ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF ROCHESTER
ULSTER COUNTY
ACCORD, NEW YORK
(845) 626-2434
btetro@townofrochester.ny.gov
MINUTES of the July 16th, 2020 Town of Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals, held via Zoom and Livestreamed on Youtube and the Harold Lipton Community Center.
Chairman Mallery called the meeting to order at 7:00PM.
Chairman Mallery recited the Pledge to the Flag.
PRESENT: ABSENT: VACANT:
Cliff Mallery, Chair Steve Fornal Bruce Psaras, Vice Chair Erin Enouen
Charlie Fischer
ALSO PRESENT: Bill Barringer, Alternate, Mary Lou Christiana, Town Attorney, Brianna Tetro, Secretary. Mike Baden, Town Supervisor and meeting host.
Chair Mallery read the following statement:
I have confirmed with the Town’s Counsel that tonight’s meeting has been convened in accordance with the Governor’s March 13, 2020 Executive Order 202.1 which suspends certain provisions of the Open Meetings Law to allow a municipal Board to convene a meeting via videoconferencing. In accordance with the Executive Order, the public has been provided with the ability to view tonight’s meeting via YouTube and a transcript will be provided at a later date.
The Secretary has completed a roll call of the Board Members and there is a quorum present for this meeting. I have also confirmed with the Secretary that this meeting has been duly noticed. We have fulfilled our legal notice requirements by posting Notice on the Town Clerk bulletin board and outside door, posting legal notice in the Shawangunk Journal, and posting notice on the Town’s website.
Chair Mallery also noted that since there were 2 vacancies on the Board, Mr. Barringer would be sitting on to review the applications.
APPLICATIONS:
NEW APPLICATION
2020-03 AV- Jackson, Glenn&Margaret
Area Variance
108 Granite Rd./ SBL: 76.2-3-9/ H District
Proposed Use: Wooden privacy fence parallel to the road, approximately 200’ long and 9’ high.
-Area Variance required: Fences in front yard not to exceed 4’ in height.
No one was present on behalf of the application.
The Board moved on and did a second call at the end of the night to see if anyone was present.
Mr. Barringer made the motion to table the application until the August 20th, 2020 ZBA regular meeting. Mr. Fischer seconded the motion.
Roll Call:
Chair Mallery- yes
Mr. Psaras- yes
Mr. Fischer- yes
Mr. Barringer- yes
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
4 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 2 vacancies.
CONTINUED APPLICATION
2019-07AV- Stecyk, Oleh
Area Variance
295 City Hall Rd./ SBL: 68.3-4-6/ R-2 District
Proposed Use: Deck
– Area Variance required: Applicant proposes 11’ Side Yard Setback in an R-2 district.
Mr. And Mrs. Oleh and Zenovia Stecyk were present on behalf of the application as well as their Attorney, Abigail Osgood.
Mr. Psaras stated that in Ms. Osgood’s July 8th, 2020 letter to the ZBA, she had said the Stecyk’s had owned the property since 1962. He stated that he had looked up the deed and that the Stecyk’s didn’t own the property until 2005 and he was seeking clarification for Ms. Osgood as to why she put that in the letter.
Mrs. Stecyk explained the property had belonged to her grandmother and then when she passed away it went to her mother, and then eventually to her.
Ms. Osgood said it had been in the family since 1962.
Mr. Barringer stated the deck was not effecting anything and there was no reason to deny the application and it should get a variance.
