Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-08-09 - Board of Trustees Meeting Minutes AGENDA VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BOARD OF TRUSTEES REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 9, 1994 5:30 P.M. BOARD OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS EXECUTIVE SESSION PERSONNEL INTERVIEWS 7:30 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ACTION t f PUBLIC HEARING 1. PROPOSED LOCAL LAW INTRODUCTORY #10-1994 ENTITLED: A LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE CODE OF THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK TO ADD A NEW CHAPTER 245 TO PROVIDE FOR WETLAND AND WATERCOURSE PROTECTION s DISCUSSION 2. THOMAS JOSEPHSON, CHAIRMAN RYE BROOK RECREATION COMMISSION RE: INCREASE IN 94-95 RECREATION FEES RESOLUTIONS 3. APPROVAL OF PROPOSED LOCAL LAW #9-1994 ENTITLED: A LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE CODE i OF THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK TO ADD A NEW CHAPTER 47 TO PROVIDE FOR REIMBURSEMENT j OF PROFESSIONAL CONSULTING FEES 4. APPROVING PAYMENT FOR GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT #9302 ANTHONY J. POSILLIPO COMMUNITY CENTER 5. APPROVING INTER-MUNICIPAL AGREEMENT WITH THE VILLAGE OF PORT CHESTER NUTRITION FOR THE ELDERLY PROGRAM 6. AWARDING CONTRACT #9303 REHABILITATION OF TENNIS COURTS AND BASKETBALL COURTS 7. ACCEPTANCE OF DONATIONS TO THE ANTHONY J. POSILLIPO COMMUNITY CENTER RECONSTRUCTION FUND 8. CHECK REGISTER WRITTEN COMMUNICATION 9. THOMAS GISSEN, AICP RE: K & M REALTY ACTIONS UNDERTAKEN BY THE PLANNING BOARD i 10. SUSAN FLANAGAN, PROGRAM COORDINATOR COMMUNITY SYNAGOGUE, RYE N.Y. RE: REQUEST TO POST SIGN 1 ITEMS FOR TUESDAY AUGUST 23. 1994 - 7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - 1. CONTINUATION OF OPEN SPACE EASEMENT FOR THE BLIND BROOK CLUB PROPERTY (Continuation) { 2. TO CONSIDER APPROVAL OF FIRE CONTRACT FOR 1994-1995 FISCAL YEAR (Continuation) fRESOLUTIONS - 3. SETTING PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR CODIFICATION OF VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK ZONING CODE APPROVAL OF MINUTES - 4. APRIL 12, 1994 5. APRIL 26, 1994 6. APRIL 29, 1994 005426 MINUTES OF AN AGENDA MEETING VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BOARD OF TRUSTEES VILLAGE OFFICES 90 SOUTH RIDGE STREET RYE BROOK, NEW YORK AUGUST 8, 1994 CONVENE MEETING The Meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Mayor Cresenzi in the Meeting Room and the Pledge of Allegiance followed. Present were the following members of the Board: Mayor Salvatore M. Cresenzi Trustee Michele Daly Trustee Joseph Pellino Trustee Randy A. Solomon Trustee Gary J. Zuckerman Also present were: Christopher J. Russo, 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 Thomas Gissen, Frederick P. Clark Associates Lori Ann DeMarco, Assistant to Village Administrator and Joseph Cortese, Village Treasurer were not in attendance. 1 005427 August 9, 1994 DISCUSSION 2. THOMAS JOSEPHSON, CHAIRMAN RYE BROOK RECREATION COMMISSION RE: INCREASE IN 94-95 RECREATION FEES Mayor Cresenzi introduced Thomas Josephson, Chairman of the Recreation Commission. Mr. Josephson explained that he has been invited to join the Village Board this evening to discuss fee structures and recommendations which have been submitted and approved. First, he made a general statement regarding the general philosophy behind running recreation programs for the greater good of the community. The Village Board has been furnished recently with some articles which, through a nationwide survey of local municipalities, reveal a general willingness to allocate tax dollars to recreation activities, by participants and non-participants alike. To paraphrase the article, the majority of taxpayers feel that communities should spend tax dollars on recreation activities because it increases the value of the community by making it a more II desirable place in which to live. The Village of Rye Brook, since its inception, has maintained an active and growing recreation department. We can quite proudly point to the increase in programs and participants over the years since this village was formed. In fact we have quintupled the number of programs run since the first year of operations and currently have 114 active programs. We have maintained a general philosophy of underwriting youth programs through tax dollars and run adult programs, with few exceptions, on a revenue neutral of profit- oriented basis. Two years ago I met with the Village Board at which point it was requested we do an individual program by program analysis of costs associated with running programs versus their revenues. It was agreed then that this would be a good tool to help the recreation commission set fee structures. A general consensus was reached, although no formal proclamation was made, that adult oriented programs would try to be run on a revenue neutral basis. A joint meeting of the Recreation Commission and the Village Board was held this spring and, while we had many items on our agenda, specific resolutions were not adopted regarding fee structures. During this meeting one trustee had suggested we assign a percentage of operating costs for which we could target revenues. Another trustee suggested we establish set participation fees, regardless of program costs. There are obviously many other mechanisms for establishing fee structure in the future. 2 00542 August 9, 1994 Mr. Josephson then explained the process through which the Recreation Commission arrived at the recommendations which were made to and adopted by the Village Board: Kathy Latella, the Recreation Department Secretary, prepared the financial cost analysis which has been furnished to the Village Board. This was reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commission's Budget Committee which met in private session with the Superintendent. Each program, its associated fee structure and its revenue impact was reviewed. If a program was being run at a deficit, the number of participants was reviewed as well as the dollar amount of subsidy per participant per program. This allowed us to concentrate on revising the fee structure for programs which ran at a relatively high ratio of deficit per participant. The program with the largest deficit and the largest deficit per participant is the Day Camp. We feel a local municipally-supplied Day Camp is an important service to provide to the community. The toughest decision is how deep a deficit you want to run on the program. We made an attempt two years ago to reduce this figure by increasing fees. The result was a drop in participation which caused us to run at an even higher deficit. With this lesson learned in supply/demand economics, the budget committee approached each program's fee structure with the following items in mind: 1. How will a fee increase effect participation? 2. What gross dollars are at stake? I 3. How many participants are involved? We applied a general rule of maximizing revenues where it was perceived the market would bear it(ie. Adult Programs) and pushed the high deficit programs to be closer to par with the others.- In essence what we did was change the big losses and increased profits where we could. The Budget Committee's recommendations were made to the Recreation Commission, discussed openly at a public meeting and passed unanimously without abstention. I know it is tempting to look at the Cost Analysis and attempt to micro-manage each individual program, but if we discussed each one I'm afraid we would be here all night and other important Village business would have to be tabled. Hired professionals and. dedicated volunteers with decades of Recreation Commission experience have already been over this. I have come prepared to discuss any aspect of the fee increase recommendations but feel our time might be better spent discussing the general philosophy regarding Recreation Program fees, should the board feel it is not being handled properly. 