ZBA Minutes - April 19, 2005

Mount Kisco Zoning Board of Appeals

Minutes

Tuesday April 19, 2005 7:30 p.m.

Mount Kisco Village Hall

Members Present: Karen Schleimer

Don Rose

Max Lippolis

Micky Zucker

Members Absent: Harold Boxer

Staff Present: Mr. John Donohue

Karen Schleimer: We are calling to order the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting of April 19, 2005 to order at 7:30 p.m. We are not going to vote on the minutes from the meeting of March 15, 2005. We only have two board members that were in attendance at the last meeting. That being said I would like to thank the board members that attended the Westchester Municipal Planning Federation training course. I would hope that maybe next year's schedule would allow more people to attend. Anticipating that they will have one night devoted to people who have never attended before and another night for people who need more sophisticated information. Just for your information Mount Kisco has submitted an application for a Planning Award for the Clock Tower. So when the awards will be made at a dinner on June 2, 2005. We will wait to hear and know next week whether anything has come of that. There are also if anyone would like to submit Planning Achievement awards which can be planners, attorneys, architects and anybody can nominate. I think that would be a wonderful and lovely thing. People put in their time and deserve some recognition.

Brad Schwartz; counsel representing the applicant, Jill Gentile director of Ability Beyond Disability

Karen Schleimer: This evening we have one case on the agenda. It is case #05-03 Ability Beyond Disability. It is a request for the interpretation of section 110-28H3D of the code of the village of the town of Mount Kisco. In response to a violation issued by the building inspector. In the alternative the applicant who is Ability Beyond Disability has requested a variance for permission to park a certain vehicle on the property. In addition the applicant has requested should this board get to the variance question permission to temporarily park the subject vehicle on the property until it is determination has been made. We have proof of mailing? Nancy have you received the mailing receipts?

Nancy Placona: Yes the receipts have been received. Also copies of the notice posted in the Journal News.

Karen Schleimer: If the applicant's attorney would submit statements.

Brad Schwartz: With me tonight is Jill Gentile from ability Beyond Disability and is the Regional Service Director. Jill can speak of the operations of the group home at 227 West Street as well as the specialized needs of the individuals that reside there. In particular of the individual needs of transportation needs. As the board knows from reviewing our application in the end Ability does seek to park what we term a passenger vehicle at West Street group home. At that home severely disabled individuals reside there a total of six. They rely solely on this passenger vehicle for all their transportation purposes. The vehicle is equipped with a wheel chair lift, which is located entirely on the other side of the vehicle. Again they are severely disabled and cannot drive and they rely upon the staff members of Ability Beyond Disability to transport them for their entire daily various activities. Whether it be going to the grocery store or going to their rehab appointments.

Karen Schleimer: If I can just cut you off for a moment. We have all read your two submissions. I am particularly concerned under what construction you consider this to be a passenger vehicle?

Brad Schwartz: under section 101-3 of the village code a commercial vehicle there are three A, B, and C characteristics of what a commercial vehicle is. “A” there is advertising on the vehicle. On this vehicle there is no advertising the name Ability Beyond Disability is not printed on the vehicle, there is no phone number or address advertising to encourage other similarly disabled individuals to come to Ability for its services. Under section “B” of that provision carries tools or equipment attached to the outside of the vehicle or visible from the outside of the vehicle. Again the wheel chair lift is located entirely inside the vehicle. “C” is sort of a broad catch all provision has other indicia of commercial use. We would respectfully submit that there are no other indicia of commercial use. This vehicle is in fact registered as a passenger vehicle with New York State. Just so the board knows that one of Ability's staff members did drive the vehicle here tonight. It is out in the parking lot if the board should desire to take a look at it.

Karen Schleimer: Do you have something more compelling perhaps the application for the registration of this vehicle?

Brad Schwartz: The registration was attached as an example.

Karen Schleimer: Yes but the application for the registration where it talks about weight and wheels and axles and what not.

