Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-06-09 - Board of Trustees Meeting Minutes June 9, 1998 AGENDA VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BOARD OF TRUSTEES MEETING VILLAGE HALL, 938 KING STREET TUESDAY, JUNE 9, 1998, 1998—7:30 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ACTION: PUBLIC HEARING: 1. CONSIDERING THE APPLICATION BY FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK TO AMEND THE EXISTING SPECIAL PERMIT AND SITE PLAN. RESOLUTIONS: 2. CONSIDERING THE PROPOSED PRELIMINARY PLAT AND REAFFIRMING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION UNDER SEQRA FOR THE RED ROOF FARM PROPOSAL. 3. CONSIDERING THE AMENDMENT AND EXTENSION OF THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION AGREEMENT WITH THE PORT CHESTER- RYE - RYE BROOI{ VOLUNTEER AMBULANCE CORPS, INC. 4. CONSIDERING AUTHORIZING THE VILLAGE TO ENTER INTO AN INTER-MUNICIPAL AGREEMENT (IMA) WITH WESTCHESTER COUNTY FOR E-911 SERVICES. 5. CHECK REGISTERS. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS_: 6. MICHAEL STOLZAR: REQUESTING APPROVAL FOR THE ANNUAL TURKEY TROT TO USE VILLAGE STREETS ON NOVEMBER 27, 1997. 7. LUCY PETRINO, ARBUCS: REQUESTING THE OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS THE DIFFICULTIES THE GROUP FACES. REPORT: 8. RE: RESPONSE TIME STUDY CONDUCTED BY KPMG PEAT MARWICK. 9. BLIND BROOK CLUB ACQUISITION COMMITTEE. NEXT TRUSTEES MEETING: JUNE 23, 1998 19 J MINUTES OF A MEETING VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BOARD OF TRUSTEES VILLAGE HALL 938 KING STREET RYE BROOK, NEW YORK JUNE 9, 1998 CONVENE MEETING The Meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Mayor Filipowski in the Meeting Room and the Pledge of Allegiance followed. The following members of the Board of Trustees were present: Mayor Francis L. Filipowski Trustee Donald E. Degling Trustee Joseph Pellino Trustee Eugene R. Strum Trustee Gary J. Zuckerman Village staff attending the meeting were: Village Administrator, Christopher J. Russo Village Attorney, Kenneth E. Powell Rural/Metro Fire Chief Martin Drexelius Police Chief Robert J. Santoro Assistant to the Administrator, Richard C. Slingerland Village Engineer, Victor Carosi, P.E. Superintendent of Recreation, Thomas Hroncich Village Treasurer, Joseph Cortese Planning Consultant, Christian K. Miller, AICP Secretary to the Village Administrator, Janet Skrobola PUBLIC HEARING: 1. CONSIDERING THE APPLICATION BY FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK TO AMEND THE EXISTING SPECIAL PERMIT AND SITE PLAN. Mayor Filipowski opened the Public Hearing and invited the applicant's attorney Bill Null, Esq., of Cuddy, Feder & Worby to make a presentation on behalf of First Union National Bank located in the Washington Park Shopping Center. Along with the Architect, Neil Cal-now they made a brief presentation regarding the demolition and construction of a new bank. Mr. Null advised that the Planning board had given them a favorable recommendation. There was one item regarding the temporary trailer and the use of a jersey barrier. It was decided to use traffic cones instead. Christian Miller noted that these would be posted on the ground and be flexible orange barriers. Trustee Strum asked if all items had been addressed and Christian stated there were some minor items that would be addressed but they were waiting for any further modifications from the Board so they could be done at the same time. Trustee Pellino raised a concern about the traffic flow around the two sites and a two way pattern near Ridge Street. Mr. Null responded that there were extensive discussions with the Planning Board and a determination was made to avoid an illegal left at that site. Stops signs will be added and the recommendations of Frederick P. Clark's office have been incorporated. Discussion continued on the flow of traffic and use of the main entrance. Mayor Filipowski then asked for comments from the public. 006757 June 9, 1998 Al Berkley who lives directly behind the bank noted that the people at night who use the ATM machine are noisy and use foul language. He also noted that the lights shine directly into his house and asked if something could be done about these two situations. Mr. Null responded that they had never been aware of these complaints before. Mr. William Cuddy, a principal of the shopping center, also responded that this was the first time they were hearing about this. He stated that the lighting on the new bank plan has been carefully reviewed and will be directed down which should improve the situation. Trustee Strum asked if they could look into a buffer of evergreens at car height, but Mr. Null stated that on Mr. Berkley's side he would be looking at a significant barrier. Mr. Berkley then noted that the trees in that area are dead. Mr. Cuddy noted that in the past 18 or 19 years they have never had a complaint but will do what they can to alleviate the situation. Mayor Filipowski asked if the lighting would be changed and Mr. Null reiterated that they would be designed to be directed downward which should be an improvement. The Mayor then asked the Police Chief and the Village Administrator if they had received any complaints with regard to the ATM machine's use at night and the response was none to their knowledge. The Mayor then asked if the ATM machine would be positioned differently in the new plans and if so, would it be better. The architect, Neil Carnow noted that it would be significantly better since it would be located inside the building and 20 to 25 feet further away from the residents under a full canopy. Upon the completion of the discussion, on the motion of Trustee Zuckerman, seconded by Trustee Strum, the Board unanimously voted to close the hearing and requested the Village Attorney to prepare an approval resolution for a vote at the next Board Meeting. RESOLUTIONS: 2. CONSIDERING THE PROPOSED PRELIMINARY PLAT AND REAFFIRMING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION UNDER SEORA FOR THE RED ROOF FARM SUBDIVISION. Mayor Filipowski stated that the hearing had been closed and questions had come up about reaffirming the Conditioned Neg Dec, He asked Christian Miller what the procedure was and noted that the Board had additional questions to deal with. Christian responded that the Board has a resolution before it and if there are problems they should deal with them now. Trustee Strum asked if the resolution gave final site plan approval and Mr. Miller stated it did not. He further asked if the Board has conditions to that approval, what the time constraints were. Mr. Miller stated that since the Board closed that Public Hearing they have 62 days to make a decision on the preliminary plat. The time constraint now is based on the decision to close the public hearing. Trustee Strum then suggested a work session before a regular meeting to discuss what restrictions the Board would want to put on the specific sites to this proposal. Mayor Filipowski asked the other Board members for comments on this suggestion. Trustee Zuckerman stated he had no objection to a work session but asked if the consideration of additional restrictions become part of the Conditioned Negative Declaration. He stated that he had several issues he wanted to raise and noted that if the Board has additional conditions when is the appropriate time to raise them. Christian Miller responded that these conditions should be incorporated as soon as possible provided there was information to do so and that a discussion with the applicant is essential. The Board has adopted the Conditioned Negative Declaration which includes specific mitigation measures imposed by them to address potentially significant environmental impacts. The reason for the reaffirmation is due to the end of the 30 day comment period when the Board reviews these comments and makes a 2 006 758 June 9, 1998 determination to reaffirm or impose a Positive Declaration based on certain criteria. Trustee Strum then asked if rather than reaffirming, could the Board impose more conditions in the process of reaffirming the Conditioned Negative Declaration, Christian Wler responded that there is a provision in