PATTERSON TOWN BOARD MEETING

PATTERSON TOWN HALL

1142 ROUTE 311

PATTERSON, NY 12563

OCTOBER 11, 2006

MINUTES

PRESENT: MICHAEL GRIFFIN, SUPERVISOR

GERALD HERBST, COUNCILMAN

ERNEST KASSAY, COUNCILMAN

GINNY NACERINO, COUNCILWOMAN

EDMOND O’CONNOR, COUNCILMAN

TIM CURTISS, TOWN COUNSEL

ANTOINETTE KOPECK, TOWN CLERK

Supervisor Griffin called the meeting to order at 7:39 p.m. with 5 in the audience.

Salute to the Flag and Roll Call.

REPORTS

Mr. Griffin stated without objection I would ask the Clerk to file the reports as read.

Putnam Lake Fire Department – None

Patterson Fire Department – None

Code Compliance Officer – None

Code Enforcement Officer – None

Dog Control Officer – September

E.C.I. Officer – September

MINUTES

Mr. Kassay made a motion to approve the following minutes:

Public Hearing – Commercial Kennels and Veterinary Hospitals-Local Law No. 5

August 9, 2006

Public Hearing – Alcoholic Beverages, Consumption by Minors on Private Premises-Local Law No. 6 – August 9, 2006

Bid Opening – Patterson Hamlet Sewer District – September 11, 2006

Public Hearing – Abandoned Vehicles-Local Law No. 7 – September 13, 2006

Town Board Meeting – September 13, 2006

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

SUPERVISOR REPORT

None.

AUDIT OF BILLS

Mr. Herbst made a motion to approve the following bills chargeable to 2006:

General Fund $43,347.26, Highway Fund-Item 1 General Repairs $4,847.24, Highway Fund-Item 3 Machinery $5,574.24, Highway Fund-Item 4 Brush and Weeds $533.01, Highway Fund-Employee Benefits $871.26, Patterson Fire District $292.73, Patterson Refuse District # 2 $406.58, Patterson Park District $935.97, Alpine Water District $530.00, Dorset Hollow Water District $786.40, Fox Run Water District $596.69, Front Street Sewer $230.00. Total Abstract $58,951.38

Seconded by Mr. O’Connor. Roll Call Vote: Mr. Herbst; yes, Mr. Kassay; yes, Mrs. Nacerino; yes, Mr. O’Connor; yes, Mr. Griffin; yes. Roll Call Vote Carried.

PATTERSON TOWN BOARD OCTOBER 11, 2006 PAGE 2

TOWN BOARD MEETING

ERNEST KASSAY

ROSE LANE – LETTER DATED 10/03/06

Mr. Kassay stated the Board received letters from Mrs. Donna Brinkmeyer dated May 2^nd September 6^th and October 3^rd. Cathy sent a letter in response to her on October 5^th. Mrs. Brinkmeyer has not contacted me as was suggested in the letter from the Supervisor’s office. At this point, with the Board’s approval, I would like to ask the Town Attorney’s office to send Mrs. Brinkmeyer a letter addressing everything from May 2^nd on and to apprise her of the situation. We would like her to know that we are diligently working on this problem.

The Board had no objections.

PUTNAM LAKE FIRE DEPARTMENT – LETTER DATED 10/04/06

Mr. Kassay stated membership chairman, Peter Maycott, of the Putnam Lake Fire Department sent a letter on October 4^th informing the Town that they have accepted another member Nicholas Santomero.

H. TED BAUMANN PARK

Mr. Kassay stated I spoke to Tom McGinn today. A while ago, I did an inspection on the fence that Pawling Fence did at the park and they didn’t accomplish everything they were supposed to do. I asked Tom to verify what I saw and he did. He spoke with Pawling Fence and he will go out there with the men from Pawling Fence and let me know when the job is completed.

Mr. Kassay stated I would like to ask the Board’s approval, with the help of the Supervisor’s secretary, to send a letter to the sheriff’s department and to the state police letting them know about Halloween and request extra patrols, if possible, at the park to ward off any criminal mischief that might take place.

The Board had no objections.

DISTRICT # 1 CURBSIDE BULK PICK-UP

Mr. Kassay stated on October 28^th, the last Saturday of the month, district #1 will be having their curbside bulk pick-up. I would like to thank the Town Clerk’s office and the Code Compliance Officer for providing the flyers that went out to locations in Putnam Lake.

PUTNAM COUNTY HAZARDOUS WASTE DAY

Mr. Kassay stated Putnam County hazardous waste day is scheduled for Saturday October 14^th from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. at Fahnestock State Park. Items that can be brought are computers, tv’s, cell phones, etc. The items have to be labeled and identifiable; participation is limited to 400 cars and preregistration is required.

GINNY NACERINO

GADREAU TAX CERTIORARI

Mrs. Nacerino introduced the following Resolution for Gadreau Tax Certiorari

R1006-01

WHEREAS, a tax certiorari proceeding was brought on behalf of David and Roberta Gadreau for the 2004, 2005 and 2006 tax years, and

PATTERSON TOWN BOARD OCTOBER 11, 2006 PAGE 3

TOWN BOARD MEETING

WHEREAS, the parties have agreed to settle the tax certiorari proceedings in accordance with the Stipulation of Settlement and Order and Judgment prepared by McCabe & Mack, LLP, the attorneys for David and Roberta Gadreau, and

WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Patterson has consulted with the tax assessor of the Town of Patterson and the Town Attorneys in the settlement of this matter, and

WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Patterson approved of the settlement of the aforementioned matters and authorized the Town Attorneys, Curtiss, Leibell & Shilling, P. C., to sign said Stipulation of Settlement on behalf of the Town of Patterson, and

WHEREAS, the Town Assessor’s Office has calculated the refunds with regard to the aforementioned settlements, and a copy of said calculations are annexed hereto and made a part hereof;

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Patterson hereby authorizes the refunds in the amounts stated in the Assessor’s calculations, a copy of which are attached hereto and made a part hereof, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Patterson hereby authorizes the Supervisor to seek financing, if necessary to pay said refunds at an interest rate not to exceed SEVEN (7%) percent.

Seconded by Mr. Kassay. All In Favor: aye. Carried.

RECREATION CENTER UPDATE

Mrs. Nacerino stated at the September 27^th meeting, one of our constituents, Andy DiStefano, addressed the Board in reference to some concerns he had with the recreation center. In response to those concerns, Mr. Herbst and I met with Sandy Coe on September 29^th to discuss some of his concerns; one of them being that he was asked to leave the recreation center and he felt that that was inappropriate. Upon discussion with Ms. Coe, it was determined that he is not shut out from the recreation center, but there are times where there are designated activities for different age groups thereby posing a safety hazard for small children such as Mr. DiStefano’s child being at the center at times that would pose a problem. He also asked for more preschool programs and that was also discussed with Ms. Coe. The recreation center is working diligently to improve their preschool programs. They do have in place a new Arts R Us program and at the present time they are trying to set up a music program. In response to Mr. DiStefano’s concerns, I sent him a letter dated October 3^rd.

