Loading...
1987-01-21 JJfO QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS '---' Regular Meeting Held: Wednesday, January 21, 1987 @ 7:30 P.M. Present: Theodore Turner, Chairman Michael Muller Charles O. Sicard Jeffrey L. Kelley Susan Goetz, Secretary Gustave Behr Daniel S. Griffin Stuart F. Mesinger, Senior Town Planner R. Case Prime, Counsel Robert Eddy, Sign Enforcement Officer The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. Corrections to the December minutes were made as follows: Page 5: 2nd paragraph, The Board discussed a larger projecting sign, not a roof sign. Page 4: Variance 1189 should be the Glen Square Shopping Center, not the Northgate. Mr. Sicard MOVED APPROVAL of the December minutes as corrected. Mrs. Goetz seconded. Passed Unanimously. OLD BUSINESS SIGN VARIANCE NO. 1153 Jade Palace Restaurant Attorney Vince Canale represented the applicant. The application was previously tabled for determination of property line setback; this was found to be 18 feet by survey. Mr. Behr questioned whether the 18 feet was to the sign leading edge. Sign height was 24 feet and total area 108 square feet. There are two portions; a top portion at 60 square feet and a bottom portion at 48 square feet. The Warren County Planning Board disapproved as the sign is too big. A public hearing was previously held. Mr. Behr MOVED for APPROVAL of a 60 square foot sign at the existing setback. Board members Mrs. Goetz and Mr. Muller questioned why an extra 10 square feet should be allowed. ',-- 1 Jil Mr. Behr withdrew the motion. '-- Mrs. Goetz MOVED DENIAL of Variance 1153. The sign could be 64 square feet at a 25 foot setback and be legal if the bottom portion were removed. No practical difficulty shown. Mr. Muller seconded. Passed Unanimously. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 1158 Ramsey's Sunoco Attorney Malcom O'Hara inventoried the existing signs as follows: 1. "Sunoco" wall sign of 38 square feet. 2. "Sunoco" and "Goodyear Custom Service" wall sign of 69 square feet. 3. "Avis" freestanding sign of 24 square feet, 15 feet from the front property line and o feet from the side line. This sign was erected in 1985 with a valid building permit. 4. "Sunoco" freestanding sign of 26 square feet, 16 feet high and 7% feet from the property line. 5. "Sunoco" freestanding sign, 90 feet high, 150 square feet, meets all setbacks. Mr. O'Hara said that violations existed as to setbacks, height, number and size. The Board has interpreted businesses which front on northway ramps and a street as not being on corner lots. Therefore, only 1 wall sign was allowed. Mr. O'Hara outlined practical difficulty as follows: removal of a wall sign would leave an unattractive faded outline of the "Sunoco" letters. The Avis sign is unique in that it advertises a separate service and has a valid permit. The other Sunoco wall sign with the Goodyear sign attached is undersized. The small freestanding sign cannot be moved without interfering with traffic flow. The large freestanding sign attracts the public from the Northway, and is no higher than the Suisse Chalet sign which received a variance. Owner Joe Ramsey said he was most concerned with the hi-rise sign. Removal of the wall signs would be unsightly. He had obtained a permit for the Avis sign in good faith. Board members pointed out that the Suisse Chalet situation was quite different. This business could not be seen at all from the Northway and was located in a depression such that a conforming sign could not be seen. Mr. Ramsey said his station could not be seen because it was located below the Northway. * Mr. Behr pointed out that the station could be advertised on the Northway advertising '- * Mr. Behr "believed it is advertised. n 2 J4~ panels and that this sign was much bigger and in different circumstances than the Suisse '- Chalet. Mr. Kelley added that since the Chalet doesn't front on Corinth Road, it can't be advertised at all without a taller sign than allowed by the ordinance. The circumstances are different. Mr. O'Hara offered to remove the wall signs and replace them with a single 100 square foot wall sign. Mr. Behr said there would still be too many signs. Mr. Turner asked what percentage business comes from the Northway. Mr. Ramsey estimated 40-50%. He said the sign served as a landmark to passing motorists. Public Hearing Opened: no comment Public Hearing Closed. The Warren County Planning Board disapproved without comment. Mr. Mesinger recommended denial. He noted that in the case of the tall sign the Board must distinguish the circumstances between Sunoco and the Suisse Chalet; it appeared that this was adequately done. There had been no showing of practical difficulty for the tall sign, for example, submitting of evidence showing that a 25 foot tall sign could not be seen. The Avis sign was somewhat unique in that it advertised a separate service and had been issued a valid permit. Mrs. Goetz MOVED DENIAL of Variance 1158 as requested. The following signs are approved: on freestanding, "Sunoco" sign up to 50 square feet to be at a 7% foot setback from Corinth Road; one wall sign on the building, and the existing freestanding Avis sign. Practical difficulty pertaining to the A vis sign is that due to an error in the Building Department in 1985, the sign w as given a valid permit. All other signs not listed above must be removed. The applicant has failed to show that conforming signs do not advertise the building adequately. Mr. Muller seconded. Passed Unanimously. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 1175 Aviation Road Development Corporation. (Red Coach Restaurant) Mr. Turner abstained due to a conflict of interest. Mr. O'Hara asked that variance 1216 be heard concurrently. Mrs. Goetz read both applications to keep three signs: an oversize sign 470 feet from the Northway, a freestanding off premises sign 12 feet from the property line at 96 square feet on Rte. 149, and a freestanding off premises sign on Rte. 9 some 300 feet north of the Red Coach Restaurant. Mr. O'Hara explained that the Red Coach lease would be up in 2 years and that at that time the restaurant would probably change names. The applicant desired to keep '---" 3 ~43 the large sign facing the Northway and would remove the 2 off premises signs until the '-- franchise expired. Joe DeSantis said his business was dependent on Northway traffic, for which he needed his large sign. Mr. Behr replied that all Rte. 9 restaurants depended on the Northway; there was no uniqueness to the Red Coach. Mr. O'Hara said a 64 square foot sign would be too small to advertise to the public. He said that if the business were permitted two freestanding sign on the property, it would remove the off premises signs. After the Red Coach Restaurant franchise expires in 1989, all signs would be made to conform. * Mr. Behr asked whether the franchise would be extended. Mr. O'Hara doubted it. Mr. Kelley said the Board had previously denied a variance for the large freestanding sign in front. This offer appeared to renege on a previous decision of the Board. Mr. Prime noted the Board would have to go through proper procedures for a rehearing of the previously denied sign if that was its wish. Mr. O'Hara asked that the Board table the application so that a new application could be submitted covering all signs and requesting a rehearing. Mr. Muller MOVED that the application be TABLED at the request of the applicant. Mr. Sicard seconded. Passed, 6 yes, 1 abstain (Turner) SIGN VARIANCE NO. 1177 ABC Rentals Mr. Muller abstained due to a conflict of interest. Owner Keith Coe said survey results showed his sign to have a 0 foot setback on Quaker Road and 5 feet on Ridge Road. The sign conforms to height and size requirements. Mr. Coe submitted pictures to the Board showing the sign location and other potential locations. Mr. Coe said the pictures demonstrated he had a visibility problem. Board members asked why the sign couldn't be placed on an existing light pole. Mr. Coe said it wouldn't be visible. Mr. Turner replied that the sign would have the same visibility from the east and west if placed on the light pole; it couldn't be seen from the north and south now, so moving it wouldn't really change visibility. The public hearing was previously held. The Warren County Planning Board recommended approval until such time at Quaker Road is widened; then the sign must meet all setbacks. '- * Mr. Behr asked whether the franchise could be extended. 4 ~~+ '_ Mr. Griffin MOVED DENIAL of Sign Variance 1177. The existing freestanding sign can be moved to the pump island in front of the building. A variance is granted for a 4 foot front setback. Practical difficulty is that this is a reasonable location and will not interrupt traffic flow. The sign must conform to setback requirements when Quaker Road is widened. Mr. Kelley seconded. Passed 6 yes, 1 abstain (Muller) SIGN VARIANCE NO. 1183 Mohans Glen Dew Owner Mr. Rhone said the sign met all size requirements and had been found to have a 4 foot front setback. There is 16 feet between the sign and the building peak. Moving the sign into conformance would ruin the buildings appearance. He asked for an 11 foot variance. Mr. Behr said the sign could be moved part way back. Mr. Rhone asked what the point would be. Mrs. Goetz said the Board has approved other setback variances caused by the widening in the road. Mr. Behr said the applicant was still asking for 11 feet. Mr. Muller asked what was gained by reducing this slightly. Mr. Sicard said moving the sign back would reduce its visibility. The fault lay in the widening of the road. Mrs. Goetz read a letter from Case Prime dated December 5 indicating that the wall signs conformed. The Warren County Planning Board