3 005429 August 9, 1994 Trustee Pellino stated that the concept of dropping programs is not to make other programs more appealing. Trustee Zuckerman stated that we have a good working document however, we must develop a written philosophy as to how to determine increases. PUBLIC HEARING i 1. PROPOSED LOCAL LAW INTRODUCTORY #10-1994 I` ENTITLED: A LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE CODE OF THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK TO ADD A NEW CHAPTER 245 TO PROVIDE FOR WETLAND AND WATERCOURSE PROTECTION Mayor Cresenzi opened the public hearing at 8:05 p.m. and introduced James Donovan of Frederick P. Clark Associates. Mr. Donovan opened the floor for discussion and questions about the proposed law. Trustee Zuckerman stated that on page 4 of the law, in regard to the Grandfathering provision, that the Board should establish a standard for projects that have already started but are not yet completed. I Trustee Pellino stated that the law takes care of that in the next paragraph. Trustee Zuckerman stated that there should be an intermediate authority for approval not only be approved by this Board. Mrs. Sherlock stated that the Council came about to simply protect the environment, wetlands and watercourses because so many of them have disappeared. Any of us who live in the Village of Rye Brook have seen a great deal of development and know that we have lost very valuable environmental property. This is not just since we have become the Village of Rye Brook but was happening when we were the unincorporated area so if you want a copy of the law you will see that there is intent as to why we want to have a law. We haven't been working on any kind of project or any kind of development. The Council has been working strictly and wholly on developing a Wetlands Protection Law. She added that since we have been given the lion's share of it, with Frederick P. Clark Associates and Board input, and asked Trustee Zuckerman to clarify his previous comment. Trustee Daly stated that first of all it has to be an activity approved prior to passage of this chapter. 4 005430 August 9, 1994 Trustee Zuckerman stated that significant economic resources have been committed pursuant to such approval, not in getting the approval but pursuant. For example, if you get the approval and then you lay a foundation, it might prove economic sources. In the case of the Messina's, the fact is that the project was sold and, I don't know if the deal closed, but I believe that if the property was sold the purchaser probably committed significant economic resources pursuant to that approval. I would simply guess. Trustee Solomon asked if that statement was not a little ambiguous? Trustee Zuckerman answered that it is definitely ambiguous and that is why, I guess, people have to make that determination all the time and that is what courts are for ultimately, but hopefully we won't get that far. Mrs. Sherlock asked Mr. Zuckerman to clarify the comment made early on referencing grandfathering. She stated that if something has already been approved by the Planning Board she would assume that it would be grandfathered but something that has not been approved is very different than going through the Planning Board. She asked Trustee Zuckerman to state exactly what he has in mind. Trustee Zuckerman stated that he did not know what the word approval meant; regulated activity that was approved prior to passage?. Approved by whom? By this Board? By the Planning Board? Mrs. Sherlock questioned if they have something approved, who approves it? Trustee Daly answered that it was the Village Board. Trustee Pellino stated that the Planning Board recommends approval or disapproval. Mrs. Sherlock stated that if something were approved, it is set and not questionable, and added that she is assuming that if our law is approved that means we are set. Trustee Zuckerman said the problem he is trying to address and I don't mean to point a finger at K & M's project or the Messina project or any other project that might be pending at the present time and is aware after seeing these Agendas that there may be several projects in the Planning Board stage. All he is saying is that if this law is not yet on the books and a developer is attempting to bring a project through and is hired based on the previous law or the state of the law has hired lawyers, architects and engineers and has done studies and has done this and that. The question is at what point he should be entitled to operate outside the scope of this law and at what point he should be brought within the scope of this law because we want to operate on a principle of fairness, I think. You do not want people committing resources to something and when they are getting to the point of saying OK you can do it then they are told "by the way we just passed a law and you are going to have to do a lot more work because of it". It is a questions of at what point is fairness. 5 005431 August 9, 1994 Mrs. Sherlock asked Trustee Zuckerman at what point he considered fairness. Trustee Zuckerman replied that he was not 100% sure at this point. I would think that some of the projects that we have going on now are certainly on the borderline. Mrs. Sherlock stated that she thought there were a lot of municipalities that probably have gone through this entire situation. There is a gentleman in the back who is the Chair of the Legislative Committee of the Environmental Management Council and one of bis jobs is to help communities with their environmental laws. Perhaps he could just make a comment on that particular issue, if she is not putting him in the "hot spot". Mr. Otis, Vice Chairman of the Westchester County Environmental Management Council and Chairman of the Rye City Conservation Commission stated that he dealt with a lot of these same issues. On the grandfathering issue there are many different j ways you can go. Many communities look at final site plan approval or pick different f places in the approval process by way of making a marker and trying to account for. When we worked on ours, we spent a lot of time on the grandfathering provision. Mr. Otis invited the Board to take a look at their ordinance as they came up with a complicated negotiated agreement that met the sense of fairness at that time and you will do somewhat the same thing and see what is fair but you should not assume that the existence of the law is something that is necessarily an extra burden or hampering someone from putting something in. The law provides advantage and guidance and where we've had the law in Rye now, we only passed our law at the end of 1991 so that we have not had it that long but we have worked with developers and homeowners and it has helped in terms of intelligent planning for their properties. In regard to the exemption issue which is proposed at one acre, we discussed the issue of having some kind of cut off. At that time, and we researched this maybe three or four years ago, we looked at every Wetlands Ordinance in Westchester County and half of the communities have that kind of cut off, and half don't. Mr. Otis stated that they decided against having no minimum cut off for the following reasons: Scientifically the negative impact damage to a wetland system is not necessarily related to size and we felt that it was important to be able to, through our application process, look at every activity and disturbance in a wetland area. We, through the law, treat smaller incursions differently than larger incursions and it works quite well and reasonable people bring that kind of logic to the table. We felt it was very important not to have a minimum size exemption so if a minor incursion that maybe was going to have a significant impact that was going to take place that we would be able to have input into that. Their ordinance did not become effective until the middle of 1992 and since then we have had everyone in Rye tell us it has gone very well. We have had only 20 actual applications and everyone is very happy with it. I don't think you will hear anybody, in terms of homeowners or development lawyers or anybody who has dealt with the Rye law coming and saying it is not working in a nice friendly way. I am available for any other questions. 