HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-09-09 - Board of Trustees Meeting Minutes AGENDA
VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK
BOARD OF TRUSTEES--AGENDA MEETING
AT VILLAGE HALL, 938 KING STREET
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 -- 7:30 P.M.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ACTION:
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AND WETLANDS APPLICATION
BY HILLANDALE ASSOCIATES FOR 24 HILLANDALE RD,
SECTION 1, BLOCK 7, LOTS 2112 AND 3112.
RESOLUTIONS:
2. AWARDING CONTRACT#9706 FOR ONE (1) BREATHING
AIR COMPRESSOR SYSTEM.
3. AUTHORIZING A CONTRACT WITH WESTCHESTER
COUNTY FOR CDBG FUNDS FOR A HANDICAPPED
ACCESSIBLE VAN.
4. AUTHORIZING AN EXTENSION OF THE VILLAGE'S
APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION APPLICATION OF
ANN AND AMID CAPECI FOR 22 RIDGE BOULEVARD.
5. AUTHORIZING A SMALL CLAIMS ASSESSMENT REVIEW
STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT FOR THE PROPERTY AT 10
PARKWOOD PLACE, RYE BROOK.
6. BUDGET MODIFICATION--REPAIR AND PAINTING @AJP.
7. APPOINTMENT OF VILLAGE ENGINEER.
8. PERSONNEL MATTERS /BUDGET MODIFICATION.
9. CHECK REGISTER(S).
MINUTES:
10. AUGUST 19, 1997 REGULAR MEETING.
September 9, 1997
PAGE TWO
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
11. JOSEPH AZZNARA, SR. V.P. REGIONAL OPERATIONS
FOR CABLEVISION OF WESTCHESTER
FILING FORMAL NOTICE OF AN APPLICATION TO
TRANSFER CONTROL OF THE RYE BROOK CABLE
FRANCHISE FROM TCI TO CABLEVISION.
NEXT MEETING DATES:
REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 23, 1997
AGENDA MEETING OCTOBER 14, 1997
MINUTES OF AN AGENDA MEETING ®��
VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BOARD OF TRUSTEES
6506
VILLAGE OFFICES 938 KING STREET
RYE BROOK, NEW YORK
SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 7:30 p.m.
CONVENE MEETING
The Meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Mayor Cresenzi in the Meeting Room and the Pledge of
Allegiance followed.
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
Police Lieutenant Joseph Ciccone
Fire Chief William Dee McCluskey
DISCUSSION- Rye Brook Fire House Location:
Mayor Cresenzi announced that at the last Board of Trustees meeting, the Board accepted the Facilities
Committee's recommendation with respect to the Fire House location in Rye Brook. At that time, it was
stated that the Board would begin the public process with respect to said matter. Mayor Cresenzi
reported that at the August 19, 1997 Village Board meeting, the Board announced that the next phase
with respect to the fire house location would be to conduct an environmental review. He added that an
Environmental Assessment Form should be ready for the September 23, 1997 Village Board meeting so
that this matter could go forward.
Mayor Cresenzi asked for a motion to accept the Facilities Committee recommendation with respect to
using the "gatekeeper site" on the Red Roof Farm property located at the intersection of Ridge Street and
Betsy Brown Road.
Trustee Strum conveyed that he was not in agreement to the recommendation made by the Facilities
Committee. The following is the text of his statement:
I respectfully disagree with the Village Facilities Committee's recommendation of a
portion of the Red Roof Farm property abutting Ridge Street as the proper site for
the new firehouse. The basis for my opinion is as follows:
Of the sites under consideration, Sleepy Hollow, not Red Roof Farm, is the best.
There are valid environmental concerns with the Sleepy Hollow site. There are
appropriate circumstances when the Village government should choose adequate,but
less than optimal sites, for emergency services. Once the optimal site has been
rejected, it is inappropriate to choose an alternate site with the same negative
September 9, 1997 006507
implications, and I will expand on each of these points.
Of the sites under consideration, Sleepy Hollow, not Red Roof Farm, is the best. It
is my belief that of the twelve original sites considered,the site on Ridge Street across
from the intersection with Sleepy Hollow Road -- Sleepy Hollow -- best fulfills the
requirement for a firehouse. This site is superior when considering the totality of
response times, centrality of location, effects on surrounding properties,topography,
and expected building costs.
Response times: The study completed by Carroll Buracker and Associates (the
at the Village's request, clearly Buracker Study) g q y indicates that the best site in terms
of response time is Sleepy Hollow. In my opinion, response time is the single most
important criterion in establishing an optimal firehouse site. Response time as
calculated for the Study represents a weighted average response time for the expected
distribution of Fire and EMS calls.
Centrality of Location: The Sleepy Hollow site is closer to the geographical center
of the Village. Red Roof Farm is located 1.5 miles from the southern end of the
Village and 3.2 miles from the northern end of the Village, represented by United
Cerebral Palsy's King Street facility. As Sleepy Hollow is 0.9 miles north of Red
Roof Farm, it can be seen that this site is more centrally located. Central location is
important when extremes in response times are considered. The ability to reach
United Cerebral Palsy from Red Roof Farm before flashover occurs, is much less
likely than from Sleepy Hollow. Absolute response time is as important as average
response time.
