HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-06-26 - Board of Trustees Meeting Minutes June 26, 2001
VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK
BOARD OF TRUSTEES MEETING
VILLAGE HALL, 938 KING STREET
Tuesday,June 26, 2001 --.7:30 p.m.
AGENDA
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING ON SPRINT APPLICATION TO
BUILD AN ATTACHED WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITY AT
900 KING STREET
2. CONSIDERING INCREASING THE MEMERSHIP OF THE TRAFFIC
COMMISSION FROM 7 TO 9 MEMBERS
RESOLUTIONS:
1. CONSIDERING HIRING SULLIVAN ARCHITECTURE, P.C., FOR FIRE
HOUSE PRE-DESIGN SERVICES
2. REFERRING REQUEST TO AMEND BELLEFAIR SITE PLAN TO THE
PLANNING BOARD TO CONSIDER THE DELETION OF SPECIFIC
SIDWEALKS FROM THE PROJECT
3. REFERRING REQUEST TO THE PLANNING BOARD TO ADD THREE NEW
SIGNS AT THE RYE TOWN HILTON
4. REFERRING REQUEST TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR KOCHER
SUBDIVISION AT 483 FRANKLIN STREET
5. AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT TO VILLAGE'S CODE OF ETHICS TO
INCORPORATE NO POLITICAL ACTIVITIES GUIDELINES
6. APPROVING 2001-2002 COMPENSATION
7. AMENDING VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC REGULATIONS TO ESTABLISH
PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON HILLCREST AVENUE
DISCUSSIONS:
I
June 26, 2001
1. RESTORE OF ORIGINAL BUDGET REQUEST FROM PORT CHESTER PUBLIC
LIBRARY TO FULLY FUND CARPETING
2. EXISTING PEDESTRIAN /BICYCLE EASEMENT RUNNING THROUGH THE
ARBORS, BLIND BROOK MIDDLE/HIGH SCHOOL AND 900 KING STREET
PROPERTIES
3. FOLLOW UP ON RYE BROOK FIREHOUSE SITING PROCESS
VILLAGE ADMINISTRATOR REPORT
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
NEXT TRUSTEES MEETINGS
JULY 10,2000 AND JULY 24,2001
VILLAGE HALL IS FULLY ACCESSIBLE TO THE HANDICAPPED.
THOSE WHO NEED SPECIAL ARRANGEMENTS SHOULD CONTACT THE
VILLAGE ADMINASTRATOR'S OFFICE
ONE WEEK IN ADVANCE OF A MEETING AT (914) 939.1121
CONVENE:
The meeting of the Board of Trustees was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Mayor Filipowski, and the
Pledge of Allegiance followed.
PRESENT: Mayor Francis L. Filipowski
Trustee Donald Degling
Trustee Dean Santon
Trustee Lawrence A. Rand
Excused: Trustee xody H. Brackman
STAFF: Christopher Bradbury, Village Administrator
Kenneth Powell, Village Attorney
David S. Kvinge, RLA, AICP, Village Consultant
David H. Stohnan, AICP, PP, Village Consultant
Chief Robert Santoro,Police Chief
Victor Carosi, Village Engineer
William Gerety, Building Inspector
Paula Patafio, Meeting Secretary
Excused. Ingrid Bent, Assistant to the Village Administrator
Mayor Filipowski called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m., beginning with the Pledge of
Allegiance.
2
June 26, 2001
Mayor Filipowski called for the first item of the agenda under Public Hearings:
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING ON SPRINT APPLICATION TO
BUILD AN ATTACHED WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITY AT
900 DING STREET
Mayor Filipowski noted that the first item on the agenda was a continuation of the
Public Hearing from the June 12, 2001 Meeting regarding the Sprint Application to
build an attached wireless telecommunication facility at 900 King Street. Mr.
Christopher Bradbury, Village Administrator, stated that the applicant notified the
Village that they would be unable to attend this evening's meeting. Therefore the Public
Hearing would remain open and the Board would hear from members of the public who
wished to comment on this application.
David Stolman, of Frederick R Clark Associates, stated that it was his opinion that the
Public Hearing should be postponed. Mr. Daniel F. Leary, representative for the
applicant, notified the Village that he would not be able to attend this meeting.
Therefore, Mr. Stolman felt that it would be better for him to be in attendance when
people raise their questions concerning this application. Mayor Filipowski stated that
this item would be placed on the July 10th agenda.
As the Village's Consultants were in attendance at the meeting and, for the benefit.of
the public, they were asked to present their analysis and comments. Dr. Thomas Pease,
Ph.D., P.E. of Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers LLP addressed the Board. Dr.
Pease noted that they were retained by the Village to review this application with
respect to several issues in particular the radio frequency emissions. Mr. Akira A.
Yamasalci, P.E., Consultant, was retained to perform this analysis.
Dr. Pease noted that his firm has completed a structural review of the application and it
was found to be accurately designed. He smnmarized the report submitted to the
Village by stating that the emissions analysis complies with the guidelines and noting
that they were confident that the analysis was done correctly. He asked Mr. Yamasaki
to present the analysis on the emissions.
Mr. Yamasaki addressed the Board. He stated that a thorough analysis of Sprint's
application has been completed. His position was to review and justify their application
with regard to the validity of their claims. He found no problems, and in fact found that
they met all the safety precautions. He offered to address specific questions from the
Board and members of the public.
Dee Dee Mitchell of the Arbors addressed the Board, She noted that most residents do
not have a problem with one company coming in and putting its antenna on this
building. However, it was the Arbors' preference to have the antenna placed on the
3
June 26, 2001
Village Hall Building. The residents of the Arbors feel that by allowing one company to
come in and place its antenna on the roof top of this building would open the door for
other companies to do the same. She reminded the Board that 900 King Street is located
in a P.U.D.
Mr. Yamasaki was asked to explain co-location with regard to the FCC rules. He felt
that there was a misunderstanding with regards to co-location and stated that co-location
in the FCC's definition is basically having other antennas on the structure of the
monopole. This monopole must be built structurally sound so that it can accommodate
other users. Also included is use for municipal communication. Co-locating many
antennas on a common roof is another type of definition. The FCC has ruled that a
municipality is not permitted to tell a wireless carrier that they cannot come in. When a
municipality tries to go against this ruling they are leaving themselves open to litigation.
Trustee Lawrence Rand asked for clarification of the co-location definition. Mr.
Yamasaki reiterated that co-locating on a structure is not what the FCC intended. In
fact, the structure review that has been completed by the Village's consultants was only
for Sprint's use. If other competitors decide that this location would be a good location
for their needs then they would have to come in and make an application for another
location on the rooftop.
