Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-05-10 - Board of Trustees Meeting Minutes AGENDA VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BOARD OF TRUSTEES AGENDA MEETING MAY 10, 1994 7:30 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ACTION REPORT 1. WETLANDS PROPOSED LOCAL LAW RESOLUTIONS i 2. ENTERING INTO AGREEMENT WITH COLIMORE-CLARKE ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSTRUCTION PHASE SERVICES ANTHONY J. POSILLIPO COMMUNITY CENTER 3. REFERRAL TO THE PLANNING BOARD GIOFFRE, GIOFFRE & MASCALI RE: 62 BOWMAN AVENUE 4. BUDGET MODIFICATION SNOW REMOVAL S. ACCEPTING OF DEED FOR PROPERTY SOUTH OF MERRITT& HOLBY MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING 6. APPROVING RETAINER AGREEMENT i WITH MARONEY, PONZINI& SPENCER I LEGAL SERVICES - VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK 7. ADOPTION OF LOCAL LAW#6-1994 ENTITLED: AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING MAP TO RE-ZONE PROPERTY FROM R-10 TO C-1 ZONING DISTRICT 8. SETTING PUBLIC HEARING DATE ON CONTINUATION OF OPEN SPACE EASEMENT FOR THE BLIND BROOK CLUB PROPERTY 9. CHECK REGISTER DISCUSSION 10. ROBERT P. MASCALI GIOFFRE, GIOFFRE & MASCALI RE. REQUEST TO EXTEND OPERATING HOURS RYE CENTER SERVICE STATION 101 SOUTH RIDGE STREET REPORT ll. FACILITIES COMMITTEE 12. BULK STANDARD REGULATIONS WRITTEN COMMUNICATION 13. BLIND BROOK ENRICHMENT PROGRAM, INC. RE: REQUEST FOR SIGNAGE 14. DOUGLAS HALLENGREN RE. RETIREMENT CONVENE AS BOARD OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS ITEMS FOR MAY 24, 1994 i PUBLIC HF,ARING j 1. PROPOSED INTRODUCTORY LOCAL LAW#7-1994 A LOCAL LAW TO IMPLEMENT THE HAWTHORNE AVENUE ZONING STUDY 2. PROPOSED INTRODUCTORY LOCAL LAW#8-1994 ENTITLED:AMENDING THE CODE OF THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK TO REPEAL CURRENT CHAPTER 224 OF SUCH CODE TO ADD A NEW CHAPTER 224 REGULATING SWIMMING POOLS DISCUSSION 3. LOCAL LAW INTRODUCTORY#8-1994 ENTITLED:A LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE CODE OF THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK TO ADD A NEW CHAPTER 47 TO PROVIDE FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF PROFESSIONAL CONSULTING FEES 005292 MINUTES OF AN AGENDA MEETING VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BOARD OF TRUSTEES VILLAGE OFFICES 90 SOUTH RIDGE STREET RYE BROOK, NEW YORK MAY 10, 1994 CONVENE MEETING The Meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Deputy Mayor Daly in the Meeting Room and the Pledge of Allegiance followed. Deputy Mayor Daly announced that Mayor Cresenzi would arrive shortly and that the Resolution section of the agenda would t be addressed with first. I Present were the following members of the Board: Mayor Salvatore M. Cresenzi Trustee Michele Daly Trustee Joseph Pellino Trustee Randy A. Solomon Trustee Gary J. Zuckerman I iAlso present were: Christopher J. Russo, Village Administrator Lori Ann DeMarco, Ass't to Village Administrator Rocco V. Circosta, Director of Public Works Kenneth E. Powell, Village Attorney Robert J. Santoro, Chief of Police Elizabeth Bottali, Secretary to the Village Board Joseph Cortese, Village Treasurer, was not in attendance at this meeting. 1 May 10, 1994 005293 RESOLUTIONS 1. ENTERING INTO AGREEMENT WITH COLIMORE-CLARKE ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSTRUCTION PHASE SERVICES ANTHONY J. POSILLIPO COMMUNITY CENTER Administrator Russo explained that we were not ready to enter into agreement this evening due to a discrepancy that has not been resolved involving a request made by this firm to have the Village hold harmless their firm, and the Village is adamantly opposed to this provision. 2. REFERRAL TO THE PLANNING BOARD STROMBERG SUBDIVISION APPLICATION RE: 62 BOWMAN AVENUE On Motion made by Trustee Pellino, seconded by Trustee Zuckerman, the following resolution was hereby adopted: RESOLUTION REFERRAL TO THE PLANNING BOARD STROMBERG SUBDIVISION APPLICATION 62 BOWMAN AVENUE WHEREAS, by letter of April 13, 1994, Robert P. Mascali, Esq., attorney for the applicant, requested a re-referral of the application for subdivision approval for 62 Bowman Avenue to the Planning Board rather than pursue an application to the Zoning Board of Appeals. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Stromberg subdivision application for 62 Bowman Avenue is hereby re-referred to the Planning Board for a report and recommendation; and it is i FURTHER RESOLVED, that the applicant shall contribute the sum of $1,000.00 for environmental/consultant review. TRUSTEE DALY VOTING AYE TRUSTEE PELLINO VOTING AYE I TRUSTEE SOLOMON VOTING AYE TRUSTEE ZUCKERMAN VOTING AYE MAYOR CRESENZI ABSENT 2 May 10, 1994 005294 3. BUDGET MODIFICATION SNOW REMOVAL On Motion made by Trustee Pellino, seconded by Trustee Solomon, the following resolution was hereby adopted: RESOLUTION BUDGET MODIFICATION SNOW REMOVAL RESOLVED, that the following budget modification be hereby approved: FROM TO AMOUNT 101.1990.424 101.5142.417 $1,200 (Contingency) (Sand/Salt/Calcium Chloride) TRUSTEE DALY VOTING AYE TRUSTEE PELLINO VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SOLOMON VOTING AYE TRUSTEE ZUCKERMAN VOTING AYE MAYOR CRESENZI ABSENT 4. ACCEPTING OF DEED FOR PROPERTY SOUTH OF MERRITT & HOLBY MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING Deputy Mayor Daly informed the Board that Trustee Zuckerman has requested that this item be held over to the May 26, 1994 meeting due to a question on the wording. 5. APPROVING RETAINER AGREEMENT WITH MARONEY, PONZINI & SPENCER LEGAL SERVICES - VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK On Motion made by Trustee Pellino, seconded by Trustee Solomon, the following resolution was hereby adopted: RESOLUTION APPROVING RETAINER AGREEMENT WITH MARONEY, PONZINI & SPENCER FOR LEGAL SERVICES, APRIL 1, 1994 - MARCH 31, 1995 RESOLVED, that the Village of Rye Brook is authorized to enter into agreement with Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, Esqs., 14 North Broadway, Tarrytown, N.Y. 10591, for the period of April 1, 1994 to March 31, 1995 for an annual retainer of $70,000; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor is authorized to execute and deliver the April 19, 1994 retainer agreement. 