Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996_01_24 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK JANUARY 24, 1996, IN THE COURT ROOM, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Present: Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman Patrick J. Kelleher Nina Recio ; � J. Rene Simon Arthur Wexler 4, N 40.jI Also Present: John Kirkpatrick, Counsel t API 2 2 William E. Jakubowski, Building Inspector Lisa Casey, Public Stenographer Kazazes &Associates ' i&j$ 250 East Hartsdale Avenue Hartsdale, NY 10530 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gunther at 7:43 p.m. Mr. Gunther read the application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 2208 Application of Mr. &Mrs. Swain Weiner requesting a renewal of a variance granted on June 1, 1995 for a garage addition which has a 25.0 ft. front yard where 30.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 89- 33B-1; and, further, the addition increases the extent by which the structure is non-conforming pursuant to Section 89-57 for a residence in an R-10 Zone District on the premises located at 10 South Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 108 Lot 218. JoAnn Weiner appeared. Mr. Gunther then stated that Ms. Weiner appeared before the Board in May of 1995 and was granted a variance to perform the above-referenced work. The construction did not start at that time, and the applicant would now like to renew the variance and proceed. Mr. Gunther then asked if the work would be identical to what was originally presented. Ms. Weiner said the work would be identical to what was originally presented, and would like additional time, possibly one year, to proceed. Mr. Jakubowski said if within the six'months a building permit is obtained and work is started, then the applicant will usually have an additional six months on the building permit itself and an additional eighteen months as long as some work is in progress. Mr. Kelleher said that in the vast majority of cases six months is sufficient except in a few cases, and a discussion ensued regarding the time period. After review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Wexler, the following resolution was proposed and adopted unanimously, 5-0. Zoning Board January 24, 1996 Page 2 RESOLVED, that the Zoning Board of Appeals is the Lead Agency and solely responsible for determining whether the proposed action may have a significant impact on the environment; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment as determined by New York State or corresponding local law, therefore, requiring no further action under SEQRA. On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolution was unanimously ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Mr. &Mrs. Swain Weiner have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to request a renewal of a variance granted on June 1, 1995 for a garage addition which has a 25.0 ft. front yard where 30.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 89-33B-1; and, further, the addition increases the extent by which the structure is non-conforming pursuant to Section 89-57 for a residence in an R-10 Zone District on the premises located at 10 South Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 108 Lot 218; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has 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 Section 89-33B-1 and Section 89-57; and WHEREAS, Mr. & Mrs. Swain Weiner submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS, this Board has 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 hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, the Board fords that the benefit to the applicant and the special circumstances and/or conditions applying to the land far outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood if the variance sought is granted and also finds as follows: 1. All of the original findings as noted in the May 24, 1995 Certification are applicable. There are no changes in any of the applicable circumstances. 2. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. 3. The variance is the minimum 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. 4. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is granted, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within one (1) year of the filing of this Resolution; Zoning Board January 24, 1996 Page 3 2. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within one (1) year and completed within two (2) years thereafter after the date of the permit; 3. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. Mr. Gunther read the application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE 2209 Application of James Fleming, Agent for Home Equity Relocation, requesting a variance to legalize an existing enclosed porch which as enclosed has a front yard of 13.10 ft. where 30.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 89-33B(1) and the enclosure increased the extent by which the structure is nonconforming pursuant to Section 89-57 for a residence in an R-10 Zone District on the premises located at 14 Rockland Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 222 Lot 349. Joyce Phelps, a real estate agent representing the Relocation firm, appeared representing the applicant. The house which was originally built in 1925, is on the market for sale, so they applied for a Certificate of Occupancy. Pictures were presented and discussed with the Board. The second floor over the garage which had a roof over it has not changed except that windows were installed approximately in 1950. Mr. Fleming presented everything requested by the Building Department, i.e. insulation over the floor; a window made for egress; electrical inspection. Mr. Wexler and Mr. Simon questioned the metes and bounds on the survey submitted. Ms. Phelps said the property appears to be a corner lot. Mr. Jakubowski said it appeared that the architect got the trapezoidal property diagram mirror imaged of what it is, the long side of the square side, the right side, should actually be the short side. Mr. Wexler said that on Mr. Fleming's drawing Rockland Avenue as indicated is not on that property line. Mr. Jakubowski said that was correct, it is Brookside. Mr. Jakubowski suggested looking at the survey and approximate a square in the center. The front of the house is correct in relation to Rockland Avenue, the shape of the property is incorrect. A detailed discussion ensued regarding the survey. Mr. Jakubowski said the Board has to be sure that once the variance is granted, the front yard is 13.10 ft. After review, on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Recio, the following resolution was proposed and adopted unanimously, 5-0. RESOLVED, that the Zoning Board of Appeals is the Lead Agency and solely responsible for determining whether the proposed action may have a significant impact on the environment; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment as determined by New York State or corresponding local law, therefore, requiring no further action under SEQRA. On motion of Mr. Kelleher, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolution was unanimously ADOPTED: WHEREAS, James Fleming, Agent for Home Equity Relocation has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to legalize an existing enclosed porch which as enclosed Zoning Board January 24, 1996 Page 4 has a front yard of 13.10 ft. where 30.