Meeting Minutes-For Approval Zoning Board of Appeals Page 1 of 18

Transcription

1 Meeting Minutes-Fr Apprval Zning Bard f Appeals Page 1 f 18 A regular meeting f the Zning Bard f Appeals f the was held in the Village Office Building, 22 Main Street, Cperstwn, New Yrk n at 5:00 p.m. In attendance: Members Present: Susan Snell (ZBA Chair) / Jhn Sansevere / Rn Streek / Marcie Schwartzman / Frank Le / Jeff Schneider Alternate Members Absent: nne Others: Zning Enfrcement Officer, Jane Gentile (ZEO) / Clerk PT, Mikal Sky-Shrewsberry / Village Attrney, Martin Tillapaugh (Vill Atty) / Applicant Attrney, Dug Zamelis (App Atty) (17) Members f the Public (including Cynthia Falk, Village Trustee) Susan Snell (ZBA Chair) Opened the Meeting at 5:03 PM Nte: Fr May 2017, the ZBA meeting date was changed frm its standard time slt. It was mved frm the 1st Tuesday f the mnth t the 2nd Mnday f the mnth. PUBLIC HEARING (1 Item) /AGENDA #1 SUSAN SNELL (ZBA CHAIR) OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 5:05 PM NOTE: THIS HEARING/AGENDA ITEM HAS BETWEEN 1 TO 3 PARTS THAT WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY: (1) INTERPRETATION; (2) VARIANCE; (3) SPECIAL PERMIT Interpretatin will be cnsidered first Depending n the interpretatin decisin, the ZBA will/will nt address the area variance Depending n the previus decisins, the ZBA will/will nt address the special permit Each part that is cnsidered will be pened individually t public cmments and then immediately fllwed by bard discussin and vte (if apprpriate) 1. JOANN HUBBELL (COOPERSTOWN EAGLES, LLC), 25 CHESTNUT STREET fr an interpretatin, area variance and special use permit t perate a tw bedrm apartment turist accmmdatin at 25 Chestnut Street PRESENT / PARTICIPATING Applicant(s): Cperstwn Eagles LLC (jann Hubbell, Cindy Hubbell & Glen Hubbell) Applicant Attrney: Dug Zamelis (App Atty) Cperstwn Village Attrney: Martin Tillapaugh (Vill Atty) PROPERTY / CURRENT USE DESCRIPTION Mixed ccupancy cntaining bth a prfessinal (dental ffice) and 2 residential units (1) tw bedrm and (1) ne bedrm Lcated in the business district PUBLIC COMMENTS VERONICA SEAVER (160 MAIN STREET) There is big prblem with the vlume f weekly rentals that exist in the Village (believes there are currently mre than 50) The vlume f weekly rentals is changing the fabric / nature f the cmmunity Wuld like t see existing weekly rentals grandfathered and g frward with new laws that cmpletely prhibit the establishment f new weekly rentals (turist accmmdatins) in the Village ROGER MACMILLAN (12 MAIN STREET) Agrees with the statements made by Vernica Seaver : When is enugh enugh? Asked: Why is ZBA cnsidering waiving the wner ccupancy requirement when it is intended t cntrl the vlume f weekly rentals in the Village?

2 Meeting Minutes-Fr Apprval Zning Bard f Appeals Page 2 f 18 Recgnizes that the difference in incme between weekly and mnthly rentals is significant and is driving the increased number f weekly rentals Urges ZBA t ppse the cancerus grwth f weekly rentals in the Village ALICE GAVIRIA (44 SUSQUEHANNA) Has a different perspective frm the peple wh previusly spke Will be renting her prperties primarily as AirBnb rather than Dreams Park Believes AirBnb is gd fr the Village Embeds turists in the cmmunity Owners can act as cncierges: intrducing guests t the true flavr/peple f the Village Encurages the use f lcal businesses 2. In sme cases she wrks with realtrs A number f her guests have been staying befre deciding whether r nt t relcate PART 1: INTERPRETATION (RE: TYPE OF DWELLING) SUSAN SNELL (ZBA CHAIR) EXPLAINED THE ZBA INTERPRETATION PROCESS/REQUEST FOR THE PUBLIC Independent f variance and special permit prcesses The applicants lawyer has asked ZBA t reexamine Jane Gentile s (the Village zning enfrcement fficer s) interpretatin f hw the Hubbell s applicatin shuld be reviewed accrding t Village law The basic questin that is being addressed: what categry f dwelling des the Hubbells building fall under? MARTIN TILLAPAUGH (VILL ATTY)- SUMMARIZED THE 2 SIDES OF THE ARGUMENT DOUG ZAMELIS (APP ATTY) CONTENDS: 25 CHESTNUT STREET DOES NOT CLEARLY FIT ANY OF THE 3 DEFINITIONS OF DWELLING CATEGORIES THAT VILLAGE LAW REQUIRES TO BE A TOURIST ACCOMMODATION SO THE HUBBELL APPLICATION REQUIRES INTERPRETATION BY THE ZBA (*NOTE this is Martin Tillapaugh (Vill Atty) summary f the applicants argument rather than their wn summary in their wn wrds) If it des nt fit any f the recgnized categries f dwelling it is nt subject t the turist accmmdatin requirements and shuld be able t be rented t shrt term tenants Nte: if ZBA decides the dwelling is multi-family, the applicants will apply fr an area variance and a special permit Accrding t Village Law (300-24) t be a turist accmmdatin a dwelling must be fit ne f three categries: single family, tw family r multi-family in which vernight accmmdatins are prvided r ffered t transient guests fr cmpensatin Multi-family dwellings are defined in the law (300-84) as a residence fr MORE than 2 families living independently frm each ther with separate husekeeping facilities fr each The dwelling at 25 Chestnut is at mst mixed ccupancy / It is used fr bth business and residence purpses / it cntains 2 apartments / it is in the business district 25 Chestnut des nt meet any f the 3 dwelling categries mentined in the turist accmmdatin law It is nt a single family dwelling since it has 2 apartments It is nt a tw family dwelling since the dwelling is nt used exclusively fr residential purpses (it is mixed-use with an ffice) It is nt a multi-family because 25 Chestnut des nt have MORE than 2 residential units (as specified in the Village s legal definitin f multi-family dwellings ) Since 25 Chestnut des NOT fit any f Village s 3 categries f dwellings

