Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-09-18 - Board of Trustees Meeting Minutes 0016 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK VILLAGE OFFICES ill 90 SOUTH RIDGE STREET RYE BROOK, NEW YORK iSEPTEMBER 18, 1990 CONVENE MEETING The Meeting of the Board of Trustees was called to order by Mayor Cresenzi at 8:00 p.m. 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 Francis L. Filipowski Trustee Jane Saffir Smith Also Present were: Christopher J. Russo, Village Administrator Edward Beane, Village Attorney Joseph Cortese, Village Treasurer Lori Ann DeMarco, Ass't. to the Village Administrator Elizabeth Czajkowski, Secretary to the Village Board Fritz Weidle, Frederick P. Clark Associates Trustee Robert J. Ravich and Village Treasurer Joe Cortese were not in attendance at this meeting. ip September 18, 1990 00 1 l) Mayor Cresenzi stated that before opening the Public Hearing, County Legislator Marty Rogowsky would like to bring us up-to-date on the airport situation. Mayor Cresenzi then proceeded to introduce Mr. Rogowsky. Mr. Rogowsky informed the Board that David Smith, Chairman of the Airport Advisory Committee for the Village of Rye Brook, has been excellent. David is a very hard worker and constantly keeps in touch with him. Recently a commitment was made by the Board, to adopt a comprehensive noise policy which passed unanimously. This is good news! The terminal was reduced from 43,000 sq. ft. to 41,000 sq. ft. Very few people really want the airport terminal to stay as it presently is. Most people, even residents of Rye Brook, say they recognize the need for a new terminal. The key issue is, however, how large will that new terminal be? The policy that the County Board adopted, which Mr. Rogowsky fought very strongly against, was to expand the current peak capacity by fifty percent. He could not get the understanding of his colleagues as to what this meant. Presently there are, at most, 160 passengers per half hour, and they adopted a policy to increase this upper limit to 240 passengers per half hour. The Airport has never seen that many passengers per half hour. Mr. Rogowsky explained that the issue before us now is a Public Referendum on November 6, 1990. It is very important that we see this issue not as, "Do we need an airport?" but, "How large an airport do we need?" The airport which is proposed is in fact too big. The majority of residents in the Village of Rye Brook that both Mr. RogowsRy and Mr. Smith have come in contact with are not in favor of what is on the ballot. Mr. Rogowsky suggested that we use our Village Office, as we have done so in the past, to get the message out to the residents of Rye Brook to vote NO .on November 6, 1990 against this expansion. If the proposal is sent back to the Board of Legislatures, we can work on a proposal for a proper size terminal. Mayor Cresenzi pointed out that one critical area of concern is the safety issue. The completion of the ILS system over Ridge Street School, Blind Brook High School, the Village of Port Chester and the Village of Rye Brook will allow aircrafts to fly over the schools and residential areas in poor weather. Since planes have a history of going down in poor weather, many people who are not currently at risk will be put at risk upon the completion of the ILS system over the schools. - 2 - 001Mj September 18, 1990 Mr. Rogowsky stated that he was in agreement with Mayor Cresenzi. Mayor Cresenzi thanked Mr. Rogowsky for his fight against airport expansion for it is probably the single most threatening issue in the area. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. UNITED CEREBRAL PALSY KING STREET & LINCOLN AVENUE SITE PLAN APPROVAL Mayor Cresenzi called the Public Hearing to order at 8:06 p.m. and introduced Eric Marks, Associate Executive Director of United Cerebral Palsy Association of Westchester. He stated that they changed architects and are currently using Walter Rooney Architects. A reconfigured facility was designed and repositioned on the property while still taking into consideration the fire truck access around the property. Also, Mr. Marks stated that they have completed all the drawings for erosion control and brook protection, and have also complied with an 80 ft. setback which meets the Village of Rye Brook Codes. They have come here today requesting an approval resolution to start on the Building process. Fritz Wiedle, Frederick P. Clark Associates, Planning Representative for the Village of Rye Brook, stated that he was in favor of the plan. Mr. Wiedle approached the map and addressed the 15 ft. wide strip on both sides of the stream and inquired whether or not this area would remain undisturbed. Trustee Daly questioned the addition involving the Paddock. Mr. Marks stated, in answer to Mr. Wiedle's question, that the area would remain undisturbed and .also explained that the Paddock was pushed back to give a five (5) ft. clearance between the fence and the edge of the Paddock with some low growth. Mayor Cresenzi called for an approval of the site plan as it is presented with an approval Resolution to be prepared for the following meeting. Therefore on Motion made by Trustee Smith, seconded by Trustee Ravich with a unanimous vote of the Board the site plan was approved as presented. - 3 - 00 70 September 18, 1990 I On motion made by Trustee Smith, seconded by Trustee Filipowski, with a unanimous vote of the Board the Public Hearing was adjourned at 8:11 p.m. 2. ST. PAULS LUTHERAN CHURCH COMLY AVENUE/KING STREET APPROVAL OF SUB-DIVISION Mayor Cresenzi called the Public Hearing to order at 8:11 p.m. and introduced John Colangelo, Attorney representing St. Pauls Lutheran Church. Mr. Colangelo stated that the Planning Board approved the proposed sub-division of property owned by St. Paul's Lutheran Church at their meeting of July 12, 1990. Modifications to the original site plan were made at the request of the Planning Board. Fifty percent additional screening was added along King Street. In all probability, area homeowners will add their own screening once the houses are constructed, but this application only proposes sub-division. Any builder would have to apply for a building permit and, at that time, the Village would discuss the actual footprints of the building and the screening along King Street. Mr. Colangelo offered to answer any questions about the proposed sub-division. Trustee Filipowski suggested that there should be some type of restriction placed if further development were to occur that would give the Village of Rye Brook the authority to change the existing cul-de-sac to avoid a potentially unsightly appearance. Fritz Weidle, Town Planner stated that the Sub-division regulation8 state that the Village has the authority to change the cul-de-sac, however, he feels that constructive notice should be given to the people who may purchase those lots that they are not surprised in the future should the cul-de-sac be extended. Mr. Colangelo suggested that it could be restated in the Resolution if the Board feels it is appropriate. Mr. Colangelo stated for the record that St. Paul's Lutheran Church has a very reliable congregation. The Church has no plans of selling the Church property and going out of existence. Having been there for many years, they intend to remain there for many more years in the future. There was a vacant parcel of land which was unusable by the Church, so they felt it was appropriate at this time to develop it. There is no immediate developer to develop this particular area, it is merely a sub-division request. If in the future there are plans for development, they would be required to return to the Planning Board, as well as the Village Board for approval. 