City of Highland Park Zoning Board of Appeals met September 6.
Highland Park Zoning Board of Appeals met Sept. 6.
Here is the minutes provided by the board:
I. CALL TO ORDER
At 7:31 PM Chair Henry called the meeting to order and asked Planner Burhop to call the roll.
Members Present: Bay, Cullather, Henry, Putzel
Members Absent: Bina, Fettner, Chaplik
Planner Burhop took the roll and declared a quorum present.
Staff Present: Burhop, Davis
Student Rep.: None
Council Liaison: None
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chair Henry entertained a motion to approve the minutes of the August 16, 2018 meeting.
Member Bay so motioned, seconded by Member Putzel. Member Cullather abstained, stating he was not present at that meeting. On a voice vote the Chair declared the motion carried unanimously.
III. PUBLICATION DATE FOR NEW BUSINESS: 8-22-18
IV. BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC: None
V. OLD BUSINESS: None
VI. NEW BUSINESS:
Property: 1626 Ravine Terrace, Highland Park, IL 60035
Zoning District: R4
Appellant: Bonnie Barsky
Address: 1626 Ravine Terrace, Highland Park, IL 60035
Planner Burhop stated he had sent four letters of support for this item to the Board and the applicant has requested a continuance to October 4, 2018. Mr. Burhop stated the letters of support were available for public inspection at the Planning Division, and Mr. Burhop read the continuance request email to the Board.
Chair Henry entertained a motion to continue the item to the October 4, 2018 meeting. Member Cullather so motioned, seconded by Member Putzel. On a voice vote, the Chair declared the motion carried unanimously.
The Chair stated the application was continued to October 4, 2018, ZBA Meeting.
Property: 2660 Roslyn Ln., Highland Park, IL 60035 Zoning District: R6
Appellant: Brian A. Bortman & Lucy K. Bortman Address: 2660 Roslyn Ln., Highland Park, IL 60035
Planner Burhop made a presentation for the above item including location map, project background, aerial photo, existing and proposed site plan, FAR review, proposed and existing east, west, south and north elevations, existing and proposed floor plans, neighborhood FAR exhibit, site photos, additional notes and requested variation.
Member Putzel asked if this was just for a FAR issue.
Planner Burhop confirmed this.
Chair Henry asked about the bump out length on the two-story addition. Planner Burhop stated it is 18’-10”.
Chair Henry stated the bump out is about 85.5 s.f. in area.
Planner Burhop stated it is 81.5 s.f.
Member Bay stated in one of the submissions it stated the applicant bought the house a couple of weeks ago and looked at a set of plans from 1999 that had the allowable FAR at 4,300 s.f. and it changed reducing the FAR to 4,134 s.f. He asked if the FAR was lowered after 1999.
Planner Burhop stated in 19 years the Zoning Code has been amended, including amendments to FAR; however, he stated he could not give a definitive answer as to exactly how it was changed.
Mr. Cal Bernstein, 700 Osterman, Deerfield, IL, Attorney, made a presentation including this is the third generation to live in the house and there was a 30-year break, in 1999 there was an application for a zoning variance for the garage, plans were given to the applicant, since 1999 the City has changed the definition of FAR as to the R6 district which lowered it, the house is listed in the historical preservation survey, they are looking to upgrade to 21st century living, want to make bedroom on second floor functional, only way to access the bedroom is through another bedroom, applicant is looking to create hallway for direct access to the second bedroom, second story addition is filling in an existing patio, little additional bulk being added, lovely entry area/living area, they want to preserve as much layout of house as possible and upgrade to 21st century, little moving of walls, want to update kitchen, improve size of bedroom on second floor, provide access to tandem bedroom, 161 s.f. over and above the bonus.
Chair Henry asked if Marjorie Kemp was present. He stated she had filed an appearance and is entitled to question the applicant. No one responded.
Mr. Bernstein stated they did receive a letter of concern from Mr. & Mrs. Stack regarding drainage issues. He stated the architect can speak to this. Anything would be approved through the Building Dept. to make sure it is neutral or improving the drainage and not be detrimental to neighborhood.
