Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-07-23 - Board of Trustees Meeting Minutes AGENDA VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BOARD OF TRUSTEES REGULAR MEETING JULY 23, 1996 7:30 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. RECONVENING THE PUBLIC HEARING FROM JUNE 25, 1996 ON THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AND WETLANDS APPLICATION FOR THE NEUMAN PROPERTY AT 24 HILLANDALE ROAD. 2. RECONVENING THE PUBLIC SCOPING SESSION ON K& M REALTY'S BOWMAN AVENUE DEVELOPMENT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT UNDER NYSEQRA. RESOLUTIONS: 3. RESOLUTION REFERRING TO THE PLANNING BOARD THE SITE PLAN APPLICATION OF THOMAS CERASO -- RIDGE STREET SERVICE STATION AT 93 BOWMAN AVENUE FOR ADDITIONAL PARKING. 4. RESOLUTION READOPTING AUTHORIZATION FOR THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK TO PARTICIPATE IN SECTION 410) OF THE RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW AND ITS PROVISIONS AS THEY APPLY TO THE NEW YORK STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM. 5. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE INSTALLATION OF TWO STANDARD SYMBOL SIGNS DESIGNATING "SLOW -- CHILDREN AT PLAY" AT EACH ENTRANCE TO PINE RIDGE PARK. 6. CHECK REGISTER MINUTES: 7. FEBRUARY 27, 1996 REGULAR MEETING 8. MARCH 12, 1996 AGENDA MEETING NEXT MEETING DATES: AGENDA MEETING AUGUST 13, 1996 REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 27, 1996 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BOARD OF TRUSTEES VILLAGE OFFICES 90 SOUTH RIDGE STREET RYE BROOK, NEW YORK JULY 23, 1996 CONVENE MEETING The Meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Mayor Cresenzi in the Meeting Room and the Pledge of Allegiance followed. The following members of the Board of Trustees were present: Mayor Salvatore M. Cresenzi Trustee Joseph Pellino Trustee Eugene R. Strum Trustee Nancy Stein Tunis Trustee Gary J. Zuckerman Village staff attending the meeting were: Village Administrator Christopher J. Russo Village Attorney Kenneth E. Powell Assistant to the Administrator Richard C. Slingerland Secretary to the Village Board Lisa B. Marinaccio Chief of Police Robert J. Santoro Village Treasurer Joseph Cortese Following the Pledge of Allegiance, the Mayor asked that everyone remain standing in remembrance of the people who lost their lives on T.W.A. Flight 800. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. RECONVENING THE PUBLIC HEARING FROM JUNE 25, 1996 ON THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AND WETLANDS APPLICATION FOR THE NEUMAN PROPERTY AT 24 HILLANDALE ROAD: Mr. William Maker, Jr., Attorney for the Applicants, came forward and reported that the Engineer was scheduled to attend, but was late. He requested that the Board proceed to the next item until the Engineer arrived. The Board agreed to go on to the next agenda item. 2. RECONVENING THE PUBLIC SCOPING SESSION ON K & M REALTY'S BOWMAN AVENUE DEVELOPMENT DRAFT: Mr. Miller explained that the purpose of the scoping session for the Bowman Avenue Project was to respond to the draft scope of issues to be addressed in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The Board of Trustees in its capacity as Lead Agent had set forth certain issues to be addressed in the Scope for the environmental review on the proposed project. He reported that a few interested parties had attended the Scoping Session at 3:00 p.m., July 23, 1996. Most of the concerns raised were from the City of Rye's Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Planning Board, the Planner and Mr. Steve Otis, a resident of Rye. He reported that the revised scope will incorporate some of the suggestions, but in general the concerned parties found it fairly adequate and thorough. Therefore, the Developer can prepare the Environmental Impact Statement when the Scope is adopted. 006182 July 23, 1996 Mr. Miller stated that the Board's next step is to respond to any questions raised during the Scoping process and to add any relevant issues it finds relevant to the Scope. The 60 day period from when the applicant submitted the draft scope ends on September 9, 1996. Trustee Strum asked what specific items had the City of Rye requested be included in the Scope. Mr. Miller replied that a few clarifications were requested with respect to erosion and sedimentation, the long term impacts after the project is developed and the down-stream water quantity and quality impacts. The City of Rye's major concern is apparently with flooding in the area known as Indian Village. Trustee Pellino inquired, "While