Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-12-09 - Planning Board Meeting Minutes VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK PLANNING BOARD REGULAR MEETING VILLAGE HALL,938 KING STREET Thursday December 9, 2010 - 8:00 p.m. ROLL CALL MINUTES l. Review Minutes of October 14, 2010 and October 28,2010 PUBLIC HEARING RESOLUTION 2. Resolution canceling the December 23,2010 Planning Board Meeting CONTINUED BUSINESS 3. Review of a Site Plan Application by Brian and Ellen Berk to legalize a rear yard sports court, spa,chain link fence,regrading of property, steep slopes and wetland permitting for parcel located at 11 Edgewood Drive,Rye Brook,NY,Parcel ID 135.28-1-21 • Considering a Resolution 4. Referral from Board of Trustees to Review a Site Plan Application by Doral Arrowwood on behalf of American DG Energy to install and operate a cogeneration station for parcel located at 975 Anderson Hill Road,Rye Brook,NY,Parcel ID 129.34-1-43,44,45 • Considering a Report and Recommendation to the Board of Trustees 5. Referral from Board of Trustees to review a request by Cuddy and Feder on behalf of Reckson Operating Partnership,LLP for Phase 3 Site Plan and Wetland Permit Approval extensions for parcel located at 1100 King Street, Rye Brook,NY, Parcel 1D 129.34-1-43,44,45 • Considering a Report and Recommendation to the Board of Trustees NEW BUSINESS 6. Review of a Site Plan Application by Mrs.Denise Pirro- Sammartino for a rear addition, various renovations, lot merger and wetlands permit for parcel located at 225 Betsy Brown Road Rye Brook,NY,Parcel ID 135.44-1-11 • Considering a Resolution scheduling a Public Hearing DISCUSSION ITEMS ACTION ON NON-AGENDA MATTERS Subject to consent of Planning Board Members present at the meeting. PRESENT BOARD Mr. Dominick Accurso Mr. Robert Goodman Mr. Bill Laufer Mrs. Amy Schoen Chairman Gary Zuckerman EXCUSED Mr. John Grzan Mr. Dan Tartaglia STAFF Mrs.Marilyn Timpone-Mohamed,Village Planning Consultant Ms. Amanda Kandel,Village Counsel Mr. Mike Nowak,Acting Village Engineer Ms. Shari Melillo,Planning Board Secretary Chairman Zuckerman opened the meeting by asking everyone to join him in the Pledge of Allegiance. He then introduced the Board members and the Village Staff to the audience and explained the rules of procedure for the meeting. Additionally, Chairman Zuckennan made note for the public that the complete set of Planning Board Rules and Procedures can be found on the Village website and also announced that the public can now view the Planning Board meeting via streaming video on the Village website. The Chainnan called for the first item on the agenda: MINUTES 1. Review Minutes of October 14,2010 and October 28,2010 On a motion made by Mrs. Schoen and seconded by Mr. Laufer, a voice vote was taken and the minutes were unanimously approved. RESOLUTION 2. Resolution canceling the December 23,2010 Planning Board Meeting Mrs.Kandel read the resolution: December 9, 2010 RESOLUTION VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK PLANNING BOARD BE IT RESOLVED,that the December 23,2010 Planning Board meeting is hereby canceled. On a motion made by Mrs. Schoen and seconded by Mr. Goodman,a voice vote was taken and the resolution was adopted unanimously. Page 2 of t2 CONTINUED BUSINESS 3. Review of a Site Plan Application by Brian and Ellen Berk to legalize a rear yard sports court,spa,chain link fence,regrading of property,steep slopes and wetland permitting for parcel located at 11 Edgewood Drive,Rye Brook, NY,Parcel ID 135.28-1-21 • Considering a Resolution Mrs. Timpone-Mohamed read the resolution: December 9,2010 RESOLUTION APPROVING A SITE PLAN,WETLANDS PERMIT AND STEEP SLOPES WORK PERMIT FOR 11 EDGEWOOD DRIVE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK PLANNING BOARD WHEREAS, Mr. Brian D. Berk, property owner, submitted an application for approval of a site plan, Permit to Perform Work in a Wetlands, and a Steep Slopes Work Permit to legalize the existing sports court and spa located in the rear yard of the existing home located at 11 Edgewood Drive, in the R-25 Zoning District, Section 135.28, Block 1, Lot 21 on the Town of Rye Tax Assessor's Map;and WHEREAS,the Planning Board reviewed the following plans and application materials: I. Site Plan Application 2. Site Plan Submittal Review Checklist 3. Exterior Building Permit Application 4. Survey Map,dated March 23,2005 and revised 11/03/10,prepared by Aristotle Bournazos, P.C.,New Rochelle,N.Y. 5. Short Environmental Assessment Form 6. Building Permit Check List and Zoning Analysis 7. Letter to the Planning,dated October 5,2010,from James A.Ryan,RLA of John Meyer Consulting,P.C. answering comments from a memo to the Zoning Board of Appeals, dated October 29,2009,prepared by Frederick P. Clark Associates 8. Letter to the Planning,dated November 4,2010, from James A.Ryan,RLA