ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, JULY 27, 2009
Members Present: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Ms. Calarco, Mr. Tamburrino, Mr. Bartolotta and Mr. Westlake
Staff Present: Mr. Fusco and Mr. Hicks
Staff Absent: Steve Selvek (called)
APPLICATIONS APPROVED: 355 – 357 Clark Street and 63 – 65 Belmont Avenue, 34 Peacock Street, 133 Curtis Place
APPLICTION DENIED: 139 North Street
Mr. Westlake: Good evening, this is the Zoning Board of Appeals. Tonight we have the following items on the Agenda:
355 – 357 Clark Street and 63 – 65 Belmont Avenue, 34 Peacock Street, 133 Curtis Place, 139 North Street
If there are no errors, omissions or additions to last month’s minutes of the meeting, the minutes will stand as written. All in favor.
Mr. Darrow: I never received a copy of the meeting that we held that we postponed.
Ms. Westlake: I will make sure that you get a copy from the Planning Office.
Mr. Darrow: Thank you.
_____________________________________________________________
355 – 357 Clark Street and 63 – 65 Belmont Avenue. R1 zoning district. Use variance of the requirements of the R1 single-family residential district. Applicant: 2 + 4 Construction. (Tabled from May meeting).
Mr. Westlake: 355 – 357 Clark Street and 63 – 65 Belmont Avenue. The only portion we are going to discuss tonight is amongst ourselves. The public portion was closed at the May meeting.
Mr. Fusco: Let us start before we discuss or deliberation the ultimate decision with the SEQRA matter, which has been left unresolved. Steve isn’t here today so he has asked me to answer any questions that we you may have on SEQRA and specifically did the members receive the memo from Steve that was dated July 23, 2009? All said “yes”. Do any of the members have any questions after having read that.
Mr. Darrow: This is the multi paged one the Part II Project Impacts And Their Magnitude, who was that prepared by, the City or the applicant?
Mr. Fusco: That was prepared by the City, that was Steve’s recommendations.
Mr. Darrow: Ok.
Mr. Fusco: If you disagree with any of the answers in Part II, we can discuss those. Also we would be moving onto something in this particular case, I have not had the pleasure to do with you yet and the board, but a Part III of SEQRA, we usually end at Part II, which is also part of your package regarding the mitigation of the two (2) potentially significant impacts that the Planning Department finds in the Part II that was circulated to you.
Mr. Darrow: There is only one that I disagree with, that is why I was wondering who prepared it. Question #15 – will there be any effect to existing transportation systems – be it vehicle traffic, public transportation, he has it down as a small to moderate impact and I truly don’t believe that it will be a small to moderate impact, I think its potential is large impact due to the volume of cars for thirty (30) units. And the proximity of where the entrance is going to be across from I believe it is Burkhart Drive maybe fifty (5) feet away from Belmont Avenue and then perhaps two (200) hundred feet away from Mullen Drive. That is the only one of Steve’s recommendations that I really don’t agree with.
Mr. Fusco: Let me expound on that and we can motion to finalize the lead or remain with the answers that are here potentially with #15. I had attended with Steve at least two (2) if not three (3) Design Review Committee meetings that discussed this very problem and Officer Weed, our Traffic Officer was at I believe all three (3) or at the very least two (2) of the three (3) and it was Officer Weeds’ opinion that based amount of houses here that it would be a small to moderate impact and that was the source of Steve’s answer. The other point that you made is a good one and I believe the developers have been made to reconfigure that where their outer drive comes in relationship to Burkhart so that there is not as abrupt intersection and so between the plans that we originally saw where the driveway
as approved the first time for the assisted living home and then when we saw it a second time where the driveway access was placed for this particular development and where the driveway is now is different. Because the developers made the changes consistent with Officer Weed’s recommendation that was the source of Steve’s recommending that the answer to #15 be – yes but small to moderate.
Mr. Darrow: One other question involving that area and maybe I just overlooked it in our massive amount of paperwork, what is the width of the curb cut going to be?
Mr. Baroody: That doesn’t have anything to do with us, that is Planning.
Mr. Darrow: No, because it has to do with the traffic and the traffic is involved with this here.
Mr. Baroody: The opinion of the City and Traffic Officer, you are about thirty (30) cars where there is a Mall with Bass Pro and everything else.