Mr. Stolman commented that the Village's definition in its zoning code regarding co-
location is broader than that of the FCC. It comes under the heading of Standards for
Wireless Telecommunications Facility or Attached Wireless Telecommunications
Facility. This broader definition covers this application and the rooftop location. .In
order to clarify for the Board, and the residents, Mr. Stolman asked Mr, Yamasaki if he
could render an opinion with regard to how many other antennas could be located on
this roof and still comply with the FCC regulations in terms of radio frequency. Mr.
Yamasaki noted that the response to this question depends on many issues, As an
example he noted that if you take a rooftop with a large area and spread out the antennas
throughout the area or take the same amount of antennas and locate them in one area the
radio frequency rating will be different. Mr. Stolman clarified and asked for Mr.
Yamasaki's expert opinion as to how many antennas could conceivably be located on
this roof. Mr. Yamasaki responded that the issue here is electro-magnetic radiation and
not radio-activity. He felt that if there was 125' mast on a typical structure for a
customer such as Sprint, Nextel, AT&T or Omnipoint, then there could be perhaps 50
services located on this rooftop. Dr. Pease expressed his opinion that dozens to
hundreds of antenna could be placed on this rooftop and still fall below the magnitude
of the criteria that the FCC Guidelines require.
Mayor Filipowski asked what the maximum amount of radiation was that can be
allowed at a receptor location. Mr. Yamasaki noted that it was 1 miliwatt per square
centimeter. The Sprint antenna, when standing directly beneath the antetma, is at about
25% of the criteria.
4
June 26, 2001
Mayor Filipowski asked when adding other antennas at what point the additions of the
radiation frequencies add up to 100%. Mr. Yamasaki noted that the typical cellular
telephone systems range from mid-800 megahertz to 2000 megahertz. This is the
micro-wave. Dr. Pease noted that multiple antennas is added to the criteria, i.e. four
antennas creates four times the power density. Each service, depending on the
frequency, has its own criteria of what the radiation criteria is at a given point.
Another resident of the Arbors addressed the Board. He asked for information on the
effects of the radiation on pacemakers. Mr. Yamasaki responded that there are no
concerns with regard to effects on pacemakers. A number of studies on this issue have
been completed and can be referred to.
Mr. Yamasaki noted that the radiation on an individual standing 100' feet away from a
radiating tower is less than when that individual uses a cell phone.
Hillary Silver of the Arbors noted that the radiation issue is a quality of life issue, She
expressed a concern of how 50 to 100 antennas will affect their quality of life. The
residents of Arbors feel that this is very unfair. Mr, Yamasaki noted that there is a
maximum number of antennas allowed. You can only add antennas until the aggregate
radiation from all of them meet the criteria. From then on no additional antennas can be
added.
Another resident of the Arbors addressed the Board, He noted that Sprint is going
through a very strenuous process with regard to this application. He asked what the
second carrier who makes a similar request would have to do in order to make a similar
application, and where the Village would draw the line. Mr. Stoll an noted that this
decision would revolve around the FCC's regulations in terms of co-location.
Furthermore, the application would have to come before the Village Board and it would
make the decision of whether or not co-location can take place.
Trustee Degling noted that in Frederick P. Clark's discussion under the heading of co-
location it was noted that in Section 250-39F5 co-location will be provided for and it
refers to Section 250-39E4. Simply put, under these Sections of the Village's Code, the
application and the owner of the property must certify that co-location will be allowed.
Co-location and use of existing structures will be required unless the applicant submits
proof in an affidavit acceptable to the approving authority that reasonable efforts to co-
locate have been unsuccessful. In addition, use of an existing building or structure shall
be required as the next priority unless the applicant submits proof in an affidavit
acceptable to the approving authority that no existing building or stricture is suitable.
An affidavit of inability to co-locate or use an existing structure shall demonstrate one
of the following: 1) The planned equipment would exceed the structural capacity; 2)
The planned equipment would cause radio frequency interference with other equipment;
3) Existing or approved wireless telecommunication facilities, etc., do not have space;
4) Other techtdoal reasons make it impractical to place the equipment proposed by the
applicant on the existing facilities; and 5) The property owner or owners of the existing
wireless telecommunication facilities, attached wireless telecommunication facility, or
5
June 26, 2001
other structure refuses to allow such co-location. The proliferation can indeed be
prevented by either the owner of the first facility, or the owner of the building.
Therefore, the power is not so much in the hands of the Village as it is in the hands of
the property owners and property users. Trustee Degling deferred to Mr. Ken Powell,
Village Attorney, for his interpretation of this law.
Mr. Powell felt that Trustee Degling's interpretation was correct. This application is a
Special Permit, The Village Board does have the power to deny this application if it is
shown that a particular use at a particular location is unsuitable as shown by evidence.
Another resident of the Arbors asked if a specific number of antennas could be put in
place ahead of time so that they could feel comfortable with regard to the amount of
antennas being placed on top of this building over the next twenty years. Mr. Powell
stated that he would have to research this request, and have a response at the next
meeting.
Ms. Ross of 226 Treetop Crescent in the Arbors addressed the Board. She commented
that the Village Hall's roof was constructed in such a way that it would be able to
support antennas. This issue was discussed as a source of revenue for the Village. Ms.
Ross felt that the Village should go to the carriers and offer the Village Hall location,
It was noted that the telecommunication companies have contacted the Village with
regard to the Atrium location. This location meets their requirements for their service
area gaps. The carriers are aware of the Village's willingness to locate these antennas
on the Village Hall property. Ms. Ross felt that the Village should approach the
companies and make this offer. Mayor Filipowski noted that the Board has a fiduciary
responsibility to the Village and all of its residents that no liability falls upon the
Village. There are very real potential liability issues for any of these cell towers.
Daniel Tartaglia, Esq., addressed the Board. Mr. Tartaglia's firm has been hired by the
Homeowners Association of the Arbors. He discussed the Rye Brook
Telecommunications Law which was passed last year. The OB 1, OB2, OB3 and OBS
zones are all office park zones. The C1 and H1 zones are commercial, and hotels. The
P.U,D.s are the only residential areas within Rye Brook where wireless antenna are
pern-itted. No other zones that contain residents are permitted areas. It was noted that
P.U.D,s do have residential components, but they also have office buildings and other
uses within them.
The concern is the aesthetics. They do not want this area to look like antenna city. No
one objects to a singular cell tower on 900 King Street, but they do object to having a
building covered with antennas. Another major concern is health issues, and the effect
these types of issues will have on the property owners' ability to re-sell their homes.
