HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-12-06 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK
938 King Street
Zoning Board of Appeals
December 6, 2011
Meeting at 8:00 p.m.
AGENDA
1) #09-583 MR. THOMAS J. MCGOWAN, JR.
Adjourned from 11/112011
8 Wilton Road
Legalize the above-ground swimming pool; legalize two sheds and
legalize the newly created unenclosed off-street parking
2) #11-640 AVENTURA REALTY CORP./STEVEN LINDER
Adjourned from 11/112011
585 Westchester Avenue
Legalize the existing commercial office use
3) #11-645 CEREBRAL PALSY OF WESTCHESTER
1186 King Street
Construct a new single story pavilion building, and legalize the
existing swimming pool and pool equipment; existing off-street
parking; and 12 person residence building a.k.a. 260 Lincoln Avenue
6) Approval of November 1, 2011 Zoning Board Summary
BOARD: Steve Berger
Michele Fredman
Andrew Kaminsky
Joel Simon
Don Moscato, Chairman
STAFF: Michael Izzo, Building Inspector
Jennifer Gray, Esq., Village Counsel
Fred Seifert, Public Access Coordinator
Paula Patafio, Meeting Secretary
Mr. Don Moscato, Chairman, welcomed everyone to the December 6, 2011 Zoning
Board of Appeals meeting. He called the meeting to order and introduced Village Staff
and Counsel, and noted that there was a full compliment of the Board.
13131121415580v1 212112
-1-
Mr. Moscato asked that all individuals speak at the podium, state their names,
application, position, and nature of the variance. He called for the first item on the
agenda:
1) #09-583 MR. THOMAS J. MCGOWAN, JR.
Adjourned from 11/112011
8 Wilton Road
Legalize the above-ground swimming pool; legalize two sheds and
legalize the newly created unenclosed off-street parking
Mr. McGowan, the applicant, addressed the Board. He noted that at the previous
meeting impervious surfaces were a concern. He met with the Building Inspector
to review the impervious surface coverage on the property, and the issue of storm
water runoff. Mr. Moscato asked the Building Inspector to report on his findings.
Mr. Michael Izzo, Building Inspector, addressed the Board. He noted that in 1997
a storm water management plan was designed for the property. The storm system
drains into the Village's storm system. The system was installed and it consists of
drains from the property that run into two six inch pipes that spill over and
eventually end up into the Village's storm system. When the driveway was
improved a trench drain was installed along the mouth of the driveway. This drain
catches 99% of the water off of the driveway. In addition, after the review of the
property, the applicant has agreed to install a similar type of trench drain at the
low pitch edge of the rear patio so that all the storm water runoff from the rear
patio will be captured.
Mr. Moscato noted that each of the variance requests would be reviewed
individually.
Mr. Andrew Kaminsky noted that he walked the property and he noted that the
pool is not really visible from the street. There is sufficient screening, and none of
the neighbors have complained. Mr. Moscato noted that the applicants' rear yard
faces the park.
Jennifer Gray, Esq. stated that if the applicant removed one shed, then he would be
requesting one less variance. Mr. Moscato noted that removing one of the sheds
would also remove the need for an additional storm water management plan.
Ms. Michele Fredman stated that her issues were with the driveway. She was
unsure of how to address this issue.
Mr. Moscato noted that the goal was to reduce the magnitude of the variances.
The applicant has three (3) cars, and no car can be parked in the garage because it
1313112/415580v1 212/1.2
-2-
is not large enough to fit the applicant's cars.
Mr. McGowan noted that one car is parked in front of the garage, then his son
parks his car, and finally his car is the last. The driveway is 33' across.
Mr. Izzo noted that a typical parking space is 9'6" x 20'. It was noted that the
Board is moving towards the position of reducing the driveway. Mr. Joel Simon
noted that the driveway has a commercial look to it, and the Board has requested
additional plantings. Mr. McGowan noted that none of the neighbors have
expressed concern.
It was also noted that there are 39' from the property line to the garage.
Ms. Fredman asked that the driveway be reduced. Reducing the width of the
driveway and adding landscape would improve the front of the home.
Mr. Izzo presented a photograph of the driveway as it existed prior to the applicant
widening it. He stated that one of the sheds is 160 square feet. The applicant was,
once again, asked if he would consider removing one of the sheds. Mr. Kaminsky
suggested an adjournment to allow the applicant time to review the choices, and
the costs. The applicant must decide how he would like to proceed.