6 0054-#32- August 05432- August 9, 1994 Mayor Cresenzi stated that in reference to the one acre provision, that given the lot size in the Village and the contributories or watercourses that are around the community . which impact a lot of the Village property owners existing home owners that may vary in size from a quarter acre up to an acre or more given their location in the community. The hundred foot buffer from the edge of the wetlands was what backed us in, I recommended that we back into the one acre size based on that number. If you take 150 foot lot depth as being average, that would be average only in the R15, R20 sections of the community with a 40 front yard setback. That would mean given a likelihood that the edge of the wetland was at the rear property line from the man's front door to his rear yard would be a regulated area and we felt that the amount of paperwork that it would create just in that regulated area, we felt would be a lot easier for us given the built up area and nature of the Village to use a one acre minimum. Now some of the county ordinances go from a tenth of an acre to no requirement to a ten to a twelve and f one half which is a state requirement for a wetland area. So we can choose one acre to make things administratively easier for us. Mr. Otis commented that when they were discussing having some kind of minimum we never talked about anything as large as one acre. In Rye we did discuss doing something at a quarter acre. The type of situation you describe with a lot on a brook was similar to an application with a very similar situation in Rye just a few weeks ago. It was a pre- existing subdivided lot that had not been built on yet on a brook and we liked the fact j that we had input in that we were able to say you should have the house as far toward Ii the front of the property as possible and we did approve the subdivision. Just because you have to go through the process doesn't mean there is presumption against rejection. There is a principle in wetlands law now that you have in your proposal here about balancing the duty to minimize the impact on the wetlands versus the size of the lot and the practicability of it. For instance your decision making is different on that small lot where there is no choice. The woman that owned this lot had no choice as to where she was going to put her house. If we said no she would have no use of her property and especially since it was a pre-existing subdivision that would have been wrong. On a big parcel you are able to say to an owner, get out of the buffer area because you have plenty of room on that property to do your activity and the burden is on him to do that i under the kind of analysis you have in that law. That has been our experience and it has not proved to be burdensome to people who own smaller lots, if anything we bend over backwards to try and work with them and have them do something intelligent, in fact, in this case we provided advise that made sure that house was in a safer position. jMayor Cresenzi thanked Mr. Otis. Mr. Heller stated that this has been a very long process. The current project, non- conforming activities was sort of a vague statement because we weren't at the stage. Now we are in a public hearing and hopefully the passage of this law. I don't think anyone coming to the Planning Board with a project has been unaware of the process of this ordinance and the time element that has been proceding forward so within a very short time you will no longer be talking about current projects. 7 0054` 3 August 9, 1994 Mr. Konigsberg introduced himself and identified himself as a principle of K & M Realty which currently has a site plan application before the Planning Board. In fact based on the way the application has been going I suspect there will be a recommendation coming out of the Planning Board this Thursday recommending back to your Board certain action to be taken on my project and I believe that based on timing of notice of public hearing that perhaps sometime in the very beginning of September there will be a public hearing scheduled on our matter. I would like to just address a few points that specifically deal with this law and my application. Mr. Konigsberg stated that first of all, he wanted to clarify something that Mr. Heller said. A long time ago when I was before this board I said that I was cognizant at that time since I was already in the process that there was a wetlands law that was being discussed however I had no idea, obviously, what the content of this law was since it has been changed a number of times. What I said to the Board was that my consultants and I would absolutely look at the spirit and intent of what a wetlands law is and address those issues and try to make the Village comfortable with what we are going to purpose on the project. In fact if you look at 1 thru 11 under Intent I submit to you that we addressed and more than satisfactorily comply with every single one of those particular issues that are trying to be addressed. We are at a point right now in our site plan process where Frederick P. Clark as the Village consultant has basically said to us, as of late as this afternoon, that except for other little minor changes to the plans which we will probably have addressed by Thursday, we have taken care of every single zoning issue and there were no zoning issues from a variance stand point, site planning issues, traffic issues and environmental issues. We went through a very extensive environmental review process. We have spent approaching $200,000, if you want to talk about significant economic resources as to what is involved from a consultant's standpoint toward developing plans that address all of the issues that are addressed in this proposed wetlands law. We have a number of boards here and Jim Ryan from John Meyer Consulting is here if you would like to ask him any questions about what we have done and what we are proposing on our site based on the condition of our site. As the Board is aware and most people in this room are aware this is basically a construction dump. This is not an area like High Point Hospital, for example, that has been unaffected for years by construction dumping so what we actually been proposing here is to beautify the property, prevent potential environmental impact and also open it up to the public. We are talking about a lot of good points to this site not negatives which some of the individuals here seem to think that we are addressing. Basically there is another significant point here. Based on the way the law is drafted now it is a complete taking of my property. Absolute, 100% complete taking of my property. There is a little triangle right here that is not within the 100 foot setback or buffer strip area and I would submit to you based on my knowledge of your zoning laws there is basically nothing I can build in that triangle because of front yard setback and parking requirements that are in the zoning ordinance as they presently fit and under the site plan laws that exist. The 1. Is the complete taking of my property and 2. We have handled all the environmental issues and 3. We have already addressed all of the intent that is already in this ordinance. To make me as the applicant have to go through the whole process all over again is just patently unfair. But I have already done this with your consultant whether there is a law or not. 8 ()() 44 August 9, 1994 Mr. Heller stated this was a hearing on an ordinance not on an application. Mayor Cresenzi stated Mr. Konigsberg was specifically addressing the 100 foot buffer issue and making a point, and it is a valid point to be made too. And we will address any other environmental points you have with us as far as complying with intent. Mayor Cresenzi said he had no further questions of Mr. Konigsberg. Mr. Konigsberg continued that they addressed erosion control, we have done flood studies and demonstrated to the Village consultant that there is no flooding impact on any property, upstream or downstream. I Mr. Donovan stated that if there were no other comments he would make some suggestions and possible changes based on suggestions received from the County and would provide some additional information on your comments, not a response but just additional information that I have that might help you in decision making. He added that in response to this review that our office based on some of the earlier discussions has in essence treated this as if the wetlands ordinance were in place and very correctly done all these studies and that we feel that if this particular project were not exempt as required they wouldn't really have to do anything because they basically have done everything already that would be required for this particular proposed ordinance. So I personally don't see it to be any additional burden on you at all if it were included and I would like to point out a misconception to make sure you don't misunderstand the law that the map that he is referring to is not a taking of the property it only means there is an additional permit required for any activity within that area that he was defining. It is j not a taking thing, you can't do anything within that area but please don't consider this I4 to be a law that takes away peoples' rights in those areas, to do anything with their property because obviously it will apply to many more properties in the Village beside that one, if that were the case. It really means that they need a permit. On the grandfathering issue, Mr. Donovan stated that typically most of the other communities that we have worked with, because they have had a difficult time deciding on what might or might not be fair have chosen the actual approval of a project at the time it becomes grandfathered and that is also the way the county's model ordinance has it which is why 'h it is also recommended in your ordinance. This is obviously a policy decision and there are many ways you can go but this one is modeled similar to other legislation and the zoning board and things like that needing Village approval typically your subject at that point would have the changes before an approval you must go with the new law. That is typically the way it is done but there is no requirement that it has to be done this way. He added that he definitely agrees with you on the date of received application and that is a very good point and definitely should be made on the law. Just for clarification when you are suggesting the activities of hunting and trapping, were you suggesting that that should be permanently excluded or just put in as something that needs a permit. I wasn't sure what you were recommending. I think the suggestion either way is fine. But if it became an actual real problem it would be allowed under 5. 