Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-08-11 - Board of Trustees Meeting Minutes AGENDA VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BOARD OF TRUSTEES REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 11, 1992 8 : 00 P.M. J RESOLUTIONS ACTION 1. AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYEE, BENEFITS & POLICIES PACKAGE RE: SEXUAL HARASSMENT 2 . ENTERING INTO AGREEMENT WITH ELMENDORF ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. ASBESTOS SURVEY ANTHONY J. POSILLIPO COMMUNITY CENTER 3 . ENTERING INTO RENEWAL AGREEMENT WITH _ WESTCHESTER SHORE HUMANE SOCIETY JUNE 1, 1992 - MAY 31, 1993 4. AWARDING CONTRACT #9204 RESURFACING OF VARIOUS ROADS 5. CHECK REGISTER 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION ASHGROVE REALTY DISCUSSION 7. LOCAL LAW #3-1988 LOT AREA COVERAGE 8 . RYE HILLS PARK STUDY COMMITTEE REPORT/PRESENTATION 9 . PORT CHESTER HIGH SCHOOL AREA PARKING RESTRICTIONS/SCHOOL ZONE SPEED LIMIT SPECIAL REPORT I , APPROVAL OF MINUTES 10. JULY 7, 1992 NEXT MEETING DATES AGENDA MEETING - SEPTEMBER 8, 1992 - 8 : 00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING - SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 - 8: 00 P.M. 32 004-41. J VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BOARD OF TRUSTEES VILLAGE OFFICES 90 SOUTH RIDGE STREET RYE BROOK, NEW YORK AUGUST 11, 1992 8: 00 P.M. CONVENE MEETING The Meeting was called to order at 8: 05 p.m. by Mayor Cresenzi in the Meeting Room and the Pledge of Allegiance followed. Present were the following members of the Board: Mayor Salvatore M. Cresenzi Trustee Michele R. Daly Trustee Joseph Pellino Trustee Randy A. Solomon Trustee Gary J. Zuckerman Also present were: Christopher J. Russo, Village Administrator Lori Ann DeMarco, Ass°t to Village Administrator Rocco V. Circosta, Director of Public Works Kenneth Powell, Village Attorney Joseph Cortese, Village Treasurer Robert J. Santoro, Chief of Police Thomas Gissen, Frederick P. Clark Associates Thomas Hroncich, Superintendent of Recreation Elizabeth Czajkowski, Secretary to Village Board 1 i 0� p _ .tD August 11, 1992 RESOLUTIONS 1. AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYEE, BENEFITS & POLICIES PACKAGE RE: SEXUAL HARASSMENT On Motion made by Trustee Daly, seconded by Trustee Pellino, the following resolution was hereby adopted as amended: RESOLUTION AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYEE BENEFITS & POLICIES PACKAGE RESOLVED, that the Village of Rye Brook Employee Benefits and Policies Package adopted by the Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees on September 27, 1988, and amended on June 26, 1990, February 26, 1991, and January 14, 1992 be hereby further amended to include a Section Number 30 entitled "Sexual Harassment. " TRUSTEE DALY VOTING AYE TRUSTEE PELLINO VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SOLOMON VOTING AYE TRUSTEE ZUCKERMAN VOTING AYE MAYOR CRESENZI VOTING AYE SEXUAL HARASSMENT POLICY The Village of Rye Brook strongly disapproves of and does not tolerate sexual harassment of any kind. All employees must avoid offensive or inappropriate sexual behavior at work and are responsible for assuring that the workplace is free from sexual harassment at all times. The Village of Rye Brook's policy prohibits (1), unwelcome sexual advances; (2) requests for sexual acts or favors, with or without accompanying promises, threats, or reciprocal favors or actions; and (3) other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature made to an employee when submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a condition of an individual's employment; submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions; such conduct has the purpose or effect of substantially interfering with an individual's work performance; or such conduct has the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment. Specifically, no supervisor shall threaten or insinuate either explicitly or implicitly that any employee's submission to or rejection of sexual advances will in any way influence any personnel decision regarding that employee's employment, evaluation, wages, advancement, assigned duties, shifts or any other condition of employment or career development. 2 0044 s.. August 11, 1992 Other sexually harassing conduct in the work place, whether physical or verbal, committed by supervisors or non-supervisory personnel is also prohibited. This includes repeated unwelcome sexual flirtation, advances, propositions, graphic verbal commentary about an individual's body, sexually oriented statements and the display in the work place of sexually suggestive objects or pictures. Any employee who has a complaint of sexual harassment at work by anyone, including supervisors, co-workers, or visitors is urged to bring the matter to the attention of the Village Officials so that we may investigate and deal with the problem. Employees may bring their complaint to their supervisor. If the complaint involves someone in the employee's direct line of command, or if the employee is uncomfortable discussing the matter with his/her direct supervisor, the employee is urged to go to another supervisor with the complaint or to the Village Administrator. The Village will investigate all complaints and will endeavor to handle these matters expeditiously in a professional manner so as to protect the offended individual. Violation of this policy is grounds for discipline, including discharge. 2. ENTERING INTO AGREEMENT WITH ELMENDORF ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. ASBESTOS SURVEY AT THE ANTHONY J. POSILLIPO COMMUNITY CENTER On Motion made by Trustee Solomon, seconded by Trustee Zuckerman, the following resolution was hereby adopted: RESOLUTION ELMENDORF ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. ASBESTOS SURVEY ANTHONY J. POSILLIPO COMMUNITY CENTER RESOLVED, that the Mayor is hereby authorized to enter into agreement with Elmendorf Environmental, Inc. of Elmsford, NY, to conduct an Asbestos Survey at the Anthony J. Posillipo Community Center, located on Garibaldi Place; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, that the total fee for services shall not exceed $2, 200. 00 and shall be paid for out of the Recreation Trust & Agency Account. 3 004116 August 11, 1992 Mayor Cresenzi commented that this a survey of the existing building to determine if asbestos exists in or around the structure and if so, to what extent. Westchester County requires that we provide this survey. The $2, 200. 00 does not include the removal, only the survey of the property, Mayor Cresenzi added. Trustee Zuckerman questioned if we have ever used this firm before and if not, how did we obtain their services. Administrator Russo explained that this is the first time we are using Elmendorf Environmental, Inc. The Village solicited proposals from a variety of firms and after reviewing each of them, we found through our deliberations and discussions with this particular firm, that they were the best. Trustee Daly questioned where the $2, 200. 00 charge came from, as the samples cost approximately $1, 000. 00. Administrator Russo stated that there are testing costs that will not cost more that. This includes testing, results and samples. Trustee Daly questioned what the section pertaining to hourly billing rate meant. Administrator Russo explained that this means that we are paying for their travel time during the process of the job only. Mr. Heller questioned if this money was allocated or will be an additional charge. Mayor Cresenzi replied that this is within our budgeted number, which has always been in the $750, 000. 