ZBA Minutes – June 2019

(845) 626-2434

MINUTES of the June 20th, 2019 Town of Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals, held at the Harold Lipton Community Center, Accord, NY.

Chairman Mallery called the meeting to order at 7:00PM.

Chairman Mallery recited the Pledge to the Flag.

Cliff Mallery, Chair Bruce Psaras
Steven Fornal, Vice Chair
Erin Enouen
Charles Fischer

Also present:
Mary Lou Christiana, Attorney. William Barringer, Alternate. Brianna Tetro, Secretary.

2019-04 ZBA
Appeal of Zoning Determination
122 Catalpa Ln.
Permit #18/177
-Recording studio under construction violates Town Code.

Ms. Emily Svenson, Attorney was present on behalf of the application.

Chair Mallery said he had seen one letter stating Ms. Svenson was acting on behalf of Ms. Rovika Rakishun but asked if she was representing others.

Ms. Svenson stated she was representing a total of 22 residents who had signed the original complaint letter on Catalpa Lane including Rovika Rakishun who was listed as the appellant on the application.

Chair Mallery stated Ms. Svenson would need to provide the Board with something in writing from all 22 people she said she was representing which stated Ms. Svenson was acting on their behalf.

Attorney Christiana stated that Ms. Svenson could continue because she had a letter from Ms. Rakishun stating Ms. Svenson was representing her but going forward if Ms. Svenson was representing more, every one had to authorize that Ms. Svenson would be acting on their behalf.

Ms. Svenson explained that the essential problem was the construction of a 4100 sq ft building on the end of Catalpa Lane which was being constructed as a commercial recording studio. She said this was a problem for the neighborhood as there was concerned about the noise, the additional traffic, and the change to the character of their neighborhood by this commercial use located in a quiet residential area where it was not allowed. She stated the property owner characterized the project as residential in order to get the permits, so the neighbors had no notice and no opportunity for input and they didn’t even know about this at all until the building started going up. Ms. Svenson said the building should not have happened because a recording studio was not allowed in an R-2 zoning district and the 22 residents submitted a complaint and then Ms. Svenson followed it with a letter to the Building Inspector, complaining of the zoning violation. She stated the Building Inspector promptly looked into the violation and issued a response but Ms. Svenson stated he got it wrong and that was why they were asking the Board to look at the evidence and determine the recording studio violated the Zoning Code and under Town Law #267-B the ZBA has the power to make a fresh decision. She stated what she wanted to do was walk the Board through the information of the appeal:

Ms. Svenson said the main question was, what was the facility? She stated it was a recording studio and there was a lot of evidence there to show that. She said that a recording studio was defined in the Town Code as “a facility for conducting sound, film, or video recordings.” which, Ms. Svenson stated, was exactly what this building was being built for. She stated when they made their application for their zoning permit, the owners listed the use as a guest house/studio but that really wasn’t what it was as it was clearly a recording studio. She went through the evidence provided for the appeal beginning with; the plans submitted to Town which was labeled a seven sided section building as a music studio with two small rooms labeled isolation booth, which was exhibit D. She stated the Architect’s website which was screenshotted and attached as exhibit E, it described the building as Malum-Malum’s two connected structures including a two bedroom guest house and a music studio designed with seven sides to increase the acoustic quality of the space. Ms. Svenson stated that even more directly, exhibit F was an email from the property owner to the neighbors where she described the project as there would be music being performed and recorded, and in the property owner’s email to the Town which was exhibit C the property owner said that they would have folks coming to record. Ms. Svenson said all of this showed that the purpose of the building was a recording studio, it was being built to make music recordings which was the definition of what a recording studio was. She stated recording studios are allowed in parts of the Town of Rochester it was allowed in the Business District, the Residential Agricultural District, and the Agricultural and Business Industrial Districts, but it was not allowed in an R-2 zoned district. Ms. Svenson said the Town Board made that decision when they wrote the zoning code that the right places for music studios were certain districts and not R-2 where people were trying to live quiet, residential lives.

