Village Board Meeting Minutes - July 14, 2008

Minutes of the Public Hearing and Regular Meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Village/Town of Mount Kisco held on Monday, July 14, 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 Anthony Markus

Also Present: James Palmer, Village Manager/Clerk

Whitney Singleton, Village Attorney

Absent: Trustee Peter Grunthal

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. I also ask that you remember in your thoughts and prayers two long-time residents that recently passed away Anne Diggings and Jerry Rosenberg.

Proposed Local Law

SIGNS - Chapter 89

Code of the Village/Town of Mount Kisco

Continued

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 Trustee Markus and the Sign Ordinance Committee have meet on several occasions over the past two weeks reviewing the comments that were made at the last public hearing.

Trustee Markus stated that the Sign Ordinance Committee meet on 6/27, 6/29 and 7/11 and we made some revisions and some clarifications to the ordinance. The Committee also met with the Architectural Review Board on July 2, 2008. It was a very fruitful meeting and we're moving forward.

Trustee Markus gave an overview of some of the changes that were made as a result of these work session meetings and also from the comments that were made at the last public hearing.

Mayor Cindrich stated that he was contacted by a former ARB member regarding the promenade area and at one point in time several years ago we spoke about pendent or flag signs that might satisfy some of Connie's Bakery requirements. He asked if that was something that was talked about at all at those meetings.

Trustee Markus replied that we did talk about it to some degree. But again the focus on that issue is whether or not it was going to be on private property or on the building that it occupies. I don't know whether or not this is the place “the sign ordinance” to give that authority.

Mayor Cindrich asked if there were any objecting from the committee for that type of sign in the promenade area.

Trustee Markus stated that he thought that we should have some type of signage in the promenade areas. However, how that gets accomplished as to where they will be located privately or publicly is something that is open for discussion. There is something in the ordinance regarding placing a directory sign on an existing building that has the tenants in that building. If it is a separate building then there may have to be some discussion about that. If it is on the public right-of-way there will also have to be some discussion on that. But I am not adverse to keep looking at what avenues there are because I think they need the support and it would give them the opportunity to get some foot traffic.

Ms. Patti Tipa stated that there is a provision built into the code for the Village District as a means of identifying the entrance of an establishment without street frontage.

Mayor Cindrich stated that the law could allow for it, but that it would have to be up to the tenant on the corner property to agree to have a sign advertising other stores located on the building that they are renting.

Mr. Anthony Montelone stated that on page 19 section 89-11.1 A. He brought this issue up at the last meeting. I really think that this is unfriendly to businesses owners. You are destroying the ability of many property owners throughout the Village who have more than one exposure on their building some of which do not have a secondary entrance. You are precluding the second sign and I don't think that is appropriate. I ask that you change it to “should a business occupy a space with two exterior walls facing in different directions that a secondary sign on the second wall be permitted even if there is no secondary entrance”. There are probably 50 situations like that throughout the Village where it would be suitable and appropriate.

Deputy Mayor DiChiara replied suitable and appropriate is your opinion once again.

Trustee Markus stated that he was steadfastly opposed to that. He was steadfastly in favor on the way the law reads. There are many instances in which that kind of signage is not aesthetically pleasing. If it creates a significant hardship there is an appeals process that they can go forward with. They can demonstrate how serious of a problem it is going to be for them and they can also demonstrate how it could be done appropriately and in those instances I think it would be appropriate. There are so many instances where the sign law has been so liberal and I think it is about time to take it and make it clear and to try to deal with a balance and I think we do that. We did add street frontage “or parking lot” in the re-draft”.

Mr. Montelone stated just as an example almost every bank in town would have to take down one or two of their signs because they don't have parking areas where they have their signs. In my opinion I think it's overkill.

Mayor Cindrich asked Mr. Montelone to transmit the wording that he thought was appropriate to the Village Manager so that he could disseminate it to the Board.

Mr. Montelone referenced page 28 89-14-2 Standards of Review by the ARB. I see where you crossed something out, but I don't see where you actually set forth a series of standards. What you have there are not standards. They are basically a license for the ARB to make their own personal discretionary decisions. Because they are so generic they are subject to abuse and arbitrariness by the ARB and that is what we are trying to cure.

Trustee Markus asked Mr. Montelone if he had any suggested language.

