Zoning Board of Appeals
Village of Tarrytown
Regular Meeting
November 12, 2013; 8:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Chairwoman Lawrence; Members Maloney, Jolly, Brown, Weisel; Counsel Shumejda; Village Engineer McGarvey; Secretary Bellantoni
APPROVAL OF THE MINTUES – October 15, 2013
Mr. Maloney moved, seconded by Ms. Brown, that the minutes of October 15, 2013, be approved as submitted. Four in favor, with Ms. Weisel abstaining. Motion carried.
CONTINUTATION OF PUBLIC HEARING–88 Main Street – Checci, Checci & Robinson
Application was adjourned by the Zoning Board for legal clarification.
CONTINUATION OF A PUBLIC HEARING–DCD Realty Holdings LLC (Tarrytown Honda) - 480 S. Broadway
Application was adjourned at the request of the applicant.
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING – Cunningham-Levin - 121 Neperan Road
David Cooper of Zarin and Steinmetz, attorney for Ms. Cunningham and Mr. Levin said that the board is aware of the issues and the reason for his clients' request for an FAR variance. They have been discussed at length in the previous meeting. He said the hearing was closed at the October 15, 2013 meeting and tonight they are here for a decision from the board.
Benjamin Sands of 131 Neperan Road asked to speak, but since the hearing was closed, Chairwoman Lawrence did not allow him to. She did confirm that all members of the board received and read his November 12, 2013 letter (copy attached).
Chairwoman Lawrence said that all board members read the draft decision. She read the following Environmental Review from Michael Blau, Environmental Review Officer, dated November 12, 2013. Counsel Shumejda said this is a Type 2, which is exempt from environment review.
FAR Variance Application Decision
Re: Camille Cunningham and Edward Levin
121 Neperan Road, Tarrytown, New York
Tax Map 1.50, Block 22, Lot 2
The Proposed Renovation
This is a revised application for a variance to construct an addition to a residential property with a foot print of three hundred and ninety-one point seven square feet (391.7 sf). The applicants require an area variance from the Village of Tarrytown's Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Cap Ordinance in the R-10 District. The applicants seek permission for a FAR overage of 38.4% - the overage in the prior application was 48.6%. The changes incorporated in the current application include eliminating the basement below the proposed family room and reducing the bulk of the entire first floor addition. These changes were undertaken in response to comments from the Board, the public, professional staff, consultants and the adjacent property owner residing at 131 Neperan Road.
The property currently has an unfinished basement which accounts for 1,109.5 square feet of the total of 4,382 square feet. The basement contains a load bearing wall, exposed piping, wiring, duct work, other residential utilities and storage space. As it currently exists, the basement cannot be used by the applicants as livable space.
As proposed, the addition would comply with all bulk regulations in the R-10 Zoning District, other than the aforementioned Maximum Floor Area Cap.
The Applicants provided the Board with visual analyses and elevations of the proposed addition assessing conditions in the neighborhood post-construction, plans identifying existing landscaping on the Site, a topographic survey of the Site, photographs of the Applicants’ residence and other residences in the neighborhood and nearby areas, as well as empirical data and expert analysis by two architects to support their application. Over the course of three (3) public meetings, the Board and its professional staff have reviewed these materials, as well as testimony and data offered from the public and adjacent neighbors. The Board accepts the calculations prepared by Christina Griffin RA and Kenneth Nadler AIA, the Applicants’ two architects, as empirical data and
expert opinion prepared in accordance with the generally accepted standards of practice in the architectural industry. The Board further determines that the empirical data and expert opinion provided by Ms. Griffin and Mr. Nadler represent a rational basis to evaluate the pattern of development in the neighborhood, which the Board has used in evaluating whether the Applicants’ proposal would comport with the “scale” and character of the neighborhood.
The applicants have also submitted at least 13 letters in support of their application, indicating that the proposed addition would be consistent with the character of the neighborhood, and would not result in a detriment to the community. Several members of the community also appeared at the Board’s hearings to express similar opinions.
The proposed addition will be 50 feet from the home at 131 Neperan Road, 44 feet from the side setback and 38 feet from the set back from the street.