3 Meeting Minutes-Fr Apprval Zning Bard f Appeals Page 3 f 18 Lcal law des nt address this type f residence at all Dug Zamelis (App Atty) cntends that legally what is nt specifically prhibited is allwed Therefre 25 Chestnut cannt be held subject t the rules f a turist accmmdatin and can rent fr any term f the landlrd s chsing MARTIN TILLAPAUGH (VILL ATTY) CONTENDS: THE DWELLING IN QUESTION IS MULTI-FAMILY There is a secnd sentence in Village law under the definitin f multi-family dwellings (300-84) that states apartments, cndminiums and cperatives fall under the categry f multi-family residences Martin Tillapaugh (Vill Atty) believes this 2 nd sentence is cntrlling and takes precedence ver the 1 st sentence f the definitin The Village cntends that a dwelling with any number f internal (rather than detached) apartment units is classified as a multi-family dwelling regardless f the number f units it cntains Since 25 Chestnut Street has 2 apartments within it that are used exclusively fr residential purpses but the building is mixed-use the Village cntends that 25 Chestnut falls under the classificatin f mixed ccupancy with an ffice and a multi-family dwelling If it is a multi-family dwelling then 25 Chestnut des falls under ne f the 3 classificatins f dwellings that the Village allws fr turist accmmdatins It is therefre subject t all standard turist accmmdatin requirements f the zning law states that Any use that is nt permitted is prhibited It is a blanket statement that applies t all f Cperstwn s Zning Law SUSAN SNELL (ZBA CHAIR) : CLARIFIED THE 3 HOUSING TYPE DEFINITIONS Bth the definitins f single and tw family dwellings include the term detached whereas the definitin f multi-family dwelling des nt The use f the term detached eliminates the pssibility that 25 Chestnut can be any f the 3 dwelling types ther than multi-family JOHN SANSEVERE: INQUIRY/DISCUSSION RE: TOURIST ACCOMMODATIONS IN COMMERCIAL VS RESIDENTIAL ZONES Are there differences in the turist accmmdatin laws depending n what zne the turist husing is in (different laws fr cmmercial vs residential?) Martin Tillapaugh (Vill Atty): respnse Currently turist accmmdatins are permitted in any zning district in the Village / there is n prhibitin s the requirements are the same in all districts (1) wner peratin/wner ccupancy / (2) sufficient parking (3) fire safety inspectin (4) pay bed tax Additinal discussin ccurred between Jhn Sansevere and Martin Tillapaugh (Vill Atty) regarding the desirability f having turist accmmdatins in the business district and what that means Jhn Sansevere stated he feels it wuld be beneficial if turist accmmdatins were primarily lcated in the cmmercial/business districts and nt in the residential districts

4 Meeting Minutes-Fr Apprval Zning Bard f Appeals Page 4 f 18 DOUG ZAMELIS (APP ATTY) NOTE: Dug Zamelis (App Atty) prvided ZBA with handuts f the prvisins that are key t his argument Stated he was frm Springfield NY and represented Cperstwn Eagles Described the prperty at 25 Chestnut Mixed ccupancy cntaining bth a prfessinal (dental ffice) and 2 residential units (1) tw bedrm and (1) ne bedrm Lcated in a highly cmmercialized busy sectin f the Village Described prpsed changes/impact that wuld ccur if were able t act as a turist accmmdatin (instead f a lng term accmmdatin) N exterir r interir renvatins f any kind N impact n the residential character f the neighbrhd because it is in already in a high traffic area and tenants have already been living there s any differences in cming/ging /parking will hardly be nticed Only changed being prpsed is the reductin in the length f the rental term frm its current 30 day perid t a 7 day perid Addressed dwelling classificatin f 25 Chestnut Agrees that it is nt a single r multi-family Disagrees with Martin Tillapaugh s (Vill Atty) classificatin f 25 Chestnut as a multi-family dwelling It des nt cntain mre than 2 apartments as stated in the 1 st sentence f the definitin in Village law Desn t believe that the definitin f multi-family dwellings is meant t include 2 distinct sub-definitins 1. Any type f dwelling with mre than 2 residential units 2. Apartments, cnds and cperatives which may cntain any number f units Believes the 2 nd sentence f the definitin clarifies the first rather than expands it He interprets the sentence t mean that apartments, cperatives and cnds must have mre than 2 units ZBA must decide if the 2 sentences are intended t be harmnized r t be treated separately (which means they are in cnflict with ne anther) Other issues he feels shuld be taken int cnsideratin Zning is cntrary t cmmn law Cmmn law says anyne can d what they want with their prperty if it des harm neighbring prperties/peple/cmmunity Ambiguities must be cnstrued in favr f the wner & against the municipality Any use that is nt strictly prhibited is allwed The rental term f 25 Chestnut will revert t 30 day mnth t mnth in the ff seasn The applicants are nt hme wners, they are cmmercial prperty wners VERONICA SEAVER (160 MAIN) STATED Entire is residential regardless f its fficial zning classificatin She can see 25 Chestnut frm her huse (her huse is als in the business district) The Village needs t have year rund rentals There are many apartments and private hmes all alng main street that culd ptentially be cnverted t turist accmmdatins Eliminating the need fr wner ccupancy at 25 Chestnut will pen a pandra s bx DOROTHY PHILIPS (9 WESTRIDGE RD) STATED

