ZBA Minutes 11-21-06

MOUNT KISCO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

Minutes

Tuesday, November 21, 2006

7:55 PM

Mount Kisco Village Hall

Members Present: Donald Rose

Michael Zucker

Robert Marino

Members Absent: Harold Boxer

Staff Present: Karen Schleimer

Austin Cassidy

Donald Rose: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, I am Donald Rose, and I will open the meeting of the Mount Kisco Zoning Board of Appeals for November 21, 2006. I think we have only one case, and that's the returning case of New Zion Realty. I think we do have a couple of items from earlier, so let's say right now we do have a quorum. We are missing one member of the board who we expect to be here, and perhaps he'll join us so that we may take care of our resolutions on prior cases after concluding the returning case of New Zion Realty. That case was opened last month. Let us first review the minutes of the last meeting, and I would ask if there are any corrections or additions to the minutes.

Michael Zucker: Just one small thing, Mr. Chairman, page 3 line 15, I am just assuming it's a typo. It's a letter to 60 of our adjacent neighbors, and I assume that it is six or sixteen; probably six.

Donald Rose: I am not sure how many adjacent neighbors there are. There is a question as to whether sixty is the right number or whether it should have been six or sixteen. I would ask counsel if there is a question of a quantitative sort in the minutes, is it best to defer approval of the minutes until it's resolved?

Karen Schleimer: I don't think so. I think you can make it subject to verification.

Donald Rose: Are there other corrections or additions? If not I would obtain a motion to approve it subject to determination of that one item brought up by Mr. Zucker.

Motion: Robert Marino

Second: Michael Zucker

Aye: Robert Marino

Aye: Michael Zucker

Aye: Donald Rose

Returning Cases:

Application No. ZBA2006-10

New Zion Realty, LLC

96 Lexington Avenue

Members Present: Brad Schwartz, Zarin & Steinmetz

Scott Davidson

Peter Gregory, Architect

Donald Rose: Is there a sign-in sheet for the continuance of the public hearing?

Donna Meyers: No there isn't, but I'll create one.

Donald Rose: Perhaps we can create one if that's helpful to preparing the minutes. And, in any case, just for the record, the case involves a request for a variance on the number of parking spaces for the proposed use of the site at 96 Lexington Avenue. 20 spaces are required, the site plan establishes six spaces being available, and so a variance of 14 would be required.

Karen Schleimer: Mr. Chairman, I believe it's 19.

Donald Rose: I think it was 20.

Brad Schwartz: There was an error in the application, so it is a request for 14 spaces from the required 20.

Karen Schleimer: And are we going to amend the application?

Brad Schwartz: I will do so if that is required.

Karen Schleimer: It would be helpful, a letter, just to make sure.

Donald Rose: And for the edification of the board generally for the public, between the last meeting and this meeting the three members who are present here tonight on the board did visit the present site of Mr. Davidson's operations, and the new site that he is proposing to move into. I think we all learned a lot about the nature of the operation and have a greater confidence that the kind of traffic that exists now and the kind of traffic that might be expected in the future are essentially in conformance with the statements and presentation that was made last month. I would ask the applicant if there are any new developments; new information that you desire to bring to the board.

Brad Schwartz: Mr. Chairman, there is no new information. Since the last meeting your Board did conduct a site visit, there's the letter from Whitney Singleton, the attorney for the Planning Board, to your board; and there are some neighbors in the audience tonight. They may or may not want to speak, but we have not submitted anything with your board. We are back here tonight, I think primarily to allow your board time to conduct the site visit.

Donald Rose: I would ask counsel, is it appropriate to read into the minutes the letter from Whitney Singleton to the board?

Karen Schleimer: If you'd like. It's not necessary.

Donald Rose: It's not necessary, but it will be part of the record by being there. I would just perhaps attempt to mention a couple of the key concerns on the part of the Planning Board, and of course, it would be our concern in any case, but it's the necessity to create conditions assuming approval of the variance that will really restrict changes in the use or in the - maybe it would be better to just look at the actual letter. Whitney Singleton as the Village attorney representing the Planning Board in this case, has said that there is a tendency in the town of having intensification of commercial sites. It will start out at one level of activity and then increase. So the concern here, of course, and I think we've even discussed this in the last meeting, was the concern about potential growth either of Mr. Davidson's business or of a successor business in a way that then makes the site truly unwieldy in terms of the limited parking. Do the other members have questions that may have occurred since we did the site visits, or in comparison with the presentation?

