Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-02-23 - Board of Trustees Meeting Documents VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BOARD OF TRUSTEES MEETINGS VILLAGE HALL, 938 KING STREET TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2016 7:00 P.M. —Mayor's State of the Village 7:30 P.M. —REGULAR MEETING: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: REPORT/PRESENTATIONS: AFFORDABLE HOUSING/PUBLIC HEARING: 1. Public hearing for an application for a PUD site plan submitted by Sun Homes for property located at 1100 King Street (Reckson). RESOLUTIONS: 1) Considering approval of an application for a PUD site plan submitted by Sun Homes for property located at 1100 King Street (Reckson). 2) Considering the acceptance of an Eagle Scout project for improvement to the entrance of Crawford Park from Wilton Road. 3) Authorizing the Village of Rye Brook to enter into a license agreement with the owner of 7 Old Orchard Road for the use of Village property. 4) Considering a resolution expressing concerns with Westchester County's proposed legislative changes to the Airport's Terminal Use Agreement. 5) Considering a salary adjustment for the Village's PT Intermediate Account Clerk/Internal Claims Auditor 6) Considering the adoption of local adjustments for homestead and non-homestead base proportions. 7) Considering the approval of minutes from the meeting of February 9, 2016. ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS DISCUSSION ITEM ACTION ON NON-AGENDA MATTERS SUBJECT TO THE CONSENT OF THE TRUSTEES PRESENT AT THE MEETING THE NEXT SPECIAL AND REGULAR TRUSTEES MEETINGS Regular Meetings: March 8, 2016 and March 22, 2016 Special "Town Hall" Meeting: March 21, 2016 February 23, 2016 RESOLUTION CONSIDERING APPROVAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR A PUD SITE PLAN SUBMITTED BY SUN HOMES FOR PROPERTY AT 1100 KING STREET (RECKSON) VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BOARD OF TRUSTEES WHEREAS, Sun Homes (the "Applicant"), as authorized by property owner Reckson Operating Partnership L.P., submitted a PUD Site Plan Application in connection with the proposed construction of a residential development of 110 single-family dwelling units on property located at 1100 hing Street, designated as Section 129.25, Block 1, Lot 1 on the Town of Rye Tax Map ("Property") and located in the Planned Unit Development ("PUD") District; and WHEREAS, the instant Site Plan Application constitutes Phase II of a two-phase PUD approval process pursuant to Village Code §250-7.E wherein PUD Concept Plan approval and PUD zone change occur in Phase I and detailed subdivision and site plan review and approval occur during Phase II; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees is the Approval Authority for this application pursuant to Section 250-7.E(4)(b)(2) of the Village Code; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees and Village staff and consultants have reviewed and considered the following plans and application materials in connection with the proposed application: 1. Full Environmental Assessment Form Part land EAF Mapper Summary 2. Application for Site Plan Approval 3. Letter to the Planning Board prepared by Divney, Tung, Schwalbe, LLP, White Plains, N.Y., dated December 23, 2015 4. Letter to the Planning Board prepared by Divney, Tung, Schwalbe, LLP, White Plains, N.Y., dated November 25, 2015 5. Letter to the Building and Fire Inspector prepared by Divney, Tung, Schwalbe , LLP, White Plains, N.Y., dated November 24, 2015 6. Letter to the Planning Board prepared by Cuddy and Feder, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. dated November 25, 2015 7. Letter to the Mayor and Board of Trustees prepared by Cuddy and Feder, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. dated September 17, 2015 1313/08/555832 V 1 2/19/16 8. PUD Site Plan Project Description and Rendered Illustrative Home Plans and Elevations prepared by Divney, Tung, Schwalbe , LLP, White Plains, N.Y., no date 9. Stormwater Management Report prepared by Divney, Tung, Schwalbe , LLP, White Plains, N.Y., dated Revised December 2015 10. Stormwater Management Report prepared by Divney, Tung, Schwalbe , LLP, White Plains, N.Y., dated September 2015 11. Land Title Survey prepared by Joseph R. Link, Land Surveyor, Mahopac, N.Y. dated March 23, 2002, updated January 26, 2015 12. Letter to Divney, Tung, Schwalbe from NYSDEC Division of Fish, Wildlife and Marine Resources, New York State Natural Heritage Program, Albany, N. Y., dated February 25, 2015 13. Willingness to Serve Letter from United Water New York, dated October 9, 2015 14. Memorandum to the Village Engineer and the Planning Board prepared by Dolph Rotfeld Engineering , P.C., Tarrytown, N.Y. dated January 7, 2016 15. Memorandum to the Village Engineer and the Planning Board prepared by Dolph Rotfeld Engineering , P.C., Tarrytown, N.Y. dated November 3, 2015 16. Engineer's Plans, prepared by Divney, Tung, Schwalbe, LLP, White Plains, N.Y.: Sheet Number Sheet Title Date No number Cover Sheet 9/17/15 rev. 12/23/15 SP-1.0 Overall Site Plan 9/17/15 rev. 12/23/15 SP-1.1 Site Layout Plan 9/17/15 rev. 12/23/15 SP-2.0 Grading and Utility Plan 9/17/15 rev. 12/23/15 SP-3.0 Site Utility Plan— Overall 9/17/15 rev. 12/23/15 SP-3.1 Typical Unit Plan 9/17/15 rev. 12/23/15 SP-4.0 Landscape Plan — Overall 9/17/15 rev. 12/23/15 SP-4.1 Landscape Plan — Typical Unit/Clubhouse 9/17/15 rev. 12/23/15 SP-5.0 Erosion and Sediment Control Plan 9/17/15 rev. 12/23/15 SP-5.1 Erosion and Sediment Control Details 9/17/15 rev. 12/23/15 SP-5.2 Phasing Plan 9/17/15 rev. 12/23/15 SP-6.0 Site Sections 9/17/15 rev. 12/23/15 SP-6.1 Road Profiles 9/17/15 rev. 12/23/15 SP-6.2 Water Profiles 9/17/15 rev. 12/23/15 SP-6.3 Sanitary Sewer Profiles 9/17/15 rev. 12/23/15 SP-6.4 Storm Sewer Profiles 9/17/15 rev. 12/23/15 SP-7.1 to SP-7.3 Site Details 9/17/15 rev. 12/23/15 SP-8.0 Site Lighting Plan 9/17/15 rev. 12/23/15 L-02 Planting, Lighting and Wetland Mitigation Plan 5/25/07 rev. 11/23/15 F-1 Fire Protection Plan 11/18/15 SS-1.0 Slope Analysis 12/23/15; and 1313/08/555832 V 1 2/19/16 WHEREAS, on July 28, 2015 the Board of Trustees adopted a Negative Declaration pursuant to SEQRA for the Proposed Action which included certain text amendments to the PUD zoning regulations in Chapter 250 of the Village Code, rezoning the Property from OB-1 to PUD, PUD Concept Plan and PUD Site Plan approvals, and other required permits and approvals; and WHEREAS, on August 18, 2015 the Board of Trustees rezoned the Property from OB-1 to PUD approved a PUD Concept Plan for the Sun Homes development; and WHEREAS, on September 17, 2015 the Board of Trustees received a PUD Site Plan application submitted by Sun Homes; and WHEREAS, on October 2, 2015 the Board of Trustees affirmed its continuing role as Lead Agency for the review of the PUD Site Plan application and referred the application to the Village of Rye Brook Planning Board for Report and Recommendation; and WHEREAS, on January 14, 2016 the Planning Board adopted a Report and Recommendation which was submitted to the Board of Trustees for consideration; and WHEREAS, on January 25, 2016, the Applicant was referred to the Westchester County Planning Board in accordance with Section 239-m of the General Municipal Law and the Westchester County Code; and WHEREAS, on February 1, 2016, the Application was referred to the Town of Harrison, New York and the Town of Greenwich, Connecticut in accordance with Section 239-nn of the General Municipal Law and the Westchester County Code; and WHEREAS, on February 12, 2016 the Board of Trustees received comments from the Westchester County Planning Board and reviewed them at their February 23, 2016 public meeting; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on February 23, 2016, at which time all those wishing to be heard on the Application were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees, Village Planning Consultant, and Village staff have reviewed all application materials, including public comments; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees is fully familiar with the application and the Property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that having adopted a Negative Declaration pursuant to SEQRA on July 28, 2015 and upon considering all public 1313/08/555832 V 1 2/19/16 comments, as well as comments from the Applicant, Village Planning Board, Westchester County Department of Planning, other agencies, Village consultants and staff, the Board of Trustees hereby approves the Planned Unit Development Site Plan application for property located at 1100 hing Street (Reckson), subject to the following conditions: 1. Satisfaction of any outstanding conditions of the Resolutions adopted by the Board of Trustees on July 28, 2015 and August 18, 2015 concerning the Sun Homes project. 2. Approval of all required permits and/or approvals from the appropriate agencies for the Project, including approval of a Steep Slopes Permit from the Village Planning Board. 3. Based on the current and anticipated future need for park and recreational opportunities in the Village of Rye Brook, and the demands of the future population of the proposed residential development, the Board of Trustees hereby finds that additional recreation/parkland should be created as a condition of approval for the Application. The Board of Trustees further determines that a suitable park of adequate size cannot be properly and practically located within the Parcel, nor has the Applicant offered recreation/parkland of suitable size and practical location to adequately address the need for additional recreation/parkland within the Village. Therefore, the Board of Trustees hereby requires that the Applicant shall pay a Recreation Fee in Lieu of Parkland in accordance with Sections 250-7.E(2)(�[2] and 209-15 of the Village Code. Payment of said fee, in full, shall be a condition precedent to issuance of a building permit for the project. 4. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit to the Village Consulting Engineer the information, data and results set forth below and demonstrate to the reasonable satisfaction of the Village Consulting Engineer that the following test has been performed: A water main flow test shall be performed on the discharge side of the BelleFair community's water pumping station (i.e., at the Anderson Hill Road location) to simulate a discharge flow in excess of the Sun Homes' water demand. This test shall include a hydrant discharge of at least 1,000 gallons per minute (gpm) for a duration of 5 minutes. The discharge hydrant will be located on the Reckson Executive Park site in the general vicinity of the proposed Sun Homes' water main connection. Hydrant #289 in BelleFair shall be flowed at 300 gpm at the same time as the one at Reckson. A hydrant located at the highest elevation on BelleFair Boulevard in the circle shall be monitored/recorded for pressure before, during and after the test at 1 minute intervals. After 5 minutes, the discharge hydrant flow shall be reduced to 500 gpm and shall discharge 1313/08/555832 V 1 2/19/16 for another 5 minutes. Pressure readings shall be recorded again at the Bellefair site during and at the end of the test. During these same intervals, residual pressure readings shall be taken at a hydrant in Doral Greens' community farthest from the connection to the 16" water main along Anderson Hill Road. Residual pressure should also be taken before, during and after the test on a hydrant located on the suction side of the booster station on Anderson Hill Road. For information purposes, only, it should be determined whether the second pump has been activated anytime during this test. The results of the test shall be provided to the Village Consulting Engineer for review and a determination whether the BelleFair or Doral Green community would experience a substantive change in water pressure by reason of the provision of water service to the Sun Homes community under current water system operations. Submission to the Village Consultant Engineer shall include the input and results of the model output at the various testing locations referenced above, including information of other extremities of the system such as Lincoln Avenue at Cerebral Palsy of Westchester. The submission shall also include the current results of the model of the water system during peak hour in Doral Green and in BelleFair. Results of the new flow tests shall be plugged into the model and the results of the impact of the tests on the model shall be submitted to the Village Consulting Engineer. The model shall have elevations at the nodes used. Under no circumstances shall a building permit be issued without confirmation from the Village Consulting Engineer that provision of water service to the Sun Homes community is not expected to result in a substantive change in water pressure to the BelleFair or Doral Green communities. 5. Consistent with comments from Westchester County set forth in its memorandum dated February 12, 2016, to offset projected increases in sewage flows from this site into existing infrastructure, including adding volume of sewage flow requiring treatment at one of the treatment plans operated by Westchester County, the Applicant shall contribute $100 per dwelling unit toward a future inflow and infiltration study in the Village. 6. [The Board of Trustees recognises the Wlestchester County Planning Board's recommendation regarding the revision of plans to include sidewalks along roadways within the development and along International Drive, as well as a pedestrian connection between Sun Homes and BelleFair, but the Board of Trustees is satisfied with the plans as proposed without sidewalks because the development is not located on a through street so will not be heariiy tracked street lighting has been added to the proposed plans to make the streets safer for pedestrians, 1313/08/555832 V 1 2/19/16 and theinclusion of sidewalks will reduce the amount of open or green pace available on the Property.] OR [Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Site Plan shall be revised to include sidewalks within the development and along the full length of International Drive.] 7. The Applicant shall cooperate with the Village in developing guidelines for future renovations, home expansions or additions to ensure that no more than 11,000 square feet of additional impervious surface coverage is added to the site without further review and possible modification of the stormwater management system. 8. Prior to the issuance of any building permits the following additional conditions shall be satisfied: a. A performance bond shall be submitted in a sum determined by the Village Engineer/Superintendent of Public `Forks and shall be furnished to and accepted by the Village, to guarantee the satisfactory and complete installation and construction of all infrastructure and public improvements, as determined appropriate by the Village Engineer/Superintendent of Public `Forks and approved as to form by the Village Attorney. b. All outstanding comments of the Emergency Services Task Force in its December 7, 2016 memorandum shall be satisfied. c. Submission a maintenance agreement for stormwater management facilities, including rain gardens and permeable pavers, for review of the Village Attorney as to form. Such agreement shall be recorded in the Westchester County Clerk's Office and proof of recording shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. d. The approved site plan(s) for Reckson Phase 1 and Phase 2 shall be amended as necessary to accommodate aspects of the PUD Site Plan, including fire access, changes to International Drive, and relocation of the existing trash enclosure and maintenance yard at the rear of the existing parking area. e. The note on the Landscape Plan shall be revised to state that where trees are removed from the buffer areas, additional trees shall be planted to eliminate gaps created in the existing vegetation resulting from the removal of dead, dying or diseased trees. f. Submit to the Village for review and approval of the Village Attorney as to form, all necessary easements to be recorded in the Office of the 1313/08/555832 V 1 2/19/16 Westchester County Clerk. Proof of recording shall be submitted to the Village prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that pursuant to Village Code §250-7.E(3)(a) the Board of Trustees hereby waives the floor area limitation of 9,000 square feet per acre, set forth at Village Code §250-7.E(2)(d)(1), to allow 12,109 square feet of floor area per acre to be developed due to the inclusion of walk-out basements and attached garages in the design of the dwelling units which are included in the calculation of gross floor area, but contribute positively to the design and layout of the residential community without creating any adverse impacts as the property is capable of supporting the additional buildable area. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that no permits shall be issued until the Applicant has paid to the Village all applicable fees and professional review fees incurred in connection with review of this Application. 1313/08/555832 V 1 2/19/16 January 14, 2016 _APPROVED 6-1 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF A REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE RYE BROOK BOARD OF TRUSTEES ON AN APPLICATION BY SUN HOMES FOR APPROVAL OF A PUD SITE PLAN FOR A RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY OF 110 SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1100 KING STREET BE IT RESOLVED, that the Rye Brook Planning Board hereby submits the attached Report and Recommendation to the Rye Brook Board of Trustees on an application by Sun Homes for approval of a PUD Site Plan for a residential community of 110 single-family dwelling units on real property located at 1100 King Street. On a motion by Amy Schoen, seconded by Daniel Tartaglia, Mr. Michael Nowak, Village Engineer, called the roll: APPROVING THE REFERRAL RESOLUTION: Ayes: GOODMAN, GRZAN, MORLINO, RICHMAN, SCHOEN, TARTAGLIA Nays: ACCURSO Abstain: Excused: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FROM THE RYE BROOK PLANNING BOARD TO THE RYE BROOK BOARD OF TRUSTEES ON AN APPLICATION BY SUN HOMES FOR APPROVAL OF A PUD SITE PLAN FOR A RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY OF 110 SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1100 KING STREET I. APPLICATION OVERVIEW The Rye Brook Board of Trustees is currently considering an application by Sun Homes ("Applicant") for approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Site Plan for a residential community consisting of 110 dwelling units on real property located at 1100 King Street (the "Property"). Specifically, the Applicant seeks approval of a Site Plan for the construction of a residential community on Parcel 129.25-1-1, located directly behind the Reckson Executive Park on King Street. The development will include 100 attached and detached market rate dwellings, 10 affordable housing units as well as a pool, club house, streets, on-street parking areas, communal open space and storm water retention areas. On July 28, 2015, the Board of Trustees adopted a Negative Declaration for the proposed action which included certain amendments to Zoning Code, rezoning the property from OB-1 to the PUD Zoning District, approval of a PUD Concept Plan and PUD Site Plan, as well as all related approvals and permits, such as a Steep Slopes permit and any necessary Wetland Permit approval or extension. The Negative Declaration which culminated the BOT's SEQRA review included a full and comprehensive review of potential impacts such as traffic, stormwater, wetlands, steep slopes, wildlife, tree removal, community character and other relevant categories of potential environmental impact. At the same meeting, the Board of Trustees adopted a local law which made certain text amendments to Section 250-7.E of the Village Zoning Code concerning PUD developments, including authorization for the Board of Trustees to waive the floor area limitation for residential developments and to waive certain buffer area requirements. On August 18, 2015, the Board of Trustees re-zoned to the PUD Zoning District and approved a PUD Concept Plan. Thereafter, on or about September 17, 2015 the Applicant submitted its PUD Site Plan application to the Board of Trustees which was referred to the Planning Board on October 2, 2015 for consideration and for a report and recommendation. On November 24, 2015, the Board of Trustees referred to the Planning Board the Applicant's request for an extension of its existing Wetland Permit Approval. The Planning Board reviewed the PUD Site Plan application at its meetings on October 8, 2015, November 12, 2015, December 10, 2015, and January 14, 2016 and reviewed the Wetland Permit extension request at its December 10, 2015 meeting. II. DISCUSSION The following topics are those which the Planning Board primarily focused discussion upon: -2- 1. Density/Floor Area Waiver The approved PUD Concept Plan permits up to 110 residential units in the general configuration shown on the Concept Plan. The number of units proposed by the Applicant translates to a density of approximately 3.6 units per acre which is consistent with the neighboring development of Bellefair (1.9 units per acre), the Arbors (6.8 units per acre) and Doral Greens (7.9 units per acre). The proposed units per acre also falls under the maximum of 6 units per acre permitted with a PUD, as per the Village Code. The Applicant is proposing a total floor area which exceeds the 9,000 square-foot floor area per acre limitation set forth in the Village's PUD requirements. Specifically, the PUD Site Plan proposes 12,109 square feet of floor area per acre. Therefore the Applicant is requesting a 3,109 square foot waiver which is a 35% increase over the allowable floor area. On July 28, 2015 the Board of Trustees adopted a local law which amended Section 250-7.E(3) of the Zoning Code to allow the Board of Trustees to waive the 9,000 square foot/acre floor area limitation applicable to PUDs, in whole or in part, if an applicant provides affordable housing units equivalent to 10% of the proposed market rate units. This amendment to the Zoning Code applies to this PUD and any future proposed PUDs within the Village. It is the Planning Board's understanding that the Zoning Code amendment does not state an applicant is entitled to a floor area waiver if the requisite number of affordable housing units is provided, but only that an applicant is eligible for a waiver. It should be noted that the PUD Site Plan must contain at least 10 affordable housing units based on the schedule set forth at Section 209-3.F. Here, the -3- Applicant is providing 10 affordable housing units which is equivalent to 10% of the 100 market rate units. Thus, the Applicant is eligible for a floor area waiver. As justification for the waiver, the Applicant points to three grounds: (1) inclusion of affordable housing units which are significantly larger than the minimum size required; (2) attached garages; and (3) walk-out basements. The Planning Board does not agree that providing the required affordable housing units constitutes a valid justification for granting the waiver. Although the affordable units provide a benefit to the community, they are required by code and should not serve as the basis for a gross floor area waiver. Attached garages and walk-out basements are included in the Village's definition of Gross Floor Area. However, these features contribute positively to the design and layout of the residential community but they are included in the Villages definition of GFA and thus increase the overall GFA calculation. While it may have been possible for the Applicant to design the development without these features and comply with the floor area limitation, the inclusion of the additional floor area in the overall development does not create any adverse impacts as the property is capable of supporting the additional buildable area. Therefore, based only on the second and third ground referenced above, the Planning Board supports the requested floor area waiver. 2. Lighting Plan The revised Lighting Plan replaces the originally proposed bollard lighting with traditional lighting standards which provide more comprehensive street lighting. However, the Applicant requested consideration for eliminating some of the street -4- lighting standards to provide more minimal lighting throughout the development, keeping only the lighting standards located along the proposed extension of International Drive at internal roadway intersections, and adjacent to visitor parking spaces. In determining whether to eliminate some of the proposed lighting standards, the Board of Trustees should consider the following factors: whether the level of lighting desired (i) promotes the avoidance of car accidents involving users of the vehicular roadways that are also used by pedestrians as walkways with special consideration to vulnerable groups, e.g. pedestrians, cyclists, the elderly, the disabled, and children; (ii) enhances the nighttime environment by eliminating or mitigating lateral glare and sky lighting; and(iii) promotes energy efficiency. 3. Steep Slopes/Grading Based on the Grading Plan, the Applicant is proposing a balanced cut and fill. The Applicant is proposing to increase the amount of slopes on the property that exceed 35% by approximately 0.61 acres, increase the amount of 25%-25% slopes by approximately 0.3 acres, decrease the amount of 15%-25% slopes by approximately 0.84 acres and decrease the amount of 0%-15% slopes by approximately 0.08 acres. The disturbance to existing slopes and creation of new slopes shown on the Grading Plan has been minimized through the utilization of retaining walls, particularly between the property and the adjacent Bellcfair residential development. When implementing the Grading Plan, it will be important to ensure that limits of construction are established, temporary and permanent slope stabilization measures are -5- employed, and existing vegetation in areas adjacent to grading work is protected so as to ensure survival post construction. 4. Landscape Screening The Planning Board is concerned that the removal of existing vegetation and grading of the property may create visual impacts to neighboring properties within Doral Greens and Bellefair. To address this concern, the Applicant added a note to the landscape plan requiring all existing trees within certain buffer areas to be evaluated by a certified arborist for safety and survivability to determine whether they should remain. All healthy trees in these areas will be retained. To ensure the effectiveness of the buffer vegetation in screening the proposed development from adjacent properties, the note should be revised to state that where trees are removed from the buffer areas, additional trees shall be planted to eliminate gaps created in the existing vegetation resulting from the removal of dead, dying or diseased trees. 5. Stormwater The SWPPP submitted by the Applicant has been reviewed by DRE and determined to be acceptable. The stormwater management plan has been designed such that discharge rates remain at less than 76% of the predevelopment rates and the project will achieve a 68% Runoff Reduction Volume (RRv) where 30% is required. The design of the Stormwater Management plan remains reliant upon the approved and partially -6- constructed detention basins at the rear of the property and also includes green infrastructure techniques such as porous pavement, vegetative swale, and tree planting. 6. Water Flow/Pressure On October 9, 2015 Suez Water (formerly, United Water Westchester Incorporated) issued a "Willingness to Serve" letter in which Suez certifies it has the ability and willingness to serve the Sun Homes development. It states that "[Suez] has adequate pressure and volume to serve [Sun Homes] subject to the following: the fire flow data provided was noted by Sun Homes as requiring confirmation." In a subsequent email to the Applicant dated October 28, 2015, Suez stated the following: Please be aware that we are doing some further studies along Anderson Hill Road and will continue to study this area and that, in addition to normal maintenance activities, we may make some improvements such as water main replacements that will positively affect water service for our customers. [Suez] has a Long Term Water Main Replacement Program and we continuously review and update plans and studies so we can optimize the water system improvements we make throughout our system. To confirm that surrounding properties will not experience pressure or flow issues as a result of the added demand on the water system, DRE's November 3, 2015 memorandum requests fire flow data and its December 8, 2015 memorandum requests information regarding Suez's proposed improvements, some of which information must come from Suez. Specifically, DRE's December 8, 2015 memorandum states: [Suez] proposed improvements in support of this application must be detailed. A hydraulic analysis must be submitted demonstrating that surrounding properties will not experience -7- pressure or flow issues as a result of the added demand on the system. We will gladly meet with the water company to discuss our thoughts on how to evaluate existing vs. proposed conditions. DRE's January 13, 2016 letter further states: With regard to this issue, we met with Frank McGlynn of Suez to discuss field tests necessary to determine if the construction of the Sun Homes project would have an impact on the water suppled to Belle Fair. Hydrant(s) would be opened at Belle Fair to flow at the average peak rate. Pressure would be taken before, during and after the flow. This procedure would then be repeated with hydrant flow in the Executive Park at the peak rate expected in the Sun Homes Development at maximum build out. At Belle Fair hydrant flow would be measured along with pressure in their system. Mr. McGlynn would like the above requested procedure submitted to him so that he could calculate the cost to the water company for conducting the testing. That cost would have to be paid to the water company. These items remain outstanding and must be addressed by the Applicant. 