MINUTES
Town of Esopus Zoning Board of Appeals
September 19, 2000
Chairman Joseph Guido called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Pledge to the Flag followed.
Present: Steve Britton, Catherine Charuk, Joseph Guido, Robert Martin, Peter McGowan,
and Richard Wenzel.
Absent: Karl Wick
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A MOTION WAS MADE BY CATHERINE CHARUK TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES AS WRITTEN. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY ROBERT MARTIN. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR OF APPROVAL. MOTION CARRIED 6-0.
A voucher for secretarial work for 16.5 hours was presented. ROBERT MARTIN MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE VOUCHER. RICHARD WENZEL SECONDED. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED 6-0.
Mrs. Longendyke was present to explain what she is requesting. She stated that she presently has a singlewide mobile home, which is in very poor condition and is over 30 years old. She would like to remove it and replace it with a double wide. She presented photos of her current home and one similar to the model she would like to replace it with. Her lot is 50’ X 110’ and it is necessary to have 30’ to the front and rear lines so she is already in violation since she only has a 50’ wide lot to begin with. She is appealing to the Board for a variance and she showed on a photograph where the new house would go to in the front. It will be 13’ from the road. She explained that there would be 22’ on both sides. Ms. Charuk asked what the clearances are now and Mrs. Longendyke said that the Building Inspector has that information. Mr. Guido stated that she is requesting variances for front and rear yards and also for total area.
Mrs. Longendyke stated that the new mobile home will be 27’ X 56’ and what she presently has is 12’ X 58’ with an addition on the back that will be removed. The new home will be 1492 square feet and she has 886 now with an addition that is 12’ X 12’. Mr. Martin suggested that Mrs. Longendyke expand the layouts for next month and superimpose the new house over the old and lay out where it will be going with respect to the property lines. Mr. Guido asked that she put out stakes so the Board can see where the new building will be going. He also advised that she give examples of houses in the neighborhood that are as close to the road as she is requesting. Mr. Britton asked where her property line is and Mrs. Longendyke advised that it is the edge of the road. Mr. Britton asked if she had looked at smaller homes and Mrs. Longendyke advised that there are smaller ones. Mr. Britton explained that the variance she is requesting is quite substantial and he just wanted to see if there were any other options.
Mr. Guido asked about the handicapped ramp that was on the plans. Mrs. Longendyke advised that she would be taking in her elderly mother and feels that she might as well get everything done at once. Mr. McGowan asked how many rooms there are in her present home. Mrs. Longendyke advised that there are two bedrooms, a living room, kitchen area, and the addition. There were no further questions.
Mary Parker was present to advise that the Town of Esopus Planning Board referred Mr. Schroeter to this Board. Mr. Schroeter recently subdivided some of his property and a new piece of land has become available. The piece is landlocked presently. She showed the Board a map of Mr. Schroeter’s property and explained that a private road will be put through the property from Suominen Lane to provide access to a piece of property that Mr. Schroeter now owns. The Planning Board advised that Mr. Schroeter find out before he purchases the property if he will be able to build on the landlocked piece with access off the private road only. The will be no road frontage on a Town road. Mr. Guido asked if Mr. Schroeter has considered turning over the proposed road to the Town at some time in the future. Ms. Parker advised that Mr. Schroeter would have to decide that. Ms. Charuk advised Ms. Parker that it would be helpful if she could provide a map that really looks like what is there presently. Mr. Guido asked that she bring a color-coded map. Ms. Parker advised that there is nothing on any of the property now. Mr. Martin advised that Ms. Parker come back with more detail of the road. He feels that it would be difficult to grant a variance for a lot with no road frontage if there is no access to any of the property.
Mr. Guido introduced the Citivision case by stating that this is a case that was before the Board a year ago or a little over a year ago. What happened was that the Board made a ruling, which was then brought, before the courts and the courts ruled that the decision was not specific enough in the interpretation so the case has to be reheard. The hearing of the case is basically more focused and some of the issues have been cleared up already.
What the Board is trying to establish now is whether a site plan review is necessary. A site plan review depends on whether the usage has changed. It is a conditional use and what it is being used for could be different classifications. Mr. Guido then asked if Mr. Moriello was present or if anyone else was present from the original case.