disapproved. Mr. Eddy noted the County Board did not have all information on setbacks and measurements. Mr. Behr MOVED that Variance 1183 be APPROVED. Practical difficulty is due to the widening of Route 9 and being consistent with other variances of a similar nature where Route 9 has taken property. Mr. Griffin seconded. Passed Unanimously. '- 5 ~'t5 SIGN VARIANCE NO. 1178 '- Mohican Motel This application was previously tabled for determination of whether the freestanding sign facing the Northway qualified as a billboard. All other signs had been resolved. The applicant had indicated he would remove this sign if it did not qualify as a billboard. Mrs. Goetz read a letter from Counsel Case Prime indicating the sign did not meet the definition of a billboard as it was too small. Billboards are grandfathered. As this is not a billboard, it does not qualify for grandfathering. Mr. Kelley MOVED that the freestanding Northway sign be DENIED based upon the interpretation by Counsel that the panel on the Northway isn't considered a billboard. Second by Mr. Sicard. Passed Unanimously. AREA VARIANCE NO. 1172 Walter Dombek Mrs. Goetz read the application for a variance to place a storage building at 40 feet from Meadowbrook Road instead of the required 50 feet. Attorney Bob Stewart explained that this project had gone through Planning Board site plan review where numerous conditions had been attached. One of the original grounds for the variance was to save a large willow tree. The tree had since been removed. The reasons for the variance were to keep as far away from an on-site stream as possible and to allow adequate traffic circulation. Mr. Behr asked whether the northeastern storage building had been removed. Mr. Stewart replied that it had. The distance from the storage building to the residence was about 100 feet. Granting the variance would give vehicles better access around a tight corner and would provide more room away from the stream. The stream was now proposed to be piped into a longer culvert. Mr. Turner noted that flooding was a problem here every spring and that this was further reason to keep the building away from the stream. Public Hearing Opened: Trudy Russell, 65 Meadowbrook, said the storage building comes in sections; one could be eliminated. Meadowbrook has some commercial uses presently, but you can't tell. This looks commercial; allowing it too close to Meadowbrook would be obnoxious. This isn't a small house. Public Hearing Closed. The Warren County Planning Board disapproved in November. ~" 6 ;;<40 '---' Mr. Griffin MOVED APPROVAL of a 40 foot setback from Meadowbrook Road in lieu of the required 50 feet for Building "A". The request is reasonable. Practical difficulty is water problems due to the stream to the rear. The variance also opens more area for traffic flow and parking. Mr. Behr seconded. Passed Unanimously. USE VARIANCE NO. 1180 Tracy Tabor Mr. Mesinger explained that the applicant had submitted new evidence in support of this application. The Board should consider whether the evidence warranted rehearing; a unanimous vote was required to re-open the hearing. A rehearing had been properly advertised and proper notice sent. Mr. Behr MOVED to rehear variance 1180 as new evidence has been presented and all neighbors properly notified. Mr. Sicard seconded. Passed Unanimously. Mrs. Goetz reread the application to open a retail bonsai business and landscape office in the SR-IA zone off of West Mountain Road. Attorney Bruce Carr said he felt a variance wasn't required. Class C farms are allowed in the SR zone. A class C farm is 5 or more acres and may be used for horticultural purposes. The applicants wished to have a tree nursery for bonsai plants and believed this was a permitted use. Mr. Carr introduced a letter from Zoning Administrator Mack Dean in support of this position. Mr. Behr said the original application did not refer to use of the whole parcel; only a 400 by 100 foot strip for retail purposes. Mr. Carr replied that the applicants had misunderstood the zone requirements. They now proposed to use the entire 18 acre parcel for nursery purposes. The proposal is to grow plants in the back and allow retail sale of plants grown on site. Mr. Carr outlined the unusual shape of the parcel which would make use for residential purposes difficult. Mr. Behr said that under the use criteria, the application would fail. Mr. Carr said his position was that no variance was needed. Mr. Muller also said he thought the original application was for a retail store. Mr. Carr said they would only sell products grown on-site, which was allowed under the ordinance. A landscaping business would also be housed here. 7 ~,. ~47 '-- Mr. Behr asked whether agricultural uses did not require tilling of the soil. Mr. Carr said that trees would be planted there and soil tilled. The property would be used