7. PUD Guidelines Although the Applicant has stated that no site modifications will be permitted and that such limitation will be stated in the Homeowner's Association documents, such limitation is not realistic over time. In the Village's experience, it is common for PUDs or the individual residents within a PUD to request permission for the construction of sheds, patios, decks, retaining walls, and other site modifications. -8- According to the Applicant's consultant, an additional 11,000 square feet of impervious surface coverage could be added to the site and accommodated by the proposed stormwater management system. The Board of Trustees should consider adopting a local law similar to that adopted for the Arbors PUD to define the process and review standards for any increase in impervious surface coverage, or include in any approval resolution appropriate conditions for establishing such parameters. 8. Reckson Phase 1 and Phase 2 As noted in the December 7, 2015 memorandum from Michael J. Izzo, Building and Fire Inspector, as well as the January 8, 2016 memorandum from F.P. Clark Associates, the PUD Site Plan is contingent upon certain revisions to the approved Reckson Phase 1 and Phase 2 Site Plans, subject to review by the Building Inspector, including the following: a. The Phase 1 and Phase 2 Site Plan shows International Drive with two traffic lanes in each direction. The PUD Site Plan shows the extension of International Drive (including the portion within Phase 1 and Phase 2) as containing only one traffic lane in each direction. Although the footprint for International Drive remains the same, the reconfiguration of the traffic lanes on Phase 1 and Phase 2 may require review and approval of an amended site plan for those parcels. b. According to the 12/7/15 memorandum from Mr. Izzo, two stone pillars located along King Street at the north end of the Phase 1/Phase 2 frontage must be relocated or removed to provide a minimum 20-foot clearance to serve as an unobstructed fire apparatus access road. Such revision may require an amendment to the approved Phase 1/Phase 1 site plan(s). C. Relocation of the existing trash enclosure and maintenance yard for Phase 1/Phase 2 may require an amendment of the approved Phase -9- 1/Phase 2 site plan(s). Such amenities are currently in the same location as the proposed interior emergency access road and AFFH units. The Planning Board recommends that any approval of the PUD Site Plan should be conditioned upon the submittal of an application for an Amended Site Plan for Reckson Phase 1 and Phase 2 to accommodate these and any additional overall site changes that are precipitated by the proposed PUD Site Plan. III. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the foregoing, the Planning Board hereby recommends that the Board of Trustees approve the PUD Site Plan Application, including the requested floor area waiver, provided the following items are satisfactorily addressed by the Applicant: 1. Demonstrate that surrounding properties will not experience pressure or flow issues as a result of the added demand on the water system. The Planning Board recommends the pressure tests referenced in DRE's January 13, 2016 memorandum should be performed prior to any approval of the PUD Site Plan. 2. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, all outstanding comments of the Emergency Services Task Force in its December 7, 2016 memorandum shall be satisified. 3. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, submit a maintenance agreement for stormwater management facilities, including rain gardens and permeable pavers, for review of the Village Attorney as to form. Such agreement shall be recorded in the Westchester County Clerk's Office and proof of recording shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. -10- 4. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the approved site plan(s) for Reckson Phase 1 and Phase 2 shall be modified as necessary to accommodate aspects of the PUD Site Plan, including fire access, changes to International Drive, and relocation of the existing trash enclosure and maintenance yard at the rear of the existing parking area. 5. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the note on the Landscape Plan should be revised to state that where trees are removed from the buffer areas, additional trees shall be planted to eliminate gaps created in the existing vegetation resulting from the removal of dead, dying or diseased trees. 6. Introduce a proposed Local Law (similar to that established for the Arbors development) or establish conditions that define the procedural and substantive standards for subsequent increases in impervious surface coverage within the PUD Site Plan up to a maximum of 11,000 square feet of impervious surface coverage beyond that shown on the PUD Site Plan. Dated: Rye Brook, New York January 14, 2016 On motion by Amy Schoen, seconded by John Grzan, Mr. Michael Nowak, Superintendent of Public Works, called the roll: APPROVED AT THE JANUARY 14, 2016 MEETING OF THE RYE BROOK PLANNING BOARD BY A VOTE OF 6-1. ACCEPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: Ayes: GOODMAN, GRZAN, MORLINO, RICHMAN, SCHOEN, TARTAGLIA Nays: ACCURSO Abstain: Excused: -11- RECKSON EXECUTIVE PARK, RYE BROOK, NY APPLICATION FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL SEPTEMBER 17, 2015 REV: NOVEMBER 23, 2015 LOCATION MAP ZONING COMPLIANCE ANALYSIS LIST OF DRAWINGS SCALE COVER SHEET SECTIONIiI ZONING REQUIREMENTS PUO PROPOSED ALTA/AGSM LAND TITLE SURVEY 111-60' SP-1.0 OVERALL SITE PLAN 1"=80' 2°g-I2) SIP 1.1 SITE LAYOUT PLAN 1"=40' 15on (117 Minimum Area 3o acres 31.5 acres (cl L°`atiw' SP-2.0 GRADING&DRAINAGE PLAN 1"-40' mm�e 15art . (al sealaenbal cse SP-3.0 SI TE UTILITY PLAN-OVERALL 1"=40' [t]Maximum—,ty goo aft acre 6 unimlacre �3�6 nna1 cre SP3.1 TYPICAL UNIT PLAN 1"=10' Maximum Height 30n flon (el sorter Area% SP-4.0 SITE LANDSCAPE PLAN-OVERALL 1"=40' maa SP-4.1 SITE LANDSCAPE PLAN-TYPICAL UNIT/CLURHOUSE 1"=10' [bl Along poperry line awning airy iWR toon(Peameleq of wngmemal aampua)te SP-5.0 EROSION&SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN1"=40' _ (7 ow sp.. [a]P.—Common space - Pmrtaetl I [1]Padmspace 1o�or raa in list I.Lieu SP-5.1 EROSION&SEDIMENT CONTROL DETAILS------------ASSHOWN 2wao13] om.t P.Mmg SP-5.2 PHASING PLAN--------------------------------------I"-120' c 2 G­` .m e 9 Unit '^"- spaces Per Gx 11m.lMB(W) 2 9 paces per ° zspac�kArtom.de UI SP SITE SECTIONS______________ P-101 Pma one P.Amg space per wt 5e spapeamcommon Pma SP 6.1 ROAD PROFILES------------------------------------AS SHOWN ". ".� zag spapaa in aire.vya SP-6.2 WATER PROFILES__ -_AS SHOWN enapter25g(2.nmg7 Dime village of lrye%rook(ocmber zgol,a am?. MRye amok M iM1e Village SP-6.3 SANITARY SEWER PROFILES PROFILES-----------------AS SHOWN Nq`1°' This requirement arasetl vhen the ocrell oa'ce pak was aubtliNtletl tan June 1,1985 9aam N h at 9,� Pt ma vilmge soam%rash%%%me zoning omirance to panne wl�e seam to ate ma g,aoo square rom requirement gena SP 6.4 STORM SEWER PROFILES AS SHOWN wfien Albin.ble Housing is pmiaea i......unt a Ivalent t,w gre.ler than im(10%)Dime m.MM-rete anile. 24, v2 SP-7.1-SP-7.3 SITE DETAILS----------------------------------------AS SHOWN `� `�'11,> tat me veleae so.m.menam me ranine omirence alloMng me bNneran ronhmswgonzwzE(zge)rone rea.cea �k°1v�' ymare ma Puo aerelopmam%brae co.an.mial orae%lmpmremenre.In io reaamion..mgaa on Aug�t tee zoi5(comiao.yl. SP-8.0 SITE LIGHTING PLAN-------------------------------AS SHOWN Pi- m L-02 PLANTING,LIG HTINC WETLANDMITIGATION PLAN__1"=50' ® THE I REP E OF BY NIPFI LLC CLU]E,2007iNU\S A IS SITE IJ BY _ THE VILLAGE OF RYE RROOk INCLUDEDAS PnRT OF THIS SITE PLAN APPLIGTIOM � O �o�oo�Oo PROPLRTY OWNLR APPLI GNT PIANNFR,CIVII ENGINEER,IA NDSCAPF SURVLYOR LLGAL COUNSLL ?,RCHITECT Ii"L l and Sunreyors,P.C. C1,16 R 1-,LLP A Uivlsion nrSL careen k ealty Cnrp. mlrl Al-1,51,11,701 DIVNEV•TILING•$CHWALHE 21 Clark PI... 45 Hamillon Avm1,,,14N Floor 1111 Aven11e Pawling,NY 125Y4 walk�mMw Mahoyac NY 10541 W hlo Flame,NY 10601 Whlle Plalns,NV IU6pl " ° I - � SITE aemSious �I NCL s 1 ep ------------ o _ 00 , e O �S a � m, '(CC� o �o i t ALTA ° w 685°00 9 z, /ACS LAND TITLE SURVEY OF PROPERTY SITUATE IN THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK O O N—T TOWN OF RYE O O AND THE - - p ...E,.��,E .Pref„sESFreErc�a:,HFs .-ST—ET TOWN OF HARRISON ® IREI 11— WESTCHESTER COUNTY ^. ' roe cE OF avE eaoorc NEW YORK i SUN HOMES RYE BROOK — zrcKsoN r-xFcuryF�� iv en I O I tee-o,Nv o , ... o Divnev Trvc „aaE T—L' u4Re _ _ ❑ a� i I lop pit I—E 11 c— � T OVERALL SITE PLAN SP-1.0 SUN HOMES I RYE BROOK ercKsYE r- K,Nengin rcrE a—reooK,NY vl - �. DIVNEY TUJC owSgmaw EEe dl i x o � o \ � iii i I � � �� • � r.�. i � A — --- � ---------- ----------- SITE LAYOUT PLAN �- — -- -- : �° SP-1.1 E-�--'�°;°°o / �° <-1 �/�\ � � � — _ en / JK/1 SUN HOMES _ / r I / / I � /-- RYE BROOK EF o - a I / I / 11 // / � . ��'rll II�// er ere oK.Nr — I �NJGIa0�1FA —11-11R 111111111 l 5 — ���� .-r -- �B /A —� v I u�� III vvvvv �� r- ' „ � �, ��✓ / �n.u�v �— �v v v vv i � \V14 .. I � I 1 i VAO / �_>T y� /�� GRADING&DRAINAGE / PLAN (7,,� SP-2.0 „i(�` _ - r��;li!iu; / / i l i i �� ����` ;".�e ��� L� RYE BROOK SUN HOMES / n / � / � \ � ��/ Rec o C RYE H o[.NY �NJa 0 rr DIVNEY TUJC S C-E — _ rr i f/"� Ell 1 N i /� SITE UTILITY PLAN- OVERALL 'ten r SP-3.0 SUN HOMES RYE BROOK EIIESGNF-UT�,EP,R, RYE H—K,NY ..`a tiE ❑ 1­vl2- WWI--1111IR 1111111 ❑ ' ❑ DIVNEY TUJG o SC—EE TYPICAL UTILITY LAYOUT u TYPICAL UNIT PLAN 0—9��Ewa.µ"bp �ieez oe cu SP-3.1 SUN HOMES ----� — RYE BROOK EFC RYE eK-oa aK K.NY - o 0 0 - o O p _ - 7— „.v. DIVNEY Tuan SCC—EE o o � o 0 1, / o - g---- --- iii iI j \ i ,tionsi F sEEsEE. ,oHPav EaF�,tiFR � — Q Iavzs. EsEOF , I `b =— ------ LANDSCAPE PLAN- OVERALL SP-4.0 SUN HOMES RYE BROOK EFCKSON r-xECurivrsnan RYE H—K,NY N CLUBHOUSE s n � SPA El El❑ 0 aFQ. POOL o PAVEas OO OO - _.._ r F`'us O � ,EK ousi uop-Foa sa ucH,i.v�d � o i E�nF, . . o I-E ,a El LANDSCAPE m. .. LANDSCAPE PLAN- TYPICAL UNIT/ CLUBHOUSE NV— a+ M SPAT sEoIMENTc TRIBuriou kliu.vowmie rano aen wai I'll / �1 i.o eeoo 1 1 l/ , l SUN HOMES s RYE BROOK 47 aseo � � / / / a a�1 23 sem 1 / / / I, i IT 1 / _ '�.y. '9�"�'1 /� 'I zrc o -cUnNF vnen RYE -oK,Nr s.a �a �3 zao I �� i i % �i��/1� � 1 / r /11111 _.. - i �� i /___- - �NJGIa0�1[��� � / / �--t' .•.����/"/ _ I_ / 1 _� - ����"� � � l J -- --- —_------ -- -- _ 1 it T p u r T ,- // / � � ✓—� cru^ T —, I DivnEv Il,rvc Scrnwuee a A J a / / J z/111 l EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN 7'01 �� I// _ter, / /�� �� —_1 ✓�/lll llll/ / / / / 1 _� ma — ] — — SUN HOMES RYE BROOK arc ll—, N zi w MMA- r.. urr ❑ r.,Eur. ❑ ❑ ""« .. ❑ WWI LI-1111IR L111111 I � - " - DIVNEY TUJC•$C-ECHWALBE c., r,<c..r<c� "^.:c�".,,c o,v,F..:ao..,_ ,... acc.rc:" .cv"^,,,_ ..� � i.. ... �"'•❑w..wK rwn~— sc"i..uis. ❑ re.i .c"i..u..,. vacE ❑ sci,i...,...s ❑ srr,e cz ,c"i..0 c,. ra.rcE ❑ �LL,w.E 'r�oEc, Par 21`TaEC"T, CONSTRICTION SPECIFICATIONS r rUo i�a �A^ ❑ ". .c.cc ur... ❑ ..r.ccur.. hwv ❑ rrEour .c cc.rr. rc.raus ❑ s� .c..ccur... �u ❑ IIID_ , EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL DETAILS -9*'Ewa.µ"bp �ieez oe cu SUN HOMES RYE ROOK _ EFCESON FXFCI-JTIl-nen ll � r ll � � M.�m.... —K,Nr �. wi I \ i DivnEY TirvG SCE—BEr MTMFMMF i �EV }(�}� az % ��✓ o - � � / o SITE PHASING PLAN ,�'��\ani-, -_i-___,__ _ `�'.✓ ��f � �\\�\`�i-l _i-_-_-__-\\ �\ � _9 ��Wb� p �C+�Oa os ,..JP-J.2 Pa°PEa..�uE� SUN HOMES Sao RYE BROOK EFCESONrF—UT enan BE ® ® RYE 0K,NY 330 �NJa a0�1 366 E.v.rwo ca,.°e ne.rm�,.uv i.coi SECTION A-A' .1-uv Bse., DIVNEY•TUJC•SCI CI­BE o+dlgmarae Bee 320 00 ------------- ------------ — SECTION B-B' 320 PaoaEa�,r,E� 'Sly 300 280 276 SECTION C-C' o- ^ --- — -- �l��l -- �I \ — I SITE SECTIONS l SP-6.0 d SUN HOMES RYE BROOK PPCKSON r-xEcuTll r Pnan RYE H—K,NY DIVNEY•TUJC•SCNWAEBE ovNigvawtlue ROAD PROFILES w 9pEov uswE SP-6.1 SUN HOMES RYE BROOK 6--- tam xx,Ex.w, x x x PPCKSON rF—UT11 r Pnan RYE H—K,NY WI IT DIVNEY•TUJC•SCNWAEBE oxNigvawtlue iii.,, w o�w.,w'nnu�x e exee�n6agw'�r�Reox °Pnr%— �os �u vu aE ME Q "za p,..,. WATER PROFILES SP-6.2 Profile View of Alignment-International Drive Sanitary Sewer Profile View of Alignment-Sewer Connection to Existing SUN HOMES RYE BROOK arco - nen -a eexoox,Nr �Na a0 [ Lu Lu �u r, v Station Station Prof(le View of Alignment-Road A Sanitary Sewer DIVNEY•Tuan SSo—BE Profile View of Alignment-Road E Sanitary Sewer o ° 5 m a> u Lu Station Station Profile View of Alignment-Road B Sanitary Sewer » , o - - 7777 Station Profile View of Alignment-Road C Sanitary Sewer m w Station" Profile View of Alignment-Road D Sanitary Sewer 21 ..ge . :.--- .�R. �. .,., l _ .o. �. ,�b. ..">. yam c I�Z= -- __ — — W Station SANITARY SEWER PROFILES SP-6.3 Profile View of Alignment-(Network-STRM(1))-(1) SUN HOMES RYE BROOK rE ercKsY1 r-xE11—,Nr NIengin rcare DIVNEY•TUG SSo-BE Station -^ Profile View of Alignment-Storm Bypass 0 Station Profile View of Alignment-Road D Storm F. M lo w Station STORM SEWER PROFILES SP-6.4 SUN HOMES RYE BROOK EFCES0 F—UT11 IFPARk RYE-01K,NY t III I I iiii I III H H H -77' _.....1.111 1-1 12- ........... El F E ­�l 11--1111IR I ........... DIVINEY•TEMG•SCE—BE Oil IF f ............. LA IIEIIEI 'o _111-111 77 II =El LAI ❑ ................. ......... SITE DETAILS ,tea, ;R SP p SUN HOMES .,.m x, ,.,,.., O ❑<<❑.- .. ,max,LL. x,w.,�m, n�x.,rx nix,.,. . RYE BROOK RFCEBE FXFCLJTI'rPARk .............. n RYE HHOOV NY ............... ................... ............. .......... 12- F❑I ❑ ........... WWI HI-1111IR I DIVINEY-Tuna SCH—BE I F Ll❑J IF,❑I "N i4l' -I —J ___Z:=IE 1111EISHE NOTE: PEA.—N LIMIT CHANGES IN BASE ELEVATION PIPE F M ESIo BE 1 0 6 PER STEP TO AVOID EETRI IE5 TO OMLY 5TANGFE P——El— DILLE ENTIAL SETTLEMENT IMPEOMEAPLE L I NO NE11-E-NEEI FI—El NE IE AT"NT, ,E LII (P�CIIIIETE 0' STEP OFTEN ENOUGH 70 MAINTAIN E AIPLAT PPT IIA ALL —1E MINIMUM REQUIRED EMBEDMENT T A ENHE DRAIN (WALLS \ER4'HEIGHT) OPEN 10EN 2 N(O A FT IEINEII� FT Tc)scA HE EANILAR III III .. LEIELI�MI THAI : . —NE PAPP_=ET—1. DREIN DRIIN DITCH AD (I—II III III (WALLS UNDER 4'HEIGHT) (OPTIONAL SLOPE AT TOP OF WALL) III III III III ­UP T VOLENEY FILL N" ')ISLALE 10T TO IIAI L FILL­T T� ADNPIONAL TI TIP N T ,N T 2 DEEP —E15A L AT C...ETE VOLEYEA T 1ENAHLIBEI IOIL Y INSTALLATION NOTES SIEPPINC BASE DETAIL Oft.A -ft ­N C.­Cl A�1—— 1. Of 1 1.PI VE11A NOI 10S(ALE HE —1.1ED EN111 "ANAGE Al-ftvela ulna m Awnplam t. pI——I be d.Ig-W a N.Ywk 3mm Ncerlaetl Frplevlwvl ftim., A.lEAAHE El th.Sne Contrecmr w El- ME HIN, — ae&gI Na.16 dull be­—M ft-khIw&alpnetl eM realetl&w de&nP a&lalacmry fw—1—w Na— —1- T p IROVIDE GEOSINTHEIIC di—W—1.�IN—I, d ftl,—�and d Ed f.—� M� —`NNINVEEOHEED 11 THE d=- Al' — DESIGN E E S FU—�— lt� It_la =,�I D,— ZNd EI t=� :� = n E�I=,ft Eft�-11--M t,=­II NANION PIPE o�—n. m.mxaoc,xu m room or Inns,..x,s,us.ins x„ewixo OOT ,,L[E ll�AEDIE01FTE I E. �­Eb t,ft po——t—y­— wil w M—bb _I,.1 —.1. ­i.W­I­I­H ft­iN,Dl,­�hl—I ftild ft E. SITE DETAILS drew . . u.- Na- p—.p—m F`P`PNLAP —.N I.E. d bI,. At EAP A N MICA TlIlH TYPICAL SECTION UNRE NFORCED RETAINING WALL ­R(E TOO HEIANINE-VILL MYSIEMS OH AITMOVED EQU,L N,FT To scA HE SP-7.2 D791 ES SUN HOPI YE BROOK ... .�. „� R OK arc o - en ,.o,.,. ❑�❑ ❑ —�� eek oaK Nr ,�,�• ,• DIVNEY TEMG Scr+w,aeE ,...., r�„�..:.�.r. ❑ ,,..Ear .���..v.�... oe.u� ❑ °d-9p�° ..,...„ `. o......., ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ _ ,,, ... ..o. SITE DETAILS ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ : v SP-7.3 I — _ SUN HOMES RYE BROOK EFCESON r-xEcurivE engin rcre e oox,NY ---------------- 1 DIVNEY TUJC owigmam EEe II i C, \ LP"IT�L 1 � ---- ....... ------ — � SITE LIGHTING PLAN o..SP-8.0 SEEK MIX PLANT LIST °� r SL GREEN vac nx '[c,- \ „z xcouixsm 36011,.f,I I L I ON.AXL sr .o�;ox c� +�.x�x�recc.�ox or.reg IM POINN�0'111 �., �xv�reonn�x.o;now.ore ecn f'\\ °L°xc'B0L°rrec 2z FLOL FL° " I sLo oc,. WHITE PLAINS,NY 10601 NOTESr r u;�x;�x To vraiu<xm;.cnm�ueenw cNc rvea evw;kary nu wau;nw.nc my ssa�no / rear-renP swnss EXISTING VEGETATION 4, P 11 V OEJi,kNllr3NSIN/WATER QUALITY BASIN/WEILANO PLANT LIST 04, EXECUTIVE PARK ,���t DTTFww n�u rxr rti-nwo°womwomx ° ;.x.r IiYI:RR001,.N1' 4f,,,LAA�he ,y Tx uE.coot. EXISTING VEGETATION '�j��,/ • • ry s°wx w;uuwwo iwn�rto e '�II,, e; xwwwu ww;; aux uw. xoc • ; r�uox ; r am ; e.ue rum • • �� ': � '': o, LIGHTING LEGEND L 11 TI TI L11.11T SEE DRAWING 4.0,SITE LANDSCAPE PLAN-OVERALL, 11.El °rem x�rex n, FOR PLANTING IN THIS AREA • ® IF ff J EXISTING BROOK a �reress s«re x, ., NIPFP LLC a ;re' PLANTING WITHIN , ' STORMWATER BASINS rIPBrIPB rIPB �rexs;° ZK7 ON RETENTION POND xonxcu,uacaxx 'o- xn,r<wcurc°mere nn EXISTING VEGETAT]ON xutrc ISLAND ceAss.roex n;c re�w°°:rex re�srere.rex %�� �� •° sre�ren w,ren,re°�: xre s xxre� w,:°� s«°n, + + rexn PLANT OST TREE PLANT OST &- a NOTES —E lTE z n::rexn ren: sxn::re�n:>u°xx xx°;rxrere�°�n�x xre xx n nIre�,«x:�xnn��re a smc,xc crsxwx°n,xn rexn xreLL�re�xx�,w,xx snnc,cote,w,xc x°��. rr xx,anrn.r.nn,.,, .;.ten, TIT JAL dSLING,Lf GIITING& xI x-01E,rexn,x�.°P x x,,xx re°m°°;;.°;;x°,~°�x°°°enxne;o � k UN ND\II I IC I ION xre,�re�x:sxre::re�re�xxu<°rexxn:��:,xrexx rexo,rere::x:: sxx::re�re�xxu<°xrexx nxxw xn. .nn,;xn n�°a nn; .k,UN .. .. PL-\S nucw�xoucx x�rcn°nwa.°rreonxwc,reux�or,rens. me"anExxncx,. PLANT LIST 1p L-02 Dolph Rotfeld Engineering, P.C. M E M Q TO: FRANK MC GLYNN, NEW BUSINESS MANAGER SUEZ WATER NEW YORK,INC. FROM: DOLPH ROTFELD, P.E.,BCEE SUBJECT: SUN HOMES,RYE BROOK(V) DATE: January 19,2016 The Village of Rye Brook has asked me as their consulting engineer,to request that the water company conduct the following: 1. Field tests necessary to determine if the construction of the Sun Homes project would have an impact on the water supplied to Belle Fair. Hydrant(s)would be opened at Belle Fair to flow at the average peak rate. Pressure at another hydrant would also be taken before,during and after the flow. 2. This procedure would then be repeated with hydrant flow in the Executive Park at the peak rate expected in the Sun Homes Development at maximum build-out. At Belle Fair, hydrant flow would be measured along with the pressure at the other hydrant,as above, in their system. As I recall at our meeting,you requested the testing procedure would be analyzed as to your cost and submit the necessary information to the Village. The recipient is Mr.Christopher Bradbury,Village Administrator,Village of Rye Brook, 938 King Street,Rye Brook, NY 10573. Thank you for your cooperation. DR Dolph Rotield Engineering, P.C. CONSULTANTS & DESIGNERS 200 White Plains Road, Tarrytown, NY 10591 • (914) 631-8600 M E M O TO: Michal Nowak, Village Engineer Robert Goodman, Chairman, Planning Board FROM: Dolph Rotfeld, P.E., BCEE SUBJECT: Sun Homes Phase 3 Reckson Executive Park Village of Rye Brook DATE: January 13, 2016 As per your request, we have reviewed additional submission materials with regard to the Sun Homes, Phase 3, Reckson Executive Park Site Plan proposal, received via email Friday January 8, 2016. Comments from our January 7, 2016 memo have been satisfactorily addressed with the exception of the question regarding the adequacy of the water system. With regard to this issue, we met with Frank McGlynn of Suez to discuss field tests necessary to determine if the construction of the Sun Homes project would have an impact on the water supplied to Belle Fair. Hydrant(s) would be opened at Belle Fair to flow at the average peak rate. Pressure would be taken before, during and after the flow. This procedure would then be repeated with hydrant flow in the Executive Park at the peak rate expected in the Sun Homes Development at maximum build out. At Belle Fair hydrant flow would be measured along with pressure in their system. Mr. McGlynn would like the above requested procedure submitted to him so that he could calculate the cost to the water company for conducting the testing. That cost would have to be paid to the water company. DR C: G. Schwalbe WILDING DEPARTMENT VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK 938 KING STREET RYE BROOK,NY 10573 (914)939-0668 Phone (914)939-5801 Fax wiza@aebr9ok.grg Memorandum To: Gerhard M. Schwalbe,P.E., Divney,Tung& Schwalbe From: Michael J. Izzo,Building& Fire Inspector CC: Planning Board Emergency Services Task Force(ESTF) Date: December 7,2015 Re: ETF review of the Fire Protection Plan for the proposed Sun Homes Residential Development at the Reckson Office Campus. The following review is based on materials submitted by Divney,Tung& Schwalbe, Intelligent Land Use,on behalf of the applicant, Sun Homes, for the proposed residential development at the Reckson Office Campus located at 1100 King Street. Reviewed materials include; • Cover Letter dated,November 24,2015,signed by Gerhard M Schwalbe, P.E. • Sun Homes Fire Protection Plan, sheet F-1, dated 11118115,prepared by Divney, Tung & Schwalbe. The plan is not sealed. 1. FCNYS 503.2.1. The minimum required unobstructed width of a fire apparatus access road is twenty (20) feet.The Fire Protection Plan includes a"part plan"in the upper right hand comer indicating the existing brick pillars to remain in place at the proposed emergency service access road at King Street. My field measurement confirmed the distance between the existing pillars is only 17.65 feet. Therefore the applicant must reconfigure or remove the existing brick pillars to provide a minimum unobstructed width of twenty(20) feet, 2. The applicant shall provide crash bollards, installed as per FCNYS §312,spaced at least twenty(20)feet apart with chains across the emergency access road at the following locations; a. At the King Street entrance. b. At the transition from the emergency access road to the common parking lot. c. At the transition from the common parking lot to the interior emergency access road. d. At the intersection of the interior emergency access road and the Sun Homes Development private street. 3. The applicant shall provide approved signs identifying the emergency access road reading; NO PARKING - EMERGENCY VEHICLES ONLY,at the four(4) emergency access road intersections described in items 2.a, b,c, &d,above. 4. The applicant shall provide proposed topographic&construction drawings for the emergency access road showing compliance with FCNYS 503.2, 503.2.1, 503.2.3, and 503.2.7,to be reviewed and approved by the Building Department. 5. The applicant shall make provisions for perpetual maintenance of the emergency access road, including that portion of the existing parking lot now dedicated to such emergency access in good repair, and shall maintain the entire thoroughfare free from leaves, branches, limbs, accumulated ice and snow&other debris at all times.The ESTF respectfully requests that language pertaining to such perpetual maintenance of the emergency access road&thoroughfare be included in the Final Approval Resolution. 6. The applicant must relocate two(2)fire hydrants and install one(1)additional fire hydrant as per the attached ESTF Fire Hydrant Re-location Plan, dated 12/7115 as initialed by me. 7. The applicant must provide the fire flow information for review&approval by the Village. S. All interior roads are to be dedicated Fire Lanes in conformance with Village Code §240-22.A,and shall be indicated with signs posted in accordance with Village Code §240-22.C,(b),and §240-22.D. 9. Village Code §240-22.13.(I)requires emergency access in the immediate vicinity of the proposed Clubhouse.The applicant is proposing public parking in this area. Therefore the applicant must reconfigure the proposed clubhouse/clubhouse parking so as to comply with this section of code. 10. The applicant must submit a street naming/numbering plan based on the attached recommended ESTF Road Plan,dated 1217/15 as initialed by me. International Drive shall be used as the name of the main entrance roadway,and a code compliant street sign shall be provided for same at the intersection of International Drive& King Street. 11. The applicant must provide dimensioned,proposed rear building elevations for those buildings which back up on interior or perimeter storm water basins. The applicant must also show all proposed interior storm water retention basins (rain gardens) and existing and proposed perimeter storm water retention basins and any proposed fencing of same at these building locations,showing adequate access and setbacks for rear yard Fire Department ground ladder operations. 12. The applicant must show& provide details for the relocated trash compactor and maintenance yard, which is currently located in the area of the proposed interior emergency access road and FAH units. A 0-i Hill,ii-i! i all NiLwia LLWi S /' /' ,/A� ............ C> (I I I I I I LLLLLLLLLLLJJJ) ITM u I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1� LUjJ-'U I 41-U.A!LP441�', zz t J7 --------- -- �-2 p 00 0 C;= \.rr7MTTFTT4 U1111111111111111illu IT"-&ffffl KLU JJJ_W J "Y HAI f Ib Iw ift ----------- February 23,2016 _R-2 RESOLUTION CONSIDERING THE ACCEPTANCE OF EAGLE SCOUT PROJECT FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO THE ENTRANCE OF CRAWFORD PARK FROM WILTON ROAD WHEREAS, Dean Larkin of 231 Madison Street, Mamaroneck, NY has proposed an Eagle Scout Project for Rye Troop 2 to make certain improvements to the entrance of Crawford Park from Wilton Road;and WHEREAS, this project includes the donation of certain bushes, trees, a park entrance sign, and a commercial bench from various individuals and groups in support of this Eagle Scout project;and WHEREAS, Mr. Larkin would be the project coordinator and would work with other volunteers and members of Rye Troop 2 to install the landscaping and other items in accordance with a design plan presented to the Village Board on February 23,2016;and WHEREAS,this project will require the approval of both the Village of Rye Brook and the Town of Rye as some of the items being donated may be on the properties of both municipalities. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees of the Village of Rye Brook hereby accepts the project, design plan, and donations of the improvement items on any village properties as presented to the Village Board on February 23,2016;and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that any changes to the design plan on Rye Brook property will be made in coordination with the Village's Superintendent of Public Works/Engineering;and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Dean Larkin and other volunteers and members of Rye Troop 2 are hereby named as volunteers for the Village during the course of this Eagle Scout project for any work performed on Rye Brook properties and the names of such volunteers and members of Rye Troop 2 who will be performing work on Rye Brook property shall be provided to the Village prior to the start of the project. Wilton Road Pedestrian Entrance Beautification Project Dean Larkin Eagle Scout Project for Rye Troop 2 A Community Coalition Many organizations are helping make this happen • The Friends of Crawford Park helped with planting plan & coordination . • Both the Town of Rye and Village of Rye Brook review proposal . • Rye Troop 2 supports this initiative with volunteers. • Rye Youth Soccer donated the bench . • Rye Brook resident donated $600 to the Town of Rye for planting 1 - w ,• 1 � .Jsy ! !1 4 1r� t 1 #w ai eY Y. If �+t Athletic field Wilton Rd. Bush Bush p tree tree Wilton Rd. r After New bench ;k�„ Welcometo f Crawford Park Athletic field Athletic field Wilton ' . Walking Path New bench New bushes . New bushes 0 Bench/concrete ' Bench1cOncrete slab 0 s\ab Bush New tree ... .� New tree ■ ■ ��6� Sign wl u- channel posts Wilto ' . Signage an ,�+ 1rljt 'ag' •! Im ! Welcome to Crawford Park -Established in 1974- Plan Planting The Friends of Crawford Park suggest planting: * 2 Serviceberry trees Height: max: 15' n ' ; i � t' ��,�iy'1 .�,'Pj♦!� �`fir I�.✓ .` _ , „, ��r^"+� � e �7"/ x^b. *\ rte- �J1, .-� �,j; •'r, ....:`'. �p �./ Y`1„ Y ".'�. s• y��4�f�'Y a, _ � orr �1 � ,Y M ...+�;7�y l�i *. ��r ����I����F =,✓,r •�' j , �to 1 r. .�1, t,�1��•�(,•� i'�'� ` . I t + Winterberry shrubs • I Viburnum • Height: I Bench tea. � d 1',i• �� ,i Timeline • I am scheduling around the troop's events and my own • Ideal date would be April 2nd • I will have to get it approved by The Town of Rye, The Village of Rye, and The Boy Scout Council (through my troop) • 1 am working with the Friends of Crawford park to get the plants, sign and the bench. • I will be organizing scouts, tools, and other supplies • I will have the utilities marked right before we do the project • Once the concrete is dry, I will bolt the bench to the slab February 23,2016 _R-3 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK TO ENTER INTO A LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH THE OWNER OF 7 OLD ORCHARD ROAD FOR THE USE OF VILLAGE PROPERTY WHEREAS, Leslie Egenhauser, owners of 7 Old Orchard Road, designated on the Town of Rye Tax Assessors Map as Section 135.34, Block 1, Lot 28, has requested a license from the Board of Trustees to maintain a composite material fence currently located in the Old Orchard Road right-of-way, which right-of-way is owned by the Village of Rye Brook (`Village Property"), and to enter upon that portion of said Village property to maintain, restore and replace (in-kind) the fence and for no other purpose;and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), determines the proposed action to be a Type II Action and,accordingly,no further environmental review is required. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED,that the Board of Trustees,upon consideration of the aforementioned request, hereby authorizes the Village to enter into a License Agreement with Leslie Egenhauser, as annexed to this Resolution as Exhibit"A", to maintain the composite material fence within the Village right-of- way on Old Orchard Road, subject to and in accordance with the terms set forth in the attached License Agreement;and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute the License Agreement and deliver all necessary documents to accomplish its purposes. LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR FENCE IN THE VILLAGE RIGHT-OF-WAY ON OLD ORCHARD DRIVE THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT (the "Agreement"), entered into this day of , 2016, by and between the Village of Rye Brook (hereinafter referred to as the "Village" or "Licensor") and Leslie Egenhauser (hereinafter referred to as "Licensee"). I. RECITALS: 1. Licensor is the beneficial owner of the property known as the Old Orchard Drive Right-of-Way located in the Village of Rye Brook. 2. Licensee is the beneficial owner of certain property located at 7 Old Orchard Drive, Rye Brook, New York, which is identified on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Rye as Parcel 135.34-1-28 (the "Property"). 3. Licensee has requested a license to maintain a stockade fence made of composite wood within the Village right-of-way on Old Orchard Drive, which fence is installed and existing at that location. 