ZBA Minutes - March 15, 2005

Mount Kisco Zoning Board of Appeals

Minutes

Tuesday March 15, 2005 7:30 p.m.

Mount Kisco Village Hall

Donald Rose: I would like to call the March 15, 2005 meeting to order at 7:30p.m. At the Municipal Building Mount Kisco, New York

Members Present: Don Rose

Robert Marino

Mickey Zucker

Harold Boxer

Members Absent:

Max Lippolis

Karen Schleimer

Staff Present: Mr. John Donahue

Austin Cassidy

Donald Rose: I am serving as chair of the Zoning Board of Appeals for tonight in the town of Mount Kisco. We will open the meeting at 7:40 p.m. The first item will be the minutes from the January 18, 2005 meeting of the ZBA. I was not present at that meeting so I will be unable to vote. Are there any comments or corrections?

Austin Cassidy: We have a few members that are here tonight, were they participating in that meeting?

Nancy Placona: Yes.

Austin Cassidy: Ok.

Donald Rose: Do we have a motion to approve the minutes?

Robert Marino: I move that we approve the minutes.

Mickey Zucker: Second.

Board All Ayes.

Donald Rose: The first case, tonight we have two cases. The first case is a variance from applicants Lisa Abzun. They would like to add to their house and this being a 5 foot intrusion on the required side lot. The impact is legal. I guess it was there before the zoning laws.

Lisa Abzun: Yes.

Donald Rose: The present plans would enlarge the area of the setback as well as other places. Therefore the application for a permit was denied and they are appealing.

Lisa Abzun - 145 Croton Avenue

Lisa Abzun the applicant and Peter Cole Architect for the applicant.

Donald Rose: For the record I assume that all the posting and mailing requirements have been completed.

Lisa Abzun: Green Cards from mailing turned over for the record.

We have a two family home. I have brought some photographs here for the board. We are attempting to make our home larger. The reason being we have a larger family. We need extra room as well as a larger kitchen and family sitting room is planned.

Donald Rose: Now other members of the board I think have had a chance to review the drawings and may have some questions. Certainly you might begin by inquiring as to what efforts were made to try and to avoid calling for the variance.

Lisa Abzun: The other side of our home is adjacent to the Saw Mill Parkway and we have a bedroom on that side and it is quite noisy. Although there is no truck traffic it is still very noisy. (Drawings being opened in auditable) Also the other side of the house is very damp and that is one of the major reasons why we did not want to extend our home any further on that side. We knew it would probably be damaged in the years to come. It just wasn't sunny enough or suitable for the intended addition.

Peter Cole: Also the remainder of the second floor spaces is still being utilized for the bedrooms that are presently there. We needed to lay out additional space without expanding the footprint any more than necessary was to take advantage of the open space that hadn't been constructed as it appears over the garage.

Robert Marino: Just so I am clear, what we are talking about as far as the variance goes. (Viewing of drawing)

Peter Cole: The house is on an angle; actually the back of the garage is only 13.45. We are a foot and half here where it starts. By the time you get here it is 10.28. The average of what we are really talking about is 3 ½ feet. The way Mount Kisco code reads you take it at the nearest point. The need for the variance diminishes as you work your way back.

Robert Marino: I noticed while viewing the package that there are some letters here urging the approval of the variance, from James and Jutter Rubin 108 Willets Road and Anthony and Barbara Cutri 137 Croton Avenue and Nina Cameron 118 Croton Avenue. Can you tell me the relation to your home where those folks reside?

Lisa Abzun: The Rubin's live directly in back of me. The Cutri's live directly adjacent to where the addition will be.

Robert Marino: So it would be the Cutri's that would be mostly effective if anyone.

Lisa Abzun: Yes. Nina Cameron lives across the street. It is set much further back from the road. She is not really directly affected at all.

Robert Marino: On the other side of this is the parkway.

Mickey Zucker: Can you explain where the existing house is right now?

(Viewing drawings) At this point in time this is one level?

Peter Cole: The additional space that is referred to the back we decided to recess so we could avoid having a larger variance. Since this was original construction foundation walls.

Mickey Zucker: That already exists on one side. Thank You.

Donald Rose: If we were to engage in descriptive geometry looking at the side elevation and imagining the boundary line 15 foot setback coming down vertically through this. The house is at an angle to the property line we would have at the intersection that would something like this, it would angle down.