3 May 10, 1994 00529.5 Trustee Zuckerman pointed out that the retainer agreement is for the same amount as it was last year. TRUSTEE DALY VOTING AYE TRUSTEE PELLINO VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SOLOMON VOTING AYE TRUSTEE ZUCKERMAN VOTING AYE MAYOR CRESENZI ABSENT 6. ADOPTION OF LOCAL LAW #6-1994 ENTITLED: AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING MAP TO RE-ZONE PROPERTY FROM R-10 TO C-1 ZONING DISTRICT On Motion made by Trustee Zuckerman, seconded by Trustee Pellino, the following resolution was hereby adopted: RESOLUTION ADOPTING LOCAL LAW #6-1994 ENTITLED: AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING MAP TO RE-ZONE PROPERTY FROM R-10 TO C1 ZONING DISTRICT RESOLVED, that the accompanying Negative Environmental Declaration is adopted for Local Law #6-1994; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that Local Law #6-1994 is enacted into law; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor is authorized to execute and deliver on behalf of the Village the restrictive covenant and two-party agreement voluntarily offered by K & M Realty Group Inc; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that upon receipt of satisfactory proof from K & M Realty Group Inc that the fully executed covenant and two-party agreement have been recorded in the Office of the County Clerk, the Village Administrator/Clerk shall file the Local Law with the Secretary of State. TRUSTEE DALY VOTING AYE TRUSTEE PELLINO VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SOLOMON VOTING AYE TRUSTEE ZUCKERMAN VOTING AYE MAYOR CRESENZI ABSENT 7. SETTING PUBLIC HEARING DATE ON CONTINUATION OF OPEN SPACE EASEMENT FOR THE BLIND BROOK CLUB PROPERTY On Motion made by Trustee Pellino, seconded by Trustee Solomon, the following resolution was hereby adopted: 4 May 10, 1994 005296 RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING DATE ON CONTINUATION OF OPEN SPACE EASEMENT FOR THE BLIND BROOK CLUB PROPERTY RESOLVED, that a Public Hearing shall be held by the Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees on Tuesday, May 24, 1994 at 7:30 p.m. at the Village Office at 90 South Ridge Street, Rye Brook, NY on the acquisition by the Village of Rye Brook of an open space easement under Section 247 of the General Municipal Law from the Blind Brook Club, Inc; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Village Administrator shall cause notice of Public Hearing to be published in an official newspaper of the Village at least 10 days before the Public Hearing. TRUSTEE DALY VOTING AYE TRUSTEE PELLINO VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SOLOMON VOTING AYE 1 TRUSTEE ZUCKERMAN VOTING AYE I� MAYOR CRESENZI ABSENT f 8. CHECK REGISTER On Motion made by Trustee Zuckerman, seconded by Trustee Pellino, 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: 8806-8906 Payroll Checks: 12772-12859 Manual Checks: NONE Environmental: NONE Recreational Trust: NONE Capital: NONE Birthday Run: NONE NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT 5 005297 May 10, 1994 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 ABSENT WRITTEN COMMUNICATION 9. BLIND BROOK ENRICHMENT PROGRAM, INC. RE: REQUEST FOR SIGNAGE Administrator Russo explained that this was a request for a sign to be erected on Ridge Street and Bowman to remain until June 4, 1994 to advertise their Gala Benefit Dinner Dance to be held at the Rye Town Hilton. He added that he would make sure that the sign is in accordance with the Village's sign law. 10. DOUGLAS HALLENGREN RE: RETIREMENT i Administrator Russo explained that Doug notified him of his intent to retire on September 8, 1994. Attorney Powell stated that the letter only states that he intends to retire, it does not actually say he is resigning and suggested that the Board not address this until a formal resignation is made. DISCUSSION 11. PROPOSED WETLANDS LAW Jim Donovan of Frederick P. Clark Associates stated that he has been assisting in the preparation of the proposed Wetlands Ordinance. He explained that this law is based on Westchester County's model Wetland Ordinance. We changed various portions of the law for three reasons. There are some portions of the law that are fairly difficult to administer so we revised them to accommodate our needs. It was modified so it is j compatible with other Village Laws and made further changes based on the recommendations of the Advisory Council on Environmental Conservation. This law requires permits for activities within wetland areas or within 100 feet of wetland areas. It does not prohibit activity, only requires that it be reviewed and permits be obtained. There would be two types of permits, one an administrative, for smaller activities, such as the addition of a deck, which can be approved by the Village Engineer. A list of activities that are regulated acts and require an administrative permit is provided for in the law. The other type of permit is for larger activities that the Village Board must approve. 6 May 10, 1994 005298 Mr. Donovan also pointed out that the law identifies activities that are permitted by right in wetland areas. After providing a brief overview of the major points of the proposed law Mr. Donovan stated that he would try to address any questions that may arise. Trustee Pellino questioned where a wetland boundary would end and where the 100 foot wetland buffer would begin. Mr. Donovan stated that a wetland is defined by all areas that actually meet the definition as defined in the law. This law does not specify exactly where it is but it provides the criteria and you must determine in the field where that line might be so based on the standard definition given in the law, that line would be established on a case by case basis. Wherever that line is established the 100 foot setback is then measured. We have prepared a wetlands map for the Village portraying the general manner of determining where the larger wetlands areas are located within the Village, however it