Village of Mamaroneck, NY - ZBA Minutes 7/22/2009

ZBA Minutes 7/22/2009

MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE VILLAGE OF MAMARONECK, NEW YORK, HELD ON WEDNESDAY, JULY 22, 2009 AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE COURTROOM AT 169 MT. PLEASANT AVENUE, MAMARONECK, NEW YORK.

These are intended to be “Action Minutes” which primarily record the actions voted on by the Zoning Board at the meeting held July 22, 2009. The full public record of this meeting is the audio/video recording made of this meeting and kept in the Zoning Board’s Records.

PRESENT: Chairman Neuringer, Chairman

George Mgrditchian, Secretary

Robin Kramer, Board Member

Gregory Sullivan, Board Member

Barry Weprin, Board Member

Kathy Zalantis, Acting Counsel to Board

Robert Melillo, Building Department

ABSENT: John Winter, Director of Buildings

Lisa Casey, Court Reporter, was present at the meeting to take the stenographic minutes, which will not be transcribed unless specifically requested.

CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to Order by Chairperson Neuringer at 7:11 p.m. and he detailed the procedures for the meeting. The next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, September 3, 2009. Chairperson Neuringer asked that all present take note of the exit doors in case of emergency. Chairperson Neuringer indicated that any materials for the ZBA meeting had to be presented to the ZBA Office five days before the meeting.

Chairperson Neuringer began with the agenda.

1. Adjourned Application #25A-2008, WILLIAM J. AND BARBARA PAONESSA

William Paonessa appeared. He stated that there had been much discussion with the Board and asked for the Board to vote and make a determination. Discussion arose as to when the current deck was erected and whether the current deck was the same length as the original deck. Mr. Paonessa stated that the deck was built in 1996 and that the length was the same. Mr. Mgrditchian stated that the original deck is setback slightly compared to the current deck by a couple of feet and it appears that the top of the deck is beyond the existing deck. The issue of the property being unsightly was discussed and Mr. Paonessa indicated that new shrubbery would be placed at the site, as well as repairs to the deck, once the issue was resolved. Chairman Neuringer indicated that there appeared to be two issues: 1) rebuilding and repairing as stated by Mr. Paonessa and 2) alterations as stated by the neighbors. Discussion arose as to how the original deck was built and how the existing deck was repaired. Mr. Paonessa presented the Board with pictures from the 1980’s. The Board reviewed the pictures and discussed amongst themselves. Ms. Kramer stated that the property was very unattractive to look at from the deck and asked if a decorative fence could be erected to enhance the look.

Chairman Neuringer asked if anyone wished to address the Board.

Ms. Yankocy approached the Board and stated that she had no idea this would go on for four months. She indicated that she is asking that the Board deny the variance. She stated that the deck was built in 2002, not earlier. She also stated that it took Mr. Paonessa almost two years to erect a fence for safety issues. Rob Melillo indicated that the fence was required for safety reasons. Discussion arose as to whether title insurance documents may provide some answers. It was determined that the issue before the Board was size and extent of the deck and that title insurance might not show what the Board is looking for. Mr. Weprin asked Ms. Yankocy to look at the pictures Mr. Paonessa provided. Ms. Yankocy indicated that this was not the original deck. The original was terrace-style and did not extend to the property line. Ms. Kramer and Mr. Paonessa discussed the pictures in relation to the survey.

Chairman Neuringer asked if anyone else wished to address the Board.

Ron Marino approached the Board. He indicated that the deck had not been made any longer than the original. He stated that the pool was concrete and that nothing on that side of the yard was new. Mr. Weprin asked when the deck put on and Mr. Marino answered 1995/1996 and that he did all the work. He indicated that the wood had been doubled up for safety reasons. Mr. Weprin asked if the deck was in the same location when Mr. Paonessa moved in and Mr. Marino indicated that it was, they only added a top layer to the deck. One side of the pool had cement and wood. The other side had slate. Mr. Marino said he added support underneath the pool when it was determined there was some rotting.

Chairman Neuringer asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. None did.

