Return
Town Clerk’s Office
Town of Greenburgh
May 23, 2018
         DRAFT
      A Meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Greenburgh was held in the Meeting Room, Greenburgh Town Hall, 177 Hillside Avenue, Greenburgh, New York 10607, at 7:30 PM, Wednesday, May 23, 2018
             
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
             
ROLL CALL: Town Clerk Judith Beville
Present: Supervisor Paul J. Feiner  
  Councilwoman Diana D. Juettner  
  Councilman Francis Sheehan  
  Councilman Kevin Morgan  
  Councilman Ken Jones  
Staff Present: Judith Beville, Town Clerk
Timothy Lewis, Town Attorney
             
MOMENT OF SILENCE
             
PRESENTATION

Honoring Irwin Winsten for his years of activism, dedication to human rights and civic involvement. Designating Irwin Winsten as an Honorary Citizen of Greenburgh. After you move out of Greenburgh, we wish you good health, and happiness and thank you for your service

Presentation of Certificate - William Robinson, World War II

National Gun Violence Awareness Day June 1st - Wilma Mann - Moms Demand Aciton

Con Edison: Analysis of Response to March, 2018 Nor’Easter

Greenburgh School District, Mandarin Program - Brendan Gallivan with Ms. Liu & Mr. Ziang
             
SUPERVISOR & TOWN COUNCIL REPORTS/ANNOUNCEMENTS

GOOD NEWS...The Town continues (since 2008) to have the highest possible bond rating from both Standard & Poors (AAA) and Moody's (Aaa). Less than 3% of communities in the nation have top ratings of financial stability. Recently (10/06/2017), Moody's once again reaffirmed the Town's highest rating and on (10/10/17) Standard & Poors reaffirmed the Town's highest rating.
Any individual or group interested in a visit from the Town Board should email the Board at TownBoard@GreenburghNY.com
             
TOWN CLERK COMMENTS
             
SUPERVISOR FEINER
             
Introduction of a Local Law to consider a zoning text amendment to Section 285-36 of the Zoning Ordinance, entitled "Supplementary Use Regulations," as it relates to public hearing noticing
             
Introduction of a Local Law to consider a Zoning Text Amendment to Section 285-27 of the Zoning Ordinance, entitled "LOB Limited Office Building," as it relates to dancing, music and instrumental music schools in the LOB District
             
Introduction of a Local Law to consider amending Chapter 440, "Taxation," of the Code of the Town of Greenburgh by creating a new subsection, entitled "Condominium Conversions."
             
Introduction of a Local Law to consider amending a Local Law entitled "Penalties for Offenses" as it relates to penalties for parking offenses in the Town of Greenburgh
             
DECISION

To consider zoning text amendments to the Code of the Town of Greenburgh, specifically Section 285-5, entitled “Definitions,” Section 285-34, entitled “PD Nonresidential Planned Development District,” and Section 285-38, entitled “Off-street Parking, Loading, and Landscaping Requirements,” as they relate to Micro-distillery and Micro-winery Uses in the PD District (See CD 3)
             
PUBLIC HEARINGS
STATE OF NEW YORK
TOWN OF GREENBURGH
-----------------------------------X
Public Hearings and Decisions Before
The Town Board of Greenburgh, New York, in
Connection with Various Applications in
Relation to the Town Ordinance of the
Town of Greenburgh.
------------------------------------x
May 23rd, 2018 Greenburgh Town Hall
7:30 p.m. 177 Hillside Avenue
Greenburgh, New York
TOWN BOARD MEMBERS:
PAUL FEINER, SUPERVISOR
COUNCILMAN KEN JONES,
COUNCILWOMAN DIANA JUETTNER,
COUNCILMAN KEVIN MORGAN
COUNCILMAN FRANCIS SHEEHAN
STAFF MEMBERS:
Garrett Duquesne,
Commissioner of Department of Community
Development and Conservation
Time Lewis, Esq.
Deputy Town Attorney
Judith Beville
Town Clerk
Susan Giampiccolo Court Reporter
             
To consider a zoning text amendment to Section 285-36 of the Zoning Ordinance, entitled "Supplementary Use Regulations," as it relates to public hearing noticing (Held Over to 6/13/18)
             
