Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-09-08 - Board of Trustees Meeting Minutes AGENDA VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BOARD OF TRUSTEES AGENDA MEETING SEPTEMBER 81 1992 8: 00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ACTION 1. PUBLIC SCOPING SESSION RE: ASHGROVE REALTY PROPOSAL RESOLUTIONS 2 . REFERRAL TO THE PLANNING BOARD MERRITT & HOLBY ASSOCIATES 200 SOUTH RIDGE STREET i SECTION 1, BLOCK 22, LOT 4AA,2A2 i 3 . APPROVING DISPLAY AND SIGN FOR TWIG FAIR 4 . APPROPRIATION OF RECREATION TRUST & AGENCY FUNDS FOR ANTHONY J. POSILLIPO RECONSTRUCTION 5. APPROVING TAX CERTIORARI SETTLEMENT RE: CON EDISON V. VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK 6. CHECK REGISTER i i 004446 MINUTES OF AN AGENDA MEETING VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BOARD OF TRUSTEES VILLAGE OFFICES 90 SOUTH RIDGE STREET RYE BROOK, NEW YORK SEPTEMBER 8, 1992 8:00 P.M. CONVENE MEETING The Meeting was called to order at 8: 00 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, Asst to Village Administrator Rocco V. Circosta, Director of Public Works Kenneth Powell, Village Attorney Robert J. Santoro, Chief of Police William Wendlandt, Village Assessor Thomas Gissen, Frederick P. Clark Associates Elizabeth Czajkowski, Secretary to Village Board Joseph Cortese, Village Treasurer was not in attendance at this meeting. 1 September 8, 1992 L70 4444 :J Mayor Cresenzi commented that last Thursday evening the Country Ridge section of the Village of Rye Brook was hit by a tornado. As confirmed by the National Weather Service, there was severe tree damage, power loss and telephone loss. Fortunately, no one was injured. He commended Police Chief Santoro, the Police Department, Rocco Circosta, Director of Public Works and the Highway Department for a job well done. 1. PUBLIC SCOPING SESSION RE: ASHGROVE REALTY PROPOSAL Mr. Thomas Gissen of Frederick P. Clark Associates explained that this Scoping Session is part of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) process. SEQRA is a State Law which applies to all development proposals as well as most other government activity and exists to ensure that the planning process is more rational. It is intended to be a fact finding process. In this case the applicant has proposed a rezoning and, contingent upon that, a site plan approval for a site to accommodate 119, 000 square feet for a community shopping center. In compliance with SEQR, the applicant submitted an environmental assessment form to determine what areas might need to be studied and what potentially significant negative impacts or adverse impacts might be associated with the proposal. In reviewing this form, the Village was able to determine that this was a Type I Action, which is considered to be one that has the greatest potential for significant adverse impact. The Village then determined that it should be the Lead Agency that would process this application under SEQR. There are other approval authorities that would be required to sign off on this project and one of those approval authorities must act as the Lead Agency. The Village circulated a notice and no other agency challenged the Village's right to do so. The Village therefore, became a Lead Agency. A month ago, the Village issued a Positive Declaration which meant that the Village had determined that there was a possibility of certain significant adverse impacts having to do with traffic, visual impacts, noise, impacts to wetlands, vegetation, compatibility with neighboring land uses and zoning districts, impacts on existing retail centers and districts and fiscal impacts to taxing authority including but not limited to the Village. The next step is the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement, which is done in draft copy first, and in final copy, second, The purpose of the scoping session is to determine what issues should be addressed in the Environmental Impact statement and not to determine whether or not one is opposed to the project. There will be a Public Hearing held on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, which address every issue determined by the Village Board of Trustees after listening to the comments of the public, staff and consultants. Once the DEIS is submitted for completeness, it is circulated to other involved agencies and it is made available to the public. There are minimum time limits under which the public has to have the opportunity to review the document and can make comment on the document. Once that is completed, the comments must be addressed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) . A Public Hearing will be held on the FEIS and, if everything that had to be addressed was, the Village will then issue a findings statement. Mr. Gissen concluded that based upon the findings statement, the Village Board can decide whether to approve the project as proposed, with conditions or to deny the project. 