PRESENT: Mayor Mary Whalen Bossart, Trustees Jeanne
Farnan Mulry, Andrew P. Karamouzis, Charles R. Joyce and David A. Krasula.
ABSENT: None.
ALSO
PRESENT: Village Administrator Francis D.
Quigley, Jr.,
Mayor Bossart asked Joe Cooleen
to lead the Pledge of Allegiance.
Matt Whalen, Vice President of
Avalon Bay, gave a brief overview of his company and presented an update on the
proposed
Village Administrator Quigley
asked Superintendent Casella to present the first case for Exterior Design Review.
ACB Case #
Superintendent Casella noted that
this case had been continued from the March 31st meeting. He introduced the engineer for the project,
Irving Kusnitz.
Mr. Kusnitz said the documents
presented tonight are exactly the same as those presented previously except for
the addition of a colored rendering of the front and rear elevation and an
elevation indicating the subject property set in with the two adjacent
properties. Mr. Kusnitz said it was his
understanding that the vote was postponed at the previous meeting so that one
of the adjacent property owners could review and study the project. He said the nine other property owners have
consented to the project as submitted.
Trustee Karamouzis asked if Mr.
Kusnitz had made any changes to the project.
Mr. Kusnitz said that no changes were made. They were only submitting additional
information. Trustee Karamouzis asked if
he or Mr. Eldidi, the architect, had spoken with the design consultants
subsequent to the last hearing, since one of the comments was that the proposed
home did not fit into the neighborhood. Mr. Kusnitz said he was puzzled as to what the
particular objection is, that it doesn’t fit in with the character of the
neighborhood. They would be happy to
address it.
Trustee Krasula said that one of
the concerns is that most of the adjacent homes seem to be frame homes with
shingle or clapboard sidings. This house
is a mass of stone and brickwork. It is
entirely different from anything on that block.
Mr. Kusnitz responded that the house has a stone base and some stone
trim, but the rest of the house is vinyl siding and vinyl cedar shingles. Mr. Eldidi interjected that he wanted to
maintain one line. He said that 24
Trustee Mulry noted that the
design elements are the same design elements he had presented to the Board in
the last hearing, and they had raised questions and concerns about the busyness
of them. Mr. Eldidi said he is a
licensed architect in 26 countries and has tried to please everybody. He distributed a radius map and said he
showed the design to everybody and asked them to sign an affidavit. Ten people were in favor of the design.
Mayor Bossart called for comments
from the public.
Anthony Brunetta, of
Robert Perticaro of
Trustee Mulry said she is looking
for some modification or toning down of the architectural elements. It has nothing to do with the number of
bedrooms and baths but everything to do with your neighbors, light and air and
the size of the rear yard extension. Mr.
Katsman said that the design consultants thought they did a great job. He said he sold his apartment and has no
place to stay. He said if the Board
doesn’t like something they will take it down, he is not so “picky”.
Mayor Bossart said she thinks
that part of the problem is that they have many planes on the house. It is not as simplified as the other homes on
the street. Mr. Katsman said they could
take it right down. Just tell him what
they like and they will do it. Mayor
Bossart said they were just trying to guide Mr. Katsman, not tell him what to
do. She said perhaps a reduction in the
stone would help. Mr. Katsman said, “Consider
it done”. Mayor Bossart asked if they
could make the changes by the May 19th meeting. Mr. Katsman replied yes.
There was some discussion about
the overhangs. Mr. Eldidi said if he
could just put shutters “it would be as
Trustee Mulry asked if Mr. Eldidi
had spoken to the neighbors. Mr. Eldidi
said the neighbors he spoke with were in love with it. He said he wished someone would just tell him
what they want and he would do it.
Trustee Karamouzis said for him
it would be to remove the overhangs.
Also, there are too many elements working. He added that the design consultants had made
the comment “not in context with the neighborhood”. He reminded Mr. Eldidi that he had asked him
to speak with the neighbors before returning tonight.
Mayor Bossart suggested perhaps
he could take away the reverse gable, make everything the same depth on the
second floor, reduce some of the stone and maybe put a frame around the door
and remove the overhang. There is a lot going
on in the front. She asked him to draw
it and see what it looks like and the Board will see him on May 19th.
Mr. Eldidi summarized the Board’s
requests to lose the split gable and make it one, lose the overhang on the side
and reduce or eliminate the stone. Trustee
Karamouzis suggested the neighbors might be able to help. He said he appreciates that they have gone
through the process and wants to welcome them to the neighborhood.
On motion by Trustee Krasula,
duly seconded by Trustee Joyce and unanimously carried, the Board voted to
continue ACB Case #4-2008 – 28 Liberty Avenue to May 19, 2008.
ACB Case #
Robert Powell, the architect, said
that it seems a lot of time is spent talking about zoning issues. It happened with the previous case and also
at the March 31st meeting. He
said that is all checked out at the Building Department before they get to
Exterior Design Review. Mr. Powell said
they submitted plans on February 29th, went to the architectural
design consultants on March 6th, made revisions and resubmitted
plans on March 11th and had a hearing on March 31st. They
went back to the architectural consultants on April 8th, made some
revisions which were submitted on April 14th and sent over-night on
April 15th.
Mr. Powell recapped the March 31st
hearing stating that Mr. McGuire said that all the dimensions on the plan were
wrong. The setback on the block was not
accurate. Mr. Powell hired AK Associates
who provided a licensed survey, a comprehensive plot plan, the elevation of the
property and average front yard setback on the block. He said existing side yard setback is 5.7 ft. The chimney is encroaching 2 ft. and is
allowed by zoning bylaws. Zoning allows
for a 2½ story structure which height shall not exceed an aggregate of 30
ft. The building height proposed is at
25’6”. The height to the ridge will be
within the average height on the block.
He said there was a question about windows in the attic. The revised drawing shows a decorative window
in the front gable. They will retain the
attic stairs. There were concerns about
the integrity of the proposed foundation.
Mr. Powell showed a certificate of compliance that certifies the plans
submitted comply with the New York State Building Codes and Energy Codes.
Mr. Powell said that Mr. Sussman
had a question about removing more than 50% of the building. He said the package shows how much they are
removing floor for floor. They are removing
between 25.12% and 32.6%. You are
allowed to remove 50% of the building.
Mr. Sussman was also concerned about the garage height. Mr. Powell said that it is 15 ft. to the
ridge and zoning allows for the cupola to extend beyond it. Mr. Powell said he thinks this house fits
well into the neighborhood. There are
Colonials on the block. There is a Tudor
up the block that doesn’t fit in as well.
They have added more landscaping.
Mr. Powell then demonstrated how far back they are going on the
property. The average footprint is 29.2.
They are 29.4, #22 is 32.8 and Mr. McGuire is 25.6%. The front setback line to the rear of the
property, the average is 76.24, they are 76.42.
Mrs. Conroy had been concerned about looking out her kitchen window and
seeing the house, he said they are concerned about looking out the window and
seeing hers. The houses are 24 ft.
apart.
Mr. Powell said that Tom Domanico
had suggested putting a small roof over the rear porch. The extended the chimney all the way up with
a stucco finish.
Trustee Mulry said she was
looking for a little bit more of a setback on the second floor. She is concerned that the sheer boxiness of
the design might overwhelm the other homes.
Mr. Powell said all of the other houses are sheer, straight up. He reversed the gable just to do something
different.
Trustee Krasula asked about the
placement of air conditioning units. Mr.
Powell said they are in the back by the garage, which meets all the
requirements. They will pipe
underground.
Trustee Karamouzis inquired about
putting shutters on the sides of the house.
Mr. Powell said that if you do that, you can end up with a single
shutter. This follows suit with the
original house.
Eric Sussman of
brick would be quite a few more
dollars. Mr. Sussman asked if the plot
plan was corrected. Mr. Powell said
yes. Mr. Sussman said he appreciates the
landscaping that will be added.
Richard McGuire of
Mary Candiano, the owner, noted
that everything is being done within code.
Every house has the same roofline.
She just wanted to mix thing up a little. Mr. Powell added that 21 and 34
Trustee Krasula moved to close
the public hearing. Trustee Karamouzis
seconded, and the motion was carried unanimously.
Trustee Karamouzis moved to
approve the application. Trustee Krasula
seconded the motion. Mayor Bossart,
Trustees Karamouzis, Joyce and Krasula voted aye. Trustee Mulry voted nay. By a vote of 4-1 the Board approved ACB
Case #
Village Administrator Quigley
opened a public hearing for RVC Bill #12A-07 authorizing criminal background
and fingerprint checks for certain employees.