Ms. Svenson said the property owners were trying to make the excuse that it was a residential use but Ms. Svenson said that it wasn’t; it was a commercial business use and she had a number of pieces of evidence to support that. She explained that exhibit G was a print out from the Department of State Website that the property owners, Mr. and Mrs. Hoots, registered Malum-Malum studio as an LLC. She noted there was social media postings in exhibit H that the Hoots were starting a music studio business from the ground up. She explained exhibit I had an Instagram posting for Malum-Malum Studios that showed a floor plan for the studio with an area labeled “client seating”. Ms. Svenson stated this meant that they would only have client seating if they were intending to have customers come in and it wasn’t something that someone would have in their home. She stated in Mrs. Hoots email to her neighbors, Ms. Hoots had stated that the studio was intended for both personal and commercial use and that was exhibit F. She said after there was a complaint to the building inspector, the building department contacted the Hoots to understand their plans for the building and the building inspector received back an email, which was exhibit C, and in the email the property owners had reiterated “when neighbors had asked us if we planned to use the music studio for personal or commercial use we answered honestly and broadly both. Sean’s music studio will have folks come and record from time to time. However, Sean will be mostly working on personal projects, what we meant is that Sean is a musician by occupation and does make money doing so.” Ms. Svenson said they went on to state it would not be a commercial building but the problem was that working in the building would earn Mr. Hoots’ money and therefore it was a commercial use. She stated the zoning code actually defined commercial use as: “Any wholesale, retail, or service business activity established to carry on trade for profit, which activity is specifically listed as a separate and distinct non-residential use of Schedule of District Regulations.” She stated that would then list the recording studio as a separate use. She said the property owners were saying they were using this building to record music, for work as a business, so that would make it a commercial recording studio and that wasn’t allowed in that zoning district and it really should have never gotten to that point. Ms. Svenson stated the building inspector was misled to believe that this was just a studio of some kind and issued the zoning permit and then gave the permits for the building and now there was a 4100 sq. ft building at the end of a dirt lane that was acting as a recording studio which was a direct violation of the zoning code. She said the neighbors had unfortunately been denied their rights by the fact that they never received notice of the building being used as a recording studio. She explained that if it was to be allowed it would need a zoning variance, go to the ZBA, the ZBA would have to have a public hearing, the neighbors would have a chance to come in and the ZBA could place conditions on the approval. Ms. Svenson said none of that happened and the neighbors didn’t have any opportunity for input. She noted that there could be an argument that it could be classified as a Home Occupation but it didn’t meet the criteria for a Home Occupation because the area involved was too large for a Class I Home Occupation, as that would mean it could only occupy 2500 sq ft and a Class II was 500 sq ft and the recording studio was far larger than that. She said even if it were able to get a Home Occupation it would have to go to the Planning Board as a Site Plan so the neighbors would still get to have input and go through all the requirements and criteria. She stated they were asking the ZBA to step in and put a stop to the construction because it was in clear violation of the zoning code. Ms. Svenson stated they wanted the ZBA to declare the building as a recording studio which was not allowed in the R-2 zoning district and revoke the building and zoning permits for the building.

Chair Mallery asked if the building was complete.

Ms. Svenson said no it was not complete.

Chair Mallery asked if construction was completed.
Ms. Svenson said she couldn’t answer that.

Mrs. Allison Hoots- the home owner- spoke from the audience and stated that yes, it was complete and they had just started on the floors and on the cabinets.

Chair Mallery asked the walls were up and the flooring was being done, that it was all interior construction going on at the moment.

Mrs. Hoots said the flooring was being put in that week and the building was sealed.

Chair Mallery asked if it had been used yet.

Mrs. Hoots stated it had not been used.

Mr. Fornal noted that the original building permit was issued in June 2018 and stated the Board had received an email from Mr. and Mrs. Hoots attorney, J. Benjamin Gailey of Jacobwitz and Gubits late that afternoon and that they had brought up a series of emails going back and forth between and property owner and the people on the road . He stated in the email the neighbors and the property owner were discussing the building and that was back in October 2018, he asked if it was factual.

Ms. Svenson stated she didn’t have that information as she had not seen the email from Mr. Gailey.

Chair Mallery asked if Ms. Svenson had been copied on that email.

Ms. Svenson said no, she had not seen the email and it had not been sent to her.

Chair Mallery stated essentially what Mr. Gailey had said was that the appeal was time barred because the building permit had been issued in June 2018 and a second building permit had been issued in October 2018 so the 60 days from October had expired.

Ms. Svenson said they weren’t appealing the permit they were appealing their complaint to the building inspector of an existing zoning violation so there was no barred on that since it was ongoing.