Effects on Surrounding Properties: As Sleepy Hollow is bordered by the
Hutchinson River Parkway on one side, and by a vacant, wooded area to the north,
while Red Roof Farm is totally surrounded by residential or proposed residential
properties, it is clear that the greater impact will result from Red Roof Farm.
Topography: The Sleepy Hollow site is relatively flat and deep. The firehouse
structure could be built well set back from Ridge Street, almost hidden by the existing
house. Red Roof Farm, on the other hand, is set on a hill, where any constructed
firehouse would be easily visible from the street. Ridge Street curves near Red Roof
Farm and is straight near Sleepy Hollow, providing better sight lines. And, the
proximity of the traffic light on the corner of Betsy Brown Road and Ridge Street
could cause problems for fire equipment attempting to leave the Red Roof Farm site
to head south..
Expected Building Costs: Although field surveys must be done on both sites to
check ground conditions, it is apparent that with the Sleepy Hollow site,utilizing the
existing house, building costs would be cheaper.
There was a point made both in the Buracker Study and by some members of the
Village Board, that the Red Roof Farm site was substantially benefitted by the close
proximity of a cross street -- Betsy Brown Road. There are more than adequate
2
September 9, 1997 0()650-8
opportunities to construct alternate routes to an emergency site from Sleepy Hollow.
These include using the Hutchinson River Parkway, King Street, Winding Wood
Road, Meadowlark Road, Rocking Horse Trail, Sleepy Hollow Road, or others.
There are valid environmental concerns with the Sleepy Hollow site. Neighborhood
opposition to the Sleepy Hollow site is centered on three different concerns:
Decrease in Property Values: As reported in the Buracker Study, there is no
evidence that placement of a firehouse in a neighborhood results in a decrease in
property values. However, we have no direct evidence to the contrary.
Noise: It is evident that a firehouse will bring some extra noise to the surrounding
community. However,the Rye Brook Fire Department responds to an extremely low
volume of emergency calls.
Proximity to Ridge Street School: The Buracker Study was clear that most other
communities desire to put firehouses near schools. It was pointed out that State law
requires that emergency vehicles travel at speeds no greater than 15 miles per hour
in a school zone. Moreover,the specter of a completely blocked Ridge Street due to
school traffic was dismissed. It is my opinion that having a firehouse close to the
Ridge Street School would probably be an asset; and it would certainly not be a
liability.
There are, appropriate circumstances when the Village government should choose
adequate, but less than optimal sites, for emergency services. The Village Board, as
a body, represents the residents of the Village. The Board must weigh the wishes of
the people against the needs to provide optimal service. If the quality of life of a
material portion of the population would be affected by an action, and if there is an
adequate, alternative action the Board could take, such alternative must be
considered.
In this instance,there is significant community opposition to a firehouse due to quality
of life issues. It is my opinion that this neighborhood opposition is valid, as there are
alternate sites for the firehouse which are adequate, although far from optimal. It is
incumbent upon the Village Board to investigate these sites. It is initially apparent
that any of the several sites along King Street that were considered by the Facilities
Committee could support a firehouse, providing adequate protection for the entire
Village. Response times from these sites would be within accepted standards. Traffic
issues could be mitigated by proper signaling. It is acceptable, therefore, that the
Village reject Sleepy Hollow, due to the potential damage to the environment,
affecting residents of the surrounding area.
Once the optimal site has been rejected, it is inappropriate to choose an alternate site
with the same, negative implications. My objection to the recommendation of the
Facilities Committee is that the alternate site proposed--Red Roof Farm--causes the
same problems to a greater degree--vis-a-vis quality of life issues-- as does Sleepy
Hollow, and is inferior. It can easily be demonstrated by drawing circles around the
3
September 9, 1997 006509
two sites on a map,that the Sleepy Hollow site has residential areas only to the west
and the south, while the Red Roof Farm site is totally surrounded by residences.
Dropping an objectionable element into one neighborhood in order to protect another
is inconsistent, illogical, inequitable, and could be construed as being arbitrary and
capricious.
I cannot support the choice of Red Roof Farm for the site of a firehouse, as I feel that
it is inappropriate to subject a portion of our population to conditions we have
deemed unsuitable for others.
I recommend that the Village Board undertake a complete environmental review of
all appropriate sites for a firehouse or firehouses within the Village, before we make
adoption of a primary site.
I also recommend that such review include a complete analysis of the costs of various
proposals, response times, emergency routing, noise pollution, opportunities for
signaling or other traffic control devices, and even the appropriate size of the fire
facility for a department serving Rye Brook. Thank you.
Trustee Zuckerman felt that Trustee Strum had prematurely committed himself to opposing the
aforementioned fire house site before the review process, which would allow the Board to examine it in
more detail. Trustee Zuckerman proposed that King Street (near Village Hall) might be a better location
for the fire house, but he would not and could not commit to that idea until the Board further reviewed
the Facilities Committee's recommendation as well as other site planning issues.