This hearing is being continued from March 31st.
Mayor Bossart called for comments
from the Board and the public.
Hearing none, on motion by
Trustee Krasula, duly seconded by Trustee Karamouzis and unanimously carried,
the Board voted to close the public hearing on RVC Bill
#12A-07.
On motion by Trustee Krasula,
duly seconded by Trustee Mulry and unanimously carried, the Board adopted
Local Law #1 of 2008.
****
LOCAL LAW #1 of 2008
A local law in relation to authorizing criminal
background and fingerprint checks for certain employees
Section
one. Chapter 35 of the Code of the
Village of Rockville Centre is hereby amended, by adding thereto a new article,
to be article II, to be entitled “Criminal Background Checks Required”, and to
read as follows:
“Article II. Criminal History Checks Required.
§35-5. Criminal History Checks Required For Certain
Employees.
A. No person shall be hired by the Village of
Rockville Centre as a full-time or part-time employee in the Parks and
Recreation Department, Martin Luther King Center and/or the Sandel Senior
Center, or in any other position where the Village Administrator determines
that a substantial part of the duties of such position involves contact with
minor children, unless such person first has undergone a satisfactory criminal
history check performed by the New York State Division of Criminal Justice
Services.
B. Prior to hiring any person described in
paragraph A hereof, the Village shall obtain from such person a fingerprint
card, and submit the same to the New York State Division of Criminal Justice
Services together with any applicable fee, and receive a favorable criminal
history record information report from such Division with respect to the
criminal history of the person to be hired.
C. The Village Administrator, or the designee of
the Village Administrator, shall be responsible for reviewing the criminal
history record information report.
D. If a prospective or probationary employee has
been convicted of a felony and/or a misdemeanor, any decision regarding such
prospective or probationary employee’s fitness for a position shall be made
upon a review including, without limitation, the factors contained in New York
Correction Law §§751-753, inclusive.”
Section
two. If any clause, sentence, paragraph,
or section of this local law shall be held invalid by any court of competent
jurisdiction, or the application of this local law to any person or set of
circumstances shall be held invalid, such invalidity or judgment shall not
affect, impair, or invalidate the remainder thereof, but shall be confined in
its operation to the clause, sentence, paragraph, section, or operation of this
local law directly involved in the controversy in which the judgment shall have
been rendered. To further this end, the
provisions of this local law are hereby declared to be severable.
Section
three. This local law shall take effect
immediately upon adoption and filing pursuant to the Municipal Home Rule
Law.
****
Village Administrator Quigley
opened a public hearing on RVC Bill #1-08, which is being continued from March
31st.
Mayor Bossart called for comments
from the Board or the public.
Kevin Akner, of
Mr. Akner added that every time
the Board passes a new zoning code they add to the nonconforming properties in
this Village. Mr. Levin said this does
not deal with nonconforming properties, it deals with nonconforming use.
Trustee Karamouzis interjected
that one of the reasons he was in favor of this was the Gulf Station on
Trustee Mulry pointed out that
the right was taken away a long time ago because now you have a nonconforming
use. The Board did not discuss
two-family houses because it was not the issue they were focused on. The Board
wanted to discourage a property from becoming a blight on the Village with
graffiti and overgrown lawns. Mr. Akner
said there are already laws on the books to maintain the charm and the
character of the Village.
Mayor Bossart noted that if you
have a legal nonconforming use, the expectation is that at some point in time
it will cease to exist as a nonconforming use.
If it is the wish of the owner to maintain that use, it is the
responsibility of the owner and they have to actively seek to do it. Mayor Bossart added that there aren’t many
two-family houses in one-family zones and that people anticipate that in time
the houses will be single family
homes and owned by the
residents.
Trustee Mulry added that the
Building Superintendent is the person who would make the determination if an
owner is actively seeking to maintain the nonconforming use. If Mr. Akner does not like the decision, he
can go to the Zoning Board. She said
they are tightening up the law and if it has a negative impact on him, it will
be the Building Department Superintendent’s decision, not decided here.
Trustee Krasula said this
legislation is directed toward a larger issue.
There are a number of establishments that have nonconforming use and
have not been maintained. The Board
thought it was time to cut back on the amount of time it gave those businesses an
opportunity to fill those spaces as a continued nonconforming use. Mr. Akner asked for specifics. The Board cited the Gulf Station and the
Arbor Inn.
Trustee Karamouzis added that he
had no idea that Mr. Akner lived in a two-family house and this law was not
directed at him. It was complaints about
the Gulf Station that made him consider this.
Trustee Mulry said that the Board
had eliminated basement nightclubs and storage warehouses as a use, and she
wanted to shorten the time that an owner had to grandfather a use. Trustee Mulry told Mr. Akner that two-family
homes were never even brought up, and that the Board has confidence in the
Building Department Superintendent that he will make sure that his fears are
never going to happen.
Mr. Akner asked Mr. Levin if the
concern is over nightclubs and storage warehouses, would it be spot zoning to
list only those nonconforming uses? Mr.
Levin said his role is to give advice to the Board. Mr. Akner asked if one of the Trustees could
pose his question for him. Mayor Bossart
asked Mr. Levin if that would be spot zoning.
Mr. Levin said he believes it would but he does not believe it would
have any impact on this legislation. Mr.
Levin said it is relatively simple to show that you have not discontinued the
use of a two-family home. One way you
would discontinue use would be to change it into a one-family home and under
the current law you could do that for eleven months. Under the proposed law you would have five
months. Mr. Akner said that as long as
he demonstrates due diligence at least every six months when his unit might be
unoccupied he would be safe from the law.
Mr. Levin said he thinks that is a reasonable expectation.
Jeff Greenfield asked if there
could be a carve out in the law for insurance companies which may take longer
than six months to adjust a loss from a fire.
Trustee Karamouzis said it comes
down to the judicious interpretation of the law.
Trustee Krasula moved to close
the public hearing. Trustee Karamouzis
seconded, and the motion was carried unanimously.
On motion by Trustee Mulry, duly
seconded by Trustee Karamouzis and unanimously carried, the Board adopted
Local Law #2-2008.
Local Law #2 of 2008
Text of law should be given as amended. Do not include matter being eliminated and do
not use italics or underlining to indicate new matter.
Section
one. Section 340-3(C) of the Code of the
"C. No nonconforming use, if changed
to a conforming use, shall thereafter be changed back to a nonconforming use.
Whenever a nonconforming use has been discontinued for a period of six months,
such nonconforming use shall not thereafter be resumed, and the future use
shall be in conformity with the zone in which the property is located. In case
a building devoted to a nonconforming use shall be more than 50% destroyed by
fire or other cause, the same shall not be restored for a nonconforming use,
and the use of the premises shall thereafter be in conformity with the zone in
which the property is located, unless the Board of Appeals shall grant special
consent for such restoration for the nonconforming use."
Section two. If any clause, sentence, paragraph, or
section of this local law shall be held invalid by any court of competent
jurisdiction, or the application of this local law to any person or set of
circumstances shall be held invalid, such invalidity or judgment shall not
affect, impair, or invalidate the remainder thereof, but shall be confined in
its operation to the clause, sentence, paragraph, section, or operation of this
local law directly involved in the controversy in which the judgment shall have
been rendered. To further this end, the
provisions of this local law are hereby declared to be severable.
Section three. This local law shall take effect immediately
upon adoption and filing pursuant to the Municipal Home Rule Law.
****
Village
Administrator Quigley opened a public hearing for RVC Bill #2-08 relating to
central air conditioning units. It has
been continued from the March 31st meeting.
Trustee
Krasula noted that he is not satisfied with the numbers and asked Kevin Akner,
who had spoken at the last previous hearing, to provide additional information.
Trustee
Mulry agreed that the Board has heard a lot of compelling testimony regarding
side yard setbacks and might have to add a rear yard setback.
Mayor
Bossart said she feels the units should be either in the front or the back of
the property, not on the side. Corner
properties and existing units should require a special permit.
Trustee
Krasula said he thinks the Board should continue the hearing and refine the
language and agree on some numbers.
Trustee Karamouzis agreed that the public hearing should remain open
while the Board continues to work with the numbers. Trustee Mulry said a lot of residents have
side yard units and the Board has to take that into account. Mayor Bossart added that many of those were
installed because people didn’t realize what they were signing and are now
stuck with them for perpetuity.