00 range. We already have estimates and the suspect areas are the roof, shingles, floor tile or some minor pipe covering that may have been used in that time. We do not anticipate an abundance of asbestos to exist. Mr. Brown stated that the structure used to be an old Carpenter's shop, which was originally gutted. There could not be much asbestos inside, he added. TRUSTEE DALY VOTING AYE TRUSTEE PELLINO VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SOLOMON VOTING AYE TRUSTEE ZUCKERMAN VOTING AYE MAYOR CRESENZI VOTING AYE 4 O OL14 3.J August 11, 1992 3. ENTERING INTO RENEWAL AGREEMENT WITH WESTCHESTER SHORE HUMANE SOCIETY JUNE 1, 1992 - MAY 31, 1993 On Motion made by Trustee Daly, seconded by Trustee Zuckerman, the following resolution was hereby adopted: RESOLUTION WESTCHESTER SHORE HUMANE SOCIETY JUNE 1, 1992 - MAY 31, 1993 RESOLVED, that Mayor Salvatore M. Cresenzi is hereby authorized to execute an Agreement on behalf of the Village of Rye Brook with the Westchester Shore Humane Society for providing animal control services to the Village of Rye Brook, for a one-year period of time, commencing June 1, 1992; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, that pursuant to the terms of said Agreement, the Village shall submit the total sum of $14,500 to the Society; payable in quarterly installments of $3 , 625. Administrator Russo explained that this has not been increased in the past three years and this year will remain the same. Trustee Solomon questioned if we looked into sharing this service with both the Village of Port Chester and City of Rye. Administrator Russo stated that this was reviewed last year and there was no consolidated way to do it for less money than what we are spending now. The New Rochelle Humane Society wouldn't be able to charge any less than the Westchester Shore Humane Society. We jointly got together with Port Chester and Rye to look into consolidating these services and we held meetings with New Rochelle and also Westchester Shore Humane Society. They have been strapped by other cutbacks and are operating on a shoestring. Their price has not gone up in four years and they have also been very cooperative with us. We have more of a handle on them than in the past with their signing in and signing out. Trustee Pellino questioned if we have any record as to who did this service before Westchester Shore Human Society. According to the attached letter it says that we have used their services for the past 19 years. 5 004 ..k) August 11, 1992 Administrator Russo explained that Westchester Shore Humane Society did this for the Town before it was a Village, so that is the only record that we have. It may have even been done by a Dog Control Officer before them. Trustee Pellino questioned if we are required to do this by State Law and if we have any flexibility to cut down patrols on our own. Can we set the schedule ourselves as long as we meet a minimum requirement, Trustee Pellino questioned. Administrator Russo stated that we could probably cut down the level of service, however we really did brainstorm this last year and the problem that the Humane Society has is that they run two vans and two drivers. Cutting us back to one day of service doesn't afford them the flexibility to cut one whole van and one person. This would not save us any money in the contract and they would not have a choice to charge us less than the $14, 500 that they do now. Trustee Pellino questioned if there was anyone else that we could go to. Trustee Solomon questioned if we have ever considered doing this in-house. Administrator Russo stated that we considered doing this last year, jointly with the three communities and found that we would need to purchase a vehicle and also to fill a full time position. We could not provide this service any cheaper. Trustee Zuckerman questioned how many incidents we have on the average. Administrator Russo stated that we have at least three a month. Trustee Pellino stated that it seems that we have not collected an appreciable amount of money to offset this expense. Administrator Russo repled that Trustee Pellino was correct. He suggested that we should look into what is the legal minimum requirement that we are obligated to provide. Mayor Cresenzi stated that if we found that this would mean a change, we would still have a problem with who would provide the service. Trustee Zuckerman questioned how many communities have these services. August 11, 1992 6 0014 Administrator Russo stated that almost all, however even the communities that have their own dog catcher contract with Humane Societies for harboring animals. Trustee Zuckerman questioned if we could speak to someone in the County and see about having this provided County-Wide. Aside from the larger cities, communities such as ours, Port Chester, etc, should really be investigated and possibly we could obtain some savings that way. The individual communities might be assessed less money. Mayor Cresenzi stated that it is something that we should look into. Chief Santoro pointed out that we are using Westchester Shore Humane Society for many other things besides dogs and cats. They have helped us with Raccoons, Possums, Squirrels and Deer and work very well with us. They serve about four communities and in the past two months we have probably had 9 wild animal incidents and they are not on days that Westchester Shore Humane Society were scheduled to be working in Rye Brook. TRUSTEE DALY VOTING AYE TRUSTEE PELLINO VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SOLOMON VOTING AYE TRUSTEE ZUCKERMAN VOTING AYE MAYOR CRESENZI VOTING AYE 4. AWARDING CONTRACT #9204 RESURFACING OF VARIOUS ROADS On Motion made by Trustee Solomon, seconded by Trustee Pellino, the following resolution was hereby adopted: RESOLUTION AWARDING OF CONTRACT #9204 RESURFACING OF VARIOUS ROADS WHEREAS, proposals for the resurfacing of various roads and known as Contract #9204 were obtained by eight (8) vendors; and WHEREAS, on Thursday, August 4, 1992, six bids were received and publicly opened and read; and WHEREAS, thereafter the bid documents were reviewed by the Village Administrator and Village Attorney. NOW, THEREFORE, HE IT 7 0044 �y August 11, 1992 RESOLVED, that E.L.Q. Industries of Mamaroneck, NY is hereby awarded Contract #9204 at the total bid price of $364, 651. 00; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Village Administrator is hereby authorized to execute an agreement with E.L.Q. Industries in connection with Contract #9204. Trustee Pellino stated that this major road resurfacing project represents a commitment made by this Board to set up a balanced cohesive approach to maintaining the integrity of our Village Roads. This is something that this Village has needed for a long time. Trustee Solomon added that the Board took into consideration that there are many people out of work and many people looking to bid on this and we are getting a large part of our Village resurfaced at what we consider very low dollars. Mr. Heller questioned what roads were going to be repaved and if they would be using asphalt or a substitute. Mayor Cresenzi stated that 95% of it will be asphalt and there is a list of the roads which can be obtained from the Village Office. Administrator Russo explained that Rye Hills will be a totally separate project and is not part of this project. The water problem will be dealt with separately. Mr. Brown questioned if they are going to regrind the roads. Mayor Cresenzi stated that they will put in a cushion course and the lower depression areas will be filled in and brought up to level and then there will be a hot asphalt surface put on. Trustee Zuckerman stated that when we passed the budget at the beginning of the year an item of discussion was the possibility of a bond issue to cover our paving needs over the next several years and this is the first contract pursuant to that. This is a long range commitment on the part of this Board to continuously upgrade and maintain the roads throughout the Village. Mayor Cresenzi stated that he was in