0-6-1 0 ayes, 6 nays, 1 abstention, roll call at 1:26:08Full pass and the re-transcription of 5275-5320 s (checker, 2026-10-19). A speaker who is not named said 'I will make a motion to determine whether this appeal is viable' (1:25:35); a speaker who is not named said 'yes would mean that you are in favor of the appeal. No would be voting to uphold the zoning officer's decision' (1:25:49 to 1:25:58); 'Can I get a second?' (1:26:05), no second heard. Roll call by a reader who is not named from 'Vice Chair Araujo' (1:26:08): Araujo 'I'm going to abstain' (1:26:25 and 1:26:44, 'abstain' p 1.00); Czaplicki 'I'm going to vote no' (1:28:01, p 0.98) and 'No on the appeal' (1:28:07); Shedeed called (1:28:10) with no answer heard in either pass; DiAngelo 'No' (1:28:17; full pass p 0.29, re-transcription p 0.53); Coviello 'No' (p 0.99); Burns 'No' (p 0.99); Chair Coyle 'No' (p 0.99). Announced 'Appeal fails, six noes, one abstain' (1:28:09): seven members were called, five noes and one abstention heard, so Shedeed's no is filled from the count. Patel was not called (not voting tonight, as said at 0:01:12). Allen was not called. RESO Z2026-0015 on EnerGov (date of hearing May 7, 2026; memorialized June 4, 2026), p. 7: 'MOTION TO DENY THE APPEAL VOTE: MOTION IS APPROVED 6-0-1', Yes for Coyle, Shedeed, Burns, Coviello, DiAngelo and Czaplicki, Araujo abstain; p. 1: 'Six Board Commissioners voted that the appeal was not viable and one Commissioner abstained.' The resolution records the six as yes on a motion to deny; the video records them as no on the appeal; held (see needs_checking). The question was put on the video as 'yes means in favor of the appeal' (1:25:49), and six members answered no; the resolution (RESO Z2026-0015) records the same six as yes on a 'motion to deny the appeal', 6-0-1, Araujo abstaining. Same outcome and members, opposite framing. Published as heard on Adam Hanford's review of 2026-10-20.