Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-10-09 - Board of Trustees Meeting Minutes VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK WORK SESSION -- BOARD OF TRUSTEES VILLAGE HALL, 938 KING STREET TUESDAY, OCTOBER 9, 2001 -- 7:30 P.M. AGENDA DISCUSSION: 1. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HUTCHINSON RIVER PARKWAY PROJECT — FINAL REVIEW AND COMMENTS CONVENE: The Special Meeting was called to order by Mayor Filipowski at 6:00 p.m., following the Pledge of Allegiance. PRESENT: Mayor Francis L. Filipowski Trustee Jody H. Brackman Trustee Donald Degling Trustee Dean Santon Trustee Lawrence A. Rand STAFF: Christopher Bradbury, Village Administrator Ingrid Richards, Assistant to the Village Administrator David S. Kvinge, RLA, AICP, Village Consultant Victor Carosi, Village Engineer William Gerety, Building Inspector Police Chief Robert Santoro Paula Patafro, Meeting Secretary Mayor Filipowski noted that the Village has provided a list to the State of issues that still needed to be resolved. Residents in the area have been contacted in order to obtain feedback from them. This meeting was scheduled to gather additional input from the residents, which will be added to the punch list that has already been prepared for the State. 1 — Mayor Filipowski called upon Boris Vays, Project Engineer in Charge for the New York State Department of Transportation, for the status of the Project. He noted that the State is in receipt of the letter from the Village and it is in the process of preparing a response. The responses will come from the Regional Office, as well as from Mr. Vays' office. Many of the answers will come from the project designers and managers who are currently holding investigations, and a response should be anticipated within the next ten days. Mr. Vays noted that some of the issues are very reasonable, and very easily corrected. Other issues are under review at this time, i.e.: King Street and the traffic count. Mr. Vays addressed the landscaping contract. He noted that the landscaping contract is completely separate from the contract for the Hutch. The landscaping contract will continue through 2002. Any dead trees will be replaced as the contract provides that all trees must be alive before the contract is complete. He noted that the planting season for Evergreens starts in August and ends by the end of September. Deciduous trees' planting season starts in the beginning of October and ends by the end of November. Mr. Vays stated that the area along the Hutch is in good condition. Once the landscaping contract is complete, the trees become the property of the State and State must maintain them. He stated that it was important that residents not do anything, other than watering, to the trees, i.e.: planting flowerbeds around the trees. The reasoning being that if the trees die the landscaper could blame the residents. As a result, the landscaper would not be responsible to replace them. The next issue discussed was the major road improvement portion of the project. It was noted that the contract work has been completed and the work that is being done now is the extra work. Mr. Christopher Bradbury, Village Administrator, noted that the State has completed the traffic counts. The report will be submitted to the Village, Westchester County and Connecticut. The decisions regarding no left turn and installation of signage will be decided upon as a result of this study. Mr. David Sampliner, Qf 5 Oriole Place in Rye Brook, addressed the Board. He noted that there is a series of drainage problems in this area. These problems have been brought to the attention of the Village and the State. He asked that the Village inspect his property to make sure the flooding is not a result of the recent reconfiguration work at the Hutch. There is an easement, a small portion of land, which should belong to the Village. On this easement there is a stream at the top, which is dry most of the time. From time to time with heavy rains the pipes that carry the water do not have the capacity to carry the water. Within the last two years the flow of water has become so great that it has caused major flooding. Mr. Vays has been notified and asked to investigate whether or not the reconfiguration from the Hutch was pouring more water onto the Sampliner's property. Mr. Sampliner noted that a `V' has formed which directs the water directly onto his property. The question now is whether or not this increased water flow comes from the reconfiguration. Mr. Vays responded that at this time he is not certain. With the reconfiguration the water has been directed to the wetlands. Mr. Sampliner noted that when the water leaves the wetlands it seems to travel down to Oriole Place. The Village took responsibility for the flood that occurred in November because the screening for the drainage was blocked. The Village made restitution for what was lost, and now sees to it that the drainage screening is cleaned every few months. The 2 most recent flood was considered to be the State's responsibility. This problem exists, and the State is looking into this. If it turns out that the pipe which was laid under his property 45 years ago is not large enough to carry the water flow, Mr. Sampliner hoped that the Village would replace it with a larger pipe. Mr. Vays stated that he has discussed this issue with Mr. Sampliner, and his neighbor. There is a piece of property between the Sampliner property and the State right-of-way that the State must cross over to investigate this property. (At this time Mr. Vays was unsure of whose property that was but noted that he would be referring to the maps in order to discover who the owner of this piece of property is). A complaint was made that much more water is being dumped towards the IBM property and Mr. Vays has been asked to bring this issue to the attention of his design office for review. There is an existing wetland, which has been there for years and years. The Army Corps of Engineers was involved in moving one of the wetlands. At this time Mr. Vays stated that he did not have the answers, but will continue his investigation. Mr. Bradbury noted that in late September the Village contacted the State in order to address the issue of drainage problems. There has been a documented impact on the residents around the area, as evidenced by the August storm. Mr. Vays noted that the last storm carried with it 3 1/2" of rain within one hour. It was a very unusual storm. Trustee Lawrence Rand asked Mr. Vays to take a careful look at the punch list submitted by the Village. He also noted that there are two electronic signs which have been installed and questioned whether they would stay. Mr. Vays stated that they are temporary signs. Once the contract is completed they will become property of the State and permanent green signs will be installed. Trustee Rand noted that another item of concern to him was in regard to the traffic study. He asked that traffic accident reports be reviewed, as a number of accidents have occurred because of a left turn, across four lanes of traffic. The Village has had more than its fair share of fender-benders, and worse, at that junction. Mr. Vays stated that he will direct the State's traffic people to review this issue. Trustee Dean Santon asked for an overview regarding the wetland area. During his research he discovered that for every wetland that was relocated the State was required to create twice the amomit that was relocated. He was unsure whether or not this was done. There is an ongoing drainage problem. Many residents have asked what is going on in the wetlands area, and it is the belief of most of the residents that the reconfiguration of the Hutch has caused the recent flooding. Mr. Vays noted that the wetlands have been planted and there is a lot of wildlife that can be seen already. He did not have the exact size of the wetlands, but did indicate that four new wetlands were created. Two large wetlands are between Purchase Street and Lincoln Avenue. A third one was installed near the Southbound ramp at Lincoln. The fourth wetland was built where the existing Hutch was, near Meadowlark. Trustee Santon stated that as the drainage is evaluated, with the New York State staff, it should be researched whether or not a sufficient amount of wetlands was installed. 3 Trustee Santon then referred to a portion of land between North Ridge Street, the Hutch, and Ding Street. There was an error by the contractor and trees were removed. There has been some replanting, however, Trustee Santon felt that it was insufficient. The Evergreens that were planted have not taken very well. He asked if the State planned on planting more deciduous trees there. He felt that what was lost should have been restored. Mr. Vays noted that the removal of trees in this Ding Street/Ridge Street area was a mistake. It was an accident and the contractor was penalized and had to pay for the trees. The contractor expended a large amount of money to bring these trees in. Planting trees of more than 12' to 14' in height is a shot. Several of the trees have seen growth and are thriving. One tree has already been replaced. In addition, bushes were added. The area is limited in size and 30' has to be clear from the curb to the trees for visibility and safety reasons. He will research this issue further and have a response for the Board by October 10, 2001. Trustee Santon also addressed the portion of the Southbound side of Meadowlark, where the hillside was removed to created a better sight-line. The hillside that previously existed was covered with greenery that created a pleasant screen. At this time is it now a very barren area. He asked what the intentions of the State were to landscape this area. Mr. Vays stated that drivers exiting Meadowlark were unable to see the oncoming traffic. The decision was made, and it is shown on the original plans, to improve the sight-line in this area. The landscape architect did forget to include this area on the landscaping plans, and the State is aware of this error. Vegetation will be planted in this area. The trees that will be planted will be deciduous, and Crabapple trees. Mr. Vays commented on the old drainage system which was inadequate. The situation was examined and corrected. There is drainage work being done at this time and once completed the curbing will be installed at Meadowlark. Debbie Faust addressed the Board. She stated that she had several issues regarding the Highway. Mrs. Faust commented there is a serious problem. Where the Hutch becomes three lanes is a problem. It is confusing to the people driving when you are coming southbound, as well as northbound towards Ridge Street. People do not realize that the third lane is an exit only lane. She asked that the State consider striping the road and installing signs to make this clear. A major problem on this portion of the Hutch is the rumble strips that were installed. From a noise perspective they are killing the residents. The homes vibrate. There is a value with regard to safety, but Mrs. Faust asked if the State could review their placement and do away with some of them. They are now installed on every straight away. Mr. Vays noted that the Exits have acceleration and deceleration lanes. As it has been found that some drivers are using these lanes as a third lane, and the designers are currently addressing this issue. They are considering signs, over the lanes, which will say'Exit Only.' Mr. Vays responded that the State has received several complaints about the rumble strips. The Regional Director has responded to a letter written by Judge Bellantoni. The State intends to install signs that will be intended to stop people from driving in the Exit lane and then cutting back into the second lane. The noise comes from drivers cutting across these rumble strips. 