Peter Cole: I think in doesn't go down it just moves out at you. The one thing I did do in designing it was I turned if you look at the front elevation. You can see that I designed this façade with gable end to the side. So that that what we call the wall plate is at 5 feet. So that you don't have this full two story high façade in the area where we have the variance. Except for the door that is going in here. If we had turned the gable the other way this would have been larger looming higher. We also brought the roof line down. Many houses would have a full two story floor and then the roof would come in above it. So that we could minimize the impact of the side neighbor. We actually brought the ceiling in 5 feet off the floor at these points. We would like to make the house in scale to what was there before and in scale to what is in the neighborhood. It is not nearly as tall as what you could do under the standard zoning requirements of the district.

Donald Rose: Looking at this existing is it just the angle it almost seems this is a little unsymmetrical?

Peter Cole: No it is symmetrical.

Lisa Abzun: It is a little bit.

Donald Rose: Is it possible that this is a one car garage?

Lisa Abzun: No that is how it was originally built.

Donald Rose: It was originally built that way.

Lisa Abzun: Yes.

Peter Cole: That is the farmhouse style where you have one of the parts of the gable on the inside shorter then it goes down.

Donald Rose: Your proposed addition you would have a similar roof line just another 5 feet higher.

Peter Cole: Correct.

Lisa Abzun: We also have some nice trees that we certainly would not want to effect. We want to keep the trees and keep the house as low as possible. I grew up in this neighborhood and I would not want to disturb the neighborhood nor do I want to mess too much with my home. I do need to make it bigger.

Donald Rose: If the roof line over the garage were not to be effected.

Peter Cole: Drawings being viewed.

Lisa Abzun: Most of my laundry is generated from the second floor. With four girls it will increase.

Donald Rose: I am sure the existing kitchen in the house is relatively compact in square feet.

Peter Cole: Particularly on the first floor there is no available space to provide the kind of facility. As you can see the size of the bedroom that we proposed is small compared to what you see in homes that are being built.

Donald Rose: There is also a slight intrusion of the chimney that would be built?

Peter Cole: Yes. Again less than other part of the variance so I dimensioned everything.

Donald Rose: Technically I am not sure if counsel can correct us. I don't know if we need a separate mention of the chimney. Would it be involved with the variance?

Austin Cassidy: The way it was drawn it looked almost tangential to the setback line. It wasn't separately called out not that it would be because the phrasing I believed I used “multiple additions”. So that was somewhat encompassing of all elements there too. You are correct there are allowed. I was trying to think of the phrasing cornices bo-cornouses and some other projecting element to intrude minimally like a foot to eighteen inches. In specific circumstances into a setback and I will look it up while you're discussing.

Peter Cole: I do not think I am any further than 18 inches.

Donald Rose: We should note on the preliminary site plan it look almost tangential to the setback line. On the first floor plan.

Peter Cole: I would get that when we survey that.

Donald Rose: Is this wood deck something that is new?

Peter Cole: Yes that is being proposed in the back but it is on pretty much on grade. It maybe a foot or so higher. The grade in the backyard is not really that high off the ground. It is replacing a patio so it is more preference to be on the wood. It is easier to keep clean.

Austin Cassidy: So you are saying it is definitely on grade?

Peter Coleman: If you are floor level. There will be a pier to construct it.

Donald Rose: You are showing steps.

Peter Coleman: Right, but it is not within a setback.

Austin Cassidy: According to the site plan it is.

Peter Coleman: (site plans being opened in audible)

Lisa Abzun:

Austin Cassidy: I would stipulate that the new deck would comply with the zoning.

Peter Coleman: I think we would have enough room from back there. If not we could bring it in to work. Unless the board wants us to bring it back.

Donald Rose: To me it certainly can be made to fit.

Peter Coleman: You can see here according to my calculations if we were to change the steps it would comply.

Donald Rose: Are there further questions as to the specifics of the project?

Mickey Zucker: I just want to make sure I understand it completely. The only variance that is being asked for is this little triangle that we are looking for. Everything else is covered already, so it is strictly a matter of building the second floor right here?

Donald Rose: Austin has reassured us of the allowance of the chimney to exceed the set back.

John Donahue: The question is how you are going to make the variance in accordance with the plan.

Austin Cassidy: If the board grants a variance.

John Donahue: According to the plans submitted it has already said by the board there is an issue with the deck.

Donald Rose: These are preliminary drawings so presumably there would be final drawings issued for a building permit.

Austin Cassidy: just for the sake of thoroughness call out the chimney.

As being an element of the additions referred to in the letter of denial.

John Donahue: It is better form if it is considered that a variance. There are now two variances.

