Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013_10_23 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK OCTOBER 23,2013 HELD IN CONFERENCE ROOM C,OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD, MAMARONECK, NEW YORK APPROVAL OF MINUTES APPLICATION NO. 1 CASE NO. 2943 Herbert Meyers Application of Herbert Meyers requesting a variance to install a 20 KW standby generator on the premises located at 7 Meadow Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 405, Lot 231. APPLICATION NO. 2 CASE NO. 2945 Adam and Diane Safer Application of Adam and Diane Safer requesting variance to construct a two story addition at the side and rear on the premises located at 99 Madison Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 130, Lot 209. APPLICATION NO. 3 CASE NO. 2946 BLD Diner Application of BLD Diner requesting an interpretation and variance to build a new diner on the premises located at 2399 Boston Post Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 505, Lot 433. APPLICATION NO.4 CASE NO. 2950 Sarah Bell Application of Sarah Bell requesting a variance to construct a kitchen addition and renovation on the premises located at 46 North Chatsworth Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 127, Lot 10. APPLICATION NO. 5 CASE NO. 2951 Seven Madison LLC Application of Seven Madison LLC requesting a variance to internally illuminate an existing wall sign on the premises located at 7 Madison Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 132, Lot 463 CALL TO ORDER At 8:04 P.M. Roll Call. 1 Present:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Seth Marcus, Evan Simpson Also Present: Ronald A. Carpaneto, Building Inspector, Kevin G. Ryan, Counsel, Ernest Odierna,Town Board Liaison. Absent/Excused:Jeffery King. APPLICATION NO. 1 CASE NO.2943 Herbert Meyers 7 Meadow Place Robert Keller,the applicant's architect, addressed the Board asking for a 20KW generator in the right hand corner of the property. The property is heavily screened therefore the unit will not easily be seen. The Board questioned the decibel level of the unit, and why the unit is being placed in the front yard. Mr. Keller explained that the front corner by the garage is the best place to install the generator because any alternative locations would place the unit too close to windows The neighbor most effected, Mr. Oppenheimer of 50 Howell Ave., stated he has no objection. Mr. Meyers stated that 75% of the homes in the neighborhood have generators. The unit will have a sound dampening enclosure and a decibel level of 66 dBA. There were no questions or comments from the public, except for Mr. Oppenheimer(above). Motion: To open the public hearing nunc pro tunc Action:Approved Moved by Seth Marcus, seconded by Irene O'Neill. Motion: To close the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Irene O'Neill, Seconded by Seth Marcus. Motion: To approve the requested variance 2 Action:Approved Moved by Seth Marcus, seconded by Irene O'Neill. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=4). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Evan Simpson, Irene O'Neill, Seth Marcus. Absent: King Illlii ` After review, on motion of Seth Marcus, seconded by Irene O'Neill the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(4-0). Ayes: Wexler, Marcus, O'Neill, Simpson Nays: None Absent/Excused: King WHEREAS, Herbert Meyers, requested a variance to install a 20 KW standby generator located at 7 Meadow Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 405, Lot 231; WHEREAS,the Building Director declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Sections 240-36 B(1) and 240-69; WHEREAS,the applicant submitted an application for a variance to this Board for reasons set forth in such application,the generator as proposed has a front yard of 26 feet 8 inches (Carleon front yard)where 40 feet is required, has a front yard of 36 feet 5 inches (Meadow Place front yard)where 40 feet is required and further the generator increase the extent by which the property is nonconforming for a residence in an R-15 Zone District; WHEREAS,the Board examined the Plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a public hearing thereon; WHEREAS,this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6NYCRR§617 et, seq. and, accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required; and WHEREAS,the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law§267-b: 3 1. The Board finds the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors. A. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting of the variance. The Board finds that granting the variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties. The generator is a relatively small unit given the size of the property and will be screened and should present no significant visible change. There are similar units throughout the neighborhood, including the closest residence diagonally across the street. In fact the neighbor most effected has stated he has no objection to the placement. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicant other than an area variance. The Board finds that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method feasible to the applicant not requiring a variance. There are no reasonable alternatives given the current state of the building on the property and the setbacks. In particular, each alternative location would impermissibly place the proposed unit too close to a window. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial. It is a small unit relative to the overall size of the property. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. Although the unit may bring a slight increase in noise,we do not find this to be a significant impact given that there are other generators in the neighborhood of similar character, and given the fact that it is an emergency generator and therefore will only make noise during brief periods where it is testing itself, and during emergency periods, during which other units will likewise be operating. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created. 4 The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but that this factor is not determinative under the circumstances presented. 2. For the reasons stated above, the granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. 