Mr. Psaras made a motion:
DECISION # ZBA 2019-07 AV
A motion for denial is made based upon the available facts and Town of Rochester Zoning Code Chapter 140
Applicant: Oleh and Zenovia Stecyk
Reason for Request: The application proposes a 29 foot Area Variance to a side yard setback to build a deck. Location: 295 City Hall Rd. Total Acreage: +/- 14.0 acres
S/B/L: 68.3-4-6 Zoning District: R-2
Code Enforcement Determination: Area Variance Zoning Permit: #19/440, Filed 10-17-2019
Zoning Board of Appeals Application: 2019-07AV SEQR Type: N/A
ZBA Application filed: 11-14-2019 SEQR Determination: N/A
EAF filed: N/A
Other Agency Referrals: Not Applicable
Documents considered by the Zoning Board of Appeals for review:
1. 04-15-2020-Stecyk Letter to ZBA- Area Variance
2. 04-15-2020-Stecyk-Deck Plans-Area Variance
3. 04-15-2020-Stecyk-Panaramic View of where Deck would be Area Variance
4. 04-15-2020-Steyck appeal to ZBA-Area Variance
5. 05-27-2020-Stecyk Letter to Fire Department-Area Variance
6. 06-18-2020-Fornal-Stecyk-Public Comment
7. 07-06-2020-Stecyk-Letter of Attorney Representation
8. 07-08-2020-Osgood letter to ZBA re Stecyk-Area Variance
9. 10-17-2019-Stecyk-CEO permit
10. 10-17-2019-Stecyk-Dimensions
11. 11-4-2019-Stecyk-Area Variance Application
12. 11-4-2019-Stecyk-SEQRA
13. 12-13-2019-Stecyk-April 2019 ZBA Minutes
14. 12-13-2019-Stecyk-August 2016 ZBA Minutes
15. 12-13-2019-Stecyk-January 2017 ZBA Minutes
16. 12-13-2019-Stecyk-July 2007 ZBA Minutes
17. 12-13-2019-Stecyk-July 2012 ZBA Minutes
18. 12-13-2019-Stecyk-June 2005 ZBA Minutes
19. 12-13-2019-Stecyk-June 2008 ZBA Minutes
20. 12-13-2019-Stecyk-March 2019 ZBA Minutes
21. 12-13-2019-Stecyk-Narrative with attached Area Variance
22. 12-13-2019-Stecyk-November 2017 ZBA Minutes
23. 12-13-2019-Stecyk-September 2009 ZBA Minutes
24. Aug 10 04rm
Notice of Public Hearing:
1. Published in the Shawangunk Journal June 11th, 2020.
2. Notice by mail to known landowners within 500’ and application referral agencies
3. Posted on the Town of Rochester Clerk bulletin board
Date(s) of Public Hearing: June 18th, 2020
Place: Community Center, Accord, NY and Remote Dial-in (Zoom)
Public Comment: (see Minutes of Town of Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals, June 18th, 2020 )
* * * *
The Town of Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals hereby makes the following findings with respect to the specific criteria for area variances as set forth in Town Law and other applicable provisions.
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance.
a. Yes No
b. Finding: Approval of the requested Area Variance will set a negative precedent. The applicants pre-existing, non-conforming lot is not a condition unique to the property. The condition shared by approximately 1,200 properties in the community.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance.
a. Yes No
b. Finding: There are alternatives available for placement of the deck that would not require a variance.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial.
a. Yes No
b. Finding: The application proposes an expansion in a pre-existing, non-conforming condition. The requested variance is a very substantial at 72.5%.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district.
a. Yes No
b. Finding: There is neither positive nor negative impact on the physical or environmental conditions.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was 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.
a. Yes No
b. Finding: The difficulty is self-created.
Determination based on the above factors:
It is hereby determined by the Town of Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals the request for an area variance is DENIED.
Motion made by: Mr. Psaras
Motion seconded by: Mr. Fischer
Vote: Ayes: 3 Nays: 1 Abstain: 0 Absent: 0 Vacancies: 2
Adopted: July 16th, 2020
Mr. Fischer seconded the motion.
Mr. Stecyk stated he wanted to remind the Board that their job wasn’t to deny everything but to come to a reasonable solution. He said that he and his wife had exhausted every other possible solution and there was literally no other way to have the deck on the home.
Chair Mallery thanked the Stecyks and said that he was sympathetic to their application but the request was substantial and if it was granted it would set a precedence for future application, that was something the Board needed to consider.
Mr. Barringer said every case was different, that it wasn’t likely someone else was going to come in with the exact situation as the Stecyks.
The Board discussed a couple of other options for the deck.