5 Meeting Minutes-Fr Apprval Zning Bard f Appeals Page 5 f 18 She agrees with all f Vernica Seaver s previus statements MARTIN TILLAPAUGH (VILL ATTY) Interpretatin shuld fllw cmmn sense and be reasnable/ nn-arbitrary /ratinal Village law states that turist accmmdatins can nly exist in single/ 2 family /multi-family residences Village law states that any use nt permitted shall be deemed prhibitive The list f examples prvided in the law is nt meant t be exhaustive DOUG ZAMELIS (APP ATTY) 25 Chestnut is surrunded by ther businesses There are sme residences in the business district but they are nn-cnfrming Land use laws regulate the use f land nt the terms f tenancy SUSAN SNELL (ZBA CHAIR) & MARCY SCHWARTZMAN: INQUIRY DIRECTED TO DOUG ZAMELIS (APP ATTY) (RE: CLASSIFICATION OF DWELLING) Believes shrt term husing must be classifiable as either htel / mtel /turist (single family / tw family / multi-family) If it cannt be classified as ne f these it is cannt be a turist accmmdatin What classificatin f building des Dug Zamelis (App Atty) believe 25 Chestnut is? Is it a 4 th type f dwelling? If s, it cannt functin as turist accmmdatin because it nt ne f the nly allwable types DOUG ZAMELIS (APP ATTY) RESPONSE This is mixed use ccupancy building The apartments are used fr residential purpses but the dwelling is NOT a residence Believes classificatin as a multi-family residence needs t have mre than 2 apartments Applicants are asking the ZBA t make a determinatin regarding the classificatin PUBLIC HEARING PART 1 : INTERPRETATION CLOSED AT 5:48 PM BOARD DISCUSSION (RE: INTERPRETATION COMPONENT) JOHN SANSEVERE STATED As much as I think it culd wrk I think it is nt a tw family it s a multiple. I think the law was written t be mre than ne. I think that there is a quirk here. There is a quirk in this law that yu can g either way n this because yu can interpret the law as a tw family r a multi-family. I think when they wrte it they meant mre than ne family. Tw family means mre t me. It means it s a multi-family. I dn t persnally agree with the interpretatin f the law. My persnal thing is that they be mre definite when they fix it. I m saying it s a multi. I m with the Village n this ne. SUSAN SNELL (ZBA CHAIR) REQUESTED CLARIFICATION S yu wuld uphld the way it s currently been interpreted as being a multi-family? JOHN SANSEVERE RESPONDED I think s. I think that s the way they meant it when they wrte it. I dn t think that s what it says but I think that s the way they meant it. I m ging with the intent f the Village nt with what the law says. FRANK LEO STATED I agree with Jhn Sansevere. I agree with the Village n this ummm and I will g with that until they, as Jhn Sansevere said, change it.

6 Meeting Minutes-Fr Apprval Zning Bard f Appeals Page 6 f 18 RON STREEK STATED I think the intent f the law was t make it tw family and I will g with the Village als. SUSAN SNELL (ZBA CHAIR) REQUESTED CLARIFICATION Yu re saying 2 different things t me. Tw family is the definitin that says it s detached. The multi-family which is what the Village has determined because f the secnd sentence. RON STREEK RESPONDED OK. Multi-family. MARCY SCHWARTZMAN STATED I agree. My interpretatin is als that this is a multiple family dwelling and is therefre subject t the current, nging, established rules fr turist accmmdatins. SUSAN SNELL (ZBA CHAIR) STATED I have t say that I als agree. I think that the tw sentences in the definitin can be read independently. And I wuld say particularly the secnd sentence because it is prefaced with fr the purpses f this chapter which is kind f a brader mre encmpassing reference t the brad law as ppsed t the first sentence. And then it refers t apartments, cnds and cperatives as multi-family dwellings. I think that that is a reasnable interpretatin fr Jane Gentile (ZEO) t have made and I wuld uphld that. JEFF SCHNEIDER (ALTERNATE) NOTE: DOES NOT HAVE A VOTE, BUT WAS INVITED BY SUSAN SNELL (ZBA CHAIR) TO GIVE HIS OPINION I agree with everybdy else. I think that it s a multiple dwelling. I think what they re ding in the secnd sentence is just clarifying apartments and cndminiums that they fall under the multiple as ppsed t a single unit huse type setting, mre specifically residential setting. This is different frm an wner ccupied building. It s a residential building but it s nt an wner ccupied building which i think yu wuld be int a tw family r multiple family mre clearly defined. S when yu get int apartments and cndminiums maybe that s just a clarificatin f the previus sentence. MOTION (RE: INTERPRETATION COMPONENT) MADE BY Jhn Sansevere / SECONDED BY Rn Streek RESOLUTION We agree with the interpretatin f the Village that this unit is a multi-family dwelling. VOTE AYES (5) Sansevere / Le / Streek / Schwartzman / Snell OPPOSED (0) MOTION APPROVED Susan Snell (ZBA Chair): stated that the ZBA has upheld the zning bard enfrcement fficer s decisin that 25 Chestnut Street is a multi-family dwelling PART 2: AREA VARIANCE (RE: OWNER OCCUPANCY) Variance is required because Village law stipulates that turist accmmdatins are required t be wner perated and wner ccupied. THERE ARE 2 PERTINENT ISSUES THAT SUSAN SNELL (ZBA CHAIR) THINKS NEED TO BE ADDRESSED 1. Is wner ccupancy a physical feature whse standard requirements can be altered thrugh an area variance r is it a nn-physical feature that can nly be altered thrugh a waiver? 2. If it requires a waiver, des the ZBA have the right t grant waivers?

7 Meeting Minutes-Fr Apprval Zning Bard f Appeals Page 7 f 18 MARTIN TILLAPAUGH (VILL ATTY) INTRODUCED THE ISSUE OF VARIANCE VS WAIVER Sectin 725 (B)(3) and (B)(5) f Village law addresses sme f the pwers granted t the ZBA (Cpies f the law handed ut by the applicant s lawyer) MARTIN TILLAPAUGH (VILL ATTY) DISCUSSED THE POWERS GRANTED BY 725(B)(3) WHICH STATES ZBA CAN GRANT AREA VARIANCES He nted that there are the pwers granted by 725(B)(3) can be interpreted in different ways and that he and Dug Zamelis (App Atty) have different interpretatins He believes 725(B)(3) grants limited pwers related nly t dimensinal/physical space (such as setbacks, Distances frm a rad r side yard) - this a cmmn sense definitin f variance Dug Zamelis (App Atty), the applicant s lawyer cntends that 725(B)(3) als grants the ZBA authrity t address ther things beynd dimensinal/physical space, including whether an wner must live n the premises MARTIN TILLAPAUGH (VILL ATTY) DISCUSSED THE POWERS GRANTED BY 725(B)(5) WHICH GIVES A BOARD OF TRUSTEES THE OPTION TO GRANT A ZONING BOARD THE POWER TO ISSUE WAIVERS Zning bards d nt autmatically get that pwer - it must be expressly given/stated Waivers allw zning bards t make exceptins regarding issues that d nt fall under the categry f dimensinal/physical space that the ZBA has authrity t alter thrugh area variances If granted waiver authrity, the ZBA wuld be allwed t alter r impse special cnditins regarding nn-space related requirements such as wner ccupancy Martin Tillapaugh (Vill Atty) cannt find any passage in the Cperstwn Village rdinance that grants the ZBA any type f waiver authrity The Village Ordinance des specifically grant waiver authrity t the planning bard Martin Tillapaugh (Vill Atty) and Dug Zamelis (App Atty) bth agree that ZBA has NOT been granted waiver authrity THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MARTIN TILLAPAUGH (VILL ATTY) AND DOUG ZAMELIS (APP ATTY) PERSPECTIVE ON THIS ISSUE IS THAT Martin Tillapaugh (Vill Atty) believes that the ZBA requires waiver authrity t alter the wner ccupancy requirement because it deals with nn-space issues Martin Tillapaugh (Vill Atty) cntends that Cperstwn ZBA des Nt pssess the necessary pwer t alter the wner ccupancy requirement Because(1) The ZBA has nt been granted Waiver Authrity and (2) because wner ccupancy des nt fall under the categries f dimensinal space that can be addressed by variances that the ZBA des have the pwer t grant Dug Zamelis (App Atty) believes that variance authrity is adequate fr addressing the wner ccupancy issue s ZBA des have the necessary pwer t grant the variance they seek Sectin 366(E)(1) adds a cmplicating factr / it states: ZBA shall have the pwer t grant variances f any prvisins f this chapter r n any applicatin fr a special permit. MARTIN TILLAPAUGH (VILL ATTY) CONTENDS THERE WOULD BE NO REASON FOR REQUIRING WAIVER AUTHORITY IF THE POWERS GRANTED BY 366( E)(1) ENCOMPASSED ALL SPACE AND NON-SPACE RELATED ISSUES SUSAN SNELL (ZBA CHAIR): INQUIRY FOR CLARIFICATION Des this nly apply t Special permits? MARTIN TILLAPAUGH (VILL ATTY) RESPONDED yes, nly n special permits