9 0043 August 9, 1994 Mayor Cresenzi asked Attorney Powell how we can allow a permit here and prohibit it in another section of the ordinance. Mr. Donovan said he was not talking about hunting. Mayor Cresenzi stated that the exact language Mr. Donovan has here is also a prohibition in another section of the ordinance so my question is how do you permit it here by permit under wetlands and then say you cannot do it any other place. Mr. Donovan stated that under #5 however allows for public health activities, emergencies. Trustee Zuckerman added that he thought that should be eliminated. What I meant to be permanent was the part about excavation I Attorney Powell said this is not a permit to do commercial fishing, shell fishing, hunting ` and trapping and basically a deposit of material of natural products of wetlands in the process of doing these activities. I assume that could be cutting up fish or something of that nature. Mr. Donovan stated that the County also had questions on Page 12, Item #3 at the top. An activity for an administrative permit in #3 said the application of non-polluting chemicals and dyes for the purpose of maintenance. They are questioning the maintenance of what? And we would suggest an opened additional wording that j maintaining a public or private utility which primarily what that is for, in terms of the j maintenance issue and that will be a suggested change so we can clarify that. Trustee Zuckerman asked Mr. Donovan if he would go back and answer a question that was posed earlier in the meeting concerning the permit requirements. Mr. Donovan replied that one quite honestly is again a recommendation of the county ordinance and I would look to Ken as to whatever he would suggest in terms of a way of rectifying that. #9 the permit requirements. One it says: Activities not permitted as a i right of our permit shall be prohibited and then it says regulated activities that are not limited to, on the next page. We should have one or the other but not both. Mr. Donovan explained that the County's intent there was that nothing fell through the cracks and also the problem came up that was not specifically limited but that you felt needed a permit, then the second one allowed you to regulate it but I see your point that there is a definite conflict. Trustee Zuckerman said if is it not listed then technically it is prohibited. Mr. Donovan being aware of the problem said he would probably take out the first one but that is without looking at it. 10 005416 August 9, 1994 Trustee Zuckerman stated that he agreed. Mr. Donovan continued with providing a second procedure for the administrative permit. _ We initially thought of that and in deference to making the law too long we did not add one but a lot of other local laws do have that and it is perfectly acceptable to add and it 'j is a short procedure for that type of permits law. Our office would have no problem at all endorsing that and also stating when the permit is granted is a simple addition. Mr. Donovan stated that the Village did question who should be the approval authority and he said he certainly understood the concern but it has also been their experience though that when there are more than one or two approval authorities for the ordinance it becomes much more cumbersome to regulate and we feel that trying to keep it to the minimum amount of approval authorities and not getting divided up makes it an easier law to administer. However there is nothing that says you can't divide it and have more of them if you feel it is appropriate. He said he thought they would probably recommend leaving it to as few as possible and finally on page 19 one minor addition in the mitigation requirement. In B there is a recommendation that there be a ratio of one to one for the disturbed or lost portion of watercourses. This is the mitigation plan when you need to grant a permit to disturb a wetland you are required by the mitigation plan for replacement. I would probably recommend that there be either one to one or something that qualifies it to give the approval authority the option to make it more or less depending on each individual situation. We found that when there is something that is rigid such as adding an ordinance, sometimes it comes back to haunt you that you cannot get around it by providing some clause, but this is more a recommendation than requirement and it might be non-advisable. Those are basically the other additions and changes we had based on tonight's discussion and comments from the county. We are available to answer any other questions you might have. Trustee Zuckerman asked about the continuing role of the Advisory Council on Environmental Conservation, whether the Advisory Council should remain part of the approval process of not. I think that is a policy question that the Board has to address especially with regard to administrative permits. Whether every permit Rocco Circosta would approve would have to go to the Advisory Council, secondly whether or not the answer to that is positive, the role of the Advisory Council either be the Planning Board in site plan and subdivision approvals in terms of Wetlands issues and as to whether there should be a parallel tract. I would like to hear the Board's hearing on that. Mr. Donovan said he thought that was more of a policy issue as to how the Village wants i to operate. Trustee Zuckerman asked what function the Planning Board would have in terms of a site plan approval. The Planning Board would have primary jurisdiction before it gets to the Village Board. At what point would it be referred if it where a wetlands situation to the Advisory Council and what role would they have in the Planning Board's review of the site plan. 11 005417 August 9, 1994 Mr. Donovan replied that as it is set up now something would come to you initially and you refer it to the Planning Board and then based on the way this is written, at the same time it would also get referred to the Advisory Council. Mayor Cresenzi asked what their function would be in the approval role based on the criteria here. Mr. Donovan said that the way it is written here is that their function is to advise specifically on the wetlands application portion of a particular project. When you get a recommendation back from the Planning Board you also get one back from them. Mayor Cresenzi stated that in a normal planning process we would have Tom Cllssen dealing with the planning matters, wouldn't we be dealing with you on the environmental matters and advising the Village Board through the planning process. Mr. Donovan said yes, it could be and a lot of times you are. It just depends on whether you want to have some additional advisory input from this council. Trustee Zuckerman said the way the law is written, that is what happens. The question is whether we want it to happen that way or a different way. Mr. Donovan restated that is why he addressed that as policy. The recommendation in this ordinance is to do it that way with the presumption that the Environmental Council had some extra teeth that it could bring to it in terms of a recommendation that may aid you in your decision but it is up to you as to whether you want to take advantage of that or you feel there is some other way that is better. 