Village Board Meeting Minutes - June 16, 2008

Minutes of the Public Hearing and Regular Meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Village/Town of Mount Kisco held on Monday, June 16, 2008 at 7:30 pm in the Frank J. DiMicco Board Room, Village Hall, 104 Main Street, Mount Kisco, New York.

Present: Mayor J. Michael Cindrich

Deputy Mayor DiChiara

Trustee Griffin, Jr.

Trustee Peter Grunthal

Trustee Anthony Markus

Also Present: James Palmer, Village Manager/Clerk

Whitney Singleton, Village Attorney

Mayor Cindrich opened the Village Board Meeting. He asked everyone to stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance and asked everyone to please reflect on why we are here and ask for guidance in the decisions that we make here this evening that they may benefit all the people of Mount Kisco.

Proposed Local Law

SIGNS - Chapter 89

Code of the Village/Town of Mount Kisco

Mayor Cindrich noted that the Board was in receipt of the proper affidavits of service and the proper affidavits of public notice regard this hearing.

Mayor Cindrich stated that the purpose of the proposed ordinance was to establish regulations for the design, construction, installation, maintenance and replacement of signs in the Village/Town of Mount Kisco in order to maintain and protect the attractive and harmonious visual images of our community; permit effective identification of businesses to encourage economic prosperity; protect the aesthetic environment from the unrestricted proliferation of signs and visual clutter; protect property values; and protect the public health safety and welfare of the residents of the Village/Town of Mount Kisco. This is a rather lengthy ordinance, we are trying to circulate it around the community to all those effected.

Trustee Markus stated that it is quite comprehensive. This law had not been amended or modified for a period of over 40 years. In its present form it deals with one district, where as the proposed ordinance deals with six districts. It is much more contemporary. There have been several individuals that have worked on this proposed ordinance, Patti Tipa, the Building Inspector and the ARB. It has been a time consuming and challenging project. It was the charge of this Ad-hoc Committee to get this done and in doing so we took into consideration both the interest of the aestheticness of the Village as it exists now and how we would like it to exist in future businesses and just general interests in the Village as a whole. I want to make it 100% clear that the process of democracy and the public hearing is that we hear from members of the public both commercial and also it would be nice if we heard from residential areas as well or a combination of both, which is where I stand. This is certainly where we entertain public comment. We drafted this in the concept of what we thought made sense. There was a lot of work put into it, but obviously 20 eyes, 40 eyes and 50 eyes have different things that they can put into it and sometimes there maybe win win situations that we can hear from. At this point I would like to hear from the public and hear what they have to say and listen to them and see if they have any additional things that will help this law or concerns about it that will help it become one of the best laws the Village can have.

Mayor Cindrich stated that he agreed with Trustee Markus the updating of the ordinance is overdue. I have been part of a successful program where a community has enacted a similar ordinance with sunset clauses. It was a challenge, but it did enhance the community.

Mr. Richard Alexander, Mount Kisco Sign Company submitted a letter for the record dated June 16, 2008. I would like to thank the people who put the effort into this, it's quite comprehensive. He reviewed his proposed changes to the sign law.

89-4 (L) Signs Exempt from Permit Requirements.

There is no mention of square footage for this particular category. So you might want to consider something for that.

(O) I would propose that you consider a change from 16 square feet to 32 square ft. This is an industry standard 4x8.

(Q) I would propose that you consider also a change from 8 square feet to 32 square ft and also to consider more than one per premises. You might want to consider two.

89-5 Prohibited Signs (F) Portable Signs. It says otherwise permitted by the Village Code. I didn't see any provision for a business to display a banner.

Ms. Patti Tipa, Building and Code Administrator replied that the portable signs that are allowed by Code have to do with outdoor dining (sandwich board) not this.

Mr. Alexander asked if a provision for a portable sign could be made for a grand opening or under new management sign for approximately three weeks or a month.

89-5 Prohibited Signs

(J) Please Omit Fences

89-6 Temporary Signs By Permit.

(B) I would ask you to consider more than one and again the 32 square feet.

(C) I would like you to consider 32 square feet and again more than one. It's like the guy that built the building doesn't have the same square footage.

Trustee Markus asked how he came up with the 32 square feet.

Mr. Alexander replied that it is the Sign Industry Standard and also a sheet of sign board, plywood and aluminum.

89-7 General Design Criteria

(B) I would suggest that you delete the first sentence, because I don't know why you would just limit the number of colors. It's just like painting broad brush.

Trustee Grunthal asked how often when you make signs to do use more than four (4) colors.

Mr. Alexander replied occasionally, it's a design parameter, but once you have it as a law then it's something that you would have to work within. I feel it's a loss of freedom. I would also ask that you omit “letters shall be one color”.