Robert Marino: I just have some questions or concerns with regard to the applicant about conditions that we might reasonably put on any approval, and if in fact they would be objectionable or a problem for the applicant. One would be, and we've had a lot of discussion about, or some discussion about, the fact that your operation is really not a retail operation in a sense that you're counting on walk-in traffic, people parking and then coming in to browse your store, and that much of what's done is done by appointment and so on. Do you have any problem indicating by a sign on the front of the building that would say it should be by appointment only?

Scott Davidson: I would not be opposed to putting a small section of my little sign saying “by appointment.” That I would be willing to do.

Brad Schwartz: The next step, assuming that this board would grant approval in this overall project, is to go to the Architectural Review Board for a new sign application. I think Scott has just agreed as part of the application proposal on the signs would include language to that effect by appointment only. So, as long as there is subject to approval by the ARB.

Robert Marino: I don't see why they wouldn't. But obviously we're not trying to step on their toes. It is, I would think, helpful.

Scott Davidson: It would be helpful in that effect. And I would be willing to do that.

Robert Marino: Based on what you've told us, I don't know that it would be a burden in any way on the way you run your business anyway.

Scott Davidson: It's not going to be.

Robert Marino: There were some other conditions that we had thrown about the last time we were here.

Michael Zucker: I think parking is clearly a major issue, and the use of the lot and how many employees will be allowed to park in the lot, and how many spaces will be absolutely reserved for people who are visiting in the store. I think if we can find a way to put some conditions there that would work. We can accommodate the tone of the letter that we have here and try to restrict any intensification.

Robert Marino: There was some discussion the last time we were here about obtaining some possible off-site parking for employees. I think there was one thought that there might be some access given to the lot where the town court and police station is. I think another thought was simply going out and buying parking passes at existing town lots. Has anything happened with regard to that?

Scott Davidson: I am planning on going into town hall, and I was going to ask Austin today about the spaces available the day after Thanksgiving. I also would like to inquire through the Village how I could rent some spaces from the police station. That would be much more convenient to my employees as they could just walk across the street, and not from down the way there at the other parking lot. I think it would be much more efficient. When you get bad weather and snow, I could go pick them up, but it is certainly a lot healthier to walk across the street than from down there.

Austin Cassidy: I raised that prospect with the Village Manager so that the door is open to dialogue.

Donald Rose: Of course it would be difficult at this point for us to put a requirement when it's not…

Michael Zucker: But we could do a restriction on how many spaces must be left open in the parking lot.

Brad Schwartz: We could put a sign up, under two spaces, for customer parking only.

Michael Zucker: And then make sure it's enforced.

Austin Cassidy: Going back to the Chairman's thought, regardless of the ultimate location of parking, you could still have the requirement that permit parking be pursued and secured on an annual basis, whatever numbers the board determines. And then secondly, the applicant may be able to pursue an arrangement for utilizing the utilized portion of the courthouse parking area via those permits.

Robert Marino: How many employees do you have everyday?

Scott Davidson: Only two who drive.

Robert Marino: Okay. Would you have a problem if we were to include in any potential approval condition that you would obtain two parking spaces from the town? And if you could get those across the street, at the town court, police station, wonderful, but if for whatever reason that is not possible, that you would obtain them at any location where they were available?

Scott Davidson: I think that's fine.

Brad Schwartz: So am I hearing that there is no employee parking on site, then?

Robert Marino: I'm not saying no employee parking. What I'm saying is two parking…

Brad Schwartz: Just to secure two parking…

Austin Cassidy: Well, hold that thought. In all fairness to the hopefully long success of your business, there are only two people that drive now as opposed to next year, as opposed to the year after. So I think from a stabilizing and planning perspective, the question really was asked how many employees you have. That was the question I heard asked, and the response was only two drive.

Scott Davidson: Oh, I'm sorry. There are five.

Donald Rose: So does that mean that you plus two others drive?

Scott Davidson: Myself plus two others, right.