constant contact with the utility companies and tried to get as much advance information on digging up the roads as possible. On the utility repairs that take place in the Village, we are going to be updating our specifications on the type of pavement and the way the pavement is restored, which has been a weak spot in the past. By doing this, we will not make the same mistakes that were made in the past. 8 044"I'J August 11, 1992 Mr. Brown suggested that they seal around the repair joints. Mayor Cresenzi stated that in Westchester County, they never seal the repair joints, however, that will be a change in the specifications. TRUSTEE DALY VOTING AYE TRUSTEE PELLINO VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SOLOMON VOTING AYE TRUSTEE ZUCKERMAN VOTING AYE MAYOR CRESENZI VOTING AYE S. CHECK REGISTER On Motion made by Trustee Pellino, seconded by Trustee Zuckerman, the following resolution was hereby adopted: RESOLUTION CHECK REGISTER WHEREAS, the following checks, representing payment for services rendered, have been submitted to the Treasurer's Office for payment and have been certified to by the Village Administrator; On-Line Checks: #5049-5096 Hand Checks: 10056-10059 Payroll Checks: #7613-7730 Environmental: #355-356 Recreational Trust #573 (Birthday Run) Capital: NONE Recreational Trust NONE (Building Fees) : NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board hereby approves payment of the above- mentioned claims and authorizes payment thereof. TRUSTEE DALY VOTING AYE TRUSTEE PELLINO VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SOLOMON VOTING AYE TRUSTEE ZUCKERMAN VOTING AYE MAYOR CRESENZI VOTING AYE 9 04.4211 August 11, 1992 Mayor Cresenzi stated that item #6, pertaining to Ashgrove Realty, will be dealt with later on in the meeting, after having an Executive Session with the Village Attorney to discuss some ongoing questions. DISCUSSION 7. LOCAL LAW #3-1988 ENTITLED: LOT AREA COVERAGE Mr. Gissen, of Frederick P. Clark Associates, briefly discussed a memo regarding the impacts associated with changes to Local Law #3- 1988, which establishes lot coverage. Chapter 66, also known as the Zoning Law, supplementary regulations and the schedule of regulations establish where one may put a house on a residential lot and how far back one can go from the front, side and rear lot lines. This law was created in part to limit the amount of coverage and size of structures one can put on their property. This law has been adopted by many municipalities because as land values have increased, people tend to put larger homes on their properties. Setbacks were originally established to create an area within which one might put their home. Local Law #3-1988 states that in the R2F zone that your home may cover no more than 30% of the lot and be within those lines and, in addition, you can have a small accessory structure such as a barn, garage or a tool shed. It could be much closer to the lot lines but it must be limited in size and cannot impact the neighbors property. The rear yard area is thought to be for recreational purposes. A request was made to the Village Board to consider an amendment to this law that would allow a person to borrow from the percentage of lot coverage for the principle residence and add that onto the accessory structure so that it can be larger than just 5% of the property. In the R2F Zone, the lots are 5, 000 square foot lots and 5% would mean an accessory building with a 250 square foot footprint of 10 by 25 per building. Our office provided an analysis of the impacts of that for the Village. Essentially, the two major pitfalls that we saw with an unrestricted permission to borrow would have two impacts: one, you might end up with a very large structure on your property line, imposing on the neighbor, and two, you may end up with a large structure on the rear yard area, which will eliminate usage on recreational activities and push them to the front yard area. These are the potential problems if you are going to allow borrowing of lot coverage, Mr. Gissen concluded. 10 001441 August 11, 1992 Trustee Pellino stated that in the smaller zoning areas in this Village, particularly the R2F district, a situation could develop where an individual could lose either their main building or accessory building to either fire or storm and run into a restriction in rebuilding to the original specification. There is a current rule that says that if more than 50% of your structure is demolished, any new buildings put in it's place would have to conform to current zoning. In districts where land area is a premium, such as R5 and R2F, there may be an element of unfairness in the way we apply Local Law #3-1988 . This has to do with allowing the homeowner to construct those buildings back to their original specification. We should put a maximum on the amount of borrowing that one could do, because we do not want the accessory building to be as large as the main building. Mayor Cresenzi stated that regarding the problem of fire or storm damage, that would only apply to an existing non-conforming use. If your property is conforming, you can build it exactly the way it was and also change it according to our current zoning. We wrote this into our Zoning Code for the purpose of trying to remove the non-conforming uses so that everything would eventually conform to the Zoning Code that was adopted in 1954 . Mr. Martinetti stated that we are speaking of R2F and R5 zones and anyone who knows the area, also knows that on paper, the formulas work fine, but now, they restrict the existing accessory building and do not allow you to rebuild them to the original size if they are destroyed. We are allowed a two car garage, but a two car garage is not 250 square feet, as it is not big enough. There are probably over 18 two car garages on Hillcrest Avenue. If you have to rebuild the structure, you would have to have destroyed more than 50% of the assessed valuation. The area in question, according to the assessors map has nine empty lots. You do not want to overbuild on those lots. Currently there are structures with accessory buildings that are around 500 square feet, which is 10% of the lot. Most of the older homes in that area have unattached buildings that are approximately 10% of the lot. Where do those homes stand that are already in existence? The Law itself, is good, providing you have the square footage, but for those in the R2F and R5 zones, they do not have the same luxury. There is no way to get a two car garage in 250 square feet. He suggested 10% of the lot coverage maximum on an accessory building and 30% maximum on a main structure with a total of 35%, with 10% max on one and 30% max on the other. Mayor Cresenzi stated that we are discussing accessory buildings, not garages. The Accessory building can be used anywhere from storing lawn equipment to vehicles. 