4 Mayor Cresenzi asked if what Mr. Otis was saying, is that this is the way Rye intended.to have an Environmental Council. Mr. Otis replied that he is a member of the Conservation Commission Advisory Council which set up a very innovative way of working and is doing well. The Planning Commission is the decision maker in our community for the wetlands law but there is a mandatory referral to the Conservation Commission. Our timetable to review a project that is inside the Planning Commission timetable so that we are not going to waste time for the applicant and we give written findings for every application and the Planning j Commission then either agrees with our written findings or if they don't agree with our recommendation they have to issue written findings on that point as to why not and it has worked very well and it has actually improved the relationship between our Planning Commission and our Conservation Commission and they get our expertise and it hasn't added any time to the process and it is working out well. Mayor Cresenzi said if there were no other questions or discussion he would like to have Attorney Powell work with Jim Donovan on the changes we have discussed this evening and get the changes in order for the next meeting. My recommendation would be to adjourn this hearing until the 23rd and then we can further discuss the changes. 12 00543 August 9, 1994 Mrs. Sherlock stated that the Council's Constitution says that their purpose and duties are to make such studies as the Village Board of Trustees may request or prove the purpose of reporting to the Board so actually we truly are and think of ourselves as an advisory council and we don't want you to think we are getting swell headed. Peter Silton, a member of the Advisory Council on Environmental Conservation stated that he had the feeling that the exempt area object was not discussed properly. How did this get into the law, he questioned, because the Council did not do it. Mayor Cresenzi replied that it was discussed at meetings here in the past, which Mrs. Sherlock attended. Mr. Silton stated that he thought the purpose of a public hearing was to discuss these issues. Mayor Cresenzi explained that what we had earlier on was a conceptual ordinance and we had public discussions on what we thought should be in the law at that particular time and this document is a result of those discussions. That one acre restriction exempt law, however you want to term it, was a consensus of the Village Board at that particular time. Trustee Pellino added that was after a lot of public discussion over a long period of time. Mr. Silton stated that it seemed to him that the only reason he had heard of it was to cut down the administrative problems and that was the reason for having it there. Mayor Cresenzi explained that was partially correct but it was also to reduce the burden h on the individual homeowner because there are other sections of this ordinance that place the responsibility of defining a wetlands, getting experts in to define it and mapping the wetland on their property through a licensed land survey would have to be incurred by the property owner. Mr. Silton questioned if this meant that the property owner with one acre can build a swimming pool right next to a wetland. Mayor Cresenzi answered that basically, the way the ordinance is written now, yes, as long as it complies with the existing zoning setbacks. Mr. Silton said he can see the difference between building a swimming pool and building a patio. A patio probably has no impact on the environment but the swimming pool might have. 13 005439 August 9, 1994 Mayor Cresenzi agreed that he was probably right but the process for making that determination the way the ordinance is structured now would be the same regardless of either project thafyou proposed. It all started basically with the hundred foot buffer, I had a problem with that. I thought it was excessive given the average lot size in the Village. I didn't have a problem with that on parcels like Anderson Hill and Ding which are 15 acres or High Point Hospital but I am talking about the residential established lots in the community. The Board felt it would be beneficial to leave that 100 foot number and to do it by an acreage restriction rather than reducing that 100 foot number. That was a trade off at that particular time. Again, this is a public hearing, I am expressing my feelings. There will be further discussion about this and that could change if the Board deems that it wants to change that. Trustee Pellino said that in addition to what the Mayor has just said the decision for the exemption was arrived at after studying a lot of material gathered by Village Staff and the Environmental Staff on ordinances in other communities in Westchester and the chart we were given of each ordinance and its applicability and restrictions showed that there are other communities in the county that have buffering areas and restrictions that are either exempt or are limited in size in terms of the width of the buffer area between the wetland and any developable land. Mr. Silton stated that as far as he knows they refer to the size of the wetland but not to the size of the property. Mayor Cresenzi countered that some do. They range from no restrictions to the size, in other words, every parcel of land is covered to 1/10th of an acre and then some of them go up to 12 1/2 acres. rt Mr. Silton said that was the size of the wetland not the size of the property. The Mayor stated that he stood corrected and that Mr. Silton was accurate. Mr. Silton added that there is nothing that talks about the size of the property. With the j variance there were a few of them that had some variation in the distance from the edge of the wetland to that and that is how we arrived at the one acre. Goldie Solomon, a resident of Port Chester, stated that the Village has flood planning maps that show the area so in the degrees of flooding which is spread out where you can build and where you can't build and these are used by appraisers who appraise property and they are open to you, you can get copies and somebody should use those maps to begin because it just spreads out, in Rye Brook, areas of 100 year flood plan. Mayor Cresenzi interrupted that this did not deal with that, this is a separate issue. The FIMA maps and the 100 year flood plane maps do exist, but this doesn't deal with that, this deals with what exists today not in 100 years. 14 0®54-40 August 9, 1994 Ken Heller explained that they had discussed this before because some of this land which is exempt from this wetlands act is in a flood plane. Shouldn't there be a reference to, the Flood Plane ordinance not withstanding the Flood Plane ordinance or however you want to word it, so that they understand that this doesn't exempt them from the flood } plane ordinance because that is basically what you are doing. a Trustee Zuckerman stated that is in the front part of the law, what you are saying. It is the Village law itself that provides for permits in the flood plane. F Mr. Heller answered, yes but only under strict conditions. Under the Village law you cannot incumber in the flood plane the flow of water. I just thought if you put in some reference to that then we would be clarified on all sides so that people wouldn't presume they were exempt totally because they may not be exempt totally if they are in the flood plane. Then they would have to reference to that to find out what the final decision. On Motion made by Trustee Zuckerman, seconded by Trustee Solomon, the public hearing was adjourned at 9:25 p.m. to the August 23, 1994 meeting. I E Trustee Solomon Voting Aye Trustee Daly Voting Aye F Trustee Zuckerman Voting Aye Trustee Pellino Voting Aye Mayor Cresenzi . Voting Aye Mayor Cresenzi told Mrs. Sherlock that in the interest of time for everyone on the 23rd, we will take this as Item #1 under the Public Hearing Section. 