4 - 001700 September 18, 1990 Steven Berger, who purchased the center house on Castleview Court in June, approached the map and stated that he did not receive notice of the amended plans, only the earlier plans. He would like assurance that the existing cul-de-sac would not be broken up, since one of the reasons he and his neighbors purchased their homes was the cul-de-sac. Mayor Cresenzi stated that the cul-de-sac would not be broken up. What they are saying with the modification and the Resolution is that if the Church building were to be demolished and the property sold, the cul-de-sac would be reconfigured somehow and another cul-de-sac would be added. There would be a through road, but there would not be three cul-de-sacs in a small area. Mr. Berger stated that he did not accept that the only way to build the sub-division is through the existing road. Hidden Falls is a prime example. There are huge construction vehicles coming in and out of a very busy street. If construction is eminent, some assurance is needed as to how this is going to be done. Among the three homes on Castleview Court there are six children under the age of seven. We need assurance that the construction will be protected and the children are not going to be in danger. There is no reason why construction vehicles have to enter through Castleview Court while this process is going on. The residents of Castleview Court are not benefiting from this cul-de-sac. Also a construction site is a very attractive playground for small children. Children should not be put in danger from the construction. Also Mr. Berger requested assurance that the developer that is hired will have the finances to finish the project. There is nothing more unattractive than a vacant lot with a hole in the ground. A vacant lot may attract many unpleasant things. Mr. Berger also pointed out that the piece of property starting from Magnolia Drive down through Castleview Court has had many drainage problems. He and his builder have spent a large sum of money repairing the drainage problems on his property and does not want the development of lower property to ruin this. Mr. Berger also wanted to make sure that during the construction process there will be no disruption with the Village services that they pay taxes for such as snow plowing, etc. He also hopes that the hours of construction would be reasonable since this is a residential neighborhood. Also the trucks coming in and out of the street as the children are on their way to school would be a great inconvenience. Mr. Berger questioned if this area was strictly a residential zone or if Professional or Doctors offices may be set up in the area. - 5 - 00170f�. September 18, 1990 Mayor Cresenzi replied that it was in an R-15 zoning district. If a Doctor purchased the house and resided there, he could have an office in the house as long as he does not have more than one outside employee come in at any given time. This can be done in any residential area. Mr. Berger added that when the sub-division that he resides in was built, there was supposed to be a type and height of hedges that the church was supposed to plant and, to his knowledge as far as he knew, they are smaller and fewer in number than were required. There was supposed to be a screening from Castleview Court and St. Paul's Church, but a few weeks ago he and his son had to witness a funeral procession. He was informed that the property he resides on used to belong to St. Pauls Church and then it became Church of the Advent. Mr. Berger thanked the Board for hearing him. Ira Morrow, another resident of Castleview Court stated that each of the people on his block paid a tremendous amount of money for their houses, and one of the reasons that he moved onto Castleview Court was because of the cul-de-sac that is currently there. Now they want to tear up the road to build at the expense of the builder who put this road in. At the Planning Board Meeting they said that they did not want any more traffic onto King street and they felt the cul-de-sac coming off of Castleview would be ideal. This can't be the only street that comes onto King Street that is going to cause a problem, Mr. Morrow stated. If there are four houses, you have eight cars to go along with them. So at all times of the day you will have minimal traffic coming in or out of that area. Mr. Morrow, being a jogger, noticed that other streets that come onto King Street do not create a problem with traffic. Ridge Street is a more narrow street than King Street and has much more traffic and School buses going back and forth, yet, it is used as the entrance into Hidden Falls. Mr. Morrow stated that there is a proposal for the Church of the Advent to sell to a developer. What will happen then? If the Church really wants this development, instead of ruining Castleview Court, why not go through the Church parking lot? Construction could go on for years and that would be an inconvenience to the residents of Castleview Court. Trustee Daly stated that in the July 12th Planning Board minutes it said that two church representatives stated that the Church had an agreement with the property owners of Castleview Court that allowed them access to the new development from the existing cul-de-sac. We just heard from two of the residents that are not in agreement. "Where is this agreement and who agreed to access off the existing cul-de-sac?", Trustee Daly questioned. - 6 - 001703 September 18, 1990 Mr. Colangelo stated that he was unaware of any agreement, unless it was a verbal discussion. Both Mr. Morrow and Mr. Berger stated that they never made any such agreement. Mayor Cresenzi asked Mr. Weidle to address the drainage issue that Mr. Berger referred to earlier. Mr. Weidle stated, with respect to the drainage study, that he was not intimately familiar with the property. He is substituting for one of his associates this evening who has been working with the Village Engineer. Assuming that the property is somewhat lower, as Mr. Berger mentioned, water cannot run up hill. Mr. Berger explained that lie is having a problem with one of his neighbors who is higher than he, but feels that the construction of his home has caused problems with her drains and he does not want a ripple affect when these new homes are built. Ralph Mastromonaco, the consulting engineer for St. Paul's Lutheran Church, conducted a Drainage and Hydrology study and added that they are providing the system with it's own drainage solar protection system so the system will draw water away from Mr. Berger and the other residents properties toward King Street. John Colangelo stated that the Church has no immediate plans to develop this property. This application is purely for sub-division of the land to create the lots. Some of the concerns raised are similar concerns to any neighbor when new construction is proposed next door. The Village has numerous rules, regulations and laws, and there are State Codes that have to be followed to protect the individuals in the neighborhood. The area is flat and there are not many trees to be taken down so the premises will not be extensively disrupted. In regard to Trustee Daly's question, when the church sold off the property retained for themselves, an easement was given which runs with the land and allows them access to this property through Castleview Court. This is in the Church's Deed and should also be in the Deeds of those residing on Castleview Court. Mr. Colangelo explained that the easement was to obtain access through Castleview onto the Church's property over the unpaved area. - 7 - 001 '7th � September 18, 1990 Mr. Colangelo stated that perhaps this needed clarification. He may have misunderstood in speaking with the Church, and it is not an easement for a matter of record, but just an agreement with the Church of the Advent. It is unrecorded and obviously unenforceable. That may have been the discussion at the Planning Commission meeting which brought on the confusion. Trustee Pilipowski questioned whether or not the cul-de-sac came to the very edge of the