Mr. Mike Houser, Houser Architects, 1715 Chancellor, Evanston, IL, Architect, made a presentation including the addition they were planning was by right and on the first floor, they have a galley kitchen, the open space is for a breakfast table, will create entry area, they are maintaining line of structure, will have a better relationship with the family room, looking for access to the bedroom on second floor, proposing hallway, talked about drainage issues with Bleck Engr., will drain to the south with overland swale to front and pick up downspouts, open to piping it but Bleck Engr. has stated the overland route is a better route and there is nothing hidden so it can be maintained, they will deal with the water issues.
Member Putzel asked where the Stack house is located. Planner Burhop illustrated where the house is located.
Chair Henry asked if they had discussions with Mr. & Mrs. Stack and do the plans contain flood abatement measures.
Mr. Houser stated they were completed by the time they were submitted and the applicant has spoken with Mr. & Mrs. Stack.
Chair Henry asked if the Board approved the application contingent upon plans submitted to the City containing flood abatement measures would they be recommend this to the applicant.
Mr. Houser stated yes.
Member Cullather asked what is the area above the garage.
Mr. Houser stated it is trussed area and they are not counting this.
Mr. Danny Kahn, 819 Sheridan Rd., Highland Park, IL, stated he lived in the house, knew the previous owners, a lot of older houses cannot accommodate gracefully the needs of an open floor plan, house has the benefit with filling the patio and leaving the living and dining and entry hall 100% intact and still have family room, kitchen and eating area as one contiguous space, additional impervious surface is 80 s.f., brick patio, little additional impervious surface, upgrading existing drainage, swale will fix this, second floor bedroom is a narrow tandem bedroom, architect came up with hallway addition over existing piece of house, thrilled to see house preserved.
Mr. Bernstein stated the condition approval on drainage between two houses is acceptable, standards reasonable return, house is labor of love, no intent to sell, impractical layout on second floor, hardship is how the house lays on lot, tandem bedroom, hardship was not caused by owner, preserving existing streetscape, not detrimental to neighborhood, will not be the largest FAR on the block, they could build as a matter of right, very little impervious surface being added and requesting approval of application to allow third and fourth generation to live in the house.
Member Bay asked about the rationale for the FAR being lowered for the R6.
Mr. Bernstein stated it was done throughout the City in response to the McMansions being built. They lowered the FAR but made it an incentive for people to invest in their house and created the bonus. Except for the connectivity, this could have been done as a matter of right using the bonus.
Member Cullather asked if they considered options that would have lowered the square footage requested.
Mr. Houser stated they did and the kitchen was a bit smaller, but they made the door more amenable to the breakfast table so there would not be a conflict. The kitchen will be projecting 4.5’.
Member Putzel mentioned the 4.5’ bump and what the total square footage would be. Chair Henry stated it was about 85 s.f.
Chair Henry asked what the allowable square footage would be with the bonus. Member Bay stated it would be 41.34 s.f.
Ms. Linda Stack, 2644 Roslyn Ln., Highland Park, IL, stated she appreciated the neighborhood is going to be preserved, they did extensive renovation to their house, supports the improvements, concern is the drainage issue, prior owners did not connect to underground piping, her downspouts are tied in, water runoff is tremendous, landscape, have damage to existing garage, wood rot has occurred, fence on their property, previous owners have had water issues in basement, where are they tying in, Roslyn Circle is private and maintained privately, Roslyn Lane is public, drains to SW corner, contacted her architect and builder, biggest fear is swale concept, problem is it will erode with time,
Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals has had not water damage to east side of their home, underground piping system, catch basin may do it, bump out will have impact, impact during construction phase, possible damage to fence and landscape, wants to make sure engineering and construction are done properly.
Chair Henry asked if they had discussions with the applicant regarding her concerns.
Ms. Stack stated she had spoken with Mr. Bortman and he understood her position. They had consensus about the swale and it is her major concern. She was also concerned about the foundation of her home.
Chair Henry asked if the Board granted the application would she be comfortable with an order approving the application contingent upon incorporating some flood abatement measures.
Ms. Stack stated yes and thanked the Board.
Mr. Bernstein stated they would fully accept that condition that there be some water abatement between the two houses. The Building Dept. would have required a building permit and they will have to do a drainage and grading plan and this will be addressed through the permitting process.
Member Putzel stated she thought the documentation was very thorough and she was comfortable that they met the standards. It is a hardship to have old house with a unique configuration and try to make it work with today’s way of living. She appreciated the preservation effort for Highland Park. She thought they met the criteria and hearing Ms. Stack’s concerns she would like to hear what the other members have to say and determine if there is an appropriate contingency regarding the drainage so everyone is satisfied.