Trustee Zuckerman stated the County's plans for the King Street area are still unknown. He commended
the work and effort of the members of the Facilities Committee with respect to coming up with several
sites that would be acceptable for the Village to consider. He communicated that he would be voting in
favor of a motion to accept the Facilities Committee's recommendation because the Board needed to
have a starting point for the matter at this time. He added that he could not say, at this time, that he was
in favor or opposition to any one particular site until it is sufficiently reviewed by the Board.
Trustee Zuckerman expressed his hope that the rest of the discussions on this matter will be dealt with
calmly so that the end result will be satisfactorily located fire house location.
Mayor Cresenzi said that the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) process allows the
Board to explore many issues. He explained a procedure called a"scoping session" which allows the
Board or the Board's representative to get the public's input on what the public wished the Village to
study further and allows the Village to report on those specific concerns in public. He reported that the
information derived from the scoping session would be included in the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement and ultimately in the Final Environmental Impact Statement.
Trustee Tunis mentioned that the Facilities Committee spent at least one and one-half years dealing with
this issue and they had to make a difficult decision. She was sorry that Trustee Strum had already made
up his mind to oppose their recommendation, but she reiterated that the process had to commence. She
announced that she also was in favor of the motion on the table. She reported that the location of the
temporary fire house promotes a potential risk and the Village should move on this procedure promptly.
4
September 9, 1997 006510
Trustee Pellino agreed that the process needed a starting point and also agreed that he felt sorry that
Trustee Strum had already made up his mind about the Facilities Committee recommendation.
Trustee Strum stated that he had only committed himself to a negative opinion to the designation of the
Red Room farm site as a primary site at this time.
Trustee Pellino said that the Red Roof Farm site is just a starting point and it is a site that was singled out
by the Facilities Committee and he thought it would be a good starting point for that purpose. He agreed
that the Board will continue to have an open mind and as always, will take into consideration, the feeling
of its residents when reviewing this matter. He added that the public scoping session will also result in
the selection of a secondary site if the primary site is deemed unsuitable.
On the motion of Trustee Pellino; seconded by Trustee Tunis, the Village Board voted to accept the
Facilities Committee's recommendation to site the proposed fire house at Red Roof Farm.
TRUSTEE STRUM VOTING NO
TRUSTEE TUNIS VOTING AYE
TRUSTEE ZUCKERMAN VOTING AYE
TRUSTEE PELLINO VOTING AYE
MAYOR CRESENZI VOTING AYE
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AND WETLANDS APPLICATION BY HHLANDALE
ASSOCIATES FOR 24 HILLANDALE RD SECTION 1, BLOCK 7, LOTS 2112 & 3112:
Mr. Larry Rand, Partner of Hillandale Associates and resident of 30 Hillandale Road approached the
Board and reported that said property was purchased with the intention to be improved. The current
condition of the site is unkept. The proposed plan is to erect a house bordering Hillandale Road. Mr.
Rand explained that at the previous hearing, the Board voted this application down with a three to two-
vote for the following reasons:
► The Subdivision application did not conform to the Code of the Village.
► The Subdivision application would establish precedence that the Board felt uncomfortable with.
Mr. Rand said the new plan complies with the Village's Zoning Code. He then introduced his
representatives, Edward Beane, Attorney, and Ralph Mastromonaco, Professional Engineer, who would
present the proposed plan to the Board. He added that the proposed plan would replace an unkept piece
of land with a beautiful new landscaped piece of property.
Mr. Beane explained that the applicant has looked at properties in the surrounding areas that were built
many years ago under the Village's Zoning Code which is basically the same code as the Town of Rye
which dates back to 1954. The line in question conforms to lot lines that numerous Village Boards
approved in the past.
Mr. Mastromonaco displayed the plan that showed a sharp angle down at the intersection of Hillandale
5
September 9, 1997 ®0651.
Road which the Board previously voted down. He submitted the new application after reviewing
previously approved lots in the Village to see what the threshold for the phrase"generally at right angles"
means under the code of the Village. He submitted a letter that documented approximately 102 cases
where the intersecting lot line was less than 64 degrees which is what is being proposed on the subject
application.
Mr. Mastromonaco stated that type of percent represents to him that the subject application should be
able to go forward without any further delay. He explained the reason being that the word "generally"
appears in the Village's code book and the definition of the word"generally" need to be determined. He
reported that the series of subdivisions prior to this one would permit the Board to accept this application
as an acceptable subdivision. He mentioned that there are a number of ways in which to get two lots with
respect to subject property. The issue always remains as to what should the shape of one particular lot be
in order to gain the 65-foot frontage that is required by the current Village code. He brought up that the
wetland's application has been submitted and also must be considered by this Board.
Mr. Beane conveyed that all requirements have been satisfied except for the "language" issue of the code.
He said the approval of this application would be a positive to the neighborhood because of its current
condition.