Karen Schleimer: Mr. Chairman, before we make any decision here it might be helpful for the board to hear what the restrictions were with respect to Daytar when it was approved, just so that you have a little insight. It was “the facility shall be for the exclusive use of Daytar,” I assume that a similar statement that is particular for your upholstery business would be okay, “resolved that the applicant shall be limited to 40 consumers,” we're talking about limiting it to appointment only perhaps in the resolution. That would probably cover that. And then there is to what you were talking about, “that the applicant shall be limited to five site specific staff members or employees in attendance per day at the facility.” Then it says the “site specific staff member spends 75% of time at the facility.” Now, I don't know if that is kind of some of the things the board would be interested in requesting and whether the applicant would go for. Now this is also very interesting that “the applicant shall provide transportation to and from the facility via shuttle van for all consumers.”

Brad Schwartz: This is for Daytar.

Karen Schleimer: I know but I thought maybe it had something to do with the employees. No, there should be no overnight or parking of vehicles after normal business hours on the facility. I don't know if that's something you want to get into or not. Hours of operation, and that's really it. So there's really limiting the number of employees.

Donald Rose: I think it's useful to hear the kinds of thing that were available.

Michael Zucker: I'm getting confused. It seems like we may be bouncing more than necessary, and I'd like to clarify again the purpose of what we're trying to do here. Isn't it just to make sure that we don't have that parking lot occupied by employees so that when people come and drive they are stuck parking on the street? Is there something else that I'm missing? I'm kind of looking out into the audience, if you don't mind. Can you guys address what is the issue that we're dealing with?

Brad Schwartz: There are six parking spaces that are available. One is handicapped, so there are five that are really available. Your board, the Planning Board, Mr. Singletons' letter, wants to make sure that there is not going to be an overuse of the site where the demand outweighs the supply of parking spaces. If there are other employees, if, in the future that wouldn't be driving, and that that demands change, that can't be made on site. The burden is going to be…

Michael Zucker: Wait a minute, that's still not exactly what I'm driving at. Are we concerned again about if there are too many people driving, what's going to happen with the cars, where are they going to go? Where would the cars park that would create a problem for the community?

Austin Cassidy: Well, there are multiple questions there. I think there are two levels of concern. The bottom line is standardly this use would require X amount of parking spaces. It doesn't have them.

Michael Zucker: Right. I understand that.

Austin Cassidy: It's got a 14 space shortfall. The applicant is saying there is uniqueness to the way my operation is, that it is unique enough to consider it different from the generic application of the parking formula. So then the board is looking at a realistic guarantee, actually, that whatever is decided now will continue the stabled basis provided parking for this site now and in the future based on the operations as described to the board.

Michael Zucker: I recognize that. What I am still trying to determine is this. Obviously if we had 20 spots here we wouldn't be having a meeting. What if it turned out that you had 40 employees? And I'm being a little crazy, but what I'm trying to say is, what is the problem that we are trying to prevent happening?

Austin Cassidy: Not having enough parking and having that result having negative impact on the neighborhood and the Village itself.

Michael Zucker: Okay. Because of the fact that cars park where, there is not enough parking?

Austin Cassidy: Wherever they end up putting the car. Whether it's in an improper space or not, or having people circling around through the neighborhood looking for a place to put their car. Adding vehicular activity to the neighborhood that is unnecessary.

Michael Zucker: Because I am wondering why we are pushing to have additional spots purchased as opposed to just saying that you can't have more than two Employees Park in this lot.

Austin Cassidy: Because it's not realistic.

Michael Zucker: What do you mean?

Austin Cassidy: Well, you still have people that are going to drive. You can make the argument on paper. That's one thing, but paper is not the way it's going to really work out.

Michael Zucker: Well, if we only allow two employees…

Austin Cassidy: If two of those people move on to other jobs, if other people move on and the mix changes, all we've done is plan for right now.

Michael Zucker: No, no, no that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is rather than require any amount of spots to be purchased anywhere why should that be anybody's problem? Other than just saying the real concern is the use of that lot. And we want to make sure that no more than two employees are permitted to park in that lot.

Austin Cassidy: I think that's just blinders, quite truthfully, from my perspective, it's just saying, well, we're just going to control utilization of the lot, and everyone else, good luck.

Michael Zucker: Yes. And is that a problem?

Austin Cassidy: Well, that's what's happened in the past.

