June 6, 2018

Referring to Exhibit A-1, Mr. Tsapatsaris described the proposed architecture. The exterior facade would be a stucco finish, more glass along the front and sides, a new-shingled roof and 3 ft. overhang on the northwest side that would taper to give architectural interest. He stated the existing marble accents would be removed. Mr. Tsapatsaris addressed Mr. Keller’s Technical Review memorandum (dated 6/1/18) and Mr. Grygiel’s Planner’s Report (dated 5/31/18). Mr. Tsapatsaris discussed the Applicant’s request for variance relief; he stated he agreed with Mr. Grygiel’s analysis for variance relief. He indicated that to eliminate Section 25- 12.1.p minimum number of trees in parking lot, the Applicant would install two trees in the parking lot. SECTION REQUIRED EXISTING PROPOSED 25-7.1 Minimum side yard setback 6 ft. 4.25 ft. 4.25 ft. to addition 25-7.1 Maximum lot coverage 75% 100% 98.4% 25-12.1.b Minimum parking space 5 ft.) Not provided Oft. setback from structures 25-12.1.h Minimum parking aisle width 24 ft. 12.69 ft. 12.69 ft. minimum, 22 ft.|minimum, 22 ft. typical typical 25-12.1.p Minimum number of trees in 2 (1 per 10 0 1 parking lot spaces) 25-12.2 Minimum parking spaces 22 13 20 25-12.3.a.1 Minimum loading space size 10 ft. by 40 none 10 ft. by 35 ft, ft. 25-14.2 Minimum levels of illumination for 2.0 Not provided | 1.3 footcandles parking areas footcandles average In response to inquiry from Mr. Cutone regarding hardship variance for the shape of property, Mr. Tsapatsaris described the trapezoid shape of the lot. He opined the request for variance relief was justified. Mr. Dwyer noted that Mr. Tsapatsaris was not a licensed professional planner. Vice Chairman Weston stated that Mr. Tsapatsaris was a licensed engineer and architect; it was usual for a licensed planner to testify; asked if it was within the purview of the Board to waive testimony from a licensed professional planner regarding the Applicant's “C” variances. Mr. Dwyer stated the Board typically heard testimony from a licensed planner for commercial applications with variances; the Board could choice to weigh or waive the witness testimony. Chairman Bagoff stated Mr. Tsapatsaris was familiar with the topography of the site; the Board could weigh his testimony as an engineer and architect. Mr. Grygiel stated the ordinance required the Applicant to submit a Planner’s Report from a

familiar with the topography of the site; the Board could weigh his testimony as an engineer and architect. Mr. Grygiel stated the ordinance required the Applicant to submit a Planner’s Report from a licensed professional planner for “D” variance relief; he stated that while it was customary for the Board to hear testimony from a licensed planner for variance relief, the ordinance was silent on the issue regarding “C” variances. He noted the property was