4 I Mrs. Sherlock asked the Mayor, when this issue comes up on the 23rd, exactly what the 3 Council can expect to happen. Will the law be presented with the changes we have discussed tonight?. The Mayor said that Ken is still working with Mr. Donovan and will coordinate the changes that were discussed and make the changes in the ordinance and then we will be discussing those changes at the next meeting. Mrs. Sherlock asked if there would be enough time for the Council members to receive a copy with the changes and a covering letter with the changes or will it be a covering letter of the changes and the pages worked on. Mayor Cresenzi directed Administrator Russo to distribute the necessary documents to the Council members on the Friday.prior to the meeting, which is August 19th. 15 005441 August 9, 1994 RESOLUTIONS 3. APPROVAL OF PROPOSED LOCAL LAW #9-1994 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 On Motion made by Trustee Daly, seconded by Trustee Pellino, the following Resolution was hereby adopted: RESOLUTION APPROVAL OF PROPOSED LOCAL LAW #9-1994 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 ADOPTING PROFESSIONAL FEES LAW RESOLVED, that the adoption of Local Law #9-1994 is found to be a Type II action under SEQR; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that Local Law #9-1994 is enacted into law. Trustee Daly Voting Aye Trustee Pellino Voting Aye Trustee Solomon Voting Aye Trustee Zuckerman Voting Aye Mayor Cresenzi Voting Aye 4. APPROVING PAYMENT FOR GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT #9302 ANTHONY J. POSILLIPO COMMUNITY CENTER On Motion made by Trustee Solomon, seconded by Trustee Zuckerman, the following Resolution was hereby adopted: RESOLUTION APPROVING PAYMENT FOR GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT #9302 ANTHONY J. POSILLIPO COMMUNITY CENTER 16 005442 August 9, 1994 RESOLVED, that payment in the amount of $19,166.10 be hereby approved and made to Marathon Orbit Co. Inc. for costs associated with the construction of the Anthony J. Posillipo Community Center. Mayor Cresenzi stated that since they raised their concerns about this at the last meeting, he had a meeting today with George Michose from Marathon Orbit and Doug Gallow who is representing the Village as the architect and we went through the punch list as it remains. He is in the process of updating the punch list because many, many of the items that existed on the old list have been completed and he will be faxing us, as soon as he gets back to Baltimore a revised punch list which will be much shorter. After the meeting with Mr. Michose and the one with Doug Gallow today I feel very comfortable that we should make this payment. If anyone else wants to discuss it Rocco Circosta could possibly answer some questions or maybe even myself. Trustee Pellino asked if the revised punch list is significant in terms of being in addition to landscaping and completion of the kitchen. Mayor Cresenzi explained that the stove is on site, the refrigerator is on site. The stove has to be installed but it is there. The refrigerator units are there. A lot of the punch list items we had regarding the boiler, have been resolved. The basement area has been all cleaned. A lot of the items have been ongoing. The tile work that was damaged by the plumber has been repaired by the plumber and he did a better job than the initial tile man did in the work. So a lot of the items that were open have been addressed and rectified. Trustee Zuckerman asked what Rocco Circosta's estimate of the balance to finish, not this but the actual balance. Mr. Circosta said he believed it to be $50,000 but that is based just on this requisition. Work has been completed. Trustee Zuckerman said that is what he meant. Mr. Circosta said he did not have that exact number but based on the retainage that we are holding it would be less than that retainage presently being withheld. The Mayor agreed. Trustee Daly Voting Aye Trustee Pellino Voting Aye Trustee Solomon Voting Aye Trustee Zuckerman Voting Aye Mayor Cresenzi Voting Aye 17 005443 August 9, 1994 5. APPROVING INTER-MUNICIPAL AGREEMENT WITH THE VILLAGE OF PORT CHESTER NUTRITION FOR THE ELDERLY PROGRAM On Motion made by Trustee Solomon, seconded by Trustee Daly, the following Resolution was hereby adopted: RESOLUTION APPROVING INTER-MUNICIPAL AGREEMENT WITH THE VILLAGE OF PORT CHESTER NUTRITION E FOR THE ELDERLY PROGRAM RESOLVED, that the Village of Rye Brook is authorized to enter into a Nutrition agreement with the Village of Port Chester to begin on June 1, 1994 and ending May 31, 1995 at a cost not to exceed $15,000 at a net cost per meal per Rye Brook resident participant at the rate.of $3.86; and it is r FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor is authorized to execute and deliver all documents necessary or appropriate to accomplish the purposes of this resolution. Trustee Pellino asked if we had reached the $15,000 number last meeting? Administrator Russo replied no and added that we were way below that. Trustee Pellino asked if Mr. Russo knew the number and he answered it was about $5,300 give or take a few dollars. i Trustee Pellino also-wanted to know if this $3.86 per meal rate is less than what we were paying under the federal subsidy and we have a provision in there that we recount this at the end of the fiscal year when they know exactly what they got in contributions and subsidy and everything else. And when they netted out this past year there was a little over $5,000 that we owed them. Trustee Pellino continued that the quarterly analysis or audit that we are entitled to take on this agreement, did it show any pattern. Mr. Russo answered that they did not provide us with anything timely this year. We are hoping that they will do it next year. We weren't dissatisfied because the numbers were a lot less than when the subsidies were higher. Trustee Pellino asked if we should be requesting reports. Mr. Russo responded that we are supposed to get them automatically, quarterly now. 18 005444 August 9, 1994 Mr. Russo said the one we did receive was late and the only thing that offset the concern for getting it late were that the numbers were so positive and to be perfectly honest with you and we provided for a little bit different mechanism for trying to automatically get a quarterly and get on track a little bit better with the information. Now when we finally got the information this past year it was good so we did not make a big issue of it other than to address it in the new agreement. Trustee Daly Voting Aye Trustee Pellino Voting Aye Trustee Solomon Voting Aye Trustee Zuckerman Voting Aye Mayor Cresenzi Voting Aye G. AWARDING CONTRACT #9403 REHABILITATION OF TENNIS COURTS AND BASKETBALL COURTS On Motion made by Trustee Zuckerman, seconded by Trustee Pellino, the following Resolution was hereby adopted: RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT #9403 REHABILITATION OF TENNIS COURTS AND BASKETBALL COURTS 4 WHEREAS, the Village of Rye Brook has solicited bid proposals for Contract #9403 entitled 'Rehabilitation of Tennis Courts and Basketball Courts; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was prepared and duly advertised; and WHEREAS, bid proposals were sent to six vendors; and WHEREAS, on Wednesday, July 27, 1994 the Village of Rye Brook received two bid proposals which was publicly opened and read; and WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works has reviewed the documents and has made a recommendation that the bid be awarded to DeRosa Tennis Contractors, Inc. P.O. Box 430 438 Center Avenue, Mamaroneck, NY 10543. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT 19 005445 August 9, 1994 RESOLVED, that Contract #9403, entitled: "Rehabilitation of Tennis Courts and Basketball Courts" be awarded to DeRosa Tennis Contractors, Inc. P.O. Box 430 438 Center Avenue, Mamaroneck, NY 10543 for the approximated sum of $40,400; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor is hereby authorized to enter into agreement with DeRosa Tennis Contractors, Inc. and to execute all necessary documents. x s r ff Trustee Pellino asked why it was resolved at the approximate sum of $40,400. f Mr. Circosta answered that there is one item that is based on a square yard replacement so it all depends on how much he has to remove as per our direction. i Mayor Cresenzi stated that Rocco has estimated it as 20 square yards. It could be a little less or it could be a little more. Trustee Zuckerman wanted to point out on this rebid, that Rocco was saying about $7,000. Trustee Daly Voting Aye Trustee Pellino Voting Aye Trustee Solomon Voting Aye Trustee Zuckerman Voting Aye ` Mayor Cresenzi Voting Aye 7. ACCEPTANCE OF DONATIONS TO THE ANTHONY J. POSILLIPO COMMUNITY CENTER RECONSTRUCTION FUND On Motion made by Trustee Zuckerman, seconded by Trustee Solomon, the following Resolution was hereby adopted: RESOLUTION ACCEPTANCE OF DONATIONS TO THE ANTHONY J. POSILLIPO COMMUNITY CENTER RECONSTRUCTION FUND RESOLVED, that the following donations to the Anthony J. Posillipo Community Center are hereby approved: 20 005446 August 9, 1994 ANTHONY J. POSILLIPO COMMUNITY CENTER RECONSTRUCTION FUND Name Amount Frank & Kim Errigo $300.00 28 Birdsall Drive Port Chester, NY 10573 ([ (In Memory of Frank Errigo, Sr.) j Water Fountain at AJP 1. k � Total...................................................$300.00 Trustee Daly Voting Aye Trustee Pellino Voting Aye Trustee Solomon Voting Aye E Trustee Zuckerman Voting Aye Mayor Cresenzi Voting Aye 8. CHECK REGISTER On Motion made by Trustee Pellino, seconded by Trustee Solomon, 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: 9513-9580 Pre-Paid: 9507-9511 Payroll Checks: 13516-13614 Environmental: 431 Recreational Trust: NONE Capital: 2164-2166 Birthday Run: NONE NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this board hereby approves payment of the above-mentioned claims and authorizes payment thereof. 