Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017_11_29 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK, HELD IN CONFERENCE ROOM "C"OF THE TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD, MAMARONECK, NEW YORK NOVEMBER 29, 2017 ROLL CALL Present: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Evans Simpson,Jeffery King,Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh,Alternate Also Present: Lisa Hochman, Counsel,to the Zoning Board, Ralph Tarchine, Interim Building Inspector, Francine M. Brill, Secretary to the Zoning Board CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:49 P.M. APPLICATION NO. 1 CASE NO.3087 Craig Mills No one appeared and the matter was adjourned. APPLICATION NO. 2 CASE NO.3089 Joshua Klaczek and Ragne Ross 1 Briar Del Circle Continued Robert Keller,the applicant's architect addressed the Board requesting a 3 foot variance in the rear and extend the terrace. Plan A2.1 was discussed. The existing structure has corners of the house cut off. The applicant made the variance request smaller than previously requested in the notice. 38 feet to the building and 27 feet to the step. The Height of patio is 42 inches above grade. The Board discussed the request. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler seconded by Jeffery King Vote: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Evans Simpson,Jeffery King,Jonathan Sacks Motion: To approve the requested variance Action: Approved Moved by Jeffery King seconded by Irene O'Neill Vote: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Evans Simpson,Jeffery King,Jonathan Sacks 1 APPLICATION NO. 3 CASE NO.3093 David and Eden Gingold 3 Briar Del Circle continued Mr.Tarchine stated he took a look at the code regarding the request for an interpretation and concluded the applicant needs 32 feet in the front, therefore they need a variance. Mr. Sacks stated the lower platform is not considered a part of the structure. Joe Guglielmo,the applicant's Architect, addressed the Board. The Board discussed the request and Section 240-51. Mr. Wexler stated that projection of a platform and steps can project 8 feet into the front yard. A variance for 3.19 feet for the projection of a covered portico is required Mr.Tarchine concurs. Mr.Tarchine stated a covered portico is a structure. Motion: To close the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler seconded by Jeffery King Vote: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Evans Simpson,Jeffery King,Jonathan Sacks Motion: To approve the requested variance Action: Approved Moved by Jonathan Sacks seconded by Jeffery King Vote: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Evans Simpson,Jeffery King,Jonathan Sacks After review, on motion of Jonathan Sacks seconded by Jeffery King the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0. Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Evans Simpson, Jeffery King, Jonathan Sacks Nays: None WHEREAS, David and Eden Gingold, (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a new front door portico on the premises located at 3 Briar Del Circle and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2, Block 4, Lot 590; and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The new front door portico has a front yard of 30.34 feet where 40 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-35.B(1) and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a building in an R-20 Zone District (the "Notice of Disapproval"); and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector stated at the public hearing that the requested variance is actually 36.8 feet rather than 30.34 feet as stated in the Notice of Disapproval because 2 he interpreted that the distance is to be measured from the top of the platform where the covered portion of the portico ends, rather than from the bottom of the platform/step; and WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted to this Board an application for relief from the requirements from the Zoning Code; and 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; and WHEREAS, this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6NYCRR§ 617 el. 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; and 1. The Board finds that 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 because the Applicant proposed to add a cover/roof to an existing porch and landing, which is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood and will enhance the appearance of the house. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some means 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 because there is no way to cover the front porch without encroaching into the required front yard setback. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the existing footprint will remain the same and the appearance and function of the house will be improved with a portico. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 3 The Board finds that the variance will not adversely impact the local physical or environmental conditions because there will be in increase in lot coverage or stormwater runoff or any other environmental impacts. 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 the 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: 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 Building Inspector prior to the granting of the building permit. 3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this 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. Applicant shall submit to the Town Building Department a foundation survey prior to framing. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town. APPLICATION NO. 4 CASE NO. 3094 LRC Investment Holdings 1 Kenmare Road Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Approved 4 Moved by Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Vote: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Evans Simpson,Jeffery King,Jonathan Sacks Robert Stanziale,the applicant's architect, addressed the Board, representing the owners who were present. The property is a corner property in an R-6 zone and part is in Larchmont. The property line is the curb in Larchmont. The Board discussed the property line and the reserved strip as shown on the survey. Mr. Sacks asked if the reserved strip is included in the coverage calculations. The Board requested existing conditions, as only proposed was submitted. Mr. Stanziale stated that the plan has been slightly changed and tried to explain the changes, Mr. Tarchine suggested the matter be adjourned and the applicant return with new plans. Mr. Wexler asked for existing drawings and elevations as well as the new proposed plan along with existing and proposed site plan and site photos. Mr. Stanziale requested an adjournment. APPLICATION NO. 5 CASE NO.3095 Kevin Doherty 25 Barnum Road Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler seconded by Evans Simpson Vote: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Evans Simpson,Jeffery King,Jonathan Sacks Eric Jacobson, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board stating they are requesting 2 variances lot coverage at 37%and a rear setback, he entered 5 letters into the record marked Exhibit 11-17 (5). Mr. Wexler state that patio's on grade are not included in lot coverage. The property has a lot of natural rock out cropping's. A photo showing the natural separation to the neighbor was entered into the record and marked Exhibit 11-17(2) The Board discussed the requested variances. Mr. Sacks voiced his concerns with massing. Mr.Jacobson stated they are stepping the roof line back to lessen massing. Lot coverage was discussed and Mr.Jacobson stated he included the walk ways and patio in his calculations, if they are removed it should be less than 35%. 