Ms. Osgood noted placing the deck in another area would take away from the aesthetic
Attorney Christiana reminded the Board there was a motion on the floor still.
The Board voted on the motion:
Vote: Ayes: 3 Nays: 1 Abstain: 0 Absent: 0 Vacancies: 2
Roll Call:
Chair Mallery- yes
Mr. Psaras- yes
Mr. Fischer- yes
Mr. Barringer- no
Motion Carried.
CONTINUED APPLICATION
2020-01AV- Hoots, Allison& Sean
Area Variance
122 Catalpa Ln. / SBL: 77.3-1-8/ R2
Proposed Use: Use the space that is just under 800 sq ft of accessory building for private commerical music studio, consistent with a Class II Home Occupation Class II- requiring an area variance to fit musical instruments and equipment.
– Area Variance required: Home Occupation Class II: Proposed exceeds 500 sq ft of floor area 140- 19 A.
CONTINUED APPLICATION
2020-01CA- Rajkishun, Rovika- Austerweil, David-Marcus, Jesse- Tocco, MaryJean- Tiffany, Steven
Appeal of Code Enforcement
122 Catalpa Lane- Recording Studio
Reason for appeal: Appealing Code Enforcement Officer’s January 22nd, 2020 determination.
Mr. And Mrs. Sean and Allison Hoots were present on behalf of their application. Ms. Emily Svenson, Attorney was present on behalf of her clients, the appellants.
Chair Mallery stated he thought it would be best to do the variance and appeal decision together since they were so closely related.
Mr. Psaras made the motion to do the decision for both the Area Variance and Appeal applications together as they were related. Mr. Barringer seconded the motion.
Roll Call:
Chair Mallery- yes
Mr. Psaras- yes
Mr. Fischer- yes
Mr. Barringer- yes
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
4 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions, 2 vacancies.
Chair Mallery stated the application was a Type II for SEQRA. He also stated that when Mr. Jerry Davis, Code Enforcement Officer, was presented the Zoning Permit for the Area Variance application, that not all the facts were presented at that time. He noted that there had been many more documents, testimonies, and legal arguments presented during the application review in front of the Board that had not been available at the time of the determination.
Mr. Psaras made a motion:
DECISION # ZBA 2020-01AV and ZBA 2020-01CA
DECISIONS FOR APPLICATION OF ALLISON MELISSA HOOTS AND SEAN MICHAEL HOOTS FOR AREA VARIANCE FOR 122 CATALPA LANE ZBA 2020 -01AV and APPEAL OF ROVIKA RAJKISHUN, DAVID AUSTERWEIL, JESSE MARCUS, MARYJEAN TOCCO and STEVEN TIFFANY OF CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS DETERMINATION FOR APPLICATION 20/018, January 22, 2020 ZBA 2020-01CA.
Location: 122 Catalpa Lane
S/B/L: 77.3-1-8
Zoning District: R-2
SEQR Type: Type II for Application and Appeal
Allison Melissa Hoots and Sean Michael Hoots (Applicants) applied to the Town of Rochester for a Class II home occupation for the proposed use of using “the space that is just under 800 sq. ft. of accessory building for private commercial music studio, consistent with a Class II home occupation – requiring are variance to fit musical instruments and equipment”.
The Code Enforcement Officer determined that the proposed use was not permitted as it is a Home Occupation Class II requiring an Area Variance as the proposal exceeds the 500 square feet of floor area set forth in Town of Rochester Code Section 140-19A.
The Applicants applied to this Zoning Board of Appeals for an area variance.
Thereafter neighbors living on Catalpa Lane Rovika Rajkishun, David Austerweil, Jesse Marcus, MaryJean Tocco, and Steven Tiffany (Appellants), appealed the decision of the Code Enforcement that this use is a Class II home occupation.
In this decision we will address both the application for area variance and the appeal of the Code Enforcement Officer’s decision as both are related and somewhat intertwined.