3. For reasons stated above,the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health safety and welfare of the community. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: GENERAL CONDITIONS: 1. This variance is limited to the construction shown on the submitted plans as conditioned and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board as agreed to by the Applicant. 2. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the review and approval of the Director of Building prior to the granting of the building permit. 3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of the Resolution. 4. The Building permit shall be void if construction is not started within (6) months. 5. Construction shall be in compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application, as conditioned or modified pursuant to the direction of the Board. SPECIAL CONDITION: 1. The unit will be screened with vegetation such that it will not be visible from the street in accordance with the approval of the Director of Building as discussed by the Board during the consideration of this application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. APPLICATION NO. 2 CASE NO.2945 Adam and Diane Safer 99 Madison Avenue Lisa Gilbert,the applicant's architect, addressed the Board. Ms. Gilbert stated that the proposed addition would be in the rear over an existing one story footprint. The proposed addition is intended to achieve more living space for the applicant's family. The property elevation was discussed. 5 Mr. Wexler stated that if the applicant reduced the request by less than 4 inches a variance would not be required. He further stated he felt the proposed wall should be reduced. Ms. Gilbert stated she did not see a negative impact. She noted that the house is on a dead end street and the addition would not be visible from the street. The most effected neighbor,the Fallons of 97 Madison Avenue, submitted a letter in support. Ms. Gilbert stated that in 2008 the Zoning Board granted a variance for one square foot for the corner of the front of the house for an open porch, mud room and entrance way. Now the applicants are asking to extend the nonconforming side. Mr. Wexler stated again that in his view the addition could be made smaller and thus avoid the need for a variance. Mr. Safer stated the resulting indentation would create odd shaped rooms. The evergreen screening around the side of the house was discussed. Ms. Gilbert stated that the proposed overhangs would match existing overhangs. There were no questions or comments from the public. Mr. Safer asked to poll the Board. Motion:To close the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Seth Marcus. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=4). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Evan Simpson, Irene O'Neill, Seth Marcus. Motion:To approve the requested variance Action:Approved Moved by Irene O'Neill, seconded by Evan Simpson. Vote: Motion passed (summary:Yes=3, No= 1,Abstain =0). Yes: Evan Simpson, Irene O'Neill, Seth Marcus. No:Arthur Wexler, Chairman. 6 After review, on motion of Irene O'Neill, seconded by Evan Simpson the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED (3-1). Ayes: O'Neill, Marcus, Simpson Nays: Wexler Absent/Excused: King WHEREAS,Adam and Diane Safer, requested a variance to construct a two story addition at the side and rear on the premises located 99 Madison Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 130, Lot 209. WHEREAS,the Building Director declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Sections 240-38(2)(a), 240-69 WHEREAS,the applicant submitted an application for a variance to this Board for reasons set forth in such application,the two story addition would have a side yard of 9.6 feet where 10 feet is required and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming for a residence in an R-7-5 Zone District. WHEREAS,the Board examined the Plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a public hearing thereon. WHEREAS,this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6NYCRR§617 et, seq. and, accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required; and WHEREAS,the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law§267-b: 1. The Board finds the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors. A. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting of the variance. The Board finds that granting the variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties. The intrusion of the addition into the side yard of about 4 inches will not have a negative impact on the neighborhood. The side of the house where the addition is planned is not visible from the road. It is only visible from the house next door and that neighbor supports this 7 addition. Due to the shielding of the side of the property by high evergreen shrubs,the addition will be minimally visible from the neighboring property to the side of the house. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicants other than an area variance. The Board finds that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method feasible to the applicant not requiring a variance. The interior of the house would be very awkward without a variance. As it is a small residence,the additional space will make a great difference to the applicants in terms of the livability of the space. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial. The intrusion of only 4 inches into the side yard is not substantial. This house is already nonconforming due to its placement on the lot at the time of original construction. Lot coverage will not increase materially as a result of this addition. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. As previously noted,the proposed addition will not be visible from the street and only minimally visible from the neighboring property due to the plantings along the side of the property. As a result, the proposed addition will not cause an adverse visual impact. Any run-off associated with increased impermeable surfaces will be controlled in accordance with the Town Code. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but that this factor is not determinative under the circumstances presented. 