Zoning Board of Appeals

STERLING HEIGHTS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING CITY HALL September 28, 2017 LOCATION: City Council Chambers, 40555 Utica Road, Sterling Heights, MI SUBJECT: Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals held September 28, 2017. Mr. Graef called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. Members present at roll call: Derek D’Angelo, Dale Deming, David Graef, Junina Jean, Stefano Militello, Pashko Ujkic, and Ray Washburn Members absent at roll call: None Also in attendance: Chris McLeod, City Planner Clark Andrews, City Attorney APPROVAL OF AGENDA Motion by Mr. Militello, supported by Mr. Ujkic, to APPROVE the Agenda. Ayes: Militello, Ujkic, Washburn, D’Angelo, Deming, Graef, Jean Nays: None Absent: None Motion carried. CORRESPONDENCE Michigan Association of Planners Magazine Correspondence relative to case PZBA17-0019. PZBA17-0014 – Basmit Building – Mike Razoky – Postponed from August 24 th, 2017 meeting Requesting board approval for a variance that if granted would allow the applicant to not construct the required district boundary wall along a portion of the vacant property to the north. Current Zoning: O-1 Business and Professional Office District Location: East side of Dequindre Road between Fifteen Mile Road and Metropolitan Parkway in Section 30. Property address: 35614 Dequindre Road Mr. Graef asked Mr. McLeod to give an overview of the case. Mr. McLeod displayed site plans and gave an overview stating the applicant is requesting a variance that if granted, would eliminate the requirement to construct a masonry district boundary wall along the north property line for the first 75 feet of the property (as measured from the front property line). Mr. Graef asked the petitioner to come forward to the podium. Mike Razoky, 1920 Bayou Dr., Bloomfield Hills, came forward to the podium. He explained the adjacent owner stated he will be selling the property and it will most likely be zoned as commercial. He would like to refrain from building the masonry wall at this time and use greenery instead. If the property is sold and remains residential, he will build the wall at that time according to the city’s requirements. Mr. Graef asked the Board for any questions. Mr. Deming stated after recently observing the property, he has changed his position from the last meeting and feels the masonry wall is not needed at this time. He feels landscaping would be more suitable. Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of September 28, 2017 Page 2 Mr. D’Angelo asked Mr. Deming to clarify where he proposed the wall should end. Mr. Deming stated he feels arborvitae trees would be better suited and not have a masonry wall at all. Mr. Graef asked for any public participation. Being none, he asked the Board for any comments or questions. Mr. D’Angelo asked the other Board members for feedback on having a partial wall versus no wall at all. Mr. Graef stated one adjacent resident previously asked for the wall to be at the property line as ordinance requires. Mr. Graef feels the wall should be constructed where there are current residents. He would be in favor of trees going in where the vacant property is to the north unless it was sold and remained residential, then he would like to see the wall continue. Mr. Ujkic agrees with Mr. Deming and Mr. D’Angelo to put in the trees abutting the vacant property to the north and if that property is sold and remains residential, the applicant would put in the wall at that time. Mr. Washburn asked for clarification of the site plan, the residential properties, and where a masonry wall would be. Mr. McLeod showed the site plan and explained. Motion by Mr. D’Angelo, supported by Mr. Militello, in the case of PZBA17-0014, Basmit Office Building, represented by Mike Razoky, 35614 Dequindre Road, I move to APPROVE a variance to not require the construction of a district boundary wall with the property abutting 35674 Dequindre Rd., for the following reasons: 1. First, the office building as currently approved and with the approved/requested variances, would otherwise comply with the City’s requirements. 2. Second, all of the other requirements in the Zoning Ordinance for approving a non-use variance have been established in the record, and granting the variance will observe the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. Third, allowing the elimination of the wall in the proposed location will not be contrary to the public health, safety, or welfare, or the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. 4. Fourth, the elimination of the wall in this limited location will not be likely to significantly depress the value of nearby properties. 5. Fifth, no useful purpose would be served by strict application of the district wall requirement in the Zoning Ordinance. 6. Sixth, the elimination of the wall in this location will not have an adverse impact on the adjoining property as it is not developed for single family purposes and is planned to be developed as office within the City’s recently adopted Master Plan. 7. That the property to the north is last remaining single family residential property along this stretch of Dequindre Road and is master planned to be Office. This motion includes the following conditions: 1. First, the information provided to the Board must remain accurate, and the approval of the variance and a Hold Harmless Agreement in favor of the City must be recorded with the Register of Deeds. These requirements will be provided to the petitioner in writing. Failure to follow these requirements will be grounds to revoke the variance. 