Trustee Pellino asked how the proposed new home would be fronted in relation to Hillandale Road. Mr.
Mastromonaco responded that the front of the house could face either Hillandale Road (by side entry
garage) or it could be fronted on a private road.
Cynthia Schoss-Watson, 20 Hillandale Road, property behind subject site, which shares a driveway,
stated that she viewed the proposed development as a negative impact on the neighborhood and she felt
that it is a poorly planned proposal. Her comments were based on an incomplete application because she
has not had the opportunity to review the wetland's application and F.P. Clark's report. The Plan still
does not show the 16-foot driveway easement. She reported that this is the exact same application that
the Board had previously rejected and the exact same application that upheld the Board's rejection in
court in a lawsuit brought on by the applicant who challenged the Village's rejection of this proposal.
She touched on a brief prepared by Attorney Powell that she would have liked to see put into the record
for this evening's meeting. She said this application still only showed 20 feet of frontage and it is still
inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood. Mr. David Watson(her husband of the same
address) displayed a cut out model of the lot in question. The cut out model (resembling a ten-sided lot)
which she said, would require waivers of all three of the Village's most important land use control laws;
environmental, zoning and wetlands. Ms. Watson told the Board that the aforementioned regulations
should only be waived in cases of hardship. The existing home's frontage will be taken away by creating
this subdivision. She touched on the negative declaration and environmental issues which the Board
should view as separate issues. She communicated that the two to one mitigation requirement which is
not waivable is still not met.
Mr. Watson displayed a model of the site which was taken off the survey submitted with the current
application. He expressed that the current application showed the house being moved approximately two
feet higher(in elevation) which is not a significant change from the previous application that was
presented to the Board. It is not built on the level land. It is not pushed down toward the stream and
100 percent of the structure will be built on the buffer zone which would be setting bad precedent. Mrs.
6
September 9, 1997 006512
Watson said a manicured line makes run off worse and the stream already causes a flooding problem on
Loch Lane. Mrs. Watson brought up the easement that has been in place for more than 50 years and the
vacant lot owned by her and her husband on their property which had been subdivided legally for many
years now. She added here concern about this application with respect to emergency access. She
reported.that by adding an additional home with a 16-foot driveway that would extend 400 feet would
cause a problem for emergency vehicles to access the proposed site. In conclusion, she urged the Board
to unanimously reject this application because it is practically the same as what they denied the last time
around.
Mr. Watson reported that there are several existing non-conformities with respect to the existing house
including height. The proposed house violates zoning by being too small. Ms. Rosemary DiLallo, 22
Hillandale Road stated the work unkept used by the applicant is a very good word to use when
describing this parcel of land at this time because it has not been maintained properly for many years. Ms.
DiLallo added that this proposal is not an environmentally sound one.
Ms. Madelon Rand, 30 Hillandale Road, said that he she understood why the Watson's frustration
because when the Watson's purchased their home, Little Kings Lane was undeveloped. Therefore, they
did not have seven homes facing theirs when they moved in, but the Broadbent's(homeowners on Little
Kings Lane) planted trees to help alleviate the Watson's concerns. The Watson's are angry because the
pristine, bucolic setting was encroached upon and they are naturally angry and frustrated. Ms. Rand
reported that they are also angry because they are diagonally across from the home on Hillandale Road
that had the mercury problem and some of the mercury leeched onto their property onto tree roots. Ms.
Rand said that he can relate to their anger, but as someone who lives on this street, she could tell you that
the cut lots represented by the Watson's are not a good representation of what the proposed lots would
look like if they are allowed.
Mrs. Rand added that there are many cases in Rye Brook where property where properties have been
developed and those developments have changed settings of certain neighborhoods in the past. She truly
believed that the proposal is being presented to the Board and it is within the confines of the Rye Brook
Zoning laws and what the Village perceives the laws indicate.
Mr. Kenneth Heller, 22 Lincoln Avenue, said that if this property is developed, there will be no room for
a beautiful green lawn because most of the property will have to be kept in its natural state. Mr. Heller
said that if the applicant's are so concerned with how the property appears they should invest $150 to
clean it instead of complaining that it currently looks unkept and giving that as a reason as to why they
should be allowed to develop it.
Trustee Zuckerman asked which plan was currently before the Board because he was given two different
sets of plans. Mr. Mastromonaco said the difference between the two plans is minimal. One set of plans
conveyed his interpretation of what the zoning law requires and the other set of plans conveyed the
Planning Consultant's interpretation of what the zoning law requires. Trustee Zuckerman said that was
not his question. Edward Beane, Attorney for the applicant, interjected and explained that the Board
should be looking at the plan that was being displayed by the applicant for this meeting. Trustee
Zuckerman asked if Attorney Beane agreed that the plan being presented to the Board violates the zoning
code. Attorney Beane replied, no and explained that he felt that the plan complies with the Village's
zoning requirements. There was discussion about the previous application having a negative declaration
and Mr. Miller explained that negative declaration did not apply to this application because this is a new
7
September 9, 1997 006 5.1
a
application. Mayor Cresenzi suggested that this hearing be adjourned for two weeks because the Board
had not received the Planning Consultant's report and the applicant's plan just before this evening's
hearing. He added that would enable the Village Board and the Planning Consultant to review the
application further.