In addition, in the revised application, provides:
[1] increased the side set back;
[2] maintains the existing privacy barrier between the Applicants’ residence and the adjacent property to the north at 131 Neperan Road;
[3] prevents injury to the nearby tree;
[4] retains the large tree in the rear of the property;
[5] eliminates the basement space of the previously proposed design;
[6] reduces the size of the proposed family room from 290 sq. ft. to 271 sq. ft.;
[7] reduces the size of the proposed mud room;
[8] increases the space between the subject property and 131 Neperan Road.
The Village of Tarrytown FAR law recognizes that residents will need to "enlarge their homes to meet the needs of their families" (§305-23). The 2007 Village Master Plan, at 10-5, states that the intent of the FAR Ordinance was "to ensure new development is in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood context." Here the applicant's home does not have a family room for their family of five.
The Improvement would be Consistent with the Pattern of Development
in the Neighborhood
The FAR law states that redevelopment will be allowed if it matches the "scale of houses located on similarly sized lots in the community." Based upon the empirical data, the opinions of the Applicants’ experts, as well as the testimony from residents in the community, the Board has determined that the proposed plan would result in a residence which is consistent with the scale of houses located on similarly sized lots with the houses on Neperan Road (the neighborhood). The average FAR in the immediate vicinity of the subject property along Neperan Road is significantly above what is permitted in a R-10 District. The methodology relied upon by the applicant's experts in establishing the "scale" of development in the neighborhood as required by §305-27 of
the Village Zoning Code was proper and consistent with the intent of the Code. See also Moy v. Town of Southold, 61 A.D.3d 763, 877 N.Y.S.2s 186 (2nd Dept., 2009). Specifically, 131 Neperan Road was estimated to be 41.1% above the FAR and 111 Neperan Road was estimated to be 35.2% above FAR; therefore, the applicant's request for a variance which will result in a 38.4% overage in FAR is consistent with the pattern of development in the neighborhood.
The Balancing of Tests
Point I - The variance would not result in an undesirable effect on the character of the community, or a detriment to nearby properties.
The residence would remain consistent with the scale of the houses in the community and would not result in an undesirable effect on the character of the community. The addition will not block existing views of important features in the neighborhood such as the historic building at 111 Neperan Road and the Hudson River. The landscaping will provide sufficient screening to maintain privacy and avoid any potential detriment to the adjacent neighbors. The revised proposal reducing the required variance to 38.4% ensures that the subject residence would "appear to be of the same or similar scale to others in the neighborhood." See Village Zoning Code §305-23(B).
Members of the community testified by letter, and/or personal appearance, that the proposed addition would be consistent with the neighborhood character. This includes the owners of the adjacent property to the south at 111 Neperan Road. In addition, the Board received a letter from a resident holding a Master’s Degree in Architectural Preservation and serves as an Advisor to the Historical Society of Tarrytown and Sleepy Hollow. This resident reviewed the Applicants’ plans and visited the neighborhood. This resident informed the Board that the Applicants’ proposal would consistent “with the respectful and historical integrity of this style of home,” and would not adversely impact the character of the neighborhood.
The Board also considered numerous submissions and testimony submitted by the owner of the adjacent property located at 131 Neperan Road. The Board has determined that the concerns raised by this neighbor, his consultant and attorney have been properly addressed by the Applicants’ proposed modifications to the addition as set forth above. This includes, amongst other items, preserving at least fifty (50) feet between the proposed addition and the residence located at 131 Neperan Road, as well as preserving the privacy screening and existing trees located within this separation distance.
Weighing all of these facts, along with the empirical data and expert opinions in the Record, the Board has determined that the Applicants’ proposal would not result in an undesirable effect on the character of the community or a detriment to nearby properties.
Point II - There is no feasible alternative method to obtain the sought after benefit.
The cost to relocate the infrastructure and structural support in the basement would be disproportionate to the potential benefit of creating a family room in the basement, and as such, is not a feasible alternative for the Applicants to pursue in lieu of the expansion of the residence as proposed by the Applicants.
Point III - Size of the Variance
The requested variance is substantial; however, there will be no impact on the pattern of development in the neighborhood and the residence would be consistent with the scale of houses in the neighborhood, all of which exceed the permitted FAR.