Brad Schwartz: I do not have that. I am sure I can provide that from Ability.

Max Lippolis: Do you know the weight?

Brad Schwartz: That is something that we have back with post submission. The weight is greater than one ton. Twenty seven hundred pounds I believe. That is the interior. That is the furnished capacity.

Max Lippolis: What does the vehicle weigh? I don't want to know what the capacity is I want to know what the vehicle weighs.

Brad Schwartz: Based on provision under 110-28H3D is the vehicle cannot exceed one ton in capacity.

Max Lippolis: You are saying twenty seven hundred in capacity. I don't read it like that. Capacity as with occupants? I think it has to be a larger number. I would be read it as what the vehicle weighs. When I register my car or motorcycle with motor vehicles they want to know what my vehicle weighs.

Brad Schwartz: The staff member went out to check.

Donald Rose: On the registration it is eighty eight hundred.

Karen Schleimer: For those of us one ton is two thousand pounds.

John Donohue: Trucks are defined as capacity but not buses. Maybe seating capacity. A bus in this particular case which is the issue that the building inspector isn't looked at that way.

Karen Schleimer: Looking back then to the letter that the building inspector dated March 28, 2005. Under 110-28h3D, one of the elements is that the vehicle parked outdoors does not exceed one ton in capacity?

Brad Schwartz: I can see that it does. If this vehicle were deemed to be a commercial vehicle we do not meet the elements.

Karen Schleimer: Just by virtue of the facts that it exceeds one ton in capacity I don't see how you get around that.

Brad Schwartz: Correct. For this provision to apply in the first instance before you even get to those requirements A-E the vehicle has to be a commercial vehicle in the first instance. For the language states and I am reading from Mr. Cassidy's letter. Up to two commercial vehicles may be parked on a lot so long as the following requirements are met. What I am suggesting is that you don't even get to whether these requirements are met because the threshold matter this vehicle is not a commercial vehicle. That interpretation was our first theory here. We did make a submission in the alternative that is the board was to deem this vehicle a commercial vehicle again we would request a variance from this code provision allowing the vehicle to be parked overnight at the site.

Donald Rose: Mr. Schwartz I would like to ask the question. There was clearly a painted number on the side of the vehicle a three-digit number. 727. Would that not be on form of indicia that is referred to in the definition of commercial vehicles? Passenger vehicles do not have numbers printed on the side. I would submit that the numeral and the handicap logo both suggest that this is a commercial vehicle. They are indicia.

Brad Schwartz: Those are indicia of commercial uses. We are looking at what the substance of what the vehicle is used for and it is used for residential purposes just like any car that any of us have outside of our home.

Donald Rose: That is part two. First of all we are deciding whether it is or is not a commercial vehicle under the local code. To my mind it is, because of the indicia on the vehicle.

Karen Schleimer: I think that is true that if it was a personal handicap vehicle the handicap would either be on the license plate or on a hang tag depending on the disability. I have never seen a printed wheel chair sign on the side of a passenger privately owned vehicle.

Brad Schwartz: We set forth that argument just to put forth all of Ability Beyond Disability arguments and to preserve all of the potential arguments. Which is why we understood that such an interpretation could be made that was adverse to what we were requesting and therefor we requested the variance.

Karen Schleimer: I just raise one more item for the record to elicit your response. It talks about vehicle owned by a person. In what way is Ability Beyond Disability a person?

Brad Schwartz: Ability is not a person. Again arguing that we put forth in our submission letter was because it is owned by Ability and there is no refuting that.

Karen Schleimer: Which is a corporate not for profit agency.

Brad Schwartz: Correct.

Max Lippolis: Part of the mandate is that someone, the person who owned all the vehicle needs to be residing at that premise. It is pretty clear that is no one capable be holder of the vehicle. On the registration it is not a person it is a business. So it would not qualify to say that there is some one living at the premises who owns the vehicles. You stated that the numbers that do stay overnight are approximately four staff member and about seven or eight during the day. They don't own the vehicle.