Maryann Mizel spoke indicating that she was speaking on behalf of herself and her husband John. She also indicated that there were several people in the audience who were in support of the original application by the neighbors of Citivision who initially started this proceeding. She asked that all those who were in support stand at this time so the Board could understand how many of them were present. Approximately twenty-five to thirty people stood. She stated that it was her understanding that at this informational meeting that it would be necessarily an informational meeting and that the record as presented previously by Joseph Moriello on behalf of all of those present was going to be opened and before the Zoning Board. Mr. Guido stated that that will be at the Public Hearing. Ms. Mizel stated that that was not what his notice said. She thought the notice indicated, and that the decision of Judge Connor indicated, that the record would be opened and that was what was before the Zoning Board. On behalf of all those present Ms. Mizel stated that she felt she could safely say that they stand on that record. They did not ask Mr. Moriello to be present today because they thought it was an informational where the Board would ask those present to potentially present in view of the decision of the Judge, but they stand on that and they are prepared to have Mr. Moriello present at the Public Hearing which Mr. Guido indicated is next month. Mr. Guido stated that this is an informational meeting and the Board just wanted to let everybody know what transpired and why they are where they are. They information the Board will be looking for is how the property was used previously, the dates when it was purchased, anything that show a chain of how the property has been used and how it has been developed.
Mr. Paul Kellar asked if the scope of the appeal would be the same as it was in 1999. Mr. Moriello sent a seven-page letter outlining the breadth of the appeal. He stated that he realizes that some things have transpired between Mr. Moriello and Mr. Pisani since then. He asked if Ms. Mizel knew if the scope of the appeal, which was addressed by the seven-page letter, is the same scope that they are asking the Board hear this month. Ms. Mizel stated that she would unofficially say that, yes they are asking to have all of those aspects covered but she does not exactly know what was in that seven-page letter. Mr. Kellar stated that Judge Connor kind of distilled it in his own way to four sentences on page four of his opinion so maybe between now and the next hearing Ms. Mizel and Mr. Moriello could let the Board know if they accurately reflect the scope of the appeal. Ms. Mizel stated that she was sure that all of them would address that with Mr. Moriello at this time.
Mr. Guido asked for any other comments and asked if there was a representative of Citivison present. Mr. Pisani indicated that he was present but that he would come back at the Public Hearing to make their presentation. He had no comments at this meeting.
Mr. Guido asked if there were any other questions or if there was anything he could clear up at this time. Mr. Peter Ungerland, the Building Inspector, spoke. He stated that this all started over the interpretation of the issuing of permits. Was it acceptable to give out these three different permits to Citivision after the Planning Board had already given the necessary approval? The other thing was on the occupants. Mr. Ungerland stated that he called Citivision a religious organization and classified it as that and they were the two things that were in question. He asked if that was right. Mr. Kellar answered that the things that were questioned were written out in the seven-page letter from Mr. Moriello and he felt it would be hard to categorize it the way Mr. Ungerland had but that was Mr. Ungerland’s take on it. The seven-page letter before the Board covered a little more territory than that. Mr. Ungerland stated that basically that is what it was and Mr. Kellar stated that he was not prepared to say that.
Ms. Charuk stated that she would like to clarify one thing. The decision does say that the ZBA shall open the record and permit the submission of additional proof. She asked if it the Board’s plan to basically rehear the entire matter factually or only to take in additional evidence, that in addition to what the Board has. Mr. Kellar responded that he thought it was the directive of the Court to have an open hearing and take in everything that comes before the Board. However, in informal conversation with Mr. Moriello he indicated he would stand on the record and Judge Mizel indicated this evening that those present would stand on the record. He stated that he believes that the materials that the applicants had have been submitted and the same is true for Citivision. If there is more they are welcome to present it. Ms. Mizel stated that if the record is open and the Zoning Board of Appeals is considering all that was presented before, they stand on that. Ms. Charuk stated that she would appreciate it if someone, possibly both sides in this dispute, could clarify the record. There is a lot of stuff there. She feels that it is all there and that it would be helpful if someone could identify and number the exhibits. She stated that she does not care what kind they are, they could be letters from the lawyers, they could be letters from anyone, just so that the Board has a clear understanding of what is being presented to it as evidence. She asked if that was do-able. Ms. Mizel stated that she does not see why it couldn’t be done. Ms. Charuk said that that way those involved would be able to see what is in the record and what might be in addition and it would in this way clarify it. Ms. Mizel questioned if, speaking on behalf of the group present but not as the attorney for it, she could ask, and perhaps Mr. Pisani could clarify it, if they are opening the record and considering that which was presented to Judge Conner. Mr. Kellar stated that in his view they are opening the record anew and anything that either side would like to tell the Board is before them for consideration.