On
motion by Trustee Joyce, duly seconded by Trustee Krasula and unanimously
carried, the Board voted to continue the public hearing on
RVC Bill #2-08 relating to central air conditioning units to the May
19th meeting.
Trustee
Karamouzis suggested that perhaps there is someone in the audience tonight who
wishes to speak.
Karen
Carter said that if you eliminate side yards that just leaves the rear
yard. Mayor Bossart said they would
include front yards. Ms. Carter said she
had asked to put hers in the front yard and was told absolutely not.
Ken
Carter asked where the front yard and rear yard start. Trustee Mulry responded that that is one of
the questions. Mr. Levin said generally
speaking the side yards don’t have anything to do with where the front yards
and rear yards are. The front yard setback
is from the street and is all across the property. The rear yard is from the property line and
all across the property.
Trustee
Krasula said the Board has to consider properties that are small in width, and
that is one of the ongoing discussions the Board is having. He asked Mr. Akner to share his thoughts
about portable units.
Mr.
Akner said ductless system units require a permit and are subject to the same
setbacks. It is inside, hanging on the
wall, but has a condenser on the outside.
It is about the size of carry-on luggage. It sits on a separate platform connected by
copper wire. They are becoming much more
popular, are efficient and are coming down in price.
Anthony
Farella said he needs to know what to do now.
He has the approval of the neighbor next door to put his unit on the
left side of the house ten feet away from the property line. Trustee Karamouzis asked if he could get it
to the front or the back. Mr. Farella
said he could get it to the front, but he doesn’t think it would look
nice. Trustee Karamouzis asked
Superintendent Casella for his advice.
Mr. Casella said we would treat it as an accessory structure, and it
would not be permitted in the front.
Mayor Bossart asked if he could wait until May 19th. Mr. Farella said he could. Acting Village Attorney Levin pointed out
that Mr. Farella’s situation conforms to the policy the Village had prior to
this discussion. The Board agreed that
if that was the policy, it should continue until the law is changed. Trustee Karamouzis suggested that counsel and
Mr. Casella have a discussion tomorrow before the Board makes any decision.
Eric
Sussman asked the definition of “guarded” in Section C.
Rick
Gaska said the Board has to look at all the products that are available now and
compare the noise and efficiency.
Perhaps the Building Department should gather some experts to ask what
they would recommend for side yards.
Mike
Jewell of
On
motion by Trustee Krasula, duly seconded by Trustee Karamouzis and unanimously
carried, the Board voted, again, to continue the public hearing
on RVC Bill 2-08 to May 19th.
Village
Administrator Quigley opened a public hearing for RVC Bill #4F-07 to amend the
code in relation to permitted multi-family uses and height restriction in the
Business C and C2 Districts.
Trustee
Mulry added that this legislation is intended to make the C and C2 Districts a
little less commercial and a little more residential. It gives the Planning Board some pretty
usable control over what can be built.
Trustee
Krasula asked the Acting Village Attorney if this legislation had been referred
to the Nassau County Planning Commission.
Mr. Levin said it was and they are leaving it to our decision.
Mayor Bossart said the only additional change she would like to see is in Article
IV §330-16 (7) where she would
add the words “and on the non-driveway side”.
Trustee
Mulry moved to amend Article IV §330-16 (7) as follows: “each residential building
shall be served by its own driveway, and the site plan shall include
landscaping and planting buffers between driveways and on the non-driveway side
as approved by the Planning Board.”
Trustee Krasula seconded the motion, and it was carried
unanimously.
Hearing
no further comments, on motion by Trustee Krasula, duly seconded by Trustee
Joyce and unanimously carried, the Board voted to close the public
hearing on RVC Bill #4F-07.
On
motion by Trustee Krasula, duly seconded by Trustee Mulry and unanimously
carried, the Board adopted Local Law 3 of 2008 as amended.
****
Local Law 3 of 2008
Text of law should be given as amended. Do not include matter being eliminated and do
not use italics or underlining to indicate new matter.
Section
one. Purpose. The Board of Trustees of the Village of
Rockville Centre hereby finds and determines that multi-family housing may be
an appropriate use for some properties in the Business C or C2 Districts of the
Village, which consist of properties contiguous with other properties zoned for
single family residential dwellings, but that such uses should be subject to
scrutiny and the imposition of conditions in particular cases. Accordingly, this legislation is enacted to
amend the existing provisions of the Village Code which include such
multi-family housing in the Business C and Business C2 Districts as permitted
uses, and instead to require a special use permit for such uses. In addition, this legislation would reduce
the maximum permitted height of buildings in these districts.
Section two. Section I (A)(4) of Chart VII of
the Code of the
Section three. Section I (B)(1) of Chart VII of the Code of
the
“(1) Multifamily uses, with or without a
nonresidential street floor use, with a special use permit to be issued by the
Planning Board. No multifamily use shall
contain more than 18 units per acre. No
more than 10% of the units shall contain three or more bedrooms. A den that is separated from a living room
shall be counted as a bedroom.”
Section
four. The opening paragraph of Section
II (A) of Chart VII of the Code of the
“A. Multifamily use. When a special use permit is required, the
Planning Board shall have the power, in accordance with Chapter 330, and after
public notice and hearing, to grant a special use permit. No multifamily use shall contain more than 18
units per acre. No more than 10% of the
units shall contain three or more bedroom.
A den that is separated from a living room shall be counted as a
bedroom.”
Section five. Section I (A)(4) of Chart VIII
of the Code of the
Section six.
Section three. Section I (B)(1) of Chart VIII of the Code of
the
“(1) Multifamily uses, with or without a
nonresidential street floor use, with a special use permit to be issued by the
Planning Board. No multifamily use shall
contain more than 18 units per acre. No
more than 10% of the units shall contain three or more bedrooms. A den that is separated from a living room
shall be counted as a bedroom.”
Section
seven. The opening paragraph of Section
II (A) of Chart VIII of the Code of the
“A.
Multifamily use. When a special
use permit is required, the Planning Board shall have the power, in accordance
with Chapter 330, and after public notice and hearing, to grant a special use
permit. No multifamily use shall contain
more than 18 units per acre. No more
than 10% of the units shall contain three or more bedroom. A den that is separated from a living room
shall be counted as a bedroom.”
Section
eight. Section I (C)(2) of Chart VII of
the Code of the Village of Rockville Center is hereby amended, to read as
follows:
“(2)
Height: lesser of 24 feet or three stories for a building with a
flat roof, and the lesser of 30 feet or three stories for a building with any
other type of roof, but in no event more than 36 feet to the peak or highest
point.”
Section
nine. Section I (C)(2) of Chart VIII of
the Code of the
“(2)
Height: lesser of 24 feet or three stories for a building with a
flat roof, and the lesser of 30 feet or three stories for a building with any
other type of roof, but in no event more than 36 feet to the peak or highest
point."
Section
ten. Chapter 330 of the Code of the
Article
IV
Special
Permits
§330-15. Special Permits. Wherever the Planning Board is vested with
authority to issue a special permit pursuant to this Code, the procedures and
general standards for review of such applications shall be the same as those
provided in this chapter with respect to subdivision review, except where the
Planning Board may determine otherwise for good cause and upon resolution
stating the reasons for such exceptions.
§330-16. Special Permits For Multifamily Uses in the
Business C or C2 Districts.
A. Unless otherwise determined by the Planning
Board as provided in paragraph B of this section, any multifamily use in the
Business C or C2 Districts for which a special permit is granted shall conform
to the following conditions:
(1) there
shall not be more than four dwelling units in any one building;
(2) no
off-street parking on the site shall be located in the front or side yard
setback areas, nor in or underneath any building or portion of a building used
for residential occupancy;
(3) all
off-street parking on the site shall be located behind the front building
lines;
(4) no
building shall be located within a distance of ten (10) feet of any other
building;
(5) there
shall be a minimum of two (2) parking spaces on site for each residential unit;
(6) on
site parking may be outdoors or enclosed, but any enclosed off-street parking
shall be in a structure detached from any residential structure;
(7) each
residential building shall be served by its own driveway, and the site plan
shall include landscaping and planting buffers between driveways, and on the
non-driveway side of the property, as approved by the Planning Board;
(8) all
front entrances to residential buildings shall face the street, and the
Building Department shall determine which street the entrances are required to
face in the event of any dispute.
B. In a proper case, and for good cause shown,
the Planning Board may waive one or more of the requirements of paragraph A of
this section, provided that any such
determination by the Planning
Board shall state the reasons for such action, in written form."