property in the Church of the Advent sub-division. Mr. Colangelo replied that the pavement stops and there is a gap. Mr. Weidle stated that the right-of-way embraces the entrance where the road would be extended. There is no gap. Mayor Cresenzi stated that in terms of access during construction it would only be fair that equipment not enter or depart from Castleview Court. Trustee Smith stated that Mr. Morrow had a very good suggestion that they use the Church parking lot for access until the subdivision is completed. Mr. Colangelo stated that his recollection was that it was unresolved because they had to see if it was feasible to gain access since there may be a berm in the way. Mr. Morrow suggested that part of the berm be removed and reconstructed. Mr. Mastromonaco stated that there may be inground utilities in the way. Attorney Beane stated that there were many construction vehicles that were going to come in through King Street because of their size. How difficult would it be to get permission for a temporary curb cut to have the construction vehicles come off of King Street and give some relief to the Castleview Court and Magnolia Drive homeowners by not having the vehicles come down their way. Mr. Mastromonaco stated that it could be looked into to determine whether or not they can make a temporary access across their property. There is work that has to go on within the existing cul-de-sac and at the boundary line, and it would raise additional problems. If these lots are sold before the road is fully constructed, what would happen if trucks rolled through the side yards of those homes? - 8 - i 001 700 September 18, 1990 Mr. Weidle stated that there would not be any certificate of occupancies issued until the road is in. Mayor Cresenzi asked whether the utilities would be coming in �ifrom King Street or Castleview. Mr. Mastromonaco stated that the only utilities that would come onto this development would be telephone, electric, cable T. V. and water. Everything else would come off of King Street. All the major utilities would be from King Street. Mr. Morrow and Mr. Berger stated that the water pressure was inadequate to service the three houses on Castleview Court already. Trustee Filipowski stated that he was in favor of using access from King Street and questioned if there were any negative points against this. Mr. Mastromonaco stated that they studied that proposal and found that the backyards of these homes would be on the cul-de-sac Mr. Colangelo added that it would be almost impossible to have an opening opposite Loch Lane, it would be an improper intersection. Also, to do this, we would have to acquire State permission since King Street is a State road. Trustee Smith stated that the four houses would exit by Castleview Court and come down Comly Avenue. They would be going onto King Street anyway. Mr. Mastromonaco stated that it was a traffic safety issue, and that is how the State sees it. More intersections are just dangerous. Mr. Weidle stated that by far it is better to have the access the way it is proposed. It integrates the four new houses into the neighborhood, it allows the future children who may live in these homes to just walk down the street to get the school bus and to communicate with their peers. It is important in good community planning to keep these small driveways and very local streets off of collective streets wherever we can to minimize the possibility of high street travel accidents that may occur. 9 - 001700 September 18, 1990 Mr. Morrow stated that there is a new development that is going up on Comly Avenue that isn't directly across from Castleview Court. Comly Avenue, in the morning, is a very busy street so there is a possibility of having much more traffic at the Castleview intersection. The new development that was approved is not quite opposite Castleview, it is off to the side. Mr. Morrow also argued that the houses should be integrated with the neighborhood but that this could be done with a street. There is no need to have a road built in with extra traffic. Lastly, what you are basically saying, is that any development that is four houses or less you don't want onto King Street because you do not want to increase the traffic flow. Mr. Morrow stated that he felt this to be ridiculous. Mr. Weidle stated that what the Board is saying is that wherever it is possible to keep intersections off of a collective street they should do it. This Board has been following this policy for years. Mr. Morrow stated that the reason he purchased his property on a cul-de-sac was to preserve this particular piece of property as it is and, if he knew of this proposal, he would never have purchased his home. The only reason that they are proposing this parcel in this manner is for dollars and cents. If a house can be built and not have a King Street address it will be worth more to the builder who will be selling it. Mayor Cresenzi added, addressing the residents of Castleview Court, that the Board has gone through many Public Hearings and, before the houses on Castleview were built, there were people who reside on Magnolia Drive and other Streets up off of Comly Avenue against that development. Wherever there is vacant land there is always a possibility of future development. Mayor Cresenzi stated that many good points were raised this evening. . We must check into the title search report and there are many questions the Board needs answered. In the best interest of the Village, I do not feel competent this evening to vote on this matter until further information is examined. He recommended the Public Hearing be adjourned until October 23, 1990 so we can all gather our individual information and then continue the hearing at that time. Joe Pellino, a member of the Planning Board added that after listening to this Public Hearing, with all due respect to the residents of Castleview Court, he would like to add that he agrees with the Village Planner that feeding traffic onto County or State roads is a mistake. As for the drainage issue, they seem to be clearly adequate for this site. - 10 - 00170 September 18, 1990 Mr. Pellino was sympathetic towards the residents and agreed that there should be a temporary curb cut on King Street so that the construction should not interfere with the lives of the residents. As for the cul-de-sac, Mr. Pellino moved to Rye Brook in 1971 and purchased his home on a cul-de-sac. Six months after he moved in, the Rye Town Hilton was built, ruining his cul-de-sac. The applicant has clearly demonstrated that they have a suitable development, and from a planning perspective, it is an adequate proposal. Ken Heller a resident stated that he disagreed with the Planning Board on the drainage, because Loch Lane, during a very heavy storm, is flooded and there are many water problems. It should not come out of King Street for the storm sewers cannot take it as well as Loch Lane. He suggests that a more comprehensive engineering study be done because the people who purchase these homes in the future will definitely be recipients of water from up above. Trustee Filipowski stated that from Mr. Colangelo they needed a clarification of the easement of agreement. Mr. Colangelo stated that if there is an easement, it is a matter of Public record which would show up on a title report or on a deed. There may have been discussion between the two churches. It may be verbal. On Motion made by Trustee Smith, seconded by Trustee Filipowski with a unanimous vote of the Board the Public Hearing was adjourned at 9:07 p.m. to be continued on October 23, 1990. 