Mr. Martin stated that the records have to be summarized somehow since there is such a large volume of information. Mr. Pisani stated, that as a point of information, what is in the record was synthesized in the presentation that he and Mr. Moriello made to the Board at the last Public Hearing by way of statement of facts. The record was carefully reviewed by Mr. Moriello and Mr. Pisani and they prepared a statement of facts. Predicated on the statement of facts, they submitted a proposed resolution to the Board. He stated that they feel that the statement of facts presented to the Board is indeed a summary of what is in the official records of this Town. He stated that he was sure that Mr. Moriello would verify that and that he and Mr. Moriello could speak with the attorney for the Board in the interim and make it manifestly clear how they feel about what was previously said.
Ms. Charuk stated that the Board is charged by Judge Connor’s decision to “permit the submission of additional proof and the opportunity for all parties to confront said proof” and she stated that she believes he is talking about direct evidence and not summaries of evidence. The Board is then charged to “render a decision and articulate the factual legal basis for same”. She stated that she feels the Board has an obligation to say, for example, based upon such and such a letter dated such and such date from so and so we find certain facts. All she is asking is for someone to go through the existing records and help the Board to identify the factual submissions. Mr. Kellar asked if it would be basically like a record on appeals in the appellate division and Ms. Charuk responded that it should be something like that, for exhibits so that everyone would know what they’re talking about. Mr. Pisani asked if all the records were available at the office of the Zoning Board in case he or Mr. Moriello would like to come and address the problem that Ms. Charuk just phrased. Mr. Guido asked that copies of the file be made for Mr. Pisani, Mr. Moriello, and Mr. Kellar and advised that they would be available for pick-up in three days. Mr. Guido asked if there were any other questions pertaining to this case.
Ann Henderson, a direct next-door neighbor of Citivision, spoke stating that two things have come to her attention recently. The first is that they have applied for a couple of building permits which she was fortunate that they did not get. One was something minor, which she could not remember and the second was to build a canopy over the hoops or courts or whatever. She stated that the courts are too close to her property line as it is and she wants it on record that any addition or expansion of that she strenuously objects to. The second matter is that she spoke to Ray Rice about the noise from Citivision and that the leadership is still amplifying their noise and she strenuously protests that. She knows that the Town does not have a noise ordinance but she has heard recently that for commercial enterprises there is a noise ordinance. She feels that this is an issue that is very personal for her since she is so close to them and she feels that it needs to be addressed. Mr. Pisani stated that for the record there are no applications pending for building permits.
Jean Sills asked if the fact that someone is going to be reviewing the records is for the purpose of changing or deleting or disregarding anything that has been agreed to up to this point. Mr. Guido answered that all it is for is to reorganize them and make everyone aware of what is before them.
Cindy Dill offered to put labels on the documents. She stated that she has copies of everything and she could put labels on them. Mr. Guido stated that Mr. Moriello would be taking care of that and she is welcome to contact him or Mr. Pisani. Mr. Guido thanked her for the offer. The informational portion of the meeting was closed.
Mr. Finney was present and explained that he tried to get a new survey as was requested at the last meeting since the lot is inaccurate but he has not been able to. The other thing is that he had stated at the last meeting that the two pieces of his property were joined. The property is joined in the eyes of the bank since they requested it for collateral but he still has two separate pieces. He feels that that shouldn’t affect him since that property is behind him and the porch is going on the front of the house. Mr. Martin stated that the Board had requested more definition and Mr. Guido responded that Mr. Finney hadn’t gotten that. Mr. Guido also stated that he was out to the property and Mr. Finney had stated that the porch would be in line with the neighboring houses but he would actually be about two feet in front of them. Mr. Finney said that at the last meeting someone had asked him why he couldn’t shorten the porch and he had said that he wanted room to stretch out but he could probably shorten it because of the jog in the front of the house but he just isn’t sure how that would look.
