Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-03-09 - Board of Trustees Meeting Minutes SPECIAL MEETING/AGENDA MEETING VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BOARD OF TRUSTEES MEETING VILLAGE HALL, 938 KING STREET TUESDAY,MARCH 9,2004--7:30p.m. RESOLUTIONS: 1) Considering a subdivision application at 13 Beechwood Boulevard 2) Setting a Public Hearing date on a Local Law to amend Chapters 192 and 250 of the Village Code regarding nontransient boarders, rooming houses and the definition of "Family." 3) Referring a Site Plan approval application for 548 and 550/552 Westchester Avenue, to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Rye Brook. REPORT: F.P. Clark's report on the I-287 corridor improvement project and the environmental review process associated with the project. DISCUSSION OF AGENDA ITEMS SUGGESTED BY MEMBERS OF THE VILLAGE BOARD: 1) Discussion: Planning Board approval authority 2) Discussion: Traffic Condition in Roanoke area 3) Discussion: Update on Steering Committee for Traffic study at Hutch/King/Merritt Interchange 4) Discussion: Update on Westchester County Legacy Grant for the ballfield on King Street 5) Discussion: Various budgetary and fiscal oversight issues 6) Discussion: Status of encroachments on Village-owned properties 7) Discussion: Update on various utility easement matters 8) Discussion: Staffing plan for the Rye Brook Firehouse at 940 King Street 9)Update and discussion on the status of the Garden Inn application BOT March 9,2004 Page 1 of 13 DISCUSSION OF AGENDA ITEMS SUGGESTED BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC: BOARD: Mayor Francis Filipowski Trustee Carol Goodman Trustee Robert Harris Trustee Paul Rosenberg Trustee Dean Santon STAFF: Christopher Bradbury, Village Administrator Connie DiSalvo,Assistant to the Village Administrator Nicholas Ward Willis, Esq.,Village Counsel Victor Carosi,Village Engineer Marilyn Timpone Mohamed,Village Planning Consultant Fred Siefert, Public Access Coordinator Patti Conlon,Meeting Secretary Mayor Filipowski welcomed everyone to the March 9, 2004 meeting of the Board of Trustees. The meeting was called to order at 7:30pm 1) Considering a subdivision application at 13 Beechwood Boulevard Mr. Bradbury read a letter from Grace Associates withdrawing their application for the subdivision. If they wanted to reapply for a new application they could at a later date. Mr. Laufer of 10 Loch Lane wanted to know if the Board had the option not to accept their withdrawal of the application and to vote as scheduled on the agenda tonight. Village Counsel, Mr. Ward-Willis, stated the applicant, as the property owner, has the absolute right to withdraw prior to the time a motion is placed before this Board. The Board does not have the option to not accept their withdrawal. 2) Setting a Public Hearing date on a Local Law to amend Chapters 192 and 250 of the Village Code regarding nontransient boarders,rooming houses and the definition of "Family." Mr. Bradbury read the resolution. On a motion made by Trustee Santon and seconded by Trustee Rosenberg the following resolution was adopted: BOT March 9,2004 Page 2 of 13 RESOLUTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING DATE ON A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND CHAPTERS 192 AND 250 OF THE VILLAGE CODE REGARDING NONTRANSIENT BOARDERS,ROOMING HOUSES AND THE DEFINITION OF "FAMILY" WHEREAS, the Village of Rye Brook is concerned with the overcrowding of one (1) and two (2)-family residential dwellings and with the consistency of provisions in the Village Code regulating rooming houses; and WHEREAS, residential zoning districts R-20, R-15, R-15A, R-12, R-10, R-7, R- 5, R2-F and RA-1 currently permit the keeping of"up to two (2) nontransient roomers or boarders in any dwelling" as an accessory use; and WHEREAS, Section 250-2, "Definitions" of the Village Code currently defines a "family" as including up to four (4) individuals who are "not related by birth, marriage, adoption or other domestic bond"; and WHEREAS, Section 250-25, "R2-F Two-Family Residential District" currently permits "rooming houses" as a principal use in contravention of Section 192-1 of the Village Code which states that "no person shall begin to conduct, operate, manage or cause to be conducted, operated or managed, either as an owner, lessee, attorney or agent, a lodging house, rooming house or boarding house which furnishes lodging or rooming accommodations for hire within the Village of Rye Brook on or after March 26, 1985"; and WHEREAS, Section 192-3 of the Village Code and Section 250-2 of the Village Code are inconsistent in that each section defines the term "rooming house" differently and permits a different number of roomers, lodgers or boarders to occupy a rooming house, lodging house or boarding house; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees wishes to amend Chapter 250 of the Village Code to address the overcrowding issue concerning one (1) and two (2)-family dwellings by: (1) eliminating nontransient boarders as an accessory use in residential zoning districts; and (2) changing the definition of "family" to include "no more than two [2] individuals who are not related by birth, marriage, adoption or other domestic bond"; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees wishes to amend Chapters 192 and 250 of the Village Code to provide for consistency in the regulation of rooming houses by: (1) amending the definitions of"rooming house" set forth at Sections 192-3 and 250-2 of the Village Code to be consistent with one another; and (2) amending Section 250-25 of the Village Code to eliminate "rooming houses" as a principal use in the R2-F Zoning District. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees shall hold a Public Hearing on April 27, 2004 at 7:30 p.m. at Village Hall, Rye Brook, New York to consider adopting a Local Law to amend Chapter 250 of the Village Code BOT March 9,2004 Page 3 of 13 regarding nontransient boarders, rooming houses and the definition of"family." Trustee Goodman Absent Trustee Harris Voting Aye Trustee Rosenberg Voting Aye Trustee Santon Voting Aye Mayor Filipowski Voting Aye 3) Referring a Site Plan approval application for 548 and 550/552 Westchester Avenue, to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Rye Brook. Mr. Bradbury read the resolution. On a motion made by Trustee Rosenberg and seconded by Trustee Harris the following resolution was adopted: RESOLUTION REFERRING A SITE PLAN APPROVAL APPLICATION FOR 548 AND 550/552 WESTCHESTER AVENUE, TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK WHEREAS, Robert H. van der Wateren/550 Realty Corporation, is the owner of two (2) adjacent properties located at 548 and 550/552 Westchester Avenue and has made an application to the Village of Rye Brook, requesting site plan approval for site improvements that include an access easement, a new curb cut and driveway and five (5) additional parking spaces on the subject properties located at Section 1, Block 21,Lots 46 and 49, located in the R-2F Zoning District; and WHEREAS, the application was referred to the Village Planning Board and Planning Consultant by the Board of Trustees on August 26, 2003; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board, Planning Consultant and Village staff reviewed the information submitted by the applicant in connection with the application, including a Short Environmental Assessment Form (EAF), the report and recommendations regarding easements,parking area design, landscape and screening, drainage, lighting and impervious coverage submitted by the Planning Consultant and staff, and comments received from the Westchester County Department of Planning regarding parking lot design and NYS DOT review of the proposed curb cut; and WHEREAS, by resolution approved March 4, 2004 at a special meeting, the Planning Board referred the matter back to the Board of Trustees with a recommendation for approval of the proposed site plan, subject to the following conditions: 1. That NYS DOT grants approval for the location and design of the new curb cut at 548 Westchester Avenue; BOT March 9,2004 Page 4 of 13 2. That the Village Zoning Board of Appeals grants an area variance from the total maximum impervious surface coverage for 550/552 Westchester Avenue; 3. That the Village Zoning Board of Appeals grants a variance from the number of parking spaces required for the six residential units at 550/552 Westchester Avenue; 4. That the access easement is reviewed and approved by the Village Attorney and the Board of Trustees; 5. That the application shall be referred back to the Planning Board for review and recommendation if the Zoning Board of Appeals requires modification of the site plan to grant the two variances sought or the NYSDOT modifies the plan to grant its approval; 6. That the grading and drainage, erosion and sediment control, and lighting plans are reviewed and approved by the Village Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit; 7. That the landscape plan is reviewed and approved by the Village Engineer and Village Planning Consultant prior to issuance of a building permit; and 8. The Village Attorney has determined that the premises at 550/552 Westchester Avenue is a lawful preexisting nonconforming use. However, the Village Attorney shall render a legal determination as to the extent of lawful nonconformity of the premises and, in conjunction with such, an inspection of premises shall be conducted by the Building Inspector to determine whether the 550/552 Westchester Avenue is a six (6)-family dwelling, in accordance with the New York State Building Code and Rye Town Zoning Code in effect in 1950. WHEREAS, the total impervious surface coverage proposed at 550/552 Westchester Avenue is 4111 square feet, which is approximately 807 square feet of area in excess of the total maximum permitted impervious surface coverage, requiring a variance from the requirements of Section 250-37(D) of the Village Code granted by the Rye Brook Zoning Board of Appeals; and WHEREAS, the number of parking spaces proposed at 550/552 Westchester Avenue is less than the minimum number required, requiring a variance from the requirements of Section 250-6(G)(1) of the Village Code granted by the Rye Brook Zoning Board of