Section
eleven. If any clause, sentence, paragraph,
section, article, or part of this local law shall be adjudged to be invalid by
any court of competent jurisdiction, such judgment shall not affect, impair or
invalidate any other part of this local law, or the remainder thereof, but
shall be confined in its operation to the clause, sentence, paragraph, section,
article, or part thereof directly involved in the controversy in which such
judgment shall have been rendered.
Section
twelve. This local law shall take effect
immediately upon adoption and filing pursuant to the Municipal Home Rule Law.
****
Village Administrator Quigley
opened an public hearing on RVC Bill #5-08.
Mayor Bossart called for comments
from the Board and the public.
Hearing none, on motion by Trustee
Krasula, duly seconded by Trustee Joyce and unanimously carried, the Board
voted to close the public hearing on RVC Bill #5-08.
On motion by Trustee Krasula,
duly seconded by Trustee Karamouzis and unanimously carried, the Board
adopted Local Law 4 of 2008.
****
Local Law 4 of 2008
Text of law should be given as amended. Do not include matter being eliminated and do
not use italics or underlining to indicate new matter.
Section one. The Code of the
"Chapter
212. Illicit Discharges, Activities, and
Connections to Storm Sewer System.
§212-1. Purpose.
The purpose of this law is to provide for the health, safety, and
general welfare of the citizens of the
federal and state
law. This law establishes methods for controlling the introduction of
pollutants into the MS4 in order to comply with requirements of the SPDES
General Permit for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems. The objectives of
this law are:
A.
to meet the requirements of the SPDES General Permit for Storm water
Discharges from MS4s, Permit no. GP-02-02 or as amended or revised;
B.
to regulate the contribution of pollutants to the MS4 since such systems
are not designed to accept, process or discharge non-storm water wastes;
C. to prohibit Illicit Connections,
Activities and Discharges to the MS4;
D.
to establish legal authority to carry out all inspection, surveillance
and monitoring procedures necessary to ensure compliance with this law; and
E.
to promote public awareness of the hazards involved in the improper
discharge of trash, yard waste, lawn chemicals, pet waste, wastewater, grease,
oil, petroleum products, cleaning products, paint products, hazardous waste,
sediment and other pollutants into the MS4.
§212-2. Definitions. Whenever used in this chapter, unless a
different meaning is stated in a definition applicable to only a portion of
this chapter, the following terms will have meanings set forth below:
A. Best Management Practices (BMPs). Schedules
of activities, prohibitions of practices, general good house keeping practices,
pollution prevention and educational practices, maintenance procedures, and
other management practices to prevent or reduce the discharge of pollutants
directly or indirectly to storm water, receiving waters, or storm water
conveyance systems. BMPs also include treatment practices, operating
procedures, and practices to control site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or
water disposal, or drainage from raw materials storage.
B. Clean Water Act. The Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.), and any subsequent amendments thereto.
C. Construction Activity. Activities requiring
authorization under the SPDES permit for storm water discharges from
construction activity, GP-02-01, as amended or revised. These activities
include construction projects resulting in land disturbance of one or more
acres. Such activities include but are
not limited to clearing and grubbing, grading, excavating, and demolition.
D. Department. The New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation.
E. Design professional.
F. Hazardous Materials. Any material, including
any substance, waste, or combination thereof, which because of its quantity,
concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics may cause,
or significantly contribute to, a substantial present or potential hazard to
human health, safety, property, or the environment when improperly treated,
stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed.
G. Illicit Connections. Any drain or conveyance,
whether on the surface or subsurface, which allows an illegal discharge to
enter the MS4, including but not limited to:
1. Any conveyances which allow any non-storm
water discharge including treated or untreated sewage, process wastewater, and
wash water to enter the MS4 and any connections to the storm drain system from
indoor drains and sinks, regardless of whether said drain or connection had
been previously allowed, permitted, or approved by an authorized enforcement
agency; or
2. Any drain or conveyance connected from a
commercial or industrial land use to the MS4 which has not been documented in
plans, maps, or equivalent records and approved by an authorized enforcement
agency.
H. Illicit Discharge. Any direct or indirect
non-storm water discharge to the MS4, except as exempted in this chapter.
I. Individual Sewage Treatment System. A
facility serving one or more parcels of land or residential households, or a
private, commercial or institutional facility, that treats sewage or other
liquid wastes for discharge into the groundwaters of New York State, except
where a permit for such a facility is required under the applicable provisions
of Article 17 of the Environmental Conservation Law.
J. Industrial Activity. Activities requiring the
SPDES permit for discharges from industrial activities except construction,
GP-98-03, as amended or revised.
K. MS4.
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System.
L. Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System. A
conveyance or system of conveyances (including
roads with drainage systems, municipal streets, catch basins, curbs,
gutters, ditches, man-made channels, or storm drains):
1. owned or operated by the Village
2. designed or used for collecting
or conveying storm water
3. which is not a combined
sewer, and
4. which is not part of a
Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) as defined at 40 CFR 122.2.
M. Non-Storm water Discharge. Any discharge to
the MS4 that is not composed entirely of storm water.
N.
Person. Any individual, association, organization, partnership, firm,
corporation or other entity recognized by law and acting as either the owner or
as the owner’s agent.
O.
Pollutant. Dredged spoil, filter backwash, solid waste, incinerator
residue, treated or untreated sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions,
chemical wastes, biological materials, radioactive materials, heat, wrecked or
discarded equipment, rock, sand and industrial, municipal, agricultural waste
and ballast discharged into water; which may cause or might reasonably be
expected to cause pollution of the waters of the state in contravention of the
standards.
P.
Premises. Any building, lot, parcel of land, or portion of land whether
improved or unimproved including adjacent sidewalks and parking strips.
Q.
Special Conditions.
1. Discharge Compliance with Water Quality
Standards. The condition that applies where the Village has been notified that
the discharge of storm water authorized under their MS4 permit may have caused
or has the reasonable potential to cause or contribute to the violation of an
applicable water quality standard. Under
this condition the Village must take all necessary actions to ensure future
discharges do not cause or contribute to a violation of water quality
standards.
2. 303(d) Listed Waters. The condition in the
Village’s MS4 permit that applies where the MS4 discharges to a 303(d) listed
water. Under this condition the storm
water management program must ensure no increase of the listed pollutant of
concern to the 303(d) listed water.
3. Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Strategy. The
condition in the Village’s MS4 permit where a TMDL including requirements for
control of storm water discharges has been approved by EPA for a waterbody or
watershed into which the MS4 discharges.
If the discharge from the MS4 did not meet the TMDL storm water
allocations prior to September 10, 2003, the
Village was required to modify its storm water management program to
ensure that reduction of the pollutant of concern specified in the TMDL is
achieved.
4. The condition in the Village’s MS4 permit
that applies if a TMDL is approved in the future by EPA for any waterbody or
watershed into which an MS4 discharges.
Under this condition the Village must review the applicable TMDL to see
if it includes requirements for control of storm water discharges. If an MS4 is
not meeting the TMDL storm water allocations, the Village must, within six (6)
months of the TMDL’s approval, modify its storm water management program to
ensure that reduction of the pollutant of concern specified in the TMDL is
achieved.
R. State Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (SPDES) Storm water Discharge Permit. A permit issued by the
Department
that authorizes the
discharge of pollutants to waters of the state.
S. Storm water. Rainwater, surface
runoff, snowmelt and drainage.
T.
Storm water Management Officer (SMO). An employee, the municipal
engineer or other public official(s) designated by the Village to enforce this
chapter. The SMO may also be designated
by the Village to accept and review storm water pollution prevention plans,
forward the plans to the applicable municipal board and inspect storm water
management practices.
U.
303(d) List. A list of all surface waters in the state for which
beneficial uses of the water (drinking, recreation, aquatic habitat, and
industrial use) are impaired by pollutants, prepared periodically by the
Department as required by Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. 303(d) listed waters are estuaries, lakes and
streams that fall short of state surface water quality standards and are not
expected to improve within the next two years.
V.
TMDL. Total Maximum Daily Load.
W. Total Maximum Daily Load. The maximum
amount of a pollutant to be allowed to be released into a waterbody so as not
to impair uses of the water, allocated among the sources of that pollutant.
X. Wastewater. Water that is not storm water, is
contaminated with pollutants and is or will be discarded.
Y. Village. The
S212-3. Applicability. This chapter shall apply to all water entering
the MS4 generated on any developed and undeveloped lands unless explicitly
exempted by an authorized enforcement agency.
