Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025_03_26 Zoning Board of Appeals MinutesMINUTES Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting March 26, 2025 Conference Room C, First Floor 7:00 PM PRESENT: Arthur Wexler, Board Chairman Jonathan Sacks, Board Member Randy Heller, Board Member Irene O'Neill, Board Member Stephen Marsh, Board Member Arthur Katz, Alternate Board Member OTHERS PRESENT: Lisa Hochman, Counsel to the Board Richard Polcari, Building Inspector Jennifer Ransom, Secretary ABSENT: Sabrina Fiddelman, Town Board Liaison The meeting commenced at 7:02 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. At the request of Ms. Hochman, the resolution for 45 Cooper Lane reflected in the draft minutes of February 26, 2025, were discussed and changes were proposed. Matt Behrens of Zarin & Steinmetz, the applicant's attorney for 45 Cooper Lane, agreed with the changes as proposed and both the resolution and draft minutes were revised to reflect such changes. Motion: To accept draft minutes as amended Moved by: Jonathan Sacks seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Approved Yea: Arthur Wexler, Jonathan Sacks, Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh, Arthur Katz, Dan Smith Abstain: Randy Heller Application No. 1 - Case No. ZBA-25-10 — 51 Ellsworth Road — James Edgar — Portico and Steps Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Zoning Board of Appeals March 26, 2025 Eric Jacobson, the applicant's architect, and James Edgar the homeowner, addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request. Chairman Wexler excused himself momentarily to take a phone call and then returned. Photos of surrounding properties marked Exhibit A were presented to the Board and entered into the record. Board Member, Jonathan Sacks, expressed concern that there were no drawings to show the proposed work on the walkway. Mr. Polcari suggested they step out and sketch out their ideas. The application was temporarily adjourned to allow the applicant time to formulate a plan. The applicants returned between submissions 3 and 4 to present their plan to the Board. The changes were discussed and entered into the record as Exhibit B. 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 51 Ellsworth 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, James Edgar (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a portico and steps on the premises located at 51 Ellsworth Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2, Block 12, Parcel 88; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: Proposed portico will have a front yard setback of 22.8' where 30' is required, pursuant to 240- 37 B (1); Proposed steps will have a front yard setback of 16.8' where 30' is required, pursuant to 240-37 B (1); for a property in an R-10 zoning 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 Wage Zoning Board of Appeals March 26, 2025 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 WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as 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 porticos are common throughout the neighborhood and 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 the addition moves the entrance to the center of the house and, due to topography, creates a necessity to add a platform and steps to reach the house. The Board also noted that the house is preexisting nonconforming so any extension would require a variance. Finally, the Board finds that the applicant explored alternatives including steps adjacent to the house but determined that would necessitate walking outside the property to reach the front steps. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the platform and portico are unenclosed, minimizing any apparent added massing. 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 hinder light or air flow and any impact to stormwater runoff will be addressed by engineering v. Whether the difficulty is self-created. 3IPage Zoning Board of Appeals March 26, 2025 The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but that 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 (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. Prior to certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall submit a final as -built survey to the Town Building Depailuient. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. Application No. 2 - Case No. ZBA-25-3 — 3 Lundy Lane — Stephen Penner — Portico & Steps Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Gregory Lewis, the applicant's architect, Steve Penner and Chiyo Itoh, the homeowners, addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request. There were no public questions or comments. 4IPage Zoning Board of Appeals March 26, 2025 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 Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 3 Lundy Lane, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Irene O'Neill, seconded by Stephen Marsh, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0, with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Stephen Penner (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a portico and steps on the premises located at 3 Lundy Lane, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 5, Block 3, Parcel 667; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: Proposed portico will have a front yard setback of 23.5' where 30' is required, pursuant to 240- 38 B (1); Proposed steps will have a front yard setback of 22.5' where 30' is required, pursuant to 240-38 B (1); for a property in an R-7.5 zoning 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 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 WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as 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 portico is consistent with the design of the house and will enhance the appearance of the house from the street. 5IPage Zoning Board of Appeals March 26, 2025 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 positioned close to the street so any extension off the front of the house would require a variance. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it adds 27.6 square feet, which is considered insubstantial in relation to the size of the house and and encroaches only minimally into the required front yard setback. 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 such a small encroachment will only minimally impact runoff and light. v. 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. 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 (6) months of the filing of this resolution. Wage Zoning Board of Appeals March 26, 2025 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. 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. 