Brad Schwartz: Ability Beyond Disability could be deemed to be a corporate entity because it is their individuals who reside there except Ability is residing there.

Max Lippolis: It is pretty clear that Ability Beyond Disability is not a person and there is not a person called Ability Beyond Disability that sleeps in a bed in that location right?

Brad Schwartz: I certainly do not dispute that.

Karen Schleimer: Does someone and we can sum this up. Under the request for an interpretation of 110-28H3D in connection with this application would determine that in the instant case the vehicle under the code of commercial use the ownership of the vehicle is in a corporate not for profit entity as opposed to a person.

Donald Rose: I would just like to interject discussion on one item. Under paragraph D for the vehicle parked outside is not a jitney bus school bus. In the letter from the building inspector he has raised the point and in his opinion it is a jitney. I read his letter and concur with his interpretation that no matter what else may or may not be true that the vehicle is a jitney bus. It is not receiving fares directly but it is involved in a commercial operation. I don't think commercial necessarily implies a profit making venture as opposed to a not for profit.

Karen Schleimer: With the interpretation to back up would be that this be uphold does fit the definition as described in the ordinance for commercial vehicle because of the signage, number of wheels. So do we want to take a vote on approving that this vehicle is a commercial vehicle under the code for this purpose?

Donald Rose: Motion

Max Lippolis: Second

Board All Ayes.

Karen Schleimer: having gotten that out of the way.

Brad Schwartz: We request a variance of section 110-28H3 under the village law as the board is certainly well aware of required. As to whether or not to issue an area variance that this would be detriment to the surrounding neighborhood. As we stated in our submission letter the benefit to the individuals who reside at the home and their need to have their sole mode of transportation on site at all times. We submit respectfully out weighs whatever detriment to the community might result here. By way of one example just last week one of the individuals that reside at the home his feeding tube came out in the middle of the night. This was not a situation that required 911 to be called and for an ambulance to come. But the staff person was required to get in her car drive to 120 Kisco Ave. where the vehicle is being stored since notice of violation was issued. Drive the vehicle back to West Street load the individual into the vehicle and bring him to the hospital for medical treatment. It has been an inconvenience not having the vehicle there at all times. Again just like any other home who reside at homes their mode of transportation are accessible to them at all time. In this case ever since notice of violation was issued it has not been. We submit that the benefit to the individuals that reside there and their need to have their mode of transportation at their home at all times out weighs whatever detriment might occur. I submit that having one vehicle parked at the home is not a substantial variance. We could park it situated so that it could not be viewed from West Street. It could be parked in the back so as not to be viewed from the street. There would not be a drastic adverse impact to the area.

Max Lippolis: Do you have any neighbors for or against that theory or not? Do we have any documentation or letter that came in? Nothing came in right?

Brad Schwartz: There is no other way that Ability Beyond Disability can achieve what they are seeking. Again it is their only mode of transportation. Because of their needs which Jill can explain if required. They rely on this type of vehicle for all their transportation purposes.

Karen Schleimer: I am looking at the picture you provided. There is another car in the driveway?

Brad Schwartz: These pictures were taken at 120 Kisco Ave. They are not pictures taken the group home on West Street. The pictures are attached to the notice of violation. The way the vehicle was parked in this picture. The vantage point here is West Street. If you look in the upper right hand corner of the picture that is the home. The vehicle is sort of turned right. They is an opportunity backed there behind the residence that would not be viewed from this vantagepoint.

Karen Schleimer: There is no garage?

Brad Schwartz: There is no garage.

Micky Zucker: I was at the home today I think it might be valuable if you could describe to the board members. Maybe even with a brief sketch of how the house is situated on the lot and how the driveway goes back and then behind the house and if you describe the fencing and the trees that provide screening. I think that would be valuable information.

