Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-05-25 - Board of Trustees Meeting Minutes AGENDA VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BOARD OF TRUSTEES REGULAR MEETING MAY 25, 1995 7:30 PM. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ACTION PUBLIC HEARING 1. HUTCHINSON RIVER PARKWAY REHABILITATION PROJECT N.Y.S.DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION RESOLUTIONS 2. APPROVING CONDITIONAL FINAL APPROVAL NISSON SUBDIVISION BEECHWOOD BLVD/KING STREET SECTION 1, BLOCK 10, LOT 4 3. SUPPORTING AND URGING THE EXTENSION OF THE PROPERTY TAX STABILIZATION & RELIEF ACT 4. AMENDING PROCUREMENT POLICY RE: PURCHASE ORDERS 5. CHECK REGISTER 3YRITTEN COMMUNICATION 6. ROBERT MORABITO, TOWN SUPERVISOR RE: RYE HILLS PARK ACCESS APPROVAL OF MINUTES 7. NOVEMBER 8, 1994 12. JANUARY 24, 1995 8. NOVEMBER 22, 1994 13. FEBRUARY 28, 1995 9. DECEMBER 13, 1994 14.MARCH 14, 1995 10.DECEMBER 27, 1994 15. MARCH 28, 1995 11. JANUARY 9, 1995 16. APRIL 28, 1995 NEXT MEETING DATES TUESDAY,JUNE 13, 1995 - 7:30 P.M. -AGENDA MEETING TUESDAY,JUNE 27, 1995 - 7:30 P.M. - REGULAR MEETING 005818 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BOARD MEETING VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BOARD OF TRUSTEES 90 SOUTH RIDGE STREET RYE BROOK, NEW YORK MAY 259 1995 CONVENE MEETING Mayor Cresenzi convened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. in the Multi-Purpose Room of the Anthony J. Posillipo Community Center and the Pledge of Allegiance followed. Present were the following members of the Board: Mayor Salvatore M. Cresenzi Trustee Joseph Pellino Trustee Randy Solomon Trustee Gary J. Zuckerman Trustee Michele Mendicino Daly was not in attendance at this meeting. Also 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 Bottah, Secretary to Village Board 1 May 25, 1995 PUBLIC HEARING 1. HUTCHINSON RIVER PARKWAY REHABILITATION PROJECT NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Mayor Cresenzi announced that the New York State Department of Transportation agreed to address the Village of Rye Brook to offer information and obtain input regarding the Hutchinson River Parkway Rehabilitation. He introduced Joe Fogeletti,the Parkway Design Manager. Mr. Fogeletti introduced several members of his staff who would assist in this evening's presentation. The Hutchinson River Parkway was designed and constructed in the 1930's and at the time,the number of cars and traffic was projected and since then,it has increased dramatically and we plan to rehabilitate this roadway so it will carry on at least for the next 20 years. A representative explained the objectives are to rehabilitate this section of the Hutchinson River Parkway, improve the safety in this section of the parkway and also to improve the operational characteristics of the parkway. He reassured all that this four lane highway will remain a four lane highway. For safety concerns, we plan to pave the right shoulder of the parkway which is currently a grass shoulder adjacent to a berm. An eight foot shoulder will provide a paved surface to provide the opportunity for vehicles that are broken down to find a way to get themselves out of harms way and allow emergency vehicles get through traffic more easily. The other improvement to the section is the removal of the old barrier down the side of the road and replacing it with a concrete median barrier. Those are the essential changes in the section itself. There are two major areas throughout this 2.6 miles that we need to reconstruct the parkway again, for safety reasons. The first is located between Purchase Street and Lincoln Avenue interchanges as shown here on our drawings. The other location is just north of the Ridge Street interchange which is also shown on the drawings. There are high accident rates in both locations and this is something that we must do to improve the safety and operation of this section of the parkway. All of these changes, which are the only changes, will occur within the state right of way. There are some small property acquisitions that we will need to obtain in order to do what is necessary and they are also shown on the drawing. He added that they also would like to eliminate the non-standard loop ramps that we have at the interchanges and replace them with new slip ramps. In addition to those changes, we will construct new acceleration and deceleration lanes on the parkway for cars to either increase or decrease speed while accessing the parkway. Those changes will necessitate some lining of bridges. The first bridge, which is located at Purchase Street, will be widened to the east side in order to accommodate that change. The same type of widening will occur at the Lincoln Avenue bridge to accommodate those additional speed change lanes. At Ridge Street, because of the alignment shift, we are going to remove and demolish the existing bridge and build and entirely new structure off to the side of the existing. This construction will be staged, we will maintain to lanes of traffic during construction, will provide access for pedestrians as we realize that there is a school nearby and are concerned for their safety as well. On King Street, we have two options in regard to the bridge. In order for us to improve the interchange and the operational problems at King Street,we need to widen that bridge to five lanes and we are faced with the option of either widening the structure or demolishing the structure and replacing it entirely. 2 005820 May 25, 1995 Our preference at this point and time is to widen the structure but would certainly like to hear from the Board members and residents on that issue. The Blind Brook meanders back and forth through this section of the parkway and there are four crossings which are shown here on the drawing. The Blind Brook will remain just as it is, we will extend these existing culverts to accommodate this width that we need to build along this section. There is one section of the brook that we need to undergo a slight realignment,currently it is undermining the parkway in this area and we need to move the brook out here so we can properly improve that section. In regard to wetlands, we have approximately 11 acres of wetlands in this corridor, and will disturb somewhat less than 3 acres with the proposed work as shown. It is our plan to mitigate those losses by creating new wetlands and will build two wetlands for every one that we remove. The representative informed that this concludes the overview on the project and stated that he would like to make a few references to various drawings that are on display to better explain to the public actually where everything is taking place. As eluded earlier,the loop ramps are problematic on the King Street section of the parkway and