Attorney Beane stated there is an overriding issue of whether or not the Board was willing to accept the
lot line configuration and if the answer was no. The application cannot go forward. He said that the
applicant is prepared to satisfy all of the other Village zoning requirements. Mayor Cresenzi stated that
he would rather have the Board review the 102 lots that generally do not comply before answering that
question.
RESOLUTIONS:
2. AWARDING CONTRACT#9706 FOR ONE (1) BREATHING AIR COMPRESSOR
SYSTEM:
Trustee Pellino inquired how a company from Florida could satisfactorily service the Village of Rye
Brook. Administrator Russo explained that this company has a local service branch in Long Island.
Trustee Pellino brought up the facts that there were only two bidders on this contract and suggested that
it be rebid in order for the Village to have three vendors to choose from. Administrator Russo did not
feel that would be necessary in this case. Mayor Cresenzi inquired why the low bid was rejected.
Administrator Russo answered, because they bid a different system and non of their components were
enclosed making their system inappropriate for the Village.
On the motion of Trustee Strum, seconded by Trustee Zuckerman, the following resolution was hereby
adopted:
RESOLUTION
AWARDING CONTRACT#9706
ONE BREATHING AIR COMPRESSOR(NEW EQUIPMENT)
WHEREAS, the Village of Rye Brook has solicited bid proposals for Contract #9706 entitled, "One
Breathing Air Compressor System (new equipment);" and
WHEREAS, a public notice was duly advertised on Friday, July 11, 1997, in the official newspaper of
the Village of Rye Brook; and
WHEREAS, during the notice period seven(7) copies of the contract documents were picked up or
mailed out to vendors; and
WHEREAS, on Wednesday, August 13, 1997, at 2 p.m. E.S.T. the Village of Rye Brook publicly
opened and read three (3) proposals; and
WHEREAS, on reviewing the bids, the Village Administrator has determined that the lowest bid does
not comply with all specifications, specifically the requirement for the compressor enclosure; and
WHEREAS, the lowest responsible bidder meeting specifications is CompAir Mako of Ocala, Florida, at
a total bid price of$32,751.00 for furnishing and installing this equipment as specified.
8
September 9, 1997 006514
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that Contract #9706 entitled, "One Breathing Air Compressor System (new equipment),"
be awarded to CompAir Make of Ocala, Florida, at the bid price of$32,751.00; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute the contract and all
documents necessary or appropriate to accomplish the purposes of this Resolution.
TRUSTEE STRUM VOTING AYE
TRUSTEE TUNIS VOTING AYE
TRUSTEE ZUCKERMAN VOTING AYE
TRUSTEE PELLINO VOTING AYE
MAYOR CRESENZI VOTING AYE
3. AUTHORIZING A CONTRACT WITH WESTCHESTER COUNTY FOR CDBG FUNDS
FOR A HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBLE VAN:
On the motion of Trustee Strum, seconded by Trustee Pellino, the following resolution was hereby
adopted:
RESOLUTION
AUTHORIZING A CONTRACT WITH WESTCHESTER COUNTY FOR
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS
TO FUND THE PURCHASE BY THE VILLAGE OF
A HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBLE VAN
RESOLVED, that the Village of Rye Brook is authorized to enter into a grant contract with Westchester
County for the period of September 1, 1997 to August 31, 1998 to receive $52,000 in Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to purchase a 21-passenger handicapped accessible van for
senior citizen transportation; and it is
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Village of Rye Brook shall be responsible for contributing $19,000 in
matching funds for driver's salary, maintenance, gas, and insurance; and it is
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor is authorized to execute and deliver all documents necessary
or appropriate to accomplish the purposes of this Resolution.
TRUSTEE STRUM VOTING AYE
TRUSTEE TUNIS VOTING AYE
TRUSTEE ZUCKERMAN VOTING AYE
TRUSTEE PELLINO VOTING AYE
MAYOR CRESENZI VOTING AYE
4. AUTHORIZING AN EXTENSION OF THE VILLAGE'S APPROVAL OF THE
SUBDIVISION APPLICATION OF ANN AND AMID CAPECI FOR 22 RIDGE
BOULEVARD:
9
September 9, 1997 006515
Mr. Anthony Gioffre, Attorney for the applicant, mentioned that there would be minor changes made to
the plat to indicate the addition of a sewer easement. The Board members agreed that they could not
approve the aforementioned change unless it is presented to them at a meeting. Attorney Powell said the
Board could vote on the resolution before them at this meeting because it would just extend their
previous.approval.
On the motion of Trustee Pellino, seconded by Trustee Tunis, the following resolution was hereby
adopted as amended:
RESOLUTION
EXTENDING CAPECI SUBDIVISION APPROVAL
RESOLVED, that the time in which to complete the conditions for final approval of the Capeci
Subdivision for the property at 22 Ridge Boulevard, adopted by the Board of Trustees of the Village of
,Rye Brook on February 25, 1997, is extended until and including February 25, 1998.