4. Upon information and belief, the stockade fence was installed in the location of a pre-existing wooden stockade fence, which was also within the Village right-of-way on Old Orchard Drive. 5. Licensor is willing to grant the permission requested by Licensee subject to the following terms and conditions: II. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and conditions set forth herein, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows: A. GRANT: Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and upon the representation from Licensee that he is the owner of the Property, Licensor hereby grants to Licensee an exclusive license (the "License") to maintain the wooden stockade fence, currently located within the Village right-of-way on Old Orchard Drive, as more particularly shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof (the "License Area") in accordance with applicable Village Code provisions. B. TERM: The term of the License shall commence upon the signing of this Agreement by the Mayor and Licensee and shall continue in full force and effect until terminated. This Agreement may be terminated on fifteen (15) days written notice by either party, without cause. Thereafter, Licensee shall have a reasonable time to remove the fence from the Village right-of-way, which period shall not exceed six (6) months from the date of termination. C. PERMITTED USE: The permitted use of the License Area shall be solely to maintain the currently existing wooden stockade fence located within the Village right-of- way on Old Orchard Drive and for the purpose of entering upon the right-of-way to maintain, restore, and replace (in-kind) the fence. No other purpose is permitted. Licensee shall keep the License Area clean and shall repair any damage to the License Area caused by Licensee's use thereof. The fence, as it presently, exists and as depicted in Exhibit "A", shall not be modified, enlarged or relocated within the Village right-of-way without prior written approval of the Village Board of Trustees, which approval shall be attached to and become a part of this Agreement. D. SUPERVISION: Licensee shall be responsible for and take all precautions for the protection of all persons and personal property using the License Area or situated on the perimeter adjacent to or abutting the License Area. E. INSURANCE: Throughout the term of this Agreement, Licensee and its contractors shall obtain and maintain, at Licensee's sole cost and expense, and keep in force for the benefit of Licensee, with Licensor named as an additional insured, insurance policies providing the following coverage: A comprehensive policy of general public liability insurance, Protecting and indemnifying Licensor and Licensee against any and all liabilities and claims for damages to persons or property occasioned on or about any part of the License Area, and all other areas adjacent to the License Area, with such policy to be in the minimum amount of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) combined single limit per occurrence with an aggregate of Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000.00), for personal injury and property damage. All insurance policies required to be procured and maintained hereunder shall (i) be issued by financially responsible insurance companies acceptable to Licensor; (ii) be written as primary policy coverage and not contributing with or in excess of any, coverage which Licensor may carry; (iii) insure and name Licensor as an additional insured on a primary basis; and (iv) contain an express waiver of any right of subrogation by the insurance company against Licensor and/or its agents and employees. Neither the issuance of any insurance policy required hereunder, nor the minimum limits specified herein with respect to any insurance coverage, shall be deemed to limit or restrict in any way the liability of Licensee (or its invitees arising under or out of this Agreement). On or before the execution of this Agreement by the parties herein, Licensee shall deliver to Licensor certificates of insurance evidencing all of the coverages required hereunder. Licensor shall be named an Additional Insured by separate endorsement provided with the certificates. Each insurance -2- policy (and any renewal or extension thereon required to be carried hereunder shall provide that, unless Licensor shall first have been given thirty (30) days prior written notice, (i) such insurance policy shall not be canceled and shall continue in full force and effect; (ii) the insurance carrier shall not, for any reason whatsoever, fail to renew such insurance policy; and (iii) no material changes may be made in such insurance policy (which changes shall also require Licensor's prior written approval). Licensee shall not do or permit to be done any act or thing upon the License Area that will invalidate or be in conflict with any insurance policies covering the same. Licensee shall promptly comply with all insurance underwriters, rules, orders, regulations, or requirements relating to such insurance policies, and shall not do or permit anything to be done in or about the License Area which shall increase the rate of insurance on the Property. F. INDEMNIFICATION: Licensee shall defend, indemnify, protect, and save harmless Licensor and its respective officers, employees, agents, contractors, subcontractors or legal representatives, (the "Licensor Parties") from and against any and all claims, actions, suits, damages, liabilities, costs, and expenses, including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys' fees and disbursements, that: (i) arise from or are in any way connected with the License granted hereunder for the License Area or any portion thereof, unless caused by the acts or omissions of Licensor; (ii) arise from or are in way connected with any act or omission of Licensee or Licensee's invitees; (iii) result from any default of this Agreement or any provision hereof by Licensee; (iv) result from the presence of Licensee's property or equipment within the License Area; or (v) result from injury to person or property or loss of He sustained in or about the License Area, all regardless of whether such claims are asserted during, or after the term of this Agreement. Licensee's obligations under this paragraph shall survive the revocation or termination of this Agreement. G. WAIVER OF RESPONSIBILITY: Neither Licensor nor the Licensor Parties shall be liable for, and Licensee waives, all claims for loss or damage, economic or otherwise, to persons or property sustained by Licensee or any person claiming by, througll or under Licensee resulting from any accident or occurrence in, on or about the License Area, including, without limitation, claims for loss, theft or damage, resulting from any cause whatsoever, except for willful misconduct by Licensor. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Licensee shall use and occupy the License Area at Licensee's own risk. Licensor makes no representation, warranty, or guarantee with respect to the suitability- of the License Area for the purposes for which this License is issued. H. VACATION OF PREMISES: Upon termination of this Agreement, Licensee shall promptly (i) refrain from using the License Area, and (ii) return the License Area to its original condition prior to the Permitted Use. Licensee shall keep the License Area clean and shall repair any damage to the License Area and/or the Property caused by Licensee's use thereof. -3- I. GOVERNING LAW: This Agreement shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York and shall not be modified, altered, or amended except in writing signed by the parties hereto. J. NOTICES: All notices or other communications provided for under this Agreement shall be in writing, signed by the partygiving the same, and shall be deemed properly given and received (i) when actually, delivered and received, if personally delivered, or (ii) three (3) business days after being mailed, if sent by certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested; or (iii) one (1) business day after being sent by overnight delivery service, all to the following addresses: If to Licensor: Village of Rye Brook 938 King Street Rye Brook, New York 10573 Attention: Christopher Bradbury, Village Administrator If to Licensee: Leslie and Barbara Egenhauser 7 Old Orchard Drive Rye Brook, New York 10573 Each party shall have the right to designate other or additional addresses or addressees for the delivery of notices, by giving notice of the same in the manner as previously set forth herein. K. REVIEW: Licensee has carefully and fully read this Agreement and understands all of its rights and alternatives. In executing this Agreement, Licensor acknowledges that Licensor's decisions and actions are entirely voluntary and free from any mental, physical, or economic duress. L. OWNERSHIP: Licensee claims no ownership interest in the License Area resulting from his historic, current or future possession of the License Area, or from any other means. -4- M. SEVERABILITY. Should any term or provision of this Agreement be declared to be void, invalid, illegal or unenforceable, for any reason, by the adjudication of any court of other tribunal having jurisdiction over the subject matter hereof, such judgment shall in no way affect the other provisions hereof which are hereby declared to be severable and which shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have signed this Agreement as of the date first written above. LICENSOR, VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK By: Name: Paul Rosenberg Title: Mayor LICENSEE Leslie Egenhuaser -5- STATE OF NEW YORK ) )SS.: COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER ) On the_ day of in the year 2016 before me, the undersigned, personally appeared , personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory, evidence to be the individual whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his capacity, and that by his signature on the instrument, the individual, or the person upon behalf of which the individual acted, executed the instrument. Signature and Office of individual taking acknowledgement STATE OF NEW YORK ) )SS.: COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER ) On the_ day of in the year 2016 before me, the undersigned, personally appeared LESLIE EGENHAUSER, personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the individual whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that lie executed the same in his capacity, and that by his signature on the instrument, the individual, or the person upon behalf of which the individual acted, executed the instrument. Signature and Office of individual taking acknowledgement -6- EXHIBIT A License Area Survey of Property Prepared for Leslie and Barbara Egenhauser, prepared by Ahneman Kirby, LLC Village of Rye Brook Re: Notice of Disapproval 938 King StreetD for Certificate of Occupancy Rye Brook, N.Y. 10573 FM 2"D for fence installed partially on � N VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK village property without Paul Rosenberg, Mayor BUILDING DEPARTMENT permission. Christopher J. Bradbury, Administrator Board of Trustees; S. Epstein, D Heiser, J. Klein, J Rednick Dear Sirs and Madam, I am Leslie Egenhauser the owner and resident of 7 Old Orchard Road and I am writing this letter on behalf of myself and my wife Barbara Egenhauser, also a resident of 7 Old Orchard Road. My wife is an attorney, licensed to practice law in New York State and is representing me for the purposes of this letter. I am seeking permission from The Mayor, Board of Trustees or Village Administrator to use a small portion of Village property for a fence that was installed on it. The relevant facts are as follows: My wife and I have resided at 7 Old Orchard for the past 42 years having moved in with our 3 children in 1974. In 1980, 35 years ago,we had swimming pool built in the backyard. At the time the pool was installed we enclosed the yard with a fence. About 45 feet of the fence ran along Old Orchard Road. It was installed on what we believed was our property. The fence was a 6 foot high wooden stockade type fence and was set back about 12 feet from the edge of the road. We had been told that it had to be set back at least 8 feet from the edge of the road. We increased the set back requirement to be sure we were not violating any ordinance and to make sure it was on our property. We obtained a Certificate of Occupancy for the pool with the fence surrounding it from the Village. At no time did anyone tell us the fence was not on our property. (Wehave provided Mr. Izzo with the C.O.) Over the years, we maintained the Old Orchard portion of the fence. We planted various shrubs, bushes, plants and hedges around the fence. Time took its toll on the fence and in 2012 when Superstorm Sandy struck, the Old Orchard portion of the fence was knocked down. We decided to replace that portion of the fence and some of the other portions that were also knocked down in the storm. We could not get the exact type of stockade wood that we had used 35 years previously but we found in Home Depot a beautiful, sustainable composite wood that looked almost exactly like the old fence. The color was slightly different but it blended very nicely with the old portions and looked almost identical. We appeared before the Architectural Review Board, submitted the new composite material and our plan and received a permit to install/repair the fence. As to the Old Orchard portion,we installed the new composite material fence in the exact spot and location of the old fence still under the impression we were well inside our property line. We used the exact same spot so we would not disrupt our trees, shrubs, bushes, hedges and plantings which look really nice in the spring. All the work on the fence was done as a family do-it-yourself project and it took a while to complete the work. We then sought a Certificate of Occupancy for the newly repair replaced fence. Pursuant to the application for C.O. we retained AhnemanKirby Engineers& Surveyors to prepare an As Built/Final Survey to submit to Mr. Michael Izzo, Building Inspector. We received the Final Survey in December of 2015, submitted it to Mr Izzo in January of 2016 and learned for the first time that the Old Orchard portion of the fence encroached about 3 feet nine inches on one end and 5 feet on the other end, on to town property. As law abiding senior citizens, now in our 70s, we were shocked to learn this. We had been using, maintaining and beautifying the encroached property for 35 years, treating the property as it if were our own. We now respectfully request your permission to continue to use the town property just for the purposes of keeping the newly repaired fence in the same position it had been in for so long and is in now. In addition to the previously mentioned reasons, there are additional reasons we are asking for permission. Old Orchard Road is on the crest of a hill. Our property slopes steeply downward from the crest. If we move the fence inward Veet and 39 feet to install it on to our property, we are Winging in down a steep slope and lose about 4 feet in height. The road remains the higher point and anyone standing on the road can look right over the fence and see into the entirety of the yard and the pool. Thus,we would lose all privacy for the backyard and particularly for the pool. A visible pool that can be seen over a fence can be a temptation and an attraction to children and teenagers. Notwithstanding all precautions taken, the visibility itself can cause the temptation and create a safety risk. We wish to avoid this risk by leaving the fence in its present position where, because it is on a higher point of land than it would be if we moved it, it hides the pool and the yard from view. There is another reason that we particularly seek to shield the back yard and pool from the view of passersby and strangers. In August of 2015 my wife, Barbara Egenhauser refired after 35 years as an Assistant District Attorney for Westchester County. During that time, as a trial attorney, she prosecuted numerous violent felony criminals who committed crimes of Rape, Murder,Arson and Assault in Westchester County including crimes that were committed in Rye Brook and Port Chester. As an example, one of the criminals she prosecuted was William Birmingham who committed the night time burglary of a home on Valley Terrace where he cut the phone Wires before entering a window in the house of his former girlfriend. He also set fire to an apartment in Port Chester causing extreme damage and necessitating the evacuation of 50 families. (all this information is a matter of public record and can be verified by Police Chief Greg Austin) Mr. Birmingham recently completed serving his 8 year State Prison sentence for Arson and Burglary and is reported to be back in Port Chester. The police carry a picture of him in their car and are fearful of him returning to Valley Terrace to take revenge on his ex girlfriend whose testimony, in the case prosecuted by my wifewho he knows from numerous court proceedings, put him away. Since her retirement, my wife spends much of her time in our backyard and around the pool. Having a fence in a location that provides privacy gives us peace of mind and adds to the quiet enjoyment of our property. Any consideration that you can give to this aspect of our argument is greatly appreciated. We submit the above letter to you in sworn form, affirmed to be true and under the penalties of perjury. If affidavits are needed please let us know. Also,we have photos showing the old fence destroyed by Superstorm Sandy. We have photos of the new fence in the same location. Also, Mr. Izzo has a copy of the survey showing the encroachment location and the dimensions of the property the fence encroaches upon. Should the town give us permission to use the property for the purposes of maintaining a previously existing and newly repaired privacy fence,we recognize and acknowledge that ownership remains with the town. Should the town need access to the property for any reason whatsoever there would be no impediment to access. Should the Board wish to hear from us in person to ask any questions or make further inquiries we are available to appear. Our home phone#is 914 937-0735. Affirmed t under penalties of perjury. Affirmed to be true un der penalties of rJury. Leslie hauler Barbara Egenhauser /ym , c fit th -VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK MAYOR 938 King Street,Rye Brook,N.Y. 10573 ADMINISTRATOR Paul S.Rosenberg (914)939-0668 Fax(914)939-5801 Christopher J.Bradbury www.rvgbrook.org TRUSTEES BUILDING&FIRE Susan R.Epstein INSPECTOR David M.Heiser Michael J.Izzo Jason A.Wein Jeffrey B.Rednick NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL Application# 16-004 January 26, 2016 Leslie Egenhauser&Barbara Egenhauser 7 Old Orchard Road Rye Brook,New York 10573 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that your application for a Certificate of Occupancy dated October 13, 2015, submitted in connection with Building Permit#14-060 issued 5/13/2014, for the premises located at 7 Old Orchard Road, Parcel ID# 135.34-1-28, has been disapproved because of non-compliance with the following section(s)of the Code of the Village of Rye Brook: 182-2 Permission from The Mayor,Board of Trustees or Village Administrator required for use of Village property. The applicant proposes to legalize the new fence installed partially on Village property without such permission. Please relocate the subject fence such that it is removed from Village property and located entirely on your property in conformance with Village Code, or submit a request in writing to the Village Mayor, Board of Trustees and the Village Administrator for permission for use of Village property. Sinceraly, Mich J. Building uilding Fire Inspector mizzo@.aebrook.or 1~} EC [� `--- BUILD � R ENT F©r e u PERMIT# t 4 �.1 z VIt. '. Y K ISSUED: 4 *jjM1'4�.rr. ICING STREE YE:Btit7tf YORK 10573 D''i 0OCT 13 2015 '.- (914)9 t• 939-5801 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BUILDING DEPARTMENT APPLICATIC)N FOR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY 1 COMPLIANCE AND CERTIFICATION OF COSTS it shall be unlawful for an owner to use or permit the use of any building or premises or part thereof hereafter created,erected,changed,converted or enlarged,wholly or partly,in its use or structure until a certificate of occupancy shall have been issued by the Building Inspector,$260-1o.A.code of the Village of Rye Brook Address: 040 OX ,A POP)) Occupancy/Use: Parcel ID#: Zone: Owner: SLr AvS,� Address: (71,D ClA0171 _ yib P.E./R.A.or Contractor: ��w Address: .. Person in responsible charge: , tol4 4 ,lt11,9 Address: 7 0 It Gd go_ 'gVlw'hh Application is hereby made and submitted to the Building Inspector of the Village of Rye Brook for the Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy f Certificate of Compliance for the structure herein mentioned in accordance with law: 2ST,A,TE OF NEss 4� YORK,COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER as: l i RWWA Z being duly sworn,deposes and says that he/she resides at tWeXtAlb ROAO { t Name of m) (No.and Sir 0 in "' Aro ,in the County of4,h-r1,1g-6rA in the State of that (City/Town/Village) he/she has supervised the work at the location in ` ated above-,and that the actual total cost was:$ for the construction,alteration or repair of: A LAatfII`'•i Deponent further states that he/she has examined the approved plans of the structure herein referred to for which a Certificate of Occupancy/ Compliance is sought, and that to the best of his/her knowledge and belief, the structure has been erected in accordance with the approved plans and any amendments thereto except in so far as variations therefore have been legally authorized,and as erected complies with the laws governing;building construction. Sworn to before me this \ Sworn to before me this clay of 0 `` E , 20 "� day of ' 20 S gnaturc of Pro Owner signature of Applicant Print Name orProperty Writer Print Name of Applicant Notary Public Notary Public SHAl11 I�EL�If L{? Notary Public,State of Now York No.01 ME6160063 6.1.2014 Ouallfied In Westchester County Commission Expires January 29.20 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK MAYOR 938 King Street,Rye Brook,N.Y. 10573 ADMINISTRATOR Paul S.Rosenberg (914)939-0668 Fax(914)939-5801 Christopher J.Bradbury vvvvw.1Xebrook.oEg TRUSTEES BUILDING&FIRE Susan R.Epstein INSPECTOR David M.Heiser Michael J.Izzo Jason A.Klein Jeffrey B.Rednick January 6,2016 Via I s'Class Mail Leslie Egenhauser 7 Old Orchard Road Rye Brook,New York 10573 &e-: 7 Old Orchard Road,Rye Brook,New York 10573 Parcel ID#: 135.34-1-23 Building Permit#14-060 Issued: 5/13/2014-Expiration Date: 11/13/2015 Dear Property Owner, It has come to the attention of the Building Department that your Building Permit listed above has not been closed out in accordance with Village Code,and has been expired since 11/13/2015.Please note that there is a non-waivable expired permit fee of$750.00 now due in connection with your expired permit. Please be advised that it is a violation of Village Code to fail to close out a permit,and that a court summons could be issued and fines may be imposed on the permit holder and/or property owner for failure to apply for and obtain a Certificate of Occupancy(C/O)or Certificate of Compliance{CIC), in accordance with Village Code section 250-1 OA. Please note that Temporary CIOs&C/Cs are available in accordance with Village Code section 250-IOB should you require more time to perform whatever work remains in order to complete your project. Thank you for your attention in this matter,and please feel free to contact this office should you require any further information. Michael J. I=o Building&Fire Inspector miMQQaebrook.orZ Itg cc:Steven E.Dews,Assistant Building Inspector X VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK PERMIT#t BP 14-060 rR1M_0_<ED FiNAI. uu �rBUILD G DEPARTMENT ISSUED: 511312014 T 938 DING ST ET, RYE BROOK, NY 10573 ExrIREs: 11113/2015lNIXt. ft'3PEVTION' ..... �� °.,.,�. (914) 939-0668 www.ryebrook.or BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION PLACE FENCE AT: 70LD ORCHARD ROAD BUILDING CLASSMCATION&PARCEL ID#: ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL l 135.34-1-2$ � PROPERTY OWNER: LESLIE EGENHAUSER+&BARBARA EGENHAUSER(914) 937-0735 EMERGENCY CONTACT-* BARBARA EGENHAUSER(91.4)403-5024 VALUATION OF WORK: $59000.00 FEE PAA: $135.00 f!� HOURS OF OPERATION OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT/VILLAGE CODE§1584:WEEKDAYS—8:OOANI TO 6:00prtt OR DUSK,WHICHEVER IS EARLIER; SATURDAYS—9:00Aar TO 4:00ervt; - SUNDAYS&HOLIDAYS—No CONSTRUcrjON Acrlvrlry ALI OWED � This permit is valid for a period not to exceed eighteen(18)months from the date of issuance,and covers only that work listed above.Separate permits are required for any electrical,plumbing,fire suppression,fire/smoke/carbon monoxide detectorstalarms,or any other work not covered under this permit The approved plans must be kept on the job site&be made available for review by the Building Department upon demand..Any amendments or changes to the approved plans must be designed by your architect/engineer and submitted to the Building Department for review and approval prior to performing the work. A Certificate of Occupancy or Certificate of Compliance is required in order to close out this permit. Other Approvals: Architectural Review Board 411612014 Micha J. o - Building& ire Inspector `* THIS PERMIT MUST BE CONSPICUOUSLY POSTED AT THE.SOB SITE � 1, OCT 1 00 Mr. Michael Izzo VILLAGE OF R Building Inspector BROOK Rye Brook, New York BUILDING DE TMENT Dear Mr. Izzo, I am the resident of 7 Old Orchard Rd. In April of 20141 appeared before the Architectural Review Board and received a permit to replace a fence that had been destroyed by Superstorm Sandy. The replacement was done as part of a family do it yourself project. It is complete and I am now in the process of applying for a Certificate of Occupancy in order to meet the 11/13/2015 permit expiration date. My husband, Les Egenhausei% was at your office on Tuesday 10/13/15 and paid the$75 fee. At that time he was told that an As-Built Survey was required prior to inspection. I am writing to inquire as to why a survey is required for a permit that was granted to Replace a Fence. Also, In a letter to town residents dated Jan.6, 2014, Mayor Rosenberg wrote about an update to the town code in order to make life easier for residents. The letter indicated the code was changed for residents who live along one of the scenic roads, Ridge Street,to make modest improvements to their homes without triggering a site-plan review which is costly and time consuming. I would respectfully submit that this code change applies to the Replacement of a damaged fence as a fence is a modest improvement to a home. In our situation,the fence that was replaced was about 30 years old. We replaced the old wood with sustainable composite material that the Architectural Bd. approved of. I enclose a copy of Mayor Rosenberg's letter. Thank you for your consideration and for the professionalism and courtesy you have always shown us. Barbara Egenhauser 914 937.0735 home 914 708 9979 cell VILLAGE OFR BROOK 938 King Street,Rye Brook,N.Y. 10573 (914)9394121 Fax(914)939-0242 www.ryebrook.org OFFICE OF THE MAYOR Paul S.Rosenberg January 6,2014 To My Rye Brook Friends and Neighbors: Happy New Yearl Since taking office last April, 2013 it has been a very busy and productive year for --your Board of Trustees. I would like to bring you up to date on some issues that we have been working on. In no particular order,let me provide some highlights: After dealing with extremely destructive weather in the 2011 and 2012 hurricane seasons,I was relieved that our region came through 2013 unscathed. Although 2013 was a "quieter*weather year, it seems that stronger,more ferocious storms are becoming the new normal. The Village of Rye Brook has spent a lot of time and manpower planning forsuch storms, working in conjunction with other municipalities as well as Con Edison. Hopefully, it will be several more years before we need to put our storm plans to use. We-have made several updates to our code with the goal of"making life easier"for.our residents. This involved code loosening in certain areas,and overhauling it in other areas. Specifically,we've made the following changes: • Loosening the code in the Scenic Road Overlay District — ThWwIll make it-easier for residents who live along one of our "scenic roads" (Ridge St., Lincoln Ave, King St., Anderson Hill Rd.) to make modest improvements to their homes without triggering-a full-blown site-plan review and the need for variances, which are costly and time consuming. • Updating the Generator Law—The past two hurricane seasons have seen an increase In the number-of-poweroutagesin the region--This has prompted many residentsto install permanent backup generators. Unfortunately, our code was forcing many residents to seek variances in order to install these devices outside their homes. We've modified our code so that if you place your permanent generator alongside equipment such as an existing air conditioner compressor, and create adequate vegetative screening, the generator permit application can be handled by the building department. This will quicken the permitting process,save residents the cost of possibly needing a variance,and eradicate the need for obtaining approval from the Architectural Review Board. • Shopping Center Zoning—The Board of Trustees(BOT)has worked with the owners of our shopping centers to update our shopping center district zoning so that when a store turns over, it will be less likely to trigger site plan review, allowing our shopping centers to quickly obtain permits from the building department and re-occupy their stores in a timelier manner. 