Donald Rose: How tall is the new chimney?

Peter Coleman: The new chimney would be approximately 28 feet off of grade. It has to go up 2-3 feet.

Austin Cassidy: Does it maintain its outer dimensions or do they diminish?

Donald Rose: It shows a set back below the second story window.

Peter Coleman: The design Austin was going to have (multiple people speaking in audible)

Donald Rose: The question is to whether are reasonable. I think in the end it comes down to the five questions which you responded to in your letter. I think the board needs to review them separately to make sure that we have covered our bases here. One whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties will be created by the variances. Does anyone have a comment?

Robert Marino: I would agree with the architect for the applicant that there is no undesirable change created in the neighborhood as a result of this application.

Donald Rose: is there any comment or disagreement with that?

The second item is whether the benefits sought by the applicant can be achieved by some fishable method other than the variance. Comment questions? I think it is pertinent that the noise and dampness on the other side of the house do make this the preferable solution. Probably be more economical as well with the existing foundation and structure for the garage. Whether the requested variance is substantial this is always a question of how you look at numbers. Out of the required fifteen it looks like a reasonable percentage. Are there any thoughts on that?

Mickey Zucker: I think if we were starting with no structure there at all I would be more concerned. The fact that there already is a structure there and we are just building up from what already exists it doesn't seem to be substantial to me.

Robert Marino: I would agree with that.

Donald Rose: Four whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Somewhat similar criteria as to one.

Mickey Zucker: Highly unlikely.

Peter Coleman: I always wondered what the difference between the two is.

Donald Rose: It seems until you look and try to define the difference.

Robert Marino: It certainly will have no more adverse impact than four children would have.

Donald Rose: Again Mr. Coleman responded in his letter. Finally was this self created? I think this is an open and shut case but the proposed design is something that didn't have to be and therefore is self created.

Peter Coleman: The house was built with setbacks long before our clients decided to reconstruct. That is what is self created.

Donald Rose: That is the legal situation that does require a hearing before the board. If you were adding on to another part of the house there would be no variance.

Peter Coleman: I am saying if they had built the house within the setbacks.

Donald Rose: We are down one member of the board and as I understand it if there is no comment we can take a vote.

John Donahue: I have one suggestion to the board as to how they are going to do it. The issue is for the applicant sake and for the board's sake control variance so the applicant knows the size of the variance is not delineated on these plans. It is a relatively simple thing for the architect to do.

Peter Coleman: I believe I have all that you need.

Donald Rose: The 5 feet is on the site plan.

John Donahue: It is defined here but defined there. (Viewing of drawings)

Peter Coleman: Because it is on an angle.

John Donahue: I think it is at an angle some descriptive phrases lineated so the board can either accept it or reject it. This should be delineated as to how far it is into the setback area.

Austin Cassidy: You have the 5 foot dimension and the length of the run before it hits zero.

John Donahue: Some sort of mathematical lineage. This is the plan the board is going to grant the variance on. If you did it 6 feet or 3.4 feet or whatever, then start as the built that is going to check these dimensions out? What does the building inspector do when he comes out with the as built and surveys?

Peter Coleman: It is less than 3 feet. So it would be a two foot variance.

John Donahue: I think you should be as close as you can to putting these dimensions down on the plan so that the board knows that it is including his plan with these dimensions as to the second floor and as to the chimney. So when the building inspector gets the as built survey and goes out and delineates on the as built survey then the as built either agrees with the variance or it doesn't. When it comes time to sell it and somebody picks it up there are problems. It is in the applicants to do this as close as possible within inches. You may want to say up to 5 ½ feet.

Donald Rose: Your point is well taken. In the particular circumstance an addition to an existing wall the possibility that suddenly this going to can levered out to five feet. Theoretically it could happen it would be in conformance with the plans presented. We could of course address the question by saying that the new addition will have the wall on the south side that it is configured with the existing foundation garage wall. It might be done mathematically any thoughts on that?

Mickey Zucker: I think we are getting more cumbersome than we need to be. We are all looking at a picture here. We know that the request is a 5 foot variance. I don't understand why we would not grant a 5 foot variance that conforms to the drawings as presented.

John Donahue: It is not a 5 foot variance all the way across the building.

Mickey Zucker: I realize it's a maximum variance of 5 feet, if you want to put at the southwest corner.

Peter Cole: It would be 2 feet.

Mickey Zucker: Going down to a 2 foot variance as shown on the site plan as presented to us.

Austin Cassidy: The third dimension would be the length of the run. So you've got your greatest point, least point and the length of the run.