Documents reviewed for area variance:
Documents considered by the Zoning Board of Appeals for review:
1. 1-27-2020-Hoots-Area Variance-CEO Application
2. 1-27-2020-Hoots-Area Variance-dimensions
3. 1-27-2020-Hoots-Area Variance-dimensions (word file)
4. 02-06-2020-Hoots- Area Variance Application
5. 02-06-2020-Hoots-Area Variance- Exhibit 1-Dimensions
6. 02-06-2020-Hoots-Area Variance- Exhibit 2- Email Exchange 1
7. 02-06-2020-Hoots-Area Variance- Exhibit 3- Building Plans
8. 02-06-2020-Hoots-Area variance- Exhibit 4-Recording Studio Photos
9. 02-06-2020-Hoots-Area Variance- Exhibit 5-Zoning Permit
10. 02-06-2020-Hoots-Area Variance- Exhibit 6- Email Exchange 2
11. 02-06-2020-Hoots-Area Variance- Exhibit 7- Email Exchange 3
12. 02-06-2020-Hoots- Area Variance-Exhibit 8- Building Plans 2
13. 02-06-2020-Hoots- Area Variance-Exhibit 9- Noise Study
14. 02-06-2020-Hoots- Area Variance-Exhibit 10- Catalpa Lane Dues
15. 02-06-2020-Hoots-Area Variance- Exhibit 11- Catalpa Lane Minutes
16. 02-06-2020-Hoots- Area Variance-Exhibit 12- RMA
17. 02-06-2020-Hoots-Dimensions-Area Variance
18. 02-06-2020-Hoots-Narrative-Area variance
19. 03-04-2020-Purvis-Area Variance- Public Comments
20. 03-05-2020-Caplan-Hoots-Area Variance- Public Comments
21. 03-05-2020-Durante-Hoots-Area Variance- Public Comments
22. 03-06-2020-Firestone-Hoots-Area Variance-Public Comment
23. 03-06-2020-Medeski-Hoots-Area Variance- Public Comment
24. 04-13-2020-Catalpa Lane Association-Letter to ZBA-Public Comment
25. 04-14-2020-Catalpa Lane Association-Letter to ZBA- Follow Up Oppose-Public Comment
26. 04-15-2020- Eltson Letter to ZBA- Public Comment- Hoots Area Variance
27. 04-15-2020-Austerwell and Rajkishun-Ltter to ZBA-Hoots Area Variance- Public comment
28. 04-15-2020-Tocco letter to ZBA-Public Comment- Hoots Area Variance
29. 04-16-2020-Allison Hoots letter to ZBA-Area Variance Comment
30. 04-16-2020-Srigley-Public Comment- Hoots Area Variance
31. 04-16-2020-Steve Fornal Public Comment
32. 04-16-2020-Svenson letter to ZBA- Hoots Area Variance-Public Comment
33. 05-15-2020-Hoots- Statement from Sound Engineer-Area Variance
34. 05-18-2020-Hoots ltr to ZBA-With Exhibits re area variance-Hoots
35. 05-21-2020-Gailey Letter Re Hoots Area Variance and Appeal-Hoots
36. 06-01-2020-Hoots response to Svenson-Hoots-Appeal-Variance
37. 06-02-2020-Letter from Sound Expert-Hoots-Area Variance-Appeal
38. Hoots May 2020 Area Variance Ltr.Final
39. Hoots-Notice of Hearing
Documents reviewed for appeal of Code Enforcement Officers determination:
1. 03-26-2020-Letter from Svenson to ZBA-Hoots Appeal
2. 03-31-2020-Catalpa Lane Appeal-Hoots-CEO Records- Email
3. 03-31-2020-Catalpa Lane Appeal-Hoots-CEO Records-Zoning Determination and building dimensions
4. 04-07-2020-Catalpa Lane Appeal-Hoots- Allison Hoots Response-DBA Level chart
5. 04-07-2020-Catalpa Lane Appeal-Hoots- Allison Hoots Letter to ZBA
6. 004-07-2020-Catalpa Lane Appeal-Hoots- Allison Hoots Response-NY Times article 1
7. 04-07-2020-Catalpa Lane Appeal-Hoots- Allison Hoots Response-NY Times article 2
8. 04-07-2020-Catalpa Lane Appeal-Hoots- Allison Hoots response-Table of Noise levels
9. 04-07-2020-Catalpa Lane Appeal- Hoots-Allison Hoots response-Sound Study
10. 04-16-2020-Catalpa Lane Appeal-Hoots Variance-Signed representation letter
11. 05-21-2020-Austerweil Public Comment-Catalpa lane Appeal-Hoots
12. 05-21-2020-Svenson letter to ZBA-Catalpa Lane Appeal-Hoots
13. 05-29-2020-Svenson Letter to ZBA in response to Noise Study by Hoots-Appeal and Area Variance-Hoots (1)
14. 06-01-2020-Hoots response to Svenson-Hoots-Appeal-Variance (1)
15. 06-02-2020-Letter from Sound Expert-Hoots-Area Variance-Appeal
16. File and record of Code Enforcement Officer
Public hearings held on Variance application on: April 16, 2020 and May 21, 2020, and held open for a total of 10 days for additional submittals from Applicants’ attorney and neighboring property owners’ attorney for additional information regarding noise.
