PATTERSON TOWN BOARD MEETING

PATTERSON TOWN HALL

1142 ROUTE 311

PATTERSON, NY 12563

February 24, 2010

MINUTES

PRESENT:      MICHAEL GRIFFIN, SUPERVISOR

                        KEVIN BURNS, COUNCILMAN

JOSEPH CAPASSO, COUNCILMAN       

GINNY NACERINO, COUNCILWOMAN           

EDMOND O’CONNOR, DEPUTY SUPERVISOR

ANTOINETTE KOPECK, TOWN CLERK

                        TIMOTHY CURTISS, TOWN COUNSEL

Salute to the Flag and Roll Call.

Supervisor Griffin called the Patterson Town Board meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. with 35 in attendance.

REPORTS

Mr. Griffin deferred the Reports until the end of the meeting.

SUPERVISOR REPORTS

Mrs. Nacerino made a motion to accept the Supervisor Reports for December 2009/January 2010.

Seconded by Mr. Capasso.  All In Favor: Aye.  Carried.

MINUTES

Mrs. Nacerino made a motion to approve the following minutes:

Public Hearing – Zoning Fences – January 13, 2010

Public Hearing – Zoning Permitted Uses – January 13, 2010

Public Hearing – Clubs – January 13, 2010

Public Hearing – Apartments – January 13, 2010

Public Hearing – Cold War Veterans Exemption – January 27, 2010

Public Hearing – Conservation Easement – January 27, 2010

Town Board Meeting – January 13, 2010

Town Board Meeting – January 27, 2010

Seconded by Mr. Burns.  All In Favor: Aye.  Carried.

AUDIT OF BILLS

Mrs. Nacerino made a motion to accept Abstract #3A as written, February 4, 2010:

General Fund $4,484.50, Highway Fund New Item– $987.40, Waste Water Treatment Plant $232.00, Capital Fund $18,927.10, Trust & Agency $717.45, Grand Total Abstract $25,348.45.

Seconded by Mr. Capasso.  Roll Call Vote: Mr. Burns, yes; Mr. Capasso, yes; Mrs. Nacerino, yes; Mr. O’Connor, yes; Mr. Griffin, yes.

Mrs. Nacerino made a motion to accept Abstract #3 as written, February 10, 2010:

General Fund $46,353.84, Highway Fund Item 1 – General Repairs $2,100.02, Highway Fund Item 3 – Machinery $10,641.21, Highway Fund Item 4 – Miscellaneous $1,638.23, Highway Fund Item 4 – Snow $71,664.14, Highway Fund - Employee Benefits $1,049.10, Waste Water

Treatment Plant $12,630.48, Putnam Lake Light District $1,959.61, Patterson Light District $1,832.38, Putnam Lake Refuse District #1 $28,52202, Patterson Refuse District #2 $21,127.32, Alpine Water District $1,250.68, Dorset Hollow Water District $2,389.34, Fox Run Water District $2,163.48, Trust & Agency $5,715.00, Grand Total Abstract $211,036.85.

Seconded by Mr. Burns.  Roll Call Vote: Mr. Burns, yes; Mr. Capasso, abstain; Mrs. Nacerino, yes; Mr. O’Connor, yes; Mr. Griffin, yes.

Mrs. Nacerino made a motion to accept Abstract #4 as written, February 24, 2010:

General Fund $69,909.50, Highway Fund Item 3 – Machinery $1,733.16, Highway Fund Item 4 – Miscellaneous $1,412.04, Highway Fund – Snow $27,942.75, Highway Fund - Employee Benefits $11,666.74, Highway Fund – Debt Service $5,100.00, Putnam Lake Fire District $36,728.55, Patterson Fire District $39,969.31, Waste Water Treatment Plant $14,221.83, Library $514,293.00, Putnam Lake Light District $762.32, Patterson Light District $23.89, Patterson Refuse District #2 $7,244.62, Deerwood Drainage District $15.57, Patterson Park District $388.36, Alpine Water District $473.79, Dorset Hollow Water District $973.96, Fox Run Water District $511.97, Trust & Agency $6,443.75, Grand Total Abstract $739,815.11.

Seconded by Mr. Capasso.  Roll Call Vote: Mr. Burns, yes; Mr. Capasso, yes; Mrs. Nacerino, yes; Mr. O’Connor, yes; Mr. Griffin, yes.

JOSEPH CAPASSO

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT WOOD BURNING STOVE

Mr. Capasso stated I have a memo from Gene Brandon from the Highway Department in regards to the wood burning stoves.  They used to heat the buildings for the garage.  No one is going there on weekends anymore because of what has been taking place currently with our Highway Superintendent.  They were being paid overtime for that.  I spoke with Gene and we came up with a solution so that won’t happen anymore.  We will be saving on that.  We will let the wood burning stoves run through the weekend, burn out and restart them on Monday.  We will use the alternate heater which is an oil fired unit, waste oil.  It doesn’t cost the taxpayer’s any money.  We will run that for the weekends.  As far as I’m concerned, this has been solved.

MICHAEL GRIFFIN

WINDING GLADES – REQUEST TO BE ON AGENDA

Mr. David Steinmetz of Zarin & Steinmetz representing Winding Glades stated I’m going to try to be brief because I see a lot of people in attendance this evening and I’m hoping they are not here in connection with my matter.  I am here to speak about the proposed zoning text change that you have before you at the Public Hearing on January 13, 2010.  My partner unfortunately who is handing this matter, had a conflict this evening so I am here pinch hitting.  I had an opportunity to review the meeting you conducted on January 13, 2010.  We listened to the comments that the various Board members made and we also saw some of the follow up correspondence generated by Mr. Curtiss’ office.  Number one, we think that there is no reason for the Town Board at this point to continue the Public Hearing which at the end of your last meeting you indicated a continuation of the Public Hearing.  Number two, we don’t think there is a need for you to refer the matter to the Planning Board and have them engage in further discussion and hearings.  Based upon our review and my partner’s impressions of the last meeting, four of you indicated pretty clearly on the record that you do not desire to go forward with the proposed zoning text change.  If that is the case, then for reasons of simple efficiency there seems to be no legitimate purpose for this to continue.  We wanted to get on to tonight’s agenda to clarify whether or not the Town is going to continue to pursue the new definition of Club and the proposed revisions that have been put before you.  Again, we see no reason to do so.  We would like to pursue our application, as you all know, is currently pending before your Planning Board. We are sure your Planning Board and all other agencies in the Town that have jurisdiction over the matter will conduct their review appropriately, thoroughly and there is no reason for an unnecessary extension of a legislative review if this Board is not going to endorse that.

Mr. O’Connor stated is it my understanding that it is before the Zoning Board.

Mr. Steinmetz stated there is an application pending before the Planning Board and a referral to the Zoning Board as well.

Mr. Curtiss stated just to give the Board a little bit of background, the Planning Board asked me for some instructions on how to proceed.  We sent a memo and I think the applicant has it, where we thought the Town Board gave two directions.  One was that the applicant proceeds through the process which is now their application before the Zoning Board and you also made a referral to the Planning Board of the proposed legislation for their recommendation and their report.  They have commenced that review of the proposed statutory change.  They have not reported anything back yet.  They will be working on that this month.  I believe the applicant is proceeding through the Zoning Board for their interpretation as to whether or not they would fit within the definition of current statutory definition of Club.

Mr. O’Connor that is what I meant. 

Mr. Curtiss stated my understanding was that you said he has to go through the process, which at this point is the current definition of Club, the current ordinance, which would require them to get the interpretation before the Zoning Board.  There was also the second issue which was the proposed legislation, the change to the definition of Clubs and the change of research office facility which you directed to go to the Planning Board for their hearing and their input as to whether or not it would be an appropriate change for the code.

Mr. O’Connor stated as one of the four who did not wish to go ahead here, I said it should go through the process, what you are asking to stop is the process.

Mr. Steinmetz stated no.  Let’s not miss one another on the use of the word “process”.  All four of you were pretty clear on the record that you did not endorse the proposed zoning change.  If that is the case, then allow us to go through the process under the existing law.  There is no need for a zoning text referral to your Planning Board if there is no zoning text change that this Board is going to endorse.  If we misunderstood what four of you said on the record, four of you spoke at the Public Hearing, four of you indicated that based upon the circumstances surrounding this, how it arose, what was before you, that you were not endorsing the suggestion that had been presented to your Board for consideration.  If that is the case, then don’t have my client processing a land use application in front of your Planning Board where the goal post is moving.  Are we processing under the current law, which is where we were up until this new thing was floated, or are we processing in front of your Planning Board a request for you to change your law.  Four of you said you didn’t want to change the law.

Mr. Burns stated I think there are separate and distinct issues.  One is, and I voted in favor of it going through the process, but your application points out what we believe is a whole nuance in our zoning that we may want to look at and we may want to tighten up.  We may want to change that zoning definition of Clubs.  I don’t think that was the intention of what we are seeing in this application.  That being said, what we were presented with at the last meeting was something that was drafted unilaterally at the request of one Board member and we were uncomfortable with that definition.  It was also the wrong process.  We didn’t get comments from the Planning Board before the definition was done.  There may or may not be ultimately a zoning change with regards to Clubs or not.  I was uncomfortable with the process.  I can’t promise you whether or not we will change it, but I would like to see them go through them concurrently. Go before the Zoning Board as it is.  We haven’t changed it, we don’t have immediate plans to change it but it is something we want to make comments on because I don’t think we were comfortable the way Clubs were being interpreted. 

Mr. O’Connor stated I agree.

Mr. Steinmetz stated I appreciate that Mr. Burns because we too have faith in your Planning and Zoning Boards and Mr. Williams to do their job thoroughly and properly.  We understand that the environmental issues you have identified about noise and ascetics all have to be dealt with.  We will deal with those as we feel in front of the appropriate Board which is your Planning and Zoning Board to the extent that there is an interpretation that is necessary.  The reason that I

asked to be on tonight’s agenda is because you now have a situation based upon Mr. Curtiss’ communication where your Planning Board is now unclear.  We’ve communicated with the Planning Board; they are unclear as to whether or not they are now reviewing a proposed zoning text change that two of you just confirmed for me, in fact, four of you are not in favor of.  It is unfair for my client who has been processing an application under your code until this arose.  Whatever was proposed clearly and unquestionable was targeted directly at my client.  Ironically, based upon my review of the meeting, other folks in Town apparently found that there were some issues with the proposed language and might have come under it as well.  Regardless, if you are not adopting that law, then all we are asking procedurally, table that law.  It is not going to move forward for a review and a recommendation in front of the Planning Board.  Mr. Burns, you are right.  If you’re Planning Board or this Board decides to look at other text changes, we can’t stop you from doing that.  I am very well aware of that.  With the utmost respect, I will caution the Board that in light of the fact that my client has an application before your Boards pending and you target my client’s application and seek to change the rules and law as applies to my client as we are going through the process, that raises a host of legal issues which we genuinely seek to avoid.  We don’t want to do that.  We want to process the pending application fairly under the rules of the game that was established the day we filed the application.  That’s all.

Mr. Burns stated we are certainly well within our rights, if we perceive a defect in our zoning laws to pursue a review of that.  We can’t wait until your plan is ruled on to then say now we are going to make a zoning change.  I think it would be improvident of this Board to move forward on that whether it is concurrently or whether we withdraw this application.  My issue had to do with how it was presented.  We were presented with a code change without input.  Whether we stop that process now it may start up at the next meeting when we ask the Planning Board to look at the definition of Clubs and make a recommendation so it pushes it back, but I’m not going to say it is not going to go forward.

Mr. Steinmetz stated my answer to your question is now misconstrued.  Absolutely, you have a right to study the law and potentially change the law. Whether or not you have the right under a due process to change the law as it applies to our client in this instance, certainly remains to be seen.  In light of the records, the blogs and the material that’s transpired anything that happens at this point is suspect.  What we are suggesting is we don’t want to get involved with that.  We are here to cooperate in good faith with all of you. 

Mr. Burns stated if I make a motion to table or withdraw the application, someone else or I may ask the Planning Board for a recommendation regarding Clubs.  We are entitled to do that at this meeting or next meeting.  Procedurally, I wouldn’t have a problem but I would like to address what we perceive as a loop-hole in our zoning.

Mr. Steinmetz stated separate issue.

Mr. Burns stated ok, that’s fine.

Mrs. Nacerino stated for the record I just want to state that I am neither an advocate or a proponent of this project.  However, that being said I do support the applicant’s ability to proceed through the process without prejudice.  I believe the court issue here is whether this Board is going to support our fundamental structure which now defines our Town government by permitting this application to go through the proper channels or are we going to comprise the trust, integrity and confidence in our own Planning Board’s ability to properly evaluate this application and address all the concerns.  I think the essence of the case is whether we demonstrating bias by adopting this legislation with Winding Glades in mind.  While I agree on Master plans and our codes have loop holes that need to be closed, citing only one section appears to be disingenuous, especially when four members of this Board were unaware of the directive given to Mr. Williams in the first place.  At the end of the day, we need to support the democratic process not succumb to (inaudible) or those with special interest and to do anything else would be clearly not in the best interest of the residents of this Town.  I think we would also be setting a dangerous precedent which could potentially cost the taxpayers of this Town more money in future litigation.