91=1 - Ulm maintaining fiscal stability are the rising costs for health insurance($13 million)and the NYS Retirement system ($1.6 million). While the Village has been able to negotiate additional employee contributions to offset health insurance premium costs,the retirement system costs are fixed by NY State. Two years ago, New York State instituted a 2% property tax cap. The current economic conditions combined with the restrictions of this cap on the tax levy will make the 2014-2015 budget difficult to prepare. We will once again scrutinize the budget and we invite the public to attend the budget workshops and public hearings.The Board will be presented with the budget in mid-March. We need input from the public. All sources of revenue as well as expenses will be examined in detail. As you likely are aware,unfunded mandates from Albany are killing municipal budgets. Comprehensive Flan— I'm very pleased to announce that in the fall of 2013, we started work on Rye Brook's first Comprehensive Plan, This plan is building on significant prior planning efforts and will establish a policy guide for future land-use decisions within the Village.The Village has assembled a 12- member advisory committee representing a broad range of interests and stakeholders in the Village to prepare a final pian for consideration by the Village Board.This committee,together with a consultant team, has already held two public workshops, Future public meeting information, as well as draft chapters of the plan are available at www. lan ebrook.o . Rye Town Dissolution Study— Rye Brook is working closely with the Town of Rye and the Villages of Port Chester and Mamaroneck to study governance and service options for the community.Among the options being explored is the dissolution of the Town of Rya resulting in the creation of coterminous town/villages in Port Chester and Rye Brook.The goal is to determine the most efficient way to govern and the most cost effective way to deliver municipal services. This process would not be moving forward without the support and tireless work of State Senator George Latimer and State Assemblyman Steve Chis. Signature Flight Litigation—Last month,Village Administrator Chris Bradbury and I (along with elected officials from the Town of Rye and the Blind Brook school District), attended a special meeting of the Westchester County Board of legislators (SOL). We expressed the Village's opposition to a proposed local law which would have done nothing to prevent Signature Flight Support Corporation (an operator at the Westchester County airport) from seeking to become tax exempt. if successful,this action could have resulted in costing Rye Brook taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars in the repayment of tax payments to Signature as well as the loss of future tax payments. I am proud to report to you that the Village, working collaboratively with County Legislator David Gelfarb, Rye Town Supervisor Joe Carvin, and President of the Blind Brook School Board Nancy Barr, successfully demonstrated that we will not submit to such a disastrous outcome without making our feelings Known. The local law that we opposed was"re-committed by the BOL,effectively killing it for the present time. While the issue of the action taken by Signature to become tax exempt is not over, we will again be working with the other elected officials and the leadership at the BOL in 2014 to ensure that the taxpayers are protected until this matter is resolved. Thank you to the entire Rye Brook community for your outpouring of support. Your Board of Trustees certainly appreciates your involvement and we will keep you updated on our progress with this very import issue. Reminders Winter Parking Rules—Unless otherwise posted, parking is prohibited on all public streets or highways within the Village of Rye Brook between 2:00 a.m.and 6:00 a.m.from November 15 to March 15. This allows our highway department to plow and salt our roadways when necessary overnight. • Sanitation—Did you know that you don't have to bring your garbage cans to the street the night before your scheduled pick-up? The Village provides garbage pick-up outside your garage door. Either let your sanitation driver know that you will be leaving your trash cans by your garage door,or contact our Public Works department at 914-939-0753. Also, 2014 sanitation calendars are now available at www.!3Lebrook.oMsanitation. Snow Removal—When shoveling and/or plowing your driveway after a snow event(or clearing off snow-covered cars),please do not deposit snow in the street. It creates a traffic hazard,and Is a violation of the Village code. Airport De-icing&Odor If you live near the airport or the Blind Brook,you may have noticed a distinct, foul odor in extreme cold weather. This is likely the result of a deicing fluid that has been used at the airport for the past two seasons. After its use on the airplanes, the fluid discharges into storm water ponds at the airport and then travels into the Blind Brook. The village has been assured that the deicing fluid does not cause any environmental concerns to residents or the brook and prior testing has shown levels to be well below acceptable limits for this type of activity. While the village will continue to strongly urge the county to try to use an alternative deicing fluid that does not have the same foul odor,deicing is a necessary activity to ensure the planes arrive and depart safely in cold temperatures. Conclusion As we move forward in 2014, we will continue looking for ways to deliver quality services to out residents,while keeping our costs as low as possible. We will always look for sources of non-property tax revenue to help deliver these services, much like our hotel tax does today. We will keep listening and making ourselves available to our residents with the goal of continuing to simplify our code to help reduce the amount of time and costs associated with bringing certain projects before Village boards and committees. I would like to thank former Mayor Joan Feinstein for leaving the Village in great shape as she left office. Joan has been a tremendous resource for me and the entire SOT since our taking office last April. All of our progress would not be possible without my fellow board members, Trustees Jeffrey Rednick, David Heiser,Jason Klein and Susan Epstein, and especially Village Administrator Chris Bradbury and his fantastic staff. They make what we do look easy. I wish you and your families a happy and healthy new year! Sincerely, Paul S.Rosenberg Mayor Email: MpyoE@!3Lebrook.org Twitter.@paulrosenberg Quick Unks: www.lyebrooLorpJalerts Sign up for Village alerts and important newsletters www.rvebrook.orglsanitation Access the Village sanitation calendar www-Eyebrook.oMLyideci Watch streaming video of Village meetings 41 O Z Cat V L N u< VC 1 a m LEA iL= � c� —J J co 0 IL tA a• N J U Q ~ Q z = `.. J W W m aU) 0 m a .Y o r�ul `^ xp2 4 ` QP �Z \ d � d- Q � A4 �4 i 6 I 7 I 8 I 9 I 10 I 11 I 12 I 13 I 14 I 15 I 16 ♦ A, 40 0 N L `1� Ly�JL� ♦♦ ♦ ♦f 'krV ♦ O i �a •r�=>• �s 0cS '�{lp J ENCftvl: •.ir' �:•rte, g o ir, 'i•r o iae Z ♦� ♦ 9� z izr t r sraaotr�rr>pe 01 t i L ! ERM Sw ST 001W 154.00 I pY f 133 JIL f—M Raw ox u ru.H•-r n D G� a R-GfFYwt, 7� . LOT No. 4 Lot Area=18,632 Sq.Ft.(0.43 Ac) � D GRAPHIC SCALE: `M F 201a VI«AG 2C 0 20 BUILDING F Rye 6R FEET DEPgRim ENT D Arw*", AH N EMAN KI RBY ENOINEERS•SURVEYORS.PLANNERE SINCE 187 1171 East Putnam Avenue,Riverside,CT 06878 Tel_203.869.7707•Fax:203.869.4606 www.ahnemanidrby.com REV.6: REV.OESCRIPT70N: OATS February 23, 2016 R-4 Revised 02-23-2016 RESOLUTION CONSIDERING A RESOLUTION EXPRESSING CONCERNS WITH WESTCHESTER COUNTY'S PROPOSED LEGISLATIVE CHANGES TO THE AIRPORT'S TERMINAL USE AGREEMENT WHEREAS, prior Westchester County Executives and ds f Legislators have historically maintained a firm policy position of No ion at the Westchester Countv,Airport and went so far as to adopt resolutio o th ect dating back to at least 2003 to protect the County residents that are a ed by rt activities; and WHEREAS, despite the long-standing p posi n of No i at the Westchester Countv,Airport, the County E e e has t the Board egislators proposed legislation modifying the Terminal ree ent at th Westchester County Airport (the "Airport") w ich would dras increase the long-standing limit on the number of commercial assengers a ed to enplane and deplane at the Airport from 240 passengers p r to 11,52 engers per day; and WHEREAS, the proposed legislatio ee roduced to the Board of Legislators and it has rred to th ommitte on Legislation, Infrastructure, and Environment; WHEREAS, this prop is of nificant concern to the residents of the Village of an Coun estchester who would be impacted by this airport ansion; a W E , the net e t of s legislative change is to remove a legislatively- imposed p of a hal ur passenger restriction and instead provide additional flexibility to ommer al airlines and the private Airport management company that contracts w e unty in order to maximize and substantially increase their ability to add dail ghts and increase the number of passengers as much as the market desires wh' e utilizing the current four (4) gates within the current runway restrictions; and WHEREAS, the County's position that 240 passengers per half hour simply equals 11,520 per day(240/half hour x 48) and impacts are minimal due to other restrictions at the Airport and terminal is seriously flawed based upon the following items: • The 11,520 passenger limit per day surprisingly includes an allocation of 3,120 passengers for the hours between 12:00 midnight and 6:30 A.M. when the County has previously instituted a voluntary curfew period and has made the policy decision not to encourage flights during that curfew period. This non-mandatory curfew is routinely already violated by airlines (171 times in November 2015, including 57 times by one airline). • Many more private planes and their passengers already use the airport. If this legislation is approved, this change will further dilute one of the few protections against additional flights and airport expansion. Commercial flights represent about 20% of the total flights at the Airport, and the Terminal Use Agreement already factors in approximately 65 "holiday" days when there are no restrictions on passenger limits. The airlines already have unrestricted limits on passengers approximately 1 of the year. The remaining "non-holiday" days simply place re nab restrictions that spreads passengers throughout the days in ord it the impacts on the County residents affected by the Airport traffi • The Airport and terminal do not have cap city to ha n he number of passengers and flights they are see ' to ad For instanc 14 there were 1.4M passengers that utilize t ort 1,520 passe Ors per day would total 4.2M passengers in a year. pea (+/- 200 , the Airport had between 2.0- 2.5M pa engers and the re serious impacts to traffic and parking. • The County is requesting the xibi ve 1520 passengers per day, yet at the same ' e, they stat they of anticipate having 11,520 passengers p ause airli s prefer ertain "prime" travel periods. The result at the ibility an ontrol of the number of passengers and flights is pla solel in the hand the airlines and the private airport mana em ent co act with the County in order to increase fl, zing of the during any travel times that the market ctates the tere flying. If the proposed legislation is approved, the 520 passen mit ely become a largely irrelevant restriction. Ove years th ounty has made improvements at the Airport terminal and ga ut ha ated the improvements were not Airport expansions, and the const as for necessary security enhancements and added modern convenience r the passengers. At the time of these projects it was often stated to to al municipalities that the best protection against expansion is the passenger limit of 240 per half hour, the runway design, weight restrictions, and the number of gates (4). Now, the County is reversing the argument in their favor, stating that the facility has expanded to 40,000 sf since the time the 240 passenger limit was put in place, so the provision is superfluous and outdated. • The only significant additional parking to handle an increase in flights that has been added to the Airport is the off-site facility at the Purchase Park-to- Fly, the long-term viability of which, to our knowledge, is not determined by Westchester County. • The County has stated that another significant protection against expansion is the limit of four (4) gates, but if this is a self-imposed limit there is nothing prohibiting additional gates to be considered by the County at a later date. • Another significant protection for the municipalities in the region is the limits on the length of the runways and the airplane weight restrictions which limit the size of the planes and the distance they can travel. The County has stated that increasing the runway length is one of the ite eing considered for potential inclusion in an upcoming Airport Master n up ate anticipated by mid-year 2016. • Any discussion or consideration of cha the p ger restrictions, runways, gates or other significant ite ou be review the context of the updated Airport Master Plan an ated la r this year i to avoid any segmentation concerns with reg to S and to view each modification in the context of the long-t als of the local residents, the County and the Airport; an NOW THEREFORE BE IT RES at the of Rye Brook firmly believes that Westchester County is of i sitio to consider a Negative Declaration under SE for this pro lege until such time that it has fully evaluated all nvironme 1 impac that additional flights and passengers will br to the ort and s ounding region including the following items: • I avai ty of o - e and off-site parking from the increase in ssengers ghts, • is of an in se i on-site and off-site traffic including on I-684, King Stre d Ander Hill Road, especially during peak commuting hours; • Impacts o ater quality of the Blind Brook as a result of the additional flights; • Impacts of additional de-icing fluid that would be utilized at the Airport and would enter the Blind Brook, which continues to be a significant problem for residents downstream from the Airport property as far south as Westchester Avenue; • Additional noise impacts and a reduction in air quality as a result of the additional flights; • Since the Airport has been designated by the County as a Critical Environmental Area (CEA), the potential impact of any Type I or Unlisted Action on the environmental characteristics of the CEA is a relevant area of environmental concern and must be evaluated in the determination of significance under SEQR; • Impacts to the FAA Z instrument overlay zones that radiate out from the airport as a result of any increase in flights, noise and/or types of aircraft at the Airport as a result of this legislation. These zones also affect development in the surrounding municipalities, in that they limit the type of development that may be located within these zones; and • Other impacts of the additional flights, especi sidering that in 2014 there were 1.4M passengers at the Airport an the sed limit of 11,520 passengers per day there would be 4.2 s gers p ar not including the potential for additional passengers the unrestricted 5 holiday day periods. The potential for these p ger t is to far ex y actual prior peak years ever experienced at irpo high, and such, these impacts need to be fully evaluated; and • Whether any of the identifi siderations a pacts would trigger the need for an Environmental I a ment to b pared to fully address any significant impacts of the p ose tion. BE IT FURTHER D, that ile the and of Trustees acknowledges that the Westch Coun irport se es a very important purpose for the residents and co rpo sin estchester ty and the surrounding region who depend upon the conv al airport, they are equally concerned about th the tiona is and number of passengers that would occur result o opo egi lative changes to the Terminal Use Agreement; and BE IT F ER RE LVED, that the proposed legislation has far reaching impacts that r e furt environmental study and evaluation that should wait to be reviewed in t t of the update to the Airport Master Plan anticipated later in 2016; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the proposed legislative changes provide far too much flexibility for the airlines and the private airport management company that contracts with the County and have the potential to seriously impact the residents in the surrounding region; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Village Board is eager to continue to work with the County Executive, the Board of Legislators, the airline representatives and any other impacted municipalities to seek alternative ways of addressing problems currently experienced by the airlines and the airport management staff in a way that would seek to both support the Airport and limit impacts to the residents in the region; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be provided to the County Executive, the Board of Legislators, the Westchester County Airport Advisory Board, and other municipalities in the region urging them to consider the impacts of this proposed legislation on the residents and property owners within their jurisdictions. LOCAL LAW NO. - 2016 A LOCAL LAW to amend Section 712.462 of the Laws of Westchester County in order to make the existing limitations on air carrier operations contained therein more flexible. BE IT ENACTED by the County Board of the County of Westchester as follows: Section 1. Section 712.462 of the Laws of Westchester County is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 712.462 Westchester County-Airport Terminal Use Procedures. 1. Applicability. This Section shall apply to all use of the passenger terminal ("Terminal") and the terminal ramp at the Westchester County Airport ("Airport") by Airlines providing Passenger Service, as that term is defined herein. The terminal ramp shall be for the exclusive use of Airlines providing Passenger Service. This Section does not apply to any activities by Airport users not providing Passenger Service. All Passenger Service provided at the Airport shall be provided at the Terminal. 2. Definitions. The following terms as used in this Section shall have the following meanings: a. "Airline" shall mean any person providing Passenger Service in aircraft designed for more than(9)passenger seats, including but not limited to, any air carrier or other operator certificated to provide Passenger Service under Parts 119, 121 or 135 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations. For purposes of this Section, "person" shall mean any individual, firm, company, association, society, corporation, partnership, copartnership,joint-stock company, trust, estate, governmental entity or any other legal entity or legal representatives, agents or assigns thereof. The masculine gender shall include the feminine, and the singular shall include the plural, where indicated by context. b. "Commissioner" shall mean the Commissioner of Public Works and Transportation of Westchester County or his or her designee, which designee may include the Airport Manager of the Westchester County Airport. c. "Ground Handling Services" shall include, at a minimum,ramp services, aircraft arrival and departure marshalling, aircraft parking and push-back, external engine starting, gate access coordination, [aircraft deicing/anti-icing.],Americans with Disability Act compliance on the Terminal Ramp, and any other services needed in the ordinary course by Airlines using the Terminal Ramp. d. An "Incumbent Passenger Allocation" shall mean a Passenger Allocation that was in use by a Qualified Airline on November 30, 2004,pursuant to the provisions of Westchester County Board of Legislators Resolutions 59-1985 and 266-1985, Local Laws 12-2004 and 21-2005 and the 1994 Terminal Capacity Affirmation and Extension Agreement. e. An "Incumbent Ramp Allocation" shall mean a Ramp Allocation that was in use by a Qualified Airline on November 30, 2004, pursuant to the provisions of Westchester County Board of Legislators Resolutions 59-1985 and 266-1985, Local Laws 12-2004 and 21-2005, and the 1994 Terminal Capacity Affirmation and Extension Agreement. £ "Limited Qualified Airline" shall mean any Airline that: (1) holds a valid operating certificate from the Federal Aviation Administration for the type of service it provides or seeks to provide at the Airport; (2) has, or has immediate and demonstrable, access to the aircraft and operating personnel to provide the service it provides or seeks to provide; (3) has a valid Limited Terminal Use Agreement with the County in effect; (4) furnishes proof of requisite insurance pursuant to the terms of the then-current Limited Terminal Use Agreement; (5) has designated a representative for purposes of this Section; (6) is current on its financial obligations with the County; and (7) has conducted no more than four(4) operations constituting Passenger Service at the Airport within the previous 90 days. g "Limited Terminal Use Agreement" shall mean that agreement that Airlines must execute with the County in order to satisfy in part the requirements of Subsection 2(f) above. h. "Passenger" shall mean any person enplaned or deplaned at the Terminal. Federal employees who are actually on official duty and Airline employees shall not be deemed to be Passengers. i. "Passenger Allocation" shall mean the authorization to schedule the enplanement or deplanement of one passenger onto or from an aircraft that has a Ramp Allocation. j. "Passenger Service" shall mean any air service to or from the Airport for which seats are individually offered or sold to the public or a segment of the public, regardless of whether such individual seats are offered or sold directly by the aircraft operator, a charterer, another Airline, or any other entity. k. A "Qualified Airline" shall mean any Airline that: (1) holds a valid operating certificate from the Federal Aviation Administration for the type of service it provides or seeks to provide at the Airport; (2)has, or has immediate and demonstrable access to, sufficient aircraft and operating personnel to provide the service it provides or seeks to provide; (3) has a valid Terminal Use Agreement with the County in effect; (4) furnishes proof of requisite insurance pursuant to the terms of the then-current Terminal Use Agreement; (5)has designated a representative for purposes of this Section; and (6) is current on its financial obligations with the County. 1. "Ramp Allocation" shall mean the authorization to schedule an Airline aircraft operation on the Terminal Ramp during a designated half hour each day, or for a single designated half hour in the case of a Limited Qualified Airline operating pursuant to Subsection 7 hereof. An operation shall consist of an arrival or a departure. m. "Technical Specifications and Procedural Requirements" shall mean any applicable and lawful technical, engineering, and mechanical specifications for the Airport, including but not limited to the Terminal Ramp, that are issued from time to time by the Commissioner,based upon Federal Aviation Administration guidelines and regulations, and upon the safety, efficiency and physical limitations of the Airport, including the Terminal and Terminal Ramp. The Technical Specifications and Procedural Requirements shall at least address maximum aircraft length, maximum wingspan, and maximum weight for aircraft using the Terminal Ramp. n. "Terminal Ramp" shall refer to that portion of the apron at the Airport that is immediately adjacent to the Terminal building and which is available for scheduled Airline operations. o. "Terminal Use Agreement" shall mean that agreement that Airlines must execute with the County in order to satisfy in part the requirements of Subsection 2(k[j]) above. 3. Terminal Ramp Use and Capacity. a. Terminal Ramp Capacity. A maximum of four aircraft may be scheduled to use the Terminal Ramp at any time. It is the responsibility of each Airline to schedule arrivals and departures of its aircraft so as to avoid the need to wait elsewhere on the Airport for access to the Terminal Ramp. Allocation of the Terminal Ramp capacity shall be governed by Subsection 5 below. b. Use of Terminal Ramp. An Airline must hold a Ramp Allocation for each aircraft operation scheduled to use the Terminal Ramp. The Commissioner may deny access to the Terminal Ramp to any aircraft without a current Ramp Allocation. Subject to availability and subject to other Ramp Allocations, the County will endeavor to accommodate any aircraft arriving outside of the half-hour slot of its Ramp Allocation for such arrival or departure if caused by weather, airspace delays, mechanical difficulties, or other factors. c. Parking on the Terminal Ramp. Subject to the use of the Terminal Ramp by Qualified Airlines that have valid Ramp Allocations, and subject to the efficient management of limited space on the Terminal Ramp and security considerations, the County will attempt to accommodate Qualified Airlines (1) who wish to park aircraft overnight on the Terminal Ramp after the last scheduled Ramp Allocation for the day or(2) when a Qualified Airline has nonsequential arrival and departure Ramp Allocations for the same aircraft. Any actions by the County allowing use of the Terminal Ramp for such parking pursuant to this provision shall not entitle an Airline to any changes in its Ramp Allocations. An Airline is not entitled to occupy a parking position during any half hour for which it has no Ramp Allocation and must vacate the Terminal Ramp when directed by Airport staff. d. Technical Specifications. All Airlines shall comply with the Technical Specifications and Procedural Requirements as issued by the Commissioner from time to time. e. Ground Handling Services. Ground Handling Services for all Airline operations shall be provided by the County or its contractors. An Airline must be a Qualified Airline or Limited Qualified Airline to receive Ground Handling Services. 4. Passenger Capacity of the Terminal. In the interest of passenger safety, security, public health, and comfort, the Terminal buildiniz was originally designed for a capacity of 240 passengers per half hour. This equates to a daily maximum passenger capacity limit of 11,520 passengers, which will be utilized as the controlling passenger capacity limit, subject to the physical constraints of the Terminal building, without consideration [of] as to whether such passengers are enplaning or deplaning. Allocation of this capacity shall be governed by the provisions of Subsection 5. 5. Allocation of Terminal Ramp and Terminal Capacity. In order reasonably and equitably to allocate the available Terminal building and Terminal Ramp capacity, to ensure competition, and to promote orderly and efficient Airport operations, the County shall allocate available Terminal Ramp and Terminal building capacity by means of a lottery as set forth in this Subsection. a. Incumbent Allocations: A Qualified Airline that has Incumbent Ramp Allocations or Incumbent Passenger Allocations may continue to operate pursuant to such Allocations under this Section after November 30, 2004, so long as (1) this Section is in effect; and(2) the Airline complies with applicable County ordinances, laws, rules and regulations governing the Airport, including this Section. After December 31, 2004, Incumbent Ramp Allocations and Incumbent Passenger Allocations shall be treated identically to later-acquired Ramp Allocations and Passenger Allocations for purposes of compliance with this Section, including the provisions of Subsections (5)(d)-(m)• b. Future Quarterly Allocations: i. By the last business day of December 2004, the Commissioner shall publish a report ("Terminal Capacity Allocation Report") identifying all Incumbent Ramp Allocations and Incumbent Passenger Allocations as of November 30, 2004. The Terminal Capacity Allocation Report shall list (1)the time slots for, and names of, Qualified Airlines using each Incumbent Ramp Allocation and Incumbent Passenger Allocation; and (2) available Ramp Allocations and Passenger Allocations, on a half- hourly basis. ii. By the last business day of every third month after November 30, 2004, the Commissioner shall make a preliminary determination of the then-available Terminal and Terminal Ramp capacity by subtracting all Ramp and Passenger Allocations from total Passenger and Ramp capacity and shall make a report of such available capacity("Quarterly Available Capacity Report") available in a convenient form for Qualified Airlines and all other interested persons. iii. The allocation of available capacity shall be by means of a Quarterly Lottery. The Quarterly Lottery may be conducted through representatives of the County and Qualified Airlines or may be conducted electronically, as the Commissioner shall determine from time to time. iv. No later than December 15, 2004, and by the 15th day of each third month thereafter, any Qualified Airline seeking an Allocation of any available capacity by means of the Quarterly Lottery shall submit a request to the Commissioner in the manner specified by the Commissioner. The request shall, at a minimum, identify the Airline's designated representative for the forthcoming Quarterly Lottery and the aircraft with which the Qualified Airline proposes to provide service for any Ramp Allocation. v. On January 4, 2005, and on the first Tuesday of each third month thereafter, the County shall conduct the Quarterly Lottery to allocate capacity for the half hourly periods for which there is available capacity. The Commissioner may designate alternative dates for the Quarterly Lottery upon 14-days notice to the designated representative of each Qualified Airline. vi. At the commencement of the Quarterly Lottery, the Commissioner will provide a report of then-available Passenger and Ramp Allocations. All Qualified Airlines who submitted a request pursuant to Subsection (5)(b)(iv) shall be randomly assigned numbers to establish their order of selection in the first round of the Quarterly Lottery. Each Qualified Airline, in its order of selection, may draw Ramp Allocations and Passenger Allocations for up to a total of four(4) operations to take place in four half-hourly periods, up to the available [Passenger] daily maximum passenger capacityimit and Ramp capacity identified in Subsections 3 and 4, whichever may first be reached. An operation shall be either an arrival or a departure. Draws may include increases in Passenger Allocations (so long as the total [of Passenger Allocations for all Qualified Airlines during the half-hour period does not exceed 240 passengers] daily maximum passenger capacity limit of 11,520 is not exceeded) for operations for which the Qualified Airline has a Ramp Allocation. vii. At the conclusion of the first round of the Quarterly Lottery, should any Passenger or Ramp capacity remain, the process shall be repeated, with the same order of selection, for such number of additional rounds as may be necessary until no Qualified Airline that submitted a request pursuant to Subsection(5)(b)(iv) seeks Allocations. c. Other Matters. Routes, rates, selection of aircraft and other matters not addressed by this Section, other County law or regulation, the Airport's Technical Specifications