5 There were no public questions or comments Motion: To close the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler seconded by Evans Simpson Vote: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Evans Simpson,Jeffery King,Jonathan Sacks Motion: To approve the requested variance Action: Approved Moved by Evans Simpson seconded by Irene O'Neill Vote: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Evans Simpson,Jeffery King,Jonathan Sacks After review, on motion of Evans Simpson seconded by Irene O'Neill the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0. Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Evans Simpson, Jeffery King, Jonathan Sacks Nays: None WHEREAS, Kevin Doherty, (the "Applicant") requested a variance to remove a covered rear entry, build one story left side yard addition for new kitchen, build two story right side addition for new recreation room and bedroom on the premises located at 25 Barnum Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2, Block 10, Lot 765; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The one story addition has a rear yard of 10.5 feet where 25 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-37.B(3), the two story right side addition has a rear yard of 18 feet where 25 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-37.B(3), the one story addition has a rear yard of 14 feet where 25 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-37.B(3), maximum coverage is 37% where 35% is required pursuant to Section 240-37.F, and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a building in an R-10 Zone District (the "Notice of Disapproval"); and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector stated at the public hearing that the requested variance is actually less than that stated in the Notice of Disapproval because the patio should be excluded from the lot coverage calculation and the right side addition does not encroach into the required setback; and WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted to this Board an application for relief from the requirements from the Zoning Code; and 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; and 6 WHEREAS, this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6NYCRR§ 617 el. 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; and 1. The Board finds that 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 because the added bulk is well set back from the front of the house, will not be discernable from the street and impact to rear neighbors will be mitigated by the grade differential as well as the existing structure. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some means 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 because the existing house is non-conforming and there is no other way to expand without triggering the need for a variance. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that while the variance is substantial in terms of additional bulk, the impact of the variance is insubstantial because the rear yard encroachment will actually be less than existing conditions. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board finds that the variance will not adversely impact the local physical or environmental conditions because there will be dry wells installed to mitigate stormwater impacts and there are no other physical or environmental impacts with respect to light, noise, etc. 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. 7 2. For the reasons stated above, the granting of the 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: 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 Building Inspector prior to the granting of the building permit. 3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this 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. Applicant shall submit to the Town Building Department a foundation survey prior to framing. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town. 7. CASE NO. 3097 Brian Olsen and Maria Kondrachuk Eric Jacobson, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board to renew the variance that expired due to the fact the applicant did not get a permit in the required time. The original variance was for a second story dormer that encroaches into the setback, because of an incorrect survey. The Board discussed how to view the application as new or a renewal. The contractor failed to get a permit and the variance expired. Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler seconded by Jonathan Sacks 8 Vote: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Evans Simpson,Jeffery King,Jonathan Sacks The Board discussed the request. Motion: To close the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler seconded by Evans Simpson Vote: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Evans Simpson,Jeffery King,Jonathan Sacks Motion: To approve the requested variance. Action: Approved Moved by Jonathan Sacks seconded by Irene O'Neill Vote: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Evans Simpson,Jeffery King,Jonathan Sacks After review, on motion of Jonathan Sacks son seconded by Irene O'Neill the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0. Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Evans Simpson, Jeffery King, Jonathan Sacks Nays: None WHEREAS, Brian Olsen and Maria Kondrachuk, (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a permit to legalize an encroachment into the side yard setback created after new construction to the second floor was completed on the premises located at 7 Normandy Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 130, Lot 447; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The addition to the second floor as built has a side yard of 9.4 feet where 10 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-38.B(2)(a), and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a building in an R-7.5 Zone District (the "Notice of Disapproval"); and WHEREAS, the same area variance was requested by this Applicant and awarded by the Board in 2014 but the Applicant failed to comply with the conditions thereby imposed and thus the variance expired; and WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted to this Board an application for relief from the requirements from the Zoning Code; and 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; and 9 WHEREAS, this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6NYCRR§ 617 el. 