4 Judge Bellantoni of North Ridge Street addressed the Board. He felt that the answer he received from the State was that nothing would be done. The problem of the noise from the rumble strips starts from King Street to and continues to Lincoln Avenue. The noise is constant— all day and all night. It is not restricted to just one place. There was nothing in the original plans about the placing of rumble strips. This is a real quality of life issue. This,is an issue which needs to be addressed. Judge Bellantoni asked whether or not these strips violate the law regarding noise and decibel sound. Mayor Filipowski noted that the rumble strip sound is incredibly loud. He ventured to agree that this sound is well above the decibel level permitted. Saying the noise is horrendous. Trustee Donald Degling also commented on the rumble strips. Southbound, below King Street, there are rumble strips on each side of the highway. One set is on the right side of the exit lane to Ridge Street. At this exit ramp cars should be slowing down and he didn't understand the function of that particular strip. Mrs. Bellantoni questioned what happened to the rumble strips that just made the car shake. Mr. Vays responded that the rumble strips were installed in order to make people aware that they needed to drop their speed. This is a safety issue. He would be asking the State to address the concerns raised by the residents. Debbie Faust addressed the Board again. She asked for the status of land behind the sound barrier —between the homeowners' land and the wall. Several residents have given the State the right to go across their land for landscaping purposes. Mrs. Faust asked when can this permission be rescinded. It was not the residents' intention to have landscapers travel across their land forever. Mr. Vays responded that no decision regarding this issue has been reached at this time. Mrs. Faust also commented on the angle at the exit, southbound, from Ridge Street. The visibility in this area is very bad. Mayor Filipowski noted that because of the height of the wall that goes across the bridge at that point, the drivers need to go beyond the stop sign for visibility. This is a very difficult angle to try and make the left hand turn. The same issue exists at the Northbound exit. Mr. Vays stated that the State's designers have been called to this site. One recommendation is to re-stripe the area. This situation has been under examination for the past three to four weeks. It is felt that the permanent striping that has now been installed is the answer to the problem. He felt that there were no longer problems in this area. Mayor Filipowski noted that this is a difficult angle and it is very difficult to see oncoming traffic traveling toward the school. It is not a natural flow for the right hand turn. These turns are made at sharper than 90 degrees. Mr. Walter Greenwood, Engineer, responded and noted that the State's Traffic and Safety Groups were called in to study this problem. The roadway was striped in order for drivers to have the ability to stop at the stop bar and then enter the crosswalk enough to see the oncoming traffic. Mr. Vays commented that the centerline of the road was also moved approximately 4-5' to give the roadway a very large shoulder. 5 A second resident of Oriole Lane addressed the Board. He noted that he has lived in his home for 12 years. He noted that in the middle of the summer there was a rainfall that resulted in a river in his backyard. There were 3' to 4' of water in his front lawn ended up as a lake. Trees died as a result and there are still pools of water sitting underneath them. There have been a few rainstorms since which were not significant, however, a flowing stream has resulted. This is the first time in 12 years that this has happened. The situation is quite significantly different than what he has experienced while living in his home. His property now resembles a wetland. There is a problem here. There are safety and quality of life issues involved here. Trustee Santon noted that there is an existing black-top sidewalk that leads to the above referenced drainage on Meadowlark. It is unsightly and he asked what the State's intention was in this area. Mayor Filipowski stated that the Village would be looking into this as it is an awkward situation. Mr. Robert Harris addressed the Board. He gave the background of the pathway from One Meadowlark, which is the small piece of blacktop sidewalk that now remains. He noted that this was created as sort of a cost saving measure for the Village in that it alleviated the need for two crossing guards in the area. The crossing guard at Exit 29 would then be able to cross both ways -- from Meadowlark and the northbound lane. This small piece of sidewalk actually serves as a cuing station for children waiting to cross. Mr. Harris noted that there is an area of trees between Meadowlark and the Hutch that were removed. He asked that this area be looked at more closely. He also expressed concern regarding the lights in the area, especially since there are three lights on the corner of Meadowlark. Mr. Bradbury noted that it is the Village's responsibility to hook up the lighting. Mr. Vays noted that a few lights were removed during construction. Those lights have, or will be, replaced with decorative lights. Once installed, the Village will then take over and pay for the electricity for the lights. Mr. Martin Crouse of North Ridge addressed the Board. He asked if any planting would be done to disguise the chain-link.fence that has been installed. There was something in the plans and he asked if this would be completed soon. Mr. Vays responded that the State would be planting in that area, and this issue will be addressed. A resident of Mark Drive, from near Exit 28, addressed the Board. He noted that the State has not done exactly what it said it would do. The residents were told that the trees would be as tall as they could be, however, they are only planting 6' tall trees. He also asked that the State consider planting trees closer to the guardrail at the entrance ramp to help screen the residents from the Hutch. Mr. Vays responded that the smallest trees planted near Lincoln Avenue are actually 10' high. The tallest are 14' high. Mayor Filipowski commented that he also believed that the trees were much shorter than the 10' to 15' that the State has said they were planting. Mr. Vays stated that he would walk this area and then respond to the Village. Mrs. Bellantoni addressed the tree issue behind her home. She noted that there were a significant number of trees between her property and the State's. For years she never saw the parkway, and sound was not an issue because of these trees. Now she can see to the Parkway, and beyond. The 6 State has replaced the trees, however, unfortunately these trees have not accomplished what was intended and that was to screen them from the Parkway. She asked that her property be put back in the condition it was before the highway was reconfigured. These trees were removed deliberately. With this buffer now gone the she can no longer leave her windows open because of the 'whooshing' sound. The quality of life in this area is no longer very good, and she felt that the State has not done enough to mitigate the impact of the removal of the trees. She noted that they had requested a sound barrier, and this request was turned down. She asked for more trees, and taller trees. Mr. Iden Heller addressed the Board. He addressed the water flow on Oriole Place, noting that the water retention area was relocated which resulted in a change of water table. This is not a surface problem, but rather an underground problem which needs to be solved. The water table itself must be researched and reviewed in order to solve the problems that now exist. A resident of North Ridge Street addressed the Board. She noted that trees were planted near her property but in no way was what was removed replaced. She never saw the parkway in the 20 years that she lived in this home—but now she can see it. Mrs. Walker of North Ridge Street addressed the Board. She noted that there is no screening, no barriers, trees or bushes near her property. There is nothing to screen her home from the parkway. No one can have a conversation on her front lawn because of the noise. When she purchased this home 1 %z years ago the State has told her that this would be taken care of However, nothing has been done. Between the leftover work, dead trees, and cable she has ended up with a horrible view. She asked that this issue be addressed. Mrs. Faust noted that when the tree plans were created everyone was satisfied on paper, however she asked if these plans could be revisited in order to address the complaints of the residents. The circles on the plans represented full grown trees and so everyone felt that there would be much more density than there really is now. Mayor Filipowski thanked everyone for their comments. Mr. Vays noted that the State has been working with the people of Rye Brook from day one. Whenever he received a call, he personally visited their property and has tried to address all of the problems. Mayor Filipowski noted that Mr. Vays has always been there and the Village appreciates his dedication to helping its residents. There being no further business before the Board, the Work Session was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, l i Christopher JyBr bury Village Cle- 7 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BOARD OF TRUSTEES MEETING Village Hall, 938 King Street Tuesday, October 9, 2001 —.7:30 p.m. AGENDA PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. CONSIDERING A LOCAL LAW TO ESTABLISH A SIX MONTH MORATORIUM ON THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS AND APPROVALS IN THE R-12, R-15, R-20 ZONING DISTRICTS AND THE LINCOLN AVENUE CORRIDOR RESOLUTIONS: 1. 900 KING STREET SPRINT CELLULAR ANTENNAS SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL, SECTION 1, BLOCK 6, LOT 2A1 2. REFERRING APPLICATION TO MODIFY THE SITE PLAN APPROVAL AND THE SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE GRANT STREET SENIOR HOUSING LLP TO THE PLANNING BOAR D OF THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK 3. REFERRING OR APPROVING APPLICATION TO MODIFY THE SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR 111 SOUTH RIDGE STREET TO THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK 4. REFERRING APPLICATION TO MODIFY THE SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE ELIMINATION_OF THE SIDEWALK ON LEGENDARY CIRCLE AT BELLEFAIRE TO THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK 5. ADOPTION OF RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES 6. EXTENDING CONTRACT #00-01 BETWEEN THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK AND CENTRAL TREE SERVICE, INC. FOR TREE REMOVAL AND PRUNNING 7. REJECTING BIDS FOR CONTRACT #01-05 RESIDENTIAL CURB-SIDE RECYCLING COLLECTION SERVICES 8. AUTHORIZATION TO APROVE THE SCHEDULE OF BILLS PAYABLE 1 Board of Trustee Meeting October 9, 2001 9. RESCINDING THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL FOR 900 KING STREET VILLAGE ADMINISTRATOR REPORT DISCUSSION: 1. PINE RIDGE PARK BALL FIELD SAFETY ISSUES UNFINISHED BUSINESS CONVENE PRESENT: Mayor Francis L. Filipowski Trustee Jody H. Brackman Trustee Donald Degling Trustee Lawrence Rand Trustee Dean Santon STAFF: Christopher Bradbury, Village Administrator Ingrid Bent-Richards, Assistant to the Village Administrator Mr. Ed Beane, Village Counsel David S. Kvinge, RLA, AICP, Village Consultant William Gerety, Building Inspector Chief Robert Santoro, Police Chief Paula Patafio, Meeting Secretary Mayor Filipowski called the October 9, 2001 Board of Trustee Meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. The meeting began with the Pledge of Allegiance. Mayor Filipowski called for the continuation of the Public Hearing. 1. CONSIDERING A LOCAL LAW TO ESTABLISH A SIX MONTH MORATORIUM ON THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS AND APPROVALS IN THE R-12, R-15, R-20 ZONING DISTRICTS AND THE LINCOLN AVENUE CORRIDOR He began the Public Hearing by inviting members of the public to address the Board on this matter. 