I know the Scoping Session is focusing primarily on the effects of development on the site, was there any discussion about the fixture if nothing is done on the site. In several of the past meetings with the Applicant, mention was made of the debris along the stream, which is primarily discarded concrete. Was any mention made of the long term effects of the debris on the site and downstream from the site?" Mr. Miller reviewed that section in the draft scope. One of the SEQR alternatives requiring further consideration is the"no-action" alternative. Mr. Miller turned to Page 16 of the Draft Scope entitled"Alternatives," which were as follows: 1. No Action Alternative - Discussed earlier; 2. Generic Alternative Layout which reduces impacts; and 3. Reduced Size Layout which allows the restaurant and not the residential development. Mr. Miller reported that the inverse of Number 3 had not been reviewed. Trustee Zuckerman stated that the inverse of No. 3 should be examined. Mayor Cresenzi stated that it appears that flooding and drainage are the main priorities. Attorney Powell explained the next step -- to approve a final scope and have the applicant prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Mr. Miller said that the deadline for written comments is August 1, 1996. Subsequent to that time the scope could be finalized incorporating any comments. The Scope could then be adopted by the Board of Trustees at the August 13, 1996 Board Meeting. On the motion of Trustee Pellino, seconded by Trustee Strum, the Board unanimously agreed to close the public scoping session. 1. RECONVENING THE PUBLIC HEARING FROM JUNE 25 1996 ON THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AND WETLANDS APPLICATION FOR THE NEUMAN PROPERTY AT 24 HILLANDALE ROAD: Mr. Ralph George Mastromonaco, Engineer for the Applicant, arrived and approached the Board. He had received a letter from the Village's Planning Consultant and had revised the plan pursuant to the Planning Consultant's suggestions. He distributed the revised plan to the Board members. We had a difference of opinion, but I redrafted the mitigation requirements under the Wetlands Law. Mayor Cresenzi asked if anyone from the public had any comments. Mr. David Watson of 20 Hillandale Road addressed the Board. Mr. Watson told the Board that four or five years ago, a similar plan was rejected by the Board of Trustees. He stated that if this subdivision application is approved, then he would share the driveway with two other houses. He 006183 July 23, 1996 saw nothing in the current plan suggesting that this is a more desirable plan than the prior one that was rejected by the Board. He conveyed that the previous plan had rational lot lines, and as noted by Trustee Strum, this plan contains a bizarre set of lot lines. Mr. Watson brought up the Wetlands Ordinance, which was not in effect at the time of the last application. He said that the Wetlands Ordinance Section 245 (8)(A)(4) indicates conditions that must exist before the approving authority can approve any application for a wetland permit. He read from the Wetlands Law the conditions set forth for issuance of a permit: 1. It has to be necessary and unavoidable. a. It has to be compatible with public health and welfare. b. If there is no feasible on-site alternative including a reduction in density. C. No feasible alternative on another site available to the applicant. Mr. Watson mentioned that there is a feasible on-site alternative for a reduction in density. This is not an existing two lot subdivision. It contains a single-family lot in a single family residential zone which is fully developed as a single-family residence. Mr. Watson claimed that this is a self-created hardship and stated that the alternative is to leave the fully developed lot just as it is. He continued that two of the conditions of the Wetlands Ordinance were not met. Reporting that every neighbor of the property opposes this proposal, Mr. Watson said that the Board must consider in their decision whether they represent the residents of the neighborhood, the voters in the Village, the taxpayers in the Village or whether the Board wants to bend the rules to accommodate developers or in this case a sophisticated real estate investment group. Mayor Cresenzi explained that with most applications submitted to the Village, it is usually the residents who don't want to see a change in the community and the developer is from outside of the area. In this case, the Developer is not only a resident, but lives 160 feet away from the proposed project. He communicated