of John Meyer Consulting,P.C. 9. Letter to John Meyer Consulting, dated June 23,2010, from Carlin, Simpson and Associates, Sayreville,N.J. 10. Letter to Brian D. Berk, dated September 29,2010, from Robert G.Torgerson,LA,CPESC, Nanuet,N.Y. 11. Letter to Brian D. Berk, dated November 3,2010, from Robert G. Torgerson,LA,CPESC, Nanuet,N.Y. 12. Memorandum to Michal Nowak dated November 24,2010,from Anthony J.Nestor of John Meyer Consulting,P.C. 13. Landscape Architect's Plans prepared by John Meyer Consulting,PC,Armonk,N.Y.: Page 3 of 12 Drawing Number Sheet Title Dated PE-1 Photo Exhibit Plan 09/24/2010 TS-1 Partial Topographic Map 06/04/2010 MP-1 Mitigation Plan 09/24/10 rev. 12/1/10 SAP-1 Slope Analysis Plan 09/24/10 rev. 11/3/10 IMP-1 bnpervious Area Plan 11/02/2010 CS-1 Cross Section Plan 11/03/2010 WHEREAS,the Village Planning Consultant, Village staff and the Planning Board reviewed the plans and information provided, submitted comments and made recommendations to the Applicant regarding the site and mitigation plans; and WHEREAS,the following planning issues were identified by the Planning Board: 1. The locations of the sports court and spa, which encroach into the required minimum six (6) foot side yard; 2. A grading plan that disturbed steep slopes and created new steep slopes within a regulated 100-foot watercourse buffer and in areas outside the buffer, and the stability of the slopes; 3. Lack of screening between the court and spa and the adjacent property, and the visual and safety impacts to the adjacent residential property; 4. Quality of the fill used in the construction of the sports court; 5. Location and extent of the wetland and wetland buffer, and preservation of existing trees within filled and graded areas in the buffer; and WHEREAS, according to the plans, the site plan requires the following area variances for spa and sports court from the Rye Brook Zoning Board of Appeals for approval of the site plan: 1. A 3.82-foot variance from the required six-foot side yard for the sports court; 2. A 2.0-foot variance fi-om the required six-foot side yard for the spa; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Village of Rye Brook, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act(SEQRA), determined the proposed action to be a Type 11 Action requiring no additional review under SEQRA; and WHEREAS,the Village Planning Consultant, Village staff and the Planning Board reviewed the information, submitted comments and made recommendations regarding the site plan, the mitigation site plan, disturbance in the water course buffer, the landscape and screen planting plan, grading, fill and slope stabilization, tree preservation, drainage and storm water management, and erosion control,and such plans were revised according to the comments; and WHEREAS,the Planning Board is familiar with the site and all aspects of the project; and WHEREAS, on November 18, 2010, the Planning Board opened a public hearing on the subject application, at which time all persons interested were given an opportunity to speak on behalf of or in opposition to said application and the Planning Board closed the public hearing on November 18,2010. Page 4 of t2 NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED, for the reasons stated herein,that the Village of Rye Brook Planning Board hereby approves the site and mitigation plans listed herein, a Wetlands Permit, and a Steep Slopes Work Permit to legalize the existing sports court and spa located in the rear yard of the home located at 11 Edgewood Drive, conditioned on the approval of all variances required by the site plan approved herein; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution along with a cover memorandum from the Planning Board shall be forwarded to the Village Zoning Board of Appeals upon approval;and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that no permits shall be issued until the Applicant has paid to the Village all applicable fees and professional review fees incurred in connection with review of this Application. On a motion made by Mrs. Schoen and seconded by Mr. Laufer, Mr. Nowak called the roll and the resolution was adopted: MR.ACCURSO YES MR. GOODMAN YES MR.LAUFER YES MRS. SCHOEN YES CHAIRMAN ZUCKERMAN YES 4. Referral from Board of Trustees to Review a Site Plan Application by Doral Arrowwood on behalf of American DG Energy to install and operate a cogeneration station for the parcel located at 975 Anderson Hill Road,Rye Brook,NY,Parcel ID 129.34-1-43,44,45 • Considering a Report and Recommendation to the Board of Trustees Chairman Zuckerman made note that there are still unresolved issues, such as moving the station, provision of a revised landscape plan with the revisions suggested by F.P. Clark, missing safety items that were previously cited,and noise. Ms. Noemi Santiago of HDR addressed the Board