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 89-33B(1)and the enclosure increased the extent by which the structure is nonconforming pursuant to Section 89-57 for a residence in an R-10 Zone District on the premises located at 14 Rockland Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 222 Lot 349; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has 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 Section 89-33B(1)and Section 89-57 ; and WHEREAS, James Fleming submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS, this Board has 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 hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant and the special circumstances and/or conditions applying to the land far outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood if the variance sought is granted and also finds as follows: 1. The enclosed porch has been represented as being in existence for over forty years. 2. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. 3. The variance is the minimum 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. 4. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is granted, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within(6) months of the filing of this Resolution; 2. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6) months and completed within two (2) years of the date of said permit; 3. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. Mr. Gunther stated at this time before the Board moves to the next application in regard to applications further down on the calendar, he would like to review a recent court decision on the Moran case. Mr. Kirkpatrick passed around to the Board members a survey showing the Moran house, deck, pool, and the addition to the deck and shed. The judge ruled that the deck addition was conforming, as the deck had been issued a variance. The Board did not recall the problems the matter was brought before the Board, other than the fact that the deck was built without a building permit. Zoning Board January 24, 1996 Page 5 Mr. Gunther said the detail of the matter was that the deck had been built based upon a variance, the owner added to the deck and also built an appurtenant structure, a shed, adjacent to the deck. Mr. Kirkpatrick asked Mr. Jakubowski what was not in compliance. Mr. Jakubowski said the deck lacked the 15 ft. between the shed and the deck that existed, which is required in swimming pool situations. Mr. Kirkpatrick said the judge had ruled that no variance was required for the addition to the deck, but upheld the Board in denying the variance of the shed. The matter will arise with the Dominguez and Motzkin/Blum application about expansion of a nonconforming use. The judge mentioned in the Moran matter that it was not an expansion of a nonconforming use. That is why the Board should try to understand what happened in the Moran matter and what the judge ruled. Mr. Jakubowski said there are two items on the denial. One is that the shed lacked 15 ft. of separation from the deck as an accessory structure, and the other was that the new deck would be an extension of a nonconforming deck which required a variance and had a variance. Mr. Kirkpatrick said that the court holds that the deck, once granted a variance, is conforming so that expanding a conforming deck is not a violation. Mr. Wexler said that the decision was the deck that was added did not violate any zoning requirements and did not need a variance. Mr. Jakubowski said that had the applicant built a stand-alone deck, then it would have been an accessory structure and would have had to be 15 ft. from the pool or pool deck. Mr. Gunther read the application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 3 - CASE 2210 Application of Pilar Dominguez requesting a variance to construct a glass enclosed entryway with a side yard of 7.49 ft. where 10.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 89-34B(2)(a); a total side yard of 15.49 ft. where 20.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 89-34B(2)(b) and further; the alteration would increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 89-57 for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 1048 Palmer Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 407 Lot 373. Pilar Dominguez and Pat McBride appeared. Edward Brunner, P.E. also appeared representing both parties. Mr. Brunner stated the application is basically to create an entry vestibule. The existing side entry is currently enclosed with a glass partition wall which is only single glazed, which was done when the original building was built in 1964 according to the Building Department records. The applicant would like to create a double-glazed entry vestibule which would help conserve heat during the winter on this existing two-story glass wall. Mr. Brunner said when the house was constructed, it was conforming. Mr. Jakubowski said the application was submitted in 1964 and a variance was granted in February of 1965 for a 7 ft. and 8 ft. side yard, one on each side. The lot is 35 ft. wide at the front, which was subsequently given a Certificate of Occupancy in September of 6.5 ft. Pictures were given to the Board. Mr. Brunner said the pictures presented were of the existing side yard where the enclosure would be constructed. Zoning Board January 24, 1996 Page 6 Mr. Wexler said the applicants stated they were creating a vestibule, moving the inner wall back. Mr. Brunner said the inner wall will remain, as the existing stairway is connected to that inner wall. Originally the plan stated that