3. PROPOSED LOCAL LAW NO. 2 - 1990 DEMOLITION OF BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES Mayor Cresenzi called the Public Hearing to order at 9:09 p.m. and Attorney Beane proceeded to explain the law. Attorney Beane explained that this law is intended to cover all types of removal of buildings or structures over two hundred square feet. The first portion of the law is basically a definitional section. Other sections of the law set forth the obligations of someone applying for a demolition permit, what that person must produce in order to have their application considered including the name and address of all contractors, both demolition and salvage who work on the property, insurance information, description of the property to be demolished and to be salvaged. - 11 - 00 70 b September 18, 1990 i If there are toxic materials or substances involved they must be listed. All licenses must be provided. If there is asbestos on the project, the permit must indicate that the contractor who performed that portion of the demolition is licensed There is a bond requirement and insurance certificate requirement. There are requirements with respect to the actual demolition including specifically what precautions must be taken before any demolition may take place including, the obligation to restore the site to it's prior condition. Attorney Beane stated that demolition can only be carried on between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. during daylight hours. In the Fall, Winter, and early Spring months there can be no demolition after the sun goes down even if that occurs before 7:00 p.m. Attorney Beane explained further that there is the possibility of demolition during non business hours on an as needed basis. For example, if you have a structure that is in danger of coming down without appropriate demolition, there are provisions governing how salvage materials shall be handled and there is a very strict time limit in which a demolition permit is valid. There is also a violation and penalty provision which states that in an addition to any civil penalties that are appropriate, any person who violates this law basically commits an offense, which is a minor criminal act which can be punished by imprisonment of up to 15 days or a fine not exceeding $250.00 or both per incident. Each day the offense continues, prior to completion of demolition, will constitute a separate offense. This is basically a summary of the provisions of this particular law. It was reviewed by, in addition to myself, the Director of Public Works and General Code Publishers. Trustee Daly questioned whether or not we would have a formula for the bond as to bow much they would have to post as we do for the recreation fee. Attorney Beane replied that the bond would be set by the Director of Public Works based on his analysis of the plans of what has to be demolished and the cost of restoration. Basically the bond is to ensure restoration and it will be his determination, on a case by case basis, looking at the plans as to what has to be demolished. Trustee Daly questioned whether or not they had to erect a certain type of barricade or fence to keep children and/or anyone else out. Attorney Beane stated that a rope would not be sufficient, but depending on the project, the type of barricade needed would be left up to the discretion of the Director of Public Works to determine. - 12 - 00170") September 18, 1990 Attorney Beane stated that some of the language in Local Law #2 1990 needed to be "cleaned up". Mayor Cresenzi stated that it should become effective the minute the permit is issued. Attorney Beane stated that the last paragraph should be amended to read: that The Director of Public Works has the authority to increase the Million Dollars to whatever amount he feels is necessary at the time the permit is applied for. The permit is not issued until the money had been secured, and the demolition does not start until all documents are in order. Attorney Beane explained the Demolition permit application process. The applicant delivers to the Director of Public Works a certificate of insurance reflecting a minimum limit of 1 million dollars on behalf of each contractor that is going to work on the site. The Director of Public Works shall have the right at that time as part of the application process to increase this fee with respect to any contractor if necessary. Mr. Wiedle added that he should be able to increase it at any time during the process because they can come across a hidden problem that is discovered later on. Attorney Beane stated that it can be amended to incorporate all of the above. As soon as this resolution is signed it becomes effective. We can clean it up, have it signed, and the resolution can be passed this evening subject to the clarification of the language. On Motion made by Trustee Daly, seconded by Trustee Filipowski, with a unanimous vote of the Board, the Public Hearing was adjourned at 9:47 p.m. On Motion iftade by Trustee Smith, seconded by Trustee Filipowski, with a unanimous vote of the Board Local Law #2 - 1990 as amended was accepted. VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK LOCAL LAW NO. 2 OF THE YEAR 1990 A LOCAL LAW ENTITLED DEMOLITION OF BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES BE IT ENACTED, by the Board of Trustees of the Village of Rye Brook as follows: - 13 - i 008 $ September. 18, 1990 - Section Definitions As used in this chapter, the following terms shall have the meanings indicated: APPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION PERMIT - The application for a permit to demolish a building or structure. BASE AREA - The product of the length of the building or structure as measured from its exterior walls times the width of the building or structure as measured from its exterior walls. BASEMENT - The space of a building which is partly below grade, which has more than half of its height, measured from floor to ceiling, above the average established curb level or finished grade of the ground adjoining the building. BUILDING - A structure, wholly or partially enclosed, within exterior walls or within exterior and party walls and a roof, affording shelter to persons, animals or property. BUILDING INSPECTOR - The Building Inspector, Assistant Building Inspector or Code Enforcement Officer of the Village of Rye Brook. CELLAR - The space of a building which is partly or entirely below grade, which has more than half of its height, measured from floor to ceiling, below the average established curb level or finished grade of the ground adjoining the building. CONTRACTOR - A person (s) , firm or corporation employed by fhe owner of the property, empowered by written consent of the owner or employed by the Village to perform the specific duty of demolition as may be specified in the authorizing permits. DEMOLITION AND DEMOLISH - The demolition, razing, dismantling or tearing down of existing building or structure, or any part thereof. DEMOLITION PERMIT - The permit required for demolition of an existing building or structure. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS - The Director of Public Works of the Village of Rye Brook. FEES - An application fee shall accompany all applications. This fee shall be determined by Resolution of the Board of Trustees. - 14 - i 00 a A 1. September 18, 1990 'I - GROSS FLOOR AREA - The entire floor area within the surrounding walls of the building or portion thereof. LOCATION - The Actual physical boundaries or area of the demolition. The "location" as described in the application j for permit and as approved by the Building Inspector therein shall be the only area approved for the demolition. OWNER or PROPERTY OWNER - The person or entity who has legal title to land, on which the building or structure is located and/or whose name appears on the most recent tax assessment rolls of the Village of Rye Brook. PAYMENT TO THE VILLAGE CLERK - Payment to the Village Clerk of all applicable fees as set forth in Chapter A257 of the Code of the Village of Rye Brook. PUBLIC WAY - A street, alley sidewalk or other thoroughfare or easement permanently established for passage of persons or vehicles. The term "public way" shall be construed, when used herein, as though followed by the words "or part thereof". SALVAGE - Component parts of a building or structure being demolished, removed or to be removed from said building or structure for reuse or resale. SALVAGE CONTRACTOR - A person, firm or corporation, identified in the application for demolition, authorized by the owner, or if ordered by the Village,the contractor that the Village has contracted with to do the work, in writing, to remove items of salvage from premises, which may or may not be the same person, firm or corporation designated by the owner as the contractor to perform the demolition. STOP-WORK ORDER - An order issued by the Director of Public Works or Building Inspector to the owner, lessee, the owner's agent or the agent of the lessee to immediately stop the work if it is not performed in a lawful, safe and sanitary manner. STRUCTURE - An assembly of materials forming a construction framed of component structural parts for occupancy or use, including buildings. Section 2: Demolition permit; issuance, terms and conditions A. No person shall demolish any building or structure having a gross floor area or use area of two hundred (200) square feet or more within the Village of Rye Brook or which adjoins or is within five (5) feet of any other building or structure without first obtaining a demolition permit, signed by the Director of Public Works, Building Inspector, or his duly authorized agent allowing such demolition. Such permit shall be applied for and issued to the owner of the property or his representative pursuant to the following procedures: 15 - OCA � °71 m September 18, 1990 (1) Written application for a demolition permit shall be on forms provided by the Village of Rye Brook Building Department. (2) Said application shall require the name, address and telephone number of the owner; the names, addresses and telephone numbers of all contractors (general, special or salvage) authorized by the owner, or his representative, or employed by the Village, to perform work; insurance coverage information, including the name of each insurance company, policy number; date of expiration of policy; type of insurance and coverage limitations for the owner and every contractor involved in the demolition; a written description of the building or structure to be demolished; the identification of the presence of asbestos or any other hazardous material in the building or structure to be demolished and the names, address and telephone numbers of the contractor that will perform the removal of such material; starting and completion dates; a written list of materials to be salvaged; a provision for disposal of refuse; and a descriptive statement as to security and/or barricades to safeguard premises from unauthorized entry during demolition work and to provide for the protection of the general public. B. Certificate of insurance. (1) As part of this application for a demolition permit and prior to the issuance of any permit, a certificate of insurance for liability shall be delivered to the Director of Public Works or Building Inspector of the Village of Rye Brook for each contractor involved in the demolition, including salvage. The minimum limits of said liability for the demolition of buildings and structures, whether in a homeowner's insurance policy or a separate liability policy, shall be 1,000,000 for each occurrence. The Director of Public Works shall have the authority to increase this minimum limit as a condition for the issuance of a permit if he or she deems such an increase to be necessary to protect members of the General Public at the time the permit is applied for. In addition, the Director of Public Works shall have the authority to increase the amount of insurance after the permit is issued, at any time during the demolition, if he or she deems such increase to be necessary to protect members of the general public. - 16 - 00 171 J September 18, 1990 (2) Insurance certificates or agreements on behalf of each contractor involved in the demolition, including salvage in a form approved by the Village Attorney, naming as additional insured and holding the Village of Rye Brook, its officers and employees and agents free from liability resulting from work allowed by a demolition permit, shall be delivered to the Director of Public Works or the Building Inspector as agent for the Village of Rye Brook prior to the commencement of demolition. C. Bond. Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, the applicant must post cash, a bond or letter of credit with the Village if required by the Director of Public Works to ensure that the site restoration is completed in accordance with the plans submitted by the applicant and in accordance with applicable local and state building codes. D. Terms and conditions of permit. (1) Any person making application for a demolition permit shall obtain approval for the demolition from the Westchester County Department of Health if such approval is determined to be necessary by the Village of Rye Brook Director of Public Works. (2) Prior to demolition, the contractor will erect a system of barricades around the construction site and have all utility services including Cable T.V. , electric, gas, water and telephone services disconnected by the respective utility companies and provide proof of said disconnection to the Building Department. (3) In the case of the demolition of an existing building which has a common or party wall with one (1) or more adjoining buildings, the owner of the building to be demolished shall be responsible for and bear all costs in relation to the safeguarding of said adjacent wall. (4) Where beams, girders and joists are removed from party walls, the resulting pockets in said walls shall be cleaned out and filled with solid masonry. Necessary repairs shall be made to put the party wall in a safe condition. This work shall be done at the expense of the property owner having said demolition performed. 17 - 00 W q rj September 18, 1990 (5) Where such demolition work is to be made and no immediate new construction is intended at the site, the adjacent wall, whether of the party type or otherwise, shall be left in an acceptable condition as far as appearance is concerned. Such maintenance shall consist of painting, installation or repair of walls, copings and flashings waterproofing of joints, waterproof coatings, installation or repair to termite shields, treatment of soil or other suitable means. In addition to the repair of all joists, pockets and similar openings, the owner of the demolished building will be required to remove all old plaster, wallpaper and other decorative material in addition to any loose work, trim or other unrecorded material, subject to the approval of the Village of Rye Brook, Director of Public Works or Building Inspector. (6) During the demolition work, debris must be systematically and regularly removed, from the site and not be allowed to accumulate or cause any obstruction which would prevent movement within the property or the blocking of means of egress and ingress from the property. (7) When a building to be demolished contains a cellar or basement, the contractor shall remove all debris and organic material from the cellar or basement. The bearing or foundation wall shall be removed up to a depth of at least twenty-four (24) inches below any future grade to be established. (8) Demolition of any building or structure shall be carried on and between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 7:00 P.M. during daylight hours on normal Village workdays. Demolition of a building or structure may proceed on days other than normal Village workdays, provided that notice of the work is given in advance to the Director of Public Works or Building Inspector and said official issues permission for the work to proceed at the requested