TRUSTEE STRUM VOTING AYE
TRUSTEE TUNIS VOTING AYE
TRUSTEE ZUCKERMAN VOTING AYE
TRUSTEE PELLINO VOTING AYE
MAYOR CRESENZI VOTING AYE
5. AUTHORIZING A SMALL CLAIMS ASSESSMENT REVIEW STIPULATION OF
SETTLEMENT FOR THE PROPERTY AT 10 PARKWOOD PLACE, RYE BROOK:
On the motion of Trustee Tunis, seconded by Trustee Strum, the following resolution was hereby
adopted:
RESOLUTION
APPROVING SMALL CLAIMS
STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT
AND ASSESSMENT REDUCTION
FOR RANDY DUBROWSKY
10 PARKWOOD PLACE, RYE BROOK
RESOLVED,that the Village of Rye Brook ratifies and approves a Small Claims Assessment Reduction
for Randy Dubrowsky, 10 Parkwood Place, Rye Brook, for assessment year 1997 (Index No. 97-0381)
as set forth in a stipulation of settlement ordered July 30, 1997; and it is
FURTHER RESOLVED,that the Village of Rye Brook or its designee is authorized to execute and
deliver all documents necessary and/or appropriate to accomplish the purposes of this Resolution; and it
is
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Village of Rye Brook authorizes the refund of taxes, if necessary,
pursuant to this settlement, as appropriate to accomplish the purposes of this Resolution.
10
September 9, 1997
TRUSTEE STRUM VOTING AYE 006516
TRUSTEE TUNIS VOTING AYE
TRUSTEE ZUCKERMAN VOTING AYE
TRUSTEE PELLINO VOTING AYE
MAYOR CRESENZI VOTING AYE
f. BUDGET MODIFICATION ATIO -- REPAIR AND PAINTING AJP:
Trustee Pellino requested an explanation as to why this modification was needed. Administrator Russo
reported the money was needed for maintenance, sheetrock, door repairs, painting, etc.
On the motion of Trustee Zuckerman, seconded by Trustee Strum, the following resolution was hereby
adopted:
RESOLUTION
BUDGET MODIFICATION
RESOLVED,that the following budget modification be hereby approved:
FROM TO AMOUNT
101.1990.424 101.6772.499 $4,200
(Contingency) (Human Services-
Contractual/Nutrition)
TRUSTEE STRUM VOTING AYE
TRUSTEE TUNIS VOTING AYE
TRUSTEE ZUCKERMAN VOTING AYE
TRUSTEE PELLINO VOTING AYE
MAYOR CRESENZI VOTING AYE
7. APPOINTMENT OF VILLAGE ENGINEER:
Trustee Pellino asked if this appointment was consistent with the study done by Pace University.
Administrator Russo answered, yes.
On the motion of Trustee Tunis, seconded by Trustee Zuckerman, the following resolution was hereby
adopted:
RESOLUTION
APPOINTMENT OF VILLAGE ENGINEER
RESOLVED,that Victor G. Carosi of 63 Benedict Avenue, White Plains, New York, is hereby
appointed to the position of Village Engineer with the Village of Rye Brook, subject to the Civil Service
procedures of the State of New York; and be it
11
September 9, 1997 ()0 65 7
FURTHER RESOLVED,that the annual salary for this position will be $67,000 with an effective date
of September 29, 1997 and a probationary period of six months.
TRUSTEE STRUM VOTING AYE
TRUSTEE TUNIS VOTING AYE
TRUSTEE ZUCKERMAN VOTING AYE
TRUSTEE PELLINO VOTING AYE
MAYOR CRESENZI VOTING AYE
8. PERSONNEL MATTERS /BUDGET MODIFICATION:
Mayor Cresenzi announced that this matter and other personnel matters would be discussed in an
executive session before the Board would vote on them.
9. CHECK RE'GISTER(S):
Trustee Strum questioned an item listed on Page 5 of the Check Register listed as 1996 tax escalation-
Ridge Bowman Association. Administrator Russo replied, in accordance with the lease held by the
Village of Rye Brook, the Village was obligated to pay the tax escalation for the percentage of the
building that the Village occupied. He added that there is one remaining issue as to whether the Village is
obligated to pay for interior demolition.
On the motion of Trustee Tunis, 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 to by the Village Administrator:
On-Line Checks 17054 -17142
Payroll 23795 - 23889
Environmental 11
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED,that the Board of Trustees 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
12
September 9, 1997
006518
MINUTES:
10. AUGUST 19. 1997 REGULAR MEETING:
Mayor Cresenzi announced the minutes would be held over until the September 23, 1997 Village Board
Meeting.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
11. JOSEPH AZZNARA SR V.P. REGIONAL OPERATIONS FOR CABLE VISION OF
WESTCHESTER FILING FORMAL NOTICE OF AN APPLICATION TO TRANSFER
CONTROL OF THE RYE BROOK CABLE FRANCHISE FROM TCI TO
CABLEVISION:
Mayor Cresenzi reported that this matter is with respect to the Village approving the transaction between
T.C.I Cable Company and Cablevision in which Cablevision will take over the franchise currently held by
T.C.I. Questions should be referred to the Telecommunications Committee.
