Board of Trustees

Village of Scarsdale Marc Samwick, Mayor Stephen M. Pappalardo, Village Manager Justin K. Arest Office of the Village Manager Lena Crandall Scarsdale, New York 10583 Jonathan Lewis 914-722-1110 Seth Ross Fax: 914-722-1119 Jane E. Veron www.scarsdale.com Rochelle Waldman Village Board Agenda September 10, 2019 Agenda Review Meeting - 7:30 PM – Trustees Room Village Board Meeting - 8:00 PM - Rutherford Hall Roll Call Pledge of Allegiance Minutes  Village Board Meeting of August 27, 2019 Bills & Payroll  Trustee Veron Mayor’s Comments ______________________ Manager’s Comments ______________________ Public Hearing  Proposed Local Law to Amend Chapter 37 of the Scarsdale Village Code Entitled Ethics ______________________ Public Comments ______________________ Trustee Liaison Reports  Agenda Items Trustee Arest  Resolution re: Resolution re: Acknowledgement of Justice Court Audit for Fiscal Year Ending May 31, 2019 ______________________ Trustee Lewis  Resolution re: Calling for a Public Hearing on the Number of Taxicabs to be Licensed in 2020 ______________________ Trustee Ross  Resolution re: Authorization of a Public Stormwater Line Easement Agreement – 4 Bethel Road ______________________ Trustee Veron  Resolution re: Subdivision Recreation Fee 256 Boulevard; Section 9, Block 17, Lot 5.8 ______________________  Resolution re: Subdivision Recreation Fee 937 Post Road; Section 8, Block 2, LOT 1D ______________________ Written Communications (4)  John Gliedman – Traffic Safety Lyons & Sprague  Concerned Citizens – Traffic Safety Lyons & Sprague  Ira Genin – Sanitation  Robyn Segal – 5G Technology  Town Board Agenda Town Board Meeting September 10, 2019 Rutherford Hall, Village Hall Roll Call Minutes  Town Board Meeting of August 27, 2019 ______________________  Resolution re: Intermunicipal Agreement with the Town/Village of Scarsdale to Represent the Town of Eastchester in Grievance Proceedings and any other Subsequent Proceedings Challenging the 2019 Town of Eastchester Assessed Valuation ______________________ Reports  Report of the Custodian of Taxes as of August 31, 2019 ______________________ Public Comments ______________________ Tuesday, September 10, 2019  5:30 PM – Village Board Work Session – Trustees Room ______________________ 1. Cyber Security Preparedness Discussion 5:30 – 6:30 PM (It is anticipated that a motion will be offered to move into Executive Session to discuss matters that may imperil the public safety if disclosed) 2. Review of FY 2018/19 Financial Statements with Independent Auditors 6:30 – 7:30 PM Tuesday, September 24, 2019  7:30 PM Agenda Review Meeting ______________________  8:00 PM Village Board Meeting ______________________ Village Hall Schedule Monday, October 14, 2019 Columbus Day – Village Hall Closed Village Board of Trustees 08/27/2019 395 THREE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED THIRTY-THIRD LIMITED AGENDA MEETING Trustees’ Room Village Hall August 13, 2019 A Limited Agenda Meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Village of Scarsdale was held in the Trustees’ Room in Village Hall on Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 8:34 A.M. Present were Trustees Arest, Crandall, Lewis (via teleconference), Ross, Veron, and Waldman. Also present were Village Manager Pappalardo, Deputy Village Manager Cole, Village Treasurer McClure, Deputy Village Attorney Garrison, Assistant Village Manager Richards, and Deputy Village Clerk Regazzi. ******** The minutes of the Board of Trustees Regular Meeting of Tuesday, August 13, 2019 were approved on a motion entered by Trustee Veron, seconded by Trustee Ross and carried unanimously. ******** Bills & Payroll Trustee Ross reported that he had audited the Abstract of Claims dated August 27, 2019 in the amount of $1,952,217.71 which includes $18,407.66 in Library Claims previously audited by a Trustee of the Library Board which were found to be in order and he moved that such payment be ratified. Upon motion duly made by Trustee Ross and seconded by Trustee Crandall, the following resolution was adopted unanimously: RESOLVED, that the Abstract of Claims dated August 27, 2019 in the amount of $1,952,217.71 is hereby approved. ******** Future Meeting Schedule  Thursday, September 5, 2019 – 7:00 PM – Village Board Work Session – Trustees’ Rm.  