if we can, we look to eliminate those loops. He gave a brief overview making constant references to the drawing and suggested that the residents,to get a better understanding, use the handout to follow along. In the direction towards the airport, the traffic on King Street is tremendous, which all present tonight already know. In order to remedy this mess, we will be creating two intersections and in order to do that we need to install a total of three traffic signals and he pointed out on the drawing what their locations would be. These signals will be coordinated with the other signals. He addressed the noise issue by saying that a noise study was performed of the entire corridor and based upon that study,we have determined that there were a number of impacted areas. He pointed out on the drawing, where the area impacted by noise began and added that it runs up to the King Street interchange. From the standpoint of trying to build a barrier that will be somewhat acoustically effective,we have determined that there are three areas where we can build such a barrier and pointed out where it is shown on the drawing adding that it is along the Country Ridge Drive area, along Winding Wood Road and the third is located along the Arbors condominium complex. We realize that there are a lot of homes along North Ridge Street and right into the King Street interchange and what we want to hear tonight is the concerns of the residents regarding noise in this area. One thing to be understood is that there is currently a tremendous noise generation from North Ridge Street itself besides the parkway and our problem of trying to reduce the levels of noise that residents hear in their homes is that we don't have one noise source to pinpoint. We have earthberms, landscaping and a variety of different things but we need to point out that we can lessen,to some degree, the noise level, but not the degree that we want to achieve. He gave a short slide presentation and invited the Board of Trustees and residents to feel free to ask any questions that they may have. A resident questioned the very large curve between Ridge Street and King Street and asked what is going to be done regarding noise in that area. The representative stated that one of the reasons we are hear tonight is to find out what the dislikes and likes are of the residents in reference to types of screening. We are very early in the design process and this is a conceptual plan and design so this is the phase where we get input. Rick Liebman questioned how we can get a comfort level that our ideas will be utilized. 3 005821. May 25, 1995 The representative stated that we are in the preliminary stage and we will be contacting many of the homeowners in this area to meet with them and go over what would be acceptable. In order to put a berm in, we would have to take down trees and that might not be acceptable to some. We could also put in a wall. We do have a wooded area between Ridge Street and the parkway. Mr. Bellentoni questioned if the berm would be closer to the parkway or to the house. The representative stated that it would have to be looked into and explained that we don't have all the answers for each particular area. We know based on the noise study which areas are being affected. Mr. Bellantoni stated that he resides at 375 North Ridge Street and questioned if noise receptors were placed on his property, because if not, how can they possibly know what the noise levels are and make determinations that he will not get any sound barriers and other properties will and the exit ramp is practically going to be in his backyard. The representative stated that there were noise receptors placed along the parkway and on various properties where the owners were informed. He added that he can't really answer Mr. Bellantoni's question except to say that noise levels were obtained from the noise study. Copies of the noise study are available. Mrs. Bellantoni questioned if what the representative stated earlier was that if we want a sound barrier, we are going to get one, it is just a matter of which one we are going to get? The representative replied no and stated that what we do is determine where the barrier could be effective throughout the project, if the residents want them, we will,construct them and if they don't want them, we won't construct them. Mr. Bellantoni stated that since there are no barriers indicated on the drawing near his home it was determined that it would not be effective,yet the exit ramp is going to be twice as close and if you look on the parkway, from here down to the cross county parkway they all have barriers on the exit ramp. The representative explained that we can't build barriers on all the locations where there are impacts that will get a reduction in noise levels because of the fact that a large amount of noise already exists on Ridge Street. Mr. Bellantoni stated that County Ridge residents are the same distance from the parkway so why are they getting a sound barrier. Perhaps some rethinking is in order. The representative stated that we can work with the residents on putting barriers up but what this is showing is where a noise barrier that will meet the guidelines that we are working with. Mr. Bellantoni states that they are federal guidelines which change everyday. 4 005,82a May 25, 1995 Trustee Zuckerman suggested that the residents and the State consider forming a citizen's committee with five or so residents from the different areas that are being effected to analyze these questions and to meet with all the other residents as this is an ongoing process. Herbert Stelzner of 15 Winding Wood Road questioned how long the construction would take, if money is being put in escrow for damages to homes from blasting and drilling and if there will be any night construction going on. The representative stated that it will be a two year project to be broken up in stages to accommodated the area residents. The contractor will be required to place money in escrow for damages and we will probably not consider night construction due to the area but are considering accelerated construction. A resident of Country Ridge Drive stated that the barrier is awfully close to his property line and questioned why it is not closer to the parkway as it is really an invasion of privacy. The representative stated that generally in an area such as this, it is more effective if it is closer to the property line. It doesn't have to be a wooden barrier, it could be a berm or a wall. The red line indicated on the drawing doesn't necessarily mean we are going to put up a wood wall. Steven Epstein of 233 Country Ridge Street stated that he is a new resident and agrees with the point just raised for a number of points. If a wood barrier