SEQRA to amend a Conditioned Negative Declaration or to amend any negative declaration at any time before a decision is made. However, that is subject to certain criteria including evaluating what additional amendments would be necessary based on changes in the proposed project, the presentation of new information or changes in circumstances that are related to the project. Within those defined parameters the Board can amend it. Procedurally the Board would have to reissue the Conditioned Negative Declaration, recirculate it, republish it and continue the process again. Trustee Strum asked if this was necessary even thought the amendments are the result of comments received during the comment period and the public hearing? Mr. Miller responded that the purpose of the comment period is to identify whether a Positive Declaration should be issued and there is again certain criteria to be met, or to accept the conditions, review the comments and decide that there is no new information presented. Trustee Strum then stated that the Board's choices were to either go with a Positive Declaration or deal with the applicant on further conditions to the Negative Declaration. Mr. Miller confirmed this and suggested discussing with the applicant some possible modifications. Mr. Konigsberg asked to make a comment and stated that they were prepared to listen to whatever questions there were regarding the hesitancy to approve the preliminary plat and respond to them in order to resolve everything with respect to the Board's conditions. The applicant wanted this opportunity in order to complete the resolution phase. Trustee Zuckerman stated that he has a problem with basically three issues which have been discussed before and have come out in the comment period. Problem one deals with lots I and 2 and Trustee Zuckerman felt that there is no mitigation factor that will result in a safety margin for a driveway located on those lots. He further stated that one of the conditions in the negative declaration was cutting back the sight lines which works only for a period of time, and then it becomes overgrown. He noted that curve is a dangerous curve. He didn't want to see houses built with an entrance onto Ridge Street and that is why the Board looked at having these houses face inward onto a cul de sac. The second problem is with lots 3, 4 and 5 and the sight lines of a Malibu-like structures within 40 feet of Ridge Street. Even with foliage and trees, this will not mitigate the effect of these structures. The third problem is with lots 15 and 16 and whether the drainage system will be effective because there is lingering doubt. Even if there is approval of the project Trustee Zuckerman would like to see some condition put on these lots that they are not built until it is shown to be effective with the new drainage system. Trustee Strum wanted to see some restriction to a vertical surface exposed to Ridge Street from lots 3, 4 and 5, to prevent a fortress- like structure as well as some restrictions on fencing, patio structures that present a blank wall and concerns regarding maintenance and encroachment of the areas designated as water retention along Ridge Street at the corner. He also had raised concerns about the lots that abut Pine Ridge Park and the use of accessory buildings up against the fences which would possibly present a hazard to children playing in the park The Mayor asked Trustee Pellino if he had anything to add and he stated that he had concerns about lots, 3, 4 and 5 and the impact both visually and overall and thought it should be considered eliminating them permanently. This would retain some openness to the intersection and present a more airy view of the new development. He also agreed with the delay in construction of the two houses on lots 15 and 16 and 3 June 9, 1998 the problems brought out by Trustee Zuckerman regarding lots 3, 4 and 5. Trustee Degling agreed with the reservations expressed and had one regarding lots adjacent to the newly reconstructed wetlands where there is a 25 foot buffer zone, while in the northwest corner wetland there is a 100 foot buffer zone. This is what he thought was required. He also was concerned because the wetter of the two wetlands only has the 25 foot buffer zone and wanted to know how this Board could justify that. He further stated that the standard should be imposed in both areas. Mayor Filipowski added is own concerns which also dealt with the buffer zone for the wetlands. He stated he met with Dennis Rocks of Leonard Jackson and Victor Carosi, the Village Engineer to try to get an understanding of the Army Corps of Engineers acceptance of the mitigation plan the developer has for the wetlands without dealing with the buffer. He further noted that there are regulations also from the County and asked how this semi-buffer area was reduced to 25 feet. He also looked at all the drainage pipes that are going into this project and what the best piping available was so it could be used to alleviate the problem of replacement for as long as possible when it becomes the Village's problem. He stated that Victor Carosi had suggested reinforced concrete for the piping on the southwest corner because it would be much better then the corrugated metal pipe. The other item the Mayor had was the question of the total number of linear feet being replaced on the drainage going down Bonwit, which seemed an enormous amount. He also asked for a limit on the total amount of time for the disruption to the neighborhood for the implementation of the new drainage system. Mr. Konigsberg responded to the Mayor and Board of Trustees concerns in reverse order. He then asked Jim Ryan to respond. He first dealt with the disruption issue caused by the replacement and addition of pipe for the upgrading of the drainage system, and felt the worst case would be 5-6 weeks of construction. This would be done in progression with the construction of a portion at a time and then backfilled and sealed up. He noted that this is the proper way to do it when you have a desire to continue traffic flow. This limits the disruption and no holes would be left open. The Mayor then asked the Village Engineer for his thoughts on this and Mr. Carosi responded that he felt they should complete this work prior to beginning work on the site. This would ensure proper drainage during construction. Jim Ryan stated that was not an unusual condition. Mr. Konigsberg then stated that with regard to the drainage pipe issue they have already agreed with the type of pipe. Jim Ryan stated that metal pipe is the standard but the corrugated pipe is acceptable but the newer plastic pipe which is state of the art, could also be used if acceptable to the Board. Mr. Carosi wanted more information on this new piping but it was decided that whatever the Village Engineer wants is acceptable to the developer. Jim Ryan next wanted to clear up the wetlands buffer issue. Looking at a control area around the wetlands shows the smaller wetlands has the same characteristics of the larger wetlands area. There was a specific request to show the 100 foot regulated area around both. What exists is a low function wetlands and what they are creating is a far more significant and diverse wetlands situation. Army Corp does not recognize setbacks but they saw the developer's plan and the buffer requirements and in their report they referred to the reasons why these wetlands can be maintained with a somewhat limited buffer based on their functional value and drainage area. It was the opinion of the wetlands expert that what they were proposing was more than adequate to protect them. Army Corp agreed with that. The Mayor then asked if there is language to substantiate this. Mr. Ryan responded that they looked at the entire 4 I 006760 6 /p p June 9, 1998 concept but do not specifically mention the buffer. Based on the whole package the Army Corp of Engineers then issued the permit. The Mayor then asked Christian Miller for his comments on this issue. Mr. Miller stated that the Army Corps of Engineers does not regulate activities within specific areas of a wetland. They only permit disturbance to wetland areas. The