2 ( 4 5 September 8, 1992 Mr. Bruno Gioffre stated that he agreed with what Mr. Gissen has said. He added that the Scoping session was done preliminarily by the Planning Commission and the function of that body and of this body is to find certain environmental issues if they exist with respect to the site and to require that they be addressed and explored and returned to the Village Board with respect to certain findings and recommendations for you to then accept, reject, modify and ultimately if necessary take over the environmental evaluation process and get to the question of the merits of the application. This is a procedural step to get to the substantive step. The substantive step then addresses a two phased question. Is it appropriate to rezone this property after having made certain environmental findings, from the presently H-1 to the proposed zone, neighborhood retail, Cl-P. In the process of that you will review a site plan, which will be site specific and would enhance the evaluation of the application and enable you to look at the application for rezoning in the specific light of the proposed use to which the property would be for. You would be looking at a 15. 4 parcel which has 2.7 acres in Greenwich, the triangular parcel which runs along King Street and 12. 7 acres in Rye Brook which runs along Anderson Hill Road parallel to King Street. The Village has made a declaration and sent out a message to the public and to buyers that this is a commercially zoned site for hotel use. This must be evaluated relative to what could be done with the site as a matter of right. The site would be 119, 000 square feet. Sixty-four thousand square feet would be for the supermarket proper and Twelve thousand, three hundred and seventy square feet would be for the mezzanine, storage or ancillary supermarket space. There would be two proposed satellite stores of forty-two thousand, five hundred square feet. The proposal is one half of the floor area ratio requirements the Village of Rye Brook permits for the site. This proposal would be a unique presentation of upscale shops with first class construction. Before you get to those issues and before we produce the site plan and the before the experts speak before the Board, we must determine certain environmental issues, which have been commented on by the planning consultant of the Village. We ask that in evaluating the environmental concerns here, you do so in light of prevailing zoning. Please proceed with the environmental concerns and evaluate what is before you already and come up with a fair comprehensive site specific scoping so that we can address those issues. Mr. Ed Leiberman stated that he is here on behalf of a group of residents known as People Against Aggressive Development. They have gathered petitions that have been signed by over 1, 682 residents of the Village. He agreed with Mr. Gissen that this is a meeting for scoping, which is a limited issue. He added, however, that he has risen to a point of order as to whether or not you wish to proceed, or have to proceed with the SEQRA process at all. As a long time municipal attorney, Mr. Leiberman stated that he is aware that the duty of the Village Board is to be fair to the applicant and also to the residents and taxpayers in terms of possible lawsuits down the road. Sometimes it is more fair to an applicant to be honest up front rather than to have the applicant spend enormous sums of money on experts to prepare a DEIS and the FEIS on projects which are not really in the best interest of the Village and will not become a reality. Mr. Leiberman questioned if this Board would approve such a proposal after only a few years turning down 42 housing units on this same site. He asked the Board to please consider whether they really wish to put everyone through the SEQRA process. 3 September 8, 1992 (? Mr. Leiberman then recited Section 617 . 3D of the SEQRA Regulations. He explained that this meant that if the Village Board, as a legislative body, determined that the proposed rezoning is not appropriate for the site, then you do not have to go any further and follow the SEQRA process. There have been lawsuits and civil rights actions by developers against Municipalities for turning down their projects and slapsuits by developers against residents who speak up against developers. In this particular case, the applicant has not yet bought the property so he has only spent a minor amount for an option for the property. The cost will be enormous to put the developer through the SEQRA process, not to mention the Village's time as well as the residents time. Mr. Leiberman submitted that in this case it would be more fair to the applicant, to the Village Board, the staff and the residents if you would step back and consider if you think this is an appropriate zoning for this site. Many years ago, this property was rezoned Hotel as a buffer between the more intense uses to the West, from the residential to the North, South and East of the property. Would a shopping center be in line with this concept of a transitional zone as a buffer between the residential uses and the more intense uses. In conclusion, I would again urge you to invoke Section 617 . 