that this Village Board and past Boards did not look favorably on this type of development in the Village. The Board always tries to be as fair as possible, tries to minimize the impacts on the neighborhoods from development projects and at the same time, tries to respect the rights of the property owner. The Mayor said, "This Board will do what it thinks is best for the Village and not for one particular group." He continued that this application is unusual because the property owner is a neighbor of the site and the applicant. Trustee Strum asked Mr. Miller to lead the Board through what is required under Section 245-9 regarding the 2 - 1 ratio for wetland area replacement. Mr. Miller explained that procedurally, before an application gets to the mitigation requirements set forth under Section 245-8d, a determination must be made that any losses to the wetland buffer are significant and unavoidable. Mr. Miller explained that the applicant is required to provide enhancement of existing wetland or watercourse buffers to mitigate the losses. Mr. Strum explained that he is inquiring about the mitigation plan. Mr. Miller stated that the Village law requires a mitigation plan from the applicant with enhancement measures on a 2 - 1 ratio. He reported that construction of the house, the associated grading, and the construction of the driveway all constitute disturbances under the Wetlands law. The applicant has proposed a 2 -1 replacement and has provided an area that will be assigned as a permanent Wetlands buffer conserved area. The primary aim is not to disturb the function of the wetland. Mr. Larry Rand, 30 Hillandale Road, commented on a statement made by Mr. Watson with respect to the Planning Board and the Village Board considering a prior proposal for this property. He stated, 006184 July 23, 1996 "No prior plan was ever submitted to the Board," and therefore no prior plan was ever rejected. Mr. Rand stated that he had intended to subdivide this property when his group purchased it. He added that despite what Mr. Watson had implied, he and Mr. Neuman are not major real estate investors or developers. He told the Board that it was his intent to enhance the neighborhood when he invested in this property, since the subject site is currently overgrown and has been for many years. Mr. Rand stated that the real issue is that the Applicants have been very patient since 1987. "We have worked very closely with the Village to make sure that this application is in compliance with all regulations and laws relevant to a subdivision." Mr. Rand asked that the Board consider all their efforts, their compliance with regulations and their commitment to and participation in the community. He asked that his rights be considered along with the rights of all the residents, and suggested that if Mr. Watson wants this property to remain undeveloped, then Mr. Watson could buy the property himself to keep it pristine. Mr. Maker came forward and stated that he was encouraged by the Mayor's comments about the purpose of the laws of the Village and how they are to be applied even-handedly. He applauded the Mayor for his statement. Mr. Maker said, "This application complies with all applicable laws in every way, shape and form." He began to comment on some of Mr. Watson's comments, and the Mayor interjected and expressed that he did not want to have a debate. He asked Mr. Maker only to discuss the subdivision application. Mr. Maker continued that it was wrong (for Mr. Watson) to suggest that as an alternative Mr. Rand develop his own home property as an alternative to developing along the Wetland buffer. Mr. Maker stated that the Applicants have answered all of the concerns of the Planning Consultant even when the Applicants' Engineer felt certain requirements were unnecessary. Mr. Maker read from the Wetlands law and concluded that this proposal did not create any of the situations listed that would adversely affect the environment or break any laws. He concluded that the Applicants have done everything required and stated the Board must close the public hearing and put this to a vote tonight. Mr. Mastromonaco reported that the Applicant received a letter dated July 19, 1996 from the Planning Consultant. He explained some of the comments and how they were addressed by the Applicants. He summarized the comments about on-site drains, erosion control measures, plantings, conservation area restrictions and tree preservation. He stated that while he disagreed with Mr. Miller's comments and recommendations, all of Mr. Miller's comments were addressed