Mrs. Nacerino stated I chair the youth recreation board and we are planning to be in front of the A & P on November 19^th in conjunction with CAP to help a with a food drive for the needy of Putnam County. Members of my board will be helping out and kudos to them for doing so. I’m very proud of them. Also, in December, the youth board will be participating in the Christmas party where Mr. and Mrs. O’Connor have volunteered to be Mr. and Mrs. Claus and my youth board members are going to be the elves.

MICHAEL GRIFFIN

NIMS – DISCUSSION/RESOLUTION

Mr. Griffin stated we have a resolution that is required under presidential directive number 5 that all entities in the USA adopt the national incident management system for command and control of all incident response operations. This resolution, once adopted, will have all employees of the Town of Patterson render aid and assistance as is required for the implementation of the foregoing policy.

PATTERSON TOWN BOARD OCTOBER 11, 2006 PAGE 4

TOWN BOARD MEETING

Mr. Griffin introduced the following Resolution for Adoption of the National Incident Management System (NIMS)

R1006-03

It is hereby resolved by the Town of Patterson, State of New York that:

WHEREAS, In Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD)-5 the President directed the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to develop and administer a National Incident Management System (NIMS), which would provide a consistent nationwide approach for federal, state, local and tribal governments to work together and more effectively and efficiently to prevent, prepare for, respond to, and recover from domestic incidents regardless of cause, size or complexity, and

WHEREAS, the collective input and guidance from all federal, state, local and tribal homeland security partners has been, and will continue to be, vital to the development, effective implementation and utilization of a comprehensive NIMS, and

WEHREAS, it is necessary that all federal, state, local and tribal emergency management agencies and personnel coordinate their efforts to effectively and efficiently provide the highest levels of incident management, and

WHEREAS, to facilitate the most efficient and effective incident management it is critical that federal, state, local and tribal organizations utilize standardized terminology, standardized organizational structures, uniform personnel qualification standards, uniform standards for planning, training and exercising, comprehensive resource management and designated incident facilities during emergencies or disasters, and

WHEREAS, the NIMS standardized procedures for managing personnel, communications, facilities and resources will improve the state’s ability to utilize federal funding to enhance local and state agency readiness, maintain first responder safety and streamline incident management processes, and

WHEREAS, the Incident Command Systems components of NIMS are already an integral part of various incident management activities throughout the state, including all public safety and emergency response organizations training programs, and

WHEREAS, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks (9-11 Commission) recommended adoption of a standardized Incident Command System;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Town of Patterson and provisions of the Patterson Town Code, I do hereby mandate the National Incident Management System to be utilized for all incident management in the Town of Patterson.

I further proclaim this to take effect immediately.

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

BURDICK FARMS

Mr. Vinnie Condito, project sponsor for Burdick Farms, stated I’m here tonight to ask you to consider the recommendation of the Planning Board to acquire the property at the intersection of Ice Pond Road and Bullet Hole Road for the purpose of improving this road. I am going to try to address the two issues Mike brought up at the last meeting. My understanding of those two issues are the safety (inaudible). If the Town decides to go ahead with this acquisition and then decides not to make the roadway improvement, what about the liability there and the other issue is what about the condition of the barn as it is there presently and the liability the Town may or may not assume by getting the property at that point.

PATTERSON TOWN BOARD OCTOBER 11, 2006 PAGE 5

TOWN BOARD MEETING

Mr. Condito stated let me point out some of the issues. This is the present roadway intersection that we have here (pointing to diagram) and as you can see this is almost a 90º turn. The through traffic on Bullet Hole goes this way and there’s one stop sign here so the site distance is a problem as well as this turning ratio here. What I’m showing here is the result of five years of work with the Planning Board and this new roadway design here was determined by the Planning Board Chairman at the time, Herb Schech. This map here was drawn by the Town Engineer; it is the way that we would improve this intersection. Can you see that the curve of Bullet Hole is extended here from about a radius of 75’ to a radius of 175’ which gives us greatly improved site distance here and safety in this intersection. Unfortunately, any way that you design this road, it has to go through the existing barn structure here. No matter what happens here to improve this intersection, the only way we could do it is to go through the red barn. Over the five year period we discussed many, many options and all of them were rejected by the Board. The Board was adamant that this was the only way we could make this improvement. I also made several other non technical arguments – the fact that this is a very expensive roadway improvement, which it is because you can see the high level of grading at this point plus obviously the destruction of the barn that is required. I also made arguments that Bullet Hole Road is a difficult road to maneuver as it is today and maybe this is not the (inaudible), but I think the Planning Board felt that this was an opportunity to improve this intersection as a result of the small amount of increased traffic that I have going through at this point. This is an opportunity for you to go ahead and fix this.

I would like to argue on Mike’s first point that if the Planning Board doesn’t decide to go ahead with this acquisition that you are not liable, but of course – I think you are liable at this point. It’s been five years of discussion by the Planning Board and their recommendation to this Board that this intersection definitely needs to be improved, e.g., if this Board were to decide not to acquire this property – to take this dedication of property, then basically what you are saying is that you rejected the Planning Board’s arguments. Now to use your argument, Mike, if an accident were to occur during that period of time, I would argue that the Town is actually more liable than if they’d taken at least the first step which was to acquire the property and then at some time in the future go ahead and improve this. The Planning Board also feels that at this intersection, eventually, because of the additional traffic through the Town build up would have to be fixed anyway, so here I am to give you the property to do that and save you the expense in the future to do that.