(Whereupon, at this time Supervisor Feiner led the
Pledge of Allegiance.)
(Whereupon, at this time there were presentations
by William Robinson, National Gun Violence Awareness Day,
Con Edison, and the Greenburgh School District Mandarin
Program.)
SUPERVISOR FEINER: Okay. We have public hearings.
I'd like to make a motion to move to open the first
public hearing.
COUNCILMAN MORGAN: Second.
SUPERVISOR FEINER: All in favor?
COUNCILMAN JONES: Aye.
COUNCILWOMAN JUETTNER: Aye.
COUNCILMAN MORGAN: Aye.
COUNCILMAN SHEEHAN: Aye.
SUPERVISOR FEINER: To consider zoning text
amendment to Section 285-36 of the Zoning Ordinance,
entitled "Supplementary Use Regulations," as it relates to
public hearing noticing.
I'd like to move that.
MS. BEVILLE: To open the hearing.
SUPERVISOR FEINER: All in favor?
COUNCILMAN MORGAN: Aye.
COUNCILMAN JONES: Aye.
COUNCILMAN JUETTNER: Aye.
COUNCILMAN SHEEHAN: Aye.
MR. DUQUESNE: Good evening, Supervisor Feiner,
Members of the Town Board.
For the record, Garrett Duquesne, Commissioner of the Department of Community Development and Conservation.
This local law is designed to enhance the measures
which the Town and Town Staff worked to make insure
residents are notified with public hearings and applications
in the Town of Greenburgh.
This local law actually, in my opinion, supplements
a lot of great measures that are undertaken. Be it as
formal policy or codified. But specifically with this local
law would do would be to require an actual sign to be placed
at the site of -- at a site where a land use application is
before you. Either the Zoning Board of Appeals or the Town
Board or the Planning Board.
So, this is a sign that would have information
pertaining to the date of a public hearing, and the nature
of the public hearing, and would have the phone number. And
really again it's a supplemental measure just to -- for lack
of a better term, get the word out in the best possible way.
The local law specifically -- I'm going to recite.
The local law was set up to be enabled in Section 285-36-U
of the Zoning Ordinance. And that's the supplementary land
use regulations.
And it states that:
"Any use proposed in connection with the following
approval processes: Area variance, use variance, special
permit, subdivision, site plan, wetland order, course
permit, steep slope permit that requires a public hearing
pursuant to the Code of the Town of Greenburgh shall require
them to do the following":
And then the local law goes on to have the
requirements by which somebody would post this sign at a
site or an applicant would post this sign.
Just as a quick note just some of the other measure
that I'm sure the Board is aware of, but I think it's
helpful for the public to understand. This is just one
measure. There is always a mailing that goes out
surrounding a property when there is an application. There
is a notice in the newspaper. I think almost as important,
there is some informal policies which I think are very
helpful. I know the Town Board has implemented; I know the
Planning Board Implements them. And that is, when meeting
with applicants at early stages, often before an actual
formal application is submitted, I often see the Town Board
and Planning Board, you know, relay a message to the applicant; go out to speak to your neighbors, speak to a
civic association leader, and present your ideas, get input
at an early stage, which benefits the process.
In addition, just one other formal or informal
policy that we've implemented is to -- we actually post all
the applications on the web; on the Town web. So, the
second an application comes in, or I should say within a
week we actually post PDF's of a cover letter, all the
forms, the plans. So, really when you think about all these
measures, we're really just trying to get the word out to
the public about applications.
I'm going to load up my machine, and I have a photo
of what the sign is going to look at. We're actually are
modeling the sign -- We're going to order it from the same
company that the Village of Tarrytown uses. They have this
process in place. I think at this point I'll go ahead and
load that up. If there is any questions, I'll be happy to
answer them.
COUNCILMAN MORGAN: There are many communities that
have this now, and the City of Tarrytown is one.
MR. DUQUESNE: It is fairly routine, yes.
SUPERVISOR FEINER: Does anybody want to speak?
Ella.
MS. PREISER: Do you want me to sign up, Judith?
MS. BEVILLE: Well, we do have a procedure, and if
people are not going to follow the procedures.
SUPERVISOR FEINER: Why don't you speak, and then
you can always sign after.
MS. BEVILLE: There is a procedure, and it should
be followed.
MS. PREISER: Ella Preiser.
To be honest, I just don't like to walk up when
people are making announcements and having presentations to
sign up.
MS. BEVILLE: You can come out the back door, and
come around this door. MS. PREISER: I have a leg problem right now, and
walking is a problem.
To the proposed local law, I do have some concerns
about it. First of all, the title of it. It's not land
uses that are requiring a public hearing. The subject
matter is the application process that requires that. Uses
are words that -- It's very clearly spelled out in 285-5 of
the zoning ordinance section; definitions, of what a use is.
So, you really shouldn't use land uses at the beginning.
And I have to tell you quite frankly, and I'm not
opposed to this. And Mr. Sheehan will remember about two
decades ago we worked on a committee redoing the ZBA rules.
COUNCILMAN SHEEHAN: You mean when I was 30.
MS. PREISER: Well, I was 25.
We worked on this committee together, and we
proposed having a sign back then. So, I'm not opposed to
using the sign. That's not my point. But I do have
concerns about the wording in the code. And I think the
wording should say what it's supposed to. And I think it
should following standard procedures, and one of them is you
can't have a one unless you have a two. You just don't put
a number one on it.
The way the processes that are identified in
parenthesis, that's not standard procedure.
And then I have a question. At the Council
Greenburgh Civic Association meeting two months ago, the
question came up about people who heard at the last minute
about a ten-lot subdivision in their neighborhood, and they
knew nothing about this. It was already before the Planning
Board for not one, but two presubmission conferences. How
will this law help to make this process more transparent so
people really do know what's on the agenda right away; not
ten days prior to a public hearing as it indicates in this.
If you are talking about the size of a lot -- You
know, if you're talking 100 acres at the Regeneron, is one
little sign going to mean anything? And I'm just using that
as an example, since there are no houses around the
Regeneron property, I don't think that's important. But
depending on the size of the lot, you may want to consider
how you are doing this.
And then there is another thing called sign pollution. And I'm sure many of you have seen during the
political season, signs go up and they're supposed to come
down after election day. And quite frequently, you find
signs around for a long time afterwards. Now I'm sure the
Town would do something to tell the person to take it down.
But what if you have a proposal like the Shelbourne
application, and you've got signs up from 2015, and it's now
2018. Is that really what we want to see walking around our
community?
I'm not opposed to this. The wording is poor. I
asked you to pull it off; fix the wording, and then you can
adopt it. But the wording is not appropriate right now, and
I asked you not to adopt this anytime soon until you have
fixed it.
Thank you.
MS. BEVILLE: There are no further requests.
MR. BERNSTEIN: I'd like to speak on this.
SUPERVISOR FEINER: Go ahead.
MR. BERNSTEIN: Thank you.
MS. BEVILLE: If anyone else would like to speak
for any of the public hearings or public comment, please
respect the protocol the Town Board has established to sign
up to speak.
Thank you.
MR. BERNSTEIN: Bob Bernstein, 48 Old Colony Road,
Hartsdale, New York.
Several years ago the Edgemont Community Council,
which I'm President, had recommended to the Town that better
notice be given to people who may be impacted by land use
applications, including applications to install antennas.
We even drafted legislation, but it went no where. So, what
happens when the antenna applications are raised is that the
public really never knows about it until the antenna review
board has already made its recommendation. And if it
determines that the application is completed, the applicant
can typically build as of right. But by then it's too late
for any resident to complain or challenge when the
application has been completed properly.
The issue arises -- The only time that anyone would ever be able to have a say is if the Antenna Review Board
concluded that the application was not as of right. It
would require Town Board approval. Then there would be a
opportunity for notice and to be heard. But most Antenna
applications manage -- The process manages to get completed
in the determinations of whether it's complete. That could
be a lengthy process requiring, you know, sometimes half a
dozen or more meetings of the Antenna Review Boards.
Those meetings are not noticed in the usual
fashion. They are noticed -- You have to know to look to
find it. You have to know that there is an application
that's going to be effecting you on the agenda to know when
to come, which means no one knows when to come.
So, the reason I raise that is that in your laundry
list of where you would like signage, I would suggest that
you amend it to include signage for any area designated for
the erection of an antenna that would be subject to an
application of the Antenna Review Board, because there is no
other practical way to let people who are going to be
impacted by this to know that it's going to happen.
Where might these antennas be located as of right?
Typically, as of right can be along any state road, where a
lot of people live. I mean, the notion when you created
your Antenna Ordinance was that you wanted it to be subject
to essentially a special permit, where it effected
residential areas. But if it was a nonresidential area or
commercial area of the Town, it was exempted for that.
Those were as of right. But people in apartment buildings
live in those areas. They're impacted, but they know
nothing about it.
I'm reminded of the one Antenna that was installed
at Midway that overlooked Castle Walk. It was in the
Central Avenue mixed district use zone. Therefore, was as
of right. But it impacted people who lived on Castle Walk,
about which they knew nothing. That was what triggered our
writing the legislation that was ignored. But the point is
as valid today as it was then.
So, I suggest that in doing this signage
requirement, which I think is well intentioned, that you
include that as well. I think that there are a lot of
people who will benefit from signage notification. The
Town's requirement of notice generally does not effect
everyone. I'll give you an example.
There is a proposal that has been floated to do a ten-lot subdivision on Old Colony Road, for example, where I
live. And the way this notice is written or this proposal
is written, the sign would be placed on Old Colony Road; not
on Pipeline. But the development would actually impact the
people on Pipeline, because anybody who will be going,
commuting to the Hartsdale Train Station and having to
experience the water run off from this application, would
have no way of knowing unless we told them that they better
come to a hearing on this, whenever it's scheduled, because
a sign in front on Old Colony Road would tell them nothing
unless they would happen to be going up that road, maybe
going to the high school. But most people are using
Pipeline to commute.
What I'm suggesting is along the lines of what Ella
had suggested, that you consider where the signage should be
placed. So that it will receive the exposure it needs, so
that most people who need to know will get to know.
Thank you.
COUNCILMAN MORGAN: So, Bob, you're saying if that
the property adjoins two different roadways, there should be
something in the front and the adjacent road; whether it's
beside it, behind it?
MR. BERNSTEIN: You know, I think if I were -- I
think if I were drafting this, this is one where I would
give some discretion to the Commissioner to determine where
the best location of one or more signs would be to give the
public the notice they need. I think if you try to
establish a rule, it's going to be breached within the next
example. You know what I mean?
COUNCILMAN MORGAN: Yes.
MR. BERNSTEIN: But I think if you give them
discretion, and say well, let's take the example of
Pipeline -- The Old Colony thing, which is not before you.
Not yet, and hopefully will never will be. But let's take
that example. If the application comes in, rather than post
the notice simply on Old Colony, you'd post it on Pipeline.
Of course, there are some challenges on posting any signage
on Pipeline, because of the terrain. But how else are you
going to let people know? So, you have to figure out a way
to deal with that as well.
But I think the discretion; giving discretion to
the Planning Commissioner to determine where signage should
be to achieve the maximum exposure would achieve the purpose; rather than a one size fits all rule. So, I would
suggest that as well.
COUNCILMAN MORGAN: Thank you.
COUNCILMAN SHEEHAN: Doesn't the provision any
person making an application further requiring to direct a
sign placed on each public street on which the property
abuts, that takes care of that?
MR. BERNSTEIN: Not necessarily. For example, in
the Old Colony Road case, you have to assume that the
project stretches from Old Colony down to Pipeline. But if
he tries to erect his proposal -- Excuse me -- If he tries
to put say ten houses say along Old Colony Road, and it
happens to be along an extremely steep slope; in fact
probably the steepest slope in all of Greenburgh right now,
and the impact of that development would be cascading water
on to the Pipeline, where he's not building. The only
people who are going to be impacted by that are people who
drive on the Pipeline, which is good about maybe a third to
half of people in Edgemont who wouldn't know because the
sign wouldn't be there.
But that's the kind of thing that requires, in my
view, judgment on the part of the person receiving the
application to do a site inspection, and determine where the
sign should be, so that people can be notified. Because
otherwise a sign can be placed in the area abutting where no
one will see it, because that's not what the -- Where no one
who will be directly impacted will see it. Not no one, but
the people who will be most impacted might not see it. And
it's that kind of situation that you want to address,
because those are the people you are trying to reach.
COUNCILMAN SHEEHAN: As I read that, on the through
lot, and of course the Commissioner would be the ultimate
determiner to make their ultimate determination when they go
out and see that there aren't signs on the post. That's a
through lot, and so that would actually have to be posted,
according to this, on Pipeline and on Old Colony. But it
also catches corner lots. So, you don't pick the corner
side that you think is your front side. You are on the
corner lot. The way this reads you'd have to post it on
both streets. So in either direction you are coming from,
you would have to have a sign there.
MR. BERNSTEIN: You are assuming that the lots in
this case abut both streets? COUNCILMAN SHEEHAN: They're through lots.
MR. BERNSTEIN: Yeah. But what if they don't?
And I don't know that you are correct about the tax
lots here that are effected. It's a proposed subdivision.
Those subdivisions are going to be cut off so that they are
not through lots. That's the proposal.
So, the notion that the -- I mean, he owns all the
property, that particular developer. And so, that
particular developer might, under this, might be impacted
and have to put signs on Pipeline. But he'll have a good
argument to say I'm only building along Old Colony, and
those subdivision lots are never going down there. It's
just that that's where the impact is going to be. And
that's why I'm suggesting you need the discretion be able to
do that. To put the signage where it will be impacted, and
not leave the loophole there.
COUNCILMAN SHEEHAN: Right. So, I would suggest
that we leave the language, and then also add discretion for
additional locations, if necessary.
MR. BERNSTEIN: I'll look at the language that you
proposed.
SUPERVISOR FEINER: Anybody else?
So, I'd like to move that we close the hearing, and
leave the record open for how many days?
MR. LEWIS: Seven.
SUPERVISOR FEINER: Seven. All in favor?
COUNCILMAN SHEEHAN: Before you do that, these may
result in substantive changes.
MS. PREISER: We can't hear you.
COUNCILMAN SHEEHAN: These may results in
substantive changes.
MS. PREISER: I hope so.
COUNCILMAN SHEEHAN: Might I suggest that we take a
look at this, and hold it over to -- MR. LEWIS: To a date to be determined.
COUNCILMAN SHEEHAN: Was there an urgency on this
thing, Garrett?
MR. DUQUESNE: No, there is no urgency.
I definitely understand the comments. I don't
think there is anything complicated about affecting them.
They're definitely substantive. So, I feel full confident
that we can address the good comments that we just heard.
COUNCILMAN SHEEHAN: Then what I would suggest is
that we make those changes in advance, and we can continue
this at the next hearing.
MR. DUQUESNE: Sounds good.
After this, if I could add to the last record, I
did intend to note the Planning Board made a positive
recommendation, and issued the report. They were in support
of that application. If that can be added to the last
public hearing, that would be excellent.
SUPERVISOR FEINER: Fair enough. I'd like to make
a motion.
COUNCILMAN SHEEHAN: Second.
SUPERVISOR FEINER: All in favor?
COUNCILMAN JONES: Aye.
COUNCILWOMAN JUETTNER: Aye.
COUNCILMAN MORGAN: Aye. COUNCILMAN SHEEHAN: Aye.
             