Appeals; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees cannot take final action on the subject application until a determination has been made by the Rye Brook Zoning Board of Appeals regarding the variance relief sought by the Applicant from the requirements of Sections 250-37(D) and 250-6(G)(1) of the Zoning Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees hereby refers the application to the Village of Rye Brook Zoning Board of Appeals for review and action regarding relief from the requirements of Sections 250-37(D) and 250-6(G)(1) of the Zoning Code. Trustee Goodman Absent Trustee Harris Voting Aye Trustee Rosenberg Voting Aye BOT March 9,2004 Page 5 of 13 Trustee Santon Voting Nay Mayor Filipowski Voting Aye Trustee Santon wanted to know why the Board of Trustees was referring a zoning variance application to the Zoning Board. It is his understanding that the building department refers zoning matters as soon as the zoning variance application is received. He wonders why in section eight, of the fourth whereas clause, the New York State building code is mentioned and not the Town of Rye zoning code. Mr. Ward-Willis explained that the site plan was referred to the planning board. The only reason it is being referred to the zoning board is so the applicant can get the variances first because if the applicant does not get the variances there is no point in proceeding with the site plan review. This is merely a procedural referral because this board can't dictate what variances the Zoning Board of Appeals is looking at, the zoning board will do their own independent review. Village counsel had no problem adding the language that Trustee Santon wanted in section eight to reference the Rye Town Zoning Code. Ms. Timpone Mohamed told the Board that the Planning Board voted unanimously for the approval with certain conditions. REPORT: F.P. Clark's report on the I-287 corridor improvement project and the environmental review process associated with the project. Marilyn Timpone Mohamed, of F.P. Clark gave the report. The NYS Thruway Authority, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and Metro North Railroad are project sponsors for the development of major improvements for the entire length of the interstate I -287. They are in the process of developing the alternatives for the draft DEIS and it's being reviewed according to the National Environmental Policy Act and the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act. They are developing alternatives to ease congestion on I-287 and structural needs that have to be address in terms of the Tappan Zee Bridge,which is the most publicized part of this project. The lack of mobile alternatives in the corridor was reviewed and that is why the proposal is also looking at public transit to be added to the corridor. They are looking at light rail, commuter rail, dedicated bus lanes or bus rapid transit. A light rail is the modern configuration of the old fashion trolley. The new modes of transportation will be aligned either adjacent to the existing corridor, within the corridor itself or off the corridor. This is where the Village of Rye Brook comes in. BOT March 9,2004 Page 6 of 13 It would be good for the Village to make comments on these alternatives when they are published and before they are put into the DEIS because this is the time one can actually influence the alternatives. They only way to do this is have a representative at the meetings. Mr. Bradbury said this could really have a big impact on Rye Brook and wanted to bring it to the Board's attention and to the public's attention so that everyone is aware of what the alternatives are. The Mayor wants to have the opportunity to bring up with the authorities the backup at Route 95 and I-287 where the traffic merges,which also causes air pollution problems in our area. The Mayor has been told that until the state does any work in and around I-287 there is no chance that we can get sound barriers for the residents on each side of 287. He wants to let the powers that be know that when anyone comes into this area these are things we need to address. Ms. Timpone Mohaned stated that the project also includes improvements to the vehicular portion of the corridor so they will be doing major improvements along the right of way for vehicular traffic as well. Trustee Harris suggested that we seek an additional volunteer from the planning board to be a representative at the meetings. Trustee Santon suggests we join forces and work together with Port Chester especially relating to the taking of physical property. The meetings are imminent and they will probably be introducing the alternatives at the next meeting. DISCUSSION OF AGENDA ITEMS SUGGESTED BY MEMBERS OF THE VILLAGE BOARD: 1) Discussion: Planning Board approval authority The Planning Board is an advisory board and should have some level of authority. Trustee Harris wants to make it easier for the residents to get done what they need and not to make it easier for the developers. Trustee Santon said that three years ago, in 2001, the Village Attorney, Ken Powell was to look into it and then a few months later Keane and