8 Meeting Minutes-Fr Apprval Zning Bard f Appeals Page 8 f 18 JOHN SANSEVERE INQUIRY/DISCUSSION RE: POWERS GRANTED TO THE ZBA HOW DO THE POWERS OF ZBA THAT ARE GRANTED BY THE STATE VILLAGE LAW COMPARE TO THE POWERS GRANTED BY THE VILLAGE BOARD? Village bard passes lcal laws, ZBA interprets them as they relate t zning (specified in the pwers sectin) There are 2 categries f law 1. State Village Law the NY State Village Law specifies the full range f ptential pwers the Zning Bard can exercise if thse pwers are specifically granted by the Village Bard 2. Lcal Village Law the Lcal Village Law which is created by the Village Bard specifies which f the ptential pwers allwed by the state are actually granted t the Zning Bard FOLLOW-UP INQUIRY: IF A POWER IS NOT SPECIFICALLY ALLOWED OR DISALLOWED (IT IS NOT MENTIONED AT ALL) DOES IT MEAN THE ZBA CAN T DO IT? Cperstwn Village Lcal Law specifically states that if a pwer is nt specifically granted (in this case, t the ZBA) then it is prhibited FOLLOW-UP INQUIRY: WHO GAVE ZBA THE POWER TO INTERPRET THE CATEGORY OF DWELLING? 1st sectin f zning rdinance f Village Laws 366(B) says ZBA has the fllwing pwers 1. Address appeals frm r review decisins made by the cde s fficial (Jane Gentile (ZEO) 2. Determinatin f the meaning f any prtin f the text in the relevant chapter f Village Law 3. Determinatin f lcatin f district bundaries 4. Area variances 5. Use variances 6. Special use permits 1ST SECTION OF VILLAGE LAWS 366(B) DOES NOT MENTION THE POWER TO GRANT WAIVERS SUSAN SNELL (ZBA CHAIR) STATED: the meaning f the law is muddied by the statement that says: ZBA has the pwer t grant variances f any prvisins in a manner that is nt allwed by the divisinal r physical requirements f the applicant zning law This is either a misuse f the term variance r it meant t grant waiver authrity It desn t make sense but if it allws yu t grant variances it flies in the face f the state law because it is nt a variance. It s a waiver MARTIN TILLAPAUGH (VILL ATTY) STATED: 725(B)(5) als presents anther prblem because it says that if the Village Bard grants the ZBA waiver authrity, the Village Bard shuld specify the cnditins under which the ZBA can exercise that pwer and what the ZBA needs t cnsider when exercising it. That list f cnsideratins and specificatins des nt exist except fr generic terminlgy in 366 f the Village Cde. Martin Tillapaugh (Vill Atty) requests that if ZBA decides that 366(E)(1) grants the authrity t d mre than address area variances then at least cnsider the general cnditins f a special use permit: health, safety, welfare ZBA S JOB NOW IS TO DETERMINE HOW IT INTERPRETS ITS OWN AUTHORITY ACCORDING TO WHAT IS WRITTEN IN VILLAGE STATUTE Can ZBA nly grant variances related t features f dimensinality and physical/lcatin as typically addressed r is the ZBA authrized t address a brader range f features?

