Loading...
1982-06-08The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Wappinger was held on Tuesday, June 8th, 1982, beginning at 8:00 p.m., at the Town Hall, Mill Street, Wappingers Falls, New York. Members Present: Carol A. Waddle, Chairperson Angel Caballero Joseph E. Landolfi G. George Urciuoli Members Absent: Charles A. Cortellino Others Present: Hans R. Gunderud, Bldg. Inspector/Zoning Admin. Robert Peters, Deputy Bldg. Inspector/Zoning Admin. Betty -Ann Russ, Secretary Mrs. Waddle then called the meeting to order and asked the secretary if all the abutting property owners had been notified. The secretary replied that the abutting property owners and the appellants had been notified according to the records available in the Assessor's office. Mrs. Waddle then asked for the roll call. The roll call was taken with Mr. Cortellino and Mr. Urciuoli being absent. Mrs. Waddle then noted that she would like to explain the procedure of the Board for this evening's meeting, we will take each appeal in turn, you will have a chance to speak for or against the variance, after all the discussion is finished and the hearing is closed then the board will discuss the merits of the case, at that time would ask that you do not interupt the Board, the hearing will be held down here, the Board will make their decisions down here, everybody that is going to give testimony will be sworn in this evening. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Appeal ## 611, at the request of Gerard E. & Ann L. Bell, seeking a variance of Article IV, Section 421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, to allow for a second dwelling in a residence in a single-family district, on property located on 19 Boxwood Close, being parcel # 6356-01-066912, in the Town of Wappinger. Zoning Board of Appeals -2- June 8th, 1982 Mrs. Waddle read the legal notice. Mrs. Waddle then asked if there was anyone present to speak for this appeal. Mr. Wayne Martell then came forward and noted that he was the attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Bell. Mrs. Waddle then swore Mr. Martell in. Mr. Martell noted that he was appearing for Mr. and Mrs. Bell, this application seeks the Board's approval of having Mrs. Bell's mother, her husband and their two children residing at my clients' home, my clients live at 19 Boxwood Close, it is zoned one family and we are seeking the Board:'s approval to allow Mrs. Bell's mother to reside there, the reason for our request is a medical one, Mrs. Bell's mother suffers from a severe case of diabetes and her condition necessitates that she have constant medical supervision, my clients have obtained a work schedule at the time that Mrs. Bell is working, which she would be working during the day and Mr. Bell works during the evenings so someone would always be around in the event of an emergency, have a letter from Mrs. Derivan's doctor which I will submit to the Board indicating what her conditions is, in addition and probably more saddening is the fact that Mrs. Bell's brother suffers from Muscular dystrophy and as I am sure you are aware muscular dystrophy is an incurable disease characterized by progressive wasting of the muscles, the child will eventually require a wheelchair and that is an optimistic result, have obtained a letter from the child's doctor indicating what his condition is, incurable, in addition have obtained letters from eight of Mr. and Mrs. Bell's neighbors indicating that they have no objection to the second kitchen remaining allowing Mr. and Mrs. Derivan to remain on the premises and ask that also be considered (Mr. Martell supplied copies of the letters previously mentioned to the Board)., Mr. Martell then continued noting that in conclusion that based upon the medical needs and based upon the letters submitted we would request that the Board give consideration to our request to allow Mrs. Derivan, her husband and two children to remain on the premises, one child, excuse me, to remain on the premises. Mrs. Waddle then asked if Mr. Derivan was employed. Iq Zoning Board of Appeals -3- June 8th, 1982 01 Mr. Martell replied yes he is, but again he works during the day i4w and there is a need of supervision there so they work their schedules so someone will always be home. Mrs. Waddle then noted that the Board is in receipt of a letter that Mrs. Derivan babysits for a number of children in her home during the day. Mr. Martell replied that she does not do so, of course, the fact that she suffers from diabetes does not mean that she is a cripple, she just requires constant supervision. Mrs. Waddle then asked what do you mean by constant supervision. Mr. Martell replied someone there in the event of a diabetes attack, someone is always at home. Mrs. Waddle noted that she knows a number of people and happen to have an employee that is a diabetic and has to give herself insulin, know of a number of people who are employed that don't need constant supervision just because