89-8 Awnings/Canopies

(F) It's such a broad statement and too binding.

89-9 Comprehensive Sign Program.

I think it's a good law that you have written, but I think in the fourth sentence you state that the “lettering or graphic Style and Color” of all the signs within the package have to be the same. The reason I take exception with that is because there is a lot of registered trade marks that companies have. Three years ago the ARB wanted me to change the type style for Nation Wide Insurance and I think that's out of line. So if you could omit lettering or graphic style. Mr. Alexander used the example of stores where Mahopac National Bank is on Lexington Avenue. I think you can have the comprehensive sign program and just have a different type style in that space and still have a unique look. A good example of that is in the Katonah Shopping Center, all the signs are the same size, carved and in different colors. They are done beautifully and very tastefully.

89-11 General Provision.

(A) What I would propose is that you would add “parking lot” because a lot of buildings with large parking lots also have a rear entrance besides a front entrance and you're limiting them to just one sign for occupancy. He used the example of Gerardo's on 454 Main Street. They have a sign in the front and under this law they wouldn't be allowed a sign in the back for the same premises.

Deputy Mayor DiChiara stated that that was a good point because Borders for instance has a front entrance and a back entrance in the Blackeby parking lot.

Mr. Alexander proposed deleting the last sentence.

(E) He would request that this be amended to delete “style” and add size, because a lot of businesses have their own type style that is their registered trade mark (letter style).

89-11.8 Residential District

The next thing I noticed under the last paragraph. If you could consider changing the square footage to 16 from 10.

89-14 Permit Procedures Permanent Signs.

(A) I didn't understand in “A” what you mean by “freestanding elements shall be stamped and certified by a NYS Licensed architect or engineer.

Mayor Cindrich replied that this is for the structural integrity of the structure supporting the sign itself.

Mr. Alexander asked if this pertained to large scale signs not signs on a 4x4 post.

Trustee Grunthal stated that this looks like it might be a little overwhelming, maybe we need to address this and make sure it doesn't hit every body with a huge certification procedure.

(B) I feel the way that this is written it is so comprehensive and it is so detailed that if any application conforms to this standard and it's approved at the Building Department level, I can not understand why it would then have to go on to the Architectural Review Board. If you notice the Town's of Bedford and Katonah have beautiful signage and their application consists of three pages. You fill out the application and they call you up three days later and tell you whether or not you got your sign permit. I feel this proposed local law is so finely tuned that I believe the whole process of going before the ARB should be omitted.

Trustee Markus replied that the more specific you get you don't have to go to the ARB, and the less specific you do have to go to the ARB. So you need to strike a balance.

Mr. Alexander stated I feel the ARB over steps their boundaries every time I am in front of them. I was absolutely humiliated the last time I went before that Board. I feel like I'm going to the principal's office when I go before that Board. You never know what kind of mood they are going to be in. They do a lot of good and the Town is better off having them. I just feel that this proposed law has been written so precisely that I can't see a need for another delay. It would help out a lot of businesses in town.

Trustee Grunthal if you could suggest to us some language that we could put in on the top of page 28 that might make it easier for applicant's and still give some guidance to the ARB that they need to move swiftly and positively in cases that the sign fits all the specifications.

Mr. Alexander replied that I think that you have enough talent in the Building Department that you are not going to get an ugly sign.

Trustee Griffin, Jr. stated that if the applicant abides by the rules then there wouldn't be an ugly sign, you're absolutely right.

The Village Board thanked Mr. Alexander for presenting his comments so effectively. This information has been very helpful.

Mr. Monteleone stated just as Mr. Alexander is in business in town and a resident, I too am in business in town and a resident. I complement Trustee Markus and Patti Tipa and the Board for taking on this challenge. You did a really comprehensive job on this proposed local law and I have to complement you on that. I would like to just briefly comment on some of the things brought up by Mr. Alexander and also I submitted a memorandum to the Board (dated June 16, 2008). You have been very comprehensive and complete as to everything except guidelines for the ARB. The ARB is a free wheeling organization as it presently exists and it has been for some time. They have no standards and so when they present something you could normally get 6, 7 or 8 different opinions in one meeting, which can be exasperating. At the same time I know they are sincere. I know they want the Village to look better and certainly there are situations in town that are in dire need of improvement and it's important to address those. You can't have a board that legislates esthetics, that's impossible to do that. That's what the ARB believes their function is and some how that has to be brought within the envelop of legislative authority. So that applicants can go in knowing if they present something that conforms to the code or the requirements, that they are not going to have to go back a second time, a third time or a fourth time. Businesses are impacted by this, especially if it's a new business that has recently moved in. So that is something that you need to consider whether you do comprehensive rules and regulation for the ARB or as Mr. Alexander has indicated give more authority to the Building Inspector or the Building Department.