2. Second, the petitioner must comply with the following conditions requested by the Office of Planning: a. The variance shall expire, without the need for any action by this Board, if the appropriate approvals are not sought and obtained within one (1) year. b. The approval of this variance shall not be a rationale for any future variance requests. Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of September 28, 2017 Page 3 c. Any additional variance requests may be grounds for the revocation or revision of the current variance application. d. That additional landscape screening be provided along the same area where the wall is being eliminated. Such landscaping shall consist of a year-round planting type and at a density to have the effect of screening the site to the north. e. That a cross access easement be provided to the site to the north for a future cross connection should the property to the north being rezoning and a cross connection be deemed appropriate. 3. Third, the petitioner must comply with the following additional conditions: a. If the property located at 35674 Dequindre Rd. is developed as residential the owner of this parcel will be required to develop a screening wall in accordance with city ordinance. b. That the current property owner would record written documentation to the city attorney’s office, within sixty (60) days of approval, against the property in order to make sure any future property owners of this site would be required to construct a wall if the property was sold. Mr. Graef asked the Board for any discussion on the motion. Being none, he called for a roll call vote. Ayes: D’Angelo, Militello, Deming, Graef, Jean, Ujkic, Washburn Nays: None Absent: None Motion carried. PZBA17-0015 – Heritage Church of Macomb – Postponed from August 24th, 2017 meeting Requesting board approval to allow a modification to the existing use variance for a place of worship that if granted would allow a 7,875-square foot office addition and auditorium renovation with increased seating. Current Zoning: C-2 Planned Comparison Business District Location: West side of Schoenherr Road and south of Hall Road in Section 02. Property address: 44625 Schoenherr Mr. Graef asked Mr. McLeod to give an overview of the case. Mr. McLeod displayed site plans and gave an overview stating the applicant is requesting approval for an expansion. The expansion would be on the northwest corner of the building. The Heritage Church of Macomb has occupied the building since 2010 and has co-existed with the existing shopping centers that are located between the Church and Schoenherr as well as to the north of the church. The site is surrounded by non-resident uses and the expansion will not impact the number allowed parking spaces for this site. Mr. Graef asked the petitioner to come forward to the podium. Mr. Chad Asman, 44625 Schoenherr Rd., Sterling Heights, came forward to the podium. He stated when they occupied the building in 2010 the building was in disarray. Since they have been in the building the property has been maintained and is vibrant. Because they are growing, they are looking to move the office space to the back of the building and renovate the interior to accommodate their needs. Mr. Graef asked the Board for any questions. Mr. D’Angelo asked the petitioner to talk about the materials which will be used on the exterior of the building. He also asked if they are planning to put in parking lot islands in the back parking area. Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of September 28, 2017 Page 4 Mr. Asman stated the materials will be of like material to the existing structure, decorative concrete block. They do not have any plans to put additional islands in the back parking area. Mr. Militello asked Mr. McLeod if putting in islands would be the responsibility of the shopping center owner, Mr. Gallo, rather than the church. He also stated the shopping center has many islands and doesn’t feel adding any in the back would be of any benefit. Mr. McLeod stated it would be the responsibility of the person developing the property. Mr. Ujkic asked the petitioner if they were leasing the property. Mr. Asman stated they owned the property. Mr. Washburn asked where the garbage container is located. He also asked if all of the 496 parking spaces that are dropping to 475 are contained within their property. Mr. Asman stated it is contained outside in a partial enclosure. He explained part of their expansion plan will include a new enclosed trash and recyclable area per ordinance requirements. He stated yes, all the parking is on their property. Mr. D’Angelo asked if there are any other phases of development for this property in the near future. Mr. Asman stated no, the other phase’s renovations are all interior. Mr. Washburn asked if they hold weddings or parties on the site. Mr. Asman answered they hold wedding ceremonies but not wedding receptions. Mr. Graef asked