2 Board of Trustee Meeting October 9,2001 A resident of 10 Sunset Road addressed the Board. He asked what areas of the Village this Moratorium would impact. Mr. Ed Beane, Village Attorney, responded that the proposed Moratorium would affect only the residents in the Lincoln Avenue Corridor. As of the discussion from the last Public Hearing, it prohibits certain permits but there is a clause by which an individual can come in and make an application to be exempted from the Moratorium. Mr. Guy Loizzo, of 506 Comly Avenue, addressed the Board. He asked how many lots were left within the Village of Rye Brook that are sub-dividable. He felt rather than considering a Moratorium the Village should instead be looking at how permits are issued. It is the exceptions that are granted that hurt the residents, not the potential subdivision of the larger lots. He suggested that the Village research ways that the people who own the larger properties could get tax cuts so that they can keep the property intact. Mr. Chris Scelfo, a resident of Rye Brook and the contract vendee of the Rosen property, addressed the Board. He felt that the Moratorium was unfair, not only to residents, but to local contractors. He discussed the subdivision currently before the Board regarding the Rosen property on Lincoln Avenue. He noted that the character of Rye Brook has changed, and it will continue to change. There are now big houses on small lots. There are large developments such as Bellefair, Red Roof Farm and Hidden Falls. He felt that the proposed Moratorium is too little, too late. Mayor Filipowski asked what could be done to accommodate the residents who currently have applications filed. He felt that something should be done to accommodate them. Mr. Beane noted that there were areas that a number of questions were raised in at the initial Public Hearing. The issues relate to Building Permits and what to do about applications that are now pending. He stated that Building Permits can be removed from the Moratorium, or the Moratorium could be modified, and pending applications can be exempted. Mr. Beane noted that there was difficulty with pending applications. The Village could take the position that any applications before the Board can go forward. If the zoning changes within the six months, this change could impact pending applications. If, at that point, the applications are not completed, then it could lead to expenditure of further monies by the applicant. A pause will allow the rules to be revised and, when completed, everyone will know what the new rules are. If this Moratorium is approved, it does not give anyone vested rights. This proposed law was submitted to the County, and the issue of duration and scope are within their guidelines. Trustee Brackman questioned if pending applications were allowed to go forward how the Village would be able to deal with them. Mr. Beane noted that the pending applications could go forward, but if the Zoning Code was changed the applicants could be stuck with abiding by the new Law. However, this Board could, if it wished, exempt pending applications. 3 Board of Trustee Meeting October 9, 2001 Trustee Rand noted that during the Public Hearing for this application residents are being advised of the proposed Moratorium. He felt that this could open the floodgates and numerous applications could be received by the Building Department. Mr. Beane stated that if the proposed local law that is before the Board passes in the form that it is in now, without any material change, then it would start rmming now. If there are material changes, then the local law must sit for seven days before it can be passed. Therefore, in the next seven days there could be a flood of applications. Exemptions could be made by setting a certain date for applications to have been filed. Trustee Santon discussed the concept of carving out changes to the draft. He noted that a number of residents have suggested using a threshold of 500 square feet as limit for building permits issued during the proposed Moratorium. The intent is not to stop residents from enjoying their homes, and expanding them, but rather controlling how big is too big, etc. He felt that it would be difficult if a pending application was the type that needs to be carefully reviewed. It was his opinion that allowing pending applications to pass could have potential impacts. The Village is densely built and the property subdivisions that are now left are much closer to neighbors and they will have an impact on the quality of life. Adrienne Wesley of Beechwood Boulevard addressed the Board. She felt that the Moratorium does need to be modified on a case-by-case basis. If other homeowners are opposing the pending applications, then the Board should consider not allowing them to be exempt. The Village needs to take the time to re-evaluate what they are doing. The Village needs to take a stand. Mayor Filipowski asked for the consensus of the Board in regard to what the square footage limit, if any, should be set. He felt that a 500 square foot addition was not a large addition, and suggested somewhere around 1000 square feet. This would not hurt the residents, but would cover what needs to be done in the best interest of the Village. Trustee Brackman noted that she was not comfortable with placing a limitation of a certain number of square feet. She felt that the Village needed to be careful of where they set their limit. She did, however, express her desire to exempt applications that are currently pending. Mayor Filipowski noted that in terms of zoning and setbacks, the applications must be in compliance. Trustee Rand felt that the pending applications could be exempt. These applications could fall within the limitation placed on the amount of square footage, or come under a hardship exemption. The genesis of the plan was to stop and look at where the Village is. He felt that there was leeway and he liked the concept of the grandfather plan. 4 Board of Trustee Meeting October 9, 2001 Trustee Brackman asked for clarification of a hardship. It was noted that merely spending money on an attorney or drawing up plans does not meet the requirement of having a hardship. Mr. Beane responded that the matter of subdivisions needs to be reviewed carefully. Mrs. Marsha Rogle of Talcott Road addressed the Board. She felt that many people in the community are unaware of this proposed Moratorium. This Moratorium will hurt residents who are selling their homes because they will have to notify potential purchasers of this Moratorium. With the current financial state, and more job losses down the road, this Moratorium will make the lives of those needing to sell their homes so much more difficult. Mr. William Gerety, Village Building Inspector, addressed the Board. He noted that there was a flurry of activity last summer. Right now there is a lull. There are probably at least half a dozen properties that could be subdivided. There are four to five lots that are currently being proposed for subdivision and probably two to three more pending. Excluding the large subdivisions, the Village sees about four to five lots subdivided per year. Mr. Bradbury asked Mr. Gerety if most applications that are currently pending were above 500 square feet. Mr. Gerety noted that new additions average at approximately 500 square feet. He noted that renovations usually go way over the 500 square feet. Trustee Santon noted that this Moratorium addresses expansion and not renovation. He also noted that there would be appeal process available to residents who feel that the threshold is unfair. Mr. Beane felt that the Board could exclude the addition of garages and decks from the square footage, and limit the expansions to living areas. Another resident of Talcott Road addressed the Board. She asked for clarification of the limitation being considered for expansions and the hardship provision. Mr. Beane remarked that the 500 square feet came from a discussion with the Planners and it was used as a benchmark. This is simply a starting point. The hardship provision is in place for anyone who falls on the wrong side of the benchmark. Mr. Kvinge noted that one of the areas of the Moratorium is to identify some of the problems. The 500 square foot number will allow residents to build a two-car garage and this number can be adjusted. Mr. Ken Heller of Lincoln Avenue addressed the Board. He noted that the Brook area and Hill area are included in the Lincoln Avenue Corridor. (He pointed out that the Hill area was Rye Hills). He felt that it would be important to add a Sunset provision into this Act. 5 Board of Trustee Meeting October 9, 2001 Everyone would feel much better knowing that at the end of six months if the Board does not meet its deadline, it is still over. Mr. Beane noted that this Local Law would be in effect for 180 days. After that it will be cancelled. Trustee Santon stated that this proposed Moratorium is not site specific. It is not a question of whether or not there is opposition to a pending application. The Board is here to protect the interest of the community at large. One of the problems that has been identified was making the community aware of the proposed applications. He suggested, as other municipalities do, placing a sign near the proposed subdivision. This would work to make all residents aware of the proposed application. The Village needs to take a breather in order to evaluate things. If the applications before the Board are worthy, and do not have any adverse effects to the community, then they will pass. This is the beginning of a very time consuming process. There being no further comments from the Board or members of the public, Mayor Filipowski asked for a motion to close the Public Hearing. Trustee Santon asked when the Board would continue to discuss this matter if the Public Hearing was closed. Mayor Filipowski responded that Mr. Beane is aware of the consensus of the Board from the discussions held during this meeting. Mr. Beane noted that if this document was going to be changed in any substantive way the Public Hearing can be closed, but no vote can be taken without re-noticing. Closing the Public Hearing does not impact the changes. The Law cannot be voted upon until it appears in the final form. He noted that he would be changing the square footage from 500 to 1000 square feet. In addition, he would be changing the wording to exclude garages and decks from the square footage. He would also be adding a grandfather clause, and provisions to exempt pending applications. Mr. Kvinge noted that only the R-12 through R-20 zones are being reviewed. The intention here is to study the impacts of large additions. The topography, existing buffers and the proximity of the home to the property lines also needs to be reviewed as the Board is trying to stop the construction of large homes in a smaller home zone. He felt that sticking to some type of cap on the overall size would be the way to go. There is an appeal procedure in place and the Board will judge each application on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Beane stated that the cut off date for submitting applications would be the date of this meeting — October 9, 2001. Mr. Gerety noted that the applications are date stamped as received. Noting that the cut-off date is October 9"'would make this easy to enforce. 6 Board of Trustee Meeting October 9,2001 Trustee Rand noted that an issue had been raised regarding notification. He felt that many residents do not have prior knowledge of this Moratorium and suggested that the public be given the opportunity to make an application before the Moratorium is put in place. Mr. Beane suggested that if this was the consensus of the Board, then keeping the Public Hearing open would be the best way to proceed. He felt that this would give residents a two-week window to submit their applications. A resident suggested notifying residents via the Village's newsletter since not all residents have access to the cable channel. On a motion made by Trustee Rand, and seconded by Trustee Brackman, the Public Hearing was left open to the next Board of Trustee meeting scheduled for October 23, 2001. TRUSTEE BRACKMAN VOTING AYE TRUSTEE DEGLING VOTING AYE TRUSTEE RAND VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SANTON VOTING AYE MAYOR FILIPOWSKI VOTING AYE RESOLUTIONS: Mayor Filipowski called for the first item under Resolutions: 1. 