Member Bay stated they did a nice job in the presentation and his problem was that he did not think they have been shown the only way to do this is without exceeding the bonus FAR. There were some plans, while not optimal, they would have worked and stayed within the bonus FAR. The drainage issue would have been addressed anyway. He thought this was a reasonable request to try and get the optimal use of the house. If the standards have not been met they should not grant a variation. If there is another way to do it that would yield a reasonable return and still allow for the home to be improved that should be explored before he could support the variation.
Member Cullather stated he was concerned about the FAR requirement and he appreciated they are trying make an historic house amenable to the features they wish to have. He understood the hallway on the second floor and he needed to be convinced that other options have been considered that would have brought it down to within the 41.34 s.f. of the bonus allocation.
Chair Henry stated he appreciated the comments and was more in line with Member Putzel. He thought it was a close question on meeting the standards. It is necessary for the Board to go behind the reason for the FAR requirement. When the City was addressing this they were concerned people would be building McMansions to the lot line. This proposal does not add bulk to the house and fills in space that is already there. The rationale for FAR is not really as applicable here. He was inclined to support the variation contingent upon flood abatement measures being proposed in the final plans and the Building Dept. would review this.
Mr. Bernstein asked for the opportunity to discuss this with the applicant.
Mr. Bernstein stated his opinion that there appears to be some misunderstanding with the architect’s testimony.
Mr. Houser stated the options they explored were a door that swings in to create a small mud room which would have a bad effect on the family room, clearance around the breakfast table made them push the door out a little, the island is minimized, 3’ sink, upstairs there is no way to make anything smaller, encroaching into the dining room would remove a window and create a dark area of the house.
Mr. Bernstein asked if there was extra space in the kitchen or this was the minimum they need to have a workable kitchen and breakfast area.
Mr. Houser stated that was true. With the table and chairs the distances would be more obvious.
Mr. Bernstein stated they could come back with another drawing showing where the table would be and the clearances. He stated if this testimony is sufficient to address the concerns they have heard they could move forward.
Member Cullather asked about the second floor.
Mr. Houser stated with the creation of a hallway it makes it a divided room and it becomes smaller. It aligns with the current existing exterior wall which is the small dormer. This is an effort to make the hallway as natural as possible. It also aligns with an exterior wall which allows the load to go right to an existing footing. The have created a dormer in keeping with the rest of the house. It is a small bedroom, 13.5’ x 14.5’. It will have tucked ceilings.
Mr. Bernstein stated they will accept any condition regarding the drainage and will adhere to every ordinance.
Member Putzel stated she was satisfied with the explanations.
Member Bay stated he was partially convinced but still not all the way there. He was not sure about the kitchen.
Member Cullather stated he was convinced they have looked at a number of options and understood why it was necessary and it made sense to use the space underneath for the kitchen.
Mr. Bernstein stated there are only four members here and asked if there was another exhibit Member Bay would like to see.
Member Bay stated maybe he was not understanding 100% what the situation is with the first floor and how it relates to the second floor. He was looking at it from the perspective Member Cullather was talking about with the addition of the space in the second floor that it was if you are going to have the first floor below you might as well make it little bigger. He did not know if that was necessary.
Mr. Bernstein stated the second floor would line up with the existing house and they are trying to make it flush. It is an historical home and they are looking at the aesthetics of it.
Member Bay stated they are talking about bumping it out.
Mr. Bernstein stated the bulk on the second floor will be flush with the existing home. They are trying to minimize the request so it satisfies their goals. All they want to do is make the kitchen function with the dining and family room. The second floor is recessed and set back to be even with the house. He stated it met the unofficial standard.
Member Bay asked if the first floor was going to be extended and the second floor will be recessed.
Mr. Bernstein confirmed this. Member Bay stated he understood.
Chair Henry Board stated there are no pre-sessions and they need to determine if something is created by a hardship as opposed to a mere inconvenience for the owner. You buy property as is subject to the requirements that exist when you buy it.
Chair Henry entertained a motion directing staff to prepare findings of fact and approval order granting the variation as submitted conditioned upon appropriate flood abatement measures. Member Cullather motioned to draft an approval order conditional upon a water abatement plan, seconded by Member Putzel.