Village has its own wetlands law which specifies requirements and mitigation measures to disturbance to wetlands as well as 100 feet from it which is termed the buffer. Mr. Miller went on to discuss the applicant's disturbance and elimination of the wetlands including the buffer area that was done to balance the overall concept of the development and recreational needs. In order to mitigate for those losses the applicant proposed a storm water wetland area which is consistent with the Village's wetlands law and enhanced the function of the existing wetland. Therefore the created mitigation area is smaller with a smaller buffer but functionally enhanced. Christian Miller further stated that the Village's wetland law is a qualifying not a quantifying issue and during the Planning Board process there was no discussion to increase the mitigation of the proposed wetlands area. His office made conditions to the wetlands issues which are part of the Conditioned Negative Declaration. Certain activities such as lawn mowing would be prohibited in that area. Jim Ryan added that in the wetlands report they did a functional evaluation of the buffer area too, and it was determined that the 25 foot no disturbance area is a vast improvement on the existing conditions. Mr. Konigsberg addressed the next issue which was accessory usage close to Pine Ridge Park and asked Trustee Strum to give specific clarification to what he was referring to that might cause potential problems. Trustee Strum responded storage sheds within two feet of the property line where it is common to pile things on the side of the shed away from the house. This puts potentially hazardous material on the side facing the park. Christian Miller asked if fencing would be restricted in that area and Trustee Strum stated no. Mr. Konigsberg stated that two of the lots adjacent to the park already have a 25 foot no disturbance zone. There is only one lot left that is adjacent to the park and the applicant would agree to a restriction to accessory usage within a certain distance from that property line. Mr. Konigsberg next addressed lots 15 and 16 being built after the drainage system is in and proves to be effective. Jim Ryan then responded to this and stated that this does not have an impact but that he cannot assure the Village that this system will function properly. The Village, however, has the right to do the final inspections of the drainage system to insure it is functioning properly, and if it is not, they do not have to take dedication of any of this system until it is operational. Trustee Zuckerman asked if this was before or after the houses are in and Mr. Ryan replied it would be before. Trustee Zuckerman then asked the Village Engineer if there was a way not to issue a building permit until we are certain the storm water drainage system is functioning properly even if the plan is approved? Mr. Carosi said he would check to see if the Village had that restriction. Christian Miller stated that this could be made a condition of approval. Discussion followed on how long to wait and ways to test the system. Mr. Konigsberg stated that they would work something out with the Village Engineer. Mr. Carosi also noted that bonding would be required on all the infrastructures. It was noted that the berm will also be put in at the beginning of the project along lots 15 and 16. Mr. Konigsberg skipped from item one to item two on driveway location and site distance which involves the loop road. He brought up that there had been a number of C.O.'s on this property for a long time with at least two families living on this site. A lot of analysis was done on site distances and accident reports on North Ridge Street in the very early stage of this project. The proposal for this driveway use is the same as it has been for a long time with use by two residents with no increase of usage. Where one of the new houses will be there is presently the caretakers cottage which was in use up until the property 5 006761 June 9, 1998 was purchased by the developer. Trustee Zuckerman asked if it was a dangerous situation before should it be perpetuated? Mr. Ryan responded that they had looked at the accident history and what they submitted to Frederick P. Clark's office shows there is no accident history. Trustee Strum wanted to know for what years this traffic history was taken and whether there was only the caretaker living there or two residents. Mr. Ryan responded that this analysis was done at the beginning of the process but did not recall who was living there at the time. Mr. Ryan continued that they still had an obligation to look at the sight distances. They did so in conjunction with Clark's office and determined that they met the mandated State criteria for stopping sight distance at a high speed of 45 mph. Mr. Ryan further stated that although they met the criteria they still agreed to cut back the brush and once the people are on the property there should be assurance that there will be good maintenance. Mr. Konigsberg also noted that during the Planning Board stage they agreed that the embankment along North Ridge street would be planted with low lying shrubs that would not grow high. Therefore the site distance would not be impeded. The next item addressed by Mr. Konigsberg was the encroachment into and effect upon the maintenance of the water retention area on the Betsy Brown side, for lots 4 and 5. During the Planning Board stage it was agreed that the house would be as close to the road as possible. Trustee Strum noted that this would be a lot owners property, that they would be responsible for the maintenance and a restriction should therefore be in this approval so that they would not invade the water retention area. Mr. Konigsberg responded that the water retention area is completely underground but the client has no problem with deed restrictions in the setback area and accessory uses in that water retention area. If the Board wishes to limit the building envelope, they agreed to add a restriction Mr. Konigsberg then went on to the last item dealing with lots 3, 4 and 5 and had a plan to show to the Board dealing with line of sight at the intersection of Betsy Brown Road and North Ridge Street. He wanted to reaffirm what they have already stated regarding encroachment into the water retention area. Mr. Ryan discussed this plan which went through a great deal of scrutiny with the Planning Board. In their review it was determined that certain improvements would be made to this corner to enhance the overall look. Number one was an agreement to replace all of the grasses and shrub growth with low maintenance planting. They agreed also to do repairs of existing sidewalk with an embankment right at that corner just above the sidewalk that rises 5 feet initially, and creates an initial buffer to the views on the interior property. Trustee Strum asked if the building envelope would include part of the slope and Trustee Zuckerman asked what the distance was from Ridge Street to the house. The response was approximately 140. The house has a lower basement level of 195 feet and the area further down is 163 feet. The roof would be about 225 feet. Trustee Strum responded that that would be a 60 foot rise from the street to the top of the roof. Mayor Filipowski asked for further clarification since he felt it would be higher than 60 foot and Mr. Ryan demonstrated this on the plan as he discussed each elevation. He stated there is a walkout basement which is typical for that area of homes. There is also a drive down condition which reduces the height of the house by 10 feet. Trustee Zuckerman reiterated Trustee Strum's concern of the back of the house presenting a wall because of the slope and with all three lots, especially lot 4, which presents a major visual problem that is not in keeping with the Village standards. Mr. Ryan responded that this is not an unusual situation. Trustee Pellino stated that they were concerned about the visual impact this would have at that intersection with a walled-in effect and the elevations at that corner. He felt it could be offensive to the general character of that area. Mayor Filipowski