9 Meeting Minutes-Fr Apprval Zning Bard f Appeals Page 9 f 18 SUSAN SNELL (ZBA CHAIR) INQUIRED ABOUT PROCESS OF DETERMINING ZBA AUTHORITY Des (1) Jane Gentile (ZEO), ZEO make a determinatin first and then (2) ZBA addresses an appeal if smene bjects t her interpretatin? MARTIN TILLAPAUGH (VILL ATTY) CONFIRMED THAT IS HOW THE PROCESS WORKS DISCUSSION OF JANE GENTILE (ZEO) S ROLE AND DECISION NOTE: a cpy f Jane Gentile s riginal determinatin was distributed t the ZBA members at the beginning f this meeting Jane Gentile (ZEO) stated that she reviewed this befre but it was withut the infrmatin abut waivers and befre hearing Martin Tillapaugh s (Vill Atty) perspective regarding the law SUSAN SNELL (ZBA CHAIR) ASKED JANE GENTILE (ZEO) TO SHARE HER CURRENT OPINION BECAUSE THE ZBA DOES NOT MAKE DETERMINATIONS EXCEPT IN RESPONSE TO ONES ALREADY MADE BY THE ZEO Jane Gentile (ZEO) did nt feel familiar enugh t prvide an answer at the current time Jane Gentile (ZEO) stated that her riginal determinatin, which she had made mnths ag (that the applicants culd apply fr an area variance ), was based n state law 725(B) applicatin fr an area variance in a special use permit which said: Ntwithstanding where a prpsed special use permit cntains 1 r mre features which d nt cmply with the zning regulatins applicatin can be made with the zning bard f appeals fr an area variance Jane Gentile (ZEO) stated that her decisin was based n the fact that this cde nly talked abut variances and said any prvisins in this chapter but she was unaware f the relatinship between state and lcal law and f the differences between variances and waivers He believes the ZBA has the authrity t make determinatins beynd features f space/dimensinality SUSAN SNELL (ZBA CHAIR) NOTED that the wrd features is a term nt previusly used r defined and is therefre difficult t knw if it applies t qualities beynd thse typically assciated with area variances Neither Martin Tillapaugh (Vill Atty) nr Dug Zamelis (App Atty) has fund any legal histry r ther inf that clarifies the meaning f the wrd features MARTIN TILLAPAUGH (VILL ATTY) CONCLUDED that the ZBA can make the determinatin withut hearing frm Jane Gentile (ZEO) first DOUG ZAMELIS (APP ATTY) OBJECTED t keeping the public hearing pen while the ZEO is being asked t make a determinatin DOUG ZAMELIS (APP ATTY) PRESENTATION REGARDING 2ND PART OF APPEAL Applicants are applying fr (1) a special permit fr turist accmmdatins at 25 Chestnut street and a (2) request fr an area variance frm the physical wner ccupancy requirements Applicants are nt seeking a waiver / they recgnize the ZBA has NOT been given the authrity t grant a waiver Applicants are seeking a variance

10 Meeting Minutes-Fr Apprval Zning Bard f Appeals Page 10 f 18 ZBA needs t decide if it is acting within its riginal jurisdictin (ability t make an riginal decisin f its wn instead f first ging thrugh the ZEO) r its appellate jurisdictin (reviewing a decisin that has already been made by the ZEO r ther administrative bdy) Special permits fall under riginal jurisdictin 7725b subsectin 3 (page 1 f handut) specifically states ZBA has the pwer t grant area variances as part f special use permits Definitin f area variance is the pwer t alter use f land in a manner that is nt allwed by the dimensinal r physical requirements f the applicable zning regs Claims all regs fall under either dimensinal r physical classificatin Claims wner ccupancy is a physical requirement and a feature as specified under the zning law Edisn vs Hffman: an area variance is anything but a use variance The law says that there must be ptential relief fr every dimensinal r physical requirement If yu accept that the wner ccupancy requirement is a physical requirement then the law requires there t be a ptential way t btain a variance fr that requirement THE SECOND PART OF THE APPLICANT S APPEAL IS A JURISDICTIONAL HYBRID WITH 2 PARTS: ASKING FOR (1) A SPECIAL PERMIT IN YOUR ORIGINAL JURISDICTION AND THEN (2) AN AREA VARIANCE IN YOUR APPELLATE JURISDICTION Absence f ability t grant a waiver in yur riginal jurisdictin des nt impact ZBA s ability t grant an area variance in its appellate jurisdictin CONTENDS THAT APPLICANTS MEET OR EXCEED ALL 6 SPECIAL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS (AS SUMMARIZED BELOW) AND THEREFORE MUST BE GRANTED A SPECIAL PERMIT 1. In harmny with surrundings and with apprpriate develpment f the surrunding district: it is (The Bard f Trustees has indicated it believes turist accmmdatins are in harmny with the business district since they permit them t exist within the business district) 2. Nt detrimental t site r adjacent prperties: it isn t (especially since the nearest prperty is wned by the applicants) 3. Density f surrunding area will be cnsidered: n change prpsed 4. Will nt create hazardus situatins fr pedestrians r assembly and use: It wn t 5. Wn t hinder r discurage use f adjacent land and buildings: it wn t 6. Will nt require significant expenditure r creatin f additinal public resurces than thse permitted by right: it wn t DOUG ZAMELIS (APP ATTY) IDENTIFIED ADDITIONAL FACTORS IN THE APPLICANTS FAVOR There will be n interir r exterir mdificatins There are ver 20 parking spaces Applicants sn lives next dr and will be able t clsely mnitr 25 Chestnut and it s residents Plenty f rm fr pedestrian mvement The nly real change being prpsed is a change in the rental term f the tenants Since these apartments have already been ccupied with peple cming and ging, parking spaces being used etc n significant changes in impact n the cmmunity/neighbrhd will be created

11 Meeting Minutes-Fr Apprval Zning Bard f Appeals Page 11 f 18 AREA VARIANCE REQUIRES ZBA TO CONSIDER THE BENEFIT TO THE APPLICANTS COMPARED TO ANY DETRIMENTAL IMPACT IT MAY HAVE ON THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD/COMMUNITY. APPLICANTS SUBMIT THAT THE BENEFIT TO THEM FAR OUTWEIGHS ANY DETRIMENTAL EFFECTS, IF ANY, THAT MAY BE FELT BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD There is a substantial ecnmic benefit t the applicants if they are nt required t ccupy ne f the units (exhibit b) =$18,950 Changing the rental term frm 30 days t less than 7 days will nt impact the neighbrhd since it is in a busy business district and peple have already been living in the apartments CONTENDS THE PROPOSED TOURIST ACCOMMODATION MEETS THE 4 CRITERIA FOR GRANTING AN AREA VARIANCE 1. N change in the character f the cmmunity since it has already had tenants and the applicants wn the nearest building 2. Can t achieve /ffer turist accmmdatins in any ther way except by getting an area variance fr wner ccupancy 3. It is nt a substantial request because applicants wn, perate and wrk next dr and their sn resides abve the bakery next dr 4. Hardship is self-created when they acquire prperty already subject t the restrictins frm which they seek relief(building purchased befre 2015 turist accmmdatin regulatins) SUSAN SNELL (ZBA CHAIR) STATED turist accmmdatins were allwed in the business district under special permits beginning in 1989 s purchase f prperty did nt predate the wner ccupancy restrictins SUSAN SNELL (ZBA CHAIR) REVISITS PROCEDURE Is cnsidering an area variance the next step? DISCUSSION WITH SUSAN SNELL (ZBA CHAIR), MARTIN TILLAPAUGH (VILL ATTY) AND DOUG ZAMELIS (APP ATTY) REGARDING WHETHER ZBA NEEDS TO WAIT FOR THE ZEO TO MAKE A DECISION ABOUT WHETHER THEY COULD SEEK A VARIANCE AND WHETHER AN THE HEARING SHOULD BE EXTENDED Martin Tillapaugh (Vill Atty) and Dug Zamelis (App Atty) agree that applicants can cme directly t the bard fr an area variance (it can act under its riginal jurisdictin) Martin Tillapaugh (Vill Atty) stated that he des nt feel the ZEO needs t make a determinatin fr the ZBA t mve frward with a decisin MARTIN TILLAPAUGH (VILL ATTY) REMINDS THE BOARD ABOUT THE FACTORS IT SHOULD CONSIDER WHEN MAKING ITS DECISION Financial gain is just ne f several factrs DOUG ZAMELIS (APP ATTY) REITERATES THAT HE BELIEVES THE ONLY REAL POINT OF DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN THE APPLICANTS AND THE VILLAGE IS WHETHER OWNER OCCUPANCY CAN BE ADDRESSED THROUGH AN AREA VARIANCE Dug Zamelis (App Atty) says everything in the zning law can addressed thrugh either area r use variance. Owner ccupancy is a physical feature and therefre can be addressed thrugh an area variance.