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; and 1. The Board finds that 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. 1. 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 because it has already been constructed and the encroachment is minor, only .8 of a foot on one side of a substantial dwelling. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some means 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 because it is not feasible to remove a corner of the house. 3. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that while the variance is not substantial because it already exists without objection and the amount of bulk and the encroachment are small. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board finds that the variance will not adversely impact the local physical or environmental conditions because it will not result in any increased light, noise or stormwater runoff. 5. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty may not be self-created because it resulted from a mistake in the survey, but regardless, this factor is not determinative under the circumstances presented. 2. For the reasons stated above, the granting of the 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. 10 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: 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 Building Inspector prior to the granting of the building permit. 3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this 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. Applicant shall submit to the Town Building Department a foundation survey prior to framing. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town. APPLICATION NO. 8 CASE NO. 3098 Daniel and Megan Davidson 125 Murray Avenue Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler seconded by Jonathan Sacks Vote: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Evans Simpson,Jeffery King,Jonathan Sacks Greg Lewis the applicant's architect, addressed the Board stating the owners are expecting a baby shortly and need more room for the growing family. He showed existing and proposed plans, stating the long driveway to the rear yard garage impacts lot coverage. The front of the house will remain as is and the proposed addition is in the rear. They plan to expand the rear portion of the driveway the full width of the present garage. The Board discussed the requested variances. 11 Mr. Simpson asked what is included in lot coverage, Mr. Lewis responded the driveway is 17%of lot coverage, if not for the driveway they would be under required lot coverage. The Board discussed reducing some of the driveway addition to lesson coverage, and agreed on approximately 96 sq.,foot less coverage. The Patio is not included in coverage but the retaining walls are. The Board discussed the front portico as it also requires a variance. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler seconded by Jeffery King Vote: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Evans Simpson,Jeffery King,Jonathan Sacks Motion: To approve the requested variance Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler seconded by Jonathan Sacks Vote: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Evans Simpson,Jeffery King,Jonathan Sacks After review, on motion of Irene O'Neill seconded by Jeffery King the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0. Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Evans Simpson, Jeffery King, Jonathan Sacks Nays: None WHEREAS, Daniel and Meghan Davidson, (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a two story addition on the premises located at 125 Murray Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 18, Lot 167; and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The addition has a front yard of 27.1 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-38.B(1), one side yard of 5.4 feet where 10 feet is required pursuant to Section 240- 38.B(2)(a), both sides together are 16.9 where 20 feet is required pursuant to Section 240- 38.B(2)(b), lot coverage is 46.6% where 35% is required pursuant to Section 240-38.F, and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a building in an R-7.5 Zone District(the "Notice of Disapproval"); and WHEREAS,the Applicant submitted to this Board an application for relief from the requirements from the Zoning Code; and 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; and 12 WHEREAS, this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6NYCRR§ 617 el. 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; and 1. The Board finds that 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. 1. 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 because the addition preserves the charming character of the house, the added bulk will impact only the rear and will not be any closer to neighbor as compared to current conditions. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some means 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 because the house is pre-existing non-conforming and the free standing garage and long driveway burdens lot coverage. 3. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that while the requested side yard variance is not substantial because the right side yard encroachment sits atop existing construction and although the lot coverage percentage increase is substantial it is necessary to accommodate continued placement of the separate garage in the back corner of the property. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board finds that the variance will not adversely impact the local physical or environmental conditions because any increased runoff will be mitigated through the building department review of the engineer's plans. 5. 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. 13 2. For the reasons stated above, the granting of the 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: 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 Building Inspector prior to the granting of the building permit. 3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this 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. Applicant shall submit to the Town Building Department a foundation survey prior to framing. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town. MINUTES Motion: On motion of Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Jeffery King the minutes of October 25, 2017 were approved with technical corrections Vote: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Evans Simpson, Jeffery King, Jonathan Sacks Minutes prepared by Francine M. Brill Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary 14