responded that is what most of the Board is thinking regarding any walled look. Mr. Ryan then asked if they did not feel that the 3 tiered landscaping buffered that. Trustee Zuckerman stated it might work 6 006 76 21 June 9, 1998 better if the house were pushed forward or the cul de sac pushed in a westward direction. Mr. Konigsberg stated his client would be prepared to build a retaining wall if necessary in order to raise the grade at the basement level so that you could plant along this level and screen as best as possible the entire basement level. By doing that you screen the height of the building, and see a row of trees. The Mayor then asked if there would be sufficient distance next to the retaining wall that would create a double buffer or would there be another wall effect. Mr. Ryan responded that whatever type of wall that is built could be completely screened below with evergreens and above because it would now be on grade with the basement walkout level. All you would see is two levels in the back, no accessory structures and a reduction in the depth of the envelope. Trustee Strum suggested the houses be constructed on a terrace-type format. Mr. Ryan stated that with regard to these particular lots, they would agree that prior to filing for an application for a building permit, they would come back to the Board with a site plan for individual lots in order to ensure that they are subject to review and approval. The Mayor asked either the Village Attorney or Christian Miller if this is something the Village could do and the Village Attorney stated he didn't think you could do a site plan review on an individual subdivision lot owner. Christian Miller stated it is not specifically provided for in the subdivision regulations but this has been granted in other communities without that explicit language. Mr. Konigsberg suggested this could be included in the ARB approval. Christian Miller further stated that they have to work with the configuration because it is already defined and that is why satisfying those concerns now is important. The Village Attorney stated he had no change to his previous statement and read a section from the provisions in the site plan review. Jim Ryan responded that there are further reviews and restrictions placed during the preliminary plat process and his client is willing to prepare site plans for individual lots prior to the final plat review. Christian Miller requested that the applicant address the Board's concerns now and respond to them to their satisfaction prior to his office making a decision on a preliminary plat approval. Trustee Zuckerman stated that a work session as suggested by Trustee Strum may be the appropriate place to do this. Mayor Filipowski then asked if the applicant wanted to try a work session or come back to the next meeting. At this point it was 9:10 p.m. and Bernie Abel and Milton Meiskin of the Blind Brook Club Acquisition Committee stated that the majority of the residents attending the meeting were interested in hearing the presentation proposing that the Village buy the Blind Brook Golf Club. Mayor Filipowski felt the legal and long term implications of taking them out of order would adversely affect future Board Meetings. Mr. Konigsberg stated that it was all right with his client to have these residents make their presentation and they could come back later. Dr. Niles then reiterated that the decision was the Mayor's to take an item out of order and there was nothing that precludes him from doing so if the residents request it. Trustee Zuckerman suggested that the Board consider a motion to take the item out of order, and on the motion of Trustee Strum, seconded by Trustee Degling, the Board unanimously'agreed to take the item out of order. Mayor Filipowski invited the committee to make their presentation, but advised the audience that the matter was not a public hearing, and that members of the public would not be invited to speak. REPORT: 9. BLIND BROOK CLUB ACQUISITION COMMITTEE. Milton Meiskin started the presentation on the proposal to purchase the Blind Brook Golf Club. Be 7 OUSM3 June 9, 1998 stated that this idea began in November 1997 and in looking at the green space available for this purpose it was realized that the Blind Brook Golf Course was the last large space for such an endeavor. They used information they had on Rye Golf Club and Lake Isle Public Country Club. Their group explored the possibility of a takeover or conversion of the Blind Brook Golf Club to a complete community recreation center for the Village of Rye Brook. Mr. Meiskin continued with the aid of a slide presentation and noted that this project is about young people growing up in a community with something that brings them together. He handed over the presentation to Steven Epstein who talked about utilizing this facility for so much more than they originally envisioned and in keeping with one of the Village's priorities of preserving open space. He also noted this could maximize property values and enhance a sense of community. He further stated that it gives us a lot of benefits including control over property taxes. There was a meeting of the committee at Crawford Park a few weeks ago and many residents gave them ideas on how to use the facility including a swimming pool, tennis courts, etc. Mr. Epstein went on with the slide presentation noting that his group strongly believes that this property of 140 acres should not be developed even though it is zoned for Y2 acre development. He hoped to show that this project is cost feasible and alluded to the success at Lake Isle and Rye Golf Club both of which run at a profit. He showed financial data for the Rye and Lake Isle clubs and discussed other potentials for revenue including a pro shop, catering facility, etc. He went over the cost of membership at these facilities with non-residents paying approximately double what residents would pay. He noted that private clubs have very high initial fees and annual dues in the $10,000 range. He then went over the cost assumptions based on 1,500 members and using Rye as a model to show how much money can be generated to finance the bond. Additional costs to be factored in could include a swimming pool, tennis courts, etc. They would like the Village to enter into negotiations to pursue a purchase of the Blind Brook Country Club and that the Board and Mayor keep the community informed of the progress. Mr. Meiskin then described the existing facilities at Lake Isle which has 116 acres and can be used as a model. He noted that Lake Isle made a net profit last year of$379,000. This committee believes Blind Brook Club can be a very friendly takeover, at an equitable price and can be purchased without using taxpayer money. He stated it could be acquired with the use of municipal bonds which would be guaranteed by the property itself. Trustee Zuckerman asked if a cost of$5 million would be appropriate for the capital improvements including a swimming pool, revised lockers and increased parking. Mr. Meiskin stated he could not give a valid price because that is something that would have to be negotiated based on the Village's needs. Trustee Zuckerman noted that the purchase price is important since you need to know the amount of the bonding you will need to cover everything. He asked if they had any figures on interest and amortization cost by either Lake Isle or Rye. Mr. Meiskin responded that they have the budgets for both and the information can be extrapolated from them. Mr. Meiskin went on to further suggest that there is a person in the Village who deals with municipal bonding and that there is the possibility to amortize, roll over or umbrella it, He noted that these are things to be discussed with a person in that field. The Board needs to call on the expertise of the community and seriously proceed with the concept and sit down with the Board of Governors of the Blind Brook Club. Mayor Filipowski asked about the size of the catering facilities at Lake Isle or Rye but Mr. Meiskin did not have a figure. The Mayor then asked what the current real estate tax figure is for Blind Brook Country Club. Mr. Meiskin responded approximately $400,000. Trustee Degling broke down the amounts for County, School and Village. Trustee Strum thanked the committee for their presentation and asked for their names so they could call on them to work on committees when they begin to study 8 006764 June 9, 1998 this potential acquisition. He felt it was a wonderful start to something the Village should be looking at. Steven Epstein also brought up the possibility of eminent domain even though it may not be the first option the Board might consider. The Committee completed its presentation at 9:45 p.m. and the Board thanked the committee for making their proposal. 