11 August 11, 1992 Mayor Cresenzi stated that the reason 5% was chosen, was because under the current Zoning Code, which was developed in 1954, an accessory building was allowed to be built within five feet of •a rear or sideyard property line. The Zoning Code Update Committee felt that 250 square feet was large enough. It is a subjective number, but given the size of the lots in the R2F and R5 zones, which are roughly about 50 by 100 or 5, 000 square foot lots, the number was developed to protect the rear and sideyard neighbors from having large structures built very close to their property lines. Trustee Zuckerman questioned if any survey has been done regarding the number of non-conforming lots in the R2F and R5 zones in the Village. It may be a good idea to do this and find out if a majority of our residents have a lot coverage that exceeds what is currently on the books, because if we already have a vast number of accessory structures that are non-conforming and may approach the 10% than we will have a different problem than if we only have a few. If everyone has this, there will not be a problem in altering the law for R2F and R5 as opposed to altering the law if there are very few. The Village Board of Trustees are very sensitive to the residents developing and using their own property and we are trying to see whether the needs of individuals can be accommodated while doing the best for the Community as a whole. Mayor Cresenzi stated that no survey has been done to his knowledge. Trustee Solomon stated that he agrees with Trustee Zuckerman and stated that if setbacks seem to be a problem there should be a way to increase them so that they are not so close to the neighbors property lines. Mayor Cresenzi. stated that given ,the size of the lot being 50 by 100, we do not have much flexibility to increase the setbacks, however, it is something that we can look into as it is an area well worth exploring. Mayor Cresenzi questioned how many Zoning Board applications have come before the Board regarding variances for Accessory buildings and also what the approval and denial rate has been in these two zones that we are speaking of. Trustee Zuckerman stated that the fact that there is not much land means that each square foot is possibly more dear to the residents than the land in an R-20 Zone. It takes more planning to get an occupancy that satisfies the resident. We are only considering this for the R2F and R5 zones. 12 0044 August 11, 1992 Trustee Pellino pointed out that the 30% maximum on the main structure is a good and fair size for that district and it should j not at all be changed. In no case should the main structure exceed j 30%, however where it does not come up to the 30%, perhaps we can add flexibility for people in those districts to bring their accessory buildings up to a point where they would not exceed the intended building envelope on their lots. Therefore, whether or not accessory structures are on the lot, the main structures should never exceed 30% In those cases where it is less than 30%, we can allow the property owner the flexibility to bring an existing accessory structure or possibly a new accessory structure up to a point where, in total, they would not exceed 35%, but in no case would the main building exceed 30%. Trustee Pellino further explained that in a scenario where an individual is currently at a rate of 26% of his allowable coverage for the main structure, the remaining 4%, or whatever that square footage may be, that individual may want to extend or construe an accessory structure. He feels that it is possible to somehow afford the property owner the flexibility of taking some of that 4% in the main building coverage and applying it to either an existing accessory structure or a proposed new accessory structure. Mayor Cresenzi stated that he was concerned with the mass of the structure and it's proximity to the side and rear property lines. Trustee Zuckerman stated that we can also limit the amount of taking so that the size of the accessory structure would never exceed 10%. If you had a main structure that was 18% you wouldn't j want to add the remaining 12% on because you would then have an accessory structure that would be much larger than the main house. You would have to limit the size of the accessory structure to a certain percentage. 'I Mayor Cresenzi pointed out that Local Law #3-1988 deals with lot area coverage and is treated in the same manor as any Zoning Code in the Village, which means that residents can appeal to the Zoning II Board for relief from this. We understand that people who own property have the right to develop, but it is the Board's responsibility to minimize the impact on the surrounding neighbors and neighborhood. i 13 i i 004426 August 11, 1992 Mr. Martinetti stated that he would like to work with Trustee Zuckerman on gathering information. He added that he already has quite a bit of paperwork gathered. Mayor Cresenzi asked Mr. Martinetti to stop by the Village Office so that we can make copies of this information for the Village Board to review. S. RYE HILLS PARR STUDY COMMITTEE REPORT PRESENTATION Marlene Adler, Co-Chairperson of the Rye Hills Study Committee stated that they have worked together for about two years and have now tallied the surveys that went out in the Fall Newsletter and have submitted their reports to the Village Board and Recreation Commission. The basic concept is that park should be refurbished and, most importantly, be automobile accessible so that all residents can use it, and it would be easier for the Police Department to patrol the area. The existing and original features of the park should be replaced, repaired, and refurbished. These features include the Playground, Basketball Court and Playing field. Almost 40% of the people who responded to the survey never even heard of Rye Hills Park. Ms. Adler pointed out that we would need to advertise events at that Park so that residents will know that the park is available to them. Also, the Committee spoke of developing some new features at the Park to attract people. We came up with the idea of emphasizing an area for Pre-Schoolers, as our other parks are geared toward older children. In the past, the basketball court was used for Ice Skating, which we do not suggest you do in the future because the lift on the basketball court, which allowed the water to stay in, was only to be used for playing basketball. It is their understanding that there is a way to create a natural slope, to flood it so that an area can be skated upon. It would be a nice idea for when the weather permits. There are also opportunities for the nature trail, which is not a common thing in the Village. We would like to see the trails developed, which is attractive to walkers and joggers. We would like to have more plantings in the area which would create important community support by having residents donate a tree, or adopt a tree. We understand that all budget areas are tight, but if maintenance is not kept up, anything that is done will quickly deteriorate. As a citizens group, we have gone as far as we could possibly go and we ask the Board to first, consider this as a concept and then if approved, to vigorously pursue the opening of an access road and hire a professional landscape architect or recreational consultant to work with the Recreation Commission and members of this group to i prepare a more specific plan for public review. 14 i i I 0442 i August 11, 1992 j Mayor Cresenzi thanked the entire committee for the tremendous amount of time that was dedicated to this and the hours that were spent in compiling the data and putting it together into a report. i Trustee Daly questioned when the access road will be ready. Mayor Cresenzi stated that the Village Board must determine that. The public right of way is in place and the Board can at any time authorize this. Trustee Zuckerman questioned if it would be possible for the Committee to furnish the Trustees with a map of the park and it's facilities which currently exist today. Mr. Paniccia stated that there is a map included in this report, which is dated July 7, 1992 . Trustee Zuckerman and the rest of the Board stated that they did not receive the report of July 7, 1992. A member of the Committee handed out extra reports, as they were not distributed to the Board members prior to the meeting. Trustee Solomon questioned if the Frederick P. Clark Map identifies what type of trees presently exist. Mr. Paniccia stated that what was done by Frederick P. Clark in this area was very preliminary. They still need to have a topographical survey and a physical survey of meets and bounds. The information that was used in the past was either very old or incomplete. Initially, the Village Board should authorize spending some money to do the very preliminary engineering work that needs to be done. Trustee Solomon stated that right now we are considering taking bids to do that survey at that park. We might want to look into this. Mr. Paniccia added that the park is not level and is relatively hilly. Trustee Pellino stated that for those that do not know the history of the Park, there was a very large structure on what is now a relatively flat field type area. There were tunnels and a basement underneath the structure which went from the Nobil School to a carriage house which was on the extreme end of the property, somewhat near the Hidden Falls Development. So, potential underground hazards may exist. 