900 KING STREET SPRINT CELLULAR ANTENNAS SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL, SECTION 1, BLOCI{6, LOT 2A1 Mr. Bradbury read the following Resolution: RESOLUTION 900 KING STREET SPRINT CELLULAR ANTENNAS SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL SECTION 1, BLOCK 6, LOT 2A1 WHEREAS, Sprint Spectrum (Sprint PCS) has made an application to the Village of Rye Brook requesting a Special Use Permit and Site Plan Approval for the installation of an attached wireless telecommunications facility consisting of nine (9) panel antennas in three (3) sectors to be pipe-mounted on the roof of the existing penthouse together with equipment cabinetry on a building located at 900 King Street (also known as the Atrium or Brickman Office Building), within the P.U.D., Planned Unit Development District, Tax Parcel No. 1-6-2A1; and 7 Board of Trustee Meeting October 9,2001 WHEREAS, the Village Board of Trustees has reviewed and accepted as adequate the information submitted by the applicant in support of the application, including a Full Environmental,Assessment Form (Parts I and II), a narrative description of the proposed action and nature of the proposed use, and the following plans and reports: 1. An application package including application forms dated November 7, 2000, an engineering analysis demonstrating need for the facility prepared by Sprint PCS, photographic simulations of the proposed antennas dated November 8, 2000 prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, and a Full Environmental Assessment Form dated November 14, 2000; 2. A report entitled "Structural Analysis Design and Evaluation of Existing Structure," prepared by URS Corporation AES, dated November 10, 2000; 3. Sheet T-1, "Title Sheet,"prepared by URS Corporation AES, dated 11/9/00, last revised 7/9/01; 4. Sheet Z-1, "Roof Plan," prepared by URS Corporation AES, dated 11/9/00, last revised 7/9/01; 5. Sheet Z-2, "Elevations and Details," prepared by URS Corporation AES, dated 11/9/00, last revised 7/9/01; 6. Sheet Z-3, "North and East Section Plan," prepared by URS Corporation AES, dated 11/9/00, last revised 7/9/01; 7. Sheet S-1, "Structural Details and Notes," prepared by URS Corporation AES, dated 7/6/01; 8. Sheet S-2, "Structural Details,"prepared by URS Corporation AES, dated 7/6/01; 9. Sheet S-3, "Structural Details,"prepared by URS Corporation AES, dated 7/6/01; 10. Sheet T144-5, "Compilation Plan," dated 1/01,prepared by URS Corporation AES; and WHEREAS, the Village Board of Trustees referred the application to the Village Planning Board on November 28, 2000, and the Village Planning Board, by resolution dated May 10, 2001, recommended granting the Special Use Permit and Site Plan Approval, subject to certain conditions relating to the appearance of the proposed facility; the Applicant's compliance with requirements of the Village Zoning Code, particularly concerning annual reporting of nonionizing radiation emissions; security for removal of the facility in case of abandonment; and Village access to the facility for testing or removal after abandonment; and 8 Board of Trustee Meeting October 9, 2001 WHEREAS, the proposed antemias will emit non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation (NIER) (radio waves) for which maximum permissible exposure (MPE) criteria are published, and the applicant provided maps of the VIER field strengths of the proposed facility following accepted models for the calculations; and WHEREAS, the Village has retained the services of Lawler, Matusky, & Skelly Engineers LLP to review the Structural Analysis report prepared by the applicant and a general review of the application; and WHEREAS, Lawler, Matusky, & Skelly Engineers LLP verified the calculated results prepared by the Applicant and submitted a report dated April 2, 2001, stating that based on a comparison with published criteria the proposed installation will present a negligible hazard to human exposure and recommending that the structural design for the proposed antennas be approved, subject to a detailed review of the final structural designs; and WHEREAS, the top of the proposed antennas will be approximately 30.5 feet above the existing roof line, and the equipment cabinets will be approximately 8.5 to 9.0 feet above the existing roof line (5.0 feet to 5.5 feet in height installed upon a platform approximately 3.5 feet above the roof line); and WHEREAS, the Applicant, in response to a request from the Planning Board, constructed a mock-up of the proposed antennas at the site, which mock-up was in-place and available for viewing from 12:00 noon on Friday, May 4 to 5:00 PM on Saturday, May 5; and WHEREAS, members of the Village Board of Trustees and Village Planning Board conducted an inspection of the mock-up on Saturday, May 5; and WHEREAS, it was discovered after the viewing of the mock-up, that the mock-up height was approximately 30 inches shorter than the proposed antennas; and WHEREAS, neighbors to the proposed antenna facility expressed concern regarding the potential health impacts of the proposed facility and the potential visual impacts of a large number of such antennas on the roof of the subject building; and WHEREAS, the Village Board of Trustees also expressed concerns of the potential visual impacts resulting from the installation of a large number of cellular antenna facilities on the roof of the building and requested that the property owner attend the Public Hearing to discuss the issues of co-location and the possibility of limiting the number of antennas and/or carriers on the rooftop; and 9 Board of Trustee Meeting October 9,2001 WHEREAS, the property owner did not respond to the Village Board of Trustees request, but rather submitted a written statement that the current property owner would consider additional antennas to be installed on the rooftop, but such would be subject to negotiations between the property owner and wireless communications provider; and WHEREAS, the Village Board of Trustees stated that each new application for a wireless telecommunications facility will receive the same rigorous scrutiny and thorough analysis concerning all potential impacts including, but not limited to, visual impacts and health-related impacts in accordance with the all the applicable requirements of the Village of Rye Brook Code; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has met all of the requirements concerning co-location, including the required affidavits, of Section 250-39 of the Village of Rye Brook Zoning Code, insofar as the Applicant has certified that no feasible co-location cites are available, and as the proposed facility is to be built on an existing structure; and WHEREAS, this is an unlisted action pursuant to Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617 for which the Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees is the Lead Agency and the only Involved Agency for the environmental review with respect to the approval of said Special Use Permit and Site Plan; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing on the application was held on June 12, 2001, continued to June 26, 2001, July 10, 2001 and August 14, 2001 in the Rye Brook Village Hall, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given the opportunity to be heard, and the public hearing was closed on August 14, 2001; and WHEREAS, the Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees has considered the Environmental Assessment Form and addenda prepared for the proposed action, along with other information presented at the public hearings, as well as its site inspection of the mock- up and the report of Lawler, Matusky& Skelly Engineers LLP; and WHEREAS, the Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees has compared the potential impacts of the proposed action with the criteria for determining significance set forth in 6 NYCRR § 617.7(c). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees hereby adopts and incorporates as findings and determinations the recitations and statements set forth above as if fully set forth and resolved herein; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Village Board of Trustees finds that discrepancy between the height of the mock-up and the actual height of the proposed antennas is neither material nor significant; and 10 Board of Trustee Meeting October 9,2001 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees, in accordance with Article 8 of the State Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617, hereby adopts a Negative Declaration pursuant to its determination that the Project will have no significant impacts, including consideration of the criteria set forth at .6 NYCRR § 617.7(c), as: a) Based upon the Environmental Assessment Form and addenda, and the site inspection of the mock-up, the Village Board of Trustees finds that the proposed antennas will be minimally visible from very limited locations near the facility, and will not effect viewsheds from properties neighboring the facility site, and that therefore the proposed facility's location, height, and appearance, will not be detrimental to neighborhood character and aesthetics and will create no significant visual impacts; and b) The proposed antennas will emit non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation (N1ER) (radio waves) for which maximum permissible exposure (MPE) criteria are published, and based on a comparison with such published criteria, the proposed installation will present a negligible hazard to human health; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Village Board of Trustees hereby waives the requirement for a landscaping plan and determines that the standards for new support structures as described in Section 250-39 E(5) do not apply in this particular instance because the proposed facility will be built on an existing structure; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Village Board of Trustees is familiar with the Site and all aspects of the Project and has been satisfied that the Project will comply with the Special Permit and Site Development Plan standards and requirements of the Village of Rye Brook Code, except as otherwise noted; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Village Board of Trustees hereby determines that the proposed installation of a wireless telecommunications facility, consisting of nine (9) panel antennas mounted in three (3) antenna arrays with associated equipment cabinetry and mounting structures, meets the criteria for special permits as stated in Section 250- 6(H)(2) of the Village of Rye Brook Code, as follows: a) The location and size of the use, the nature and intensity of the operations involved in or conducted in connection with it and its relation to streets giving access to it are such that it will not be hazardous, inconvenient or detrimental to the activities in and character of the neighborhood; b) The location, nature and height of buildings, walls and fences and the nature and extent of landscaping on the site are such that the use will not hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land and buildings or impair the value thereof; 11 Board of Trustee Meeting October 9,2001 C) The proposed use will be provided with off-street parking adequate for its needs, considering the assemblage of persons and vehicles in connection with the use, at least meeting the standards of Article IV, Section 250-6G; d) The siting and design of the proposed facility will minimize adverse visual impacts on surrounding areas, parks, and roadways, and shall incorporate the camouflage required by the Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees as a condition of this approval; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Village Board of Trustees hereby grants the requested Special Use Permit and Site Plan Approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. The Applicant shall submit final structural designs for the antennas and mounting equipment, to the satisfaction of the Village Engineer and Building Inspector. 2. The antennas, mounting poles and hardware, and all other equipment and hardware associated with the antennas shall be painted light gray (Light Gray-Star Chaster acrylic flat finish manufactured by ICI, #30 GG 72/016), and the mechanical equipment, mounting poles and hardware, and all other equipment and hardware associated with the equipment cabinets shall be painted off-white similar to the color used on the existing roof to minimize the potential visual impacts to surrounding areas. 3. The operation of the proposed antennas shall comply with all requirements of Section 250-39 of the Village's Zoning Code, which regulates wireless telecommunication facilities, including but not limited to the submission of annual reports providing an analysis of nonionizing electrical radiation emitted by the facility. 