12 Meeting Minutes-Fr Apprval Zning Bard f Appeals Page 12 f 18 MARTIN TILLAPAUGH (VILL ATTY) SAYS ONLY DIMENSIONAL AND SPACE RELATED ISSUES CAN BE ADDRESSED THROUGH AN AREA VARIANCE. CONSIDERING OWNER OCCUPANCY TO BE A PHYSICAL FEATURE IS A STRETCH AT BEST AND FLIES IN THE FACE OF A WAIVER INQUIRY: SUSAN SNELL (ZBA CHAIR) REQUESTS THAT DOUG ZAMELIS (APP ATTY) CLARIFY HIS OPINION Can everything in the law can be addressed thrugh an area variance r just the stipulatins that fall under special permits? DOUG ZAMELIS (APP ATTY) RESPONDED Every substantive item in the law must be variable r else it is uncnstitutinal INQUIRY: SUSAN SNELL (ZBA CHAIR) ASKS JANE GENTILE (ZEO) Des she feels k abut the ZBA reviewing this as an area variance? JANE GENTILE (ZEO) STATED Her riginal interpretatin f the law was that the applicatin shuld be able t be cnsidered fr a variance and she still feels it is apprpriate DOUG ZAMELIS (APP ATTY) STATED He agrees with the ZEO n this pint SUSAN SNELL (ZBA CHAIR) STATED THAT THE ZBA WILL ADDRESS THE OWNER OCCUPANCY ISSUE AS AN AREA VARIANCE She further stated that it is the nly way the applicants can pssibly mve frward and get the special permit they were als applying fr Request fr additinal public cmments VERONICA SEAVER (160 MAIN STREET) Asks the ZBA t remember they are ptentially pening a Pandra s bx BILL WALLER (66 BEAVER STREET) Believes the applicants definitin f the neighbrhd/cmmunity they impact is t narrw The entire Cperstwn cmmunity will be impacted, nt just the peple and businesses n the street crner where the prperty is actually lcated JOHN SANSEVERE INQUIRED: Is there is a case being litigated regarding a turist accmmdatin that is nt wner perated? MARTIN TILLAPAUGH (VILL ATTY) STATED the Village has identified several prperties perating as turist accmmdatins that d nt meet the wner ccupied requirement and they are being litigated He wants t make sure the recrd shws this is nt the first time this issue has ever cme up- this is an nging prblem PUBLIC HEARING FOR PART 2 CLOSED AT 6:40PM: (RE: AREA VARIANCE FOR OWNER OCCUPANCY) BOARD DISCUSSION FOR PART 2 (RE: AREA VARIANCE FOR OWNER OCCUPANCY) DISCUSSION BETWEEN SUSAN SNELL (ZBA CHAIR) AND DOUG ZAMELIS (APP ATTY) RE WHICH SHOULD BE ADDRESSED FIRST: THE AREA VARIANCE OR THE SPECIAL PERMIT Cnclusin: the area variance needs t be addressed first because wner perated/wner ccupied is a cnditin f the special permit (agreed t by bth Susan Snell (ZBA Chair) and Dug Zamelis (App Atty))

13 Meeting Minutes-Fr Apprval Zning Bard f Appeals Page 13 f 18 SUSAN SNELL (ZBA CHAIR) ADDRESSED THE RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF THE OWNER OPERATED/OWNER OCCUPIED REGULATION Owner perated/wner ccupied and parking cmpnents f turist accmmdatins have been the baseline that have histrically prevented mst prperties frm even being cnsidered fr a Special Permit fr a Turist Accmmdatin The variance being requested can therefre be cnsidered a very significant variance DISCUSSION OF THE CRITERIA FOR GRANTING A VARIANCE that the prperty was wner perated because the wners live next dr SUSAN SNELL (ZBA CHAIR) RESPONDED that he was incrrect - a family member lives next dr, nt the wners and this des NOT fulfill the requirements specified in the law SUSAN SNELL (ZBA CHAIR) READ THE RELEVANT PASSAGES IN THE LAW that specify what ZBA needs t take int cnsideratin when making their determinatin Benefit t the applicant vs detriment t the health, safety and welfare f the neighbrhd/cmmunity Undesirable change will be prduced r detriment t neighbring prperties JEFF SCHNEIDER STATED ZBA needs t cnsider hw waiving the requirement f being wner ccupied (hw the wner nt living n the premises) may affect the specified cnsideratins Typically area variances deal with physical and dimensinal features MARCIE SCHWARTZMAN STATED Des nt believe wner ccupied can be classified as dimensinal r physical- it s a rule, a quality f life rule - Area variances have always dealt with questins f where s the fence?, where s the setback? Des NOT believe it is apprpriate t address wner ccupancy with an area variance ZBA puts a great deal f emphasis n making sure applicants meet the parking requirements and that wner supervisin shuld be given at least as much weight when cnsidering granting a variance Believes granting the right t a turist accmmdatin withut requiring wner ccupancy is ttally at dds with what ZBA des SUSAN SNELL (ZBA CHAIR) STATED SHE AGREES THAT IT IS HISTORICALLY AT ODDS Based n established wrk dne by the ZBA and precedence the ZBA des nt address rules ther than thse related t physical space and dimensins. It has nt histrically addressed the rules related t wner ccupancy The bar needs t be set extremely high befre granting a variance t the wner ccupancy rule, especially in light f hw the ZBA has addressed previus applicatins fr Special Permits fr a Turist Accmmdatin He agrees that wner ccupancy is addressable via variance because peple are physical and therefre it meets the criteria set frth in the law DOUG ZAMELIS (APP ATTY) STATED That the right t the variance must be determined by weighing the benefit t the applicants against the detriment t the cmmunity If ZBA des nt grant the variance, they will need t specify in what ways granting the variance will be a detriment t the health, safety and/r welfare f the cmmunity