Mr. Darrow: But Clark Street is not the main avenue
Mr. Fusco: Hold on, we do have the developer here, the question is how wide is the curb cut, how wide is the entry access lane?
Ms. Kimmell: Good evening, Sue Kimmell, President of Two Plus Construction, we believe it to be 24 feet. As Mr. Fusco indicated we worked with the City and the Review Design Committee and moved the road to where they wanted it and the width of the road was all done in conjunction with your requests and recommendations.
Mr. Darrow: Ok, thank you.
Mr. Baroody: I would like to make a motion that we accept the outcome of the Environmental Assessment Fort that Steve submitted.
Mr. Fusco: Including Part III?
Mr. Baroody: Yes, including Part III.
Mr. Fusco: Just for the benefit of the record, the Planning Department did find two (2) potentially large impacts, second half of question #1 and also I think question #5 and as you can see in the Part III tonight for your acceptance which is now part of the motion, the Planning Department believes that the concern over the length of the construction which would be about fourteen (14) months, the concern over drainage, and storm water erosion and the like will handled if they follow the DEC regulations on that and the Planning Department has asked that that be made a condition of the Negative Declaration, is in fact you are going to be doing that. Also question #5 there is the question over surface quality and ground quality and the various answers in there for the discharge permit is also made a condition or
requirement, is a better word than condition, of any Negative Declaration. I would ask that your motion include the requirements laid out in Part III of the EAF as recommended by the Planning Board as a requirement on the developers, if in fact after you accept the document as drafted you wish to move onto either a Negative or Positive Declaration.
Mr. Baroody: So moved.
Ms. Calarco: I second that motion.
Mr. Fusco: You are going to vote to accept Parts I, II, and III of the EAF.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Ms. Calarco, Mr. Tamburrino, and Mr. Westlake.
ABSTAINING: Mr. Bartolotta
Mr. Fusco: Now having accepted the Long Form EAF Parts I, II and III, as you can see in your memo from the Planning Department, it is the Planning Department’s recommendation that you issue a Negative Declaration specifically specifying that the two (2) impacts found in questions #1 and #5 be mitigated by the measured that are mandated in the Part III addendum that you have. I would concur with Steve on that, where he here, I am sure that would be his recommendation to you tonight, but as far as the various Long Form EAF I think this is pretty thorough and I would dovetail Steve’s recommendation for a Negative Declaration.
Mr. Baroody: I would like to make a motion that we grant a Negative Declaration for the SEQRA review for the applicant at 355 – 357 Clark Street and 63 – 65 Belmont Avenue including the applications stated in #1 and #5 in Part III of the SEQRA be instituted.
Ms. Calarco: I’ll second that motion.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Ms. Calarco, Mr. Tamburrino, and Mr. Westlake.
ABSTAINING: Mr. Bartolotta
Mr. Fusco: Now lets move on to the merits of the project or demerits if you are for or against it, not telling you how to vote, that is your call, not mine, but I will charge you as to the law because we heard in the various public hearings that we have had and the letters that you have received a lot neighborhood concern, which may or may not be applicable to the legal issues that are before you tonight and I will remind that the elements for a obtaining a use variance are four (4) pronged under New York State Law. Whatever the hardship is that the applicant is suffering has to be unique to the land, that has not been a question in the past, the applicant needs to shows that he could not get no reasonable return on his investment or his basis in the property where it to be put for a legitimate use and no use
variance granted. The applicant has to prove that the hardship is not self-created in this case I will charge you with a matter of law that they have not a self-created hardship because they have taken the conditional or type of purchase agreement that is conditioned upon approval with an option so that the way it was resolved the self-created problem and the fourth element is the big in this case, the character of the neighborhood. The use has to be compatible with the character of the neighborhood, obviously a lot of the residents have spoken as to why they don’t think that is compatible with the neighborhood in the Mullen area and Belmont area and I will leave that to your own devices.
On the issue of reasonable return, I do want the record to be clear on this most of the members here I believe were here a couple years ago if not all of you when we had the Evergreen Heights proposal for this same particular property and at that particular time we heard in great detail from counsel regarding the hardship that the owners of this land have had in trying to market it for a legitimate use under the Zoning going back some twenty-five (25) years with my recollection. This time the counsel for the developers incorporated that same proof by reference and I see we are fortunate to have Mr. Contiguglia here who I believe represents the seller and maybe you could reiterate for the purposes of tonight’s record the difficulties that we heard from Greg previously when the Evergreen Heights proposal was
before us on the issue of reasonable return on the investment and I certainly welcome all the applicants if you wish to augment the record on that very important issues.