the Board for any other questions. Being none, he asked for public participation. Being none, he asked the Board for any further questions or a motion. Motion by Mr. Militello, supported by Mr. Ujkic, in the case of PZBA17-0015, Heritage Church of Macomb, Chad Asman, 44625 Schoenherr Road, I move to APPROVE the requested modification to the existing use variance to allow for a 7,875-square foot building addition and associated interior modifications that include a capacity increase to 1,250 persons, for the following reasons: 1. That the use as described within the application and by the applicant during the public hearing is for a modification to an existing use that was previously granted approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals and that the modifications do not significantly alter the use of the site and that the change to the intensification to the use of the site will not be of a nature that will be a detriment to the abutting uses. 2. The property in question cannot be reasonably used or cannot yield a reasonable return on a prudent investment if the property were to be used only for a purpose allowed in the zoning district where the property is located. 3. The plight is due to unique circumstances peculiar to the property and not to general neighborhood conditions. 4. The use to be authorized by the variance will not alter the essential character of the area and locality. 5. The problem is not self-created. 6. The spirit of this ordinance will be observed, public safety and welfare secured, and substantial justice done. 7. There is compliance with the Zoning Ordinance standards for discretionary decisions. 8. That the site does not abut any residential uses which may be impacted by the proposed building addition or increase in use of the building. 9. The site will still provide more than adequate parking for the proposed additional square footage and increased capacity. Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of September 28, 2017 Page 5 This motion includes the following conditions: 1. First, the information provided to the Board must remain accurate, and the approval of the variance and a Hold Harmless Agreement in favor of the City must be recorded with the Register of Deeds. These requirements will be provided to the petitioner in writing. Failure to follow these requirements will be grounds to revoke the variance. 2. Second, the petitioner must comply with the following conditions requested by the Office of Planning: a. The modification to the use variance shall expire, without the need for any action by this Board, if the appropriate approvals are not sought and obtained within one (1) year. b. The approval of this variance shall not be a rationale for any future variance requests. c. Any additional variance requests may be grounds for the revocation or revision of the current variance application. 3. That the rear addition will be constructed of a similar decorative block consistent with the remainder of the building. Mr. Graef asked the Board for any discussion on the motion. Mr. D’Angelo suggested to add verbiage regarding the type of exterior materials used on the addition. Motion by Mr. Militello, supported by Mr. Ujkic, to AMEND the motion by adding condition #3. Mr. Graef asked the Board for any further discussion on the motion. Being none, he called for a roll call vote. Ayes: Militello, Ujkic, Washburn, D’Angelo, Deming, Graef, Jean Nays: None Absent: None Motion carried. PZBA17-0017 – J Williams Construction Requesting board approval for a variance that if granted would allow a 1.1 percent increase in the maximum lot coverage for a residential lot from 30.0 percent to 31.1 percent. Current Zoning: R-60 One Family Residential District Location: East side of Ladrone Avenue, north of Southgate Drive in Section 13 Property address: 39051 Ladrone Avenue Mr. Graef asked Mr. McLeod to give an overview of the case. Mr. McLeod displayed site plans and gave an overview stating the applicant is constructing a single-family residence and at the rear is a planned patio area. The applicant wishes to cover the patio area with an extension of the roof line of the main residence. The physical boundaries of the space will not otherwise be modified with the exception of the roof being covered. Mr. Graef asked the petitioner to come forward to the podium. The owner of the property, 39051 Ladrone Avenue, came forward to the podium. He stated when they bought the property; they did not know the lot was “crooked”. He is asking to be able to put a roof over their patio, which will not project beyond the footprint of the house. Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of September 28, 2017 Page 6 Mr. Graef asked the Board for any questions. Mr. D’Angelo asked what the square footage of the house is and how high the roof will be over the patio area. The petitioner answered the house is about 2,650. A representative from Jon Williams Constructed stated the roof will be about nine feet. Mr. D’Angelo asked Mr. McLeod if he was aware of any fire/safety concerns regarding adding the roof over the patio. Mr. McLeod stated there were none he was aware of. He stated the applicant will be going through a building review to make sure all building codes are being met. Mr. Graef asked the Board for any other questions. Being none, he asked for public participation. Being none, he asked the Board for any further questions or a motion. Motion by Mr. Militello, supported by Mr. Deming, in the case of PZBA17-0017, Jon Williams, 39051 Ladrone, I move to APPROVE the requested variance of 1.1% percent to allow for a maximum lot coverage of 31.1% percent for the following reasons: 1. All of the requirements in the Zoning Ordinance for approving a non-use variance have been established in the record, and granting the variance will observe the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. Increasing the maximum lot coverage in this particular application will not be contrary to the public health, safety, or welfare, or the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The increase in maximum lot coverage will not be likely to significantly depress the value of nearby properties. 4. No useful purpose would be served by strict application of this maximum lot coverage requirement in the Zoning Ordinance. 5. The increase maximum lot coverage will not have an adverse impact on any adjoining property. This motion includes the following conditions: 1. First, the information provided to the Board must remain accurate, and the approval of the variance and a Hold Harmless Agreement in favor of the City must be recorded with the Register of Deeds. These requirements will be provided to the petitioner in writing. Failure to follow these requirements will be grounds to revoke the variance. 2. Second, the petitioner must comply with the following conditions requested by the Office of Planning: a. The variance shall expire, without the need for any action by this Board, if the appropriate approvals are not sought and obtained within one (1) year. b. The approval of this variance shall not be a rationale for any future variance requests. c. Any additional variance requests may be grounds for the revocation or revision of the current variance application. Mr. Graef asked the Board for any discussion on the motion. Being none, he called for a roll call vote. Ayes: Militello, Deming, Ujkic, Washburn, D’Angelo, Graef, Jean Nays: None Absent: None Motion carried. Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of September 28, 2017 Page 7 PZBA17-0018 – LaToca Relaxation Center, LLC - Yvonne Brady Requesting board approval for a use variance to permit a massage establishment in a C-3 General Business District. Current Zoning: C-3 General Business District Location: East side of Van Dyke, between Independence Drive and Constitution Blvd in Section 15. Property address: 40120 Van Dyke Mr. Graef asked Mr. McLeod to give an overview of the case. Mr. McLeod displayed site plans and gave an overview stating the applicant is requesting a use variance for a spa facility. The facility will provide spa services, including face shaving, paraffin treatments, waxing hair removal, spray tanning, make- up services, eyebrow fills, eye lashes; and massages (both for individuals and couples). It appears that these services will be offered in private areas. The massage use is just one of the various principal use services intended to be offered at this location. Mr. Graef asked the petitioner to come forward to the podium. Yvonne Brady, 40120 Van Dyke, Sterling Heights, came to the podium. She stated the facility will provide spa type services (as mentioned above) to mostly women and some men. Mr. Graef asked the Board for any questions. Mr. Deming asked the petitioner if they have a state license to operate a massage establishment and do the employees also have individual licenses. Ms. Brady answered yes, they have a state license and the employees are also licensed. Mr. Washburn asked the petitioner about the operation and employees of the establishment. Ms. Brady gave explanation of how the business was opened and why they had to close after three days. She also stated they have complied with what the city has asked of them so far. Mr. Washburn asked Ms. Brady various questions about employees on staff and services she will provide. He also asked Mr. McLeod to explain the deficiencies of the use. Mr. McLeod stated the two main deficiencies are locational and the size of the shopping center in which they are located. Ms. Jean asked how many massage beds are currently at the location. Ms. Brady stated three and explained they are not just used for massages, they are used for multiple purposes. Mr. Washburn asked Ms. Brady if she has owned a business before and worked at other locations. Ms. Brady explained she worked as an operations manager in Eastpointe, Garden City, and Waterford but this is her first ownership of a business. There were statements from Mr. D’Angelo and Mr. Graef explaining these massage and micro-blading services are not allowed at this location and asked the petitioner to show why they should approve this use variance request. Mr. Deming asked what services could be performed under the licensing. He also asked if she is required to carry insurance and how much. Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of September 28, 2017 Page 8 Ms. Brady stated employees performing massages will be licensed. Other services like spray tans do not require a license. She does carry insurance for massages, $100,000. Mr. Andrews explained to Ms. Brady that without the massage and micro-blading services she could operate the other services at the location without a use variance. Ms. Brady explained when she obtained a business license for a spa facility, it was not made clear to her she could not give massage services. Mr. Washburn asked Mr. Graef for a five-minute recess. Mr. Washburn asked Ms. Brady if within the three days the business was open, if they had any walk-ins and what type of people were they. Ms. Brady stated yes, they had a few walk-ins each day, both men and women. She addressed the Board and asked them to grant the variance because the massage is only a part of her business. Mr. Ujkic asked Ms. Brady if the licensed employees will be coming back to work for her. Ms. Brady stated if they are still available. Mr. D’Angelo asked Mr. McLeod if it was decided administratively that this business is considered a massage establishment. Mr. McLeod explained since it is undetermined what percentage of the business is for massages, yes it was determined administratively. Mr. D’Angelo stated again to Ms. Brady that the burden is on her to show why they should approve the use variance. Timothy Steckel, 11470 Ingram, Livonia came forward to the podium. He is a consultant to Ms. Brady. He explained to the Board the type of massage and explained it is only a small part of the business. He also stated he will be available to Ms. Brady on a consult basis. Mr. Graef asked the Board for any other questions. Being none, he asked for public participation. Helen, owner of the building, came forward to the podium. She stated the building has been vacant for two years and she feels it would be a viable business in that location because it is a busy area. Brian who lives at 8252 Clay Court and Crystal who lives at 8322 Clay Court, Sterling Heights, came to the podium. They stated they are concerned in regards to hours of operation. Mr. Steckel and Ms. Brady stated that any issues with the hours of operation, they are willing to work with the city on what would be best for the business and the residents. Mr. Graef asked the Board for any further questions or a motion. Motion by Mr. Washburn, supported by Mr. Militello, in the case of PZBA17-0018, LaToca Relaxation Center, Yvonne Brady, 40120 Van Dyke, I move to POSTPONE the request for the use variance so that the petitioner may provide additional information to the Board at the next meeting on October 26, 2017. Mr. Graef asked the Board for any discussion on the motion. Being none, he called for a roll call vote. Ayes: Washburn, Militello, D’Angelo, Deming, Graef, Jean, Ujkic Nays: None Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of September 28, 2017 Page 9 Absent: None Motion carried. Ms. Brady asked if she is allowed to operate the business without doing massages. Mr. McLeod stated if she has gone through the Building Department and satisfied all the requirements and confirm with them, then yes, she is allowed to operate omitting massages. PZBA17-0019 – Beauty Kingdom 3 - Iman Michael Requesting board approval for a use variance to permit a body art facility within a C-1 Local Convenience Business District. Current Zoning: C-1 Local Convenience Business District Location: North of 17 Mile Road, west of Ryan in Section 18 Property address: 3983 Seventeen Mile Road Mr. Graef asked Mr. McLeod to give an overview of the case. Mr. McLeod displayed site plans and gave an overview stating the applicant is requesting a use variance to allow for an accessory microblading use which is technically considered a body art facility use to be operated within the City’s C-1 (Local Convenience Business District). Mr. Graef asked the petitioner to come forward to the podium. Iman Michael of Novi, and Marianne Robin, 30183 Groveland St., Madison Heights, came to the podium. Ms. Robin explained microblading and stated they also do laser hair removal and this is a service they are adding to their business. Mr. Graef asked the Board for any questions. Mr. Washburn asked why is microblading not referred to as a tattoo and do they provide tattoo service. Ms. Robin explained it is a pigmentation used with a blade to make strokes like hair and it is not permanent. She also stated they do not have tattooing services. Mr. Militello stated he didn’t feel this was tattooing because it was temporary and applied somewhat like makeup. Mr. Andrews explained the definition of a tattoo as it is stated in the zoning ordinance. Mr. Ujkic asked the applicant explain her business and asked if she has a license. Ms. Michael stated she currently owns a laser hair removal business and she would like to add the microblading. She has been trained and certified to do microblading. She cannot perform tattooing. Mr. Graef asked the Board for any other questions. Being none, he asked for public participation. Being none, he asked the Board for any further questions or a motion. Mr. D’Angelo asked about the hours of operation. Ms. Michael stated the latest appointments would be 6 or 7 o’clock. Motion by Mr. Militello, supported by Mr. Ujkic, in the case of PZBA17-0019, Beauty Kingdom 3, Iman Michael, 3983 17 Mile Road, I move to APPROVE the requested use variance to allow for a body art facility to permit microblading of eyebrows only, for the following reasons: 1. The use as described within the application and by the applicant during the public hearing is for a body art facility and the proposed use variance does not Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of September 28, 2017 Page 10 significantly alter the use of the site, and the change to the intensification to the use of the site will not be of a nature that will be a detriment to the abutting uses. 2. The property in question cannot be reasonably used or cannot yield a reasonable return on a prudent investment if the property were to be used only for a purpose allowed in the zoning district where the property is located. 