Beane was appointed as the Village Attorney, and the matter was never taken up with them. He suggested that the village staff consult with the other communities that may have converted from an advisory board to a board having approval authority. Mr. Bradbury explained that the Board has to define what authority it wants to give to the planning board, for example, subdivision approval, site plan approval, certain permits, all BOT March 9,2004 Page 7 of 13 permits, or not. Then we must go through the village code and amend our local laws where it is relevant and change the sections from Village Board to Planning Board. We would need to hold a public hearing and adopt the changes. Village counsel will update Mr. Powell's memos and present them at the April 27, 2004 meeting. Floyd Caplan of 4 Holly Lane stated the abilities and backgrounds of the members of the planning board and that they should have approval authority. 2) Discussion: Traffic Condition in Roanoke area Trustee Harris wanted to discuss it tonight and then turn it over to the traffic commission. Parts of it relate to alternate side of the street parking in the winter and perhaps having it year round,which would make everything more accessible. Mr. Bradbury said he understood that the Board would like the traffic commission to consider a more permanent solution concerning alternate side of the street parking and when we get that recommendation back we could draft that into local law and hold a public hearing. The Board voted unanimously to refer it to the traffic commission. 3) Discussion: Update on Steering Committee for Traffic study at Hutch/King/Merritt Interchange. Trustee Harris said there have been two meetings for the traffic study but the attendance is very poor. Trustee Santon pointed out that these two meetings were not public meetings and that representatives, of this Steering Committee,have been there. The first public meeting is scheduled for April 28th or 29th, 2004 and it will be widely publicized. 4) Discussion: Update on Westchester County Legacy Grant for the ball field on King Street Trustee Harris wanted an update on this application. Mr. Bradbury told us the money awarded to other communities has ranged form $850,000 to two million from the county. The next step for the County Legacy Committee to review our application and they will be meeting by April. The committee will consist of someone from the County Planning Department, the real estate director, the budget department and the parks department. After that meeting we will be able to get more information from the county. Trustee Santon went over what other towns received and that the Legacy grant program has never granted more than two million dollars to any community. We have a$3.6 million application and with the acquisition of the school property makes the project about $3.82 million and it has not been on the agenda yet,with the county. He wants to get more attention so we can move this project along. BOT March 9,2004 Page 8 of 13 5) Discussion: Various budgetary and fiscal oversight issues Mr. Bradbury will be presenting the proposed budget for 2004 -2005 at the March 19, 2004 meeting. Trustee Santon wants the budget sessions to be cablecast so the public can see how the Board of Trustee deliberates over a $13 million budget. He also wants the Village audit posted on the web site, so that the residents can see not just the budget but the results at fiscal year end. In addition, he wants the audit's management reports shared with the public because we have nothing to hide. If our auditors make recommendations to the Trustees about things that need to be changed why not share it—we have nothing to conceal to our residents. We have the ability and the capacity with the website so why not have them on and really show transparency in government in Rye Brook. Mr. Bradbury and the Mayor agreed that this could be done. 6) Discussion: Status of encroachments on Village-owned properties Trustee Santon wanted the Village Administrator to give an update as to where we are. Last we left off,Mr. Bradbury gave us certain recommendations but the public hasn't really gotten a follow up to what we are doing. He wants the status on all the various encroachments not just on Rich Manor Park and Meadowland Park. What is the impact to property owners and what can we expect the ramifications to be? Mr. Bradbury said the three main areas that we are focusing on is the Rich Manor Park and Meadowlark Park area, Elm Hill Park and the Roanoke Parkland. We are writing letters to the residents surrounding these parklands and included copies of surveys of these Village properties. The residents need to remove the encroachments by May 15, 2004 and then the Village will put split rail fencing around these areas. 