Brad Schwartz: May I approach the board? Jill as well to insure that my artistic endeavor is accurate. (Drawing being displayed.) This is West Street; this is the driveway and the house here. It goes back like that. This is the property line here. There are trees fifteen twenty feet approximately between the property line. This is in the picture where the vehicle was parked. When I suggested making a right hand turn it would be parked like this. The photo was taken from about there.

Jill Gentile: There is a fence here and also some bushes on the other side. Along the back is another property with a very big hill. This is the buffer between here and here.

Brad Schwartz: I did walk along this property before tonight and certainly there are trees that block the view.

Max Lippolis: So you are saying you want to move the vehicle more behind the house? Is that part of the resolution? To hide it a little bit more?

Brad Schwartz: Certainly.

Jill Gentile: if the concern is that it is visible right here we could certainly move it over here.

Max Lippolis: Are there other cars going to be parked behind it?

Jill Gentile: There is sort of a turn around area over here that you could provide some backing up.

Karen Schleimer: Is there a ramp going into the building?

Jill Gentile: The ramp that goes down here. It is just a little more convenient to back right out of there.

Brad Schwartz: Ability would commit to always park the vehicle in this area of the driveway.

John Donahue: What are the dimensions of the lot? Do you know approximately?

Jill Gentile: I don't know.

John Donohue: Do you know the number of parking space for vehicles?

Jill Gentile: I would say four could park here even when the van is parked here there is enough room for two rights here. This is a pretty big lot.

John Donohue: How many vehicles park regularly overnight?

Jill Gentile: Overnight right now there are three vehicles that park on the lot.

John Donohue: Those are the staff?

Jill Gentile: Right.

John Donohue: Three and you hope to also have the van?

Jill Gentile: That would be ideal.

Donald Rose: What is the building directly behind the property that shows up in this picture?

Jill Gentile: This was just constructed. This is duplex back here. It just popped up. There is another residence right immediately behind and up the hill. That was there prior to us moving into the group home.

Donald Rose: You say a duplex, is that a two family house?

Jill Gentile: Yes. Right here it was just put up.

Micky Zucker: What is policy of no neighbors to come down to express any opinion. Do we make any assumptions?

Karen Schleimer: For the record I did receive phone calls. That people were objecting, they obviously did not appear tonight. Is there anything in the lease? I am just looking at the lease, which is with Dahtar as the tenant. The applicant whose lease is leasee is Ability Beyond Disability. What is the relationship?

Jill Gentile: We changed our name about eighteen months ago. Formally know as Dahtar Rehabilitation Institute.

Donald Rose: Does that operate other group homes?

Jill Gentile: No. Dahtar is now Ability Beyond Disability. Yes we operate other group homes.

Karen Schleimer: You will give us something to show the change of name?

Jill Gentile: Sure.

Max Lippolis: How long have you been in that location?

Jill Gentile: June of 2000.

Max Lippolis: You were aware of these by laws?

Jill Gentile: No.

Max Lippolis: You were not aware. So you have had those trucks parked there for approximately five years?

Jill Gentile: Yes.

Brad Schwartz: The law was in effect in 2003 -2004. For the first couple of years that they were operating the group home this law was not in effect.

John Donahue: The law is 2003.

Karen Schleimer: You have the landlords consent?

Brad Schwartz: The landlord signed the application form.

Karen Schleimer: Landlord consented to parking the vehicle there?

Jill Gentile: Yes.

Brad Schwartz: He reviewed the submission letter and he reviewed the request that we are receiving and signed the application form.

Karen Schleimer: WE have different property owners. We have you 227 INC.

Jill Gentile: That was a few years ago. They kept the original long term.

Karen Schleimer: We will need a copy of the deed.

Micky Zucker: how much do we have to evaluate regarding the effect on the applicant and the effect on the community? Is there anything beyond that?

Brad Schwartz: That is balance that is required by village law.