John Donahue: Plus you have to do the chimney.

Austin Cassidy: Can you nail down that number?

Peter Cole: Give me 2 feet on the chimney just to play it safe.

Austin Cassidy: I double checked cantilever roofs and other elements are allowed to, ground based chimney would not be able to. That is subject and needs a variance.

Peter Cole: Give me 2 feet and I can do it.

Austin Cassidy: this would be 2 diminishing down to zero.

Peter Cole: Again this is just the preliminary drawing. Just to play it safe.

Mickey Zucker: So a maximum of 2 feet diminishing down to zero.

Peter Cole: Correct.

Donald Rose: Does anyone want to try phrasing a motion?

John Donahue: Also mention the applicant promised to do with regard to the deck. Make that a condition. The deck as it is now encroaches.

Austin Cassidy: Just to go through the exercise although I do not think there is anyone here to comment on this in the audience. You need to check the floor and then also motion to close the public hearing.

Donald Rose: Points well taken. Is there anyone in the audience that wish to comment? Then we closed the public hearing and then move to the motion.

Robert Marino: I motion to close the public hearing.

Harold Boxer: Second

Donald Rose: All Ayes. On the question of granting the variance we need some wording in the statement.

Robert Marino: I move that the application for a side yard variance, side yard set back variance which involves the second story addition as shown on the plans. Also includes the chimney be granted to the following extent, that the variance shall be no greater than 5 feet at its beginning point. Extend 20 feet to a point where it would be a 2 foot variance and that a 2 foot variance. A maximum of a 2-foot variance would be granted for the chimney, in addition to that the applicant has indicated that the deck in the rear will be brought in conformance with the rear yard set back.

Mickey Zucker: As per the site plan presented.

John Donahue: I would identify the plan and the date.

Robert Marino: As per the site plans, these are preliminary drawings with conditions to the Abzum residence at 145 Croton Avenue Mount Kisco. Prepared by Peter Cole architect dated October 17, 2004.

Mickey Zucker: Second.

Donald Rose: All in favor? Board All Ayes. Chair votes aye.

2. Mount Kisco Ambulance:

Joe Palumbo Architect, Jimmy Cuff President of

Mount Kisco Ambulance and Robert Hartman Treasurer

Of the Mount Kisco Ambulance.

Donald Rose: The Mount Kisco Ambulance who were denied a certificate of occupancy for their building which was apparently built according to the plan. On review the building parking lot was found to be in violation of village code section 110-28 P1 and section 110-28 B2. The first issue deals with the length of the parking space required to be 18 ½ feet by code and built according to plan 16 ½ feet. The second variance requested deals with the width of the aisle in the back parking lot. Again built according to plan at 23 feet instead of the code required 24 feet. That summarizes the issue. Please explain and state your names for the record.

Joe Palumbo: Basically in summary the two issues that came up when we applied for a final certificate of occupancy and the reason why we are before you tonight is the aisle depth for the parking spaces and the 23 foot aisle width. The 16 ½ feet which I believe is very clearly spelled out in the letter of denial from Austin. He mentioned that for many years had known part of the code became more or less in my opinion accepted practice and at some point and continued to be accepted practice under certain conditions I assume over appropriate conditions. It was clearly part of my offices design upon meeting with Austin and Howard reviewing setbacks etc. We had been before the Zoning Board for some other issues but the aisle depth was designed it was clearly delineated on the original Planning Board Plan. At the same time we went to the Planning Board process and that dimension was there before the town's independent planning firm as well as all the approvals. We went through all the approval with the town. We clearly show what was designed and we have the 2 foot overhang from the curb edge to the wall on one side. The overhang in the front where the emergency response spaces, for both the Independent FireHouse and the Corps. Then in the back where we have a buffer, in both the rear and the side and then along the back of the building itself. So it was clearly designed that way it was a part of the original design as we went through all appropriate channels and until this came up was that we found at some point in the code. Either from the printing or whatever. But generally I don't want to miss-speak but generally it was accepted practice on certain conditions if you were able to show at least allow the 2 foot clearance from any pedestrian and or wall. The other issue which I think my letter is trying to be honest. It was always 23 feet. It should have been 24 feet. You can see on the aisle width as you come in and all the way through we showed 25 feet. We actually had the space to even go beyond the requirement. Through site engineers through architects, through town officials, through Planning Boards those 23 feet was always there. I rather be honest about it than say we designed it that way or something along those lines. So before you tonight we are asking for an evaluation of those variances. Those are the 2 issues with regard to and there are some other issues with the Planning Board to achieve final site plan approval, but these are the two issues as to why we are before you tonight. I brought some pictures of the site just to give you a sense if you needed that information.