Trustee Tunis said that the Board should require the Telecommunications Committee to make their
recommendation within the next 45 days.
DISCUSSION - Huh Point Village Application:
Anthony Veneziano, Attorney for the Applicant, came forward and explained the final step of the first
step of the High Point Zoning Petition. He said comments have been made by involved and interested
agencies.
Mr. Kevin McManus, Engineer for the Applicant, distributed a memo regarding the buffer issue that came
up at the last meeting. Mr. McManus displayed a plan that showed the buffer areas of all of the Royal
Executive Park property. He explained that with some modifications the buffers will not be an issue.
Mr. Veneziano issued a statement regarding the fiscal analysis summarizing the impact on Village
services. Mr. David Smith, Saccardi and Schiff, Planners for the Applicant, distributed the summary and
began to deliberate on it. He reviewed the fiscal impact section for the environmental impact statement.
The case study method used was from the Development Improvement Handbook published by The Urban
Land Institute.
Mr. Smith stated that he had done interviews with the Village Administrator, Superintendent of Parks &
Recreation, Police Chief, the Fire Chief and the Director of Public Works for his report. He reported that
both the Director of Public Works and the Recreation Superintendent made it clear there would be a need
for more man power and equipment to service the subject project properly. The Police Department and
the Fire Department both indicated that they currently have the capacity that they need to properly
service subject proposed development. He announced that Recreation Land would be dedicated (28
acres) which would be the largest portion of recreation land dedicated to the Village to date.
Mr. Smith added that the middle income units (12 Townhouse Units)will be made available for Village
Employees and School District employees. There will be two components on the Village Green which
13
I I
September 9, 1997 0065.E
will be made available on a coordinated basis with High Point Village. Cul-de-sacs were raised by the
Director of Public Works as hard to maintain and the alternative for cul-de-sac#'s 2 and 3 have been
changed to have a connecting driveway. The two remaining cul-de-sacs both have emergency access to
King Street. The Village Green will be owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association. The
homes will be sprinklered which provides a great advantage for Fire Control/protection.
Program features --24 hour staff available for emergencies to minimize the impact on the Village's
Emergency Services. There will be a fall senior program (pool, trails and gymnasium.) Trustee
Zuckerman asked what the projected number of school age children would be if this project were to be
built. Mr. Smith answered, a worst-case scenario would be 12 children.
Lieutenant Ciccone was not aware of any conversations that tools place with the Police Chief with respect
to this project and the Village currently having the capability to handle this proposed project. Mayor
Cresenzi brought up that the Arbors could have been planned better and the Board wished to make sure
that this project did not end up as another Arbors. Mr. McManus displayed to the Board the emergency
access to the site. Mr. Veneziano said the road width would be 24'x28' and if the plan required 28', it
would be revised to show that. Mr. McManus said the main entrance provides for a number of cul-de-
sacs. He went through how emergency vehicles would access the site. He compared the proposed plan
to the Arbors site plan with respect to emergency access. Mr. Veneziano wished to go through the local
law issues and he suggested the Board allow him to go over various corresponded that was received
commenting on the subject project.
Trustee Pellino mentioned that he had only received a letter dated August 22, 1997 from New York
American Water Company indicating that the closest water main(a New York-American Water main)
was located at Royal Executive Park. He added that the correspondence indicated that an easement
would be required for the applicant to use that water main. Trustee Pellino conveyed that the Water
Company's correspondence also indicated that (comment H.3)water service would come from a 16-inch
water main in King Street. Mr. Veneziano reported which correspondence he had received with respect
to the application which he wanted to discuss at this meeting. They were as follows:
1. Letter from Greenwich dated September 5, 1997 with back up dated September 5, 1997.
2. Letter from Westchester County dated September 5, 1997.
3. Letter from New York-American Water Company dated August 22, 1997.
4. Letter from Roger Herman, Chairman, Advisory Council on Environmental Conservation dated
September 2, 1997.
5. Letter addressed to Mitchell C. Hochberg dated September 4, 1997 from Susan Porto, Member,
Advisory Council on Environmental Conservation.
Mr. Dolph Rotfeld, Engineer for the Applicant, said that New York American Water Company sent the
applicant flow tests that were run by Connecticut-American Water Company. The applicant has not yet
heard back from them about which water main the project will use.
Administrator Russo reported that Mr. Rotfeld has been working with the Water Company for a long
14
006,520
while. The Water Company made a decision early on that they wished to service this proposed project
with a main owned by Connecticut-American Water Company. Mr. Rotfeld announced that out of
nowhere, he had received communication from someone else at the Water Company that indicated
otherwise. Mr. Rotfeld reported that he responded to said communication appropriately and the issue is
expected to be resolved shortly.