Karen Schleimer: It is true there are vehicles parked on the premises overnight other than this.

Jill Gentile: Those are staff vehicles correct.

Karen Schleimer: The people residing in the home are able or not able to sit in a regular passenger vehicle?

Jill Gentile: Four of the individuals are not able, two are able to.

Karen Schleimer: The number of occasions over the last year when there has been an occasion to require transportation by this bus.

Jill Gentile: Over the night? Probably about 6-8 times that I can say.

Karen Schleimer: Required to use this bus and a not an ambulance.

Jill Gentile: Yes.

Donald Rose: Is this a judgement call as to whether 911 should be called as opposed too not.

Jill Gentile: Our agency has an on call nurse for 24 hours. Overnight they would make the judgement whether 911 and it would be an emergency. We do having nursing staff on the overnight that would make that judgement. We don't want to call 911 if it is not necessary.

Micky Zucker: I am still curious as to what the detriment is? In other words what the problems. The benefits are obvious. What are the problems as far the rest of the community is concerned?

Karen Schleimer: There is reason and I am not sure we fully appreciate the reason that the village's legislative history behind the law. Obviously there was an issue worth parking commercial vehicles in residential neighborhood. Which resulted in, inaction of a law. I assume that the answer is that people find that a lot of commercial vehicles were being parked in residential neighborhoods. Landscape trucks.

Max Lippolis: All they talk about is another nursing home or a similar sort of facility not being able to be open like you said landscape trucks, carpenters, and tile guys. You can go on and on down a list of trade a person that does it have a detriment within its own specific situation. Maybe not necessarily. Do you then say well it is ok cause then are classifying on your commercial vehicle. How you are classifying your commercial vehicle is so much different than other commercial vehicles that are used for other trades. So yes you want to say there is some public good because you are taking care of some people who may be ill and you would need those vehicles to transport them. That is the livelihood of the vehicles also the livelihood of the carpenter or tile person or a person that does carpets. Then you start getting into the point of how are you going to differentiate what is really a necessity and what is not. The guy may want to grow his business and has a home office and needs three trucks. So then he says the guy down the street who says I`ll beat it to a not for profit organization. It is still an organization.

Brad Schwartz: That is the decoration that the board has in this instance whether or not to grant a variance. Against the detriment which I certainly understand and appreciate the history behind this. Ours is a unique circumstance here given the unique use Ability undertakes at its group home in this instance. The board certainly has expressed in other instance to apply the balance against those particular factual circumstances. The board may determine that the balance comes out different.

Max Lippolis: I am just playing devils advocate. There are always going to be tests for this. Other people bring other attorneys to put another spin on their element of why it is a necessity. There could be some compelling point s that we are not even shedding light on here tonight.

Micky Zucker: I have to tell you I appreciate what you are saying but I would love to hear an attorney convince me that a carpenter or plumbers truck is as important as this vehicle. If anyone else were to drive out to the property one of the things that you would see not on this property but on an adjoining property are boats with blue tarps covering them.

Brad Schwartz: Right across the street.

Micky Zucker: So what we are talking about the impact on the community of vehicles such as this one parked totally behind the building and not visible from the street at all to me provides much less of an impact then these large boats under these blue tarps. I certainly would not want to be living and looking at one of those things. I personally would be in favor of granting the variance. I think the benefit of granting far out weighs any detriment to the community. I think the detriment to the community is negligible.

Donald Rose: I want to go back to one other just for understanding. It was mentioned that the present law that is in violation is dated 2003. Was there a similar provision in the previous code?

John Donohue: I cannot address that.

Donald Rose: In other words in the year 2000 when they first became the leasee/tenant were they in violation of the code at that point?

John Donohue: I know this modified the law. There were some restrictions then. I can't quote the law to that effect.

Brad Schwartz: Is it fair to say notice of violation had not been issued previously?

Jill Gentile: No violation.