3. CONSIDERING THE AMENDMENT AND EXTENSION OF THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION AGREEMENT WITH THE PORT CHESTER- RYE - RYE BROOK VOLUNTEER AMBULANCE CORPS, INC. The Board briefly discussed this matter, and asked for a clarification from the Ambulance Corps on the Contractor's requirement in Section 3 to furnish dispatch reports. Village Administrator Chris Russo commented that it should be amended to read that the records should be furnished by the Ambulance Corps to the members of the E.M.S. Committee, namely Rye, Rye Brook and Port Chester. On the motion of Trustee Strum, seconded by Trustee Zuckerman, the following resolution was adopted as amended: RESOLUTION AMENDMENT AND EXTENSION OF THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION AGREEMENT WITH THE PORT CHESTER- RYE- RYE BROOK VOLUNTEER AMBULANCE CORPS, INC. WHEREAS, on March 10, 1998, the Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees considered a letter from Anthony Sutton, EMS Administrator, Port Chester- Rye- Rye Brook Volunteer Ambulance Corps, Inc., requesting a renewal.of the Emergency Medical Transportation Agreement; and WHEREAS, negotiations were conducted and amendments are proposed in the agreement to expedite dispatch through the municipal police departments and further to extend the agreement for five (5) years from July 1, 1999, to June 30, 2004. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Village of Rye Brook is authorized to enter into an amendment and extension of the Emergency Medical Transportation Agreement with the Port Chester - Rye - Rye Brook Volunteer Ambulance Corps, Inc., along with the City of Rye and the Village of Port Chester; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that the language of Part 3, proposed Section 8, Paragraph A shall be clarified; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor is authorized to execute and deliver the Amendment 9 t vOF3 mb June 9, 1998 and Extension Agreement and all documents necessary or appropriate to accomplish the purposes of this Resolution. Trustee Degling Voting Aye Trustee Pellino Voting Aye Trustee Strum Voting Aye Trustee Zuckerman Voting Aye Mayor Filipowski Voting Aye 2. RED ROOF FARM (continued). Jim Ryan thanked the Board for the time to discuss this with their client and stated that what they are proposing they feel very strongly that without any further mitigation,, is adequately screened. He then went on to say that they were going to propose what they believe is a reasonable mitigation measure. They would like to agree that on lots 3, 4 and 5, there would not be walk out basements. That would effectively cut the houses down in size and visually you would only see two stories. They also discussed with the Village Engineer, the possibility of reducing the roof height another two feet. This would cut off some ten to eleven feet in the visual height at the rear of the building. Trustee Degling asked how you eliminate the walk out basement. Mr. Ryan responded that it can be done in a couple of different ways; drop the building down slightly and regrade the area around the perimeter of the building to bring the elevation around it to within a certain height of the first flow, no more than 2-3 feet. They would then grade that out at a maintainable slope. Rather than a third story look you would get a graded area with grass and plantings. Trustee Zuckerman asked how long it would take to get a drawing of this and the response was about 5 minutes. Christian Miller noted that all of the conditions would be made part of any resolution. In addition the plans could be further modified prior to any final resolution to reflect these comments as well. Mr. Konigsberg stated that they still were looking to have the Board reaffirm the environmental determination. Christian Miller stated that if the Board feels comfortable with the modifications and conditions that the applicant has agreed to here and that substantial modifications are not anticipated based on its review, it could be in a position to reaffirm the Conditioned Negative Declaration. Trustee Zuckerman asked if there was a time constraint. Mr. Konigsberg responded that it is the building season now and two weeks is a long wait and could make a difference. Trustee Zuckerman noted that since they were not going to get approval for a preliminary plat this evening that they would not be losing any time at all. Trustee Strum stated that he was uneasy about reaffirming the Conditioned Negative Declaration and that it all ties together. He didn't feel they were delaying the process if they could get something approved two weeks from now. Mr. Ryan stated that the reaffirmation is SEQRA related and that the others are part of the preliminary plat and it is important to the client because it allows them to begin the process with the Health Department which cannot be done without an environmental determination. The Board's conditions can become conditions of the preliminary plat. Christian Miller stated that this was correct, is part of the Conditioned Negative Declaration and an indication that the Board would reaffirm at the end of the 30 day comment period. That time has passed. He further stated that this is what was approved, the Board has taken this significant step in the Conditioned Negative Declaration and to substantiate additional modifications to this application, the applicant has agreed to further modifications to respond to continuing concerns. Trustee Strum asked Mr. Miller if he recommended the Board reaffirm at this time. He replied that the Board did not find sufficient adverse 10 006766 June 9, 1998 conditions to justify the issuance of a Positive Declaration based on the SEQRA regulations. The comments that have been submitted do not show that this application is inadequate or incomplete in terms of its analysis, or that the mitigation measures proposed are substantially deficient. The Board has taken this action pursuant to the SEQRA regulations and it needs to reaffirm. if it chooses not to, it would not be consistent with his interpretation of the requirements. Trustee Zuckerman reiterated that no harm is done by waiting until the next meeting, that a lot has transpired at this meeting and he felt uncomfortable about reaffirming without time to digest it all. We are nearly at the end but we need to give it a little bit more consideration. Mayor Filipowski asked Christian Miller whether at the last meeting he stated that the Board could not change where they were, but with the questions raised this evening, where does that leave them. Mr. Miller replied that the Board's options are limited. The applicant will provide the additional conditions and if those are still not satisfactory, you are at an impasse. You have adopted the conditioned negative declaration and all the impact issues were presumably addressed. Unless the Board states this they are finding that the conditions are inadequate based on the comments that they found and that additional mitigation is requested. Mr. Ryan asked again if these conditions could be dealt with during the preliminary plat and why is the Board tying the two processes together. They are in violation of the SEQRA process and why can't these conditions be dealt with as part of the preliminary plat. Mr. Miller stated that was a possibility but his concern was with the Village, its decisions and supporting the decisions it might make. We have talked about additional conditions and based on the discussion tonight, substantial modifications are probably