Mr. Montelone replied what I think you need to do is consider the need of the applicant for the signage and you need to consider special circumstances of that particular location in regards to the applicant. It gives the ARB not only way to much discretion but it doesn't give them any parameters. I thought at the last public hearing we were talking about setting some type of parameters so that not only the Board, but the applicant's would know how far the ARB could exercise their discretion.

Trustee Markus replied there are things that we did do. We made it clear that the sign law is the guide post that would have to be adhered to and we made it clear that the ARB is to look at it based upon these terms; suitability, appropriateness relative to location, aesthetic quality and architectural elements of the building. I am open to hear what language you would want to add to it. When we meet with the ARB it is very clear to me that they are happy to have a comprehensive sign law that is such that they can show and rely upon in terms of explaining to applicants this is what you have to adhere to.

Mr. Montelone stated that the prior sign law had standards (i.e. size and color) and the applicants would come in meeting those standards and the Board would say we don't like the color, we think it's too big, we think the nature of the sign should be different. So they were using their own personal discretion to determine whether they liked the sign or were going to approve it, versus it complying with the standards of the ordinance. That's exactly the same authority you are giving them here. Without any restriction or limitation and without any consideration for the business that is applying for the sign. We want to be friendly to businesses here and I don't think this ordinance is business friendly.

Trustee Markus replied that he disagreed with Mr. Montelone because it does state that the issue will be reviewed with respect to the requirement and the intent of the sign law.

Mr. Montelone stated that you still need some standards by which the ARB will have to comply with and that is what you don't have.

Trustee Griffin, Jr. asked Mr. Montelone to give the Board some recommendations in writing to cover that point. If you have good suggestions we are open to them.

Mr. Montelone referred to page 29 (Referral of Appeals). A suggestion was made that the ARB be permitted to submit a report and recommendations to the ZBA. He thought that the Village Board should reconsider this because one of the basic principals of the law when a court reviews it is has the applicant been given a fair opportunity to be heard and then to be given a fair opportunity to question the people or the entity that are objecting to the particular position. You are saying that the ARB is to submit a report and recommendation to the ZBA, when you're doing that you're doing two things. One you're not saying that an ARB member has to appear and be subject to being quested by the applicant just that their report and recommendation are sitting there and the applicant has to object to it and has no one to question in regard to it.

Trustee Markus replied so you have an issue with the recommendations.

Mr. Montelone replied that I promise you that will never pass a court test.

Village Attorney Whitney Singleton replied that this is taken from various other sections of the law. It is not uncommon in any municipal context where there is a Board of Appeals entertaining an application to seek the input and solicit the advice of the Board from whom to the decision is being appealed. This was done in an effort to help facilitate the process and not hold it up. This was done for those situations where the ARB may have a particular passion either way. Whether they may have some very strong concerns that they would like to hear voiced before the ZBA or there maybe a situation where there is an application that may not fit the parameters of this particular law, but given the circumstances surrounding that applicant it would be something that the Board would be encouraged to granting a variance. That is why this language is in there.

Mr. Montelone replied then I urge you to add language to it that says a member of the ARB shall be present at the hearing and answer any questions by the applicant, and if the ARB member is not present that the report and recommendation not be considered. You have to give the applicant a fair hearing.

Trustee Markus replied that he understood Mr. Montelone's legal point of view, but I have to say that some of these suggestions were made based upon what we heard at the public hearing. They were made as a function of a collaboration of a lot of people and the intent for the purpose of this kind of language was to provide an opportunity for the board that has the expertise and knowledge that's been involved with these issues for a lengthy period of time to provide some information to the review Board. Which we thought was an appropriate manor to satisfy all parties and I think it's a fair process. This wasn't done with the mindset of trying to be more restrictive it was done trying to achieve a stream line process to be able to make it easier for the applicant. If you note we did put a time limit in the law, because we did hear the comments made at the last hearing and we are sensitive to the fact that businesses need to get up and running. We do hear your point of view as to whether or not in your opinion this is legally sound or not. I respect that you want to offer those views, but I want to tune them out for the moment and try to just address what the intent is. You may have some suggestions where you could arrive at a win win situation that would satisfy all of us.

Mr. Montelone replied that he was not trying to be negative about the language. He was trying to be constructive about it.

Trustee Markus told Mr. Montelone to give him some suggestions in writing. We might be able to resolve some of these points and see where we have some common ground.