With the consensus of the Board, the matter was adjourned to the January 3, 2012
meeting of the Zoning Board.
Mr. Moscato called for the second item on the agenda:
2) #11-640 AVENTURA REALTY CORP./STEVEN LINDER
Adjourned from .11/1/2011
585 Westchester Avenue
Legalize the existing commercial office use
Leo Napior, Esq., attorney for the applicant addressed the Board and provided
background information regarding the property. He noted that the subject property
is located in the R2F zone. In order to use the property for commercial use, a
Special Use Permit is needed. When the applicant purchased the property there
was a Certificate of Occupancy in place. The use has not changed since the
applicant purchased theproperty in 2006 except that the number of tenants has
decreased since that time. The applicant understands from communications with
the Village that no Special Permit was issued when the structure was converted
from residential to professional offices in the 1980s and due to this the Village has
revoked the existing Certificate of Occupancy for professional offices. Upon
1313/12/415580v1 2/2112
-3-
direction of Village Staff, the applicant applied for a Special Permit to legalize the
existing use.
The Use Variance application filed was for six professional persons where the
Zoning Code restricts the use to two per dwelling unit for a maximum of four
professional persons at this property. There is also a parking variance for five
spaces.
Mr. Napior noted that regarding the maximum number of professional persons
permitted, the Zoning Code requires that there shall not be more than two
professional persons occupying any one dwelling. Since this was formally a two-
family dwelling, the Building Inspector has determined that the maximum number
of professional persons permitted at.this premises is four. Pursuant to Zoning
Code §250-13(G)(1) the applicant has requested an interpretation of this provision.
The applicant submits that where two doctors are sharing the same office and their
usage of the office does not overlap, they should be treated as one professional
person for the purposes of the Zoning Code. There are two doctors sharing one
office at the premises, and they are there almost every day, but never at the same
time. They cannot see patients at the same time. There are five individual offices
being used. The remainder of the tenants have varying office times and there is
very little overlap.
Mr. Simon noted that the non-overlapping usage of the offices is a matter of
choice.
Mr. Napior suggested that a condition of the Special Permit could be that there
shall be no more than four professional persons occupying the premises at any
time.
Mr. Kaminsky and Mr. Simon commented on the difficulty of enforcing such a
condition.
Mr. Napior responded that the condition could be enforced by the Village similar
to any other condition of approval. Additionally, the landlord would oversee the
office usage and restrictions could be placed in the lease. The applicant and his
assistant work out of the office in the basement.
Mr. Napior continued that there are 2 offices that are occupied 5 days a week,
otherwise the professionals have varying times, but there is no overlap that would
result in more than 4 professionals occupying the premises at any given time.
Mr. Berger asked how long the current tenants have occupied the premises.
13131121415580v1 212112
-4-
Mr, Napior responded that some of the tenants have been there since 2006 and
there are three new tenants.
Mr. Berger noted that the expiration dates of the leases were important.
Attorney Gray reminded the Board that its decision on the applicant's request for
an interpretation of the Zoning Code would apply to any property in the R-2F
District that seeks to use this section of the Code —not just this property.
Mr. Napior reiterated that the applicant's position was that where you have two
professional persons sharing one office space with non-overlapping usage those
professionals should not be counted twice.
Mr. Berger asked whether the applicant had any legal support or precedent for that
position.
Mr. Napior responded that any ambiguity in zoning statutes must be construed in
favor of the property owner and that he would be happy to brief the issue for the
Board. He was not aware whether this issue has occurred in other municipalities:
But if the idea is to limit the use of the structure to no more than four professionals
at a given time, then if two individuals are sharing an office and inherently can't
be there at the same time it would not violate the Code.
Mr. Kaminsky asked whether the leases for the doctors who share an office
specify specific times or days so that each doctor can only occupy the space at
certain times, or whether it is just a lease for that space.
Mr. Napior responded that he did not have a copy of the lease but that there would
be an inherent conflict with the two doctors occupying the same office at the same
time.
Mr. Kaminsky commented that if they have a lease then they occupy the premises
and whether they choose not to come on certain days doesn't mean they cannot.
They can schedule appointments with alternating hours or do administrative work.