I am going to talk about last year’s acquisition efforts in trying to do this. I sold this property in 2001 to the Jensen Tree Farm. The Planning Board asked me to buy it back in order to complete this intersection improvement, which is obviously very difficult to make. I thought I made a fair offer to the property owner and she didn’t think so at the time. To help her along in the decision process, I wrote a letter to Mike asking him to have the building inspector inspect the barn, which he did. My hope was that they would put pressure because of the condition of the barn on the property owner and force her to sell it to me at that point. The building inspector issued recommendations for improvements to be made. My understanding from Craig Bumgarner, attorney for the Jensen Tree Farm at that time, was that the Town Engineer was sent there and issued a report on the condition of the barn. The condition of the barn was described as not too bad. There were a few recommendations which were made that had to be done and they were done before the time the property was sold. The woman who owned the property was able to get a good offer for the 100 acres and she sold it in February. I did approach the new property owner and he told me he wasn’t interested in selling the barn. To facilitate that, I wrote another letter to Mike with a $300,000.00 offer – a dedication to the Town for the improvement of this intersection. I know there was a lot of discussion at that time regarding whether this was a bribe or not and of course it made it into the papers. Shamberg Marlow, my attorney, suggested I make this offer to the Town. He said the Planning Board said we have a finding statement which says that might increase (inaudible) traffic on this intersection requires some mitigation. The mitigation as defined by the Planning Board was that I was supposed to take the property and dedicate it to the Town and then the Town was responsible for all the improvements on this

PATTERSON TOWN BOARD OCTOBER 11, 2006 PAGE 6

TOWN BOARD MEETING

property. What we were trying to do on our offer were several things; the reason the price was $300,000.00 was because that is what I sold it to the Jensen Tree Farm for and that had angered the Planning Board at that time so this was commemoration for that to say here was the amount; that was how the number was arrived at. What I was asking this Board to do was to swap positions with me. We were still going to fix the intersection, but in fixing the intersection you were going to acquire the land by eminent domain and I was going to pay for the improvements; that was the position taken and my attorneys thought that this was a completely legal offer and I thought we had the same opinion from Anthony at the time as well, but I think there was some concern about that. The way those numbers would have worked is that the new property owner bought the property for roughly $10,000.00 an acre. This is 1 ½ from here to here (pointing to diagram) that we were talking about acquiring. If you had used the property as eminent domain for the safety of this intersection, it would have taken you about $15,000.00 to acquire the property, $15,000.00 in legal fees and $60,000.00 to knock down the barn and take away the (inaudible) so roughly about $100,000.00 at that point. There is about 500’ of road here at $200.00 per foot which would be roughly $100,000.00 so out of that $300,000.00 you would have needed about $200,000.00 to cover the intersection improvement and you would have had another $100,000.00 left over. If there were cost overruns it would have taken care of it or you could have used it for some other purpose. That offer is still on the table if you want to consider it; that takes care of another one of the issues that you brought up which is that this is an expensive improvement and since you’re going through the budget process right now maybe you don’t want to consider it or consider a different way to do it.

I want to talk about the barn itself. I spoke with Henry Burdick, Jr. The barn was built before his dad was born. The barn used to be up on this property (pointing to diagram), it burnt down and they rebuilt it at this point. I’ve had several people look at this barn, experts in barn construction and what they told me was this is a 1920’s style run of the mill agricultural barn with no redeeming features. It’s in reasonably good shape, the silo is 1950’s. There is not the historical significance to this barn that keeps making it into the papers. If someone did want to take this barn, we’d be very happy to dedicate it to them. If they want to take it, they could have it for free, they could move it anywhere they want. There is no other place on this property to put it. The property owner doesn’t think it is economically feasible for them to move the barn. I’ve spoken to Mike and Rich about many different options. We had a discussion in Mike’s office that there were many ways to do this; e.g., an elevation change that Rich came up with to make the roadway flatter and come around closer and leave the barn, but we never discussed that with the Planning Board because at that time the new owner decided he would sell me the property. There was no need to go through another six months of redesigning this and there was no Planning Board input that that would be a successful approach or even if they wanted it.

I asked Mike to come out to inspect the property with Dave Raines on Friday last week. The top of the property is in reasonably good form; the bottom does have some problems. There are sheds on this side (pointing to diagram) that have to be taken down. The bottom part of this barn is totally open and we do want to board that up so no one can gain access to the barn. The top barn here (pointing to diagram) is boarded up. The silo is in excellent shape; there is no need to discuss that at all. There are improvements that could be done to the barn to make it safer so the Town could feel comfortable that it’s accepting a piece of property that is not a liability. What I could offer the Town is this. I would be willing to put it into good shape. I would take down the sheds on the side and I would be willing to take plywood and board up the whole bottom of the barn so no one could gain access to that area. If this is not considered good enough, I could also put a chain link fence around the whole building.

Mr. Griffin stated I was wondering how much time it would take for you to find someone to take it away that might want it.

PATTERSON TOWN BOARD OCTOBER 11, 2006 PAGE 7

TOWN BOARD MEETING

Mr. Condito stated I’ve talked to several people that are very interested in old timber from the 1880’s and this barn unfortunately didn’t make the grade. I’ve spoken to three or four people about the possibility of taking the barn materials away. The timbers are in ok shape; there’s planking on the side which may or may not be valuable. I am in communication with several people but so far I haven’t been able to get anyone. I’d be happy to continue to work on an issue like that to try to get the barn taken away. None of these people would be willing to take the barn and bring it somewhere else. We are all talking about demolition. The argument I just made is that I could put the barn in a safe condition and that is going to cost approximately $10,000.00 to $15,000.00. Instead of me doing that, which is a waste of money, I will give that money to the Town now and use it to start knocking the barn down. I think this is the best way to do it. The argument is that you are going to take this property, your opinion is that this barn is dangerous and you have to get rid of it as fast as you can. I’d like to discuss this with you. I’m near the end of the project. We’ve already had our final public review from the Planning Board and we just have a few more things to do before we finish up and I would like to get this Board to accept the Planning Board’s recommendations and go ahead with the acceptance of this dedication.

Mr. Herbst stated if the barn is gone, you are putting the road in.

Mr. Condito stated no. The Planning Board said in their finding statement that the Town is responsible for that as well as all improvements on this property.

Mr. Herbst stated has that road and that barn been in contention ever since you presented your first trip to the Planning Board.

Mr. Condito stated no. My first trip to the Planning Board was 1996…

Mr. Herbst stated and the road never came up then or the barn.

Mr. Condito stated the road always came up. We went through a whole SEQRA process.

Mr. Herbst stated why did you bother selling that piece of property, when you knew you might have to use the barn.

Mr. Condito stated that is the argument the Planning Board made. What happened was at the time we started the SEQRA process there were many requests for us to do different things with the roadway. The first thing we were asked to do was traffic counts on all the intersections within a two mile radius that people thought would be a problem. We did that and we did traffic counts along Bullet Hole Road and there were no issues at that point. Then the issue came up about stop signs. When we first bought this property I never had any intentions of developing the 100 acres. There was a huge for sale sign on the property for three years and just as Jensen Tree Farm was interested in buying this property, that’s when the chairman of the board made a requirement that this become the roadway. We sold the property in 2001 and the finding statement came out in 2002 so it wasn’t clear at the time when we sold the property although we knew at the time the Planning Board wanted to keep this option open, it wasn’t clear to us that it was going to be a final option. My partner who actually did the sale of this, did it on his own and I’ve been paying for it ever since. I’ve admitted to the Planning Board that I’m responsible for that and that’s why I came up with the $300,000.00 offer which was a statement of saying I’m sorry for the actions that were done here…

Mr. Herbst stated are you really sorry.