Mayor Cindrich stated that what we are trying to achieve here is not to have a defacto ARB by using the ZBA. In my opinion the resolution or letter of denial of approval should be efficient to be presented to the ZBA and if there's a member of the public so aggrieved that the application that's not a member of the Board they could have an opportunity to speak as in every ZBA case they are afforded that opportunity. We want to make this a workable and enforceable law that is not dictated to or violated so to speak by the ZBA. There has to be relief put into the law.

Mr. Montelone stated that the ZBA should not be a rubber stamp to the ARB.

Mr. Montelone referred to page 31 (Variances/Appeals) (15-A-1 Standard of Review). Unnecessary hardship under variances or appeals to the ZBA falls under the area of a use variance distinguished from an area variance. It's a much more difficult standard. Under the standards of the law for unnecessary hardship you have to produce all kinds of financial records. Now if a new company is coming into town they are not going to have any financial records to show that without that sign they are not going to be successful. Here I think the standards should be changed. It should become an area variance and not a use variance, which are not unnecessary due hardship.

Mayor Cindrich replied that it was referenced in the last sentence “in Village Law Section 7-712-b” that the standards of test would be the five points.

Mr. Montelone replied with a use variance its five points. With an area variance its four points, you don't have to prove unnecessary hardship. If the sign is permitted but denied because of discretion that's not a use variance that's an area variance.

Mayor Cindrich replied but if you read the complete section they layout the standards of the test of that in section 7-712-b.

Mr. Singleton stated that section covering area variances has five factors to be considered in evaluating the benefit. The fifth factor is whether or not it's a self created hardship.

Mr. Montelone stated that he had previously requested grandfathering those applicants who had been before the Board on the night that the rug got pulled out. I don't see any situation in this draft for doing that. I really feel that the Village Board should be considerate of those applicants, not necessary that they be approved. But that they be given a hearing on the night that they appeared in all good faith to be heard. I think that's fair dealing and I think that's what a community that's interested in promoting business in a community should do for businesses that are seeking to enter into the community.

Trustee Griffin, Jr. replied I think the Building Inspector's knowledge of the sign law would not permit an applicant to go in there on the eve of a law change without knowing what the law is.

Mr. Montelone replied that on that one evening when they were going before the Board and they had no idea that there was going to be a moratorium, they were going in under the existing law. All I am suggesting is that you give them the opportunity to put up a sign pursuant to the old law, with them making a business judgment that they may have to take it down in the future. But at least it would give them an opportunity as a new business to be recognized and have signage up during that interim period.

Mayor Cindrich asked if there were relief provisions built into the proposed local law with regards to the moratorium.

Mr. Singleton replied that there are provisions in the proposed local law for an applicant to move forward during the moratorium period. The moratorium period does not preclude them from moving forward an application. It just has to be compliant with the existing and proposed law.

Mr. Montelone suggested giving the applicant an opportunity to comply with the old law and be subjected to a change down the road at least they'll have the visibility of signage during this period.

Mr. Montelone stated that in regards to the promenade where Starbucks is. The Village should consider making an exception and put a directory sign on Village property to give all the tenants there visibility.

Trustee Markus asked Mr. Montelone what he had in mind.

Mr. Montelone replied if the Village came up with something concrete he would be happy to take it to his clients that are the landlords in that area.

Mayor Cindrich replied that perhaps the tenants should meet with the landlords.

Trustee Markus stated that he would like to hear from the tenants in those areas during a public hearing like this telling me that they went to the landlords and they asked for it and the landlord said no.

Mayor Cindrich directed the Village Manager to draft a letter to the landlords on the promenade and suggest that we are looking to facilitate more advertisement for the tenants in their buildings and that we would like to sit down with them and have a work session what could be achieved if we do allow a directory sign and lets see what we can work out.

Mr. Montelone requested that he be copied on the letters also.

Mr. Montelone agreed with the comprehensive sign concept but there are parts of the Village of Mount Kisco where it may not work. Where you have multiple tenants in a single building.

Trustee Markus asked why it wouldn't work.

Mr. Montelone replied there are existing signs there with tenants that have been there in place for many years and if a new tenant comes in under your code the comprehensive sign comes into play and all the other tenants in that building would be subject to that comprehensive sign requirement.

Trustee Griffin, Jr. asked are you talking about 2^nd story and 3^rd story.

Mr. Montelone replied yes.

Trustee Markus stated that we don't want them to be all the same we want the package to be done in cohesion so that it can have an aesthetic quality to them.