3D, step back, and tell this applicant that you are not going to put them through this hassle: "This will not fly! " On Motion made by Trustee Solomon, seconded by Trustee Pellino, the Board adjourned into Executive Session at 8 : 25 p.m. to discuss pending legal issues related to this application. The Board reconvened into Public Session at 8 : 43 p.m and on Motion made by Trustee Solomon, seconded by Trustee Pellino, the following resolution was hereby adopted: RESOLUTION ASHGROVE REALTY WHEREAS, an application has been made to the Board of Trustees for a change of Zone and Site Plan Approval by Ashgrove Realty Corporation; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the accompanying "DETERMINATION NOT TO ENTERTAIN REZONING APPLICATION AND RELATED MATTERS" dated September 8, 1992 is hereby adopted by the Board of Trustees of the Village of Rye Brook. Administrator Russo also read an attached memo TRUSTEE DALY VOTING AYE TRUSTEE PELLINO VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SOLOMON VOTING AYE TRUSTEE ZUCKERMAN VOTING AYE MAYOR CRESENZI VOTING AYE 4 0024-4 September 8, 1992 DETERMINING NOT TO ENTERTAIN REZONING APPLICATION AND RELATED MATTERS Name: Ashgrove Realty Corporation (Silverman Development Group)= Proposed Community Retail Center Development. i Description: Applicant has requested a change of zoning district classification and site plan approval for an approximately 12 .726 acre parcel. Applicant proposes to develop a community retail center of approximately 119, 000 square feet, as well as ancillary parking, loading, circulation, detention and other associated areas. In addition to site plan approval, the applicant has requested the Village Board of Trustees to rezone the subject site from a H-1 (Hotel) district to a C1-p (commercial retail district. Location: At or near the southwest quadrant of the intersection of King Street and Anderson Hill Road in the Village of Rye Brook. Tax Designation: Section 2 , Block 4, Lots 5, 6, 7, and 7A1. Determination: 1. In this case, the applicant has made an application for a zoning change to rezone the subject 12 . 726 acre site from the existing H-1 (Hotel) district to a C1-P (commercial retail) district. The purpose of the rezoning request is to facilitate the applicant's plan to develop the property in a manner now not permitted by its zoning classification. Applicant wishes to construct a community retail center of approximately 119, 000 square feet, as well as ancillary parking, loading, circulation, detention and other associated areas. A site plan application for this use, which is dependent upon a legislative zoning change, has also been submitted. 2 . A rezoning is a legislative matter resting in the legislative discretion of the Board of Trustees. There is no right, conferred by law, to obtain a zoning change or to mandate its consideration. 3 . Under the DEC regulations adopted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, Environmental Conservation Law Section 8-0101 et sea. , in particular, 6 N.Y.C.R. 617 . 3 (d) , it is provided that an: " . .agency which must make a legislative decision, such as a rezoning, need not apply SEQR to its legislative decision process if the agency determines that the action will not be entertained. " (emphasis added) . 4. In light of the extensive review this application would require, in the context of the limited resources of the Village, both fiscal and personnel, and other matters judged of treater importance to the Village, consideration of this rezoning is not warranted under the circumstances. 004-4 5. The action, is entertained, would be a Type I action under SEQR with the potential for significant adverse impacts as more particularly described below, thus requiring the preparation and review of an environmental impact statement, and associated proceedings which could include public hearings and a final EIS together with SEQR findings. A positive declaration was made on August 11, 1992 . 