is not an official map that identifies every single wetland area. Trustee Pellino stated that there appears to be an overlap between what our Tree Ordinance calls for and what the Wetland Ordinance calls for. { Mr, Donovan stated that there is some overlap, however in a wetland area or a setback area, if you wanted to do some clear cutting you would have to meet the standards of both laws. Trustee Daly suggested that Attorney Powell review this draft law and put it into the proper local law form. Mr. Donovan agreed and added that this law is still in the form of the County's model. Attorney Powell stated that if any of the Board members had any comments, they should let him know prior to the public hearing. i Trustee Zuckerman-stated that we need to look at this carefully and see whether or not this Board will have to pass upon many permits. That may be an authority for a Board other than the Village Board. Mr. Donovan stated that he would recommend that it stay within the Village Board because the Village Board is going to be maintaining site plan reviews and it is better to keep them together than to separate them. Trustee Zuckerman stated that we should consider this because it may not be in the best interest for this Board to become a permitting Board. i Mr. Donovan stated that some other municipalities have actually had three approval authorities. Whatever Board is reviewing the application in conjunction with some other permit, it goes to that Board. 7 0052041) May 10, 1994 Trustee Zuckerman stated that we could also appoint an advisory Board to be part of the Advisory Council on Environmental Conservation and have them make recommendations on permits. Trustee Daly questioned if Mr. Donovan had obtained information on what other municipalities do. Mr. Donovan stated that he did in fact obtain such information. Mrs. Sherlock questioned if in the case of the developer who is making an application for a site plan, will the Planning Board take into consideration that we have a new Wetlands ordinance that is being finalized and could they perhaps hold off on approval for that site plan for areas where wetlands may be involved. Trustee Pellino stated that in the past, when a law was in the works, we had asked that any Boards reviewing a project, take any proposed laws relating to that project, into consideration. Mrs. Sherlock stated that she and the council appreciate that very much as there is so little wetlands left to protect. Attorney Powell asked that Mr. Donovan send a copy of the law on disk to the Village so that he could put the law in the proper form. Mr. Donovan stated that he would send it out right away. DISCUSSION 12. ROBERT P. MASCALI GIOFFRE, GIOFFRE & MASCALI RE: REQUEST TO EXTEND OPERATING HOURS RYE CENTER SERVICE STATION 101 SOUTH RIDGE STREET Robert Mascali of Gioffre, Gioffre & Mascali explained that he was here on behalf of the applicant who would like to amend his Special Use Permit and extend his current operating hours from 6:00 a.m. to Midnight Monday through Saturday and from 6:00 a.m. Sunday to 9:00 p.m, with the understanding that any repairs would not go beyond 6:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday and no repairs on Sunday. The basis for this application is two fold. One is a desire to try and service the public as there has been numerous requests to change the hours and the other is the expanded hours of the surrounding commercial areas, such as Edwards, Food Emporium and the upcoming Blockbuster Video. He questioned whether the Board would recommend referring this j application to the Planning Board or setting a public hearing date. Attorney Powell stated that he would recommend referring the application to the Planning Board. 8 { 005 00 May 10, 1994 Trustee Zuckerman stated that since this is not a formal application, we could not really take any formal action on this, such as referring it to the Planning Board. Trustee Solomon questioned if the applicant had any supporting documentation referencing the need to extend the hours, as stated by Mr. Mascali. Mr. Mascali stated that the applicant will be submitting a petition to the Board at the time of Public Hearing from the customers who have requested the extension of hours. Monroe Mann, attorney for the Exxon station, which is directly across the street from the Mobil Station stated his concerns on behalf of his client. He stated that Ridge Street is not the Post Road or 95, it is in Rye Brook and by extending the hours it would bring additional traffic through the area at night. The public is already getting adequate service and if the Board goes along with this, the Exxon will also file the same application and there goes the neighborhood. He would like to be kept informed if any actions are taken. Trustee Daly directed Administrator Russo, once the formal application is filed by Mr. Mascali to give a copy to Mr. Mann, Trustee Solomon questioned if this application is a prelude to something else. Mr. Mascali replied no, not that he knew of. Trustee Zuckerman stated that a prelude may mean that some day, they will want 24 hour a day operation and this Board must hear the considerations to what kind of area we want the corner of Ridge Street and Bowman Avenue to be as to the hours of operation of both service stations. REPORT 13. FACILITIES COMMITTEE i Ken Berman, an Investment Banker in the Finance field for twenty seven years, stated that they would show a brief video tape of 863 King Street, the property known as the Elks Club, which is now owned by the Korean Presbyterian Church. Currently the Village of Rye Brook uses the pool for the day camp without any rental costs except for the fact that the Village maintains the pool to the specifications of the camp. There is a great amount of parking on the site and there are also a couple of buildings on the site. The white building is relatively new and it is the committee's recommendation to keep that part but the other two buildings, one is red, the other brown, are quite old and more than likely they will be torn down. There was formally a tennis court on site which is no longer