Mr. Burns made a motion to withdraw that consideration.

Mr. Griffin stated maybe we should get everyone’s opinion, just out of curiosity.

Mr. Steinmetz stated I would allow the public to speak and would certainly be happy to get back up and clarify anything or answer any questions.

Mr. Michael Carinha stated I am the closest resident to this application.  First question, in the near future do you think you can have the Club members come to a meeting so we can ask them questions that they would have knowledge on.  There were a few times Mr. Zarin couldn’t answer any questions.

Mr. Burns stated I spoke with Mr. Zarin and one of the things I suggested is to make or break the project you really need to bring before the public what this racing is all about.  There are people who like NASCAR, there are people who may not want rally cars.  I don’t know.  One of the things I suggested to Mr. Zarin was rather than talk about the philanthropic efforts of this family, if you want to hold a mini rally race in Patterson, have a day when you bring these cars out.  I think seeing and maybe some discussion or some public forum where people can come and ask questions and see what this is would benefit this community.  People can then make an informed judgment.

Mr. Steinmetz stated all I can tell you is first of all this is really not the issue procedurally that is before you. That is not why we asked to be on tonight’s agenda.  Having said that, I see no reason that question would not be appropriately answered in front of your Planning Board as this is being studied and reviewed.  It’s a fair question.  As a neighbor I think he has every right to ask that and I personally have no reason to believe that the members couldn’t be there but I am here on behalf of my partner who couldn’t be here tonight, so I am not intimately familiar who the members are or whether they have been to any of the prior meetings.

Mr. Carinha stated do you know how many members there are.

Mr. Steinmetz stated again, that is a question that would have to be brought forward in front of the Planning Board.  I mean no disrespect, but you may know more about that issue than I do.

Mr. Carinha stated it’s one of your clients.

Mr. Steinmetz stated with all due respect, I am here on a procedural issue regarding the re-zoning, not with regard to the processing of the Planning Board matter.

Mr. O’Connor stated I was at the Zoning Board when this matter came up and as I said all along we have confidence in our Boards.  I congratulated them on looking into some of the statements that were made independently.  Mr. Zarin made a comment to me about 20 or 30 miles an hour

on the skid pad and they went on the web and they found otherwise.  At that meeting, Mr. Zarin said he did not know if there really was a Club.  No Club application had been made independent of this.  There was no Club.  At the time of the Zoning Board application there was no Club with four members of four hundred.

Mr. Carinha stated I think I am going to be the most effected to this.  I had a chance to meet one of the applicants and one of the alleged Club members.  There are five members.  Mr. Buck, the applicant and I spoke to him and he was concerned that my house was the closest.  He was the one that told me there were five members.  What are we learning here.  Mr. Zarin has told us there were four members but there are five.  This is going to start steam rolling.  This is what I am worried about.  There are a lot of issues.  I wanted to bring this to your attention.

Mr. Bruce Major stated I don’t live adjacent to the site.  I am here to speak on a few issues.  I was at the meeting when Mr. Zarin spoke and truly I was disappointed with the Board members who after Mr. Zarin made his presentation agreed with him.  One must understand that Mr. Zarin was representing his client.  As representing his client he is going to look at court cases that support his position.  Shortly after you folks made your statement another attorney got up and basically explained to you the latitude you have as our legislators in making decisions and making law.  I have some concerns about the term Club and non-for-profit.  If you look at the code, it was put in the Town Code back in October 1977.  In 2004, there were some very minor changes to that law.  There is no true definition as to what a not-for-profit is.  It gives

tremendous latitude.  You can think of any activity, add non-for-profit to it and it becomes a Club or a non-for-profit and they are able to do things irregardless of our zoning.  The point I really want to make is that we have now created two classes of people.  We have an individual corporation or LLC who must follow very strict guidelines as it comes to zoning.  Residential you have to do residential, commercial you have to do commercial.  We’ve created this new individual, it’s called a non-for-profit.  They can do commercial applications in residential zoning.  This I believe is wrong.  You are creating two classes of people.  I believe that this Board owes it to the Town people to make a few changes right now.  One thing I would like you to do in looking at the Zoning Board they are using Carl Lodes as their attorney and he is doing their reviews.  It is evident to me that Tim Curtiss is representing the Planning Board.  He is now going to be meeting with representatives of the Planning Board to do their review.  I would respectfully request that this Board hire an attorney who has an expertise in land use and legislation.  Additionally, what I would like to see this Board do is put in a moratorium on all applications for non-for-profits for 120 days so you can look at this whole process and make a determination on what should be considered a non-for-profit or whether or not they should have to follow the same zoning regulations as individuals.  As you know, Winding Glades came before your Board, they did an application, and they were not a Club when they made your application.  They learned that by being a Club a non-for-profit they are able to go forward.  I checked with the Planning Board.  In the last five years there has been one application by a non-for-profit.  We now have two.  We have a second application by a non-for-profit which is looking to do a commercial activity on residential property.  I think you owe it to us to get some strong guidelines in and I think a moratorium would be a smart way to do it.

Mr. Griffin stated we have a memo from the Town Attorney dated February 17, 2010, Winding Glades, LLC proposed zoning amendment.  This was addressed to the Planning Board.

Dear Chairman and members of the Board:

This letter is submitted in response to the request made at your February 4, 2010 meeting.  The Board has requested a memorandum to address the letter dated February 3, 2010 of Michael Zarin, counsel for Winding Glades, and clarification of the procedural request/referral by the Town Board of the proposed zoning amendments addressing “Clubs” and “research facilities.”

Mr. Zarin has requested that the Planning Board reject the proposed amendments because of the circumstances surrounding their inception or, in the alternative, that his client’s application be grandfathered.  Mr. Zarin then goes on to relate that the referral was due to some confusion and that the referral would, at this point, be unnecessary.  We disagree with all three assertions.

As the Board is aware, any proposed amendments to the Town Code require a referral by the Town Board pursuant to Section 154-134(B), which the Town Board did at its January 13, 2010 meeting.  That referral was specifically requested by the applicant.  Concurrently, the Town Board also informed the applicant that it could proceed through the process, and, in fact, the Town Board acknowledged the applicant’s right to apply to the Zoning Board of Appeals for an interpretation as to whether the application met our definition as a private Club.  That application is currently pending before the Zoning Board of Appeals for an interpretation.

The actions of the Town Board were not inconsistent.  The Town Board requested that the Planning Board review the proposed change and that the applicant be given an unbiased opportunity to present its application to the Zoning Board of Appeals and proceed through the process.  Contrary to the applicant’s assertions, the Town Board was directing that the application proceed through the process, thus affording the applicant its full due process rights.

Mr. Griffin stated it goes on to talk about the review of Willow Wood Rifle & Pistol Club.  Tim do you want to jump in at this point.

Mr. Curtiss stated the Board thought they received conflicting instructions and whether they should proceed.  I said my understanding based on the memo was that the Town Board had given two directions.  One was, as I’ve said, that the applicant proceed in an unbiased fashion through the process which at first would have been the Zoning application for interpretation and then back to the Planning Board.  In addition, the applicant brought up at the meeting on January 13, 2010 that our statute requires any proposed change of the zoning to be referred to the Planning

Board.  Which I thought you did also.  For them to look at that change, irrespective of what was going on with Winding Glades because there was a perception that there might be a loop hole with Clubs.  Those two processes are going on simultaneously.  One not necessarily to do with the other.  Whether or not that proposed change is even going to affect Winding Glades, we don’t know.  It may not.  It may be at the point where recommendations come back to you as a Board.  You have a right to take action or not.  There may be issues as the applicant has pointed out where they may be grandfathered at that point in time.  My understanding based on the January 13^th meeting is that you did give two specific directions.  One to allow the applicant to go through the process as it exists now which is through the Zoning and Planning Board.  The second was to have the Planning Board review the proposed change.  I think it was clear the Board members were not happy with the way the current language was and that is what you were looking to have the Planning Board review and either change, tighten up or clear up some of these activities that were prohibited and it would not be in terms of research and development.

Mr. Griffin stated let me see if I can boil this down to something a little simpler.  Basically, what you are saying is they are going through the process in an unbiased fashion, so there is no issue there.

Mr. Curtiss stated yes.

Mr. Griffin stated and that we should in fact continue the review of the Clubs so that we move forward on this issue for future considerations.

Mr. Curtiss stated that is the policy issue that you directed to the Planning Board.  That is a policy issue for your Board to direct.  If you think it needs some review and possibly an amendment, then it should proceed if you are comfortable with the way the statute is at the current time.  Then obviously the Planning Board would not have any mandate to go forward.

Mr. Burns stated so the only issue is that we gave them a specific statute and proposed change.  In other words, if we withdraw that application for that specific change we can still ask them what your impression of the definition of Clubs is, so it’s academic at the end of the day.

Mr. Steinmetz stated in all due respect, it is not academic at the end of the day because it illuminates the confusion for the time being that there is a draft law out there.  Mr. Burns if you ask them for their position, you certainly can do that.  I noticed later in the agenda under your items there is an indication of a possible preliminary discussion of a Master plan or Comprehensive Plan update.  It makes far more sense if you all are going to consider a zoning text change of this nature, there is no reason it should not be done.  In fact, the law says it should be done in connection and consistent with you comprehensive plan.  Those two things should really be happening in conjunction with each other.  If you are going to be doing that you have every right to be doing that.  Start that process.  What our procedural hang up was, was a very specific law that four of you did not seem to endorse.  It was being directed specifically to your Board and their processing our application.  Out of fairness, you are telling that Board one thing, but then at this Board level you have indicated to my client that four of you don’t endorse it.  I urge you again, so that I am clear and you understand what we are asking, we are urging you to table the law as drafted.  There is no reason for the Planning Board to be handling a referral on something that is not going to be adopted.  You have every right to confer with your Board, Planner and look at your Master Plan.  Let us proceed with our application, answer the questions that the public has, deal with the environmental issues that have to be addressed and we will move forward.  If you decide to try to change the law during that process, we will address it at that point in time.  I have faith that this Board and this Town will treat my client fairly.  That is the way we began this process, that is the way be have been handling it and we were taken aback that things changed.  I’m asking you to not handle it in an inappropriate fashion and let us move forward.

Mr. O’Connor stated a number of times you said the “four” including myself did not endorse that proposed change as if I was against them.  What I did not endorse was I thought it was brought too quickly without 154 that is what I did not endorse.  

Mr. Steinmetz stated regardless of what each one of your individual reasons may have been, my impression from reviewing your meeting was that there was no reason for it to be referred to the

Planning Board.  You are right, Mike Zarin got up at the beginning of your January 13^th meeting and reminded you that you needed to do a referral because he thought it was possible that this law was going to move forward.  By the end of the meeting, as the meeting unfolded and people spoke and you all responded, it became quite clear that four of you no longer thought that law as drafted…………..

Mr. O’Connor stated that is not true.  That is not the case.  I took him at his word.  It should be referred under 154 of the Planning Board, more power to him.

Mr. Steinmetz stated I think you are missing my point.

Mr. O’Connor stated I think you are missing my point that at no point did I say that I thought that it was wrong or bad.

Mr. Steinmetz stated understood, unless a majority of this Board intend to pursue the laws drafted it should be tabled.  Real simple.

Mr. Griffin stated I understand you are here to represent your client.  I get that.  Frankly, I think you are asking this Board to succumb to a legal “head fake”.  Basically it seems to me in an availed way we are going to have some sort of additional legal proceedings if we go forward.  Your client brought to our attention what we consider a serious concern regarding our codes.  We looked at that in an attempt to address that problem.  Did we rush it along, perhaps a little bit.  Did we target anyone specifically, that’s (inaudible).  My opinion is we should go forward with what we are doing.  We should get our referral from the Board and you can still go through your process in an unbiased fashion.  You will get your interpretation, I assume, next week from the Zoning Board.

Mr. Steinmetz stated Mr. Supervisor it is the grist that you have just referred to that we are trying to avoid.   Just so that the rest of the Board is clear.

Mr. Griffin stated I understand that.  We sit here and say we are going to hurt your feelings if we go forward with this so we are going to table it.  There is a lot more to Tim’s memo.  It talks about that it is not inconsistent with our Master plan and some other things.  I think we are on solid ground legally.  I’m not representing your client, I’m representing the people on their own.

Mr. Major stated I would hope that this Board would not consider waiting to do your Master plan.  The appropriate time to do your Master plan would be after you get the stats back from the census which is underway which means you wouldn’t be doing that until 2011.  Like I said earlier, there is now a second application before the Planning Board by a non-for-profit in which they are looking to put a commercial project in a residential zoned area.  These things have to be looked at.  There is no zoning requirements for a non-for-profit except that they have to be 100 feet off the road and they have to comply with the set-backs.  They aren’t even required to do 75 foot heavy vegetations, as a hotel would have to do.  I think you should take time and read the code and understand that a non-for-profit can do whatever the hell they want to do, irregardless of our zoning.  I don’t think you should be waiting for next year.  I think it is important that you look at it now and I would really hope that you would consider doing a moratorium on any future applications for non-for-profits, whether it impacts on this client or not, I don’t know.  It might, I still don’t know if they are a non-for-profit.  The other applicant before the Planning Board is a non-for-profit.  I really think you should be looking into this.