Tuesday, September 10, 2019 – 6:30 PM – Village Board Work Session – Trustees’ Rm. Village Board of Trustees 08/27/2019 396  Tuesday, September 10, 2019 – 7:30 PM – Agenda Review Meeting – Trustees’ Room  Tuesday, September 10, 2019 – 8:00 PM – Village Board Meeting – Rutherford Hall ******** Village Hall Schedule  Monday, September 2, 2019 – Labor Day – Village Hall Closed ******** There being no further business to come before the Board the meeting adjourned at 8:39 A.M. Donna M. Conkling Village Clerk  PUBLIC HEARING Village of Scarsdale NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing is scheduled by the Board of Trustees of the Village of Scarsdale on Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 8:00 P.M. in Rutherford Hall in Village Hall, to consider a proposed local law to amend Chapter 37 of the Scarsdale Village Code entitled Ethics. Donna M. Conkling Village Clerk 08/13/2019  INTRODUCTORY LOCAL LAW # ____ OF 2019 A LOCAL LAW AMENDING CHAPTER 37 OF THE SCARSDALE VILLAGE CODE ENTITLED ETHICS BE IT ENACTED by the Board of Trustees of the Village of Scarsdale as follows: § 37-1 Purpose. Pursuant of the provisions of § 806 of the General Municipal Law, the Board of Trustees of the Village of Scarsdale establishes these rules of ethical conduct for public officers and employees as a guide to assist in continuation of good conduct on their part and to promote public confidence in the government of the village. The rules are in addition to any provision of Article 18 of the General Municipal Law or any other general or special law relating to ethical conduct and interest in contracts of municipal officers and employees. § 37-2 Definitions. As used in this article, the following terms shall have the meanings indicated: INTEREST - A pecuniary or material benefit accruing to a municipal officer or employee or to the municipal officer's or employee's spouse, minor children or dependents; a firm, partnership or association of which such officer or employee is a member or employee; a corporation of which such officer or employee is an officer, director or employee; or a corporation of which more than 5% of any class of stock is controlled directly or indirectly by such officer or employee. MUNICIPAL OFFICER or EMPLOYEE - An officer or employee of the Village of Scarsdale, whether paid or unpaid, and, if either full-time or part-time, who receives a salary, retainer or other compensation. These terms include members of the Village Board and any other board, commission or committee appointed by the Mayor or Board of Trustees. Independent contractors who are requested to do work for the village from time to time under separate agreements or contracts for each project, volunteer firemen, special police and civil defense volunteers are not included. § 37-3 Standards of conduct. No officer or employee of the Village of Scarsdale shall: A. Directly or indirectly solicit, accept or receive any gift, whether in the form of money, services, loan, travel, entertainment, hospitality, thing or promise or any other form, under circumstances from which it reasonably could be inferred that the gift was intended to influence, or reasonably could be expected to influence, such officer or employee in the performance of official duties or was intended as a reward or gratuity for any official action.  B. Disclose confidential information acquired in the course of official duties nor use such information to further personal interest. C. Render services to any person, firm, partnership, association or corporation, whether for compensation or not for compensation, relating to any matter before any department, board or commission or committee of the village, except as a part of official responsibilities to that department, board, commission or committee or as a function of the official position of the officer or employee. D. Fail to disclose publicly on the official record the nature and extent of any direct or indirect financial or other private interest the officer or employee has in any matter which he or she officially discusses or on which he or she gives an official opinion before any board, commission or committee of the village. E. Have an interest, directly or indirectly, in any financial, business, commercial or other private transaction or investment which creates a conflict with the official duties of the officer or employee. F. Engage in, solicit, negotiate for or promise to accept private employment or render services for private interests that may create a conflict with or impair the proper discharge of official duties. G. After the termination of service or employment with this municipality, be permitted to appear before any department, board, commission or agency of the Village of Scarsdale in relation to any case, proceeding or application in which the officer or employee personally participated during the period of his or her service of employment. § 37-4. Annual Disclosure. A. The following officers and employees of the Village of Scarsdale are required to file a signed annual disclosure form: Chairs and Members of the: Planning Board Board of Appeals Board of Architectural Review Board of Assessment Review Committee for Historic Preservation All Elected Officials Village Manager Village Attorney Village Treasurer Assistant Village Managers Director of Human Resources Director of Public Works  Village Assessor Building Inspector Village Engineer Water Superintendent Village Planner Superintendent of Parks and Recreation Director of Information Technology Village Clerk Chief of Police Fire Chief Library Director B. Disclosure forms are to be filed in the Office of the Village Clerk: (1) Within thirty (30) days after taking one of the positions listed in subsection A of this section; and (2) Annually, no later than May 1st of each year. C. In the event of a change in information contained in the annual disclosure form, an official or employee must file a signed amendment to the form within thirty (30) days of such change in information, indicating said change. D. Any person who fails to timely file an annual disclosure form may be suspended or removed from office or employment, as the case may be, in the manner prescribed by law. § 37-45. Effect on legal action by employees against village. Nothing herein shall be deemed to bar or prevent the timely filing by a present or former municipal officer or employee of any claim, account, demand or suit against the Village of Scarsdale or any board, commission or agency thereof on behalf of himself or herself or any member of his or her family, arising out of any personal injury or property damage or for any lawful benefit authorized or permitted by law. § 37-56. Distribution. The Mayor shall cause a copy of this revised Code of Ethics to be distributed to every officer and employee of the Village of Scarsdale within 30 days after adoption of this article. Each officer and employee elected or appointed thereafter shall be furnished a copy before entering upon the duties of his or her office or employment. § 37-6 7. Suspension or removal for violation. In addition to any penalty contained in any other provision of law, any person who shall knowingly and intentionally violate any of the provisions of this article may be suspended or removed from office or employment, as the case may be, in the manner provided by law. EFFECTIVE DATE This Local Law shall take effect immediately upon filing with the Secretary of State. Underline means addition. Strikethrough means delete. RESOLUTION RE: ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF JUSTICE COURT AUDIT FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDING MAY 31, 2019 RESOLVED, that the Village Board herein acknowledges completion and receipt of the independent audited financial statements for the Scarsdale Village Court accounts for the year ending 5/31/19, consistent with Section 219-a of the Uniformed Justice Court Act. Submitted by: Village Manager Date: August 30, 2019 For: September 10, 2019 RESOLUTION RE: CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE NUMBER OF TAXICABS TO BE LICENSED IN 2020 RESOLVED, that a Public Hearing is hereby called by the Board of Trustees of the Village of Scarsdale to be held at 8:00 pm in Rutherford Hall at Village Hall on Tuesday, September 24, 2019, to determine the number of taxicabs to be licensed in Scarsdale in 2020, pursuant to Section 272-3 of the Village Code; and be it further. RESOLVED, that the Village Clerk is directed to advertise said Public Hearing. Submitted by: Village Manager Date: August 30, 2019 For: September 10, 2019 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor & Board of Trustees Village Manager FROM: Donna M. Conkling, Village Clerk DATE: August 19, 2019 SUBJECT: Taxicab Licenses - 2020 Pursuant to Section 272-3 of the Village Code, the Board of Trustees must determine the number of taxicabs to be licensed each year. For your information, the following number of taxicab licenses has been issued by the Village of Scarsdale during the last 10-year period: Year 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 Taxicab Licenses 24 24 24 23 23 23 22 22 22 22 Issued Authorized Taxicab 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 Licenses The Village has issued an average of 23 taxicab licenses over the past decade. As of July 1, 2018, the U.S. Census estimates the population in Scarsdale at 17,863. Based on that estimate, the population in the Village has increased approximately 4.06% since the 2010 U.S. Census count of 17,166. However, the 2018 Census estimated population is a 1.19% decrease from the 2017 estimated population of 18,079. Metro North reports that the 2018 Scarsdale train station weekday train ridership was a total of 4,536 boardings, which is a decrease of 95 from the 2017 weekday train ridership of 4,631. Similarly, weekend ridership in 2018 is reported at 2,775, a decrease of 97 boardings from the 2017 weekend ridership of 2,872. Over the past ten years, the weekday ridership has increased approximately 6%, and since 2009, the weekend ridership has increased appreciably at 35-40%. Based on the foregoing information, and in consideration of the negligible changes in population and weekday ridership over the last 5-6 years, the current maximum allowance of 25 taxicab licenses should remain adequate to meet the needs of the community. Although there has been a significant increase over the last ten years in ridership on the weekend boarding’s, this has and should continue to be manageable by the current taxicab service. Also, one cannot discount the presence of Uber and Lyft in Westchester County since their official launch in June 2017. Although there are other rideshares now available such as Juno and Via, Uber and Lyft have a predominant presence in Westchester County and their services have intensified. Ridership information was not readily available from either Uber or Lyft The Scarsdale Police Department has completed inspections on 23 of the 24 licensed taxicabs from Central Taxi of Scarsdale, and all taxicabs passed said inspections. Sgt. David Rosa reports that one (1) vehicle is currently out of service. Copies of the inspection reports have been submitted by Sgt. Rosa and are attached. I respectfully request that a public hearing on this matter be scheduled for the Village Board meeting on September 24, 2019. /dmc RESOLUTION RE: AUTHORIZATION OF A PUBLIC STORMWATER LINE EASEMENT AGREEMENT – 4 BETHEL ROAD WHEREAS, Joshua and Cara Lamberg are the owners (hereinafter “Owners”) of certain real property located at 4 Bethel Road (hereinafter “Property”), as shown on the official tax map of the Village of Scarsdale as Section 14, Block 05, Lot 21; and WHEREAS, during the site plan review for a proposed new single family home at 4 Bethel Road, staff identified an existing 10-foot drainage line easement previously dedicated to the Village of Scarsdale, as described in the attached easement dated March 24, 1977, and conditioned the permit upon protection of the drainage system and the prohibition of any encroachments within the easement; and WHEREAS, upon submission of an as-built survey, several encroachments into the easement area were identified, including an asphalt driveway extension, cobblestone curbing, permanent mounted basketball hoop, stone retaining wall, and soil fill of approximate depth ranging between two and four feet; and WHEREAS, staff have determined that remedying the encroachments would not be cost-justified and an amendment to the existing easement would be satisfactory; and WHEREAS, in the event of interference with any future Village access to the storm drain, the Owners are obligated under the terms of the easement to bear the costs associated with removal and restoration of any encroachments to facilitate such access, as well as any additional cost(s) the Village may incur as a result of interference with its otherwise unhindered access to the storm drain; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Village Manager is herein authorized to execute an easement agreement, in substantially the same form as attached hereto, with Joshua and Cara Lamberg, Owners of 4 Bethel Road, to maintain and accept liability for the existing encroachments over the public storm drain; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Owners of 4 Bethel Road, Joshua and Cara Lamberg, or their representative, shall record the Easement Agreement in the Office of the Clerk of the County of Westchester, Division of Land Records. Submitted by: Village Manager Date: June 17, 2019 For: June 25, 2019 Resubmitted by: Village Manager Date: September 04, 2019 For: September 10, 2019  Village of Scarsdale Memo To: Mayor Samwick and Board of Trustees From: Samantha Lynn Garrison, Deputy Village Attorney CC: Stephen M. Pappalardo, Village Manager Angela Sapienza-Martin, Village Attorney Date: 9/6/2019 Re: 4 Bethel Road Easement Agreement The above referenced item, attached hereto, was originally on the Board’s June 25, 2019 meeting. The Board voted to table the time that evening while requesting that the Village Attorney commence further discussions with the homeowner’s attorney relative to eliminating any language that the Village, as Grantee, hold the Grantor harmless and indemnify them against all claims and damages arising out of construction and repairs of the storm drains. The revised agreement contains no language indemnifying the Grantor in this regard. Please place the attached revised easement agreement on the Village Board’s September 10, 2019 meeting agenda for consideration.  Page 1 Village of Scarsdale Memorandum Engineering Department To: Angela Sapienza-Martin, Village Attorney From: David A. Goessl, P.E., Village Engineer Date: June 18, 2019 Re: Review of Easement – 4 Bethel Road (SBL 14.05.21) In April of 2015, the Village issued permits for the demolition and reconstruction of a single family home at 4 Bethel Road. On the approved plans and pre-construction survey, the design engineer and land surveyor, Gabriel Senor, P.C. identified an existing 10 foot wide drainage easement extending along the left yard setback of 4 Bethel Road, conveying road runoff water between Bethel Road and the open water course to the rear of 4 Bethel. The building and stormwater permits issued for construction indicated that the drainage system was to be protected and preserved with no development within the easement area. Work for the residential development commenced during the summer of 2015 with the project being completed one year later in August of 2016. At the time just prior to issuance, the applicant submitted an as-built topographical survey that indicated several significant encroachments into the easement area. Identified on the survey and verified through a visual field inspection were the following: asphalt concrete driveway extension, cobblestone curbing, permanent mounted basketball hoop, heavy stone retaining wall and soil fill of approximate depth ranging between two and four feet. At the time of inspection, it was further determined that the stone wall was installed in close proximity to the buried pipes. As the work performed for the dwelling was in conformance to issued plans and applicable codes a temporary Certificate of Occupancy was issued for the new home with the provision that a final certificate could be granted when the issue regarding easement encroachment was rectified. Village staff met with the property owners, builder and design engineer several times between project completion date and November of 2018 to discuss the encroachments and possible resolutions to address them. All along that timeframe, the Village has withheld all final approvals, refunds of posted deposits while continuing to issue temporary Certificates of Occupancy. As the Village staff requested that the easement area be restored to conform to approved plans and the owners determined that the wall, driveway and grade change were desired and removal of such would be cost prohibitive, all parties agreed that the terms of easement agreement could be modified. After consultation with legal counsel, it was agreed that the terms of the easement could be written to address the encroachments in a new agreement to the satisfaction of both parties. I have reviewed a copy of the draft easement for the drainage system and agree to the terms as written which favor the Village and require the owners of 4 Bethel Road to be responsible for all costs associated with the removal and restoration of all encroachments along with any additional cost that may arise due to the placement of additional soil materials atop the buried pipes should any repair or maintenance be required. If you need additional background or if I can assist further, please let me know. CC: Stephen Pappalardo, Village Manager Robert Cole, Deputy Village Manager Frank Diodati, Building Inspector  Page 2 RESOLUTION RE: SUBDIVISION RECREATION FEE 256 BOULEVARD; SECTION 9, BLOCK 17, LOT 5.8 WHEREAS, Section 7-730-4 of New York State Village law authorizes planning boards to reserve land in a subdivision for park, playground or other recreational purposes, and take money in lieu of land in cases where suitable park lands of adequate size cannot be properly located on a subdivision plat, the amount of said money to be established by the Village Board of Trustees; and WHEREAS, on June 26, 2019, the Planning Board approved the two lot subdivision of 256 Boulevard, creating one new lot, after finding the proposed subdivision would not have a significant negative environmental impact pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and Chapter 152 of the Village Code SEQRA; and WHEREAS, on July 31, 2019 the Planning Board recommended a payment in lieu of contribution of land after finding that the dedication of land for park, playground or recreation purposes is not feasible in view of the small amount of land available in this two lot subdivision; and WHEREAS, the Village initiated a study of Village athletic facilities in 2000, conducted by Ward Associates, for an inventory of existing facilities and an analysis of existing and future needs which identified improvements to existing Village and School facilities for increased use and a plan for increasing the inventory to meet the community needs; and WHEREAS, the Village Department of Parks, Recreation and Conservation provides a variety of facilities to meet the interests and needs of the community which includes parks, playgrounds, ball fields and an outdoor pool; and WHEREAS, the Village Department of Parks, Recreation and Conservation develops a Five Year Capital Plan that calls for the replacement of facilities and equipment as well as additional facilities that will be needed in the future; and WHEREAS, the Village Board, in May 2018, adopted the Guidelines and Fee Schedule for monetary payment in lieu of land for new building lots and determined the Recreation Fee for new lots is a range from 4% to 6% of the 2018 lot value as estimated by the Village Assessor and verified by an independent analysis; and WHEREAS, the fee charged to the applicant in lieu of land being conveyed for recreational purposes bears a substantial relationship to the cost of providing recreational facilities and the acquisition of land for recreational purposes; now therefore be it RESOLVED: that the Village Board of Trustees hereby accepts the recommendation of the Planning Board that the applicant, JAF Builders Corp., pay to the Village an amount equal to 5.0% of the Guideline Value of a lot in the A-5 zoning district, pursuant to the 2018 Subdivision Recreation Fee Schedule, or $32,500 in lieu of a contribution of land for park, playground or other recreational purposes for the one new buildable lot resulting from the subdivision of property at 256 Boulevard, identified on the Village tax map as Section 9 Block 17, Lot 5.8. Submitted by: Village Manager Date: September 4, 2019 For: September 10, 2019 RESOLUTION RE: SUBDIVISION RECREATION FEE 937 POST ROAD; SECTION 8, BLOCK 2, LOT 1D WHEREAS, Section 7-730-4 of New York State Village law authorizes planning boards to reserve land in a subdivision for park, playground or other recreational purposes, and take money in lieu of land in cases where suitable park lands of adequate size cannot be properly located on a subdivision plat, the amount of said money to be established by the Village Board of Trustees; and WHEREAS, on June 26, 2019, the Planning Board approved the three lot subdivision of 937 Post Road, creating two new lots, after finding the proposed subdivision would not have a significant negative environmental impact pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and Chapter 152 of the Village Code SEQRA; and WHEREAS, on July 31, 2019, the Planning Board recommended a payment in lieu of contribution of land after finding that the dedication of land for park, playground or recreation purposes is not feasible in view of the small amount of land available in this three lot subdivision; and WHEREAS, the Village initiated a study of Village athletic facilities in 2000, conducted by Ward Associates, for an inventory of existing facilities and an analysis of existing and future needs which identified improvements to existing Village and School facilities for increased use and a plan for increasing the inventory to meet the community needs; and WHEREAS, the Village Department of Parks, Recreation and Conservation provides a variety of facilities to meet the interests and needs of the community which includes parks, playgrounds, ball fields and an outdoor pool; and WHEREAS, the Village Department of Parks, Recreation and Conservation develops a Five Year Capital Plan that calls for the replacement of facilities and equipment as well as additional facilities that will be needed in the future; and WHEREAS, the Village Board, in May 2018, adopted the Guidelines and Fee Schedule for monetary payment in lieu of land for new building lots and determined the Recreation Fee for new lots is a range from 4% to 6% of the 2018 lot value as estimated by the Village Assessor and verified by an independent analysis; and WHEREAS, the fee charged to the applicant in lieu of land being conveyed for recreational purposes bears a substantial relationship to the cost of providing recreational facilities and the acquisition of land for recreational purposes; now therefore be it RESOLVED: the Board of Trustees hereby accepts the recommendation of the Planning Board that the applicant, BNB Tech LLC , pay to the Village an amount equal to 5.0% of the Guideline Value of a lot in the A-5 zoning district, pursuant to the 2018 Subdivision Recreation Fee Schedule, or $32,500 in lieu of a contribution of land for park, playground or other recreational purposes, for each of the two new lots resulting from the subdivision of property at 937 Post Road, identified on the Village tax map as Section 8 Block 2, Lot 1D. Submitted by: Village Manager Date: September 3, 2019 For: September 10, 2019 Donna Conkling From: John Gliedman <gliedman@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, August 16, 2019 12:06 AM To: Mayor Cc: Steve Pappalardo; Robert Cole; Donna Conkling Subject: Re: Car crash on August 11 demonstrating the Norm at Lyons/Sprague Intersection Thank you. PS. Please note that the study being conducted may not account for two slower-than-normal-causal conditions at the intersection not typically there, possibly skewing radar speed results downward: (a) construction trucks parked at both sides of the Western wing of the intersection (b) two cars on either side parked at the Eastern wing of the intersection, in both cases causing driving cars to drive slower thsn normal this week. But there is no mistaking a collision of the type that occurred Sunday, even so, and what can be observed by simply visiting the intersection at various times of day and speaking to the neighbors regarding its inherent hazards. Thanks again, and with respect, John Gliedman > On Aug 15, 2019, at 1:59 PM, Mayor <mayor@scarsdale.com> wrote: > > John. > > Thank you for your email. As you are aware, the Village has been engaged in reviewing this request over at least the past several months. And, I recall that you mentioned the request to me at the April community coffee meeting I held. > > In a brief discussion with the Village Manager the other day, there may be potential issues with the requested stop signs based on the traffic and intersection criteria used to determine where stop signs are placed. > > Please permit me a little time to review this matter further with the Village Manager so I can better understand your concerns and any potential limitations the Village may have in placing stop signs on the Sprague corners. > > One of us will get back to you. > > Best regards, > > Marc > > > On Aug 15, 