and Procedural Requirements, or Terminal Use Agreement shall be determined by the Qualified Airline or the Federal Aviation Administration pursuant to federal law. d. Compliance with Applicable Requirements. All Airlines operating at the Airport shall at all times be in compliance with all applicable and lawful Airport rules and regulations. County ordinances and laws, including all Airport Technical Specifications and Procedural Requirements that may be issued from time-to-time. Any Airline violating or causing the violation of such rules, regulations, ordinances, laws, agreements or technical specifications shall cure such violation within fifteen (15) days of being so notified by the County. Failure to so cure shall result in the cancellation by the Commissioner of the Ramp Allocations and Passenger Allocations connected with such violations. e. Calculation of Allocation Usage for Purposes of Determining Compliance. For purposes of determining whether [an] the Airlines [is] are exceeding [its] their (Passenger Allocations for any half-hour period under Subsection(5)(h)] daily maximum passenger r capacity limit, the County shall employ a [calendar month] daily average. For the purposes of determining whether an Airline should have its Passenger Allocations adjusted for under-use pursuant to Subsection (5)(g),the County shall employ a three-calendar-month average based on the data reported pursuant to Subsection(5)(f). In calculating such averages, the denominator shall be the number of aircraft operations actually [flown] scheduled during the period pursuant to a particular Ramp Allocation and the numerator shall be the number of passengers actually enplaned and deplaned [on all such operations] at the Airport. For purposes of using averages: (1) any average that is not a whole number shall be rounded down to the next lowest whole number if the fraction greater than the next lowest whole number is lower than five tenths; and(2) any average that is not a whole number shall be rounded up to the next highest whole number if the fraction greater than the next lowest whole number is equal to or greater than five tenths. In calculating such averages, the County shall not include, either in the numerator or the denominator, data concerning operations during the following holiday periods: i. Christmas/New Year from December 20 through January 5. ii. The Presidents' Day holiday from three(3) days before Presidents' Day through three(3) days following Presidents' Day. iii. Easter from five(5) days prior to Easter through the fifth day following Easter. iv. Memorial Day from three(3) days before Memorial Day through three (3) days after Memorial Day. v. July 4, from July 1 through July 7. vi. Labor Day, from three(3) days prior to Labor Day through three (3) days after Labor Day. vii. Thanksgiving from five (5) days prior to Thanksgiving through five(5) days after Thanksgiving. f. Reporting. i. Airlines operating at the Airport shall certify actual passenger loads, on a per flight,per day, enplaned, deplaned,basis to the County twice monthly in the form designated by the Commissioner by no later than five business days from (1) the 15th of each month and(2) the last day of each month. ii. Each Airline shall designate at the time of any application under Subsection (5)(b)(iv), Quarterly Lottery draw under Subsection (5)(b)(vii), or transfer under Subsection(5)(k), the type of aircraft to be used for each Ramp Allocation time slot. Such designation shall be in the form established for this purpose by the Commissioner. Further, any Airline seeking to change the type of aircraft using a Ramp Allocation shall provide notice to the County, in the form designated by the Commissioner, at least seven days prior to such change. Any designation or change in aircraft type shall comply with the Technical Specifications and Procedural Requirements. iii. The County may, at any time, audit passenger ticket lifts and/or other appropriate passenger statistics of any Airline to determine actual passenger enplanements or deplanements. iv. Failure to comply with any of the reporting or audit requirements contained in this Subsection(5)(f) within five days of an Airline's receipt of notice of noncompliance by the Commissioner shall result in immediate termination of the Ramp Allocation(s) and Passenger Allocations of the Airline. Further, any intentional misstatement of information required in this Section, as determined by the Commissioner, shall result in the immediate termination of the Ramp Allocation(s) or Passenger Allocations of the Airline. v. In the event the daily maximum Passenger Allocation exceeds the daily maximum passenger capacity limit of 11,520 passengers, the procedures specified in paragraphs g and h,below, shall be utilized to reduce the Passenger Allocation below the daily maximum passenger capacity ly imit. g. Failure to Use Allocations. If for any three-calendar-month period, an Airline's actual average passenger load for any half-hour for which it has Passenger Allocations should be less than 85 percent of the total of its Passenger Allocations, then the Commissioner shall reduce its Passenger Allocation for the subsequent quarter to 115 percent of such reported three calendar-month-average passenger loads for that half- hour period. The review and reduction made pursuant to this Subsection shall be made for successive, and not for overlapping, three-month periods. The County shall waive the application of this Subsection for any period in which the Commissioner has determined that total passenger enplanements at the Airport have been significantly adversely affected by war, national emergency or extraordinary terrorist threat, labor action, or force maj eure. h. Exceedance of Passenger Allocations. If for any calendar month, an Airline's average passenger load during any half-hour period should exceed its Passenger Allocations for that period, then such Airline's Passenger Allocations shall be adjusted to such average load figure or such portion thereof as the available capacity of the Terminal shall accommodate ("Adjusted Passenger Allocations"). If two or more Qualified Airlines' average passenger loads for a calendar month in a particular half- hour time period exceed their Passenger Allocations and there is insufficient Passenger Capacity in the daily maximum passenger capacity limit of 11,520 to accommodate all of these exceedances, the Commissioner shall assign Adjusted Passenger Allocations proportionally to the Qualified Airlines' shares of Passenger Allocations for that half- hour period. If there is insufficient available Terminal capacity to accommodate all of the exceedances of Passenger Allocations by an Airline, then the Commissioner shall issue a written Notice of Violation to such Airline, and the Airline shall, within fifteen (15) days from such notice, reduce its average passenger load to the Adjusted Passenger Allocations level. For the purposes of determining compliance with such mandated reduction, the average passenger load will be calculated for the period from 15 days prior to the Notice of Violation to 15 days after the Notice of Violation ("Compliance Test Period"). In lieu of such mandated reduction, a Qualified Airline may obtain sufficient Passenger Allocations from another Airline pursuant to Subsection 5(k) to accommodate its average usage during the Compliance Test Period. Should any Airline fail to reduce its average passenger load during the Compliance Test Period then: i. On the sixteenth day following the Notice of Violation, such Airline's Passenger Allocations for the applicable half-hour period shall be reduced by the amount by which that [the] Airline's average loads exceeded the Airline's Passenger Allocations as set forth in the Notice of Violation. The Airline shall thereupon be required to comply immediately with such reduced Passenger Allocations. ii. The Airline shall lose the privilege of participating in the next subsequent Quarterly Lottery for either Passenger Allocations or Ramp Allocations. iii. Should such Airline's average passenger load during the calendar month following the reduction in its Passenger Allocation under Section 5(h)(i) not comply with such reduced Passenger Allocation, then the Commissioner may terminate, upon twenty days' written notice, such Airline's Ramp Allocation and Passenger Allocations for the subject half-hour period. i. Use of Ramp Allocations. i. Any Airline obtaining a Ramp Allocation must [initiate service within 60 days from] have scheduled service posted before the next Quarterly Lottery after the date it obtains such Allocation and must provide such service on at least a five-day-per-week basis, with aircraft capable of using the Passenger Allocations corresponding to the particular Ramp Allocation. Should any Airline fail to [initiate] schedule service within such [60-day] period, such Airline shall[, on the 61st day,] lose such Ramp Allocation and Passenger Allocations. Such Airline shall also lose the privilege of participating in the next Quarterly Lottery. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any Airline may, within [ten] 20 days of any Quarterly Lottery, surrender to the County without penalty any Passenger Allocations or Ramp Allocation or portions thereof obtained in such Quarterly Lottery. Any surrendered Allocations will become available capacity in the next Quarterly Lottery. ii. Any Airline with a Ramp Allocation must schedule use of such Allocation on at least a five-day-per-week basis, with aircraft capable of using the Passenger Allocations corresponding to the particular Ramp Allocation, or transfer the Allocation to another Airline or Airlines (pursuant to Subsection k) which together would provide service that schedules use of such Passenger Allocations, on at least a five-day-per-week basis. (a) Failure to schedule use of a Ramp Allocation on at least a five- day-per-week basis shall result in a notice of violation from the Commissioner. If the Airline fails to schedule use of its Ramp Allocation on at least a five-day-per-week basis within 15 days of the notice of violation from the Commissioner, the Commissioner shall immediately cancel such Airline's Ramp Allocation and associated Passenger Allocations. If an Airline fails to schedule use of its Ramp Allocation on at least a five-day-per-week basis for a second time within a one-year period, the Commissioner shall immediately cancel the Airline's Ramp Allocation and associated Passenger Allocations upon one-day notice. The County shall waive the application of this Subsection for any period in which the Commissioner has determined that total operations at the Airport have been significantly adversely affected by war, national emergency or extraordinary terrorist threat, labor action, or force majeure. (b) The Commissioner may also terminate an Airline's Ramp Allocation and associated Passenger Allocations if he or she determines that an Airline's actual use of its Ramp Allocation is inconsistent with its published schedules for use of the Ramp Allocation, indicating an intent to hold a Ramp Allocation without making use of it on a five-day-per-week basis. iii Before initiating new or changed service, a Qualified Airline must have approval from the Commissioner regarding scheduled arrival and departure times pursuant to Subsection(5)(j). j. Scheduled Departure and Arrival Times. The Commissioner shall approve changes in and new scheduled arrival or departure times. Any changes not disapproved within 10 days of receipt of notice of such changes shall be deemed approved. Approval or disapproval of any changes shall be based on the following criteria: i. All arrival and departure times must be scheduled within the half hour for which the Qualified Airline holds a Ramp Allocation; ii. The Qualified Airline must have adequate Passenger Allocations; iii. The scheduled arrival and departure times must allow for the aircraft's passengers to be enplaned and/or deplaned within the half hour for which the Qualified Airline holds a Ramp Allocation and Passenger Allocations; iv. Adequate ramp time outside of the half-hour period for which the Qualified Airline holds a Ramp Allocation is available, if necessary, to accommodate the proposed operation; v. Scheduled times shall not interfere with efficient handling of other operations within the same half-hour period or in an adjacent period; vi. Scheduled operations shall minimize the need for any arrival or departure holds on other Airport aprons; vii. Operations shall maintain a reasonable balance of arrival and departure passengers in the Terminal; viii. In no event shall the Commissioner's approval or disapproval of scheduled departure or arrival times deny a Qualified Airline the authority to use its Ramp Allocation and/or Passenger Allocation or affect Airline rates or routes. k. Transfer of Allocations; Notice. i. Qualified Airlines may, upon two (2) weeks prior written notice to the County, transfer: (a) Ramp or Passenger Allocations to another Qualified Airline provided that the transferor has operated flight(s) under such Allocations, employing aircraft capable of using the entire Allocations, for 30 days on at least a five-day-per-week basis, or (b) Ramp Allocations and Passenger Allocations from one time period into another time period as long as no such transferred Allocations would result in use of the Terminal or Terminal Ramp in excess of capacity for any half-hour time period. ii. The Commissioner may, in his sole discretion, waive either the notice period or the transferor's required use of the Allocation under this Section for short-term transfers but in no event shall waive the notice requirement. iii.Notice to the County shall be in such electronic and/or other form designated by the Commissioner. Any notice of a transfer shall set forth (a) the names of the transferor and transferee; (b) the duration or any other conditions on the transfer, or whether the transfer is unconditional; and (c) whether the transfer is for all, or a portion(and if so, what portion) of the Allocation. iv. The County's review of notices pursuant to this Subsection shall be limited to a determination that the proposed transaction(a)involves Qualified Airlines and (b)will not result in exceedance of the capacity limits set forth Subsections 3(a) or 4 of this Section. 1. New Entrants. An Airline not currently providing service at the Airport can become a Qualified Airline and obtain Allocations through the Quarterly Lottery and/or transactions with other Airlines pursuant to Subsection(5)(k) if it demonstrates compliance with the criteria set forth in Subsection(2)(k[h]). m. Disputes Regarding Allocations. To the extent that any Qualified Airline disputes the identity of the designated holder of Ramp Allocations and/or Passenger Allocations, such Qualified Airline shall seek to resolve its dispute informally among the affected Airlines. If such efforts should fail, any Qualified Airline may petition the Commissioner for resolution of the dispute. After providing all Qualified Airlines with notice of the dispute, an opportunity to provide supporting information, and an opportunity for a meeting with all affected Airlines, the Commissioner shall make one of three findings: (1) find that the Allocation is properly identified by the County in the reports required in Subsections (5)(b)(i), (5)(b)(ii) and/or(5)(b)(vi); (2) that another Qualified Airline is properly the holder of the relevant Allocation; or(3) that no Qualified Airline has a clear right to the allocation and that the Allocation is forfeited and available for reallocation pursuant to the provisions of Subsection(5). All determinations of the Commissioner shall be final. 6. Hearings; Enforcement of This Section. a. Request for Hearing and Reconsideration. Any Airline that disputes a decision by the Commissioner to terminate its Ramp Allocation(s) and/or Passenger Allocations is entitled to seek a hearing and reconsideration of the Commissioner's decision by submitting to the Commissioner a formal request within 10 days of such decision. Upon receipt of such request, the effectiveness of the Commissioner's decision to terminate an allocation shall be suspended until he or she renders a decision under Subsection(6)(c). b. Process for Hearing. i. Upon request for a hearing and reconsideration, the Commissioner shall cause to be held a hearing before a hearing officer selected by the County on the termination at issue. ii. A formal hearing shall be on due and adequate notice to the party concerned and shall be set down for a day certain no less than 15 days and no more than 30 days from the Airline's request for hearing and reconsideration. iii. A notice of hearing shall set forth: (a) The time and place of the hearing; (b) The basis or bases for the Commissioner's decision to terminate Ramp Allocations and/or Passenger Allocations; (c) The right to present evidence; (d) The right to examine and cross-examine witnesses; (e) The right to be represented by counsel; and (f) That failure to appear shall constitute a default by the respondent, that the hearing may proceed in the respondent's absence and a determination made based upon evidence submitted by the Westchester County Department of Public Works and Transportation. iv. The hearing officer may grant adjournments upon request of any party to the proceeding, provided that an adjournment shall not be for an indefinite period of time, but shall be set down for a day certain. (a) If an adjournment is requested in advance of the hearing date, such request shall be presented to the hearing officer in writing, and shall specify the reason for such request. (b) In considering an application for adjournment of a hearing, the hearing officer shall consider whether the purpose of the hearing will be affected or defeated by the granting of such adjournment. v. To aid in the administration of this Section, the Commissioner or any hearing officer designated by him or her in a particular proceeding, may issue subpoenas in the Commissioner's name requiring the attendance and giving of testimony by witnesses and the production of books, papers and other evidence for any hearing or proceeding conducted under this Section. Service of such subpoena(s), enforcement of obedience thereto, and punishment for disobedience thereof, shall be had as and in the manner provided by the Civil Practice Law and Rules relating to the enforcement of any subpoena. It shall be the responsibility of the party requesting the issuance of a subpoena to effect service thereof. vi. On the return day of the hearing, the hearing officer shall note the appearances of the persons attending the hearing. Witnesses shall be sworn and testimony shall be recorded either by a certain stenographer or by use of an electronic recording device. vii. Testimony shall be transcribed upon the request of any interested party. The party requesting the transcript shall pay the costs and expenses in connection therewith. viii. The hearing officer shall not be bound by the strict rules of evidence in the conduct of a hearing,but the determination shall be founded upon sufficient legal evidence to sustain it. ix. After the conclusion of a formal hearing, the hearing officer shall prepare and issue findings of fact, conclusions and recommendation(s) to the Commissioner. c. Decision by Commissioner. i. Upon the conclusion of a formal hearing and after receipt of the hearing officer's report and recommendation(s), the Commissioner shall make a decision based on such findings, determinations and recommendations as he or she deems proper, and shall execute an order carrying such decision into effect. ii. The Commissioner may direct a rehearing or require the taking of additional evidence and may rescind or affirm, in whole or in part, a prior determination after such hearing. iii. The Commissioner shall cause to be served upon the Airline, copies of findings of fact, conclusions and recommendations and orders made as a result of a formal hearing. d. Service by County. Service of findings of fact, conclusions and recommendations, and orders, shall be made by hand or by overnight delivery to the designated representative of the Airline. e. bearing Cost. The cost of the hearing process (including but not limited to the fees for the hearing officer, transcription and other clerical costs, and the cost of providing witnesses but excluding any salaries of County employees) shall be borne equally by all Airlines who are parties to the hearing. f. Injunctions. The County may maintain actions in any court of competent jurisdiction to restrain by injunction any attempted use of the Terminal or Terminal Ramp by any Airline without current, valid Ramp Allocations or Passenger Allocations or any attempted Passenger Service in violation of this Section. 7. Limited Qualified Airlines. a. Applicability. A Limited Qualified Airline may use the Terminal for an operation subject to the requirements of this Subsection. b. Operations. The Commissioner shall approve each operation by a Limited Qualified Airline so long as he has determined that there is adequate Terminal and Terminal Ramp space available for such operation and either of the following conditions exists: i. The Limited Qualified Airline has executed an agreement with a Qualified Airline for the use of the Qualified Airline's Ramp Allocation and the operation would not result in the use of the Terminal in excess of the limits set forth in Subsection 4 of this Section; or ii. The Limited Qualified Airline provides the County with at least seven days'notice that it intends to conduct a single operation for which there is an available Ramp Allocation. Limited Qualified Airlines shall comply with the applicable provisions of Subsections 3, 4, and 5(d) of this Section. Each approval by the Commissioner under this Subsection 7 shall constitute a one-time Ramp Allocation for purposes of Subsections 3(b) and 3(c) of this Section. c. Reporting. An Airline shall provide the Commissioner with a report, on a form provided by the Commissioner,regarding any Passenger Service operation authorized pursuant to Subsection 7(b). The County may, at any time, audit passenger ticket lifts and/or other appropriate passenger documents of any Airline to determine actual passenger enplanements or deplanements. d. Effect of Noncompliance. The Commissioner may terminate any Airline's authority to use the Terminal and to receive Ground Handling services for 90 days upon a finding that the Airline has failed to comply with the requirements of this Subsection 7. e. Hearings. Any Airline that disputes a decision by the Commissioner pursuant to Subsection 7(d) is entitled to seek a hearing and reconsideration of the Commissioner's decision. Such hearing and reconsideration shall substantially follow the process outlined in Subsection 6. f. Effect on Qualified Airline Reporting. Use of Ramp Allocations by a Limited Qualified Airline pursuant to this Subsection shall not affect the calculations under Subsections 5(g) or 5(h). 2. The Clerk of the Board shall cause a notice of this Local Law to be published at least once a week for two successive weeks, the first publication of which shall be had within ten days after such local law is adopted, in the official newspapers published in the County of Westchester, said notice to contain the number, date of adoption and a true copy of the Local Law, and a statement that this Local Law changes a provision of law relating to contracts and is therefore subject to the provisions of Section 209.171(2) of the Westchester County Administrative Code providing for a permissive referendum. §3. This local law shall take effect sixty(60) days after its adoption subject to the provisions of Section 209.181 of the Westchester County Administrative Code. �N6tchester Office ofthe County Executive Michaelian Office Building February 5, 2016 TO: Hon. Michael Kaplowitz, Chair Hon. Jim Maisano,Vice Chair Hon. Catherine Borgia, Majority Leader Hon. John Testa, Minority Leader FROM: Robert P. Astorino Westchester County Executive RE: Message Requesting Immediate Consideration: Local Law: Westchester County Airport Terminal Use Procedures. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This will confirm my request that the Board of Legislators allow submission of the referenced legislation to be submitted to the Board of Legislators February 8, 2016 Agenda. Transmitted herewith for your review and approval is a proposed Local Law which, if adopted by your Honorable Board, would amend Section 712.462 of the Laws of Westchester County, entitled: Westchester County Airport Terminal Use Procedures ("Airport Procedures") in order to make the existing limitations on air carrier operations contained therein more flexible, thereby improving the business relationship between the County and the air carriers serving the Westchester County Airport (the "Airport"). Therefore, since this legislation is of the utmost importance and time is of the essence, it is respectfully submitted that the County Board of Legislators accepts this submission for February 8, 2016 "blue sheet" calendar. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. W-1.1111, Robert P.Asttnino County Executive February 5, 2016 Westchester County Board of Legislators 800 Michaelian Office Building 148 Martine Avenue White Plains,New York 10601 Dear Honorable Members of the Board of Legislators: Transmitted herewith for your review and approval is a proposed Local Law which, if adopted by your Honorable Board, would amend Section 712.462 of the Laws of Westchester County, entitled: Westchester County Airport Terminal Use Procedures ("Airport Procedures") in order to make the existing limitations on air carrier operations contained therein more flexible, thereby improving the business relationship between the County and the air carriers serving the Westchester County Airport (the"Airport"). As your Honorable Board knows, the Airport Procedures provide important protections for the people of Westchester County and represent a careful balance between competing interests at the Airport. They also provide an efficient mechanism to support the County's investment in passenger facilities, the continuing maintenance and operation of the Terminal complex, and the implementation of passenger and aircraft security and safety measures. As your Honorable Board also knows, the Airport Procedures have been in continuous effect since 1984, both through the operation of several Resolutions approved by your Honorable Board and pursuant to the specific provisions of the agreements which the County required each commercial airline operating out of the Airport to execute. In 2004, upon the recommendation of the County Executive, your Honorable Board codified the Airport Procedures by enacting Local Law No. 12-2004, making their application permanent. Thereafter, by Local Law No. 21-2005, your Honorable Board amended the Airport Procedures in order to clarify that they apply to all aviation passenger services which operate out of the Airport pursuant to which seats are individually offered or sold to the public, regardless of the frequency of such offers or sales. Office of the CouiztY F'Xecutive 0 �3 Michaelian Office.Building 148 illartine A:vencae White Plain,,,New York 10601 Telephone: (914)395-2900 E-mail: (9I4) {�<«mac stchestergcv.a�xn It should be noted that a significant limitation placed on air carrier operations at the Airport by the Airport Procedures is the 240 per half hour passenger limitation. Under this limitation, no more than 240 passengers per half hour are permitted in the main passenger Terminal, without consideration of whether such passengers are enplaning or deplaning. This limitation is allocated to the airlines through a lottery system that has been in place since 1984. It is important to recognize that at the time the Airport Procedures were first developed, the existing passenger Terminal was a 10,000 square foot Quonset but and the majority of aircraft using the Terminal were 8 to 30-seat propeller driven aircraft. As your Honorable Board is aware, the passenger Terminal has since grown to 41,000 square feet and the aircraft using the Terminal include much larger 50 to 156 seat modern jet aircraft. Additionally, the newer aircraft that have entered the market have advanced wing and engine designs that have improved fuel efficiency, resulting in reduced hydrocarbon emissions. Further, the advancement in jet engine technology has significantly reduced the community noise footprint. Yet despite these changes,the 240-passenger per half hour limitation has remained in effect. As a consequence of this limitation, air carriers currently serving the Airport are unable to increase the size of their aircraft or start new service due to the lack of available passenger allocations in various slot periods. For example, with the operation of jetBlue's A-320 and E- 190 (156 seats and 100 seats, respectively), the allocation for the two (2) half-hour periods (arrival and departure) would exceed the 240-passenger per half-hour limit. Subsequently, it also leaves two gate positions empty because of lack of passenger allocations. Similarly, four (4) 76-seater aircraft would exceed the two (2) half-hour passenger allocations for their arrival and departures by 128 passengers. In addition to placing constraints on existing airlines serving the Airport, the passenger capacity limitation has resulted in the County being unable to attract new air carrier service. With aircraft manufacturers such as Embraer and Bombardier forecasting a market for approximately 7,000 new aircraft with larger seating capacities over the next 15 years, it is critical that the County address the current passenger capacity limitations at this time. In an effort to make the existing Terminal capacity limitation less onerous to existing airlines serving the Airport and to attract new air carrier service, it is proposed that the Airport Procedures be amended by redistributing the 240 passenger per half hour limitation over the course of 24-hours, thereby creating a daily maximum allocation of 11,520 passengers. This redistribution will remain subject to the actual physical constraints of the Terminal facilities. Specifically, the capacity to accommodate flights and passengers is constrained by the number of Terminal ramps and gates available. Likewise, the Terminal building remains subject to fire and safety limitations, which could limit the building's capacity at any given time. In this way, passenger allocations in underutilized half-hour periods, such as the overnight and weekend slots, could be applied to the most demanding