not likely, but could possibly occur, in the issuance of the Conditioned Negative Declaration subject to the additional information. Mr. Konigsberg suggested they table it for this evening, prepare a Conditioned Negative Declaration resolution to reaffirm as well as a preliminary plat approval resolution for the next meeting. They will make the submission to the Board so they can see everything. If the Board is satisfied at the next meeting based on the approval resolution that will be drafted together with the reaffirmation, then you can do both the same night. We would, however, like the ability to make an application to the Health Department so we can begin that process. Mayor Filipowski asked the Village Attorney if this was possible. He replied that it was a substantial application but an effort could be made. He also stated if they need a Conditioned Negative Declaration to go to the Health Department they already have one. Mr. Ryan responded that it requires a statement from the Village Engineer which says that the sewers have sufficient capacity as well as a statement from the Village that the application is suitable for Health Department review. The Village Attorney responded that the other issue is the preliminary plat and due to the size of the project there will also be a review of the final plat. Mayor Filipowski asked if we can give this letter to the applicant. The answer from the Village Attorney was not until the Board has decided to reaffirm the Conditioned Negative Declaration, Christian Miller agreed. It was further noted that going to the Health Department came after you got preliminary plat approval. Trustee Degling had a problem with giving authorization without knowing if the drainage system would work. Mr. Ryan noted that the Health Department does not review the storm water, they review the sewers and water. It takes a long time to start the process and at least they could have their application on file. Christian Miller noted that the Conditioned Negative Declaration is the active decision and if that could be presented to the Health Department maybe that would satisfy their needs. Departing with any more convention in terms of some sort of sign off by the Village, his recommendation would be to wait for the preliminary plat decision. The Village Attorney requested if the Board wanted a draft of the preliminary plat prepared and the response was yes. 11 00676°4 June 9, 1998 Upon completion of the discussion on this item, it was tabled for consideration with the Preliminary Plat resolution for the June 23, 1998 Board Meeting, 4. CONSIDERING AUTHORIZING THE VILLAGE TO ENTER INTO AN INTER- MUNICIPAL AGREEMENT(IMA) WITH WESTCHESTER COUNTY FOR E-911 SERVICES. The Village Administrator read the resolution. Mayor rilipowski requested a motion from the Board. On the motion of Trustee Pellino, seconded by Trustee Zuckerman, the following resolution was adopted: RESOLUTION IMA WITH WESTCHESTER COUNTY FOR A 5-YEAR TERM FOR ENHANCED-911 SERVICES WHEREAS, the County Executive has transmitted a proposed Enhanced-911 Service Inter- Municipal Agreement (IMA) to the Village of Rye Brook to continue such service to the Village for an additional five (5) years; and WHEREAS, the Chief of Police of the Village has recommended that the Village enter into this IMA. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Village of Rye Brook is authorized to enter into an IMA with Westchester County to continue Enhanced-911 Services for five (5) additional years from July 11, 1998, to July 10, 2003; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor is authorized to execute and deliver the IMA and all documents necessary or appropriate to accomplish the purposes of this Resolution. Trustee Degling Voting Aye Trustee Pellino Voting Aye Trustee Strum Voting Aye Trustee Zuckerman Voting Aye Mayor Filipowski Voting Aye 5. CHECK REGISTERS. The resolution was read by the Village Administrator. On the motion of Trustee Degling, seconded by Trustee Zuckerman, the following resolution was adopted: 12 006768 June 9, 1998 RESOLUTION CHECK REGISTERS WHEREAS, the following checks, representing payment for services rendered, have been submitted to the Treasurer's Office and Budget Officer for payment: On-Line Checks 18720 - 18797 Payroll 26061 - 26167 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees of the Village of Rye Brook after audit hereby approves payment of the above-mentioned claims and authorizes payment thereof. Trustee Degling Voting Aye Trustee Pellino Voting Aye Trustee Strum Voting Aye Trustee Zuckerman Voting Aye Mayor Filipowski Voting Aye WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: 6. MICHAEL STOLZAR• REOUESTING APPROVAL FOR THE ANNUAL TURKEY TROT TO USE VILLAGE STREETS ON NOVEMBER 26, 1998. The matter was briefly discussed by the Board, who noted that this race was an annual run taking place in the Village of Rye Brook, and that it was a positive event in the Village. On the motion of Trustee Strum, seconded by Trustee Zuckerman, the Board unanimously approved the request by the Turkey Trot Committee to use Village Streets for the annual Turkey Trot. 7. LUCY PETRINO R B U C S• REQUESTING THE OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS THE DIFFICULTIES THE GROUP FACES. The Village Administrator stated that this is a request from the Rye Brookers for the Unification of Community and School to make a presentation to the Board. This group is made up of a non-partisan, non-political civic-minded group of Rye Brook residents desirous of unifying the school districts and community as a whole. They requested time to discuss difficulties they have faced, and to propose an approach to resolving them. Mayor Filipowski asked what was the Board's pleasure regarding this presentation. Trustee Zuckerman stated there was a similar situation with the Blind Brook Club where they requested time and made a short presentation and then were invited back to make a longer presentation. .He felt the Board should follow the same procedure with this group. The Mayor asked the Village Attorney what the Board's position is in terms of school district boundaries. He replied that the subject of school district boundaries is something which comes under the authority of the school officials, State Education Department and the State Legislature. The Village itself has no legal role in authorizing or approving school district 13 00670 June 9, 1998 boundaries. Lucy Petrino, Chuck Brody, Ken Levy and Mark Tahmin, recent arrivals to the Village of Rye Brook, came to the podium to address the Board. Mr. Brody made a brief presentation. This group consists of a number of residents who reside in School District 4. They have had a number of meetings among concerned residents in that area and there are currently 100 active participants. Their primary focus is perception and the lack of alignment between the Village boundaries and jurisdiction in the existing school districts. He stated that a number of issues arise from this lack of alignment and noted six areas. They are, Village unity due to existing conditions that fragment our children, identity crisis, education opportunities and issues, community issues and recreational programs, taxes to two different jurisdictions and realization of a difference in property valuation. Mr. Brody felt some of these are not school board issues and that is why they wished to address the Board. He also noted that they do not have a solution and are continuing to do research. Their first step has been to poll the community that live within both districts for their opinions. A questionnaire was distributed to Rye Brook residents in District 4 and they will poll District 5 as well. They have had a 20% response rate and that over 90% of the residents favor unification. They want to share the information that they gather and give their interpretation of it. They requested an opportunity at a future meeting to present more detailed findings. Trustee Strum stated that the jurisdiction in changing the law deals with the two school districts and that educational parameters are the most important aspect. This is left to the education