Mr. Veneziano brought up the local laws. One law dealt with rezoning the property and was currently in
final form. The other local law dealt with the buffer exclusion and some changes that were previously
discussed had been incorporated. He said the laws were changed based on discussions with Village
Counsel.
Trustee Strum said he had a procedural problem with this because this matter was listed on the agenda as
it was presented to the Village Board. Mr. Veneziano said the laws have not been changed since the last
meeting except for some minor text changes. Trustee Strum touched on a sentence within the text of one
of laws that he was concerned with which permitted the use buffer areas when calculating zoning
dimension requirements including, but not limited to lot area yards and setbacks. Trustee Strum did not
agree with the aforementioned text in the proposed local law which is an amendment to the entire zoning
,code for the entire Village of Rye Brook. Mr. Veneziano explained the change would only apply to
Planned Unit Developments within the Village of Rye Brook. Trustee Zuckerman inquired what would
happen if the Board did not approve the zoning text amendments before the September 23, 1997 Village
Board meeting. Mayor Cresenzi conveyed that he wished to see the Village Attorney and the Planning
Consultant have their reports back to the Board of Trustees within the next two weeks if at all possible.
Mr. Miller said if that was the pleasure of the Board, it would be attempted. Mr. Miller explained his
findings statement. He reported on a full review of the work that had been done to date withe respect to
this application.
Mr. Veneziano reported that he had made arrangements with Mr. Miller and Attorney Powell to have
draft resolutions ready for their review by Friday, September 12, 1997. Attorney Powell pointed out one
of the issues before the Board was whether the Bard wanted to review the Findings Statement, the
Resolution and the Local Laws by the next meeting. Mr. Powell communicated that would be quite a bit
of material to cover over the next two weeks. Mayor Cresenzi suggested the Board schedule a work
session.
On the motion of Trustee Zuckerman, seconded by Trustee Strum, the Board members unanimously
agreed told hold a work session to discuss the Findings Statement and the local laws on Tuesday,
September 16, 1997 at 7:30 p.m.
Mayor Cresenzi asked for a motion to go into Executive Session to discuss personnel matters. On the
motion of Trustee Pellino, seconded by Trustee Zuckerman, the Board unanimously agreed to go into
Executive Session.
The Village Board reconvened at 9:20 p,m. to approve revisions to the Administrator's benefits and
approved the following schedule for the 1997-98 fiscal year.
On the motion of Trustee Strum, seconded by Trustee Tunis, the following resolution was hereby
adopted:
15
September 9, 1997
®®6521
RESOLUTION
1997-1998 COMPENSATION
RESOLVED,that the following annual salaries for the positions listed below and corresponding benefits
as previously determined by the Board of Trustees are hereby approved effective June 1, 1997:
TITLE SALARY
Village Administrator $100.000.00
Ass't to Village Administrator/ $54,855.00
Senior Citizens Coordinator
Ass't to Village Administrator $49,206.00
Secretary to the Village Administrator $37,350.00
Senior Typist (AJP) $25,938.00
Treasurer $10,202.00
First Deputy Treasurer $47,778.00
Second Deputy Treasurer $45,417.00
Office Assistant-Building $28,475.00
Intermediate Typist $25,000.00
Superintendent of Parks& Recreation $64,457.00
Recreation Leader $37,638.00
Senior Parks Attendant $47,684.00
Parks Attendant $39,658.00
Police Chief $80,268.00
Police Lieutenant $72,699.00
RECREATION LEADER STEP SCHEDULE
Starting Salary $25,938.00
Step 1 $32,554.00
Step 2 $33,530.00
Step 3 $34,536.00
Step 4 $35,571.00
Step 5 $36,638.00
FURTHER RESOLVED,that the following 1997-98 Budget Modifications be hereby approved:
FROM TO AMOUNT
101.1990.424 101.1230.110 $5,975.00
101.1990.424 101.6772.110 $5,838.00
101.1990.424 101,1620.199 $3,706.00
101.1990.424 101.1620.170 $1,350.00
101.1990.424 101.6772.180 $ 938.00
101.1990.424 101.1325.110 $ 369.00
101.1990.424 101.1325.120 $7,510.00
101.1990.424 101.1325.140 $6,461.00
16
I
September 9, 1997
066522
101.1990.424 101.3620.130 $2,475.00
101.1990.424 101.1620.130 $ 500.00
i 101.1990.424 101.7140.110 $3,812.00
101.1990.424 101.7140.120 $2,324.00
101.1990.424 101.7140.140 $2,687.00
101.1990.424 101.7140.140 $5,289.00
101.1990.424 101.3120.110 $2,901.00
101.1990.424 101.3120.120 $2,628.00
TRUSTEE STRUM VOTING AYE
TRUSTEE TUNIS VOTING AYE
TRUSTEE ZUCKERMAN VOTING AYE
TRUSTEE PELLINO VOTING AYE
MAYOR CRESENZI VOTING AYE
,The Mayor announced the next meeting dates as September 23, 1997 and October 14, 1997, and the
meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Christopher J. Russo,
Village Administrator/Clerk
17