Mr. Condito stated yes. It’s been probably one of the reasons that this project has taken as long as it has. The other reason is that you rezoned me. In my defense, we did go through a finding statement in 2001. The Planning Board issued that finding statement. The VP rejected that finding statement because of the wetlands crossing and that forced me to go through another environmental impact report. When I was rezoned I had to start

PATTERSON TOWN BOARD OCTOBER 11, 2006 PAGE 8

TOWN BOARD MEETING

over. The actions that occurred with the function of my partner who is no longer my friend or partner, has nothing to do with this project.

Mr. O’Connor stated you mentioned an estimated cost of putting the road there; is that just based on the average construction of 200 or 300 feet.

Mr. Condito stated no. It is roughly 500 feet. My engineer threw these figures out. I think roadway costs would be $100.00 a linear foot. We are saying this is $200.00 per foot because of the amount of material that has to be included in…

Mr. O’Connor stated we were there yesterday and the amount of fill it would take…

Mr. Condito stated a ton of it. At the finding statement of 2001, our engineer had proposed this road (pointing to diagram) which doesn’t have the same radius. It is a shorter (inaudible) area. You can see the smaller amount here. It doesn’t have the right radius but it does have a 3-to-1 curve. The Town engineer felt that it wasn’t an adequate curve so he increased the curve out here and forced me to work with the property owner just recently to increase the amount of area we have by roughly – this used to be .8 acres and now it’s 1.5 acres to make this increase. This is almost to Town Code. Town Code would have been a 200 ft. radius and a 3-to-1 slope. Obviously if you want to cut down the amount of material, you could cut down the radius and the slope could be steeper and maybe reduce some of the fill requirements.

Mr. Herbst stated when you are going to build on the other side of the road are you going to have fill that you might be able to dump there.

Mr. Condito stated no. We are actually going to require fill into our property as well.

Mrs. Nacerino stated you mentioned that the only way to get rid of the barn was through demolition. My only concern is that we might meet some resistance from people in the community. Is there any other option that you could suggest.

Mr. Condito stated I did contact New York State Recreation Division in the Palisades. There is a person by the name of Ron Raider and he was responsible for administrating the barn funds that the government has done for the last six months. How this works is if someone wanted to improve the barn on their property, the State would give them matching funds up to $50,000.00 to improve the property. Unfortunately that program wasn’t increased this year so there are no funds to do this. I’ve read in the paper how there are very concerned citizens and neighbors who want the barn. I’ll give them the barn for free and they can move it anywhere they want. It is a two-story barn; it is 130 ft. x 40 ft. Most barns are 40 ft. x 50 ft., they are very small compared to this. The political approach I’m suggesting is that I could put a fence around the barn and make it safe for the community. The boarding we talked about would keep people out. These are not structural changes we are making to the barn for use, but they are just there to keep it up. If someone hasn’t stepped forward to take the barn in a certain amount of time, economically it proves there’s nobody fairer to do this. It’s a beautiful barn but it doesn’t make sense economically.

Mrs. Nacerino stated you did state that it wouldn’t be economically feasible for you to move the barn as is so what do you anticipate the estimated cost to be for someone else to move it.

Mr. Condito stated I don’t have any idea. It’s peg and board construction so there’s no nails.

Mr. Herbst stated wouldn’t it have to come down board by board and then put it up somewhere else.

Mr. Condito stated if that’s what you want to do, yes.

PATTERSON TOWN BOARD OCTOBER 11, 2006 PAGE 9

TOWN BOARD MEETING

Mr. O’Connor stated the silo would be easy to move, it’s held together with iron hoops.

Mr. Condito stated the silo is in reasonable shape. The big cost of the demolition is not the amount of time or machinery it’s going to take to knock these structures down. The biggest cost is going to be carting the material away.

Mr. Griffin stated what would the Board like to do.

Mr. O’Connor stated I haven’t heard any – it would be nice if Mr. Schech thought this was a good idea.

Mr. Williams stated when this all started, Mr. Schech was not the chairman.

Mr. Griffin stated Mr. Williams was.

Mr. O’Connor stated the drop in elevation is considerable. I’d hate the Town to build the road that long after bringing in a huge amount of fill. I don’t want the Town to bite off more than they can swallow just to find out later on that it would cost a fortune to build that ½ mile road.

Mr. Condito was speaking, however due to lack of microphone usage, unable to transcribe.

Mr. O’Connor stated I’m not worried about the blacktop…

Mr. Condito stated the way it has been described in the finding statement which is still consistent, is the fact that the Town has the option of building this property. It’s not asking to be built; you don’t have to spend the money to pave this property. I’ll give you the property now. The Town could try to find funds or grants to get the property done. Mike suggested in the past that if we do something about the barn and take care of this issue, then whenever you get the funds for the rest of the issues, then that’s when you do it.

Mr. O’Connor stated as you said, except for the outbuildings, lean-to’s and sheds, the barn structure seems very solid.

Mr. Condito was speaking, however due to lack of microphone usage, unable to transcribe.

Mr. O’Connor stated as far as putting up plywood in the back by someone to take away the attractive nuisance liability it wouldn’t be that big of a deal either.

Mr. Condito stated that’s right. That’s what I’m estimating (inaudible) what it takes to make the barn properly safe.

Mr. O’Connor stated that’s fine. If we take the barn, it would be with that expectation.

Mr. Condito it’s the Planning Board’s recommendation. (Inaudible).

Mr. O’Connor stated I don’t think that by the Planning Board saying whatever it said doesn’t mean that we are condoning a death trap on that corner.

Mr. Williams stated lets be clear. Nobody ever said this is a dangerous intersection.

Mr. O’Connor stated no it’s not.

Mr. Williams stated we’ve always used the term that they are just horizontal and vertical deficiencies in the road.

PATTERSON TOWN BOARD OCTOBER 11, 2006 PAGE 10

TOWN BOARD MEETING

Mr. O’Connor stated we are not saying that we have knowingly or allowing or putting off fixing something that is an imminent danger to people. Yesterday we were watching the school buses going around the corner and I thought it was foolish for them to go just around the corner and then stop to drop children off to go get in cars on Ice Pond Road because they were putting themselves in a position where they couldn’t be seen. They were parked in the right of way and they shouldn’t do that. Also, we could soften that curve by removing the little trees…

Mr. Herbst stated they won’t let the property go.

Mr. O’Connor stated what people let and what they don’t let is eminent domain on one side and eminent domain on the other side.

Mr. Griffin stated you are delving into the realm of the Planning Board.

Mr. O’Connor stated I don’t want the Planning Board committing us to (inaudible) because I haven’t seen or heard of any serious highway people doing this.

Mr. Herbst stated we could always wait until one happens. Let me understand this, you are willing to give us the property and $300,000.00.

Mr. Condito stated no.

Mr. Herbst stated neither one, is that what it is.

Mr. Condito stated I made that offer to the Board which was the $300,000.00 to replace my position (inaudible) so that the Town could go ahead at some point in time on their own using eminent domain as well as its own time to do these improvements. I put no restrictions on the money and I said I would never challenge whatever the findings were in order to release me from the finding statement that the Planning Board has put me on. I made that offer to you and it was rejected. If you would like to talk about it some more we can do that.

Mr. Kassay stated what was the result of the traffic count. I assume it was based on 36 homes.

Mr. Condito stated the New York State Traffic Institute has numbers to use when to do this. For 36 homes the number is 25 peak hour trips which means within a two hour period in the morning and afternoon you get 25 extra cars coming out of the intersection. The traffic numbers on Bullet Hole Road are roughly 100 cars per hour. This type of road is able to support 1,000 cars per hour so even though we are only putting 25 peak car trips per two hour period, we are increasing the traffic on this road by miniscule amounts.

Mr. Kassay stated did the Planning Board ever discuss three way stop signs.

Mr. Condito stated absolutely.

Mr. Kassay stated what was the determination.

Mr. Condito stated I will tell you the options my traffic engineer proposed. There is a stop sign here (pointing to diagram) and we had proposed a stop sign here, here, and here. The concern was since there was such an elevation on this hill, trucks wouldn’t be able to stop or they would be falling backward or going backwards at this point. The other option we offered was to keep this stop sign here (pointing to diagram) and to put a left turn stop sign, in other words, to make this intersection a little bigger and allow the through traffic to go through and then anyone making a left turn on Bullet Hole Road would have to make a stop. I don’t know what the concern was. I think it was the unorthodox style. The final approach we had suggested to the Planning Board was that

PATTERSON TOWN BOARD OCTOBER 11, 2006 PAGE 11

TOWN BOARD MEETING

we make this road (pointing to diagram) here and acquire this much property here (pointing to diagram) and make a T out of this road here (pointing to diagram) and make Ice Pond to Bullet Hole the through road with no stop signs and make Bullet Hole stop at this point (pointing to diagram) and then go left and right. All those were amply discussed over the years and rejected by the Planning Board for one or another reason. The Planning Board could tell you their decision. They were adamant that this was the only way I could fulfill this requirement. I’m now at the point where I have a finding statement that tells me this is what I must do and I’ve done it and now I need the Town Board to accept it so that we can mitigate the increased traffic due to my intersection.

Mr. Kassay stated I would like to discuss this in depth with the Planning Board as to why the three traffic scenarios were not better than what I’m looking at right now.

Mr. Williams stated the traffic counts were done 1996, 1997. They are almost ten years old at this point. The way to arrive at the traffic increase of 26 cars in the peak hours is to count the cars for 15 minute cycles, multiply that by four and that gives you your peak hours and that’s only for a very short duration during the day in the morning, in the evening. When looking at overall vehicle trips, the same ITE (Institute of Traffic Engineers) has come up with standards which say in average residential homes it actually generates about ten trips per home so that’s approximately 300 to 400 trips daily going through this road system. The Planning Board, myself, the Town Engineer and their traffic experts all looked at a variety of different ways to try to improve this intersection. The problem is twofold; one is the horizontal geometry of the road which has a very sharp, almost 90º turn and the other is the vertical geometry. Bullet Hole Road comes down sloping as it’s approaching the east to that intersection. Once you get into that intersection then the slope actually increases quite a bit so you have both the horizontal and the vertical.

The problem with a two way stop on Bullet Hole Road or a three way stop is you generally don’t put stop signs in the middle of the road but certainly given the vertical slope coming down to the road it presented somewhat of a safety concern; icy conditions, wet conditions, people coming down and trying to stop with a stop sign at that spot would be sliding all over the place coming down; as they’re going up, larger vehicles especially, would come up on a fairly good slope, stop for that stop sign and won’t be able to get going again so they would have to back down on a blind corner. That’s why both of those were rejected for a variety of reasons. Similarly, realignments never got the site distance and the geometry of the intersection where it was really an improvement.

Mr. Kassay stated there are pros and cons to everything that was just explained to me. If the road is wet on the 90º angle turn, then the driver shouldn’t be doing 30 m.p.h. around it; they should be slowed down a lot more than that. A stop sign would act as a safety valve to have them come to a stop. People are supposed to have rubber on their tires. In the winter time and with the highway superintendent that we have and the good work he does in bad weather, I don’t see that road to be any worse than any other road in Town. In my opinion, I would rather go with the three way stop sign. It would be a lot less involved and it will stop people from speeding and it would make them stop and look in both directions before proceeding.

Mr. Williams stated this is not a mandate that this intersection be fixed. This is an opportunity. The Planning Board saw an opportunity. This a way to work with a developer and save the Town funds in the future because this is something that is going to have to happen in the future. Whether the Town Board goes with a three way stop or not, there is still a deficiency in the intersection. If we don’t do it now, then the Town will have to, by eminent domain or compensation, pay for the property which we are now being offered for free. In the past two months I’ve spoken with two different engineers and developers that are looking at two different lots approximately ½ to 1 mile down on Ice Pond Road. There are two separate proposals coming in for at least 40 to 60 houses.

Mrs. Nacerino stated the road improvement is inevitable and if the peak number of cars

PATTERSON TOWN BOARD OCTOBER 11, 2006 PAGE 12

TOWN BOARD MEETING

that you have projected are from the ‘90’s then we should double that number and if we project out another decade it would be significantly higher so I can’t see that not doing this improvement would be in the best interest of the Town. I don’t see much of any other options. Sooner or later, this deficient road is going to have to be remedied.

Mr. Kassay stated we don’t know the cost of removing the barn, we don’t know, like you mentioned before, anything to do with a political fallout because some people deemed it to be historical and we don’t have a cost on what it is going to cost the Town to make that road.

Mr. Condito stated I do have an estimate of $40,000.00 to $60,000.00 to knock the barn down. The estimates were from my engineer. You could ask the Town engineer for (inaudible).

Mr. Kassay stated according to Town code to make that 500 feet of road.

Mr. O’Connor stated that’s to take the barn down and remove it. Has any engineering costs been thought of to do the fill and the road.

Mr. Condito stated my engineer had estimated $200.00 per foot and that is approximately $100,000.00.

Mr. Griffin stated counselor, eminent domain – how long are we talking about.

Mr. Curtiss stated probably anywhere from 6 months to 18 months. You can take the property and the real issue is to squabble over what its value is. You can’t really use…

Mr. Griffin stated no disrespect to Mr. Mancini; he is making a hell of a business deal. He pays $1 million for the property but for him to sell 1 ½ for $300,000.00 with a monster liability on it is brilliant. I think for this Town Board to take the property for nothing, take the property and the barn with a $60,000.00 demolition tab on it, we would have to be out of our minds. We would be vastly better off to take the $300,000.00, eminent domain the property and spend the $60,000.00 out of that. If Mr. Mancini wants to consider taking the barn down and giving us a clean piece of property that’s a different story, but I don’t see how this Board could agree to take this property with a $60,000.00 to $80,000.00 liability on it.

Mr. Tom Diorio stated I represent Bob Mancini. I understand where you are coming from but on the other hand one thing to consider is that – he has not considered what he would do with the barn – when this all came up he was busy, he hasn’t had time to think about whether he wants to try to salvage the barn or not. He knows that moving the barn is not something that seems to make economic sense to him. Maybe to historic barn people it’s worth it because of its historic value. He is debating on whether he would take the barn and renovate it. He just hasn’t had the chance to investigate what the value would be. The cost of acquisition would not only be the land but the barn itself. It is an asset; it needs repair, it needs restoration but he’s going through that debate – he doesn’t know if he should keep it or not and he’s put it on hold because of what is going on here. That would be a factor in your value or condemnation.

Mr. O’Connor stated what did he want to do with the barn.

Mr. Diorio stated he originally bought it for a horse farm for his daughter. Plans changed and he got something closer to home because it was far from where she would ride. He was going to run it as a business out there but he doesn’t know. He might try to renovate it. He would look into the benefits of trying to rebuild it for horse use.

Mr. O’Connor stated it doesn’t seem to be in the appropriate place for that. If it is further back in the 100 acres I think the horses would like it.

PATTERSON TOWN BOARD OCTOBER 11, 2006 PAGE 13

TOWN BOARD MEETING

Mr. Griffin stated there is a tremendous amount of foundation work to be done. There are drainage issues along with all different types of issues.

Mr. Diorio stated I think the grade could be dropped, the foundation could be shored up, and it could be done. Whether it’s viable or not, I don’t know; the point I was trying to make was when you look at the condemnation its land and it’s also the asset.

Mr. Griffin stated at the end of the day, it’s not going to cost us $300,000.00 to condemn and take that property. Does anyone on this Board see any intrinsical value to the barn or keeping the barn for any purpose whatsoever. Could we say ok lets take this property and commit the taxpayer to that liability or that cost of demolition to that property and let Mr. Mancini slink out of town with a $300,000.00 check in his pocket while we get left holding the bag for the barn.

Mr. Kassay stated I would have to answer no.

Mr. Griffin stated is there any way you could clean that property up before.

Mr. Diorio stated I would have to speak with Mr. Mancini; I wouldn’t be authorized to agree to that today. I could speak with him and come back for the next meeting. I will talk to you in the interim and let you know what his reaction is to that.

Mr. Herbst stated I don’t see any reason why we can’t table it until the next meeting.

Mr. Griffin stated at the last meeting you were adamant about the Town taking this property. Is there a time line here or a consideration.

Mr. Williams stated I try to do my job. My job is to plan. My job is to see into the future. I’ve come to you with a number of good deals and I think some worked out, some are going to work out and some didn’t work out. I see this as an opportunity, I have from day one. I recognize that the barn is a liability. It was never my intent by taking the property that we are going to go necessarily back immediately and ask the taxpayers to fund anything. It was always my intent that once we got the property then we had the ability to look and see if there was any federal funding to do anything like this. Not only take the barn down, but doing all the improvements.

Mr. Diorio stated if he was willing to do that, be willing to have it funded, put it in escrow and done after the Town actually takes title in that he would not want to probably – it’s hard for me to recommend to him taking down a structure that could possibly be an asset while he owns it and then after the demolition then whole thing fall apart. It becomes a funding issue and proper insurance for the demolition contract to provide the Town.

Mr. O’Connor stated we’re not going to ask him to do something and then say too bad.

Mr. Griffin stated why don’t we take Mr. Condito’s offer to board up the building. We put in the contract that after a 4 or 6 month period if we can’t find anyone interested in acquiring the barn, then Mr. Mancini should agree to do the demolition or fund the demolition.

Mr. Diorio stated I have to get a binding contract from someone that could tell us what they cost us and who knows what the exposure is and then the funds would be available for the contractor and if it doesn’t happen then the funds would be refunded to Mr. Mancini. He walks away and the Town has to fund (inaudible) binding contract with a demolition contractor so the Town can’t get hurt and he doesn’t have to be involved in (inaudible).

Mr. Griffin stated fair enough. If we could structure it something along those lines where we could get this building secure where it’s not an abstracted nuisance or a major liability

PATTERSON TOWN BOARD OCTOBER 11, 2006 PAGE 14

TOWN BOARD MEETING

accident situation for us and we give the save Putnam barn folks a period of time to put a deal together to save the barn or salvage the barn, then if failing that after a period of six months Mr. Mancini will remove the barn and the concrete can be broken up and remain but all the wood would have to be removed.

Mr. Diorio stated or the option was to fund it at the time of this closing under a binding contract and then the money refunded if the time (inaudible) two options probably either way.

CORNWALL HILL BALLFIELD

Mr. Griffin stated there has been a lot of erosion, a lot of wear and tear on the ball field over the 5 to 8 years that it has been in existence. I asked the Town Engineers to look at it. we visited there a few times – once after it rained and there were puddles everywhere. I asked the engineer to put together a plan to restore the field to original condition. We put this out to bid. The low bid was $18,000.00 which was more than what I was expecting and apparently the engineers decided that most of the material has to be removed and cannot be reused. There is approximately 140 yards of special material that has to go on the field. We don’t have anything close to that amount budgeted for this project so unless the highway department wants to undertake the project or we do value engineering where we consider reusing some of the material after screening, etc. we have to come up with other alternatives. I will work on the alternatives.

Mr. Kassay stated he would discuss this Charlie Williams, however not until spring when the project could get underway.

SHARED SERVICES GRANT – ANIMAL SHELTER

Mr. Griffin introduced the following Resolution In Support Of Shared Municipal Services Grant For Putnam County Animal Shelter

R1006-02

WHEREAS, animal welfare, dog control, assistance to local police in animal cruelty investigations, compliance with NYS Agriculture and Markets requirements concerning stray animals and animal licensing services are provided to Putnam municipalities through local municipal agreements with the Putnam Humane Society, and

WHEREAS, the services provided by the Putnam Humane Society contribute to the safety and quality of life of the residents of Putnam County, and

WHEREAS, the present Putnam County Humane Society Shelter is inadequate to support the level of service required by Putnam County’s growing population, and

WHEREAS, Putnam County is applying for a Shared Municipal Services Grant in the amount of $400,000.00 to construct a Municipal Animal Shelter Services Building on County-owned property, and

WHEREAS, the financial match for this grant and for building construction will be provided by the County through its bonding capacity;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Patterson supports the County’s efforts and collaborates with the County of Putnam as a joint applicant for this grant submission.