Mr. Linder commented on the usage of the premisesby the existing tenants. They
operate by appointment only and on some days there is no one at the premises.
The tenants include a psychologist, a psychiatrist, a nutritionist, and 'a
reflexology/massage therapist.
Mr, Berger asked about the Coastline Wellness Group indicated on the plans.
Mr. Linder responded that it was a group that was contemplated but due to the
economy never formed. The doctors are not affiliated.
1313112141.5 5W v 1 2/2/12
-5-
Ms. Fredman commented about the size of the rooms. The architect responded
that the rooms were basically 11' x 16'.
Mr. Izzo noted that the zoning and parking determination were based on the
application and plans. The name of the physician group is indicated on the plans
as the Coastline Wellness Group. However, during the course of the evening it
was learned that there are individual, unaffiliated doctors utilizing the office space
and the Coastline Wellness Group is non-existent. The parking requirements for
this type of arrangement may in fact be different than the variances being sought.
The parking determination was calculated based on offices or suites of offices.
Mr. Izzo noted that Mr. Linder was given the most generous interpretation of the
Code. A plan should show which doctors are in which room, and which doctors
share what rooms. At this time the plan is ambiguous.
Mr. Izzo felt that this matter should be reviewed, and the application should have a
correct presentation of the groups.
Mr. Kaminsky noted that a proper parking study needs to be submitted.
Mr. Berger asked that the study include the cars that park in front of the property
as well as the parking Iot because there have been complaints from neighbors
regarding parking.
Mr. Napior noted that parking is permitted on Westchester Avenue.
Mr. Moscato noted that the Board was also interested in the financials for the
property regarding the use variance.
Mr. Moscato brought the discussion back to the interpretation issue and stated he
wanted a sense from the Board as to whether they agree with Mr. Izzo's
interpretation or whether fractional occupancy is permitted by the Code. The
Code provides that professional offices are permitted "provided that there shall not
be more than two such professionals occupying any one dwelling."
Mr. Izzo noted that the legal CIO for the property is for a two-family dwelling, so
they're allowed to have up to four professionals.
Attorney Gray clarified that professional offices is a Special Permit use in the R-
2F District.
Mr. Simon commented that the language of the Code was unambiguous and
there's no other reasonable interpretation.
Ms. Fredman noted that the statute lays out who is a professional.
13131121415580v1 212/12
_6_
Mr. Simon said the provision is very clear and it doesn't even raise the potential
for an intermittent use. On its face there is no basis for intermittent use. Ms.
Fredman agreed and said she did not see any ambiguity.
Mr. Berger was concerned about the broader implications since the interpretation
will apply not just to this property but for every professional office.
Mr. Moscato stated that he could not find any ambiguity and the Code could have
said "or any fraction thereof' He raised the example of one house with 5
bedrooms where 5 sleep there during the day and work at night and the other 5
sleep there at night and work during the day. So with 10 people sleeping in the
house, how many occupants are in that house? Would you say there are 5
occupants because they're never there at the same time? Or would a reasonable
person say there are 10 occupants?
Mr. Kaminsky stated that if the Board rules to uphold the Building Inspector's
determination the variances could be adjourned to January to allow the applicant
the time to gather the information that the Board wanted to review.
Mr. Moscato reiterated that the Board would like to review the financial
information, zoning material, the leases, and parking study.
The Board discussed the timing of when the additional material would be
submitted for review.
Mr. Moscato called for a sense from the Board regarding the interpretation.
Mr. Berger stated he has seen nothing to cause him to vary from the strict
interpretation of the Building Inspector. Ms. Fredman agreed but was open to be
persuaded. Absent extremely convincing evidence otherwise, she agrees with the
Building Inspector's interpretation. Mr. Kaminsky also agreed and stated the code
is clear. Mr. Simon agreed. Mr. Moscato stated there is no ambiguity in the Code.
Attorney Gray suggested formalizing the decision at the next meeting to allow
time to draft a decision.
Mr. Simon and Mr. Berger discussed that it doesn't matter whether the scenario is
two people sharing an office or whether the scenario is that each individual
professional has their own office but each use their office at alternating times of
day such that there are never more than four professionals present at any one time.
Either way the number of professionals occupying the premises is the same.
Ms. Fredman added that it also doesn't matter what the professional is doing or
when the profession does it, but only that they have the right to occupy the
premises.