used as such and is in disrepair. The meeting room could probably hold 125 people. The pool could be used by the day camp during the summer. He pointed out that the property is open for anyone who would like to go and take a look around. It is approximately 2.1 acres of relatively flat land. Behind the property is the Atrium which is approximately 220,000 square feet. 9 May 10, 1.994 JGQ53101 i Mr. Berman explained that if this proposal goes through, and with permission from the Atrium, we could install a walking path and use part of the Atrium parking lot for evening meetings. Mr. Berman explained that a few years ago, there was a survey done on the Village of Rye Brook Offices and Departments called the Statement of Requirements which estimated that the Village would need approximately 18,000 square feet for a Village Hall. Currently, we only have 9,000 square feet and the office is much too crowded and need more space, We looked at the General Foods Annex which is approximately 60,000 square feet and it would be a small fortune to renovate it and to establish that as a place for our Village. We looked at 90 South Ridge Street, possibly to extend our lease which ends in 1996. The current landlord was approached but we have not yet had a formal response. We also looked at 111 South Ridge Street and we felt that it did not meet our needs because we would have to renovate the whole building because the police department could not be on the first floor. That building is also very old and it would be very expensive to bring it up to code. The last piece of property looked at was the Atrium which consists of 220,000 square feet which is way beyond our needs and we really do not want the burden of becoming a landlord. This search brought our Committee to 863 King Street. We have been in negotiations with the Church through the Real Estate Broker. Mr. Berman then turned the presentation over to fellow Facilities Committee member Dan Paniccia. Mr. Paniccia, an Engineer with a background in Construction as a General Contractor and Construction Manager, pointed out that part of the Committee's charge was to prioritize the Village's needs and feels that dealing with the Village Hall was a high priority. It costs us nearly 200,000 a year to be at 90 South Ridge Street. We settled on 863 King Street because of its many advantages. It is located at King Street and Arbors Drive with an existing building that is 5,400 square feet of which approximately 3,000 square feet was built in 1973. It is constructed of concrete and steel, a relatively modern type of construction. The building appears to have a very old wood frame two story house in disrepair which we recommend taking down. There is an existing pool in fairly good condition and the Village has used it in the past for the day camps. There is open space with the land relatively flat and existing buffering of trees on nearly all sides. As far as potential uses of the site, we looked at moving all of the Village Administrative offices, including the Recreation Office, Public Works Office, and the Police Department to the site. The Highway Garage would remain where it is. We feel that the size of the site could support a future fire station if the need develops, which also entered into our analysis of the other sites. Most of them were not large enough to support any expansion such as a Fire station, any further recreational spaces and we were limited in parking. For example, 111 South Ridge could never accommodate a fire station and there is little parking. The pool that is currently on site, which is used by the day camp, could be expanded upon with possibly more basketball courts. The site is adjacent to Harkness Park and it makes obvious sense to have sort of a municipal complex there between Blind Brook School, Harkness Park and a Municipal Facility. As far as impact on the neighbors, right now there are four residences to the north on King Street, Harkness Park and Blind Brook School to the south, residences in Greenwich, Connecticut to the east and the Atrium Building and the Arbors complex to the west. The property is not really located in the center of a traditional neighborhood. 10 May 10, 1994 005302 Mr. Paniccia stated that the committee recommends that the Village acquire the property, demolish the old two story structure, retain the relatively new structure which is about 3,000 square feet, construct approximately 6,000 square feet of addition to be composed of a first and second floor and add to the existing building another floor of I 3,000 feet which would give us a total of 12,000 square feet which is less than the office' search committee had recommended in the past but we feel that 12,000 is really the number we should go for. There also is the potential for a 3,000 square foot basement in addition to the 12,000 square feet, depending on the site conditions. He then turned the presentation over to fellow Facilities Committee member Harry Krausman, who would provide a financial overview of the report. Mr. Krausman, a Commercial Real Estate Broker for the past twenty years by profession, explained that the committee reviewed the leases for the Village Offices located at 90 South Ridge Street and the lease was signed on January 15, 1985 and subsequently amended in January 1988. The Village currently leases 9,500 of rentable square feet. The base rental is nettable of other additional occupancy costs which the Village pays including real estate taxes, operating expenses, electricity, office cleaning and some other minor charges. He showed various slides of a 15 year projection of the anticipated occupancy costs of 90 South Ridge incurred based on 9,500 square feet. The fiscal year for the Village is June 1 to May 31, so the fiscal 1993 total occupancy costs have been reported to us to be approximately 185,000 and are expected to increase to $189,000 in fiscal year 1994. The lease contains an option to extend the term for a three year period beginning May 1, 1996 through April 30, 1999. At a rental rate, computed as the function of fair market values as of May 1, 1996. The option to