Public Hearing held on Appeal of Code Enforcement Officer’s decision held on: May 21, 2020, and held open for a total of 10 days for additional submittals from Applicants’ attorney and neighboring property owners’ attorney for additional information regarding noise.
Findings:
1.The applicants built a guest house with private recording studio on their property located at 122 Catalpa Lane in the Town of Rochester. The applicants’ residence is also located on the 122 Catalpa Lane property in a separate building.
2. Mr. Hoots is a musician and currently uses the music studio for his private projects.
3. The applicants now wish to utilize the private recording studio as a “private commercial music studio” as a Class II Home Occupation.
4. The Applicants have represented that musicians would come to the property to record music for a fee and that Applicant Sean Hoots would be involved in the music projects as producer and/or composer.
5. There could be more than one musician who comes to record at the studio at one time, in addition to Mr. Hoots.
6. The Applicant provided a noise study that showed that the studio did have sound proofing. That study demonstrated that is certain extreme circumstances it would be possible to hear noise at the property lines.
7. The Town of Rochester Zoning Code allows for Type II Home Occupations that do not exceed 500 square feet in area. The proposed studio is 784 square feet in size.
8. The Town of Rochester Zoning Code allows for Type III Home occupations that do not exceed 750 Square feet in area, but Commercial Recording Studios are not allowed as a Class 3 occupation in the R-2 District where this property is located.
DETERMINATION
1. APPEAL
Pursuant to Town of Rochester Code 140-66 In reviewing the decision of the code enforcement officer “The Zoning Board of Appeals may reverse or affirm, wholly or partly, or may modify the order, requirement, decision, interpretation or determination as in its opinion ought to have been made in the matter by the administrative official(s) charged with the enforcement of this chapter and to that end shall have all powers of the administrative official(s) from whose order, requirement, decision, interpretation or determination the appeal is taken.”
Zoning Code section 140-19A describes a Class II Home Occupation as “ A low-impact home based business or commercial activity administered or conducted as an accessory use that is clearly secondary to the use as a residential dwelling and does not significantly change the character thereof, involve the use as a residential dwelling and does not significantly change the character thereof, involve the use of mechanical equipment other than that customarily used for domestic purposes and involves no retail or services resulting in other than occasional and limited numbers of visitors”. In addition to the 500 square foot limitation from which Applicants seek a variance, the listed requirements include “ No more than one on-site employee other than family members residing in the dwelling”. This level of home occupation clearly calls for very limited visitation to the property
This board determines that the CEO incorrectly issued the determination that this is a Class II home occupation requiring an area variance. In reviewing this application evidence obtained during these proceedings show that the use of the property will result in multiple people coming to the property to use the proposed recording studio, and there is no limitation to when or how often these visitors or clients will utilize the studio. The evidence presented to this board by both the Applicants and the neighboring property owners lead to this Board’s determination that this proposed use does not fall into the description of a Class II occupation, but rather falls into the description of a Class III Home Occupation which does not have the restrictions of an occasional or limited number of visitors, allows for 2 employees who reside outside of the home, and allows a larger floor area. The Code does not however allow for Class III home occupations in the R-2 Zoning District where this property is located. Therefore the Applicants should have been classified as a Type III Home occupation and the application to the Code Enforcement Office should have been denied with the proviso that the applicant would need to obtain both a use variance and an area variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals in order to operate the commercial recording studio at the 122 Catalpa Lane location.