14 Meeting Minutes-Fr Apprval Zning Bard f Appeals Page 14 f 18 ZBA shuld nt be applying a higher bar but rather the same bar used fr every variance applicatin received SUSAN SNELL (ZBA CHAIR) STATED The ZBA s task is t lk at the questin f granting a variance t this applicant frm a brader perspective than nrmal MARTIN TILLAPAUGH (VILL ATTY) STATED One f the mst imprtant terms t keep in mind is cmmunity When dealing with area variances they culd easily have said and any ther requirement instead f specifying dimensinal and physical. That s why waivers exist DOUG ZAMELIS (APP ATTY) STATED Respectfully disagreed and pinted ut that if yu culd vary everything it wuldn t separate area variances frm use variances SUSAN SNELL (ZBA CHAIR) STATED ZBA is cnsidering an area variance Reread the law Take int cnsideratin the benefit t the applicant which in this case is mre incme MARTIN TILLAPAUGH (VILL ATTY) STATED THAT INCOME WAS IRRELEVANT AND SUSAN SNELL (ZBA CHAIR) FEELS THIS MAKES SENSE BECAUSE IT WOULD APPLY TO EVERY POTENTIAL APPLICATION FOR A TOURIST ACCOMMODATION Dug Zamelis (App Atty) bjected t the statement that ecnmic benefit shuld be treated as irrelevant Ecnmics cme int play in the use variance but nt the area variance Take int cnsideratin the detriment t the health, safety and welfare f the neighbrhd Several residents at recent public hearings have spken t (1) the imprtance f maintaining lng term rentals in the Village and the prblems that are resulting because there is nt enugh lng term husing available (2) cncerns abut prblems that arise when turists live in husing that is nt directly ccupied/perated by the wner Owner ccupancy/wner peratin has histrically been the crnerstne f Cperstwn s turist accmmdatin cntrl mechanism in the law He feels this is a unique situatin that he has nt run acrss in the 2 years he has been n the bard It is in the business zne (nn-residential zne) SUSAN SNELL (ZBA CHAIR) RESTATED ZBA needs take int cnsideratin #1 the detriment t the cmmunity and asked fr bard input RON STREEK STATED Feels it will be a detriment because if the variance is granted it will pen a fldgate. The law exists t prtect the Village It is very different than granting setbacks etc. It will have far reaching repercussins DOUG ZAMELIS (APP ATTY) STATED That the questin t be addressed is will having tenants wh stay fr 7 day terms instead f 30 cause a detriment t the health, safety r well-being f the cmmunity. (the questin is nt what the impact f granting the variance will be n future applicatins.)

15 Meeting Minutes-Fr Apprval Zning Bard f Appeals Page 15 f 18 The applicants culd put in anther ffice which might result in a much higher and mre frequent vlume f traffic then having shrt term residential tenants and the applicants wuld nt have t cme befre the ZBA fr a variance at all even thugh it wuld have a much bigger and ptentially mre negative impact n the neighbrhd He desn t see where having a shrt term rental in that particular lcatin wuld be detrimental FRANK LEO STATED Nt having a pint f cntact n lcatin is a prblem. It needs t be wner ccupied If living next dr is k, why nt dwn the street? Hw d yu determine hw far away is t far? Agrees with Rn Streek abut the need fr wner ccupancy Agrees with Jhn Sansevere abut the impact n the neighbrhd due t changes in traffic and parking etc Marcie Schwartzman had a great pint when she said that they needed t meet a high bar They meet every requirement but 2 s he feels they reach they high bar that shuld be set He feels that family living in an adjacent prperty prvides an adequate pint f cntact MARCIE SCHWARTZMAN STATED If smene buys the building, ZBA cannt require the wner t live either n-site r next dr. The fact that the wner s family lives next dr is a cincidence that can t be cunted n. Since permits need t be renewed every year the variance can be revked if the situatin changes (the wner des nt reside n the premises r a relative des nt reside next dr) JANE GENTILE (ZEO) STATED As she reads the law special permits allw yu t put any cnditins yu want n them FRANK LEO STATED If allwing ff premise supervisin it will be difficult if nt impssible t limit by distance (why nt dwn the blck r the ther side f twn?) The questin is Cperstwn willing t accept anything ther than wner ccupied? The applicants deserve an answer tnight and shuld nt have t wait SUSAN SNELL (ZBA CHAIR) STATED ZBA needs t cnsider #2 whether the applicant can achieve their gals thrugh sme mechanism ther than an area variance Optins available include living there, cntinuing their histrical practice f renting lng term, etc ALL BOARD MEMBERS BASICALLY AGREED A VARIANCE WAS THE ONLY MECHANISM SUSAN SNELL (ZBA CHAIR)) STATED ZBA needs t cnsider #3 whether the requested area variance is substantial Owner ccupancy is majrly substantial He agrees it is substantial and requires a high bar He feels the standard is different because it is in a business zne and nt a residential ne and they basically have versight next dr Permits/variances shuld be cnsidered each year and revked if changes in circumstances seem t warrant it