Donald Rose: If it turns out that it was not in violation then is there anything in the state law that would grandfather their use?

Karen Schleimer: Is there anything that Ability would over ride any village interests?

Brad Schwartz: I don't know the answer as far as the American Disability Acts goes. I did not find and certainly looked for a clear grandfathering rights clause in the statue respecting this parking issue. Obviously grandfathering in and vesting these sort of interests in entities is a common law of doctrine as well. There are codes that have specific grandfathering provisions.

Karen Schleimer: Why don't we run down the five factors and we have pretty much done a partial job on number one. The first is whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood and detriment to the near by properties will be created by the granting of area variance. Two things I would like to say. Clearly this is a very residential neighborhood. One of the things unfortunately that we heard by bringing the vehicle here tonight is how loud it is when it backs up. So I think there is a noise factor. I think and feel free to correct me if I am wrong. It seems to me that the reason the law was adopted was because the people in residential neighborhoods or governing body and village felt that commercial vehicles in residential neighborhoods was not a good thing and it was detrimental to the quality of life in a residential neighborhood. I can't imagine any other reason for enacting such a law.

Brad Schwartz: The board also has the power to of course grant the variances from that law.

Karen Schleimer: I am talking about whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood. I think the reason the law was enacted in the first place was to eliminate the intrusion in the residential neighborhood for commercial vehicles. It was detrimental to life in the residential area.

Brad Schwartz: In this instance here it would be of course one a single vehicle.

Karen Schleimer: That is true I just stated if it was an undesirable change. Certainly you are in better shape than if it were more.

Brad Schwartz: if I thought that there was the fleet coming in I would be coming before this board whether it be two weeks from now or two months.

Karen Schleimer: I am just talking about undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood.

Micky Zucker: Do you want responses?

Karen Schleimer: Sure.

Micky Zucker: Again having been at the property I firmly believe it would not create any undesirable change. I believe this vehicle even though we previously designated as a commercial vehicle. I think there is a very fine line the way this vehicle is being used. From the appearance of the neighborhood in general, yes it is a residential neighborhood. But the with the boats that I have seen and with the motorcycle that I saw next door which I guarantee makes more noise than this vehicle. I just don't see it as being detrimental to the community.

Karen Schleimer: Anybody else? I do still stand by the assumption unless somebody wants to prove me wrong.

Max Lippolis: I concur. (Too many people speaking not audible)

Max Lippolis: I do not know if it has a diesel engine has a beeping sound that backs up. Of course that would have an effect. The question anyone has to ask themselves if I lived next door to that house how would I feel about it? That is the litmus test.

Donald Rose: I would go that way myself. I think it is a detrimental item in the neighborhood and because the code may not prohibit boats under blue tarps or motorcycles, which are also detrimental to the neighborhood. It does not mean that his one would get a free pass. I think all we can do is judge the case based on what the facts are. The next neighbor may not have boat and may not have a motorcycle.

Jill Gentile: The individuals that reside here if they did not have this specific handicap accessibility they would not be having such a vehicle.

Max Lippolis: (A lot of background noise chairs moving in audible) the larger commercial vehicles that have a loud engine and make a beeping sound when it backs up. Those are not open for interpretation and a matter of opinion, what I like and what I don't like, what I prefer see and what I don't prefer to see, what I think is ok what I don't think is ok. This is the fact.

Brad Schwartz: With respect whatever detriment that are identified by the board. (Too many people speaking).

Karen Schleimer: We are only at point one. Point one is if there is detriment. We can move on to number two.

Micky Zucker: With regard to the beeping sound backing up. Is that required by law?

Jill Gentile: Yes.

Micky Zucker: Do you have the ability to turn off the beeper if you were to come back there at a late time. At midnight do you have the ability to turn the beeper off?

Max Lippolis: I don't think so. I think there is a certain length and width had to have that. I do not know what all the dimensions are but I believe there is some code within the motor vehicle law.