To consider a zoning text amendment to Section 285-27 of the Zoning Ordinance, entitled "LOB Limited Office Building," as it relates to dancing, music and instrumental music schools in the LOB District
             
SUPERVISOR FEINER: I'd next like to consider a
zoning text amendment 285-27 of the Zoning Ordinance,
entitled "LOB Limited Office Building", as it relates to
dancing, music and instrumental music schools in the LOB
District.
I'd like to move that we open up the hearing.
COUNCILWOMAN JUETTNER: Second.
SUPERVISOR FEINER: All in favor?
COUNCILMAN JONES: Aye.
COUNCILWOMAN JUETTNER: Aye.
COUNCILMAN MORGAN: Aye.
COUNCILMAN SHEEHAN: Aye.
MR. DUQUESNE: Good evening, Supervisor Feiner,
Members of the Town Board.
For the record, Garrett Duquesne, Commissioner of
the Department of Community Development and Conservation.
After this, if I could add to the last record, I
did intend to note the Planning Board made a positive
recommendation, and issued the report. They were in support
of that application. If that can be added to the last
public hearing, that would be excellent.
Okay. Thank you.
This local law is with respect to Section 285-27 of
the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Greenburgh, which is the
LOB District, Limited Office Building District. The LOB
District is comprised in the Town of, I believe, roughly six
separate areas -- separate lots actually. And they're on
the screen. I'll display them.
MS. PREISER: Garrett, will you announce them out
loud too?
MR. DUQUESNE: Sure. The LOB areas are identified
on our zoning map there, and I'll go ahead and walk us through all of them.
I'll start in the upper left. That is close to
Benedict Avenue, and those are two separate LOB parcels.
We've got a LOB close to the library in the Town of
Greenburgh. At the intersection of Dobbs Ferry Road and
Knollwood Road, West Hartsdale Avenue, there is a LOB
building, and that's across from the steakhouse there. And
that's the white office building. There is a LOB as we
travel to the east towards White Plains, along Route 119,
and that is the primarily the Verizon building. And two
more LOB's. There is a LOB; pocket of LOB in Hartsdale,
near the train station, and that's the multilevel office
building there. That's if you look up from Pipeline to see.
And then lastly, there is a section of LOB in the southwest
corner of the Town, and that's along Route 9A.
The LOB primary permitted use in the LOB District
is our office buildings. The LOB also allows several other
uses; research offices. So again, office uses, agencies for
scientific research, technical development, telephone
exchanges, museums, art galleries, library and cultural
centers. These all are permitted uses. Churches, religious
schools, community centers.
And then to the matter at hand this evening,
Section F of 285-27, presently reads: "Art, business or
vocational schools, excluding dancing, music and
instrumental music schools".
The proposed zoning code amendment that was
initiated -- actually drafted by staff, simply replaced
excluding with including. So, what this local law would do
would be to no longer prohibit, dancing, music and
instrumental music schools in the LOB, but do quite the
opposite and permit that as a permitted use.
I should note that the Planning Board -- This was
referred to the Planning Board. The Planning Board reviewed
this zoning code amendment, and they discussed this matter
on two dates; May 2nd, 2018, and May 16th, 2018. The
Planning Board ultimately made a positive recommendation.
The Planning Board had three additional recommendations that
they'd like to see implemented.
The Planning Board recommends that the prohibition
against dance schools, which is in a LOB, also be lifted in
four other districts in the Town; the OB, Office Building
District, the OB-1 Office Building District, the DS,
Designated Design Shopping District, and CB, Closed business Districts.
I'll put a map up that shows those districts as
well in a moment.
The Planning Board also requested that the
provision to be initially proposed local law be added that
states such uses shall be soundproofed or have provisions
such that no amplification or excessive noise audible beyond
the property lines of the premises in which the uses
situated in a manner consistent with the provisions of
Chapter 380; noise.
And lastly, for those districts in the Town that
permit music and dancing schools, such as the CA, the HC,
IB, LIGI, PD, PED, the Planning Board recommends that
whatever language, if approved, is approved in the LOB
District, that language carry over and be consistent in the
districts already permit dancing schools by -- let's say --
nonexpressed terms for the purposes of consistency.
So, let me just backtrack quickly, and I'm going to
bring up the several districts that the Planning Board
recommended that the restriction be lifted to as well, which
also have similar traits to the LOB District.
So, on the map now, actually the LOB has been taken
off, the OB District, OB-1, the DS, and the CB are all
highlighted in various colors. And I think of note is the
fact that these districts are primarily on state roads, in
heavily trafficked areas. I believe, hence, the Planning
Board's recommendation that if deemed acceptable in a LOB,
there is really no differentiating traits amongst these
other districts.
If the Town Board was in support of having the
restriction lifted from these other districts, what I would
recommend is to move forward on the present legislation, and
then staff would work on the other districts as part of a
separate action.
Thank you.
COUNCILMAN SHEEHAN: In other words, those
districts are not before us?
MR. DUQUESNE: That's correct.
SUPERVISOR FEINER: Would anybody like to speak? MS. BEVILLE: Ella Preiser.
COUNCILMAN SHEEHAN: Even though the mood light is
nice, lighting is nice, can we turn on the lights?
MS. PREISER: Can we get some music, and we'll
dance?
Again, Ella Preiser.
I have no objection to doing this, but I think it's
important to point out that most of these districts -- Now I
don't know. I could not see from the back the LOB. But
most of these districts back up to residential districts.
I live on Beaver Hill, and the people down the hill
from me are right against the DS Zone. And I know you're
not looking at that right now, but that's one of thing in
the future.
I used to have a disco club in the Masters parking
lot. Some of you may remember the mob influence, and what
have you with it.
COUNCILMAN SHEEHAN: Disco?
MS. PREISER: Well, I can tell you if you go back
and look at police reports, I had police officers standing
on my patio at 2:30 in the morning, right outside my bedroom
window to hear this sound.
So, one of the things I'm going to suggest, why
can't you just soundproof the building. Not worried about
what it sounds like when you get to the property line. But
just soundproof the building. Now maybe if somebody opens a
door, you're going to hear some momentary and what have you.
But you shouldn't have to have anybody be entertained by the
music.
And I'm a music lover. And sometimes I play it
fairly loud in my house, but not when the windows are open,
and I don't impose my musical choices on anybody else. And
I don't think anybody should here. So, can't we just have
this soundproofed.
And when you take a look at the map, look at what
backs up to each of these. Central Avenue, you know is that
one property back, and then up on the hill you have
residences. And the same is true with 9A, 119, and the
other roads. So, I am not opposed to doing this. Music, dance
is wonderful. We need more of that in our lives. But
please protect the people who live in this town while you
are doing it.
Thank you.
SUPERVISOR FEINER: Anybody else?
Then I'd like to move that we close the hearing and
leave the record open for seven days.
COUNCILMAN SHEEHAN: Would that be substantive
change?
MR. LEWIS: I believe so.
MR. DUQUESNE: The soundproofing is built into the
local law. I think we had discussed earlier that may be
removing the property line component would essentially
achieve the same thing.
And I like the comment. And I think that when we
think about the Planning Board, and their recommendation to
standardize other districts, I think the comment permeates
well when you think about the CA, and the proximity to
homes. I think it's a good update, and I think it's easily
implementable in this.
MR. LEWIS: Do you know what's involved in
soundproofing, in terms of -- Obviously, it depends on the
size of the space. But what's involved --
MS. PREISER: I can't hear you.
MR. LEWIS: And what's involved in soundproofing,
if you know? And what is the expense associate with that?
MR. DUQUESNE: So, I'm definitely not an expert in
that regard. I do recall, for instance, when the Jiujitsu
special application came before the Town Board in the HC
District, I recall them indicating that for that type of
use, which wasn't necessarily geared towards music, but
definitely loud, to be respectful of the uses below, they
talked about mats and things of that nature that would
actually do it.
Ultimately, I think there is a range of measures
that can be taken that would be tailored towards the use.
So, for instance, you know, if the use was, you know, a flute class, and that's really all you knew you were going
to do, I think you would take lesser measure like disco. I
was distracted. I didn't know Ella was a disco fan. That's
interesting.
But I think, Steve, do you have any suggestions?
MR. LEWIS: And I only raise this issue to make
sure we're not doing something that's cost prohibitive to a
prospective, you know, property owner or tenant.
MR. FRAIETTA: Steve Fraietta, building inspector.
There are many techniques; different types of
techniques for soundproofing. The most popular one is
soundproof batt insulation. It's very dense. There's some
other techniques that can be done for soundproofing. It can
be done at a relatively inexpensive type of cost. I
wouldn't say it would be a big issue.
MR. LEWIS: Okay. Then I don't think that would be
a substantive change.
SUPERVISOR FEINER: So, I made the motion to close
the hearing and to leave the record open for seven days.
COUNCILMAN MORGAN: Second.
SUPERVISOR FEINER: All in favor?
COUNCILMAN JONES: Aye.
COUNCILWOMAN JUETTNER: Aye.
COUNCILMAN MORGAN: Aye. COUNCILMAN SHEEHAN: Aye.
             