2. For the reasons stated above, the granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. 3. For reasons stated above,the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health safety and welfare of the community. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 8 GENERAL CONDITIONS: 1. This variance is limited to the construction shown on the submitted plans as conditioned and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board as agreed to by the Applicant. 2. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the review and approval of the Director of Building prior to the granting of the building permit. 3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of the Resolution. 4. The Building permit shall be void if construction is not started within (6) months. 5. Construction shall be in compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application, as conditioned or modified pursuant to the direction of the Board. 6. The plantings (Evergreen) between the residences be maintained in perpetuity. SPECIAL CONDITION: 1. The existing evergreen plantings shielding the view of the area of the proposed addition from the view of the neighboring property shall be maintained in perpetuity. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. APPLICATION NO. 3 CASE NO.2946 BLD Diner 2399 Boston Post Road Motion: To open the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Irene O'Neill. Mr. Madden,the applicant's attorney, addressed the Board. Mr. Orsini,the applicant's architect, also addressed the Board. Mr. Madden stated the applicant obtained the lot adjacent and to the east of 2399 Boston Post Road with the intention of rebuilding the diner on the new parcel and demolishing the old building. The applicant is before the Board for a variance for parking in front of the proposed building and for an interpretation of Zoning Code Section 240-89(D)(1)with regard to hours of operation. 9 The Board discussed with the applicant's attorney and architect the Code section in question and whether the currently grandfathered 24-hour operation could continue if the existing building were demolished and replaced with a new building on the newly acquired property. The Board temporarily adjourned the matter. APPLICATION NO. 4 CASE NO.2950 Sarah Bell 46 North Chatsworth Avenue Motion:To open the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Frederick Baron. Cindy Stoll the applicant's architect addressed the Board. Ms. Stoll stated that access to property is thru an easement off Edgewood Avenue. Although the front door is on N Chatsworth it is rarely used. Mr. Wexler asked if impervious area is being reduced, Ms. Stoll responded yes. After clarification with the Building Inspector it was determined that the applicant did not require a variance. APPLICATION NO. 5 CASE NO.2951 SEVEN MADISON LLC(Madison Kitchen) 7 Madison Avenue Motion: To open the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Seth Marcus, Seconded by Irene O'Neill. Lisa Di Bona a co-owner of the applicant restaurant stated she was seeking a variance to permit an internally illuminated sign to replace the one that had been on the building for many years. She further stated that the Board of Architectural Review(BAR) had approved the proposed sign. The Board discussed the application. There were no questions or comments from the public. Motion:To close the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Irene O'Neill. 10 Motion:To approve the requested variance Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, seconded by Irene O'Neill. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=4). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Evan Simpson, Irene O'Neill, Seth Marcus. After review, on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(4-0). Ayes: Wexler, O'Neill, Marcus, Simpson Nays: None Absent/Excused: King WHEREAS,Seven Madison LLC (Madison Kitchen), requested a variance to internally illuminate an existing wall sign on the premises located at 7 Madison Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 132, Lot 463. WHEREAS,the Building Director declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Sections 240-46H.8.(c)[4], WHEREAS,the applicant submitted an application for a variance to this Board for reasons set forth in such application,the sign as proposed is internally illuminated where internally illuminated signs are prohibited in a Service Business Zone. WHEREAS,the Board examined the Plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a public hearing thereon. WHEREAS,this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et, seq. and, accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required; and WHEREAS,the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law§267-b: 1. The Board finds the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors. A. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting of the variance. 11 The Board finds that granting the variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties. Given the fact that the sign is exactly the same size as the existing internally lighted sign,the internal illumination of the new sign will not produce any undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicants other than an area variance. The Board finds that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method feasible to the applicant not requiring a variance. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some feasible method not requiring a variance because the dimension of the overhang in the area where the sign will be placed is too narrow for an externally lighted sign. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial. It is replacing exactly the same type and size of sign that is there now. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board finds that, because the sign proposed is exactly the same size and type of sign that has existed at the location for 20 to 30 years, it will have no adverse effect on the environment. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but that this factor is not determinative under the circumstances presented. 2. For the reasons stated above, the granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. 