4. The Applicant shall submit a bond, in form and of sufficient amount to the satisfaction of the Village's Counsel, to ensure the safe and timely removal of the wireless telecommunications facility in case of abandonment in accordance with Section 250-39 F(11) of the Village Code. 5. The Applicant shall submit an access agreement, to the satisfaction of the Village's Counsel, to enable the Village to perform testing of the facility or to remove the facility after abandonment, in accordance with Section 250-39 F(14) of the Village Code. 6. The Applicant shall pay any balance due and owing in the escrow account established pursuant to section 47-2 of the Village Code. 12 Board of Trustee Meeting October 9, 2001 Mr. Bradbury pointed out that the Resolution before the Board essentially approves the application from Sprint for a rooftop installation at 900 King Street. It was also noted that Mr. Beane,Village Attorney,has recused himself from this matter. Mr. Fisher, from Cuddy, Fedder and Worby, addressed the Board as the representative for the applicant. He noted that he would respond to any questions from the Board, or members of the public. Ms. Elizabeth Reed addressed the Board. She summarized a memorandum presented to the Board on behalf of the residents of the Arbors. Trustee Santon questioned whether or not the Village's Special Counsel was well versed in the Village's Code, and the Zoning Laws in general. He felt that the point that the counsel for the Arbors raised at the last meeting regarding an inconsistency between Section 250-39 and 250-7 warranted review. He noted that there is a situation with this P.U.D. where the intent was to construct nothing higher than 35', however, this structure already exceeds the 35' and now there is an application to add an appendage. In addition, he felt that there were underlying inconsistencies in the property and the Zoning Code was inconsistent. Trustee Rand noted that this application has been before the Board for almost a year now. During this time the Village Board has discovered many deficiencies in the Village's Code. He hoped that the Board would be attempting to correct these deficiencies as they relate to future applicants. He noted that there are concerns regarding the visual impact of the antenna. He hoped that the Village's Code would be reviewed, and changes would be made relating to future applications. Trustee Brackman noted that she was satisfied with the Special Counsel's legal opinion that it is fine to move forward on this application. She was, however, concerned about proliferation in the Village of cell antennas. While there was no justification for holding up the current application, she noted that the concerns of the residents that have been raised should be reviewed. Trustee Degling noted that there were two consistent legal opinions stating that this application is okay, he felt that the Board should move forward. The problems of proliferation should be considered at a later date. Mr. Bradbury noted that Special Counsel will be assisting the Board on the clarification of the Telecommunication order, and Zoning text amendments. On a motion made by Trustee Degling, and seconded by Trustee Brackman, the Resolution was approved. 13 Board of Trustee Meeting October 9,2001 TRUSTEE BRACKMAN VOTING AYE TRUSTEE DEGLING VOTING AYE TRUSTEE RAND VOTING NAY TRUSTEE SANTON VOTING NAY MAYOR FILIPOWSKI VOTING AYE 2. REFERRING APPLICATION TO MODIFY THE SITE PLAN APPROVAL AND THE SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE GRANT STREET SENIOR HOUSING LLP TO THE PLANNING BOAR D OF THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK Mayor Filipowski noted that the Village has not received all of the paperwork with regard to this application. He asked for, and received, the consensus of the Board with regard to pushing this Resolution to the next meeting agenda. Trustee Santon requested that a presentation of the history of this project be made at the next meeting. He noted that originally the applicant was asked to decrease the number of units, and now he is coming back for approval for the same six units that were denied the first time around. Mayor Filipowski stated that this would be done. Mayor Filipowski called for the next item on the agenda: 3. REFERRING OR APPROVING APPLICATION TO MODIFY THE SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR 111 SOUTH RIDGE STREET TO THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK Mr. Bradbury was asked to read the Resolution. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SITE PLAN MODIFICATION FOR 111 SOUTH RIDGE STREET WHEREAS, John Valenti, owner of the commercial office building located at 111 South Ridge Street, Rye Brook, New York has made an application to the Village of Rye Brook requesting an amendment to the Site Plan Approval for said property identified as Tax Parcel Section No. 1, Block 23, Lots 17-19, to reclad existing curtain wall office 14 Board of Trustee Meeting October 9, 2001 building, reconstruct the planters, add juniper trees to the border of the property and minor interior alterations to the approved Site Plan; WHEREAS, the Village Board of Trustees has reviewed and accepted as adequate the information submitted by the applicant in support of the application, including a Short Environmental Assessment Form (EAF), and the following plans: Sheets A-1 and 2, "Proposed Office Renovation for Valenti" dated 3/18/01, last revised 9/10/01, prepared by Joseph R. Crocco, A.I.A., Tuckahoe,New York; and WHEREAS, the Village Board of Trustees is familiar with the Site and all aspects of the Project and has been satisfied that the Project will comply with the standards and requirements of the Village of Rye Brook Code, except as otherwise noted; and WHEREAS, the Village Board of Trustees determined that the proposed action is an unlisted action pursuant to Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617 for which the Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees is the Lead Agency and the only Involved Agency for the environmental review with respect to the approval of said Amended Site Plan; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees hereby adopts and incorporates as findings and determinations the recitations and statements set forth above as if fully set forth and resolved herein; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees, in accordance with Article 8 of the State Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617, and upon review of the EAF and all other application materials that were prepared for this action, hereby adopts a Negative Declaration since the Project will not result in any significant environmental impacts since the footprint of the building will not be enlarged, visual impacts will be minimal, and any disturbance associated with the Project will be controlled through the proper implementation and maintenance of generally accepted construction methods; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees grants the requested Site Plan Modification, subject to the comments and approval of the Village of Rye Brook Board of Architectural Review. On a motion made by Trustee Degling moved that the Resolution be accepted, sending the application to the Architectural Review Board. Trustee Brackman seconded the Motion. TRUSTEE BRACKMAN VOTING AYE 15 Board of Trustee Meeting October 9,2001 TRUSTEE DEGLING VOTING AYE TRUSTEE RAND VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SANTON VOTING NAY MAYOR FILIPOWSKI VOTING AYE 4. REFERRING APPLICATION TO MODIFY THE SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE ELIMINATION OF THE SIDEWALK ON LEGENDARY CIRCLE AT BELLEFAIRE TO THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK Mr. Bradbury read the following Resolution RESOLUTION REFERRING APPLICATION TO MODIFY THE SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE ELIMINATION OF THE SIDEWALK ON LEGENDARY CIRCLE AT BELLE FAIR TO THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK WHEREAS, Bellefair Home and Land Company has made an application to the Village of Rye Brook requesting an amended Site Plan Approval for the elimination of the sidewalk on Legendary Circle shown on the approved Site Plan for the Planned Unit Development (PUD) known as Belle Fair, located on the west side of King Street at the southwest corner of the intersection formed by King Street and Lincoln Avenue, within the PUD, Tax Parcel Section No. 1, Block 3; and WHEREAS, the Applicant stated in said application that the proposed elimination of the sidewalks is, in its opinion, minor in nature and requested that the Board of Trustees and Planning Board concur with such conclusion and waive the full procedural requirements of the Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, Section 250-7 E.(4)(c) of the Village of Rye Brook Zoning Code permits the Board of Trustees with concurrence of the Planning Board to waive the full amendment procedure requirements where both Boards concur that the proposed amendment is minor in nature; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees of the Village of Rye Brook declares itself Lead Agency for the review of the subject application; and 16 Board of Trustee Meeting October 9,2001 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees of the Village of Rye Brook hereby refers the subject application to the Planning Board and the Planning Consultant for a report and recommendation; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees of the Village of Rye Brook requests the Planning Board, with the assistance of the Planning Consultant, to review and issue a recommendation on the application on an expedited basis either at its October 12, 2001 regular meeting, or at a special meeting scheduled for October 18, 2001 so that the application can be considered by the Board of Trustees of the Village or Rye Brook at its October 23, 2001 meeting; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the applicant shall deposit the sum of $3,000.00, and such additional amounts as may be requested, in the Village of Rye Brook environmental review/professional fees escrow account to defray the cost of the review of the application. Mr. Mark Miller, from the firm of Venezanio & Associates, representative for the applicant, addressed the Board. He noted that the Board, during their discussion, separated Legendary Circle from Millennium Place and Reunion Road. For the record, Mr. Miller noted that the sidewalks on Millennium Place have been completed and work on Reunion Road's sidewalks was scheduled to begin the next few days. Mr. Miller noted that the principal concern regarding the installation of the sidewalks was safety. Mr. John Collins, Engineer, was hired by the applicant to consult on this project. They were the Engineers on the original P.U.D. A memorandum from John Collins has been submitted as part of the record. Mr. Collins noted that safety is not an issue with regard to Legendary Circle. He suggested an alternative procedure, under Parliamentary practice, where this Board could amend an action previously taken. The sidewalk constructions were held up with this intent. If the Board refers this application to the Planning Board, the application must come back to the Board of Trustees for final determination. The application would not be placed on the Planning Board agenda until November, and no one knows how long the Planning Board would hold on to the matter before it is referred back to the Board of Trustees. There is a problem with the referral, as indicated to the Village's Counsel. Road dedication is an important issue. The entire $750,000 bond will remain posted if the Board will entertain road dedication at this time. Mr. Bradbury noted that although the application is much closer to road dedication there are still several outstanding issues. Trustee Santon questioned whether or not the alternate route would be to rescind the prior Resolution. It was his understanding that the Planning Board was going to hear this application on Thursday, October 11th, or at a special meeting. 