Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023_09_27 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES 32 `'\ Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting / pp September 27, 2023 _ ®I 4.2. Conference Room C, First Floor 7:00 PM FOUNDED 1661 PRESENT: Arthur Wexler, Board Chair Irene O'Neil, Board Vice Chair Stephen Marsh, Board Member Jonathan Sacks, Board Member Randy Heller, Board Member Arthur Katz, Alternate Board Member ABSENT: Carol Miller, Alternate Board Member OTHERS PRESENT: Lisa Hochman, Counsel to the Board Richard Polcari, Building Inspector Jennifer Ransom, Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary The meeting commenced at 7:04 p.m. Ms. Ransom stated that all items on the agenda for public hearing had been properly noticed and all documents to be discussed this evening had been posted on the Town website at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Applications No. 1 - Case No. 3361 —Anthony Calogero & Siobhan Kranz - 110 Murray Avenue - Interpretation The public hearing remains open. Kathy Zalantis, the applicant's attorney, withdrew the request for interpretations of various provisions of the Town Zoning Code. Application No. 2 — Case No. 3354—Anthony Calogero & Siobhan Kranz — 110 Murray Avenue The public hearing remains open. Stephen Moser, the applicant's architect, Kathy Zalantis, the applicant's attorney, and the homeowner, Siobhan Kranz, addressed the Board to explain the application and changes made since the last meeting of the Board. The Board discussed the requested variances and the proposed plans, as revised. Zoning Board of Appeals September 27, 2023 There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously approved The Board members discussed draft findings prepared by counsel. Revisions were proposed. Motion: To approve the requested variances Moved by Stephen Marsh seconded by Randy Heller RESOLUTION 110 Murray Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck,New York After review, on motion of Stephen Marsh, seconded by Randy Heller, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED by a vote of 4 in favor to 1 against, with no abstentions. Jonathan Sacks voted against. WHEREAS, Anthony Calogero & Siobhan Kranz (the "Applicant")requested a variance for addition/garage/fireplace/generator/ac on the premises located at 110 Murray Avenue Town of Mamaroneck,New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1 Block 19 Lot 71; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: Zoning Board of Appeals variances needed for; the proposed sunroom to habitable space alteration will have a front yard setback of 20.9' where 30' is required, pursuant to 240-38 B (1); the proposed detached garage will have a front yard setback of 21.6' where 30' is required pursuant to 240-38 B (1); the proposed detached garage will have a rear yard setback of 5' where 25' is required pursuant to 240- 38 B (3); the proposed freestanding fireplace will have a rear yard setback of 12.0' where 25' is required pursuant to 240-38 B (3); the proposed freestanding fireplace will have a side yard setback of 7' where 10' is required pursuant to 240-38 B (2)(a); the proposed stand-by generator will have a side yard setback of 7'where 10' is required pursuant to 240-38 B (2)(a); the proposed A/C units will have a side yard setback of 6.6' where 10' is required pursuant to 240-38 B (2)(a); the proposed stairs will have a side yard setback of 3.5' where 10' is required pursuant to 240-38 B (2)(a); the proposed lot coverage will be 46.8% where 35% is permitted pursuant to 240-38 F; the proposed improvements will increase the floor area ratio to 3945SF where 3730SF is permitted the Proposed improvements will further increase the extent the property is nonconforming pursuant to 240-69 for a building in an R-7.5 Zoning District (the "Notice of Disapproval"); and WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted to the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck (the "Board") an application for relief from the requirements from the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS,the Applicant also submitted to the Board an application for interpretation of several provisions of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance (the "Interpretation Requests"); and 2IPage Zoning Board of Appeals September 27, 2023 WHEREAS, the Applicant's attorney stated at the Board meeting on September 27, 2023 that the Applicant has agreed to withdraw its Interpretation Requests; and WHEREAS, the application requires residential site plan approval by the Town Planning Board; and WHEREAS, the Board examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard any and 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 6 NYCRR§ 617 et. seq. and accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required, and A. 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. i. 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 applicants are expending considerable time and money to restore and upgrade the original character of a dilapidated but architecturally pleasing 1922 house to make it more functional while enhancing its appearance. In particular, the house will preserve the Spanish style roof tile, stucco siding and the deep eaves or roof overhang. Further, while relocating the detached garage in a front yard is not typical, the proposal makes sense since this house is burdened with two front yards and the existing detached garage is larger and closer to the neighboring property as compared to what is proposed.Also,based on comments by Board members,the Applicant has agreed to further reduce the size of the proposed garage,move it farther from the front property line at 24 feet,two inches, and add a design element to better visually integrate the garage with the house. In addition: • Re the proposed sunroom which will be altered to increase the amount of habitable interior space, the proposed sunroom will be wholly within the existing footprint with the identical front and rear yard setbacks. • Re the proposed freestanding fireplace, the location is dictated by the placement of the proposed garage; it will be in line with the garage and will be at least five feet from the rear property line. Further, a masonry fireplace was selected because it is considered to be safer than a portable heating source (e.g., a fire pit), which would not have required a variance. • Re the proposed stand-by generator and A/C units,this equipment will encroach no more into the setbacks than the existing house and the closest neighboring house is a great distance away from the proposed location of such equipment. Further, the Board notes that the a/c condensers have a dBA of no greater 3IPage Zoning Board of Appeals September 27, 2023 than 60,which is very quiet, and the generator will only generate noise during brief weekly testing periods and when there is a power outage. • Re the proposed stairs, this encroachment is only slightly more than the encroachment of the existing house and they are also to be located on the shared side lot line where the neighboring house is located a great distance away. • Re the proposed lot coverage, which will be 46.8% where 35% is permitted, the property will retain a substantial amount of greenery and planting to be consistent with the appearance of nearby properties and the applicant also proposes to use permeable materials for the driveway, walkways and patio. • Re the increased floor area ratio, the Board notes that although the Applicant is adding floor area by converting a sunporch into a fully integrated living room,in actuality,the bulk of that portion of the house will not change from what currently exists. ii. 