safety of the children is one issue. If the Petitioner has other issues such as the landscaping, that is not an issue the Village created. The Board would like to give the Petitioner as much opportunity to use as much of the back yard as possible. For the purposes of safety and the nature of the size of the back yard, he does not see the need to go as far as what is being requested. Mr. Delevitt stated that it really wouldn't be that far. Then what is the point of putting up a fence. He has a creek in his back yard. Com. Shapiro agrees with Corn. Stein. He visited the property and saw the configuration of the yard. The fence would be a low picket fence, not a high privacy fence. He feels it will allow the yard to be open and not close in the yard from the sidewalk. The design of the fence also helps make him more amenable to the variance. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Corn. Dunn made the following motion: I move we grant the request made by Scott and Cortney Delevitt, 1312 Crossfield Court, for variance of Fence Code, Section 15.20.040, pertaining to Residential Districts, for the purpose of constructing a four (4) foot picket fence beginning at the southeast corner of the house and extending southwest a distance of fifteen (15) feet, then turning southeast towards the rear property line, running parallel with the house, a distance of seventy-two (72) feet; said fence ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 5 of 11 —May 19, 2009 would be located twenty-two (22) feet past the building setback line and eight (8) feet from the south property line, then turning northeast and returning to the building setback line. Subject to the Village Engineer's memorandum dated May 6, 2009. The Petitioner has demonstrated hardship and unique circumstances. The proposed fence will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare and will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Corn. Stein seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Stein, Dunn, Windecker, Shapiro,Au NAY—Lesser, Entman ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 5 to 2. Findings of Fact attached. Permit may be issued in fifteen(15) days—June 4, 2009. 629 SYCAMORE ROAD, LISA OUZOUNIAN-KASPARIAN — ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 17.40.020, TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION THAT WOULD EXCEED THE TWO AND ONE HALF(2-1/2) STORY HEIGHT LIMITATION Ch. Entman read the written request made by Lisa Ouzounian-Kasparian dated May 1, 2009 to postpone the hearing until the July 21, 2009 meeting. Corn. Au made a motion to Table the request made by Lisa Ouzounian-Kasparian, 629 Sycamore `./ Road, to the July 21, 2009 meeting. Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Voice Vote — AYE was unanimous. 186 RAUPP BOULEVARD, ARLENE POCZATEK — FENCE CODE, SECTION 15.20.040, TO ALLOW THE EXISTING SIX (6) FOOT WROUGHT IRON FENCE TO REMAIN AS INSTALLED THAT REPLACED THE PREVIOUSLY GRANTED SIX (6) FOOT WOOD SHADOW BOX FENCE AT THE FRONT LINE OF THE BUILDING EXTENDING TO THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE Ms. Arlene Poczatek, 186 Raupp Boulevard, and Mrs. Donna Flanagan, 179 Raupp Boulevard, Buffalo Grove, Illinois, were present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on May 2, 2009 was read. Mrs. Flanagan explained that her mother, Ms. Poczatek, was having trouble with the existing wood gate. The gate was over ten (10) years old and was made of solid wood. It was very heavy and would freeze in the winter. She wanted to replace the existing gate so it would be lighter and easier for her to maneuver. The fence company said that they would not replace the fence with anything higher. They had given her a sketch that did not have any dimensions on it. When she went to get the permit she mistakenly said that the fence was five (5) feet in height. The permit was issued for a five (5) foot fence. The fence company installed the new fence and the fence failed the inspection. They were confused because it was not any higher than what was there. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 6 of 11 —May 19, 2009 They found out from the previous owners that a variance was granted in 1996 for the wood shadow box fence. Ch. Entman read the Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Brian Sheehan dated May 5, 2009 which states: "I have no comments on the proposal." Ch. Entman confirmed that the request is only to allow the wrought iron gate that was installed to remain. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Com. Lesser made the following motion: I move we grant the request made by Arlene Poczatek, 186 Raupp Boulevard, for variance of Fence Code, Section 15.20.040, pertaining to Residential Districts, for the purpose of allowing the existing six (6) foot wrought iron fence to remain as installed that replaced the previously granted six (6) foot wood shadow box fence at the front line of the building extending to the north property line. Subject to the Village Engineer's memorandum dated May 5, 2009. The Petitioner has demonstrated hardship and unique circumstances. The proposed fence will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare and will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Stein, Dunn, Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro, Au, Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 7 to 0. Findings of Fact attached. Permit may be issued in fifteen(15) days—June 4, 2009. 