extend the term must be exercised no later than November 1, 1995 or the lease will expire as of April 30, 1996. There are no other additional options to extend the term beyond April 30, 1999. We held discussions with the landlord of 90 South Ridge Street and as of the present time we have not been successful in eliciting a proposal or commitment for a rental rate beyond April 30, 1996. The Fifteen year projection that is on the screen incorporates all of the anticipated rental expenditures and occupancy costs to the Village should we elect to remain at 90 South Ridge Street. Conservative projections and assumptions were made regarding the future increases and fair market rental values for May 1, 1996 and beyond. These projections indicate that rental and occupancy costs to the Village would escalate from approximately 203,000 in fiscal 1996 to 360,000 in the fifteenth year. The total cost to be formulated would be 157,000. Mr, Krausman portrayed on the screen the same 15 year projection for the property located at 863 King Street. He stated that based upon the available information for acquiring the property, a similar comparison was made. Since the acquisition and renovation costs would be financed by floating a bond, base annual payments for interests and amortization will be fixed for twenty five years and after that time they will disappear. Total occupancy costs commencing February fiscal year 1996 would start approximately at $200,000 and increase to approximately $225, 000 in the fifteenth year. As the fiscal year 1996 is during the construction period of 863 King Street, the Village will also be paying rent at 90 South Ridge Street of approximately $203,000, therefore, we have added about $17,500 for additional minor expenses such as bond anticipation notes, electricity and other minor charges. After that period, the annual occupancy cost will remain consistently below those projections for 90 South Ridge Street. 11 May 10, 1994 005303 i Mr. Krausman showed a building comparison for 15 years of the two analysis just explained. It indicates that the Village would save in excess of one million dollars plus interest, to taxpayers by acquiring the King Street property as opposed to leasing 90 South Ridge Street. It provides the Village with 30% more office storage space and significantly lower occupancy costs. This would provide longterm benefits and savings to the members of our community I Trustee Zuckerman pointed out that these costs include the acquisition, finance and construction costs. It would be a custom built structure that would make our Village more efficient. Mr. Krausman stated that it would be designed to our specifications and it eliminates Russian Roulette with future market conditions and fluctuations every time the lease expires or an option comes up. i Trustee Zuckerman questioned if Mr. Krausman felt that purchasing the property can be justified solely by moving the Village Offices to this site regardless of its future accessibility for a potential fire house or other appropriate uses and if only moving the office would make a fiscal justification for acquiring the site. Mr. Krausman replied yes and stated that we will be getting additional office space plus the flexibility of future expansion and even if our projections are not 100 percent accurate, we know that between now and 1999 we have a pretty good handle on what those costs would be and the projections for the differentials. The Village would be saving money from day one, as compared to what we know we will be paying here and they won't give use the kind of dramatic escalations that we might expect over a number of different cycles in a twenty five year period. i I Trustee Zuckerman stated that there may be other reasons to acquire this site other than the main reason, but if no other reasons exist, the Facilities Committee is recommending based on fiscal prudence and fiscal responsibility that this move will save us a considerable amount of money even in a short term and definitely in a long term. Mr. Berman stated that Trustee Zuckerman was absolutely correct. Mr. Paniccia stated that all other sites that were looked at are on the tax rolls except for the site at 863 King Street. Mr. Berman stated that one the Committee's charges was looking at green space and by putting our Village offices up there, we will have lots of green space for the Village of Rye Brook. Trustee Pellino questioned if this site were to be looked upon favorable by the Board, what is the timetable by which construction would have to commence. Mr. Paniccia stated that if the Board chooses to move forward, we could purchase the property in July of 1994, design phase would be July of 1994 to April 1995. We could bid thero'ect in April of 1995, award bids by June of 1995 and have the building up p J P and running probably May of 1996 with an eleven month construction schedule. 12 04 May 10, 1994 0053 Trustee Pellino questioned that in order to complete such a schedule on time, decisions would have to be made over the next few months. Mr. Berman stated that Trustee Pellino was correct. Mr. Panniccia stated that the estimated costs include the three thousand square feet in the basement for storage, landscaping, furniture, minor repairs to the pool and so on. It does not include other uses mentioned such as a firehouse. Trustee Zuckerman questioned what the worst case scenario would be as the picture that is being painted has very little downside, if any. ' Mr. Berman stated that the only downside would be if something happens with the construction, if we had a bad winter or if it is delayed through July, August or September, then that would push the calendar forward. The worst thing that could happen would be if everything goes forward and the building is not occupiable by the end of our lease. I am sure that our current landlord would extend the lease a few months if that need be, Mr. Berman stated. I The Board thanked the Facilities Committee for an excellent presentation. On Motion made by Trustee Zuckerman, seconded by Trustee Solomon, the following resolution was hereby adopted: RESOLUTION I SETTING PUBLIC HEARING DATE PROPOSED PURCHASE OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 863 KING STREET RESOLVED, that a Public Hearing shall be held by the Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees on Tuesday, May 24, 1994 at 7:30 p.m. at the Village Office at 90 South Ridge Street, Rye Brook, NY on the proposed purchase of approximately 2.1 acres of land and Building's at 863 King Street, the property, now, or formerly known as the "Elks Club'; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Village Administrator shall cause notice of Public Hearing to be published in an official newspaper of the Village at least 10 days before the Public Hearing, TRUSTEE DALY VOTING AYE TRUSTEE PELLINO VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SOLOMON VOTING AYE TRUSTEE ZUCKERMAN VOTING AYE MAYOR CRESENZI ABSENT 13 ' 12. BULK STANDARD REGULATIONS May 10, 1994 '005,i05 Dan Paniccia, a member of the Zoning Code Update Committee, stated that they were asked by Rocco Circosta, Director of Public Works, to look at the present method used to determine lot width. In several recent subdivisions, there had been problems in determining lot width. We felt that it would be good to look at regulating flag lots, which presently is not done under the Village Zoning Code. Mr. Gissen, our Planning Consultant at Frederick P. Clark Associates, provided us with various options on how this could be accommodated. One of them was using a geometric shape of a square superimposed over a lot and the other was a circle drawing lines parallel to the frontage averaging lot widths. There are examples of all of these being used in communities through out the County and all have advantages and disadvantages. We settled on the horizontal circle. The first drawing distributed is a descriptive drawing of a lot showing a circle superimposed over it which we are calling the horizontal circle diameter and another circle half as big. This shows that the circle fits within the lot. This illustrates the key points of the law. The tall side of the horizontal circle must fit entirely within the lot at some point. We felt that other parameters that were necessary and to tighten up the bulk standards. The village has no requirement of frontage and we felt that I adding a frontage requirement of some sort would help to prevent lots that were wildly shaped or gerrymandering, so we considered that. Also, in reference to the shaded area on that map that Mr. Gissen drew, should that area be counted for at minimum lot size? It was felt that we needed a method to determine how much of that could be counted and how much not to be fair and again, prevent gerrymandering. We were shooting for more regularly shaped lots than the current ones. In addition to that, we added a requirement regarding wetlands. We had discussed the proposed wetlands law and it was eventually referred to the environmental committee. We added that no more than twenty five percent of the lot area could be composed of wetlands. That would prevent a developer from using land that obviously isn't buildable to count toward minimum lot i area. In reference to the shaded area on that first map, we decided that no more than ten percent of the minimum lot area for that zone could count so if this was a lot in an R20 district you could count two thousand square feet of that lot or that area beyond that tangent line, but no more than that. He stated that he had an example with him of an actual subdivision where the developer would pay a significant penalty under the current guidelines he had because of this addition to the law. So you won't get developers trying to squeeze in an extra lot as there would be a significant penalty because of that half circle requirement. Mr. Paniccia distributed various drawings to the Board and discussed them. The first was Castleview Court I which was a good example of a cul-de-sac situation and we it illustrated how this applies to a similar subdivision. Each of the full size circles fits on this real life subdivision. Because of our addition of a frontage requirement, two of the lots would require variances or a re-drawing of the lines. None of the lots would really pay a severe penalty with regard to the half circle requirement because they are regularly shaped. Lot two would lose some space but not more than 1,500 feet. The next map shown was Castleview Court II which is a perfect example of why this law was changed. This was a recent subdivision on Comly Avenue that involved an existing structure and the creation of two other lots. 14 May 10, 1994 005106 Mr. Paniccia explained that with reference to lot three, there was much discussion by both the Planning Board and the Zoning Code Update Committee on how lot width was determined and also lot area and how much of the lot should be excluded from the calculation. In this case the lot width complied with circle diameter, not width and the developer would not pay a penalty in area. It is approaching the point where you could' start to pay a penalty because its on the east side of the parcel but it is still well within 1,500 feet that would trigger the exclusion of space, but again, it is a good example showing you a real subdivision where it would not increase the lot count nor decrease ithe lot count. The next map shown was of the proposed Messina Subdivision. Mr. Paniccia stated that he will not be commenting on the merits of the application as presently there may be litigation under way. We are only using this subdivision to show a real life example of a subdivision and how our proposed changes probably would not increase or decrease lot count. The Messina property involves two zones, R15 and R20. Each lot does fit, I` though lot number five would be deficient in frontage with our new requirements and would probably require a variance. Mr. Gissen felt that in this case, the lot lines probably could not be realigned to accommodate that so it would require a variance. All the lots would not require a penalty due to the odd shaped sizes and again, the lot count, assuming the variance was granted, would