§212-4. Responsibility for Administration. The Storm water Management Officer(s)
(SMO(s)) shall administer, implement, and enforce the provisions of this
chapter. Such powers granted or duties
imposed upon the authorized enforcement official may be delegated in writing by
the SMO as may be authorized by the Village.
§212-5. Severability.
The provisions of this chapter are hereby declared to be severable. If
any provision, clause, sentence, or paragraph of this chapter or the
application thereof to any person, establishment, or circumstances shall be
held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions or application
of this chapter.
§212-6. Discharge prohibitions.
A. Prohibition of Illegal
Discharges. No person shall discharge or
cause to be discharged into the MS4 any materials other than storm water except
as provided in this chapter. The
commencement, conduct or continuance of any illegal discharge to the MS4 is
prohibited except as described as follows:
1. The following discharges are
exempt from discharge prohibitions established by this chapter, unless the
Department or the Village has determined them to be substantial contributors of
pollutants: water line flushing or other potable water sources, landscape
irrigation or lawn watering, existing diverted stream flows, rising ground water,
uncontaminated ground water infiltration to storm drains,
uncontaminated pumped ground water, foundation or footing drains, crawl space
or basement sump pumps, air conditioning condensate, irrigation water, springs,
water from individual residential car washing, natural riparian habitat or
wetland flows, dechlorinated swimming pool discharges, residential street wash
water, water from fire fighting activities, and any other water source not
containing pollutants. Such exempt
discharges shall be made in accordance with an appropriate plan for reducing
pollutants.
2. Discharges approved in writing
by the SMO to protect life or property from imminent harm or damage, provided
that, such approval shall not be construed to constitute compliance with other
applicable laws and requirements, and further provided that such discharges may
be permitted for a specified time period and under such conditions as the SMO
may deem appropriate to protect such life and property while reasonably
maintaining the purpose and intent of this chapter.
3. Dye testing in compliance with
applicable state and local laws is an allowable discharge, but requires a
verbal notification to the SMO prior to the time of the test.
4. The prohibition shall not apply
to any discharge permitted under an SPDES permit, waiver, or waste discharge
order issued to the discharger and administered under the authority of the
Department, provided that the discharger is in full compliance with all
requirements of the permit, waiver, or order and other applicable laws and
regulations, and provided that written approval has been granted for any
discharge to the MS4.
B.
Prohibition of Illicit Connections.
1.
The construction, use, maintenance or continued existence of illicit
connections to the MS4 is prohibited.
2.
This prohibition expressly includes, without limitation, illicit
connections made in the past, regardless of whether the connection was
permissible under law or practices applicable or prevailing at the time of connection.
3. A
person is considered to be in violation of this chapter if the person connects
a line conveying sewage to the Village’s MS4, or allows such a connection to
continue, in violation of this chapter.
§212-7. Prohibition against failing individual sewage
treatment systems. No person shall
operate a failing individual sewage treatment system in areas tributary to the
Village’s MS4. A failing individual
sewage treatment system is one which has one or more of the following
conditions:
A.
The backup of sewage into a structure.
B.
Discharges of treated or untreated sewage onto the ground surface.
C. A
connection or connections to a separate storm water sewer system.
D.
Liquid level in the septic tank above the outlet invert.
E.
Structural failure of any component of the individual sewage treatment
system that
could lead to any of
the other failure conditions as noted in this section.
F.
Contamination of off-site groundwater.
§212-8. Prohibition against activities contaminating
storm water.
A. Activities that are subject to
the requirements of this section are those types of activities that:
1.
Cause or contribute to a violation of the Village’s MS4 SPDES permit.
2. Cause or
contribute to the Village being subject to the Special Conditions as defined in
this chapter.
B. Such activities include failing
individual sewage treatment systems as defined in this chapter, improper
management of pet waste or any other activity that causes or contributes to
violations of the Village’s MS4 SPDES permit authorization.
C. Upon notification to a person
that such person is engaged in activities that cause or contribute to
violations of the Village’s MS4 SPDES permit authorization, that person shall
take all reasonable actions to correct such activities such that the person no
longer causes or contributes to violations of the Village’s MS4 SPDES permit
authorization.
§212-9. Requirement to prevent, control, and reduce
storm water pollutants by the use of best management practices.
A. Best Management Practices. Where
the SMO has identified illicit discharges or activities contaminating storm
water the Village may require implementation of Best Management Practices
(BMPs) to control those illicit discharges and activities.
1.
The owner or operator of a commercial or industrial establishment shall
provide, at their own expense, reasonable protection from accidental discharge
of prohibited materials or other wastes into the MS4 through the use of
structural and non-structural BMPs.
2. Any person responsible for a
property or premise, which is, or may be, the source of an illicit discharge or
an activity contaminating storm water may be required to implement, at said
person’s expense, additional structural and non-structural BMPs to reduce or
eliminate the source of pollutant(s) to the MS4.
3.
Compliance with all terms and conditions of a valid SPDES permit
authorizing the discharge of storm water associated with industrial activity,
to the extent practicable, shall be deemed compliance with the provisions of
this section.
B.
Individual Sewage Treatment Systems - Response to Special Conditions
Requiring No Increase of Pollutants or Requiring a Reduction of
Pollutants. Where individual sewage
treatment systems are contributing to the Village’s being subject to the
Special Conditions as defined in this chapter, 4the owner or operator of such
individual sewage treatment systems shall be required to:
1.
Maintain and operate individual sewage treatment systems as follows:
a. inspect the septic tank annually to determine
scum and sludge accumulation. Septic
tanks must be pumped out whenever the bottom of the scum layer is within three
inches of the bottom of the outlet baffle or sanitary tee or the top of
the sludge is within ten inches of the bottom of the outlet baffle or sanitary
tee.
b. avoid the use of septic tank additives.
c. avoid the disposal of excessive quantities of
detergents, kitchen wastes, laundry wastes, and household chemicals; and
d. avoid the disposal of cigarette butts,
disposable diapers, sanitary napkins, trash and other such items.
Most tanks should be
pumped out every two to three years.
However, pumping may be more or less frequent depending on use. Inspection of the tank for cracks, leaks and
blockages should be done by the septage hauler at the time of pumping of the
tank contents.
2. Repair or replace individual sewage treatment systems as follows:
a. In
accordance with 10NYCRR Appendix 75A to the maximum extent practicable.
b. A
design professional licensed to practice in
i. relocating or extending an absorption area to
a location not previously approved for such.
ii. installation of a new subsurface treatment
system at the same location.
iii. use of alternate system or innovative system
design or technology.
3. A written certificate of compliance shall be submitted by the
design professional to the Village at the completion of construction of the
repair or replacement system.
§212-10.
Suspension of access to MS4, Illicit Discharges in Emergency Situations.
A. The SMO may, without prior notice, suspend
MS4 discharge access to a person when such suspension is necessary to stop an
actual or threatened discharge which presents or may present imminent and
substantial danger to the environment, to the health or welfare of persons, or
to the MS4. The SMO shall notify the person of such suspension within a
reasonable time thereafter in writing of the reasons for the suspension. If the
violator fails to comply with a suspension order issued in an emergency, the
SMO may take such steps as deemed
necessary to prevent or minimize damage to the MS4 or to minimize danger to
persons.
B. Suspension due to the detection of illicit
discharge. Any person discharging to the
Village’s MS4 in violation of this chapter may have their MS4 access terminated
if such termination would abate or reduce an illicit discharge. The SMO will
notify a violator in writing of the proposed termination of its MS4 access and
the reasons therefor. The violator may petition the SMO for a reconsideration
and hearing. Access may be granted by
the SMO if he/she finds that the illicit discharge has ceased and the
discharger has taken steps to prevent its recurrence. Access may be denied if the SMO determines in
writing that the illicit discharge has not ceased or is likely to recur. A person commits an offense if the person
reinstates MS4 access to premises terminated pursuant to this chapter without
the prior approval of the SMO.
§212-11.
Industrial or construction activity discharges. Any person subject to an industrial or
construction activity SPDES storm water discharge permit shall comply with all
provisions of such permit. Proof of
compliance with said permit may be required in a form acceptable to the Village
prior to the allowing of discharges to the MS4.
§212-12.
Access and monitoring of discharges.
A. Applicability. This section applies to all
facilities that the SMO must inspect to enforce any provision of this chapter,
or whenever the authorized enforcement agency has cause to believe that there
exists, or potentially exists, in or upon any premises any condition which
constitutes a violation of this chapter.