7) Discussion: Update on various utility easement matters Trustee Santon said that he has been bringing this matter before the Board for three years and he thinks that nothing has been done. Verizon has created visual "blight" around our village with all their boxes. They have never gotten site plan approval and most locations have never been reviewed by the planning board. We need to make some positive legislation impacts on our code and try to do what we can to make some changes on the ever-increasing visual "blight" to our streetscapes. The Mayor agreed that we need to do something and that the Village Counsel has heard from the Board about the legislative necessity for the screening and about these utility boxes. Village counsel understands that they have circulated a proposed legislation. Mr. Bradbury said we have a public hearing on this on March 23, 2004. This is the opportunity to have this dialogue. Mr. Donald Cassone of 258 North Ridge Street stated that Verizon boxes are directly across the street from his driveway, on West Ridge Street. Many times there are four BOT March 9,2004 Page 9 of 13 trucks and it is very difficult for him to back out of his driveway when they are parked there. He wants them to move up or down the street and not be in front of his driveway. The village counsel along with Mr. Carosi will look into this matter at the corner of West Ridge Street and draft a letter to Verizon. Trustee Santon wants the village staff to let him know what the circumstances are on West Ridge Street. It never went to site plan review and he finds it odd that Verizon just went ahead with a rather large above ground installation. He wants to know the background on the installation,who approved it, how it was approved. If it was approved, he wants to seek some recourse. He has reviewed the file and what they originally proposed has been exceeded. He wants it removed and if there is encroachment on private property,he wants to see what the village can do to assist the residents by giving them some extra support from the village. Mr. Carosi is trying to get in touch with some of Verizon's foremen at their headquarters. We are trying to step up our involvement because the DPW has to clean up what Verizon leaves behind. He has spoken with Verizon about landscaping and screening on West Ridge and he believes that they were moving forward to resolve the issues. The landscaper was given the approval to work with the neighbors, but then the winter came early. He will find out what is going on with the screening project. Mr. Carosi was advised by counsel that the Village does not regulate utilities and we have no control over them. There are five or six different utility installations throughout the Village and Verizon has indicated their willingness to start landscaping and improving the screening of these utilities. The Mayor is concerned about the double poling (two utility poles side by side) on the streets. Mr. Carosi wants to work with Counsel and step up our writing efforts to Verizon in order to bring it to a higher corporate level. Trustee Santon said that the West Ridge street installations never got consent and appropriate site plan review and Verizon knows it. They need to remove it and we should be fighting back and let them know that we mean business. 8) Discussion: Staffing plan for the Rye Brook Firehouse at 940 King Street. Trustee Santon wanted an update as to where we are in the staffing. It is his understanding that, at the Doral Arrowwood debate, the Mayor made a public statement that there was a plan for staffing of the firehouse that involved career fire fighters from Rye Brook and Port Chester. It is also his understanding that at the recent fire advisory board meeting, the fire chief presented a verbal presentation about the staffing. He wanted to know that if the plan the Mayor cited at the public forum is the plan. He believes it is just a recommendation until the two Village Boards review, discuss and approve. Mr. Bradbury went over the report he had previously given and speaks on behalf of the fire advisory board. Last October, the fire advisory board gave recommendations as to BOT March 9,2004 Page 10 of 13 how we were going to approach the staffing. The fire chiefs have been working on how to staff the Rye Brook firehouse 24 hours a day 7 days a week. They will report back to the fire advisory board and they in turn will report back to the Village Boards of Rye Brook and Port Chester. Trustee Santon wanted to know when we could expect the fire advisory board to make the recommendations so the Board can review, digest and comment on the plan. The contract expires May 2005 between the two villages and we need to give some intent of renewal by May 2004. The contract states that it could be both volunteer and career fire fighters, and it is his understanding that there is no volunteer company from Port Chester that is interested and willing to go to the new firehouse. It seems to him to be going down the path of career fire fighters from both villages. He questioned what is the prospect of any volunteer fire fighters coming to our firehouse. Mr. Bradbury wants to see the plan from the fire chiefs before he comments on this question. It seems to be leaning in the direction of paid fire fighters,not volunteers. 