Attorney Christiana clarified with Ms. Svenson that the appeal was the Code Enforcement’s determination that there was no violation.

Ms. Svenson said that was correct.

Chair Mallery said this appeal was for the use of the building.

Ms. Svenson stated that was accurate.

Chair Mallery noted the building that hadn’t been used yet.

Ms. Svenson said it was clear what it was going to be used for.

Chair Mallery said it looked like it was a two story building and it looked like there was more than one use for the building. He stated there was a guest house, some sort of art studio so from the exhibits that Ms. Svenson had submitted it was clear that there was going to more than one use for the building.

Ms. Svenson stated her understanding was that it was built in two sections one was residential and the other, at least half, was the seven sided component that was being built as a recording studio.

Mrs. Hoots asked if she could speak to clarify what Ms. Svenson had stated.

The Board said she could speak.

Mrs. Hoots said less than 25% of the building was the music studio, 25% was an apartment and 50% was a 500 sq ft office once it was approved by the Town and they intended to apply for a Home Occupation Class II for the office upon approval and the basement of the building was why the permit was revised.

Chair Mallery asked including the basement there were three separate floors,

Mrs. Hoots stated yes.

Chair Mallery asked the 25% Mrs. Hoots had stated would be for the music studio, that was 25% of about 4,000 sq. ft.

Mrs. Hoots said it was 900 sq ft.

Ms. Svenson noted that the Class II Home Occupations can only be 500 sq ft. and Class III Home Occupations are not allowed in the R-2 district.

Chair Mallery stated if the building hadn’t been used yet then it hadn’t been used commercially.

Ms. Svenson said it was being constructed for a commercial use.

Chair Mallery asked if there was any evidence that they were leasing the building for recording uses or recording tenants, he said to explain to him how it was going to be used commercially.

Ms. Svenson said the statements that Mrs. Hoots had provided to the neighbors said Mr. Hoots would be recording music with other people as a business which meant people coming in and out on a small dirt lane, deliveries, and all that went along with that.

Chair Mallery stated that suppose he was a writer and he built a guest house and he put in a library, computer, book shelves, and he used that to write and nothing ever got published but he would have loved to sell something, that wasn’t really commercial use was it.

Ms. Svenson stated that she believed that would be a Home Occupation and if it was a small area less than 250 sq ft and he didn’t have any customers, clients, patients, and there were no patients coming in and out and it was within his dwelling than a Class I Home Occupation was allowed without any permits.

Chair Mallery asked was the issue the size of the studio.

Ms. Svenson said yes and the commercial use because they intended to have people coming in and out, it was a music studio which was purposely only allowed in certain zoning districts because of the noise.

Chair Mallery stated what he understood was Mr. Hoots was a musician and he was able to hold practices and suppose He, as in Chair Mallery, had a garage and his child played the drums and he had friends come over and they make a recording and try to sell it. He asked could he not allow his son to do that because it was a commercial use?

Ms. Svenson said she understood there could be a sliding scale but this was a 4000 sq ft building on the end of a lane in a quiet residential area and it was clearly beyond what the tolerable limit was.

Mr. Fornal said that typically recording studios are commercial because they charge by the hour.

Ms. Svenson stated that if the Board read the social media post labeled exhibit H, where the home owner had responded to a comment where someone had stated “Tell me about this music studio?” and Mrs. Hoots had responded, “We’re building it. It has seven sides and we hired an acoustic engineer so its legit.”
Ms. Svenson went on to state the other person said “So many music studios are shutting down I admire the contrarian ambition. Hope to send you some business. Look forward to hearing it’s up and running.” She said Mrs. Hoots responded with: “The larger studios are shutting down, but that’s because smaller studios are opening and able to do much more without all the cost burdens. The said, Contrarian Ambition sounds like a great album title and we would love to work with you to make it.” The other person then stated, “Doug’s quartet will be back East in March. Will you be up and running?” Ms. Svenson said Mrs. Hoots stated, “By March, probably not. We are hoping for a May opening if things go well. I will be certain to let you know so you can come for a tour and start promoting for us.” Ms. Svenson concluded that it sounded like a commercial enterprise.

Chair Mallery said he noticed there was a hand written note on the Instagram posts that said 12/7/18 and he asked if that was the date they were posted.