6. on their face, the materials submitted indicate one or more aspects of the intrinsic nature of the proposal which may have a significant impact on the environment including, but not limited to: traffic, visual impacts, noise, wetlands, vegetation, incompatibility with neighboring land uses and zoning districts, retail development within a trade area, and fiscal impacts on the Village. The Village has also prepared a draft of scoping outline for a Draft-Environmental Impact Statement and initiated a public scoping session on September 8, 1992 . 7 . Under the circumstances, inasmuch as the present application for a rezoning is of no present interest to the Board of Trustees, in light of the above, the extended review of the application and the attendant expense upon the Village and the applicant, considering its apparent magnitude, is not in the best interests of the Village and others. 8. The site plan application is subject to the rezoning application in the sense that the site plan is dependent upon a rezoning to allow the uses represented in the site plan to be effectuated. As the Board of Trustees has determined that the rezoning will not be entertained, the site plan application is not complete, and will not be further processed, for the criteria of a complete application are not fulfilled. A review os this application for such purpose is not within the contemplation of the SEQR process as per 6 N.Y.C.R.R. 617 . 3 (c) (2) . 9. As set forth in the site plan regulations (Local Law 28-1984) , the procedures therein are intended to be integrated as appropriate with requirements of the Village Law and other mandatory requirements. In the particular circumstances of this proposal, the integration of the requirements for rezoning renders the site plan application incomplete and unapprovable. 10. A per Section 66014 of the Zoning Law, the application for a rezoning was referred to the Planning Board. These provisions of the Zoning Law also provide for a report "unless such proceedings have therefore been terminated. " 11. For the reasons stated, these proceedings (rezoning/site plan) are terminated. September 8, 1992 U45 RESOLUTIONS 2 . REFERRAL TO THE PLANNING BOARD MERRITT & HOLBY ASSOCIATES 200 SOUTH RIDGE STREET SECTION 1, BLOCK 22, LOT 4AA12A2 on Motion made by Trustee Zuckerman, seconded by Trustee Daly, the following resolution was hereby adopted: RESOLUTION REFERRAL TO THE PLANNING BOARD MERRITT & HOLBY ASSOCIATES/200 SOUTH RIDGE STREET REVISED SITE PLAN MODIFICATION SECTION 1, BLOCK 22, LOT 4AA12A2 WHEREAS, an application was received for Site Plan Modification for the use of the Lower Level & Driving Configuration from Merritt & Holby Associates at the premises located at 200 South Ridge Street and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section 1, Block 22 , Lot 4AA,2A2 . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this application is hereby referred to the Planning Board this 8th day of September, 1992 for their review and recommendations; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, that the applicant is hereby required to contribute the amount of $1, 000 toward consulting fees for environmental impact review, and said amount shall be due and payable upon referral to the Planning Board of said application; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, that if the entire sum is not required for consulting fees, then the balance shall be returned to the applicant. However, if additional sums are needed, then they shall be paid by the applicant. Trustee Daly stated that she was angry that Merritt and Holby have sort of already committed people to use of the underground storage space, when we haven't even discussed it yet. Mayor Cresenzi stated that in regard to the parking requirements, we have an approved subdivision and site plan regarding the new construction of the shopping center there now, but questioned whether or not the traffic that is generated by this lower level was taken into account during the environmental and in the parking review that has already been completed. Mr. Circosta stated that in the new parking code under retail use, we require a gross area of the building. In the approval of the site plan that we now have, it was included as part of the retail. 6 ? k" September 8, 1992 Michael Stolzar stated that in the approval of the site plan, this space was either going to be used for a Bowling Alley or for storage. We gave no consideration to any other possible uses. Mr. Gioffre stated that Mr. Stolzar's statement was not totally accurate. After attempts to use the site for a bowling alley, they realize that it just did not work out. It was never stated that it would be a storage use forever. The Planning Commission stated that it didn't want that area used in the beginning for development unless it were part of the entire application. Timing was a critical factor and it was therefore suggested that that area be withdrawn from a proposal for use at that time. But that the parking requirements of the site accommodate