A motion to close the public hearing was made by Mr. Mgrditchian, seconded by Mr. Weprin.

*The Building Department will provide the Board with a survey.

2. Adjourned Application #4S-2009, ANGELO SALZILLO

Chairman Neuringer indicated that the applicant had not met the requirements for signage and that the application would be adjourned to September 3, 2009.

3. Adjourned Application #28A-2008, RAUL SILVA

Steven Feinstein, Esq. and Tony Castro, Esq. appeared on behalf of the applicant. The applicant is seeking a variance to reduce side yard and front yard setbacks. Mr. Silva has already been before the Planning Board. Mr. Silva purchased the property in 1969. The shed has existed at that location since Mr. Silva purchased the property. That has been previous testimony that the shed is located over the property line onto the adjacent property. Mr. Feinstein indicated that Mr. Silva is willing to move the container 6 inches back onto his property. Mr. Silva is also amenable to adding additional screening. As for the suggestion to move the shed to an alternate location, Mr. Feinstein indicated that moving the shed closer to open windows would not be appropriate. He stated that the present location is quite a distance from the neighbor’s house. Mr. Feinstein stated that by moving the shed closer to the windows, it would be closer to the neighbor’s house. Chairman Neuringer stated that this matter has been before the Board for many months. Neighbors have concerns about the condition of the garbage shed. Chairman Neuringer asked if these situations had been remedied. Mr. Silva indicated that he had not nor would do anything until the Board makes a determination. Chairman Neuringer asked if the applicant was willing to make any changes. Mr. Feinstein reiterated that Mr. Silva would be willing to move the shed onto his property and to adding screening to the shed. Discussion arose whether Mr. Silva was in possession of a survey and it was concluded that Mr. Silva did not have a survey.

Chairman Neuringer asked if anyone wished to address the Board.

Michael Geary approached the Board. He indicated that he owns the adjacent property to Mr. Silva’s and that the trash bin enclosure is on his property. Mr. Geary stated that the Zoning Code is very clear; there is no grandfather clause for this type of structure. Mr. Geary also stated that it was not material whether there was a survey in the 1970’s or when the property was purchased. He also stated that the Planning Board had recommended an alternative site. Mr. Geary also referenced the fact that the survey shows that the enclosure is closer to one foot over the property line and that there is no evergreen screening. Mr. Geary’s recommendation would be to vent the enclosure to the roof. He added that currently recyclables are kept in piles and sometimes garbage bins. There are multiple neighbors complaining about this issue. The Zoning Code is very clear about multi-family housing and enclosed garbage bins. Chairman Neuringer asked what Mr. Geary’s preference would be. Mr. Geary answered that the application be denied and have the Planning Board deal with the issue. As an engineer, Mr. Geary stated that he would help Mr. Silva free of charge with the Planning Board issue. Ms. Kramer corrected Mr. Geary by stating that the Zoning Code does not have any rules on enclosed trash containers. It is in the Village Code, not the Zoning Code. The earlier survey, which was found, does not show the shed.

Chairman Neuringer asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Rob Melillo indicated that part of the issue is that this is a non-conforming structure that needs a variance. The application may have gown astray and should be dictated by the Planning Board. Even if Mr. Silva receives a variance, he will still need to go before the Planning Board. Discussion arose as to whether this application should be before the Zoning Board or the Planning Board. Mr. Melillo stated that he did not think that the application should be before the Zoning Board for a variance and that it should be with the Planning Board. Mr. Mgrditchian stated that the enclosure is over the property line and that is a zoning issue. Ms. Kramer felt it was a neighbor to neighbor issue. Chairman Neuringer asked if the applicant was requesting a use variance. Mr. Castro stated that the applicant was requesting an area variance. Discussion arose regarding with this application was a use or area variance. Chairman Neuringer stated that the applicant is looking to legalize the location where the bin currently exists. Ms. Kramer stated that the Planning Board is limited in that the bin can’t be in the required setback. The Board can vary it and then send it to the Planning Board. Chairman Neuringer stated that granting the variance would legalize the enclosure where it is or with conditions such as moving it.