Ms. Charuk asked if Mr. Finney had gotten any actual measurements of the other houses and how close they are to the road. Mr. Finney responded that he had not. All the houses sit at different distances from the road and there is no uniformity. Ms. Charuk read from the code about front yard measurements and standards for yards whereas no proposed one or two family dwelling shall be required to have a setback greater than the average setback of the two existing dwellings with the greatest setbacks within 200’ on each side. Mr. Guido stated that Mr. Finney would be more than that from what he could see. Ms. Charuk stated that he would probably be up a little more just by eyeballing it but she wonders if it would be worth it to measure that. Mr. Guido explained to Mr. Finney that if he could get measurements from his neighbors and if he was in conformity with them it would be easier to grant a variance next month. Mr. Finney said that that would be no problem. Mr. Guido also advised that he get the surveyor out before the next meeting and Mr. Finney said he would try. Ms. Charuk asked if there was anyone from the public and there was not. Mr. Guido stated that there was no county impact according to the Ulster County Planning Board.
Mrs. DeOlde presented a larger map of her property to the Board as was requested at the last meeting. She presented photos of the shed and stated that three of six neighbors have garages in front of their houses. She presented photos to that effect. Mr. Guido advised that for the next meeting she give reasons why she cannot move the shed. Mrs. DeOlde asked that Mr. Guido explain why he has a problem with leaving it there and Mr. Guido explained that variances should be kept to a minimum. In this case he understands that she cannot move the garage but there is a shed in front that can be moved. Mrs. DeOlde stated that Mr. Guido had seen the size of shed and to move it would probably require a crane. Mr. Guido suggested that she give that as a reason and provide information on how much it would cost to move it and how much it would cost to move the electric which is now attached to the shed. Mrs. DeOlde stated that she hopes that they Board would be able to vote at this meeting considering the other cases on the agenda for next month. She also stated that she had put up a bond with Ray Rice and she presented a contract with the company that will be removing the mobile home. Mr. Guido asked if there were any other questions from the Board or the public and there were none.
Mr. Guido took a poll of the Board to see if they were comfortable voting on the case this evening and all were in favor. Mr. Guido moved the case to the decisional portion of the meeting for consideration after the other cases and closed the public hearing.
Mrs. Suraci was present. She gave copies of revised plans. Mr. Guido advised that there are two issues involved. On the issue of the Building Department, this Board feels that the applicants owe the Building Department for the building permit but win, lose, or draw at this Board, the issue is with the Building Department. The other issue is that the front porch is part of the structure. Mr. Martin stated that the variance would then change. When Ms. Charuk questioned how he arrived at that decision, Mr. Guido stated that he went to the Building Department. Mrs. Suraci presented information on how close neighboring houses are to the property lines and whether their porches and driveways are on the line or over the line. Mr. Martin explained that driveways are not part of the structure. Mr. Guido advised that a neighbor’s porch is 24’ from the edge of the road and asked Mrs. Suraci how far she would now be. She advised that it is written on the plans and it has been changed to two feet. The house would actually be 15’ from the line but it is the stairs that there is a problem with. Mr. Martin advised that that is what the Board has to look at.
Mr. Guido asked if there was anyone from the public present and there was no response. He then asked for a proposal. STEVE BRITTON MADE A MOTION TO GRANT A 28’ FRONT YARD VARIANCE FOR THE STAIRS PROVIDED THAT THE HOUSE ITSELF STAY AT THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION OF 22’ FROM THE FRONT YARD LINE WHICH WOULD BE AN 8’ VARIANCE. CATHERINE CHARUK SECONDED. The vote was as follows:
RICHARD WENZEL – In favor. It’s a close call. It is actually pretty close in line with the neighborhood and I don’t see any detrimental impact.
STEVE BRITTON – I also vote in favor. Although this is a substantial variance the variance is granted mainly for the steps which I don’t feel are a severe visual impact. In addition there is at least one house that has stairs protruding this far or farther and a second house seems similar on the same block.
PETER MCGOWAN – With all fairness to the Board and to the petitioner, I would like to abstain from voting having missed a valuable informational meeting.
CATHERINE CHARUK – Can you restate this motion please so I am sure I understand it?
The motion was read back as follows: The motion was to grant 28’ front yard variance for the stairs provided the house stays at the original application of 22’ which would be an 8’ variance. Ms. Charuk asked 28’ from where and Mr. Guido stated that it would be from the lot line. Ms. Charuk stated that she is confused and it was determined that everyone was not looking at the same map. Mr. Britton said he would re-phrase the motion and amend it since he does not want to see the house moved up. He thought the plans said 22’ and he stated that he could reword the motion to say 15’. STEVE BRITTON MADE A MOTION TO GRANT A 28’ FRONT YARD VARIANCE FOR THE STEPS PROVIDED THAT THE HOUSE NOT ENCROACH ANY MORE THAN 15’ FOR A 15’ VARIANCE. SECOND WAS AS STATED PREVIOUSLY.