To consider a Local Law amending Chapter 440, "Taxation," of the Code of the Town of Greenburgh by creating a new subsection, entitled "Condominium Conversions."
             
SUPERVISOR FEINER: I'd like to consider amending
Local Law Chapter 440, "Taxation," of the Code of the Town
of Greenburgh by creating a new subsection, entitled
"Condominium Conversions." I'd like to move that.
COUNCILMAN JONES: Second.
SUPERVISOR FEINER: All in favor?
COUNCILMAN JUETTNER: Aye.
COUNCILMAN MORGAN: Aye.
COUNCILMAN SHEEHAN: Aye.
COUNCILMAN JONES: Aye.
SUPERVISOR FEINER: No one wants to speak, I guess?
MS. BEVILLE: There are several speakers.
MR. LEWIS: We usually give an overview. Do you
want to do that?
MS. BEVILLE: Are you ready to bring the speakers?
SUPERVISOR FEINER: Yes.
MS. BEVILLE: The first speaker is Charlene
Indelicato. She is the Village Manager for the Village of
Dobbs Ferry.
MS. INDELICATO: Actually Village Administrator.
MS. BEVILLE: I'm sorry.
MS. INDELICATO: That's okay.
Supervisor Feiner, Members of the Board, thank you
for allowing me to speak tonight. Actually, it was almost
like groundhog day. I had my meeting last night, and we did
do the orange proclamation also.
I speak on behalf of the Village of Dobbs Ferry,
the Dobbs Ferry School District, and I believe for the
villages within the town in support of the proposed local
real property assessment Condominium Law.
The Town Attorney actually said it all in his legislative findings. Allowing the single family residents
or two-family residents to change their tax status by
converting to condominiums would result in unfairly lowering
the property tax burden for the converted property, and
increasing the property tax burden of property owners in a
conventional form of ownership. In short, what would result
in a windfall for those converting, would amount to a
tsunami for owners of single family homes.
I have not yet mentioned the initial hit that the
municipalities would incur at the time of the tax status
change. Although, a one time budget gap for each
development that has a tax status change, communities
obviously would then have to find savings somewhere. Not
mandated costs. Most likely in community services.
The homes that are seeking this tax status change
in the Village of Dobbs Ferry are predominantly higher price
housing. Thus, the amounts of additional taxes spread
amongst the single family houses would no doubt be
debilitating to the single homeowner.
The State Legislature wisely foresaw this problem
and enabled towns to pass the law now before you. For
reasons stated in the legislation and reiterated above, we
strongly support, and in fact urge the passage of this
legislation. Letters and/or resolution of support will be
forthcoming from the various villages, I presume. I've
already submitted Dobbs Ferry School District letters of
support, and obviously my statements stands for itself.
Thank you very, very much.
SUPERVISOR FEINER: Thank you.
COUNCILMAN SHEEHAN: Thank you very much for
coming.
MS. BEVILLE: Ira Lazar.
MR. LAZAR: Thank you.
My name is Ira Lazar. I've been a resident of
Edgemont for 40 years.
I'm speaking in opposition to the proposed change
in the tax law for the following reason:
I believe that this amounts to putting a band-aid on a hemorrhage. And in doing so is counterproductive.
We recently went through, as everybody knows, a
major reassessment period, which was costly in money and in
effort. And at the time that we were retaking that,
Supervisor Feiner was very vocal in publicizing why we were
doing that was because of fairness. The word fairness came
up over and over and over again. And in fact, that is a
good reason to do a reassessment.
There was no publicity addressed to the issue of
the problem with condominiums not being assessed in a fair
way, and in fact being assessed in such a way that the
burden of taxation falls unfairly upon people in
conventional single family residences as compared with
condominiums.
Then the issue of homesteading. The homestead
provisions came up. I reviewed the Town Board deliberations
that was available on-line, and there was really no
intelligent discussion whatsoever about the issues that rely
on all of this.
When I spoke to Supervisor Feiner subsequent to
that and asked why this degree of unfairness was being
tolerated, he explained to me that it would be unfair to
owners of condominiums to change the matter of assessment,
to have it assessed at full value, in other words. Because
when they bought the condominiums, they understood that the
taxation was going to be done in this matter, and it would
be confiscatory to suddenly change that, and they would not
have paid what they paid for their units if they knew that
the tax law was going to be changed in this manner. Be that
as it may.
In fact, when people who bought conventional homes,
they expected that the very large property tax was going to
be deductible, but the federal government has changed the
tax law, and for many residents in Edgemont 40 to $50,000
property taxes that were previously deductible are no longer
deductible, and this is a great burden on them. And if they
had known that ahead of time, they might not have paid for
what they paid for their house. So, Mr. Feiner's argument
about why this degree of unfairness should stand for
condominiums is really no longer valid at all if you compare
that with what's happening to the changes in federal tax
law. The fact that the law changes is sort of irrelevant.
The law changes. You know, if you didn't predict that, you
didn't predict that.
And I don't understand why there is a justification for there being this differential taxation for condominiums.
In fact, it's a huge difference. It could be up to 50
percent of the tax burden shifted in this manner.
So, I'm taking objection to the sentence under
legislative findings, which says that the conversion to
overcome ownership that would result in a lower tax
assessment, which if permitted, would unfairly lower the
property tax burden, which would convert a property, while
increasing the property tax burden to owners of properties
in conventional ownership. In addition to that, and in a
theoretical basis for when I do this. What I'm saying is
that the fundamental inequity underlining this is not
addressed in all of this. In fact, by not publicizing this
as we went along attempting to make things fairer and would
have perpetrated on the fundamental unfairness, we shot
ourselves in the foot. And then we have the problems that
were just addressed from the woman who spoke just before me,
where an attempt to do conversions would reduce the tax base
and shift it to conventional homes.
From my perspective, that would be a good idea
because then there would be outrage. Nobody is paying
attention to this. When reassessment was undertaken, nobody
paid attention to this. Nobody made any attempt to
publicize the problem with condominiums. And nobody pays
attention to it.
Now, if you're thinking what you are proposing
makes it sound as if you're doing this single; official
single family home residence a favor so they won't have to
pay more, they're already paying more. What they need --
What we need to have happen is for people to suddenly become
outraged about this and take a look --
MR. LEWIS: Mr. Lazar, we allow you to speak for
five minutes. But you'll probably have a second opportunity
if you choose to do so.
MR. LAZAR: Give me two seconds.
MR. LEWIS: Well, you have a couple of people who
also want to speak.
MR. LAZAR: Two sentences.
MR. LEWIS: Well, I don't want to give you two
sentences, because then we go down that road, and then
everybody is going to want two sentences. You'll be able to come back.
MS. BEVILLE: Ella Preiser.
MR. LEWIS: I don't mean to be disrespectful to
you, but we've done this a few times, and that takes us down
a road that we don't want to go down tonight.
MS. PREISER: He does it to me too; right?
MR. LEWIS: Yes, I do.
MS. PREISER: Ella Preiser.
I'm going to ask that you hold this over for the
very simple reason, as I've told you multiple times, when
you put -- and that goes for all of the public hearings you
have on the agenda, the public deserves more time to digest
what is written. It isn't fair. This wasn't up 24 hours
before this meeting. And that's not fair. This is rather
troubling.
I have a couple of comments that I think are
probably errors. And it's only because it was pointed out
to me that there is a difference between the real property
law and the real property tax law, for which I say thank
you, because I knew nothing about that. And if you look
under both Sections Three, when you refer to Section 339-Y,
subdivision 1-F of the real property, it's not tax law
there. It's just the real property law. And a similar
thing exists under Section Five. You make reference to
Section 339-Y, subdivision 1-B of the real property tax law,
and that should be just the real property law there.
But I want to -- and I know you're not going to
allow this. But I would like to cede my time to Bob
Bernstein, who I asked today to look at this, and he has
some interesting information about case law on this. I
don't know if you all have done anything. I'm not prepared.
I'm still struggling with all of these references to two
different laws in here. But I would like to come back
after. I'm trusting you're going to put this over, because
I think there may be need for some substantive changes; not
just deleting a word or two.
COUNCILMAN SHEEHAN: This was posted Monday.
MS. PREISER: No. This was posted last night. COUNCILMAN SHEEHAN: No. It was posted Monday.
MS. PREISER: Then my computer doesn't work right.
COUNCILMAN SHEEHAN: To make sure that you had it,
I e-mailed it to you Monday.
MS. PREISER: No. You e-mailed it to me last
night.
COUNCILMAN SHEEHAN: I'm looking at the E-mail I
sent you. It was Monday.
MS. PREISER: And what was the hour?
COUNCILMAN SHEEHAN: Eight o'clock.
MS. PREISER: Okay. But I didn't see it until much
later than that; right? But it wasn't posted on the web
site at that point.
COUNCILMAN SHEEHAN: It was. It was posted Monday.
MS. BEVILLE: Hal Simons.
MR. SIMONS: Well out of sight, but not out of
mind, I hope. I too didn't have much time to do my
homework, so I just wrote this, and I'll read it as quickly
as I can.
COUNCILMAN SHEEHAN: Not too quickly. Have some
mercy on her.
MR. SIMONS: It stands to reason not only will
other tax payers benefit with a new tax, should there be a
depreciable conversions occurring, but the group benefitting
most in the passage will be single family homeowners -- will
not be single family owners, but the owners of existing
similar size condo apartments who can offer buyers a tax
bill perhaps 50 percent lower than a similar size and
similarly appointed condo, but one assessed at a higher tax
rate after this new local tax law passes.
In addition, if newly converted condos will lower
the tax burden of single family homes, then it is equally
true that such a benefit will easily also accrue to existing
condo owners, since both classes will be contributing less
with the slack taken up by the newly converted. Aren't
these reasons enough for any members of the Town Board who
are condo owners, Mr. Feiner, and I don't know all of your
current residences, to recuse themselves since they stand to benefit most from the passage of this item?
The proposed local law is not intended to strike a
blow against all condos, which rightfully or wrongfully are
taxed at lower rates. So, single family homeowners should
not think that the Town Board is on their side in this
ongoing fuel debate. Nearly being considered to give to
those who feel injured the appearance that the Town Board is
responsive to their pain.
In full disclosure, I own no real property in
Greenburgh, and my sympathies are with condo owners whose
real property does not compare by any measure with the
ownership of single family homes. Considering here
location, parking, noise, condo boards, contiguous units on
the side, below and above their unit, lack of privacy. I
think you get the idea that a condo is not the equivalent of
a single family home.
In their haste to get this poorly written text
before the public, I wonder if the Town Board did their
homework before and could provide a theoretical answer to
these theoretical questions. On the same block are two
nominal noncontiguous apartment buildings. Both have
mirrored images of each other; the same size, same number of
apartments, the same layouts. One had already converted to
condo ownership, and the other would do so, but after the
local law goes into effect. Further down the block is an
existing development of unattached single family homes.
What is the assessment on the rental building?
What is the total assessment on all of the already converted
units? What is the total assessment of all the single
family homes occupying the same size land lot age of the
multifamily dwelling? In other words, which pays the higher
taxes? Because the tax revenue seems to be the highest
priority. Is it possible that the rental building pays
higher taxes than the other two totals?
The Town Board has been known to cite precedence,
but often does so without any documentation of such
statements. I would like to know which municipalities have
already passed such a legislation. And is there any
differences in their language? Are any of them facing legal
challenges in the courts? What exactly is the language in
the authorization by the state which provides for this law?
And how much revenue is anticipated to be realized by the
conversions if such local law passed? Isn't this local law
equivalent of the taking by the town without any
compensation to the owners of these condos. Can there be two classes of the residential condominium units for taxing
purposes determined solely by the conversion date?
No where in the proposed language does it
implicitly state that new construction of condos is outside
the purview of this local law. Is that the intent?
Certainly, the newest and most luxury units would be welcome
with substantial revenue and would be contributing. Was
this the intent of the law? Or is there a legal moment in
time when a developer builder passes title from the
construction saying LLC to a turn key condominium. Thus
being judged a conversion for taxing purposes. What happens
when a nonresidential building, say an office building, is
converted to a residential condominium?
A bad law proving that taking action steps for
political purposes is no where ill faded adventure on the
road to good news.
COUNCILMAN SHEEHAN: Thank you.
SUPERVISOR FEINER: Anybody else?
MS. BEVILLE: Bob Bernstein.
MR. BERNSTEIN: Good evening. Bob Bernstein.
What I thought I would do -- I was asked by Ella
and others in the community to take a look at this proposed
law, and I was struck by several things. One is I was aware
that this is a reaction to Edie McCarthy's having disclosed
to you that the Landing at Dobbs Ferry, which is a community
of luxury homes. It has organized and converted their own
homeowner's association to a condominium association, and
was seeking to be reclassified for tax assessment purposes.
So, this law is aimed at them. I get that.