Point IV - Impacts
There will be no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood if the Board grants the proposed variance since the viewsheds in the neighborhood would be preserved. The addition would comply with all applicable environmental regulations.
Point V - Hardship
The hardship is the result of the configuration and existing use of the basement. To the extent that the hardship is self-created, such a determination does not preclude the granting of the requested variance. See, New York Village Law §7-712-b3.
In conclusion, when balancing the factors necessary in rendering a decision on whether to grant the Area Variance in this case pursuant to New York Village Law §7-712-b, the Record supports a determination that the benefit to the applicant if the variance is granted outweighs any potential detriment to the health, safety or welfare of the neighborhood.
Accordingly, it is resolved that the Applicants’ request for an FAR variance is a Type II Action that requires no further processing under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), as it is a request for an area variance in relation to a single-family residence pursuant to 6 N.Y.C.R.R. § 617.5(c)(13); and
It is further resolved that the Board grants the Applicants’ request for an FAR variance to permit the construction of an addition onto their residence that would increase the FAR on the Site to 4,842.7 square feet, whereas 3,500 square feet would be the maximum permitted without such variance.
Mr. Maloney moved, seconded by Mr. Jolly that the Board grants the above referenced variance.
All in favor; motion carried.
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING – The Quay – South Broadway
This application has been adjourned at the request of the applicant.
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING – Bartolacci - 67 Miller Avenue
Peter Bartolacci of 67 Miller Avenue stated that he prepared and sent a rebuttal letter to Geraldine Baldwin’s statement from the 10/15/13 Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing. The board members have all received it and read it, so he does not have much more to say (copy attached).
He read a letter from his attorney, J. David MacCartney, Jr. of Feerick Lynch MacCartney, PLLC, 96 South Broadway, South Nyack, NY, which was sent and distributed to the board members late this afternoon (11/12/13). His attorney could not be present at the meeting (copy attached).
Chairwoman Lawrence asked if anyone from the audience would like to speak.
Geraldine Baldwin, 66 Riverview Avenue, stated the she prepared a reply to Mr. Bartolacci’s rebuttal of October 25, 2013 (dated 11/8/13) which she sent to the secretary, Dale Bellantoni, for distribution to the board members (copy attached). The board members confirmed that they received and read Ms. Baldwin’s reply which will be made part of the record.
Chairwoman Lawrence asked Mr. McGarvey about the list of walls supplied by Mr. Bartolacci at the last meeting that were built in the Village without Planning Board review or approval.
Mr. McGarvey explained that the wall at 21 Union Avenue should have gone before the Planning Board but did not. The wall is a 202 l.f. long retaining wall, with approximately 50 l.f. in steep slopes. There was no reference on the plan indicating steep slopes. Our village code requires that steep slopes be shown on all plans where applicable.
Ms. Weisel asked when the wall at 21 Union Avenue was built. Mr. McGarvey said in 2005.
Mr. McGarvey said the wall at 96 Main Street was built prior to his employment with Village; however, after reviewing the file, he stated that there was a retaining wall there already and the existing wall was put back in the exact same place and to the same height, as shown on the plan, only made sturdier and more stable. No slopes were disturbed.
Mr. McGarvey said 116 South Broadway was not a change of use. It was referred to the Planning Board because it disturbed steep slopes to create two parking spaces.
Mr. McGarvey said many applications are referred to the planning board and many go directly to the planning board without a referral. If there is a disturbance in steep slopes, it goes to the Planning Board. Retaining walls in themselves do not necessarily go before the Planning Board, only if it affects steep slopes; however, many walls have gone to the Planning Board. Every subdivision has steep slopes and retaining walls that go to the Planning Board. Retaining walls do not trigger Planning Board approval, steep slopes does. Mr. McGarvey said Mr. Bartolacci mentioned 55 walls and said he will need more time to look into them. He stated that after reviewing one of Mr. Bartolacci's plans submitted to his office, he sent a letter to Mr. Bartolacci’s engineer, dated May 22, 2012, stating that the
disturbance of steep slopes greater than 25% requires site plan approval from the Planning Board; and when he received a revised plan he went to the Planning Board staff meeting and they were in agreement that it needed Planning Board review and approval.