1325 W. DUNDEE ROAD, O'REILLY AUTO PARTS — DEVIATION TO THE PLAZA VERDE SHOPPING CENTER SIGN CRITERIA TO ALLOW MORE THAN ONE (1) COLOR; TO ALLOW THE COLORS WHITE, BLACK AND GREEN; TO ALLOW THE HEIGHT OF THE SIGN TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT OF FIVE (5) FEET; TO ALLOW THE "O'REILLY" PORTION OF SIGN TO BE CONSTRUCTED AS ONE (1) PIECE RATHER THAN INDIVIDUAL CHANNEL LETTERS; AND TO ALLOW THE NATIONAL LOGO Mr. Chuck Zenn, Olympic Signs, 1130 North Garfield, Lombard, Illinois 60148 and Mr. Eric Stridde, O'Reilly Auto Parts, 1325 W. Dundee Road, were present and sworn in. Ch. Entman reviewed the proposed wall sign. The wall sign will be twenty-six (26) feet in length. The materials were originally showing the height at six (6) feet three (3) inches. It appears that ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 7 of 11 —May 19, 2009 the height of the wall sign will be five (5) feet three (3) inches. Mr. Zenn stated that is correct. Ch. Entman also stated that the colors of the sign will be green,black and white. Ch. Entman reviewed the proposed tenant panel on the ground sign. The proposed tenant panel will be two and one-quarter (2-1/4) inches in height and sixteen (16) feet ten (10) inches in length. Ch. Entman asked if the Sign Criteria dictates which tenants can have panels on the ground sign. What would give them the right to have a wall sign and a tenant panel on the ground sign. Mr. Sheehan stated that based on the Shopping Center Sign Criteria, they would be considered one of the major tenants of the Center. The rest of the tenants on the ground sign are all other major tenants. Ch. Entman asked about the authority that allows the monument sign to exist. It is an old, large sign. Mr. Sheehan stated that he would have to look at the history. That sign has been there quite a while. Com. Dunn asked why the Board should allow them to change the colors. The letter submitted with the application states that there are numerous packages of signs that could be used or they could create new ones. Mr. Zenn replied that the only color being used on the wall is green. They feel that white is a fairly standard color. Green is O'Reilly's national color. Every one of their several thousand stores throughout the country is green. It is a standard green. When you compare the green in O'Reilly's to the red, yellow and black and white checkers that Murray's had, it is subtle improvement. That would be like asking McDonald's to put up a blue arch instead of a golden arch. `./ Com. Windecker asked what tenant panel was on the sign before. Mr. Sheehan stated that the previous sign was a sign for Murray's. Corn. Dunn and Corn. Windecker had incorrect renderings in their packets. Their packets showed the tenant panel as Murray's Auto Parts. Corrected renderings were distributed to the two (2) Commissioners. Corn. Windecker asked if O'Reilly Auto Parts is associated with Murray's. Mr. Stridde advised that Murray's Auto merged with O'Reilly Auto Parts last year. They are only changing the name. Com. Shapiro asked why the tenant panel on the ground sign is red instead of white with green letters to match the wall sign. Mr. Zenn stated that was the instructions he was given for all sixty (60) locations. He is not saying that he will be able to do all sixty (60) locations in red. That is what corporate is asking for. Corn. Shapiro stated that there is not any red anywhere else in the signs except in the tenant panel. Mr. Zenn stated that they have red on a lot of the store fronts. Com. Lesser confirmed with Mr. Zenn that all of the signs for O'Reilly's are green lettering. Corn. Lesser questioned that all the signs, everywhere, in every single store, in every community, are green signs. There is not one (1) exception. Mr. Zenn stated that from his experience, yes. But there are some communities that make you change the color. They hope that is not the case here. He is handling sixty(60) locations. He has not had any issues with the green. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 8 of 11 —May 19, 2009 Ch. Entman asked about the dimensions of the proposed tenant panel on the ground sign. Mr. Zenn stated that the V.O. stands for visible opening, the area of plastic not covered by the clips. So when the sign is illuminated, you are actually seeing two (2) feet nine(9) inches of red. Com. Stein confirmed with Mr. Zenn that the proposed tenant panel on the ground sign is the same size as the current Murray's tenant panel. Ch. Entman would like to know the origin of the ground sign and what allows some tenants of the Center to have their names on that in addition to whatever else is allowed for wall signs. Mr. Sheehan stated that the Village is looking at possibly revising the Sign Code and that one thing to look at is the ground signs for placement and numbers. Ch. Entman is curious because it is such a large sign. This sign and the ground sign located across the street are two (2) of the largest and oldest ground signs in the Village. He would also like to know who has the right to be on that sign. 