Trustee Markus asked if Mr. Montelone was aware of any Village's or Town's that he has seen such a law drafted to make what he is suggesting, so that we could look at it.

Mr. Montelone replied, no.

Mr. Montelone replied that he has been before other Towns Planning Boards and ARB Boards and I must say that it is much more difficult here. ARB's in other municipalities function in a different manner. They are less individualistic. I feel the ARB members feel very strongly that it is their function to determine what is aesthetically correct and they all have different opinions.

Mr. Montelone stated that the comprehensive sign idea is a wonderful idea but if you have the same size and the same color signs, how are you going to distinguish one business from another on the same sign. There has to be some individuality within the sign so that you can recognize one business from the other. There needs to be more flexibility there.

Trustee Markus replied that might be a case where the ARB should chime in.

Mr. Montelone stated that canopies are probably the biggest problem in the Village. There are many canopies in the Village and those canopies not only have the building name on them, they have six or seven things on them regarding that particular business, and they are multi colored. That is probably why this sign ordinance is coming into existence and I agree with that. But while you're trying to do that be careful with the over kill.

#1. The Board should really consider grandfathering any applications which were before the ARB on the night that those applicant's went to the ABR and incurred the expenses to go before it and were told there is a moratorium and you're out of the box. What I am suggesting is that you permit those people to complete their application and get approval, subject to the new code. If they are willing to take the subject of the new code its amortization schedule but not as far as their limitations.

#2. You are permitting in your Code to affect the identification of businesses and to encourage economic prosperity and protect property values. But you have certain prohibitions in the code that would have a negative impact on those purposes. You say you want the code flexible, but in many cases you put a straight jacket on it. An applicant should not have to appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals when certain code provisions deny them the placement of a sign. For example an outdoor second sign where there isn't an entrance. There are two ways to cure that; #1 to have a little more flexibility if you have a building that has more than one exposure. Signs on the side of a building where there is no entrance. You are saying you can't have a sign unless there is a second entrance, it's so limiting.

Deputy Mayor DiChiara replied that the applicant can make that appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Mr. Montelone replied why do you have to go to the ZBA for something that really makes sense and should be provided for in the code.

Deputy Mayor DiChiara replied that I don't believe it should be provided for in the Code. That is our difference of opinion between the two.

Mr. Montelone replied that when you're putting an applicant through multiple steps and expenses, it's not fair to the applicants to have to go through all those steps.

Trustee Markus replied I think that you are 100% percent correct and it's very difficult to strike a balance and I think that's why it's taken 40 years to get to this point of having a discussion. I think that in response to your point of about having a sign without an entrance. There are instances that I have observed in the Village, that I think those signs are less of an identification and more of an advertisement. The main purpose of the sign ordinance is more for identification of a business and it's location as opposed to advertising. It's difficult to strike the balance between promotion and identification. Maybe a sign at the side of a building should go to a different body to review it to see if that exception should apply.

Mayor Cindrich said he wanted to gather facts and not have a debate. Your point is well taken about a mandate for the ARB and it will be something that will be addressed.

Mr. Montelone stated with regards to the auto fuel station signs it might make some sense to check with the major oil companies and to try and figure out what works for them instead just setting a set of standards that are going to go head-to-head with the industry. A little input from them might make it a little easier down the road.

Trustee Markus replied that we also looked around at other villages as to how gas stations fit into the village setting versus less of a village setting. There was a lot of work done to see where that balance could be struck.

Mr. Montelone stated that another prohibition you have is that no sign is permitted on any portion of a building that is not occupied by that business (Section 89-11.1A). I think that this is too strict of a prohibition. It may make imminent sense to have a sign on a portion of a building that isn't occupied. In fact there are buildings like that on Main Street. They're set back so that the sign is on the side and the sign will probably be illegal in the future, but it makes imminent sense when you are driving north on Main Street you can see what businesses are in that building.

Trustee Markus replied in that instance we tried to strike a balance on the sight set-back distance. If there are businesses that are setback further from the street level then there are monument/directory signs at the entrance as you are driving in. The businesses that are closer to the street level then the idea of the identity of the business are, I think clearer to the public.

Mr. Montelone stated that this proposed local law has all sorts of fines imposed in it and I think you need to be a little more considerate when it comes to imposing a fine. Maybe the first 30 days no fine; after that a fine and after 60 a greater fine.

Section 89-16 the Amortization of Signs. I think it's a little harsh the way you drafted it. I think giving a little flexibility or a little more greater time might make a little more sense.