times in advance. The Village shall be entitled to charge an additional fee to cover expenses incurred by the Village as a result of permitting demolition to occur during non-Village workdays. At no time shall demolition of a building or structure be carried on after dark or in between the hours of 7:00 P.M. and 8:00 A.M. (9) Salvage materials that are a structural part of the building or structure shall not be removed except as part of the actual demolition of said building or structure. (10) In-ground storage tanks on the demolition site shall be removed from the demolition area in accordance with all applicable Federal, State, County and Village governmental regulations. - 18 - 00 a7 1 15 September 18, 1990 (11) No explosives may be used in connection with demolition of buildings or structures in the Village of Rye Brook unless a blasting permit is first obtained as provided in Chapter 87 of the Code of the Village of Rye Brook. (12) In the event that the building or structure to be demolished contains any asbestos, or any other hazardous material, the owner and/or contractor shall notify the Director of Public Works or Building Inspector of its presence prior to any demolition. The asbestos or other hazardous material shall be removed from the building or structure in an environmentally sound manner, by a contractor licensed by the appropriate governmental authorities to perform such removal and in strict compliance with all federal, state, county and Village regulations governing such materials and their removal. Within three (3) days of the completion of said removal, the owner or contractor shall provide the Director of Public Works or Building Inspector with a satisfactory air sample test result of the demolition site. No further demolition shall occur until such a satisfactory air sample is provided to these officials. (13) All demolition work shall comply with the New York State regulations pertaining to demolition operations at or near underground facilities as set forth in 12 NYCRR 53. D. Enforcement. The Director of Public Works or Building Inspector is empowered to issue a stop-work order if, in the judgment of the Building Inspector, the work is not being performed in a safe and sanitary manner or is not otherwise in conformance with the requirements of this local law. Section 3: Time limit on permit validity. A. A demolition permit shall be valid for a period of thirty (30)' days from the date of issuance. B. one (1) ten-day extension may be granted by the Director of Public Works or Building Inspector in the event that unusual circumstances prevent completion of the work. C. Under no circumstances shall work continue after the time limits stated in Subsection A or B above except on application and issuance of a new permit to cover the remaining work. D. Unsafe buildings. Where a building or structure is designated as unsafe, that building or structure shall be demolished within five (5) days of issuance of a permit with no extension of time. - 19 - 001716 September 18, 1990 Section 4: Restoration of site; failure of owner to restore. A. All cellars and basements of demolished buildings or structures shall be filled in and made safe by filling and tamping such basement or cellar with fill materials approved by the Director of Public Works or Building Inspector and causing the surface of the location to be on a level with the surrounding premises. No materials will be permitted as fill which may corrode, rot, decay or collapse. All barricades, guardrails and temporary structures erected during demolition shall be removed prior to completion. The restoration of the site shall be approved by the Director of Public Works or Building Inspector, in writing. B. In the event that the owner refuses or neglects to fill in and make safe such cellar or basement or refuses or neglects to dismantle and remove any barricades, guardrails or temporary structures erected during demolition, the Village may do the necessary work involved, either with Village employees or outside contractors, and the cost of making the location safe shall be assessed against such property. The owner shall have ten (10) days to pay the assessed costs. If period, such costs shall constitute a lien against the land on which said building is located and shall be levied and collected in the same manner as provided in the Village Law for the levy and collection of real property taxes. Section 5: Notification of completion Immediately after said demolition, the property owner shall notify the Director of Public Works or building Inspector, in writing, that demolition for which a permit was issued has been completed. The Director of Public Works or Building Inspector shall then, within five (5) business days, inspect the site for compliance and, thereafter, notify the property owner, in writing,that the requirements of the local law and all other governmental rules and regulations relating to the demolition have been complied with. Section 6: Violations and Penalties Any person committing an offense against any provision of this local law shall be guilty of a violation, punishable as follows: by imprisonment for a term not exceeding fifteen (15) days or by a fine not exceeding two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00) , or by both such fine and imprisonment . The continuation of an offense against the provisions of this Local Law shall constitute, for each day the offense is continued, a separate and distinct offense thereunder. 20 - i 0017 September 18, 1990 Section 7: Fees The fees to be charged for applications, permits and inspections conducted pursuant to this Local Law shall be established by Resolution of the Board of Trustees. Section 8: Penalties for offenses Any violations by a person, firm, association, or corporation of any of the provisions of this Local Law shall be and hereby is declared to be a violation, and in conviction, such person, firm, association or corporation shall be subject to penalties not exceeding two hundred and fifty dollars ($250.00) or imprisonment not exceeding fifteen (15) days, or both for each offense. Each day or part thereof that such violation shall continue shall be deemed to be a separate and distinct violation of the provision of this Local Law. The application of the above penalty shall not prevent the use of the other enforcement provisions of the Local Law. Section 9: Severability The invalidity of any part, clause, section or provision of this Local Law should not invalidate any other part, section or provision thereof. This Local Law shall become effective upon filing with the New York State Secretary of State. Section 10: Village of Rye Brook code This Local Law shall become Chapter 107 of the Code to the Village of Rye Brook. 4. PROPOSED LOCAL LAW NO. 3 - 1990 ABANDONED VEHICLES Mayor Cresenzi called the Public Hearing to order at 9:47 p.m. Attorney Beane explained that this local law was enacted to deal with a problem involving the definition, designation and removal of abandoned, dangerous or junked motor vehicles. A definition section defines whether an abandoned vehicle is dangerous or junked. 