slot periods, thus allowing for more efficient use of the Terminal space. It should be noted that under the current model, airlines exceeding the passenger allocation limitation in any half-hour slot are issued a violation letter with the requirement that they reduce their passenger loads to ensure continued compliance. Under the proposed model, so long as the daily average of 11,520 is not exceeded among all airlines, the air carriers will remain in compliance with the procedures. In sum, the proposed amendments to the Airport Procedures will make the existing limitations on air carriers serving the Airport less restrictive, thereby improving the business relationship between the County and the air carriers. The Planning Department has advised that based on its review, a copy of which is attached, the proposed amendment of the Airport Procedures falls within the definition of an Unlisted action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act("SEQRA") and its implementing regulations 6 NYCRR Part 617. A Resolution, along with an Environmental Assessment Form, is attached to assist your Honorable Board in complying with SEQRA. Should your Honorable Board conclude that the proposed action will not have any significant adverse impact on the environment, it must approve the Resolution issuing a Negative Declaration prior to enacting the authorizing the proposed Local Law. As you know, your Honorable Board may utilize the professional advice and assistance of the Planning Department in making your required determination under the applicable SEQRA regulations I have been advised that pursuant to the Laws of Westchester County Section 209.171(2), the attached Local Law is subject to permissive referendum because it changes a provision of law relating to contracts. Consequently, the proposed Local Law may not take effect until sixty (60) days after its adoption, assuming that within that time a petition protesting its adoption is not filed by the number of qualified electors qualified by law. For the foregoing reasons, I recommend approval of the attached Local law to amend the Airport Procedures. Very truly yours, Robert P. Astorino County Executive RPAJJPIdly HONORABLE BOARD OF LEGISLATORS THE COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER,NEW YORK Your Committee is in receipt of a communication from the County Executive recommending the adoption of the annexed Local Law which, if approved by your Honorable Board, would amend Section 712.462 of the Laws of Westchester County, entitled: Westchester County Airport Terminal Use Procedures ("Airport Procedures") in order to make the existing limitations on air carrier operations contained therein more flexible, thereby improving the business relationship between the County and the air carriers serving the Westchester County Airport(the"Airport"). As this Honorable Board knows, the Airport Procedures provide important protections for the people of Westchester County and represent a careful balance between competing interests at the Airport. They also provide an efficient mechanism to support the County's investment in passenger facilities, the continuing maintenance and operation of the Terminal complex, and the implementation of passenger and aircraft security and safety measures. As this Honorable Board also knows, the Airport Procedures have been in continuous effect since 1984, both through the operation of several Resolutions approved by your Honorable Board and pursuant to the specific provisions of the agreements which the County required each commercial airline operating out of the Airport to execute. In 2004, upon the recommendation of the County Executive, this Honorable Board codified the Airport Procedures by enacting Local Law No. 12-2004, making their application permanent. Thereafter, by Local Law No. 21-2005, this Honorable Board amended the Airport Procedures in order to clarify that they apply to all aviation passenger services which operate out of the Airport pursuant to which seats are individually offered or sold to the public, -regardless of the frequency of such offers or sales. Your Committee is advised that a significant limitation placed on air carrier operations at the Airport by the Airport Procedures is the 240 per half hour passenger limitation. Under this limitation, no more than 240 passengers per half hour are permitted in the main passenger Terminal, without consideration of whether such passengers are enplaning or deplaning. This limitation is allocated to the airlines through a lottery system that has been in place since 1984. Your Committee is informed that at the time the Airport Procedures were first implemented, the existing passenger Terminal was a 10,000 square foot Quonset but and the majority of aircraft using the Terminal were 8 to 30-seat propeller driven aircraft. As your Honorable Board is aware, the passenger Terminal has since grown to 41,000 square feet and the aircraft using the Terminal include much larger 50 to 156 seat modern jet aircraft. Additionally, the newer aircraft that have entered the market have advanced wing and engine designs that have improved fuel efficiency, resulting in reduced hydrocarbon emissions. Further, your Committee is advised that the advancement in jet engine technology has significantly reduced the community noise footprint. Yet despite these changes, the 240-passenger per half hour limitation has remained in effect. Your Committee is advised that as a consequence of the current limitation, air carriers serving the Airport are unable to increase the size of their aircraft or start new service due to the lack of available passenger allocations in various slot periods. For example, with the operation of jetBlue's A-320 and E-190 (156 seats and 100 seats, respectively), the allocation for the two (2) half-hour periods (arrival and departure) would exceed the 240-passenger per half-hour limit. Subsequently, it also leaves two gate positions empty because of lack of passenger allocations. Similarly, four (4) 76-seater aircraft would exceed the two (2) half-hour passenger allocations for their arrival and departures by 128 passengers. Your Committee is advised that in addition to placing constraints on existing airlines serving the Airport, the passenger capacity limitation has resulted in the County being unable to attract new air carrier service. With aircraft manufacturers such as Embraer and Bombardier forecasting a market for approximately 7,000 new aircraft with larger seating capacities over the next 15 years, it is critical that the County address the current passenger capacity limitations at this time. Your Committee is advised that in an effort to make the existing Terminal capacity limitation less onerous to existing airlines serving the Airport and to attract new air carrier service, it is proposed that the Airport Procedures be amended by redistributing the 240 passenger per half hour limitation over the course of 24-hours, thereby creating a daily maximum allocation of 11,520 passengers. This redistribution will remain subject to the actual physical constraints of the Terminal facilities. Specifically, the capacity to accommodate flights and passengers is constrained by the number of Terminal ramps and gates available. Likewise, the Terminal building remains subject to fire and safety limitations, which could limit the building's capacity at any given time. In this way, passenger allocations in underutilized half-hour periods, such as the overnight and weekend slots, could be applied to the most demanding slot periods, thus allowing for more efficient use of the Terminal space by the airlines. Your Committee is advised that under the current model, airlines exceeding the passenger allocation limitation in any half-hour slot are issued a violation letter with the requirement that they reduce their passenger loads to ensure continued compliance. Under the proposed model, so long as the daily average of 11,520 is not exceeded among all the airlines, the air carriers will remain in compliance with the procedures. In sum, your Committee believes the proposed amendments to the Airport Procedures will make the existing limitations placed on airlines serving the Airport less restrictive, thereby improving the business relationship between the County and the air carriers serving the Airport. The Planning Department has advised that based on its review, the proposed amendment of the Airport Procedures is an Unlisted Action, pursuant to Part 617 of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA"). A Resolution and Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) are attached to assist your Honorable Board in complying with SEQRA. Your Committee has carefully considered the EAF and the applicable SEQRA regulations. For the reasons set forth in the attached EAF, your Committee believes that this proposed action will not have any significant adverse impact on the environment and accordingly recommends passage of the annexed Resolution prior to enacting the Local Law to amend the Airport Procedures. Your Committee has been advised that pursuant to the Laws of Westchester County Section 209.171(2), the proposed Local Law is subject to permissive referendum because it changes a provision of law relating to contracts. Consequently, the proposed Local Law may not take effect until sixty(60) days after its adoption, assuming that within that time a petition protesting its adoption is not filed by the number of qualified electors qualified by law. Your Committee has carefully considered the proposed legislation and recommends that your Honorable Board adopt the proposed Local Law that would amend the Airport Procedures. It should be noted that a vote of not less than a majority of the voting strength of the Board of Legislators is required to pass the Local Law. Dated: , 2016 White Plains,New York COMMITTEE ON C/DLV 2-5-16 FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT SUBJECT: Amend WCA Terminal use Procedure- F-RINO FISCAL IMPACT PROJECTED OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT To Be Completed by Submitting Department and Reviewed by Budget SECTION A-FUND =GENERAL FUND I A JAIRPORT FUND =SPECIAL DISTRICTS FUND SECTION B-EXPENSES AND REVENUES Total Current Year Expense $ Total Current Year Revenue $ Source of Funds (check one): =Current Appropriations =Transfer of Existing Appropriations =Additional Appropriations Other (explain) Identify Accounts: Fund 161 Org 44 Unit 4110 Potential Related Operating Budget Expenses: Annual Amount -$0 Describe: Cannot be determined at this time Potential Related Operating Budget Revenues: Annual Amount -$O Describe: Cannot be determined at this time Anticipated Savings to County and/or Impact on Department Operations: Cu rre nt Year: Next Four Years: Prepared by: Mark Medwid f Title: Sr, Budget Analyst Reviewed By: Department: Budget Dept Budget Director Date: February S, 2016 Date: RESOLUTION NO. - 2016 RESOLVED, that this Board hold a public hearing pursuant to Section 209.141(4) of the Laws of Westchester County on Local Law Intro. No. —2016 entitled"A LOCAL LAW to amend Section 712.462 of the Laws of Westchester County in order to make the existing limitations on air carrier operations contained therein more flexible". The public hearing will be held at m. on the day of 12016 in the Chambers of the Board of Legislators, 8th Floor, Michaelian Office Building, White Plains,New York. The Clerk of the Board shall cause notice of the time and date of such hearing to be published at least once in one or more newspapers published in the County of Westchester and selected by the Clerk of the Board for that purpose in the manner and time required by law. Dated: , 2016 White Plains,New York RESOLUTION NO. - 2016 WHEREAS, there is pending before this Honorable Board a Local Law to amend Section 712.462 of the Laws of Westchester County in order to make the existing limitations on air carrier operations contained therein more flexible; and WHEREAS, this Honorable Board has determined that the proposed Local Law would constitute an action under Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law,known as the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA"); and WHEREAS, pursuant to SEQRA and its implementing regulations (6 New York Code of Rules and Regulations Part 617), this action is classified as an Unlisted action, which requires this Honorable Board to make a determination as to whether the proposed action will have a significant impact on the environment; and WHEREAS, the County of Westchester is the only involved agency for this action and, therefore, is assuming the role of Lead Agency; and WHEREAS, in accordance with SEQRA and its implementing regulations, an Environmental Assessment Form has been prepared to assist this Honorable Board in its environmental assessment of this proposed action; and WHEREAS, this Honorable Board has carefully considered the proposed action and has reviewed the attached short Environmental Assessment Form and the criteria set forth in Section 617.7 of the implementing regulations and has identified the relevant areas of environmental concern, as described in the attached Environmental Assessment Form, to determine if this proposed action will have an effect upon the environment. NOW,THEREFORE,be it resolved by the County Board of Legislators of the County of Westchester, State of New York, as follows: RESOLVED, that based upon the Honorable Board's review of the Environmental Assessment Form and for the reasons set forth therein, this Board finds that there will be no significant adverse impact on the environment from the Local Law amending Section 712.462 of the Laws of Westchester County in order to make the existing limitations on air carrier operations contained therein more flexible; and be it further RESOLVED, the Clerk of the Board of Legislators, as responsible officer in Lead Agency, is authorized and directed to sign the Determination of Significance in the attached Environmental Assessment Form, which Form is made a part hereof, to issue this "Negative Declaration" on behalf of this Board pursuant to Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law; and to immediately transmit same to the Commissioner of Planning to be filed, published and made available pursuant to the requirements of Part 617 of New York Code of Rules and Regulations; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Resolution shall take effect immediately. 61 7.20 Appendix B Short Environmental Assessment Form Instructions for Completing Part 1-Project Information. The applicant or project sponsor is responsible for the completion of Part 1. Responses become part of the application for approval or funding,are subject to public review,and may be subject to further verification. Complete Part 1 based on information currently available. If additional research or investigation would be needed to fully respond to any item,please answer as thoroughly as possible based on current information. Complete all items in Part 1. You may also provide any additional information which you believe will be needed by or useful to the lead agency;attach additional pages as necessary to supplement any item. Part 1-Project and Sponsor Information Name of Action or Project: Westchester County Airport Terminal Use Procedures Project Location(describe,and attach a location map): Westchester County Airport,Harrison,Rye Brook and North Castle,Westchester County,NY Brief Description of Proposed Action: Amend Section 712.462 of the Laws of Westchester County,entitled:Westchester County Airport Terminal Use Procedures,to change the passenger limits from 240 per half hour to 11,520 per day. See attached narrative for further elaboration. Name of Applicant or Sponsor: Telephone: (914)995-4400 County of Westchester E-Mail: dsk2@westchestergov.com Address: 148 Martine Avenue City/PO: State: Zip Code: White Plains NY 10601 1.Does the proposed action only involve the legislative adoption of a plan,local law,ordinance, NO YES administrative rule,or regulation? If Yes,attach a narrative description of the intent of the proposed action and the environmental resources that El F0 may be affected in the municipality and proceed to Part 2. If no,continue to question 2. 2. Does the proposed action require a permit,approval or funding from any other governmental Agency? NO YES If Yes,list agency(s)name and permit or approval: ❑ ❑ 3.a.Total acreage of the site of the proposed action? acres b.Total acreage to be physically disturbed? acres c.Total acreage(project site and any contiguous properties)owned or controlled by the applicant or project sponsor? acres 4. Check all land uses that occur on,adjoining and near the proposed action. Urban ❑Rural(non-agriculture) ❑Industrial ❑Commercial ❑Residential(suburban) ❑Forest ❑Agriculture ❑Aquatic F-1 Other(specify): ❑Parkland Page 1 of 4 5. Is the proposed action, NO YES N/A a.A permitted use under the zoning regulations? 1:1 1-1 1:1 b.Consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan? El � El 6. Is the proposed action consistent with the predominant character of the existing built or natural NO YES landscape? 7. Is the site of the proposed action located in,or does it adjoin,a state listed Critical Environmental Area? NO YES If Yes,identify: ❑ El 8. a.Will the proposed action result in a substantial increase in traffic above present levels? NO YES F-1 El b.Are public transportation service(s)available at or near the site of the proposed action? 1-1 F-1 c.Are any pedestrian accommodations or bicycle routes available on or near site of the proposed action? F I F1 9.Does the proposed action meet or exceed the state energy code requirements? NO YES If the proposed action will exceed requirements,describe design features and technologies: El 0 10. Will the proposed action connect to an existing public/private water supply? NO YES If No,describe method for providing potable water: F] F] 11.Will the proposed action connect to existing wastewater utilities? NO YES If No,describe method for providing wastewater treatment: El 0 12. a.Does the site contain a structure that is listed on either the State or National Register of Historic NO YES Places? 0 F-1 F-1 b.Is the proposed action located in an archeological sensitive area? ❑ = 13.a.Does any portion of the site of the proposed action,or lands adjoining the proposed action,contain NO YES wetlands or other waterbodies regulated by a federal,state or local agency? 1-1 EL b.Would the proposed action physically alter,or encroach into,any existing wetland or waterbody? F-1 El If Yes,identify the wetland or waterbody and extent of alterations in square feet or acres: 14. Identify the typical habitat types that occur on,or are likely to be found on the project site. Check all that apply: El Shoreline El Forest El Agricultural/grasslands F-1 Early mid-successional 0 Weiland M Urban M Suburban 15.Does the site of the proposed action contain any species of animal,or associated habitats,listed NO YES by the State or Federal government as threatened or endangered? 16.Is the project site located in the 100 year flood plain? NO YES 17.Will the proposed action create storm water discharge,either from point or non-point sources? NO YES If Yes, a.Will storm water discharges flow to adjacent properties? ❑NO EJYES El El b.Will storm water discharges be directed to established conveyance systems(runoff and storm drains)? If Yes,briefly describe: E]NO AYES Page 2 of 4 18.Does the proposed action include construction or other activities that result in the impoundment of NO YES water or other liquids(e.g.retention pond,waste lagoon,dam)? If Yes,explain purpose and size: 19.Has the site of the proposed action or an adjoining property been the location of an active or closed NO , YES solid waste management facility? If Yes,describe: 20.Has the site of the proposed action or an adjoining property been the subject of remediation(ongoing or NO YES completed)for hazardous waste? If Yes,describe: F] F I AFFIRM THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Applicant/sponsor nMe--Dpvl'd Kvinge,!Irect of Environmental Planning Date: February 5,2016 Signature: Part 2-Impact Assessment. The Lead Agency is responsible for the completion of Part 2. Answer all of the following questions in Part 2 using the information contained in Part I and other materials submitted by the project sponsor or otherwise available to the reviewer. When answering the questions the reviewer should be guided by the concept"Have my responses been reasonable considering the scale and context of the proposed action?" No,or Moderate small to large impact impact may may occur occur 1. Will the proposed action create a material conflict with an adopted land use plan or zoning regulations? FV] 0 2. Will the proposed action result in a change in the use or intensity of use of land? FV I El 3. Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of the existing community? 21 El 4. Will the proposed action have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area(CEA)? F] 5. Will the proposed action result in an adverse change in the existing level of traffic or affect existing infrastructure for mass transit,biking or walkway? F-1 6. Will the proposed action cause an increase in the use of energy and it fails to incorporate reasonably available energy conservation or renewable energy opportunities? FV-1 0_ rt 7. Will the proposed action impact existing: a.public/private water supplies? b.public/private wastewater treatment utilities? Z El 8. Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of important historic,archaeological, architectural or aesthetic resources? Z 0- 9. Will the proposed action result in an adverse change to natural resources(e.g.,wetlands, waterbodies,groundwater,air quality,flora and fauna)? Z El Page 3 of 4 No,or Moderate small to large impact impact may may occur occur 10. Will the proposed action result in an increase in the potential for erosion,flooding or drainageElproblems? 11. Will the proposed action create a hazard to environmental resources or human health? Part 3-Determination of significance. The Lead Agency is responsible for the completion of Part 3. For every question in Part 2 that was answered"moderate to large impact may occur",or if there is a need to explain why a particular element of the proposed action may or will not result in a significant adverse environmental impact,please complete Part 3. Part 3 should,in sufficient detail,identify the impact,including any measures or design elements that have been included by the project sponsor to avoid or reduce impacts. Part 3 should also explain how the lead agency determined that the impact may or will not be significant.Each potential impact should be assessed considering its setting,probability of occurring, duration,irreversibility,geographic scope and magnitude. Also consider the potential for short-term,long-term and cumulative impacts. The proposed terminal use modifications would allow unused allocations from overnight time slots to be added to the more demanding time slots, which may cause an overall increase in passengers using the County Airport,in addition to increasing the number of passengers that may move through the terminal in a given hour. The total number of passengers at any point in time,however,will still ultimately be limited by the available ramps and terminal space. The County Airport is and remains limited to four gates. Due to current airline aircraft sizes,the number of passengers that could be accommodated at these four gates is approximately 464 passengers per half hour.Although nearly double the current passenger limit,due to longer turnaround times associated with larger planes at the gates,the number of aircraft operations would actually be no greater. The passenger limit modification will merely allow existing jets to fill to capacity providing economies of scale. At the time that the capacity limit was first established,the total number of annual airport operations was 221,064,of which 26,052 were commercial(airline)operations that served a total of 234,690 passengers. Over time,the County Airport's fleet mix has changed from mostly turbo props to mostly jets,which have more seating. Total airport operations have declined through the years to a low of 137,151 in 2014. Commercial flights increased to a high of 48,639 in 1999,but then declined to a low 24,547 in 2014. Total number of passengers continued to rise into the 2000s,breaking the million mark in late 1997 and topping at 1,994,088 in 2010,before settling at 1,442,501 in 2014. As such,the proposed capacity limit modification would not generate more flights than in prior years. Noise impacts associated with airport operations have also improved overtime, In 1989,the County of Westchester designated the 60 Ldn noise contour associated with the Westchester County Airport as a Critical Environmental Area in order to ensure that airport noise levels are considered in connection with any proposed action. Since 1988,the County Airport's overall noise contours have contracted,due in part to the fleet changes and operation reductions mentioned above,as well as due to Federal Aviation Administration(FAA)noise standards which have resulted in quieter aircraft. Since the number of flights are not anticipated to exceed totals from prior years and since aircraft are quieter than before,the proposed capacity flexibility is not expected to alter any of the contours beyond 1988-89 levels. Similarly,current-day planes are also more fuel efficient,resulting in less air emissions than their predecessors.Coupled with no increase in aircraft operations beyond prior levels,there will be no additional air quality impacts. Ongoing advancements in aircraft technology associated with FAA's CLEEN program is expected to further improve fuel efficiency/facilitate use of alternative fuels,reduce noise and reduce air emissions from future aircraft. Since the proposed terminal use modification is not expected to increase aircraft operations,air emissions or noise beyond any pre-existing levels and since access to the airport is from a major highway and state roads that can accommodate any increase in vehicular traffic,no additional significant impacts on the surrounding community are anticipated. ElCheck this box if you have determined,based on the information and analysis above,and any supporting documentation, that the proposed action may result in one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts and an environmental impact statement is required. 571 Check this box if you have determined,based on the information and analysis above,and any supporting documentation, that the proposed action will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts. County of Westchester Name of Lead Agency Date Clerk and Chief Administrator to the Board of Legislators Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency ""f.of Respo 1i Officer Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer(if different from esponsible Officer) PRINT Page 4 of 4 Short Environmental Assessment Form Westchester County Airport- Terminal Use Amendment Part 1 —Narrative In 1985,the County entered into a Stipulation and Order of Partial Settlement and Dismissal, which established a capacity limit of 240 passengers per half hour for the Westchester County Airport terminal. This capacity limit was extended two times until 2004,when it was codified into law under Article IV of Chapter 712 of the Laws of Westchester County. At the time that the capacity limit was established, the terminal consisted of a Quonset but that was approximately 10,000 square feet in size and the majority of aircraft using the terminal were 8-to 30-seat propeller driven aircraft. The current terminal building is now 41,000 square feet and the aircraft using the terminal include much larger 50-to 156-seat modern jet aircraft. The terminal is limited to 4 ramps/gates. Under the current passenger limitations,the concurrent use of just 2 gates by these larger jets would exceed the capacity limit for one half hour period. The intent of the proposed action is to make the existing limitations on air carrier operations more flexible in order to meet the needs of the existing airlines at the airport and the public, as well as to attract new air carrier service. The proposed amendment will allow for the 240 per half hour passenger limit to be redistributed over the course of 24 hours. This will enable airlines to use larger jets, as well as allow for passenger allocations associated with the less desirable time slots to be reallocated to the more demanding time periods. The total allowable number of passengers per day will remain at 11,520. It is noted that the redistribution will be limited by the actual physical constraints of the terminal, including available ramps/gates and fire/safety limits of the building. Environmental resources that may potentially be affected include air, traffic and noise, which may also impact neighboring land uses. Christopher Bradbury From: Jack Robinson <robinsonairport@outlook.com> Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 1:04 PM To: Seth Pariser; Stewart Simon; geri depinto; Linda Landesman; Peter Schlactus Cc: Marcia Teschner; Raphael Fishbach;Judith Itzler;Jeffrey B. Rednick; Brad Hamburger; Korey Sassower; Christopher Bradbury; Mayor Paul S. Rosenberg Subject: Rye Brook Airport Advisory Council - 2/3/16 Update 2/3/16 WC Airport Advisory Board Meeting highlight: Peter Scherrer , Airport Manager presented the Airports rationale for the proposed revision of the Terminal Use Agreement "TUA" . It was a packed conference room. In addition to the WC Airport Advisory Board members which includes Legislator David Gelfarb there were citizens from the adjacent communities including Mayor Paul Rosenberg & Chris Bradbury Village Administrator, several member's of this council representing Rye Brook and Gary Zuckerman , Rye Town. Some implications of the proposed TUA revision for the adjacent communities include: Safety, Noise, Traffic, Environment and Negative impact on property values for homes in the flight path. Per Mr. Gelfarb in the minutes of the 11/18/15 WC Airport Advisory Meeting, the proposed TUA revision legislation has been sent to two WC Board of Legislators committees for discussion and review: the Legislation Committee and the Infrastructure Committee. Status "Still in committee" As I was outside of the room due to the overflow I missed some of the discussion. Other attending members can fill in the blanks when we meet or via email. Based on the presentation and questions raised at the WC Airport Advisory Board meeting last night I recommend that we meet this month. When: Thursday February 18th @ 7pm at the Village Hall Proposed Agenda • Comments and discussion of the WC Airport Meeting of last evening. Next steps for this group It would be helpful to have the Mayor's office provide this council their analysis of the implications of the proposed revision of the TUA that was shared by the Mayor last night and other feedback as well. In the meantime please free to share any suggestions,information or comments prior. Regards Jack Robinson / Chairperson z AGENDA WESTCHESTER COUNTY AIRPORT ADVISORY BOARD FEBRUARY 3, 2016 6:30 PM WESTCHESTER COUNTY AIRPORT TERMINAL CONFERENCE ROOM 1. Roll Call 2. Approval of Minutes of Previous Meeting — November 18, 2015 3. Correspondence • E-mail message from resident of Rye Brook (Seth Slomiak) 4. Airport Activity Report— November & December 2015 5. Noise Monitoring Report— November & December 2015 6. DPWT Commissioner's Report 7. Planning Commissioner's Report 8. Old Business 9. New Business 10.Public Comments 11.Adjournment The next Airport Advisory Board meeting is scheduled for February 24, 2016, unless otherwise specified. An AFCO Company Westchester County Airport 240 Airport Road,Suite 202 White Plains,New York 10604 Tel 914.995.4850 Fax 914.995.3980 www.avports.com January 8, 2016 Commissioner Jay T. Pisco, P. E. County of Westchester Department of Public Works &Transportation 148 Martine Avenue, Room 518 White Plains,NY 10601 Dear Commissioner Pisco: Enclosed please find the minutes of the Airport Advisory Board Meeting held on November 18, 2015. If you have any questions or need additional infonmation,please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, Peter Scherrer Airport Manager Westchester County Airport PSlvpe Enclosure Cc: Thomas Bartlett Joseph Nicoletti John Inserra Always Dependable. Always Accountable. Airport Advisory Board 11/18/2015 ATTENDANCE: MEMBERS PRESENT: JAY T. PISCO - COMMISSIONER-DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS &TRANSPORTATION ROCCO TURSO - HARRISON DAVID GELFARB - BOARD OF LEGISLATOR -- DISTRICT 6 HOWARD SCHUR - AT LARGE MARK RUBEO - MT. PLEASANT DONALD HEITHAUS - AT LARGE (CHAIRMAN) SAL CRESENZI AT LARGE (VICE CHAIRMAN) ABSENT: RICHARD CONRAD - NORTH CASTLE COUNTY STAFF: ROBERT FUNICELLO - ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT DIRECTOR GARY ZUCKERMAN - BOARD OF LEGISLATORS AvPORTS STAFF: PETER SCHERRER - AIRPORT MANAGER CHRISTOPHER QUAIL - NOISE ABATEMENT SPECIALIST JOHN INSERRA - ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGER DEREK COLBERT - USDA WILDLIFE HUGH FOX, JR. - DIRECTOR OF CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PUBLIC: ALLEN WILLIAMS - NORTHWEST GREENWICH ASSOCIATION STEWART SIMON - RYE BROOK JACK ROBINSON - RYE BROOK PETER SCHLACTUS - RYE BROOK LINDA LANDESMAN - RYE BROOK FRANK CAPUTIAL - PORT CHESTER SETH PARISER - BELLE FAIR GENE CECCARELLI - PORT CHESTER KEVIN WYMAN - PURCHASE JACKIE WYMAN - PURCHASE INGRID DELSON - NORTHWEST GREENWICH ASSOCIATION 1 • The meeting was called to order at 19:00 • Roll Call taken • The minutes of the October 2015 meeting were approved • Correspondence: o None John Inserra (AvPORTS): • Noise Monitor Report o October The airport received a total of 115 noise complaints from 18 households ■ The lead caller sent in 51 complaints ■ 56 complaints were received during the VRFF • 50 were HPN traffic • 4 unknown • 2 non-HPN traffic ■ 10 New York municipalities; 2 Connecticut ■ There were a total of 338 operations during the VRFF o There was one high range noise event during the month Jay Pisco (WCDPW&T) • DPW&T Report: • Airport Projects - Construction o Airline Operations Office 100% o Airport Perimeter Fence 5% o South Concourse Renovation 60% o Hangar A Apron and Deicing Collection System 100% o Terminal Lighting Upgrade 100% o Terminal Fans 100% o HVAC Improvements Phase 1100% o Hangar A Office Renovations 100% o Parking Lot D Rehabilitation 35% o Aircraft deicing fluid collection, system improvements and apron reconstruction at Terminal Contract 2 100% o Baggage Screening Building 10% o Aircraft deicing fluid collection, system improvements and apron reconstruction at Terminal Contract 3 50% o Terminal Boiler Replacement 95% o In-Line Baggage Screening Equipment 5% -2- • Airport Projects - Planning o Renovation of Terminal Loading Dock 95% o Storm Water Management Upgrade 30% o Airport Master Plan 85% o Rehabilitation of Runway 16134 60% o Environmental Review for Obstruction Removal at all Runway Safety Ends 30% o Electrical System upgrade-Automatic transfer switch 15KV 30% o Hangar E parking lot Rehabilitation 40% o South Concourse renovation and Jet Bridge installation 90% o Departure Lounge Improvements 30% • In response to a request from a member of the public, the Commissioner explained the process under which the Airport Master Plan has been developed and the planned meetings with both the Board and the public that will be held during the first half of 2016. A follow up question was asked if the projects in the Master Plan were part of the County's five-year capital plan. Mr. Pisco explained that the Master Plan includes a range of project options that will only be placed in the capital plan once a choice is made among the options. Old Business: ■ None New Business: • A question was asked regarding the proposed revision of the Terminal Use Agreement law (TUA). Commissioner Pisco explained that under the current TUA, large amounts of passenger allocations during overnight hours are going unused. Conversely, airlines are being forced to use smaller, less economical aircraft or leave with empty seats to comply with the 240 passenger limit. Under the proposal, the daily number of seats allowed would remain the same at 11,520 seats per day but could be used at any time. o Mr. Pariser of the Belle Fair community responded that the community has significant concerns about this proposal and has expressed this to their elected representatives and have asked that the legislation be put aside so both sides and discuss possible solutions that would result in a win-win scenario for both sides. • A question was asked by Mr. Ceccarelli to what role the Board has in opining on the revision of the TUA? Mr. Heithaus responded that the Board is designated to listen to proposed changes and to advise the County Executive on them. Mr. Ceccarelli went on express the opinion that the proposed changes to the TUA should be considered a type one action and be subject to a full environmental impact statement. -3- o Mr. Schur expressed the opinion that with the limited number of gates and the time that it takes to turn an aircraft the prosed changes would not result in a significant increase in the number of commercial flights. o In response to Mr. Schur, Mr. Cresenzi stated that the Board needs to take a stand against any changes in the restrictions on terminal operations. • Mr. Heithaus asked Commissioner Pisco when the Board would be presented with the Airport Master Plan update and have the opportunity to comment on the plan. Mr. Pisco explained that there will be a meeting with Board prior to the public meeting. Mr. Pisco will be meeting with the consultants after Thanksgiving and the schedule for the public meeting and the Board meetings will be figured out after that meeting. • Linda Landsman asked a question regarding a newspaper report of$30 million dollars being spent on improvements at the airport and want to know if these are included in the list of projects that are presented as part of the Commissioner's report or if they are new projects. o Commissioner Pisco responded that some of the projects such as the departure lounge improvements are part of the list in the report. The terminal building was designed with Pre 9111 aviation security in mind and this has resulted in a large loss of passenger space to security measures. The improvements will allow for additional passenger space, increased space for TSA operations and the potential for additional concession space in the secure area of the terminal. • A question was asked by a member of the public how much of an increase in flights was predicted. Commissioner Pisco responded that nobody was predicting any significant increase in flights, while it is hoped that the planned departure lounge renovations would help the airport attract additional air carriers. The airport and the County do not anticipate any significant increase in the number of air carrier flights. • Mr. David Gelfarb reports that he held a meeting on November 9th with the Mayors of Port Chester, Rye Brook, and Harrison and Peter Scherrer to discuss the proposed TUA legislation. Mr. Gelfarb also gave a long presentation on the proposed legislation to the County legislative committee and stated that the Board of Legislators is well aware of the concerns expressed. • Mr. Allen Williams asked if FAA had put any pressure on the airport during a recent meeting to shift flights to HPN from the region's major airports. Mr. Pisco stated there was no discussion about it during the meeting. • Mr. Pariser ask what improvements are being made to the handling of deicing fluid to avoid the odor that has affected the community in prior winters. o Mr. Funicello responded that the County has a project in the design phase to improve both detention basins. The County did consider a"quick and dirty" -4- project to dredge the detention basins, however the basins were also constructed as mitigation wetlands due to a DEC mandate to change the drainage of the airport so it would no longer drain to the Kensico Reservoir and it was necessary to mitigate the flow of water to the Blind Brook to prevent flooding. The only location that was available was a federally designated wetland. As such, any changes to the detention basins would require the approval of the Corps of Engineers. The County Planning Department concluded that it would not be possible to get the needed approvals in time to do the work this year. Therefore, the County is hoping to be able to get the permits in time to do the work in 2016. The Airport and the County are in the process of a$30 million dollar project to increase the area covered by the spent deicing fluid collection system with the third phase recently completed. • A question was asked by a member of the public as to the Board's role in the process of proposing the change to the TUA. o Mr. Gelfarb responded that he does not know of any way for the administration to propose changes in the law without submitting it to the Board of Legislators for a vote but that any change of this nature would require a public hearing after it has been voted on by the Board. • Mr. Heithaus expressed the concern about the County is attempting to do an end run around the Advisory Board as related to the proposed TUA changes. o Mr. Pisco responded that it is not anybody's intention to bypass this Board, however he is not aware of any requirement that things done at the airport have to come through this Board for approval before they are done, and that the TUA changes are now before the Board of Legislators. Mr. Heithaus stated that he considered that to be an end run around the AAB and questioned what was the point of the Board if they are not going to advise the County on airport matters. o Mr. Fox responded that the Board's role is to listen to the public and had done so at this and at the October meeting. If they wish to voice their opinion on the matter with the County, they should do so by voting on the issue and sending a letter to the Board of Legislators or the County administration. o Mr. Rubeo agreed with Mr. Fox that if the Board feels it should make a recommendation that it should make one. The role of the Board is to serve as a conduit of public opinion to the Board of Legislators. Mr. Rubeo encouraged all interested members of the public to contact the Board of Legislators and to participate in any public hearings that are held on the issue. • A concern was expressed by Mr. Peter Schlactus about the Board's lack of a history of making recommendations to the County. -5- • Mr.Heithaus initiated a discussion among the Board members as to if they feel the Board is being sidelined by the County government. Mr. Turso and Mr. Schur expressed the opinion that they do not believe that County is trying to sideline the Board and the airport and County have provided information in a timely and complete fashion. Mr. Cresenzi stated that the Board should express its view to the County. Mr. Fox reiterated that if the Board feels that it needs to express an opinion on a subject with the County it should do so. No conclusion was reached by the Board. • Mr. Kevin Wyman asked for clarification on where the TUA legislation is in the legislative process. o Mr. Gelfarb responded that the proposed legislation has been sent to two committees, the Legislation Committee and the Infrastructure Committee both of which have discussed the issue at length and will be performing additional review of the proposal. While there are no formal public hearings on legislation prior to a vote being held, the public is welcome to attend committee meetings at the County Government offices in White Plains. The proposed legislation is also available online. • Mr. Heithaus expressed his disappointment that the AAB had not been informed of the proposed legislation. • Mr. Zuckerman explained that the legislation is not currently on the committee schedule and will not be until placed there by the committee chair. There will not be a public hearing on the legislation until it has been passed by the committee. • Mr. Funicello gave an explanation of how the current TUA was codified into county law in 2004 and how the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 limits restrictions that can be placed on airports. • Mr. Ceccarelli expressed the opinion that it would be better to have the Board speak on the issue rather than individuals who would have limited time to speak at a public hearing. • Mr. Peter Schlactus expressed the concern that with the removal of the half hourly limit on the passengers there will be no effective limits on the growth of traffic at the airport, resulting in increased risk to the environment and safety of the surrounding communities. He wants the Board to express the opinion that the process should include a full environmental review of the proposed changes. o Mr. Heithaus stated that the Board is an autonomous body,but that it will convey the concerns presented at the meeting to the County government. • A question was asked about trees impacting the approach of the airport's crosswind runway and if the reduced length of the runway led to higher use of the primary runway. It was explained that runway use is mainly determined by wind direction and that at this time the reduced length of the runway has not led to a significant increase in operations on the primary runway. • Meeting Adjourned 20:30 Esters, Victoria From: Scherrer, Peter Sent: Friday, December 04, 2015 2:57 PM To: Esters, Victoria Subject: FW:Amendment to Section 721.462 ("Airport Procedures") Attachments: Legal Disclaimer.txt From: AirportWeb Sent: Friday, December 04, 2015 9:33 AM To: Scherrer, Peter; Ferguson, Stephen Subject: FW: Amendment to Section 721,462 ("Airport Procedures") For your review? Thanks, Gerri From: seth.slomiak@ubs.com [mailto:seth.slomiak@ubs.com] Sent: Friday, December 04, 2015 8:22 AM To: AirportWeb Subject: Amendment to Section 721.462 ("Airport Procedures") To the Airport Advisory Board, I am writing in regards to a potential amendment to Section 721.462 ("Airport Procedures")which indicates a more flexible approach to the existing limitations on air carriers at the Westchester Airport. I am VERY concerned as this proposal will have major impact on the surrounding area including but not limited to increased noise, increased air pollution, increased vehicle traffic, increased environmental impact on the surrounding land, increase of noxious odors, increased issues with storm water management and pollution of said water which will further exacerbate the existing serious issue regarding water quality in the Long Island Sound. I strongly urge you and those responsible for this proposed change to not allow a vote to be taken before the surrounding communities have a chance to fully study this law and provide input. More importantly than that, I strongly urge you and those responsible for this proposed change to have a full environmental impact study completed and not to use the "Short Form Assessment"that is currently being used. Regards, Seth Slomiak (Concerned Resident of Rye Brook) 1 An AFCO Company Westchester County Airport 240 Airport Road,Suite 202 White Plains,New York 10604 Tel 914.995.4850 Fax 914.995.3980 www.avports.com December 22, 2015 Commissioner Jay T.Pisco,P. E. County of Westchester Department of Public Works&Transportation 148 Martine Avenue,Room 518 White Plains,NY 10601 Dear Cormnissioner Pisco: In accordance with Article Two,Paragraph(f) (1), Schedule 2, of our Management Agreement, I am transmitting herewith the Westchester County Airport Activity Report for the month of November 2015. Also, enclosed is a list of operators with six or more VRFF occurrences for the month of October 2015. If you have any questions,or require additional information, please feel free to contact me. a truly yours, Peter Sc rrer Airport Manager Westchester County Airport PSlvpe Enclosures cc: Thomas Bartlett Joseph Nicoletti John Inserra Always Dependable. Always Accountable. December 22, 2015 To: Commissioner Jay T. Pisco, P. E. Department of Public Works &Transportation From; Peter Scherrer Airport Manager RE: WESTCHESTER COUNTY AIRPORT ACTIVITY FOR NOVEMBER 2015 1. Movements Aircraft movements for November 2015 totaled 11,988, up 16.8% from November 2014. Jet movements for November were 6,907, up 0.8% from the same month of the previous year. 2. Alerts 1 Year-to-date 24 There was one aircraft alert in the month of November. The Pilot in Command (PIC) of a Beechcraft Baron BE55 private twin engine propeller aircraft reported a burning electrical smell inside of the cockpit just after departing Runway 34, PIC made an immediate return to the airfield and landed safely on Runway 29 without incident. Human Remains Log: No souls were transported. Wildlife Control Log: Westchester County aircraft recorded seven (7) aircraft bird and wildlife strikes during November. Note, only five (5) strikes occurred at the HPN airfield and none were identified as a triggering event for reviewing the Wildlife Hazard Management Plan or caused any damage or injury. Four(4) bird strikes are identified as small song bird species and one (1) bird strike involved an American Kestrel. Additionally, in the month of November, the airport's USDA Wildlife Biologist harassed over 280 Ring-billed gulls. 3. Personnel Quota 60 + 2 part-time employees On payroll November 301h 47 + 12 part-time employees + 4 temporaries Airline Services: 99 employees 4. Tours: 1 Year-to-date: 2 Adults 12 22 Children 0 0 -2- 5. Weather VFR IFR Below Minimums 98% 2.0% 0% Westchester County Airport Operations activated the Runway 16 SA Category II Aircraft Approach two (2)times for a total duration of 4 hours and 17 minutes during the month of November. 6. Construction The Terminal's new electric room is out to bid with the pre-construction meeting scheduled for December 11. The South Boarding Pier is out to bid with the pre-construction meeting scheduled for December 11. Hangar"D" parking rehabilitation --the installation of the gas line was completed from the Terminal to Hangar"W". The Baggage Screening Building —the construction of the building foundations, footings and the concrete slab are complete. The bids for deposal of the belt loaders and stair trucks —old batteries were received and U. S. Material Handling won the bid. The demo electric pushback tug is scheduled to be delivered on December 11. The Terminal boiler replacement—the new boilers are operating but there are issues that need to be addressed. The UTI has proposal for additional cameras in the baggage rooms, card access in Building 1 and emergency alert system through the Terminal require additional funds before this change order can be processed. Still waiting for drawings for tree removal and landscaping in the easement of the Fox Property from the County Planning Department. DPW highway section has submitted a layout for parking and for road alignment for Hangar Road between Hangar"C-1" and Hangar"F"for our review. The concrete knee wall for Hangar"C-1"was poured, and we are waiting for material for the construction of the upper wall. We received a proposal for the installation of heaters from Southeast Mechanical. The installation fiber throughout the Airport will have to wait until 2016. -3- County Survey has located the underground conduits for the FAA for their replacement of their electrical feeders and telephone meeting will be held on December 15 to discuss. Johnson Controls has installed the replacement ARFF HVAC unit. 7. Noise Complaints 96 Year-to-date: 1,392 The 96 noise complaints were generated by 19 households. Two households called in 10 or more complaints. The lead caller reported 57 complaints. In November 2014, we received 248 noise complaints. Night Noise Complaints 00:01-06:30 47* * 1 not HPN traffic, 0 general and 4 unknown complaints. Visitors to Noise Abatement Office 0 Adults 0 Children 8. Night Operations NOV. 2014 NOV. 2015 2015 00:01-06:30 00:01-06:30 Y-to-D Jet Aircraft 218 251 2,588 Propeller Aircraft 19 57 386 Helicopter 4 7 67 9. Airline Passenger Count OCT. OCT. Y-to-D Y-to-D 2014 2015 2014 2015 Enplaned Passengers 66,759 65,066 601,382 611,223 Deplaned Passengers 64,474 62,107 600,629 607,802 -4- 10. Heavy Aircraft Operations 22 Corporate + 234 jetBlue = 256 Peter Scherrer Cc: Thomas Bartlett Joseph Nicoletti John Inserra OPERATORS WITH 6 OR MORE OCCURRENCES DURING THE VRFF FOR THE MONTH OF OCTOBER 2015 OPERATOR OCCURRENCES Air Wisconsin 60 Atlantic Southeast Airlines 47 NetJets/NetJet Sales/Int'l 27 Beacon Air 21 Cygnus Lift LLC 11 jetBlue Airways 9 Executive Jet Management 6 AIRCRAFT LANDINGS -WESTCHESTER COUNTY AIRPORT MONTH OF NOVEMBER 2015 YEAR-TO-DATE _ 2014 2015 % Change 2014 2015 % Chang_e_ AIRPORT Light GA 265 722 172.5 4,827 6,9821 44.6 Heavy GA 2.72. 208 -23.5 2,237 2,4471 9.4 TOTAL 1 5371 9301 73.21 1 7,0641 9,4291 33.5 TRANSIENT Light GA 690 1,219 76.7 14,1321 15,315 8.4 Heavy GA 2,223 2,228 0.2 24,3271 23,845 -2.0 TOTAL 2,9131 3,447 1 18.31 1 38,4591 39,1601 1.8 COMMUTERS 7021 671 -4.41 7,840 7,228 -7.8 AIR CARRIERS 276 320 15.91 3,387 3,479 2.7 GOVERNMENT 0 2 0.01 17 10 -41.2 TOUCH AND GOS 696 614 -11.81 7,246 6,321 -12.8 1 1 - 1- GRAND TOTAL 1 5,1241 5,9841 16.81 1 64,0131 65,6271 2.5 AIRPORT/TRANSIENT COMBINED Light GA 955 1,9411 103.2 18,9591 22,297 17.6 Heavy GA 2,495 2,4361 -2.4 26,5641 26,292 -1.0 TOTAL 3,450 1 . 4,3771 26.91 1 45,5231 48,5891 6.7 A/P Based-Turbo Props 22 571 159.1 638 871 36.5 -Pure Jets 272 208 -23.51 2,2351 2,513 12.4 Transient-Turbo Props 461 581 26.0 6,3141 6,903 9.3 -Pure Jets 3,139 3,234 3.0 34,3741 34,131 -0.7 Combined-Turbo Props 483 638 32.1 6,9521 7,774 11.8 -Pure Jets 3,411 3,442 0.9 36,6091 36,644 0.1 WESTCHESTER COUNTY AIRPORT-2015 TOTAL OPERATIONS JET OPERATIONS 2014 2015 %CHANGE %CHANGE _ 2014 2015 %CHANGE %CHANGE 2014 Y-To-D 2015 Y-To-D MONTH Y-To-D _ 2014 Y-To-11 2015 Y-To-D MONTH YEAR JANUARY 8,761 8,761 7,455 7,455 -14.9 -14.9_ 6,275 6,275 5,872 5,872 -6.4 -6.4 FEBRUARY 8,575 17,336 8,605 16,060 0.3 -7.4_ 6,202 12,477 6,104 11,976 -1.6 -4.0 MARCH 11,148 28,484 9,907 25,967 -11.1 -8.8_ 7,084 19,561 6,826 18,802 3.6 -3.9 APRIL 11,404 39,888 11,095 37,062 -2.7 -7.1 _ 6,725 26,286 6,621 25,423 -1.5 -3.3 MAY 11,712 51,600 12,599 49,661 7.6 -3.8_ 6,392 32,678 7,256 32,679 13.5 0.0 JUNE 12,950 64,550 12,687 62,348 -2.0 -3.4_ 6,313 38,991 6,368 39,047 0.9 0.1 JULY 13,702 78,252 15,523 77,871 13.3 -0.5_ 6,768 45,759 6,588 45,635 -2.7 -0.3 AUGUST 14,203 92,455 14,971 92,842 5.4 0.4_ 6,530 52,289 6,653 52,288 1.9 0.0 SEPTEMBER 12,744 105,199 13,674 106,516 7 1 _ 6,652 58,941 6,921 59,209 4 0 OCTOBER 12,582 117,781 12,784 119,300 1.6 1.3_ 7,391 66,332 7,213 66,422 -2.4 0.1 NOVEMBER 10,264 128,045 11,988 131,288 16.8 2.5_ 6,852 73,184 6,907 73,329 0.8 0.2 DECEMBER 9,106 137,151 6,394 79,578 TOTAL FUEL FLOW 2014 2015 %CHANGE %CHANGE _ 2014 Y-To-D 2015 Y-To-D MONTH Y-To-D JANUARY 2,780,310 2,780,310 2,509,839 2,509,839 -9.7 -9.7_ FEBRUARY 2,663,926 5,444,236 2,446,544 4,956,383 -8.2 -9.0_ MARCH 2,960,571 8,404,807 2,739,994 7,696,377 -7.5 -8.4_ APRIL 2,709,201 11,114,008 2,520,827 10,217,204 -7.0 -8.1 _ MAY 2,426,013 13,540,021 2,584,814 12,802,018 6.5 -5.5_ JUNE 2,468,682 16,008,703 2,387,514 15,189,532 -3.3 -5.1 _ JULY 2,646,1871 18,654,8901 21424,761 17,614,293 -8.4 -5.6_ AUGUST 1 2,409,6001 21,064,4901 2,364,635 19,978,928 -1.9 -5.2_ SEPTEMBER 1 2,491,4281 23,555,9181 2,406,543 22,385,471 -3.4 -5.0_ OCTOBER 2,639,134 26,195,052 2,549,115 24,934,586 -3.41 -4.8_ NOVEMBER 2,572,788 28,767,840 2,562,388 27,496,974 -0.4 -4.4_ DECEMBER 2,559,385 31,327,225 An AFCO Company Westchester County Airport 240 Airport Road,Suite 202 White Plains,New York 10604 Tel 914.995.4850 Fax 914.995.3980 www.avports.com January 20,2016 Commissioner Jay T. Pisco, P. E. County of Westchester Department of Public Works&Transportation 148 Martine Avenue,Room 518 White Plains,NY 10601 Dear Commissioner Pisco: In accordance with Article Two,Paragraph(f) (1), Schedule 2, of our Management Agreement, I am transmitting herewith the Westchester County Airport Activity Report for the month of December 2015. Also, enclosed is a list of operators with six or more VRFF occurrences for the month of November 2015. If you have any questions,or require additional information,please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, e er Scherrer Airport Manager Westchester County Airport PSlvpe Enclosures cc: Thomas Bartlett Joseph Nicoletti John Inserra Always Dependable. Always Accountable. January 20, 2016 To; Commissioner Jay T. Pisco, P. E. Department of Public Works &Transportation From: Peter Scherrer Airport Manager RE: WESTCHESTER COUNTY AIRPORT ACTIVITY FOR DECEMBER 2015 1. Movements Aircraft movements for December 2015 totaled 10,279, up 12.9% from December 2014. Jet movements for December were 6,137, down 4.0% from the same month of the previous year. 2. Alerts 3 Year-to-date 27 There were three aircraft alerts in the month of December. The Pilot in Command (PIC) of a Cessna Centurion C-210 private single engine propeller aircraft reported being unable to deploy landing gear and requested a low fly-by for visual inspection. Pilot was unable to manually deploy landing gear and executed an emergency "Gear-Up" landing on Runway 29. Airport Operations initiated an Aircraft Emergency Response with mutual aid assistance. There was minor damage to aircraft, no fire and the PIC and Co-Pilot were the only two persons on board that walked away from incident injury free. PIC of a Gulfstream G450 private corporate jet aircraft during instrument meteorological conditions with limited horizontal visibility landed on Runway 16, aircraft travelled past the runway end and the overrun pavement area exiting into the grass turf. PIC and Co-Pilot was the only people on board and were uninjured during the incident. Aircraft sustained no damage and the airport was closed for over 2 hours until aircraft was properly recovered and removed from runway. The PIC of Cessna Citation CJ3 private jet aircraft reported a smoke indication in the cargo compartment while inbound to HPN. Aircraft landed safely on Runway 16 without incident. Human Remains Log: None Wildlife Control Log: Westchester County aircraft recorded one (1) aircraft bird and wildlife strikes during December. This strike was not identified as a major or triggering event to prompt the airport's Wildlife Hazard Plan Review. Bird involved in strike was identified as one (1) Ring- Billed Gull that caused no aircraft damage or negative effects on airport operations. Additionally, in the month of December, the airport's USDA Wildlife Biologist removed two (2) Ring-Billed Gulls from the airfield. -2- 3. Personnel Quota 60 + 2 part-time employees On payroll December 31" 47 + 11 part-time employees + 4 temporaries Airline Services- 98 employees 4. Tours: 0 Year-to-date: 2 Adults 0 22 Children 0 0 5. Weather VFR IFR Below Minimums 97% 3.0% 1% Westchester County Airport Operations activated the Runway 16 SA Category II Aircraft Approach eleven (11)times during the month of December for over 71 hours. 6. Construction The Terminal's new electric room —the bids were received on December 23. The low bidder is ELQ. The South Boarding Pier bids were received on December 23. The low bidder is VRH. Hangar"D" parking rehabilitation —the sidewalk construction has started. The Baggage Screening Building —the construction of the concrete slab for outdoor baggage conveyor is complete and they are waiting for structural steel to be delivered. It is scheduled for the second week in January. The demo electric pushback tug was delivered and ground handling is testing it. So far, everything seems good. The demo electric pushback tug is scheduled to be delivered on December 11. The Terminal boiler replacement—the new boilers are operating without any additional issues. Training is scheduled for January 4. The UTI has proposal for additional cameras in the baggage rooms, card access in Building 1 and emergency alert system through the Terminal will take place when the 2016 budget is available. Still waiting for drawings for tree removal and landscaping in the easement of the Fox Property from the County Planning Department. -3- DPW highway section has submitted a layout for parking and for road alignment for Hangar Road between Hangar"C-1" and Hangar"F"for our review. Hangar"C-1"—the construction of the upper wall has started and Southeast Mechanical has started installation of heaters. The installation fiber throughout the Airport will have to wait until 2016. The telephone conference with the FAA for their replacement of their electrical feeders was held on December 15 and their engineer will be making changes to the design. This project is scheduled for 2017 construction. The replacement ARFF HVAC unit is operational. 7. Noise Complaints 92 Year-to-date: 1,484 The 92 noise complaints were generated by 20 households. Two households called in 10 or more complaints. The lead caller reported 52 complaints. In December 2014, we received 232 noise complaints. Night Noise Complaints 00:01-06:30 35* * 1 not HPN traffic, 0 general and 3 unknown complaints. Visitors to Noise Abatement Office 0 Adults 0 Children 8. Night Operations DEC. 2014 DEC. 2015 2015 00:01-06:30 00:01-06:30 Y-to-D Jet Aircraft 186 201 2,789 Propeller Aircraft 15 32 418 Helicopter 3 8 75 9. Airline Passenger Count NOV_ NOV. Y-to-D Y-to-D 2014 2015 2014 2015 Enplaned Passengers 57,724 62,848 659,106 674,071 Deplaned Passengers 58,494 62,044 659,123 669,846 -4- 10. Heavy Aircraft Operations 19 Corporate + 198 jetBlue = 217 Peterherrer Cc: Thomas Bartlett Joseph Nicoletti John Inserra OPERATORS WITH 6 OR MORE OCCURRENCES DURING THE VRFF FOR THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER 2015 OPERATOR OCCURRENCES Air Wisconsin 57 Atlantic Southeast Airlines 22 Endeavor Airlines 21 NetJets/NetJet Sales/Int'l 21 Beacon Air 17 Tradewind Aviaiton 15 jetBlue Airways 6 Flight Options 6 Aircraft Holding Company 6 AIRCRAFT LANDINGS -WESTCHESTER COUNTY AIRPORT MONTH OF DECEMBER 2015 YEAR-TO-DATE 2014 2015 %Change 2014 2015 % Change AIRPORT _ Light GA 304 438 44.11 i 5,131 7,420 _ 44.6 Heavy GA 184 194 5.4 1 2,421 2,6411 9.1 TOTAL 488 632 29.5 1 7,5521 10,0611 33.2 TRANSIENT Light GA 514 946 84.01 14,646 16,2611 11.0 Heavy GA 1,980 1,996 0.81 26,307 25,841 -1.8 TOTAL 2,494) 2,942 18.01 40,9531 42,1021 2.8 COMMUTERS 7081 566 -20.1 8,5481 7,794 -8.8 AIR CARRIERS 3331 332 -0.31 3,7201 3,8111 2.4 GOVERNMENT 01 0 0.01 17 10 -41.2 TOUCH AND GOS 5341 665 24.51 7,7801 6,986 -10.2 GRAND TOTAL 1 4,5571 5,1371 12.71 68,570 70,764' 3.2 i AIRPORT/TRANSIENT COMBINED Light GA 818 1,3841 69.2 19,777 23,681 19.7 Heavy GA 2,164 2,1901 1.2 28,728 28,482 -0.9 TOTAL 2,9821 3,5741 19.9_l 48,5051 52,163' 7.5 A/P Based-Turbo Props 38 491 28.91 1 676 9201 36.1 -Pure Jets 184 194 5.4 2,4191 2,7071 11.9 Transient-Turbo Props 323 459 42.1 6,637 7,3621 10.9 -Pure Jets 3,017 2,872 -4.8 37,391 37,0031 -1.0 Combined-Turbo Props 361 508 40.7 7,313 8,282 13.3 -Pure Jets 3,201 3,066 -4.2 39,810 39,710' -0.3 WESTCHESTER COUNTY AIRPORT-2015 TOTAL OPERATIONS JET OPERATIONS 2014 2015 %CHANGE %CHANGE _ 2014 2015 %CHANGE %CHANGE 2014 Y-To-D 2015 Y-To-D MONTH Y-To-D _ 2014 Y-To-D 2015 Y-To-D MONTH YEAR JANUARY 8,761 8,761 7,455 7,455 -14.9 -14.9_ 6,275 6,275 5,8721 5,872 -6.4 -6.4 FEBRUARY 8,575 17,336 8,605 16,060 0.3 -7.4_ 6,202 12,477 6,104 11,976 -1.6 -4.0 MARCH 11,148 28,484 9,907 25,967 -11.1 -8.8_ 7,084 19,561 6,826 18,802 -3.6 -3.9 APRIL 11,404 39,888 11,095 37,062 -2.7 -7.1 _ 6,725 26,286 6,621 25,423 -1.5 -3.3 MAY 11,712 51,600 12,599 49,661 7.6 -3.8_ 6,392 32,678 7,256 32,679 13.5 0.0 JUNE 12,950 64,550 12,687 62,348 -2.0 -3.4_ 6,313 38,991 6,368 39,0471 0.9 0.1 JULY 13,702 '78,252 15,523 77,871 13.3 -0.5_ 6,768 45,759 6,588 45,6351 -2.7 -0.3 AUGUST 14,203 92,455 14,971 92,842 5.4 0.4_ 6,530 52,289 6,653 52,2881 1.9 0.0 SEPTEMBER 12,744 105,199 13,674 106,516 7 1 _ 6,652 58,941 6,921 59,209 4 0 OCTOBER . 12,582 117,781 '12,784 119,300 1.6 1.3_ 7,391 66,332 7,213 66,422 -2.4 0.1 NOVEMBER 10,264 128,045 11,988 131,288 16.8 2.5_ 6,852 73,184 6,907 73,329 0.8 0.2 DECEMBER 9,106 137,151 10,279 141,567 12.9 3.2 6,394 79,578 6,137 79,466 -4.0 -0.1 TOTAL FUEL FLOW __ 2014 2015 %CHANGE %CHANGE _ 2014 Y-To-D 2015 Y-To-D MONTH I Y-To-D JANUARY 2,780,310 2,780,310 2,509,8391 2,509,839 -9.7 -9.7_ FEBRUARY 2,663,926 5,444,236 2,446,5441 4,956,383 -8.2 -9.0_ MARCH 2,960,571 8,404,807 2,739,994 7,696,377 -7.5 -8.4_ APRIL 2,709,201 11,114,008 2,520,827 10,217,204 -7.0 -8.1 _ MAY 2,426,013 13,540,021 2,584,814 12,802,018 6.5 -5.5_ JUNE 2,468,682 16,008,703 2,387,514 15,189,532 -3.3 -5.1 _ JULY 2,646,187 18,654,8901 ,424,761 17,614,293 -8.4 -5.6_ AUGUST 2,409,600 21,064,4901 2,364,635 19,978,928 -1.9 -5.2_ SEPTEMBER 2,491,428 23,555,9181 2,406,543 22,385,471 -3.4 -5.0_ OCTOBER 2,639,134 26,195,052 2,549,115 24,934,586 -3.4 -4.8_ NOVEMBER 2,572,788 28,767,840 2,562,388 27,496,974 -0.4 -4.4_ DECEMBER 2,559,385 31,327,225 2,474,735 29,971,709 -3.3 -4.3 FUEL FLOW DECEMBER 2015 COMPANY JET AVGAS DELTA 208,635 LANDMARK— EAST/WEST 522,658 JET SYSTEMS (AVFUEL) 536,977 MILLION AIR 10,933 SIGNATURE 505,832 LANDMARK—WEST(PANORAMA) 5,568 JETBLUE SOUTHWEST 0 MATERIAL SERVICE 112,455 WFS INVENTORY (MILLION AIR & 571,677 JETBLUE) TOTAL 2,458,234 16,501 GRAND TOTAL: 2,474,735 RECEIPTS FOR DECEMBER Jet 1,614,486 Avgas 16,501 February 23, 2016R-6_ RESOLUTION CONSIDERING THE ADOPTION OF LOCAL ADJUSTMENTS FOR HOMESTEAD AND NON-HOMESTEAD BASE PROPORTIONS WHEREAS, on January 25, 2005 the Board of Trustees adopted Local Law #2-2005 relating to the adoption of the provisions of Section 1903 of the Real Property Tax Law regarding Homestead Base Proportions; and WHEREAS, the Town of Rye Assessor has prepared Homestead and Non- Homestead base proportions for the Village of Rye Brook's review; and WHEREAS, on February 16, 2016 the Town Board of the Town of Rye adopted a resolution establishing a Homestead Base Proportion for the Village of Rye Brook and authorized the Town Assessor to file a Statement of Locally Determined Base Proportions pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of Section 1903 of the Real Property Tax Law commonly referred to as the "Homestead Tax Option"; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Village of Rye Brook also wishes to adopt the local adjustments to these base proportions that will be used to establish a Homestead tax rate and a Non-Homestead tax rate for the 2016-2017 Village Budget and tax rates. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees of the Village of Rye Brook hereby concurs with the Town of Rye and adopts for the FY 2016-17 Village tax purposes, Homestead Base Proportions of 70.760238% and Non-Homestead base proportions of 29.239762%; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor and Village Administrator are authorized to sign all necessary documents to implement the purposes of this resolution; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Assessor and Tax Collector are authorized and directed to make any filings on behalf of Rye Brook, and to take any additional actions necessary to implement the purposes of this resolution. RESOLUTION Resolution of the Town Board of the Town of Rye Establishing a Homestead Base Proportion for the Village of Rye Brook and to Authorize the Town Assessor to File a Statement of Locally Determined Homestead Base Proportions Pursuant to and in Accordance with the Provisions of Section 1903 of the Real Property Tax Law Commonly Referred to as the "Homestead Tax Option" based on the 2015 Assessment Roll (completed, verified and filed in 2015) for the 2016 Village budget and tax rates. On motion of Councilperson Villanova, seconded by Councilperson Jackson, the following Resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, in 1981, the State of New York enacted Section 1903 of the Real Property Tax Law (RPTL) known as the "Homestead Tax Option"; and WHEREAS, the Homestead Tax Option was enacted to prevent a disproportionate shift of property tax burden to residential property owners following a revaluation of real property; and WHEREAS, the Town Board adopted a Local Law on March 23, 2004 entitled "A Local Law Adopting the Provisions of Section 1903 of the Real Property Tax Law" commonly referred to as the "Homestead Tax Option" (the "Local Law"); and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Local Law, the Town Board desires to establish two separate property tax rates for the Village of Rye Brook; a rate for residential property owners equal to a rate of 70.760238 (the "Homestead Base Proportion") and a rate for all other property owners equal to a rate of 29.239762 (the "Non-Homestead Base Proportion") and to authorize the Town Assessor to file a Statement of Locally Determined Homestead Base Proportions Pursuant to Section 1903 of the RPTL based on the 2015 Assessment Roll (completed, verified and filed in 2015) for the 2015 Village budget and tax rates; and NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN BOARD AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Town Board hereby: (a) establishes two separate property tax rates for the Village of Rye Brook pursuant to the provisions of Section 1903 of the RPTL (1) the Homestead Base Proportion at a rate equal to 70.760238 and (II) the Non-Homestead Base Proportion at a rate equal to 29.239762 and (b) authorizes the Town Assessor to file a Statement of Locally Determined Homestead Base Proportions Pursuant to Section 1903 of the RPTL based on the 2015 Assessment Roll (completed, verified and filed in 2015) for the 2016 Village budget and tax rates. ROLL CALL AYES: Councilpersons Jackson and Villanova and Supervisor Zuckerman NOES: None ABSENT: Councilpersons Nardi and Baxter Dated: February 16, 2016 STATE OF NEW YORK } COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER) ss: TOWN OF RYE } I, Hope B. Vespia, Town Clerk of the Town of Rye, New York, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy with a copy of the Resolution adopted by the Town Board of the Town of Rye, at a meeting held on February 16, 2016 at which time a quorum was present, and that the same is a true and correct transcript of the whole thereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the corporate seal of the Town of Rye,New York, on this 17th day February, 2016. Hope B. Vespia Town Clerk r '� _ __ _ := :I . �._ --� � : .r 1r - �__.C"�r S ~~ ��r� �r� � _ :?ti �� �� �� _ 1 February 23,2016 _R-7 RESOLUTION CONSIDERING THE APPROVAL OF MINUTES: FEBRUARY 9,2016 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees hereby certifies the approval of the minutes for the meeting held on February 9, 2016. VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BOARD OF TRUSTEES MEETINGS VILLAGE HALL, 938 KING STREET TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2016 AGENDA &* 7:00 P.M. - EXECUTIVE SESSION: Save the Sound Litigation 7:30 P.M. —REGULAR MEETING PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE REPORT/PRESENTATIONS AFFORDABLE HOUSING PUBLIC HEARINGS RESOLUTIONS: 1) Consideri uthorizing the purc ase and a tr sfer of funds for playground equipment t stalled at Garibaldi Park. 2) tmonsipering the use of street trees in the village right-of-way for the National Alliance on Mental Health Ribbon Campaign 3) Considering authorizing the Village of Rye Brook to enter into a service agreement with ovusolution for an agenda management program. 4) Conside Snow and Ice Agreement with Westchester County. 5) Considering a sa ary djustment for an Intermediate Account Clerk. 6) Considering the approval of minutes from the meetings of January 12, 2016 and January 26, 2016. 7) Adopting local adjustments for Homestead and Non-Homestead base proportions. Board of Trustee Meeting February 9, 2016 Page 1 ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS DISCUSSION ITEM ACTION ON NON-AGENDA MATTERS SUBJECT TO THE CONSENT OF THE TRUSTEES PRESENT AT THE MEETING THE NEXT SPECIAL AND REGULAR TRUSTEES MEETINGS: February 23, 2016 and March 8, 2016 1\ Board of Trustee Meeting February 9, 2016 Page 2 7:00 P.M. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Village Board met and approved the following resolution in Executive Session: RESOLUTION CONSIDERING AUTHORIZING A WAIVER OF POTENTIAL CONFLICT FOR KEANE AND BEANE TO REPRESENT MULTIPLE MUNICIPALTIES IN DEFENDING LITIGATION WITH CONECTICUT FUND FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, INC. D/B/A SAVE THE SOUND 11% NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVE hat the Board of Trustees of the Village of Rye Brook hereby authorizes the Mayor to sign a letter dated February 2, 2016 providing a Waiver of Potential Conflict bet\Veen the Village of Rye Brook and the Village of Scarsdale regarding representation by Keane and Beane, P.C. of both villages in defending Connecticut Fund for the Environment, Inc. d/b/a Save the Sound et al `Westchester County, Village of Rye Brook, Villa^bEpstel et al. (fin a motion maden and nded by Trustee Heiser, the resolution was approved and Mr. Bradbu call oll: Truste n Epste voting Truste vid M. Heise voting aye Trustee Klein recused- not present Trustee Jef ednick voting aye Mayor Paul Ro erg absent 7:30 P.M. REGULAR MEETING: BOARD: Trustee Susan R. Epstein Trustee David M. Heiser Trustee Jason A. Klein Deputy Mayor Jeffrey B. Rednick Excused: Mayor Paul S. Rosenberg Board of Trustee Meeting February 9, 2016 Page 3 VILLAGE STAFF: Christopher Bradbury, Village Administrator Gregory Austin, Chief of Police Robert Bertalacci, Parks and Recreation Superintendent Courtney McGowan, Esq., Village Counsel Michel Nowak, Superintendent of Public Works Fred Seifert, Public Access Coordinator/IT Paula Patafio, Meeting Secretary Deputy Mayor Jeffrey Rednick welcomed everyone to the Tuesday, February 9, 2016 Board of Trustees meeting. He noted that Mayor Rosenberg was attending to other Village business and was excused from the Board of Trustee Meeting. He welcomed Courtney McGown, Esq., Village Counsel. He noted that the Boardjust c n from an Executive Session on Save the Sound Litigation. Deputy Mayor Rednick called for the second tion on the agenda: RESOLUTIONS: 2) Considering the use of street trees in the villa a right-of-way for the National Alliance on Mental Health Ribbon Campaign. IdEmomilin� VL Mr. Bradbury read the following resolution: RESOLUTION CONSIDE NG THE USE OF STRM TREES IN THE VILLAGE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR THE NAT NAL ALLIANCE ON MENTAL HEALTH RIBBON CAMPAIGN AN WHEREAS, e National Alliance on Mental Health (NAMI) desires to use street trees for their ribbon campaign in May of 2016; and WHEREAS, the Village Board desires to assist NAMI in their campaign with the use of streets trees within the Village. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, NAMI is hereby authorized to place ribbons on designated street trees within the Village of Rye Brook right-of-way and on the pillars of Village Hall and the AJP Community Center form May 1 through May 31, 2016; and be it Board of Trustee Meeting February 9, 2016 Page 4 FURTHER RESOLVED, the ribbon campaign shall be in coordination with the Village Director of Public Works/Engineer. It was noted that this has been done for the past four years. On a motion made by Trustee Susan Epstein, and Seco by Trustee Jason Klein, the resolution was adopted. Mr. Christopher Bradbury, Village Administrator call ro Trustee Susan Epstein voting ay Trustee David M. Heiser voting a Trustee Jason Klein voting ay Deputy Mayor Jeffrey Rednick voting aye Mayor Paul Rosenberg It nt 3) Considering authorizing the Village of Rye Brook to enter into a service agreement with Novusolution for an agenda management program. Mr. Bradbury read the following resolution:Y "q* RESOLUTION CONSIDE NG AUTHORIZING E VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK TER INTO A SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH NOVUSOLUTIONS FOR AN AGENDA 04ANAGEMENT PROGRAM WHEREAS,the Village of Rye Brook wishes to obtain the services of Novusolutions for a cloud-based electronic meeting management software solution including NovusAgenda; and WHEREAS, Novusolutions has offered to enter into a service agreement with the Village of Rye Brook to provide such services at an annual cost of Four Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty and no/100 Dollars ($4,950.00) following a 90-day free trial period, as well as options for other services as appropriate including video streaming ($4,000/yr.) and the transferring of up to 5 years of old video to the new system($995, one-time). Board of Trustee Meeting February 9, 2016 Page S NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees of the Village of Rye Brook authorizes the Village of Rye Brook to enter into such an Agreement with Novusolutions; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor or Village Administrator is authorized to execute and deliver all necessary documents and select the services desired in the agreement to accomplish the purpose of this resolution. Mr. Bradbury noted that for the past six months the Village has been exploring other services to replace the existing services. The current systems are time intensive and inconsistent. Village staff will be able to share files much more easily with the new system. It will provide a better streaming video service and better access to tablets. This system will replace drop box. Everything will be easier to prepare, to view, and to tailor. Switching everything to Novusolution makes it easier to transfer documents, and the cost is less. Three to five years of videos can be archived. Mr. Bradbury recommended this service. If the Board approves this resolution, there will be a 90 day trial period. For a while there will be both services and then everything will be switched over. On a motion made by Trustee Epstein, and seconded by Trustee David Heiser, the resolution was adopted. Mr. Br ca 11: Trustee usan Epstein ting aye Trustee David M. Heiser voting aye Trustee Jason Klein voting aye Deputy Mayor Jeffrey Rednick voting aye Mayor Paul Rosenbe absent 4) Considering a Snow and Ice Agreement with Westchester County. Mr. Bradbury read the following resolution: RESOLUTION Board of Trustee Meeting February 9, 2016 Page 6 CONSIDERING THE AUTHORIZATION OF A SNOW AND ICE AGREEMENT FOR COUNTY ROADS FROM OCTOBER 1, 2015 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2020 WHEREAS, Westchester County requests that the Village of Rye Brook perform snow and ice removal and control for all County roads within the Village; and WHEREAS, the current agreement between Westchester County and the Village of Rye Brook, for snow and ice removal from County Roads was due to expire as of September 30, 2015; and WHEREAS, the proposed agreement transmitted by Westchester County for Village of Rye Brook authorization inappropriately reduces the center lane and 2-lane miles on Ridge Street by 2.36 miles which is not appropriate since Westchester County has not yet completed the roadway improvement project required to transfer this section of roadway to the Village of Rye Brook in accordance with the separate inter-municipal agreement between Westchester County and the Village of Rye Brook dated Octobe 4, 2005; and WHEREAS, in two separate 1 rs ayor Rosenberg dated May 29, 2015 and December 3, 2015, the Village of Rye Brook has informed Westchester County that Ridge Street has not yet been transferred to the Village of Rye Brook and has summarized the remaining roadway improvement items to be completed by Westchester County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Village of Rye Brook is authorized to enter into a snow and ice agreement with the County of Westchester for the period of October 1, 2015 to September 30, 2020 under which the annual C.P.I. escalation provision is subject to a 3.50 percent cap; and be it FURTHER RESOL EDNtha ' authorization and execution of this agreement is contingent on the modification o "D" of the agreement to include the 2.36 two-lane and center lane miles on Ridge Street until such time that the remaining construction work is completed and the requirements of the October 24, 2005 inter-municipal agreement have been satisfied; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor is authorized to execute and deliver all documents necessary or appropriate to accomplish the purpose of this resolution. Mr. Bradbury noted that this contract is renewed annually. It was noted that the 2.36 miles of Ridge Street, which has not yet been transferred to the Village, has been included in this Board of Trustee Meeting February 9, 2016 Page 7 Agreement. The County has not yet completed the work on Ridge Street and until that time the Village will not take ownership. Part of the agreement for Rye Brook accepting the roadway is that cracks and potholes be repaired. The County pays the Village for snow removal. The Village is waiting for a response from the County regarding the work on Ridge Street. On a motion made by Trustee Epstein, and seconded by Trustee Heiser, the resolution was adopted. The roll was called: Trustee Susan Epstein voting aye Trustee David M. Heiser voting ay Trustee Jason Klein voting a Deputy Mayor Jeffrey Rednick voting ay Mayor Paul Rosenberg absent 5) Considering a salary adjustment for an Intermediate Account Clerk. Mr. Bradbury read the following resolutio . ESOL ON NOW FORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees hereby a e annual salary of Laurence Simmons as Intermediate Account Clerk to $50,000 effective Feb 0, 2016 through May 31, 2017. AN Mr. Bradbury noted that Mr. Laurence Simmons is an asset. He is a very hard worker and he has an impeccable memory. He is able to bring tasks to completion and has taken on a lot of responsibilities in the past three years. On a motion made by Trustee Heiser, and seconded by Trustee Epstein, the resolution was adopted. Mr. Bradbury called the roll: Board of Trustee Meeting February 9, 2016 Page 8 Trustee Susan Epstein voting aye Trustee David M. Heiser voting aye Trustee Jason Klein voting aye Deputy Mayor Jeffrey Rednick voting aye Mayor Paul Rosenberg absent 6) Considering the approval of minutes from the meetings of January 12, 2016 and January 26, 2016. VF Mr. Bradbury read the following resolution: OL N CONSIDERING THE APPROVAL OF MINUTES: JANUARY 12, 2016 and JANUARY 26, 2016 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees hereby certifies the approval of the minutes for the meetings held on January 12, 2016 and January 26, 2016. The minutes were accepted as previously amended. On a motion made by Trustee Jason Klein, and seconded by Trustee Susan Epstein, the resolution was adopted. Board of Trustee Meeting February 9, 2016 Page 9 Mr. Bradbury called the roll: Trustee Susan Epstein voting aye Trustee David M. Heiser voting aye Trustee Jason Klein voting aye Deputy Mayor Jeffrey Rednick voting aye Mayor Paul Rosenberg absent Deputy Mayor Rednick called for an additional resolution adde to the agenda: 7) Adopting local adjustments fo Homestead and Non-Homestead base proportions. Mr. Bradbury read the following resolution: OL N URGING THE TOWN OF RYE TO ADOPT local adjustments for homestead and non-homestead base proportions WHEREAS, on anuary 25, 2005 the Board of Trustees adopted Local Law #2-2005 relating to the adoption of the provisions of Section 1903 of the Real Property Tax Law regarding Homestead Base Proportions; and WHEREAS, the Town of Rye Assessor has prepared Homestead and Non-Homestead base proportions for the Village of Rye Brook's review; and Board of Trustee Meeting February 9, 2016 Page 10 WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Village of Rye Brook wishes to have the Town of Rye adopt local adjustments to these base proportions, that will be used to establish a Homestead tax rate and a Non-Homestead tax rate for the 2016-2017 Village Budget and tax rates. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees of the Village of Rye Brook hereby urges the Town of Rye to adopt for the 2016-17 Village tax, Homestead Base Proportions of 70.760238% and Non-Homestead base proportions of 29.239762°/x; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the and Village Administrator are authorized to sign all necessary documents to implement t e p ses of this resolution; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, th the Town Asse and Tax Collector are authorized and directed to make any filings on behalf of Rye Brook, to take any additional actions necessary to implement the purposes of th esolution Mr. Bradbury noted that this is done tnlly. This is an op al piece of legislation, and a way to encourage communities to to full value. This is a great protection for single family properties. The value that is m st to to the residential properties is what is chosen. On a motion made by stee ser, and onded by Trustee Klein, the resolution was adopted. Mr. Br ca 11: Trustee usan Epstein ting aye Trustee David M. Heiser voting aye Trustee Jason Klein voting aye Deputy Mayor Jeffrey Rednick voting aye Mayor Paul Rosenberg absent ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: Mr. Bradbury noted that Village offices will be closed on Monday, February 15, 2016 for Presidents' Day. Board of Trustee Meeting February 9, 2016 Page 11 He reminded the residents that the second installment of Village taxes are due. The Port Chester/Rye Brook Public Library now sends out email blast newsletters to the community. Residents can sign up for this service. Workshops have been held for Solarize Rye Brook. This is a last push. Chief Austin has placed a sign up for the vacant house watch lis . There is a signup sheet on line. The Village garage is being reviewed. This should take pl the end of the month. Deputy Mayor Rednick returned to item#1 on the agenda: 1) Considering authorizing the purchase and a transfer of funds for playground equipment to be installed at Garibaldi Park. IF IV Mr. Bradbury, Village AdmiSRESOLU or, read the fol l wing resolution: N CONSIDERING AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE AND A TRANSFER OF FUNDS FORP OU EQUIPMENT TO BE STALLED AT GARIBALDI PARK q4* WHEREAS, the p ground at Garibaldi Park was installed approximately twenty years ago and has since become o dated and re fres significant improvements for safety; and WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Council and Robert Bertolacci, Parks and Recreation Superintendent, have recommended that the Village Board of Trustees authorize using Kompan Inc. forp chase and installation of playground equipment at Garibaldi Park; and WHEREAS, Kompan, Inc. has been awarded a contract for the purchase and installation of playground equipment by the County of Mecklenburg in the State of North Carolina on the basis of best value in a manner consistent with New York General Municipal Law Section 103 and said contract by its terms is available for use by other governmental entities if such entities are registered with US Communities Government Purchasing Alliance (Contract #110171); and Board of Trustee Meeting February 9, 2016 Page 12 WHEREAS, New York General Municipal Law Section 103(16) authorizes municipalities to make purchases of apparatus, materials, equipment or supplies and to contract for services related to the installation, maintenance or repair of apparatus, materials, equipment and supplies through a contract let by the United States of America or any agency thereof, any state or any other political subdivision or district therein if such contract was let to the lowest responsible bidder or on the basis of best value in a manner consistent with New York General Municipal Law Section 103 and made available for use by other governmental entities; and WHEREAS, NYS Office of General Services has c tracted with Kompan, Inc. by piggybacking on Communities Government Purchasing Alliance Contract #110171 (NYSOGS Contract #PC66666); and WHEREAS, on March 11, 2014, the Village of Rye Bro Board of Trustees adopted a local law pursuant to New York General Municipal Law §103(1) to authorize the award of certain purchase contracts subject to competitive bidding on the basis of b value, as defined in Section 163 of the New York State Finance Law; No WHEREAS, the installation services of Kompan, Inc. are recommended, because this work must be completed by an authorized vendor of Kompan, Inc. to maintain the warranty for the playground equipment, the installation prices are alreadyablished in US Communities Government Purchasing Alliance Contract #110171, the man turer has a reputation for providing quality goods and services and the installer will be required to pay NYS prevailing wages; and WHEREAS,the Village of Rye Brook saves the cost and expense of seeking competitive bids or requests for proposals for the purchase and installation of playground equipment for Garibaldi Park by utilizing the US Communities Government Purchasing Alliance Contract #110171; and WHEREAS, the total cost of the project is estimated to be $86,785 which includes the removal of the old equipment and installation of the new equipment by Kompan, Inc.; and WHEREAS, $75,000 would be allocated for the purchase and installation of the playground from the proceeds of a BAN authorized in the 2015-16 adopted budget and the remaining $11,785, if a transfer is authorized, can be deducted from the Recreation Trust Fund; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that, based upon the information set forth above, the Village Board of Trustees hereby finds it is in the best interests of the Village to purchase the playground equipment and installation services from Kompan, Inc. through the US Communities Government Purchasing Alliance Contract#110171; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED that the Village Board of Trustees hereby authorizes the purchase of playground equipment from Kompan, Inc. through the US Communities Board of Trustee Meeting February 9, 2016 Page 13 Government Purchasing Alliance Contract #110171, which was awarded on the basis of best value, in an amount not to exceed $86,785, with $75,000 to be funded from a BAN authorized in the 2015-16 adopted budget and up to $11,785 to be funded through a transfer from the Recreation Trust Fund to this capital project account; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and Admin trator are authorized to sign any documents necessary for the implementation of this resoluti Mr. Bradbury noted that this is a best value contract,the same type as 1 e Ridge Park. Mr. Bertalacci reviewed the two options for the park where the to roximately 20 years old. He asked for something different for this park as opposed to the e structure in Pine Ridge. It is more of an urban type playground with a lot of climbing. Mr. Bertalacci noted that even younger children get in and climb. It is n interesting piece of equipment. The height of the equipment is about 10'. The Pine Ridge equi ent is higher. The second structure has slides. Mr. Bradbury asked th^heplane reviewed to see if there was an old model that is no longer be sold. Finding something like that would reduce the amount coming from the Rec. Trust Account. Mr. Bertalacc"said that the wor uld sta Opening ceremony could be in July. This type of work typically takes a pro ely two eks from the start. On a motion by Truste pstein, and seconded by Trustee Heiser, the resolution was adopted. Mr. Bradbury called the roll: Trustee Susan Epstein voting aye Trustee David M. Heiser voting aye Trustee Jason Klein voting aye Deputy Mayor Jeffrey Rednick voting aye Mayor Paul Rosenberg absent Board of Trustee Meeting February 9, 2016 Page 14 THE NEXT SPECIAL AND REGULAR TRUSTEES MEETINGS: February 23, 2016 and March 8, 2016 There being no further business before the Board,the meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m. Board of Trustee Meeting February 9, 2016 Page 15