But as Mr. Lazar said, this law, and what the
Landing at the Dobbs Ferry is doing is quite interesting for
people who are burdened by taxes in single family homes.
And so, a lot of people are looking at this.
So, I looked at the implications of this law. The
first thing that struck me was -- before I get to the
authorization and legality. The first thing that struck me
was you are in effect creating a different classification
for condominiums that have been converted from another use.
While the other use that you're intending to attack here is,
of course, single family homes; luxury single family homes.
You are in effect saying that those condominiums that have to comply with all of the condominium requirements,
including approval by the State Attorney General to be part
of a condominium, you have to go and jump through a lot of
hoops, that class of condominiums according to the Town of
Greenburgh will not get favored taxation of the kind that
says Supervisor Feiner gets at living in Boulder Ridge.
That is discrimination. That's not treating the same people
the same. That's treating people who are similarly situated
differently. That usually strikes people as a violation of
equal protection. So, that suggests that there is a problem
here.
Now I'm aware that this is not the first time that
legislations that's been proposed. I saw the law in
Ossining, which is verbatim to this law. That law was
adopted in 2008. But there have been subsequent analyses of
the statute upon which that's been -- this statute came
from. You are relying on Section 381 of the real property
tax law. And I can't give you a legal opinion standing here
in five minutes like this. But I will for the record direct
your attention to WORC Realty Corp versus Board of
Assessors, 100 AD3d 75, Second Department, 2012. It's been
affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
Now, that case involved a group of, I would say,
smaller homes. Single family homes on Long Island in a Town
on Long Island; Islip. And they organized and became
condominiums too. And the issue was what rate should they
be taxed at. And the question was, what is 381 of the Real
Property Tax Law that you are relying on here? What does it
mean? Why it was enacted? It was enacted --
COUNCILMAN SHEEHAN: I don't mean to interrupt, but
we're doing 581.
MR. BERNSTEIN: 581. I'm sorry. I misspoke. 581.
Where did it come from? Why was it enacted? It
was enacted because in 1981 there was a concern that
apartment dwellers whose buildings were being converted were
going to be subject to taxation at a much higher rate when
the condominiums were reassessed. And so, the purpose of
the law was to prevent that abuse from happening. To
protect apartment dwellers whose condos -- whose buildings
were converted. It was not to prevent the very thing we're
talking about.
Now, there is an exemption out there. The
exemption, which is what you are relying on, it says a local
law can be passed to exempt this. But that local law -- that authority was there in order to be able to enact
homestead, which would en label the condominiums to be taxed
at the same manner as single family homes.
My time is running out, but I have a lot more to
say about this because this may well lead to substantial
litigation against the Town for a number of reasons that I'm
happy to explain to you.
SUPERVISOR FEINER: Anybody else?
MS. BEVILLE: Eric Zinger.
MR. ZINGER: Hello. Eric Zinger.
So why are we here tonight? A public meeting will
be held tomorrow evening at the Greenburgh Town Board
meeting on proposed legislation that would prevent
residential property owners from converting to a condominium
form of ownership that results in lower assessments, which
if permitted would unfairly lower the property tax burden
for the converted property and increase the property tax
burden to owners of property in the conventional form. Now,
those aren't my words. They're Paul's. Would unfairly
lower the property tax burden for the converted property.
So, I'll repeat my original question. Why are we
really here? We're here right now because the Town's
failure to adopt homestead during either of the prior two
reassessments.
Paul admits it himself in this E-mail that it is
unfair that condominiums are taxed differently than single
family homes. Now instead of trying to rectify that during
homestead, we're trying to pass some kind of, you know,
legislation to prevent single family homeowners from
converting to condos. I think it's missing the mark as to
what the real issue is.
Okay. If we know that condominiums are being
unfairly taxed at a lower property tax burden, why aren't we
trying to adopt homestead? It's a simple question.
Okay. Now, I echo Bob's concerns about these
significant legal expenses, which this town is all to
familiar with, that could potentially come up here. I'm not
a lawyer. Several of you are. So, I'm counting on you to
understand that somebody is going to challenge this, and if
it's the Landing in Dobbs Ferry, they're going to have
significant legal resources behind them. We need to make sure we're prepared for that significant legal challenge,
and that we have opinions and that we can back up whether
this law can properly be held.
Now, it shouldn't even be under consideration,
because we should have addressed this during homestead. But
it's too late for that now unless we want to do another
reassessment. Not the worst idea. But if we're not going
to do another reassessment, I urge the Town to make sure
that we do our due diligence, and make sure we're not
looking at a giant legal bill for something that isn't going
to accomplish the goal we wanted to.
Thank you.
MS. BEVILLE: There are no further requests. So,
we can do a second round.
MR. LEWIS: Mr. Lazar, would you like to speak
again?
MR. LAZAR: Not at this point.
COUNCILMAN SHEEHAN: Does anybody want to speak
again for a second round?
COUNCILMAN MORGAN: Bob, you wanted to speak again?
MR. BERNSTEIN: Yes.
Picking up where I left off, the notion that you
would have different tiers of condominium owners who will be
assessed at a different methodology is something that is
actually barred by the Tax Law.
Section 306 of the Real Property Tax Law says that,
or has been construed to say that the assessment method has
to be nondiscriminatory. And that means that the way the
Town assesses condominiums today and co-ops is based on this
kind of income method or income capitalization approach.
Not using comparable's, the way single family homeowners are
assessed. And that's why the assessed values of co-ops and
condos are so much lower than single family homeowners. And
there is resentment over that. But that's the reason why.
But there is no differentiation among them in the class,
unless -- There really isn't, actually. So, there is no
unless. They're not supposed to discriminate.
So, you're proposing to discriminate against those
who newly convert if their prior property was a single family home, let's say. Or the way it's worded any use
other than condominium. Any dwelling unit other than
condominium. And that poses a problem, because there are
condominiums, as I said that already enjoy the benefit, like
Boulder Ridge.
A new builder. Let's say the folks who want to
build over on the old golf club at Elmwood. Let's say they
decide to form a condominium association too. They could do
it. They could build luxury townhouses, brand new ones.
They would not be subject to your law. And that's the
problem. Why would you pick and choose winners and losers
this way? Every new developer who comes in, and by the way
there will be many, because the Trump Tax Law has created an
incentive to do it this way. They'll all come in and want
to do this, and your law can't touch them, because you're
going after The Landing, which is going to challenge this.
If they won't, somebody will. Because this is not the way
you go about it.
Now, I mentioned a case, and let me quote from the
case, so you know where I'm coming from. You are relying on
Section 581 of the Real Property Tax Law.
"That statute has been correctly construed to mean
that condominiums and co-ops should be assessed as if they
were conventional apartment houses whose occupants were rent
paying tenants. The purpose of RPTL 581 was to insure that
owners of condominiums and co-ops would be taxed fairly
compared to rental properties held in single ownership and
not penalized because of the type of ownership involved in
their multiple dwellings."
Let's go back to what I said the purpose was.
"Under RPTL 581 1-B, however, the provisions of A. don't
apply to properties classified within the homestead
exemption." That's now C., and you're relying on C., which
allows for a local law to exempt from that requirement.
Yeah, when you adopt homestead, you're shifting
condominium owners into the single family homeowner class.
And so, they would be subject to the higher rent -- the
higher assessment value or the comparable value assessment
method. That's why you have the local law. It was not
intended to prevent newly converted homes from single family
homes. And the reason that I can say that with some
confidence is this case was about single family homes that
converted to the condo ownership.
And the issue in the case was, was the Town of Islip, I guess it was, properly within its authority to tax
them as if, or assess them as if they were single family
homes; or did they have to tax them as if they were condos?
The Court said condos. Because they had felt like a duck,
walked like a duck, it was a condo. It needs to be taxed
like a condo like all other condos.
So, you are walking into a problem here. And what
I suggest you do at a minimum, if you really want to do
this, given the climate we're in, why don't you send this
off to the State Attorney General and ask for an opinion
before you enact something like this.
Let me just -- I know I can ask for another round.
Let me also suggest something else to you.
MR. LEWIS: Well, what's the pleasure of the Board?
COUNCILMAN SHEEHAN: We can give him another round.
MR. BERNSTEIN: Here's what I suggest also. Take a
look at what The Landing is proposing to do. And instead of
relying on a motion, why don't you rely on data? What would
the actual impact be in the Village of Dobbs Ferry, in the
Dobbs Ferry School District if that conversion were allowed
to go through and they met all the criteria for being a
condo and it happened? What would the impact be?
Now, you did that work when you rejected homestead.
We can argue about whether that was good or bad. But you
did that work. And why did you do that work? Because the
State told you to do it. Which was to analyze what the
impact would be with it; without it.
What would incremental impact be on the single
family homeowners who would have to bear the burden of
having The Landing convert? How much of the -- We heard
from the lady from Dobbs Ferry, the Dobbs Ferry
administrator, it would be a Tsunami she said. A Tsunami.
But she didn't have any data. Surely she knows what the
data is, and you should to. I can't tell you what it is.
My hunch is that once you look at the data, you can put this
problem into prospective, and take a step back. And find
out from the State with whether this is legal, or what they
think the legality is. And maybe they might help you in
terms of trying to structure something. The structure may
have to come from Albany, I'm afraid. I don't think you
have the legal authority to do what you're asking this
proposal to do. And as I said, I am well aware what
Ossining has done. I think the situation in this climate and age, very different right now. And I'm not looking
forward to see you getting sued like this.
Thank you.
MS. BEVILLE: Bob, wouldn't you think that any
shift would be unfair?
COUNCILMAN MORGAN: Wait a second.
MR. BERNSTEIN: I can answer that.
MR. LEWIS: Wait a second. Wait. So, we're just
trying to make sure we follow the rules here. Now we had a
third round. There's no one else that wants to speak.
MS. BEVILLE: No one else wants to speak.
COUNCILMAN SHEEHAN: Edie, did Peekskill adopt
homestead?
MS. MC CARTHY: Did Peekskill adopt homestead?
COUNCILMAN MORGAN: Ossining adopted homestead.
MS. MC CARTHY: Edie McCarthy, Town Assessor.
COUNCILMAN SHEEHAN: Peekskill. Because Peekskill
adopted essentially an identical law in 2016?
MS. MC CARTHY: No. In order to consider the
homestead exemption, you have to do a reassessment, which
they have not. So, no.
Ossining did in fact adopt it. And we're not
making this legislation up. This is New York State
Legislation. We are just adopting what has already been on
the books.
I'm standing up here before you tonight because
there are comments that have been made from some
participants in the audience that were incorrect, and I
don't want that to get out into the public. I just want to
clarity that.
COUNCILMAN SHEEHAN: It's out in the public. You
just want to clarity it.
MS. MC CARTHY: I'm sorry? COUNCILMAN SHEEHAN: It's already out in the
public. You just want to clarify it.
MS. MC CARTHY: It's already out in the public. I
want to clarify it for you. I'll just take a moment.
It's unfortunate that I am mandated to respond to
the Real Property Tax Law. And what I mean by that is all
condominiums, co-operatives and apartments have to be
assessed based on the income approach, which is assuming
that they're rental apartments. There is no option here.
That's the way that the law is written that we have to abide
by in the Town of Greenburgh.
So, with these condos, co-ops and apartments -- I
don't remember, I think it was Mr. Simons who made the
comment. They all have to be assessed in the same way. So,
if you have two exactly the same apartments and condos, who
pays the higher taxes, technically they're exactly the same
building, one is an apartment, one is a condo, one is a
co-op, all three will pay the same, because it's the same
methodology. Same unit, same size, same everything else. I
wanted to clarify that.
MR. SIMONS: That's not what I said.
MS. MC CARTHY: So, the second part of one of the
comments is that we are introducing this legislation just
because of The Landing. I don't know if you recall, the
Town Board, we've had this conversation for the past, I
don't know, eight or nine months that we've been talking
about this. And that's way before The Landing ever came to
my attention. So, that was when it was introduced to me on
April 11th, I believe it was.
As far as the homestead act is concerned, it was
discussed with you. It was presented to you. Statistics
were introduced to you, and also the public. And one of the
major considerations in adopting the homestead or not is
taking into consideration the commercial properties in the
town. If we had adopted the homestead exemption, one of the
impacts would have been that the taxes for commercial
properties, they would have been significantly impacted.
And yes, so would the condos, but not all condos. And
that's part of the problem with the homestead act, is that
not all condos go into being assessed as their sale prices.
If they were built before 1974, and they're valued as
condos, they stay valued as condos. If they're valued
after -- I don't know if it's '74 or somewhere around there.
If they
             