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 that we grant the request made by O'Reilly Auto Parts, 1325 W. Dundee Road, to allow a Deviation to the Plaza Verde Shopping Center Sign Criteria, to allow more than one (1) color; to allow the colors white, black and green; to allow the height of the sign to exceed the maximum permitted height of five (5) feet; to allow the "O'Reilly"portion of sign to be constructed as one (1) piece rather than individual channel letters; and to allow the national logo. The maximum sign height shall be five (5) foot three (3) inches tall as depicted in the color rendering dated May 1, 2009. Corn. Stein seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Stein, Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro,Au, Entman NAY—Dunn ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 6 to 1. Ch. Entman added that he believes that the background on the proposed tenant panel would look better in white. Corn. Lesser disagrees with Ch. Entman in that there is a lot of red already in that sign. He would suggest a red closer to the existing red in the sign. Red overall seems to populate that sign. He does not have any objections to the red background. Corn. Stein agrees with Com. Lesser concerning the background color of the tenant panel. Com. Shapiro made the following motion: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 9 of 11 —May 19, 2009 I move we grant the request made by O'Reilly Auto Parts, 1325 W. Dundee Road, to allow a Deviation to the Plaza Verde Shopping Center Sign Criteria concerning the ground sign to replace the existing Murray's Auto Parts tenant panel as depicted in the color rendering dated May 1, 2009. Corn. Stein seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Stein, Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro,Au NAY—Dunn, Entman ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 5 to 2. 1000 WEILAND ROAD, SUSHI THAI — DEVIATION TO THE HIGHLAND OAKS SHOPPING CENTER SIGN CRITERIA, TO ALLOW WHITE LETTERS WITH RED TRIM AROUND THE LETTERS AND THE RETURNS Mr. Sam Kang, Kang Architect, 38730 North Deep Lake Road, Lake Villa, Illinois 60046 and Mr. Sornarong Chanprung, Owner, Sushi Thai, 1000 Weiland Road,were present and sworn in. Ch. Entman reviewed the request for a Deviation to the color of the sign. The letters will be white with a red border outlining the letters. The red borders are one half(1/2) inch wide by one half (1/2) inch thick. Red and white are approved colors, but a combination of these colors requires a Deviation. There were two (2) Exhibits submitted with the request that show both the north and east elevations. Corn. Windecker stated that he was present at the ART meeting for the proposed restaurant. The original proposal would have contained red and green outlines and the corporate logo. The ART recommended that the corporate logo be eliminated and limit the outlines to one(1) color, red. Corn. Lesser asked if the landlord has approved these signs. Mr. Sheehan advised that the Village does have landlord approval. It was not included in the packet. Corn. Stein asked if Sushi Thai is a national chain or franchise. Mr. Kang replied that Sushi Thai is not a national chain. They are a new company. There is one (1) other location in Libertyville and they will be possibly opening a third location. This business started a few years ago. Corn. Stein stated that except for"Kalidescoops", which is a national chain, every other business in the Center has a sign that is a solid color. He would like to see the sign stay a solid color, preferably a solid red, to be consistent. The "Allstate" sign is white when their national color is blue but they chose to stay within the allowed colors for the Center. Corn. Au asked why they need two (2) colors. Mr. Kang replied that red and white are their business colors. They thought that the outline of the red would make the sign stand out. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 10 of 11 —May 19,2009 Corn. Shapiro asked if there are signs currently on both elevations. Mr. Sheehan stated no, but that the east elevation faces the public right-of-way so a variation is not required. As part of the ART review, they are proposing to add windows and a door on the east elevation and is looking to add outdoor seating on the east as well. Corn. Lesser asked about the hours of illumination of the signs. Mr. Kang stated that the hours of operation will be until 10:00 P.M. Corn. Lesser does not have any issues with that. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Corn. Windecker made the following motion: I move we grant the request made by Sushi Thai, 1000 Weiland Road, for Deviation to the Highland Oaks Shopping Center Sign Criteria to allow white letters with red %" trim around the letters and the returns. Com. Dunn seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Dunn, Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro, Au, Entman NAY—Stein ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 6 to 1. ANNOUNCEMENTS Ms. Kamka reminded the Commissioners to complete and submit their Disclosure Statements if they have not already done so. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Corn. Lesser and seconded by Com. Windecker. Voice Vote—AYE was unanimous. Ch. Entman adjourned the meeting at 8:37 P.M. Submitted by, J ie Kamka Recording Secretary ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 11 of 11 —May 19, 2009