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 already noncompliant with respect to setbacks and maxed out with respect to lot coverage and burdened by two front yards so any renovation project would likely require variances. Further, the Applicant has demonstrated that the requested variances for the sunroom, garage, fireplace, steps, lot coverage and floor area ratio are necessary to design a safe, functional and attractive home with a small, private area for the family to enjoy the backyard. Although lot coverage could be reduced by eliminating the walkways and stone wall, the Board finds that using permeable materials for the driveway, patio and walkways is a suitable alternative. The Board further finds that that the Applicant has demonstrated that each of the requested variances serve a necessary function to preserve and enhance the distinct architectural character of the house while minimizing impacts to neighbors. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance for lot coverage is substantial but since the Applicant has agreed to use permeable materials for the driveway, walkways and because the application will be subject to Town drainage requirements and because the applicant's stormwater plan prepared by Hudson Engineering intends to capture stormwater from all structures and there will be a sufficient amount of greenery and plantings, this factor is not determinative. With respect to the other variances: the setback encroachments extend minimally,if at all, beyond the existing house and the variances related to the garage, fire place and steps are insubstantial because they give rise to no adverse aesthetic or environmental impacts. iv. 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 the project will not generate objectionable noise, stormwater runoff or shadows on neighboring properties. 4IPage Zoning Board of Appeals September 27, 2023 v. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but this factor is not determinative under the circumstances presented. B. 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. C. 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 by the Building Inspector prior to the granting of the building permit. 3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within twelve (12) months of the filing of this resolution. 4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within twelve (12)months. 5. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application, as conditioned or modified pursuant to the direction of the Board except that changes to landscaping required by the Town Planning Board in connection with site plan review, shall be permitted, provided that the boundary between the subject property and the adjacent property on Maple Hill shall have screening plants to the greatest extent practicable for the length of the garage. 6. Prior to certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall submit a final as-built survey to the Town Building Department. 7. The generator shall be exercised only briefly on weekdays between loam and 2pm, for routine testing, and during power outages. 8. The air conditioning condenser units installed on the subject property shall have a Dba rating of no greater than 60. 9. The Applicant shall use permeable materials for the driveway, patio and walkways. 5IPage Zoning Board of Appeals September 27, 2023 10. The Applicant's Interpretation Requests have been withdrawn. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. Application No. 3—Case No. 3360—Jason Hanlon & Dara Liotta—2 Wildwood Road Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Benedict Salanitro, representing the applicant, and Jason Hanlon, homeowner, addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by Jonathan Sacks seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 2 Wildwood Road, Town of Mamaroneck,New York After review, on motion of Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Irene O'Neill, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0,with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Jason Hanlon & Dara Liotta (the"Applicant") requested a variance for a fence on the premises located at 2 Wildwood Road, Town of Mamaroneck,New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 16, Lot 201; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: Proposed fence will be 10' in height where 5' is permitted, pursuant to 240-52 A (the "Notice of Disapproval"); and WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted to the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck(the "Board") an application for relief from the requirements from the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, the Board examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard any and 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 6 NYCRR§ 617 et. seq. and accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required, and Wage Zoning Board of Appeals September 27, 2023 A. 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. i. 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 fence is only visible by the immediately adjoining neighbor, who had submitted a letter in support of this application and the fence will not be visible from anywhere else; further, the fence is open lattice, which is considered less obtrusive as compared to a solid fence. Additionally, the applicant represented that climbing vines will be planted to mute the potential obtrusiveness of the lattice. ii. 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 area requiring screening and separation between two adjacent yards is very narrow and heavily shaded, making it doubtful that vegetative screening would survive. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the length of the fence is short and only impacts the adjacent property owner. iv. 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 no adverse impacts on air, light or runoff. v. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but this factor is not determinative under the circumstances presented. B. 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. C. 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. 7IPage Zoning Board of Appeals September 27, 2023 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 by the Building Inspector prior to the granting of the building permit. 3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (6)months of the filing of this resolution. 4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (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. Prior to certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall submit a final as-built survey to the Town Building Department. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. Application No. 4- Case No. 3367—Rohit Sachdeva—9 Fairway Drive Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Stephanie Fox, an architect representing the homeowner, and Rohit Sachdeva, homeowner, addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request. Ms. Fox explained that no patio variance is required and only a variance for the deck is requested. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by Irene O'Neill seconded by Jonathan Sacks Action: Unanimously approved 8IPage Zoning Board of Appeals September 27, 2023 RESOLUTION 9 Fairway Drive, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Irene O'Neill, seconded by Jonathan Sacks, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0,with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Rohit Sachdeva (the "Applicant")requested a variance for a fence on the premises located at 9 Fairway Drive, Town of Mamaroneck,New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 3 Block 33 Lot 851; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: Existing on grade patio has a side yard setback of 0' where 5' is required, pursuant to 240-50; the proposed deck will have a side yard setback of 7.5' where 15' is required, pursuant to 240-35 B (3); the proposed deck will have a front yard setback of 26.5' where 40' is required; for a building in an R-20 Zone District(the "Notice of Disapproval"); and WHEREAS, at the Board meeting on September 27, 2023 it was determined that no variance is needed for the patio; and WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted to the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck(the "Board") an application for relief from the requirements from the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, the Board examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard any and 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 6 NYCRR§ 617 et. seq. and accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required, and A. 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. i. 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 deck being added is only 12 feet wide, which is considered minimal to achieve a reasonable seating area and, further, there are plantings on that side of the house to provide screening. ii. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some means feasible to the applicants other than an area variance. 9IPage Zoning Board of Appeals September 27, 2023 The Board finds that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method feasible to the applicant that does not require a variance because the homeowners want the deck to be accessible from their existing kitchen and dining area. Given that the property is a corner lot with two required front yards, it was determined that the only practical location for the proposed deck is with the existing side yard. Further the property is very well screened from the street and will not be visible to the neighbors. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the deck will encroach only 100 square feet into the side yard setback and it creates no adverse impacts. iv. 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 physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood because the deck is permeable and will allow water to pass through it. Further, the deck will not block light or add bulk to the house. Overall, the Board finds that the new deck will be an attractive addition to the home and neighborhood. v. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but this factor is not determinative under the circumstances presented. B. 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. C. 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 by the Building Inspector prior to the granting of the building permit. 3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (6)months of the filing of this resolution. 4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6)months. 10I Page Zoning Board of Appeals September 27, 2023 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. Prior to certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall submit a final as-built survey to the Town Building Depai linent. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. Application No. 5 - Case No. 3369—MA Strength Lab —2 Madison Avenue Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Jonathan Sacks Action: Unanimously approved Brian Cullen of Gotham Sign addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by Jonathan Sacks seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION MA Strength Lab -2 Madison Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck,New York After review, on motion of Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Irene O'Neill, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0,with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Clock Tower - MA Strength Lab (the "Applicant") requested a variance for an illuminated sign on premises located at-2 Madison Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck,New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1 Block 33 Lot 602; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: Proposed internal illuminated wall sign. Internal illumination of a wall sign is not permitted pursuant to 175-12 C for a building in a B-R Zone District(the"Notice of Disapproval"); and WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted to the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck(the "Board") an application for relief from the requirements from the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Code; and 11I Page Zoning Board of Appeals September 27, 2023 WHEREAS, at the September 27, 2023 meeting of the Board, the Town Building Inspector reported that the Town's Board of Architectural Review approved the Applicant's application for the proposed illuminated wall sign; and WHEREAS, the Board examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard any and 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 6 NYCRR§ 617 et. seq. and accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required, and A. 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. i. 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 sign is consistent and less intrusive than other illuminated signs nearby and, further, it will be installed on a commercial building in a commercial area next to a parking area and another sign. Additionally, the sign utilizes a thin font and black background creating minimal light to project beyond the back-lighting to the street or nearby properties. ii. 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 illumination is necessary to enable the sign to be seen during non- daylight hours. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it is consistent with other commercial signage in the area and the dimensions of the sign conform to Town regulations. Further, the sign is recessed reducing protrusion from the facade. iv. 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 contribute to noise, shadows or runoff and the illumination of the sign is unobjectionable as proposed. 12I Page Zoning Board of Appeals September 27, 2023 v. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but this factor is not determinative under the circumstances presented. B. 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. C. 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 by the Building Inspector prior to the granting of the building permit. 3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (6)months of the filing of this resolution. 4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (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. Prior to certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall submit a final as-built survey to the Town Building Department. 7. The sign shall be illuminated during hours of operation and for only one additional hour after closing. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. MINUTES The draft minutes of September 7, 2023 were discussed. Motion: To approve the draft minutes of the September 7, 2023 meeting Moved by Jonathan Sacks seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved 13I Page Zoning Board of Appeals September 27, 2023 ADJOURNMENT After concluding all items on the agenda, the meeting was adjourned at 9:35 P.M. Minutes prepared by: Jennifer Ransom Secretary,Zoning Board of Appeals 14IPage