21 - 001, 71 September 18, 1990 The proposed Local Law has provisions prohibiting storage of abandoned, junked, or dangerous motor vehicles anywhere in the Village of Rye Brook. Some specific exceptions apply including antiques in the process of being restored, etc. It provides for the issuing of appearance tickets by the Police Department when they make a determination as to whether a vehicle is abandoned, junked or dangerous. It describes the process of issuing the appearance ticket and the process that follows. It also expresses that the vehicle can be removed by the Rye Brook Police Department or someone licensed by the Village, such as a towing or salvage company. The cost of that removal is directly charged to the owner of the vehicle or to the owner of the property where the vehicle is located. There is a section dealing with impounded vehicles which states that in order for an impounded vehicle to be released the owner must produce proper identification and pay whatever fees and expenses that are incurred in impounding and storing the vehicle. A penalties section which is very similar to the penalties section in Local Law #2 - 1990 " Demolition of Buildings and Structures" also applies. Each instance constitutes an offense which is punishable by up to 15 days imprisonment and $250.00 in fines or both. A separate violation will be issued for each day in which the vehicle is not removed. After much discussion, it was determined that this Local Law can only be enforced by the Rye Brook Police Department. Attorney Beane stated that this law was also reviewed by the Director of Public Works and the Chief of Police. Mayor Cresenzi stated that if the vehicle is enclosed in a structure (garage) , without a license, it is not a problem. Joe Pellino of 8 Terrace Court questioned if this law applies to a vehicle that a neighbor feels is unsightly and should be removed from a persons property because there are no license plates on it. Attorney Beane stated that there are specific exceptions whereby you can maintain a motor vehicle without a license on your property. He then proceeded to read the exceptions to the proposed law. Trustee Smith mentioned that the language of the last paragraph on the first page was vague and ambiguous. The line reads as follows: "Owner of the Motor Vehicle" - A person, firm, or corporation having the property in or title. . . It is a very vague expression. 22 - i 001713 September 18, 199 Attorney Beane stated that it is intended to mean physical possession on a permanent basis. The wording could be changed i if necessary. Mayor Cresenzi questioned if a car, owned by a homeowner, is parked in their driveway and the plates are removed for three or four months, is that in violation of this law? Attorney Beane replied that it was not in violation of this law because it does not fall within the definition of abandoned, junked or dangerous. Joe Pellino questioned on what basis do the Police have the authority to write an appearance ticket. If the resident produces proof of ownership, and states that he intends to put the vehicle back on the road again, can the officer write an appearance ticket? Attorney Beane replied that the person who receives a ticket is extended the opportunity to comply without being fined. Trustee Filipowski stated that he felt that the definition of "junked vehicle" has to be more flexible. We may have neighbors complaining that someone is committing a violation. Mayor Cresenzi stated that perhaps we could use the term "operable", if the vehicle does not have a master cylinder but has a motor, it is not operable. Attorney Beane stated that perhaps the owner could cover up the vehicle, and it no longer would be classified as a dangerous vehicle. Mayor Cresenzi stated that we must eliminate the eyesore from areas, and at the same time, not penalize someone who is legitimately waiting for a part to get the car back on the road. Trustee Smith stated that this could be dealt with on an individual basis. If there is an eyesore and the Police investigate it, they can ask the owner what the status of vehicle is and, if an explanation is offered, the problem is resolved. If not, then a ticket can be issued and the Judge can decide. Trustee Filipowski suggested that we table discussion of this proposed Law and have the Police survey the Village to find out how many eyesores there are. 23 - 001720 September 18, 1990 Attorney Beane suggested that if we require the person to cover up the Vehicle that would take all the discretion out of the matter and a person can wait six years for a motor. Trustee Filipowski questioned what if a person has six covered vehicles on their property. Administrator Russo stated that then it comes under the Property Maintenance Law. Ken Heller, a resident stated that this law will cause disaster in this community. Many teenagers rebuild cars and it takes a long period of time and is very expensive. This keeps kids off the streets and out of trouble. To solve one problem you will cause another problem. The fact that the Police will trespass on residents property and try to determine whether or not it is a viable vehicle is wrong. This should be kept as simple as possible. Attorney Beane stated that covering a vehicle solves many problems. Mayor Cresenzi stated that a vehicle that is abandoned or junked on the street doesn't seem to be an issue. The problem is a vehicle on private property. Mayor Cresenzi questioned if a vehicle is left in a driveway, or on their lawn, and it does not have a license plate, can that be dealt with under the Property Maintenance Law rather than trying to cover all the bases with this new local law? Attorney Beane stated that it is possible, but we are then backing ourselves into subjectivity. He also added that the Vehicle and Traffic Law gives us the right to move those cars and charge the owners. We don't need this Law to do that. Mayor Cresenzi suggested that we adjourn the Public Hearing until October 23, 1990 He stated that it was a good attempt to address the problems associated by abandoned, junked and dangerous vehicles, but we need to sit down and resolve these problems. On Motion made by Trustee Filipowski, seconded by Trustee Smith, with a unanimous vote of the Board, the Public Hearing was adjourned at 10:19 p.m. and will be continued on October 23, 1990. 24 - CSU1721. September 18, 1990 5. BOND RESOLUTION DUMP TRUCK AND PAY LOADER i RESOLUTION BOND RESOLUTION DATED SEPTEMBER 18, 1990 AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF $95,132 SERIAL BONDS OF THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK TO FINANCE THE COST OF THE ACQUISITION OF A DUMP TRUCK AND A WHEEL LOADER WITH ACCESSORY EQUIPMENT PURSUANT TO THE LOCAL FINANCE LAW OF NEW YORK On Motion made by Trustee Smith, seconded by Trustee Daly, with a unanimous vote of the Board the following Resolution was adopted: BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Trustees of the Village of Rye Brook, New York as follows: Section 1. The Village of Rye Brook shall issue Serial Bonds in the aggregate principal amount of $95,132, pursuant to the Local Finance Law of New York in order to finance the specific objects or purposes hereinafter described. Section 2. The specific objects or purposes (hereinafter referred to as "purpose") to be financed by the issuance of such Serial Bonds includes and is limited to the following purposes to be undertaken or completed during or after the year 1990: The purchase of a John Deere Wheel Loader and accessory equipment at an estimated maximum cost of $71,680; and the purchase of a dump truck at an estimated maximum cost of $23,452. Section 3. The Board of Trustees has determined and hereby stated that the estimated maximum cost of such purposes is $95,132 and that it plans to finance such cost by the issuance of Serial Bonds authorized by this resolution, and except as hereinbefore stated, no monies have been authorized to be applied for the financing of such purpose. Section 4. The Board of Trustees hereby determines that the purpose for which the bonds described in paragraph 2 hereof are to be issued is set forth in subdivision 28 of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of said Local Finance Law and that the period of probable usefulness of said purpose is five (5) years. - 25 - 0a0 _7 p 4, `+.