and advised that since the last meeting they have reviewed additional information provided by the applicant, and reviewed the calculations, which indicate that emissions are below the level that would require a permit from the New York State DEC. Mr. Gray confirmed with NYSDEC that a permit is not needed. However, a permit from the Health Department is needed and is currently in progress. The noise calculations that include the silencers suggested show that the unit would be much quieter and barely perceivable to the human ear. Chairman Zuckerman asked about the recommendation regarding running the modules only during the day, although he is not sure how possible that is because energy generated would be needed at all times. He is not sure if it is possible to include such a requirement in the recommendations,but would like to find a way to include it and word it appropriately. Mrs. Schoen asked, regarding the safety issue, if something goes wrong and there is property damage, does Arrow-wood have any responsibility. Mrs. Kandel responded that she could not answer the question at this time because the Village has not received copies of any lease agreements even though the agreements were requested. Mr. Chris Gray of DG Energy addressed the Board advising that he has been in constant Page 5 of 12 communication with Ms. Santiago of HDR and provided the Board with pages from the Tecogen manual to address some of the issues being discussed in regard to safety procedures. The lockout procedure is not finished, but they are developing it and asked that it be made a condition of permit approval. In his opinion the Health Department permit is expensive and he is attempting to obtain an exemption from the permit requirement because he believes the emissions levels are below the permit trigger levels. Mr. Gray asked the Planning Board to expedite his application because he would prefer not to wait another month for action on the application. Chairman Zuckerman explained that the Planning Board must provide a complete report for the Board of Trustees so they can be assured that all planning issues have been considered and resolved. The few items that were mentioned earlier are issues that should be reviewed and resolved before the application goes back to the Board of Trustees. Discussion regarding the role of the Planning Board when making a report and recommendation to the Board of Trustees ensued among the Planning Board members. Chairman Zuckerman reminded the Applicant that moving the generator, and revising the landscape plan as recommended by the Board and consultants have not been completed by the Applicant. He advised the Applicant to keep working on the missing items and strongly suggested that the generator be moved and the plan completed. Mrs. Timpone-Mohamed added that in regard to moving the units, it appears that there is a drainage line in the vicinity of the units that did not appear on earlier versions of the plans. While she believes the units should be moved, they cannot be located where they would interfere with the existing drainage line. Mr. Mastromonaco indicated where the 18 inch drainage pipe is located on the plans and Mrs. Mohamed suggested turning the units to be parallel to the pipe. Chairman Zuckerman added that if it can't be done then so be it, but it needs to be looked at. Right now the station is too close to the parking area, overwhelming it. He suggested that the Applicant keep working with staff on moving the units to the best place possible so that the enclosure does not overwhelm the site,and access to the units is provided. Chairman Zuckerman asked Mr. Lyras to address the Board regarding the Homeowner's Association concerns. Mr. Lyras, President of Doral Greens Homeowners Association, addressed the Board advising them that he is relying on the Planning Board and the Trustees to do a thorough review. if the Village Boards are satisfied then the HOA will be satisfied. He noted some frustration dealing with the Hotel, and his intention to take his issues to the Village Board if his requests are not addressed. Mr Lyras believes that the hotel is expanding its structures beyond the approved site plan, which is an issue for Doral Greens homeowners. Mrs. Schoen agreed with Mr Lyras' concerns.Application adjourned to 1/13/2011. 5. Referral from Board of Trustees to review a request by Cuddy and Feder on behalf of Reekson Operating Partnership,LLP for Phase 3 Site Plan and Wetland Permit Approval extensions for the parcel located at 1100 King Street,Rye Brook,NY,Parcel ID 129.34-1-43,44,45 • Considering a Report and Recommendation to the Board of Trustees Mrs.Kandel read the report and recommendation: Page 6 of 12 Planning Board of the Village of Rye Brook Report and Recommendation to the Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees on the proposed extension of the Site plan and Wetlands Permit for Phase III of Reckson Executive Park History and Project Overview Reckson, a division of S.L. Green Realty Corp. ("Applicant") has submitted a request for a five year extension of the Second Amended Phase III site plan approval and wetlands permits ("Project") at the Reckson Executive Park Property located at 1100 King Street. The Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees ("Board of Trustees") referred the proposed extension of the Project to the Village of Rye Brook Planning Board("Planning Board") on August 17, 2010 for their consideration. The Planning Board is to submit a report and recommendation to the Board of Trustees concerning the proposed extension. The Applicant is seeking a five-year extension to November 7, 2015. The Second Amended Phase III site plan approval and wetlands permit was set to expire on November 7, 2010. At the October 26,2010 Board of Trustees meeting,the Board of Trustees approved an interim sixty(60)day extension of the site plan and wetland approvals while the Planning Board examines the proposed extension of the Project. The Project allows for construction of a 280,000 square-foot office building and accessory parking areas, a plaza, site grading and two new storm water quality management basins to add to the existing storm water detention basin already on site. The site for the Phase III project is approximately 31.56 acres in size and is located at the western end of the office park adjacent to the Blind Brook. The Applicant received a five year extension in 2005 for the Project which is the subject of the current proposal. At that time the Board of Trustees granted the five year extension of the site plan and wetlands permit approvals subject to the following conditions: I. The detention basin and water quality basin should be completed prior to any building construction to provide a functional buffer in the area within the watercourse buffer around the detention basin and water quality basin. 2. The water quality basin and the detention basin should be fully planted with a wetlands meadow grass planting mix to the satisfaction of the Village Engineer and the Planning Consultant. On July 12, 2010 Reckson obtained a site development permit to continue construction of the water quality basins and expand the existing detention basin as approved in the 2005 extension. The construction of the detention and water quality basins commenced in September 2010 in accordance with the prior approvals and the July permit. Planning Board Discussion The Planning Board was presented with the proposed extension at the October 14, 2010 Planning Board meeting at which time the applicant gave a brief presentation and the discussion continued at its November 18 and December 9, 2010 meetings. In reviewing the proposed application for a five year extension, the Planning Board took into consideration any changes in the applicable local, state and federal laws and regulations since the 2005 extension was granted by the Board of Trustees as well as any changes to standards and best practices for storm water management and performing work in a wetland or wetland buffer. The Planning Board has identified the following environmental concerns related to the overall site plan and wetlands permit application: Page 7 of 12 • Extensive disturbance of a wetland and location of storm water facilities within a wetland and wetland buffer. • Location of storm water facilities within a flood plain. • Proposal of large detention ponds without site plan modifications to reduce the extent of impervious surface coverage and utilize measures for local infiltration of storm water to reduce the size of the ponds required. • The extent of the grading and disturbance proposed, and the creation of new steep slopes. • Removal of large areas of existing vegetation in wetlands and wetland buffers. The applicant indicated at the October 14, 2010 meeting that there is excessive parking available on site for not only what has already been constructed (in phases I and II) but what is also proposed to be constructed in Phase III. F.P. Clark has indicated that a parking demand study and a shared parking analysis should be considered to determine if the total number of parking spaces might be reduced, which would reduce impervious coverage and storm water run-off. In addition, the Planning Board discussed the possibility of designing the parking fields to allow infiltration of storm water by use of rain garden landscape islands within the parking area to further reduce the size of the storm water detention basins. Dolph Rotfeld Engineering, the Village's Consulting Engineer, submitted a memorandum dated November 11, 2010 to Michal Nowak, Acting Village Engineer. In the November 11, 2010 memo, Mr. Rotfeld identified the following issues related to the submitted