Chairman Neuringer asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. None did.

A motion to close the public hearing was made by Mr. Mgrditchian, seconded by Mr. Weprin.

4. Adjourned Application #16A-2009, SUSAN & GRAHAM COPLEY

Mike Csongo appeared on behalf of the applicant. He indicated that work had been done to replace an existing fence. Two permits for two fence companies were obtained. The applicant had a problem with the first fence company and had to obtain a second permit. The applicant was not aware that the six foot fence was not conforming when they replaced it with another six foot fence, instead of a five foot fence. All the neighbors surrounding the applicant’s property have no problems or issues with the variance request. Mr. Csongo distributed copies of the neighbors’ affidavits to the Board. Chairman Neuringer asked if the 2004 fence permit for the five foot fence and Mr. Csongo indicated that it was. Chairman Neuringer asked if a six foot fence was installed and Mr. Csongo indicated that it was. Chairman Neuringer noted that although a permit for a five foot fence was obtained, a six foot fence was erected.

Chairman Neuringer asked if anyone wished to address the Board.

Norm Rosenblum addressed the Board. He indicated that he strongly recommends that the variance be granted and reiterated his desire to see the fence law changed.

A motion to close the public hearing was made by Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Ms. Kramer.

5. Adjourned Application #19A-2009 & Application #1I-2009, FITIM BALAJ

Chairperson Neuringer indicated that in January of 2009 he did some work for the applicant, Mr. Balaj, but had not done any work since. He asked if anyone objected and none did. Donald Mazin, Esq., appeared on behalf of the applicant and stated that the applicant is looking for an interpretation and variance. He asked that the Board review the two applications together. Mr. Mazin went into the history of the applicant’s situation. The applicant had purchased a four-family house and had begun making renovations. Once the renovations began, the applicant found many serious issues relative to the house. The Building Department issued a stop work order because the property is not located in a C-2 district as originally thought. Now the Building Department deems the property non-conforming. Mr. Mazin stated that these issues were not created by the applicant. The applicant has invested significant money into this project. He indicated that there will be no change in use. The work being done is to make the building safe and livable. It was only when demolition began that many issues with the safety of the home began to appear. Mr. Mazin stated that once a premises is accidentally destroyed, it should be allowed to be rebuilt. Mr. Mazin indicated that the applicant followed all the necessary procedures in obtaining a permit to demolish and build. Mr. Mazin discussed the tremendous hardships incurred by the applicant. He stated that the applicant is looking to restore the building and not increase the size of the building or foot print. Mr. Mazin stated that the applicant needs to finish this project or he will be financially devastated. He also indicated that the municipality was responsible for the hardship and he would like a vote tonight as the Board is not meeting next month. Additionally, there are many four-family homes in the area, so there won’t be a change in the area.

Mr. Mgrditchian stated that the Board will ask for a chronological history of what occurred from the Building Department. Rob Melillo detailed the history of the applicant’s visits to the Building Department to acquire a permit. Mr. Balaj came to the Building Department before purchasing the home. Initially there was some confusion as to what district the house was situated in. At that first meeting, it was clarified that the residence was in an R2-F district. The second time Mr. Balaj came to the Building Department he had already purchased the property. It was communicated to Mr. Balaj that the property was non-conforming, so there was not a lot he could do with the house. The third time Mr. Balaj came to the Building Department he requested a permit. The work appeared to conform to what he could do in that zone. Mr. Melillo stated that he later went out to the site and saw that the entire back of the house had been removed and the house was demolished. Mr. Mgrditchian asked if the basement was fully excavated and Mr. Melillo indicated that it was. Discussion arose regarding whether the approved plans show alterations.