they are diabetic, in fact my husband is a diabetic and he goes to work and does not need constant supervision, would you tell me what makes this case different. Mrs. Ann Bell was then sworn in. Mrs. Bell commented that here mother has gone into several diabetic comas which can be verified by Dr. Alexander who has teated her for it, her, she is the type of diabetic who is never under control, she was never under control, therefore, she can at any time go into a diabetic coma. Mr. Landolfi then asked Mr. Martell if he was the lawyer at the closing at this home, perhaps. Mr. Martell replied yes he was. Mr. Landolfi then asked how long ago that took place. Mr. Martell replied approximately two years ago, one year ago in March. Zoning Board of Appeals -4- June 8th, 1982 Mr. Landolfi then commented to Mr. Martell that you as a lawyer, would assume to protect your clients, would be familiar then with our zoning laws, som4what, when did this situation arise because , I guess what I am concerned about is the fact that it took a neighbor to bring this to our attention, the fact that this situation existed and if it was only a year ago at the closing, someone should have had this information, I would have thought. Mrs. Waddle then asked when did Mrs. Bell's parents move in with them. Mrs. Bell replied right after they moved in. Mrs. Waddle then asked if they had a kitchen built in. Mrs. Bell replied yes. Mrs. Waddle then asked without a permit. Mrs. Bell replied yes, thought because it was family, didn't realize we needed a permit being that it was family. Mr. Landolfi then commented that on your tax bill that says single-family dwelling, did it occur to you that perhaps that was what it really meant. Mrs. Bell replied that when she gets -the -bill she just mails it to the mortgage people and they pay. Mr. Landolfi then asked why the second kitchen couldn't you get around that somehow. Mrs. Bell replied that it was more of a convenience, the fact that if my mother gets up in the middle of the night or if my brother, who climbing stairs makes it very difficult for him, if he was to come, needed something in the middle of the night, if he wanted to get a drink or whatever, he would have to come up the two sets of stairs and climbing stairs for him is very, very difficult. Mr. Caballero then asked if there would be any objection to removing that kitchen. Zoning Board of Appeals -5- June 8th, 1982 Mrs. Bell replied that if they had to remove it this would be a hardship. Mr. Martell added that they would not object if the Board conditioned any approval they gave, if they conditioned that only allowing that kitchen to remain as long as Mrs. Derivan resides in the premises, at that time that they either move or the house is sold, the kitchen would be removed. Mr. Landolfi commented that he had a problem with that, think we would be setting a precedent, know of other situations where people would be coming in for the same thing. Mr. Martell commented that he thought that each case is unique into itself, this is such an unusual case, the child has a crippling disease, we have a sick mother, it is not your normal case. Mrs. Waddle replied that unfortunately it is, the circumstances may be a little different as to the illness but it is not all that unusual I am sorry to say. Mrs. Waddle then asked if there was anyone else to speak for this variance. Mr. Urciuoli then arrived and looked over the material which had been submitted. Mrs. Waddle then commented that she didn't recall if her question about the babysitting had been answered. Mrs. Bell replied that her mother does not babysit, there are two boys who do come over every day, they are friends of the family, where the mother works until 5:00 p.m., my brother doesn't have anybody, there are children on the block but they will not play with him, so it is a mutual convenience so that he can have company and they don't have to stay in the house by themselves for two hours, they live less than a k of a mile away from us. Mrs. Waddle commented that is babysitting, if it goes on day after day. Mrs. Bell replied that there is no money exchanged, my girlfriend works and her daughter is over two days a week just to play with my daughter. Mrs. Waddle then asked if there was anyone else to be heard. No one present wished to be heard. Zoning Board of Appeals -6- June 8th, 1982 Mr. Landolfi then made a motion that the appeal be denied due to the second kitchen. The motion was seconded by Mr. Caballero. Vote: Mrs. Waddle - aye Mr. Cortellino - absent Mr. Urciuoli - aye Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye Mrs. Waddle noted that Appeal # 611 was denied. Mr. Martell then asked how much time they would have to remove the kitchen. Mr. Landolfi asked how much time would be sufficient so it does cause a great inconvenience, three months. Mr. Martell six months because he thinks they will be forced to sell their home, would like six months to do so. The Board then agreed