To consider amending a Local Law entitled "Penalties for Offenses" as it relates to penalties for parking offenses in the Town of Greenburgh (Held Over to 6/13/18)
             
COUNCILMAN SHEEHAN: The next public hearing we'll
be holding over. The public hearing to consider a local law
entitled "Penalties for offenses" as it relates to penalties
for parking offenses in the Town of Greenburgh.
We're going to hold that over. The Police Chief
would actually like to take the language and make it more
specific than it is in the current code. And so, that will
be taken up at our next meeting, which will be --
MS. BEVILLE: June 13th.
COUNCILMAN SHEEHAN: June 13th.
I move to close the public hearing.
COUNCILMAN MORGAN: Second.
COUNCILMAN SHEEHAN: All in favor?
COUNCILMAN JONES: Aye.
COUNCILWOMAN JUETTNER: Aye.
COUNCILMAN MORGAN: Aye.
COUNCILMAN SHEEHAN: Aye.
(Whereupon, at this time the public comment portion of the meeting took place, off the record.)

Certified to be a true and
accurate transcription of the
within proceedings.
SUSAN L. GIAMPICCOLO Senior Court Reporter
             
PUBLIC COMMENT

Advance signup is preferred. Speakers will be called in the order of receipt of a Public Comment Request Form. The forms are available on the Town Web site, in the Town Clerk’s Office (until 7:00 PM on the day of the meeting), and on the dais next to the Town Clerk during the meeting. A three minute limit per speaker will be strictly enforced. No interruptions by Town Board members, the Town Clerk or the public will be permitted. Any questions on agenda items should be asked at this time. Department Heads have the option of leaving the meeting following Public Comment. Therefore, if anyone has questions that are related to resolutions/items on the agenda that she/he would like to direct to a specific Department Head, those questions should be raised at this time.
             
Ella Preiser raised questions about several resolutions. Preiser posed a question asking, “Con Ed made new corrections on roads in my community and the ruts are deeper. When will our roads be repaired?” There was a meeting scheduled for a 6:30 work session today. What happened?” Preiser also asked “PUD is due; there are 11 in unincorporated Greenburgh. What impact would they have on Condo Conversions?”
Dorrine Livson requested a full SEQR for her comments. Livson stated “we want a full review just ass The Jefferson received. We don’t want a “piece-meal.” Livson also commented on the Greenburgh Shopping Center.
Hal Samis referenced the work session a few weeks ago with the presentation and proposed expanded usage in Hartsdale regarding Hartsdale traffic and parking.
Eric Zinger raised the question, “what plans does the Town have to address a pending special election?”
Bob Bernstein commented on issues involving Condo Conversions and the legal issues on this law.
             
BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
             
Reappointment of Alvin Fenichel to the Water District Advisory Board, for a term to expire December 31, 2019
  Moved by Supervisor Paul J. Feiner, seconded by Councilwoman Diana D. Juettner
 
AYE: Supervisor Paul J. Feiner
  Councilwoman Diana D. Juettner
  Councilman Francis Sheehan
  Councilman Kevin Morgan
  Councilman Ken Jones
Motion Adopted
             
Reappointment of Daniel Rosenblum to the Water District Advisory Board, for a term to expire December 31, 2020
  Moved by Supervisor Paul J. Feiner, seconded by Councilwoman Diana D. Juettner
 
AYE: Supervisor Paul J. Feiner
  Councilwoman Diana D. Juettner
  Councilman Francis Sheehan
  Councilman Kevin Morgan
  Councilman Ken Jones
Motion Adopted
             
Reappointment of Marcia Brewster to the Water District Advisory Board, for a term to expire December 31, 2020
  Moved by Supervisor Paul J. Feiner, seconded by Councilwoman Diana D. Juettner
 
AYE: Supervisor Paul J. Feiner
  Councilwoman Diana D. Juettner
  Councilman Francis Sheehan
  Councilman Kevin Morgan
  Councilman Ken Jones
Motion Adopted
             
Appointment of Bill McGrath to the Water District Advisory Board, for a term to expire December 31, 2020
  Moved by Supervisor Paul J. Feiner, seconded by Councilwoman Diana D. Juettner
 
AYE: Supervisor Paul J. Feiner
  Councilwoman Diana D. Juettner
  Councilman Francis Sheehan
  Councilman Kevin Morgan
  Councilman Ken Jones
Motion Adopted
             
Appointment of Greg Fittinghoff to the Water District Advisory Board, for a term to expire December 31, 2020
  Moved by Supervisor Paul J. Feiner, seconded by Councilwoman Diana D. Juettner
 
AYE: Supervisor Paul J. Feiner
  Councilwoman Diana D. Juettner
  Councilman Francis Sheehan
  Councilman Kevin Morgan
  Councilman Ken Jones
Motion Adopted
             
Appointment of Herb Levy to the Water District Advisory Board, for a term to expire December 31, 2019
  Moved by Supervisor Paul J. Feiner, seconded by Councilwoman Diana D. Juettner
 
AYE: Supervisor Paul J. Feiner
  Councilwoman Diana D. Juettner
  Councilman Francis Sheehan
  Councilman Kevin Morgan
  Councilman Ken Jones
Motion Adopted
             
Appointment of Rebecca Glen to the Water District Advisory Board, for a term to expire December 31, 2019
  Moved by Supervisor Paul J. Feiner, seconded by Councilwoman Diana D. Juettner
 
AYE: Supervisor Paul J. Feiner
  Councilwoman Diana D. Juettner
  Councilman Francis Sheehan
  Councilman Kevin Morgan
  Councilman Ken Jones
Motion Adopted
             
Appointment of Stuart Zaiman to the Water District Advisory Board, for a term to expire December 31, 2019
  Moved by Supervisor Paul J. Feiner, seconded by Councilwoman Diana D. Juettner
 
AYE: Supervisor Paul J. Feiner
  Councilwoman Diana D. Juettner
  Councilman Francis Sheehan
  Councilman Kevin Morgan
  Councilman Ken Jones
Motion Adopted
             
ATTORNEY – 989-1615
             
AT 1 - 5/23/18
Resolution approving the retention of Thomas J. Troetti, Esq., to represent Greenburgh Police Officers Richard Maguire, Jon-Paul Lara, Sean Freeman and Gregory P. Attalienti in the Matter of Nancy Maldonado as Administrator of the Estate of Jonathan Maldonado v. the Town of Greenburgh, et al, for an amount not to exceed $25,000
  Moved by Supervisor Paul J. Feiner, seconded by Councilman Kevin Morgan
 
AYE: Supervisor Paul J. Feiner
  Councilwoman Diana D. Juettner
  Councilman Francis Sheehan
  Councilman Kevin Morgan
  Councilman Ken Jones
Motion Adopted
             
AT 2 - 5/23/18
Resolution authorizing settlement of a Property Damage related Claim, File No.: 50/18C, by Jodie Leff, for an amount not to exceed $100.00
  Moved by Supervisor Paul J. Feiner, seconded by Councilman Francis Sheehan
 
AYE: Supervisor Paul J. Feiner
  Councilwoman Diana D. Juettner
  Councilman Francis Sheehan
  Councilman Kevin Morgan
  Councilman Ken Jones
Motion Adopted
             
AT 3 - 5/23/18
Resolution authorizing settlement of a Property Damage related claim, File No.: 10/18C, by Sean Fernandez, for an amount not to exceed $200.00
  Moved by Supervisor Paul J. Feiner, seconded by Councilman Kevin Morgan
 
AYE: Supervisor Paul J. Feiner
  Councilwoman Diana D. Juettner
  Councilman Francis Sheehan
  Councilman Kevin Morgan
  Councilman Ken Jones
Motion Adopted
             
AT 4 - 5/23/18
Resolution authorizing settlement of a Property Damage related Claim, File No.: 52/18C, by Travelers Insurance Company a/s/o Gaswell Birch, for an amount not to exceed $2,380.40
  Moved by Supervisor Paul J. Feiner, seconded by Councilwoman Diana D. Juettner
 
AYE: Supervisor Paul J. Feiner
  Councilwoman Diana D. Juettner
  Councilman Francis Sheehan
  Councilman Kevin Morgan
  Councilman Ken Jones
Motion Adopted
             
AT 5 - 5/23/18
Resolution authorizing tax certiorari settlement with petitioner DCD Realty Holdings, LLC for property located at So. Broadway and Sheldon Ave. The Town’s share of the refund is $627±; the County’s share is $4,729±; the Saw Mill Valley Sewer District’s share is $664±; the Irvington Union Free School District’s share is $26,186±. Refunds from all sources total $32,206±.
  Moved by Supervisor Paul J. Feiner, seconded by Councilman Kevin Morgan
 
AYE: Supervisor Paul J. Feiner
  Councilwoman Diana D. Juettner
  Councilman Francis Sheehan
  Councilman Kevin Morgan
  Councilman Ken Jones
Motion Adopted
             
AT 6 - 5/23/18
Resolution authorizing tax certiorari settlement with petitioner Saint Andrews I Condominium for property located at 10 Old Jackson Avenue. The Town’s share of the refund is $28,943±; the County’s share is $16,891±; the Bronx Valley Sewer District’s share is $2,230±; the Greenburgh Central School District’s share is $76,295±; the Donald Park Fire Protection District’s share is $7,402±. Refunds from all sources total $131,760±.
  Moved by Supervisor Paul J. Feiner, seconded by Councilman Francis Sheehan
 
AYE: Supervisor Paul J. Feiner
  Councilwoman Diana D. Juettner
  Councilman Francis Sheehan
  Councilman Kevin Morgan
  Councilman Ken Jones
Motion Adopted
             
AT 7 - 5/23/18
Resolution authorizing tax certiorari settlement with petitioner Ashford Court Condominium for property located at 520 Ashford Avenue. The Town’s share of the refund is $2,504±; the County’s share is $18,796±; the Saw Mill Valley Sewer District’s share is $2,530±; the Ardsley Union Free School District’s share is $119,875±. Refunds from all sources total $143,705±.
  Moved by Supervisor Paul J. Feiner, seconded by Councilman Ken Jones
 
AYE: Supervisor Paul J. Feiner
  Councilwoman Diana D. Juettner
  Councilman Francis Sheehan
  Councilman Kevin Morgan
  Councilman Ken Jones
Motion Adopted
             
AT 8 - 5/23/18
Resolution authorizing tax certiorari settlement with petitioner Hartsdale Manor Owners for property located at 26-30 and 51-59 Fieldstone Drive. The Town’s share of the refund is $23,829±; the County’s share is $15,879±; the Bronx Valley Sewer District’s share is $2,255±; the Greenburgh Central School District’s share is $59,785±; the Hartsdale Fire District’s share is $19,229±; the Consolidated Sewer Mtc. District’s share is $517±. Refunds from all sources total $121,494±.
  Moved by Supervisor Paul J. Feiner, seconded by Councilman Ken Jones
 
AYE: Supervisor Paul J. Feiner
  Councilwoman Diana D. Juettner
  Councilman Francis Sheehan
  Councilman Kevin Morgan
  Councilman Ken Jones
Motion Adopted
             
CLERK – 989-1500
             
CL 1 - 5/23/18
Resolution scheduling a Public Hearing for 7:30 PM, Wednesday, June 13, 2018, to invite public comment on the Town of Greenburgh’s proposed Community Development Block Grant applications to be submitted through the Westchester Urban County Consortium
  Moved by Supervisor Paul J. Feiner, seconded by Councilwoman Diana D. Juettner
 
AYE: Supervisor Paul J. Feiner
  Councilwoman Diana D. Juettner
  Councilman Francis Sheehan
  Councilman Kevin Morgan
  Councilman Ken Jones
Motion Adopted
             
CL 2 - 5/23/18
Resolution authorizing closing of Standish Place, from Joyce Road to Arden Road, Farm Road to the Ardsley High School on Wednesday, May 30, 2018, from 4:00 pm to 6:30 pm, for seniors of Ardsley High School and community members to gather and celebrate prom
  Moved by Supervisor Paul J. Feiner, seconded by Councilman Kevin Morgan
 
AYE: Supervisor Paul J. Feiner
  Councilwoman Diana D. Juettner
  Councilman Francis Sheehan
  Councilman Kevin Morgan
  Councilman Ken Jones
Motion Adopted
             