Mr. McGarvey read the following excerpt from 305-67:
The purpose of this section is to define and quantify particular environmental and aesthetically sensitive characteristics of the Village of Tarrytown in order to preserve and safeguard those features that identify its landscape; steep slopes, areas of high ground, hilltops and vegetation. Toward this end and in the course of subdivision, site development plan, compatible use permits or any other regulatory procedure embraced by this chapter or other local laws, codes or ordinances of the Village of Tarrytown, the Planning Board shall restrict new construction and/or vegetation removal in such designated areas.
Mr. McGarvey stated, regulatory procedure is key; a building permit is a regulatory procedure so in his course of review of a regulatory procedure if there are steep slopes, he refers it to the planning board.
Mr. McGarvey said, was there a wall in the rear of 67 Miller Avenue, yes, no one disputes that; but where is it now; there may be remnants, but no wall. What was the height, no one is sure. There was testimony from previous neighbors that the backyard was level. He does not believe there was one wall 20’ high. Section 305-132 is only one aspect of the Village Code. There are other aspects that identify steep slopes and 305-67 identifies other aspects of steep slopes that the Planning Board should address.
Section 305-132, Uses subject to site plan review; amendments; exception in RR Zone, typically has to do with the size of a home; if you increase the volume or footprint by certain percentages, it goes before the Planning Board.
- “The erection, enlargement, rehabilitation, conversion, change of use that requires an increase in the minimum off-street parking, change of occupancy or reuse of all buildings,” again is a building issue.
- "All uses of land where no building is proposed, including the proposed use and development of all land within proposed subdivisions;” this is not a subdivision.
- “Any change, addition or modification to land or buildings whatsoever in any area of the Village designated as an historic district…” does not apply.
Because this steep slope work does not easily fit into numbers 1, 2 or 3 does not mean it does not need Planning Board approval.
Ms. Brown asked Mr. McGarvey if he can think of any other applications that do not easily fit into 305-132 and has gone before the Planning Board. Mr. McGarvey said not off the top of his head.
Ms. Weisel said when they went on the site visit they saw what might be the base of a railroad tie wall; however the rest of the wall is gone. So we only have verbal historical verification that there was a wall, and we don’t know the height. I don’t understand how you can call it a repair/refurbishment of something that is not there. Basically you have something that is marked out. If you build a taller retaining wall, you are going to have to have to fill the soil in on a slope that is already working itself down the hill. Ms. Weisel said it would have to be terraced.
Mr. McGarvey said you can now construct a wall 20’ high but not a railroad tie wall at that time; they didn’t make railroad ties long enough then. He said he does not believe any engineer or contractor would construct a 20’ railroad tie retaining wall, it’s just not done.
Ms. Weisel said it does not exist because we don’t know anything about it and none of it is there.
Mr. McGarvey stated that none of the plans showed the wall in the same location; same area but not in the same location. It appears that the previous wall was at a skew; but the new one goes straight across. It is not a repair/replacement if it is not in the same location.
Chairwoman Lawrence said the original plan was for a 20’ retaining wall, and that is what you referred to the Planning Board. Mr. McGarvey said that is correct; and he asked the Planning Board if that is something they would want to see because it is contrary to 305-67. However Mr. Bartolacci is not asking for an interpretation of that code but of 305-132.
Mr. Jolly asked will he be able to level his back yard. Counsel Shumejda said it depends upon the Planning Board approval.
Mr. McGarvey said he believes the Planning Board would have liked to see a tiered retaining wall made of railroad ties. They are looking for more of a natural structure. The Bartolaccis want Mesa Block.
Ms. Weisel said Mr. Bartolacci refers to 21 Union Avenue and said it falls under the steep slopes law of 1990. Have steep slopes changed drastically since 1990. Counsel Shumejda said there have been many amendments. Ms. Weisel said do they affect this application. Counsel Shumejda said there have been many modifications. Mr. McGarvey said words changed. Mr. Bartolacci said it changed from restrict construction to prohibit construction. Amendments were passed but the changes are not reflected in the code itself.
Ms. Weisel said steep slope laws come into effect with new construction. Counsel Shumejda said it is not limited to new construction; it says, “…shall restrict new construction and/or vegetated removal in such designated areas.”
Chairwoman Lawrence asked if anyone else has any questions or would like to speak.
Mr. Bartolacci said most of the Zoning Board discussions have focused on 305-67 but his contention is that the Planning Board can evoke 305-67 if they have authority over the site plan. He said the public hearing notice stated that it was for site plan approval. Mr. Shumejda stated at one of the meetings that this is a site plan. If it’s a site plan approval than there are specific conditions required under New York Village law under which the Board of Trustees must authorize the Planning Board to be able to review and approve, and they have done that in Village Code 305-132. Those are the site plans they are authorized to review and we do not meet those conditions; therefore, the Planning Board does not have the authority to review and approve our site plan and therefore they cannot evoke 305-67.
Ms. Brown said let’s say you never went to the Planning Board; the decision will lie with the Village Engineer/Building Inspector. What is the course of action, denial of the application? Counsel Shumejda said is the application for work in a steep slope, we have to define that; clearly this project is in steep slopes. Ms. Brown said according to our code, any project in steep slopes should go to the Planning Board, is that what we are saying? Mr. McGarvey said according to Mr. Bartolacci even if this was a brand new application, it would not have to go before the Planning Board because it does not comply with 305-132. He is saying that I would have to approve it no matter what; that I could not apply 305-67 without 305-132.
Ms. Brown asked if the Village Engineer can deny an application because it is in steep slopes and we have a steep slopes ordinance, so it will never go to the Planning Board.
Counsel Shumejda said the question is how you read the code. Mr. Bartolacci is saying that it has to be new construction and you have to have a site plan. Mr. McGarvey is saying something different.
Mr. Maloney said it is his understanding that 305-132 authorizes the Planning Board to review any possible adverse conditions. Counsel Shumejda said the steep slopes ordinance states that and there is a section of 305-132 that states when there is an impact on land. Mr. Bartolacci said there is an adverse impact clause but that clause relates to the first section of the code regarding building. There are three conditions in 305-132. The first section relates to buildings, adding to or building new; and within that building clause is an adverse impact clause, not to the other conditions of 305-132. Ms. Brown said so you are suggesting that anything that is not an actual building has no review. Mr. Bartolacci, no; he said the adverse impact clause relates only to a building.
Mr. McGarvey mentioned that in Mr. Bartolacci's attorney's letter Hackley School was mentioned but Hackley is in the Town of Greenburgh.
Chairwoman Lawrence asked if there were any more comments before hearing Ms. Baldwin's comments. Counsel Shumejda said that Mr. McGarvey needs more time to review the 55 walls mentioned in Mr. Bartolacci's attorney's letter.
Geraldine Baldwin, 66 Riverview Avenue, said regarding 305-132 the first sentence talks about a building; but the second sentence makes no mention of the word building. It says that the Planning Board shall have the authority to review and approve site plans on those proposed lots which it deems appropriate in the interest of the general welfare and to minimize any potential adverse impact. That is stated in Chapter 305 of the Village Code which sets forth where the Planning Board has authority. There is no mention of building in that. When someone in the building department determines that there may be an adverse impact, the Village under the same chapter has also identified those specific features that it wants to protect and preserve, steep slopes being one in particular. You have to read the code in its
entirety so that it makes sense so that when a professional such as the Village Engineer, who has expertise in these areas, identifies something that he sees is a potential adverse impact has the authority, in accordance with the code and New York Village Code, to put it before the Planning Board.
Mr. Jolly said to Mr. McGarvey, you have parameters that you need to abide by. Mr. McGarvey said yes, if there are steep slopes, I cannot approve it; it would have to go before the Planning Board.
Ms. Brown said it doesn't have to fit into 305-132 exactly before steep slopes can apply. It's not one or the other. Mr. McGarvey said that is correct.
Mr. Bartolacci again stated that this is a site plan, as stated in the public hearing notice, which must be in accordance with 305-132.
Chairwoman Lawrence stated that the application will be adjourned in order to give Mr. McGarvey time to review the 55 walls stated in Mr. Bartolacci's attorney's letter.