15 004.4 J August 11, 1992 iMr. Paniccia stated that if the problems that Ms. Adler spoke of are taken care of, the park will be more inviting to residents and will also become accessible to Police Department for patrolling of the area. i Trustee Zuckerman questioned if the Committee considered possibly combining uses with Crawford Park. Mr. Paniccia replied that the Committee discussed this and stated that Crawford Park is larger, has better access, restrooms and a Pavilion. The Committee felt that Rye Hills Park should serve different functions than Crawford Park. The equipment will be suited for smaller children and there are nature trails. We also need another multi-purpose ball field to support a multitude of events such as Day camp. We feel that this park fell into disrepair because it is isolated and has no direct access for the Police or Village Maintenance people. In the past, there has been vandalism to various homes in the area and the Police were unable to catch the vandal because they would cut through the park where vehicles were unable to go after them. Mr. Szczypkowski added that Crawford Park came after the Rye Hills Park which was donated to the Town in 1972. There used to be a good access road from Ridge Street, which fell into disrepair. When Crawford Park became available two years later, they had easier access in terms of parking. We also took into consideration that the overall parking could take place at Crawford Park. Trustee Zuckerman stated that by reading the report, he felt it indicated that the uses that are being suggested are very similar to the report that was done by Roland, many years ago. Mr. Szczypkowski added that the survey that went to every household asked for comments from the residents. Mayor Cresenzi thanked the Rye Hills Park Study Committee again, and apologized for the mix up in the reports. Tony Martinetti stated that changing a neighborhood park into a large park and bringing in an access road to open it up will only bring problems to the area residents. It hurts to see a small little neighborhood park be turned into something larger. A member of the Rye Hills Park Committee informed the members of the audience that Rye Hills Park is the largest piece of land owned by the Village. 16 004431 August 11, 1992 Mr. Paniccia added that the property is already a park so the use is not going to be changed. We are only recommending upgrading the area. More use of the park would also promote better security and better maintenance. Mr. Brown enlightened the audience about the property, which was originally owned by Mr. Price. In the area of Maple Court, there were a tremendous amount of large Pine Trees that separate the Hilton from the residents. When that park was originally taken on, there were 62 acres from the Hilton property when they developed the land. It was put along side of the Crawford property, because Mrs. Crawford had already made arrangements to give her property to the Town of Rye. When that area was developed, it was developed as a private park and was landlocked. The road that Mr. Szczypkowski was referring to was the old service road to the carriage house and the mansion. That road got into such disrepair that there was nothing that we could do as far as maintaining it. The last thing that was brought up that road was muck that came out of the dredging of Rock Ridge pond, when they decided to dredge it for flood control. When that park was complete, we went and sought permission from Mrs. Crawford to add an entrance at the end of the road on Ridge Street, this road was only large enough for a pick up truck and that is how the property was maintained. 9. PORT CHESTER HIGH SCHOOL AREA PARKING RESTRICTIONS/SCHOOL ZONE SPEED LIMIT SPECIAL REPORT Chief Santoro stated that the Port Chester High School had requested that the Rye Brook Police Department and the Rye Brook Traffic Commission look into enacting a resolution "No Parking Here To Corner" , due to many accidents and problems in the area. The Traffic Commission came up with a recommendation a few months back, but the Board asked that they re-evaluate a few other streets in the area, which we did. We also recommend that the School Speed Limit sign on Bowman Avenue be dropped down to 15 Miles Per Hour, due to the 5th graders moving to the Middle School. A change in the speed limit may need to be discussed with Westchester County as well, however, the School and the Traffic Commission agreed on 15 MPH. Trustee Zuckerman questioned what the reason was for the "No Parking Here to Corner" signs. Chief Santoro replied that the reason was really line of site. The roads are narrow and they are currently parking, is as close to the intersecting street as they could get and when trying to make a turn, you are blinded. Because of this we have been getting quite a few minor accidents. 17 August 11, 1992 Trustee Zuckerman questioned if there wasn't any reason that we should have No Parking School days on all of these streets and address the whole parking situation in this whole area going from Ridge Boulevard to Maywood Avenue. Chief Santoro stated that the Traffic Commission only addressed the two problems that they had, the Windsor Road complaint with the school problem and the problem at the intersections. He added that on Saturdays, during football season, the whole area is filled with cars right up to the stop sign. Trustee Solomon stated that if we make that whole area around the High School No Parking 8am-4pm on School days then the kids will park along the field, which is where they should be parking to begin with. Mayor Cresenzi stated that as long as they allow children to drive to school, there is no way to prohibit that. Trustee Zuckerman stated that it is the Village Board's job to protect the residents. Mayor Cresenzi stated that first we should deal with these restrictions and then evaluate the impact and see what the parking problem turns out to be. If we need to expand the No Parking zone, we can then review it and do so. Trustee Zuckerman stated that we should refer it to the Traffic Commission to do an ongoing study now, to be aware of the problem and monitor the situation. i Chief Santoro stated that the Traffic Commission does an excellent job, however, the Police Department will monitor this and if there is a problem, we will get back to the Village Board. He added that he understands that the residents in the area have problems, but the school has been there a long time and there are many residents ! that attend that school. On Motion made by Trustee Zuckerman, seconded by Trustee Daly, the following resolution was hereby adopted: RESOLUTION PORT .CHESTER HIGH SCHOOL AREA PARKING RESTRICTIONS/SCHOOL ZONE SPEED LIMIT RESOLVED, that Article III, Section 240-18 of the Village of Rye j Brook Code entitled "Vehicles & Traffic" be hereby amended to include "No Parking Here to Corner" on the following streets. 18 I 004436 I August 11, 1992 i 1. On Hillcrest Avenue, north and south side of Hillcrest. 2 . On Maywood, north and south side. 3 . On Neuton, east and west of Hillcrest. 4. On Neuton, east and west of entrance and exit to Port Chester High School. 5. On Neuton, west of Tamarack and east of Valley Terrace. 