Planner Burhop asked if they were looking for the applicant to submit an additional plan as part of approval set related to stormwater management.
Chair Henry asked Mr. Bernstein if this was acceptable.
Mr. Bernstein stated this has to go through the Engineering Dept. and this could take several weeks. They can condition upon satisfactorily meeting all of the requirements of Highland Park regarding drainage and grading and improving the existing drainage along the south portion of the property. He stated he could work with Planner Burhop and bring it back to the next meeting.
Planner Burhop stated the Building Div. reviews drainage and grading plans. There was discussion about a swale or piping.
Chair Henry stated they were not qualified to pass on this. They would not substitute their judgment for that of the Engineering Dept. or go counter to the City regulations.
Mr. Bernstein stated it could be conditioned upon the Engineering Dept. approving the drainage and grading plan.
Member Putzel stated the whole point is to satisfy the neighbor’s concerns. Mr. Bernstein stated the City Engr. would make that determination.
Planner Burhop stated he was not sure every drainage and grade plan made it to the City Engr. and perhaps the Board could consider that an extra level of scrutiny that these plans would have to pass.
Mr. Bernstein stated they would work with the City Engr. to address the concerns they heard tonight.
Planner Burhop stated the motion is to direct staff to draft findings of fact approving the variation as presented. He will work with the City Engr. and draft a condition that the final drainage and grading plan shall be approved the City Engr.
Chair Henry asked Planner Burhop to call the roll. Planner Burhop called the roll:
Ayes: Bay, Putzel, Cullather, Henry
The Chair declared the Motion passed 4-0.
Chair Henry stated the order will come back at next meeting for approval.
Property: 1501 Ridge Rd., Highland Park, IL 60035 Zoning District: R5A
Appellant: Andrew Venamore
Address: 602 Academy Dr., Northbrook, IL 60062
Planner Burhop made a presentation for the above item including location map, project background, existing and proposed site plan, proposed rear elevation, garage left, right, and front elevations, photos, FAR analysis, other notes and requested variation.
Member Cullather asked if the proposed carport is attached to the garage. Planner Burhop stated it is attached to the home.
Member Putzel asked if the new garage is attached to the house.
Planner Burhop stated it is covered but outside – the garage is partially attached to the home but not in the building code sense.
Member Bay asked if this still exceeded the FAR for the relief requested. Planner Burhop stated this was correct.
Chair Henry stated the garage will be moved back so it will not be encroaching in the back yard. He asked how much it encroached in the side yard now.
Planner Burhop stated at its closest it is 5.13’.
Chair Henry asked how close the proposed was.
Planner Burhop stated as close as 3.4’.
Member Putzel asked if they were looking at a height issue.
Planner Burhop stated no. The carport is allowed to go up to the principal structure height.
Chair Henry stated in the form it stated the maximum allowable height is 13.83’ and the proposed is 20’.
Planner Burhop stated this was a typo on the applicant’s part. Chair Henry asked which is the typo.
Planner Burhop stated the maximum height is reversed. Planner Burhop stated the approval order references the plan set, and the height complies in the plan set, for both the proposed garage and proposed carport. Mr. Burhop stated the applicant had made a typo on the application, and there is no height relief requested.
Mr. Andrew Venamore, 602 Academy Dr., Northbrook, IL, Applicant, stated the set back is to the edge of the overhang, the objective it to replace the garage with a small structure, they want to open up the backyard, are removing the deck, replacing existing driveway, the main goal is to provide more space at rear of the property, fast traffic in front on Ridge Rd., variation is to encroach into south 6’ side yard for garage and carport, reducing FAR by 52 s.f., limited options, building envelope is 3650 s.f., 31% of lot is available for building purposes, restricted by irregular shape of the lot, hardship is lot configuration and grading, east slope is an additional hardship, overall reduction in impervious surface of 600 s.f. is significant, everything slopes towards east, garage is in a more practical location, consideration to try to flatten grade to the north and east, more amenable in rear yard for congregation, reduce the velocity of water as it flows to the north and east allowing more of it to soak into the ground, City Engr. will review.
Member Bay asked in order to get the new garage if they will have to drive under the new carport.
Mr. Venamore confirmed this. The design is to tie the elements together. Member asked if the reason for the carport was aesthetic.
Mr. Venamore stated it was and was related to allow some parking under the carport to transfer people in and out.