2. VARIANCE APPLICATION
While the overturning of the CEO’s decision could make the application for the area variance unnecessary, this board chooses to address same.
The Town of Rochester Zoning Code 140-66(c) provides as follows with respect to reviewing area variances:
In making its determination, the Zoning Board of Appeals shall take into consideration the benefit to the applicant if the variance is granted, as weighed against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community by such grant. In making such determination the Board of Appeals shall also consider:
(a)
Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance;
(b)
Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance;
(c)
Whether the requested area variance is substantial;
(d)
Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and
(e)
Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance.
In reviewing this application for an area variance the Zoning Board of Appeals finds:
(a) that the level of activity that is anticipated related to the proposed home occupation if this variance is granted will produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood by potential increases to traffic on a small private residential roadway, and potential for some noise escaping from the studio;
(b) that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by another method;
(c) The requested variance is quite substantial at an increase of 56.8% of the allowed square footage;
(d) the requested variance may have a small impact on the environmental conditions of the neighborhood in traffic increase and potential noise effects; and
(e) the hardship was self created, as admitted by the applicants during the review process.
Weighing the above factors, the requested variance is denied, due to the substantial nature of the request, the potential effect on the character and environment of the neighborhood; and the fact that the hardship was self created.
Therefore the determination of the Code Enforcement Officer is overturned and the application is deemed to be for a Type III home occupation. In order to use the property as a “private commercial recording studio” the applicant must obtain both a use and an area variance.
The application for area variance is denied for the reasons outline above.
Motion seconded by: Mr. Fischer
Vote: Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 0 Vacancies: 2
ROLL CALL:
Chair Mallery- Yes
Mr. Psaras- Yes
Mr. Fischer- Yes
Mr. Barringer- Yes
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
Chair Mallery stated the area variance had been denied and the appeal, granted. He stated the determination should have been a Home Occupation Class III which would have required a use variance and an area variance as it would exceed the square footage for a Type III.
There was no further discussion.
OTHER MATTERS:
-Accepting the regular meeting minutes of May 21st, 2020 and June 18th, 2020 regular meetings.
Mr. Psaras made the motion to table both the May 21st and June 18th, 2020 regular meeting minutes until the July 16th, 2020 meeting. Mr. Fischer seconded the motion.
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
4 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions, 2 vacancies.
Mr. Barringer stated that he wanted to discuss the matter of having paperwork from applicants into the Board in a resonable time span as he had noticed many applicants were getting their items in at the last minute and it didn’t give the Board members enough time to review.
Mr. Psaras agreed and stated there needed to be clear expectations, he knew there was a 2 week before each meeting suggestion, but people were taking their time and not getting items in at a timely manner.
Mr. Fischer stated even a week before meetings would be sufficient, but not a few days before.
Chair Mallery suggested having a notice attached to the applications stating they had 7 calender days to get items in before their matter was heard or they ran the risk of their application being delayed.
Mr. Barringer made the motion to have a notice attached to the applications where it stated and applicant had 7 calender days to get their items in to the ZBA to ensure their matter would be heard. Mr. Psaras seconded the motion.
Roll Call:
Chair Mallery- yes
Mr. Psaras- yes
Mr. Fischer- yes
Mr. Barringer- yes
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
4 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions, 2 vacancies.
ADJOURNMENT:
Mr. Baringer made the motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:42 pm. Mr. Fischer seconded the motion.
ROLL CALL:
Chair Mallery- Yes
Mr. Psaras- Yes
Mr. Fischer- Yes
Mr. Barringer- Yes
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
4 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions, 2 vacancies.
Respectfully Submitted,
Brianna Tetro, Secretary
Accepted January 21st, 2021