site engineering plans, including the storm water pollution prevention plan("SWPPP"): a. The "wet extended detention pond" (or P-3) identified in the SWPPP more closely resembles a"multiple pond system" (or P-4) as per the NYSDEC Design Manual. If this is in fact a P-4 system, then smaller forebays prior to the water quality ponds should be incorporated into the SWPPP. b. The plans should be revised to reflect that the slope of the embankment of the detention pond below contour elevation 260 shall be 1:3 (V:H). C. Manholes up to ten feet deep shall have an inside diameter of four feet and any manhole over ten feet deep shall have an inside diameter of six feet. Any manhole, irrespective of depth, connected to a 48"pipe shall have an inside diameter of at least six feet, and, if connected to a 54"pipe shall have an inside diameter of at least eight feet. d. The applicant should consider using square manhole structures with a width of two feet greater than the diameter of the greatest pipe. e. All manhole dimensions stated in Mr. Rotfeld's November 11, 2010 memorandum must extend to the top of the pipe; coned shaped transitions or tapers shall not be used on manholes over ten feet deep. £ The Village may wish to review and approve plans for these structures prior to the installation by the Applicant. g. The Applicant should consider using storm drainage pipes other than corrugated metal pipe(CMP)at depths greater than ten feet because of the potential failure as a result of Page 8 of t2 corrosion associated with this type of pipe and the difficulty in replacing said pipe should it fail. Divney-Tung Schwalbe, the Project engineer, submitted a response to Mr. Rotfeld's November 11, 2010 memorandum on November 16, 2010 in which they addressed the above stated concerns from the Rotfeld memorandum. Mr. Rotfeld has informed the Planning Board that his comments have been satisfactorily addressed by the Project engineer. Planning Board Recommendations Based on the information submitted by the applicant and the review conducted by the Village staff and consultants (F.P.Clark and Dolph Rotfeld Engineering) the Planning Board makes the following recommendations: a. The Planning Board does not recommend a five year extension of the site plan and wetlands permit. Instead, the Planning Board recommends that, if an extension is granted by the Board of Trustees, it is for a period of less than five years. The proposed development is within an environmentally sensitive area and the Planning Board believes that granting another five year extension is unwarranted given that the applicant originally submitted this application in 2000. Granting an extension for a shorter period than five years will allow the Board of Trustees to maintain control over the application if the applicable environmental laws, regulations or best practices should change over time. The Planning Board leaves it to the Board of Trustees to detennine the appropriate length of time for the extension. b. The Planning Board further recommends that the Board of Trustees consider requiring the applicant to perform a parking demand study and shared parking analysis of the site. The current parking plan results in a large area of impervious coverage on the lot. By reducing the number of parking spaces, this will accomplish a concomitant reduction in impervious surface onsite and may reduce the size of the detention ponds further limiting the disturbance to the wetlands and wetland buffer. C. The Planning Board further recommends that the Board of Trustees consider requiring the applicant to design the parking fields to allow infiltration of storm water by use of rain garden landscape islands within the parking area to further reduce the size of the storm water detention basins. d. The Planning Board further recommends that the Board of Trustees accept the changes proposed by Divney-Tung Schwalbe in response to Mr. Rotfeld's November 11, 2010 memorandum to Michal Nowak, Acting Village Engineer, including but not limited to those listed in Section 11,a.-g. above. The Rotfeld recommendations will conform the Applicant's proposed plan to current standards and best practices. Mr. Rotfeld has indicated that the engineer has satisfactorily addressed these comments in a set of revised plans submitted to the Planning Board on December 9,2010. Conclusion In conclusion, the Planning Board recommends the Board of Trustees grant the extension subject to the conditions set forth herein. Dated: Rye Brook,New York December 9, 2010 On a motion made by Mrs. Schoen and seconded by Mr. Laufer, Mr. Nowak called the roll and the Page 9 of t2 report and recommendation were approved: MR.ACCURSO YES MR. GOODMAN YES MR.LAUFER YES MRS. SCHOEN YES CHAIRMAN ZUCKERMAN YES Mrs. Kandel read the resolution sending the report to the Board of Trustees: December 9,2010 RESOLUTION