21 005448 August 9, 1994 Trustee Pellino asked Administrator Russo about the capital budget. Capital expenses actually, does not show Marathon Orbit. We took it off the last one. Mr. Russo explained that when payment is made by resolution it is separated from the rest of the bills. The second question is on the prepaid register, check # 9033, is that a replacement check? The check for the Town of Rye. Joe Cortese explained the original check was drawn but not processed and that this check replaces it. Mayor Cresenzi stated that since this check register contains a reimbursement check to him, he will abstain from voting. Trustee Daly Voting Aye Trustee Pellino Voting Aye Trustee Solomon Voting Aye Trustee Zuckerman Voting Aye Mayor Cresenzi Abstained 9. DECLARING LEAD AGENCY ON K & M REALTY SITE PLAN APPLICATION On Motion made by Trustee Solomon, seconded by Trustee Pellino, the following Resolution was hereby adopted: RESOLUTION DECLARING LEAD AGENCY ON K & M REALTY SITE PLAN APPLICATION t i RESOLVED, that the Village Board of Trustees declares itself lead agency on the site plan application of K & M Realty, no objection having been received from other involved agencies to which a Notice of Intent to be lead agency was circulated; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that the application is found to be an unlisted action under SEQR. Mayor Cresenzi asked Attorney Powell if he would explain the resolution. 22 00544'1 August 9, 1994 Ken Powell explained that previously the board had circulated an notice of intent to the involved agencies declaring your intention to be the lead agency which has a thirty day waiting period and I gather there have been no objections raised by any of the other agencies to that lead agency status. The applicant has requested that you simply declare yourself as the lead agency which was required on the 10th and find that the technicality that the application is an unlisted action and that is the purpose of the resolution. It is not a positive or negative declaration, it is just a procedural step in the process. Trustee Daly Voting Aye Trustee Pellino Voting Aye Trustee Solomon Voting Aye Trustee Zuckerman Voting Aye Mayor Cresenzi Voting Aye WRITTEN COMMUNICATION 9. THOMAS GISSEN, AICP RE: K & M REALTY ACTIONS UNDERTAKEN BY THE PLANNING BOARD Administrator Russo explained that there is a written communication to the Board of Trustees dated July 21, 1994 from our planning consultant, Tom Gissen, Frederick P. Clark Associates relating to subject K&M Realty actions undertaken by Planning Board. The purpose of the memorandum was to inform the Village Board of Trustees that at the July 24th meeting of the Planning Board, the Planning Board voted to recommend that the trustees adopt a positive declaration in regard to the K&M Realty site plan application for the Bowman Avenue under the guidelines of New York State Environmental Quality Act. It was the determination of the Planning Board that environmental questions exist with regard to the applicant's proposal and that for the procedural prospective the purposes of SEQR would best be served through the environmental impact statement process. Planning Board believes that the EIS process is the best process through which to uncover and examine all of the potentially significant adverse impacts of this proposal and furthermore that the SEQR process directly affords opportunities for public input in the review process that would otherwise be circumvented if a negative declaration is adopted. Applicant requested permission to continue to make his presentation to the Planning Board with regard to the proposed developmental and site planning issues even if the Planning Board recommended positive declaration. Planning Board agreed to continue reviewing the application while waiting the decision of the Board of Trustees with regards to its recommended positive declaration while the number of environmental issues we can identify by the Planning Board as being of concern, most significant issues appear to be those associated with traffic impact and impacts upon adjoining watercourses and wetlands i.e. impacts to the functional values of the watercourse wetland and the potential floodings. 23 0054150 August 9, 1994 Mr. Konigsberg stated that at the last Planning Board Meeting unfortunately the applicant wasn't able to make a full presentation on the environmental issues. Apparently the Planning Board was of the disposition that because there were issues that were involving the environment even though Frederick P. Clark and his consultants were working towards identifying the issues and resolving the issues, they felt that automatically the existence of these issues required a recommendation that there is a positive declaration. In fact, if we had been able to make a presentation on the environmental issues a number of things would have occurred. One, we would have been able to address the issues, identify them, tell them what our status has been in trying to remed or mitigate these situations. As you heard tonight Jim Donovan spoke about the fact that the environmental issues have been identified and addressed and basically resolved. The other things he would have liked to point out to the Planning Board which he didn't have the opportunity to do is that under Section 6176G of SEAR there is a statement that he would like to quote. "When a lead agency is looking at positive declarations, it says the following are also considerations. The project that is proposed into its mitigation measures that would eliminate the potential significant impact or reduce it to a point where it no longer would be reasonably considered significant. In that case a negative declaration would be appropriate so had he had the I opportunity to make a presentation on the environmental issues I suspect this memorandum would never have been generated." He went on to say that is basically where he is. Jim Donovan has been working with John Meyer Consultants and they have addressed all the environmental issues that have been raised by both his side and the Frederick P. Clark side and they have been resolved. Mr. Konigsberg explained that at the first meeting before he was even able to make a presentation of his application they just wanted to talk about environmental issues. They started talking about procedure and how it should be handled it and it was basically decided that we had already submitted the EAF, we were trying to identify the issues, there was going to be discussion back and forth and basically they were going to do a Part Three instead of an Environmental Impact Statement. When he walked into the next meeting the Board was already of the disposition that they didn't want to hear what had been resolved. We are not interested right now where you have gone, where you are going, what may happen to spite comments by Mr. Gissen's office and the date of the resolution for positive declaration were recommended to you that there is a positive recommendation. So we were never able to submit information regarding the environmental issues on this project. He continued, he would like to trust that the first time he was here with John Meyer when we were discussing the environmental impact and the wetlands law we showed you that buffer strip and I made an offer to the environmental committee that I would be available at anytime to sit down with the environmental committee, tell them everything we're doing, have John Meyer available to them, show them all the work plans and get them involved and they declined the offer as they described themselves as just a recommending agency to you and that it was not appropriate. So they were offered that option and it was not taken. 