Mr. Darrow: I thought we were just discussing amongst ourselves?
Mr. Fusco: We did, if you don’t wish counsel to be heard
Mr. Baroody: Please understand whenever we made a motion we have to make the motion in the affirmative whether you agree or disagree with what is going on, the motion has to be made in the affirmative. Secondly I want everyone to understand we can sympathize with everyone that lives in the neighborhood and we have a very limited legislative view we can take of this.
I would like to make a motion that we grant Pearce Tract Development, Two Plus Four Companies a use variance as submitted, how every long ago it was and postponed until today, per prints and specs as approved by the proper agencies.
Mr. Darrow: As a point of order, I have had no chance to discuss it.
Mr. Baroody: Point of order this is a motion on the table.
Mr. Westlake: Do we have a second?
Ms. Calarco: I second that motion.
Mr. Westlake: We have a motion and a second.
Mr. Baroody: Ask for discussion.
Mr. Westlake: Ok, discuss amongst ourselves.
Mr. Baroody: We have gone through this for two (2) years; I understand how everyone feels and what they went through. I can sympathize with the neighbors; I can sympathize with the builder creating this document. I have read it and re-read it, I have contacted two or three of the agencies, I have examined the property, lets go forward, lets not beat this horse to death.
Mr. Darrow: I personally feel as a City body we have a responsibility 50% to the City to make sure we up hold standards, make sure we have acceptable neighborhoods, make sure we follow Zoning law. I also feel we have a 50% commitment to our community to keep their community in a reasonable recently impact without large amount of change, without obstruction of their normal life, without obstruction of their neighborhood and I feel that this is one that truly falls on both. We have to look out what is best for the City and we are also charged with looking out for the best for the neighborhood. I think each and every one of us should think in our minds if we were these neighbors on Mullen Drive or on Belmont, how would we want to proceed. There is the thinking of well it is just not in my
neighborhood mentality, but I truly don’t think that is what is going on. I truly think that this one (1) parcel being so tied around other developments isn’t ideal for this project and for some unknown reason the majority of others do. I feel this is personally something that requires where it is a rezoning change and therefore those who would make that change would be the City Council would be held up to the standards at election time for making a decision. (People in audience clap).
Mr. Westlake: Thank you very much for your opinion, you are one of seven, thank you very for your opinion, appreciate it.
Now we have a motion and a second. Shall we have a vote?
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Ms. Calarco, and Mr. Westlake.
ABSTAINING: Mr. Bartolotta - for the record, I have a conflict of interest and I am forced to abstain from this vote.
VOTING AGAINST: Mr. Darrow and Mr. Tamburrino
Mr. Westlake: That is four (4) affirmative votes; the application has been approved, good luck with your project.
_____________________________________________________________
34 Peacock Street. R1 zoning district. Area variance for garage height. Applicant: David Seneca
Mr. Westlake: 34 Peacock Street, are you here? Please come to the podium and state your name for the record.
Mr. Seneca: Dave Seneca, 34 Peacock Street.
Mr. Westlake: Tell us what you want to do.
Mr. Seneca: Basically I have an old garage that need to be torn down and a new one put up. I would like to maximize the space that currently exists, a few more feet higher to the property of the house, which doesn’t have a whole lot of storage, so if I make that a loft that will provide enough storage.
Mr. Westlake: Thank you. Any questions from the board?
Mr. Baroody: You did a nice job on the house the last few years.
Ms. Marteney: The footprint that is there now incorporates the flat roof
Mr. Seneca: The carport?
Ms. Marteney: Carport
Mr. Seneca: The carport basically is going to eliminate but still occupy the same width as the carport and the garage. Just go four (4) or five (5) feet further back and finish it off approximately about 20 feet – 21 feet high.
Mr. Fusco: What goes in the loft, the second story of your new garage?
Mr. Seneca: Mostly things between my wife and myself storage for hobbies, holiday stuff, and every day stuff. The house does not provide any storage, there is no attic and this will be easily accessible.