Authorizing submission of Report and Recommendation to the Board of Trustees on the proposed extension of the Site Plan and Wetlands Permit for Phase III of the Reckson Executive Park BE IT RESOLVED,that the Planning Board of the Village of Rye Brook adopts the attached Report and Recommendation to the Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees on the proposed extension of the site plan and wetlands permit for Phase III of the Reckson Executive Park and requests the Secretary to the Planning Board forward a copy of the Report to the Board of Trustees and the Village Administrator. On a motion made by Mrs. Schoen and seconded by Mr. Goodman,Mr.Nowak called the roll and the resolution was adopted: MR.ACCURSO YES MR. GOODMAN YES MR.LAUFER YES MRS. SCHOEN YES CHAIRMAN ZUCKERMAN YES NEW BUSINESS 6. Review of a Site Plan Application by Mrs.Denise Pirro-Sammartino for a rear addition, various renovations,lot merger and wetlands permit for the parcel located at 225 Betsy Brown Road Rye Brook,NY,Parcel ID 135.44-1-11 • Considering a Resolution Scheduling a Public Hearing Chairman Zuckerman explained that an earlier version of the application was before the Planning Board in June of 2010. At that time, it was discovered that an earlier lot merger application was approved by the Board of Trustees in 2003,but the merger was never filed with the County. Mr. Lawrence Engel, attorney for the applicant, addressed the Board, giving a brief overview of the application and Mrs. Mohamed's memo. He explained that the exterior work involved construction of a front porch, new windows and doors, extension of a roof overhang, a one-story rear addition, and rebuilding the garage on its current footprint. He briefly discussed the landscape and drainage plans. Mrs. Timpone-Mohamed added that some dimensions and zoning calculations on the plans have not Page 10 of t2 been verified due to the illness and absence of the Building Inspector,Mr. Izzo. Chairman Zuckerman added that the Board is aware of the problem but wants to proceed despite the unverified calculations. Mrs. Timpone-Mohamed noted the dimensions of the new front yard, which indicate that the new porch would require a variance. The site plan was revised to reduce the size of the parking court. However, the Building Inspector must determine if the paved area is a parking court or a turn-around and whether or not a variance is required for the location of the parking court. The new plan would add 516 square feet of impervious surface coverage within the wetland buffer, which would require mitigation according to the Village Code.Ms. Timpone-Mohamed continues to recommend additional reduction of impervious surface coverage within the buffer. In regard to the revised landscape plan, there are calculations that are still missing. Chairman Zuckerman added that because there are wetlands and wetland buffers on most of the property,the application should be referred to Dolph Rotfeld for review. Mrs.Mohamed read the resolution setting the public hearing: December 9,2010 RESOLUTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING CONCERNING AN APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL,AND A WETLANDS PERMIT FOR 225 BETSY BROWN ROAD VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK PLANNING BOARD WHEREAS, Mrs. Denise Pirro-Sammartino, owner, submitted applications for approval of a subdivision to merge two existing lots, site plan approval, and a permit to perforin regulated activities in a wetland to construct additions to an existing home located at 225 Betsy Brown Road, in the R-10 zoning district, Section 135.44, Block 1, Lot 11 on the Town of Rye Tax Assessor's Map. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Village of Rye Brook Planning Board shall hold a Public Hearing on January 13, 2011 at 8:00 p.m., at Village Hall, 938 King Street, Rye Brook, New York to consider the application for subdivision and site plan approval, and a permit to perform regulated activities in a wetland; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Board, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and after review of the Short Environmental Assessment Form(EAF)prepared by the Applicant, determines the proposed action to be an Unlisted Action pursuant to the requirements of SEQRA; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Applicant is directed to comply with Section 250- 40 of the Village Code regarding notification. On a motion made by Mrs. Schoen and seconded by Mr. Laufer, Mr. Nowak called the roll and the resolution was adopted. MR. ACCURSO YES MR. GOODMAN YES MR.LAUFER YES MRS. SCHOEN YES Page 11 of 12 CHAIRMAN ZUCKERAIAN YES Chairman Zuckerman called for a motion to adjourn, and on a motion made by Mrs. Schoen and seconded by Mr. Goodman,the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 pm. Page 12 of t2