16 Meeting Minutes-Fr Apprval Zning Bard f Appeals Page 16 f 18 The law was put in there fr a reasn s there is sme recurse if there is a prblem MARCIE SCHWARTZMAN STATED Agrees with Susan Snell (ZBA Chair). Owner ccupancy is the crnerstne. SUSAN SNELL (ZBA CHAIR) STATED ZBA needs t cnsider #4 whether the variance will have an adverse affect n the physical r envirnmental cnditin f the neighbrhd r district She did nt see hw change in rental terms wuld have an adverse effect It s been rented nw SUSAN SNELL (ZBA CHAIR) STATED ZBA needs t cnsider #5 whether the alleged difficulty was self-created She believes it is self-created MALE BOARD MEMBER (NOT SURE WHO BECAUSE OF SIMULTANEOUS TALKING) STATED It was self-created SUSAN SNELL (ZBA CHAIR) ASKED IF ANYONE HAD ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD There was n further discussin MOTION MADE BY Marcie Schwartzman/SECONDED BY Frank Le RESOLUTION T grant a variance t the wners f 25 Chestnut street frm the wner ccupied/wner perated requirement f the turist accmmdatin regulatin VOTE (NOTE: THE MEANING OF A YES OR NO VOTE WAS CLARIFIED FOR BOARD MEMBERS BEFORE THE VOTE WAS TAKEN) AYES (1): Sansevere OPPOSED (4): Snell / Schwartzman / Le / Streek MOTION DENIED PART 3: SPECIAL PERMIT BECAUSE THE VARIANCE WAS NOT GRANTED THE APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT WAS NOT ENTERTAINED THE SPECIAL PERMIT HAS OWNER OCCUPANCY AS ONE OF ITS STIPULATIONS AND WOULD EITHER REQUIRE THAT STIPULATION TO BE MET OR OFFICIALLY ALTERED THROUGH A ZBA VARIANCE REGULAR AGENDA (5 ITEMS) Susquehanna Avenue and (Alice and Sergi Gaviria) The preliminary hearing fr a special use permit t perate a tw bedrm turist accmmdatin (fur unit apartment structure with tw lng term rental units, ne wner unit and ne transient rental unit). PRESENT/PARTICIPATING: Alice and Sergi Gaviria applicants PROPERTY / CURRENT USE DESCRIPTION 4 unit apartment huse 2 units n the tp flr are lng term rentals and are currently ccupied 1 unit n the bttm flr: Sergi s (wner s) studi apartment 1 unit n the bttm flr: 2 bedrm t be used as a shrt term turist accmmdatin Owner perated / wner ccupied (Sergi Gaviria lives n the premises) Mre than enugh parking

17 Meeting Minutes-Fr Apprval Zning Bard f Appeals Page 17 f Susquehanna Avenue (Alice and Sergi Gaviria) The preliminary hearing fr a special use permit t perate a fur bedrm turist accmmdatin in a (five (5) bedrm single family huse) PRESENT/PARTICIPATING: Alice and Sergi Gaviria applicants PROPERTY / CURRENT USE DESCRIPTION 4 bedrm huse with attached efficiency apartment 2 parking spaces Additinal parking is available n the prperty next dr which is als wned by the applicants Alice gaviria resides n the premises but will use different bedrms r the efficiency depending n the needs f her guests Plans t rent 4 bedrms r (3 bedrms + the efficiency) as shrt term accmmdatins which rms get rented will vary depending n the needs f her guests Mst neighbrs have written letters r signed a paper saying they d nt bject t the prpsed use f the prperty(ies) FRANK LEO (ZBA) Asked if they had been already been perating as an airbnb withut a permit Stated they must live n the premises f bth 42 Susquehanna and 44 Susquehanna NEXT STEPS FOR (BOTH 42 AND 44 SUSQUEHANNA) Submit the letters / signed statement frm the neighbrs Set public hearing fr next meeting date (currently planned fr 5pm n June 6, 2017) Discussin f whether a variance is necessary t allw parking needs f 44 Susquehanna t be met by using spaces n adjacent prperty at 42 Susquehanna als wned by the applicants Martin Tillapaugh (Vill Atty) stated that parking can be addressed by making a cnditin n the permit / a variance is nt necessary Alice & Sergi need t prvide a written ntarized statement acknwledges that a certain number f spaces n the prperty at 42 Susquehanna are designated fr residents f 44 Susquehanna The statement shuld be filed under miscellaneus recrds Fair Street (Nicle Retzler and Andrew Hage) The preliminary hearing fr a 7-5 area variance t extend a six (6 ) ft high fence in frnt yard setback per Sectin 30066C.(1) - this is a jint prject with Christ Episcpal Church at 69 Fair Street f a cmbinatin retaining wall/fence alngside prperty line (HPARB is reviewing this n May 9th) SUSAN SNELL (ZBA CHAIR) RECUSED HERSELF AND MARCIE SCHWARTZMAN ASSUMED THE CHAIR POSITION. PRESENT/PARTICIPATING: Carl Waller applicant representing the church EXPLANATION OF PROPOSED CHANGES Jint prject undertaken by bth the church and Retzler/Hage Church is building a 2 6 high pured cncrete retaining wall between 24 inches t 30 inches tall alng the entire side prperty line t address a water run-ff prblem that effects its neighbr s (the Retzler/Hage prperty) Retzler/Hage are building a 3 6 fence n tp f the retaining wall fr privacy purpses making the final height f the fence apprx. 6 feet

18 Meeting Minutes-Fr Apprval Zning Bard f Appeals Page 18 f 18 Since the height f the fence is greater than 4 feet a variance is required in the frnt yard setback The fence will be made f 6 cedar decking The church is in favr f the fence A picture was submitted A variance is required because they are asking fr a 6 high fence in a frnt yard setback where the max is a 4 ft tall fence THE SETBACK WILL BE 12 FEET 5 INCHES INSTEAD OF THE STANDARD 20 FEET NEXT STEPS SET PUBLIC HEARING FOR NEXT MEETING DATE (CURRENTLY PLANNED FOR JUNE 6, 2017) Lake Street (Nichlas Prestn) - The preliminary hearing fr an area variance t lcate a gate in frnt yard setback (gate t be lcated at frnt left crner f huse) per Sectin 30066C.(1) SUSAN SNELL (ZBA CHAIR) RESUMED THE CHAIR POSITION. PRESENT/PARTICIPATING: There was NO representative present PROPERTY / CURRENT USE DESCRIPTION Huse is lcated right acrss frm the park Building in a setback Gate taller than 4 feet Applying t HPARB fr apprval f the gate There are n cmplaints filed REVIEW OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES FOR APRIL 11, 2017 CORRECTION(S) REQUESTD Requested by Marcie Schwartzman typ iunt (agenda item 1, line 9) MOTION T apprve the minutes as submitted Mtin made by Marcie Schwartzman / Secnded by /Rn Streek VOTE: AYES (5): Snell / Streek / Sansevere / Schwartzman / Le NAYS (0) MOTION APPROVED OTHER BUSINESS N ther business was discussed MEETING CLOSED 7:30 PM