experts to decide what is best for the education of the students. The Village's province are such things as recreation, streets, police and fire. He asked if the Village was having trouble providing those services to its residents because of the current school district lines. Ms. Petrino stated that there were two actual issues in what Trustee Strum just said. They are aware of the current education legislation and are looking at the possibilities of seeking a special referendum or other venue. They do feel that there is a certain failure in the way that the recreation systems programs are run now which does not favor District 4. She noted that this is not wholly due to the school boundaries and it is an issue that needs to be addressed on the municipal side. Trustee Strum stated he would be interested in hearing more about that the next time they come. He is, however, not desirous of causing more battlegrounds within our small community. Ms. Petrino stated that they were trying to stop a battle but that there have been rumblings for a while now in District 4. They have not been voiced since there has never been a forum. She also stated there are many facets to their proposal and many complex issues they want to share. REPORT: 8. RE: RESPONSE TIME STUDY CONDUCTED BY KPMG PEAT MARWICK. The firm of KPMG Peat Marwick made a short presentation on the results of their response time study and analysis that had been commissioned by the Board of Trustees earlier in the year. The team from KPMG included Mr. Dewey Loselle, Mr. Cliff Dias and Mr. Robert Rosanski, Mr. Loselle stated that the purpose of the study was to deal with the issue of potential response time in relationship to siting a new fire house in the Village. This has been a very thoughtful, methodical process with many aspects in siting a fire house to consider and having looked at only part of the total picture. Their objective was to give vehicle response times from a variety of potential fire house sites to a variety of potential fire sites. The approach was determined by a number of potential sites for fire houses given to them by the Village along with 10 potential fire locations spread throughout the Village that were of a substantial size, value, high density and a variety of other factors. The Board was involved in picking these sites. A plan was then 14 006770 June 9, 1998 developed determining routes to those sites that were the most efficient to get from one of the potential fire station location to a potential site. They worked with Chief Drexelius on determining the routes they would follow that would be the most efficient. They then developed a test plan to look at sending vehicles from potential fire house sites to potential fire sites under many different conditions. These were done during the day and reflected the busiest as well as non-busy periods. They then actually performed test runs using the existing fire equipment apparatus under a specified set of conditions, which were time recorded and monitored. These results were reported to the Village. The five potential fire station sites looked at were, West William Street, Red Roof Farm, Sleepy Hollow Road/North Ridge, Compost (King Street Site No. 1) and Blind Brook Estate (King Street Site No. 2). The maps in the report submitted show the potential station sites as well as the potential fire sites. The 10 potential fire sites that were done for time measurement were: Port Chester Middle School/Philip Morris, Port Chester High School, Rye Ridge Plaza, Pine Ridge Park, Arrowwood Conference Center, Royal Executive Park, United Cerebral Palsy, Blind Brook High School/Arbors, Ridge Street School and Brook Ridge Court. He then turned it over to Clifford Diaz for an overview of how they conducted the study. Mr. Diaz stated that they conducted 150 runs in the morning afternoon and evening. They were done at posted speed limits, mostly 35 mph, sometimes 45 mph. This was done for safety reasons and not to impact oncoming traffic. In reality in emergency conditions the fire equipment may be going faster. When that is factored into the report the results are lower. The traffic time was reported in two ways with two sets of stop clocks; one reported the total time elapsed once they were in the vehicle until they reached the site location. The second stop clock recorded the total stopped time; time the vehicle was stopped for lights, traffic signs or traffic. Mileage was recorded separately. What they found was the Sleepy Hollow Road/North Ridge site had the lowest average response time. That was 3 minutes, 54 seconds. Blind Brook Estates, Compost site, Red Roof Farm were 2, 3 and 4 respectively and very close in time. However, the time difference between all three was only about 20 seconds. This is not statistically significant and under emergency conditions it would be much less than that. West William Street had the highest response time and the furthest average distance between site location and fire location. Traffic and weather conditions impacted these results which were conducted in April. Site selection involved other factors beyond potential response time. KPMG dealt only with response time but there are other factors. He ended his presentation and asked if there were any questions. Trustee Zuckerman had a question on actual runs finding it difficult to believe the Compost site times running north in the morning. He asked at what times this occurred and the response was between 7:30 and 9:30 a.m. Trustee Zuckerman stated that the reason he asked was because traffic at that time of the morning can take as long as ten to fifteen minutes to get from Hillandale Road to the Blind Brook High School driveway. He asked if that type of traffic was factored in on their runs as it gets especially heavy in the high school area at that time. Trustee Zuckerman's next question dealt with the fact that the Rye Town Hilton was not included as a destination and wondered whether that would impact any of the sites at all. Trustee Strum noted that it was nearest to the Philip Morris site. Trustee Zuckerman responded that the Board would have to make a decision to go forward with additional runs incorporating the entire area including the Rye Town Hilton since he doesn't know whether they are accurately taken into account in the present report. Mr. Loselle responded that if it is near the Philip Morris site you can extrapolate the amount of time but Trustee Zuckerman felt it was not that near and might change the ratings of some of the sites. Mr. Loselle further commented that the Sleepy Hollow site came out the best and sites 2, 3 and 4 sites fell within a reasonable range of consideration. His conclusion was that if it 15 i 00677.1 June 9, 1998 were true for all sites there would be no significant difference by adding another potential fire site. Trustee Zuckerman then asked if they had a factor that could be applied to the charts to determine the response time for the emergency vehicles instead of an ordinary vehicle. Was there a percentage that is appropriate to use to look at what an emergency vehicle's response time is keeping in mind that we have cited a response time of 4.5 minutes as what we were trying to achieve. Mr. Loselle responded that they had used fire engine apparatus. Trustee Zuckerman noted they used the apparatus traveling at ordinary traffic conditions but the question he was asking dealt with the apparatus traveling under emergency conditions and how much faster on a percentage basis. Could a 10 percent figure be used? Mr. Loselle responded that sometimes you would be going less than 35 mph, with other factors to consider. In terms of what would happen if you were operating under emergency response conditions, you could go as fast as the vehicle could safely take you. He felt there was no one answer to this but in their talks with the Fire Chief it could be done potentially 40% faster. Chief Drexelius responded he would not say 40% but rather 10-20%. Trustee Zuckerman noted you could then adjust the run time by about a 15% decrease and would get a fairly accurate emergency response time. Trustee Zuckerman than stated that one of the things