9) Update and discussion on the status of the Garden Inn application. Trustee Rosenberg said the reason he put this on the agenda was because he has been approached by several village residents as well as the homeowners association at Doral Green regarding the status of the Garden Inn. He was hoping we could get an update from the Village attorney and Ms. Timpone Mohamed regarding the status of this application. The escrow account ran a deficit and then it was replenished. We do not hear anything and then we receive letters form their attorneys, and in his opinion, these letters are inflammatory and aggressive. Trustee Rosenberg wants to see this as an agenda item at the next board meeting for possible abandonment of this application. Village counsel told us that the public hearing was on the draft environmental impact statement(DEIS) on September 26, 2000 and as a result of the public hearing, the applicant prepared comments and responses to the comments raised during the public hearing and that was submitted in January 2001. At that time the Board of Trustees referred the FEIS which is the responsiveness to the public hearing and was referred to the planning board in January 2001. The planning board reviewed it and the applicant appeared at several meetings of the planning board. There was a back and forth exchange of information and the planning board requested additional information with respect to alternatives and economic information raised as issues during the public comment period. The planning board was not getting complete information. In the summer of 2002, the applicant hired a new development team and the village staff met with this team. In September 2002 the new development team submitted a revised FEIS to the planning board addressing some of the long outstanding issues. The applicant appeared before the planning board with subsequent revisions that resulted in the revised FEIS being submitted. In September 30, 2002 it was reviewed by the village staff and additional revisions were needed. In April 2003 there were a number of outstanding issues.At this time we made a recommendation to the planning board that they make a recommendation to the Board of Trustee that the review process of the FEIS be completed by the village staff and the village hired consultants so that we could move the process along. The June 20, 2003 meeting resulted in the identification of additional items that needed to be BOT March 9,2004 Page 11 of 13 completed. In August 2003 we expected to receive a completed FEIS and we have not received the completed FEIS. In November we were provided with a revised set of plans and we also requested additional money for the escrow account. Trustee Harris said that the applicant never answered the original question, which was why, couldn't a smaller hotel work in that site. The applicant continued to dismiss a smaller version of the hotel because they felt they wouldn't get an appropriate return on their capital. Trustee Santon has been a member of the lead agency on this recommendation for three years. The task at hand is for the planning board to advise us whether or not they recommend that this FEIS is complete. He stated that plenty of applications fall behind in escrow money. He recalls that the Mayor made a statement at the March, 2004 debate that the time period for due process is over and that we do have the opportunity to potentially consider abandonment. The Mayor interjected and said he did not say due process is over and that those are not words an attorney would use. Trustee Santon asked the Mayor if he used the words due process and the Mayor said he is not here to be interrogated and asked Trustee Santon to finish what he is trying to say. Trustee Santon wanted to clarify this Boards policy and public position on this application. We have now a discussion item and we heard Trustee Rosenberg make a recommendation that we move towards deeming this project abandoned. The Mayor told Trustee Santon that he is out of order because that is personal. Trustee Santon said that we have a recent letter from the attorneys for the applicant that is very clear and they are not abandoning the project. He wanted the Mayor to clarify where the communication gap is. The Mayor said it might qualify for abandonment and that he is chairing the meeting and Trustee Santon is now finished. The Mayor told him the he can try and direct a point of principle if you want this body to hear. Trustee Santon would like to direct this point as to why this applicant's property has campaign signs for the Mayor and Trustee Rosenberg. The Mayor told him he is totally out of order and that it is personal and that he did not put the signs on this property. The Mayor reminded the public that election night is March 16, 2004. Mayor Filipowski adjourned the meeting at 9:35 pm. Trustee Santon told him he had no authority to adjourn the meeting and that he needed a motion and a vote from the Board of Trustees in order to adjourn the meeting NEXT TRUSTEES MEETINGS March 23, 2004 and April 13,2004 Village Hall is fully accessible to the handicapped. BOT March 9,2004 Page 12 of 13 Those who need special arrangements should contact the Village Administrator's Office ONE-WEEK in advance of a meeting at (914) 939-1121. Respectfully Submitted, Christopher J. Bradbury Village Administrator/Clerk BOT March 9,2004 Page 13 of 13