the wall would be removed, but that has been changed. The wall will remain. Mr. Kirkpatrick said the house was granted a variance on the side yards, so it has conforming side yards. The question is whether the proposed two-story vestibule would be included within the terms of that variance. Mr. Kirkpatrick asked for a copy of the variance granted, which was produced and discussed. Such variance required that construction be in strict conformance with the plans filed with the application which had the recessed vestibule. Even though the side yards of 8 ft. and 7 ft. were allowed by variance, such variance was for that particular design of house and the proposal still requires the variance. Mr. Brunner said that the plans of the existing house had the roof structure that exists now at the second level which comes all the way out to the side of the existing house. Basically the proposed new structure will cover the entire area. After review, on motion of Ms. Recio, seconded by Mr. Wexler, the following resolution was proposed and adopted unanimously, 5-0. RESOLVED, that the Zoning Board of Appeals is the Lead Agency and solely responsible for determining whether the proposed action may have a significant impact on the environment; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment as determined by New York State or corresponding local law, therefore, requiring no further action under SEQRA. On motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Kelleher, the following resolution was unanimously ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Pilar Dominguez has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a glass enclosed entryway with a side yard of 7.49 ft. where 10.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 89-34B(2)(a); a total side yard of 15.49 ft. where 20.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 89-34B(2)(b)and further; the alteration would increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 89-57 for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 407 Lot 373; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has 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 Section 89-34B(2)(a), Section 89-34B(2)(b)and Section 89-57 ; and WHEREAS, Pilar Dominguez submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS, this Board has 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 hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant and the special circumstances and/or conditions applying to the land far outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood if the variance sought is granted and also finds as follows: Zoning Board January 24, 1996 Page 7 1. The house was built on a 35 foot-wide lot in accordance with variances granted for reduced side yards. 2. The house as presently built has a roof that extends over the area to be enclosed at about 7.5 ft. from the side property line. 3. This proposed addition will not bring the building any closer to the side property line as presently exists. 4. The glass enclosure conforms with the architecture of the house. 5. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. 6. The variance is the minimum 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. 7. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is granted, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within(6) months of the filing of this Resolution; 2. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6) months and completed within two (2) years of the date of said permit; 3. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. Mr. Gunther read the application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 4 - CASE 2211 Application of Mr. &Mrs. H. Rogers requesting a variance to maintain and renovate a 1-story addition with a side yard of 7.34 ft. where 10.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 89-33 B-(2)(a) and a total side yard of 16.5 ft. where 25.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 89-33 B-(2)(b) and; further, the addition increased the extent by which the building is non-conforming pursuant to Section 89-57 for a residence in an R-10 Zone District on the premises located at 411 Weaver Street and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 107 Lot 714. Harry Rogers appeared. He stated the application was to complete the renovation of an existing enclosed room. Pictures were presented to the Board. He also presented a letter from a few of the neighbors stating approval of the application. On an old survey dated 1953, the area was indicated as an open porch. The applicants bought the house approximately in 1977, and the space in question was an enclosed room which was used as an entrance to the house. The applicants started renovation on the room they were informed they needed a permit to do so, and when applying for same found out they needed a variance. He stated the footprint is what has always been there, it is no closer to the property • Zoning Board January 24, 1996 Page 8 line and the applicants feel there is no detriment to the community. There would be a substantial hardship to disallow the completion of the renovation. He then read the letter signed by the two neighbors stating, "We have no objections for a variance being granted to maintain and renovate the existing one story addition to their home at 411 Weaver Street." Mr. Kirkpatrick asked if the porch was nonconforming. Mr. Jakubowski said the porch was nonconforming. It was an open porch, and the zoning was changed after the house was built. After review, on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Kelleher, the following resolution was proposed and adopted unanimously, 5-0. RESOLVED, that the Zoning Board of Appeals is the Lead Agency and solely responsible for determining whether the proposed action may have a significant impact on the environment; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment as determined by New York State or corresponding local law, therefore, requiring no further action under SEQRA. On motion of Ms. Recio, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the following resolution was unanimously ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Mr. &Mrs. H. Rogers have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans requesting a variance to maintain and renovate a 1-story addition with a side yard of 7.34 ft. where 10.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 84-33 B-(2) and a total side yard of 16.5 ft. where 25.