and he requested that the Board close the public hearing at this time. Trustee Pellino brought up an earlier comment with respect to the positioning of lot lines at right angles. Trustee Pellino asked whether a new drawing had been prepared to address his and Trustee Strum's comments about the subdivision regulations and the positioning of the (side) lot lines at right angles to the street. Mr. Mastromonaco displayed the plan and pointed out the lot line in question. Trustee Strum read Section 219-33 - Subdivisions, C -Lot Dimensions, Paragraph 2, "Side Lot Lines shall generally be at right angles to street lines unless the Board of Trustees allows a variation from this rule to give a better street or lot arrangement." Mr. Mastromonaco said that the regulation comes from the Subdivision Regulations and is not a Zoning Code issue. He said, "If it was a Zoning Code issue we would have to comply without variance." He pointed out that the first word in the passage is "side" lot lines and that the lot line in question is measured as a front line. Trustee Strum asked Mr. Mastromonaco what changes the applicants had made to create two lots with side lot lines at right angles to the street, "because if that could be done, then it would be easier for me to approve the application." Mr. Mastromonaco stated that the sharply angled side lot line should be considered 006185 July 23, 1996 a front lot line until it is perpendicular to the street. Trustee Pellino disagreed with Mr. Mastromonaco, stating that the Board is looking for a continuous side lot line that is perpendicular to the road, and not gerrymandered lot lines with the explanation that, "We have to be objective in our interpretation of the Code." He stated that lot lines shall be at right angles, perpendicular to the street. Mr. Mastromonaco said that the word "generally" means that it is not a requirement all of the time. Mr. Maker stated his interpretation of "generally." Trustee Pellino said, "It is my belief that this Board and past Boards had set a precedent, and in some cases had denied applications for subdivision and in some cases modified applications for subdivision so that those subdivisions would conform and so that side lot lines would be at or very close to right angles to the street." He added that he respectfully disagreed with the applicant's interpretation of the word"generally." Mr. Maker stated, "That is not what your law says. The Board should apply the law as it is written." Trustee Zuckerman asked if Mr. Maker was implying that the Board has no discretion with respect to the law. Mr. Maker said the Board does not have the discretion to mandate a specific distance that a line must be perpendicular. Trustee Zuckerman asked, "So, if a lot line is two inches long, then that would constitute a line." Mr. Maker responded, "That's correct." Mr. Zuckerman asked if the inner edge of the driveway line could be extended to the road, but everyone agreed that the lot then would not meet the minimum frontage requirements. Mr. Miller explained that the intent of the regulation was to have uniform lots in size and space and generally with a larger subdivision that is a common rule of thumb. It could also be interpreted that it is intended to discourage gerrymandering of lot lines in instances like this. Trustee Strum asked what the front lot line would be if the driveway was considered a street. After some discussion between Mr. Miller and Trustees Strum and Zuckerman, it was determined that the sharply angled line could only be considered a side lot line and not a front lot line. Discussion continued on the driveway easement. Trustee Strum asked Mr. Miller, "If the existing house was not there, would there be a way to create two lots with side lot lines at right angles to the street?" Mr. Miller said, "No." Mayor Cresenzi asked if the lot was being held to the standards of a corner lot or a middle lot. Trustee Strum made a reminder with regard to the corner-lot issue that, "the Zoning Code defines a front lot line as a line that is on the street." Discussion continued on the definition of a street, which was determined under the Code to be a"way, public or private, that is permanently open to the public." Mr. Watson asked if an easement would affect lot area coverage. Mr. Miller replied that it would not, but that it might effect development issues in restricting the location of the proposed structure. Mr. Kenneth Heller, 22 Lincoln Avenue, came forward to discuss the"so-called Road/Driveway." He stated that something should be written before this project is finalized which designates who will maintain and plow it. As a member of the Environmental Council, he and the Council are very concerned about the pitch of the steep slope along the stream and possible disturbance created by run-off and erosion. Mr. Mastromonaco explained that the area in question would not be affected because the Village's wetland restrictions prohibit development in that area now and in the future as a "permanent no disturbance line." Mr. Miller stated that the requirements and restrictions of the Wetlands Law prevent any future development. 