24 005451 August 9, 1994 10. SUSAN FLANAGAN, PROGRAM COORDINATOR COMMUNITY SYNAGOGUE, RYE N.Y. RE: REQUEST TO POST SIGN Administrator Russo explained that the letter does not state when it is to be put up. He added that he would contact the program coordinator and make her aware of our sign ordinance and what the size of the sign must be. The Mayor stated that there were two others, one from the Port Chester/Rye Brook Youth Council regarding an event at Lyons Park for August 27th. They are talking about a three by four foot sign to go up at the corner of Ridge Street and Bowman Avenue and the other is from Corpus Christi Church for the carnival which starts tomorrow through the 17th. Trustee Zuckerman informed the Board that he will be on vacation at that time and will be missing his first meeting since being on the Board. Chief Santoro asked Mayor Cresenzi if he recalled that they had set up the final interview but now Trustee Zuckerman is not going to be there. Trustee Zuckerman answered that he had previously mentioned this to the Mayor who suggested that they reschedule the interview until he returns. Goldie Solomon informed the Board that the National Archives Week comes in October and there was a Westchester County Historians Day several weeks ago. The historians were brought together at the County Archives Center for one purpose. The County Clerk's Office wishes to have a family history day at the County Center on Saturday, s October 15, 1994 from 12:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. They have asked all of the historians to have tables there doing local history. Mrs. Solomon stated that she has plenty of local history on Port Chester and Rye Town but none on the 11 years of Rye Brook. She requested that something be put together, either a small pamphlet or something to display regarding the history of Rye Brook. Mrs. Solomon also stated that she distributed packets to the Board in reference to a copy of the January 1917 report of the committee of the New York State Tax Association on the assessment of real property. Heading this committee was the Honorable George A. Slater who was our senator at that time who also served as an assemblyman and he was also in local government. He ended up being a Westchester County Surrogate Judge. He was tremendously concerned about the non-profit corporate exemption law that was in effect and they created the committee to look into that law because it was impacting the community, in particular, he choose White Plains which at that time was a Village to show what that law had done to them. New York Hospital had come in at that time and bought up the Bloomingdale Estate, hundreds of acres and removed it from the tax rolls. 25 005452 August 9, 1994 Mrs. Solomon explained that what is happening here if anyone had attended last night's group home meeting on 58 Upland Street, a representative from the New York State Mental Retardation Agency attended. There is no cap on that law. There is no saturation point on that law and nothing is controlled on that law. And so what has happened is, especially now, people are offering their homes because they cannot be sold, to the state for group homes. The representative said that there are, right now, 1,200 on the waiting list to be placed into group homes. It is an unending cycle. And what he did say when we asked him what the saturation point was for a community, the representative said there is no saturation point. Wherever they are offered a home, wherever it suits the purpose, wherever they can afford, they will continue to purchase homes and take them off the tax rolls. That creates more of a burden then when it was just institutions and religions and Salvation Army and grandfathered non-profit and the hospitals. Now it has become burdensome and oppressive and that is what George Slater said 78 years ago when the New York State Hospital took the Bloomingdale Estate off the tax rolls. He said at that time it had become burdensome and oppressive. The recommendations that were made at that time were that the second class community and the second class community whether you like it or not are the villages, hamlets, cities and towns. So the first class communities are the counties, states and federal governments. They recommended that the first class community reimburse the second class community for anything that comes off the tax rolls, that everybody should be paying for anything that is not-profit, corporate and tax exempt especially if it does not k serve just the local community but services a wide area. The legislature never acted so we have finally gotten to a point now where, if you are familiar with what is going on in the assessor's office right now, and if you were at the last few Rye Town meetings they are now going to hire someone to do something about the taxes that are not collected. What is happening is that it is impacting people like me who are elderly, like to stay in their homes and it is impacting those least able to afford. It is impacting the school districts, it is impacting your budgets and what we have decided to do is try and put a stop to it. The state is the only one who can readdress this law, to tighten it up. Mrs. Solomon presented a petition in the spirit of 1776, I believe it is in your packet, and will be given to the State of New York saying: We the people of the State of New York exercise our first amendment right of redress to the Governor Mario Cuomo and the New York State Legislature in the matter of the untaxed, uncontrolled, unfunded, nonprofit corporate tax exemption law. The steady stream of real properties removed from the tax rolls have created disasters undue hardships on the body of taxpayers bearing the burden and those least able to afford creating steady erosion of the tax base of the second class villages, cities, towns and hamlets devastating the school districts budget, increasing tax liens, foreclosure, impacting on the health, welfare and safety of the community. 78 years ago, George Slater, senator from Port Chester headed the New York State Tax Committee formed to address impacts of the law on taxpayers. The law was found to be inequitable, burdensome and oppressive on the taxpayers and the budgets of the community. It was recommended that reimbursement be made by those mandated, federal, state and county, to the local communities and the schools for loss of revenue. 26 00 4 J August 9, 1994 Mrs. Solomon concluded that the legislature of 1916 failed to act. In the spirit of 1776, the loss of freedom and oppressive taxation relief, we ask that this issue be immediately addressed, revision made to the outvoted law, stopping the removal of real property from the tax rolls in the name of non-profit and requiring all to contribute something to reduce the oppressive taxes especially in the area of services rendered being police, fire and sanitation as an example. This has been brought before the New York State Tax Alliance and we except some kind of ruling from them as they are going to join in. I t and whomever else is expected to go around this county especially to our legislators over there and try to get support as a ground group thing, that this law has to be addressed. I Mr. Benvenuti stated that on his property he has 8 70 foot white pine trees. Two of them, because the roots were cut, branches were cut so they could put the forms in for the concrete wall on the shopping center side of the property, none were ever cut off on his side of the property. Two of the trees are in the final stages of dying. We have a ` law in the Village pertaining to trees Mr. Benvenuti stated and added that he wanted these trees removed and new trees put in. The other six trees, had branches removed but not as bad as the two that died until they came to put the wooden fence on top of the wall. This had to be raised and lowered and set in position so now they have i removed an additional 30 feet of branches on their side. There are no branches for 40 feet on their side of the property. All the branches are on his side of the property. He would like someone to come and look at it. If they want to equalize it by cutting the 'f branches off my side, I don't want that. I have a 70 foot tree and the first 40 feet have p no branches. Mayor Cresenzi promised that someone would be there to look at it. ITEMS FOR TUESDAY, AUGUST 23, 1994 - 7:30 P.M. i PUBLIC HEARING i 1. PROPOSED LOCAL LAW INTRODUCTORY #10-1994 ENTITLED: A LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE CODE OF THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK TO ADD A NEW CHAPTER 245 TO PROVIDE FOR WETLAND AND WATERCOURSE PROTECTION 2. CONTINUATION OF OPEN SPACE EASEMENT FOR THE BLIND BROOK CLUB PROPERTY (Continuation) 3. TO CONSIDER APPROVAL OF FIRE CONTRACT FOR 1994-1995 FISCAL YEAR (Continuation) 27 005454 August 9, 1994 RESOLUTIONS 4. SETTING PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR CODIFICATION OF VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK ZONING CODE APPROVAL OF MINUTES 5. APRIL 12, 1994 6. APRIL 26, 1994 7. APRIL 29, 1994 Trustee Zuckerman informed the Board that he will be on vacation at that time and will be missing his first meeting since being on the Board. ADJOURNMENT On Motion made by Trustee Zuckerman, seconded by Trustee Pellino, the meeting was adjourned into Executive Session at 10:00 p.m. to discuss contractual personnal. Trustee Daly Voting Aye Trustee Pellino Voting Aye Trustee Solomon Voting Aye Trustee Zuckerman Voting Aye w Mayor Cresenzi Voting Aye i Respectfully submitted, Eliza eth Bottali Secretary to the Village Board 28