Mr. Montelone stated that he submitted the memorandum and asked the Board to consider it. He thanked the Village Board for their time and congratulations on a job well done.

Mr. John Bainlardi stated that he wanted to share his experienced of the past year or so with respect to signage and the application of signage. He is currently working for a developer and over the past year or so he has been working on a signage package for a 800,000 sq. ft open air space shopping center in a downtown area in Newburgh, New York. We did a comprehensive signage plan which included specifications for the amount of signage that would be allocated to any particular building and the locations where their signage could be placed. Also placed in the guidelines were restrictions as to what type of materials could be used and what was prohibited. He added that he thought the Village's proposed signage law was a great step in the right direction.

Mr. Bainlardi stated that in the proposed local law it appears as though you can have a building sign, but you can not have a sign in the window.

Ms. Tipa replied that the window sign is 25% of the window notwithstanding the sign on the building.

Trustee Markus stated that I believe the way the code has been written is that you are not going to have a sign and then have an awning or canopy with signage on it and then have both of those simultaneously.

Mr. Bainlardi stated in the comprehensive sign plan for the shopping center they also had a maximum letter height. However, they allocated based upon the square footage of the facade. You could have two signs but you could not exceed the size that you have been allocated. This way it gives you a little more flexibility where a tenant could have more than one sign, but is still limited because they only have a certain amount of square footage. We also had in the comprehensive sign plan where it wasn't a principal entrance you could only have a certain size sign.

Mr. Bainlardi stated that he would be happy to share his comprehensive guidelines with the Village Board. It could be use as a tool for the ARB or to eliminate the ARB from this particular aspect of the review giving the Building Inspector a clear set of guidelines.

Ms. Deena Plotka, Connie's Bakery & General Store stated that they are down the alley from Starbucks and they have no signage in the front on South Moger or the back parking lot. Does Section 89-9 Comprehensive Sign Package that is being proposed allow them to put a monument sign in the front and the back serving all the stores down the alley from Starbucks.

Mr. Austin Cassidy, Building Inspector replied that the proposed Comprehensive Sign Package specifically pertains to the businesses that share a common zoning lot or parcel. What Ms. Plotka is referring to is a different topic altogether and not part of this proposed local law.

Ms. Plotka asked how they could become part of this ordinance. We need signage and we need people to know about us.

Mayor Cindrich replied that Ms. Plotka's question was a different topic. We have talked about this years ago when there were other businesses there.

Ms. Plotka stated but if we are not addressed now, when will we be addressed.

Mr. Cassidy stated that the land north of Chico's was Village land and that the south side of Chico's belongs to Mr. Ginner.

Ms. Plotka stated that she was told that there was a sign ordinance in town when we came in and they were not allowed to erect a directory. That Mr. Ginner was denied a directory because of the Village's Sign Ordinance.

Trustee Markus asked Ms. Plotka where the directory sign would be placed.

Ms. Plotka replied on the street near the Village's light post.

Mayor Cindrich replied that that was an issue that was not covered in this particular ordinance because what she was asking for is a sign posted on public property.

Deputy Mayor DiChiara stated that the Village was not going to allow commercial enterprises to put signs on public property. Because if we allow your business to use public property to display a sign then when someone else says to us can I put a sign on public property too, how do we address that.

Ms. Plotka replied that this was only for the identification of businesses that were in alleyways in town. You want us to promote business we need foot traffic, we don't have that.

Trustee Markus asked if the owner of the building could elect to put a sign on a location of the building. He stated that she should have her landlord do some kind of a directory sign on the building itself. Then I think you would fall within the confines of the legislation as opposed to being on public property. Trustee Markus stated that he would be happy to speak to the landlord and Ms. Plotka to get to the facts.

Mayor Cindrich stated that when the design for the building was done there was no provision for signage. The signage should have been on the building where Starbucks is. As I understand it Starbucks is not going to allow another sign on property they are paying for. This was a deficiency in the design by the owner of the building. I think we tired to correct it and we talked about a directory on public property, which is not going to work because of what the Deputy Mayor alluded to. I believe that the promenade has not been successful because of that lack of advertising that is on street frontage and nobody knows where it is.

Ms. Plotka asked why can't we have some type of legislature put into this ordinance allowing all the alleyways in town to be allowed signage on street properties. We have no foot traffic and if you want businesses there this is something that is going to have to be considered to add to this sign ordinance.

Trustee Grunthal stated that he felt that Ms. Plotka had a valid point and I think we should undertake to look into this and see what we can do there. It is totally appropriate that an alleyway which could be a very attractive alley with foot traffic should have enough signage for it to be served. I propose as we move this ordinance forward we look into this as well.