Ms. Svenson said that was the date they were printed.

Chair Mallery said he wanted to know when they were posted.

Ms. Svenson said they were posted on or around that time.

Chair Mallery stated he wanted to know when they were posted.

Mrs. Hoots stated they were posted December 5th, 2018.

Ms. Svenson said she understood the problem of how would they know it was commercial until it was actually operated but the problem with that approach was that they couldn’t go back and change the site and the ZBA needed to step in before the site was designed and built there would be no opportunity now to change the landscaping, parking, or things like that once it was already built. She stated That was why back in March they asked the building inspector to step in and stop the construction.

Chair Mallery said but it was now almost completely built.

Ms. Svenson said that it was but people shouldn’t be allowed to get away with it because it was built.

Chair Mallery asked what she was purposing to be the remedy.

Ms. Svenson said it should be removed, taken down as it was not allowed to be in that district unless it got a variance from the ZBA. She said there may be middle ground, she didn’t know, but that was the rule that everyone else in the Town needed to follow.

Chair Mallery asked for clarification that Ms. Svenson was seeking an order for this building to be taken down.

Ms. Svenson stated they were looking for the order to state the use was not allowed and that the building and zoning permits be revoked and if the property owner wanted to go back and apply for a variance then they may. ‘

Chair Mallery stated what if it ended up being used as only a guest house or an art studio?

Ms. Svenson said maybe there would need to be a way to document that.

Chair Mallery said there was a section of the law that dealt with mediation and he didn’t know if Ms. Svenson was familiar with it but he wanted to know had there been any indication that the parties could get together and work something out as it was sort of anticipatory at the moment, they were anticipating a breach of the zoning laws but it hadn’t happened. He stated they built a building but it hadn’t been used yet, so wouldn’t it be a good time for both the parties to come to some sort of agreement that would solve the problem short of tearing the building down.

Ms. Svenson stated her clients would be open to that but so far there had been no communication on the part of the people building.

Chair Mallery said they had an appeal and the Board always tried to find ways to compromise or find a solution and that was what mediation was for, to get the parties together to come up with some sort of agreement and would avoid having the Board make the decision.

Ms. Svenson said they were open to discussing it but it didn’t seem fair to the neighbors who were living and abiding by the law to have to come up with a compromise when there was a clear violation of the law by the property owners of the building.

Chair Mallery stated that it wasn’t in violation as of yet, there was a building.

Ms. Svenson stated anytime someone was building something it was being built for a purpose and the neighbors knew what purpose the building in question was.

Chair Mallery said he had seen many buildings built and then not used for the initial purpose.

Ms. Svenson stated that didn’t mean they could be built with the intention that the building may not be used for the initial purpose. She said someone couldn’t a build a McDonalds and then state that they weren’t going to use it for that purpose.

Chair Mallery asked why not. He stated someone could build one, find out they couldn’t have it be used as a McDonald, and so they’d have a building and they could use it for another purpose.

Ms. Svenson said that wasn’t how building permits work and there had to be a determination before the building went up to know that it was permitted in that area before the building permit could be issued.

Attorney Christiana stated she believed that the building inspector did that.

Ms. Svenson said he got it wrong.

Attorney Christiana stated she didn’t think that was the case and she was concerned with the statute of limitations especially seeing as it was something that was suspected on at least December 7th, 2018 and they should have appealed at that point as it was now half a year later.

Ms. Svenson stated they had wrote to the building inspector in March 2019.

Attorney Christiana stated even that was after the time to appeal had passed, 60 days from December would have been February.

Chair Mallery stated at some point ground was broken and someone had an inkling on what may have been going on and shouldn’t someone at the point said there was a problem and taken the steps, at that point, to stop everything or because there was never a problem brought up at that point, the landowner went ahead and completed the building without knowing that there was an appeal, because no one had said anything to the land owner.

Chair Mallery said that Ms. Svenson needed to look at the letter from Mr. and Mrs. Hoots’ attorney and respond to it as it was unfair for the Board to ask her to address something that she hadn’t even seen.

Mrs. Hoots stated she was only notified of the appeal two days prior and as an additional point she stated emails had been exchanged since last April about what they intended to do.

Chair Mallery asked Mrs. Hoots if she was referring to April of 2018.