6. On Neuton, west of Valley Terrace. 7. Sign on College Avenue and Tamarack to be moved West. i 8. On College Avenue, east of Windsor. I and be it; FURTHER RESOLVED, that No Parkins shall be permitted on Tamarack Road, north of the Port Chester High School parking lot, to College Avenue (wall) on the east side and a 15 mile per hour speed limit in a Westerly Direction on the North side of Bowman Avenue beginning 400 feet West of South Ridge Street and continuing for 1, 125 feet; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, that there will be a School Zone Speed Limit of 15 MPH in an Easterly Direction on the South side of Bowman Avenue beginning 1, 525 feet West of South Ridge Street and continuing for 1, 125 feet. Mr. Martinetti.questioned what the legal low limit that a Village can impose on a Village Street is. Chief Santoro replied that the legal low speed limit is 15 MPH for School Speed limit, regular Traffic is 30 MPH on Village Roads and 40 MPH on County Roads. Mr. Heller stated that the farther away that the cars park, the further those kids have to walk and vandalism will increase. The parking problem will just move into other neighborhoods. The cars should be kept as close to the school as possible. 19 004411 August 11, 1992 Mayor Cresenzi stated that the Chief of Police has already assured us that he would keep these problems in mind while patrolling the area and see if there are any further problems. j Mr. Heller stated that they are pushing the traffic into another Community and it is not fair to not consult Port Chester first. The traffic will impact the Park Avenue Elementary School students. Rye Brook should work in conjunction with Port Chester to correct this problem. i Trustee Solomon stated that the relatively small amount of areas that we are restricting parking on will cause parking to take place along the Ryan field, which is where it should be to begin with. There are traffic monitors at the Park Avenue School every morning and afternoon. Students have always parked along Windsor and Tamarack Road, however, this particular adjustment is not a drawback to the High School students or the Park Avenue children. We need to compensate the residents in the area who have had to put up with the students parking in front of their homes for many years, littering, and many other things. This is legislation which is long overdo. Mr. Martinetti stated that the two Police Departments should get together with the High School Administrators and somehow restrict all of the students from bringing their automobiles to school. Perhaps they could only allow Seniors to bring their automobiles to school and issue them parking permits. This would definitely cut the problem down. TRUSTEE DALY VOTING AYE TRUSTEE PELLINO VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SOLOMON VOTING AYE TRUSTEE ZUCKERMAN VOTING AYE MAYOR CRESENZI VOTING AYE APPROVAL OF MINUTES 10. JULY 71 1992 On Motion made by Trustee Solomon, seconded by Trustee Zuckerman, the Minutes were hereby approved as amended. TRUSTEE DALY VOTING AYE TRUSTEE PELLINO VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SOLOMON VOTING AYE TRUSTEE ZUCKERMAN VOTING AYE MAYOR CRESENZI VOTING AYE 20 00 : August 11, 1992 i Rick Buzin, of the Rye Hills Park Committee questioned where they stood as far as their presentation. He sent the copy of their findings to the members of the Recreation Commission and have not received any type of feedback from them. Tonight, after presenting this to the Village Board we received a Thank You, but no direction. We did our work, Mr. Buzin stated, and questioned if he is released from this job. Mayor Cresenzi joked that when you Volunteer, you are committed for life, therefore, Mr. Buzin is not released. The Board will discuss this and read the materials that were presented this evening. We need to have discussions with Mr. Circosta, Director of Public Works, regarding the road access and we also must have an accurate field survey of Rye Hills and a good map in order to move forward in any way. We will also need to get in touch with the Recreation Commission and will seek their input. We will all work together on this. The first step is the road, because if there is no access, it will not be utilized. Trustee Pellino added that the map is more important than the land, because it is already there for the road. Mr. Brown stated that on King Street and Lincoln Avenue, the grass is almost three feet high. There is also a dead ash tree in front of 10 Bishop Drive. Also, Pine Ridge Circle, in the vicinity of Loch Lane, there is a home on the corner, where the grass is three j feet high. This is right across from Viola Nelson's home on Loch Lane so it is a surprise that the Village has not already been informed. Mr. Benvenuti stated that at the meeting prior to this one, he presented two items to the Board and is expecting an answer this evening. He presented a picture of the two illegally parked trucks and questioned if the Village has dedicated these two parking spaces or any other spaces at 200 South Ridge as public parking spaces because, if they have not, the trucks are parked there illegally. He also had questions pertaining to Local Law #2-1992 . Mayor Cresenzi stated that Attorney Powell has reviewed Mr. Benvenuti's concerns and will address them this evening. Mr. Benvenuti questioned if these spaces have been dedicated. Attorney Powell explained that whether they have been dedicated or not, is not the issue. It is a C1P Zone and one of the permitted uses is a parking lot for motor vehicles, but not for storage of used or new motor vehicles for sale or hire. The parking of trucks in that zone is a permitted use. The property maintenance law does not apply to commercial zoning. 21 004-4::1 August 11, 1992 Mr. Benvenuti stated that he did not understand. Attorney Powell restated that one of the permitted uses in that Zone is the use of a parking lot, except for storage of vehicles for sale or hire. Mr. Benvenuti asked the Board to read page 6633 of the Zoning Law which states that they cannot park the trucks unless they are doing business on the site or a worker is working on a building on the site. If it is not a public parking area, they cannot park there. He added that they are also paying rent. Mr. Gissen stated that this section relates to required parking. It restricts the required parking to not be used by someone else making it unavailable for the purpose of which it was approved. once the shopping center is built, the trucks will not be allowed to park there because if they need a certain amount of parking spaces, they will not rent them out at the risk of violating their site plan. Trustee Solomon stated that currently this is a C1P Zone and currently that is the permitted use for that area. Attorney Powell stated that at the last meeting an issue came up regarding the reciprocation of the Numbering Law, which provides for the numbering of the each property, the visibility from the street and several guidelines as to the numbering sequence. Attorney Powell, continued that in section 4 a provision regarding the authority of the Director of Public Works to number properties where a number currently does not exist and those properties which do have a number, but are not in sequence with the numbering system. Attorney Powell explained that properties which already have numbers are not required to be renumbered by this law. In section 4c, it clearly states that the Director of Public Works is required to assign numbers to homes which do not have a number, and is also required to utilize the guidelines of the Village, with some exceptions. Section 4d had to do with the changing of existing numbers and that does not require the Director of Public Works to renumber, but it authorizes it in certain specific instances, which are for example, when the existing numbers constitute a material deviation from the numbering system of the Village or neighboring properties or whether the existing numbers are duplicative of existing numbers of properties on the same street. The law as to the numbering of properties authority is not a mandate, but it grants the Director of Public Works the right to renumber. 