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

GERALD HERBST

ALPINE WATER DISTRICT BACK-UP GENERATOR

PATTERSON TOWN BOARD OCTOBER 11, 2006 PAGE 15

TOWN BOARD MEETING

Mr. Griffin wanted to introduce a resolution for improvements to the Alpine Water District.

Mr. Griffin, Mr. Williams and Mr. Curtiss discussed improvement to Alpine Water District resolution.

Mr. Williams stated I would like to be clear that this was a 202B proceeding.

Mr. Curtiss stated yes, the public hearing set up for…

Mr. Griffin stated there’s no borrowings involved.

Mr. Curtiss stated the issue is you are using the unexpended fund balance.

Mr. Griffin stated yes.

Mr. Curtiss stated is that going to require any additional funding by the…

Mr. Griffin stated no. The annual cost of the operation is approximately $26,000.00 and our fund balance is over $50,000.00.

Mr. Williams stated if we are not borrowing money, why do we need to do any (inaudible) procedure.

Mr. Curtiss stated you wouldn’t have to do it if you are not going to borrow money. The only reason of notice that the homeowners could have a public hearing is if you are going to require them to expend more money either in the future or now to do this improvement. The district cost won’t change at all.

Mr. Griffin stated it is going to be done out of fund balance.

Mr. Herbst introduced the following Resolution for Acceptance Of Bid For The Installation Of A Standby Generator For The Alpine Water District

R1006-04

WHEREAS, The Town Board of the Town of Patterson has duly advertised for bids for the installation of a standby Generator for the Alpine Water District to be located at the Alpine Acres Main Water Supply Pump House, 98 Panorama Drive, Town of Patterson, and, 10510 has submitted the lowest responsible bid to perform the installation of the standby generator for a sum not to exceed $44,700.00, and

WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Patterson hereby accepts the bid submitted by Thalle Construction Co., Inc., subject to 2 NYCRR Part 85 and Articles 12, 12-A, 12-

WHEREAS, The Town Planner has reviewed the submitted bids and has advised the Town Board with regard to same, and

WHEREAS, Thalle Construction Co., Inc., 51 Route 100, Briarcliff Manor, New York C and 13 of New York State Town Law;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Patterson hereby accepts the bid of Thalle Construction Co., Inc. to perform the installation of the standby generator in accordance with the bid and bid specifications for a sum not to exceed $44,700.00, subject to 2 NYCRR Part 85 and Articles 12, 12-A, 12-C and 13 of New York State Town Law, and

PATTERSON TOWN BOARD OCTOBER 11, 2006 PAGE 16

TOWN BOARD MEETING

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. Roll Call Vote: Mr. Herbst; yes, Mr. Kassay; yes, Mrs. Nacerino; yes, Mr. O’Connor; yes, Mr. Griffin; yes. Roll Call Vote Carried.

CEO REQUESTS – TRAINING

Mr. Herbst stated the code enforcement officer is requesting to attend a course related to the Green Building Concepts practice. The class will be held in Fishkill. There is no cost for him to attend the course.

Mr. Herbst made a motion to approve Mr. Raines’ request to attend the course on October 19, 2006.

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

Mr. Herbst stated the code enforcement officer is requesting to attend a two day seminar on the residential plan review. The seminar is sponsored by the Mid-Hudson Valley Chapter of the New York State Building Officials Conference at the International Code Council. The course will be held in Poughkeepsie on November 8-9, 2006. The cost of the course is $180.00.

Mr. Herbst made a motion to approve Mr. Raines’ request to attend the course on November 8-9, 2006 for an amount not to exceed $180.00.

Seconded Mrs. Nacerino. All In Favor: aye. Carried.

EXECUTIVE SESSION – LEGAL

Deferred until end of meeting.

EDMOND O’CONNOR

AWARD SIDEWALK MAINTENCE

Mr. O’Connor introduced the following Resolution for Acceptance of Bid for Winter Sidewalk Maintenance

R1006-05

WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Patterson has duly advertised for bids for winter sidewalk maintenance within the Hamlet of Patterson, and

WHEREAS, COLONIALTOWN LANDSCAPING COMPANY, 735 Route 311, P. O. Box 42, Patterson, New York 12563, has submitted the lowest possible bid to perform winter sidewalk maintenance within the Hamlet of Patterson on a seasonal basis for a sum not to exceed Twenty Two Thousand One Hundred Twenty Five ($22,125.00) Dollars, and

WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Patterson wishes to accept the seasonal bid submitted by COLONIALTOWN LANDSCAPING COMPANY;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Patterson hereby accepts the bid of COLONIALTOWN LANDSCAPING COMPANY to perform winter sidewalk maintenance within the Hamlet of Patterson on a seasonal basis for a sum not to exceed Twenty Two Thousand One Hundred Twenty Five ($22,125.00) Dollars, and

PATTERSON TOWN BOARD OCTOBER 11, 2006 PAGE 17

TOWN BOARD MEETING

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. Kassay. Roll Call Vote: Mr. Herbst; yes, Mr. Kassay; yes, Mrs. Nacerino; yes, Mr. O’Connor; yes, Mr. Griffin; yes. Roll Call Vote Carried.

OUTDOOR BURNING

Mr. O’Connor stated there have been a number of things that came up regarding burning and I would like some time to fine-tune this.

Mr. O’Connor tabled this item until the next meeting.

Mr. Griffin stated at some point we should push Mr. Raines for his comments.

OTHER BUSINESS

Mr. Williams stated there is a new farm that is starting at the intersection of Haviland Hollow and East Branch Road. What he is proposing to do is have a private polo club. They want to get put into the agricultural district. Under the agricultural district farming practices and commercial horse boarding operations are exempt but clearly within the rules of the agricultural commissioner there are certain activities which are not exempt such as race tracks. The question becomes how do we proceed administratively with processing whatever applications this gentleman may need and we’re not clear on what he’s proposing to do other than have a polo field there and ride horses on it. I don’t know that he is necessarily exempt under the rules and regulations of the agricultural district. I approached some of the Board members saying that it might behoove the Town to send a letter to the commissioner of agriculture now rather than wait until later to find out what the commissioner’s is in regards to whether this is a legitimate agricultural practice which would be covered under the provisions of agricultural district law or whether a private polo club is not considered a farming practice or a commercial horse boarding operation.

Mr. Griffin stated if I recall his plans correctly, he was proposing to do a stable and an indoor riding rink.

Mr. Williams stated correct.

Mr. Griffin stated what would make their operation significantly different from Maria DiSalvo’s operation or Laura Parker’s operation on Big Elm Road. They are both agriculturally exempt are they not.

Mr. Williams stated they are running commercial horse boarding operations where they are taking in horses for board.

Mr. Griffin stated and he is going to own all of the horses over there.

Mr. Williams stated we are not sure whether he’s doing that. Let me equate this to a race track. A race track is clearly not covered under agricultural district law. There is an opinion by the commissioner out there on just that. We have a race track and the boarding stables to go along with the race track and none of that is covered under agricultural district law. This is in the similar vein where people are going out on the polo field, running around the field just like the race tracks do and this all comes down to how we are going to process this application i.e., is he going to do a commercial operation that needs a special use permit, whether he’s going to do a private farm there, whether he’s going to be subject to our wetlands laws for protection of the wetlands, whether he’s going to need an erosion control permit, whether he is going to need site plan approval. We don’t know how to process the application. Getting clarification might help us out along those lines.

PATTERSON TOWN BOARD OCTOBER 11, 2006 PAGE 18

TOWN BOARD MEETING

Mr. Curtiss stated the commissioner of agriculture is going to want to know specifics and what is actually going on there.

Mr. O’Connor stated no one knows whether this would be an admission charged event like a race track would be, or would it be a private thing. I don’t think there is much outside attendance at polo. It is not a big spectator sport.

Mr. Griffin stated if we do write a letter to the commissioner and he says no it’s not, are we going to take a hard line with the county. I think it would be a good thing for the Town in many respects, he’s going to do significant improvements to the property, but at the same time I feel he should follow rules and regulations and he shouldn’t have carte blanche to build ponds and streams and operate in the wetlands and the buffers but I don’t want to make this a major issue where we would drive him out of Town because I think it would be a major improvement to the area.

Mr. Williams stated I don’t think anyone views this application as something that is negative for the Town or wants to hold it up or be excessively abusive on it. My job is to protect local interest and that’s what I’m trying to do. I want to make sure that we do have the ability to take a look at where he is going to be placing some ponds, how close to the stream, what the impacts are going to be to make sure that there’s not a big adverse impact and that everything is mitigated. As far as taking a hard line with the county, we don’t have to take any line with the county at all.

Mr. Griffin stated I understand what you are saying.

Mr. Williams stated I’m trying to figure out which…

Mr. Griffin stated I am just wondering if we went to him and said would you be willing to agree to certain rules and regulations and stipulations. Get some sort of waiver of site plan so that we have some modicum of control there. I don’t want to put up any major road blocks to this man unless he is completely out of bounds with what he’s doing environmentally.

Mr. O’Connor stated wouldn’t he be better off knowing sooner rather than later that ultimately there is going to be a decision from the commissioner of agriculture.

Mr. Williams stated since I received a call from the DEP today he would.

Mrs. Nacerino stated we would be remiss if we didn’t sent a letter because we certainly should know one way or the other and early on is better than later down the road where we might encounter more problems.

Mr. O’Connor stated to presume that he was going to get it and let him do certain things that he ultimately has to undo because he didn’t get it would not be doing him any favor.

Mr. Griffin stated if he starts atrociously mucking around there in the wetlands and the buffers to put his pond there, we want to make sure our hands aren’t tied behind our back either. We should consider moving forward.

Mr. O’Connor stated in a gentle sort of way.

Mr. Griffin made a motion for the Town Attorney, Town Planner to draft a letter to the commissioner of agriculture for an opinion on polo club agricultural exemption to be reviewed by the Board prior to it’s being sent.

Seconded by Mr. Herbst. All In Favor: aye. Carried.

Mr. Herbst made a motion to disregard executive session since it is no longer necessary.

PATTERSON TOWN BOARD OCTOBER 11, 2006 PAGE 19

TOWN BOARD MEETING

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

Mr. Griffin stated we received a letter from Mr. Wren today regarding Country Hill Estates. Ernie said he was going to look into it. He needs guidance as well as someone to talk to.

PUBLIC RECOGNITION

Mr. Michael Jaffe stated the subject of dangerous intersections came up in relation to this project and I’m sure you are aware of this but I would like to mention Front Street and Route 311 is a horror because as you are coming out of Front Street and trying to make a left turn onto Route 311 by the railroad tracks, the building on the corner is sided and there is also a telephone box there added to that often trucks will park there you can’t see anything. Is this your domain or is the Planning Board.

Mr. Curtiss stated that would be the D.O.T.

Mr. O’Connor stated that is not our road.

Mr. Griffin stated I had discussions with the D.O.T. in the past regarding this and they weren’t convinced that the traffic counts were adequate to warrant a light. Maybe they need to update their traffic counts. The railroad tracks complicate this issue significantly. I can certainly revisit the issue with the D.O.T. because at 5:00 p.m. I’ve sat in the driveway here at Town Hall for four or five minutes trying to get out of here.

Mr. Jaffe stated when I moved here in 1992, you wouldn’t see a car but maybe once every five minutes and now I feel like I’m back in the city especially at those peak hours. The other traffic issue I would like to mention is the intersection where Mooney Hill Road branches off from Route 292. There is a blind curve to the right and if you’re going to Mooney Hill Road, you can’t see what is coming around so you effectively have to stop.

Mr. Curtiss stated the state’s claim is they have cleared as far back as they could within the right of way. They do go periodically and cut the willow tree back.

Mr. Jaffe stated would it be feasible to put a light at that intersection as well.

Mr. Griffin stated probably not unless someone was willing to fund it because the D.O.T. is just adamant about traffic counts.

Discussion ensued with Board members regarding Route 292 and Mooney Hill Road.

Mr. Jaffe stated I read in the local paper the other day much to my horror that the Carmel School Board is (inaudible) an 18% increase for their tax bill for next year’s (inaudible).

Mr. Griffin stated it is Putnam County. They are raising your taxes. It is highly likely that Mr. Bondi is going to veto it, but I suspect it will be overridden. We’re going to be looking at a $2.00 or $2.30 per thousand increase in your county property taxes in January.

Mr. Jaffe stated so where did this 18% Carmel…

Mr. Griffin stated it’s not Carmel, it’s the County.

Mr. O’Connor stated you pay three separate taxes, one is the Carmel school tax, the Town tax and the Putnam County tax and the smallest of the three would be the Putnam County tax and that is being increased 18.3% as of now.

REPORTS

ADJOURNMENT