17 Board of Trustee Meeting October 9,2001 Mr. Beane noted that he was not able to communicate with Mr. Lubkin, Chairman of the Planning Board, on Friday or Monday. Apparently, the Chairman of the Planning Board made a decision to not place this item on the agenda. The Village Board could request that the Planning Board hold a special meeting. He questioned rescinding the prior Resolution as this application is a different application, and it is much more limited. Although ultimately this Board does make the final decision, he requested that the Planning Board be allowed to review the application, as quickly as possible. Mayor Filipowski asked that the Planning Board be requested to place this item on their agenda or hold a special meeting. This request will be built into the Resolution. Mr. Beane noted that if the Planning Board concurred with the Village Board that this is a minor modification, then this item could be placed on the Village Board's agenda for October 23`a Trustee Santon questioned whether or not a traffic study was completed. Mr. DeLuca responded that Mr. Collins did not do a traffic count. He suggested that Trustee Santon walk the site with the Village's Planning Consultants. He stated that he would be available to address any questions that the Village has. Mr. Beane noted that a Further Resolved clause must be added to the Resolution: "....it is further resolved that the Village Board requests that the Planning Board either hold a special meeting to consider this referral or add this referral to a special meeting that it currently has scheduled for October 18, 2001. The alternative would be to make a recommendation prior to the Village Board meeting of October 23rd. that this modification is a minor modification." On a motion made by Trustee Degling, and seconded by Trustee Brackman, the Resolution as amended was adopted. TRUSTEE BRACKMAN VOTING AYE TRUSTEE DEGLING VOTING AYE TRUSTEE RAND VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SANTON VOTING AYE MAYOR FILIPOWSKI VOTING AYE 5. ADOPTION OF RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES Mr. Bradbury read the following Resolution: 18 Board of Trustee Meeting October 9,2001 RESOLUTION ADOPTION OF RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES WHEREAS, when adopting the first Rules of Procedure of the Board of Trustees of the Village of Rye Brook, the first Board of Trustees of the Village of Rye Brook recognized that the purpose of a regular meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Village of Rye Brook is to conduct the legislative business of the Village and to get input from people who attend (or if they cannot attend, by note to one of the Board Members) and that the purpose of an agenda meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Village of Rye Brook is to provide information as to what will appear on the agenda at the regular meetings so that people who have an interest may attend; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees hereby rescinds the Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees Rules of Procedure that were re-adopted and promulgated on April 10, 2001 for the official year of the Village of Rye Brook that commenced on the first Monday of April 2001; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees hereby rescinds the amendments to the Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees Rules that were adopted on April 14, 1998 and re-adopted on April 10, 2001; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees hereby reinstates the Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees Rules of Procedure, which were originally adopted on January 25, 1983 by the First Board of Trustees of the Village of Rye Brook and which were continuously followed in governing the Village of Rye Brook until April 14, 1998, with minor modifications as follows: VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BOARD OF TRUSTEES RULES OF PROCEDURE 1. MEETINGS. Regular meetings of the Board of Trustees of the Village of Rye Brook (hereinafter referred to as the "Village Board") shall be held on the fourth (0) Tuesday of each month, except that if the fourth (4a) Tuesday is a holiday, the meeting shall be held on the next day. Regular and agenda meetings shall be called to order at 7:30 p.m. Agenda meetings of the Village Board shall be held on the second (2nd) Tuesday of every month, except if said second (2nd) Tuesday is a holiday, the meeting shall be held on the next day. 2. SPECIAL MEETINGS. Special meetings may be called by the Mayor and shall be called by him at the request of any two Trustees by their giving the Mayor written notice thereof, which 19 Board of Trustee Meeting October 9, 2001 written notice shall contain a statement of the purpose for which the special meeting shall be called, and shall also state the date, time and place for the holding of such meeting. 3. NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETINGS. The Mayor shall cause written notice of a special meeting to be left at the residence or place of business.of each member of the Village Board at least six hours before the time for which such special meeting is called. Such notice shall state the object for which such special meeting is called and shall also state the time and the place of the holding of such meeting. In lieu of the aforesaid method of service of notice of a special meeting, the Mayor may cause written notice of such special meeting to be sent to each member of the Village Board by special delivery mail, directed to the residence or place of business of the member, at least twenty-four hours before the time for which the meeting is called. Notice requirements may be waived by the written acknowledgment of a Trustee that he had actual notice of the Special Meeting. 4. TRANSACTION OF BUSINESS AT SPECIAL MEETINGS. At special meetings the business to be transacted thereat shall be only that stated in the notice of such meeting, except that any other business may be transacted at such special meeting by the unanimous consent of all the members of the Village Board. 5. AGENDA: The Clerk shall prepare an agenda for regular meeting of the Village Board which shall list the matters to be considered by the Village Board at such meeting, and which shall include a reference to all communications and other matters in writing, which have been received by the Clerk, not later than noon of the sixth day preceding the date of the meeting. Said agenda shall list the matters to be considered by the Village Board insofar as is possible in the order set forth in rule 6 (hereof). The Mayor may call a meeting of the Village Board to establish an agenda for the regular meeting. An agenda meeting shall be called by the Mayor at the written request of any two trustees. The Clerk shall arrange for the delivery of a copy of the agenda to each member of the Village Board not later than the morning of the third day preceding the date of the meeting. At any time, after 9 a.m. of the second day preceding the date of each board meeting, the Village Clerk shall during regular office hours furnish to any person appearing personally at the office of the Village Clerk, a copy of the agenda and a copy of any communication or any other written document which accompanies or is part of any item appearing on the agenda. The person appearing and making such request shall pay to the Clerk the sum of 25¢ for each page or part thereof requested by said person. The Clerk shall not be required to reproduce any documents or pages, which are not readily reproduced by the average copying machine. Items not listed on the agenda may be considered by the Village Board as new matters, however, no matter shall be acted upon at a regular meeting of the Village Board unless listed in the agenda except by unanimous consent of all members of the Village Board present at the meeting. 20 Board of Trustee Meeting October 9, 2001 Items may be added to the agenda by any board member delivering a written communication to the Clerk,not later than seventy-two (72)business hours prior to the meeting. 6. ORDER OF BUSINESS. The order of business at regular meetings of the Village Board shall be as follows: 1. Roll Call. Ia. Flag Salute. 2. Public Hearings concerning Local Laws. Introduction of the proposed law. Statement by mayor and report of committees. Discussion and action on proposed law. 3. Public Hearings concerning other matters. Introduction of proposed resolution or ordinance. Statement by Mayor and report of committees. Discussion and action on proposals. 4. Resolutions. 5. Administrator's Report 6. Old Business. 7. New Business. 8. Action on non-agenda matters, subject to the unanimous consent of the Trustees present at the meeting. 7. SUSPENSION OF REGULAR ORDER OF BUSINESS. The regular order of business at a stated meeting may at any time be suspended by the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members of the Village Board present at such meeting. 8. ORDER OF BUSINESS AT SPECIAL MEETINGS. The order of business at special meetings of the Village Board shall be as follows: 1. Roll call. Ia. Salute to the Flag. 2. Consideration of business specified in the notice of the special meeting. 3. Consideration of other business, if unanimous consent given by all members of the Village Board. 9. ORDER OF BUSINESS AT AGENDA MEETINGS. The order of business at agenda meetings of the Village Board shall be as follows: 1. Roll call. Ia. Salute to the Flag. 2. Discussion of agenda items suggested by members of the Village Board. 3. Discussion of agenda items suggested by members of the public. 21 Board of Trustee Meeting October 9, 2001 At an agenda meeting, agenda items shall be voted on by voice vote. 10. EVERY MEMBER PRESENT TO VOTE. Every member of the Village Board present at any meeting thereof, when a vote is taken, shall vote for or against, unless excused from voting by the Village Board. In the event of a roll call vote, silence when a Trustee's name is called shall be deemed an affirmative vote by the Trustee. Roll call vote shall be called in alphabetical order of the last name of the Trustee. The Mayor shall be the last one to cast a vote. 11. WITHDRAWAL OF MEMBER FROM MEETING. No member shall withdraw from a meeting of the Village Board without the permission of the Mayor. 12. ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER REVISED FOR DELIBERATIVE ASSEMBLIES TO BE USED. All questions of order or procedure of the Village Board not herein provided for shall be decided in accordance with Robert's Rules of Order Revised for Deliberative Assemblies. 13. LOCAL LAWS. In introducing, presenting and transmitting local laws, the following procedure shall be followed: a) Every local law shall be introduced by a member or on the report of a committee b) If a local law purports to change or supersede any provision of an act of the legislature or to amend an existing local law, it shall show all the new matter underscored and all the matter to be eliminated in brackets and when such local law is printed or reprinted all new matter must appear in italics and all matter to be eliminated, in brackets. c) Every local law introduced shall be deposited with the Village Clerk and shall be read in its order of introduction when the order of business "Introduction of local laws" shall be reached. d) The Cleric shall cause every local law immediately upon its introduction to be copied (or printed) and placed on the desks of the members; he (she) shall number them consecutively as received. Such number shall be retained as an introductory number. Each local law shall also have a print (or draft) number, and if the same is printed (or redrafted), the original print (or draft) number shall be retained and there shall be added its new print (or draft) number. 14. COMMENTS BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC. The Mayor shall entertain comments as to the merits of any item on the agenda, from members of the public, such comments to be limited to statements not to exceed three minutes in length. Any statement not germane to the items on the agenda shall be out of order. The Mayor shall have the discretion to withhold recognition of members of the public until the agenda has been completed. 22 Board of Trustee Meeting October 9,2001 Any member of the public may request additional speaking time by writing to the Clerk forty- eight (48) hours in advance of the meeting. The granting of such additional time shall be subject to a voice vote of the Village Board. Members of the public can make comments at the end of the regular and/or agenda meetings or other public meetings. 