1313/12/415580v1 212/12
-7-
The Board discussed what would be submitted for the next meeting and when it
would be submitted.
Mr. Napior stated that the updated plans, lease and financial information should
not be the problem. One issue that may be a problem is the detailed parking study.
The Board discussed the parameters of the parking study and
Ms. Fredman suggested that the applicant contact the Village's Planner for
suggestions on how to proceed with the parking study.
Mr. Moscato called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in
support of or in opposition to the application. There was no one, however, it was
noted that at previous meetings neighboring property owners complained about the
on-street parking. They noted instances where their driveways were blocked by
individuals parking on the street.
With the consensus of the Board the application was adjourned to the February 7t`
meeting of the Zoning Board.
Mr. Moscato called for item #3:
3) #11-645 CEREBRAL PALSY OF WESTCHESTER
1186 King Street
Construct a new single story pavilion building, and legalize the
existing swimming pool and pool equipment; existing off-street
parking; and 12 person residence building a.k.a. 260 Lincoln Avenue
Michael Boender, architect for the applicant, addressed the Board. It was noted
that there are numerous variances to be addressed for existing residences, the new
building, and the existing pool. This property is very unique. It is a corner lot that
fronts on King Street and Lincoln Avenue. In addition, it straddles the NY/CT
state line. The residence building was built in the early 1990's. It does not meet
the front yard set back and the pool requires a variance for a set back. There is
also a wetland on the property. It was noted that the new building meets the 100'
setback from King Street. There are several structures on the site that will be
demolished. Mr. Boender presented a photograph of the new building. He noted
that the applicant tried to avoid variances, but unique characteristics of the site
created a hardship. This matter will be before the Planning Board in January for
review of Wetland and Steep Slopes Permits.
Mr. Moscato noted, for the record, that 20 years ago his daughter was an unpaid
volunteer for this organization. This will not affect his ability to judge this
131311214155Mv7 2/2/12
-8-
application on its own merits. There are seven variances being sought. Attorney
Gray and Mr. Tzzo were asked to highlight the history of this application.
Attorney Gray noted that this is a site plan amendment submitted to the Board of
Trustees, who made the referral to the Planning Board for report and
recommendation. During the Planning Board's review, the applicant was advised
that since the two lots are being used for a common, interdependent purpose it
makes sense to merge the two lots and so the applicant submitted a subdivision
application. Attorney Gray noted that the owners of the properties are not-for-
profit organizations.
Mr. Moscato asked about a prior variance for the property in 1992 and 1994.
Attorney Gray responded that a parking variance granted in 1992, and shortly after
an error in the variance granted was recognized and that was corrected in 1994.
The Town of Greenwich has been notified about this application.
Ms. Fredman asked if the portion of the campus located in Greenwich was
developable in any other way. The architect noted there was a small area that
could be developed. All of the proposed work will take place on the portion of the
property located in Rye Brook.
Mr. Moscato asked Mr, lzzo to speak about the state line that bisects the property.
He noted municipalities do not have jurisdiction outside their boundaries. if there
was no municipal line bisecting the property the setback variance for the new
pavilion building would not be required. He noted that the municipal line does not
run parallel to King Street. New parking spaces are part of the new project and the
spaces must be legalized. The Planning Board is comfortable with the number of
parking spaces as presented. Attorney Gray noted that there are no specific
parking requirements for this use, but the Village Planner weighed in on whether
or not the number of parking spaces provided would be sufficient. The Zoning
Board looks to minimize the number of variances.
Part of the function of the pavilion building has to do with the pool. The building
that is being removed will make way for additional parking. After a brief
discussion, Mr. Moscato noted that there will be seven resolutions read, and seven
votes.
The Planning Board has reviewed the site plan and subdivision application and
made its recommendation to the Board of Trustees. The Board of Trustees will be
reviewing the site plan and subdivision application on December 13h. The
Planning Board is setting a public hearing for January for the Wetland and Steep
Slopes Permits.
1313/12/415580v1 2/2/12
-9-
Mr. Moscato called for members of the public wishing to address the Board.
There was no one. He called for additional questions or comments from the
Board, and there were none.