Mayor Cindrich stated that he agreed, however this is something that is not covered in this particular ordinance. I am going to defer this issue to the Village Attorney because what we are talking about is the advertising of private companies on public property. I am going to defer it to the attorney to give us a brief on that as to what we can or can't do. I am concerned that we are opening ourselves up to the request for signage on public right-of-ways throughout the Village of Mount Kisco and if we make one exception that may carry through.

Trustee Markus stated that presumably if we can do it, it might be something that could be explored. He also added that the landlord could have taken the responsibility to put a directory sign on Starbucks or on the Bank of America. However, the case might be that the highest paying tenant didn't want to allow it.

Deputy Mayor DiChiara stated that years ago the Woodworks and Daniel Chocolate's were before that Village Board requesting a directory and unfortunately for them their landlord would do it or couldn't do it because of the other tenants and regretfully these business are no longer in town. However, if your landlord is willing to work with the Village Manager and the Village Attorney to move that forward we can certainly be cooperative.

Ms. Plotka stated that she felt that the ordinance should be written if you are in an alleyway you should get certain privileges.

Trustee Grunthal stated he felt that we can pursue this as well at our end because if we can achieve this without setting the precedent that anybody in town can come and ask for it and if we can limit it to just pedestrian alleys, we might be able to do that.

Mayor Cindrich stated let's put the blame where it belongs and that is on the owner of the building and the architect who didn't look to the future on how these businesses were going to be advertised.

Ms. Plotka stated the bottom line is we suffer. The deal that Ginner made with the town is not her business. She has a business in town and they bring commerce into town. People want to shop in your town but they are not going to when you have empty business.

Mayor Cindrich stated that he was surprised at some of the conversation that he was hearing tonight because we are sitting on a number of applications from private entities that want to use the right-of-way and we are charging them a substantial amount of money to use the right-of-way for their private use. So we are precedent setting in a number of areas if we do allow a private entity to establish a right to have advertising on the public right-of-way.

Ms. Plotka stated that she was told three years ago that this was a sign ordinance issue and she was told when the Village changes the laws of the signs in town that's when we were supposed to come forward. She is surprised at all the people that are also down the alleyway that aren't here tonight.

Mayor Cindrich stated that there is a provision in the proposed ordinance that you can not put a sign on the building that doesn't occupy that business. So if there is a provision for a directory sign that has to be excluded from the proposed ordinance.

Trustee Markus stated that he understands that unless the directory sign was free standing. I think we have a directory sign for an office building setting. But for a retail establishment I'll have to take a closer look at that.

Ms. Plotka thanked the Village Board of Trustees for listening.

Frank Delligatti, Architect for Tiger Schulmann's we just opened up a location at 222 Main Street. He asked for clarification as to what was the potential approval date for the new ordinance.

Deputy Mayor DiChiara replied probably two months, since this is being proposed over the summer months we are going to allow a long time for public comment. Because we don't want to push through anything, when people maybe unaware or away.

Mr. Delligatti replied that his issue was the timing of this. We think the timing of this is very poor, our application was into the town and was returned to us because of the moratorium on the signage we now have a business that has been operating without any signage with a potential of two months, if not longer due to comprehensive signage program that our land lord or building owner has to go through prior to our application being submitted. Potentially we are looking at four months before we can even get a sign up.

Trustee Markus asked if their sign conflicted with the proposed sign ordinance.

Mr. Delligatti replied that it was not even reviewed. Our application was in and it was on a schedule for the ARB and was returned to us. We were given the 30% maximum on all windows, which is in the ordinance already. The store front is setback some so we survive on foot traffic, pedestrian traffic and vehicular traffic. With the store front being setback and no signage closer to the street, were not noticeable. He added that their sign conformed to the ordinance prior to the moratorium as the ordinance was written.

Mayor Cindrich made the suggested that this case might be grandfather-in or a relief mechanism be put in, where the sign could be installed and you would be subjected to the amortization clause then you have to take the sign down in two or three years. I'm sure if you work that out in that fashion in an amicable way we may come up with something that is beneficial to both the community and to your client.

Mr. Delligatti replied that we can easily conform to the new ordinance. However; I was told that that no applications would even be considered until the ordinance was passed.

Mayor Cindrich replied that the Village Attorney will get a clarification on the ARB's review process of the sign applications during this moratorium.

Mr. Delligatti stated that his other request was to ask the Board to eliminate the process of individual businesses having to come before the ARB for sign approval, once the landlord/building owner has received their comprehensive sign approval.