Mr. Westlake: Thank you very much, any other questions?
Mr. Tamburrino: I drove by the property it is fine.
Mr. Darrow: Personally I have always felt that the 15 foot height is too old for current vehicles, should be looked at when it is zoned. With an 8-foot door any if you have any pitch to get the snow and ice off of it, 6 x 12 pitch.
Mr. Westlake: Is there anyone here wishing to speak for or against this application? Seeing none, we will come back to the board.
Mr. Tamburrino: I would make to make a motion that we grant David Seneca of 34 Peacock an area variance of 5 foot over the allowed 15 foot height for a new garage.
Mr. Baroody: I will second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Ms. Calarco, Mr. Tamburrino, Mr. Bartolotta and Mr. Westlake.
Mr. Westlake: Your application has been approved, good luck with your project.
Mr. Seneca: Thank you.
____________________________________________________________
133 Curtis Place. R1A zoning district. Area variances for pool. Applicant: Eileen and Jon Becker.
Mr. Westlake: 133 Curtis Place, please come to the podium and state your name.
Mr. Becker: Jon Becker, I live on Curtis Place and I want to put in a pool in our back yard. If you are familiar with that area, it is pretty small yard area. I have a four (4) year old son and a twelve (12) year old daughter and we are constantly going elsewhere to enjoy family time to recreate and we really like the idea if we can put in a pool. We are ok on two (2) sides, we have according to Code, we have 10 feet on the left and right side of the house, we close with both of our neighbors on those two (2) sides, the only side we are short on is the 10 feet, it is actually a parking lot on Lansing Street. The parking lot is about 3 feet higher than our ground level of our back yard and since the beginning of this application process we decided to do an in ground pool rather than an above ground pool
just to maximize the space in the back yard so we can get the pool to the deck. We want everything to be ground level and that is where we ran into a problem with a variance.
Mr. Darrow: Still going to be 18 foot round but in ground now?
Mr. Becker: No it is a 12 x 24 rectangular in ground pool.
Mr. Darrow: So what does that do for your setbacks, do they still stay the same?
Mr. Becker: We are still a little short on the hospital side.
Mr. Darrow: How much?
Mr. Becker: Three – four feet.
Mr. Darrow: What are you from the house, is it still 5 feet?
Mr. Becker: It is at least 10 feet.
Mr. Darrow: You are only going to need one.
Mr. Becker: We are pushing it back so we would have more room for concrete patio.
Mr. Darrow: You are requiring less.
Mr. Becker: I was thinking because it is in ground and the water is below ground level if there was any affect it would be more on my own property.
Mr. Fusco: Before when it was going to be above ground you were going to have to put on some type of decking on your house to be able to accommodate the change in height and that is why you needed a variance from the building itself, I don’t quite understand this.
Mr. Becker: I was not that award, I knew there had to be a certain distance from the house to the pool
Mr. Fusco: Suppose to be 10 feet and you are asking to be able to 5 feet in your application.
Mr. Becker: Ok
Mr. Fusco: And it is suppose to be 7 feet from the back property line and you were at 6 feet.
Mr. Becker: Correct. Because of the 18-foot round we were going 12 feet so we are short by 6 feet in that
Mr. Darrow: Only need 5 feet for the variance by changing the shape.
Mr. Becker: I apologize for the change in information.
Mr. Darrow: Can we still go forward seeing it is changed, being it was advertised one way?
Mr. Fusco: When would you want to do this?
Mr. Becker: Actually want to start construction immediately.
Mr. Westlake: Brian would like to say something.
Mr. Hicks: With quick calculations here I have made according to the information that was supplied the 18 foot above ground pool that he originally applied for was 5 feet from the house 6 foot from the rear property line, come up with 29 feet. He wants to install a 12 x 24, if we run the 24 from property line to property, the adjoining neighbors, not the hospital parking lot, at that point that calculation may fit, it is the one between the parking lot and the house I am concerned with. I am only coming up with 29 feet, we need 10 feet, 10 feet and 12 feet, I am looking at 32 feet here, we have 29, we still have a variance that is required.
Mr. Baroody: 3 feet on the back
Mr. Hicks: But we still need to maintain 10 foot from the house.
Mr. Darrow: 3 foot rear yard variance.