Brad Schwartz: The problem in the past is that the overflow at this site…the cars would be parked on Gatto Drive. Since that is what happened, there has been this residential permit parking program that's been put in place, so in the event that the lot was filled up and one of Scott's customers came, and there was such an overflow… again, hypothetically, we stick by the numbers that we have provided to your board… that extra car can no longer park on Gatto Drive because you need the permit hanging in your windshield in order to park in the street. So there has been an enforcement mechanism put in place, and you are not going to have the overflow on Gatto Drive, and I believe that is what the neighbors can speak to, the success of that program.

Michael Zucker: And if we provide enough spaces for the customer base that we anticipate coming, then all we have to worry about is where the employees are going to park. Why do we have to worry about where they park?

Austin Cassidy: I think I've answered that.

Michael Zucker: If they are already not allowed to park on Gatto, why don't they just find where they can park? I don't understand why that's the argument.

Robert Marino: What I would say is that the history of that site and the Daytar use has been very problematic. The neighbors have gone through… it's been a very difficult problem that a lot of boards in the town have tried to deal with, and everybody's been unhappy with it. And I think there has to be a recognition here that there is going to be some use of this property. This may be a very good use of that property. But there is a very significant shortfall in the number of parking spaces. Just to clear that lot, and then put whatever employee parking, and throw it out there to clog up whatever remaining available street or public parking there is, just anywhere, I don't know that we are doing as good a job as we should be in trying to make this potential approval as palatable as possible and as acceptable as possible for all concerned.

Brad Schwartz: Right now the parking demand is five. Two of that five is for customers, so we can put up a sign in two of the spaces for customers only. And there can be language in the resolution then to the extent that if additional spaces are ever needed for employees, Scott shall be required to undertake all reasonable diligent efforts to acquire and secure other parking permits elsewhere in the Village. He's not required to do so per se, because he doesn't increase his employees and the number of people that drive. There is no need to acquire them, but in the event that his demand ever should increase, he has to go off site and use his efforts to acquire parking permits. If he doesn't, he's unsuccessful in that regard, or if he chooses not to, he can't hire those people who drive. He is limited by the number of spaces on site, and he is limited by the neighbors who are going to be the best policing force possible.

Scott Davidson: And if I say they don't park there, they don't park there. I'll provide spaces for them. They are like family to me, I take care of them.

Donald Rose: Are we really coming around then to the thought that right now your employees require only two spaces because those are the only drivers? If that mix should change, if you have different employees down the road, and you need lets say, four spaces because four of them drive, then let's say if there is a base requirement of two permit spots now, that that would be increased by those number of increased requirements; so that it would be no additional burden on either the customers or on the immediate neighborhood.

Scott Davidson: Then additional parking spaces could be acquired.

Brad Schwartz: There is always going to be two spaces reserved for the customers.

Donald Rose: You have two for the customers, would be a handicap spot that would be either, well, whoever it is.

Brad Schwartz: There is one space for Scott's van, and there is one for the two employees who drive now. If in the event in the future that demand changes in the terms of more employees who drive, he can't hire them unless he provides for some means to get them to the site. Whether he's got to go pick them up, whether he's got to secure permits elsewhere in the Village; he knows what he's limited to both by again the terms of the resolution, the very fact that there is only six spaces on the site, and the fact that the neighbors are going to be watching this property as they always have.

Donald Rose: Let's just clarify things here. I think Mr. Zucker is trying to nail this down too, as I am. What you're really saying is that without any permits the parking is adequate if the requirement is that only two spots be reserved for customer use.

Brad Schwartz: You would not need a permit today to meet your demands, is that correct?

Scott Davidson: That is correct.

Donald Rose: Your vehicle would be one, there would be two other employee spots, there will be two for customer use only, and one handicap spot.

Brad Schwartz: And how long has the demand been?

Scott Davidson: Years. It's been awhile. It hasn't been within six months, and I can just come up here and go, oh yea, it's great it's only two today. It's been like that for awhile. I'm also moving much closer to the train. If an employee, some people come from White Plains and take the train up, they can walk over. Where I am on Lexington now, that's a long walk from the train, they really can't do that. But from there…one gal does take the train everyday, and she depends on it, and that's an easy walk from the train. So I'm much more conveniently located down there to the train in that sense.