not increase or decrease. If the variance was not granted, the lot count would probably decrease by one. The next map shown was of the proposed subdivision of the Lord property, located off King Street, behind houses on Loch Lane and existing developed houses on King Street j and Hillandale Road. It is a good example of a flaglot situation. Map number two j clearly shows two flaglots on which Mr. Gissen has superimposed the correct size circles, and if you look at lot number two, the full size circle fits and we drew in the half sized circle adjacent to the panhandled portion of the lot where the driveway entrance is. In this case, the overall lot area is nearly 38,000 square feet of which the driveway portion is 9,400 square feet. Using our revised law, the developer could only claim the maximum of ten percent of the minimum lot area for that zone in the driveway portion. This is an R20 Zone so that would require 2,000 square feet so he would pay a penalty of about 7,000 square feet of property so for purposes of lot count and zoning, the lot is only 30,000 square feet so you pay for the use of that flag. In addition, neither of the lots would meet the minimum frontage requirement. Both are 50 foot frontage and we require 65 feet in this zone. Mr. Paniccia stated that if this law had been in force at the time this subdivision was approved, it would be a conventional subdivision and you would not have two flaglots as it would be too severe a penalty and require too many variances. The next map is another version of the Lord Subdivision. Looking at Lot 1, which had been lot two, the lot area is much smaller and the developer had added a road and a cul-de-sac. In this case, the full size circle will not fit on the lot and he would pay a penalty, however not as severe as the flag lot because of the odd shaped piece of the property. In this case, we would have a one lot subdivision. 15 May 10, 1994 005307 Mr. Paniccia showed a chart which compared the existing bulk standard relations proposed zone by zone. In the residential districts we kept the horizontal circle diameter the same as the previous minimum lot width, eliminated the depth requirement but added a frontage requirement which is generally half of the previous lot width so it will allow construction of a driveway plus significant plantings in the case of the larger zones and in the smaller zones it will allow a driveway and some buffering. The developer again is paying a penalty because it is a wide area compared to a traditional flaglot driveway which can be 20-25 feet and is not much different than what you would see on a cul-de-sac anyway and not much different than what we have now. The lot areas we have kept the same. When you get into the commercial districts, it becomes more difficult. We looked at the potential for existing properties to be subdivided, changed in some way that it would impact on the Village and we tried to structure the dimensions so that what we have now, basically would stay the same. For the OB1 District, we proposed a 500 foot diameter circle based on approximately a three to one length to depth ratio. If you took the minimum lot area and the minimum circle you have a lot that is about 1,500 feet long which promotes regular shaped lots. We have also added a frontage requirement based on a recommendation made by Mr. Gissen. In the OB2 District we proposed a 275 foot diameter circle which is also a three to one ratio using the minimum lot area and also promotes regular shaped lots and not much of a change. Currently in this district there are no width or depth requirements and when the laws were rewritten several years ago, it may have been dropped accidentally. We recommend that OB3 be eliminated and merged with OB2, to include the same dimensions. It only affect one property which would comply with OB2. In RA1, a 500 foot diameter circle was based on the Arbors. We looked at the regular shape of the lot. We require a 100 foot frontage which would allow either two access roads or a boulevard such as the Arbors has. It is consistent with what we have currently in the Village. C1P we view as a stripped retail zone and in order to have a strip with the minimum area we proposed a 100 foot diameter circle, which gives you a reasonable depth to have parking strips center and access by 280 feet in length which is a strip and a minimum frontage for 75 feet for an access road. This will allow strip shopping development in that C1P Zone. In C1, we looked at the Lukashok property on Bowman Avenue and Barber Place, the Mobil Station and the Exxon Station on the Corners of Ridge Street and Bowman Avenue and Sound Federal Savings and Loan on South Ridge Street. We picked them as typical smaller size C1 with the potential to subdivide in the future. We asked Mr. Gissen to look at all four lots which are very wide in size and shape and determine what minimum circle size would keep them all currently in compliance and not require variances but prevent them all from being divided into two lots. The result is that we proposed the 90 foot circle with 225 foot frontage and 13,000 square foot minimum lot area. Currently we have no minimum lot area in that zone so by adding that it helps to keep them all in compliance and prevent subdivision of these properties. This was presented to the Planning Board on February 10, 1994 and a resolution was passed recommending passage by the Board of Trustees and if there are any questions, Mr. Paniccia informed the Board that he would do his best to answer them. Trustee Zuckerman questioned why the H1 zone was dropped from 20 acres to 12 acres. 