with the permission of the applicants parents. Mr. Muller read from the ordinance definitions indicating that horticulture is an "agricultural use" and that the definition of farm included structures for the sale of horticultural or agricultural products. Public Hearing Opened: no comment Public Closed. Mr. Muller MOVED that relying on the factual representation of Mr. Carr which differs from the original application, that the applicant has substantiated that this is a Class C farm per Sections 7 & 38 of definitions. Landscaping and bonsai business conform to horticultural uses and no variance is needed. The Board is relying on the representation that the use will always be on an excess of 5 acres. The original resolution of the Zoning Board of Appeals as pertaining to this variance is nullified. Second by Mr. Sicard. Passed 6 yes, 1 no (Goetz). INTERPRETATION NO. 36 Northern Distributing Mrs. Goetz read a letter from Wayne Gannett of Rist Frost Associates asking whether a truck repair facility is a permitted use in the light industrial zone. Mr. Gannett explained his client was considering an industrial park at this location and had a potential tenant for this use. Mr. Turner said this use was specifically allowed in the Highway Commercial zone under site plan review and therefore would not be allowed in the LI zone. Mr. Gannett said the HC zone allowed auto repair and did not address trucks. Mr. Turner said the uses were similar enough so that trucks and auto repair should be considered as allowed in the HC zone. Mr. Turner MOVED that truck repair of retail parts distribution is not a permitted use in the LI zone and could only be conducted by a variance. Mr. Muller seconded. Passed Unanimously. 8 ~i'6 NOTICE OF APPEAL NO.7 ',-- John DeMarco Mrs. Goetz read a letter from Attorney Bruce Carr asking that a stop work order issued for a house Mr. John DeMarco is constructing on the Rockhurst Road be lifted. Mr. Carrs letter outlined the history of the case. The Zoning Board previously denied a use variance in February because there was already a residence on the 1 acre property (zoned 1 acre) and because of parking difficulties due to a marina also located on the property. The Board, in May, annulled the variance after receiving a letter from Mr. Dean stating that no variance was required as the applicant was entitled to rebuild an existing older cottage also on the property under the continuation of nonconforming use provisions of the ordinance. A building permit was obtained in September. In November, the Town received a petition asking that a stop work order be issued. Mr. Dean issued a stop work order in December. The applicant has spent $35,000 so far on a $90,000 house and is suffering substantial hardship. Mrs. Goetz read a letter from Mack Dean stating that the order was issued because of remaining doubts over the rights to preexisting use represented by the cottage and because it appeared that to rebuild a nonconforming use, site plan review by the Planning Board was required. Mr. Mesinger said there appeared to be 3 issues. First, proper notification wasn't given when the Board annulled the variance. The Board was required to vote unanimously to rehear based on new evidence and then conduct a new hearing only after proper notification was given. Second, it was unclear whether the Board had properly addressed the continuation of nonconforming use provision involved with the cottage. The ordinance said that nonconforming uses or structures lost their continuation privileges after 18 months of discontinuation. In this case the question would revolve around abandonment of the cottage and when it was last used. Third, if rights to continue the cottage use as a second residence did indeed exist, the ordinance required that rebuilding be referred to the Planning Board. The Board would have to consider whether rebuilding included a substantially larger, separate structure. Attorney John Richards representing Mr. DeMarco said he didn't think any of these were issues. On November 24, Mr. Dean wrote a letter to the Town Board indicating that no stop work order would be issued; yet an order was issued on December 2. The circumstances have not changed. Mr. DeMarco has a vested right to continue construction. He has moved his family east on the basis of issuance of the building permit. He has incurred obligations of about $50,000. He has a contract issued for the structure. Total damages would exceed $100,000. Results of stopping construction would be a substantial eyesore and would cause a substantial loss of money. Mr. Richards felt this wasn't the time to reopen the nonconforming use issue as this was previously resolved. The Board reviewed the minutes of its previous meetings. Members agreed that they understood that the existing restaurant was in fact a residential use. The decision to annul the variance was based on Mr. DeMarco's rights to continue a preexisting nonconforming use. The next step should have been sit plan review by the Planning Board. Mr. Richards questioned the Boards authority to sustain a stop work order. He said an order could only be issued by Mr. Dean if some code or building violation has been found. 9 ~~~ Mr. Muller read Article 13.020 of the ordinance indicating a stop work order could '-- be issued for violation of any ordinance provision. The lack of site plan review appeared to be a violation of the ordinance. Mr. Muller questioned whether the Boards annulment of the variance was valid given the notification problem. Public Hearing Opened: Frank Murnoff, Queensbury, said he often ran by the property. Previously it was a dump. A house would greatly improve the property and community. Michael Buch, Queensbury, said Mr. DeMarco has followed all steps as required by the Building Department and had gone to great expense. He was being stopped for no reason except the neighbors didn't like it. The stop work order was unfair. Attorney Bob Stewart said he was speaking on behalf of some Rockhurst residents. He had also submitted a letter to the Board. The Boards denial of the use variance was valid. The lot already had a house and a 49 dock marina. The applicant could have appealed the denial via Article 78 or asked for a rehearing by submitting new evidence. The Board must grant a rehearing by unanimous vote and give proper notice. As that didn't happen, the Boards action annulling the variance is invalid and the January denial still in effect. The solution was to vote to rehear the application and give proper notice. The applicant would then argue he doesn't require a variance because he has a viable preexisting use - the small cottage as a residence in addition to the restaurant used as a residence. However, Mr. Stewart has a client who will testify that the cottage has been closed and boarded for 25 years. Twenty five years constitutes abandonment. This issue wasn't raised at the first meeting and is new to the Board. Mr. Muller read the minutes of the first board meeting. The applicant clearly stated he wished to replace the cottage with a new structure. This issue had been made clearly to the Board. Mr. Stewart said Section 9.011 of the ordinance didn't define rebuilding. He also asked where marina bathroom facilities would be if the cottage were removed. He reiterated that a new hearing should be held to air all the facts. Mr. Behr suggested that the restaurant be demolished leaving one structure on one acre as allowed by ordinance. Mr. Stewart said he didn't know the law if the restaurant were removed. The marina would still be there. Mr. Richard said the Board's May action determined no variance was required. The partly constructed house is being damaged by the weather. Mr. DeMarco is sustaining substantial injury. Mr. Stewart said the Boards annulment of the variance was not valid. Mr. Prime said when the variance was annulled he thought the restaurant was not a residence and that the applicant was only reconstructing a conforming structure. The question before the Board is the stop work order. If the Board wants to hear other issues it should do so in this format. The Board can't reconstruct its previous actions. The Board has a stop work order and the facts; if it needs more information it should stay in this format. 10 ;}q) '- Mrs. Goetz read letters from Margaret Colacino, Mark and Linda McCollister, and Roland Faulkner opposed to the building. Mr. Richards said he was not prepared to address the abandonment issue but would accept the application being referred to the Planning Board for site plan review. Mr. Stewart said sending the application to the Planning Board was an abdication of responsibility. The Planning Board could not decide the issue of use; only the Zoning Board could. Arthur Norton, Queensbury, said there were 15 neighbors present opposed to the application. He asked what violations were noted on the order. Mr. Richards said no specific violations were given. Mike Maluchi noted that Mr. Dean's letter to the Zoning Board stating why the order was issued was dated January 21, 1987. He asked why construction was allowed to begin if Mr. Dean thought there had been violations. Public Hearing Closed. Mr. Muller MOVED that the factual issues before the Board are whether this is an appropriate stop work order and whether proper procedure was followed. The Board should allow all parties to be heard. The Board has made a previous error which cost Mr. DeMarco time and money. The Board proposes to have a rehearing to have fact finding on the issues. The notice of the rehearing will be published and the Board will have a rehearing as soon as possible. A special meeting will be scheduled within the minimum time period required by law. Section 13.020 under Enforcement of Zoning