RICHARD WENZEL – I vote in favor. There will be no visible impact from the staircase as Steve was saying and the house will stay back at 15’.
All the other requirements are already made.
STEVE BRITTON – I vote in favor. Again I feel the stairs are minimal visual impact and there is at least one other house which has steps encroaching the property line closer than this variance will allow.
PETER MCGOWAN – Still abstain.
CATHEINE CHARUK – I vote in favor mostly on the basis that most of the other houses are very close to the lot line. With the 28’ variance for the steps that will only be a two-foot difference between some of the houses themselves not counting the steps. It appears to be in character with the neighborhood.
ROBERT MARTIN – I vote against the proposal. Yes, I agree that the steps are roughly the same as those others in the neighborhood except that these are coming out at a much higher elevation. Therefore I feel that there will be visual impact in that area.
JOSEPH GUIDO – I abstain.
MOTION CARRIED 3-1, 2 ABSTENTIONS.
Mrs. Suraci asked if anyone had heard from the Building Inspector since she had written the letter to him since they had not. Mr. Guido advised her that the Building Inspector had written a letter to the Board advising that the Suraci’s had canceled the payment and that is why he said that as far as this Board is concerned, they still owe the Building Inspector.
THOMPSON # 07-18-00-01
Mr. Guido asked if there was anyone present regarding this case. A neighbor, Richard Mazzone who owns property directly across the street at 176 Minturn Street, expressed his opinion that he is against anything being constructed on the property outside the given code at this time. He stated that he feels that it will not be uniform with the other houses located in that area and that visually it will be out of place and thereby will possibly reduce the value of his property at this time. He stated that he wanted to express his opinion that he is against any building that will be outside of the code. Richard Riseley, attorney for the builder, stated that he thought the public hearing was closed. Mr. Guido confirmed that the Board has the right to ask questions of anyone present. Mr. Riseley agreed that the Board has the right to ask questions but he believes that there should be no input from the public and he wanted to voice his objection to that. Mr. Riseley presented a set of interior plans as requested and stated that he wanted to address the concerns of the neighbor regarding the view. Mr. Britton asked if the 12’ and 14’ setbacks were being switched and Mr. Riseley said that they were but that would not affect the view. He presented photographs which he went over. They assumed that the westerly side of the building would be in line with Mr. Bockelmann’s house which would not be awfully relevant but since it was a concern, it was being addressed. He presented photos that showed the view of the river from Minturn Street. The photos are numbered and in the file. Mr. Riseley showed that by putting the house to the westerly end of the lot it would not block the view from the Bockelmann residence except for the corner of the house. The view would not be blocked from the rear of their house at all. He pointed out that his client desires to get a view also. Mr. Mazzone stated that if this residence were constructed, his view would be completely obstructed.
Mr. Guido asked if the residence will be more than eight feet above the road height to the rear of the house and Mr. Riseley stated that it depends on where on the lot the house is built. If he moves the house farther to the east, it will become more of an obstruction to the view from the Bockelmann house. He stated that Mr. Mazzone has a view down Herriman Street. The construction will impair it. Mr. Guido asked what the house would look like and Mr. Gokey stated that it would be almost just like the Bockelmann house but in the other direction. Mr. Guido asked if it would be a hip roof and Mr. Gokey that it will be one hip. Mr. Riseley stated that as an attorney, nobody has a right to an unimpaired view. Mr. Guido agreed but pointed out that the applicant is trying to build something there that should not be built there and the Board is trying to get it to the point where it will have as little impairment as possible. Mr. Riseley stated that they do meet the height requirements. Mr. Guido stated that the Board could put something in that stipulates height requirement. Mr. Riseley pointed out that there are several two-story houses in the neighborhood. There was further discussion of where on the lot the house will be situated.