The Arbors would like to petition the Village Board to amend the law, removing
P.U.D.s as areas that cell towers will be permitted.
6
Tune 26, 2001
Mr. Targtaglia informed the Board that he will not be available for the next Board of
Trustee meeting scheduled for July 10, 2001. He asked that this public hearing be kept
open until the next meeting in July.
Mayor Filipowski stated that at this time the landlord/owner of 900 King Street is
making a concentrated effort of saying that he would like the antenna located on his
properly, Mr. Powell noted that the Village does not have the authority to consider the
radiation issue unless it does not comply with FCC standards. This application does
meet the FCC standards.
Mr. Bradbury noted that any companies that have expressed interest in the Village have
expressed interest in towers. It is the Village's preference to have these antennas be
placed on existing structures versus construction towers.
Trustee Dean Santon stated that part of the application submitted by Sprint was that the
ownership of 900 King Street was amenable to considering additional wireless antenna
co-located on his properly. Whether they will or won't is not addressed, but the
statement simply says that they will be amenable. Other areas within the Village have
been contemplated, Bellefair was one location, but that was changed because of FAA
regulations. The FCC states that municipalities do not have a right to reject an
application based on health concerns that cannot be proved at this time, the Village can
take the position of not wanting to take any chances with the health of their residents.
Locating the antenna on private properly relieves the Village of this type of liability.
Another resident of the Arbors addressed the Board. He stated that if there are liability
issues for the Village regarding the placement of the antenna, then they should not be
placed until these liability issues have been thoroughly investigated. If it is found that
there are no liabilities issue, then the Village should look to have the antennas built on
Village Hall property.
Michael Brown of the Arbors questioned the liability aspect. He asked if the wireless
carriers are required to purchase liability insurance. Mr. Powell noted that there was a
bond that is placed for these types of structures,
Trustee Rand noted that the offices of Frederick P. Clark Associates had prepared a
memorandum on this application. During a prior discussion on the issue of co-location,
it was requested that the owner of 900 King Street be present to answer some of the
questions. The request for continuation has been made, and Trustee Rand felt that it
would be appropriate for the Board to once again request that the landlord of 900 King
Street be present at the next Board of Trustee meeting.
Trustee Santon addressed the Board on this topic. He noted that it was mentioned that
the law was passed last year, but it was actually passed in 1999, He began to discuss the
height of the building and its conformance with Village regulations. He asked for the
opportunity to review the zoning issues. Although the Certificate of Occupancy was
issued for this building, he felt that it was issued improperly. He wanted to try and
a
7
June 26, 2001
reconcile how this building is substantially larger and taller than it was supposed to be,
and felt that before this application was discussed any further the issue of the height of
the building should be addressed.
Trustee Santon was reminded that the application before the Board was an application
from Sprint to construct a wireless telecommunication facility. The issue of the
building's conformance with Village Code is a separate issue. Mayor Filipowski noted
that the Village has had the advice of the Village's staff, consultants and counsel, and is
currently reviewing the building's conformance to Village Code.
A resident of the Arbors asked if there would be any problems with locating the antenna
on this rooftop if the building height were lower. Dr. Thomas Pease, of Lawler,
Matusky & Skelly Engineers, responded that Sprint would have to look and see if it
could still meet the coverage that it was trying to achieve if the building were lower, In
terms of the permissible exposure calculations, it would not matter if the antenna were
higher or lower.
Angelo Leva of the Arbors felt that it would be wiser to wait for the applicant and its
representatives to be in attendance. Mayor Filipowski stated that this public hearing
would be adjourned to the next meeting, and continued at the next Board of Trustee
meeting
Trustee Santon asked to address this issue again. He asked that his colleagues look into
the zoning issues, and stated that he would not stop raising this issue until it was
resolved. It was his opinion that the zoning could not be white-washed. He asked for a
work session, and once again reviewed his concerns regarding the size of this building.
He made several assumptions, and comments to which Mayor Filipowski took
exception.
A discussion regarding adjournment took place. Based upon federal regulation the
Village needs to continue the process and take this application up at the next Board
meeting. It was noted that several of the Board members would not be available for the
second meeting of July. Mr. Stoltman responded that although the Village needs to
process this application as expeditiously as possible, following Federal Regulations, but
a quorum of the Board is required. Mayor Filipowski noted that he and Trustee Rand
would not be in attendance, but there would be quorum.. Mr. Stoltman felt that the
Board should continue the hearing to the next Board meeting, snaking as much progress
as possible, The hearing then should be continued to the next meeting.
Mr. Ken Powell noted that the federal statute provides that the Board has an obligation
to process all applications in a timely manner. However, in this instance, the applicant
did create this problem by not being in attendance at this evening's meeting.
Trustee Santon requested a special session be scheduled. He felt that a special session
would accommodate Sprint, Village Trustees and counsel.
8
June 26, 2001
Mayor Filipowski again responded that as the majority of the Board has expressed their
opinion that this public hearing be continued at the next Board of Trustee meeting, it
would be placed on the agenda for the.July meeting.
A motion was made by Trustee Degling, and seconded by Trustee Rand, to continue the
public hearing to the next meeting. The roll was called, with all four members of the
Board voting aye.
Mayor Filipowski called for item#2 under the heading of Public Hearings:
2. CONSIDERING INCREASING THE MEMERSHIP OF THE TRAFFIC
COMMISSION FROM 7 TO 9 MEMBERS
Mr. Bradbury opened the public hearing. Mayor Filipowski asked for comments from
members of the Board, and meinbcrs of the public. There being no comments, Trustee
Degling made a motion was made to close the public hearing, which was seconded by
Trustee Rand. The roll was called.
TRUSTEE DEGLING VOTING AYE
TRUSTEE RAND VOTING AYE
TRUSTEE SANTON VOTING AYE
MAYOR FILIPOWSKI VOTING AYE
Mayor Filipowski moved to the Resolution section of the agenda. He called for the first item:
1. CONSIDERING HIRING SULLIVAN ARCHITECTURE, P.C., FOR FIRE
HOUSE-PRE-DESIGN SERVICES
Mr. Bradbury read the following Resolution:
RESOLUTION
RETAINING SULLIVAN ARCHITECTURE, P.C.
FOR FIRE HOUSE PROGRAM REPORT
RESOLVED, that the Village of Rye Brook is authorized to enter into a
consultant agreement with ,Sullivan Architecture, P.C., 115 Stevens Avenue,
Valhalla, New York, in an amount not to exceed $17,000 to prepare a fire house
program report to be submitted within two (2) months of commencement of
services; and it is further
9
June 26, 2001
RESOLVED, that the Mayor is authorized to execute and deliver all
documents necessary or appropriate to accomplish the purposes of this Resolution.