B. Access to Facilities.
1. The SMO shall be permitted to enter and
inspect facilities subject to regulation under this chapter as often as may be
necessary to determine compliance with this chapter. If a discharger has security measures in
force which require proper identification and clearance before entry into its
premises, the discharger shall make the necessary arrangements to allow access
to the SMO.
2. Facility operators shall allow the SMO ready
access to all parts of the premises for the purposes of inspection, sampling,
examination and copying of records as may be required to implement this
chapter.
3. The Village shall have the right to set up on
any facility subject to this chapter such devices as are necessary in the
opinion of the SMO to conduct monitoring and/or sampling of the facility’s
storm water discharge.
4. The Village has the right to require the
facilities subject to this chapter to install monitoring equipment as is
reasonably necessary to determine compliance with this chapter. The facility’s sampling and monitoring
equipment shall be maintained at all times in a safe and proper operating
condition by the discharger at its own expense. All devices used to measure
storm water flow and quality shall be calibrated to ensure their accuracy.
5. Unreasonable delays in allowing the Village
access to a facility subject to this chapter is a violation of this
chapter. A person who is the operator of
a facility subject to this chapter commits an offense if the person denies the
Village reasonable access to the facility for the purpose of conducting any
activity authorized or required by this chapter.
6. If the SMO has been refused access to any
part of the premises from which storm water is discharged, and he/she is able
to demonstrate probable cause to believe that there may be a violation of this
chapter, or that there is a need to inspect and/or sample as part of a routine
inspection and sampling program designed to verify compliance with this chapter
or any order issued hereunder, then the
SMO may seek issuance of a search warrant from any court of competent
jurisdiction.
§212-13. Notification of spills. Notwithstanding other requirements of law, as
soon as any person responsible for a facility or operation, or responsible for
emergency response for a facility or operation has information of any known or
suspected release of materials which are resulting or may result in illegal
discharges or pollutants discharging into the MS4, said person shall take all
necessary steps to ensure the discovery, containment, and cleanup of such
release. In the event of such a release of hazardous materials said person
shall immediately notify emergency response agencies of the occurrence via
emergency dispatch services. In the event of a release of non-hazardous
materials, said person shall notify the Village in person or by telephone or
facsimile no later than the next business day. Notifications in person or by
telephone shall be confirmed by written notice addressed and mailed to the
Village within three business days of the telephone notice. If the discharge of
prohibited materials emanates from a commercial or industrial establishment,
the owner or operator of such establishment shall also retain an on-site
written record of the discharge and the actions taken to prevent its
recurrence. Such records shall be retained for at least three years.
§212-14. Enforcement.
A.
Notice of Violation. When the
Village’s SMO finds that a person has violated a prohibition or failed to meet
a requirement of this chapter, the SMO may order compliance by written notice
of violation to the responsible person. Such notice may require without
limitation:
1.
The elimination of illicit connections or discharges;
2.
That violating discharges, practices, or operations shall cease and
desist;
3.
The abatement or remediation of storm water pollution or contamination
hazards and the restoration of any affected property;
4.
The performance of monitoring, analyses, and reporting;
5.
Payment of a fine; and/or
6.
The implementation of source control or treatment BMPs. If abatement of a violation and/or
restoration of affected property is required, the notice shall set forth a
deadline within which such remediation or restoration must be completed. Said
notice shall further advise that, should the violator fail to remediate or
restore within the established deadline, the work will be done by a designated
governmental agency or a contractor and the expense thereof shall be charged to
the violator.
B. Penalties. In addition to or as an alternative to any
penalty provided in this Code or otherwise provided by law, any person who
violates the provisions of this chapter law shall be guilty of a violation
punishable by a fine not exceeding three hundred fifty dollars ($350) or
imprisonment for a period not to exceed six months, or both such fine and
imprisonment for conviction of a first offense; for conviction of a second
offense both of which were committed within a period of five years, such person
shall be punishable by a fine not less than three hundred fifty dollars nor
more than seven hundred dollars ($700) or imprisonment for a period not to
exceed six months, or both such fine and imprisonment; and upon conviction for
a third or subsequent offense all of which were committed within a period of
five years, such person shall be punishable by a fine not less than seven
hundred dollars nor more than one thousand dollars ($1000) or imprisonment for
a period not to exceed six months, or both such fine and imprisonment. However,
for the purposes of conferring jurisdiction upon courts and judicial officers
generally, violations of this chapter shall be deemed misdemeanors and for such
purpose only all provisions of law relating to misdemeanors shall apply to such
violations. Each day's continued
violation shall constitute a separate additional violation.
C. The enforcement provisions, and
penalties, in this section shall not be exclusive, and any person who violates
any provision of this chapter also shall be subject to any other enforcement
provision or procedure, or penalty, as may be provided or permitted by law.
§212-15. Appeal of notice of violation. Any person receiving a Notice of Violation
may appeal the determination of the SMO to the Board of Trustees in writing
within 15 days of its issuance. The
Board of Trustees shall hear the appeal within 45 days after the filing of the
appeal and, within five days of making its decision, file its decision in the
office of the Village Clerk and mail a copy of such decision by certified mail
to the discharger.
§212-16. Corrective measures after appeal.
A.
If the violation has not been corrected pursuant to the requirements set
forth in the Notice of Violation, or, in the event of an appeal, within 5
business days after filing and mailing the decision of the municipal authority
upholding the decision of the SMO, then the SMO shall request the owner’s
permission for access to the subject private property to take any and all
measures reasonably necessary to abate the violation and/or restore the
property.
B.
If refused access to the subject private property, the SMO may seek a warrant
in a court of competent jurisdiction to be authorized to enter upon the
property to determine whether a violation has occurred. Upon determination that a violation has
occurred, the SMO may seek a court order to take any and all measures
reasonably necessary to abate the violation and/or restore the property. The
cost of implementing and maintaining such measures, including the Village's
reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses, shall be the sole responsibility of
the discharger.
§212-17. Injunctive relief. It shall be unlawful for any person to
violate any provision or fail to comply with any of the requirements of this
chapter. If a person has violated or
continues to violate the provisions of this chapter, the SMO may petition for a
preliminary or permanent injunction restraining the person from activities
which would create further violations or compelling the person to perform
abatement or remediation of the violation.
§212-18. Alternative remedies.
A.
Any person or entity who has violated a provision of this chapter may be
eligible for alternative remedies in lieu of a civil penalty, upon
recommendation of the Village Attorney and concurrence of the Mayor, where:
1.
The violation was unintentional;
2.
The violator has no history of pervious violations of this section;
3.
Environmental damage was minimal;
4. The violator acted quickly to
remedy the violation; and/or
5. The violator cooperated in
investigation and resolution.
B.
Alternative remedies may consist of one or more of the following:
1.
Attendance at compliance workshops;
2.
Storm drain stenciling or storm drain marking;
3.
River, stream or creek cleanup activities.
§212-19. Violations deemed a public nuisance. In
addition to the enforcement processes and penalties provided, any condition
caused or permitted to exist in violation of any of the provisions of this
chapter is a threat to public health, safety, and welfare, and is declared and
deemed a nuisance, and may be summarily abated or restored at the violator’s
expense, and/or a
civil action to
abate, enjoin, or otherwise compel the cessation of such nuisance may be
taken. In any such civil action, the
Village shall be entitled to recover its reasonable attorneys' fees and
expenses.
§212-20. Remedies not exclusive. The remedies listed in this chapter are not
exclusive of any other remedies available under any applicable federal, state
or local law and it is within the discretion of the authorized enforcement
agency to seek such other remedies either in place of or in addition to any
remedy provided in this chapter."
Section two. Effective Date. This local law shall take effect sixty days
after filing with the Secretary of State pursuant to the Municipal Home Rule
Law.
****
On motion
by Trustee Karamouzis, duly seconded by Trustee Krasula and unanimously
carried, the Board approved an Amendment to Community
Development Program Year 30 for $1,578.04 and Program Year 32
for $35,440.00 and $29,849.41, for a total of $66,867.45 to fund
the replacement of the gas boiler and asbestos removal at the Martin Luther
King Center.
Village
Administrator Quigley announced that the public hearing on the FY 2009 Budget
had been closed on March 31st, and he requested Board approval for
the Budget.
Mayor
Bossart asked Comptroller Michael Schussheim to review certain changes that
occurred since the March 31st meeting. Unfortunately things got worse since then.