to give six months for the removal of the kitchen. The hearing was closed at 8:18 p.m. Appeal # 613, at the request of Steven Miller, seeking a variance of Article IV, Section 421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, to allow a pool deck to be constructed with a five foot sideyard setback where a ten foot setback is required, on property located on 5 Mac Intosh Lane, being parcel # 6257-02-597945, in the Town of Wappinger. Mrs. Waddle read the legal motice. Mr. Miller was present and was sworn in. Mr. Miller noted that he would like to build this deck, to add it onto the pool, due to the terraine would have to have it put on the side of the property between his neighbor, have two letters here, one is from my neighbor directly across the street at 6 Mac Intosh Lane and one is my neighbor on 7 Mac Intosh Lane who would be most affected by that also have another neighbor here from 3 Mac Intosh. Lane, surrounding my property, have a picture of what I planned on doing, might make it a little bit easier, the property between the pool and the property line is on such a slope it is impractical for anything, when the pool was put in there was a big gap and for safety purposes too by covering the with the deck right here it will keep anyone from falling between the pool, it is covered by forsythia bushes no my neighbor up on top will not even see it, qq �J Zoning Board of Appeals -7- June 8th, 1982 it is very hilly in that area. Mrs. Waddle then asked if the three sides of the pool were very hilly. Mr. Miller replied that the back of the pool is, and the side where he wanted to put the deck, the pool is dug level onto the ground and by putting the deck it would almost be ground level and, on that side, by doing that instead of having a deck up in the air, one end on stilts, it would be a sturdier deck, more like a walkway, it is only going to be five feet. Mrs. Waddle then asked how far was the neighbor's house from the property line. Mr. Miller replied that his house to the property line was forty feet, and the pool sits 27 feet back behind the house, on this sloped area. Mrs. Waddle noted that she wanted to know how far from Mr. Miller's property line was his neighbors house. Mr. Miller replied about 25 feet, have a double driveway. Mr. Landolfi added that it was 25 to 30 feet, was out there and looked at the property, there is a hill. Mrs. Waddle then asked if there was anyone present who wished to be heard. No one present wished to be heard. Mr. Landolfi then made a motion that the requested variance be granted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Urciuoli. Vote: Mrs. Waddle - aye Mr. Cortellino - absent Mr. Urciuoil - aye Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye Mrs. Waddle noted that the variance was granted. The hearing was closed at 8:27 p.m. Zoning Board of Appeals -8- June 8th, 1982 Appeal ## 614, at the request of Mr. & Mrs. Edwin Niemcyk, seeking a variance of Article IV, Section 412 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, to allow for the issuance of a building permit for a cottage to be located on property which does not have sufficient frontage on a Town road, said property being located on Old State Road, being parcel ## 6057-04-744305, in the Town of Wappinger. Mrs. Waddle read the legal notice. Mr. Edwin Niemcyk was present and was sworn in. Mr. Miemcyk noted that his father retired a few years ago and he is living down in Florida right now, and last year during the hot spell in Florida he got sick and had to have a pacemaker put in, the doctor recommended that it would be better for him to come back up North in the summertime and spend the summer months when it is extremely hot down there, up here, so that changed the position to where he was originally going to live in Florida year round and would have only come back here to visit, now need someplace, being that we have 19' acres of property, just want to put him in just for the summer months, strictly a one bedroom type affair, in other words something about 16' by 24' cottage type deal. Mrs. Waddle asked him what he would build, a bedroom, livingroom, kitchen. Mr. Niemyck replied a bedroom, livingroom, bathroom type of thing, and then he would come to our house to have meals. Mrs. Waddle commented so there would not be any kitchen. Mr. Niemcyk replied that there would be no kitchen. Mrs. Waddle then commented to Mr. Gunderud isn't he allowed a caretaker's cottage. Mr. Gunderud replied yes, the variance is because he has insufficient frontage. Mr. Niemcyk then commented that with regard to the road frontage he had gone out and measured some Town roads and a lot are not even 25 feet wide. Mrs. Waddle noted that that had nothing to do with this case. Zoning Board of Appeals -9- June 8th, 1982 Mrs. Waddle then asked if there was anyone else to speak on this appeal. Dr. Garrel then noted that he was the next door neighbor and would like to clarify what is going to take place there, where it