Mr. Curtiss stated for the Board’s education when we met at the Planning Board work session last night one of the things that we discussed was regardless of what this proposed legislation is or will be, we have to start with the Master plan.  They designated two members to pull out the Master plan from 2000 and see what the actual legislative authority was from the Board at that time and begin the analysis there.  They are not just looking at this particular statute that is before them, they are looking at what was the proposal through the Master plan, does this fit the proposal, should it be changed, is it a loop hole or not.  They are doing a much broader review then this particular statute.  They have two members who are dedicating their time.  I will be meeting with them also to help them along with the process.

Mrs. Nacerino stated I think it needs to be a broader review because anything but would give the perspective that we are being biased.

Mr. Curtiss stated any limited conditions that you put in the special permits or the Clubs it has to be underpinned by your Master plan.  That has to be the real rationale of why you are doing it, or another type of planning study not that you just decided you didn’t like this or that.  It has to be tied together with your Master plan and the goals you are trying to achieve with your comprehensive plan.

Mr. Burns stated if we table this law as written and we ask the Planning Board to continue to explore the current definition of Clubs, at the end of the day does it really matter in terms of they will come back to us with a proposed change in the law or they will provide us with an alternative draft of the law we provided them.  The hang up with the applicant seems to be that we have a proposed law that we have asked them to review as opposed to a bottom up process where we asked them to look at the definition and give us a proposed law in lieu of that.  At the end of the day don’t we end up at the same place.

Mr. Curtiss stated you do.  They have taken the approach of a bottom up.  Let’s take a look at what the Master plan is. 

Mr. Burns stated if we tabled this proposed law but we tell the Planning Board to continue to explore this, do we lose any time.

Mr. Curtiss stated no. 

Mr. O’Connor stated Mr. Zarin reminded us rather quickly, “pass it that night” and that we should move to the Planning Board under 154.  I agreed with him, we should move the process.

Mr. Curtiss stated they are not going to look at just that statute as a way of remedying this problem, they are going to go back and do a much more comprehensive review.

Mrs. Nacerino stated I have a question for Counsel.  When the Planning Board does review this, if there are changes where does the position of this applicant come in as far as grandfathering.

Mr. Curtiss stated that depends on where they are in the process, how far they are along, what approvals they received at that point in time.  To say now whether they would be grandfathered you can’t say because you don’t know where they would be in the process.  One of the issues you can consider if you pass any proposed legislation, are all the applicants in the stream and when should this kick in and when should it not kick in.  That is an issue you can decide as a Board once you know what the specific facts are.  I think it is premature that they are going to be hit by this law or not but certainly when it comes back to you in the recommendation you then have to look at all the applicants in the planning process and determine what would be an effective cutoff date and when their rights may have vested or not vested.  The Planning Board will probably address that issue too when they send it back to you.

Mr. Rich Williams, Town Planner stated procedurally what you really want to do is close the Public Hearing because we have left that open.

Mr. Curtiss stated at this stage truthfully it is before your two Boards, Zoning and Planning, for their dealing with the issue unless you are going to take more public comments it’s a moot point until it comes back.

Mr. Steinmetz stated if you are considering closing the Public Hearing that confuses things, because are you closing the Public Hearing on the law as presented to you and drafted and telling my client and the public that they are not going to get a chance to comment on it again.  Instead I would recommend tabling it and taking it off the agenda then there is no issue before your Board the process would continue, and if there is a law, whether it is the one that you sent them or a new one that they come up with, it will come back before you and everyone will have a chance to read it and comment.  I’m concerned procedurally if you close the Public Hearing on the law that was drafted it would be as if that law is still being presented to you for consideration.  We by no means have given you every conceivable comment on that law. My partner and one of my

colleagues perceived your Board’s message as not adopting this law, for whatever reason.  If you are adopting this law or considering it then the Public Hearing shouldn’t be closed.  If you are not pursuing this law because you are going to send this back to your Planning Board and you are going to let Mr. Williams and this Comprehensive Plan Committee begin doing its work, table this thing.  It will come back before you.  If you want to look at this issue, you will be able to look at this issue.  We will comment on grandfathering, we will see where we are in the process.  We will do this thing cooperatively with one another.  We don’t have to agree on everything but let’s play the game with a set of rules so we all know what the rules are and it’s fair.  That is all we are asking for.  I knew it was the kiss of death by saying I would be brief.

Mr. Joe Evans stated I promise I will be brief.  This matter is pivotally important to the people in this Town.  I came in a little bit late so I do apologize obviously I’m not fully up to speed with the debate that has developed here.  What I’ve heard is very simple.  There are representatives on the Town Board that support this application and support the development of something which would be an unmitigated disaster for this Town in my opinion and many people in this room.  The reason it would be a disaster is very simple which is why talking about the semantics of what we are doing with this law or that law.  I just drove through Long Island and Westchester and you see developments there that have been well thought through, well executed.  There is still wealth in those areas.  You come up here and you start to see an awful lot of properties that are going derelict, developments that haven’t managed to get through to the public domain.  Clearly we have a little bit of a crisis in this area.  The crisis really is simple.  Property prices have fallen so dramatically that many people are below water.  This development will put so many more people below water.  That is why I think you see so many people here.  I beg of the people who do support this to really consider that.  It is going to be very damaging to where most people in this Town have their assets, which is in their properties.  Property prices have dropped by 20 to 30%, maybe more.  This development for people who are in a mile and a half of it will make them drop further to 25%.  That is untenable.  That is why I would beg of you those who do support it to do the decent thing think of the people and their livelihoods depend on their property valuations.  Give them some support and reject the application by whatever process it takes.  Reject it as quickly as possible so people can get on with their lives.  Thank you for your time.

Mrs. Nacerino stated just a comment to Mr. Evans, I don’t think anyone on this Board stated that they were for this project.  I think the dilemma and debate centers around the process and whether or not the applicant is going to have a fair, equitable and unbiased procedure.

DeeDee Lifgren stated I guess I am confused as to why if there is a question why it shouldn’t go to the Planning Board for review.  The applicant is not currently to my knowledge a non-for-profit.  Why shouldn’t it go forward.  Am I incorrect.  When the application went forward it did not go in as a non-profit.  It’s not a Club.  Currently why can’t it be reviewed and proceed in that way.

Mr. Burns stated I think it can be reviewed.  The hang up that the applicant has is that we sent a law that I think a lot of us weren’t happy with because of unintended ramifications to the Planning Board for review.  In my opinion, hearing this what I think we should have done at the last meeting is table this law but we want an opinion from the Planning Board  as to an interpretation of our existing definition of Clubs.  At the end of the day you get to the same place.  They may come back to us with the same law that was drafted, they may come back to a totally different law.  It doesn’t change the process but procedurally we have given them a very specific law narrowly tailored to review.  We probably should have done something more broad based where we made a referral and said before we craft a law as to changing a definition of Clubs and non-for-profits give us an opinion as to what our existing code says and potentially what loop holes there might be and how we could close them up.  It is a bottom up process opposed to the Town Board saying here is the law which I think when we started discussing it we had an issue.  Personally, I don’t have a problem making an application to table a law but concurrently I’m going to say I think we should make an application to refer the issue of the definition of Clubs and not-for-profits to the Planning Board for commentary.  It’s a procedural issue that they are concerned with.  They are concerned because there is something on the books that they are looking at that I don’t think that’s the definition, if that’s the change I don’t think that is where we are going to go. 

Ms. Deirdre Blohm stated you have a work session next week beginning at what time.

Mr. Curtiss stated 6:30 p.m.

Ms. Blohm stated is that agenda going to be published.

Mr. Burns stated I believe we actually agreed not to have an agenda.  There would be no formal action taken.  It is something I requested based on other Towns doing a work session where we have an opportunity to discuss issues.  The public is invited to attend but it is not something where we take a formal action.  It is a trial to see if it works and help our communication as a Board.

Ms. Blohm stated but the public can attend.

Mr. Burns stated yes.

Ms. Blohm stated will it be taped.

Mr. Burns stated no it will not.

Ms. Blohm stated why won’t it be taped.

Mrs. Nacerino stated because it is a pilot program.

Ms. Blohm stated I don’t know if this is a good time for a pilot program.

Mrs. Nacerino stated what happened was we decided we would like work sessions.  Some people on the Board  felt that it wasn’t necessary and we are doing it on a month to month basis for two months.

Ms. Blohm stated as a resident I would ask that you reconsider that.

Mr. Burns stated reconsider taping it.

Ms. Blohm stated consider taping it so that it is available to the public on demand.

Mrs. Nacerino stated Counsel do they tape the work session at Kent and Southeast.

Mr. Curtiss stated in Carmel they don’t in Kent they do and I’m not sure if they do in Southeast.

Mr. Burns stated Mr. Major brought this up at one of the meetings that Carmel has the video equipment in house and they have a designated time and a channel to show the Town Board meetings.  We pay for every session individually.  If we have two work sessions that doubles the cost of videotaping.  Ultimately it may make sense for us to invest in buying the video equipment and designating the designated day for the Board session to be broadcast.

Mrs. Nacerino stated that is if we continue with them.  We only have two scheduled so far.

Mr. O’Connor stated we might change the way we do it.  We are much more open than the other Towns that have a business meeting and a work session.

Mrs. Nacerino stated it provides us with the opportunity to collaborate, exchange our ideas and to have better informed decisions at the end of the day.  We don’t have that opportunity with conflicting schedules with the inability to meet with more than two people.  I feel that a work session will give us that opportunity.  When we have important decisions like this to make we know what each other’s opinions are.  We know where we are going, how we want to proceed and why we want to proceed. 

Mr. Burns stated what is the cost of taping a meeting.

Mr. Griffin stated $130.00.

Mr. Robert Odell stated you talked about the Club aspect of this, how about the research and development aspect of it.

Mr. Curtiss stated they were referred on both issues.

Mr. Odell stated you are looking at both but that was kind of restrictive what you came up with originally.

Mr. Curtiss stated true.  That is one of the things they are looking at in conjunction with the Master plan to limit research and development to that extent.  I don’t think it was. 

Mr. Odell stated I hope not.

Mr. Michael Carinha stated regarding research and development, Mr. Zarin said they are going to develop certain aspects and fuel technology and suspension with the skid pad and so forth.  If you come up with some great technology where they can save five more miles per gallon, how easy is it if you don’t have another company already to get this item and give it to your other company and you are still consider a not-for-profit.  If you owned that other company but it’s not the same company they can make a profit off of it.  Isn’t that possible.

Mr. Curtiss stated you kind of touched the issue.  Is it commercial activity masquerading as a Club or is it truly a Club.  That is really the issue.

Mr. Burns made a motion to table the proposed law as written as we refer it to the Planning Board.

Seconded by Mrs. Nacerino. All In Favor: Aye.  Carried

Mr. Burns made a motion to make a referral to the Planning Board to provide us with feedback regarding our zoning codes current definition with regards to Clubs and not-for-profits and to include research and development and an opinion with regards to the issue raised, with regards to a moratorium and provide us with an opinion as to their thoughts on a moratorium.

Seconded by Mrs. Nacerino. All In Favor: Aye.  Carried

NEW COURTHOUSE – DISCUSSION

Mr. Griffin stated Andrew Featherston is the Town Engineer from Maser Engineering.  As you all know for about 3-1/2 years ago we have been working on plans to possibly build a new courthouse.  Recently the Town Engineer offered a review of those plans and raised some concerns and issues.  We are here tonight to ask Andrew to discuss that with us.

Mr. Andrew Featherston, Maser Consulting stated Mr. Chairman thank you.  We received a set of plans from the Town Planner around the end of November early December.  We were asked to check quantities.  It was believed that the site work for that project would be done by the Highway Department at that time.  We were checking quantities in preparation of ordering various site work, catch basin drainage pipes, curving asphalt and all the components that would go into the outside of the building.  The Town Planner had done a cursory review of the items.  We did a double check of his numbers.  We met two or three weeks after to compare numbers.  We found some discrepancies and we reviewed them with the Town Planner.  We were also asked to prepare a specification for a fill to be prepared as the building is proposed to be placed where there presently is a stormwater detention basin.  We were given the projects specifications which contained soiled boring information.  I gave that to my geotechnical engineer and he prepared a specification for a fill suitable to support the slab in the foundation for that building. 

I prepared a memo after I gave the Planner the numbers that we had compared as to what his estimate was.  On January 22, I prepared a memo to summarize for the Town exactly what we had found.  We found some minor discrepancies in the plan that needed to be cleaned up.  Things that we thought could be improved upon.  Minor things in general.  Everything in this letter was to make minor amendments and revisions to the plan for constructability.  You have to understand that my concern was being the newly appointed Town Engineer.  I was not the design

engineer for that building or the site.  What I was looking at down the road was that my firm was going to be charged with doing the survey and to take what’s on paper and put it in the ground.  I had numerous conversations with Rich that I was very concerned about doing that.  I wanted to make sure what I put in the ground I got a good look at and make sure it is correct.  No one in a professional manner would take plans from someone else that they did not look at, review thoroughly to make sure it was going to work.

In doing that quantity check and making constructability check is what I would call it, there was a resounding item that came up.  The building was at the lower elevation of the site.  There may be a lot of reasons why the building was sited at that location that I’m not privy to.  We were on board since June of 2009.  My review of the physical properties of the site, the fact that you would have to fill in the detention base in order to construct the building, the fact that there is quite a number of stormwater catch basins on the site, an extensive amount of piping, there is a sanitary pump station as opposed to a gravity line, the cost to buy the pump, maintain the pump and operate over the life of the building exists.  I thought and the first comment I made was that the building may be better sited at the higher portion of the site for those reasons.  We do a lot of site design in my office.  We do a lot of private development work and it’s not always the optimal location that is selected by the engineer.  For example, we were given a piece of property and want to put the building up high and dry and the client wants to put it closer to the lake to have a beautiful view.  There are a million reasons not to site a building for reasons of engineering alone.  It would appear to be the best choice based on an engineering decision. 

I found some deficiencies in the plan.   I would like to find out how the Board would like me to proceed. 

Mrs. Nacerino stated Andrew I know you were not the engineers from inception of this project and you sited in your memo that the courthouse would be better positioned on the higher side which is the west side of the parcel.  Although time is not on our side, I feel that it is imperative that we are informed of the pros and cons and the ramifications that are to come.  This building will be here for generations to come and I want to be proud of a project for the sake of all the residents of Patterson.  My main concern is that we are focused on short sided obstacles rather than the long term solutions.  I don’t want this project to be whittled with problems and lots of change orders.  That will ultimately turn into lots of dollars.  Had you been on the project since day one would that have been your recommendation.

Mr. Featherston stated I would have tried to site it in that location at the higher ground.  Like I said, it is not only the engineering that is going to make the final decision as to where it is.  There may be extenuating circumstances through the life of the project.

Mrs. Nacerino stated we need to know what those extenuating circumstances are before we can move forward.  This is a very big project for this Town.  In my opinion, this has the long term effects of making the wrong opinion for the sake of maybe wanting to build in April rather than September which would not be prudent.  We need to know all the pros and cons and what the ramifications are before we make an informed decision tonight.  You did bring that up to us and have since learned that one of the former engineers, John Kailin of Dufresne Henry and Stantec had the same opinion.  I am very concerned at this point, more concerned than I am that we begin in April rather than September.  I think that would be short sided on this Board’s behalf.

Mr. Featherston stated my entire memo is how the building can be sited where it is.  I found a couple of discrepancies with stormwater or sanitary sewer.  Reduce those change orders; let them find the information easy.  The spec is not an easy document to fan through.  Some of my comments are “let’s make it easy for the guy who is going to build it.”  The Board’s request was give me a fill spec for this building.  I had a geotechnical engineer do that with over 45 year’s experience.  He looked at the borings and gave me the fill specs.  It’s in the document I provided to the Town Board.  Can it be built where it is, yes.

Mr. Burns stated is it feasible from an engineering standpoint, the way it is designed now.  Where it is with the specs that we have, is it feasible to build it as we have designed it on those plans.

Mr. Featherston stated yes.  There are some minor corrections I would make.

Mr. Burns stated if there were other mitigating factors like we didn’t want it up against the child care center, we didn’t want to lose several parking spaces so we sited it there for a reason, which I wasn’t part of that process, but it is my understanding that those discussions have taken place over the last three years.  It also mitigates against starting from scratch with this project.

Mr. Featherston stated I don’t believe that is true at all.  The building is on a slab and it can be placed here, there anywhere on the site.  You have a flat site.  It is not as if you have a site that is sloping and we had a walk out basement on one side that would only fit a certain way on a certain site.  That’s not the case.  You could take that building and flip it.  Keep all the architecturals essentially the same.  Maybe some of the mechanicals would have to change to run the water and the sewer out a different end of the building.

Mrs. Nacerino stated I believe the real question is could we but should we.  There were concerns about the children’s center.  The impact was really subjective because we did decide to move forward and put this courthouse project next to the children’s center anyhow.  It is a business and it might not be here five or ten years from now.  The courthouse will be here for many decades.  The second thing is the parking.  Could we mitigate the parking somewhat.  We did buy two homes and levied the property.  We could certainly utilize parking in that area as well.  My concern is, is this going to be a sound building.  Are we going to be saying “I told you we were going to have problems, the engineer forewarned us but we blatantly disregarded his suggestion”.  We are going to have many change orders, problems with the property with the building being put on the fill when we were recommended to do so in a different corner of the site.  That is my question and that is my concern.

Mr. Featherston stated I don’t think the word “recommendation” is proper.  I said in my letter “may have been better positioned”.  I didn’t look at the child’s facility.  I wasn’t asked to look for a better place on the site.  That was an opinion based on the review of the features of the site and what was brought out from that.  I thought I would be doing a disservice to the Town to not bring that to light.

Mrs. Nacerino stated absolutely and we would be doing a disservice to the community if we do not put the courthouse in the most beneficial corner of this property. 

Mr. Burns stated you are asking him a question he can’t answer.  You are saying there may be other mitigating factors which we decided as a Board where to put the site.  He’s just asked whether it is feasible from an engineering standpoint.

Mrs. Nacerino stated that is what I want to know.  I think that is the most important factor.

Mr. Featherston stated we looked at three other locations.  We are not getting as much parking.  There are pluses and minuses to making moves.  We think we can get the maximum number of parking spaces as it is presently sited.  We weren’t asked to do it and we did not bill the Town for it.  I wanted to stand before the Board knowing what was possible and what was not.

Mrs. Nacerino stated let me ask you this, because maybe I’m misunderstanding, the fact that you suggested the westerly portion is for what reason.

Mr. Featherston stated it is on higher ground.

Mrs. Nacerino stated and what does that transcend into, what does that mean.

Mr. Featherston stated gravity sewer.  We would have to fill in that basin anyway. The basins would probably be eradicated completely if we were to put the building on the western side of the site or the side closest to the child care facility.  To fit all the parking you would have to fill in that basin completely.  You would have no stormwater basins so you would have to have more of the under parking features.  I did not cost out the benefitting cost one over the other.  I had to stop somewhere.  I wasn’t asked to do that. 

Mr. Burns stated are you saying it is easier from an engineering stand point to put it on high ground.

Mr. Featherston stated I was looking at cost.  You have a pump station.  You have to buy it and maintain it over the life of that system.  I was looking to eliminate that. 

All parties continued to discuss the courthouse.

Mr. Griffin stated in the sixteen years that I have been doing this job no project that we have done whether it be this building, the Recreation Center, the additions to the highway garage, the building we built at the recycling center has gone through more review, scrutiny, more re-review, more re-re-re-re-review.  We spent to date $820,000.00 and we haven’t stuck a shovel in the ground yet.  Andrew,  I appreciate your opinions and review but I can tell you this has been looked at and looked at and re-looked at.  There were very sound reasons for why it was put where it was and we were very comfortable with that.  We asked the same questions over and over again.  We got the same answers.  The other thing I would like to address quickly is that there was a statement that there will be a lot of change orders.  The only time there are change orders is if there are mistakes made on the design of the plan or building or site conditions are radically different then they are going to be.  That has been reviewed over and over again.  We have done deep tests, borings and all kinds of things.  At this point to say that there will be many change orders, I think is grossly inaccurate.  I don’t believe that will be the case.  I think these are very thorough plans.  They have been reviewed by twelve different engineers.  I am comfortable with this.  Rich, if the Board was to proceed with this what would you like to see as the next step since you have been walking point on this for three years.

Mr. Featherston stated I would like to make it absolutely clear to the Board and the public that Maser Consulting fee has not been one percent or one half of a percent of $800,000.00.  I want to make sure that is clear.

Mr. Williams stated I echo that.  The bill came in and it was very reasonable for the comprehensive review that we received from Maser Engineering.  As you said Mike we don’t have a shovel in the ground.  The next step in the process is to start that process.  I spoke to all four of the bidders.  We have three bidders who agreed to hold their bid.  The HVAC bidder came back and asked for an increase in the price which still places him significantly lower than the next bidder.  I consulted with Tim Curtiss.  He is comfortable that the bidder is still a qualified bidder.  The one problem we do have is the electric bid.  After chasing him for awhile I did get a letter that he is willing to hold his bid but he wanted to increase it by 10%.  That knocks him out of the box.  I believe you have resolutions if you are so inclined to award three of the bids.  That will get us started.  We need to get authorization for Andrew to continue to work on the courthouse.  We need to come back to you at the next meeting with a budget.  I spoke to Gene Brandon from the Highway Department, assuming the Board will be supportive of the Highway Department and its current forum, he said he was still interested in doing what he could to help the Town save money in this regard.  We need to start talking about what structures and where we are going to be getting them, where we are going to be ordering the materials for the Highway Department to start installing and get a list of equipment.

Mr. Featherston stated what I would propose to the Town so that the Town has a fixed budget, I would propose to prepare a proposal to address the concerns that I have which are relatively minor.  See if we can save a couple of dollars here and there but give the Town Board a lump sum proposal for your review and approval to amend the plan as per my memo.  I will work with Rich on that.

Mr. Griffin stated is it your recommendation that we move forward with the bids tonight Andrew.

Mr. Featherston stated I don’t think there is anything in the building that would be effective at all.  What we were talking about was more clarification items.  I don’t think I would be revising the plans.  We were discussing it this evening and we think we could possibly do it in a narrative form. 

Mr. Griffin stated I suspect most of the changes would affect the Highway Department and not the contractors anyway.

Mr. Featherston stated maybe a plumber or an electrician.

Mr. Griffin stated so you would be comfortable with that.

Mr. Featherston stated I think so.

Mr. Curtiss stated I have one comment.  When we went through the bids this afternoon we had one bid for the HVAC and we always check with (inaudible) to make sure the corporation actually exist.  We could not find any corporate record for Hudson Building Maintenance Inc.  We are going to have to check with them as to what entity they are formed at.  We can’t really award the bid to them tonight because that entity doesn’t exist, at least in New York State.

Mr. Griffin stated did the bid require you to be in a corporation, no but we have to have the correct entity to bid and to award it to.

Mrs. Nacerino stated I don’t think that I said we are going to encounter those change orders.  I hope that we would not have to because that would be more costly to the taxpayers and this project is 100% on the shoulders of the taxpayers of this community being we do not anticipate on having any grant money.  I think that is a viable concern.  I’m glad that it is not, if that is the case.

Mr. Williams stated I’m not sure if I did clarify.  My intention was to contact the next two bidders and to see if they are going to hold their bid.  If not, I will have to get on the stick and get this back out to bid for the electric.

Mr. Featherston stated on your comment is there anything Maser Consulting can do.  We work with grant writers.  We don’t do grants.  We are not engineers that do grants.  Many engineers do but we worked with grant writers and that’s all they do.  They charge per grant.  There would be no mark up from Maser Consulting.  I would make an introduction to the Town Board and if the Town would like to see if there was some availability of funding.

Mr. Griffin stated the $250,000.00 may be back in play as well.

Honorable John King, Town Justice stated I am one of two Judges along with Judge Tricinelli.  There are two points I want to bring up this evening.  We have a problem coming up now, not with the building, I’m quite sure the Town Engineer and everyone that is involved is going to do a good job with the building.  My problem has been discussed since last year, almost thirteen months ago.  August 31, 2010 we no longer have a lease with the library.  Some people said to me don’t worry about it, we will put a stake in the ground and we will be fine.  I don’t have that luxury.  These people would like for me to run a court.  That is exactly what I am going to do.  I need some ground work here and some rules on how we are going to proceed with this.  We don’t have a plan.  Plan B was sitting here and we are in Plan B now.  We discussed this last year.  Look around now.  This is an average vehicle and traffic court.  Civil cases and Town cases and arraignments.  Criminal calendar would be lined with people on the wall over there.  Mr. Capasso got a view of that last week.  Approximately 150 people running around the court between the court room, the outside room and outside.  Our normal criminal case is between 55 and 60 cases.  That is defendants plus attorneys and that is without friends, well wishes and everybody else.  This is what I have to make work here.

Mr. Burns stated what is the date you need to notify New York State regarding a new location for the courthouse.

Judge King stated May 1^st.  That is the date I gave the Board last year.  I have 60 days. I will put a proposal together on what I can do and submit it to the Board by the end of March.

Mr. Burns stated to put that on the agenda tonight is probably too much.  It needs to be addressed within the next 30 days.

Judge King stated I understand that Kevin.  I want to remind everyone that we are running out of time.  I don’t have a luxury of sitting back and saying we have another (inaudible).  May 1^st is my date.  On the good news, Mr. Griffin, the Town Counsel, Adam Levy and the District Attorney have agreed to let the Town prosecute the case for the Sheriff’s Department.  By doing that we should see approximately $50,000.00 increase in revenue for the taxpayer’s.

Mr. Griffin stated is it the Boards pleasure that we move the Acceptance of Bid for General Contractor for Patterson Courthouse tonight.

Ms. Nanci Kalbell stated what would the total cost of this project be to the taxpayer’s. 