NEW PUBLIC HEARING - Arduino - 15 East Franklin Street
The secretary read the following Public Hearing notice:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Tarrytown will hold a public hearing at 8:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 12, 2013 in the Municipal Building, One Depot Plaza, Tarrytown, New York to hear and consider an application by
Anthony F. Arduino
15 East Franklin Street
Tarrytown, NY 10591
for property located at the above address for a variance from the Zoning Code of the Village of Tarrytown for a permanent waiver of three off-street parking spaces, or in the alternative a renewal of a variance for a waiver of three off-street parking spaces for the property pursuant to §305-63 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Documents are available for inspection in the Planning and Zoning Office at Tarrytown Village Hall. The property is located at 15 East Franklin Street and is shown on the Tax Maps of the Village of Tarrytown as Sheet: 1.80, Block:50, Lot: 1 and is located in an R 10 (Residential) zone.
All interested parties are invited to attend and be heard. Access to the meeting room is available to the elderly and the handicapped. Signing is available for the hearing impaired; request must be made to the Village Clerk at least one week in advance of the meeting.
By Order of the Zoning Board of Appeals
Dale Bellantoni, Secretary
Dated: November 2, 2013
The certified mailing receipts were submitted and the sign was posted.
Board members visited the site.
Eugene Arduino, of Grove Street, brother of the applicant was present along with Anthony Arduino.
Chairwoman Lawrence asked if the waiver is for 5 years or 10. Mr. Eugene Arduino said the original waiver granted was for 5 years and the next one was for 10 years; this would be a renewal for another 10 years but they are hoping for a permanent waiver. He explained that his grandfather bought the house over 40 years ago and immediately converted it into a three-family house and it has remained as such ever since. He said back then things were done differently. He said the original house had 6 bedrooms and it was reduced to 4 bedrooms. In 40 years there has never been a parking issue.
Chairwoman Lawrence asked if anyone would like to speak.
Linda Davies, 11 E. Franklin Street, read a letter in support of renewing the 10 year waiver (copy attached). She is not in favor of a permanent variance because things could change. Although Mr. Arduino takes very good care of his property and is a good neighbor, new tenants or if it were sold to someone else, things could change. She would prefer that they take a look at it every 10 years to be sure it is still working.
Mr. Jolly said circumstances could change.
Ms. Brown said could it be considered a legal three-family. Mr. Arduino said there were no parking regulations when my grandfather bought it and because of the parking regulations now, we can't get a Certification of Occupancy for a three-family.
Mr. McGarvey said it was built before we issued CO's.
Ms. Brown asked if it could be sold as a three-family house. Counsel Shumejda said it is what it is. It was built before CO's so you get a letter from the building department. Mr. Arduino said if we could get a CO, we have no problem with the 10 year renewal. The only reason it doesn't comply is because of the parking. We can't sell it as a three-family or even re-mortgage it because we don't have a CO. Mr. McGarvey said he would look into it.
Ms. Brown said she will vote for renewal because she wants them to have the parking but she feels there should be some recourse for a CO. If you come back with more information, perhaps show a hardship, maybe something can be done.
Chairwoman Lawrence read the following Environmental Review from Michael Blau, Environmental Review Officer, dated November 12, 2013:
"I have reviewed this application for a waiver of 3 off-street parking spaces and determined the proposal appears to pose no significant adverse environmental impact.”
Chairwoman Lawrence polled the board members for the granting of a 10-year renewal of the parking waiver as follows:
Chairwoman Lawrence: yes
Ms. Weisel: yes
Mr. Maloney: yes
Mr. Jolly: yes
Ms. Brown: no, only because she feels it should be permanent.
Mr. Lawrence moved, seconded by Mr. Maloney, subject to the conditions of the 2002 approval having arrived at the following Findings required by the ordinance:
1. That no undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood nor will a detriment to nearby properties be created by the granting of the area variance;
2. That the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance;
3. That the requested area variance is not substantial;
4. That the proposed variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and
5. That the alleged difficulty was not self-created which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the Board of Appeals but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance.
Grants the renewal of the waiver of 3 parking spaces at 15 E. Franklin Avenue for another 10 years. Four in favor; one against. Motion carried.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Maloney moved, seconded by Mr. Jolly, and unanimously carried, that the meeting be adjourned – 9:15 p.m.
Dale Bellantoni
Secretary
| 