Mr.
Schussheim said that we received notification from the Town of
Mr.
Schussheim presented the following changes to the Tentative Budget:
·
Two new police vehicles will be leased rather than purchased
saving $42,000
·
Recreation Department equipment was reduced by
$15,000
·
$183,000 of funding for the new paid ambulance
component in Floodlight Co. was transferred to a personal services budget line
from an other than personal services budget line
·
An additional $61,000 was appropriated in the
Sanitation Department to fund the recent larger than expected Town of
·
All Village commercial and tax exempt sanitation
customers will experience a $6 increase in their per ton disposal fees.
As a
result of these changes, the new real estate tax rate is $32.92 per $100 of
assessed valuation, a 9.92% increase compared to the FY 2008 rate.
Trustee Mulry noted that she had
submitted recommendations to the Village Administrator and Comptroller to
reduce the budget, such as using the monies from the Town of
Mayor Bossart asked Michael
Schussheim to respond.
Mr. Schussheim said he admires
Trustee Mulry’s effort and said no one wants to impose real estate tax rate
increases, particularly himself. He said
he has to recommend what is in the best interest of the Village. Mr. Schussheim said this was the most
difficult budget to prepare in the past 18 years. Trustee Mulry’s suggestions have some
validity, but it is not a question of right or wrong, it is a matter of
opinion. In his opinion he would not
recommend using the Town of
Mr. Schussheim said there are
various reasons the renovations have not been done at Village Hall. There was a certain plan contemplated but
subsequently the plan was changed. Also,
the Village secured bids to paint the exterior of Village Hall, but the
contractor provided a price and submitted a much higher bid. The bids were rejected because they were over
budget. Mr. Schussheim said he thinks it
would be a mistake to put this project on the shelf. He said he would not utilize the money for
the operating budget and then borrow the money in the future because to borrow
money and incur additional debt service is unwise. Mr. Schussheim reiterated that the credit
rating agencies look at the amounts of money we borrow and the amount of debt
service. They praise the Village for the
relatively low levels of debt and the rapid payout of that debt. Mr. Schussheim added that by allocating that
money this year it would be a one-shot revenue and would have to be made up
next year. He recommended biting the
bullet understanding that we are providing the services that people expect and
understanding
that revenues from mortgage taxes
and building permit fees are in decline.
Mr. Schussheim added that there
are savings in the General Fund as a result of positions that were not
back-filled. However, in other areas
there has been overspending and there have been revenues that have not come in
at expected levels. Mr. Schussheim said
he still maintains there will be a surplus at the end of the year that can be
appropriated up to $1 million and he is recommending that only $50,000 of that
be appropriated. He strongly recommends
that we leave the budget that was proposed as is and that the Board approve the
budget as submitted with the revisions from the tentative budget with the tax
increase of 9.92%.
Trustee Krasula said he
appreciates Trustee Mulry’s efforts to reduce the rate increase. He said this budget process was much different
from those in the past. There was much
more openness. Trustee Krasula said the Citizens
Budget Advisory Committee had some valid concerns. It is incumbent on the Board and the Village
Administrator, Comptroller and all department heads to do our utmost to ensure
that spending is kept to the barest minimum while maintaining the quality of
services that this Village has. Trustee
Krasula said he is very concerned about the revenue side. If we come in less than expected, the only
place to draw from is the unallocated reserve.
Trustee Krasula pointed to the price of gas which has escalated
dramatically. He said he would like the
numbers to be less, but doesn’t see how we can get them much less than they are
right now.
Trustee Mulry pointed out that
our expenses are at about a 4.5% increase across the board, which is right
around the rate of inflation. She is not
saying the Village services have to be cut, she is looking for pockets of
unspent money.
Trustee Karamouzis thanked Mike
Schussheim. This has been a difficult
process for him. He has been doing this
for over 20 years, and when he makes a recommendation this Board should take
notice. Trustee Karamouzis applauded
Trustee Mulry’s efforts to reduce the tax rate, but there is no quick fix. He said it would be short-sighted to take the
monies allocated for Village Hall and use it as a one-shot reduction in
taxes. He said the money could be well
spent for Village Hall, the Fire Department or the infrastructure. Trustee Karamouzis said that, with all due
respect to Trustee Mulry, Mr. Schussheim and the Citizens Budget Advisory
Committee have been all through the numbers and you can’t cherry pick and pull
numbers out in a vacuum to reduce the budget by 1.6%. He said while he would love to see the tax
rate lower, it might be penny wise and pound foolish to ignore the strong
recommendations from the Comptroller. He
said we should look at creative ways to generate revenues while maintaining the
services we have here at Village Hall.
Trustee Joyce echoed Trustees
Karamouzis’ remarks about Mike Schussheim.
Everybody worked very hard on the budget from an early stage. The increase started at 14.26%. He, too, would like it to be 4% but it is not
possible this year. Trustee
Joyce noted the Village recently
received an acknowledgement of the financial status, and Mike was recognized
for the twelfth consecutive year for his guidance.
Trustee Mulry added that since
June 2006 there has been about $300,000 that was bonded for Fire Department
upgrades. Also there is $350,000 that we
bonded in 2006 for parking lot upgrades.
Once we’ve bonded that money, we are paying. She said that money is here, let’s use it.
Mayor Bossart said everyone has
worked very hard on this and it is not a pleasure to tell you there is going to
be a tax increase of 9.92%. The Boards
change, but Michael Schussheim has been a steady hand in this. Mayor Bossart added that the money set aside
for Village Hall has not been spent for a number of reasons, including the fact
that we have had lots of changes in personnel.
Simply because money is not spent does not mean it is not
allocated. To not keep that money in
place to take care of the buildings where we work is not a productive thing to
do. The same goes for the parking
lots. Mayor Bossart said she wishes
things were different, but part of this job is giving people bad news as well
as the good news.
Trustee Krasula moved to adopt
the Tentative FY 2009 Budget. Trustee
Joyce seconded the motion. Mayor Bossart
and Trustees Karamouzis, Krasula and Joyce voted aye. Trustee Mulry voted nay. By a vote of 4-1 the Board adopted
a resolution to adopt the FY 2009 Budget.
****
R E
S O L U T I O N
RESOLVED, that the tentative budget as
amended and revised and as hereinafter set forth is hereby adopted and that the
several amounts stated in the column titled "Adopted" be and they
hereby are, appropriated for the objects and purposes specified and the
salaries and wages stated in such budget, shall be and are hereby fixed at the
amounts shown therein, plus any retroactive managerial salary adjustments,
effective June 1, 2008, at the tax rate of $32.92 per $100.00 of total net
assessed valuation. In addition, all fees shall be established pursuant
to the June 1, 2008 Village fee schedule.
****
On motion
by Trustee Joyce, duly seconded by Trustee Krasula and unanimously carried, the
Board approved the closing completed Capital Fund projects
and transferring any available monies to the Debt Service Fund.
Capital Fund Original Available
Sub-Project
Authorization Balance
2001-6
2002-6 Village Hall Windows 50,000 -0-
2005-3 Fire Vehicles 45,000 -0-
2005-10 Fire Vehicle & Equipment 900,000 -0-
2007-1 Resurfacing and Drainage 2,400,000 -0-
2008-9
$3,675,000
$1,009.40
On motion
by Trustee Krasula, duly seconded by Trustee Joyce and unanimously carried, the
Board approved a professional services contract with Harris
Computer Systems and IBM Corporation to provide software
maintenance for the Electric/Water Billing System for the
period June 1, 2008 through May 31, 2009, for the total expenditure of $23,603.17.
Larry
Blessinger, Jr. from All Island Taxi requested a $.50 gas surcharge due to the
rising cost of fuel and insurance charges.
Mr. Blessinger agreed to lower the price by $.25 if gas goes down to
$3.25 and eliminate it completely if gas goes to $2.75 per gallon.
On motion
by Trustee Karamouzis, duly seconded by Trustee Joyce and unanimously carried,
the Board approved a $.50 gas surcharge for All Island Taxi,
effective May 1, 2008. The cost for
senior citizens and handicapped people will remain at $2.75. At such time as average gasoline prices
decline to $3.25 per gallon but more than $2.75 per gallon, the surcharge will
be reduced to $.25, and at such time as average gasoline prices decline to
$2.75 or less, the surcharge will be eliminated.