Mr. Griffin stated the total borrowing was somewhere around the order of $1.3 million dollars.

Mr. Williams stated that is not the total cost.  The total cost with land acquisitions, design construction (inaudible) $3,000,000,000.00.  We spent $800,000.00 so far.  Projected construction costs are about $2.1.

Ms. Kalbell stated the last conversation we had was in November and it was requested by the people of this Town that this project go on hold because of the state of the economy.  What changed between then and now that we are actually putting a shovel in the ground.  Where are we getting $3,000,000.00 in this Town, in this economy from people right here right now who have all lost their jobs.  You guys have jobs and benefits and many people here have jobs but there are a lot of people who do not have jobs who do not have income and they are going to be leaving this Town because they can’t afford to pay their taxes as it is.  Now we are going to ask for a $2,000,000.00 or $3,000,000.00 courthouse.  With all due respect I understand it is needed, but there was a conversation about renting a building or doing something else in the mean time.  It is not going to show up in the next year or so even if you started building it tomorrow.  Why put the burden on the taxpayer’s now for something that maybe we can do without.  The next thing is going to be we need money for the library, money for the next building, where is this money supposed to come from.

Mrs. Nacerino stated Nanci we did make that assessment back in the spring.  We were exploring our Plan B’s.  We looked into renting spaces, renovating spaces and at the end of the day we felt it would be more cost and time efficient to go with our original concept of building the courthouse.  What the rent and renovations would be would ultimately wind up costing the taxpayer’s more money in the long run.  What we would be doing is postponing a project at the expense of the taxpayer’s to ultimately do the project down the road.  At a future time might wind up costing more money than it would if we began now.

Ms. Kalbfell stated maybe at that point people would have jobs.

Mr. Burns stated the issue is the debt service that we will pay on the borrowing is approximately what we are going to be paying in rent and we will have no courthouse to show for it. 

Audience member stated did you document that.

Mr. Burns stated I haven’t done the math.  My disappointment in the Board is that we didn’t do it a year ago when we had a million dollar grant.  We have been dragging our feet on moving on this project.  The bottom line is we have no choice.  We don’t have a place for the courthouse. 

Mr. Williams stated Kevin it has been documented.  We did evaluate a number of buildings.  We evaluated pretty much in Robin Hill Corporate Park and several other buildings.  I have those memos Bob if you want to come look at them.

Ms. Kalbfell stated I just want to leave off with I know a small business that is looking for a laborer.  They put an ad in the Pennysaver and they got 162 phone calls in seven days.  These are people who are professionals and they are willing to take minimum wage.  That’s telling me there is something going on out there.  I don’t feel now is the time to spend that kind of money in this Town.

Mr. Robert Farese stated I am an unemployed builder.  There has to be alternatives.  You are telling me you are spending $3,000,000.00 floating a loan.  Years ago when we first started talking about this there were grants involved.  Any news on the grants.

Mr. Griffin stated as of right now I believe the $250,000.00 is back in play.  I’m not convinced $1,000,000.00 is going to be available anytime soon.

Mr. Farese stated what does “in play” mean.

Mr. Griffin stated we have been in contact with Mr. Liebell’s office and he believes that money will be made available.

Mr. Farese stated New York Stated is cutting everything.  I don’t know if grants are going to be available.

Mr. Griffin stated Bob I don’t disagree with you.  Kevin is absolutely right.  If we did this two years ago when we had the opportunity we wouldn’t be having this discussion now for several reasons.  The bottom line is we don’t own the property we are in now.  The lease is up August 31^st, 2010.  We will either be there at the gracious good will of the library until our building is finished or we will be asked to leave if we are making zero progress. 

Mr. Farese stated they can’t really ask us to leave.

Mr. Griffin stated yes.

Mr. Farese stated would the Town Board stand for that.

Mr. Griffin stated what is the Town Board going to do.  Are we going to refuse to leave and they go through an eviction proceeding.  Do we really want to get into that.

Mr. Farese stated I don’t know if we will have to get into that.  I’m sure the library would extend the lease.

Mr. Griffin stated the library sat on their hands for 3 ½ years waiting for us to do this project.  I think their patience understandably are at an end.  They have plans to renovate the library.

Conversation ensued regarding the courthouse.

Mr. Charlie Tucker stated Kevin I sense from your statement before you are getting a little upset about people asking the same questions over and over.  You’re up there and you say you’re frustrated.  You’re frustrated because you five people created the problem.  You sold the building to the library.  That was supposed to be a courthouse.  You gave away the old Town Hall that the court could have been in.  The courts could have been there.  Now you are looking for a place.  You want to spend $3,000,000,000.00 of our money.  You already spent $820,00.00 of our money.  What about holding the court in the Recreation Center.  You have enough room there Mike.

Mrs. Nacerino stated I don’t think we want to co-mingle children and convicts.

Mr. Tucker stated you are going to put the new courthouse right here by the kids next door.  What’s the difference.  That would save you money.

Mr. Griffin stated where are we going to put the offices Charlie.

Mr. Tucker stated set it up.  You don’t have any offices over there.

Mr. Griffin stated so we should cripple the operations and the Recreation Center and the court because you don’t want to pay $18.00 more in your taxes.

Mr. Tucker stated don’t make it sound trivial, it’s $3,000,000,000.00.

Mr. Griffin stated we also got $600,000.00 for the sale of the library.

Mr. Burns stated I am frustrated.  I would rather be sitting up here voting on a $2.2 million dollar library and we have the courthouse over there.  That was not the decision we made three years ago when I was not on this Board.  We have to deal with the situation we are in today.

Mr. Griffin introduced the following Resolution of Acceptance of Bid for General Construction Contract for the Patterson Courthouse:

R-0210-01

WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Patterson has duly advertised for bids for the general construction contract for the new Patterson courthouse; and

WHEREAS, NIKKO CONSTRUCTION CORP. has submitted the lowest bid for the general construction contract for the new Patterson courthouse in the amount of One Million One Hundred Ninety-Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Dollars ($1,197,700.00); and

WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Patterson wishes to accept the bid of NIKKO CONSTRUCTION CORP.;

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Patterson hereby accepts the bid of NIKKO CONSTRUCTION CORP. for the general construction contract for the new Patterson courthouse in the amount of One Million One Hundred Ninety-Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Dollars ($1,197,700.00); and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Patterson hereby authorizes the Supervisor to execute any and all documents necessary to give effect to this resolution.

Seconded by Mr. O’Connor. Roll Call Vote:  Mr. Burns; yes, Mr. Capasso; no, Mrs. Nacerino; yes, Mr. O'Connor; yes, Mr. Griffin; yes.  Roll Call Vote 4-1.

Mr. Griffin introduced the following Resolution of Acceptance of Bid for Plumbing Contract

for the Patterson Courthouse:

R-0210-02

WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Patterson has duly advertised for bids for the plumbing contract for the new Patterson courthouse; and

WHEREAS, MENGLER MECHANICAL, INC. has submitted the lowest bid for the plumbing contract for the new Patterson courthouse in the amount of One Hundred Eighteen Thousand Two Hundred Dollars ($118,200.00); and

WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Patterson wishes to accept the bid of MENGLER MECHANICAL, INC.;

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Patterson hereby accepts the bid of MENGLER MECHANICAL, INC. for the plumbing contract for the new Patterson courthouse in the amount of One Hundred Eighteen Thousand Two Hundred Dollars ($118,200.00); and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Patterson hereby authorizes the Supervisor to execute any and all documents necessary to give effect to this resolution.

Seconded by Mr. O’Connor. Roll Call Vote:  Mr. Burns; yes, Mr. Capasso; no, Mrs. Nacerino; yes, Mr. O'Connor; yes, Mr. Griffin; yes.  Roll Call Vote 4-1.

ENGINEERING FEES – DISCUSSION

Mr. Griffin stated the Town Planner, Town Engineer and I have had some discussions on how the billing process works.  In fairness, some of the local smaller businesses were getting billed for the engineer’s time.  It has been a practice that has been in place for some time.  For example, Tom’s Barbershop got a bill from the engineer for things they weren’t involved in.  Andrew can you explain how this billing process works.

Mr. Featherston stated two weeks before every Planning Board meeting is the deadline for plans to be submitted to the Planning Department.  We come over a couple of days after that and pick them up.  We get our assignments from the Town.  There was a set of plans for the barber shop.  We did review those plans for the parking, drainage, site work that was going on for that project, as we would for any project that involves site work.  What we will get is an agenda that will clearly state what the engineer is responsible to review.  We are doing that now.  I asked the Planning Board Chairman if there was anything remaining that I should stay further for.  He said no.  To save the Town some money, I’ll leave now.  We are doing that now.  Mike you asked what has happened over the years and how the billing was handled.  When there is a consultant in the room and asked to be present at a meeting, they are billing for that meeting.  Those things I am reviewing, as the applicant is before the Board, I clock the time that he starts his meeting and the time he finishes.  That is what I am billing for.  I bill it down in 15 minute intervals.  That is how it’s been commonly done.  We are going to work on trying to keep the cost down as low as possible.  The barber is the perfect example.  There were issues on that plan that we needed to review and we were asked for input and that is what we did.  

Mr. Griffin stated there was some discussion on that about if an applicant was on the agenda, whether the engineer reviewed it or not, for the amount of time that the engineer was at the meeting and this agenda item was being discussed, they were getting billed for that time.  There has been a recommendation that we change that process.  The Town Comptroller, Town Planner and myself have discussed it and we would like to have the Board’s consideration that it be done as a lump sum and that it be paid out of the engineering line as opposed to being billed back to some of the applicants whose projects weren’t actually reviewed by the engineer.  The time he was at the meeting was billed to them would no longer be billed to them.  The barber received a bill for $650.00.

Mr. Featherston stated that might not be a good example.

Mr. Griffin stated it is not but he was the catalyst when he brought that to my attention.

Mr. Featherston stated the best example is a sign.  Some of the applicants come before the board on a sign that maybe questionable with the Planning Board and it takes 45 minutes to an hour.  I’m sitting there as a consultant to the Town so we billed it.  In the same respect, I heard you and the Board and that is why I worked out with Shawn to leave early that evening.

Mr. Griffin stated understood.

Mrs. Nacerino stated are there any other professionals this policy can apply to.

Mr. Curtiss stated when we go to the Planning Board it’s all just a flat fee. 

Mrs. Nacerino stated I’m not speaking specifically about you.  For instance there might be six cases and Ted Kowsloski is there for one or two and we are paying him hourly.  If we are going to implement only the ones you are addressing you get paid for then shouldn’t that apply to everyone.

Mr. Curtiss stated yes, your right.  They tell Ted to come at 8:30 pm and not 7:30 pm.  They try to organize their agenda so they have the applicant and the suitable professional at the same time.

Mrs. Nacerino stated I just used him as an example.

Mr. Williams stated I just want to be clear on what we are talking about here.  It’s not a question of Andrew not getting paid for the whole meeting, he is only getting paid for certain applications. He is getting paid differently.  We are trying to do a lump sum or identify all those projects like the signs and maybe the wetland applications and we are having a Public Hearing and Andrew has to sit there.  Even though he is not involved in the application.  We are only billing out specific applications that he has been given his input on.  It’s the same with Ted.  So is Andrew unless he finds we have an agenda where he can leave.

Mr. Griffin stated you have a memo from the Town Engineer and Planner.  Can the Board please take a look at this.  We can bring this up at the work session.  If anyone has any concerns or proposed changes we will discuss it at another meeting and then act on it.

FOX RUN PHASE II – DISCUSSION

Mr. Robert Marvin stated I have been here a few times before regarding Fox Run.  The purpose of this being on the agenda tonight is last September on behalf of my client, RC Enterprises we filed a petition to amend the zoning code.  Particularly certain parts of Section 154. You have a copy of the proposed zoning amendment now for a couple of months.  I was here sometime in January, I think the decision was made to put it back on the agenda for purposes of  referring this matter to the Planning Board which your zoning code requires that it be done.  Section 154-134 requires that when a request is made to amend the zoning code you have to refer it to your Planning Board for your opinion on it.  I ask this Town Board tonight to make that referral in a formal matter so that the Planning Board can report back to you what they think of the changes that we are proposing.

Mr. Williams stated it was also put on so the Town Board could react to whether or not it was an appropriate direction.  If you did, then we could start formulizing the process also. You need to react on whether you think the law is acceptable and ready to go to the next step.

Mr. Griffin stated we have a memo dated January 27^th, 2010 to the Town Board from the Town Planner.  On this matter we also have a proposed draft of  code change.  Has everyone had a chance to read this.  Are you comfortable moving this to the Planning Board for review and referral.

Mr. Burns stated can we put it on the next agenda.

Mr. Griffin stated do you want to discuss it at the work session.

Mr. Burns stated yes, let’s do that.

Mr. Marvin stated I haven’t seen Mr. William’s memo on this. 

Mr. Griffin stated we will discuss this at the work session.

WINKLER PROPERTY - DISCUSSION

Mr. David Pierro stated this is my client.  I just sold them a property on Cornwall Hill Road.  The former Buxbaum Estate.  The property has 5.2 acres and most of that residual land behind the rear of the house is contiguous to the Town’s sewage treatment plant property and well plant.  In my infinite wisdom, I spoke with Rich Williams about it a few months ago and at that point Rich thought the Town’s property was not contiguous to the Buxbaum land.  I had a survey done and upon review I found that the property was in fact contiguous.  My people don’t need the residual 5 acres and due to the fact that it is mostly wetlands they can’t do much with it.  As we all know, the Town is not restricted by wetlands law if they need to do public works improvements.  At one point I sent up a white flag and I mentioned this to Mike, when the Buxbaum’s owned that property at that time they may have been willing to cut off a piece and donate it to the Town.  Now my clients own the property, I don’t know if that is the case anymore but they would be willing to subdivide it off.  I haven’t put a number on it yet.  We can discuss it.

Mr. Griffin stated I would like to do that.  Rich did you review the property and see if there was any value to the Town.

Mr. Williams stated I did take a look at it and did recognize it was contiguous after pulling it up on GIS.  It has an extensive D.E.C. regulated wetland on it.  The benefit to the Town would be to keeping it as open space, keeping the rural character of the Town and protecting the resource which is the wetlands.  It is also Federally and D.E.C. regulated so we couldn’t use it for public utilities or something like that.  We couldn’t put recreation on it.  If the Town did purchase it, it

would be a piece of property we would keep in a natural state and that would be the only benefit to the Town.

Mrs. Nacerino stated if the Town did not purchase it and the Buxbaum's kept it and it is all wetlands, what could they possibly do with it.

Mr. Williams stated without getting permits from the Army Corp or the D.E.C. and the Town nothing.

Mrs. Nacerino stated what would be the advantage of the Town buying this parcel.

Mr. Williams stated I think I just laid that out.

Mrs. Nacerino stated the new owners could not do anything with it so it would stay open space.  Is that correct.

Mr. Williams stated Ginny, I don’t disagree with where you are going with this.  I think we both have the same opinion on this.

Mrs. Nacerino stated ok, I just wanted to be sure.

Mr. Pierro stated but if the Town did own the property, it could be properly policed.  When I was doing my intelligence on acquiring this property for my clients, I verified that there was a sewer wetlands violation.  A private sewage treatment system was dumping into that wetlands.  I found it and could not allow my clients to purchase a property with a violation like this.  Indefinitely I would have been responsible, eventually.  I corrected the violation.  What I am saying to the Town Board is, it may be advantageous to protect this property.  It is directly behind Cornwall Meadows.  They as a not-for-profit homeowners association are not interested in acquiring the property.  My point is it would be beneficial to the Town to acquire the property.  At least discuss it.

Mr. Griffin stated is it the Board’s wish that Dave and I meet.

Mrs. Nacerino stated can Dave come to the work session.

Mr. Curtiss stated if you are going to discuss specific contract  terms, you have to do it in Executive Session. If you are just discussing the merits of acquiring or not acquiring then you can do it at the work session.

Mr. O’Connor stated this is just the merits.

Mr. Pierro stated I already provided the survey on PDF to Rich Williams.

Mrs. Nacerino stated we have it too.

Mr. Pierro stated thank you for your time.

BUDGET TRANSFERS

Mr. Griffin made a motion to approve the Comptrollers Budget Transfer request as written:

Budget Request No. 04

$16,226.75 from H.0909 Capital Project Fund Balance transferred to H.8989.029 Courthouse

Seconded by Mrs. Nacerino.  All In Favor: Aye.  Carried.

Budget Request No. 05

$729.00 from FL.9040.800 Workers Compensation Insurance to FL.9010.800 LOSAP-Service Awards Program

Seconded by Mr. O’Connor. All In Favor: Aye.  Carried

Budget Request No. 06

$100.00 from A.1010.450 Town Board Training  to A.1010.400 Town Board Contractual

Seconded by Mrs. Nacerino. All In Favor: Aye.  Carried.

STERLING 2010 ANNUAL POST – CLOSURE PROPOSAL

Mr. Griffin stated since 1995 when we closed the landfill, the Town of Patterson has been under consent order with the D.E.C. to do annual monitoring out there.  Sterling Environmental is the engineering company that has been doing that work since the whole process began.  They have given us a proposal for the monitoring for this year.

Mr. Griffin made a motion to award Sterling Environmental the 2010 Post-Closure Proposal for an amount not to exceed $6,430.00.

Seconded by Mrs. Nacerino. All In Favor: Aye.  Carried.

Mr. Griffin stated let me amend that and allow the Supervisor to execute the agreement.

Seconded by Mrs. Nacerino. All In Favor: Aye.  Carried.

TOM’S BARBERSHOP REQUEST WAIVER OF FEES

Mr. Griffin stated we have a memo from the Planning Board:

At a meeting held on February 23, 2010, the Planning Board reviewed the memorandum from the Town Planner concerning the waiving of fees from the above mentioned application.  The request to waive the fees for the above mentioned application include the application fee of $500.00 and the professional plan review fees for the Town Planner estimated at $200.00.

By unanimous vote the Planning Board would recommend that the application fee of $500.00 be waived.  The Board did not recommend that the professional plan review fees be waived.

Mr. Griffin stated what does the Board want to do.

Mr. O’Connor made a motion to follow the recommendation of the Planning Board.

Seconded by Mr. Burns. All In Favor: Aye.  Carried.

PERFORMANCE BOND – DISCUSSION

Mr. Williams stated Nick Lamberti, Building Inspector and myself had a conversation about the difficultly that some of the residential property owners have in this Town.  They are constructing properties and are ready for their C.O. during  the winter and their additional items like landscaping or the installation of a deck that hasn’t been completed and are having difficulty completing and they are looking to move into the house to get the C.O.  This also transcends to an issue to our commercial properties to some degree.  I worked out the language with Nick about a proposed code change that would allow the Town to go in and accept a cash bond so an individual could get their C.O.  I spoke with the Town Attorney and I recognized that we needed to add some language to this.  Part of the local law is if they do not complete the improvements in a timely fashion, we would take that money as a penalty which would help recoup the cost of them providing enforcement and legal action in order to get them into compliance.  We would only be reimbursing the Town for costs incurred.  We would like the Town Board’s feedback.

We ran into a situation where a commercial property owner is having trouble completing improvements because of the time of year.  They were having financial issues where they are in dire need of getting their C.O.  I will turn this over to Mr. Hogan.  You do have a recommendation from the Planning Board.

Mrs. Nacerino stated what defines a timely fashion.

Mr. Williams stated that is up to the Board in reviewing the specifics of the instance when you are setting the bond and discussing that with whoever is seeking to have the improvements deferred.

Mrs. Nacerino stated that would be defined case by case.

Mr. Williams stated that would be up to you, yes.

Mr. Jay Hogan stated I am one of the owners of the apartment complex off of Farm to Market Road.  Many of you have heard of it and we were at the Planning Board for a long time, received our approvals and site plan approval.  There was a requirement by the Town that we post a letter of credit exceeding about $800,000.00 to complete the improvements within the complex.  We have completed the improvements and basically satisfied all of the regulatory entities that we had to satisfy in order to get a C.O., except for the Town.  We have some minimal items that have to be done on the site that can’t be done in the winter like raking and seeding, plant things around the building and some work in one of the wetland basins.  Approximately $25,000.00 worth of work.  We have a letter of credit that was reduced for $206,000.00.  The distinction between the bond and the letter of credit is that the letter of credit is in favor of the Town drafted on Mahopac National Bank.  The Town is holding a $206,000.00 letter of credit which is basically a negotiable instrument in the event that the owner/developer does not satisfy its obligations under the letter of credit.  The Town can call the letter of credit by notifying the bank.  There was concern that the Town may have to go on private property to complete the improvements.  The bottom line is the Town would tell the bank we are calling this letter of credit.  In order to get the letter of credit back the lender has to hire a contractor to go out and finish the job.  Once the job is finished to the satisfaction of the Town, the Town issues the C.O. and then the back goes after the developer.  The point of it is there is significant security for the minimal amount of work that is left to be done.  We have 12 units left to rent.  It has cost us $20,000.00 per month without getting these units rented.  We ran into the problem where there was concern about the security and some other issues.  We went to the Planning Board last night and explained the situation.  I believe they made a recommendation to the Town Board last night that we would be granted the right to get the C.O. provided we satisfy all the obligations under our site plan by June 24.  We are more than happy to do that.

Mr. Curtiss stated the two things they have left to do are landscaping which they can’t do now and they have to develop two of the selling (inaudible).  What the Planning Board felt comfortable with is if they grant them a C.O. with the recommendation they present as-built plans as of the June 24 meeting, at that point the improvements would have to be done, the as-built plans would have to be submitted and the Planning Board could finalize the project.

Mrs. Nacerino stated these improvements are aesthetic and non-essential to the safe use of the property that is considered by some to be (inaudible).  That is just what we are trying to overcome.

Mr. Griffin made a motion that we authorize the Building Inspector to grant a C.O. based on the compliance with the recommendations of the Planning Board.

Mr. Williams stated I would like you to read the memo you have in front of you into the record.

Mr. Griffin stated I think the applicant just stated them, but…..

At the meeting of the Planning Board held on February 23, 2010 project owner Mr. Joe Reilly and Jay Hogan appeared to discuss the status of their project in the performance security consisting of a letter of credit with the value of $206,000.00.  The applicant was seeking to obtain a certificate of occupancy for building No.3.  As you are aware Patterson code requires all site improvements to be complete prior to the issuance of certificate of occupancy.  Mr. Hogan explained the differences between a bond and a letter of credit indicating that the letter of credit provides creative guarantee for the completion of the improvements.  The Planning Board felt that the of credit provides sufficient assurances that the site improvements would be completed, but felt that a date by which the improvements must be completed, should be established.  The

Planning Board recommends to the Town Board that the certificate of occupancy be issued with the condition that an as-built drawing of the site be submitted to the Planning Board by June 24, 2010 showing that the site improvements have all been completed.  This would require the letter of credit to remain valid until the improvements have been completed and certified by the Town Engineer. 

Mr. Hogan stated I agree to this.

Seconded by Mr. Burns.  All In Favor: Aye.  Carried.

TOWN COMPTROLLERS REQUEST – RETURN OF PROFESSIONAL FEES

Mr. Griffin stated we have a request from the Office of the Comptroller:

I am requesting authorization to return the professional review fees in the amount of $4,505.76 to 17 Couch Road Corp, which were collected as a result of Stantec Engineering Services Inc.’s, invoice #275026.  This invoice was being disputed, however the site plan stage for the project closed, so the amount was billed and paid by the developer on February 1, 2010.  The settlement with Stantec on February 4, 2010 released the Town of Patterson from the aforementioned invoice.  It is my opinion that the monies should be returned to the developer.  I have attached the invoice in question. 

Mr. Griffin made a motion to honor the Office of Comptroller’s request that we return to 17 Couch Road an amount of $4,505.76 for an invoice that was not paid and was disputed.

Seconded by Mrs. Nacerino. All In Favor: Aye.  Carried.

EXECUTIVE SESSION - LEGAL

Mr. Griffin stated he will defer his Executive Session to the end of the meeting.

EDMOND O’CONNOR

STREET LIGHTS PUTNAM LAKE – RESOLUTION

Mr. O’Connor introduced the following Resolution for Public Hearing for the Addition of Two Streetlights to the Putnam Lake Lighting District:

R-0210-03

WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Patterson has identified that the installation of a street light at the intersection of LAKE SHORE DRIVE and AUBURN ROAD is necessary to improve the safety of the area, and

WHEREAS, NYSEG has recommended installing at said intersection, a 150 watt High Pressure Sodium light with a 10 foot bracket for an approximate annual cost of $166.00, and

WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Patterson has identified that the installation of a street light at the intersection of INTERLAKEN DRIVE and NORFOLK ROAD is necessary to improve the safety of the area, and

WHEREAS, NYSEG has recommended installing at said intersection on  Pole #32, a 150 watt High Pressure Sodium light with a 10 foot bracket for an approximate annual cost of $166.00, and

WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Patterson wishes to include these two additional street lamps into the Putnam Lake Lighting District, and

WHEREAS, Town Law Section 202-b.2 provides for the inclusion of additional street lights into the Putnam Lake lighting district after a public hearing,

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Patterson hereby authorizes the Town Clerk to advertise for a public hearing to be held on February 24, 2010 to consider the addition of the two afore-mentioned street lights into the Putnam Lake lighting district.

Seconded by Mrs. Nacerino. All In Favor: Aye.  Carried.

ZONING AMENDMENT - LIVERY VEHICLES – RESOLUTION

Mr. O’Connor stated there was a question if there were any unknown liabilities that we were getting ourselves into.

Mr. Curtiss stated there was not.

Mr. O’Connor stated a public hearing will be held regarding Livery and Taxi Services.  This will be brought up again at the next Town Board meeting.

GOLDEN AGE SENIORS’ REQUEST

Mr. O’Connor made a motion to approve expenses for the Patterson Golden Age Seniors’ Coach Tours for the following:

1. Milford, PA for $882.00 not to exceed $900.00

2. White Plains , NY for $719.00 not to exceed $750.00

3. West Point, NY for $685.00 not to exceed $700.00

4. Inn at Hunts Landing, Matamores, PA for $840.00 not to exceed $860.00

5. Thayer Hotel, West Point for $500.00 not to exceed $520.00

Seconded by Mrs. Nacerino. 

Mr. Capasso stated I have a couple of questions.  Do these bus rides go out to bid since they are over $500.00.

Mr. Griffin stated they get three quotes.

Mr. Capasso stated they did.

Mr. Griffin stated yes.

Mr. Capasso stated where.

Mr. O’Connor stated I don’t have it here but that has been their procedure all along.

Mr. Capasso stated are we paying for these up front.  They are going in July and August or do you give a deposit.

Mr. O’Connor stated we are not paying them immediately.

Mr. Capasso stated are the amount of people going to fill the bus.  I see one here that has 30 people on a bus that holds 55.  Wouldn’t they get a smaller bus for that and save money.

Mr. Griffin stated I suspect they shopped around.  One of the problems you have is that a 30 person bus may not have all the facilities they need.

Mr. Capasso stated the new ones do.  I shopped around a little bit.  You usually don’t get a full deposit eight months early.

Mrs. Nacerino stated I think they are approving to encumber the money.

Mr. O’Connor stated right, the authorization.  They are not talking about sending a check…….

Mr. Capasso stated that’s not what Trish told me.  Are all these Seniors in Patterson.

Mr. O’Connor stated no.  There are two Senior Clubs in the Town of Patterson.  One is called the Patterson Golden Age and the other is the Putnam Lake Seniors’ Association.

Mr. Capasso stated are they all Seniors that live in Patterson.

Mr. O’Connor stated as far as I know they are.

Mr. Capasso stated how do we know that.  Does anyone check.

Mr. O’Connor stated I haven’t been on the Golden Age but I have been on the Putnam Lake Seniors because I happen to be one.  I can vouch that all the people on the Putnam Lake trip that I had been on although we did not check passports, were all Seniors by appearance.

Mr. Capasso stated that is not what I’m saying.  All I’m saying is are they Patterson residents.

Mr. Burns stated so the issue is are we underwriting a bus transportation for people outside of Patterson.

Mr. Capasso stated thank you.

Mr. O’Connor stated I understand the question.  I’ll talk to Cheyenne about making a list of all the people.

Mrs. Nacerino stated I think it is a legitimate question where there are many programs where they have resident and non-resident fees.

Mr. O’Connor stated you’re right.  We do that at the luncheon and not everyone is a resident of Patterson.  I will talk to the head of both organizations.

Seconded by Mr. Burns. All In Favor: Aye.  Carried

PUTNAM LAKE SENIORS REQUEST

Mr. O’Connor made a motion for a request from the Comptroller for authorization for the Putnam Lake Seniors.  One for the Westchester Dinner Theater in July for 30 at $35.00 per ticket and bus transportation for $1,735.00.  Westchester Dinner Theater in November for 30 tickets at $40.00 for $1,885.00 and not to exceed $4,000.00.

Seconded by Mrs. Nacerino. All In Favor: Aye.  Carried

BUILDING DEPARTMENT REQUEST

Mr. O’Connor stated the Building Department is in need of a new desk top computer.  They researched it and have a proposal for Optiplex 60 Desktop Computer.  List price $1,569.00 free shipping with a savings of $1,209.00.

Mrs. Nacerino stated Rich don’t you usually order the computers.

Mr. Williams stated what I gave you is the worst case scenario.  This is off of their website.  We order them off of the State contract.  If the Board authorizes to go ahead, I will be contacting the local Dell representative to work out a better price. 

Mr. O’Connor made a motion to authorize the Building Department to purchase a desk top computer not to exceed $1,300.00.

Seconded by Mrs. Nacerino.  All In Favor: Aye.  Carried.

GREAT STRIDES WALK 5/23/10

Mr. O’Connor stated the Mahopac National Bank is a corporate sponsor for the Great Stride Walk on Sunday, May 23, 2010 in Carmel.  Proceeds from this event will benefit programs and services of the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation.  It is a very important and deserving event.  It will start at 9:00 a.m. and the walk starts at 10:00 a.m. at the Putnam County Veterans Memorial Park in Carmel.  Anyone who is interested in more information, please contact me.

The second one is a little bit closer to home.  A relay for life is coming to Patterson.  Usually things are not held in Patterson.  They are either held at the school properties or the County park.  The Putnam County Unit of the American Cancer Society plans for the first ever Relay for Life on June 12, 2010 at the Patterson Volunteer Fire Department.  It will take place from 12:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m.  For those of you that are not afraid of walking in the dark, it is close to our heart and is for the heart.

TRUCK SIZE LIMITATION PROPOSAL

Mr. O’Connor stated I have been contacted by an organization that is concerned about the proposals to increase the size and weight of trucks allowed on our national highway.  The proposal is to allow the State to authorize 6 axel, 90,000 pound tractors and tamdens so a 33 foot truck would be pulling another 33 foot truck behind it.  I have information from both the American Trucking Association which is in favor of it.  The people who are opposed would like the Town to send a letter of support with a resolution that this not be allowed.  I would like people to think about it and at the next meeting we will make a proposal.

PATTERSON LIBRARY’S REQUEST – ANNUAL DISBURSEMENT OF FUNDING

Mr. O’Connor introduced the following Resolution for Authorization for Distribution of

Funds to the Patterson Library:

R-0210-04

WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Patterson has received a request from the Patterson Library for the distribution of funds in the amount of Five Hundred Fourteen Thousand Two Hundred Ninety-Three Dollars ($514,293.00) for the 2010 fiscal year; and

WHEREAS, the Town Board is desirous of distributing said funds in the amount of Five Hundred Fourteen Thousand Two Hundred Ninety-Three Dollars ($514,293.00) to the Patterson Library for the 2010 fiscal year;

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Patterson hereby authorizes the Supervisor to cause the distribution of the sum of Five Hundred Fourteen Thousand Two Hundred Ninety-Three Dollars ($514,293.00) to the Patterson Library for the 2010 fiscal year.

Seconded by Mrs. Nacerino.  Roll Call Vote:  Mr. Burns; yes, Mr. Capasso; yes, Mrs. Nacerino; yes, Mr. O'Connor; yes, Mr. Griffin; yes.  Roll Call Vote Carried.

GINNY NACERINO

ENGINEERING – DISCUSSION

Mrs. Nacerino stated I am happy we had a fruitful and healthy conversation about the engineers and it had a positive outcome so I will skip over that.

HIGHWAY REQUEST – ADVERTISE BIDS

Mrs. Nacerino made a motion to authorize the Town Clerk to advise for the Highway Bids for washed sand, washed gravel, processed gravel, sweeping services and routine services they do seasonally, annual tree work, diesel fuel, heating oil.

Seconded by Mr. Burns. All In Favor: Aye.  Carried.

RECREATION CENTER EVENT – HAITI RECAP

Mrs. Nacerino stated on February 5, 2010 we had more than 100 students from Brewster High School gathered at the Recreation Center to listen to various High School musical groups from the local area.  This event was orchestrated by Samatha Roach a Patterson resident and Corrine Lapare both Brewster High School seniors.  Together these girls have formed “Music with a Motive” which is a mission to incorporate music with a positive approach with helping others.  I attended this event, which was well chaperoned by our staff and parental volunteers.  It was refreshing to see the teens of our community have the opportunity to socialize in a positive environment but at the same time raising awareness towards helping others.  The purpose of this event was to raise money for Haiti Relief.  $1,000.00 was raised and a check was sent to the American Red Cross.  I am very proud of the Brewster High School students and offer accolades to them for not only their good deed but for also their wonderful behavior which contributed to the success of the evening.  I’m proud of my Brewster kids.

EXECUTIVE SESSION PERSONNEL

Mrs. Nacerino stated I would like to defer my Executive Session Personnel until the end of the meeting.

KEVIN BURNS

TIME OFF/CONFERENCE REQUESTS

Mr. Burns made a motion to approve five time off requests and one conference request as submitted.

Seconded by Mr. O’Connor.  All In Favor: Aye.  Carried.

ASSOCIATION OF TOWNS – REFORM OF GML 207-RESOLUTION

Mr. Burns stated Tim we had the Public Hearing      posted. 

Mr. Curtiss stated this effects those Towns who have police officers. 

Mr. Burns introduced the following Resolution for Support of the New York State Association of Towns Legislation to Amend General Municipal Law § 207-c Concerning Disability Benefits for Law Enforcement Officers:

R-0210-05

WHEREAS, pursuant to General Municipal Law (GML) § 207-c, law enforcement personnel are entitled to payment of municipal compensation, including payment of salary, fringe benefits, and all medical costs, when they are injured in the line of duty; and

WHEREAS, these payments are nontaxable and can continue for years or even decades until there is recovery, a disability retirement, or attainment of retirement of age; and

WHEREAS, the New York State Court of Appeals decided, in Matter of Theroux, et al. v. Reilly, et al., that pursuant to GML § 207-c, law enforcement officers are entitled to these benefits regardless of the duties performed or the nature of the injury; and

WHEREAS, the office of the New York State Comptroller has the final determination as to when a law enforcement officer is eligible for a disability retirement and historically has been reluctant to issue disability retirement to law enforcement officers who are receiving GML § 207-c benefits; and WHEREAS, law enforcement officers have been known to stay on municipal

payrolls receiving GML § 207-c benefits for multiple years, thereby occupying a position that could be filled by another officer; and

WHEREAS, this interpretation of GML § 207-c by the New York State Court of Appeals will substantially increase municipal costs and create a great hardship to taxpayers at all municipal government levels.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Patterson hereby supports legislation to amend General Municipal Law § 207-c to require disability benefits extended to any law enforcement officer who has been receiving GML § 207-c benefits for a period of thirty-six (36) months without the ability to return to work; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Patterson hereby authorizes the Supervisor to execute any and all documents necessary to give effect to this resolution.

Seconded by Mrs. Nacerino.  All In Favor: Aye.  Carried.

DUNNING SUBDIVISION – SET PUBLIC HEARING

Mr. Burns made a motion to set the Public Hearing for the Dunning Subdivision for March 10, 2010.

Seconded by Mrs. Nacerino. All In Favor: Aye.  Carried.

ESTABLISH PERFORMANCE BOND – SULLIVAN DRIVE – RESOLUTION

Mr. Burns introduced the following resolution Establishment of a Performance Bond for Installation of a Fence at 36 Sullivan Drive:

R-0210-06

WHEREAS, John Petrillo own a parcel of land at 36 Sullivan Drive identified as Tax Map 25.62-1-60, and

WHEREAS, the Planning Board of Town of Patterson has approved an Application for a wetland and watercourse permit for John Petrillo in order to construct various improvements on the lot, and

WHEREAS, a condition of the wetland/watercourse permit was the installation of a fence along the wetland boundary in the location shown on the plans accompanying the application prior to the issuance of a building certificate of occupancy, and

WHEREAS, John Petrillo wishes to obtain a certificate of occupancy prior to installation of a picket fence with a height of 42", and

WHEREAS, a motion was made and carried by the Patterson Planning Board at its January 28,2010 meeting recommending that the Town Board of the Town of Patterson find that the cost of a bond, sufficient to cover the cost for installation of the fence, be established in the amount of $1,500.00, and

WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Patterson wishes to follow the recommendation made by the Patterson Planning Board;

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Patterson hereby establishes the amount of the performance bond sufficient to cover restoration of the site should the developer fail to complete the cost for installation of a fence for John Petrillo at the above-mentioned location, as $1,5000.00, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the bond posted for the project be subject to prior approval by the Town Attorneys, CURTISS & LEIBELL, P.C., as to sufficiency and form.

Seconded by Mrs. Nacerino.  All In Favor: Aye.  Carried.

ESTABLISH PERFROMANCE BOND DUNNING SUBDIVISION – RESOLUTION

Mr. Burns introduced the following Resolution Establishment of a Performance Bond for the Dunning Subdivision:

R-0210-07

WHEREAS, Dana Dunning, own a parcel of land at 122 Route 292 identified as Tax Map No.3.-l-60, and

WHEREAS, the Planning Board of Town of Patterson has received an Application for subdivision approval from Dana Dunning in order to create two additional lots, as shown on a set of drawings entitled Final Subdivision Plat prepared for Danna Dunning, prepared by Terry BergendorffCollins, dated February 6,2005, and last revised on June 6,2007 ; and

WHEREAS, a motion was made and carried by the Patterson Planning Board at its February 4,2010 meeting recommending that the Town Board of the Town of Patterson find that the cost of a bond, sufficient to cover improvements proposed for the site should the developer fail to complete said site improvements, be established in the amount of $59,316.00, with an inspection fee of $2,966.00, and

WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Patterson wishes to follow the recommendation made by the Patterson Planning Board;

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Patterson hereby establishes the amount of the performance bond sufficient to cover the site improvements should the developer fail to complete the site improvements for the Barjac Realty Site Plan, pursuant to the Town Code of the Town of Patterson as $59,316.00, with an inspection fee of $2,966.00, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the bond posted for the project be subject to prior approval by the Town Attorneys, CURTISS & LEEBELL, P.C., as to sufficiency and form.

Seconded by Mrs. Nacerino. All In Favor: Aye.  Carried.

PUTNAM HUMANE CONTRACT RENEWAL

Mr. Burns introduced the following Resolution for Acceptance of Secondary Shelter Contract with the Putnam Humane Society for the Year 2010:

R-0210-08

WHEREAS, the PUTNAM HUMANE SOCIETY has submitted the attached Secondary Shelter Contract to be entered into between the PUTNAM HUMANE SOCIETY and the Town of Patterson in accordance with the requirements of the New York State Agriculture and Markets Laws for the period commencing January 1, 2010 and terminating on December 31, 2010; and

WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Patterson wishes to enter into the Secondary Shelter Contract for the year 2010 with the PUTNAM HUMANE SOCIETY;

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Patterson hereby approves the Secondary Shelter Contract for the year 2010 with the PUTNAM HUMANE SOCIETY;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Patterson hereby authorizes the Supervisor to execute the Secondary Shelter Contract for the year 2010 and any and all other documents necessary to give effect to this resolution.

Seconded by Mr. O’Connor.

Mr. Griffin stated discussion.

Mr. Burns stated there was an email regarding the Putnam Humane’s use of shock collars and there was a request by a resident of Patterson saying that if we were to adopt that we should ask the Humane Society not to make use of shock collars.

Mr. O’Connor stated I did speak to our Dog Warden today and he was in favor of the Humane Society contract and he feels it serves the Town well.  I don’t know what kind they use this for.

Mr. Curtiss stated it is for obedience.  The Humane Society originally voted against using shock collars but they have amended their policy that in certain instances they will use a shock collar on a dog that is out of control.

Mr. O’Connor stated if they have a pit bull that goes out of control and is a danger to the staff, I think we can leave that decision to them.

Mr. Burns stated unless it is a blanket policy that they use them all the time.

Mr. Curtiss stated they don’t only in certain instances.

Mrs. Nacerino stated I agree, I think it should be at their discretion.

All In Favor: Aye.  Carried

Mrs. Nacerino stated the term of the contract is $5,000.00.

PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION TO UPDATE THE MASTER PLAN

Mr. Burn stated I recently attended the Association of Town’s meeting and I went to a break out class that talked about updating Master Plans.  The Supervisor of LaGrange spoke about the use that the Master Plan (inaudible.)  A Town is not required under New York State law to have a Master Plan.  If you have one your zoning laws must be in compliance with that plan.  Many Towns that have a Master Plan will actually have joint Board meetings where often at the beginning of the year the Boards that serve the Town will meeting together.  For instance, the Planning Board, Zoning Board and the Town Board would meet together at a meeting and have some open discussion about; are we using the Master Plan, do things make sense, do we need to revise them, how often do we need to revise them, how should we revise them.  It doesn’t seem to be a practice that we follow here and it seems like something might begin to address many of the issues that become contentious issues regarding land use.  I believe the last time we updated the Master Plan, Rich correct me if I’m wrong, was 2000.  It has been ten years.  In many Towns they are updated, maybe not entirely overhauled, but there is an update or it was tweaked on a yearly or semi-yearly basis.  I realize we have a lot of things on the table right now but maybe we should consider as a Board establishing a date at least to have the joint Boards meet to discuss the current Master Plan and have that set and have it as an open meeting for the Town.  I spoke to Rich about updating the plan.  We obviously should capture the  census data that is going to be coming in.  The last time we did a Master Plan we sent out surveys to people in Patterson to get their opinions as to what they liked about Patterson and what they would like to see in Patterson for the next 10 years.  I think we should be a little more proactive in updating that.  The first step would be to get the Master Plan up on line so the public could look at it.  Rich is that something we could do.

Mr. Williams stated there is a little bit of an effort to put the plans and maps put into an adobe but we probably could do that in a couple of days.  I could also put the community survey back up on line so people could look at the results from that.  Also look at the survey itself to see how you may want to tweak that.

Mr. Burns stated maybe we could set a date in June for all the Boards to meet at the Recreation Center.

Mr. Griffin stated we will be having new data by 2011.  It is probably a good idea to seriously consider a committee.

OTHER BUSINESS

Mr. Griffin stated every year our Town Clerk, Antoinette Kopeck is a participant in Daffodil Days.  Antoinette would you like to explain to everyone.

Mrs. Kopeck stated you can explain it Mike, you do a good job.

Mr. Griffin stated Antoinette sells daffodils to raise money for the American Cancer Society.  If anyone would like to help out with a donation, see Antoinette.  Potted plants are $10.00, fresh cut flowers are $10.00, a gift of hope is $25.00, and a bear and a bunch is $25.00.  If anyone needs any more information or they would like to share some money with the American Cancer Society, please see Antoinette Kopeck.  She is available everyday at Town Hall.

Mr. Burns stated given the comments that were made at the meeting today regarding our work session and taping it, I have no objection if the cost is not that significant to tape the work session if that is something that the public wants.  Do you want to consider a motion to tape the work session.

Mrs. Nacerino stated I would not.

Mr. Capasso stated if we continue to do them, then we can tape them.

Mrs. Nacerino stated I think it is something we should consider but the fact that we only have two and we are testing if we will continue this.

MRS. NACERINO’S ENVIRONMENTAL TIP

Mrs. Nacerino stated replace that toxic shower curtain.  Choose a natural fabric such as cotton, organic if you can find it, or bamboo for your next shower curtain and liner.  You know that familiar smell when you open the package and unfold a new vinyl shower curtain, that is off gassing of chemicals from PBC.  One of the chemical additives, DEHP is a suspected carcinogen that has been linked to hormonal disruptions in humans.  Vinyl shower curtains can elevate air toxins in your home for more than one month.  The environment doesn’t need any more plastic and neither do you. 

PUBLIC RECOGNITION

Ms. Deb Lawlor, President of the Putnam Lake Community Council stated we have an issue with the fence that is supposed to be put in on the dam and I wanted to know where we are on that issue.

Mrs. Nacerino stated that’s a good question, but I would ask Rich Williams that.

Mr. Williams stated I will contact the D.E.C. again right after the first.  With everything that is going on I haven’t had an opportunity to do that. 

Mr. Robert Odell stated in light of the recent developments at the Highway Department have you as a Board instituted any new procedures to protect equipment and merchandise.

Mrs. Nacerino stated Joe and I are on the Highway Committee and this past week we spent several hours at the Highway Department with the foreman and the secretary.  We did take a look around and had a full tour of the Highway Department.  Margueax and I will be working on some inventory control from counting every shovel to every piece of equipment.  We recognize clearly that it has been lacking and we are taking steps to improve the accountability down there.  That’s about all I can say about that at this time.  We are moving forward.

Mr. Odell stated so you will have property tags on equipment and things like that and some sort of inventory control.

Mrs. Nacerino stated absolutely.

Mr. Burns stated I think there was discussion of some wireless tag for fueling.

Mrs. Nacerino stated that is a meeting that is coming up to keep fuel more accountable.  We are also going to do inventory on everything.  We also spoke about installing surveillance cameras at

the gas pumps and behind the premises for extra security.  We are taking those initiatives.

Mr. Capasso stated I also have been in touch with Gene and I am trying to go down there every day just to make sure everything is running smooth.  They assured me that everything will be okay. I wouldn’t worry.  We still have competent people down there and I will be watching it.  It’s my thing.  It’s my profession; it is what I do for a living.  I run highway garages and I run my own.

Mr. Joe D’Imperio stated let’s discuss a little bit about this $5 million dollar law suit that came in.

Mr. Griffin stated Joe I will make a statement on that and I will refer all questions to the District Attorney or the Town Attorney.

On October 23, 2009 I received an extortion threat from a former Town Employee and her attorney.  I immediately contacted the Town Attorney.  We discussed it and he contacted the individual’s attorney.  They made a demand that was in excess of $1,000,000.00.  I discussed it with the Town Attorney, certain Board members and my family.  We all agreed that we would absolutely not cave to an extortion demand from a former employee or anyone else.  At that point, I turned the information over to the Town Attorney who turned it over to the District Attorney.  Right now it is pending as a criminal and civil litigation. Based on what I’ve been told by the District Attorney and also by the Town Attorney I have been advised not to discuss any details of the case until it is resolved.

Mr. D’Imperio stated you don’t have to discuss it.  What we are going to say is the first bunch of pages don’t really mean all that much yet until the District Attorney makes a decision on it.  What about the emails.  Let’s go to Exhibit A.  The email on here says……

Mr. Curtiss stated I don’t think it is going to be appropriate to read it at this point in time.  The insurance carrier has instructed all the Board members as well as myself, because I am included in this, not to discuss the details of the lawsuit.  If you have a specific question Joe, you can certainly give it to me in writing and I will be happy to respond to it if I can.  We can’t really talk about it on the record because we have been instructed by the insurance carrier who is defending us not to make those comments.

Mr. D’Imperio stated I want to make a comment.  You mentioned the D.A.  Do we pay an increase in our workers comp when there is a claim filed.

Mr. Curtiss stated this doesn’t come out of workers comp.  This was coming under………

Mr. D’Imperio stated there is an insinuation to commit fraud.  Conspiracy to commit fraud against the taxpayer’s of the Town of Patterson.  That is what I’m referring to.  I’m going to call the D.A. tomorrow anyway.  You should be prosecuted for conspiracy to commit fraud.  It’s in your email.  I don’t care about the other stuff.  You are going to say the other stuff is a myth, it might be extortion, and it might be something else so we will forgot about the front pages.  If I was to say to someone let’s go on that Town property and fall, that’s one thing if I do it.  You are in the public trust, you are an Elected Official.  If I put a stamp on it and mail the conspiracy there is a federal charge on it.  I want to know from the D.A. if there is a charge on this one because it is going across by email.  There are a number of different emails that are actually juvenile but there is a conspiracy to commit insurance fraud against these people.  God forbid the lawsuit went through.

Mr. Burns stated why don’t you ask the D.A. as our Counsel suggested.

Mr. D’Imperio stated yes, I am going to do that.

Mr. Burns stated alright.

Mr. D’Imperio stated I’m going to ask him if there is any way we can charge a conspiracy charge against him. Rightfully so.

Mr. Griffin stated go ahead Joe.

Mr. D’Imperio stated I will tomorrow morning.  I will let you know what he says.

Mr. Griffin stated thank you.  Is there any member of the public that wishes to be recognized.

Mr. Bruce Major stated Joe as it relates to the Recreation Center.  If you remember last year there was an issue about air conditioning and you really were opposed to the unit.  They were not sized right.  We are now almost at the end of February and we haven’t heard anything as to……….

Mr. Capasso stated at the work session next week you will hear something coming up.  I’m working on it.  I’m looking into a grant for it.

Audience member stated Mr. Capasso you stated you own garages, what type.

Mr. Capasso stated all kinds of truck repair, for 40 years.

Mr. Charlie Tucker stated I’ll ask the question right up front, Mike are you going to resign.

Mr. Griffin stated no.

Mr. Tucker stated you wanted to be like Tiger Woods, you are, you got it.

Mr. Griffin stated you know what Charlie if you………….

Mr. Tucker stated if you are going to write these kinds of emails, you already knew there was a scam going on.  According to you, you said this guy Bert collected $90,000.00.  You insinuated in your email that he scammed the Town.

Mr. Griffin stated I never insinuated that at all.

Mr. Tucker stated that is the tone you are setting here.

Mr. Griffin stated Charlie I am not going to get into this other than to say that those emails were obtained illegally.  They were private emails, they were…………

Mr. Tucker stated who cares.

Mr. Griffin stated I care.

Mr. Tucker stated did it happen.  Did it happen on this property.  My building.  Did she work for you.  She was your secretary, right.

Mr. Griffin stated I’m not going there with you.

Mr. Tucker stated this place is like Payton Place.

Mr. Griffin stated if you want to discuss it, go talk to the D.A.  He has told me not to discuss it, my Attorneys told me not to discuss it.

Mr. Tucker stated you go on with this story that you are going to charge her.  That doesn’t work with me or the taxpayer’s.  We have already got rid of a Governor and a lot of other people for the same reason Mike.  You made it big.

Mr. Griffin stated why don’t we wait until it all goes through the legal system and see where it shakes out.

EXECUTIVE SESSION

There being no further business, Mr. O’Connor made a motion to go into Executive Session at 10:40 p.m.

Seconded by Mr. Capasso.  All In Favor: Aye.  Carried.

Mr. O’Connor made a motion to close Executive Session at 11:40 a.m.

Seconded by Mrs. Nacerino. All In Favor: Aye.  Carried.

Mr. Griffin called the meeting back to order at 11:40 a.m.

Mrs. Nacerino made a motion to approve the raises for Laura Marchese and Veronica Roche as per the 2010 budget.

Seconded by Mr. O’Connor. All In Favor: Aye.  Carried.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business, Mr. O’Connor made a motion to adjourn the meeting at11:42 p.m.

Seconded by Mr. Capasso.  All In Favor: Aye.  Carried.

                                                                        Respectfully submitted,

                                                                        ___________________________________

                                                                        ANTOINETTE KOPECK, TOWN CLERK