Ms. Kramer asked if work was done that was not permitted. Rob Melillo stated that was correct. Ms. Kramer stated that since the work done was not what was indicated on the plans, shouldn’t the applicant apply for a use variance. Mr. Mazin stated that everything remains the same, so that a use variance is not applicable. James Fleming, the architect, stated that he joined the project in January of 2009 before the permit was issued. When work began, it became immediately clear that there were some issues with the structure. As the work continued, many more issues and problems arose. Mr. Mgrditchian asked Mr. Fleming if at any time he indicated to his client that he should contact the Building Department. Mr. Fleming indicated that he did contact the Building Department and they came to the site. Mr. Fleming reiterated that there were bad environmental issues with the structure. Mr. Mgrditchian asked if there was an engineer’s report. Mr. Balaj answered in the negative. Mr. Fleming indicated that it was a bad structure to begin with. Discussion arose regarding the removal and replacement of partitions, as well as work done on a staircase which was falling apart. Mr. Mazin interjected that as renovations were being done, many issues arose and the changes were done because of safety issues. Mr. Mgrditchian stated that deviations should not be done without approval. Mr. Fleming stated that issues arose very quickly and the applicant couldn’t leave structures unsound. Mr. Mgrditchian asked if the apartment configurations will stay the same and Mr. Fleming stated that Mr. Balaj would like to change the configuration of the apartments.

Discussion arose regarding the two sets of plans and whether this project would be considered an alteration or a remodeling. The plans show what the applicant started with and what the applicant would ultimately desire. Kathy Zalantis, acting counsel to the Board, asked if Mr. Mazin would stipulate to the fact that section 342-65(A) is incorrect on the disapproval notice. Mr. Mazin agreed to stipulate. Mr. Mazin wrapped up with points discussed in the introduction.

Olivia Kellezi approached the Board to discuss the fact that this house needs to be designated a four family house. The Board members stated that the house was, is and will continue to be a four family house. Mr. Neuringer stated that the question was what can be done with the four family house. Mr. Balaj stated that he did everything the right way. Mr. Fleming asked if Mr. Balaj could get back to working on the house. Mr. Balaj wants to find a way to fix everything.

Chairman Neuringer asked if anyone would like to address the Board.

Vince DeCarlo approached the Board. He stated that he had some concerns regarding the application. He stated concerns with the total occupancy issues, whether it will become like a hotel, and that he hopes the occupancy issue is being considered.

Chairman Neuringer asked if anyone else would like to address the Board. None did.

In order to facilitate the project and not have the applicant incur more financial difficulties, the Board agreed to allow the work to continue as indicated on the approved plan.

A motion to adjourn the public hearing to September 3, 2009 was made by Mr. Mgrditchian, seconded by Ms. Kramer.

6. Adjourned Application #9SP-2009, RAKESH PATEL

Geoffrey Mackenzie appeared on behalf of the client. The applicant is adding seating and employees to his establishment and making is a full service restaurant. Mr. Mgrditchian asked what type of restaurant it will be and Mr. Patel answered that it would be an American bistro type establishment serving burgers, Philly cheese steaks, etc. Mr. Mgrditchian also asked about existing fire sprinklers and a secondary egress. Mr. Mackenzie answered in the negative to both questions. The restaurant will be serving breakfast, lunch and dinner from 8:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m. seven days a week.

Chairman Neuringer asked if this was a fast food, carry-out or deli. Mr. Patel stated that it was none of the three. Chairman Neuringer asked about the deli in the front of the restaurant and Mr. Mackenzie indicated that there was currently a deli, but new plans will show that there is no longer a deli counter. Rob Melillo clarified that the applicant is no longer having a deli or carry-out, but are making the establishment into a restaurant. Mr. Weprin asked if the special permit was approved, would the applicant still need to go to the Planning Board. Mr. Melillo stated that the applicant would because of the change of occupancy.

Chairman Neuringer asked if anyone wished to approach the Board. None did.

A motion to close the public hearing was made by Mr. Mgrditchian, seconded by Mr. Weprin.

7. Adjourned Application #11SP-2006, 306 FAYETTE AVENUE REALTY

Greg Young appeared on behalf of the applicant. He stated that the applicant wishes to renew a special permit for additional parking. A concern arose regarding over-use of parking spaces. Mr. Young stated that the applicant is not in violation or has not over-used the parking spaces. He also stated that the applicant has complied with the special permit.

Chairman Neuringer asked if anyone in the audience wished to address the Board regarding this application. None did.