Karen Schleimer: I am just concerned that the board considers the possibility that Mr. Davidson may not be the occupant forever, and what we do here may carry over. In the old resolution you had a limitation on the number of employees, which controlled the use of the site. If Mr. Davidson decides to move…I mean look, life takes turns and you never know and for some reason you decided to move to North Carolina, and someone else comes in, what can of worms have we opened?

Brad Schwartz: What we would be willing to do in the resolution would be to rather than tying it to S.H.Davidson Interiors and calling him out by name like that, without getting into a whole discussion, I question whether that's even allowable under law the way it was previously done before Daytar; but if you were to use language in the resolution that is limited to another service establishment that's also of low intensity, that triggers minimal employee and customer traffic, let's describe what this use really is. That way any future business that would want to come in is limited, and if it doesn't fit into that category, however we define what Scott's business is, it couldn't get approval. It would have to go back.

Karen Schleimer: It's got to be pretty narrow.

Brad Schwartz: No doubt about that. Scott, how long have you been in the Village?

Scott Davidson: Nine years.

Brad Schwartz: And this property, I think we also recognize, is not going to be easily flipped in the future just because of the space. And another thing we could do is, you have a floor plan that spells out showroom, storage space, etc., you could also tie it to where in the future, no more than X square feet shall be dedicated for customer or for public space. That also limits who can come in in the future.

Donald Rose: Counsel, it is really not possible to make the resolution restricted to S.H. Davidson, per se? Is there something not legal about that?

Karen Schleimer: I don't think you can.

Donald Rose: I thought that we could do this that would stay with the tenancy and not go to this particular tenancy.

Austin Cassidy: The way you would craft it is you would craft it to the uniqueness of the applicant.

Karen Schleimer: Of the use.

Austin Cassidy: And you can be so narrow and descriptive in that…

Karen Schleimer: That very few other people would fit into the description.

Brad Schwartz: So it's service establishment, minimal employee and customer base, and again square footage. Right now if we add the two showroom spaces up that is dedicated to the public. The public is not going to go in the back where the work is being done in the offices and storage places. So we could limit it again in the future to only X part of the building have to be devoted to customer space or access.

Austin Cassidy: In all fairness to all parties, I feel that I must strongly object to the concept of not having any parking safety net in this provision. If there is… look, essentially at what is being asked. There is a use that has by generic application, the requirement to minimally provide 20, 19, whatever it is parking spaces. And instead there are six, or whatever the number is. And if the board allows that use to come there nonetheless, and there is no back stop, no safety net of having a parking provision to allow the flexibility of either this business operator or a future business operator to function, then I think it's an ill-service and it's not wisely thought out both for the neighborhood and for the Village, and for the utilization of the land and impact.

Robert Marino: In following on what Austin was saying, I was under the impression based on the last meeting, through the site visit and so on, that there were a variety of conditions that were acceptable, one of which was; a certain number of off-site parking spaces were going to be obtained, and it's as if that conversation or those at least to my memory, those issues were never raised, and nobody ever agreed or intimated that, hey that would be fine with us, and now that's all off the table.

Brad Schwartz: I think that is fine with us. It's just a question of how we phrase it. Is it must be obtained, or is it in the event that the demand increases?

Austin Cassidy: In my opinion, I think the uniqueness of this application is the modifying factor on what the number of parking spaces for the safety net turns out to be. That's really where it should be reflected. Because if you have a 14 space shortfall, the board may not be asking you to pick up 14 parking permits every year. But again, going to uniqueness.

Brad Schwartz: I think that's also to put the question back to you is how many, because I am not familiar with the permit process in the Village and how many permits are available for purchase.

Austin Cassidy: Well, that's what we need to craft. When I say craft we need to arrange with the Village, hopefully, that there will be, first of all a guarantee, because that is my understanding that when these are sold, its sort of first come, first serve. And I think there were years where Daytar came and they were already sold out, or they could only get a mere fraction of the number that they actually wanted to get. So, if this were to be part of the board's condition, we would need to arrange with the Village that it's a sure thing. The only way that it would make sense to me to be a sure thing is to have a sure thing in place for your people to go. That's why the courthouse to me, together with the permits, should be a winning combination.

Brad Schwartz: And if you come back and say that we could guarantee or insured two or four permit spaces at the courthouse parking, Mr. Marino, to answer your question, we absolutely are amenable to that, being a condition to the resolution.