3. The plight is due to unique circumstances peculiar to the property and not to general neighborhood conditions. 4. The use to be authorized by the variance will not alter the essential character of the area and locality. 5. The problem is not self-created. 6. The spirit of the Zoning Ordinance will be observed, public safety and welfare secured, and substantial justice done. 7. There is compliance with the Zoning Ordinance standards for discretionary decisions. 8. The hours of operation be limited to 11:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. as outlined within the City’s Body Art Facility Ordinance. 9. The use of micro-blading does not utilize the same devices or inks that a traditional body art facility utilizes. This motion includes the following conditions: 1. First, each of the three conditions set forth in the petitioner’s application shall be conditions of this approval, and failure to follow those conditions will be grounds to revoke the variance. 2. Second, the petitioner must comply with the following conditions requested by the Office of Planning: a. The modification to the use variance shall expire, without the need for any action by this Board, if the appropriate approvals are not sought and obtained within one (1) year. b. The approval of this use variance shall not be a rationale for any future variance requests. c. Any additional variance requests may be grounds for the revocation or revision of this use variance. d. That the particular approval is solely for the use of temporary inks to be applied to the eyebrow and that should the use ever begin to utilize permanent inks, traditional body art facility instruments for application, etc., that the use be re-evaluated by the Zoning Board of Appeals. e. That all employees providing the microblading service must be licensed as required which is limited to microblading. Mr. Andrews suggested adding verbiage to include specifics regarding microblading and to add condition 2e. Motion by Mr. Militello, supported by Mr. Ujkic, to AMEND motion per Mr. Andrew suggestions stated above. Mr. Graef asked the Board for any discussion on the motion. Mr. Ujkic stated there was correspondence from a resident opposing the use variance. He also explained his support is because the business is already established and they are not going to do tattoos, just the microblading. Mr. Graef asked the Board for any further discussion on the motion. Being none, he called for a roll call vote. Ayes: Militello, Ujkic, Washburn, D’Angelo, Deming, Graef, Jean Nays: None Absent: None Motion carried. Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of September 28, 2017 Page 11 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Mr. Ujkic, supported by Mr. Graef, to APPROVE approval of the minutes for the July 20, 2017 meeting. Ayes: Militello, Ujkic, Washburn, D’Angelo, Deming, Graef, Jean Nays: None Absent: None Abstained: None Motion carried. Motion by Mr. Ujkic, supported by Mr. Graef, to APPROVE approval of the minutes for the August 24, 2017 meeting. Ayes: Ujkic, Deming, D’Angelo, Graef Nays: None Absent: None Abstained: Militello, Jean, Washburn Motion carried. NEW BUSINESS Motion by Mr. Militello, supported by Mr. Washburn, to POSTPONE the Election of Officers until the October meeting. Mr. Deming suggested to hold the elections due to having a full Board present. Motion by Mr. Militello, supported by Mr. Washburn, to WITHDRAW motion to postpone. Election of New Officers Nomination for Chairperson by Mr. Militello, supported by Mr. Deming, to appoint Mr. Graef. Mr. Graef accepted the nomination. There were no other nominations for Chairperson. By acclamation, Mr. Graef was appointed as Chairperson. Nomination for Vice-Chairperson by Mr. Militello, supported by Mr. Deming, to appoint Mr. Ujkic. Mr. Ujkic accepted the nomination. There were no other nominations for Vice-Chairperson. By acclamation, Mr. Ujkic was appointed as Vice-Chairperson. Nomination for Secretary by Mr. Militello, supported by Mr. Graef, to appoint Ms. Jean. Ms. Jean accepted the nomination. There were no other nominations for Secretary. By acclamation, Ms. Jean was appointed as Secretary. OLD BUSINESS None PUBLIC PARTICIPATION None MOTION TO ADJOURN Motion by Mr. Militello, supported by Mr. Ujkic, to ADJOURN . Ayes: Militello, Ujkic, Washburn, D’Angelo, Deming, Graef, Jean Nays: None Absent: None Motion Carried Meeting adjourned at 9:41 p.m. Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of September 28, 2017 Page 12 Respectfully submitted, David Graef, Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals