Town Board Meeting November 20th, 2023
OFFICIALS PRESENT: Chief Maresca, Deputy Chief Hahne, Attorney Bavoso, H’way Supt. Hassenmayer
Supervisor Howell called the meeting to order at 7:30pm following the Pledge of Allegiance.
MOTION TO ACCEPT PRIOR MEETING MINUTES:
MOTION offered Councilman Furman 2nd Councilwoman Davis to accept the minutes from the 10/17/2023 and 11/6/2023 meeting as submitted. All in favor: Howell, Jennings, Furman, Davis; carried.
CORRESPONDENCE:
1. Resignation from Keri Carey from the ZBA effective 12/31/2023
2. Letter of interest from Chris Ruckdeschel for planning board seat
3. Letter from Paul Rickard re: 2024 preliminary budget questions
4. Letter from Fran Heppes re: 2024 preliminary budget questions
PUBLIC COMMENT: (3 minutes/speaker)
Peter Gromacki: we are concerned with the Lucy farm property. Did we explore all the options to potentially keep that agricultural? If we can come up with a buyer and presuming that difference is going to be short from what the commercial asking price is, could we put it to a vote to the town? For some of the people from the T/O Mount Hope to pay to keep it agricultural. Is that an option? Do we have any developers who would be interested in putting up 3–5-acre homes here close to the Metro-North line and the good schools here. I know a developer down on Long Island who has property on Oakland Valley Road and I’d be willing to reach out to him to see if he would be interested in this parcel of property to put up homes. We’re very concerned about heavy trucks on our back roads. Here on 211, we don’t see it as a proximity for I-84 or Route 17. We are worried about losing our small town.
Helen Gromacki: I like this town because it’s a small town. The history of Otisville is that when you go down Main Street in Otisville, you know everybody. You go to buy a cup of coffee; you bump into someone you know. I love that atmosphere. When you put an Amazon warehouse, you’re taking away from that atmosphere. That’s not the culture of Otisville. It doesn’t embody it. Protect the agriculture of Otisville. Keep in mind, country – that’s kind of who we are and if you take that away, I really wouldn’t want to stay here.
Brian Bonilla: living here 19 years. If you’re gonna do this, I’m looking into selling my house. I have interested buyers. If this passes, I will leave. I like the country. I go to the hardware store; I know all the people. I buy pizza here. Great place to live. I have 2 kids. I’d like to leave them my house. The school district is one of the best school districts. To destroy the country setting that we all live in will be terrible. I’m looking at my other options and I’m gonna watch this closely. If I see it go the other way, I’m gonna post on all the websites on who did this before I leave. If this individual wanted to build a house there, let the man build his house. Let him put a road. Let him live among us. He did have animals there and he was strung along for 2 years. Someone in the neighborhood told me but they want to be anonymous. I don’t want to leave. I love this neighborhood. I keep watch over my neighbors. I never came to these meetings because I thought you were doing a great job.
Anthony Danielewski: read into record: I’m a resident of White Bridge Road. I’m compiling this letter in regards to the recent discussion surrounding the rezoning of the current horse farm located at the corner of White Bridge and Rte. 211. It is my understanding that this parcel of land will be voted on in the coming days by the town council and not the general public. A council consisting of elected officials placed in position by the will of the people and on said person’s behalf. Before I proceed, I would be remiss if I didn’t extend my sincere appreciation for your public service for pursuing a position that most declined ever to pursue in the 1st place. As a veteran and public servant, myself, I understand the thankless nature of being in the public eye. That being said, I implore you the fact the will of the very people that elected you. A rezoning to allow warehouse square footage increase from 50,000 to 250,000 sq ft is not fitting to the towns motto – high and helpful. The helpful upsize of 250,000 sq ft warehouse facility in a residential area are few and far between if in existence at all. The call for an increased size will further increase commercial vehicular traffic and commuter traffic alike. The stress of added tonnage to the roadways that is White Bridge Road and the surrounding roadways will incur additional resources to the town in terms of upkeep and maintenance. Undoubtedly, traffic lights will need to be erected specifically in the Mount Hope/Guymard turnpike section. The risk to pedestrian traffic will also be increased. Although no public sidewalks exist, the road is utilized by countless families for exercise and leisure alike.
88
Without the current existence of semi-truck traffic there are still dangers to pedestrian & vehicular traffic in the form of near blind turns closer to the 211 side of White Bridge. I, myself live on one of these turns & contend with this issue daily. I cannot imagine semi-trucks and other commercial vehicle traffic into the mix. It’s worth noting furthermore that there are numerous bridges that will be burdened by the add of traffic and I just asked are these bridges rated for the increase in gross tonnage. A point not to be missed is that residents understand that the property in question is commercially zoned although I believe it is also agricultural and residential. We understand the potential exists even without this rezoning for warehouses to be built. Out issue lies in the allowance of a building 5X the size of what is currently allowed. White Bridge Road is but one stretch in public roadway. It’s not the largest residential road in the town but I believe it’s a good microcosm that represents more than itself the vast array of diversity on that road be that religion, culture, income, political views and yet for all its differences the shared belief that this is not beneficial to not just the people of White Bridge Road and 211 but the town and people along the logistical corridor as well.
Wayne Dobkowski: I can’t fathom running tractor trailer trucks up & down my street. There’s kids and school buses. Our street is peaceful. Getting to it coming down Mountain Road or up 211 on our street just doesn’t make sense to me to have that kind of traffic. 50,000 square foot warehouse or a 250,000 sq ft warehouse round the clock operation is not something I would like to see happen.
Eric Fellenzer: I question if the board did fill out SEQR (state environmental quality review act) for this and they notified all involved agencies. Was a traffic study done? I can’t imagine for a project of this size that would have been approved or even understood by the board. White Bridge Road is very thin and windy. I don’t think it would be appropriate for tractor trailers. 211 is the alternate route for the traffic and certainly would be quite a bit of traffic for the proposed change from 50,000 to 250,000 sq footage zoning which could be multiplied by many lots so you’re talking millions of square feet od ware house space. That would bring a lot of traffic as far as tractor trailers & delivery vehicles. I hope all this was considered. If it wasn’t, it would be a shame. If the SEQR process was not followed, I certainly would support and Article 78. It’s inappropriate for this community & roads. My wife runs up/down Whie Bridge Road. Supervisor: your question with SEQR, we did file & fill out the required SEQR forms as well as a GML 239 for notification in OC. Traffic study was not conducted. From our understanding, that would have been appropriate at the planning board level and projects specific to the building or occupation of that parcel not specific to the structure size that was proposed local law. Fellenzer: that’s good. I think that if this is passed by the board, we’ll just have to all come back when they go through the planning board process.
Amanda Baker: We have a farm here over by Mill Pond. What happens to our taxes? What happens to the waste if you build a plant? Because let’s call a spade a spade, it’s 250,000 sq ft is no joke. All the jobs that are going to be here…who are you hiring? Where are they going to park their cars? What happens to the roads and of course taxes? What happens if this big warehouse goes up? That gives precedence to other big businesses to come in and get rid of small businesses. What happens if they get into an accident with a truck near one of my animals or near other people’s animals? I think that most people here do not want this to be built. In the event that this doesn’t get built, what gets built? What happens? I have all these questions. I heard about it recently. I don’t feel like there’s a place where every single one of them will be answered. All of these are a huge concern of mine. Anybody I’ve met – they don’t want it. As people here in this community, and I have your back and you have my back, both of us have each other’s backs. If nobody here wants it, what happens? We don’t want it. I didn’t move 200 miles away from my family to have this. On Mill Pond, I don’t want street lights. Everybody should be able to run down their block. There shouldn’t be this worry that you’re gonna get mulled over by a truck. First, it’s Amazon. Who is next? It’s safety for people on the street. Safety for people in the parks. I don’t think it’s a good idea. I don’t think it’s safe. I don’t want to deal with the traffic in the morning.
Fran Heppes: I did write a letter. Not sure of procedure. Do I have to make a request for the letter to be read? It’s regarding the budget. READ BY TOWN CLERK: Dear Board members, as a resident reviewing the proposed budget it can be difficult to understand the process used by the Town Board to determine how some decisions are reached. I think it would be helpful and would alleviate many of the questions and concerns if the residents knew why some outcomes are necessary. It would appear that (and I don’t mind being corrected if I am wrong) our elected officials and board and committee chairs are slated to receive different amounts in the form of increases to their salaries. I am not questioning the fact that they are receiving increases – they all work hard and do a great job for our town – just hoping for an explanation of the different percentages. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Francine Heppes. Supervisor: raises for employees specific are based on what is proposed in the preliminary budget initially. That’s worked on by the town board collectively through the budget process to come up with the final increase based on work performance, duration of service and employees by the employees here at the town are the factors that we considered during the budget process for the respective employees given a raise. I know the question was asked to a board member – why one board member may make more money than the other councilmembers if a town board member is assigned the duty of deputy supervisor. That duty also includes additional amount. One board member will reflect a different salary amount for being the deputy supervisor which is currently Mr. Furman. Heppes: that was fine but elected officials too. Supervisor: correct so the same process as well as for the duration of service & work performance considerations besides what’s presented
89
to us based on their preliminary proposals. Heppes: ok, work performance in an evaluation? I don’t understand how you would go about work performance. Supervisor: so, based on how you would perform your duties or your tasks assigned. Danielewski: I think she’s saying what are the parameters set to determine what’s good versus what’s bad. What’s a good score, what’s a bad score? Supervisor: we don’t have a scoring or points basis system and that it would be based on the work that’s run through your respective office. Our town board members obviously they are attending meetings. We’ve got committee reports and duties that we all have and share. We check the rental centers and things of that nature. If, for example, I don’t do my rental checks, I don’t do my board meetings – would be a lack of work performance. Heppes: I’m still confused about how you would compare that if you have 2 elected officials who are doing their jobs then how are you determining that one gets more than the other? Supervisor: without going specifically – I’m guessing you’re asking on an individual employee which we wouldn’t discuss in an open environment for personnel reasons. To give you the answer you want to hear, I don’t think this is the setting for it. I’m guessing it’s for an employee specific not a process in which the board…Heppes: no, it is more of a question about the process because if you have elected officials and they are doing their jobs and you have no system in place, you’re saying it’s based on job performance. Attorney: it’s ultimately a town board evaluation. The town board is the one empowered to make the budget. They would be the one to evaluate what they think the fair compensation for those positions. Danielewski: so, it’s peer reviewed? Attorney: essentially, yes. Myrna MacIntosh: is that for employees and elected officials? Attorney: it depends, well elected officials, yes. It depends for the employees. Those covered under collective bargaining unit are subject to mandatory raises through their contracts. Those that are not, then those are evaluated on a yearly basis in the budget process. MacIntosh: I’m curious about evaluations. How do you go about evaluating the employees? Attorney: that would ultimately be up to observation & analysis based on that observation by the town Board. MacIntosh: I’m curious because an evaluation means that there is going to be a conversation about work performance. Am I correct? Attorney: often times, yes. MacIntosh: not all the time? Attorney: not necessarily all the time with the conversations. It depends on what the department is requesting. Supervisor: you did ask something different and specific to other employees. I’m guessing non-elected employees department heads would also be part of that equation as a non-elected employee with a different or classification of employee. Is that correct? MacIntosh: I’m just stuck on the evaluation process. To me, an evaluation process as an employee means that my work performance will be evaluated & graded. And, based on that performance and that grade, an increase or not will be determined perhaps by the board. I don’t think that’s what’s happening. Supervisor: the grade could from our perspective is the pay rate increase. We don’t have a point scoring system. Baker: maybe you should. That should be considered.
Peter Gromacki: has the town not been approached by any developers to put up homes on 5-acre properties, luxury homes? Attorney: it’s not the town’s property. It’s privately owned. It’s ultimately their decision what to do and just from a procedural standpoint, the local law that’s proposed, simply changes that aspect of the zoning. It doesn’t approve a project. Any proposed developer in any lot in any zone still has to go through the planning board process which is going to do environmental studies, traffic studies and whatever other necessary studies there are to follow NYS law as well as potentially have to interact with state agencies as to those projects. The change in the law changes the size of the potential building that could be constructed there but the zoning as it exists – the individual could still bring an application for any # of the uses and would still have to go through the same planning board process. Parking spaces, traffic concerns, screening, things like that, would all be dealt with at that level. That is not something that this board actually addresses.
Brian Bonilla: why didn’t they let the current property owner build a house? And the road that in the back he wanted to put his house in the back process? Attorney: that would be up to the property owner to explain. Supervisor: that was something that was proposed at the planning board. From the planning board’s explanation, the property didn’t follow through with that process. Property owner’s choice. Bonilla: was he trying to mine it for minerals? Supervisor: I don’t know. Bonilla: would building inspector know? Supervisor: possible.
Bill Duquette: (Blustein, Shapiro, Frank & Malone LLP) What we’re changing here is not the use of the property that’s already in the zoning. As of right, that property will fit (8) 50,000 sq ft warehouses. We’re not increasing the sq ft. We’re just saying we’re going to group those together. We have the project engineer here. We’re not increasing sq ft on the property. They’re just being combined into larger buildings so we have less buildings on the property. Councilmember Davis: while he is speaking, I need everyone to be quiet. Duquette: I’ll show you also how the bigger buildings allow it to be pulled back from the road to be more screening. Anything to do with traffic, noise & things like that – that’s on the planning board level. If it’s going to be averted on the traffic, the project won’t go through.
Ross Winglovitz: (Engineer): the town went through a master plan process of re-zoning a zone this property to allow warehouses. So, we did an original plan based on the town zoning which is a maximum of 50,000 sq ft. We could put 3 on this side and 5 on that side. The concern was that that was a little busy. That is what the zoning permits currently. What we asked is that instead of doing multiple buildings which actually have more cars/traffic. If we could group those – not increase any sq footage, into 2 buildings – 150,000 on this side and 250,000 on that side – much bigger green spaces.
90
We offered that the green space could be conserved. Danielewski: one can say it’s almost a deterrent to have (8) 50,000 sq ft warehouses instead of 2 larger ones to consolidate cost for electric, plumbing, excavation & everything else? Supervisor: would be a possibility. Winglovitz: this is NOT changing the use but just allowing it to be 2 larger buildings instead of 8 buildings. Wetlands and traffic would all have to be reviewed. 73 acres.
Mary Carver: is there a height difference between the 8 and the 2? Winglovitz: no. Carver: do you work for the current owner? Winglovitz: current owner.
Diane Loeven: current zoning allows for 50,000 sq ft? Supervisor: correct. Loeven: numerous buildings of that size on a single parcel or a single 50,000 sq ft warehouse? Attorney Bavoso: right now, it’s silent as to the issue of # of warehouses that can ne on the site. Loeven: multiple buildings on 1 site? Attorney: correct. Loeven: if you increase it from 50,000 to 250,000, you could have 3 or 4 250,000 sq ft buildings because it is not restricting the # of buildings, correct? Attorney: correct. Winglovitz: one of the things we discussed with the board regarding the conservation of that and the size of the buildings so that it was consistent. So, this wasn’t a shell game. Supervisor: the proposal is for the changing of the footprint of the buildings. Attorney Bavoso: to go along with Diane’s question, they would still have to meet all of the other bulk requirements of that property & zoning district. Zoning district only allows 30% lot coverage to be improved. Regardless of the size of the buildings, there’s only so much of the property that can actually be developed. The rest has to be preserved. Loeven: 30% coverage – does that include parking areas & all of that as well? Attorney: yes. Loeven: I’m more concerned that there’s no limit to the # of buildings. I think that would be something that the board would want to consider in addition to the 30%.
Bill Duquette: the traffic is a planning board function. If the roads can’t handle it then the planning board then the planning board says you have to put in a new road and bring it up to the proper spec or they deny the application.
Amanda Baker: if 2 are approved, how many more buildings can go up and if they’re approved and other people want to sell, where is there a limitation to how many buildings can be built? Will that even be proposed? If this were to be approved, are you capped at 2? What’s your 10-year plan?
Ross Winglovitz: we’ve agreed that this is the maximum sq ft and the maximum size would be 250,000. Attorney: if in fact they were to receive a planning board approval, and decided 10 years after that they wanted to change the payout, they then have to go back to the board to start the process all over again.
Keri Carey: the law change would affect all B1 parcels. Supervisor: yes. Carey: would that encompass any restrictions in the other areas? Supervisor: the proposal is for the entire zoning district.
Wayne Dobkowski: if you don’t pass this law then? Supervisor: they would have to make an application to the planning board for that proposal.
Eric Fellenzer: is it zoned one building per lot? Are you allowed multiple buildings per lot? Would it have to be subdivided to do this? Attorney: it’s silent to that now so there’s no restriction on multiple buildings if they’re approved by planning board. Fellenzer: so, you could put multiple caretakers houses? As long as it meets the requirements? If it’s being done for this property, why are we doing it for all of B1? If you’re going to change the zoning, why don’t you make this its own zone? Supervisor: it is for the entire zone. The sq ft increase is not specific to the parcel it’s for the entire zoning district. Fellenzer: this is a conditional use subject to the issuance of a special permit by the planning board, correct? Attorney: yes. Fellenzer, I ask the board, if you lived on White Bridge Road – would think that’s appropriate?
Sal Rivera: I wouldn’t want that on my road because trucks my son has very bad asthma. I love the community. Having trucks, more cars parked is just gonna – air quality conditions could go down. I like the freedom to have my dogs outside. I have to worry about them with the trucks now.
Mary Carver: on the proposal where you have the 2 buildings, given the acreage, and you have to preserve 30%, is there enough acreage to add a 3rd? Attorney: I don’t know. I don’t know the dimensions of the lot disturbance as a % of the property. It sounds to me as Ross had said that this is at the 30%.
Diane Loeven: this will apply to the entire district so the board can’t focus only on this parcel. You have to look at the overall impact were all of the parcels wanting to do the same thing. I am not in favor of spot zoning. O would be outraged if the board did that. That is what the ZBA is for. Without changing the law, they still have the ability to go the ZBA to try to get a waiver from that restriction.
Mike Meere: thank you for the informational meeting the other night. Jason, the engineer, was he part of the original team to design the plant? Supervisor: no, Jason had worked with 2 different firms at most for the last 10 years. Meere: when we went and checked out the sewers, was he the engineer for that as far as the seepage with the water? Supervisor: it was across 2 firms. At one point the scoping was done prior to 2013. The prior firm was DeWinter. Meere: he was the original engineer? Supervisor: I don’t know. Jason did have some work with the 2 firms he was with over that 10-year span.
Paul Barth: I live across from this project. For the town – leave it as it is. It got changed in 2019. Let them come to the board and do what they need to pursue the 2 buildings. At this point what do we as the general public have to do to change the whole zoning? Supervisor: it would be a similar process to where we are now. We would have the introduction and proposal of the local law to amend the zoning. We have a public hearing. Then the town could take action.
91
Eric Fellenzer: conditional use subject to issuance by special permit by the planning board. It says ware house not warehouses. Attorney: that’s something that gets hashed out during the planning board process. Supervisor: what you’re asking is the interpretation of singular vs plural. Attorney: it’s defining it as a warehouse use. It’s not defining it as a single warehouse building.
Diane Loeven: in a residential district, you could build multiple homes on the parcel? Attorney: no. There’re specific rules about that in the residential districts.
Anthony Danielewski: there’s not many resources that the Mount Hope residents get from the town. We pay taxes. We don’t have a police dept that runs 24 hours. No garbage pickup. This is a tremendous upheaval of the lifestyle here.
Mary Carver: spoke re: manhole covers. You gave a rough amount. Supervisor: recent proposal from last year was approx. $130,000.00. Carver: was that out to bid? Supervisor: just asking for an estimate. Carver: was there a plan? Take them apart? What order? Supervisor: each was specific. There was 13 identified for some type of repair. Meere: was that done on the same street or throughout the whole development? Supervisor: the whole development.
Rich Rebman: if you get the approval for the 2 buildings, can anything else be built there. Can you put high density housing there? Supervisor: the zoning district doesn’t allow for residential homes to be built there. Attorney: that use isn’t permitted in that zone. Any change of use to the property has to go back to the planning board.
Helen Gromacki: do you know how far away footage wise that that building is away from White Bridge Road? Winglovitz: 75 front yard setback.
Peter Gromacki: there would be no residential homes on 5-acre parcels. Could it ever be re-zoned for that? Supervisor: there’s a potential.
Paul Barth: the solar farms that went up in the area – you got “X” amount of money up front in case those solar farms were not used anymore. You had to get money to take them off the property. Attorney: there’s a decommissioning bond that’s posted with the town. Barth: can you do something like that for the warehouses? Attorney: that would be the planning board’s determination.
Bill Duquette: generally commercial projects bring in more taxes.
Mary Maurizzio: spoke about companies coming in and doing this stuff then asking to become tax exempt. Attorney: PILOT agreements used to be a practice of the past to try to attract business. At this point, the town board has not been approached about this. Maurizzio: it’s possible that they could ask then receive? Attorney: yes. Duquette: the PILOT agreements start at the current rate. It’s just the improvements are phased in. You’re not losing money with a PILOT agreement – it just phases in the value of the project over time. Maurizzio: the planning and ZBA’s have been in existence for a long time. Are the members professionals? Do they have training? Because it is becoming an ordinary citizen making a big decision. I don’t feel this is a positive thing for Mount Hope. Supervisor: the members go to continuing education classes. Attorney: all planning & ZBA members are required to complete a certain # of hours of classes every single year to continue to qualify for that position. Additionally, both of those boards are empowered to hire any necessary consultants that they think they would need in order to review.
COMMITTEE REPORTS:
Councilmember Davis: Thank you to the village for co-hosting the Veteran’s Day ceremony as well as the highway department for decorating a truck. We couldn’t do the parade this year due to the bridge.
Councilmember Furman: There will be a sensory friendly photo with Santa & Mrs. Claus on December 16 at the senior center. Mobile DMV will be a village hall tomorrow from 10-3. Mike Brock, Matt and myself met with the Hidden Valley residents. A lot of uninformed residents. We went over a lot of things to do with HV. We will do it again after the 1st of the year. He thanked Amanda for her help going door to door to inform everyone there of the meeting.
Councilmember Jennings: at the village meeting, they asked me to give a thank you to Dean for assisting with the DPW. Patriot tree lighting is Dec. 7 at 6PM. Village board meeting is the same night at 7PM. Dean replaced the part in the generator at the youth center.
Supervisor Howell: thanked everyone for the Veteran’s Day ceremony. October was fire prevention month. He recognized the local fire departments that went to the local schools.
HIGHWAY REPORT:
Supt. Hassenmayer reported the pole barn at the park is finished. We’re waiting on 3 overhead doors to be installed. Dutchess Overhead Doors will install them. Looks like we will come in under the $60,000.00 budget. The trucks are ready for winter. Barn is loaded with salt/sand mix. We started doing your siding on your addition. Soffits and trim work were started on the non-gable ends.
POLICE:
Chief Maresca asked when the tree lighting will be. Councilmember Furman: it’s not settled on yet. He asked the Chief for the officers to patrol Hidden Valley more often.
92
VILLAGE OF OTISVILLE:
Mayor Carey thanked Dean for the town/village pipe fixing here on 211. Village tree lighting is 12/1. One in Veteran’s Park will be at 6:10pm then head up to firehouse to light that tree. Festivities will be immediately after.
FUEL CONTRACTS WITH VILLAGE OF OTISVILLE, CORNELL COOP & HOWELLS FIRE DISTRICT:
Supervisor asked for approval for the fuel sale contracts with the Village of Otisville, Howells fire district & Cornell Coop. Extension. There are no changes from last year.
MOTION TO APPROVE THE 2024 FUEL CONTRACT WITH THE VILLAGE OF OTISVILLE:
MOTION offered Councilmember Furman 2nd Councilmember Davis to approve the 2024 fuel agreement with the Village of Otisville and authorize the town supervisor to sign said agreement. (copy will be available in the town clerk’s office) All in favor: Howell, Davis, Furman, Jennings; carried.
MOTION TO APPROVE THE 2024 FUEL CONTRACT WITH THE CORNELL COOP. EXTENSION:
MOTION offered Councilmember Jennings 2nd Councilmember Davis to approve the 2024 fuel agreement with the Cornell Coop. Extension and authorize the town supervisor to sign said agreement. (copy will be available in the town clerk’s office) All in favor: Howell, Davis, Furman, Jennings; carried.
MOTION TO APPROVE THE 2024 FUEL CONTRACT WITH THE HOWELLS FIRE DISTRICT:
MOTION offered Councilmember Jennings 2nd Councilmember Davis to approve the 2024 fuel agreement with the Howells Fire District and authorize the town supervisor to sign said agreement. (copy will be available in the town clerk’s office) All in favor: Howell, Davis, Furman, Jennings; carried.
MOTION TO AUDIT THE CLAIMS:
MOTION offered by Councilmember Davis 2nd Councilmember Furman to approve the following:
#44: GENERAL A: #520-532 $ 66,040.60
GENERAL B: #132-134 $ 27,121.18
HIGHWAY: #187-188 $ 1,356.34
SEWER: #99-101 $ 6,225.50
ARPA: #12 $ 33,000.00
#45: GENERAL A: #533-549 $ 10,311.63
GENERAL B: #135-136 $ 150.95
HIGHWAY: #189-191 $ 823.89
SEWER: #102-103 $ 210.86
#46: GENERAL A: #550-563 $ 9,099.26
GENERAL B: #137-138 $ 607.96
HIGHWAY: #192-196 $ 13,734.86
SEWER: #104-106 $ 493.17
ARPA: #13 $ 1,417.00.
All in favor: Howell, Jennings, Davis, Furman; carried.
MOTION TO ACCEPT RESIGNATION FROM ZBA ALTERNATE KERI LEE CAREY:
MOTION offered Councilmember Furman 2nd Councilmember Davis to accept the resignation from ZBA alternate Keri Lee Carey effective 12/31/2023. All in favor: Howell, Jennings, Davis, Furman; carried.
DRYWALL QUOTES:
Supervisor Howell received the drywall quotes from Mr. Fuller. Five quotes were solicited – 1 declined to provide a quote. Kubie Properties quote was $5,500. 2 other firms were much higher due to prevailing wage.
MOTION TO ACCEPT QUOTE FROM KUBIE PROPERTIES:
MOTION offered Councilmember Davis 2nd Councilmember Furman to approve Kubie Properties for the drywall installation at a cost of $5,500.00. All in favor: Howell, Jennings, Davis, Furman; carried.
PROPOSED LOCAL LAW #3-2023:
Supervisor Howell asked for board comments for the proposed local law.
Councilmember Furman: I think that hearing everybody out and I hope everybody understands it a little more; I think the project should go to the planning board.
Councilmember Davis: (inaudible)
93
Supervisor Howell: that would be up to the board members. I think from the aesthetic piece, the disturbance from the 2 buildings and a smaller footprint on that respect of the project would be more appropriate than a larger disruption of the property if it was developed. It’s the voice of the public that things stay the way they are with the 50,000 sq ft and the process.
Councilmember Jennings: we vote yay or nay, right?
Supervisor Howell: with no action at this time, the zoning size of the warehouse buildings in a B1 zone will remain without change.
Attorney Bavoso: it could conceivably come up again in the future but as of right now the board has chosen not to take action.
Supervisor Howell: to the attorney: with the process, not having fulfilled and made an approved vote on previous local laws, we’ve never in my time here on the board, not voted or not approved a local law. If in 6 months the town board says let’s try this again, can they just vote at that time? Or restart the process?
Attorney Bavoso: theoretically, you could vote but I would recommend a public hearing.
2024 PRELIMINARY BUDGET:
Supervisor Howell asked for comments from the board. (discussion is inaudible) Councilmember Jennings asked how much the budget will increase.
Supervisor: 3.38% from 2023 to 2024.
MOTION TO ADOPT 2024 BUDGET AS PRESENTED:
MOTION offered Councilmember Furman 2nd Councilmember Davis to adopt the 2024 budget as presented.
All in favor: Howell, Davis, Jennings, Furman; carried.
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS:
Councilmember Jennings wished everyone a happy Thanksgiving.
Councilmember Furman wished everyone a happy Thanksgiving.
Councilmember Davis: earlier this year I proposed filling the vacant seat on the board with Keri Lee Carey. It was stated then that we were going to wait until after the election to fill that seat. I would like to propose to the board to appoint Keri Lee Carey to the vacant seat.
MOTION TO ACCEPT RESIGNATION FROM KERI LEE CAREY EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY:
MOTION offered Councilmember Furman 2nd Councilmember Davis to accept the resignation from ZBA alternate Keri Lee Carey effective immediately. All in favor: Howell, Jennings, Davis, Furman; carried.
MOTION TO APPOINT KERI LEE CAREY TO FILL VACANCY ON TOWN BOARD:
MOTION offered Councilmember Furman 2nd Councilmember Davis to appoint Keri Lee Carey to fill the vacant town board seat immediately. All in favor: Howell, Jennings, Davis, Furman; carried.
AT THIS TIME, Supervisor Howell addressed the letter from Paul Rickard:
Question 1: How many people are covered in the “A” budget medical & hospital? Supervisor: 3 – The increased amount is based on the estimates provided from the insurance providers respectively and what our projection for employees being a net zero change and what we had budgeted current year is what would be remaining in relationship to the increase.
Question 2: “A” budget increase of $1000 increase for police/fire retirement. How was it a flat fee? Supervisor: information we are provided from the comptroller’s office specific to retirement – we’re provided with projected invoices & then current invoices. We base our data on our employees salaries and what’s quoted from the retirement system. We also take advantage of a prepayment discount.
Question 3: “A” budget revenue line for “Comm day” – what’s the year to date? Supervisor: $5970.00
Question 4: 2023 revenue minus taxes for budget is $356,205. What’s year to date? Supervisor: $350,187.00.
Supervisor: Happy Thanksgiving!
MOTION TO ADJOURN MEETING:
MOTION offered Councilmember Davis 2nd Councilmember Furman to adjourn the meeting at 9:10pm. All in favor: Howell, Davis, Jennings, Furman; carried.
The next meeting is December 4, 2023 at 7:30pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Kathleen A. Myers, Town Clerk
94