Mr. Hicks: Right, since the application has been altered and advertised a certain way.
Mr. Darrow: That is what I thought.
Mr. Westlake: What is the board’s pleasure?
Mr. Darrow: Couldn’t we just amend it tonight and re-advertise for the next meeting, showing the change or not, or can we go ahead?
Mr. Bartolotta: He noted a change there in the hopes of making this process easier to make sure those distances were met and we were still questioning the hospital parking lot. He described the specific set back measurements.
Ms. Calarco: He was originally asking for 4 foot rear set back we are now looking for a 3 foot rear set back and the 5 foot set back from the house is now eliminated.
Mr. Baroody: Leave the 4-foot alone.
Mr. Fusco: Brian says he doesn’t know if the calculations are correct.
Mr. Darrow: He thinks he might be less, he may only need 3 instead of 4 so if we leave it at 4 as advertised and he drops the other set back and when he pulls the permit on the permit he will show that it is going to be a 12 x 24 pool and process that way and that is when Brain checks to make sure that it needs that 4 foot variance for the rear set back.
Mr. Fusco: To answer the legal question that is before me, as long as whatever the relief is granted is less obtrusive than what was originally contemplated, I am have not problem with the fact that a different dimensions was advertised because the neighbors were put notice of a potential problem that was greater than the relief that is going to be given. I think the issue though if I read Brian correctly is that he is not sure of the math without having a picture in front of him of the modified plan.
Mr. Darrow: Can you clarify that Brian?
Mr. Hicks: We have an application in front of us with dimensions. That tells me how the pool is going to be installed on the property. My concern is if we grant the area variance asked for which is less than what he is asking for on the application, I have no details about the installation of the proposed pool that has been altered.
Mr. Baroody: We are granting a variance in measurement, how do you work that out?
Mr. Darrow: Wouldn’t you get that information when he comes for a permit?
Mr. Hicks: I agree if the board is happy with granting the variance with the description that he gives you at that point then I will just deal with on the permit, I just want to make sure that the documentation is correct according to the board and all the advertisements.
Mr. Baroody: I understand you need documentation.
Mr. Darrow: It is the end of July.
Mr. Becker: When I come down and get the permit I will give you that information. My neighbors are ok with it, on one side it is relatives and the other side is very close parents of the relatives. Thank you.
Mr. Westlake: Is there anyone here wishing to speak for or against? Please come up and step into the microphone.
Mr. Reginelli: Frank Reginelli. I see no reason why this shouldn’t be granted. I think it would be very appropriate for the gentleman at the podium right now to accept the measurements from the back of the house to the pool and the measurements from the right side of the pool to the property line, left side of the pool to the property line and the back from the very end of the pool to the property line. All the gentleman would have to do is bring it down to scale on the property.
Mr. Westlake: Ok, thank you.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant an area variance of 4 feet of the required 10-foot rear yard set back for purpose of installing a 12 x 24 foot in ground swimming pool to meet all other set backs on three sides for Jon Becker at 133 Curtis Place.
Mr. Baroody: I second that motion.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Ms. Calarco, Mr. Tamburrino, Mr. Bartolotta and Mr. Westlake.
Mr. Westlake: Your application has been approved, good luck with your project.
Mr. Becker: Thank you. I will be down to get the permit
_____________________________________________________________
139 North Street. C5 zoning district. Area variance for front yard parking. Applicant: Donald and Connie York.
Mr. Westlake: 139 North Street, are you here? Please come to the podium, state your name and tell us what you would like to do.
Mrs. York: Hi, I am Connie York; I am the owner occupied family at 139 North Street across from the hospital. I live on the first floor and I have two (2) units above me. I currently have five (5) parking spaces in the rear of our lot, where two (2) of my vehicles, camper and tenant parking for the other units. I have approximately 16 x 25 section for my children; I have a set of twins and an eight (8) year old daughter. We have a trampoline, a swing set and a regular swing along with patio furniture; we are running out of space for our family to stay there. Again as the other gentleman had mentioned we are constantly going to parks, playgrounds, places for the kids to run around because we have no space. What we are requesting is an area variance to have tenant parking on the front
lawn sort of a drive off, off the current driveway that is there now. I think there is a map there that shows where we would like to have it, approximately 15 x 21 foot to accommodate two (2) vehicles for tenant parking or guests that happen to come over. I have family members that currently have to go over onto Perrine Street to park, we have no off street parking on Rt. 34. That whole corner is very congested, one the corner next to me is a seven (7)-unit apartment building and after that there is a two (2) unit and then a four (4) unit so the whole corner of off street parking becomes tenant parking for all those houses. So my guests have to park way down on Perrine Street, so we would have space in the rear of our yard for our family and friends to come visit and not to have park way off and accommodate our tenants and let them have parking.