22 00443 ! ! August 11, 1992 i Mr. Benvenuti stated that Attorney Powell is all wrong. He added that he spoke to a person at the State of New York, who agrees with him. They screwed up Roanoke and now they are screwing up the whole entire Village. Mr. Martinetti stated that this law gives the Director of Public Works full discretion. It is not very fair, because it was done on Roanoke and will not be done anywhere else. Trustee Zuckerman restated from the last meeting, that the basic intent was to provide a numbering system for new construction and by extension it would also provide for houses or lower lots that are presently unbuilt. It is not contemplated that the law would require renumbering of very many houses in the Village, only where there is a material deviation. He added that he would personally construe that to mean where we do not have a proper odd/even sequence or houses that are not sequential, for example, 3 , 5, 19, 11, would be a material deviation. He further stated that he did not think that the entire Village would be renumbered, it is not contemplated and as far as the authority of the Director of Public Works, he also does not contemplate renumbering the houses and we should also be aware that there is a right of appeal for any house that is numbered, to the Zoning Board of Appeals. We do have ongoing construction in various areas of the Village, where houses ! will need to be numbered, and they should be numbered according to a scheme of numbering that the Village sets up. Trustee Solomon questioned who Mr. Benvenuti spoke with at the State, so we can call and confirm what has been said this evening. The Village Attorney is a human being and can make mistakes. Mr. Benvenuti would not give a name, but said that Ed Dorsey stated that the renumbering of the Village had nothing to do with 911, as was stated being the reason in a letter from Mr. Gerardi, Asst Building Inspector. Mayor Cresenzi stated that these conversations all took place almost word for word when we had the public hearing on this matter. The Village Attorney was asked for his opinion and he gave one. Residents have the right to disagree, however they were not ignored. Mr. Martinetti stated that what Trustee Zuckerman has said and what the law reads is really not the same thing. Mayor Cresenzi stated that Trustee Zuckerman's statement agreed with that of Attorney Powell's statement. Mr. Martinetti stated that he could not hear Attorney Powell, therefore cannot disagree with his statement. 23 00 43 August 11, 1992 Trustee Zuckerman stated that the issue that Mr. Benvenuti just brought up, has nothing to do with this Local Law and was instituted prior to the adoption of the Local Law. Under the Law, as written, that situation would not occur and that house would not have been renumbered and that letter would not have gone out, because consecutive numbering is not a standard of material deviation under this Law. Had the numbers gone from 1, 3, 5, 17, 11, that would have constituted a change. But if the letters 1, 3, 5, 7, 11, would not constitute a change. In addition, they could appeal this to the Zoning Board of Appeals and have a Hearing. Mr. Martinetti questioned if this law has been filed with the Secretary of State yet. Mayor Cresenzi replied that it has not yet been filed. Mr. Martinetti stated that anyone who received a letter dated July 31, 1992, does not even need to appeal because under this law, the Village cannot enforce it. This law is a worthless piece of paper. Trustee Solomon questioned under what authority, did Robert Gerardi, the Asst Building Inspector have, at the time, to send those letters out and change the numbers. Mr. Circosta repled that he was working under the General Municipal Law. Trustee Solomon questioned what the problem was with that property where the number was being changed. Trustee Daly interjected that we are getting off the track. Mayor Cresenzi stated that you would have to sit down and go through the map as to why those numbers were changed. There was proper judgement used in renumbering that street, although the residents in that area disagree with the Village, they are free to review the map that Mr. Circosta has. Mr. Martinetti stated that the sequence is wrong. He added that the residents on Roanoke Avenue have only accepted this grudgingly and are tolerating these changes, but will not forget. Mayor Cresenzi questioned if Mr. Martinetti was making a threat and questioned what he was getting at. Mr. Martinetti stated that the residents are not going to forget what actually happened. The sequence of events on Roanoke Avenue are not the same as what Trustee Zuckerman is pointing out. 24 0044 di Trustee Zuckerman stated that the events that took place on Roanoke Avenue, occurred prior to the adoption of this Law, so he agrees with Mr. Martinetti that the sequence of events did not follow what this law points out. Had this law been in existence, that sequence of events would not have happened. Mr. Benvenuti questioned what procedure was going to be followed in the renumbering. Trustee Zuckerman stated that we would follow the procedure that is in the law when it is filed. Mr. Martinetti stated that he got a copy of chapter 66 of the Zoning Law and in looking through it, it seems that no one proofed the Zoning Code. Trustee Zuckerman explained that the Zoning Law is not in the Codification as it is in the process of being updated by the Zoning Code Update Committee. After the updating is completed, it will be incorporated into the Village Code. Mr. Martinetti questioned if we were still following the Zoning Code of the Town of Rye. Trustee Pellino stated that our current Zoning Law is the law that exists in this Village today. The Zoning Code Update Committee is in the process of reviewing that law and is preparing recommendations for the Village Board to act on making additions, changes and deletions to that Law. They will present different sections of the Code at a time to be reviewed. Once that is done, the Zoning Code will eventually become part of the overall Code of the Village. We are in the process of preparing to present to the Village Board recommendations on changes, additions and deletions to the PUD Ordinance, Sign Ordinance, Swimming Pool Ordinance and the Fence Ordinance. Trustee Zuckerman added that before this is done, there will be a Public Hearing on each section of the Code as it is proposed to be changed. Mr. Martinetti questioned if anyone proofread this after it was transposed from Chapter 66, of the Town of Rye Zoning Law, because it should be identical. Mayor Cresenzi stated that since 1982 , there have been specific individual changes to the Zoning Code so it would not read word for word. 25 H 4 :1910 August 11, 1992 Mr. Heller stated that the Codification process lasted for many months and there were many deletions and additions. He questioned if these changes have been proofed by all of the Board members to make sure that when they passed it the first time that the proper changes were included. Administrator Russo stated that all the changes are at General Code Publishers and must come back to the Village Board to review. Mayor Cresenzi added that the Board would review all the pages one more time and Mr. Heller would get a second shot. Mr. Heller also questioned if topographical studies and surveys were done since 1972 at Rye Hills Park. Mr. Circosta stated that topographicals were done as part of the Rye Town Tax Map procedures and are