15. COMMUNICATIONS. No communications to the Village Board shall be read at a meeting unless so directed by the Village Board, which direction may be made by voice vote. The Mayor shall entertain a single motion to file, spread and record separately on the minutes of the meeting, all communications presented to the Village Board. 16. RECORDING OF PROCEEDINGS OF MEETINGS. No person shall record the proceedings of the meetings of the Village Board, or any part thereof, by electronic or any other type of recorder, not with a "steno-type" or similar machine, nor by motion picture, television or any other type of camera or visual record, nor shall any person broadcast or transmit the proceedings, or any part thereof, by radio, television or any other means of broadcasting or transmission, without having previously made application, in writing, to the Village Board at least ten days in advance of the meeting for which permission is requested and without having received written permission therefore. This rule shall not be construed to prohibit the making of notes by any person or persons at such meetings, whether or not such notes shall constitute a complete transcript of the proceedings, nor shall this rule apply to the Village Clerk or to members of the Village Board. 17. EXECUTIVE SESSIONS. Upon a majority vote of its total membership, taken in an open meeting pursuant to a motion identifying the general area or areas of the subject or subjects to be considered, the Village Board may conduct an executive session for the below enumerated purposes only, provided however, that no action by formal vote shall be taken to appropriate public monies: a) matters which will imperil the public safety if disclosed; b) any matter which may disclose the identity of a law enforcement agent or informer; c) information relating to current or future investigation or prosecution of a criminal offense which would imperil effective law enforcement if disclosed; d) discussions regarding proposed, pending or current litigation; e) collective negotiations pursuant to article fourteen of the civil service law; f) the medical, financial, credit or employment history of a particular person or corporation, or matters leading to the appointment, employment, promotion, demotion, discipline, suspension, dismissal or removal of a particular person or corporation; g) the preparation, grading or administration of examinations; h) the proposed acquisition, sale or lease of real property or the proposed acquisition of securities, or sale or exchange of securities, held by such public body, but only when publicity would substantially affect the value thereof; 23 Board of Trustee Meeting October 9, 2001 i) review or consideration of communications between the Village Board and its Attorney; j) deliberation or negotiations with respect to labor agreements or related matters; k) consideration of matters which would be likely to affect the reputation of any private person; 1) any other matter which Federal or State law permits to be discussed in executive session. Attendance at an executive session shall be permitted to any member of the public body and any other person authorized by the public body. Nothing herein contained shall be deemed to preclude the Village Board from meeting in executive session to consider any other matter, which for reasons of the public interest requires such executive session. 18. The words he, him or his shall be deemed to refer to singular and plural and to persons of any gender. Mr. Bradbury briefly summarized the changes that this Resolution would accomplish, noting that the changes were made by the Board at a special work session of the Board of Trustees. It was noted that there would be a regular meeting, and an agenda meeting held monthly. The Board, Mr. Bradbury and Mr. Beane, after a lengthy discussion, were able to clarify for Trustee Santon the Resolution, the difference between an agenda meeting and a regular meeting, and the reason for the changes. On a motion made by Trustee Rand, and seconded by Trustee Degling the Resolution as amended was adopted. TRUSTEE BRACKMAN VOTING AYE TRUSTEE DEGLING VOTING AYE TRUSTEE RAND VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SANTON VOTING AYE MAYOR FILIPOWSKI VOTING AYE 6. EXTENDING CONTRACT #00-01 BETWEEN THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK AND CENTRAL TREE SERVICE, INC. FOR Mr. Bradbury read the following Resolution RESOLUTION 24 Board of Trustee Meeting October 9,2001 EXTENDING CONTRACT#00-01 BETWEEN THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK AND CENTRAL TREE SERVICE,INC. FOR TREE REMOVAL AND PRUNING RESOLVED, that, on the recommendation of the Village Engineer, the Board of Trustees of the Village of Rye Brook hereby agrees to extend Contract#00-01 Between the Village of Rye Brook and Central Tree Service, Inc. for tree removal and pruning, for an additional year effective June 1, 2001 to May 31, 2002, in accordance with paragraph 8 of Section B of said Contract and that the compensation for such services shall be in accordance with said Contract; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Mayor is authorized to execute and deliver all documents necessary or appropriate to accomplish the purpose of this Resolution. Trustee Santon noted that he had previously discussed composting, tree cutting and planting. He asked if next year this contract would be sent out to bid with a defined scope of work. Mr. Bradbury noted that this contract was awarded last year, and the contract expired a number of months ago. Under this contract there was a provision that it could be renewed for an additional year, which is essentially what is being done at this time. Next year the contract would be sent out to bid only if the services are the same type of services— meaning more of the work is not done in house—then yes, it would go out to be re-bid. Mr. Bradbury noted that this type of contract could be annually renewed, or renewed for two years. Next year this contract would need to be put out for bidding. Trustee Santon asked for clarification of activities that are going on at the composting site. He noted that there is a long standing barter arrangement. As a result of a recent accident at this site, he asked what was being done to control access to the site by individuals other than Village employees. He also requested a timetable for how the operations of the composting site will change. Mayor Filipowski noted that this issue was being dealt with. He noted that this issue was outside the scope of the current Resolution and contract being discussed. Mr. Beane reminded Trustee Santon that the events that occurred last week should be discussed during Executive Session. He pointed out that this meeting was not the appropriate time to address this issue as there were potential litigation involved. Mr. Bradbury noted that the contract that was the subject of the Resolution allows the Village to have work completed, at good rates, without having to go out and get quotes 25 Board of Trustee Meeting October 9, 2001 every time work needs to be done. It is appropriate for the Village to continue this arrangement as long as it is continuing this type of service. On a motion made by Trustee Brackman, and seconded by Trustee Degling, the Resolution was adopted. TRUSTEE BRACKMAN VOTING AYE TRUSTEE DEGLING VOTING AYE TRUSTEE RAND VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SANTON VOTING AYE MAYOR FILIPOWSIG VOTING AYE At this time Trustee Rand was excused from the meeting. 7. REJECTING BIDS FOR CONTRACT #01-05 RESIDENTIAL CURB-SIDE RECYCLING COLLECTION SERVICES Mr. Bradbury read the following Resolution RESOLUTION REJECTING BIDS FOR CONTRACT#01-05 RESIDENTIAL CURB-SIDE RECYCLING COLLECTION SERVICES WHEREAS, the Village of Rye Brook has solicited bids for contract # 01-05 "Residential Curb-Side Recycling Collection Services"; and WHEREAS, a public notice was duly advertised in an official newspaper of the Village of Rye Brook on August 17`" and 23`d, 2001; and WHEREAS, only one bid was received by the due date of Wednesday, August 29`" 2001 at 10:00 a.m., at which time all bids received were opened as summarized below: BID AMOUNT BID 26 Board of Trustee Meeting October 9, 2001 BIDDER ALTERNATIVE I ALTERNATIVE I1 BOND Suburban Carting Corp $619,036.29 $1,078,604.45 Yes WHEREAS, upon reviewing the bids, the Village Engineer and Village Administrator, Christopher J. Bradbury have determined that this bid is far in excess of costs deemed reasonable for the services requested. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, that all bids for contract #01-05 "Residential Curb-Side Recycling Collection Services" are hereby rejected; and it is further RESOLVED, that the Village Clerk is authorized to rebid the "Residential Curb- Side Recycling Collection Services" and place advertisements in newspapers. Trustee Degling asked for clarification for the differences between alternatives one and two. Mr. Bradbury noted that there was an error noted in the Resolution, in the second paragraph. Essentially the difference is that there are two different timeframes — one was for two years, the second was for five years. Trustee Brackman noted that she was happy that it was recommended that this bid be rejected. She felt that there were some emerging companies and felt that re-visiting this issue would be appropriate. Mr. Bradbury noted that the Village was disappointed that only one bid was received. He felt that putting this contract out to bid again was appropriate. On a motion made by Trustee Brackman, and seconded by Trustee Degling the Resolution was adopted. TRUSTEE BRACKMAN VOTING AYE TRUSTEE DEGLING VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SANTON VOTING AYE MAYOR FILIPOWSKI VOTING AYE 8. AUTHORIZATION TO APROVE THE SCHEDULE OF BILLS PAYABLE Mr. Bradbury read the following Resolution 27 Board of Trustee Meeting October 9,2001 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZATION TO APPROVE THE SCHEDULE OF BILLS PAYABLE WHEREAS, the enclosed Schedule of Bills Payable representing payment for services rendered, have been submitted to the Treasurer's Office for payment and review, and have been certified by the Village Administrator. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board hereby approves payment of the enclosed claims and authorizes payment thereof. Trustee Santon pointed out that, in his opinion, Dolph Rothfeld's bill, and the expenses on the Pine Ridge ball field in general,were escalating. On a motion made by Trustee Braci man, and seconded by Trustee Degling the Resolution was adopted: TRUSTEE BRACKMAN VOTING AYE TRUSTEE DEGLING VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SANTON VOTING AYE MAYOR FILIPOWSKI VOTING AYE 9. RESCINDING THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL FOR 900 KING STREET Mr. Bradbury suggested summarizing the Resolution, however, Trustee Santon insisted that the Resolution be read in its entirety. Therefore, Mr. Bradbury read the following Resolution: 28 Board of Trustee Meeting October 9,2001 RESOLUTION RE-CONFIRMING THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATED SEPTEMBER 20, 1979, AS PREPARED BY STORCH ENGINEERS, ON BEHALF OF ATRIIUM ASSOCIATES REGARDING THE OFFICE BUILDING AT 900 KING STREET, TOWN OF RYE, NEW YORK (LOCATED WITHIN THE VILLAGE OF.RYE BROOK) AS APPROVED PURSUANT TO RESOLTUIONS OF THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF RYE DATED OCTOBER 4, 1979 AND DECEMBER 30, 1981 AS THE APPROVED SITE PLAN FOR 900 KING STREET WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees (the "Board") of the Village of Rye Brook (the "Village") adopted a resolution entitled "Confirming the Conformance of existing Improvements at 900 King Street, Village of Rye Brook, New York with the original site plan approval of the town Board of the town of Rye for that property and with the provisions of the Code of the Town of Rye relevant to planned unit development," at its May 26, 1998 meeting (the "May 26, 1998 Resolution"); WHEREAS, at a special meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Rye on October 4, 1979, said Town Board adopted a resolution ("10/04/79 Town Board Resolution") that approved as the final site plan for the proposed office building at 900 King Street, the "Site Development Plan" revised (revision #4 dated 9/10/79) and dated September 20, 1979 (the "9/20/79 Site Plan") as prepared by Storch Engineers for the Atrium Associates proposed office building in the Town of Rye, new York (the property hereinafter being referred to as "900 King Street") as reflected in the minutes for said October 4, 1979 Town Board meeting as set forth in pages 224-231 of the Record of Minutes, Volume #47 for the Town Board of the Town of Rye that is located in the office of the Town Cleric of the Town of Rye; WHEREAS, at the December 30, 1981 special meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Rye, said Town Board adopted a resolution ("12/30/81 Town Board Resolution") that reaffirmed, nunc pro tune, its 10/4/79 approval of the 9/20/79 Site Plan, while incorporating certain conditions into the 12/30/81 Town Board Resolution to clarify some matters relating to parking, landscaping, signage and fencing, as described therein, as reflected in the minutes for said December 30, 1981 Town Board meeting as set forth in pages 71-76 of the Record of Minutes, Volume #51 for the Town of Rye that is located in the office of the Town Clerk of the Town of Rye; WHEREAS, in the May 26, 1998 Resolution, the Board acknowledged receipt and review of a site plan labeled as "Site Plan — Existing Conditions" (drawing SK4) dated May 11, 1998 as prepared by Jeter Cook&Jepson Architects, Inc. for the Atrium at Rye, 900 King Street, Village of Rye brook, new York(hereinafter referred to as the "5/11'98 Site Plan"); 29 Board of Trustee Meeting October 9,2001 WHEREAS, despite the requirements of Section 66-7E of the Code of the Town of Rye (the "Rye Town Code") or the requirements of the current Section 250-7E of the Code of the Village of Rye Brook (the "Rye Brook Code"), as amended, or any earlier versions of said Section 250-7E of the Rye Brook Code or its predecessor, Section 66-7E of the Rye Brook Code, there .is no record that review of the 5/11/98 Site Plan followed the.procedures set forth in any of the above mentioned sections of the Rye Town Code or the Rye Brook Code, whichever version is deemed applicable to the Planned Unit Development ("PUD") that 900 King street, Rye Brook, New York is a part of, including, but not limited to the required referral to the Planning Board for the Village of Rye Brook(the"Planning Board") for its review and any actions as set forth therein; WHEREAS, the 9/20/79 Site Plan, the 10/4/79 Town Board Resolution and the 12/30/81 Town Board Resolution (collectively referred to as the "Original Site Plan Approval Documents") are not missing and have been on file with the Town Clerk of the Town of Rye, and were not missing on September 23, 1999 when Daniel F. Leary, Esq. of Cuddy & Feder & Worby LLP, as attorneys for CIGNA (ownership of 900 King Street as of 5/26/98 and 9/23/99) and authors of the May 26, 1998 Resolution, forwarded copies of the Original Site Plan Approval Documents with a cover letter dated September 23, 1999 to Kenneth E. Powell, Esq., as Village Attorney of the Village of Rye Brook, in an attempt to use the 9/20/79 Site Plan (which was alleged under the May 26, 1998 Resolution to be "missing" or "believed to have been destroyed by a flood some years ago") to lobby for more parking spaces at 900 King Street just sixteen months after the May 26, 1998 Resolution was prepared by Cuddy&Feder & Worby for the Board; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the May 26, 1998 Resolution is hereby rescinded; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Original Site Plan Approval Documents shall be considered as the valid and approved site plan documents for 900 King Street and that the 9/20/79 Site Plain is the approved site plan for 900 King Street, and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, THAT THE 5/11/98 Site Plan shall not be considered as valid or approved, until such.-time as the aforementioned, applicable section(s) of the Rye Town Code and/or Rye Brook Code for site plan review or site plan amendment are properly followed, including, but not limited to the required referral to the Planning Board for its review and any actions as set forth therein. A motion for acceptance of the Resolution was made by Trustee Santon. There was no second and, therefore, Trustee Santon asked that this matter be placed on the agenda for the next meeting. He felt that Trustee Rand, who was excused from the meeting,was also in favor of this matter. Mayor Filipowski called for the only item under Discussions: 30 Board of Trustee Meeting October 9, 2001 DISCUSSION: 1. PINE RIDGE PARK BALL FIELD SAFETY ISSUES Mr. Telesco of Red Roof Drive addressed the Board. He noted that he raised his concerns in August of 2001. He asked that the Village hire consultants to review the two suggested locations for the ball field and make a recommendation regarding which location is the safer location. As it is now October, and no decision has yet been rendered, he asked that the Board consider his concerns. Mr. Telesco noted that he has also been before the Recreation Commission, and expressed his concerns. A resident of One Birch Lane addressed the Board. He noted that there are 16 children under the age of 12 who live and play on this cul-de-sac. If home plate is located on that corner the children will exposed to traffic and this is a safety issue. He asked the Board, before a problem arises, to review this situation and take action to move the location of the field. Mr. Kevin Tracy, of 2 Birch Lane, echoed the concern regarding the increased traffic on the cul-de-sac. He noted that the short cut into the field will be through the cul-de-sac. People like to get to where they are going using the quickest route. The Chairman of the Advisory Committee addressed the Board. He noted that it is time for this field to go forward. The Recreation Committee has looked at the information presented. Both Committees found that if the location of the field is changed then other issues arise centering around the condition of the field. Also noted are trees that would have to be removed if the field is turned around, and the fact that the outfielders would have the sun in their eyes. Turning the field to the current location would give the players the shade from the trees. Regarding safety, although they did not find it an issue, the Recreation Committee defers to the Village Board on this matter. As everyone is aware, the Village needs fields desperately. If work is not commenced soon then the Village will miss a season. Mr. Bradbury noted-that he did attend a meeting with several representatives of the Recreation Council regarding the safety issue. The recommendation from the meeting was that the Village proceed as planned. Hudson and Pacific designers were hired to assist the Village with the design of the field. This firm provided a summary of their findings, along with how they incorporated safety into their design over the course of this project. Mr. Telesco felt that what the Village was doing was just putting bandages on this matter. He stated that he had had an opportunity to view the study that was done. He also commented on the 8' high fence that has been proposed, stating that it would be unpleasing to look at. Mr. Telesco asked that the Village take more time to review this project, and consult a Risk Manager on the issue of safety. Mr. Kulick noted that the fence is not an effort to deal with safety. He stated that the fences that will be installed are chain link fences. 31 Board of Trustee Meeting October 9, 2001 Trustee Santon asked where the Village stood with regard to the bids on the ball field. Mr. Bradbury responded that in terms of process, assuming that the Village is going to proceed with the ball field, representatives would be doing a walk-thru of the field. The Board will have the opportunity to accept or reject the bid. Trustee Santon asked that architect be asked to attend the walk-thru as they are the party that has made the decision of the safety issues. He expressed a concern regarding how a$300,000 budget is now $500,000. Mr. Telesco stated that the Village would be liable if something should happen with regard to safety after having been warned. He urged the Village to take a closer look at this matter. Mayor Filipowski asked that Allan Bader, the Village's Risk Manager, be consulted. Trustee Brackman agreed that this would be a good idea to have the Risk Manger review this matter and render his opinion of whether or not there is a risk involved. VILLAGE ADMINISTRATOR REPORT Mayor Filipowski asked for the Administrator's Report. Mr. Bradbury noted that the joint communities — Port Chester, Connecticut, Rye Brook — would be reviewing the New York State Report that evaluates the King Street corridor's traffic issues. This meeting has not been scheduled, but Rye Brook has been pushing for a date. It was noted that the bids for the fire truck have been put out. The bids are expected back by next week. Mr. Bradbury noted that this truck is a rescue pumper. Mr. Bradbury noted that the Pine Ridge Ball field would be discussed at the next meeting. He noted that work on the King Street sidewalks is progressing and they should be completed around Thanksgiving. The work on Tamarack, Valley Terrace and Argyle should be done by next week. The bids for the work scheduled for Lincoln Avenue should be going out soon and will be due back by October 29`11 . Mr. Bradbury noted that the Village of Rye Brook has a disaster plan in place. He noted that Village Hall has a generator which runs certain sections. In the case of a disaster, residents should call 914-939-1121 and the line will be set up for communication. Depending upon what services are required and available in a particular disaster (i.e., a hurricane), people will be directed to shelters in the area. Chief Santoro noted that the disaster plan is currently being re-written. He stated that larger, wide-spread disasters are to be coordinated with Westchester County. The New York and Connecticut watersheds are being guarded. Mr. Bradbury noted that the fire study is ongoing. A full report will be completed within a month. 32 Board of Trustee Meeting October 9, 2001 Mr. Bradbury noted that the Village is looking for an Engineering Intern to assist with the Blind Brook Watershed issue, do grant applications, and complete studies for the watershed. Local colleges have been contacted. A discussion regarding the parkland behind Roanoke was discussed. Mr. Bradbury noted that a fence has been installed at the rear of the park. The traffic light at High and Ridge is being installed. Mr. Bradbury noted that he would give an update at the next meeting. Trustee Brackman stated that she was very excited to see the sidewalks being built on King Street. She looked forward to seeing the children riding their bikes and roller blading to school using the sidewalks. Trustee Brackman noted that last month she had asked Mr. Carosi if he had any information regarding a turn lane southbound off of Ridge Street onto Westbound Westchester Avenue to alleviate some of the morning traffic back-up. She asked that Mr. Carosi prepare a report on this subject for the next meeting. Trustee Santon agreed that it is nice to see the sidewalks, however, this project was approved on May 8, 2001. He had expected that this project would be completed by now. He felt that the progress was very slow. He also asked that the curb that is being constructed on King Street be reviewed. He felt that the elevation was insufficient. Trustee Santon asked for an update on the dedication of the roadways within the Bellefair subdivision. He felt that there were many outstanding issues and he asked Mr. Bradbury to prepare a presentation on what these open items are. Trustee Santon continued, questioning the renumbering issue on Reunion Road within Bellefair. Mr. Bradbury stated that this is an outstanding issue and, therefore, the Village is not prepared to dedicate the roads yet. Mr. Bradbury noted that the roofing on the fire trailer has been completed. A carpenter will be working on the flooring this week and next week. He noted that he was actively getting quotes for a different type of salt structure. This information should be ready to be presented to the Board at the next meeting. Mayor Filipowski noted that the next Board of Trustee meetings were scheduled for October 23,2001 and November 13, 2001. 33 Board of Trustee Meeting October 9,2001 There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, ChristophYJBradbT Village Cleric I ti 34 Board of Trustee Meeting October 9,2001