Robert Marino: The premises has been presently been constructed as per the plan. Is that correct?

Joe Palumbo: These are the original dimensions on the plan. We went through just for history. We went before the Planning Board to get official Planning Board approval and nothing changed. It was built as the plan was approved.

Donald Rose: This is the as built drawing and apparently does conform to the original plans. Which the building department can confirm. I think there are 2 issues and let's take the first one. The typical 16 ½ foot parking space depth. This appears to be a question of words being dropped without formal actions by printing of the book. It was forgotten until Austin apparently rediscovered this lately. So that strictly speaking I am not sure where we stand. It was not in the printing doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Austin Cassidy: Unfortunately the zoning office is stuck with taking the code literally. All representations to the applicant and all reviews were in good faith on all parties. Unfortunately when the question arose and I am sure it says it right here and you put your finger where the footnote is and the footnote is not there anymore then that became the problem.

Donald Rose: I guess from a legal stand point just because the footnote apparently inadvertently disappeared it would be in fact not there.

John Donahue: In a case like this in the village years ago it is very simple. It is what the Board of Trustees approves. It is not what the printer prints. If there is a mistake in the printing that doesn't absolve the property owner or whatever. It's the authority of the Zoning Board says what the Board of Trustees approves. If the printer makes a mistake and fails to include something that is not binding on the village.

Mickey Zucker: I would just like to clarify what these spaces are used for. Is it mostly your people?

Jimmy Cuff: It is all fire and ambulance personal parking. That is really the intent of it.

Mickey Zucker: This isn't going to be like a Target and people are going to be popping in to hello.

Donald Rose: it is not a public spot. Which I think is a very important factor. I think based on what counsel has just said if the trustees approved the code with the assumption that the footnotes has always been there and never was voted down. This is probably a mote request.

Austin Cassidy: It was felt to be conservative on this matter, so there is no chance that the corps, would have to come back another time. To put this right out there as an issue. Again because the zoning offices are stuck with the black and white and the black is not there it is just white. We had to call it out as an issue and let the board interpret how it wanted to handle it.

Donald Rose: Is there any other comment or discussion on this particular issue. The parking space depth.

Robert Marino: If you were to comply with what the letter of the law is or should have been. What are we talking about construction wise?

Austin Cassidy: They would have been back here for a variance on buffers.

Joe Palumbo: Meaning if that we had to comply we would have had to come back for buffers? Clearly economically for a variety of reasons it would be a massive undertaking. I think the intent of the board of the corp. is to show the board. If we are required to go through a variance our job is to say to you and show you that it is not detrimental to the neighborhood. It was not self created because in essence ultimately as an architect or my engineer we're always the one who is ultimately responsible. We got there based on lots of parties saying that this is the code. It wasn't as if we built a building 45 feet high and the code is 35 feet. We clearly went through the whole procedure with the appropriate parties. All in absolute right on boards with what we were doing. So what we are saying to you is that easily we are required. From my understanding through the town engineer is since it is not actually in the codebook, based on printing or whatever and even if the board voted on the code with they're own assumptions. I am sure they are not looking at every item. We are before you at this point to say that apparently in the codebook it says 18 ½ feet. So our understanding is we do have to come before you for a variance. With that being said our job is to show you what we feel strongly about is that it has no impact on the neighborhood. It is actually a dimension that has been in practice over the years. Whether a printer changed it or not. So actually we are abiding by the original code or the intended code or whatever had become code. If we have to go for a variance we are saying to you no impact on the neighborhood not self-created and we feel we abided by the points that the board has to consider.

Austin Cassidy: Going to the specific question that was asked. Clearly as you look at the plan for the site if all of these were to be 18 ½ to readjust the dimensionally, you would be intruding into the buffers more so then before. The retaining wall that is presently constructed would even be a more dramatic retaining wall to allow for the horizontal expansion of three feet. You have the one-foot to play with in the main aisle and then you would have to provide two on either side. So that is four minus the one in the main aisle. So you would need to bump into the buffer three additional feet. That would be a significant buffer variance plus a far more dramatic retaining wall. On the size you can see that. Then in the back you would almost be brining the blacktop darn near the property line.

Joe Palumbo: We had come before the board. At the time we were required request a variance for a rear yard buffer. That rear yard buffer varied I believe at this point is about 7 feet where 10 feet is required. Again we presented to all parties what we certainly felt was all-appropriate and went through it all and now here we are.