Robert Marino: I think the only problem is that no one here has the authorization to say yes; sure, you're going to get those available spots at the courthouse. The point being that I think what needs to be said is that there are going to be a certain number of spots that we are going to acquire off-site by permit, and if we can get them across the street, great. But if we can't for whatever reason, then we accept the fact that we're going to be getting them somewhere else in the town. At least that was the understanding that I came away with from the last meeting and the site visit. I'm hopeful that we're on that same page.

Brad Schwartz: Absolutely. And I apologize if anything I said led to a different impression.

Robert Marino: Quite frankly, I don't like the idea of just willy-nilly throwing costs onto an applicant and to a business owner. It's not right and that's not the purpose here. But I think, yet, we all have to accept the fact that while this may be a very good use, it still is a use that's 14 parking spaces shy in downtown Mount Kisco. That's a big problem.

Brad Schwartz: My only concern is to have that language in the resolution that requires him to obtain them, and then what if he goes Friday morning and the line is long and people are camping out the front door. I don't know, actually what goes on.

Austin Cassidy: It sounds like whatever the number might turn out to be it's probably going to be a small number. Reasonably a single digit number, whatever it might be. So that enhances the chance if it remains on a first-come first-serve for this arrangement. Hopefully we can improve that by making it a sure thing arrangement.

Karen Schleimer: In Daytar, before the resolution was passed, they made arrangements with the Village Manager.

Scott Davidson: May I say one thing? It would be in my best interest, and I would certainly for myself, my business, and the residents, much prefer my employees to park over at the police station. It would be more beneficial to everyone, and I would much prefer them to do that. And it would be my full intention and goal. Because it's better for everybody.

Brad Schwartz: One thing I will put out there. If we are going to have an engaging discussion with the Village as to trying to secure that 2, 4, 6 permits are set aside somewhere, that could then be a condition perhaps for a CO. So that could be the language in the resolution, if your board was inclined to grant one tonight, that Scott couldn't actually move into the building until this program was effectuated. And then, for whatever reason this program couldn't be effectuated, we would have to come back.

Donald Rose: Certainly another reason obviously to make sure that there is some level of permit parking attained. You might have the day when two decorators and their clients all drive separately. Suddenly there are four cars, and you might like to have them park right there. So if there are any employees there, you would like them to have a place to go too.

Scott Davidson: As I said, it's better for me to have them park off-site. Absolutely.

Robert Marino: I think it's also a way of solving another issue, and I think maybe this is somewhat of what Mickey was trying to get at, and that is how we protect the neighborhood from the future owner down the line. And the restrictions that are in place for you might at first blush seem a little bit of overkill, and I have no reason to doubt what you've told us. I think I've expressed it previously. You've had a lot of positive in your operation for this site, and I believe your representations. But going forward, things do change, even with the most well-intentioned applicant. Things can change, and there can be a change of ownership, and we need to have a system in place of conditions that are going to protect the neighborhood, the available parking in that event. Something to keep in mind as well.

Donald Rose: Let us, for the moment, put aside the questions of the provisions, and open the hearing to the public, if there are members in the audience who wish to speak to the application.

Austin Cassidy: Come forward and identify yourself for the audio record, please.

Luke Scala: My name is Luke Scala. I own property on Gatto Drive, right next to the business. We are not opposed to Mr. Davidson moving in. He seems like a very honest fellow. His family has been in the Village; friends of ours know his family, and in meeting him he seems like an upstanding, honest person. However, we do have concerns that Mr. Davidson may not be there for whatever reason, as you brought up; which is the concern that concerns us. We don't want to continue to come to board meetings. We want to just live our lives and let Mr. Davidson run his business and live in a neighborhood, and everybody's going to be happy. But again you do have to look down the line. We do have a concern with hours of operation. We are not protected by the State mandates of sticker parking on Sundays. Is this going to be an operation on Sundays?

Scott Davidson: Never. I am not open on Sunday.

Luke Scala: Could that be put in the variance?

Scott Davidson: Absolutely.

Luke Scala: We also have a stockade fence that was put in by Mr. Johnson in the original 1995 variance that prohibits any access to our residential property from the business. Will that stockade fence remain, and will that be put in the variance to protect us.

Karen Schleimer: You'd like that?

Luke Scala: Yes. Any objection?