3. For reasons stated above,the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health safety and welfare of the community. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: GENERAL CONDITIONS: 12 1. This variance is limited to the construction shown on the submitted plans as conditioned and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board as agreed to by the Applicant. 2. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the review and approval of the Director of Building prior to the granting of the building permit. 3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of the Resolution. 4. The Building permit shall be void if construction is not started within (6) months. 5. Construction shall be in compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application, as conditioned or modified pursuant to the direction of the Board. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. APPLICATION NO. 3 CASE NO.2946 BLD Diner resumed Motion: Reopen the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Irene O'Neill. The Board and the applicant's representatives discussed the proposed area variance to allow parking in front of the building and the effects of the proposed construction on the neighborhood. There were no questions or comments from the public. Motion:To close the public hearing concerning the requested area variance. Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Irene O'Neill. Motion: To approve the parking variance. Action:Approved Moved by Seth Marcus, seconded by Irene O'Neill. After review, on motion of Mr. Marcus, seconded by Ms. O'Neill the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(4-0). Ayes: Wexler, O'Neill, Marcus, Simpson 13 Nays: None Absent/Excused: King WHEREAS, BLD Diner 2399 Boston Post Road Realty Corp., requested a variance to build a new diner on the premises located at 2399 Boston Post Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 505, Lot 433. WHEREAS,the Building Director declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Sections 240-45B(1), prohibiting parking in front of a building in the SB Zoning District where a proposed building will be less than 75 feet from the front property line. WHEREAS,the applicant submitted an application for a variance to allow parking in front of the building where no parking is permitted in front of the building when the building will be less than 75 feet from front property line. WHEREAS,the Board examined the Plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a public hearing thereon. WHEREAS,this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6NYCRR§617 et, seq. and, accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required; and WHEREAS,the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law§267-b: 1. The Board finds the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors. A. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting of the variance. The Board finds that granting the variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties. Without expressing any opinion regarding the relocation of the building to the adjacent portion of the development site or the hours of operation of the restaurant in the new building,the Board finds that the proposed parking within 75 feet of the front property line is consistent with other uses in the immediate area and that the proposed circulation pattern will be an improvement over the existing condition. Accordingly,the granting of the requested variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties. 14 B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicants other than an area variance. The Board finds that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method feasible to the applicant not requiring a variance. The proposed parking will be an improvement over the current parking,which is also in front of the building and less than 75 feet from the front property line. Even if the applicant were to renovate the existing building rather than construct a new building,the parking would be in front of a building less than 75 feet from the front property line. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial given the fact that the existing parking for the restaurant is in front of the building and less than 75 feet from the front property line. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The proposed parking within 75 feet of the front property line and in front of the building will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood given that it will merely replace existing parking which is also less than 75 feet from the front property line and in front of the building. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but that this factor is not determinative under the circumstances presented. 2. For the reasons stated above, the granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. 3. For reasons stated above,the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health safety and welfare of the community. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: GENERAL CONDITIONS: 15 1. This variance is limited to the construction shown on the submitted plans as conditioned and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board as agreed to by the Applicant. 2. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the review and approval of the Director of Building prior to the granting of the building permit. 3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of the Resolution. 4. The Building permit shall be void if construction is not started within (6) months. 5. Construction shall be in compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application, as conditioned or modified pursuant to the direction of the Board. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. The above resolution was readopted at the December 4, 2013 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. MINUTES Motion: Approve the Minutes of the September 25, 2013. Action:Approved Moved by Seth Marcus, Seconded by Irene O'Neill. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=4). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Seth Marcus. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:55P.M. Minutes prepared by Francine M. Brill Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary 16