Donald Rose: Let me ask the same question in a different way. If the missing foot note were in the present code. The planning Board had approved the 16 ½ there wouldn't be a need for a variance.

Austin Cassidy: There would be no issue. Correct.

Donald Rose: To my mind it is a question of an apparent printing error at some point.

John Donahue: The Planning Board has the authority to vary the length of the parking. I don't know if they do it or they don't.

Austin Cassidy: They have very limited powers that even come close to a variance. One is they can alter buffers but only if it does not allow the increase in the degree of density of development. Another words more parking spaces or more building or something like that, that is a consequence. Other than that they really don't have variance powers they only can waive installation of required spaces and that is pretty much it.

John Donahue: I think the answer to your question is this. They are before you now asking the ZBA to grant a variance. According to your question why didn't they go to the Planning Board? They could approve the 16 ½ verses the 18 ½? They are here because they need it. Under any circumstances I think if this came in and they put in the 16 ½ and went before the Planning Board the Planning Board would have sent them to the ZBA about the length of the parking spot.

Mickey Zucker: As I see this, we are dealing with a corps. That obviously has gone out of its way to attempt to do everything the way they are suppose to do it. Actually it was always action in good faith. We are not dealing with the general public as we were just told. I am not concerned about typical family driving in and worrying about parking as in a supermarket. I trust the guys in the corps. to park properly and not damage one another's cars. I personally would love to grant this and be done.

Donald Rose: I have similar sympathy especially with regard to the parking space depth. Here is the question that I think presents itself because they want to be open and not have to come back again. I am more concerned actually with the limited aisle width. 23 feet in back. I did try taking a van and backing out of there. It is tight. I imagine that some of the larger SUV's that approach 18-19 feet in length. So that the aisle width is not much greater than the length of the vehicle. That does require a lot of maneuvering.

Joe Palumbo: I think the field conditions actually measures 23 feet 2 inches.

Donald Rose: All we can do is go by the as built which presents it as 23 feet. It is tight. What would be the impact if that variance were not approved? What would be the solution?

Joe Palumbo: The solution would be as I think Austin stated. If this curb line.

Austin Cassidy: There would be a lesser version of what we were talking about a minute ago. You would have to bump your rear curb line parallel to the rear lot line. One foot over and re-stripe the back bays. Then you would pick up your foot. So you would need a variance if the board didn't grant you that variance they would have to grant you a variance for additional one-foot intrusion into the rear buffer.

Donald Rose: The original 10 foot buffer requirement was a, was that a zoning requirement?

Austin Cassidy: Absolutely.

Donald Rose: So this already exists as a variance.

Joe Palumbo: I park in the back everytime I go to the building. I don't park out front. I certainly appreciate that any less than 24 feet could always be a little bit tight. I think that there have been IFCO has had meetings and the lot is completely full. I think greater impact would be done if we had to decrease an already limited buffer. That maintaining the 23 feet be it a foot less is still something that is maneuverable and workable. I know several of the guys do have big trucks and they certainly have no problem.

Jimmy Cuff: We have had no issues thus far with anybody even with the lot being full and snow time. There has not been any incident of any bumps that have gone on.

Donald Rose: Give the board a sense of how frequently during the year you would expect that back lot to be full.

Jimmy Cuff: Generally twice a month there are meetings. The Independent Fire Company has meetings the first Tuesday of the month. The Ambulance has meetings the last Tuesday of the month. That is generally when the lots are full. Essentially every single spot is taken. We try to accommodate them if it our meeting night and they try to do the same for us. Aside from that there is not a whole lot on any regular basis. There may be incidentals where a meeting may run larger or a party or some sort of get together goes on. It maybe one more times a month that the lot would be full.

Austin Cassidy: Just to be through for the board we have been looking at the rear and which would be a variance swap. If you didn't get the aisle variance then you would need an additional buffer variance. Hoe about the opposite direction economically you wouldn't need any variance. I sorry you wouldn't need any variance but economically if you had to take a one-foot slice off that 8 foot walkway including that island at the end. Then re-stripe and readjust the ramp way and all of that. Economically how much of a hit is that?

Joe Palumbo: I think it raises some of the problem Austin, because we have a 5-foot. We have the 2-foot overhang there for the cars. We have a gas meter off the back so at some point having the 6-foot walk in the back we maintain 5 foot off the gas meter, for accessibility to each of the doorways. We try to maintain 5 foot everywhere. The hit economically