is going to be placed, if it will be used for any other purpose besides the summertime residence for Mr. Niemcyk. Mr. Niemcyk replied no, stricly for the summertime residence of his father, other times of the year it will be closed and then indicated where the cottage would be located, in the area of the pines. Dr. Garrel then asked if it wouldn't be an attractive nuisance, Mr. Niemcyk then explaine to Dr. Garrel where on his property the cottage for his father would be located, would not be visible because of the pine trees, in an area of the pine trees that was cut out several years ago when he was thinking of a building a house there but instead finished off the existing house, put aluminum siding up. Dr. Garrel commented that he had no objection if it was going to be used for the summer, just question the possibility of an attractive nuisance when it is unoccupied for perhaps eight months of the year, perhaps something could be done. Mrs. Waddle replied that the Board could not really tell him that he could not occupy it year round, he is not putting a kitchen in and he is entitled to have a caretaker's cottage on his property, as long as it doesn't have kitchen facilities, the only problem he has is that he is landlocked up there, so that is why he is here or he wouldn't even have to come in. Mrs. Waddle then asked if there was anyone else to speak for or against this variance. No one else present wished to be heard. A motion was then made by Mr. Urciuoli to grant the requested variance. The motion was seconded by Mr. Landolfi. Vote: Mrs. Waddle - aye Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Cortellino - absent Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Urciuoli - aye Mrs. Waddle noted that the variance was granted. Zoning Board of Appeals -10- June 8th, 1982 The hearing was closed at 8:30 p.m. Appeal # 615, at the request of Sharon Sarno, seeking a variance of Article IV, Section 421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, to allow for an addition to a mobile home on a private road in a mobile home park that is a legally non -conforming use, on property located on 9 Cooper Road, being parcel # 6156-01-861.783, in the Town of Wappinger. Mrs. Waddle read the legal notice. Mr. David Sarno was present and was sworn in by Mrs. Waddle. Mr. Sarno noted that he just wanted to put an addition on, just had a baby and the trailer is too small, have plenty of room. Mrs. Waddle asked Mr. Sarno if he owned the property that the mobile home was on. Mr. Sarno replied no, the owner had no objection. Mr. Gunderud noted that Mrs. Sarno had to talked to the owners, Tibbetts, had discussed this with them, technically Mrs. Sarno did sign the appeal, don't know if it makes a difference. The secretary noted that the Tibbetts were notified of the appeal. Mr. Landolfi then asked Mr. Sarno how large his family was. Mr. Sarno replied three. Mr. Landolfi then asked how long he had lived there. Mr. Sarno replied two years. Mrs. Waddle then asked how large was the mobile home. Mr. Sarno replied that it was 12' by 65'. Mrs. Waddle then asked how many bedrooms there were. Zoning Board of Appeals -11- June 8th, 1982 ` Mr. Sarno replied well two but the baby's room is really small, it is 8' by 8', livingroom, kitchen, long hallway to the back bedroom, bathroom and baby's room. Mrs. Waddle then asked if the addition would go off the baby's room. Mr. Sarno replied that it would go off our bedroom, at the end of the trailer, our bedroom now would become the baby's room and that room would become a closet. Mrs. Waddle then asked if there was anyone who wished to speak for or against the appeal. No one present wished to be heard. Mrs. Waddle then asked what was the pleasure of the Board. Mr. Urciuoli moved that the requested variance be granted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Landolfi. Vote: Mrs. Waddle - aye �►' Mr. Cortellino - absent Mr. Urciuoli - aye !1 Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye Mrs. Waddle noted that the variance had been granted. The hearing was closed at 8:35 p.m. Appeal # 616, at the request of George H. Harrison, seeking a variance of Article IV, Section 404.3 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, to allow a legally non -conforming antique shop use to be changed to another type of business use, on property located on the corner of Route 376 and Myers Corners Road, being parcel # 6358- 01-271593, in the Town of Wappinger. Zoning Board of Appeals -12- June 8th, 1982 Mrs. Waddle read the legal notice. Mr. George H. Harrison was present and was sworn in. Mr. Harrison commented that the reason he had this antique shop business that he was going out of himself because the increased work load he has with his insurance business, that another man is willing to open it up into like antiques, collectibles, used furniture as well, very close as far as you are talking about the type of stuff that is sold in a shop, at least what he was doing