Karen Schleimer: I think so to. The benefits sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other method to pursue other than a use variance.

Max Lippolis: How faraway is the vehicle parked? Where is it parked now?

Brad Schwartz: 120 Kisco Avenue.

Max Lippolis: Are there options to park closer?

Karen Schleimer: There is commercial space maybe it is possible to rent one street over.

Max Lippolis: For example in town.

Karen Schleimer: Lexington Ave. Properties is commercial.

Max Lippolis: Or over on Columbus where the towns drop off is. It seems like there is wide open parking lots there that someone across the street if I am correct from where West Street is. That has to be walking distance to where let's say the time to get from the vehicle now and back is maybe ten minutes where you can turn it into two minutes. You are talking about an issue where you have made a decision not to call 911. You are looking at a reasonable amount of time. All you would have to do is walk across the street get in the vehicle bring it over put the client in and go. Has that been investigated?

Jill Gentile: I believe there is a code that you re not allowed park commercial vehicles on other sites.

Karen Schleimer: Then the question being asked. If you made a business arrangement with Mt. Kisco Glass which is very close to the property. I don't think that would be a violation. If you entered into a lease to park a vehicle between the hours of 7:00 a.m. when they are closed for business.

Max Lippolis: Would that be a violation?

John Donohue: if it is in a commercial zone. This is a residential zone and the village covers the parking of commercial vehicles in residential zone. In a commercial zone you mat be able to do it.

Brad Schwartz: We have an application before the Planning Board as well. Obviously separate issues. The Planning Board has made clear to us there is no opportunity to park commercial vehicles whether it be subject to a commercial lease or not. These vehicles cannot be parked elsewhere in the village. Part of the site plan review that we are before the Planning Board is one of the provisions that we have to provide for is overnight parking of these vehicles on site. The Planning Board does not want provisions made for parking vehicles elsewhere throughout the town.

John Donohue: You can park at Elman's garage if they let you park inside.

Max Lippolis: You are saying your other application before the Planning Board is?

Brad Schwartz: The landlord and this is an entirely separate issue. The landlord at 120 Kisco Ave. made some changes to the building didn't get the approvals in the first instances, so we are before the Planning Board us as the tenant but the landlord is the applicant.

Karen Schleimer: On 120 Kisco Ave?

Brad Schwartz: Yes.

Max Lippolis: I think there are some other issues here that probably hampered the proposal of parking those vehicles because of some violation in process of going through the Planning Board for some changes before actually getting approval. I think it was hampered, the issue of bringing these vehicles down from another location and parking along there not knowing what the uses are not having it approved or whatever it might be. I tend to lean with John and he knows better than I do. An Arrangement can be made with another commercial property. I think we need to get some clarification on that.

Brad Schwartz: That has not been investigated to date.

Max Lippolis: You put up the five points in your application and you understand these are the five thresholds having cross now that we have deemed it a commercial vehicle. We need to talk about that one point investigating other options you haven't told us any other options.

Jill Gentile: We view the home as their home. We need the transportation and that is why we made the point that we did on the application. This is where they live. This is the vehicle that is being provided for them their only mode of transportation. You are saying that we still need to look elsewhere for off site parking.

Max Lippolis: You park on Kisco Ave. We are talking about an alternative to parking so far away.

Jill Gentile: It has been a burden since we have been violated.

Max Lippolis: So we are trying I think constructively bring up some other point as to how you can park that vehicle closer. Overnight parking that you would have an arrangement there that might involve some monetary computation or may not.

Karen Schleimer: I think the balance here is parking a commercial vehicle 365 days a year verses needing it on a non emergency basis. If you have an emergency it would be an ambulance. So it is a non emergency.

Jill Gentile: The other factor is that well we have over site at the residence for the individuals. We need to go the vehicle we are loosing that over site during that time. As opposed to just going outside and getting in the vehicle.

Karen Schleimer: You have several staff members.