� Y A.J BM September 18, 1990 i The proposed maturity of the Serial Bonds hereby authorized is not in excess of five (5) years; and no part of the cost of the purpose authorized by this resolution has been or shall be specially assessed on property specially benefited thereby. Section 5. Subject to the terms and contents of this resolution and the local Finance Law and pursuant to the provisions of Sections 30.00, 50.00 and 56.00 to 60.00 inclusive of said law, the power to authorize bond anticipation notes in anticipation of the issuance of Serial Bonds authorized by this resolution and the renewal of said notes, the power to sell and deliver said Serial Bonds and any bond anticipation notes issued in anticipation of the issuance of said bonds is hereby delegated to the Village Treasurer, the Chief Fiscal officer of the Village. The Village Treasurer is hereby authorized to sign any Serial Bonds issued pursuant to this resolution and any bond anticipation notes issued in anticipation of the issuance of said Serial Bonds and the Village Clerk is hereby authorized to affix the corporate seal to any of said Serial Bonds or bond anticipation notes and to attest such seal. Such execution/attestation by the Village Treasurer and the Village Clerk may be a facsimile signature provided that such bonds or bond anticipation notes are authenticated by the manual counter signature of a fiscal agent or a designated official of the Village. The authority to designate such fiscal agent or designated official is hereby delegated to the Village Treasurer. Section 6. When this resolution shall take effect in the manner provided by law, it shall be published in full by the Village Clerk together with a notice in substantially the form prescribed by Section 81.00 of said Local Finance Law and such publication shall be in the Daily Item, a newspaper having a general circulation in said Village, and published in the County of Westchester and State of New York. The validity of said Serial Bonds or of any bond anticipation notes issued in anticipation of the sale of said Serial Bonds may be contested only if such obligations are authorized for an object or purpose for which said Village is not authorized, to expend money, or the provisions of law which should be complied with at the date of publication of this resolution are not substantially complied with, and an action, suit or proceeding contesting such validity is commenced within twenty (20) days after the date of such publication, or if said obligations are authorized in violation of the provisions of the constitution of the State of New York. Section 7. This Resolution shall take effect immediately. - 26 - 00172 :13 September 18, 1990 6. SNOW REMOVAL - COUNTY ROADS 1990 - 1991 WINTER SEASON RESOLUTION SNOW REMOVAL - COUNTY ROADS 1990/1991 WINTER SEASON On Motion made by Trustee Filipowski, seconded by Trustee Smith with a unanimous vote of the Board the following Resolution was adopted: RESOLVED, that Christopher J. Russo, Village Administrator be, and hereby is authorized to execute an agreement with the County of Westchester for the removal of snow and ice from County roads located within the Village of Rye Brook. 7. BUDGET MODIFICATION RESOLUTION BUDGET MODIFICATION On Motion made by Trustee Smith, seconded by Trustee Mendicino with a unanimous vote of the Board the following Resolution was adopted: RESOLVED, that the following Budget Modification be hereby approved: From: To: Account # 1990.424 Account # 7140.470 (Contingency) (Day Camp) $2,000. $2,000. 27 - i - $0 v rip � - � 4J .; M 4�k IjSeptember 18, 1990 I 8. STOP SIGN WINDING WOOD ROAD AND CHURCHILL ROAD I RESOLUTION STOP SIGN WINDING WOOD ROAD - CHURCHILL ROAD On Motion made by Trustee Smith, seconded by Trustee Filipowski with a unanimous vote of the Board the following Resolution was adopted: RESOLVED, that in accordance with the June 4, 1990 recommendation of the Rye Brook Traffic Commission, a stop sign shall be installed at the Southeasterly corner of Winding Wood Road and Churchill Road controlling traffic traveling in a Westerly direction, and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, that Section 17-C of Local Law #7-1988 entitled Vehicle and Traffic Law of the Village of Rye Brook be amended to include this new stop sign. 9. SETTING DAILY STORAGE FEE FOR ABANDONED VEHICLES Administrator Russo suggested that the word "abandoned" be taken out of the Resolution because it applies to any vehicle stored in the highway garage. The vehicle could have been brought in for a variety of reasons. Attorney Beane stated that if a vehicle is involved in an accident which becomes the subject of a criminal investigation, and the vehicle is impounded by the Police or District Attorney's Office and sits in the garage for a long period of time, the Village of Rye Brook will charge the owner a storage fee. On Motion made by Trustee Smith, seconded by Trustee Filipowski with a unanimous vote of the Board the following Resolution was adopted: RESOLUTION SETTING DAILY STORAGE FEE RESOLVED, that the daily fee for vehicles stored by the Village of Rye Brook at the Highway garage or other designated locations shall be $10. per day. - 28 - September 18, 1990 00172%) -- 10. BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR POSILLIPO RENOVATIONS RESOLUTION BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR POSILLIPO CENTER On Motion made by Trustee Mendicino, seconded by Trustee Smith with a unanimous vote of the Board the following Resolution was adopted: RESOLVED, that an expenditure from the Recreation Trust and Agency Account in an amount not to exceed $5,500 be hereby approved for the completion of landscaping and other improvements associated with the parking lot installation at the Anthony J. Posillipo Community Center. 11. N.Y.S. DIVISION FOR YOUTH STATE AID MUNICIPAL PROJECT APPLICATION RESOLUTION N.Y.S. DIVISION FOR YOUTH STATE AID MUNICIPAL PROJECT APPLICATION On Motion made by Trustee Smith, seconded by Trustee Filipowski, with a unanimous vote of the Board the following Resolution was adopted: RESOLVED, `that Christopher J. Russo, Village Administrator be, and he hereby is, authorized to make application to the N.Y.S. Division for Youth for State Aid in the amount of $6641.25 to enhance Youth Services and Recreation in the Village of Rye Brook. 29 - 0A September 18, 1990 12. CHECK REGISTER RESOLUTION CHECK REGISTER On Motion made by Trustee Filipowski, seconded by Trustee Smith with a unanimous vote of the Board the following Resolution was adopted: 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: #1191-1264 Hand Checks: #9716-9735 Payroll Checks: #2061-2410 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board hereby approves payment of the above-mentioned claims and authorizes payment thereof. NEXT MEETING DATES AGENDA MEETING - OCTOBER 9, 1990 REGULAR MEETING - OCTOBER 23, 1990 Ken Heller-of Lincoln Avenue informed the Board of a Gas odor on Holly Lane. Joe Pellino of 8 Terrace Court stated that people are taking a risk by going over the double yellow line to avoid depressions in the pavement on North Ridge Street. Mr. Heller added that several areas of Lincoln Avenue have caved in. Mr. Pellino also questioned the cuts and repaving of Lincoln Avenue stating that it dates back to two years of delay in road resurfacing. He also mentioned that the repairs on Sunset Blvd. and Lincoln Avenue are not acceptable. These areas were sloppily repaired. 30 - 001 72' September 18, 1990 Administrator Russo explained that utilities such as con Edison have I been the Village's main concern. Drainage study in the Rye Hills area needs to be dealt with. Storm Drainage needs to be looked at by Dolph Rottfeild. Ken Heller stated that silt is running into the Brook and that is a Federal Offense. He also stated, in reference to the Tree Committee, that they are an inactive committee and that their role should be the preservation of trees. ADJOURNMENT On Motion made by Trustee Smith, seconded by Trustee Daly, with a unanimous vote of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10.40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Elizaf5eth CzajIMUski Secretary to the Village Board - 31 -