On a motion made by Steven Berger, and seconded by Michele Fredman, the
public portion of the hearing was closed and the Board began deliberations:
Mr. Moscato read the resolutions with Attorney Gray's conditions:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by
Cerebral Palsy of Westchester for 1) a 22.8 foot front yard setback variance at the
King Street elevation; 2) a variance from the prohibition against the location of
swimming pools and related pool equipment in a front yard (Lincoln Avenue
elevation); 3) a 59.56 foot swimming pool front yard setback variance; 4) a 53 foot
swimming pool equipment front yard setback variance; 5) a 3.16 foot front yard
setback variance at the Lincoln Avenue elevation; 6) a 7 foot off-street parking
curb setback variance for Parking Area 3; and 7) a 26 foot off-street parking curb
setback variance for Parking Area 4, in connection with the proposed construction
of a new single story multi-purpose pavilion building, legalization of the existing
swimming pool and related pool equipment, legalization of the existing off-street
parking at the King Street elevation, and legalization of the existing 12-person
residence building, on property located at 1186 King Street a.k.a. 0 Lincoln
Avenue a.k.a. 260 Lincoln Avenue in an OB-3 Zoning District, on the west side
of King Street, at an intersection of King Street and Lincoln avenue. Said
premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook
as Parcel ID: #124.48-1-2; and
WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on December 6,
2011, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity;
and
WHEREAS, the proposed action is a Type 11 action pursuant to the New
York State Environmental Quality Review Act and, accordingly, no further
environmental review is required; and
WHERAS, the Board, from the application, after viewing the premises and
neighborhood concerned, and upon considering each of the factors as set forth at
Section 250-13(G)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook code, finds:
1) The variance will not create an adverse impact to the character of the
neighborhood;
1313/12/415580v1 2/2112
-10-
2) The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by another
method, feasible for the applicant to pursue; that does not require a
variance;
3) The requested variance is substantial;
4) The requested variances will not have any adverse impacts to the
physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and
5) The need for the variance is self created.
WHEREAS, the Board, from the application, after viewing the premises
and neighborhood concerned, and upon considering each of the factors set forth at
Section 25013(G)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook code, with respect to the variance
from the prohibition against the location of swimming pools and related pool
equipment in a front yard:
1) The variance will not create an adverse impact to the character of the
neighborhood;
2) The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by another
method, feasible for the applicant to pursue; that does not require a
variance;
3) The requested.variance is substantial;
4) The requested variances will not have any adverse impacts to the
physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and
5) The need for the variance is self created.
WHEREAS, the Board, from the application, after viewing the premises
and neighborhood concerned, and upon considering each of the factors set forth at
Section 25013(G)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook code; with respect to the
swimming pool front yard setback variance:
1) The variance will not create an adverse impact to the character of the
neighborhood;
2) The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by another
method, feasible for the applicant to pursue; that does not require a
variance;
3) The requested variance is substantial;
4) The requested variances will not have any adverse impacts to the
physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and
5) The need for the variance is self created,
i
13131121415580v1 2/2/12
-11-
WHEREAS, the Board, from the application, after viewing the premises
and neighborhood concerned, and upon considering each of the factors set forth at
Section 25013(G)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook code, with respect to the
swimming pool equipment front yard setback variance:
1) The variance will not create an adverse impact to the character of the
neighborhood;
2) The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by another
method, feasible for the applicant to pursue; that does not require a
variance;
3) The requested variance is substantial;
4) The requested variances will not have any adverse impacts to.the
physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and
5) The need for the variance is self created.
WHEREAS, the Board, from the application, after viewing the premises
and neighborhood concerned, and upon considering each of the factors set forth at
Section 25013(G)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook code, with respect to the front
yard setback variance at the Lincoln Avenue elevation:
1) The variance will not create an adverse impact to the character of the
neighborhood;
2) The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by another
method, feasible for the applicant to pursue; that does not require a
variance;
3) The requested variance is substantial;
4) The requested variances will not have any adverse impacts to the
physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and
5) The need for the variance is self created.
WHEREAS, the Board, from the application, after viewing the premises
and neighborhood concerned, and upon considering each of the factors set forth at
Section 25013(G)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook code, with respect to the off-street
parking curb setback variance for Parking Area 3:
1) The variance will not create an adverse impact to the character of the
neighborhood;
2) The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by another
method, feasible for the applicant to pursue; that does not require a
variance;
3) The requested variance is substantial;
1313/12/415580v1 2/2112
-12-
4) The requested variances will not have any adverse impacts to the
physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and
5) The need for the variance is self created.