that bothered him about the reporting method was KMPG's use of averages. His problem with that had to do with a number of average response times that were good but have a site where it would be outside an acceptable range. He gave an example of travel from West William up to UCP as totally unacceptable with the total time being over 1'I minutes. One of the better run sites from Blind Brook Estates to Brook Ridge had a run time of over 7 minutes which is also not acceptable. Can the data be compiled in order of response times so that the Board can deem certain areas as virtually unacceptable from certain sites. Average time is good as noted by Trustee Zuckerman but you also have to look at the distance to particular sites from potential fire house sites. Mr. Loselle responded that they have all the data and that KMPG could send the Board another run. Trustee Zuckerman's last question dealt with a two fire house scenario and if, in KMPG's compilation, they could look at which are the best two house sites based on similar data. Mr. Loselle responded that all the data for fire house location sites is in the report and can be reordered. Trustee Degling wanted to reaffirm the statement that was made showing that of the five sites, using West William Street as extreme, there are three site that are indistinguishable. Two of those sites are up on King Street and in response to Trustee Zuckerman's question, if you took one of the King Street sites and then looked at something near West Williams Street, such as the present fire house on Westchester Avenue, you would end up with a considerable improvement in times. The longest times would be decreased considerably and therefore a two house scenario one being a King Street site plus Washington site would be a considerable improvement over what KMPG had on any of the single sites. Mr. Loselle responded that there was no doubt about it that if you had one site in the northern part of the village and one in the southern part there would be a vast improvement. He also noted that the data is there in the report. Trustee Degling reiterated that if you took any of the sites that were virtually identical and added a site to the south you would vastly improve your response time. Trustee Zuckerman noted that the only problem with that is that you have to have enough people to manage two sites. Mr. Loselle noted that any of the sites, other than what you have, are all better than what you have. Edith Halpern noted that KMPG gave out a number of 3.54 at one site and wanted to have the numbers on the other sites that are close. Mr. Loselle responded that there were many numbers but on the overall average the Sleepy Hollow site was 3.54, Compost site was 4.57, Blind Brook Estates site was 4.45, Red Roof Farm site was 5.04 and the West William site was 6.19. George Datino noted there was some discrepancy from an earlier study that said that the Sleepy Hollow 16 006772, June 9, 1998 site and the Red Roof site were very indistinguishable as far as response time. Mr. Loselle could not comment on the other study but it would depend on what sites you were going to which could change the results. Ken Heller noted two major north/south routes in Rye Brook; one being Ridge Street the other one Lincoln Avenue. Any site other than West William Street or the site on Westchester Avenue from Port Chester has not been measured. In order to get from any of these other sites over to the Lincoln Avenue area a truck would have to come down Westchester Avenue, turn west and come back up Lincoln Avenue. He felt this was a big failure in the study because several developments were left out and to ignore them as well as the time factor to get from King Street over to Lincoln Avenue, is a considerable amount of time not being included. The study should have considered the southern portion of the Village more because of the long distance. He would hope that the unity that has been talked about with Port Chester may mean building a house up on King Street. Peter Pitocco had two points to bring up. Number one, he respectively disagreed with the consultant and the Board that you can use the numbers you have for a two fire house site. He felt none of the northern sites are far enough north to enhance your response time. Although with the north/south routes as your major routes it probably is the best alternative and it is probably the most expensive. The second point he brought up was that of the specific site locations used in the report. Most are in the northern half of the Village. It is obvious your northern sites are going to have better response times overall in averages. He felt the overall selection of sites was poor because it did weight the northern half of the Village. Mr. Loselle responded that the site selection was worked out through a Board process and that many of the large entities exist in that part of the Village. Randy Solomon asked if the Hutch/Merritt was used at all or Anderson Hill Road down to Lincoln Avenue. Chief Drexelius replied that they were not used. Mr. Loselle noted all the routes were noted in the report. The Mayor asked what period of time the report was done and the reply was April. He then asked if the sites were picked out in January or February? The response was yes. Upon completion of the presentation, the Mayor thanked the representatives from KPMG for their time. Trustee Zuckerman had one comment on whether the Board would want other runs done that would cost some money but not a lot in order to do runs to the Rye Town Hilton area and add it to the pool. Mr.Loselle responded that it would be harder to start up runs again since they do not have the staff they had during the run period. The Mayor noted the next meeting was June 23"' and also reminded everyone of Rye Brook's 16 Birthday celebration on June 20"'. He noted that the Board would have an Executive Session on Thursday night to discuss personnel and contract matters. Trustee Zuckerman wanted to move for an Executive Session briefly this evening to deal with the Hillandale Associates matter. Trustee Strum noted that if there is an Executive Session on Thursday and due to the lateness of the hour, he would rather wait until then. A motion was called by Trustee Zuckerman to have an Executive Session on Thursday, June 11, 1998, seconded by Trustee Pellino and unanimously approved. Next, Mayor Filipowski opened the floor to comments from the public. 17 rl/7p 7 y Ben Miloro 43 Hillcrest Avenue spoke regarding the Westmore News article on a single school district and was upset and felt that Ms. Petrino was doing Trustee Zuckerman's bidding since it sounded like he had proposed both issues. He noted that if you go to District 5 your property value goes up. He was offended by her portrayal of the Port Chester School District. He and his children have gone through the Port Chester School System and they did fine. He read part of the article dealing with Trustee Zuckerman's comments. He also noted that research should be done regarding the talent that came out of Port Chester High School. Trustee Zuckerman responded that when he wrote certain articles recently he had not met Ms. Petrino and what happened afterward was out of his control. He also responded that people have a tendency to make accusations without any basis. Ken Heller also spoke about the unification of the school district and noted that the people making the presentation were not worried about the school system but their property values. He did, however, agree with the recreation problem and the lack of interaction between the two districts. He stated that this unification effort would open old wounds that would never heal and the residents should focus on working together with the two districts. George Datino noted that when he tried to send his child to Rye Brook recreation functions he seemed to be on the outskirts and not part of the group. He also noted there should be better accommodations at the Board Meetings for the larger crowds. There being no further business, the Board unanimously agreed to adjourn the meeting at 11:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Christopher I Rus , Village Clerk