Mr. Montelone replied you are having the first applicant coming in and you're setting the standard with him for two or three other tenants, who are going to come down the road and say wait a minute.

Trustee Markus replied that the landlord would have to come in at that time and come up with a package.

Mr. Montelone replied that that may not be practical.

Building Inspector Cassidy stated with regards to the comprehensive program. Procedurally within the first year after the adoption of this local law that would be pretty much a rebirth of all the signage in the community. All signage would have to be analyzed and it would be either compliant or non-compliant. The non-compliant would then go into the amortization schedule where the sign would have to be replaced over a specified time. During that year of analysis one of the things that would be occurring is also that comprehensive plans would have to be visited. Comprehensive plan does not necessarily mean every sign looks like all the other signs. It just comprehensive as simple as that and it just includes the signage. Not that they all have to be a mirror of each other. Such as down town, where you have very diverse businesses and that's where the function of the ARB is and you go back to appropriateness which is their roll. Our roll is more objective in the office as to the dimensional and compliant aspects and completeness of the application and once it gets to the ARB, their roll is the appropriateness and suitability.

Mayor Cindrich stated that he would like to see a vehicle drafted where a business could make an application for a sign, either on a temporary basis or compliance with the proposed new law or even the old one. So I would like to have some way that we can accommodate new businesses that are coming into town during the next two months.

There being no further business to come before the Board a motion to adjourn the public hearing until August 11, 2008 at 7:30 pm was made by Trustee Markus and seconded by Trustee Griffin, Jr. all in favor.

Motion Adopted

Mayor Cindrich Aye

Deputy Mayor DiChiara Aye

Trustee Griffin, Jr. Aye

Trustee Markus Aye

Proposed Local Law

Changes to the Zoning Regulations

Code of the Village/Town of Mount Kisco

Continued

Mayor Cindrich stated that he had a number of issues that he had in reading over the code regarding administrative functions of the zoning ordinance. Which he is very much concerned with and would be addressing those at some point in time before the adjournment this public hearing which may require an additional notice.

Deputy Mayor DiChiara agreed that another public notice would have to be done because he took into account the comments from the last meeting and made additional revisions to the proposed local law. Originally all the zones other than two we are reducing the side yard set back from 15 feet total to 5 on one side to 10 on each side. Based on the comments at the last public hearing we have changed the minimum building side yard setbacks for RS-6, RT-6, RM-10(1), RM-10(2), RM-12, RM-29 and OC to 10 feet for lots of 70 feet or greater. For lots with a width of less than 70 feet but more than 60 feet, eight feet for one side yard with a total of 18 feet for both yards. For lots with a width of less than 60 feet, six feet for one side yard, with a total of 16 feet for both yards. By doing this it may be more architecturally pleasing which is what the Mayor had asked for. The more restrictive part of this proposed local law is the maximum building coverage for all zones. I think these new percentages will accomplish the goals that we want to accomplish.

Maximum building coverage for all zones:

For lots 10,000 square feet or greater, 20% provided that building coverage may be 2,100 on any lot greater than 10,000 square feet notwithstanding the calculating building coverage.

For lots 9,000 square feet or greater but less than 10,000 square feet 21%; provided that building coverage may be 1,980 square feet on any lot greater than 9,000 square feet but less than 10,000 square feet notwithstanding the calculated building coverage.

For lots 8,000 square feet or greater but less than 9,000 square feet 22%; provided that building coverage may be 1,840 square feet on any lot greater than 8,000 square feet but less than 9,000 square feet notwithstanding the calculated building coverage.

For lots 7,000 square feet or greater but less than 8,000 square feet, 23% provided that building coverage may be 1,680 square feet on any lot greater than 7,000 square feet but less than 8,000 square feet notwithstanding the calculated building coverage.

For lots 6,000 square feet or greater but less than 7,000 square feet 24% provided that the building coverage may be 1,500 square feet on any lot greater than 6,000 square feet but less than 7,000 square feet notwithstanding the calculated building coverage:

For lots 5,000 square feet or less 25%.

Deputy Mayor DiChiara stated that we are going to have to make these proposed changes available to the public to get their comments on these revisions. One topic I didn't address and I am looking for the Village Attorney to address is the maximum development coverage regarding pools, fountains, ponds and retention devices as to how they will be calculated.