16 May 10, 1994 00809 Mr. Paniccia explained that Mr. Gissen reviewed the information and the existing H1 is the Hilton Complex and the other H1 zone is the Anderson Hill/King Street property which is less than 12 acres, The Committee felt that it would be better to have it be consistent with the Hilton property and as you know we are looking at potential changes for the Anderson Hill/King Street area so Mr. Gissen recommended to drop it to 12. Mayor Cresenzi stated that flaglots were discussed a few years ago and we tried to resolve the problem but other things were of a priority and we never got to it. One of the proposals that we tried to discuss then was dealing with the flag and not the pole. We discussed having the flag be twice the area required for the zone so if you are in an R20, the flag would have to be a 40,000 foot flag in order to have any consideration being granted for a building. At the time there was an application before us and when we put that forward, we found that it would prohibit any development of flag lots so this information may help. Mr. Paniccia stated that on flaglots, there were many different opinions but we ended up feeling that if you have a minimum frontage requirement, which in the case of the larger districts is relatively wide, the developer is already paying a significant penalty for that and you basically have a front lawn. If it is an R20 with a 65 foot frontage requirement, that is wider than the minimum lot width zones. We felt it might be better to have that which is more like a cul-de-sac with tapering properties than to have very narrow flags going out to very large flags going out to very large properties. Mayor Cresenzi stated if you have a large flag, you then can structure your setback requirements to keep the new development as far away as possible from any existing structures in the area, thus minimizing the impacts of the construction on surrounding areas. Trustee Pellino stated that from a practicality issue a developer would not be as likely to want to get into flaglot situations under this proposal and the incidents of flaglots would be a discouraging factor with the enactment of this law. We did not think that having a section of language in this law specifically prohibiting flaglots was a good idea because there may be situations where it may be feasible and the developer may have a large enough piece of land and may be willing to set aside green space and having such a large requirement for the total area, we wanted to leave that option open so we backed away from prohibiting it and we think we kind of limited the possibilities of flaglot situations developing. Mayor Cresenzi stated that he would like to discuss the flaglot issues further and agreed that eliminating it may not be such a good idea. He stated that he would like to see the horizontal circle analysis done on the Helbing Subdivision on Beechwood Boulevard which goes back six or seven years ago because sometimes if you have more land it is a penalty and if you could find somebody to give it to than you would have a lot that would conform so I would like see that done because if you have an irregular shape in the rear and if you did our old method, you paid a penalty for having more property than if you had less property. Trustee Solomon asked if Mr. Paniccia could look at the K & M property which was just changed to Cl. 17 005030:) May 10, 1994 Trustee Pellino stated that we just received a preliminary map of K & M should which could be forwarded to Mr. Paniccia. He also suggested that the Committee try to get these examples back to the Board within the next thirty days for their review and possibly take up this discussion again with the hopes that if all questions are resolved, than we can call for a public hearing. i The Board thanked Mr. Paniccia and the committee for a job well done. Mayor Cresenzi announced the following upcoming agenda. ITEMS FOR MAY 24, 199 PUBLIC HEARING 1. PROPOSED INTRODUCTORY LOCAL LAW #7-1994 A LOCAL LAW TO IMPLEMENT THE HAWTHORNE AVENUE ZONING STUDY 2. PROPOSED INTRODUCTORY LOCAL LAW #8-1994 ENTITLED: i AMENDING THE CODE OF THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK TO REPEAL CURRENT CHAPTER 224 OF SUCH CODE TO ADD A NEW CHAPTER 224 REGULATING SWIMMING POOLS 3. PROPOSED PURCHASE OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 863 KING STREET RESOLUTION 4. ACCEPTING OF DEED FOR PROPERTY SOUTH OF MERRITT & HOLBY MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING DISCUSSION 5. LOCAL LAW INTRODUCTORY #8-1994 ENTITLED: A LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE CODE OF THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK TO ADD A NEW CHAPTER 47 TO PROVIDE FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF PROFESSIONAL CONSULTING FEES REPORT 6. WETLANDS PROPOSED LOCAL LAW Administrator Russo added to the agenda a letter from Milton Berner, attorney for the Messina's for a request for an extension on the Messina Subdivision because there is a pending settlement on the lawsuit. Trustee Zuckerman stated that he would like the Board to consider the appointment of a task force to study the Library and also he reminded the Board that we still had Committee Appointments to deal with. 18 May 10, 1994 Q51*310. On Motion made by Trustee Solomon, seconded by Trustee Pellino, the Board convened as the Board of Police Commissioners at 9:40 p.m. 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 Board adjourned into Executive Session at 9:45 p.m. to discuss the lawsuits regarding 200 South Ridge Street. TRUSTEE DALY VOTING AYE s TRUSTEE PELLINO VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SOLOMON VOTING AYE TRUSTEE ZUCKERMAN VOTING AYE MAYOR CRESENZI VOTING AYE On Motion made by Trustee Zuckerman, seconded by Trustee Solomon the following Resolution was hereby adopted: RESOLVED, that Maroney, Ponzini and Spencer are hereby assigned to handle the new lawsuit filed by Merrit & Holby regarding the denial of the Gymboree use and terms and conditions of the Dr. Copeland approval resolution. TRUSTEE DALY VOTING AYE TRUSTEE PELLINO VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SOLOMON VOTING AYE TRUSTEE ZUCKERMAN VOTING AYE MAYOR CRESENZI VOTING AYE Administrator Russo stated that the Executive Session on May 17, 1994 for Personnel Matters and Boards, Committees and Commissions at 6:00 p.m. has been cancelled. He added that the High Point Settlement and appointment of Police Officer should be done on May 24, 1994. ADJOURNMENT The Meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Elizabeth Bottali Secretary to the Village Board 19