was to rent the building out to another person. Mrs. Waddle commented that he was going into the antique business. Mr. Harrison replied well he is also, but he is also used furniture, the same as I did, this person also has anDther business in the Village of Wappingers right now. Mrs. Waddle commented that she thought most antique stores do sell used furniture, everything is not an antique. Mr. Harrison replied we do, that's right but was called before here because of a clarification on the rule, so that's really going to be used furniture, antiques, collectibles, whatever. Mrs. Waddle commented that as far as she was concerned it was the same business as what he has there now. Mr. Harrison replied yes but he had talked to Mr. Gunderud and had been told to come before the Board. Mr. Gunderud commented that the non -conforming use was established as the homeowner, the property owner ran the business that was there, it was first a restaurant there some years ago and then there was a change to this antique shop and now he is in fact leasing out a portion of the property for a business. Mrs. Waddle asked if that was the only difference. Mr. Gunderud replied yes. 14 Zoning Board of Appeals -13- June 8th, 1982 Mr. Harrison noted that he also has an insurance office in there, so had clarification on if it was the insurance office had to be owner operated but the antique business did not or non -conforming business which it what he had, when purchased the property through the bank as being a two income piece of property, the insurance business as well as whatever he could rent the business for. Mrs. Waddle noted that she couldn't see a problem if it was the same use. Mr. Gunderud then commented that he thought the key was that the Zoning Ordinance only provides that a non -conforming use be changed to a conforming use. Mrs. Waddle noted that she would read the letter from the Dutchess Councty Department of Planning but thought they had misunderstood the situation. Mrs. Waddle then read the following: "Subject property is located in a residential (R-40) zoning district at the intersection of Route 376 and Myers Corners Road. The site is presently occupied by a non -conforming antique shop. Applicant requests a variance to change the use tQ_another, unspecified, type of business. '(which as we find out is not the case.) A variance is necessary because the zoning ordinance provides that -a -non -conforming use shall be changed only to a conforming use. This application represents a request for a commercial use not allowed in this residential zoning district. Changes in use are more appropriately! handled through the zoning amendment process. The zoning.amendment process' provides for a comprehensive reviewed of the proposed change. Zoning amendments apply evenly throughout a zone while a variance would only apply to a specific property. In view of the above findings, the Dutchess County Department of Planning recommends that this variance application be denied.. A change of use within a zoning district is a legislative power of the Town Board through the zoning amendment process. The amendment process provides for a comprehensive review of the impacts of a change before action is taken." Mrs. Waddle commented that she thought that they were under the impression that he (Mr. Harrison) was going to go an entirely different type of business. Mr. Gunderud noted that it was his interpretation that it is a non -conforming use and any change of a non -conforming use is not permitted under our zoning ordinance. R Zoning Board of Appeals -14- June 8th, 1982 Mrs. Waddle noted that she would like to table this until the Board can get a reading from our lawyer. Mr. Landolfi noted that he would second that motion. Vote: Mrs. Waddle - aye Mr. Cortellino - absent Mr. Urciuoli - aye The motion was carried. Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye The secretary was asked to write to Mr. Adams for clarification. Mrs. Waddle noted that this would be tabled until the Board heard from their attorney and that they should have a answer back by their next meeting. Discussion on this matter was closed at 8:38 p.m. Mrs. Waddle then noted that Appeal # 617 was withdrawn. Appeal # 618, at the request of Ronald Mc Carthy (dba: Bil-Mac), seeking a variance of Article IV, Section 416.52 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, to allow for a free-standing sign with a zero setback where 25 feet is required, on property located on Route 82 & & All Angels Hill Road, being parcel # 6356-01-252986, in the Town of Wappinger. Mrs. Waddle read the legal notice. Mr. Ronald Mc Carthy was present and was sworn in. Mr. Mc Carthy noted that they were asking for a zero setback mainly because of the location, the sign having to be in the front, and the building not having a 25 foot setback itself, another problem is the curvature of the road where Route 82 comes out of Hopewell and can't get the sign out far enough, it would be no use