Mr. Neil Alexander, Esq. (Cuddy & Feder) stated that they represent a lot of different property owners whether it's national retailers or shopping center owners in the community. In particular I am here tonight on behalf of one of our client's plans because they weren't able to get anybody out here because we didn't become aware of the public hearing until quite late. What I was hoping to do is confirm that the Public Hearing will be continued to another time and let them come back. I note though from applications that I have done there seems that you are very heavy on the aesthetic side. In reading it myself one of the things that I got a little concerned about was on the traffic safety side. I don't know how much time you all had spent with the United States Sign Council's Guidelines in the studies that they have done into how long a look someone needs to take at certain miles per hours. If you haven't spent that much time with it I would encourage you to do that. Our consultant will come, who is very well versed and be able to speak to you on that. I think some of the signs on the higher traffic roads where vehicles are moving at a greater speed the letter heights are potentially too small. I am going to let them to speak to it because they are experts on it. I can definitely get you more information on it. I was also wondering if Westchester County Planning Department had given any referral on the purposed sign ordinance yet. One of the things you do have to balance also is to what extent by making the code to tight are you going to wind up with your ARB not seeing any applications and your ZBA becoming your new sign experts.

Mayor Cindrich replied that with regard to Mr. Alexander's client and if they have a model ordinance's they should forward that to the Village Board that would be very helpful. I think anything we can do to make this ordinance more workable for both of the community and the business owner.

Mr. David Kuritzky asked that under 89-4 C was the intent of this to be total combined if there are multiple flags on one flag pole or is that only one flag.

Trustee Markus replied that he thought that it was one flag.

Mr. Kuritzky replied so the Police Station right now even though it should be exempt it doesn't meet the criteria because the flag that it displays is greater than 15 sq. ft. So then if we could please due a little further research to that so that the American Legion, the Police Station, the Fire Houses things that display the Municipal, State and the County Flags don't get bumped right out.

On page 7 under the definition of “Sign” and on CB-1 (Table 1) Maximum Sign Height 24 inches, you have limited yourself to two lines of text, if that is what your intent is and that's what you want, but it is limiting the different thing that might go on a sign, name, address and phone number. Also by limiting the colors on the letters to only four (4) the shadow effects would not be possible under this proposed law.

Mr. Vernon Ford, of Vernon Ford Design stated that he has been a design consultant for about forty years and I have done major design programs as a designer. One thing that I see lacking in your proposal would be to have pictures presented along with all the words in the code because it would have answered a lot of questions about sizes, colors, scale, topography and visual distance. Mr. Ford offered to help the Village Board with putting together a visual pamphlet pro-bono.

There were no further comments.

Mayor Cindrich stated that the Village Board was going to adjourn the public hearing are we are going to request written input and we are going to follow the thyme that if this ordinance is going to be successful #1 it has to be workable and #2 it has to enforceable and if it's going to generate cases to the Zoning Board of Appeals or the Village Board in my opinion that is not a workable ordinance. I would like comments from Staff as to what we think we can do. If it is not enforceable and if it is going to be litigated, we are wasting our time. The purpose of a public hearing is to gather as much information as we can and do the research and from what I have heard hear tonight we have a lot of work to do.

Trustee Griffin, Jr. asked the Village Manager to obtain a copy of the Town of Bedford's sign ordinance.

Village Attorney Singleton stated that Administrative Staff is to administer the Building Codes, the Fire Codes, the American with Disabilities Act. Their job is not to exercise discretionary power. If you want to vest discretionary power with a Board that is fine, but I disagree that it is appropriate to vest that discretion with administrative officials in this community. With all do respect to them they are fine people but it's not for them to say no or yes. They can pit it against the code and see if it's compliant with the provisions of the code but not to be taking discretionary action in that regard.

Trustee Markus replied that we didn't want to have to do that because it is a sensitive position to be in.

There being no further business to come before the Board a motion to adjourn the public hearing until July 14, 2008 at 7:30 pm was made by Mayor Cindrich and seconded by Trustee Griffin, Jr. all in favor.

Motion Adopted

Mayor Cindrich Aye

Deputy Mayor DiChiara Aye

Trustee Griffin, Jr. Aye

Trustee Grunthal Aye

Trustee Markus Aye

At this time 9:20 pm the Village Board of Trustee took a short break.

Regular Meeting agenda started again at 9:30 pm.

1) Communications:

A. Letter from Donald Trotta re: Resignation from the Board of Fire Commissioners.

Mayor Cindrich read the letter from Donald Trotta dated June 9, 2008 resigning as Fire Commissioner. Mayor Cindrich asked that a letter be sent to Mr. Trotta thanking him for serving on the Board of Fire Commissioners.

2) Petitions:

A. Request from the Mount Kisco Diner for Zoning Map Change.

Mr. Clifford Munz of Munz Associates outlined the proposed zoning map change for the Mount Kisco Diner.