00618 July 23, 1996 There being no further discussion, the Board voted to close.the public hearing and requested Attorney Powell to prepare a Resolution for the Board to vote on at the next Board Meeting. On the motion of Trustee Pellino, seconded by Trustee Zuckerman, the Board voted to close the hearing as follows: TRUSTEE STRUM VOTING AYE TRUSTEE TUNIS VOTING AYE TRUSTEE ZUCKERMAN VOTING AYE TRUSTEE PELLINO VOTING AYE MAYOR CRESENZI VOTING AYE RESOLUTIONS: 3. RESOLUTION REFERRING TO THE PLANNING BOARD THE SITE PLAN APPLICATION OF THOMAS CERASO -- RIDGE STREET SERVICE STATION AT 93 BOWMAN AVENUE FOR ADDITIONAL PARKING: Trustee Strum stated that the traffic in the subject area is horrendous. He urged the Board to make corrections to the traffic flow. Trustee Pellino suggested a note be sent along to the Planning Board. They should consider whether this kind of use is consistent with Local Law#3-1988 referring to lot area coverage because this proposal is to pave an entire lot. On the Motion made by Trustee Tunis, seconded by Trustee Zuckerman, the following Resolution was hereby adopted: RESOLUTION THOMAS CERASO -- RIDGE STREET SERVICE STATION 93 BOWMAN AVENUE SITE PLAN REVIEW NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,that the Ridge Street Service Station site plan application dated July 8, 1996, made by Thomas Ceraso is referred to the Planning Board for a report and recommendation; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, that the applicant shall pay the sum of one thousand dollars ($1,000) into the Environmental Review/Professional Fees Fund and such additional sums as may be requested for this purpose. TRUSTEE STRUM VOTING AYE TRUSTEE TUNIS VOTING AYE TRUSTEE ZUCKERMAN VOTING AYE TRUSTEE PELLINO VOTING AYE MAYOR CRESENZI VOTING AYE 4. RESOLUTION READOPTING AUTHORIZATION FOR THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK TO PARTICIPATE IN SECTION 41(1) OF THE RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW AND ITS PROVISIONS AS THEY APPLY TO THE NEW YORK STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM: 006187 July 23, 1996 On the Motion made by Trustee Strum, seconded by Trustee Zuckerman, the following Resolution was hereby adopted: RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR AN ALLOWANCE OF UNUSED SICK LEAVE CREDITS UNDER SECTION 410) At a meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Village of Rye Brook held at 90 South Ridge Street, Rye Brook New York, on July 23, 1996, the Board of Trustees offered the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED: that the Board of Trustees of the Village of Rye Brook does hereby elect to provide the additional pension benefits of Section 410) of the Retirement and Social Security Law, as presently or hereafter amended. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: that the effective date of such shall be the 1st day of _ August , 19 96 . TRUSTEE STRUM VOTING AYE TRUSTEE TUNIS VOTING AYE TRUSTEE ZUCKERMAN VOTING AYE TRUSTEE PELLINO VOTING AYE MAYOR CRESENZI VOTING AYE 5. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE INSTALLATION OF TWO STANDARD SYMBOL SIGNS DESIGNATING"SLOW-- CHILDREN AT PLAY" AT EACH ENTRANCE TO PINE RIDGE PARK: On the Motion of Trustee Strum, seconded by Trustee Tunis, the following Resolution was hereby adopted: RESOLUTION PINE RIDGE PARK CHILDREN AT PLAY SIGN WHEREAS, the issue of parking in the vicinity of Pine Ridge Park was referred to a joint session of the Rye Brook Traffic Commission and the Rye Brook Recreation and Parks Advisory Council; and WHEREAS, the recommendation at this time is to add the appropriate signs warning motorists of children playing in the park and not to make any change in parking. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Village Board hereby authorizes installation of the appropriate, standard symbol signs, along with verbiage signs stating"Slow -- Children at Play" at each end of Pine Ridge Park. TRUSTEE STRUM VOTING AYE TRUSTEE TUNIS VOTING AYE 006188 July 23, 1996 TRUSTEE ZUCKERMAN VOTING AYE TRUSTEE PELLINO VOTING AYE MAYOR CRESENZI VOTING AYE 6. CHECK REGISTER: On the Motion made by Trustee Pellino, seconded by Trustee Strum, 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 by the Village Administrator: On-Line Checks: 14450-14523 Pre Paid: 14329-14332 Payroll Checks: 20002-20103 Environmental: NONE Capital: 2556-2565 Capital Pre Paid: 2554 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board hereby approves payment of the above mentioned claims and authorizes payment thereof. TRUSTEE STRUM VOTING AYE TRUSTEE TUNIS VOTING AYE TRUSTEE ZUCKERMAN VOTING AYE TRUSTEE PELLINO VOTING AYE MAYOR CRESENZI - VOTING AYE On the Motion made by Trustee Pellino, seconded by Trustee Strum, the following Resolution was hereby adopted: FRIENDS OF RYE BROOK, INC. CHECK REGISTER WHEREAS, the following checks, representing payment for services rendered, have been submitted and have been reviewed by the Village Administrator: Friends of Rye Brook, Inc. 106-117 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors of the Friends of Rye Brook, Inc. hereby approves payment of the above mentioned claims and authorized payment thereof. 0061 July 23, 1996 TRUSTEE STRUM VOTING AYE TRUSTEE TUNIS VOTING AYE TRUSTEE ZUCKERMAN VOTING AYE TRUSTEE PELLINO VOTING AYE MAYOR CRESENZI VOTING AYE Mayor Cresenzi reported that there were two resolutions that he wished to add to the agenda. Administrator Russo read the first resolution. On the Motion made by Trustee Pellino, seconded by Trustee Tunis, the following Resolution was hereby adopted as amended: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE VILLAGE ADMINISTRATOR TO ENTER INTO A TEMPORARY EASEMENT AGREEMENT FOR UTILITY INSTALLATION TO THE NEW VILLAGE HALL RESOLVED,that the Village Administrator is authorized by the Board of Trustees to enter into a letter agreement with Connecticut General Life Insurance Company (CGLIC) of Hartford, Connecticut for the purposes of access to and installation of utilities under property owned by CGLIC, in conjunction with the development and construction of the Rye Brook Village Hall at 938 Icing Street; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Village of Rye Brook agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless CGLIC and the Property, from any and all claims, demands, damages, suits, liabilities or costs arising out of or relating to the construction, maintenance and repair of the easement area or any portion thereof, contemplated in the Draft Easement, regardless of whether or not the parties enter into a permanent easement agreement. TRUSTEE STRUM VOTING AYE TRUSTEE TUNIS VOTING AYE TRUSTEE ZUCKERMAN VOTING AYE TRUSTEE PELLINO VOTING AYE MAYOR CRESENZI VOTING AYE On the Motion made by Trustee Zuckerman, seconded by Trustee Strum, the following Resolution was hereby adopted: RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT#9605 VILLAGE HALL SANITARY SEWER LINE AND PUMP STATION WHEREAS, the Village of Rye Brook has solicited bid proposals for Contract #9605 entitled "Village Hall Sanitary Sewer Line and Pump Station" and; WHEREAS, a public notice was duly advertised in the official newspaper of the Village of Rye 00619(:) July 23, 1996 Brook; and WHEREAS, on Tuesday, July 23, 1996 at 2:00 p.m., the Village of Rye Brook publicly opened and read four proposals; and WHEREAS, the lowest responsible bidder is Capital Excavating Corp. of Scarsdale, New York at the approximate bid price of$79,626.00; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that after review by the Village Administrator and recommendation made by Consultant, Dolph Rotfeld, P.E., Contract #9605 entitled, "Village Hall Sanitary Sewer Line and Pump Station" be awarded to Capital Excavating Corp. of Scarsdale, New York at the approximate bid price of$79,626.00; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute said contract with Capital Excavating Corp. on behalf of the Village of Rye Brook. TRUSTEE STRUM VOTING AYE TRUSTEE TUNIS VOTING AYE TRUSTEE ZUCKERMAN VOTING AYE TRUSTEE PELLINO VOTING AYE MAYOR CRESENZI VOTING AYE MINUTES: 7. FEBRUARY 27, 1996 REGULAR MEETING 8. MARCH 12, 1996 AGENDA MEETING On the motion of Trustee Zuckerman, seconded by Trustee Tunis, the Board members unanimously agreed to approve the above minutes. Mayor Cresenzi announced the next meeting dates as follows: NEXT MEETING DATES: AGENDA MEETING AUGUST 13, 1996 REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 27, 1996 The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, r Christop erherh J. Russo Village Administrator/Clerk