that area for the future. The Board does not have the right to say in a neighborhood retail use, you shall not use space for which everything else is satisfactory for retail use. There are now uses that are complimentary that will satisfy the zoning requirements, they don't compete between the hours of traffic. It should not be looked upon as a prohibited use. Mr.. Eugene Strum stated that in their deliberations they did include the area in parking computation. The applicant specifically agreed that any future use of the site would be subject to the approval of the Village Board. Mr. Stolzar stated that it is important to consider what an applicant presents to you and the history of the site should be considered. The only time that the use of that space was not presented as being used for storage space was at the last Planning Board Meeting. The applicant agreed with us that we would proceed with it with the understanding that future use would be subject to the Board's approval. Mr. Gioffre stated that if we referred to the Planning Board Minutes of several meetings back, you will find that this question did come up and the record will show that they evaluated that space with the idea that it could ultimately be used. Evaluation was done early on knowing that there is a possible potential use for it. He suggested that it be referred and acted upon. There could be two uses in there, a gymnastic use and a Gymboree. They do not impose upon the parking or circulation of traffic on the site. Trustee Zuckerman stated that this is only a Planning Board referral, and there is no reason to discuss these merits at this time. TRUSTEE DALY VOTING AYE TRUSTEE PELLINO VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SOLOMON VOTING AYE TRUSTEE ZUCKERMAN VOTING AYE MAYOR CRESENZI VOTING AYE 7 G045; September 8, 1992 3. APPROVING DISPLAY AND SIGN FOR TWIG FAIR On Motion made by Trustee Daly, seconded by Trustee Zuckerman, the following resolution was hereby adopted: RESOLUTION APPROVING DISPLAY AND SIGN FOR TWIG FAIR WHEREAS, that the Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees hereby grants permission to the Twig Organization of United Hospital to install a temporary sign, 4' x 6' at the corner of Ridge Street and Bowman Avenue from Friday, November 6, 1992 thru Saturday, November 14, 1992 . TRUSTEE DALY VOTING AYE TRUSTEE PELLINO VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SOLOMON VOTING AYE TRUSTEE ZUCKERMAN VOTING AYE MAYOR CRESENZI VOTING AYE 4. APPROPRIATION OF RECREATION TRUST & AGENCY FUNDS FOR ANTHONY J. POSILLIPO RECONSTRUCTION On Motion made by Trustee Solomon, seconded by Trustee Pellino, the following resolution was hereby adopted: RESOLUTION APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS ANTHONY J. POSILLIPO COMMUNITY CENTER RECONSTRUCTION RESOLVED, that $20, 000 be and hereby is appropriated from the Recreation & Trust & Agency account for the purpose of funding various expenses related to the reconstruction of the Anthony J. Posillipo Community Center. Such expenses shall include the asbestos evaluation, color renderings and landscaping plan. - Trustee Pellino questioned what the balance of the Recreation Trust & Agency is. Administrator Russo replied that it is somewhere in the vicinity of $700,000.00 or better. In a little over two years it will be just under a million dollars, not counting what we take out for the Anthony J. Posillipo Community Center. TRUSTEE DALY VOTING AYE TRUSTEE PELLINO VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SOLOMON VOTING AYE TRUSTEE ZUCKERMAN VOTING AYE MAYOR CRESENZI VOTING AYE 8 September 8, 19920e " 5 S. APPROVING TAX CERTIORARI SETTLEMENT RE: CON EDISON V. VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK On Motion made by Trustee Daly, seconded by Trustee Pellino, the following resolution was hereby adopted: RESOLUTION APPROVING TAX CERTIORARI SETTLEMENT CON EDISON V. VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees approves the settlement of certiorari proceedings, under the Real Property Tax Law entitled: Consolidated Edison Company of New York v. Village of Rye Brook Index Nos. 92-07263 , 91-06628, 90- 07167,89-05263, 88-05473 , 87-06899 and 86-06998 under which: 1. Tax assessment rolls for the years 1992 , 1993 and 1994 shall be adjusted, subject to certain exceptions, as follows: Year Aggregate Assessments 1992 $237, 800 1993 $205,400 1994 $173 , 000 2. Stipulations of discontinuances with prejudice (without costs) shall be filed for pending proceedings provided the assessment rolls have been adjusted as agreed upon and any refund payment has been made, as follows: Assessment Roll Proceedings to be Adjusted Dismissed 1992 1986, 1987, 1992 1993 1988, 1989 1994 1990, 1991 3 . Stipulations waiving limitations under RPTL, Section 718 shall be executed. 