Village Attorney Singleton stated that this request needed to be referred to the Village's Planner for further review and comment.

3) Board, Committee and Commission Reports: None.

4) Village Manager's Reports -

A. Level of Byram Lake and Water Distribution System.

Village Manager Palmer reported that the level of Byram Lake as of 4:00 pm this afternoon was at 98.6% of capacity.

Village Manager Palmer reported that the foundation of the new Library had been poured and that the geothermal wells will start to be drilled next week.

Village Manager Palmer reported that pursuant to your request, the following summarizes our efforts to date with regard to implementing the Conservation Advisory Council's Energy Effort recommendations that will assist us in complying with the US Mayor's Agreement on Climate Change:

Energy Use:

Energy Efficient Lighting: The lighting in most municipal buildings including Village Hall, Justice Court and the Police Department has been retrofitted with more energy efficient fluorescent light bulbs. Staff has been instructed to turn off lights when a room is not in use.

Appliance/Equipment Purchases: All department heads have been advised to complete only energy efficient purchases whenever possible. We are currently considering new cooling units for the Frank DiMicco Board Room and will purchase only energy efficient and energy star products.

Programmable Thermostats: Wherever possible, thermostats have been programmed to minimize energy needs. Jeff and I are evaluating all our facilities to install additional programmable thermostats.

Purchases/ Use of Vehicles:

Purchases: Village department heads will follow the Village Board's recently adopted purchasing policy for energy efficient alternatives before completing a vehicle purchase.

Hybrid Vehicles: The 2008/09 Adopted Budget includes the purchase of a hybrid vehicle for the Parking Enforcement Unit. We are currently evaluating whether the vehicle should be an SUV hybrid or other hybrid.

Alternative Fuel Vehicle: As the Village Board knows, we had requested an estimate from V.O. Tech, LLC to convert one of our older garbage trucks from diesel to a vegetable oil fuel system. We just received their cost estimate of $8,830.00 and are evaluating their proposal.

Vehicle Idling: Employees have been advised to discontinue this practice.

Electronic Trash Recycling:

Highway Recycling Program: The Village Highway Yard has a container dedicated solely for the disposal of computers, computer monitors, and televisions. The container is provided by Advanced Recovery Inc. at no charge to our residents and also it serves as the central drop off point for our municipal neighbors of New Castle, North Castle, Bedford and Pound Ridge. While the Highway Department does not accept fluorescent light bulbs residents can utilize any of the County Household Chemical cleanup days to dispose of them.

D. Traffic Promulgations.

Village Manager Palmer promulgated that following traffic Promulgations:

Traffic Rules and Regulations Registrar is hereby amended as follows:

Stop Intersections:

The following intersection is hereby designated as a stop intersection and will have a stop sign erected at the intersection.

Orchard Road southbound at the intersection of Caren Court.

Restricted Turns at Intersections:

Left turns at the following intersection are restricted as follows:

Left turns from West Hyatt Avenue onto Lexington Avenue are hereby prohibited between the hours of 8:30 am to 9:30 am and 2:30 pm to 3:30 pm weekdays (excluding school buses).

E. Request for an Executive Session to discuss pending litigation, personnel and real estate matters.

Motion made by Deputy Mayor DiChiara and seconded by Trustee Grunthal scheduling an Executive Session following the close of this Regular Meeting to discuss pending litigation, personnel and real estate matters, all in favor.

Motion Adopted

Mayor Cindrich Aye

Deputy Mayor DiChiara Aye

Trustee Griffin, Jr. Aye

Trustee Grunthal Aye

Trustee Markus Aye

5) Board Reports:

Mayor Cindrich stated that he was working with the Chamber of Commerce on Sales Days in trying to make them more successful and he will have a report at the following meeting.

Trustee Griffin, Jr. stated that he was very happy to report that the dome on top of Village Hall is gold again and hopefully it will last.

6) Old Business -

A. Resolution authorizing the Village Manager to sign the Retainer Agreement with Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC for the period covering April 1, 2008 - March 31, 2011.

Motion made by Deputy Mayor DiChiara and seconded by Trustee Markus authorizing the Village Manager to sign the Retainer Agreement with Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC for the period covering April 1, 2008 - March 31, 2011, all in favor.

Motion Adopted

Mayor Cindrich Aye

Deputy Mayor DiChiara Aye

Trustee Griffin, Jr. Aye

Trustee Grunthal Aye

Trustee Markus Aye

7) New Business

A. Resolution authorizing the Village Manager to sign the Agreement with Clough Harbour Associates for Monitoring Services for the period covering June 1, 2008 through May 31, 2009.