CL 3 - 5/23/18
Resolution scheduling a Public Hearing for June 13, 2018, at 7:30 pm, to consider an agreement between the Town of Greenburgh and the Village of Hastings-on-Hudson for fire protection services to unincorporated Greenburgh residents of the Donald Park Fire Protection District
  Moved by Supervisor Paul J. Feiner, seconded by Councilman Francis Sheehan
 
AYE: Supervisor Paul J. Feiner
  Councilwoman Diana D. Juettner
  Councilman Francis Sheehan
  Councilman Kevin Morgan
  Councilman Ken Jones
Motion Adopted
             
CL 4 - 5/23/18
Resolution scheduling a Public Hearing for June 13, 2018, at 7:30 pm, to consider an agreement between the Town of Greenburgh and the Village of Tarrytown for fire protection services to unincorporated Greenburgh residents of the Glenville Fire Protection District
  Moved by Supervisor Paul J. Feiner, seconded by Councilman Ken Jones
 
AYE: Supervisor Paul J. Feiner
  Councilwoman Diana D. Juettner
  Councilman Francis Sheehan
  Councilman Kevin Morgan
  Councilman Ken Jones
Motion Adopted
             
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT – 989-1538
             
CD 1 - 5/23/18
Resolution in support of the submission of a Downtown Revitalization Initiative (DRI) 2018 grant application associated with the Hartsdale Four Corners (4C) study area
  Moved by Supervisor Paul J. Feiner, seconded by Councilman Ken Jones
 
AYE: Supervisor Paul J. Feiner
  Councilwoman Diana D. Juettner
  Councilman Francis Sheehan
  Councilman Kevin Morgan
  Councilman Ken Jones
Motion Adopted
             
CD 2 - 5/23/18
Resolution issuing a Negative Declaration for the SEQRA determination of the Town Board of the Town of Greenburgh with respect to a zoning text petition to allow Micro-distillery and Micro-winery uses in the PD Nonresidential Planned Development District (Held Over to 5/29/18)
             
CD 3 - 5/23/18
Resolution of the Town Board of the Town of Greenburgh adopting a Local Law amending Section 285-34 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow Micro-distillery and Micro-winery uses in the PD Nonresidential Planned Development District (Held Over to 5/29/18)
             
CD 4 - 5/23/18
Resolution (1) declaring the intention of the Town Board of the Town of Greenburgh to be Lead Agency for a zoning text and zoning map amendment to add a new Zoning District (R-5/LTF: One-Family/Limited Two-Family Residence district) to the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map, and to rezone 239 individual parcels to the R-5/LTF district; and (2) referring the amendments to the Planning Board for review and recommendation in accordance with the requirements of Section 285-64 of the Town’s Zoning Ordinance (Held Over to 5/29/18)
             
CD 5 - 5/23/18
Resolution (1) declaring the intention of the Town Board of the Town of Greenburgh to be lead agency for a zoning text and zoning map amendment to add a new zoning district (R-5/LMF: One-Family/Limited Multi-Family Residence District) to the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map, and to rezone 92 individual parcels to the R-5/LMF district; and (2) referring the amendments to the Planning Board for review and recommendation in accordance with the requirements of section 285-64 of the Town’s Zoning Ordinance (Held Over to 5/29/18)
             
CD 6 - 5/23/18
Resolution authorizing the Town of Greenburgh to enter into an agreement with the County of Westchester for the purpose of undertaking a community development program
  Moved by Supervisor Paul J. Feiner, seconded by Councilman Francis Sheehan
 
AYE: Supervisor Paul J. Feiner
  Councilwoman Diana D. Juettner
  Councilman Francis Sheehan
  Councilman Kevin Morgan
  Councilman Ken Jones
Motion Adopted
             
CD 7 - 5/23/18
Resolution reappointing Mr. Lloyd Cort as the Town of Greenburgh Community Development Advisory Group representative
  Moved by Supervisor Paul J. Feiner, seconded by Councilman Ken Jones
 
AYE: Supervisor Paul J. Feiner
  Councilwoman Diana D. Juettner
  Councilman Francis Sheehan
  Councilman Kevin Morgan
  Councilman Ken Jones
Motion Adopted
             
COMPTROLLER – 989-1603
             
CO 1 - 5/23/18
Resolution authorizing Fiscal Year 2018 budget transfers
  Moved by Supervisor Paul J. Feiner, seconded by Councilwoman Diana D. Juettner
 
AYE: Supervisor Paul J. Feiner
  Councilwoman Diana D. Juettner
  Councilman Francis Sheehan
  Councilman Kevin Morgan
  Councilman Ken Jones
Motion Adopted
             
CO 2 - 5/23/18
Resolution acknowledging the Required Examination and Audit of the Justice Court conducted in Compliance with Section 2019-a of the Uniform Justice Court Act
  Moved by Supervisor Paul J. Feiner, seconded by Councilman Ken Jones
 
AYE: Supervisor Paul J. Feiner
  Councilwoman Diana D. Juettner
  Councilman Francis Sheehan
  Councilman Kevin Morgan
  Councilman Ken Jones
Motion Adopted
             
PARKS & RECREATION – 693-8985
             
PR 1 - 5/23/18
Resolution authorizing the execution of a $15,904 grant agreement between the Town of Greenburgh and the County of Westchester for Transporting Seniors
  Moved by Supervisor Paul J. Feiner, seconded by Councilman Kevin Morgan
 
AYE: Supervisor Paul J. Feiner
  Councilwoman Diana D. Juettner
  Councilman Francis Sheehan
  Councilman Kevin Morgan
  Councilman Ken Jones
Motion Adopted
             
PR 2 – 5/23/18
Resolution authorizing the execution of an agreement to provide Site Meals and Home Delivered Meals between the Town of Greenburgh and the County of Westchester and the Town of Mt. Pleasant
  Moved by Supervisor Paul J. Feiner, seconded by Councilwoman Diana D. Juettner
 
AYE: Supervisor Paul J. Feiner
  Councilwoman Diana D. Juettner
  Councilman Francis Sheehan
  Councilman Kevin Morgan
  Councilman Ken Jones
Motion Adopted
             
PR 3 – 5/23/18
Resolution authorizing the Town Supervisor to execute an Inter Municipal Agreement (IMA) between the Town of Greenburgh and Westchester County to reimburse the Town for operating Youth Programs at Massaro Park, for the period of January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017
  Moved by Supervisor Paul J. Feiner, seconded by Councilman Francis Sheehan
 
AYE: Supervisor Paul J. Feiner
  Councilwoman Diana D. Juettner
  Councilman Francis Sheehan
  Councilman Kevin Morgan
  Councilman Ken Jones
Motion Adopted
             
PHILANTHROPY – 989-1515
             
PH 1 - 5/23/18
Resolution Authorizing the Town of Greenburgh to accept a grant in the amount of $55,000 from the Lanza Family Foundation for the Police Department Summer Youth Program, The Police Camp
  Moved by Supervisor Paul J. Feiner, seconded by Councilman Ken Jones
 
AYE: Supervisor Paul J. Feiner
  Councilwoman Diana D. Juettner
  Councilman Francis Sheehan
  Councilman Kevin Morgan
  Councilman Ken Jones
Motion Adopted
             
PH 2 -5/23/18
Resolution requesting permission to accept a grant in the amount of $5,000 from George and Rachel Gumina, Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, designated for sponsorship of the Town of Greenburgh's Student Internship Program
  Moved by Supervisor Paul J. Feiner, seconded by Councilman Ken Jones
 
AYE: Supervisor Paul J. Feiner
  Councilwoman Diana D. Juettner
  Councilman Francis Sheehan
  Councilman Kevin Morgan
  Councilman Ken Jones
Motion Adopted
             
POLICE – 989-1740
             
PO 1 - 5/23/18
Resolution adopting the recommendation of the Greenburgh Police Department to change the current parking restrictions on Club Way amending Chapter 460 of the Greenburgh Town Code
  Moved by Supervisor Paul J. Feiner, seconded by Councilwoman Diana D. Juettner
 
AYE: Supervisor Paul J. Feiner
  Councilwoman Diana D. Juettner
  Councilman Francis Sheehan
  Councilman Kevin Morgan
  Councilman Ken Jones
Motion Adopted
             
PO 2 - 5/23/18
Resolution authorizing the Police Chief to enter into an agreement with Royal Coach Lines, Inc. to provide bus transportation for the Greenburgh Police Summer Youth Program
  Moved by Supervisor Paul J. Feiner, seconded by Councilman Ken Jones
 
AYE: Supervisor Paul J. Feiner
  Councilwoman Diana D. Juettner
  Councilman Francis Sheehan
  Councilman Kevin Morgan
  Councilman Ken Jones
Motion Adopted
             
PUBLIC WORKS - 989-1575
             
PW 1 - 5/23/18
Resolution awarding the contract for the AC-3 replacement and HVAC upgrades in Greenburgh Town Hall, to Carey & Walsh, Inc., the lowest bidder, for an amount not to exceed $228,865.00
  Moved by Supervisor Paul J. Feiner, seconded by Councilman Kevin Morgan
 
AYE: Supervisor Paul J. Feiner
  Councilwoman Diana D. Juettner
  Councilman Francis Sheehan
  Councilman Kevin Morgan
  Councilman Ken Jones
Motion Adopted
            There being no further business to come before the Board, on motion, meeting adjourned at 10:55 P.M.


 
_________________________________
Judith A. Beville, Town Clerk

AgendaQuick©2005 - 2024 Destiny Software Inc., All Rights Reserved