Mr. Westlake: Any questions from the board?
Mr. Baroody: You do have a driveway that goes down the side to the back right?
Mrs. York: Yes.
Mr. Tamburrino: Do you plan to pave the driveway in the back there?
Mrs. York: We want to meet all Code requirements so whatever we are expected that we have to do to make that look appropriate, yes and currently as you can see from the pictures over the last couple of years we have been doing more and more work to the house and the driveway is still something that we would like to see done. If we have to pave or concrete that section in the front we will do that now. Hopefully our intention is to have the whole thing done at once.
Mr. Westlake: It is going to be approximately 15 x 21 feet, how many cars do you plan on parking there?
Mrs. York: I really would like two (2). Our driveway now is wide enough where if that 15 foot, a vehicle width is 16 feet and will hang out a little bit that is fine kind of go into our current driveway now or if there is a bigger vehicle there, it could be a single spot, that would be fine with us.
Mr. Darrow: Brian is there a Code on how long the driveway had to be I thought it was 19 feet?
Mr. Hicks: Are you saying a driveway or parking spot?
Mr. Darrow: Parking spot.
Mr. Hicks: 18 ½ feet is the minimum, 8-foot the minimum width.
Mr. Darrow: Ok.
Mrs. York: I think that again with the driveway and I have, how far does it have to be from the property line?
Mr. Hicks: The driveway is your side property line. The parking space you are asking for is in the front yard in front of the home.
Mrs. York: Right.
Mr. Hicks: That is where you have your dimensions for the parking space.
Mrs. York: Yes, about 15 feet we knew that we would also have part of the driveway which is wider but my husband also mentioned that having just a single space in front would clear up and have space down in back for us for the kids to run around, that is really the whole intention is to allow more parking, we don’t have any off street parking, more room to be able to stay there and enjoy the home with our children, unfortunately when we bought the house it was a triple unit, investor owned, who ever owned it then probably removed any dirt that was there and made it all into parking spaces. People like me who come in, owing it and living there and what to stay there, makes it very difficult to do so because there is not a lot of space to accommodate three (3) units for parking.
Mr. Westlake: Thank you very much. Is there anyone here wishing to speak for or against this application? Seeing none, we will close the public portion and discuss amongst ourselves.
Ms. Marteney: I have a question. Is it legal to have someone park they actually have a two (2) car driveway all the way down in back can they parking along the fence, can people do that?
Mr. Fusco: Park in the driveway?
Ms. Marteney: It is two (2) cars wide between the house and the fence, more than two (2) cars wide, could they parking along the fence?
Mr. Hicks: According to City of Auburn Zoning Code, maximum width for a residential driveway is twenty (20) feet and that we do along parking to be in the area of the existing driveway whether it be from the sidewalk to the rear property line, you are able to park in the driveway.
Mr. Darrow: You just can’t park behind another vehicle.
Mr. Hicks: You can’t have stacking.
Mr. Darrow: I have always had some trouble with parking in the front yard, I think as it is there enough out there that we don’t even know if it is legal or not legal, people are parking in the front yards and to allow more on such a busy street.
Ms. Marteney: Also it is the main entrance to the City. I drove up and down there five (5) times looking at the houses along her and many of the houses you could not get to the back of them between two (2) houses.
Mr. Tamburrino: They do have a long driveway there.
Mr. Westlake: Do I hear a motion?
Mr. Baroody: I would like to make a motion that we grant Donald and Connie York of 139 North Street, Apt. 1, an area variance to create a 15 x 21 foot parking area in their front yard per the application.
Ms. Marteney: I second that motion.
VOTING AGAINST: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Ms. Calarco, Mr. Tamburrino, Mr. Bartolotta and Mr. Westlake.
Mr. Westlake: I am sorry; your application has not been approved.
| 