Village Attorney Singleton replied with regards to the maximum building coverage's there is another format that you can present that is a little bit more easily discernable to the eye in the form of a chart and I will help you develop that. He added that most communities that have these sliding scales regarding building coverage's usually have them for development coverage as well.

Deputy Mayor DiChiara replied that we looked at reducing development coverage from 60% to 50% in three zones and then we are leaving development coverage alone in the other zones. Because what we are doing is leaving development coverage the same, but we are changing the definition of Development Coverage so patios, decks and gazebos which previously were not considered part of the development coverage. So that is how we are addressing maximum development coverage. Also based on the recommendations of the Planning Board I am agreeable to go along with their recommendations regarding pools, ponds and fountains whether they should be part of development coverage or not.

Village Attorney Singleton stated that he concurred with Deputy Mayor DiChiara's position. However, there are some other things that can be looked at such as the building coverage, development coverage and you can also have an F.A.R.

Deputy Mayor DiChiara replied that an F.A.R. and a Comprehensive Study definitely need to be done eventually in the future. But what we want now is to get these into the code now to stop further abuses.

Mayor Cindrich requested that Building Inspector Austin Cassidy review as early as possible the proposed changes presented by Deputy Mayor DiChiara. Also if you see any other areas that should be addressed at this juncture that you get them to the Village Attorney so that we can review them.

Mr. Cassidy replied that he quickly reviewed the changes and at first glance he would agree that there needed to be more room in terms of front yard set backs, particularly as you get to smaller lots because it was too constraining when you try to construct a driveway. Nothing was jumping out at me in the first half of this and in the second half clearly I will have to run the math and do some prep-models to see if this works out on the model.

Village Attorney Singleton stated that it would be appropriate to continue the public hearing and if substantial changes were made the public hearing will be re-noticed.

There being no further business to come before the Board a motion to adjourn the public hearing until August 11, 2008 at 7:30 pm was made by Deputy Mayor DiChiara and seconded by Trustee Griffin, Jr. all in favor.

Motion Adopted

Mayor Cindrich Aye

Deputy Mayor DiChiara Aye

Trustee Griffin, Jr. Aye

Trustee Markus Aye

1) Communications:

A. Letter from the AME Zion Church re: Fellowship Day.

Mayor Cindrich read the letter from the AME Zion Church regarding Fellowship Day dated July 8, 2008 requesting to hold its Second Annual “Fellowship Fun Day” on Saturday, August 23, 2008 from 11:00 am to 5:00 pm.

Motion made by Deputy Mayor DiChiara and seconded by Trustee Griffin, Jr. granting permission to the AME Zion Church to hold their Second Annual Fellowship Fun Day on August 23, 2008, all in favor.

Motion Adopted

Mayor Cindrich Aye

Deputy Mayor DiChiara Aye

Trustee Griffin, Jr. Aye

Trustee Markus Aye

B. Email from Alan Polensky re: vacancy on the Board of Assessment Review.

Mayor Cindrich requested that Mr. Polensky be scheduled for an informal interview for the vacancy on the Board of Assessment Review for August 11, 2008 at 7:30 pm prior to the start of the Regular Village Board Meeting.

Motion made by Deputy Mayor DiChiara and seconded by Trustee Griffin, Jr. scheduling an informal interview for the vacancy on the Board of Assessment Review for August 11, 2008 at 7:30 pm all in favor.

Motion Adopted

Mayor Cindrich Aye

Deputy Mayor DiChiara Aye

Trustee Griffin, Jr. Aye

Trustee Markus Aye

C. Other - NYSDOT Route 172.

Mayor Cindrich request that a registered “Prior Notice” letter be sent by our Village Attorney to The Supervising Engineer at the New York State Department of Transportation sighting the condition of 172 that Ron Harris is referencing in his letter. This is an abomination and very discouraging that this government is not reacting to the concerns of this Village. I know we have authorizing letters to be sent on numerous times and there is no reaction. The road is extremely dangerous with the heaving and the sinking in these particular areas. I think a registered letter is appropriate putting the DOT on notice. Mayor Cindrich also requested that Senator Leibell and Assemblyman Bradley be carbon copied on these letters.

2) Petitions: None.

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 2:00 pm this afternoon was at 94% of capacity. I did also instruct our operator at the filtration plant to activate the Leonard Park Wells, which they did today.

The average daily pumpage for the month of June was 1,454,867.