On motion
by Trustee Krasula, duly seconded by Trustee Joyce and unanimously carried, the
Board approved the attendance of P. O. Paul Pope at Required
Certification of Vehicle Wheel Load Scales in
OLD
BUSINESS
Trustee
Mulry brought up a letter former Trustee Wayne Lipton had written in the April
10th edition of the “Herald” regarding
On motion
by Trustee Krasula, duly seconded by Trustee Joyce and unanimously carried, the
Board approved the Minutes of the Executive Session of March
18, 2008.
On motion
by Trustee Krasula, duly seconded by Trustee Mulry and unanimously carried, the
Board approved the Minutes of the Briefing Session of March
31, 2008.
On motion
by Trustee Krasula, duly seconded by Trustee Joyce and unanimously carried, the
Board approved the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of March
31, 2008.
Village
Administrator Quigley advised that properly advertised bids for the Cable TV
Upgrade had been opened by the Purchasing Department on April 3, 2008 with the
following results:
BIDDERS
QUOTED PRICE
Adwar
Video $41,181.00
General
Audio Visual Inc. 57,255.00
Amigo Business N/B
The
following company did not respond:
B&H Photo.
On motion
by Trustee Krasula, duly seconded by Trustee Mulry and unanimously carried, the
Board awarded the bid to the lowest responsible bidder, namely Adwar
Video, for a total expenditure not to exceed $41,181.00.
Village
Administrator Quigley advised that properly advertised bids to purchase
a Ford Pick-up Truck had been opened by the Purchasing Department on
March 27, 2008 with the following results:
BIDDERS QUOTED PRICE
Able
Ford $20,724.87
Gabrielli
Truck Sales 21,442.70
Newins
The
following companies did not respond:
Crown Ford and Van Bortel Ford, Inc.
On motion
by Trustee Krasula, duly seconded by Trustee Joyce and unanimously carried, the
Board rejected all bids, as this project came in over budget. This vehicle has been purchased off a state
contract at a lesser price.
Village
Administrator Quigley advised that properly advertised bids for a Boiler
Replacement at the
BIDDERS QUOTED PRICE
Turnabout Plumbing $ 71,500.00
Hartcorn Plumbing and Heating
132,000.00
The
following companies did not respond: A
Montelli Plumbing, Frank Ulip and Sons, G&M Mechanical, Pipemasters Inc.
and Thomas F. Cash & Son.
On motion
by Trustee Mulry, duly seconded by Trustee Krasula and unanimously carried, the
Board awarded the bid to the lowest responsible bidder, namely Turnabout
Plumbing, for a total expenditure not to exceed $71,500.00.
Village
Administrator Quigley advised that properly advertised bids to purchase Locational
Capacity for the Electric Department had been opened by the
Purchasing Department on April 17, 2008 with the following results:
BIDDER
LIPA/Keyspan
– monthly premium paid to LIPA $.50/kw per month
The
following company did not respond:
Calpine Corporation
On motion
by Trustee Krasula, duly seconded by Trustee Joyce and unanimously carried, the
Board confirmed awarding the bid to the sole bidder, namely LIPA/Keyspan
Corporation, for an average estimated annual cost of $80,000.
Village
Administrator Quigley advised that properly advertised bids for Chemical
Hydrated Lime for the Water Department had been opened by the Purchasing
Department on June 8, 2006. The Board of
Trustees approved the award to the low bidder, namely Mays Captree Chemical, at
$188.00 per ton. On February 12, 2007
the Board of Trustee approved the first option year at $197.40 per ton.
On motion
by Trustee Krasula, duly seconded by Trustee Joyce and unanimously carried, the
Board awarded the second and last option year to Mays Captree
Chemical, who remains the low bidder, a 7% increase to $211.22 per ton, for
a total expenditure not to exceed $35,000.00.
On motion by Trustee Joyce, duly seconded by Trustee Mulry
and unanimously carried, the Board accepted into the Official Village
Record a communication from the Fire Department Secretary, Bruce
Schwarting, dated April 23, 2008 with the following changes:
RESIGNATION
Kevin Grey Floodlight
Company No. 1
NEW MEMBER
Remy Jean-Francois Alert
Engine Company No. 2
Total Membership 317 Members
For a
verbatim transcript, please refer to the video.
At 12:40
a.m., on motion by Trustee Krasula, duly seconded by Trustee Joyce and
unanimously carried, the Board voted to go into executive session to discuss
the hiring or firing of a particular person.
After
discussion, the Board returned to public session and the meeting was adjourned
at 1:30 a.m.
_____________________________
Francis D. Quigley, Jr.
Village Administrator
/mfd
ABSENT: None.
ALSO
PRESENT: Village Administrator Francis D.
Quigley, Jr.,
The Board reviewed and discussed
various agenda items without taking action.
Representatives of OmniPoint made
a presentation concerning cell phone towers.
The Briefing Session adjourned at
8:10 p.m.
PRESENT: Mayor Mary Whalen Bossart, Trustees Jeanne
Farnan Mulry, Andrew P. Karamouzis and Charles R. Joyce.
ABSENT: Trustee David A. Krasula, who was excused.
ALSO
PRESENT: Village Administrator Francis D.
Quigley, Jr., Superintendent of Buildings Daniel V. Casella, and Deputy
Superintendent of Buildings Thomas Domanico.
On motion by Trustee Joyce, duly
seconded by Trustee Mulry and unanimously carried, the Board voted to
approve the designation of the Planning Board as the lead
agency in regard to the P. C. Richards matter, and to waive
the Board of Trustees’ rights to object to the appointment of the
designation of the Planning Board as lead agency in regard to the P C. Richards
matter.
The Board then voted to convene
in executive session to discuss pending litigation. After discussion, the Board returned to
public session and the meeting was adjourned at 1:35 p.m.
PRESENT: Mayor Mary Whalen Bossart, Trustees Jeanne
Farnan Mulry, Andrew P. Karamouzis, Charles R. Joyce and David A. Krasula.
ABSENT: None.
ALSO
PRESENT: Village Administrator Francis D.
Quigley, Jr., Acting Village Attorney A. Thomas Levin and special counsels
Thomas Wassel and Gary Fishberg.
After discussion, on motion by
Trustee Joyce, duly seconded by Trustee Krasula and unanimously carried, the Board
voted to authorize counsel to withdraw the appeal in the Chase
Partners action on density amendments.
Trustee Karamouzis moved to have
the Acting Village Attorney draft a letter to Wayne Lipton, and submit it for
Board review. Trustee Mulry seconded
the motion. Trustees Mulry, Karamouzis
and Krasula voted aye, Mayor Bossart voted nay, and Trustee Joyce abstained.
The motion carried by a vote of 3-2.
Trustee Karamouzis moved to have
Acting Village Attorney A. Thomas Levin write to Counsel for the Planning Board
in order to inquire about a recent Letter to the Editor.
The motion was amended to have
and Trustee Joyce voted nay. The motion carried by a vote of 3-2.
The Board returned to public
session, and on motion by Trustee Joyce, duly seconded by Trustee Karamouzis
and unanimously carried, the Board approved the appointment of officers
who were elected by the Fire Department on April 3, 2008.
Department
Officers:
Chief of Department Michael F. Lapkowski, Sr.
1st Assistant
Chief Mark C. Murray
2nd Assistant
Chief John H. Busching
4th Battalion Delegate
Charles Jaeger
Company Captains
Hook & Ladder Thomas
Walsh
Engine Co. #1 Christopher Merlo
Hose
Engine Co. #2 Matthew Lindsay
Hose
Engine Co. #4 Vincent Mirando
Floodlight
Company 1st and 2nd
Lieutenants
Hook & Ladder Thomas
Rakeman
Engine Co. #1 Ronald Kahan
Eric Salant
Hose
Sean McDonagh
Engine Co. #2 Glenn Fordsman
Stephen Dondero
Hose
Michael Lamonica
Engine Co. #4 Eric
Burel
William Davoli
Floodlight
David Schowerer
Company Secretaries
Hook & Ladder John
P. Griffin
Engine Co. #1 Peter F. Grandazza
Hose
Engine Co. #2 Joseph S. Macken
Hose
Engine Co. #4 John Mirando
Floodlight
Company Wardens
Hook & Ladder John
Thorp
Engine Co. #1 James Prinzevalli
Hose
Engine Co. #2 William Ruckdeschel
Hose
Engine Co. #4 Joseph Rugolo
Floodlight
Fire Police Squad
Captain Edward
Mussini
1st Lieutenant Joseph N. DeBono
2nd Lieutenant Edward T. Zelles
Secretary James
Avondet