whatsoever. Mrs. Waddle asked if this was the brown building on the corner. Zoning Board of Appeals -15- June 8th, 1982 Mr. Mc Carthy replied that it is red now, directly on the corner, directly across from All Angels Hill Road. Mrs. Waddle asked if they couldn't they put a sign right on the house. Mr. Mc Carthy replied that originally they thought that they could, the only problem is that anything on Route 82 can't be seen, have two large oak trees, to destroy these kind -of trees just to give us visibility would be a shame, another problem that we encountered was that this was originally a residence and we need something to let the public know that we are there now and exist. Mrs. Waddle then read the following from the Dutchess County Department of Planning: "The Dutchess County Department of Planning has reviewed subject referral within the framework of General Municipal Law (Article 12B, Section 239-1 and 239-m) and finds the decision in this matter primarily involves matters of local concern. The Dutchess County Department of Planning, therefore, recommends the decision be based upon local study of the facts in the case. The Dutchess County Department of Planning does not presume to base its decision on the legalities or illegalities of the facts or procedures enumerated in subject zoning action." Mr. Urciuoli then asked if this would be right on the road or how far back from the road the sign would be. Mr. Mc Carthy replied it would be a good fifteen to twenty feet, it will be more once the curbing goes in, D.O.T. gives us the requirements on the curb work and the blacktopping of the driveway, the sign will have to be behind the curbing. Mr. Gunderud noted that the trees are in the way and the road does curve here so he does not have any sight distance. The Board then looked at the picture of the sign. Mr. Urciuoli noted that he was concerned about the proportions involved. Mrs. Waddle asked if she could suggest an early American sign with one post. Mr. Mc Carthy replied that this would not support the sign, have to consider the wind factor, Sign Language who is building the sign told him the same thing, separate stanchion would not support it. Zoning Board of Appeals -16- June 8th, 1982 Mr. Urciuoli noted that if it was going to be 5h feet wide plus it will have lighting, so if driving north on Route 82 and that sign is close to the road that lamp might have a tendency to blind me, just trying to look at everything. Mr. Mc Carthy replied that the light would be focused back towards the front, facing from the road in towards the house. The Board noted that Mr. Mc Carthy did have a problem. t Mrs. Waddle then asked if anyone present wished to be heard. No one present wished to be heard. A motion was then made by Mr. Caballero to approve the variance. The motion was seconded by Mr. Landolfi. Vote: Mrs. Waddle - aye Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Urciuoli - aye Mr. Cortellino - absent Mr. Landolfi - aye Mrs. Waddle noted that the variance was granted. The hearing was closed at 8:44 p.m. Mrs. Waddle noted that under Unfinished Business, Appeal # 612, at the request of Midas, we have no recommendation from the Planning Board as yet so we cannot act on this this evening. Mrs. Waddle noted that a letter had been received from the Planning Board indicating that they could not yet make a recommendation as all of the comments had not yet been received but that they expected that these would be in and could make a recommendation at their June 21st, 1982 meeting so the Board would take this up at the next meeting. Mrs. Waddle noted that the Board had Appeal # 606, at the request of Hans R. Gunderud, seeking an interpretation of the definition of "foster home" and then read the following interpretation. "A "Foster Home" is a home containing two foster parents, married to each other, and having no more than four unrelated children as foster children together with any natural children they may have." pq Zoning Board of Appeals -17- June 8th, 1982 NEW BUSINESS: Hans Schneider - Application for a Special Use Permit to establish and operate a truck repair service building on his property located on Route 9, in the Town of Wappinger. Mrs. Waddle noted that the Board would sendthis onto the Planning Board. Mr. Gunderud commented that this should have gone to him to be reviewed before it went to the Board, had a thought on this, if it is just an accessory use then it would be an amended Special Use Permit. Mrs. Waddle noted that she was sending it onto the Planning Board this month because the Board had gotten a nasty letter from them the last time we didn't do something and until we get this straightened out for sure we will just send it to them. A motion was then made by Mr. Caballero, seconded by Mr. Landolfi, to adjourn. The motion was carried by those members present. The meeting was closed at 8:50 p.m. br UNAPPROVED Respectfully submitted, l (Mrs.)goard - nn Russ, Secretary Zoning of Appeals