WHEREAS, the Board, from the application, after viewing the premises
and neighborhood concerned, and upon considering each of the factors set forth at
Section 25013(G)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook code, with respect to the off-street
parking curb setback variance for Parking Area 4:
1) The variance will not create an adverse impact to the character of the
neighborhood;
2) The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by another
method, feasible for the applicant to pursue; that does not require a
variance;
3) The requested variance is substantial;
4) The requested variances will not have any adverse impacts to the
physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and
5) The need for the variance is self created.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the said application for
the front yard setback variance at the King Street elevation is herby granted; the
said application for the variance from the prohibition against the location of
swimming pools and related pool equipment in a front yard is hereby granted; the
said application for the swimming pool front yard setback variance is hereby
granted; the said application for the swimming pool equipment front yard setback
.variance is hereby granted; the said application for the front yard setback variance
at the Lincoln Avenue elevation is hereby granted; the said application for the off-
street-parking curb setback variance for Parking Area 3 is hereby granted; and the
said application for the off-street parking curb setback variance for Parking Area 4
is hereby granted, on the following conditions:
1) Any variances granted herein shall be null and void unless the
Applicant obtains subdivision and site plan approval from the
Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees and unless the Applicant
timely files the subdivision plat with the Westchester County Clerk's
Office.
Dated: December 6, 2011
Don Moscato, Chairman
1313112/A15580v1 2/2/12
-13-
Mr. Moscato called the roll for the front yard setback variance at the King Street
elevation:
Steve Berger Voting Aye
Michele Fredman Voting Aye
Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye
Joel Simon Voting Aye
Don Moscato Voting Aye
The variance was granted on a vote of 5 ayes to 0 nays.
Mr. Moscato called the roll from the prohibition against the location of swimming
pools and related pool equipment in a front yard:
Steve Berger Voting Aye
Michele Fredman Voting Aye
Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye
Joel Simon Voting Aye
Don Moscato Voting Aye
The variance was granted on a vote of 5 ayes to 0 nays.
Mr. Moscato called the roll for the swimming pool front yard setback variance:
Steve Berger Voting Aye
Michele Fredman Voting Aye
Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye
Joel Simon Voting Aye
Don Moscato Voting Aye
The variance was granted on a vote of 5 ayes to 0 nays.
Mr. Moscato called the roll for the swimming pool equipment front yard setback
variance:
Steve Berger Voting Aye
Michele Fredman Voting Aye
Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye
Joel Simon Voting Aye
Don Moscato Voting Aye
1313/12/415580v1 2/2/12
-14-
The variance was granted on a vote of 5 ayes to 0 nays.
Mr. Moscato called the roll for the front yard setback variance at the Lincoln
Avenue elevation:
Steve Berger Voting Aye
Michele Fredman Voting Aye
Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye
Joel Simon Voting Aye
Don Moscato Voting Aye
The variance was granted on a vote of 5 ayes to 0 nays.
Mr. Moscato called the roll for the off-street parking curb setback variance for
Parking Area 3:
Steve Berger Voting Aye
Michele Fredman Voting Aye
Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye
Joel Simon Voting Aye
Don Moscato Voting Aye
The variance was granted on a vote of 5 ayes to 0 nays.
Mr. Moscato called the roll for the off-street parking curb setback variance for
Parking Area 4:
Steve Berger Voting Aye
Michele Fredman Voting Aye
Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye
Joel Simon Voting Aye
Don Moscato Voting Aye
1313/12/415586x1 2/2/12
-15-
6) Approval of November 1, 2011 Zoning Board Summary
Mr. Moscato noted that extensive changes were made to the November ,summary.
With the consensus of the Board, the summary was approved as amended,
Mr. Moscato called the roll:
Steve Berger Voting Aye
Michele Fredman Voting Aye
Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye
Joel Simon Voting Aye
Don Moscato Voting Aye
There being no further business before the Board, Mr. Moscato called for a motion
to adjourn.
On a motion made by Steve Berger, and seconded by Andrew Kaminsky, the
meeting was adjourned at 10:23 p.m.
Mr. Moscato called the roll:
Steve Berger Voting Aye
Michele Fredman Voting Aye
Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye
Joel Simon Voting Aye
Don Moscato Voting Aye
13131121415580v1 212/12
-23-