4. If the Village makes the agreed upon adjustments for 1993 and 1994 , notes of issue shall not be filed regarding certiorari petitions 1986 through 1992 and no certiorari proceeding shall be filed for 1993 and 1994 rolls. 5. The stipulation shall not be binding on transferees. 6. The Village shall refund together with statutory interest, Village taxes for uncorrected 1992 assessments in excess of the amount that would have been payable on revised 1992 assessments ($2, 912 . 00) . Trustee Zuckerman questioned why this was not binding on transferees. 9 004456 September 8, 1992 Attorney Powell explained that it was something that Con Edison insisted upon because in the event they sell the property, it doesn't become encumbered with an agreement. Their substation or gas regulating facilities are so remote that it's not a major issue. Trustee Solomon questioned how many actual dollars would this be costing the Village in 1992 , 1993 and 1994 . Mr. William Wendlandt replied that he did not have that information with him. Administrator Russo calculated roughly $3 , 000 each year. Trustee Solomon questioned what we are saving on the years that are being dismissed. Administrator Russo stated that he did not have those numbers available tonight. TRUSTEE DALY VOTING AYE TRUSTEE PELLINO VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SOLOMON VOTING AYE TRUSTEE ZUCKERMAN VOTING AYE MAYOR CRESENZI VOTING AYE Trustee Solomon questioned where we are on the Royal Executive Park Agreement that was tabled recently. Attorney Powell replied that he sent a letter to their attorneys requesting that they address a series of points regarding the best interest .of the Village. This would include a procedure for discontinuing lawsuits the waiver of refund claims and similar provisions which would preclude the owner from pursuing any pending tax certiorari or filing any notes of issue or bringing administrative appeals. The attorney for the property owner was on vacation for several weeks so when he returns, he will receive the letter. It should all be finalized in the next week or two. 6. CHECK REGISTER On Motion made by Trustee Daly, 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; 10 04 4 September 8, 1992 On-Line Checks: #5194-5230 Hand Checks: #10061-10065 Payroll Checks: #7840-7942 Environmental: #357-358 Recreational Trust: #1012 (Birthday Run) Capital: #1002 Recreational Trust: NONE (Building Fees) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT . RESOLVED, that this Board hereby approves payment of the above-mentioned claims and authorized payment thereof. TRUSTEE DALY VOTING AYE TRUSTEE PELLINO VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SOLOMON VOTING AYE TRUSTEE ZUCKERMAN VOTING AYE MAYOR CRESENZI VOTING AYE On Motion made by Trustee Solomon, seconded by Trustee Zuckerman, the following resolution was hereby adopted: RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING DATE NORTHEAST NETWORKS, INC. ENTERING INTO FRANCHISE AGREEMENT RESOLVED, that a Public Hearing will be held by the Board of Trustees of the Village of Rye Brook on Tuesday, September 22 , 1992 , 8: 00 p.m. at the Village Offices, 90 South Ridge Street, with Northeast Networks, Inc. for the installation of a fiber optic system in the Village of Rye Brook. TRUSTEE DALY VOTING AYE TRUSTEE PELLINO VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SOLOMON VOTING AYE TRUSTEE ZUCKERMAN VOTING AYE MAYOR CRESENZI VOTING AYE Mr. Heller stated that the drainage ditches at Deer Run are getting worse and worse and questioned if they could be looked into. Dr. Ira Bernstein highly commended the Village for the handling of the aftermath of the Tornado on Thursday. The traffic control, clean up, etc. worked out beautifully. Trustee Pellino questioned the progress of the EPA at the site on King Street and what would become of the Village's leaf program. 11 004460 September 8, 1992 Administrator Russo stated that they are going to be moving the trailer out of the way as best as possible. They will be doing a little grating work and will calculate the amount of leaves that we can store because of their trailer. We are negotiating with them to pay for the tub grinder for the additional time that we are going to need it. According to a phone call we had with them today, it looks like they will pay for the tub grinder, but how much, we are not sure. It is moving along. Regarding our letter about the map, they have not upgraded the map in a while and it is not accurate, but they are working on it and will get us a copy. ADJOURNMENT on Motion made by Trustee Zuckerman, seconded by Trustee Daly the Meeting adjourned into Executive Session at 9 : 20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Elizabeth Czajkowski Secretary to Village Board 12