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 89-33 B-(2)(b) and; further, the addition increased the extent by which the building is non-conforming pursuant to Section 89-57 for a residence in an R-10 Zone District on the premises located at 411 Weaver Street and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 107 Lot 714; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has 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 Section 84-33 B-(2), Section 89-33 B-(2)(b), and Section 89-57; and WHEREAS, Mr. &Mrs. H. Rogers submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS, this Board has 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 hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant and the special circumstances and/or conditions applying to the land far outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood if the variance sought is granted and also finds as follows: 1. The work intended to be completed is within the footprint of the structure as originally purchased; 2. The structure itself precedes and predates the Zoning Ordinance; 3. The applicant has provided written statements from the closest neighbors on the rear and the left side who show no opposition to the application; Zoning Board January 24, 1996 Page 9 4. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. 5. The variance is the minimum 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. 6. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is granted, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within(6) months of the filing of this Resolution; 2. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6) months and completed within two (2) years of the date of said permit; 3. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. Mr. Gunther read the application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 5 - CASE 2212 previously (2175) Application of Stephen Hendel requesting an extension of the variance granted on June 28, 1995 from Section 89-32 B 3 to construct a side yard addition with a rear yard of 17.3 ft. where 25.0 ft. is required for a residence in an R-15 Zone District on the premises located at 10 Dundee Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 211 Lot 445. Ben Salanitro, 517 Linden Avenue, Mamaroneck, a civil engineer, appeared representing the applicant and will answer any questions regarding the proposed extension of the variance. Mr. Gunther said the only concern is the fact that what the applicant is proposing to do be identical to what was originally stated. Mr. Salanitro said the only delay is the application for Surface Water, Erosion and Sediment Control Plans which he will be processing and submitting to the engineer in the Building Department. After review, on motion of Ms. Recio, seconded by Mr. Wexler, the following resolution was proposed and adopted unanimously, 5-0. RESOLVED, that the Zoning Board of Appeals is the Lead Agency and solely responsible for determining whether the proposed action may have a significant impact on the environment; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment as determined by New York State or corresponding local law, therefore, requiring no further action under SEQRA. Zoning Board January 24, 1996 Page 10 On motion of Mr. Simon, seconded by Mr. Wexler, the following resolution was unanimously ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Stephen Hendel has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans requesting an extension of the variance granted on June 28, 1995 from Section 89-32 B 3 to construct a side yard addition with a rear yard of 17.3 ft. where 25.0 ft. is required for a residence in an R-15 Zone District on the premises located at 10 Dundee Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 211 Lot 445; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has 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 Section 89-32 B 3; and WHEREAS, Stephen Hendel submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS, this Board has 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 hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant and the special circumstances and/or conditions applying to the land far outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood if the variance sought is granted and also finds as follows: 1. The action is for an extension only and should be granted; 2. This action is identical to the original Certification granted on June 28 1995, and the conditions are identical as well; 3. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. 4. The variance is the minimum 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. 5. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is granted, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within(6) months of the filing of this Resolution; 2. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6) months and completed within two (2) years of the date of said permit; 3. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. F '1{ Zoning Board January 24, 1996 Page 11 Mr. Gunther called a five minute recess, meeting to resume at 8:45 p.m. Mr. Gunther read the application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 6 - CASE 2213 Appeal to the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board of Appeals by Robert Motzkin and Diane Blum to reverse the determination of the Building Inspector for Permit No. 13228 issued on November 17, 1995 for an addition to the residence of Michele and Paul Hoffmann for a residence in an R-15 Zone District on the premises located at 69 Carleon Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 404 Lot 613, on the grounds that the premises are not in compliance with Sections 89-1.B, 89-1.C, 89-1.D, 89-9, 89-32.A(1), 89-32.B(1), 89-32.B(2)(a), 89.32.B(2)(b), 89-57, 89-58.B, 89-71.A, 89-71.B, 89-73.A and 89-76.B. In reference to the above case, #2213, the public stenographer's notes are hereby attached and made a part of the record. Mr. Gunther made a motion that application#6, case 2213, be adjourned to the next meeting, February 28, 1996, seconded by Ms. Recio and approved, 4-0, with one abstention. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On a motion duly made and seconded, the Minutes of November 29, 1995, were unanimously approved. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be held on February 28, 1996. ADJOURNMENT On a motion duly made and seconded, the meeting was unanimously adjourned at 11:30 P.M. ki)/( dg,,Gd2-- ehL—rc Marguerite R , , Recording Secretary