Ordinance is used as a basis for having the rehearing. Mr. Turner seconded. Passed Unanimously. Mr. Richards asked that the record show that he strenuously objected to this and challenged the jurisdiction of the Board to hear this. No demonstration has been made tha t the ordinance was violated. Mr. Muller read Section 13.020 of the ordinance into the record and said that the Board would have a full hearing on the issues. AREA VARIANCE NO. 1207 W.J. Desbiens 11 J-5/ Mrs. Goetz read the application to create 2 lots of approximately 17,500 square '-- feet from a 35,000 square foot lot on Eldridge Road in an SR-20 zone. Mr. Behr noted that dividing the lot in half would create two lots of slightly different dimensions. Mr. Desbiens said there was no setback problem and he didn't plan a duplex. Mr. Turner said there were other smaller and odd shaped lots in the neighborhood. This wouldn't detract from its appearance. Public Hearing Opened: Fern Hall, Bennett Road, asked if Mr. Desbiens had purchased the property. He said he had. Mrs. Hall said she previously had an option on the property for this purpose but was told a variance would be denied. She thought the proposal would improve the neighborhood. * Mr. Kelley MOVED APPROVAL of Sign Variance 1207. It is a small deviation from the ordinance and not detrimental to the intent of the ordinance. Mr. Turner seconded. Passed Unanimously. AREA VARIANCE NO. 1209 ** Barbara Mead Mrs. Goetz read the application to allow a 10 foot side setback on a house in the LR zone on Brayton Road in lieu of the required 30 foot combined setback (the other side setback is 6 feet). Mr. Read said that the addition was for a bedroom; an existing bedroom would be replaced with a bathroom; no increase in density was proposed. Mr. Behr noted the actual side setback would be 8 feet due to the angle of the property line. Public Hearing Opened: no comment Public Hearing Closed. Mrs. Goetz read 3 letters in support of the application. The Warren County Planning Board approved without comment. Mr. Kelley MOVED APPROVAL of Area Variance No. 1209. Practical difficulty is due to lakeshore setback requirements in front and the location of the septic system in back. There is no alternative but to build sideways. This is a minimal relief from the ,-,.mo. Kelley MOVED APPROVAL of Area Variance 1207, not Sign Variance 1207 ... Mead should be Read 12 :J-S;) ordinance. - Mrs. Goetz seconded. Passed Unanimously. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 1210 Chase Lincoln First Bank Mrs. Goetz read the application to keep a wall sign on the rear of the bank facing the shopping center parking lot on Route 9. Jim Dwyer represented the application. He said the sign met the intent of the ordinance as it couldn't be seen from the road. If this sign was not allowed, then the signs on the rear of the mall should also be removed. The mall should be enforced first. Mr. Behr said the bank signs are easily visible from Route 9. Mr. Dwyer argued that since the sign couldn't be seen from a public thoughfare, it didn't require a permit. Mr. Mesinger said the sign could be seen from abutting property to the rear, namely Frasiers. Mr. Eddy said the building, if part of the plaza, would only be allowed 1 sign. The bank has a freestanding sign and is not considered part of the plaza. It certainly isn't allowed an extra wall sign. Also, the signs didn't presently have permits. Mr. Dwyer again argued the sign didn't need a permit. Mr. Mesinger disagreed, noting he had stood on adjoining property and could see the sign; therefore, under the ordinance, it required a permit. Public Hearing Opened: no comment Public Hearing Closed. The Warren County Planning Board disapproved. Mr. Behr MOVED that Variance 1210 be DENIED. No practical difficulty shown. The sign is in excess of that permitted. Passed 6 yes, 1 abstain (Sicard) AREA VARIANCE NO. 1211 Greg Garafallo * Mrs. Goetz read the application to create two 26,000 square foot lots from a lot * the applicant sought to create two 26,000 square foot lots from a parcel, not a lot. 13 d-.S3 located in the SR-30 zone on Sherman Island Road. '- Mr. Garafallo said he owned the lots. He had no plans to build a duplex; in fact the subdivision covenants wouldn't permit it. Mrs. Goetz read a petition dated January 20 signed by 31 residents opposed to the variance and in particular opposed to duplexes on the lots. Mr. Garafallo reiterated no duplexes would be built. Public Hearing Opened: no comment Public Hearing Closed. Mr. Griffin MOVED APPROVAL of Area Variance 1211 as it is in a preexisting subdivision and these lots, once divided, will be the same size as all other lots. The request is reasonable. Mr. Turner seconded. Passed Unanimously. The Meeting was adjourned at 1:10 a.m. ~!b~ ß4JU~ Theodore Turner, Chairman Minutes prepared by Stuart F. Mesinger, Senior Town Planner '~ 14