3 — Application No. 3 - Case No. ZBA-25-11 — 57 Vine Road — Eric Green - Addition Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Herbert Feuerstein, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board to present 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: Stephen Marsh seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 57 Vine Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Stephen Marsh, seconded by Irene O'Neill, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0, with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Eric and Caroline Green (the "Applicant") requested a variance for an addition on the premises located at 57 Vine Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 10, Parcel 314; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: Proposed addition will have a rear yard setback of 16.6' where 25' is required, pursuant to 240- 38 B (3); and further the improvements increase the extent by which the property is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a building in an R-7.5 Zoning District (the "Notice of Disapproval"); and 7IPage Zoning Board of Appeals March 26, 2025 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 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 WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as 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 addition will be visible only from the rear of the property, where there is partial screening provided by tall trees. In addition, the height of the addition will not exceed existing ridge line 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 expanding on an existing dormer allows the applicant to better utilize the second floor and the proposed design blends seamlessly to existing structure. The Board also notes that any change to the house would trigger a variance because the property is a corner lot, burdened by two front yards, and the rear yard has been designated and the existing footprint of the house is nonconforming. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the addition adds only 164 square feet and does not expand the existing footprint of the house. 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 massing will not exceed the house's existing ridge line Wage Zoning Board of Appeals March 26, 2025 and addition does not expand the existing footprint so there will be no new impervious surface. v. 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. 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 (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. 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. ZBA-25-7 — 5 Rockridge Road — David Gelernter - Spa Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Wage Zoning Board of Appeals March 26, 2025 David Gelernter, the applicant and 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: Stephen Marsh seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 4 Rockridge Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Stephen Marsh, seconded by Irene O'Neill, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0, with no abstentions. WHEREAS, David Gelernter (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a spa on the premises located at 4 Rockridge Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 3, Block 25, Parcel 129; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: Proposed spa will be located in the side yard where a spa is not permitted, pursuant to 192-5 A (1) (c); for a property in an R-20 Zoning 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 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 WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as 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. 101 Page Zoning Board of Appeals March 26, 2025 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 this property is very large, set in non-traditional setting, so the proposed spa will not be visible to neighbors. 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 topography of the property dictates that the side yard as the most reasonable location for the spa because the proposed location is a considerable distance from the property line and the changing the location to the rear yard is not feasible because it is rocky, sloped downward. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because Small pad and small hot tub in very large side yard 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 Size of property, well screened, not visible from the street or neighbors, small, low to the ground, adds no appreciable massing. v. 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. 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. 111Page Zoning Board of Appeals March 26, 2025 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 (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. Prior to certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall submit a final as -built survey to the Town Building Depailuuent. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. Application No. 5 - Case No. ZBA-25-13 — 104 Premium Point Rd — Bleubouy Development - Pool Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Approved Kristen Motel, the applicant's attorney, 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 104 Premium Point 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. 121 Page Zoning Board of Appeals March 26, 2025 WHEREAS, Bleubouy Development (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a swimming pool on the premises located at 104 Premium Point Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 5, Block 9, Parcel 106; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: Proposed swimming pool will be located in the side yard where a swimming pool is not permitted, pursuant to 192-5 A (1) (c); for a property in an R-50 Zoning 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 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 WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as 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 proposed pool is smaller than the existing pool and further away from the wetlands. In addition, the Board noted that a variance was granted for the existing pool and that there is no record of complaints. 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 placement of the replacement pool in the side yard is the best location because it is the greatest distance from both the wetlands and neighboring properties. The Board also noted that locating a pool in a side yard always requires a variance, regardless of setbacks. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. 13I Page Zoning Board of Appeals March 26, 2025 The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it reduces the impacts of the existing pool. 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 reduces impacts of the existing pool. The Board also notes that the applicant has applied for a wetlands and watercourses permit from the Planning Board, which will ensure that any impacts to wetlands are addressed and/or mitigated to the greatest extent practicable. v. 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. 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 (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. 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. 141Page The meeting was adjourned at 8:32 pm. Minutes prepared by: Jennifer Ransom Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary Zoning Board of Appeals March 26, 2025 151 Page