Member Bay asked if there would be enough room to have a car parked there and still have access to the garage.
Mr. Venamore stated no.
Member Cullather asked about the property adjacent to carport to the south and how far is it from the carport to their house.
Planner Burhop stated he did not know the number as there is no plat of survey.
Mr. Venamore stated if you refer to the proposed drawing the driveway goes under the dashed line and this survey shows the adjacent property and from the edge of the porte- cochere to the adjacent home is 11’.
Chair Henry asked if the plan has any impact on flooding issues and does it address those issues in any way.
Mr. Venamore stated there is nothing they can do about the eastward slope of the topography. The critical piece is the reduction in impervious surface. The addition that was proposed and approved in 2000 created drainage issues. This will be improved by the fact that there is substantially less square footage creating that runoff. The plans are being prepared by the civil engineer and will need approval by the City Engr. He had mentioned flattening out the ground in back to reduce the velocity of the water as it flows in that direction. There is a sanitary manhole in rear of the property and this cannot be tied into. The reduction will make a dramatic difference.
Chair Henry stated you cannot change the natural topography of the land but you can account for it.
Mr. Venamore stated that could be something the Engineering Dept. might require. The challenge with a swale is where to direct it. It may require a connection. The home does not currently have a connection to a storm sewer. There will be a 600 s.f. reduction in impervious surface which will a difference.
Member Cullather (unintelligible)
Mr. Venamore stated asphalt does not accept water.
Mr. Dan Bernkopf, 1990 York, Highland Park, IL, stated he was confused with the letter describing the project and he was happy with the plans. They have had serious flooding issues due to the prior construction and had had no objections to this project. He wanted to lessen a concern about flooding and his back yard is designed to catch and divert. He has a gravel area where he tries to catch the water and if it continues it goes into his neighbor’s yard eventually flooding York Ln.
Member Bay stated the idea of relocating the garage is a good one and it allows for greater usage of the back yard. He had no problem with it exceeding the FAR as they are reducing the existing FAR and he had no problem with encroachment which was deminimus. He was not sure about the carport as far as it being allowed to encroach when there did not seem to be a reason other than for aesthetics. He wanted to hear the comments from the other members. He thought the garage met the standards.
Member Cullather stated he agreed with Member Bay and agreed with the setbacks in the infringement of the garage and it will be smaller than the previous. He did not see a reason for the carport to encroach.
Member Putzel agreed with what had been stated and thought the triangular shape of the lot was a hardship. The proposed change with the decrease in impervious surface made a lot of sense and more helpful than a hindrance. If they were not encroaching a car would not fit through and it is a narrow driveway. She was inclined to support the variation.
Chair Henry stated he agreed with Member Putzel and it is an unusually shaped property with not a lot of buildable space on it. The plan actually returns land to a more natural stated to absorb water which is an issue in Highland Park. The plan makes sense and accomplishes what the applicant seeks to do and meets the standards. The carport is almost inconsequential to the extent that it is in the same footprint as the driveway. He was inclined to support the variation as requested.
Mr. Venamore stated the driveway is shifting and they are removing a non-conforming condition. The are reducing the width of garage. The idea behind carport is now that the garage is being narrowed in square footage it is less practical and the thought was that one of the vehicles may have to park under the carport to access the house.
Chair Henry stated they had heard the comments of the Board and he could not tell how the vote would go.
Member Bay stated it is just an overhang and he would not oppose the variation based on the carport alone. He would support the variation.
Member Cullather moved to bifurcate the garage from the carport and vote on them separately. Seconded by Member Bay. On a voice vote, the Chair declared the motion passed unanimously.
Planner Burhop stated this is a motion that there will be two motions, one for the carport and one for the garage.
Chair Henry stated the motion before the Board now that has been seconded is to vote on the garage and separate the garage request from the carport request.
Member Putzel stated if they are denied they cannot come back for a continuance. Member Bay stated there seems to be unanimous consent to grant the garage.
Chair Henry stated a question is for the applicant is they can vote on bifurcating the application and a simple majority would be needed. The applicant has heard the comments of the Board which indicates there is a consensus for approving garage but not so much for the carport. They can ask for a continuance.
Planner Burhop stated the next meeting is Sept. 20th and then Oct. 4th.
Chair Henry stated he could not guarantee there would be more than four members present and there could be seven.
Member Bay asked if they did bifurcate the vote would they have the option of just voting on the garage and continuing the carport.
