Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025_06_17 Zoning Board of Appeals MinutesMINUTE S Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting June 17, 2025 Conference Room C, First Floor 7:00 PM PRESENT: Arthur Wexler, Board Chairman Irene O'Neill, Board Member Jonathan Sacks, Board Member Stephen Marsh, Board Member Dan Smith, Alternate Board Member Arthur Katz, Alternate Board Member OTHERS PRESENT: Lisa Hochman, Counsel to the Board Richard Polcari, Building Inspector Sabrina Fiddelman, Town Board Liaison Jennifer Ransom, Secretary ABSENT: Randy Heller, Board Member Dan Smith as first Alternate, assumed the role of Board Member. The meeting commenced at 7:05 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. Application No. 1 - Case No. ZBA-25-27 - 7 Madison Avenue - Tom Torre Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Rosana Bone, the applicant's sign contractor, addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request. The Building Inspector stated that the signs were presented to and approved by Town's Architectural Review Board. Patrick Hankin, who is a board member of the neighboring Cambium Apai intent Building at 10 Byron Place, addressed the Board to state his objections to the project. He stated that the late Zoning Board of Appeals June 17, 2025 hours of operation would attract unwelcome visitors from the I-95 exit. He further stated that the mailing he received could be mistaken for junk mail since the return address was the applicant's address in the Bronx. Kareem Bejjih, neighbor at 10 Byron Place, addressed the Board to state his concerns with the late hours of operation and that it would attract unsavory clientele. Nathan Grimshaw, neighbor at 10 Byron Place, addressed the Board to state his objection to the size of the sign. The application is adjourned at the request of the applicant. Application No. 2 - Case No. ZBA-25-25 - 13 Elkan Road - Joshua Centre Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Melanie Morales the applicant's architect, addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request. Mr. Polcari explained how this property is unique in that they are townhouses, and four houses are on one lot. He further stated, that at one point, lot lines were put between each unit, but setback requirements were not updated. Mr. Polcari also stated that he is unaware of any complaint about the existing deck encroachment. Josh Centre, the homeowner addressed the Board to state that the decks were built in the 1990s. Mr. Marsh asked if the applicant would consider removing the freestanding deck and the homeowner agreed. Therefore, variances #4, 5, 6, 8 relating to the freestanding deck are no longer 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: Jonathan Sacks seconded by Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously approved Wage Zoning Board of Appeals June 17, 2025 RESOLUTION 13 Elkan Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Stephen Marsh, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0, with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Joshua Centre (the "Applicant") requested a variance for an addition and decks on the premises located at 13 Elkan Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 4 Block 7 Lot 508; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: (1) Proposed one story addition will have a side yard setback of 9.3' where 25' is required, pursuant to 240-42 B (2)(a); (2) Proposed second addition will have a side yard setback of 14' where 25' is required, pursuant to 240-42 B (2)(a); (3) Existing attached deck has a side yard setback of 3.8' where 25' is required, pursuant to 240-42 B (2)(a); (4) Existingfreestanding deck has a side yard setback of 4.6' where 25' is required, pursuant to 240-42 B (2)(a); (5) Existingfreestanding deck has a side yard setback of 0' where 25' is required; pursuant to 240-42 B (2)(a); (6) Existing freestanding deck has a rear yard setback of 2.2' where 25' is required, pursuant to 240- 42 B (3); (7) Existing deck has a combined side yard setback of 3.8' where 60' is required, pursuant to 240-42 B (2)(b); (8) Existingfreestanding deck has a combined side yard setback of 4.6' where 60' is required, pursuant to 240-42 B (2)(b); (9) The proposed and existing improvements create a lot coverage of 39.6%where 25% is permitted, pursuant to 240-42 A (3); (10) and further the improvements increase the extent by which the property is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a building in an R-A Zoning District (the "Notice of Disapproval"); and WHEREAS, the applicant agreed to remove the free-standing deck, and, therefore, variances numbered 4, 5, 6 and 8 are no longer requested; 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. Wage Zoning Board of Appeals June 17, 2025 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 has existed for many years without complaint and the addition will enclose a small portion of the existing deck to move the dining area indoors and square off an existing void over the garage, making the appearance more consistent with nearby homes. 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 this is a unique lot, burdened by side yard setbacks that are impossible to meet. Due to the size of the house and the pre-existing nonconformity, any addition would require an area variance. The Board also notes that the applicant agreed to remove an existing free-standing deck which has existed on the property for many years. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the addition utilizes the existing footprint and a portion of an existing deck, and the deck has been in the same location for several years and has not generated any complaints and the encroachment is only 1.2 feet more than what had been approved in an earlier variance. 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 addition will be built within the existing footprint of the house and one of the existing decks and the applicant agreed to remove the existing free-standing deck which will remove some impervious surface from the property. The Board also observed that the deck is wooden, permeable and above grade with soil underneath. Therefore, no impacts are expected with respect to light, air or runoff 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. Wage Zoning Board of Appeals June 17, 2025 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 Depailiuent. 7 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the submitted plans shall be revised to show that the free-standing deck will be removed. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. Application No. 3 - Case No. ZBA-25-28 - 197 Murray Avenue - Emily Liftman Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Steven Viola, the applicant's contractor, and Emily Liftman, the 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 5IPage Zoning Board of Appeals June 17, 2025 Moved by: Irene O'Neill seconded by Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 197 Murray Avenue, 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, Emily Liftman (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a second -floor addition on the premises located at 197 Murray Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1 Block 13 Lot 318; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: Proposed addition will have a side yard setback of 6.0' where 10' is required, pursuant to 240-38 B (2)(a); Proposed dormer addition will have a side yard setback of 7.5' where 10' is required, pursuant to 240-38 B (2)(a); Proposed addition will have a combined side yard setback of 12.5' where 20' is required, pursuant to 240-38 B (2)(b); ; 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 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 all construction will be in the rear, not visible from street and consistent with the current design of the house, which is typical in neighborhood. Wage Zoning Board of Appeals June 17, 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 due to the narrow side yards, any addition would trigger the need for an area variance. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the second floor will be added over an existing deck and the footprint of the house will not change. 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 footprint of the house will not expand, and the height will not exceed the existing roofline. Therefore, no shadows or increased shadows are expected. 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. 7IPage Zoning Board of Appeals June 17, 2025 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 Depailinent. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. Application No. 4 - Case No. ZBA-25-24 - 20 Edgewood Avenue - Daniel Blank Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Grace Lombardo, the applicant's architect, 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 20 Edgewood Avenue, 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, Daniel Blank (the "Applicant") requested a variance for compressors on the premises located at 20 Edgewood Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1 Block 23 Lot 309; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: Proposed compressors will have a side yard setback of 4.3' where 8' is required, pursuant to 240-39 B (2)(a); for a property in an R-6 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 8IPage Zoning Board of Appeals June 17, 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 the compressors are well screened from neighbors on left, not visible from the front of the house and very small. In addition, the Board notes that these types of compressors are typical throughout the community. 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 any other location would interfere with the rear yard patio and recreational space. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because one of the compressors is a split unit which is very quiet, and the other compressors are very short and not likely to run for long periods of time since they service different areas of the house and can run on variable speeds. 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 compressors don't add much bulk to the property, they are low to the ground, well -concealed behind a fence or plantings, which will also serve to muffle any sound. 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. Wage Zoning Board of Appeals June 17, 2025 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. 7 All four compressors shall be reflected on the as -built final survey, which shall show encroachment for each compressor. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. Application No. 5 - Case No. ZBA-25-19 - 84 Lookout Circle - Mike Kinnaman Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Grace Lombardo, the applicant's architect, and Michael Kinnaman the homeowner, addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request. A letter of support from the neighbor at 80 Lookout Circle was presented to the Board and entered into the record as Exhibit A. 101 Page Zoning Board of Appeals June 17, 2025 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 Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 84 Lookout Circle, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Stephen Marsh, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0, with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Mike Kinnaman (the "Applicant") requested a variance for an addition on the premises located at 84 Lookout Circle, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1 Block 28 Lot 315; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: Proposed addition will have a side yard setback of 4.1' where 10' is required, pursuant to 240-38 B (2)(a); Proposed addition will have a combined side yard setback of 13.6' where 20' is required, pursuant to 240-38 B (2)(b); Proposed generator will have a side yard setback of 6.5' where 10' is required, pursuant to 240-38 B (2)(a); 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 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. 111Page Zoning Board of Appeals June 17, 2025 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 on the second floor encloses a small balcony, creating more privacy from the neighbor's house and it will sit within the same sight lines as the balcony. The Board further finds that the generator will be relocated to the same side yard as the addition, it will be well set back from the street and there will be no change to sight lines. Further, generators of this type are common throughout the Town and, except during power outages, the proposed generator will be exercised no more than once per week during weekday, daytime hours. 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 right side of the house is pre- existing nonconforming, meaning that any change would require an area variance. Regarding the generator, while it could remain where it is in the rear yard, the Board found that this location is unsightly and unreasonably restricts the homeowner's use of the backyard. The Board further notes that the impacted neighbor submitted a letter of support for the addition and the generator. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the addition merely encloses an existing balcony, and the relocation of the generator adds little bulk to the property. 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 neither the addition nor the generator will add a significant amount of impervious surface, and any runoff will be captured. 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. 121 Page Zoning Board of Appeals June 17, 2025 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 Depailiuent. 7 The generator shall be exercised the minimal amount as specified by the manufacture and only during weekdays between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. Application No. 6 - Case No. ZBA-24-29 - 1 Edgewater Place - Suzanne Tecza — Fence & Arbor The applicant did not appear because she requested to be adjourned until the July meeting. MINUTES Motion: To approve the draft minutes Moved by: Jonathan Sacks seconded by Dan Smith Action: Approved: Arthur Wexler, Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh, Dan Smith Abstain: Irene O'Neill OTHER BUSINESS 1. ZBA-24-28 59 Myrtle Blvd - Request for Extension - Addition, Steps, Deck 13I Page Zoning Board of Appeals June 17, 2025 On November 20, 2024, the Board awarded requested variances. Prior to the expiration of the variances, the applicant applied to extend the time to pull the building permit. The Building Inspector explained that although the earlier variances were in connection with a substantial addition to the existing house, upon demolition the applicant realized that the entire house needed to come down, triggering the need for site plan approval. The Building Inspector further stated that he reviewed the plans submitted to the Planning Board and they are the same as the plans approved by the Zoning Board in connection with the earlier variance. Motion: To approve the applicant's request for extension of time to obtain a building permit for one year - June 17, 2025 Moved by: Jonathan Sacks seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Approved: Jonathan Sacks, Arthur Wexler, Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh Abstain: Dan Smith 2. Proposed changes to Town Code with regard to Generators and HVAC systems. The Board requested that Mr. Polcari, Building Inspector, circulate his suggestions to amend the Town Code for their review. The meeting was adjourned at 9:23 pm. Minutes prepared by: Jennifer Ransom Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary 141Page