Mrs. Hoots said yes and the emails were exchanged with the neighbors and with the road association about what they were doing and what the purpose of the building was going to be used for and in October 2018 when they received the permit they had told everyone what the building was going to be used for and that was the email they had attached in the appeal response.

A few members of the public who were a part of the appeal spoke and stated they didn’t know anything about what was going on with the building.

Chair Mallery stated that Ms. Svenson was their attorney and so the Board was behalf of one if not all of the concerned residents of the road and that it was unfair that Ms. Svenson hadn’t seen the other attorney’s letter and he wanted her to have an opportunity to respond to that and it may be that one or all of them knew about what was going on with the building in question, but the Board didn’t know that.

A member of the public stated that a group of the neighbors had come down to the building inspector office and stated they were concerned about what was going on and were told they needed to put everything in writing and they were willing to provide sworn testimonies that they had come down and voice their concerns before all of the construction happened.

Ms. Svenson said that was true and that they had been told that building would never be allowed in an R-2 zoned district.

The president of the road association on Catalpa Lane said that he had heard a lot of complaints from not only the people on the road but the roads behind where the building was being put up and they had also come to the building inspector and complained but they hadn’t fully grasped what was really going on and that he understood the Board was looking at time stamps, etc but he stated no one had really understood until the building was going up what exactly it was going to be. He stated that they were told they needed to provide proof and they had, 22 people had given evidence, and they were told it was just going to be personal use, not commercial but it was getting bigger and bigger and that there were still trucks going up and bringing building materials, etc.

Attorney Christiana stated what she recommended was that since there was a letter from Jacobwitz and Gubits and the neighbor’s attorney has not had the opportunity to look at it, and the Board really hadn’t been able to look at it either because it had come so late in the day, she stated she wanted to recommend, since there was this issue with statues of limitations and weather that applies or not that the Board table the application until the July meeting and it would give Ms. Svenson a chance to respond to the letter from the home owner’s attorney and the Board may want to ask the attorney for the Hoots family to come in and then the Board could decide to schedule a public hearing for the violation that was alleged that the Code Enforcement Officer said was not a violation and that would give Ms. Svenson time to respond.

Ms. Svenson stated that would be great since now they understood the time issue they could have time to provide the Board with all the information about what happened and when.

Mr. Hoots spoke and stated he liked the idea of mediation and that he felt the determination of use had been clouded a bit and no one was clear on what exactly his intention was for the building and at what point would they move down that road to mediation and he would love to talk to everyone and they had tried to set up something before but everyone’s dates didn’t work which was fine but he would love to work toward that route as he would love to clarify his intentions for the building. He stated he had never wanted to have a commercial studio and he didn’t want anyone going down the private road any more than anyone else did and it was primarily for himself.

Attorney Christiana stated that within the month between meetings the attorneys for both parties could get together and try to figure everything out and if everyone came back to the Board next month and said they were happy, then the Board would be so happy as well.

Chair Mallery said they could reduce this to some sort of agreement where the violation of which would be actionable.

Ms. Svenson said possibly.

Attorney Christiana said that was up to Ms. Svenson to speak to her clients about and in the meantime they would table it for a month and the Board secretary would send Ms. Svenson the letter from Jacobwitz and Gubits.

A member of the public said they would only be happy with a public hearing because they wanted it on public record about what had happened in case there was a violation.

Chair Mallery said yes, they understood the proposal was a public hearing.

Ms. Svenson asked would that be something scheduled at the July meeting.

Attorney Christiana stated the Board would determine in July weather there was a statute of limitations or weather the Board will go forward with the public hearing on the violation portion from April 2019.

Ms. Svenson said okay, but they really wanted a public hearing.

Attorney Christiana said the Board wasn’t ready to make that decision as they had just received the letter from Mr. and Mrs. Hoots attorney and she understood that was what Ms. Svenson and her client were asking for.

Ms. Enouen stated the Board had to schedule the public hearing at a meeting as they didn’t meet outside of the regular scheduled meetings.

Chair Mallery stated the proposal was they table further discussion until July at which time they would want to hear from everyone including the Hoots and the group who were appealing, possibly the Code Enforcement Officer and have public testimony.

Attorney Christiana said that would be a public hearing so if they were ready to schedule that, it was fine, but what Chair Mallery was explaining sounded like a public hearing.

Ms. Svenson said maybe that was the way to go then, as the Board could see everyone had all come out for the meeting and the wanted their say.