A motion to close the public hearing was made by Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Mgrditchian.

8. Adjourned Application #6SP-2003, LITTLE FLOWER NURSERY SCHOOL

Leila Badran appeared before the Board. She indicated that she had met with the residents and resolved issues some neighbors had brought up at the last meeting. She indicated that both the neighbors and she had submitted letters and photos to the Board showing those recommendations from the neighbors that were implemented.

Chairperson Neuringer asked if anyone wished to address the Board regarding this application. None did.

A motion to close the public hearing was made by Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Weprin.

9. Application #15SP-2006. IVY TILSON

Ivy Tilson appeared before the Board. She indicated that she was renewing a special permit to operate a childcare facility. Discussion arose as to whether the facility had a certificate of occupancy. Ms. Tilson indicated that the facility had been inadvertently operating with a temporary certificate of occupancy, but the Building Inspector did come out to visit the site and a certificate of occupancy will be in place.

Chairperson Neuringer asked if anyone wished to address the Board regarding this application.

Zoning Secretary Ann Powers presented the Board with pictures that Mr. Remo Cors hand delivered to her before the meeting started. The pictures illustrated issues with water run-off. Ms. Tilson indicated that she cleans out the gutters and the landlord cleans the roof. She stated that if Mr. Cors had an issue, he had never come to her directly to discuss it. Mr. Mgrditchian stated that this was a DPW issue, not a zoning issue and that Mr. Cors can address this with DPW.

A motion to close the public hearing was made by Mr. Mgrditchian, seconded by Mr. Weprin.

10. Application #12SP-2009, 301 CAFÉ INC.

Mark Geiselman appeared on behalf of the applicant. He indicated that the applicant wishes to convert the retail space to a restaurant. The establishment is currently empty. The applicant is also adding additional storage area. Mr. Geiselman indicated that the applicant had been before the Planning Board on July 9, 2009. The restaurant will be open seven days a week from 11:00 a.m. to 2 a.m. serving lunch/dinner and after dinner fare. Mr. Geiselman also stated that the applicant would be applying for a liquor license. The restaurant will have piped in jazz music and, from time to time, one person performing jazz. Issues regarding parking and noise were discussed. The applicant is not expanding the space of the restaurant, so parking will not be needed. The applicant will install acoustic material to alleviate the noise issues. The building has sprinklers, but none located in the restaurant currently.

Chairperson Neuringer asked if anyone wished to address the Board regarding this application. None did.

A motion to close the public hearing was made by Mr. Mgrditchian, seconded by Mr. Weprin.

11. Application #10SP-2009, JUAREZ MEXICAN RESTAURANT CORP.

The applicant did not appear. A letter from the Zoning Office will be sent out indicating that the application be adjourned until September 3, 2009.

12. Application #13SP-2009, HISPANIC PASTRIES, LLC.

Noe Del Cid appeared. He indicated that he wants to run an authentic Hispanic pastries and food establishment. He stated that he has a unique product and that some foods will be prepared on site and others will be prepared off site. The establishment will be eat in capabilities with fifteen seats for patrons. The hours of operation will be seven days a week from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. There will be three employees. Ms. Kramer asked if there would be cooking in the restaurant and Mr. Del Cid indicated that there would be. Mr. Mgrditchian asked if there would be a cooking station. Mr. Del Cid indicated in the affirmative, also saying that there would be a kitchen area for quick service.

Chairperson Neuringer asked if anyone wished to address the Board regarding this application. None did.

A motion to close the public hearing was made by Mr. Mgrditchian, seconded by Mr. Weprin.

13. Application #14SP-2009, CRC FOODS, LLC/DBA PIRI-Q

Thomas Haynes appeared on behalf of the applicant. He passed out information to the Board which included a menu and plans. Mr. Haynes indicated that he is proposing a new restaurant at 360 Mamaroneck Avenue. The restaurant will be Portuguese style. There will be a total of thirty-nine occupants. There will be two restrooms, handicap excisable. Mr. Haynes reiterated that the restaurant would offer traditional Portuguese foods using charcoal cooking methods. The restaurant will also be serving beer and wine. The hours of operation will be 11:30 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., serving lunch and dinner. The establishment will be open seven days a week and take-out will also be available to patrons. Mr. Mgrditchian asked if the building had a sprinkler system and Mr. Haynes indicated that it did not. Mr. Mgrditchian asked if the applicant had been before the Planning Board and Mr. Haynes indicated that the applicant had not.

