Zoning Board of Appeals

STERLING HEIGHTS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING CITY HALL December 21, 2017 LOCATION: City Council Chambers, 40555 Utica Road, Sterling Heights, MI SUBJECT: Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals held December 21, 2017. Mr. Graef called the meeting to order at 7:00 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 Don DeNault, 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 Email regarding PZBA17-0024. PZBA17-0024 – Chester Stempien (Joseph ’s Auto Body) Requesting board approval for four (4) variances; 1) a variance of five (5) feet to allow a zero (0) foot setback along a side yard, 2) a variance to allow parking to encroach twenty-five (25) feet into the required thirty-five (35) foot setback, 3) a variance of ten (10) feet to allow a reduction in the required length of foundation plantings, and 4) a variance to the enhance landscape treatment requirement. Current Zoning: M-1 Light Industrial District Location: North side of 15 Mile Road, west of Mound Road in Section 28 Property address: 6309 Fifteen 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 proposing to construct a 6,000 square-foot industrial addition to the existing 5,000 square foot building. The proposed building addition is also proposed to be located on the property line, like the existing building. The building addition would provide an additional six bays for additional work to be conducted at the site. Also included in the proposal is to revise how vehicles awaiting service are accommodated on the site. Mr. Graef asked the petitioner to come forward to the podium. Chester Stempien, architect for the project, came to the podium. He explained there are many pre-existing conditions with the building which make it difficult to comply with requirements and ordinances in building an addition. Mr. Graef asked if it was possible to move the offices towards the back of the building by the existing parking then there wouldn’t be a need for the front yard setback. Mr. Stempien stated it isn’t practical for their business to move the office to the back. Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of December 21, 2017 Page 2 Mr. Graef asked if there would be a single bay door for all cars or would each bay have their own door. Mr. Yousif came forward to the podium and stated there are two bay doors on the side and one bay door in the rear. He stated it would be more convenient to have more bay doors on the side. Mr. Graef asked the Board for any questions. Mr. Ujkic asked Mr. Yousif if the office part of the building is the same in height as the rest of the building. Mr. Yousif stated the office is a different height which is another reason putting the office in the back would not work because they would lose square footage for the shop area. Mr. Ujkic asked if they are planning to expand the office with the addition of the building. Mr. Yousif stated they are not expanding the office but would be adding a break room for the employees and an additional restroom. Mr. D’Angelo asked if it would be possible to request three parking spaces instead of four so not to encroach on the setback as much. Mr. Yousif stated they don’t have enough parking as it is. Sometimes people will all come at the same time to get estimates. Mr. D’Angelo asked why they needed 50 feet instead of 45 feet. Mr. Yousif explained if there were two cars to pull in, with 45 feet they wouldn’t be able to close the doors. Mr. Washburn asked when the site picture was taken which showed the site to be in disarray. He also asked how many cars are in the back of the property waiting for service at a time. Mr. Yousif explained the picture in question was taken before he took over the property. He stated there could be about 20 cars parked in the rear of the property. Mr. Washburn asked what roof height is needed to service the cars and what is the roof height in the office area. Mr. Yousif stated about 14 feet in the service area and the office area is about 9 feet. Mr. Washburn asked if car work could be done in a building with 8 feet in height. Mr. Yousif stated no, it would be too tight. Mr. Yaldo, a representative from Stempien Associates came to the podium. He addressed the question regarding having the office in the back. He explained with a dealership, the showroom is in the front. He also explained for their site it is more convenient for the customer to come to the front. Mr. Washburn stated he had service at another repair shop, on Groesbeck, and there was no parking in the front at all, you entered in the back of the site. Mr. Yaldo explained that could have been because of the layout of the site and with this property it would be very difficult. Mr. D’Angelo asked about the layout in the rear with chain link fencing. Mr. Yousif stated they will be putting all new fencing and a paved parking lot. Mr. Washburn asked what type of fencing will be used. Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of December 21, 2017 Page 3 Mr. Yaldo stated the fence will be metal with posts which will be site obscuring. Mr. D’Angelo asked Mr. McLeod to explain the city’s ordinance regarding the fencing. Mr. McLeod explained what the ordinance states in regards to fencing. Mr. Graef asked for any further comments from the Board. Mr. McLeod asked if they will be repaving the front portion near a large tree that is between the entrances. Mr. Yousif stated they will be repaving all at once if the variances are approved. Mr. Washburn asked for an estimate of how many cars they repair in a week. He also asked how many employees they currently have and how many will they have after the addition. Mr. Yousif stated timing depends on the job itself. If a job takes longer they will take fewer cars and have fewer jobs. He also stated they have 11 employees currently and expect to have 14 after the addition. Mr. Graef asked for any further comments from the Board. Being none, he asked for public participation. Being none, he asked the Board for any further comments or a motion. Mr. Graef summarized a correspondence from Ms. Arlene Artikian. There was discussion among the Board members in regards to the abutting property and variances that may be needed in the future. Motion by Mr. Militello, supported by Mr. Ujkic, in the case of PZBA17-0024 Chester Stempien, Joseph’s Auto Body, 6309 15 Mile Road and 6310 Millett Avenue, I move to APPROVE the requested variance of five (5) feet to the required side yard setback, 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. Decreasing the required side yard setback to allow the building addition to be constructed in the same manner as the existing structure in this particular application will not be contrary to the public health, safety, or welfare, or the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance, because the building abuts an existing vacant property and does not impact any existing structure on abutting properties and represents a continuation of the lack of any setback for the existing structure. 3. The decrease in the required side yard setback will not likely significantly depress the value of nearby properties. 4. No useful purpose would be served by strict application of this setback requirement in the Zoning Ordinance. 5. The decrease in the required side yard setback area will not have an immediate adverse impact on any adjoining property. 6. The current building and site configuration was constructed in 1966 prior to the enactment of the current setback requirements. This motion includes the following conditions: Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of December 21, 2017 Page 4 1. First, the Conditions of Approval, which were signed by the petitioner and submitted with the application, must be followed. 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. d. The landscaping along the road frontage shall be increased to include additional shrub plantings and street trees pursuant to the Planning Department staff report. e. Shrubs shall be provided along the portion of the foundation that will remain adjacent to the greenbelt, in an area that is approximately fifteen (15) feet in width. f. Additional trees shall be provided within the greenspace along Millett Avenue. A total of four (4) additional trees shall be provided in this area, two (2) on either side of the drive. g. The existing parking lot surface shall be resurfaced to address the current structural issues. h. Appropriate site plan, engineering, and building drawings shall be provided for review consistent with the plans and conditions set forth as a part of the petitioner’s application. There was much discussion regarding fact 3.a. of the motion. Motion by Mr. Militello, supported by Mr. Ujkic, to AMEND by removing 3.a. of the conditions. Mr. Graef asked for any further discussion on the motion. Being none, he called for a roll call vote. Ayes: Militello, Ujkic, Washburn, Graef, Jean Nays: D’Angelo and Deming Absent: None Motion carried. Motion by Mr. Ujkic, supported by Mr. Militello, in the case of PZBA17-0024 Chester Stempien, Joseph’s Auto Body, 6309 15 Mile Road and 6310 Millett Avenue, I move to APPROVE the requested variance to allow for parking to be provided within the required front yard setback, 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. Decreasing the required front yard setback/greenbelt to allow parking closest to the office use and customer entrance in this particular application will not be contrary to the public health, safety, or welfare, or the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance, because the parking proposed would allow the customers to enter the business without having to walk a significant distance from the rear of the site along the maneuvering lane to the front of the building. 3. The decrease in the required front yard setback/greenbelt will not likely significantly depress the value of nearby properties. 4. No useful purpose would be served by strict application of this setback requirement in the Zoning Ordinance. Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of December 21, 2017 Page 5 5. The decrease in the required front yard setback/greenbelt area will not have an adverse impact on any adjoining property. 6. The site will still have a setback/greenbelt of significant size and will be planted with trees and a shrub hedgerow. 7. The front of the building, including the office space serving the use, is located at the front of the site and no parking is available at the front of the site for patrons to enter and exit the building in a safe manner, therefore the inclusion of additional parking spaces at the front of the site will increase customer safety. 8. The current building and site configuration was constructed in 1966 prior to the enactment of the current setback requirements. This motion includes the following conditions: 1. First, the Conditions of Approval, which were signed by the petitioner and submitted with the application, must be followed. 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. d. The landscaping along the 15 Mile Road frontage shall be increased to include additional shrub plantings and street trees pursuant to the Planning Department staff report. e. Shrubs shall be provided along the portion of the foundation that will remain adjacent to the greenbelt, in an area that is approximately fifteen (15) feet in width. f. Additional trees shall be provided within the greenspace along Millett Avenue. A total of four (4) additional trees shall be provided in this area, two (2) on either side of the drive. g. The existing parking lot surface shall be resurfaced to address the current structural issues. h. Appropriate site plan, engineering, and building drawings shall be provided for review consistent with the plans and conditions set forth as a part of the petitioner’s application. Mr. Graef asked for any discussion on the motion. Mr. Washburn asked if the motion is granting three or four parking stalls. Mr. Ujkic stated it is for four parking stalls. Mr. Graef asked for any further discussion on the motion. Being none, he called for a roll call vote. Ayes: Ujkic, Militello, Deming, Graef, Jean Nays: D’Angelo and Washburn Absent: None Motion carried. Motion by Mr. Militello, supported by Mr. Ujkic, in the case of PZBA17-0024 Chester Stempien, Joseph’s Auto Body, 6309 15 Mile Road and 6310 Millett Avenue, I move to APPROVE the requested variance of ten (10) feet to allow a reduction in the overall required foundation plantings for the following reasons: Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of December 21, 2017 Page 6 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. Decreasing the required length of foundation plantings will not be contrary to the public health, safety, or welfare, or the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance, because providing parking in this particular location would allow the customers to enter the business without having to walk a significant distance from the rear of the site along the maneuvering lane to the front of the building. 3. The decrease in the required length of foundation plantings will not likely significantly depress the value of nearby properties. 4. No useful purpose would be served by strict application of this planting requirement in the Zoning Ordinance. 5. The decrease in the length of the required foundation plantings will not have an adverse impact on any adjoining property. 6. The site will still have a significant portion of the foundation along the building frontage covered by foundation plantings. 7. The front of the building, including the office space serving the use, is located at the front of the site, no parking exists at the front of the site for patrons to enter and exit the building in a safe manner and the inclusion of additional parking spaces at the front of the site will increase customer safety but reduce the ability to plant along the foundation. 8. The current building and site configuration was constructed in 1966, prior to the enactment of the current requirements for foundation plantings. This motion includes the following conditions: 1. First, the Conditions of Approval, which were signed by the petitioner and submitted with the application, must be followed. 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. d. The landscaping along the road frontage shall be increased to include additional shrub plantings and street trees pursuant to the Planning Department staff report. e. Shrubs shall be provided along the portion of the foundation that will remain adjacent to greenbelt, in an area that is approximately fifteen (15) feet in width. f. Additional trees shall be provided within the greenspace along Millett Avenue. A total of four (4) additional trees shall be provided in this area, two (2) on either side of the drive. g. The existing parking lot surface shall be resurfaced to address the current structural issues. h. Appropriate site plan, engineering, and building drawings shall be provided for review consistent with the plans and conditions set forth as a part of this application. Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of December 21, 2017 Page 7 Mr. McLeod and Mr. DeNault stated condition 2.g. (which stated “The requested parking space closest to the 15 Mile Road frontage shall be removed from the proposed site plan to allow for additional greenbelt area.”) should be stricken from the last motion and this motion based on the comment which stated the parking area will consist of four spaces. Mr. Graef asked for any further discussion on the motion. Being none, he called for a roll call vote. Ayes: Militello, Ujkic, Graef, Jean Nays: D’Angelo, Deming, Washburn Absent: None Motion carried. Motion by Mr. Militello, supported by Mr. Ujkic, in the case of PZBA17-0024 Chester Stempien, Joseph’s Auto Body, 6309 15 Mile Road and 6310 Millett Avenue, I move to APPROVE the enhanced landscape variance 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. Eliminating the requirement for the enhanced landscape feature will not be contrary to the public health, safety, or welfare, or the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance, because providing parking in the front of the building, eliminating the most logical area for the enhanced landscape feature, would allow the customers to enter the business without having to walk a significant distance from the rear of the site along the maneuvering lane to the front of the building, and the rear of the site will be utilized for parking and vehicle staging and would not be conducive to such a feature. 