On a motion made by Trustee Degling, and seconded by Trustee Rand, the
Resolution was accepted.
Ms. Ross, the president of the Arbors Homeowners Association, addressed the
Board. On behalf of the residents of the Arbors she expressed her concerns with the
Board's desire to locate a firehouse at Arbor Drive, at the corner of Ding Street.
Although the residents of the Arbors have been assured by Mayor Filipowski that
this site was not "a done-deal," the site is still being contemplated. She stated that
this type of a facility would affect the property values of the residents of the Arbors,
increase traffic and noise, and diminish their quality of life. She felt that the Board
should be actively considering other sites. She noted that more than 100 residents
have signed petitions and submitted letters opposing this location. The Arbors
strenuously oppose any efforts to condemn their property for use by the Village.
Arbor Drive is a private road.
Mr. Ken Powell, Village Attorney, responded that Arbor Drive is a private Road,
and unless the Homeowners Association gave it to the Village, the Village cannot
use it.
Mayor Filipowski stated that, contrary to what has been stated, the Village is not
planning on hiring a firm to design a firehouse for Arbor Drive. The Village does
not plan to build anything on Arbor Drive. No condemnation, or taking, of Arbor
Drive will be supported by the Board. He felt that Ms. Ross had been supplied
inaccurate information and informed her that the owners of 900 King Street own the
property between Arbor Drive and the Village property.
Michael Brown, another resident of the Arbors, asked if the Board could please tell
the resident which sites were being considered. Mayor Filipowski stated that the
proposed study is a feasibility study. A fact-finding interview will be conducted,
and the focus will be on the Village Hall area. This study will flesh out what are the
fire needs, keeping safety the major concern, for the community,
Mr. Bradbury also noted that the Village is currently considering the Village Hall
property and the property next door. He stated that at this time Sullivan
Architecture has not been asked to review any other sites.
Mr. Daniel Ashley, a resident of Rye Brook, asked why the Village was not looking
at other sites. He felt that there were other possible sites. He also felt that the
residents of the Arbors who are opposed to having the firehouse built so close to
them should receive more information. Then, perhaps people might feel more
10
June 26, 2001
comfortable with what is going on. It seems Tike things are being done, and plans
are being made, without keeping the public informed.
Mayor Filipowski stated that the Board has made every effort to keep the residents
informed.
Mr, Ashley asked for the timeframe of how long it would be before ground would be
broken for the new facility? Mr. Bradbury responded that if at the end of the two
months the plan was approved, then the next step would be taken. The architect will
be called in to design a firehouse. That process would take another ten to twelve
months.
Trustee Santon stated that he was opposed to hiring a consultant for $17,000. This
$17,000 will just give the Village one more study. He felt that there were many
outstanding issues, and that this Village Board has been reluctant to discuss sites. At
one time the Board had reviewed the Betsy Brown and North Ridge Street site, but
after the election that process ended. Plans were done by Dolph Rotfeld showing a
firehouse on Village Hall property, which included a parking lot in the park. There
were drawings done by Roger Carlson for a firehouse site on 938 King Street in
February of 2000.
Trustee Santon asked that the Board do a Resolution stating that it would never
recommend any alteration to Arbor Drive in connection to the firehouse. He stated
that he was disturbed because the RFP only mentions Village Hall property for the
site. Trustee Santon continued, stating that the Facilities Committee had suggested
two sites. They were Sleepy Hollow and the Village Hall site. He stated that as he
understood it, there was a telephone discussion between several, but not all, of the
members of the committee and after that conversation the Sleepy Hollow site was
withdrawn. Trustee Santon reviewed the firehouse project from the beginning. He -
ended his speech by expressing his opinion that the criteria should be laid out and
the best site should be chosen. He asked why the Village 11as waited two years to
bring the Village Hall site to the forefront. He felt that his colleagues have put the
firehouse location on the back burner. In addition, he was not sure that the Village
Hall site was the perfect site, He urged the Board to hold a special meeting on this
subject, noting that this site is not centrally located. He also noted that property
values are a legitimate concern, but the Village needs to make a mature decision of
whether or not the Village wants a central site that will serve all of its residents or a
site that will aggravate the fewest number of residents. All residents will share in
the cost of the firehouse, and all residents should be served by this firehouse. He
expressed his opinion that no one would hire an architect without knowing where
they were going to site the proposed building.
Trustee Santon stated that it has been 3 %2 years since the Village began discussing
sites. Response time has been the number one criteria during discussions. He asked
how if response time is the number one concern, how the Lincoln Avenue corridor
of the Village would be served by a firchouse located on King Street,
11
June 26, 2001
Trustee Santon returned to his perception of what happened to the Sleepy Hollow
site. He insinuated that an impropriety had taken place. He asked that the Board put
this matter on the agenda for Resolution., so he could vote against it.
Mayor Filipowski stated that the process of siting the firehouse began in 1997. In
1998 several discussions were held about possibilities, with the major problem being
the difficulty of the location. Discussion about the Village property, and using
Arbor Drive, ended because Arbor Drive is a private road. In 1999, as the Village
ascertained that there was property that would be available because of the
construction on the Hutchinson River Parkway. It was viewed as a viable location
for the firehouse, and was considered by the Facilities Committee. There was
opposition to this site and Mr. Rotfeld was asked to research this site. It was found
that the ingress and egress from the Hutch's entrance ramp would be adjacent to the
driveway to the firehouse,which created a very serious problem.
It was alluded to that the Vision Committee make a recommendation for a site,
however, no site was recommended. Mayor Filipowski noted that the Vision
Committee has not made a recommendation, but rather made a suggestion. Anyone
interested in reading this suggestion can look at the Vision Plan, page 15.
During the Vision Plan process, many people asked for a firehouse in the Northern
end of the Village. In 1997 Rural Metro was providing fire service. This company
was brought in with the idea of trying to set up an independent fire service for Rye
Brook. At this time the Village has expanded and if there is one firehouse then it
should be centrally located.
To continue this process, Mayor Filipowski believed that hiring Sullivan
Architecture to look at this issue is appropriate, This firm will be asked to consider
other locations, if that is the desire of the Board.
Trustee Rand noted that the discussion is with regard to hiring a consultant/architect.
The Village needs to look at a site that will work for the Village. The Village has
grown since 1997, and this needs to be taken into account. The process of looking at
what the site should look like and the process of viewing the entire costs involved
needs to commence. Over the years this process has been one of the most open
processes that he has ever seen. He stated that he supported going forward.