Chairperson Neuringer asked if anyone wished to address the Board regarding this application. None did.

A motion to close the public hearing was made by Mr. Mgrditchian, seconded by Mr. Weprin.

14. Application #22A-2009, SERGIO DANIEL DIAZ

Sergio Diaz appeared. He indicated to the Board that he had acquired a permit to legalize a retaining wall and extend his driveway. He stated that he is seeking a variance because extra space is needed. Mr. Mgrditchian asked if retaining walls require a setback and Mr. Melillo indicated that they do not. Mr. Diaz stated that he is seeking a variance for the driveway only. Ms. Kramer asked if drainage was an issue. Mr. Diaz replied that he is keeping the slope the same to enable water runoff and direct the water back to the property. Mr. Mgrditchian asked if the applicant would accept gravel and Mr. Diaz stated that gravel would not be ideal, but to get the variance, he would agree to gravel. He also indicated that if there was a water issue, he would remedy it.

Chairperson Neuringer asked if anyone wished to address the Board regarding this application. None did.

A motion to close the public hearing was made by Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Ms. Kramer.

15. Application #24A-2009, MARC KRAMER

Marybeth Mullins appeared on behalf of the applicant, as did Stephanie Gash, Architect of record. Ms. Mullins indicated that she was before the Board tonight in view of the disapproval from the Building Inspector regarding setback. She indicated that in the summer of 2007, the project began. Ms. Kramer asked how what was built got into the setback. Ms. Mullins indicated that originally the application was denied. The applicant came before the Board and a permit was issued for the barbecue. The permit was then modified and approved. Ms. Mullins stated that when the applicant went for the certificate of occupancy, the Building Department said that it was a separate structure from the pool and this created setback issues. Discussion arose regarding the fact that the barbecue is not an appurtenance to the pool. Ms. Kramer stated that the applicant does not need a barbecue with the pool.

Chairperson Neuringer asked if anyone wished to address the Board regarding this application. None did.

A motion to close the public hearing was made by Mr. Mgrditchian, seconded by Mr. Weprin.

16. Application #25A-2009, J. KENNETH CAVANAGH (SEA TOW)

J. Kenneth Cavanagh appeared. He indicated that he is before the Board to request a height variance for an antenna. Chairman Neuringer asked if the antenna was adjustable. Mr. Cavanagh indicated that it was. Chairman Neuringer read a fax he received earlier in the day from John Lese indicated that Mr. Lese is the owner of the residential premises directly adjacent to the property of the applicant. He indicated that he has no problem with the installation of the antenna provided that the antenna would be moved to the south corner of the applicant’s building – approximately 12 feet. Discussion arose regarding lowering the antenna when not in use. Mr. Melillo indicated that the antenna is used to assist with rescue of boats, so that should be kept in mind when discussing lowering the antenna when not in use. Mr. Mgrditchian stated that antennas are not allowed in the Village, but the Board could make an exception for health, welfare and safety of the community.

Chairperson Neuringer asked if anyone wished to address the Board regarding this application. Carl Altman (Indian Cove Property Assoc.) approached the Board. He discussed some history regarding how the Village depended on Sea Tow. He also indicated that Indian Cover completely supports this application. Kathy Zalantis, counsel to the Board, asked if HCZM is involved. Mr. Melillo stated that they had not at this point.

A motion to close the public hearing was made by Ms. Kramer, seconded by Mr. Weprin.

APPLICATIONS CLOSED

1. Application #21A-2009, MARLON PILOSSOPH

The Board discussed the merits of the application.

Chairman Neuringer made note that the architect for the project has withdrawn. Issues arose as to whether the applicant was still viable because of the withdrawal of the architect. Mr. Mgrditchian stated that it is the architect’s drawings which the Board is making an interpretation. Discussion arose as to whether the Board can grant the variance. Ms. Kramer expressed issues on traffic and parking. She stated that applicants with other options should not be granted variances.

A motion to approve the application was made by Mr. Sullivan for the reasons stated on the record and recorded in the verbatim transcript, seconded by Mr. Mgrditchian.

Ayes: Mgrditchian, Sullivan, Weprin

Nays: Neuringer, Kramer

2. Adjourned Application #9SP-2009, RAKESH PATEL

The Board discussed the merits of the application. The special permit granted herein shall be valid for an initial probationary period of three (3) years and it is subject to conditions and terms of the meeting.

A motion to approve the application was made by Mr. Mgrditchian for the reasons stated on the record and recorded in the verbatim transcript, seconded by Mr. Weprin.

Ayes: Neuringer, Mgrditchian, Kramer, Sullivan, Weprin

Nays: None

3. Adjourned Application #6SP-2003, LITTLE FLOWER NURSERY SCHOOL

The Board discussed the merits of the application. The following conditions will be added to the resolution:

1. The gate to the play area is locked during all non-school hours.

2. A sign will be displayed prohibiting the use of the yard during non-school hours.

3. The noise level during outdoor play times will be reduced.

The renewal of the special permit is granted without a term limit.

A motion to approve the application was made by Mr. Sullivan for the reasons stated on the record and recorded in the verbatim transcript, seconded by Mr. Weprin.

Ayes: Neuringer, Kramer, Mgrditchian, Sullivan, Weprin

Nays: None

4. Application #15SP-2006. IVY TILSON

The Board discussed the merits of the application.

The renewal of the special permit is without a term limit. The renewal of the special permit is granted without a term limit.

A motion to approve the application was made by Mr. Mgrditchian for the reasons stated on the record and recorded in the verbatim transcript, seconded by Ms. Kramer.

Ayes: Neuringer, Kramer, Mgrditchian, Sullivan, Weprin

Nays: None

5. Application #12SP-2009, 301 CAFÉ INC.

A motion to approve the application was made by Ms. Kramer for the reasons stated on the record and recorded in the verbatim transcript, seconded by Mr. Mgrditchian.

Ayes: Neuringer, Kramer, Mgrditchian, Sullivan, Weprin

Nays: None

6. Application #13SP-2009, HISPANIC PASTRIES, LLC.

That a central monitoring fire alarm system shall be installed and maintained at the premises.

A motion to approve the application was made by Mr. Mgrditchian for the reasons stated on the record and recorded in the verbatim transcript, seconded by Ms. Kramer.

Ayes: Neuringer, Kramer, Sullivan, Weprin, Mgrditchian

Nays: None

7. Application #14SP-2009, CRC FOODS, LLC/DBA PIRI-Q

A motion to approve the application was made by Mr. Mgrditchian for the reasons stated on the record and recorded in the verbatim transcript, seconded by Mr. Sullivan.

Ayes: Neuringer, Kramer, Sullivan, Weprin, Mgrditchian

Nays: None

8. Application #25A-2009, J. KENNETH CAVANAGH (SEA TOW)

The Board discussed the merits of the application. Provided that the antenna be moved to the south corner of the applicant’s building – approximately 12 feet, the Board was amendable to approving the variance.

A motion to approve the application was made by Mr. Mgrditchian for the reasons stated on the record and recorded in the verbatim transcript, seconded by Mr. Weprin.

Ayes: Neuringer, Kramer, Sullivan, Weprin, Mgrditchian

Nays: None

MINUTES

Due to the late hour, the approval of the June 4, 2009 meeting minutes will be held over until September 3, 2009

ADJOURN

A motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Mgrditchian.

Ayes: Neuringer, Mgrditchian, Kramer, Sullivan, Weprin

Nays: None

On motion duly made and carried, the meeting was adjourned at 12:00 midnight.

GEORGE MGRDITCHIAN

Secretary

Prepared by:

Ann P. Powers