3. The elimination of the enhanced landscape feature will not likely significantly depress the value of nearby properties. 4. No useful purpose would be served by strict application of this planting requirement in the Zoning Ordinance. 5. The elimination of the required enhanced landscape feature will not have an adverse impact on any adjoining property. 6. The site will have a significant upgrade in terms of the amount of landscaping being provided both along the 15 Mile Road frontage as well as to the rear of the site, along Millett Avenue. 7. The front of the building, including the office space serving the use, is located at the front of the site and no parking currently exists at the front of the site for patrons to enter and exit the building in a safe manner and the inclusion of additional parking spaces at the front of the site will increase customer safety but reduce the ability to provide the required enhanced landscape feature. 8. The current building and site configuration was constructed in 1966, prior to the enactment of the current landscaping requirements. This motion includes the following conditions: 1. First, the Conditions of Approval, which were signed by the petitioner and submitted with the application, must be followed. 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: Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of December 21, 2017 Page 8 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. d. The landscaping along the road frontage shall be increased to include additional shrub plantings and street trees pursuant to the Planning Department staff report. e. Shrubs shall be provided along the portion of the foundation that will remain adjacent to greenbelt, in an area that is approximately fifteen (15) feet in width. f. Additional trees shall be provided within the greenspace along Millett Avenue. A total of four (4) additional trees shall be provided in this area, two (2) on either side of the drive. g. The existing parking lot surface shall be resurfaced to address the current structural issues. h. Appropriate site plan, engineering, and building drawings shall be provided for review consistent with the plans and conditions set forth as a part of this application. Mr. Graef asked for any questions on the motion. Mr. Washburn asked Mr. McLeod to explain what this motion is eliminating regarding the landscaping requirements. Mr. McLeod explained the new requirements for landscaping of businesses. Mr. Graef asked for any further discussion on the motion. Being none, he called for a roll call vote. Ayes: Militello, Ujkic, Washburn, Graef, Jean Nays: D’Angelo and Deming Absent: None Motion carried. PZBA17-0025 – Johnson Sign Company (The Macomb Group) Requesting board approval for two (2) variances; 1) a variance to allow a freestanding sign base to be constructed of a material other than brick or stone (proposed material is aluminum), and 2) a variance for an electronic message center sign that exceeds the permissible one third (33 percent) of the total sign area (approx. 44.5 percent requested). Current Zoning: M-2 Heavy Industrial District Location: South side of Fifteen Mile Road between Mound Road and Van Dyke in Section 33. Property address: 6600 Fifteen Mile Road Mr. Graef asked Mr. McLeod to give an overview of the case. Mr. McLeod displayed plans of the sign and gave an overview stating the applicant has done extensive updating to the site and the proposed sign will match the building façade and provide an architectural continuity between the building and the sign itself. Mr. Graef asked the petitioner to come forward to the podium. Mr. Jay Johnson, of Johnson Sign Company, came forward to the podium. He stated Jim Johnson could not be present and a letter was previously submitted stating Jay Johnson could represent in his place. He stated The Macomb Group wanted a sign that Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of December 21, 2017 Page 9 would match their building. He did not explain further as he felt Mr. McLeod covered all that was needed. Mr. Graef asked the Board for any questions. Being none, he asked for public participation. There being no public present, he asked for any questions or a motion. Motion by Mr. Militello, supported by Mr. Deming, in the case of PZBA17-0025, The Macomb Group, 6600 15 Mile Road, I move to APPROVE the requested variance to allow a freestanding sign base to be constructed of a material other than brick or stone and to allow the sign base to be constructed of decorative aluminum, the same as the principal building, for the following reasons: 1. The sign base materials as proposed match the main building facade materials of the recently renovated principal building. 2. The sign base material has been found to be a high quality, highly aesthetic material. 3. The sign is located within a landscaped island and is not subject to the typical wear and tear of a freestanding sign. 4. The freestanding sign, as proposed, would otherwise comply with the City’s requirements. 5. 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. 6. Allowing the base material for the sign as proposed will not be contrary to the public health, safety, or welfare, or the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. 7. The sign base material for the sign as proposed will not be likely to significantly depress the value of nearby properties. 8. No useful purpose would be served by strict application of the sign base material requirement in the Zoning Ordinance. 9. The sign base material of the sign will not have an adverse impact on adjoining property. 10. The petitioner provided a sign within the ordinance guidelines and chose to take the sign down to make a much more attractive sign while still maintaining the size of the reader board. This motion includes the following conditions: 1. First, the information provided to the Board must remain accurate, and the Conditions of Approval, which were signed by the petitioner and submitted with the application, must be followed. 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. Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of December 21, 2017 Page 10 3. Third, if the sign base does not remain structurally sound or becomes damaged and is not maintained by the petitioner, the variance may be revoked. Mr. Graef asked for any questions on the motion. Mr. Washburn suggested adding #10 to the statement of facts in the motion. Motion by Mr. Militello, supported by Mr. Deming, to AMEND the motion by adding #10 to the facts. Motion by Mr. Militello, supported by Mr. Deming, to AMEND by adding condition #3. Mr. Graef asked for any further questions 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. Motion by Mr. Militello, supported by Mr. Deming, in the case of PZBA17-0025, The Macomb Group, 6600 15 Mile Road, I move to APPROVE the requested variance to allow a variance for an electronic message center sign that exceeds the permissible one third (33 percent) of the total sign area, up to approx. 44.5 percent, for the following reasons: 1. The overall freestanding sign as proposed is substantially smaller in size than the total size permitted by Ordinance for this location. 2. The electronic message center would be a permissible size and percentage of the overall sign if the property owner were to construct the permissible larger sized sign. 3. The electronic message center sign will be proportional with the overall sign as proposed. 4. The freestanding sign, as proposed, will otherwise comply with the City’s requirements. 5. 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. 6. Allowing the electronic message center in the configuration proposed will not be contrary to the public health, safety, or welfare, or the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. 7. The electronic message center portion of the sign as proposed will not be likely to significantly depress the value of nearby properties. 8. No useful purpose would be served by strict application of the electronic message center requirement in the Zoning Ordinance. 9. The electronic message center portion of the sign will not have an adverse impact on adjoining property. This motion includes the following conditions: 1. First, the Conditions of Approval, which were signed by the petitioner and submitted with the application, must be followed. Failure to follow these requirements will be grounds to revoke the variance. Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of December 21, 2017 Page 11 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. d. The use and functionality of the electronic message board must be in compliance with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. Third, if all the city’s sign ordinance requirements are not adhered to, the variance may be revoked. Mr. Graef asked the Board for any discussion on the motion. Mr. Washburn suggested adding condition #3. Motion by Mr. Militello, supported by Mr. Deming to AMEND motion by adding condition #3. to the motion. Mr. Graef asked the Board for any further discussion on the motion. Being none, he called for a roll call vote. Ayes: Militello, Deming, Washburn, Ujkic, D’Angelo, Graef, Jean Nays: None. Absent: None. Motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Mr. Militello, supported by Mr. Ujkic, to APPROVE approval of the minutes for the November 16, 2017 meeting. Ayes: Militello, Ujkic, D’Angelo, Deming, Graef Nays: None Absent: None Abstained: Jean and Washburn Motion carried. NEW BUSINESS Approval of 2018 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Dates Motion by Mr. Militello, supported by Mr. Washburn, to APPROVE Approval of 2018 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Dates. Ayes: Militello, Washburn, Ujkic, D’Angelo, Deming, Graef, Jean Nays: None Absent: None Motion carried. There was discussion regarding the December 2018 meeting date. Motion by Mr. Washburn, supported by Mr. Militello, to RECONSIDER the ZBA 2018 meeting dates. Ayes: Washburn, Militello, Ujkic, D’Angelo, Deming, Graef, Jean Nays: None Absent: None Motion carried. Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of December 21, 2017 Page 12 Motion by Mr. Militello, supported by Mr. Washburn to ADOPT the 2018 ZBA meeting dates with the exception of December 20, 2018 which will be moved to December 13, 2018. Ayes: Militello, Washburn, Ujkic, D’Angelo, Deming, Graef, Jean Nays: None Absent: None Motion carried. OLD BUSINESS None PUBLIC PARTICIPATION None MOTION TO ADJOURN Motion by Mr. Militello, supported by Mr. Washburn, to ADJOURN . Ayes: Militello, Washburn, Ujkic, D’Angelo, Deming, Graef, Jean Nays: None Absent: None Motion Carried Meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, David Graef, Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals