Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-08-14 - Board of Trustees Meeting Minutes VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK Board of Trustees Meeting Village Hall, 938 King Street Tuesday,August 14, 2001- 7:30 p.m. AGENDA PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 1. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING ON SPRINT APPLICATION TO BUILD AN ATTACHED WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITY AT 900 KING STREET RESOLUTIONS 1. CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THE BELLEFAIR SIDEWALK ELIMINATION-BELLEFAIR P.U.D. AMENDED SITE PLAN APPROVAL SECTION 1, BLOCK 3 2. CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THE APPLICATION OF 699 WESTCHESTER AVENUE RYE TOWN HILTON HOTEL AMENDED SITE PLAN APPROVAL SECTION 1, BLOCK 5, LOT 18C 3. REFERRING NEXTEL SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL 211 SOUTH RIDGE STREET, SECTION 1, BLOCK 25, LOT 1 4, REJECTING THE BID OF KUSTOM SIGNALS, INC. AND AWARDING BID TO MPH INDUSTRIES, INC. FOR THE SPEED MONITOR TRAILER (BID 401-04) 5. SETTING DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON A LOCAL LAW TO ESTABLISH A SIX MONTH MORATORIUM ON THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS AND APPROVALS IN THE R-12, R-15, R-20 ZONING DISTRICTS AND THE LINCOLN AVENUE CORRIDOR 1 Board of Trustee Meeting August 14, 2001 6. APPROVING THE VILLAGE'S CONTRIBUTION TO THE COLUMBUS DAY PARADE COMMITTEE 7. AUTHORIZING USE OF VILLAGE STREETS FOR THANKSGIVING TURKEY TROT 8. AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT TO VILLAGE'S CODE OF ETHICS TO INCORPORATE NO POLITICAL ACTIVITY GUIDELINES 9. ANNUAL MEETING RESOLUTIONS 10. 2000/2001 YEAR END BUDGET MODIFICATIONS 11. SETTING DATE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND CHAPTER 240, THE VILLAGE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 12. APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 8, 2001 May 22, 2001 July 10, 2001 DISCUSSIONS 1. HIRING OF KERNE AND BEANE, P.C. AS VILLAGE ATTORNEY 2. UTILITY EASEMENT ACTIVITIES 3. IMPROVEMENT OF COMMUNICATION/COORDINATION WITH VILLAGE BOARDS/COMMITTEES AND RESIDENTS 4. BELLEFAIR RETAINING WALL MODIFICATION VILLAGE ADMINISTRATOR REPORT UNFINISHED BUSINESS 2 Board of Tnistee Meeting August 14, 2001 CONVENE The August 14, 2001 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. Filipows1d Trustee Jody H. Brackman Trustee Donald Degling Trustee Lawrence A. Rand Trustee Dean Santon STAFF: Christopher Bradbury, Village Administrator Ingrid Bent, Assist. to the Village Administrator Kenneth Powell, Village Attorney Mr. Ed Beane, Village Counsel David S. Kvinge, RLA, AICP, Village Consultant David H. Stolman, AICP, PP, Village Consultant Chief Robert Santoro, Police Chief Victor Carosi, Village Engineer William Gerety, Building Inspector Paula Patafio, Meeting Secretary Mayor Filipowski acknowledged that in attendance at this meeting was Minori Kusaki from the Personal Training Center. He welcomed her to the meeting of the Rye Brook Board of Trustees. Mayor Filipowski noted that the first item addressed by the Board would be taken out of sequence. He called for#S on the agenda: 8. AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT TO VILLAGE'S CODE OF ETHICS TO INCORPORATE POLITICAL ACTIVITY GUIDELINES Mr. Bradbury read the following Resolution.: 3 Board of Trustee Meeting August 14, 2001 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 and hereby is enacted into law as Local Law 43-2001• Michael Stolzar, Esq., member of the Ethics Board, addressed. He noted that Michael S. Goldstein, Esq., Chairman of the Board, was unable to attend due to a previous engagement. Mr. Stolzar thanked the Village Board for taking this item out of order. He noted that the members of the Board of Ethics have discussed the issue of participation in Village politics for some time now. He directed the Board of Trustees to Section 24-1 of the Ethics Code which discusses the purpose of the law relating to ethical conduct. The Ethics Board's purpose is to promote public confidence in local government. This is in addition to proper conduct. The Ethics Board serves the people in the Village and allows them the comfort that their elected and appointed officials are abiding by the rules of Conduct proscribed for them. The Ethics Board, the impartial body, is there to hear any complaints and make recommendations on how to deal with these complaints. This Resolution will direct any member of the Ethics Board who wishes to become involved in Village politics to resign his position on the Ethics Board. This includes any member who wishes to become a public promoter of any candidate. Mr. Stolzar continued, noting that the reason the Ethics Board felt that the Board of Trustees should adopt this Resolution as part of the Village Code is because if the Ethics Board changed the law it would be done confidentially and no one would know anything about it. However, if the Village Board adopts this as part of the Village's Code, and there is a proposed change, there would be public scrutiny. Trustee Rand noted that this is an issue that has been discussed and studied for over a year. This proposal, and the proposed adoption of the Resolution, is not directed at any individual or any personnel. It is simply a matter of procedure. By embodying this amendment into the Code, future Ethic Boards cannot change the 4 Board of Tnistee Meeting August 14, 2001 procedure as it relates to the involvement of the political life of the Village. The Ethics Board is the only Board of the Village that meets confidentially. Residents are protected against any changes that could occur because if a change was proposed, it would have to come before the Village Board. He thanked the Ethics Board for their work on this matter. On a motion made by Trustee Rand, and seconded by Trustee Brackman, the role was called: TRUSTEE BRACKMAN VOTING AYE TRUSTEE DEGLING VOTING NO TRUSTEE RAND VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SANTON VOTING AYE MAYOR FILIPOWSKI VOTING NO Mayor Filipowski returned to the agenda, and called for item #1 under Public Hearings. He noted that this Public Hearing was the continuation of the Hearing on the Sprint application to build an attached wireless telecommunications facility at 900 King Street. 1. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING ON SPRINT APPLICATION TO BUILD AN ATTACHED 'WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITY AT 900 KING STREET Mr. Daniel Leary, of the firm Cuddy & Feder & Worby, addressed the Board as the representative for the applicant. He noted that the last appearance before the Board was July 10, 2001. The application was originally Bled in November of 2000. All the information that has been requested has been presented. A certification from the owner of the building was provided to the Board. It notes that future collocation will be permitted. The mock up was created, and viewed by the Board and residents. At this time the applicant is looking for the conclusion of the Public Hearing process. Trustee Degling stated that he was under the impression that the Sprint application was the first application for an antenna on 900 King Street. He asked if other wireless telecommunication companies have submitted applications in connection with this building. Mr. Leary responded that he was unaware of any other application. 5 Board of Trustee Meethig August 14, 2001 Trustee Santon reiterated his comments from the prior meeting. He stated that it was his opinion that this application cannot be considered and voted upon when there are outstanding underlying fundamental zoning issues. The building has exceeded the allowable height and the number of stories. He stated that with very little effort he located the site plan for the building that was claimed to be missing, It was his opinion that the facts regarding this building need to be set straight before this application should be considered. It was also his belief that it would be wrong to approve the Sprint application before all the facts were straight. This building does not conform to the Village's Code. There is a Certificate of Occupancy in the files issued by the Building Inspector for the Town of Rye for a building that was 163,000 square feet and two stories. However, this building is not physically two stories and, as everyone is aware, it exceeds the 163,000 square feet. In addition, the zoning was also based on a single tenancy— IBM, and this is no longer the case. This building does not conform and therefore he felt that the Certificate of Occupancy was issued incorrectly. He respectfully requested that the Board clear up the underlying zoning issues before it addressed the Sprint application. He requested that the Building Inspector be called upon to discuss what happened when the C.O. was issued and interpret what the Town of Rye's Code meant. Mayor Filipowski felt that the Building Inspector should not be called upon to explain why the C.O. was issued or to interpret the Town of Rye's Code. Mr. Gerety was not involved with the issuance of the C.O., and the Village of Rye Brook had not yet been created at the time of issuance. He also noted that the Village's Counsel has given the Village the opinion that a non-conforming structure does not disqualify the site for an attached wireless telecommunications structure. Trustee Rand commented on the issue of co-location. There are conditions regarding co-location that can only be addressed by the owner of the building and felt that the owner should be in attendance at the meeting. It was noted that this request was mado, but that the owner has refused to come before the Board. Trustee Rand commended Mr. Leary on his firm's work on behalf of the applicant. The application was thorough, and they went the extra mile to address many of the concerns of the Village. He did remind the applicant, however, that the Village is looking at quality of life issues. Several residents have expressed concerns about proliferation. This is a concern for the Village as well. At this time he stated that he was not satisfied that the issue of co-location has been responded to. b Board of Trustee Meeting August 14, 2001 Ni Mr.- Leary stated that co-location is subject to terms. It is impossible to give "Carte Blanche" because each application will be different. It would be unprecedented to have a landlord come before the Board and be subject to `question and answer' by a Village Board. He noted that the applicant did make the request of the landlord, however, they declined. Mayor Filipowski noted that there have been comments about the potential problem of a proliferation of co-location on this building. The Village must immediately look towards ascertaining what is too much on the issue of co- location. Mr. Leary noted that every carrier, every application, must stand on its own and go through the Village's review process. Each applicant must go under the same vigorous review that Sprint has gone through. Dee Dee Mitchell, a resident of the Arbors, addressed the Board. She asked that the Board explain what co-location really meant. She also asked how many antennas can be placed on this rooftop? And, once you have let one company in, how many more will come? She felt that someone needs to answer these questions. Mr. Bradbury asked that the Village's experts be called upon to address this issue, Thomas Pease, Ph.D., P.E. of Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers, Village Consultant, addressed the Board. Also addressing the Board was Mr. Akira A. Yamasaki, P.E., Consulting Engineer. Mr. Pease noted that Mr. Yamasaki was asked to review and verify the calculations that Sprint provided the Village with regard to this application. He noted that they were well below the criteria. He noted that co-location in FCC terms meant locating another antenna on Sprint's structure. However, when co-location has been referred to during this application review it has been referred to as the addition of other antenna on the rooftop. He noted that if other carriers came forward and made application to the Village to locate their antenna on the roof of this building, the energy density would not preclude locating some number of those in the same area. Trustee Santon commented that while there is not a formal application, there have been recent inquiries for this 900 King Street location. He also requested that Counsel offer their opinion of what would be the appropriate mechanism for exploring the potential non-conforming use of this property, short of the residents of the Arbors bringing a lawsuit. 7 Board of Trustee Meeting August 14, 2001 Ed Beane, Esq., noted that he is Village Counsel, however, as everyone is aware he has recused himself fiom this application based on a conflict of interest. They can look at whether or not the building conforms but once again reminded Trustee Santon that this matter does not impact this application. In simple terms, the issue of whether or not the building conforms is separate from the application to build a wireless telecommunications facility on the rooftop. The question of conformity goes way beyond this application. Trustee Santon expressed his opinion that if this building is deemed non- conforming and a story had to be removed then there would be an impact on the antenna located on the rooftop. He asked if the Village would be liable at that time. Mr. Beane felt that Trustee Santon was pushing him to go over a line that he did not want to go over. He noted that the whole issue of whether or not the building conforms is separate and apart from this application. Mr. Bradbury noted that the Village has recently received an application from Nextel, but the application is to construct a facility at 211 South Ridge Street. Mr. Gerety, Village Building Inspector, stated that several other wireless carriers, including Nextel, have discussed the 900 King Street site, but no formal applications have been submitted. Daniel Tartaglia, Esq. addressed the Board. He stated that he was representing for the Arbors Homeowner Association. He reiterated several points that he made at the previous meeting. He felt that Trustee Santon's comments are important. This building was-built and it did not conform with the Village's Code. In the matters of interpretation of the Zoning Code it is the Village's Building Inspector that makes this determination. It would go to the Zoning Board, and could eventually be before the Supreme Court. Mr. Tartaglia also noted that proliferation is a major concern for the residents of the Arbors. No one wants the top of the 900 King Street Building to look like the top of United Hospital. The residents of the Armors, whose quality of life will be affected by the proliferation of antennas on this building, are extremely concerned. The question on the minds of the homeowners is when will it stop? The P.U.D.s are the only residential zones that cell antennas are permitted to be constructed in. The Arbors would like to reserve its rights to submit a petition to consider S Board of Tnistee Meetuig August 14, 2001 changing the telecommunications law to remove the P.U.D. zone from. its application, and keep cell antennas only within commercial areas of the Village. Mayor Filipowski noted that the Board is looking at this for future reference. Mr. Tartaglia stated that lie has been authorized by the Homeowners Association of the Arbors to prepare a formal petition to submit to the Board to consider amending the telecommunications law subsequent to this public hearing. Mayor Filipowski stated that the Board would be addressing this issue through the Village's Administrator and Counsel regarding the total number of antennas. The Board has heard many of the comments, and the fears and concerns of the residents are understood. Mr. Bradbury stated that at this point the public hearing should be closed. On a motion by Trustee Brackman, and seconded by Trustee Degling, the Public Hearing was closed. TRUSTEE BRACTMAN VOTING AYE TRUSTEE DEGLING VOTING AYE TRUSTEE RAND VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SANTON VOTING AYE MAYOR FILIPOWSKI VOTING AYE Mr. Bradbury noted that the firm of Sive Pagent & Riesel will be engaged to address the issue of co-location and provide recommendations. In addition, Frederick P.- Clark will need direction with regard to the preparation of a Resolution. He noted that there are several issues to be reviewed, i.e.: the color of the antenna and the platform height. It was noted that the Village's Consultant has expressed its opinion that no additional landscaping is required as it is a rooftop mount. Trustee Santon stated that he intended to provide documentation that the Building Inspector may not have found in the files. Then, through the Village's Administrator, he will refer it for expert opinion. He asked that counsel have recommendations prepared for the next meeting of how to explore the underlying zoning of this property. 9 Board of Truster Meeting August 14, 2001 Mr. Beane noted that if Trustee Santon would supply them with this information they could review it and have a response prepared for the next meeting. Mayor Filipowski called for the fust Resolution on the agenda: RESOLUTIONS 1. CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THE BELLEFAIR SIDEWALK ELIMINATION-BELLEFAIR P.U.D. AMENDED SITE PLAN APPROVAL SECTION 1, BLOCK 3 Mr. Bradbury read the following Resolution: RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THE BELLE FAIR SIDEWALK ELIMINATION BELLE FAIR P.U.D. AMENDED SITE PLAN APPROVAL SECTION 1, BLOCK 3 WHEREAS, Bellefair Dome and Land Company has made an application to the Village of Rye Brook requesting an amended Site Plan Approval for the elimination of certain sidewalks shown on the approved Site Plan for the Planned Unit Development (PUD) known as Belle Fair, located on the west side of King Street at the southwest corner of the intersection formed by King Street and Lincoln Avenue, within the P.U.D., Planned Unit Development District, Tax Parcel Section No. 1, Block 3; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has stated that the proposed elimination of the sidewalks is, in its opinion, minor in nature and has requested that the Board of Trustees and Planning Board concur with such and waive the full procedural requirements of the Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, the application was referred to the Planning Board by the Board of Trustees on June 26, 2001; and 10 Board of Trustee Meethig ALlgust 14, 2001 WHEREAS, the Village Planning Board determined, by resolution dated July 12, 2001, that the proposed action did not constitute a minor application in accordance with Section 250-7 E(4)(c) of the Village of Rye Brook Zoning Code, thereby requiring a full review procedure. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees declares itself Lead Agency for the project; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees shall conduct a Public Hearing on Tuesday, August 28, 2001 at the Village Offices located at 938 Ding Street, Rye Brook, New York on the subject application; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Clerk shall publish a notice of public hearing as required by law. On a motion made by Trustee Brackman, and seconded by Trustee Degling, the Resolution was adopted. Mark P. Miller, Esq., of the firm Veneziano & Associates, addressed the Board as representative for the applicant. He stated that he felt that this public hearing is a good idea as it will give everyone a chance to hear all of the viewpoints. He asked that at the conclusion of the public hearing that there would be a vote from the Board of Trustees instructing the applicant which way it should proceed. Mayor Filipowski noted that he has received feedback from many residents—both for and against the sidewalks. Mr. Roger Matles, co-chair of the Homeowners Association at Bellefair, addressed the Board. He stated that everyone that lives at Bellefair was informed of the application before the Board. Everyone was encouraged to attend the public hearing. This notice was hand delivered to every mailbox at Bellefair. One issue that has been brought up by several residents concerns the access road for the senior Jiving facility. Mayor Filipowski asked what the impact of this issue was on the application before the Board (elimination of certain sidewalks). Mr. DeLuca noted that Spectrum, the developer, has been involved in the project from the beginning and will most likely be involved a year from now. The access road 11 Board of Trustee Meeting August 14, 2001 was determined during the Environmental Impact process. It was a very lengthy process. Mr. Miller noted that at the public hearing Bellefair Land Company will open with a presentation. In the meantime they will try to educate the homeowners with regard to the process. Mayor Filipowski asked that a workshop be held before the August 28th meeting so that the new members of the community can learn about the process within the Village. Mr. Miller noted that the process for P.U.D. approval is a two-step process. The first is a submission of a concept plan and a request for a rezoning. This property was not originally zoned a P.U.D., but rather was a floating zone. A complete environmental review was done, which involved an environmental impact statement and public hearings. The Village Board was the Lead Agency. The Planning Board was involved, and it made a cumber of recommendations to the Village Board. The second phase was the detailed site plan and subdivision of the property, This matter was also referred to the Planning Board. Then it was referred back to the Village Board. In January 1998 the Village Adopted a detailed site plan and subdivision approval resolution. There was also a wetlands approval. Based on these approvals, construction commenced. The Code also has a process for amending the site plans, that is what this application is for. This process requires a submission to the Village Board, which is then referred to the Planning Board. Under normal circumstances the review process goes through the same process as the original detailed site plan and subdivision process. The only way to avoid that is if the Village Board, with the concurrence -of the Planning Board, determines that this amendment is a minor nature. In this case the procedural requirements will be waived. Although the applicant believed that this was a minor amendment, the Planning Board has reviewed this application and it determined that it was not a minor amendment. The application is now required to have a public hearing. Mr. Beane noted that the site plan that was approved included sidewalks. This was part of the approval process and it cannot be changed without going through the process. The Planning Board, after their review of the application, took the position that this was not a minor amendment. Based on that decision a public hearing needs to be scheduled. 12 Board of Trustee Meetixag August 14, 2001 Trustee Santon asked for clarification. He wanted to make sure of where the Homeowners Association stood on this matter, the matter of the retaining wall, and any other site plan amendments. He requested documentation. Mr. DeLuca, as a Board member of the Homeowners Association, stated that he and the other Board members in attendance at the meeting will relay all information to the Association. He also noted, as the developer, they would accept whatever decision the Board made. Trustee Rand felt that, as pant of the P.U.D., the senior citizen facility should be notified and represented at the public hearing. Mr. Miller agreed. Dr. Ronald Cusman of 16 Reunion Road asked to address the Board. It was noted that he would be unable to attend the public hearing. He noted that the people of Reunion Road do not want the sidewalks constructed. They are very concerned that Reunion Road will be the only access to the senior citizen facility. Hearing this for the first time was shock. When the residents of Reunion Road purchased their homes they did not know that they would be moving onto a road that would have the senior living facility with 160 apartments. All the residents of the senior facility will now have to drive an extra 114 of a mile through Bellefair to get to the facility. In this issue the builder and the people on Reunion. Road are in harmony. The senior living facility will be situated right near Ding Street. The residents of Bellefair are confused as to why the Village and the developer have decided upon using Reunion Road as the access to the senior living facility. They are all in agreement that the sidewalks are not needed. The 28 homeowners on Reunion Road are now looking for who their opposition is with regard to the use of their street as the access road. They did not move into Bellefair expecting that their road would become a highway. Mayor Filipowsld noted that the decision to use Reunion Road as the access road to the senior citizen facility was made in 1998. There has never been a change made to those plans. If the residents of Bellefair would like to discuss this issue, then it must be brought up in a different forum. The issue before the Board at this time is the issue of sidewalk elimination. Trustee Santon noted that the residents of Bellefair don't seem to know what their development entailed. He felt that they should have been advised of the plans before they purchased their homes. He reminded everyone that the Village Board is here to mediate the rules. 13 Board of Trustee Meeting August 14, 2001 f Mr, Matles noted that this is a point well taken. The Homeowners Association has scheduled a Town meeting and they will be informing their community of the issues that have been raised at this meeting. Ethan Blank of 5 Milestone Road addressed the Board. He asked if procedurally the homeowners have any standing to bring a request for a change or if the request needed to come from the Homeowners Association or the developer. Mr. Beane responded who the applicant would be is a matter of the Bellefair prospectus. He reminded everyone that the developer of the senior living facility would also have input, The Village is the recipient of the application. An applicant must come to the Village. The authorized representative for the residents is the Homeowners Association. The other developer should be a part of the initial application. Greg Budin of 21 Legendary Circle addressed the Board. He noted that his street was schedule_ d for sidewalks. He could not understand why, if the homeowners did not want the sidewalks, would the Village not just alter the plan. Mr. Beane noted that a public hearing must be scheduled because the site plan as approved is a very lengthy process. This site plan required sidewalks be constructed. The application now before the Board is to amend the site plan. The Board is requesting input prior to making a decision. Trustee Brackman noted that members of the Planning Board felt that not putting in sidewalks on roads that are too narrow will make the streets unsafe. The role was called on the motion made and seconded to schedule a public hearing. TRUSTEE BRACI(MAN VOTING AYE TRUSTEE DEGLING VOTING AYE TRUSTEE RAND VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SANTON VOTING AYE MAYOR FILIPOWSIU VOTING AYE 14 Board of Tnistee Meeting Atipst 14, 2001 2. CALLING FOR A PUBLIC NEARING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THE APPLICATION OF 699 WESTCHESTER AVENUE RYE TOWN HILTON HOTEL AMENDED SITE PLAN APPROVAL SECTION 1, BLOCK 5, LOT 18C Mr. Bradbury read the following Resolution. RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THE APPLICATION OF 699 WESTCHESTER AVENUE RYE TOWN HILTON HOTEL AMENDED SITE PLAN APPROVAL SECTION 1, BLOCK 5, LOT 18C WHEREAS, the Applicant, Nancy Wilson, acting on behalf of the property owner, Rye Hilton, has submitted an application to the Village of Rye Brook requesting Amended Site Plan Approval for the proposed replacement of three (3) existing signs with three (3) new internally-illuminated signs for the Rye Town Hilton Hotel located at 699 Westchester Avenue; and WHEREAS, the property is known as Tax Parcel No. 1-5-18C and is located in the H-1 Hotel Zoning District; and WHEREAS, all conditions and stipulations of the previously granted Special Permit and Site Development Plan Approvals are hereby incorporated and made conditions of this approval; and WHEREAS, the Village Board of Trustees has reviewed and accepted as adequate the information submitted by the applicant in support of the application, including a Cover Memorandum describing the proposed action, Site Plan application form, Short Environmental Assessment Form (EAF), photographs of the existing signs prepared by Nancy Wilson, agent for the Lauretario Sign Group on behalf of the applicant, and the following plans: 1. Sheet titled "Service Entrance Survey," dated 3130100, prepared by Ward Carpenter Engineers, White Plains, New York; 2. Sheet titled "Survey of Entrance into Rye Town Hilton," dated 1017199, prepared by Ward Carpenter Engineers, White Plains, New York; 15 Board of Tntstee Meeting August 14, 2001 3. Four sheets titled "Hilton Rye Town," various dates, prepared by Lauretano Sign Group, Terryville, Connecticut, depicting the proposed signs; and WHEREAS, the Village Board of Trustees referred the application to the Village's Planning Consultant on June 26, 2001, and the Village's Planning Consultant submitted comments and recommendations to the Village Board of Trustees by memorandum dated August 2, 2001; and WHEREAS, the proposed new signs will be of approximately same area and location as the existing signs; and WHEREAS, the Village Zoning Board of Appeals unanimously granted the required variances at its June 5, 2001 meeting; and WHEREAS, the Village Architectural Review Board granted approval of the sign design, colors, and materials at its July 18, 2001 meeting; and WHEREAS, the Village Board of Trustees is familiar with the Site and all aspects of the Project and has been satisfied that the Project will comply with the Site Development Plan standards and requirements of the Village of Rye Brook Code, except as otherwise noted; and WHEREAS, the Village Board of Trustees determined that the proposed action is an unlisted action pursuant to Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617 for which the Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees is the Lead Agency and the only Involved Agency for the environmental review with respect to the approval of said Amended Site Plan; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing on the application was held on August 14, 2001 in the Rye Brook Village Hall, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given the opportunity to be heard, and the public hearing was closed on that date. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees hereby adopts and incorporates as findings and determinations the recitations and statements set forth above as if fully set forth and resolved herein; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees, in accordance with Article 8 of the State Environmental Conservation 16 Board of Trustee Meeting August 14, 2001 Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617, and upon review of the EAF and all other application materials that were prepared for this action, hereby adopts a Negative Declaration since the Project will result in only minor physical changes to the site, visual impacts will be minimal, and any disturbance associated with the Project will be controlled through the proper implementation and maintenance of erosion and sediment controls; and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees grants the requested Amended Site Plan Approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. A copy of the final plans, as approved by the Architectural Review Board, shall be submitted to the Building Inspector for inclusion in the file. 2. The sides of the signs facing residential areas, in particular the northwestern most sign, shall be opaque so that internal illumination will not be visible from adjacent residential properties. 3. The applicant shall submit written documentation that all necessary County approvals have been obtained, or that no such approvals were required, prior to issuance of any building permits. On a motion made by Trustee Degling, seconded by Trustee Rand, the Resolution was adopted. Nancy Wilson representative for the Rye Town Hilton addressed the Board. She thanked the Board for scheduling the public hearing and asked if any additional information needed to be presented. Mr. Kvinge responded that they received the consent form from the sign company and the Village now required a consent form from the Hilton authorizing her to act on their behalf, Trustee Santon commented that he felt that too many public hearings were set for the 28`1' of August, and suggested that the hearing be set for September 11, 2001, Trustee Rand raised a question regarding the internally illuminated sign as he was concerned about the appearance of the sign. He noted that the Planning Board and the Architectural Review Board have already approved the signs. He asked for clarification of what internally illuminated meant versus signs lit by a spotlight. 17 Board of Trustee Meeting August 14, 2001 Ms. Wilson noted that the internally illuminated sign simply means that, at night, the white lettering of the blue sign will be lit fi-om within. In. addition, two of the signs will also be lit by spotlights. These signs are part of the worldwide signage change for the Hilton Hotels. The description and placement of the signs will be part of the presentation at the public hearing. TRUSTEE BRACKMAN VOTING AYE TRUSTEE DEGLING VOTING AYE TRUSTEE RAND VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SANTON VOTING AYE MAYOR FILIPOWSKI VOTING AYE 3. REFERRING NEXTEL SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL 211 SOUTH RIDGE ST., SECTION 1, BLOCK 2.5, LOT 1 Mr. Bradbury read the following Resolution: DRAFT RESOLUTION REFERRING NEXTEL SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL 211 SOUTH RIDGE STREET SECTION 1, BLOCK 25, LOT 1 WHEREAS, Nextel of New York has made an application to the Village of Rye Brook requesting Special Use Permit and Site Plan Approval for the construction of a wireless telecommunications facility on the roof of the existing building and a 189 square-foot unmanned equipment room located in the existing underground parking garage at the property located at 211 South Ridge Street, within the C 1, Neighborhood Retail Zoning District. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees declares itself Lead Agency for the project; and 18 Board of Trustee Meeting August 14, 2001 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the subject application is referred to the Village Planning Board for a report and recommendation; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Applicant shall deposit ten thousand dollars {$10,000} 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. Carol Bonomolo, Esq., of the law fu-tn of Synder & Synder LLP, addressed the Board as the representative for the applicant. She noted that Nextel is proposing to co-locate an attached wireless facility on the existing building located 211. South Ridge Street. The facility will consist of panel antenna on the roof of the existing building and a 189 square foot equipment room in the underground parking garage. The antennas will be located on the building so that they will not extend beyond the highest point on the building. This facility is required by Nextel in order to provide coverage. The facility will comply with the FCC regulations. Ms. Bonomolo noted that the application forms have been submitted with the letter of authorization from the property owner, a long Environmental Assessment Form, an affidavit from the radio frequency engineer, a health and safety analysis, a visual resource evaluation demonstrating what the facility will look like, and a site plan. She offered to answer any questions that the Board might have. Trustee Degling raised several points. He pointed out a minor detail in the application in that Ridge Street is a County road. A second point was his confusion with Exhibit A which shows Nextel Communications' existing coverage. This site is 96 and site 95 is 900 King Street. Ms. Bonomolo noted that 900 King Street, site #5, was listed as a proposed site. This Exhibit shows the Board what Nextel would be proposing within the Village, however no other applications have been filed. Trustee Degling noted that there was a lot of area that will not be covered by the proposed facilities. He asked whether or not the 211 South Ridge Street location actually met the needs to cover Rye Brook. Ms. Bonomolo noted that this facility will cover the Southern porion of the Village. Nextel's engineer noted that currently there are no other available sites as most of the areas are residential. He did note that there were a number of sites being considered in Port Chester. 19 Board of Trustee Meeting August 14, 2001 Trustee Rand asked, theoretically, if co-location was possible on the proposed antenna that Sprint seeks to put up on 900 King Street, or if they would have to construct additional antenna. Ms. Bonomolo stated that Nextel would be required to put up additional antenna. Sprint operates as a PCS carrier. Nextel is an enhanced mobile radio. These are two different types of technology which operate on two different frequencies. Therefore, it is not possible to share antennas. Trustee Santora asked if there was one site in Rye Brook that would satisfy having one location versus two. Ms. Bonomolo noted that the sites chosen are designed to cover smaller areas because Nextel reuses its frequencies from one site to another. Therefore, one site could not cover the large Northern portion of the Village. Trustee Santon felt that this application should be referred to the Planning Board, the Telecommunications Commission and the Environmental Council. Trustee Brackman questioned the size of the antenna. Ms. Bonomolo noted that the antenna are 48" in height and they will not extend beyond the highest height of the building. The highest point of the building is 44'1", and the antenna will extend to a maximum height of 43'1". Trustee Degling noted that the highest point of the building is the gable. Ms. Bonomolo responded that the antenna will not extend above the parapet. The Resolution was amended to include referral to the Planning Board, the Telecommunications Commission and the Environmental Council. On a motion made by Trustee Rand, and seconded by Trustee Degling, the Resolution was adopted. TRUSTEE BRACKMAN VOTING AYE TRUSTEE DEGLING VOTING AYE TRUSTEE RAND VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SANTON VOTING AYE MAYOR FILIPOWSKI VOTING AYE 20 Board of Trustee Meeting August 14, 2001 4. REJECTING THE BID OF KUSTOM SIGNALS, INC. AND AWARDING BID TO MPH INDUSTRIES, INC. FOR THE SPEED MONITOR TRAILER(BID 901-04) Mr, Bradbury read the following Resolution. RESOLUTION REJECTING THE BID OF KUSTOM SIGNALS, INC. AND AWARDING BID TO MPII INDUSTRIES, INC. FOR THE SPEED MONITOR TRAILER (BID # 01-04) WHEREAS, the Village of Rye Brook received the following bid submissions for contract# 01-04, MPH Speed monitor trailer: CONTRACTOR BID AMOUNT Kustom Signals, Inc. $11,952.00 MPH Industries, Inc. $12,690.00 RESOLVED, that the bid of Kustom Signals, Inc. for the Speed Monitor Trailer (Bid # 01-04) is hereby rejected on the basis that the bid failed to conform to specifications; and it is further RESOLVED, that the contract for the Speed Monitor Trailer (Bid# 0104) is hereby awarded to MPH in the amount of$12,690.00. On a motion made by Trustee Braclanan, and seconded by Trustee Degling, the Resolution was adopted. TRUSTEE BRACKMAN VOTING AYE TRUSTEE DEGLING VOTING AYE TRUSTEE RAND VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SANTON VOTING AYE MAYOR FILIPOWSKI VOTING AYE 21 Board of Trustee Meeting August 14, 2001 5. SETTING DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON A LOCAL LAW TO ESTABLISH A SIX MONTH MORATORIUM ON THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS AND APPROVALS IN THE R-12, R-15, R-20 ZONING DISTRICTS AND THE LINCOLN AVENUE CORRIDOR Mr. Bradbury read the following Resolution: RESOLUTION SETTING DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON A LOCAL LAW TO ESTABLISH A SIX MONTH MORATORIUM ON THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS AND APPROVALS IN THE R-12, R-159 R-20 ZONING DISTRICTS AND THE LINCOLN AVENUE CORRIDOR WHEREAS, the Village of Rye Brook has received a significantly increasing number of permit applications for new buildings, major additions to existing homes and re-subdivision of lots that have and may result in homes being built that are out of scale with the unique character of Rye Brook's residential neighborhoods, the removal of wooded areas and significant vegetation, and may otherwise cause or contribute to drainage and other environmental and land use concerns; and WHEREAS, the adoption of a moratorium will permit the Village to analyze the potential impact of continued development of this scale and the effectiveness of the Village's regulations dealing with bulk standards, in particular lot and building size and appropriate setbacks. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees shall hold a public hearing on August 28, 2001 at 7:30 p.m., at the Village Hall, 938 King Street, Rye Brook, New York to consider a proposed local law to establish a six month moratorium on the issuance of permits and approvals in the R-12, R-15, R-20 Zoning Districts and Lincoln Avenue Corridor. Trustee Degling asked that this Resolution be tabled. The reason being that he was in favor of the Resolution, however, two of the Board members have not had an opportunity to engage in discussions on this issue and he felt that the full Board 22 Board of Tiustee Meeting August 14, 2001 should have the opportunity to be brought up to speed. Mayor Filipowski supported Trustee Degling's suggestion. Trustee Rand agreed. He felt that the concept of studying the issues of subdivisions and permits and approvals warrants some very hard thinking. Trustee Brackman noted that she was also in favor of tabling the Resolution as there were a lot of concerns and she felt that the Board should seek the advice of Village Counsel before any further discussion on this matter took place. Trustee Rand made a motion to table, and Trustee Brackman seconded it. Trustee Santon stated that it was his understanding that other Board members were, aware of this issue. It was his understanding that the Mayor was also aware of conceptually of what was being contemplated. It was also his understanding that this Resolution was calling for a public hearing. He felt that the public process should be commenced. The Village of Aye Brook has adopted the Town of Rye Code and that Code goes back to the 1950's and earlier. Mr. Bernard Abel of Edgewood Drive addressed the Board. He noted that there is a subdivision application currently before the Planning Board that, in his opinion, should be included in this Moratorium. He asked that the discussions on this matter be done in public versus having work sessions. There are many drainage issues in this area and everyone should be made aware of them. An overall look of the entire community to prevent properties from being cut up is in the best interest of everyone. He asked that the public hearing be scheduled. A moratorium will be beneficial for the entire community. Adrienne Wesley of 26 Beechwood Boulevard addressed the Board. She asked that a moratorium be considered for the entire Village of Rye Brook. She noted that properties are being out up and the town is becoming over-built, one house at a time. There must be a balance in the community between new development and the untouched decor. The green space should be preserved for the enjoyment of the residents. With subdivisions, and new homes, trees are cut down. Our Village is losing its appeal and houses are losing their value. The beauty of the larger parcels of land, trees and wide life is what makes Rye Brook different from Port Chester and other surrounding towns and villages. The original homes in the Hillandale area were deeded one house per lot. The moratorium should be considered. She assured the Board that there would be plenty of people at the public hearing waiting to be heard from. 23 Boars!of Trustee Meetnig August 14, 2001 Mr. Abel complimented the Board in their attempts to try and prevent the Village from becoming one large antenna farm. Subdivisions also need to be addressed. By having this public hearing it will help the residents provide their input regarding the subdivisions. Mr. Ben Miloro, Hillcrest Avenue, addressed the Board. He noted that comments were made about Port Chester and he took offense to them. He felt that it was unfair to make comments such as Rye Brook residents don't want it to become like Port Chester. It was a point well taken. Mrs. Giorgi of Edgewood Drive addressed the Board. She asked that the Board reconsider tabling the moratorium. Many of her neighbors would like the opportunity to address this issue, the public hearing would afford them this opportunity. Many, many people will turn out. There is a definite drainage problem that needs to be addressed. Subdividing, adding impervious surfaces, and cutting down trees will not help the drainage problems. Trustee Santon noted that in December of 1999, the Village of Rye Brook adopted its first zoning map. Previously it used the Town of Rye map, dating back to the 1950's. It has been a long time since zoning has been looked at. Trustee Rand noted that this particular change in the local law addresses many, many sites. It cannot be site specific. The proper venue to look at this law is a public hearing. However, this moratorium is asking the Village to take a holistic look at all of the permits and approvals in the R12, R15 and R20 zoning districts, and Lincoln Avenue. This is a lot of territory and it takes a lot of review. That is why more time should be taken to consider this matter, openly. Trustee Deg1mg withdrew the motion to table the matter. Trustee Santon removed his motion to change the date of the public hearing. On a new motion made and seconded, the public hearing was scheduled for September II"' TRUSTEE BRACKMAN VOTING AYE TRUSTEE DEGLING VOTING AYE TRUSTEE RAND VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SANTON VOTING AYE MAYOR FILIPOWSKI VOTING AYE 24 Board of Tnistee Meeting August 14, 2001 G. APPROVING THE VILLAGE'S CONTRIBUTION TO THE COLUMBUS DAA' PARADE COMMITTEE Mr. Bradbury read a corrected Resolution. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE VILLAGE'S CONTRIBUTION TO THE COLUMBUS DAY PARADE COMMITTEE WHEREAS, the Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees supports the annual Columbus Day Parade sponsored by the Columbus Day Parade Committee, and WHEREAS, the Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees has in the past given the Committee a contribution of $500 for said event, and WHEREAS, the Committee has requested that the Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees increase its contribution to $1,500 due to an increase in expenses. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees hereby requests that $750 be given to the Columbus Day Parade Committee for its annual Columbus Day Parade; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Columbus Day Parade Committee may use Hawthorne Avenue on Sunday, October 7, 2001 (rain date Sunday, October 14, 2001) for the Columbus Day Parade. Trustee Brackman questioned the dollar amounts quoted in the Resolution. After a brief discussion, Mr. Bradbury suggested that $750.00 be donated. The Board agreed. On a motion made by Trustee Deglin.g, and seconded by Trustee Rand, the Resolution was adopted 25 Board of Trustee Med fiig August 14, 2001 TRUSTEE BRACKMAN VOTING AYE TRUSTEE DEGLING VOTING AYE TRUSTEE RAND VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SANTON VOTING AYE MAYOR FILIPOWSKI VOTING AYE 7. AUTHORIZING USE OF VILLAGE STREETS FOR THANKSGIVING TURKEY TROT Mr. Bradbtuy read the following Resolution: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING USE OF VILLAGE STREETS FOR THE THANKSGIVING DAY TURKEY TROT RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees of the Village of Rye Brook authorizes the use of Village streets on Thursday, November 22, 2001 from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. for the Tenth Annual American Red Cross Thanksgiving Day Turkey Trot along the route described in the letter dated July 18, 2001 from Michael I. Stolzar, and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, that the terns of such event will be established by the Rye Brook Police Department. On a motion made by Trustee Rand, and seconded by Trustee Degling, the Resolution was adopted. TRUSTEE BRACKMAN VOTING AYE TRUSTEE DEGLING VOTING AYE TRUSTEE RAND VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SANTON VOTING AYE MAYOR FILIPOWSKi VOTING AYE 26 Board of Trustee Meetnig August 14, 2001 9. ANNUAL MEETING RESOLUTIONS Mr. Bradbury noted that there were a series of Meeting Resolutions to be approved by the Board. RESOLUTION RETAINING VILLAGE TAX CERTIORARI COUNSEL RESOLVED, that the law firm Oxman, Geiger, Natale & Tulis, P.C. (Mark S. Tulis, Esq,) is hereby retained as Tax Certiorari Counsel for the Village of Rye Brook for the current official year subject to the terms of the retainer agreement dated April 26, 1994. RESOLUTION RETAINING VILLAGE PLANNING CONSULTANT RESOLVED, that Frederick P. Clark Associates, Inc., is hereby retained as Village Planning Consultant for the Village of Rye Brook for the current official year subject to the rate schedule dated June 14, 2001.. RESOLUTION - RETAINING VILLAGE RISK MANAGER RESOLVED, that Insurance Consultant Advisory Services, Inc. (Allan H. Bader) is hereby retained as Risk Manager for the Village of Rye Brook for the current official year subject to the terms of the Risk Management Proposal dated August 24, 1993. 27 Board of Trustee Meeting August 14, 2001 RESOLUTION RETAINING VILLAGE LABOR COUNSEL RESOLVED, that the law firm Raing & Pogrebin, P.C. (Craig R. Benson, Esq.) is hereby retained as Labor Counsel for the Village of Rye Brook for the current official year subject to the terms of the retainer letter dated March 31, 2000. RESOLUTION RETAINING ENGINEERING CONSULTANT RESOLVED, that Dolph Rotfeld Engineering, P.C. (Dolph Rotfeld, P.E.) is hereby retained as Engineering Consultant for the Village of Rye Brook for the current official year subject to the terms of the Engineering Consultant Agreement dated May 19, 1995 and revised hourly fee schedule, effective January 1, 2001. Trustee Santon asked if each Resolution could be addressed individually as he felt that it would be easier to discuss the items. On a motion made by Trustee Brackman, and seconded by Trustee Degling, the Resolution regarding retaining the Village's Tax Certiorari Counsel was adopted. TRUSTEE BRACKMAN VOTING AYE TRUSTEE DEGLING VOTING AYE TRUSTEE RAND VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SANTON VOTING AYE MAYOR FILIPOWSKI VOTING AYE On a motion made by Trustee Brackman, and seconded by Trustee Degling, the Resolution regarding retaining the Village's Planning Consultant was adopted. 28 Board of Trastee Meeting August 14, 2001 TRUSTEE BRACKMAN VOTING AYE TRUSTEE DEGLING VOTING AYE TRUSTEE RAND VO'T'ING AYE TRUSTEE SANTON VO'T'ING AYE MAYOR FILIPOWSKI VOTING AYE On a motion made by Trustee Degling, and seconded by Trustee Brackman, the Resolution regarding retaining the Village's Risk Manager was adopted. TRUSTEE BRACKMAN VOTING AYE TRUSTEE DEGLING VOTING AYE TRUSTEE RAND VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SANTON VOTING AYE MAYOR FILIPOWSKI VOTING AYE On a motion made by Trustee Degling, and seconded by Trustee Braclanan, the Resolution regarding retaining the Village's Labor Counsel was adopted. TRUSTEE BRACKMAN VOTING AYE TRUSTEE DEGLING VOTING AYE TRUSTEE RAND VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SANTON VOTING AYE MAYOR FILIPOWSKI VOTING AYE On a motion made by Trustee Brackman, and seconded by Trustee Degling, the Resolution regarding retaining the Village's Engineering Consultant was adopted. TRUSTEE BRACKMAN VOTING AYE TRUSTEE DEGLING VOTING AYE TRUSTEE RAND VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SANTON VOTING AYE MAYOR FILIPOWSKI VOTING AYE 29 Board of Tnistee Meeting August 14, 2001 Trustee Santon asked for discussion on this matter. He noted that essentially this is a contract dated from 1995. This contract continues with amendments in hourly and rate changes proposed. Although the rate has not changed significantly over the years, Trustee Santon expressed concern with the budget for the consultants, He noted that Dolph Rotfeld consults for the Village on a number of issues and has the ability to subcontract to others. He pointed out that in early 2000 Mr. Rotfeld had a soil analysis done at Bellefair which cost $4800. Trustee Santon expressed concern regarding where the money has been spent. He asked that a mechanism be put into the Resolution so that everyone would be aware of how the money in the Consulting Budget is being spent. Mr. Bradbury noted that much of the monies paid to Mr. Rotfeld are recovered through applications. Mr. Bradbury stated that Mr. Rotfeld, who is very experienced, is a valuable asset for the Village. Trustee Degling felt that it was an open contract, but without it every time a job came up that required a consultant instead of getting the work done the Village would have to spend several months advertising a contract to get someone to do it. There is the practicality of reviewing the work that has been done. The Village Engineer oversees this consulting work. This kind of consulting contract is very much like the excellent contract that Mr. Carosi worked out with the Central Tree Company. This kind of arrangement is very efficient. Trustee Santon noted that his concern is not that Mr. Rotfeld is not doing what he has been asked to do, but instead he was asking for a better reporting system. Mr. Carosi clarified how projects were given to the Village's consultants. He pointed out that the consultants are used as an outreach of the Building Department. -If it is a matter of reporting this can be addressed with the Village's Administrator. Mr. Bradbury noted that this is not looked at as an open account. Trustee Degling felt that this raises an important issue of what the function of the Board is. The Board is a policy Board and it should not try and micromanage each department of the Village. There must be a certain amount of confidence in the people who are hired. This Board does not function as engineers, accountants and lawyers and, therefore, should limit itself to policy matters. 30 Board of Trustee Meeting August 14, 2001 Trustee Santon rebutted Trustee Degling's feelings. He felt that the Board has a duty to provide some oversight in addition to the policy-setting role. Trustee Rand felt that both Trustees Degling and Santon were correct. The Village board is a policy Board and an oversight Board. There is an auditing function, which is a third party, which also provides protection. There has never been an Executive Session directly with the auditors to mare sure that a management report without the Administration present was there. In terms of proper government, this might not be a bad idea. Making sure that oversight is there and making sure that projects are carried out on a proper basis is not a bad idea. Trustee Brackrnan noted that the Board receives monthly accountings of the monies that have been spent. She stated in those accountings monies paid to consultants is shown. If she has questions, she raises them with the Village's Administration. There is so much involved with running a Village that it is hard to get everything into the public's eye. Mr. Bradbury suggested an Audit Committee be formed to oversee these matters. He noted that he was very comfortable with the Village's finances and the internal control. On a motion made by Trustee Brackma.n, and seconded by Trustee Degling, the Resolution was adopted. TRUSTEE BRACKMAN VOTING AYE TRUSTEE DEGLING VOTING AYE TRUSTEE RAND VOTING AYE TRUSTEE S-ANTON VOTING AYE MAYOR FILIPOWSKI VOTING AYE Mayor Filipowski called for the next item on the agenda. 10. 2000/2001 YEAR END BUDGET MODIFICATIONS Mr. Bradbury read the following Resolution: 31 Board of Trustee Meeting August 14, 2001 RESOLUTION 2004/2001-YEAR END BUDGET MODIFICATIONS RESOLVED, that the following budget modifications be hereby approved: FROM TO AMOUNT 101.3620.130 101.1640.110 $1,460.1.3 (Safety Inspection - (Central Garage--- Office Assistant) Garage Mechanic) 101.3620.130 101.1640.189 $2,441.38 (Safety Inspection- (Central Garage — Office Assistant) Overtime) 101.3620.130 101,1640.415 $2,890.55 (Safety Inspection - (Central Garage— Office Assistant) Fuel. & Oil) 1.01.3620.130 101.1640.445 $17,634.59 (Safety Inspection - (Central Garage— Office Assistant) Repairs) 101.3620.130 101.1640.450 $6,000.00 (Safety Inspection - (Central Garage--- Office Assistant) - Garage Expense) 101.3 620.189 101.1640.450 $1,011.59 (Safety Inspection - (Central Garage---- Overtime) Garage Expense) 101.5110,110 101.5142.199 $17,919.89 (Highway Maint. - (Snow Removal— Dir. of Operations/Foreman) Overtime) 32 Board of Trustee Meeting August 14, 2001 FROM TO AMOUNT 101.511.0.110 101.5142.417 $4,560.09 (Highway Maint. - (Snow Removal— Dir. of Operations/Foreman) Sand & Salt) 1.01.5110.110 101.5010.498 $97.81. (Highway Maint. - (Highway Admin. — Dir. of Operations/Foreman) Education/Traming) 101.5110,110 101.8560.458 $12,094.78 (Highway Maint. - (Shade Trees— Dir. of Operations/Foreman) Supplemental Services) 101.5110.160 101.8560.458 $9,657.39 (Highway Maint. - (Shade Trees— Laborers) Supplemental Services) 101.5110.189 101.8560.458 $2,391.69 (Highway Maint. — Overtime) (Shade Trees— Supplemental Services) 101.5110.170 101.8560.458 $465.91 (Highway Maint. - (Shade Trees-- Assistant Mechanic) Supplemental Services) 101.5110.413 (10 L 8560.45 8 $2,599.23 (Highway Maint. - Shade Trees— Road Signs) - Supplemental Services) 101.5110.416 101.8560.458 $1,172.75 (Highway Maint. - (Shade Trees— Road Striping) Supplemental Services) 101.3620.200 101.8560.458 $2,529.80 (Safety Inspection - (Shade Trees— Equipment) Supplemental Services) 33 Board of Trustee Meeting August 14, 2001 FROM TO AMOUNT 101.3620.498 101,8560.458 $3,744.91 (Safety Inspection - (Shade Trees— Dues/Public./Code) Supplemental Services) 101.3620.499 101.8560.458 $1,300.00 (Safety Inspection - (Shade Trees— Contractual) Supplemental Services) 101.1910.422 101.9060.817 $25,061.97 (Unallocated Insurance) (Health & Dental) 101.1990.424 101.9060.817 $31,147.00 (Contingency) (Health & Dental) 101.8120.403 101.9060.817 $100,000.00 (Sewer District) (Health & Dental) Mx. Bradbury noted that this Resolution covers an administrative function. On a motion made by Trustee Rand, and seconded by Trustee Degling, the Resolution was adopted. Trustee Rand asked for clarification of the amount spent on health insurance. Mr. Bradbury noted that there were high medical bills. He noted that the Village has now changed to a less expensive plan. This was done through negotiations. The Board has been trying to control these expenses. Trustee Santon expressed concern regarding the transfers of monies. He has reviewed some of the records and it seemed to hire that $36,000 was transferred to the shade tree account. He noted that a contract was awarded to the Central Tree Service of Rye. That contract was for $16,870 and covered pruning work and tree removal. Now basically what is being said is that account was over spent by $36,000. He also noted that the recreation budget section shows a line item entitled "equipment repairs and supplies" and has spent $10,817 the remainder for central tree set-vice. Looking at these two accounts you find that Central Tree has been paid through July of this year is almost $77,000. 34 Board of Tnistee Meetuig August 14, 2001 How does the Village award a competitive bid contract for $16,570 and then go ahead and spend $60,000 beyond that without re-bidding. Mr. Carosi noted that with regards to the tree contract, it needs to be clearly understood that it is not a closed ended contract. It is not a contract for a specific list of items. The contract is clearly written that what we are hying to do is provide a service. The service provided is the removal and the trimming of trees in the Village that are in danger or in need of care. This contract enables the Village to direct services as needed. The safety of the residents is very important, and it is important to take care of the trees before they become a hazard and a liability. Mr. Bradbury stated that he has reviewed the budget. As a result, more money was budgeted in the current fiscal year. Trustee Santon noted that he would like to know where the money is being spent sooner than later. He renewed a previous request for a list of trees for planting that is under consideration. Nh. Carosi noted that he could provide Trustee Santon with the active list. On a motion made by Trustee Brackman and seconded by Trustee Degling, the Resolution was adopted. TRUSTEE BRACKMAN VOTING AYE TRUSTEE DEGLING VOTING AYE TRUSTEE RAND VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SANTON VOTING AYE MAYOR FILIPOWSKI VOTING AYE 11. SETTING DATE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND CHAPTER 240, THE VILLAGE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW Nh•. Bradbury read the following Resolution: 35 Board of Tnistee Meeting August 14, 2001 RESOLUTION SETTING DATE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND CHAPTER 240, THE VILLAGE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees shall hold a public hearing on August: 28, 2001 at 7:30 p.m., at the Village Hall, 938 King Street, Rye Brook, New York to consider a local law to amend Chapter 240 of the Code of the Village of Rye Brook in relation to stop intersections and parking regulations. Mr. Bradbury stated that essentially this Resolution puts in place stop signs and some no parking and standing restrictions in the Hidden Falls area. Trustee Degling stated that he has reviewed some of the Code and has found that it he needed clarification on several matters. He noted that there was a section that referred to Elm Hill Drive where it intersects Old Oak Road and a yield sign. However, at this intersection there is actually a stop sign. Mr. Bradbury agreed with Trustee Degling that there are several inconsistencies with the Code. Having noted these inconsistencies it was decided that the Code needed to be revised. At this time the review is centering on Hidden Falls because of a request made by the residents in that area. He noted that it would take time to go through the entire law. Trustee Rand noted that in addition to signage concerns, there is a concern about speeding that he would like to see included in the review of the Code. He stated that issues such as the speed limit on King Street being 40 mph and then dropping down to 30 mph in Port Chester should be reviewed. This inconsistency is very difficult for drivers. Mr. Beane reiterated that this Resolution arose in an effort to clean up and add certain signage. In order for the Village to enforce its codes these particular stop signs need to exist. The Police Chief has begun a review of the Code. Chief Santoro felt that there was too much on the 28th's agenda to address this matter on that date. He noted that as the police department, the Village's Administration, and Counsel reviews the Code the ordinances will be fixed. He 36 Board of Trustee Meeting August 14, 2001 noted that Rye Brook has approached the State several times to have the speed limit reduced on King Street, but they have been turned down. They can make this request again. On a motion made by Trustee Degling, and-seconded by Trustee Brackman, the Resolution was adopted. TRUSTEE BRACKMAN VOTING AYE TRUSTEE DEGLING VOTING AYE TRUSTEE RAND VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SANTON VOTING AYE MAYOR FILIPOWSKI VOTING AYE 12. APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 8, 200:1 May 22, 2001 July 10, 2001 Mr. Bradbury noted that this item was held over from a previous meeting. At that time it was felt that there the Board did not have sufficient time to review the summaries and, as several members of the Board were excused from the meeting, the item was placed on this agenda. At the request of the Board members it will now be placed on the agenda for August 28, 2001. At this time the Board moved to the Discussion portion of the agenda. DISCUSSIONS: 1. HIRING OF KEANE, AND BEANE, P.C. AS VILLAGE ATTORNEY Mayor Filipowski thanked Mr. Ken Powell for his many years of service. It was noted that this item was on the agenda of the prior meeting, however, due to a power outage Trustee San.ton felt that it was not sufficiently discussed. As a result, Trustee Santon asked for this item to be placed on the agenda. He stated that although he was pleased with the service provided so far, he had an issue with the contract scope and some of the events surrounding it. He stated that he was 37 Board of Trustee Meethig August 14, 2001 disappointed in his colleagues for adopting the Resolution on July 10, 2001 during a power outage. Mayor Filipowski asked Trustee Santon to stick with the topic and be relevant. He felt that commenting on disappointment cast dispersions and was personal. Trustee Santon disagreed with the Mayor's cominent. He expressed his opinion that the retainer agreement with Keane & Beane was in conflict with the scope of the Resolution. In his opinion, the Resolution makes certain authorizations that are inconsistent. He also felt that the June 19`x' Retainer Agreement and the July IO'll Board Resolution were not in sync. He also felt that the contract was signed by the Mayor 12 days before the Resolution was adopted by the Board of Trustees, and stated that in his opinion there were potential conflicts that need to be identified. He wanted Mr. Beane to modify the contract so as not to overlap work to be performed by the Labor Attorney and the Tax Certiorari Attorney. He stated, once arain, that he was disappointed that this item was not adjourned on July 10',. He was also disappointed that he found out there is a conflict with the Sprint matter and the firm of Keane & Beane. He requested that the Board be advised of any other conflicts with any other major matters that may come before the board. He asked what caused the Board to consider replacing the prior counsel. He asked that the contract be modified and the overlapping of services be removed. Mayor Filipowski stated that there was no conflict in terms of hiring the firm. of Keane & Beane. The matter of choosing a law firm as Village's Counsel was addressed during an executive session. The inclusion of the labor reference and tax certiorari reference gives the Village double coverage and he, and the other Board members, felt that this should remain in the contract. The contract was signed after the Resolution was adopted, and changes in the document were made at the request of Trustee Santon during a conversation with Mr. Beane. Mr. Beane noted that with respect to the scope of services he had no problem removing both of those references. He noted that to date his firm. has not performed any function in either area. He pointed out that labor and employment is something very different from labor relations. There will be times when the Village will need counsel in addition to the Labor Relations Counsel. If that occurs, the firm. of Keane & Beane will be available. The retainer and fees was done by estimating annual hours. The first two months has a much larger learning curve, From then on it is expected that the firm will give the Village 35-36 hours 38 Board of Trustee Meeting August 14, 2001 per month, Significantly more hours have been provided these past several months. Anyone that wishes to see how much time was spent, and on what issues, can be viewed. The retainer agreement is for a one-year period, with fees paid monthly. Mr. Beane noted that regarding conflicts, they disclosed every conflict that they were aware of to the Board of Trustees before they were officially appointed. Sprint was one of those conflicts. The firm of Keane & Beane represents Sprint in other areas. Conflict hurts everyone. The only way to avoid any conflict is to hire a full time Village Attorney that only handles the Village's business. Mr. Beane addressed the matter of the conflict between the Resolution and the Retainer. He noted that the contract was is up to $80,000 for legal fees. Disbursements and out-of-pocket fees include filing fees and deposition costs. Disbursements do not mean the hiring of sub-contractors. Trustee Santon asked for a clarification regarding the dates. He noted that the contract refers to a June 1St commencement date and then later in the contract it refers to July 1St. He noted that the contract was signed and dated by the Mayor on June 28t', 12 days iu advance of the Resolution. He felt that the concept of hiring firms as Village Attorney was in contrast with the recommendations of the State Controller's office. He noted that Mr. Powell was an individual that has now been replaced by a firm. He asked if the State's Controller's office would be called in to review this matter. Mr. Beane stated he was unsure of what the State's Controller would do, He did note that other communities have hired firms as the Village Attorney. The key here is to provide the Village with the best possible service all of the time. He stated that he would do whatever the Village wanted in respect to changes to the contract, Mayor Filipowski stated that from 1994 until the time that Mr. Powell was hired as a Village employee he was part of a firm and served as Village Attorney. Mayor Filipowski stated that the Resolution was signed after the Executive Session. 39 Board of Trustee Meeting August 14, 2001 2. UTILITY EASEMENT ACTIVI'T'IES Trustee Santon stated that there has been a proliferation of cable and telephone trucks. Installations that are unsightly have been installed. He noted that Bell Atlantic asked for permission to construct an underground vault at Betsy Brown and they were turned down. Now they have installed a fairly good size box in the area. He asked if counsel would look into this issue and find out what the Village's rights are, what the utility easement is, and what rights the Village has to steer these companies. Mr. Beane noted that his firm has done research on this issue and is putting together a memorandum for the Village Board. The Board does have some regulatory ability. In order to obtain more regulatory ability the Village Board will have to revise some Resolutions to change Village Ordinances. If a utility company wants to build a structure they would have to come to the Village for permission. He also noted that they are not allowed to build in the State right away. One Ordinance holds the owner of the poles responsible for any damage done to curbs or private property around that pole. Appropriate ordinances can be drafted and public hearing can be held. Trustee Santon noted that recently an above ground installation was constructed at the Arbors. There was no site plan review. A curb cut was made. It is not landscaped and it is now considered an unsightly installation. Mr. Beane responded that he would review this specific structure. k 3. IMPROVEMENT OF COMMUNICATION/COORDINATION WITH VILLAGE BOARDS/COMMITTEES AND RESIDENTS Trustee Santon requested a workshop where the Village Board will meet with all committees and their members. He felt that a discussion should be held regarding what is expected of each committee and board. He felt that each committee and board should be asked to take minutes and supply the Village Board with copies in a timely manner. He asked that a work session be scheduled. Mr. Bradbury suggested that the Village Board review the functions of each Board in order to get an understanding within itself. A work session should be held first. 40 Board of Trustee Meeting August 14, 2001 Mayor Filipowski noted that when there is titne the Board members could give liaison reports. Unfortunately the Village Board meetings have been going on forever and there has not been sufficient time for these types of reports. Trustee Brackman noted that she has raised this issue a number of times. This is a step-by-step process. First the Board needs to have a clear understanding of what each committee's responsibilities are and what is expected of them. She agreed that a workshop would be an excellent idea. It was decided that Mr. Bradbury and Trustee Brackman would work on an agenda for the workshop. Mr, Bradbury noted that the wall modification at Bellefair was on the agenda for information put-poses. 4. BELLE]CAIR RETAINING WALL MODOICATION Several residents at Bellefair have requested the construction of an additional retaining wall by Spectrum. This matter has been referred to the Planning Board who, upon its review, has considered it a minor modification to the site plan, however, additional information has been requested. The developer will have this information to the Planning Board by their September meeting. At that time this matter will come before the Village Board for review. VILLAGE ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: Mr. Bradbury was asked to give the Village Administrator's Report. He reviewed several projects within the Village that are not yet complete. He noted that the Firehouse Study is in progress. The architect has met with staff, the Rye Brook Firefighters, the Ambulance Corp, and the Fire Advisory Board. Next on the agenda is the Board of Trustees which has a meeting scheduled for August 22, 2001. Then there will be a meeting with the Port Chester Chief, the Arbors, and the Schools. At the meeting on the 22nd a discussion regarding fire trucks will take place in order to review recommendations for fire tracks. This will be a public meeting. 41 Board of Tnistee Meetfiig August 14, 2001 Mr. Bradbury reviewed some Code Enforcement issues, noting that a representative from Westchester County will attend a meeting with. Mr. Bradbury and residents of Hidden Falls on September 12th to discuss issues surrounding the pond. At this time there is construction activity within the Village. There is Con Edison work going on in the Ridge Street area. This is a two-month project. The King Street sidewalks project is currently in progress. The Pine Ridge Ball Field bids were rejected. A special mailing will be done next week. The resurfacing contract is out and scheduled to be back by August 30, 2001. This contract involves Valley Terrace, Argyle, Tamarack, and Sylvan. The Ellendale structure demolition is currently out for quotes. Once all of the quotes are in the Village will move forward on the demolition. Capital requests have been sent out, and the Board has received copies. Mr. Bradbury noted that the Village is looking into purchasing a Rescue Pumper, which is in addition to the fire truck. The fire department is providing information and recommendations on the type of vehicle that they would prefer. The State will be back in the fall to complete the plantings in the Hutch area. Letters will be sent to the residents along the roadway so that they can address any landscape issues. Mr. Bradbury noted that the issue of parking at the nursery school on Ridge Street is currently being addressed. A report has been issued by the County regarding the Rich Manor property. The Environmental Committee is currently reviewing this matter. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: Trustee Rand questioned the finalization of the re-striping of Ridge Street. He hoped that this would be completed before Schools starts. Mr. Bradbury would look into this matter. 42 Board of Trustee Meeting August 14, 2001 Trustee Degling asked what the schedule for the sidewalk on Red Roof Faun along Ridge Street was. It was a condition before the Certificate of Occupancy. Mr. Bradbury will look into this. Trustee Santon commented that the Bellefair developer has made two recent applications for amendments. He also noted that the renumbering situation on Reunion Road involved a new curb cut change. He felt that the Board needed to look at all physical changes that have been made contrary to the site plan as residents have stated that other retaining walls have already been moved. These issues need to be resolved before the Developer moves on, Trustee Santon felt that the firemen's trailer was an issue that also needed to be addressed. In addition, be felt that the Village had a liability surrounding the improper containment of salt stored at the salt shed at Ellendale Avenue. He requested that this salt be moved. He also noted that there is an active gas line at this facility that should be looked at. Trustee Santon reminded everyone that the Department of Transportation has almost completed the highway work at the Hutch. Any concerns or complaints should be forwarded to the Village at this time. Trustee Santon noted that after walking Rich Manor Park it was noted that some of the residents of adjacent properties have encroached on this parkland. He felt that there were important Code Enforcement issues that should be reviewed. Mayor Filipowski noted that the next Board of Trustee meetings are scheduled for August 28, 2001 and September 11, 2001. 43 Board of Trustee Meeting August 14, 2001 There finally being no more business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 11;55 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Christopher J. r bury Village Clerk 44 Board of Trustee Meeting August 14, 2001