is placed close to my property line,the temptation for graffiti is there which may bring strangers very close to my property and possibly endanger my family. Also the wetland that currently exists will be disrupted as well as the wildlife which makes our home so attractive will be disrupted and if a wall is put in it will ruin both the natural beauty and our property value. A resident stated that closing off the northern most exit going north onto Glenville road doesn't seem to make sense and asked for clarification. She stated that she completely agrees with the changes to the Ridge Street ramp: The representative stated that the key to making King Street operational once again is to install traffic signals, and when we install signals, we can phase traffic. This signal will be a three phase signal and we will have the opportunity to align the this ramp with ramp M and create two left turn lanes and so we accommodate everyone that was using this ramp to make this right turn and made the provision for that amount of traffic and the appropriate phasing for the signal. The resident questioned who is paying for the area that is in Connecticut. The representative stated that this is a NYS Department of Transportation project and this bridge is a New York State bridge but the exit ramp is in Connecticut and we are currently working with Connecticut but the project is being funded with New York State money. 5 ()068213 May 25, 1995 Gerry Chapman stated that by installing the traffic light there will be a lot of backup on the ramp and questioned if it would be better to just improve that exit rather than take it away entirely as there is a lot of land there. The representative agreed but added that the traffic can be handled by the simplification of the signal. In order to improve it you would have to go father into Connecticut and still maintain a very tight inside loop ramp and right now,the loop that is shown seems to be the best way to go. Joan Feinstein stated that she was here on behalf of the Blind Brook School Board in the Village of Rye Brook and stated that there are only two schools in the district, one located at Ridge Street and one located on King Street, two of the areas that are going to be reconstructed. We want assurances that the Ridge Street Bridge will not close as stated earlier because if it is closed there is no access to Ridge Street School from the Southern part of Rye Brook and the cost to the members of the school district to bus those children could be very high and there are certain State mandates that would require those children to be bussed. Since this will be done in stages,on behalf of the community, we ask that the construction of the Ridge Street bridge take place during the Summer months as it would impact the community less. Also,it was stated that the pedestrian lanes at the Ridge Street bridge could remain open at all times and we would also like assurances for that as well. We are also concerned with the staging of the traffic signals on King Street with cars getting in and of the Blind Brook School. As long as you are widening the bridge at King Street,perhaps we can widen all of King Street from the bridge down to Glenville Road. Mr. Bellantoni stated that Country Ridge and Winding Wood Road's homes all sit above as does my home and if the barriers are put towards the right of way as planned,this does absolutely nothing because if I stand at my pool, I will be looking over the barrier. How will that reduce the noise level. In my opinion,the closer it is to the parkway,it would cut down the angle of the noise. We are very strongly opposed to them being back that far. He also stated that with all of this construction, there are going to be a lot of rats in the area and questioned what provisions will be made to deal with this as there are schools in-the area. A resident questioned construction equipment on Ridge Street. The representative stated that it is so early in the stages that we really don't know. We can put notes in the plan but we can't tell them that they can't put their trucks on the road. Mr. Bellantoni questioned if the Village Board can designate what areas a contractor can put his equipment. Mayor Cresenzi stated that the Village's position is to address the concern's that the residents have and minimize the impacts. He stated that he agrees with Mr. Bellantoni in reference to the noise barriers being absent on North Ridge Street and as the representative stated,they will try to resolve this. 6 005824 May 25, 1995 Trustee Zuckerman questioned if any consideration was given to the elimination of ramp Q. You have traffic going on there and using that ramp will cause noise to impact that houses right across the street on Ridge Street by eliminating ramp 2 you would have some type of a green area over there that might be more attractive as well as eliminating the noise. He is suggesting making a left turn from King Street and possibly making a more major reconstruction of the King Street bridge as there are already three traffic signals proposed. By realigning the ramp, with traffic coming down King Street could make the left tum into that and get on, it always seemed to be silly that we have two on ramps so close to each other going southbound that one of them should be eliminated. The representative replied yes,that it is a possibility but ramp Q as it is proposed gives you the extra length to come up to speed and get on the parkway. Currently, you cannot get a start. Trustee Zuckerman suggested just using ramp P to go southbound. A representative stated that if we had our preference, we would close ramp P entirely but because of the volumes that we have we need to keep ramp P open and ramp Q as well. If we close ramp Q,the noise generated by the traffic is not going to be helping it much. The amount of traffic that we surveyed that go toward the southbound Hutchinson River Parkway is significant and we have no choice with the geometries that we have but to require that both ramps be open. We have the opportunity for the motorist that is traveling northbound along King Street to only have to stay in the right lane,bear right and has easy access onto the parkway. We would prefer two ramps rather than one. Mr. Bellantoni questioned the gas lines and how they are going to be affected, The representative stated that they met with the utility companies a year in advance and find out any locations of any utility lines. Robert Harris stated that the residents of Country Ridge are going to have a problem with emergency vehicles due to the Ridge Street bridge being reconstructed. Last Summer, he spoke to the sound people when they were doing the testing. We are woefully under the sound barriers there because I feel that some of the adjustments they made to their estimates are not sufficient and the starting point is not appropriate for this area. That FH2A,the decimal level in the testing is already at a level that affects people's use of their backyard, etc., so your threshold point is not appropriate for Rye Brook. Also,you are taking out a huge number of trees with that curve on the north side which affects people on Meadowlark, Oriole and North Ridge Street because of the absorption. You are also changing the delta. My recollection is that you are changing it from 7 to 5 degrees and people will now be able to go faster, particularly on the northbound side without climbing a steep hill. They did not adjust for the change in the verticle geometries. The speeds will be particularly higher on the southbound side and the testing did not account for this at all I know because it is a high breaking zone,which is quieter because you are not stepping on the accelerator. On the southbound side, where you are eliminating almost the entire breaking sound, there is an additional adjustment for that,which I don't think was made at all. 7 May 25, 1995 Mr. Harris further pointed out that there are many people who go way out of their way to avoid this section,particularly at night. On Sundays,when the motorcycles ride up it really blows the decimal levels. It was stated that they do turn the sound testing off whenever a plane comes by and that does affect the overall use of the area. To sum it all up, Mr. Harris stated that he had an idea that would reduce the cost of the project and address some of the concerns. My understanding is that you sell the used asphalt when you remove it and in one area,you are removing quite a bit of land from one area where there is a hilly area and if you move that fill to where the old highway is,you can start the earth berm there at no cost which will help absorb and also help the noise problem on both sides and also take care of the tree issue. By creating a berm on the old Hutchinson River Parkway you would eliminate the labor costs. Don't landscape it because we all know that anything planted never grows and is never taken care of so just throw some seed there and leave it alone. Berm east and sound barrier west and take the money from landscaping and from the reduced cost of having to truck fill and remediate the roadway and break even on the cost side and get rid of a lot of these resident's sound issues that in my opinion have not been appropriately adjusted for. The representative stated that this is not a closed issue and all of these suggestions will be seriously considered. Some people may want a berm and some may want a wall. Mr. Harris stated that walls increase the reflective aspect too so if there is a wall on the Winding Wood side that will increase the noise on the Country Ridge side. A resident questioned when the curves are taken out, would the levels of the parkway change. The representative stated that the hill is somewhere around 7% and what we are proposing to do is flatten that to about 5% and that will affect a couple different changes. Right now,our plan is to hold the parkway elevation about where it is at the Ridge Street crossing so when you drive underneath Ridge Street it will be about the same. As you approach King Street it will be a flatter upgrade which means we have to cut into the earth, dropping the road resection a little bit lower than it is,which is good for noise. A resident that lives in the area stated that a high water table currently exists in the area and questioned how the runoff will be affected when digging and grading work is being done. The representative stated that they will be doing a hydraulic analysis and that is basically a study that is done where we actually survey the surrounding area and the brook so we can properly account for any changes that we need to make in construction prior to commencing work. Trustee Solomon questioned if additional sound monitoring will be done, especially in the North Ridge Street area because cars will be moving closer to the houses at a faster speed as the results currently are very skewed. 8 005826 May 25, 1995 The representative stated that at this point,they did not anticipate doing any additional sound testing as the testing that was done did cover that area. In taking the noise levels along the parkway,they take noise levels at different points along the road, so the noise levels they get along the parkway,they project what the noise levels should be up here based on contour, terrain and trees. The model it first and then check the readings they took in the field to see how close they are and the study that came out verified readings that were taken in the field and what the model said it should be is well within range of the decimal range. We are very comfortable with the model that has been done. There were twenty sites along the parkway where they put noise receptors and measured the noise off and along the parkway. A resident questioned when the residents would be informed as to what the final decisions are regarding noise receptors and who we should contact to find these answers. The representative stated that residents can contact the New York State Department of Transportation at 901 Bedford Road in Pleasantville at 914-769-4700. We will probably get a list of the area homeowners and contact either the Village or the residents individually somewhere down the road in reference to what types of barriers are most desirable. A resident quoted the representative as saying that the grade of the parkway wasn't going to change or would remain approximately the same as the Ridge Street bridge and then later on spoke of clearances required for certain bridges. The Ridge Street bridge currently does not meet any requirements for height now and increasing the height of that bridge,for the parkway to go underneath must affect Ridge Street somehow. The representative stated that there will be a change in Ridge Street. The covered bridge that is there is almost like a roller coaster effect, As you come off the bridge toward the exit ramp people coming down to make a left to go east on Ridge Street, it is very difficult to see. The new bridge that is proposed will increase the site distance and the only change would be where the entrance ramps are and the bridge to remedy the roller coaster effect. Trustee Pellino questioned when we will know the results of any traffic analysis, car counts on King Street and concerns regarding the three phase light and potential backups down King Street toward Blind Brook High School. The representative stated that that information is in the design report which is currently available. Trustee Pellino also requested information regarding the downstream affects of changing the culverts for the bridges in Blind Brook that would potentially affect Rye Brook and the Town/Village of Harrison. The representative stated that that information is in the Water Quality Study that was done yesterday and will all be forwarded to the appropriate parties. 9 OUS��®, May 25, 1995 Mayor Cresenzi stated that his major concern is when the signals lights are added on King Street,there will be a light at Glenville Road, Arbors Drive and at the intersection of King Street and the Hutchinson River Parkway, In the morning hours that section of the road is a disaster and he is concerned what will happen as the lights change. Unless King Street is really addressed from Glenville Road back to the Hutchinson River Parkway, it is really going to be a problem,no matter what it will really impact the community. The representative stated that during the early part of the final design, we will be reviewing the phasing with our traffic engineering group. Based on what we have already done,we don't anticipate a problem and we feel we can make a definite improvement in that area. If the traffic people come back and say that this is not going to work we will have to go back and possibly include that in but right now, we are trying to keep the scope of the project limited to the area where the project is taking place. Mayor Cresenzi stated that you really need to go all the way down to Glenville Road because when you get a car going south on King Street to make a left onto Glenville Road, unless you have a through traffic lane on the right that one care can mess up the phasing all the way back and as far as having enough room for the extra lane there definitely is. The representative stated that he would raise that with the traffic committee. Mayor Cresenzi thanked the New York State Department of Transportation for addressing the public this evening. RESOLUTIONS 2. APPROVING CONDITIONAL FINAL APPROVAL NISSON SUBDIVISION BEECHWOOD BLVD/KING STREET SECTION 1, BLOCK 10, LOT 4 Trustee Zuckerman stated that the constant attempt to subdivide and re-subdivide the large parcels of land in the Byram Ridge Area is quite disturbing. The Village of Port Chester,which only part of this land exists in, has issued subdivision approval for a single lot and what is before us now is the Rye Brook portion of the lot. As part of this approval resolution, there is a covenant that would run with the land which we are hopeful would result in no further subdivisions of this particular parcel. Attorney Powell stated that the revised language is more in the nature of clarification, defines that the boundary line shown on the map is not a lot line,but a boundary line between the two municipalities, restricts the usage of the lots to single family dwellings and provides that the covenant is enforceable separately by the Village's of Rye Brook and Port Chester and will not affect the validity of any other covenant that exists. Mr. Mascali, attorney for the Nisson's stated that the language presented clearly establishes the 10 0058`° feelings of his clients that this is only a three lot subdivision. May 25, 1995 Trustee Pellino questioned the Village of Port Chester's resolution, Mr. Mascali stated that it didn't restrict any further subdivision however,Rye Brook's restriction will cover the issues that Rye Brook has because it is enforceable by the two municipalities separately. Trustee Zuckerman stated that part of the problem we have is the fact that the approval resolution that Port Chester adopted is insufficient and it states that its' resolution creates two conforming lots in an R-7 zoning district and early in the process, I had requested that Mr. Mascali go back and get a clarification for that or at least a re-passage of the resolution to communicate that there are not two conforming lots in Port Chester, but one conforming lot and a second lot that lies partially within the Village of Rye Brook. Mr. Mascali asked for a clarification,but it was never received and we can't make the Village of Port Chester change their resolution. The issue of further subdivision did come up and it was told to the members of the Board that there were no intention to do anything further. The map, boundary line and covenant is clear so whether the wording is changed or not, this restrictive covenant covers Trustee Zuckerman's concerns. Trustee Pellino stated that if the time comes that someone wanted to subdivide that property further and the Village of Port Chester was amenable to it than my question to our Village Attorney is are we doing the correct thing by saying that this shall be enforceable by the Village of Port Chester. We should not be making that kind of statement unless there was something in their resolution that concurs with what Trustee Zuckerman's concern and eventual wording of this change takes into account. Attorney Powell stated that this Board's jurisdiction relates only to the portion of the property that is in Rye Brook and the-covenant is designed to provide an additional assurance to the Board and to the Village regarding things which otherwise would be within the purview of the Village of Port Chester. Trustee Zuckerman stated that if this parcel of land was lying only within the Village of Rye Brook, I would not be in favor of this subdivision and would vote against it, but since the Village of Port Chester has already adopted an approval resolution and also since this covenant grants us the right to enforce the subdivision as is now drafted on the map I will vote for it based on this covenant but am adamantly opposed to further subdivision of this lot. Monroe Mann, stated that he represents three families, Ceraso, Cassone and Nosh with respect to this property. He questioned if a long form EAF was filed in how intense it was. That whole area is filled with wetlands and marshlands and there is constant flooding in the area and putting another house in the area and removing all the trees will make matters much worse as with the situation at Deer Run. The water table there is very high and enough has not been to investigate that problem and it will fall back on the Village again. Once you start breaking the covenant down, applicants will come into court saying that the neighborhood is already ruined so what difference does it make. The Board 11 00 alb°='0 would be well served by tabling this motion, investigating the issue and having more input from the residents. If the Board does grant this resolution, it will end up in court because the neighbors will not accept this. May 25, 1995 Trustee Pellino stated that this application has been before this Board,the Planning Board and properly noticed public hearings were held and anyone had a right to object to any aspect of this application and an investigation could have been undertaken. It is strange that someone is coming forward now, asking for a re-investigation,holding up the application and sending it back to the planning stage which is grossly unfair to both the applicant and the Village. Mr. Mann stated that his clients just became aware of the situation. If this goes through,the Building Department and the neighborhood will not be well served and my suggestion is for that reason. Ms.Nosh,a Port Chester resident stated that she was never notified by the Port Chester Board at all and her property is well within the lines of notification. Mr. Mascali stated that the notification requirements in Port Chester differ from those in Rye Brook. He reiterated what Trustee Pellino stated in reference to the delay in the planning process and added that they retained Dolph Rotfeld to do a detailed investigation which was one of the conditions and his recommendations have been submitted to the Board and for this application to tabled would be a substantial prejudice. Trustee Zuckerman stated that at the last public hearing, which he does not remember ever being closed, a question of ground water was raised by Mr. Holden and although a report was submitted from Dolph Rotfeld,perhaps the area residents need to hear what the findings were. Mr. Mascali stated that other than what is contained in the resolution and what the applicant needs to do with respect to the anticipated runoff, we obviously concur with Mr. Rotfeld's conclusion which is that the impact is minimal and whatever steps need to be taken to alleviate any potential impact would be taken in the construction process. Mr. Holden of 750 King Street stated that as a result of the subdivision and construction of the properties around the old 760 King Street and two additional houses were built, we experienced a high water table and we were very gratified that the Board was so responsive to our needs at that time. To date, we have not seen any results of studies so we feel that we have no input regarding the question of groundwater. The applicant's in 1967 were plaintiffs in a supreme court case along with other residents in the area regarding enforcements of the restrictive covenants in the area and that case took 7 years so perhaps another month or two for this project may not make a difference. Mr. Mascali disagreed stating that all concerns have been addressed. The interested area residents were free to contact the Village Office to see the results of any studies that were undertaken. It is his understanding that the public hearing was closed subject to the engineers report,restrictive covenant and an approval resolution. 12 0058;3o May 25, 1995 Trustee Zuckerman stated that the Village did not send out these reports to the area residents and it is difficult for the residents to keep calling the Village to see if there is a report on file. The residents are here this evening and are voices their concerns now, and they at least deserve an explanation regarding an environmental question as to whether or not there is a problem. Mr. Circosta, Director of Public Works, stated that test holes were dug on the new lot at the rear of the property and they showed that there was sandy soil and test hole number one, at about seven feet there was a small amount of groundwater and at test hole number two, there was no groundwater found. The weather conditions during this testing were slightly drizzling at the time and moderate rain for the previous two days. The date of the report was January 19, 1995. As stated in Mr. Rotfeld's report, whatever drywell that is installed has to be designed in accordance of the square footage of the impervious area, such as the roof, sidewalks,patios and the blacktop. In reference to Mr. Mann's question regarding what type of environmental assessment form was submitted, a long form was in fact submitted. Ms.Nosh has various questions about where the testing was performed and if it was performed in the Port Chester area. Mayor Cresenzi replied that the test holes were only tug on lot number three. Trustee Zuckerman stated that Ms.Nosh may possibly have a legal action against the Village of Port Chester for the improper notification and can get them to rescind their subdivision but what is before this board tonight is the Rye Brook subdivision which only involves lot number three. The fact is that aside from the environmental concerns, which I share with the residents, if the Board rejects this application and the applicant brings a legal action to have the subdivision put into effect over our rejection, that subdivision would go into affect without the restrictive covenant which we really need to protect the Village against further development. Trustee Pellino stated-that at a past meeting, the applicant was made to adhere to the terms of the draft wetlands law which they did so in that measure, we did protect the residents in regard to environmental considerations. David Nisson, on behalf of his mother Edith, stated that for nearly two years this process has been going and they patiently tried to comply with all of the requests of this Board and with the Village of Port Chester and at the last meeting, the only remaining condition was that we check out the drainage problem and public comment was then closed. We hired and paid the engineer to do that and he assured me that there was no drainage problem. Should there be any further concerns, we would be happy to comply with them,my parents have no intention of further subdividing the property and are happy with the terms of the resolution. He respectfully asked that the Board proceed and make their decision on the application this evening. 13 r 005831 May 25, 1995 On Motion made by Trustee Pellino, seconded by Trustee Solomon,the following Resolution was hereby adopted: RESOLUTION APPROVING CONDITIONAL FINAL APPROVAL FOR THE NISSON SUBDIVISION BEECHWOOD BLVD/KING STREET SECTION 1, BLOCK 10,LOT 4 WHEREAS, an application for approval of a subdivision plat was made by Edith Nisson titled: "Preliminary Subdivision Plan for Nisson Property", representing a 3 lot subdivision of a 2.13 acre tract at and to the North of the intersection of King Street and Beechwood Blvd; and WHEREAS,the portion of the subject parcel located in Rye Brook is classified R-15 and R-20 under the Zoning Law of the Village of Rye Brook and comprises approximately 1.12 acres; and WHEREAS,the portion of the subject property in the Village of Rye Brook currently has one existing single-family residence and under the application, one new lot would be created in Rye Brook and one additional lot would be created in Port Chester; and WHEREAS, the Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees referred this application to the Planning Board for a report and recommendation and the Planning Board on June 9, 1994 recommended conditional approval of the application; and WHEREAS,the Village of Port Chester Board of Trustees on or about August 15, 1994 granted subdivision approval for so much of the property located in the Village of Port Chester with a condition regarding sidewalk construction; and WHEREAS,the subdivision application consists of the following plan sheets: a. Preliminary subdivision plan for Nisson Property,Village of Rye Brook and Village of Port Chester, originally prepared February 8, 1993, last revised on March 24, 1994,prepared by J.A. Kirby and Company; b. Nisson Subdivision Tree Preservation Plan,prepared by Horseman&Lester dated May 7, 1994. WHEREAS,the Board of Trustees has determined that a park or recreation facility cannot be suitably located on the subject tract and that a need for recreation facilities exists in the Village of Rye Brook and,therefore, a recreation fee shall be paid in lieu of a land reservation; and 14 UtJ���32 May 25, 1995 WHEREAS,the Board of Trustees has reviewed an Environmental Assessment Form submitted in reference to this application and has determined that the action is an Unlisted action. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,that the within action is found to be an Unlisted Action and the accompanying negative environmental declaration is adopted; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED,that the application of Edith Nissen for approval of a final subdivision plat as shown on the plans identified above is hereby granted and the Mayor is authorized to sign the final plat subject the following conditions: CONDITIONS TO BE COMPLETED BEFORE THE PLAT IS SIGNED 1. The applicant shall pay a recreation fee in the amount of$8,960 prior to the signing of the final plat. If not paid within 90 days after the effective date of this resolution,the recreation fee shall be determined in accordance with the fee schedule in effect at the time the application requests the approved final plat be signed. 2. The final plat shall be revised as follows: a. A four foot wide concrete sidewalk shall be shown on the plat along the property with King Street frontage and extending to the corner of Beechwood Boulevard and King Street, satisfactory to the Director of Public Works. 3. The final plat, revised as required above, shall be endorsed by the Westchester County Department of Health prior to signing by the Mayor, if required. 4. Prior to the signing of the final plat, proof shall be submitted from a qualified engineer,retained at the applicants expense and approved by the Director of Public Works, demonstrating that storm water runoff from the property has been reduced by at least 10% satisfactory to the Director of Public Works. 5. Prior to the signing of the plat, a covenant shall be submitted satisfactory to the Village Attorney prohibiting any further subdivision of Lots 1,2 and 3 as agreed to by the applicant. OTHER CONDITIONS 6. The covenant set forth in condition 5 shall be recorded contemporaneously with the filing of the plat. 7. The applicant shall submit five(5) copies of the final plat showing the endorsement of the County Clerk to the Director of Public Works within thirty (30)days of the date of filing. 15 ()(),5833 May 25, 1995 8. The applicant shall furnish a copy of this final subdivision approval Resolution to each purchaser of a lot in the subdivision prior to the transfer of title and shall present verification that such notice has been given to the Village Attorney in the form of a receipt signed by the purchaser. 9. No certificate of occupancy shall be granted for the development of Lot 3,until the 4 foot wide concrete sidewalk is constructed as required,to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 10. The drywell now proposed to be placed at the Northwest corner shall be re-located approximately five (5)feet to the North from the presently shown location on the tree preservation plan, satisfactory to the Director of Public Works; and be it 11. The applicant shall comply with Chapter 245 of the code of the Village of Rye Brook, Wetland and Watercourse Protection,to the extent applicable, with respect to development of that portion of the Nissen Subdivision in the Village of Rye Brook. FURTHER RESOLVED,that this Resolution shall have an effective date of May 25, 1995. TRUSTEE PELLINO VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SOLOMON VOTING AYE TRUSTEE ZUCKERMAN VOTING AYE MAYOR CRESENZI VOTING AYE 3. SUPPORTING AND URGING THE EXTENSION OF THE PROPERTY TAX STABILIZATION AND RELIEF ACT On Motion made by Trustee Zuckerman, seconded by Trustee Solomon, the following Resolution was hereby adopted: RESOLUTION VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK SUPPORTING AND URGING THE EXTENSION OF THE PROPERTY TAX STABILIZATION AND RELIEF ACT WHEREAS, Towns and Villages in Westchester County are severely restricted in their revenue base, with real property tax as their main source of revenue constantly rising and putting a disproportionate burden on the property owner; and WHEREAS,the County Executive and the Board of Legislators advocated and approved the distribution of sales tax revenue to the Towns, Villages and School Districts, in accordance with Chapter 272 of the laws of 1991. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT 16 ®®!i8'3 May 25, 1995 RESOLVED,that the Board of Trustees of the Village of Rye Brook hereby requests our State representatives to support an extension of Article 29, Section twelve hundred sixty-twoB of the tax law, entitled: 1991 Property Tax Stabilization and Relief Act,which said law has a sunset provision of May 31, 1996; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED,that by copy of this resolution we urge our representatives to support the extension of the 1991 Property Tax Stabilization and Relief Act until such time as New York State Aid to Local Governments is restored to 1990 levels. Trustee Pellino stated that this sales tax was introduced several years ago and is the lifeblood of all Villages and Towns throughout the County who need to have a makeup source for the lost money that we are rightfully entitled to by the State. TRUSTEE PELLINO VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SOLOMON VOTING AYE TRUSTEE ZUCKERMAN VOTING AYE MAYOR CRESENZI VOTING AYE 4. AMENDING PROCUREMENT POLICY RE: PURCHASE ORDERS Mayor Cresenzi recommended that we reduce the amount from $700 to $500. Administrator Russo explained that when we first introduced a policy on this we did not have the current on-line financial information that is now available and we have tremendous financial controls as to what and how we are spending and how much is left than we did back then. This request has come from our staff to increase this and they found the proposed$700 figure to be the average among other municipalities that range from$500 to $1,000. Trustee Zuckerman questioned how purchase are made without a purchase order. Administrator Russo explained that purchases are done by voucher,the department head looks and makes sure that the money is there. Mayor Cresenzi stated that currently we have good fmancial controls in the Village and would like to see them further tightened. We should discuss at a future meeting, line transfer items within a I particular department's budget that before the line transfer items can be made,they be made with Board approval. Trustee Zuckerman questioned why the amount should be increased at all and further questioned how cumbersome it is to have a purchase order. 17 May 25, 1995 Trustee Solomon stated that he found in his company that it is costly to generate so many purchase orders. He agreed with Mayor Cresenzi's $500 amount but would also agree with the proposed $700. Trustee Pellino agreed that we need to keep tight controls and that the amount should be left at$300 unless it can be demonstrated to me further why we should raise it. Administrator Russo stated that the controls will remain, it is primarily the effort and time spent on this procedure. Trustee Pellino agreed,but questioned how many are generated, what the cost is per purchase order to the Village that would substantiate the need for changing the amount Administrator Russo stated that he did not have those answers to the exact amount but it was brought to his attention by the Department Heads as being time consuming. Mr. Circosta stated that the $300 amount is cumbersome,we are not expending monies that we should not be expending, we have our budgets that we work with, we file claim vouchers for any bills that have to be paid and work within the budget lines we have to the best of our ability. In my case, at certain times,I can purchase four tires for a vehicle and it can exceed$300 and then my mechanic has to inform me of that, I need to request a purchase order from the treasurer's office who will then provide the purchase order,my secretary then has to contact my mechanic and type the information on the purchase order and send it back to the Treasurer's office for approval to verify that the money is in fact in the account, which I already know is available and from there it goes to the Administrator for his approval and then it is returned to my office and sometimes timing is difficult. Trustee Pellino stated that he needs to see the justification for this change and what type of cost and time savings will take place. Mayor Cresenzi suggested that at the next regular meeting Village Treasurer Joseph Cortese will be available to give a report to the Board in regard to Purchase Orders and Budget Line Transfers. We can adopt the resolution this evening at the $500 amount if the Board so desires. On Motion made by Trustee Pellino, seconded by Trustee Solomon,the following Resolution was hereby adopted: RESOLUTION AMENDING PROCUREMENT POLICY PURCHASE ORDERS WHEREAS, a Resolution was adopted on April 11, 1989 requiring that a Purchase Order be completed for an expenditure for equipment or supplies in excess of$300;and May 25, 1995 18 0058X36 WHEREAS,with the implementation of a new computer system with tighter overall financial controls and in light of the amount of paperwork involved to generate a purchase order and requisition; it is RESOLVED,that effective June 1, 1995, any expenditures for equipment or supplies that exceed $500 shall require a Purchase Order in accordance with Village policy. TRUSTEE PELLINO VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SOLOMON VOTING AYE TRUSTEE ZUCKERMAN VOTING AYE MAYOR CRESENZI VOTING AYE 5. CHECK REGISTER On Motion made by Trustee Solomon, seconded by Trustee Zuckerman,the following Resolution was hereby adopted: RESOLUTION CHECK REGISTER RESOLVED,that the following checks representing payment for services rendered and submitted to the Treasurer's Office for payment have been certified to by the Village Administrator: On Line Checks: 591-682 Pre-Paid Checks: 409,410, 500, 585-589 & 701 Payroll Checks: 16088-16197 Capital Checks: 2312-2321 Birthday Run: 2057-2058 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,that Village of Rye Brook Administrator hereby approves and authorizes payment thereof. TRUSTEE PELLINO VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SOLOMON VOTING AYE TRUSTEE ZUCKERMAN VOTING AYE MAYOR CRESENZI VOTING AYE 19 May 25, 1995 WRITTEN COMMUNICATION 6. ROBERT MORABITO, TOWN SUPERVISOR RE: RYE HILLS PARK ACCESS Mayor Cresenzi stated that during past discussion on Rye Hills Park, a number of residents had raised concerns about access and had suggested that it be obtained through Crawford Park into Hidden Falls, which we did follow up on. We requested that the Rye Town Attorney look into the covenant on Crawford Park regarding the use of the park to the executor of Edna Crawfords will and to the United Hospital Board of Trustees and I received a response that that has taken place, we are only awaiting the answers from the executor of the will and the Hospital Board of Trustees. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 7. NOVEMBER 8, 1994 8. NOVEMBER 22, 1994 9. DECEMBER 13, 1994 10. DECEMBER 27, 1994 11. JANUARY 9, 1995 12. JANUARY 24, 1995 13. FEBRUARY 28, 1995 14. MARCH 14, 1995 15. MARCH 28, 1995 16. APRIL 28, 1995 Mayor Cresenzi announced that certain minutes needed further review and adjustments and would be tabled until the next meeting. On Motion made by Trustee Solomon, seconded by Trustee Pellino, the Minutes of November 8, 1994, December 13, 1994, January 9, 1995, January 24, 1995, March 14, 1995 and April 29, 1995 were adopted. TRUSTEE PELLINO VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SOLOMON VOTING AYE TRUSTEE ZUCKERMAN VOTING AYE MAYOR CRESENZI VOTING AYE NEXT MEETING DATES TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 1995 - 7:30 P.M. - AGENDA MEETING TUESDAY, JUNE 27, 1995 - 7:30 P.M. -REGULAR MEETING May 25, 1995 20 005838 Trustee Pellino stated that the Board should have received the new lot merger proposal from the Village Attorney and if the Board had any comments,they could either communicate them to me now or at a later in writing if preferable. He added that he would like to have this proposal on the Village Board's Agenda for public hearing on either June 13th or June 27th. Mayor Cresenzi announced that we would hold the hearing on June 27th. ADJOURNMENT There being no further discussion,the meeting was adjourned by Mayor Cresenzi at 10:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Christopher J. dusso Village Clerk