Chair Henry stated there is a motion to bifurcate the application separating the garage from the carport and they are dealing with the FAR and the encroachment of the garage.
Planner Burhop stated the carport has nothing to do with the FAR.
Chair Henry entertained a motion to direct staff to draft findings of fact and an approval order approving the application with respect to the garage. Member Bay so motioned, seconded by Member Putzel.
Planner Burhop called the roll:
Ayes: Bay, Putzel, Cullather, Henry
The Chair declared the Motion passed 4-0, with respect to the proposed garage.
Mr. Venamore asked to continue the carport hearing to Sept. 20th.
Mr. Venamore asked if it is the extent of the encroachment that is driving the concern.
Member Cullather stated he did not see the encroachment had been justified by the standards.
Mr. Venamore asked about the encroachment.
Member Cullather stated they have to look at seven standards and did not believe the plight of the applicant had been demonstrated regarding the carport. He believed the house would get a reasonable return on investment with or without the carport. He did not think the first two standards had been met.
Chair Henry entertained a motion to continue the application with respect to the carport to Sept. 20th. Member Bay so motioned, seconded by Member Cullather. On a voice vote, the Chair declared the motion carried unanimously.
Property: 1357 Green Bay Rd., Highland Park, IL 60035 Zoning District: R6
Appellant: Richard A. Dsida & Shannon Dsida
Address: 1357 Green Bay Rd., Highland Park, IL 60035
Planner Davis made a presentation for the above item including location map, project background, aerial photo, proposed site plan, extending fence, photos of neighborhood, additional notes and requested variation.
Planner Burhop stated certain plats of subdivision have subdivision building lines and this part of a plat that has building lines. This is a not a fence request because they meet the 4’ height. They want to replace the existing fence and add new fencing.
Member Cullather asked if the blue line was on the house side or the sidewalk side of the shrubs.
Planner Burhop stated it was a question for the applicant.
Member Bay asked if the new fence was going to encroach or just encroaching because they are replacing the existing fence.
Planner Burhop stated the green line is replacing the fence that is already there and the blue line is new fence that will encroach.
Mr. & Mrs. Richard Dsida, 1357 Green Bay Rd., Highland Park, IL, Applicants, made a presentation including they are replacing a chain link with a cedar fence, the main reason is to have an enclosed back yard, they have a dog, no way to enclose while being in the building lines, the application meets the standards, not looking to move, unusual hardship is the shape of the lot, Green Bay and Oakwood are busy streets, safety issue, it is not detrimental to the neighborhood, no objection from the neighbors, no change to light and air, other fences in the neighborhood.
Mr. Dsida stated they were initially planning to replace the fence and keep it along the outside. They would consider moving the shrubs to the other side of the fence.
Chair Henry stated he liked the shrubs in front of the fence rather than behind.
Member Cullather stated he was glad to see they will be maintaining the property and did not have a problem with the fence. He thought they met the standards.
Member Bay agreed and thought it met the standards. He would leave it up the homeowners where to place the shrubs.
Member Putzel agreed and thought it met the standards. She thought it was acceptable to have fence on the outside.
Chair Henry agreed and stated it was an odd shaped lot with two front yards and a large subdivision setback and Green Bay and Oakwood are busy streets. The bulk of the application is merely to replace a currently existing fence. He thought it met the standards.
Member Putzel made a motion to direct staff to draft an approval order of findings of fact approving the application as submitted. Seconded by Member Cullather.
Planner Burhop called the roll:
Ayes: Bay, Cullather, Putzel, Henry
The Chair declared the Motion passed 4-0.
Chair Henry entertained a motion to approve the approval order. Member Cullather so motioned, seconded by Member Bay.
Ayes: Bay, Cullather, Putzel, Henry
The Chair declared the Motion passed 4-0.
VII. STAFF REPORT: None
1. Discussion of Curfew and Application Limit for Board Meetings
2. Discussion on Continuance Guidelines
Chair Henry stated there was a bare majority present and suggested they continue the above items to the next meeting. He asked Planner Burhop to circulate the emails on the continuance guidelines to the Board.
Chair Henry entertained a motioned to adjourn. Member Cullather so motioned, seconded by Member Bay. On a voice vote, the motion passed unanimously.
The Zoning Board of Appeals adjourned at 10:22 PM.