Mr. Daniel Peluso, of Dolph Rotfeld Engineering updated that Village Board with the revised project schedule. Final clean-up and demobilization will happen on August 4^th through August 8^th. Final site restoration including sidewalks, blacktop and other outstanding items will be completed in late September.

Deputy Mayor DiChiara stated that this is one of the issues that we have to make sure that we have a log record and documentation so that when we get inquiries from other towns regarding McNamee Construction's performance we can show them in writing the Village's dissatisfaction with the project.

Deputy Mayor DiChiara requested that the Village Manager send out a letter to the surrounding residents to let them know the status of the project and when the work should end and notice them that the final paving will take place in late September.

Trustee Griffin, Jr. asked to see a copy of the bid specifications for this project.

Motion made by Deputy Mayor DiChiara and seconded by Trustee Griffin, Jr. to award this contract to Leed Industries of Port Chester in the amount of $95, 300 upon the review of letters of reference and upon the review of the specifications by Trustee Griffin, Jr., all in favor.

Motion Adopted

Mayor Cindrich Aye

Deputy Mayor DiChiara Aye

Trustee Griffin, Jr. Aye

Trustee Markus Aye

D. Traffic Promulgations.

Village Manager Palmer announced the following amendment to the Traffic Rules and Regulations:

Stop Intersections:

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

Woodland Street southbound at the intersection of St. Mark's Place.

The stop sign will replace the existing yield sign.

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

Motion made by Trustee Markus and seconded by Trustee Griffin, Jr. 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 Markus Aye

5) Board Reports:

Trustee DiChiara stated that we should review our commercial vehicle zoning laws. I think that we should really limit the number and size of vehicles that are parked outside as well as in the garage. I think that after we get done with the sign ordinance and development coverage changes we should look at the commercial vehicle law as well.

Mayor Cindrich stated that we should consider having the Village Attorney or Consultant start going through the Zoning Ordinance page by page and making changes where it is appropriate. Maybe we can do this as one recommendation or one package and have multiple public hearings, it is something that we can discuss.

Mayor Cindrich reported that the Planning Board is working diligently on a number of very difficult projects and it's challenging, i.e. the Northern Westchester Hospital and the Westchester Residence.

Mayor Cindrich reported that he did have a meeting with County Legislator Peter Harckham and Tom Belfuri, the Commissioner of Public Safety and other Chief's of Police throughout the County. We discussed the services that Westchester County offers this community and other communities. We shared information so that everybody is working on the same page to enforce the laws.

Mayor Cindrich stated that the Firemen's parade was last Friday. There was a little controversy over the merchants being aggrieved as to the disruption of their businesses. We will be addressing that and we will be having meetings to address some of these issues.

Mayor Cindrich reported that another rewarding event that took place on Friday evening was the Mutual House dedicated a new truck (E-104) to a deceased member of the Fire Department Frank Matoni, who dedicated some 40 something years to the Village.

7) New Business

Appointment of James Gmelin as Chairman to the Conservation Advisory Council.

Motion made by Mayor Cindrich and seconded by Trustee Markus appointing James Gmelin as Chairman to the Conservation Advisory Council, all in favor.

Motion Adopted

Mayor Cindrich Aye

Deputy Mayor DiChiara Aye

Trustee Griffin, Jr. Aye

Trustee Markus Aye

A. Resolution authorizing a change order for Rok Built Construction re: Library Project Driven Piles.

Motion made by Trustee Markus and seconded by Trustee Griffin, Jr. authorizing the change order for Rock Built Construction regarding the Library Project Driven Piles in the amount of $180,898.00, all in favor.

Motion Adopted

Mayor Cindrich Aye

Deputy Mayor DiChiara Aye

Trustee Griffin, Jr. Aye

Trustee Markus Aye

The Village Board of Trustees requested that the Village Manager write a letter to Lothrop Associates advising them that the Village Board of Trustees reluctantly approved the change order and that the Village Board of Trustees is requesting a detailed explanation in writing from Jim Lothrop the Architect and Joseph Goldreich the Structural Engineer explaining how this cost overrun occurred.

B. Resolution authorizing Budget Modifications for FY 2007-2008 Budget.

Resolution made by Trustee Markus and seconded by Deputy Mayor DiChiara authorizing the following Budget Modifications for FY2007-2008 Budget, all in favor.