ROBERT MARTIN MADE A MOTION TO GRANT A VARIANCE OF A REAR YARD SETBACK OF 6’, A FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 8’, WITH A MAXIMUM STRUCTURE HEIGHT OF 22’, AND MOVE THE FRONT YARD FROM 30’ TO 31’ BACK FROM MINTURN STREET. Mr. Martin asked that he be able to revise the motion and Mr. Guido stated that since no one had seconded it, he would be able to revise it. Mr. Martin requested that the front and rear variances be changed so that the rear variance would be a one-foot variance and the front variance on Herriman would be a 3’ variance. It was stated that there are three 30’ setbacks – the rear and two streets. Mr. Riseley advised that they were requesting an 18’ on the rear and a 16’ on the front. Mr. Martin confirmed that it would be pushed back two feet. The original request was for 12’ on the rear from the property line and the Board is asking that it be 14’.
ROBERT MARTIN MADE A MOTION TO GRANT A VARIANCE ON THE HERRIMAN STREET SIDE, WHICH IS CONSIDERED THE FRONT YARD, OF 18’; THE REAR YARD, WHICH WOULD BE THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE, WOULD BE 16’ THAT BEING A SIDE YARD VARIANCE CONSIDERING THAT THE FRONT YARD IS ON MINTURN; AND MAINTAIN A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 22’; AND INCLUDE A VARIANCE ON AREA OF 146’. THE EAST SIDE SIDE-YARD SHOULD BE 30’ AND THE WEST SIDE FRONT YARD SHOULD BE 31’. CATHERINE CHARUK SECONDED. The vote was as follows:
PETER MCGOWAN – I abstain.
CATHERINE CHARUK – I vote in favor. All the lots seem to be the same size and they all have houses of at least that approximate size. I see no reason why a house like this would be out of character with the neighborhood.
ROBERT MARTIN – I also vote in favor of it. I see no neighborhood problems at all. It is completely consistent with all the other structures in the area. In fact, getting rid of that vacant lot I think would be a major improvement. I recognize that there will be some view impairment by the structure but I think it will be minimal and I vote in favor.
RICHARD WENZEL – I vote in favor. It is in character with the neighborhood because all the lots that are there are basically the same. We moved the back and worked with it as much as we could.
STEVE BRITTON – I also vote in favor. Based on the lots in the neighborhood and the age of the lots, I don’t feel that this is out of character with the neighborhood at all.
JOSEPH GUIDO – I’m opposed. I think it’s a lot of variances and it’s a new house built for speculation and it could have been a little smaller.
MOTION CARRIED 4-1, ONE ABSTENTION.
DeOLDE # 08-15-00-02
Mr. Guido stated that this is a variance for a garage and shed to be nearer to the street than the principal building. He explained again that there are two structures there now, a little shed and a full garage and when they build the new house they are going to build it back and the two auxiliary buildings will be before the main structure and they need a variance to do that. They have posted a bond and the trailer will be removed when the new house is up.
ROBERT MARTIN MADE A MOTION TO GRANT A VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW HOME IN PLACE OF A TRAILER THAT WILL BE MOVED, THE HOUSE TO BE LOCATED BEHIND TWO EXISTING STRUCTURES, A GARAGE AND A SHED. STEVE BRITTON SECONDED. The vote was as follows:
RICHARD WENZEL – I vote in favor. I really don’t see any problem with it. I hear no objections from any neighbors or anyone else. The way the contour of the property runs with all the shrubbery and trees I think everything kind of blends in. Visually it will not harm anything and I think it’s in character.
STEVE BRITTON – I also vote in favor based on the fact that the shed and garage are existing and also that the new home will be more centered on the property than the mobile home was. And also based on the permanency of the shed having electric.
PETER MCGOWAN – Based upon that it will an improvement to the property itself, I vote in favor.
CATHERINE CHARUK – No doubt the removal of the trailer will probably result in an improvement to the property. It would be nice if the shed could be moved but they have electric to the shed. I vote in favor.
ROBERT MARTIN – I also vote in favor. I see no impact at all. Like everybody said before, it will be an improvement in the neighborhood. The rest of the neighborhood is just about consistent with it. I see no impact at all.
JOSEPH GUIDO – I’ll vote in favor of it. I really would have liked to see the shed moved and I wish that you would still consider that if it’s not outrageously expensive. I feel that the house will be an improvement over a mobile home and will add to the character of the neighborhood.
MOTION CARRIED 6-0.
ROBERT MARTIN MADE A MOTION TO ADJOURN. STEVE BRITTON SECONDED. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. Meeting adjourned at 9:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kathleen S. Kiernan
Secretary