Mrs. Hoots spoke and stated that everything they were doing in regards to the building was legal however, she understood the issue was with it was being used for, she stated she had asked Jerry about applying for a Class II Home Occupation before the building went up and he said no, the building was built and then they would apply for a Site Plan and in that process there would be a public hearing and she stated they intended to apply for the Home Occupation Class II and she didn’t feel there was a need for a public hearing in front of the ZBA because she and her husband had given the neighbors notice about what was going on and that she didn’t believe they didn’t follow the rules for the building permit but if that was true and time had lapsed, to ask them to tear a building down that could be used for other uses should they not get the permit they wanted was unjust.

Ms. Svenson said a Home Occupation Class II only was allowed for 500 sq ft and this was 900 sq ft.

Mrs. Hoots said there were area variances that they would apply for that would allow it.

Ms. Svenson said that all should have been done in advanced.

Mrs. Hoots said no, it wasn’t done in advanced, and she had asked the Code Enforcement Officer.

Chair Mallery said as long as it hadn’t been used then there was not a violation, that was the way it worked.

Ms. Svenson said that wasn’t how it worked and they had to apply for the use and get the zoning permit before it was built.

Chair Mallery stated you had to apply for the use, the variance use, before it was used in a certain way but if the building hadn’t been used as of yet, it seemed to him it could be timely.

Attorney Christiana read the letter that was being appealed from Jerry Davis, Code Enforcement Officer, which was a response to a letter from the residents dated 3-28-2019 : “Please be advised that the matter has been investigated and no current violations have been found.” And it went to state” Mr. and Mrs. Hoots have applied and been granted the above mentioned building permit for their own personal legal use should they wish to change the use in the future they would need to apply in this office to do so.” Attorney Christiana stated his determination was that there were no current violations and that was what would be presented to the Board, weather there were any current violations, that was what the appeal was about.

Ms. Svenson acknowledged that was correct.

Attorney Christiana said if the Board decided to have a public hearing that would be what it would be on, the letter stating there were no current violations.

Ms. Enouen said if the Board was in agreement on that was what they wanted to discuss at the next meeting, they could schedule the public hearing at the moment.

Attorney Christiana said that was correct.

Ms. Svenson said there was a provision that when there was an appeal in front of the ZBA that there would be a public hearing.

Attorney Christiana said as long as it wasn’t time barred.

Mr. Fornal said that was why Ms. Svenson had to see the letter from Mr. and Mrs. Hoots attorney and then respond before the Board moved ahead.

Attorney Christiana asked if the Board was ready to schedule a public hearing.

Mr. Fornal said no, he wanted Ms. Svenson to see the letter and then respond.

Ms. Svenson asked if then they would schedule the public hearing after that

Mr. Fornal said the Board would then decide what they wanted to do and if they decided to go forward the public hearing would be scheduled at the next meeting.

A member of the public asked what happened between the time of one meeting to the next, were the home owners not allowed to use the property as they wanted for the moment.

Mr. Fornal said no, they could continue.

Chair Mallery stated as long as they didn’t violate any of the laws.

Ms. Enouen said if they did violate the laws then that would be something the Board would be able to consider.

A member of the public asked if they could still continue the construction that they were doing.

Attorney Christiana acknowledged that they could continue construction.

Chair Mallery said the building was up and the work at the moment was interior work, if it ultimately ended up just being a guest house then there was not an issue.

The member of the public said that was right but they didn’t have any way to know that was what was going on, what were they supposed to do, Stare in their windows?

Attorney Christiana said they had their attorney who could advise them on how to go about what they want to do, but the Board couldn’t do that for them.

Ms. Svenson wanted clarification on what would be discussed in July.

Chair Mallery said they would discuss the issue of time barred and depending on how that went they may then schedule a public hearing.

Mr. Fornal made the motion to table the application until the July 18th, 2019 regular scheduled meeting. Mr. Fischer seconded the motion.
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
4 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions.


Mr. Fornal made the motion to accept the minutes from the May 2019 meeting. Ms. Enouen seconded the motion.
Motion carried.
3 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 1 abstentions


Mr. Fornal made the motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:49pm. Ms. Enouen seconded the motion.
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
4 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions.

Respectfully Submitted,

Brianna Tetro, Secretary