Motion made by Trustee Markus and seconded by Trustee Griffin, Jr. authorizing the Village Manager to sign the Agreement with Clough Harbour Associates for Monitoring Services for the period covering April 1, 2008 through May 31, 2009 in the amount of $36,000, all in favor.

Motion Adopted

Mayor Cindrich Aye

Deputy Mayor DiChiara Aye

Trustee Griffin, Jr. Aye

Trustee Grunthal Aye

Trustee Markus Aye

B. Resolution authorizing the Superintendent of Recreation to attend the National Recreation and Parks Association and Congress Conference in Baltimore, Maryland.

Motion made by Trustee Grunthal and seconded by Deputy Mayor DiChiara authorizing the Superintendent of Recreation to attend the National Recreation and Parks Association and Congress Conference in Baltimore, Maryland (approximate costs $1,870.00), all in favor.

Motion Adopted

Mayor Cindrich Aye

Deputy Mayor DiChiara Aye

Trustee Griffin, Jr. Aye

Trustee Grunthal Aye

Trustee Markus Aye

Board Audit.

Motion made by Deputy Mayor DiChiara and seconded by Trustee Grunthal authorizing the payment of certain claims in advance, all in favor.

Resolved, in order to avoid paying late fees, the Acting Village Treasurer is authorized to pay in advance of audit, claims for public utility services (electric, gas and telephone services) and postage charges, and those lease payments coming due before the next regularly scheduled Board of Trustees meeting, provided that such claims shall be presented at the next regular meeting for audit. The authorization shall expire on September 5, 2008.

Motion Adopted

Mayor Cindrich Aye

Deputy Mayor DiChiara Aye

Trustee Griffin, Jr. Aye

Trustee Grunthal Aye

Trustee Markus Aye

Co. Inc.

Village Manager Palmer explained to the Village Board the property tax settlement. The property consists of a 12,198/s.f. retail and office building located at 175 Main Street. The two story building was constructed in 1986 and is in average to good condition. The building is divided into 10 different tenant spaces with retail space dominating the first floor and medical office occupying a majority of the second floor. His analysis of the property included a review of the rental income and expenses during the years at issue and included an application of projected market rents for units that were unoccupied during the period. Net income was capitalized with an appropriate overall rate to $26.10/s.f. in rental income) and increases to $2,738,000 in 2007 ($34.31/s.f. in rental income). The settlement will result in the discontinuance of the 2004 and 2005 Village assessment years and refunds of $12,545.60 for the 2006 and 2007 assessment years. County and School refunds will total $26,635.25 for the 2003 - 2006 Town assessment years.

Motion made by Trustee Markus and seconded by Trustee Griffin authorizing the Tax Certiorari Settlement with Ramric Development in the total amount of $39,180.85 (Village, County and School Refunds), all in favor.

Motion Adopted

Mayor Cindrich Aye

Deputy Mayor DiChiara Aye

Trustee Griffin, Jr. Aye

Trustee Grunthal Aye

Trustee Markus Aye

F. Resolution authorizing corrected 2008 Village Tax Bill.

Village Manager Palmer explained to the Village Board of Trustees the Corrected Village Tax Bills. There were seven applications for corrected 2008 Village tax bills. Six applications are for cooperative apartment complexes that did not have the exemptions carried over to the tax roll database and one application was from an inability to recognize the property owner's handwritten income information. Corrections are as follows:

Owner Current Tax Corrected Tax Difference

Francesco Luppino $1,228.79 $965.47 $263.32

Stewart Heights Corp. $70,965.13 $70,341.09 $624.04

Diplomat Towers $141,431.10 $139,465.79 $1,965.31

Bedford Plaza $85,786.28 $85,264.07 $522.21

Ridgecrest Owners $40,183.08 $39,742.22 $440.85

Tara Close $70,035.35 $69,405.82 $629.53

101 Carpenter Ave. $22,878.56 $22,531.72 $346.84

Motion made by Trustee Markus and seconded by Trustee Griffin, Jr. authorizing the corrected 2008 Village Tax Bills, all in favor.

Motion Adopted

Mayor Cindrich Aye

Deputy Mayor DiChiara Aye

Trustee Griffin, Jr. Aye

Trustee Grunthal Aye

Trustee Markus Aye

8) Bills -

The following motion was offered by Deputy Mayor DiChiara and seconded by Trustee Griffin, Jr. to pay the bills, all in favor.

General Fund $366,217.69

General Fund Claims 344,867.55

Water Fund Claims 15,754.46

Sewer Fund Claims 4,344.41

Library Fund Claims 1,251.27

Senior Nutrition Program 4,182.82

Water and Sewer Fund 66,084.79

Library Fund 3,049.02

Capital Projects Fund 325,138.10

Trust and Agency Fund 4,197.14