Resolved, the 2007-2008 adopted budget is modified as follows to allow for certain excess available appropriations to be utilized for the following capital projects in FY 2008-2009:

Increase/Decrease Account # and Account Name Budget Modification

PARKS & RECREATION (APPROPRIATIONS)

Decrease A7141.111 PARK PATROL - PERSONAL SERVICES PART-TIME -7,500

A7142.110 POOL SERVICES - PERSONAL SERVICES

Decrease PART-TIME -15,000

A7145.110 YOUTH SERVICES - PERSONAL SERVICES

Decrease PART-TIME - 7,500

Increase A9950 900 TRANSFER TO CAPITAL FUND 30,000

CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND (EST.REVENUES & APPROPRIATIONS)

Increase H5031.0075 TRANSFER FROM GENERAL FUND 30,000

Increase H8910.2075 CAP.PROJ. - RECREATION - BASKETBALL

COURT RESURFACING 30,000

SEWER FUND (APPROPRIATIONS)

Decrease G8120.200 SEWER FUND - EQUIPMENT -25,000

Increase G8120.2076 SEWER FUND - S.M.P.S. ROOF REPAIR 25,000

And be it further resolved, the Acting Village Treasurer is authorized to transfer said funds to the respective capital projects as of May 31, 2008.

Motion Adopted

Mayor Cindrich Aye

Deputy Mayor DiChiara Aye

Trustee Griffin, Jr. Aye

Trustee Markus Aye

C. Resolution authorizing Use of Capital Reserve Moneys.

Resolution made by Trustee Markus and seconded by Deputy Mayor DiChiara authorizing the Use of Capital Reserve Moneys, all in favor.

Resolution for Use of Moneys from Capital Reserve Fund

Whereas, the Board of Trustees established a Capital Reserve Fund in January 2002 to finance all or part of the cost of construction, reconstruction or acquisition of capital improvements or acquisition of equipment, and

Whereas, the Village's fiscal year 2008/2009 adopted budget provided for the use of Capital Reserve Fund moneys for, among other items, the following purposes:

(1) Village Street Repaving Projects $260,000

(2) Leonard Park Drive and Parking Lot Repaving 45,000

$305,000

Whereas, the use of such Capital Reserve Fund moneys is authorized for such purposes in accordance with Section 6-C of the General Municipal Law, now therefore, Be it resolved the Board of Trustees hereby authorizes the use of $580,000 from the Capital Reserve Fund for the aforementioned purposes.

This resolution is adopted subject to permissive referendum.

(Note: the Vac-All Catch Basin Cleaning Machine was not approved).

D. Resolution authorizing the Village Manager to sign the licenses agreement with Edward Lubic re: 77 South Moger Ave.

Motion made by Mayor Cindrich and seconded by Trustee Griffin, Jr. tabling this item unit the August 11, 2008 Village Board Meeting, all in favor.

Motion Adopted

Mayor Cindrich Aye

Deputy Mayor DiChiara Aye

Trustee Griffin, Jr. Aye

Trustee Markus Aye

8) Bills -

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

General Fund $286,221.68

General Fund Claims 268,803.11

Water Fund Claims 10,653.05

Sewer Fund Claims 4,807.61

Library Fund Claims 1,957.91

Senior Nutrition Program 4,927.37

Water and Sewer Fund 3,565.57

Library Fund 21,327.51

Capital Projects Fund 810,860.33

Trust and Agency Fund 1,219.35

TOTAL $1,128,121.81

Motion Adopted

Mayor Cindrich Aye

Deputy Mayor DiChiara Aye

Trustee Griffin, Jr. Aye

Trustee Markus Aye

9) Approval of Minutes -

Motion made by Trustee Markus and seconded by Trustee DiChiara approving the following:

Public Hearing and Regular Meeting June 16, 2008

Public Hearing and Regular Meeting June 30, 2008

Motion Adopted

Mayor Cindrich Aye

Deputy Mayor DiChiara Aye

Trustee Griffin, Jr. Aye

Trustee Markus Aye

10) Non-Local Business - None

11) Public Comment - None

There being no further business to come before the Board a motion to close the meeting was made by Trustee Markus and seconded by Trustee Griffin, Jr. all in favor. 10:00 pm.

__________________________

James M. Palmer

Village Manager and Clerk

Public Hearing and Regular Meeting

July 14, 2008 1.

Created by pmaiorano. Last modified 2008-08-13 12:47:36.