Trustee Degling noted that he has reviewed the three proposals and has interviewed
the firms. For the record, Trustee Degling noted that Mr. Sullivan is a first-class
fellow, and his firm has come highly recommended. It is important to look at what
the Village needs for the fiiture -- how many square feet required, how the
combination of paid firemen and volunteers is handled, and how it works in this
unique situation where Rye Brook is associated with the Port Chester Fire
Department. It is important for the Board to look at everything and to start taking
12
June 26, 2001
action. Trustee Degling noted that he was in favor of the Resolution before the
Board.
A resident of the Arbors asked why the Village would spend $17,000.00 of taxpayer
dollars to access property on King Street, knowing that King Street is heavily
congested and there will be traffic issues. Ding Street has a lot of traffic on it and
he felt that a fire truck would not be able travel this road during peak hours. He also
asked if a Resolution could be passed with regard to no taking of Arbor Drive,
and/or a firehouse will not be built on property located near Arbor Drive.
Mr. Bradbury noted that the main expectation of the report would be to focus on the
program, space needs, and the evaluation of costs. The main body of the report will
determine the operational and equipment needs. At this point the consultant will not
be looking at any other site other than the Village Hall site unless requested by the
Board of Trustees.
Mr. Joel Mitchell of the Arbors addressed the Board. He felt that a firehouse on
King Street would require discussions with the Town of Greenwich. Mr. Bradbury
stated that there have not been any discussions with Greenwich, but he would follow
up on this suggestion.
Trustee Sauton asked for another opportunity to address this issue in an attempt to
clarify some of the things discussed. His concern surrounds the process. He stated
that he has no answer for where the firehouse should be located. Once again, he
returned to his perception of what took place at the time of the Facilities
Committee's vote where two sites were suggested. He also noted that at one time
there were as many as five sites available to the Village. At this time several of
these sites are no longer available, but perhaps there are other viable sites within the
Village. He referred to the Vision Plan, and noted that it has been accepted, but has
not been discussed. It was his opinion that an architect should not be hired to design
a structure without having a site on which to place the building. He, once again,
asked for a special session to be scheduled to discuss this very important issue,
Dee Dee Mitchell addressed the Board. She noted that there are two pieces of
property that are owned by the Village. One is the compost site, which is 29 acres.
It is located on a curve of King Street, but the Village does own it. She asked if this
property was considered, along with widening the road to remove the curve. She
also suggested looking at a piece of property near Anderson Hill Road. This
property has an application before the Board for construction of a hotel. ,She felt
that this property would be a good location for the firehouse and the Village should
consider purchasing this land.
There being no further comments, Mayor Filipowski noted that there was a
Resolution before the Board with a motion and a second. He asked Mr. Bradbury to
call the roll;
13
June 26, 2001
TRUSTEE DEGLING VOTING AYE
TRUSTEE RAND VOTING AYE
TRUSTEE SANTON VOTING NO
MAYOR FILIPOWSKI VOTING AYE
Mayor Filipowski called for item #7. He noted that this item would be taken out of order, and then
they would return to the agenda.
7. AMENDING VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC REGULATIONS TO ESTABLISH
PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON HILLCREST AVENUE
Mr. Bradbury was asked to read the Resolution:
RESOLUTION
AMENDING VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC REGULATIONS
TO ESTABLISH PARKING RESTRICTIONS
ON HILLCREST AVENUE
RESOLVED, that Section 240,19.1 of the Rye brook Code is amended to add the
following parking restrictions:
NAME OF STREET SIDE HOURS/DAYS LOCATION
Hillcrest Avenue East/West 5:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. From Neuton
From September 1 to Avenue to
June 30 Maywood Ave.
Mr. Gerald Applebaum, Chair of the Traffic Commission, addressed the Board to briefly
explain where this request originated. Mr. Applebaum noted that there was a request from
several years ago to make this area no parking during school hours. This was considered by
the Traffic Commission in 1997. A recommendation was made and the parking signs were
placed on one side of the street. As consequence the children moved to the next side of the
street, and the problem remained. The residents of the area complain that the children spend
their free time in the cars, eating, drinking and leaving their trash behind,
Two residents of Hillcrest addressed the Board in opposition to this Resolution. They felt
that eliminating the parking at Hillcrest Avenue would simply result in the children parking
further down the road. This is unfair, and it does not solve any traffic problems. The real
problem is one that needs to be directed to the Pork Chester High School. She felt that there
is no control, as the children are outside all day long, They lay on the cars, blast music,
fight, and the police are there a good portion of the day. This is becoming a real hazard.
She suggested that Pork Chester learn to control their student body, and also asked that they
consider opening up some of their property to make student parking.
14
June 26, 2001
Mayor Filipowski asked that the Traffic Commission reconsider this issue. Mr. Applebaum
suggested that the residents come to the next meeting of the Traffic Commission.
On a motion made by Trustee Degling, and seconded by Trustee Rand, the Resolution was
tabled to the next meeting.
TRUSTEE DEGLING VOTING AYE
TRUSTEE RAND VOTING AYE
TRUSTEE SANTON VOTING AYE
MAYOR FILIPOWSKI VOTING AYE
Mayor Filipowski returned to the agenda, and called for item#2 under Resolutions;
2. REFERRING REQUEST TO AMEND BELLEFAIR SITE PLAN TO THE
PLANNING BOARD TO CONSIDER THE DELETION OF SPECIFIC
SIDWEALKS FROM THE PROJECT
Mr, Bradbury read the following Resolution.
RESOLUTION
REFERRING BELLEFAIR HOME AND LAND COMPANY
BELLEFAIR PUD SUBDIVISION
SECTION l.,BLOCK 3
RESOLVED, that the application of Bellefair Home & Land Company to amend
the Bellefair PUD ,Site Plan is referred to the Planning Board for a report and
recommendation; and it is further
RESOLVED, that the applicant shall deposit three thousand dollars into the
Village's professional fees/environmental review fund, and such additional sums as may be
requested, to defray the cost of review of this application.
On a motion made by Trustee Rand, and seconded by Trustee Degling, the Resolution was
adopted.
Mr. Mark Miller, of Veneziano & Associates, addressed the Board as representative for the
Bellefair Home & Land Company. He asked for an amended site plan approval, which is
limited to sidewalks on three of the streets. As part of the process the applicant looked into
the issue of the sidewalks on all of the streets. After observing pedestrian traffic, it is felt
that sidewalks are not necessary. Residents have landscaped this area, and have installed
their mailboxes in this area. Mr. Miller noted that the Board of Trustees, with the
concurrence of the Planning Board, could determine that the proposed amendment is minor,
15
June 26, 2001
and then waive most of the procedural requirements. He asked that this matter be referred
to the Planning Board for review at their July 12, 2001 meeting.
Trustee Rand asked what has been done with regard to renumbering Reunion Road. Mr.
Bradbury responded that the Village's engineer has looked into this problem. It was
decided that the first two homes would be designated as 1 and 1A.Reunion Road. The
residents have 60 days to appeal to the Zoning Board.
Mayor Filipowski stated that he has received several calls about the renumbering. They
have expressed dissatisfaction on this decision. This is unfinished business.
Trustee Santon noted that on the package received by the Board members Lot 201 is shown
as not being built, when it has been completed. He noted that he has spoken with some of
the residents and asked if the Homeowners Association was approached. Mr. Neil Deluca
noted that he is, in fact, a member of the Homeowners Association and the Association is in
favor of this request. Mr. DeLuca noted that almost all of the homeowners have made
improvements to the area, right to the curb line. Trustee Santon suggested that perhaps
Bellefair should, in lieu of the sidewalks, add speed bumps.
Mr. DeLuca noted that there is a safety issue here, but it is unrelated to the sidewalks. The
Department of Transportation signs have been installed to help control traffic. It will also
provide other signage, i.e., Do Not Enter signs. Trustee Santon felt that if Bellefair does not
spend the money allotted for sidewalks on sidewalks, other alternatives should be
researched. Mr. DeLuca stated that they have started other discussions with the homeowners
to gather ideas from them.
Mr. Bradbury responded that this application needed to be looked at on the merits of
whether or not sidewalks are required, not what else Bellefair could do with those fiends.
Trustee Rand asked for notification from the Homeowner Association that they are in
agreement. Mr.DeLuca agreed.
Trustee Degling noted that the Village has been promoting sidewalks. He reminded the
Board that Reunion Road is the ingress and egress to the proposed Senior Living Center.
He also pointed out that the roads in Bellefair are 24' versus 28', narrower than the Village
standard. He felt that there was a safety issue in regard to not having the sidewalks, and
having pedestrians traverse the roadways. This safety issue needs to be reviewed by the
Planning Board, and he was of the opinion that the sidewalks should be installed.
Mr. DeLuca noted that the Senior Living Facility will have sidewalks, making the Village
Green totally accessible to them, The Village Green is the hub of activity—where the pool,
the meeting house, and the deli is located. There is a required connection between the
Senior Living Facility and the Village Green.
16
June 26, 2001
There being no further questions from the Board, or comments from the public, the roll was
called for the Resolution;
TRUSTEE DEGLING VOTING AYE
TRUSTEE RAND VOTING AYE
TRUSTEE SANTON VOTING AYE
MAYOR FILIPOWSKI VOTING AYE
The application was referred to the Planning Board for review.
Mayor Filipowski called for the next item on the agenda:
3. REFERRING REQUEST TO THE PLANNING BOARD TO ADD THREE NEW
SIGNS AT THE RYE TOWN HILTON
Mr. Bradbury read the following Resolution
RESOLUTION
REFERRING RYE TOWN HILTON HOTEL
699 WESTCHESTER AVENUE
SECTION 1,BLOCK S, LOT 18C
RESOLVED, that the application of Rye Town Hilton to install three (3)
freestanding hotel signs at 699 Westchester Avenue is referred to the Planning Board for a
report and recommendation; and it is fiirther
RESOLVED, that the applicant shall deposit Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000) into
the Village's professional fees/enviromnental review fiend, and such additional sums as may
be requested, to defray the cost of review of this application.
A motion was placed before the Board.
Bruno Gioffre, Esq., of the fine of Gioffre & Gioffre, addressed the Board as representative
for the Rye Town Hilton. He noted that the signs that are there were built 30 years ago.
The Code has changed over the years and now the signs are non-conforming. The new
signs lean more toward conformity. Mr, Gioffre noted that there are tune constraints with
respect to the action to be taken by the Hilton. This is a worldwide change. Mr. Gioffre
noted that this application has been before the Zoning Board of Appeals and the
Architectural Review Board. The changes were unanimously approved. Mr. Gioffre asked
that the Board retain this application rather than send it to the Planning Board as there is no
application of planning principles involved with this application. The signs are being
changed, but being placed substantially where they are. There is a safety factor involved in
this application.
17
June 26, 2001
Mayor Filipowsld stated that this change of signs is a welcomed change. There is a safety
issue involved with patrons of the hotel navigating the driveway. The Board of Trustees
decided to refer this application to the Planning Board for its input. A minor change to the
Resolution was requested.
Mr. Bradbury noted that a public hearing date could be set, and he suggested setting the
public hearing for July 24, 2001.
On a motion made by Trustee Degling, and seconded by Trustee Rand, the application will
be referred to the Planning Board. The Resolution was accepted as amended,
TRUSTEE DEGLING VOTING AYE
TRUSTEE RAND VOTING AYE
TRUSTEE SANTON VOTING AYE
MAYOR FILIPOWSKI VOTING AYE
The next item was called before the Board,
4. REFERRING REQUEST TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR KOCHER
SUBDIVISION AT 483 FRANKLIN STREET
Mr. Bradbury read the following Resolution;
RESOLUTION
REFERRING THE KOCHER RESIDENCE
483 FRANKLIN STREET, RYE BROOK, NEW YORK 10573
SECTION 1, BLOCK 23, LOT 8 & 9
RESOLVED, that the application of the Kocher Residence to re-subdivide property
located at 483 Fran1clin Street is referred to the Planning Board for a report and
recommendation; and it is further
RESOLVED, that the applicant shall deposit Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars
($2,500) into the Village's professional fees/envirorunental review fiend, and such additional
sums as may be requested to defray the cost of review of this application,
Trustee Degling noted that at the Zoning Board meeting it was noted that as a result of the
new property lines being drawn, a variance would be required for the existing house. The
original 1887 tax line, the only way that the property can be sensibly divided, mares the
existing house too close to the property line. As the drawings show, the lot that is being
sub-divided for construction of the new house for which the applicant proposes to have side
18
June 26, 2001
yard setbacks of eight feet. The problem that has resulted is that the existing house is now 3
feet from the property line, meaning that it will be 11 % feet from the new house. While
it is true that nothing worse than exists is being created--the result is that there will now be
two homes that will be very close to each other. This narrow separation is not good. He
asked that the Planning Board seriously consider narrowing the building envelope enough
so that there is the maximum distance between the proposed new house and the two existing
houses that are there. He felt that 12'was much more acceptable.
Mr. Gioffre noted that although the suggestions are well taken, the Code is technically
satisfied. The architect has been asked to come in with a plan that meets the Code.
Trustee Santon asked if the applicant was required to give notice to the residents before they
go before the Planning Board. Mr. Bradbury stated that notification is sent out at the time
of the Public Hearing. A discussion of the distance for notification took place. Mr.
Bradbury noted that at the last meeting the applicant was asked to send out notification to
all neighbors who are within 500' of the property. Mr. Gioffre asked if 500' was the
requirement. Mr. Bradbury stated that it is not, however, this would be a condition of the
Resolution. After a brief discussion, it was decided that notification should be sent to
residents within 250' of the property.
On a motion made by Trustee Degling, and seconded by Trustee Santon, the Resolution was
adopted as amended and modified,
TRUSTEE DEGLING VOTING AYE
TRUSTEE RAND VOTING AYE
TRUSTEE SANTON VOTING AYE
MAYOR FILIPOWSKI VOTING AYE
5. AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT TO VILLAGE'S CODE OF ETHICS TO
INCORPORATE NO POLITICAL ACTIVITIES GUIDELINES
Mr. Bradbury read the following Resolution:
RESOLUTION
ADOPTION OF LOCAL LAW
BOARD OF ETHICS
POLITICAL ACTIVITIES GUIDELINES
RESOLVED, that the Local Law amending Section 24-9 of the Code of the
Village of Rye Brook to add a Subdivision D in relation to establishing political
activity guidelines for members of the Rye Brook Board of Ethics be hereby enacted
into law as Local Law#2-2001.
19
June 26, 2001
On a motion made by Trustee Rand, and seconded by Trustee Santon, the
Resolution was adopted
Trustee Rand asked if the Board received Mr. Michael Goldstein's letter. He asked
that the letter(attached) be made a part of the record.
RYE BROOD ETHICS BOARD
c/o MICHAEL S. GOLDSTEIN
62 BOWMAN AVENUE
RYE BROOK,NEW YORK 10573-2804
Michael S. Goldstein, Chair
TEL (914) 939-1.111
FAX (914) 939-2369
Barbara Bernstein
Barry Erner
Michele Mendicino
Michael Stolzar
June 14, 2001
Mayor Francis L. Filipowski
Village of Rye Brook
938 King Street
Rye Brook, New York 10573
re: Memo in Support of Resolution to Incorporate
No Political Activities Guidelines as Part of
the Village's Code of Ethics
Dear Honorable Mayor Filipowski:
I am writing this letter since I will be unable to attend the June 26, 2001 Board of Trustees
meeting. As you are aware, the four(4) Ethics Board members who adopted the No Political
Activities Guidelines voted unanimously to support the concept of having the No Political
Activities Guidelines incorporated directly into the Village's Code of Ethics.
To address Trustee Degling's concerns that the Village Board would be abdicating the Ethic
Board's power to establish its own procedures, I am writing this letter to urge that future Ethics
Boards should not have the power to simply disregard these guidelines. The Code of Ethics
proscribes conduct that the Village officials and employees must abide by. Certainly, it also
dictates conduct that the Ethics Board does not have the power to change, such as its number of
members and record keeping requirements. To be specific, the Guidelines that the Ethics Board
adopted are not procedures,but rather conduct which we feel is necessary for this special Board to
adhere to. We do not believe that an Ethics Board would be aware of the problems created by one
20
June 26, 2001
or more of the members being involved in political activities unless (as our Board has) they have
been exposed to it.
Therefore, we feel it is necessary and good governance practice that the Village Board
accept the Guidelines as conduct befitting the Ethics Board members, those who are present
members and for future members as well.
Sincerely,
Michael S. Goldstein
Chair
MSG/pp
Enclosure
cc: Christopher Bradbury
Board of Trustees
Ethics Board
Trustee Degling stated that while he had no problem with the Board of Ethics
enacting these as rules, he felt that it was unnecessary to incorporate them into the
local law.
Mr. Bradbury was asked to call the roll:
TRUSTEE DEGLING VOTING NO
TRUSTEE RAND VOTING AYE
TRUSTEE SANTON VOTING AYE
MAYOR FILIPOWSIG VOTING NO
6. APPROVING 2001-2002 COMPENSATION
Mr. Bradbury read the following Resolution:
RESOLUTION
APPROVING 2001-2002 COMPENSATION
RESOLVED, that the following annual salaries for the positions listed below are hereby
approved effective June 1, 2001.
21
June 26, 2001
TITLE SALARY
Village Administrator/Clerk $ 96,600
Police Chief $ 96,500
Police Lieutenant $ 87,176
Village Engineer $ 80,658
Treasurer $ 74,195
Building Inspector $ 69,326
Deputy Treasurer $ 62,700
General Foreman $ 61,500
Cord. Senior Citizen Services $ 60,610
Secretary to Village Administrator $ 42,743
Code Enforcement Officer $ 41,300
Sr. Office Assistant Recreation $ 37,595
Senior Typist(Police Dept.) $ 37,585
Sr. Office Assistant Building $ 36'400
Assistant to Village Administrator $ 35,640
Recreation Assistant $ 33,990
Account Clerk (Treasurers Office) $ 31,275
Office Assistant (Automated Systems) $ 31,200
Caretaker(AJP) $ 29,376
Office Assistant Financial $ 28,392
Caretaker (Village Offices) $ 27,560
RESOLVED, that the following changes in benefits be hereby approved.
MEBCO to Alternate MEBCO effective August 1, 2001
An employee must retire from the Village with 10 years of Village service to receive
health insurance
■ If an employee bias 10 (ten) years of service as of 611101, he/she must retire from or be
terminated (Le, fired, not a resignation) by the Village to receive health insurance
0 Add short term disability insurance coverage
Increase from 0 to 45 the amount of workers compensation days per injury
ff Establish Automobile Use Policy to clarify authorization of vehicles
and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the following 2001/2002 Budget Modifications be hereby
approved:
FROM TO AMOUNT
101.1990.424 101.1230.110 $ 3,680
101.1990.424 101.1410.110 $ 920
101.1990.424 101.3120.110 $ 7,170
101.1990.424 101,3120.120 $ 3,554
22
June 26, 2001
101.1990.424 101.3620.110 $ 3,658
101.1990.424 101.1325,110 $ 3,195
101.1990,424 101.3620.120 $ 2,826
101.1990.424 101.1325.140 $ 2,700
101.1990.424 101.5110.110 $ 1,500
101.1990.424 101.6772.110 $ 2,610
101.1990.424 101.1230.170 $ 1,394
101.1990.424 101.1410.170 $ 349
101.1990.424 101.7140.130 $ 1,095
101.1990.424 101.3120.130 $ 4,085
101.1990.424 101.3620.130 $ 1,400
101.1990.424 101.1230,120 $ 2,112
101.1990.424 101.1410.120 $ 528
101.1990.424 101.7140.120 $ 990
101.1990.424 101.1325.150 $ 1,275
101.1990.424 101.3620.130 $ 1,200
101.1990.424 101.6772.130 $ 2,176
101.1990.424 101.1325.160 $ 1,092
101.1990.424 101.1620.140 $ 1,060
Mr. Bradbury reviewed the Resolution
On a motion made by Trustee Degling, and seconded by Trustee Rand, the Resolution
was approved.
Mr. Bradbury called the roll:
TRUSTEE DEGLING VOTING AYE
TRUSTEE RAND VOTING AYE
TRUSTIFE SANTON VOTING AYE
MAYOR FILIPOWSKI VOTING AYE
The Board moved to the Discussion portion of the meeting:
DISCUSSIONS:
L RESTORE OF ORIGINAL BUDGET REQUEST FROM PORT CHESTER PUBLIC
LIBRARY TO FULLY FUND CARPETING
Mr. Bradbury noted that the recommended and adopted budget for the Village of Rye Brook
included a majority of the carpeting, but not the total amount. The carpeting for the Library
is approximately $35,000. The Library has put in a request to restore the original budget
request. That amount would be $4,336. The Board agreed to increase the amount. Trustee
23
June 26, 2001
Santon noted that Port Chester had also cut back, but has now agreed to the Library's
original request.
2. EXISTING PEDESTRIAN /BICYCLE EASEMENT RUNNING THROUGH THE
ARBORS, BLIND BROOK MIDDLE/HIGH SCHOOL AND 900 KING STREET
PROPERTIES
Trustee Santon stated that there is a bicycle easement that was granted to the school. The
Arbors granted this easement so that the school children would have pedestrian and bicycle
access to the school property. The easement starts at Meadowlark Road and runs along the
backside of some of the Hillandale property through the Arbors, crosses Arbor Drive, and
continues along through 900 King Street Building. Trustee Santon asked that the Village
clarify what will be done with this pathway. While this was originally intended for school
children use, it is now used as a form of recreation where residents ride their bicycles and
walk, The strip of the easement that goes through the 900 King Street property now has
wood chips on top of the asphalt. This makes it difficult to navigate this area of the
pathway. He asked that the Village review this property and decide whose obligation it is to
maintain it.
Dee Dee Mitchell of the Arbors addressed the Board. She noted that this is an iun•estricted,
non-exclusive bicycle path. The Village obstructed the path and they should be responsible
for repairing it. She noted that the Arbors keeps the section of the pathway between
Meadowlark and Hillandale unobstructed.
3. FOLLOW-UP ON RYE BROOK FIREHOUSE SITING PROCESS
Trustee Santon began the discussion on the firehouse siting process, reiterating his speech
from earlier in the evening regarding the $17,000 to be spent on a consultant. He, once
again, ran through his perception of what occurred with the Facilities Committee and its
recommendation for a firehouse site. He cited the June 21" memo from the current
Chairman of the Facilities Committee to the Board of Trustees to the Village Board. As the
basis for this Board focusing on the Village Hall site was a recommendation from the
Facilities Committee in January. He suggested that the Facilities Committee be asked for
its recommendation on the use of the Village Hall property as the site for the firehouse.
As this issue had been thoroughly discussed earlier in the meeting, and there were no further
comments from Board members, or members of the public, Mayor Filipowski asked Mr. Bradbury
for his report.
24
June 26, 2001
VILLAGE ADMINIS'T`RATOR REPORT
Mr. Bradbury stated that at the last Board of Trustees meeting he was asked to prepare a follow-up
report in order to update the Board and members of the public of the status of current projects
within the Village.
• The Pine Ridge Park Ballfield project is currently out to bid. The bid opening date is July
12'
• The Bellefair Middle Income project lottery will take place on July 19th. There have been
32 people who have qualified for this lottery. The units are completed.
• The New York State Department of Transportation has advised that King Street resurfacing
will be done in early July. This will be posted on the government access channel, as well as
being posted on the Village's website,
• The Police Contract, which was approved by the Board, has been ratified by the Police
Union.
• The work on the traffic light at South Ridge Street and High Street has started today. Rye
and Rye Brook are splitting the cost.
• Site visits and reviews have been completed for Rich Manor Park. A report will be
submitted for the Board's review.
• Elm Hill Park has some Code Enforcement issues, which are being investigated.
• Current bids are out for the sidewalks. Work will be started on sidewalks in approximately
two weeks.
Trustee Rand asked for a breakdown of the individuals who have qualified for the middle-
income lottery. Mr. Bradbury stated that there were originally 53 people interested.
Approximately 42 were in group one. He noted that the Port Chester School District had
just over 20 individuals, Blind Brook had over ten, and Rye Brook had five or six.
Trustee Degling asked if Mr. Bradbury had any information about the status of the new
traffic study on King Street at the Hutch. This study will help determine whether or not
turns can be restricted. Mr. Bradbury will follow up on this issue.
Mayor Filipowski asked if there was anyone who wished to address the Board.
Trustee Santon began a discussion on a recent Executive Session. He pointed out that the
Village had applied for a Grant to assist in the purchase of the Key Hole site, hoping to keep
it forever green, The Grant was turned down. The City of Rye has asked that Rye Brook
further pursue this project. The consensus of the Board was to hire an appraiser, at a fee of
$2,500. He felt that this decision was inappropriate and he asked that this decision be
reversed.
Trustee Santon asked for Village Counsel's opinion on whether or not this was proper
conduct for the Board during an Executive Session. Mayor Filipowski noted that the
characterization by Trustee Santon of the Board voting on this issue was incorrect.
25
June 26, 2001
Mayor Filipowski stated that Trustee Santon misconstrued the comments, This was not an
Executive Session topic. Trustee Santon was reminded that Executive Sessions are
confidential, and a sense of confidentiality needs to be maintained by all Board members. It
was noted that the polling of the Board is not improper, not illegal, or out of order. Mr.
Bradbury stated that to-date no funds have been expended on this matter.
Mayor Filipowski stated that the next Board of Trustee meetings were scheduled for July
10th and July 2411'
Mr. Ken Powell noted that his term of service as Village Attorney would be completed at
the end of the month. He thanked the Board and the Village for allowing him to serve them.
He stated that this has been a very rewarding experience for him. Mayor Filipowski, and
the Board, thanked Mr. Powell for his many years of service to the Village.
There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 11;26 p.m,
Respectfully submitted,
Christopher Br d� ,
Village Clerk
26