available, but the survey, we do not have. Mr. Heller stated that there should be a survey from when the Hilton dedicating the Park to the Village. He added that perhaps the County has it on file. Mayor Cresenzi stated that we did not have the survey. He added that he would like to get a stakeout to visually see exactly what we have and then have a clean map produced. Mr. Paniccia, a member of the Rye Hills Study Group stated that any surveyor would check with the County before starting a survey. Mr. Heller stated that the plants and flowers in front of the Village of Rye Brook Offices need to be taken care of. Mayor Cresenzi explained that the Village does not take care of the property, the owner of the Building is responsible. On Motion made by Trustee Zuckerman, seconded by Trustee Pellino, the Board adjourned into Executive Session at 10: 55 p.m. to discuss Ashgrove Realty. TRUSTEE DALY VOTING AYE TRUSTEE PELLINO VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SOLOMON VOTING AYE TRUSTEE ZUCKERMAN VOTING AYE MAYOR CRESENZI VOTING AYE The Board returned to Public Session at 11: 50 p.m. 26 004441 August 11, 1992 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION - ASHGROVE REALTY On Motion made by Trustee Pellino seconded by Trustee Daly, the following resolution was hereby adopted: RESOLUTION ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION ASHGROVE REALTY WHEREAS, application has been made to the Board of Trustees of the Village of Rye Brook for a change of zone and site plan approval by Ashgrove Reality Corporation, as more specifically described in the annexed Positive Declaration; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees has determined that the proposed action constitutes a Type I Action under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR 617 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law; and WHEREAS, based upon a review of the applicant's submitted materials, the Village Board of Trustees has determined that the proposed action maintains the potential for significant adverse environmental impacts, as more particularly described in the annexed Positive Declaration; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the annexed Positive Declaration is hereby adopted by the Board of Trustees of the Village of Rye Brook. Mr. Gissen explained that the applicant has made an application for Site Plan and also is seeking to change the Zone from a Hotel District to C1P. In order to move forward, this must be reviewed under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act. The New York State Environmental Quality Review Act is also referred to as SEQRA and is a fact finding process, so one will have the information necessary to make a rational decision. It is required by law to go through this procedure. The applicant has submitted an Environmental Assessment Form. Based upon the Village's review of that form and the plan, the Village has determined that this is a type I Action, which means it requires a coordinated review with other reviewing authorities. 27 0 4f: August 11, 1992 Mr. Gissen added that the Village Board has previously determined that they were the Lead Agency so that they may review it. After becoming the Lead Agency and reviewing the materials, the Village has determined that a Positive Declaration be made, which means that there is a potential for significant adverse impacts including, but not limited to: traffic impacts, visual impacts, noise, impacts to wetlands, vegetation, the compatibility with neighboring uses, land uses in zoning, existing retail within the trade area for this proposed project and fiscal impacts on the Village and other taxing authorities. In preparation for that, the Planning Board will be holding an informal scoping session on Thursday, August 13 , 1992 . The Village Board will have a formal scoping session on Tuesday, September 8, 1992 . This is to identify the issue that the Board ultimately will address in the EIS. The purpose of the scoping session on September 8th is so that the public and others can have input. The Village will be able to decide what they will accept and reject. A draft Environmental Impact Statement will need to be prepared for public comment. All the comments will have to be responded to in the Final Environmental Impact Statement. Mrs. Chatman questioned if this was being referred to both the Zoning and the Planning Board. Mayor Cresenzi confirmed that Mrs. Chatman was correct. Mr. Heller questioned if at the end of the Final Environmental Impact Statement, the Zoning Site Plan will be included when the FEIS is completed. Mr. Gissen stated that according to the law, once you have completed that, and after studying the applicants proposal which has everything included, the approval authority has a limited number of days -in which to make a decision or else it is deemed to be in the affirmative. Therefore, once this process is completed, the Board, within a relatively short period of time will be making a decision. Mr. Gissen added that he is quite confident that the Board will be considering all alternatives that the approval authority might think to be more appropriate, such as a residential component and a mixed use component. Those would have to be addressed by the applicant and the impact of other developments in the area compared with the impact of what the applicant is proposing. Mr. Heller stated that the Village Board is the Lead Agency. If the Planning Board goes through their entire procedures and then makes a recommendation to the Village Board and the Board disapproves their recommendation, he questioned if you would still need a Final Environmental Impact Statement. 28 j 00(1-4 4� August 11, 1992 Mr. Gissen replied that a Final Environmental Impact Statement would most definitely be needed. Mrs. Sullivan questioned if at the Planning Board's scoping session, comments will be heard from the residents. Mayor Cresenzi stated that the Planning Board is an advisory Board to the Village Board and it's scoping session does not have to be in Public, however, it will be. There will also be the Village Board scoping session to take place on September 8, 1992, where comments will be accepted from the Public. Mr. Gissen stated that under SEQR, the Village is not required to invite the Public, since this does not have to be a public meeting. Mrs. Steinberg questioned what the format of the Planning Board Scoping Session will be and will the residents have any input. Mayor Cresenzi stated that he does not know the Planning Board Meeting format, however, on September 8, 1992 , the residents will have input. Mr. Circosta stated that the Planning Board felt that they would discuss their concerns in Public to get their items to the Village Board in the form of a group. The Public Scoping Session is with the Lead Agency, which is the Village Board. Mr. Gissen stated that technically the Planning Board's recommendation of their scoping session, are no more binding upon the Village than that of a letter from a resident or from the applicant. Trustee Zuckerman reiterated that there are certain members of the Board that do .have great reservations with the project as it is currently constituted and we will take all of the comments of the residents into consideration. TRUSTEE DALY VOTING AYE TRUSTEE PELLINO VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SOLOMON VOTING AYE TRUSTEE ZUCKERMAN VOTING AYE MAYOR CRESENZI VOTING AYE NEXT MEETING DATES AGENDA MEETING - SEPTEMBER 8, 1992 - 8 : 00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING - SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 - 8: 00 P.M. 29 August 11, 1992 ADJOURNMENT On Motion Duly made and accepted, the Meeting was hereby adjourned at 12 : 00 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Eliz beth Czajk6wski Secretary to the Village Board 30