Scott Davidson: That's the one up in the back. Yes, it was probably a safety thing, too, right?

Luke Scala: It was to prohibit access to our residential property. As there are no setbacks, as these properties go back years and years, it was put in to prohibit any access from the business to the residential property which we own.

Brad Schwartz: Or some other barrier that would serve to prohibit that access.

Scott Davidson: That's fine.

Luke Scala: Our main concern. In the original variance as I understand it, and I'm a layman, I'm not an attorney, is that the original business, Daytar, which the variance was given to, required that all loading and unloading be done on the lot. I'm sure that is going to remain. However, buses were coming; which, although large in size, were not trailer trucks. We are talking about a business that needs to get supplies. Some of his rolls may be 15, 16 feet that may require trailer trucks coming.

Scott Davidson: No.

Luke Scala: No, I understand, Scott, and I'm not attacking you, per se. I'm still going on the premise that tomorrow, I'm not talking about today, I'm talking about tomorrow, that a trailer truck coming into a small lot with parking in it, cannot have a trailer truck come in, and there's a sign there that needs to also remain in the variance that says you cannot make a right turn onto Gatto. It needs to go left onto Lexington. But if a trailer truck comes into that lot, it cannot make a left-hand turn back to Lexington because of the parking and the barrier that's there to provide the egress back onto Gatto Drive to Lexington. So as part of the variance, it could be put in that not just today, but tomorrow, that box trucks come and no trailer-trucks are allowed to come to this site, because they can unload on the lot, but how do they get out? And I'm sure nobody wants to see backing out onto Lexington Avenue with a trailer truck. And I'm sure we don't want trailer trucks in our neighborhood, as we've had phone lines taken down. In the wintertime when the street is not plowed, it's very hard to make a right-hand turn up Stewart Place, which is only 12 feet wide. And again, I'm not attacking Mr. Davidson's business; I'm attacking the future business.

Brad Schwartz: In narrowing… in describing Scott's business to make sure that this is narrow, and if future business were to come in and you wanted to include language including but not limited to tractor trailers, that would be fine.

Karen Schleimer: And the no right turns on Gatto.

Brad Schwartz: Will that be in the variance? That's actually the Village.

Austin Cassidy: That's actually a county road at that point.

Robert Marino: We don't have the authority to change the signage out there. The sign is in place, and as far as we're concerned it remains in place until somebody in the town board changes it.

Luke Scala: No problem. As I say, my approach to this board is as a layman, not as an attorney. These are only concerns of a resident that we have on the street. I find Mr. Davidson to be an honest, upstanding American. And we look forward to having him on our street, or on Lexington.

Scott Davidson: Thank you very much.

Karen Schleimer: And the discussion was if you're loading and unloading on the site.

Luke Scala: On the site, yes.

Karen Schleimer: Mr. Davidson, any problem with that?

Scott Davidson: I only load on site. There is nothing done out in the street.

Karen Schleimer: And all your deliveries will be done on the site?

Scott Davidson: There are small vans that come right to my door.

Donald Rose: It would be actually an improvement over your present operation where you frequently have to cross Lexington Avenue.

Scott Davidson: I'm telling you, you take your life in your hands out there.

Karen Schleimer: Do you park the delivery van onsite overnight?

Scott Davidson: Yes, but I'm planning on leaving it inside the garage in the evening, which will get it out of the driveway altogether. So when I go home at night, the lot is clean. There should be nothing left outside. There really will be nothing left.

Austin Cassidy: The overnight storage of the van shall be indoors?

Scott Davidson: Yes.

Donald Rose: Is there under the present use a requirement for the lot to be chained?

Luke Scala: That's really all I wanted to say; I don't want to interrupt the board, I trust the Town, and thank you.

Robert Marino: That's great thank you very much.

Donald Rose: Thank you for your comments. Please come forward and state your name for the record, please.

Betty Marchiano: Betty Marchiano. I just wanted to, Luke, I don't want to make you feel bad; but we had a furniture business there on the corner where my home is now, and big huge tractor trailers would come up Stewart Heights and down and come out on Kisco Ave and onto Gatto Drive.

Unknown audience member 1: They were taking our phone lines down.

Unknown audience member 2: I have a movie of one of those trailer trucks getting stuck on Stewart Place because of the snow.

Unknown audience member 1: One hit the fire hydrant.