2019, at 11:49 AM, John Gliedman <gliedman@gmail.com<mailto:gliedman@gmail.com>> wrote: > > To the Village of Scarsdale: > > 21 residents living in the vicinity of the intersection of Lyons and Sprague Roads in Scarsdale - the site of a crash on Sunday morning, August 11, 2019 - have signed a petition this same week seeking two stop signs on the Sprague-facing corners as the necessary complement to the inadequate two signs on the Lyons corners. > > Attached are the following: > > (1) The signed petition, which references the crash and other items; > > (2) The police report based on eye witness accounts of the August 11, 2019 incident; and 1 > > (3) A 10 second video clip demonstrating that even with a view not obstructed by shrubbery, the intersection is a surprising one because it is impossible for a driver to have full visibility. > > The combination of the above illustrates the hybrid nature of this intersection. On the one hand, Sprague Road is a fast moving artery-road - even when cars are driving within the speed limit. On the other hand, Lyons is a highly residential street with inherently limited peripheral visibility that renders the existing Lyons-side stop signs virtually ineffective. The confusion that is the norm at this intersection is caused by: (a) the inherent blindness at this corner evinced by the video clip, (b) the large speed differential at this corner between the Sprague artery and the side road Lyons, and (c) the lack of consistency between (i) four-way stops elsewhere nearby and (ii) this intersection, which lacks a four-way stop setup, by contrast. > > The two-car crash, on a sunny Sunday early morning, is not a surprise. Shrub removal and even voluntary speed reduction would not clear this issue, as shown by the simple, ten-second video clip, which depicts the corner with the clearest view. A normal fast car comes from Sprague, appearing out of nowhere. The stopped car has a very bad line of sight to the Sprague traffic. This problem is the norm at this intersection. (Now imagine what would occur on the corners with shrubbery; then imagine it at night. Then imagine a speeding rather than a normal fast car.) > > The crash was fast enough to knock chrome off of one of the vehicles involved. It was loud enough that it drew upset children and parents to the scene. As noted in the report, both cars sped away and we do not know the identify of the drivers, so it was counted as an 'incident' rather than an 'accident' by the police; indeed, this was an outcome that could have been prevented by the addition of 2 stop signs on the Sprague corners. The neighbors all remember similar such 'incidents' over the years; whether they were historically recorded or not cannot override the reality of this intersection's limited line of sight. The neighbors are passionate about this problem and are tired of driving like they are taking their chances of getting hit or causing a collision. The 21 listed individuals equate to 21 distinct homes in the area. > > Stop signs on the Sprague corners would slow the traffic coming from Sprague to a point of equality with the Lyons traffic speed. Therefore, we very much hope for a review and finding of adding 2 stop signs consistent with what the residents here know to be true. The Fall coming upon us will bring more children walking to elementary school, waiting at the nearby Middle school bus, and darker evenings with limited visibility and lines of sight. > > Thank you for all that you do - we respect our Village professionals and leaders and know that they will do the right thing in view of this and any other information. I am happy to discuss with any questions; additionally, the neighborhood petitioners have listed their email addresses therein should you wish to approach them for any reason. > > John Gliedman > (On behalf of my neighbors who eagerly signed the petition, their children and the vicinity in general) > 917-575-7177 > > <IMG_0322.MOV><PetitionLyons 8-14.pdf><SPD Report 8-11-19.pdf> > 2  Concerned Citizens Near Lyons/Sprague Intersection, Scarsdale August 30, 2019 Dear Members of the Traffic Safety Committee: The purpose of this letter is to consolidate our perspectives, particularly because of the August 11, 2019 car accident. This is in support of the August 15 email with the neighborhood petition and other attachments, and August 20 email sent by John Gliedman, which are incorporated by reference. Our neighbors include public servants who work for the Village and elsewhere in hands-on public safety capacities of a vital nature (Fire, EMT, Medical) who feel the same way we do about this intersection. We do not feel it necessary to name all of them as we are attempting to resolve it by correspondence, at this time, including our petition. The accident was eye-witnessed by one such professional, Dr. Erin Rescoe, who lives at the intersection and is a co-signer of this letter. Dr. Rescoe is a hospital pediatrician who lives right by the intersection. She has trauma experience. She knows the importance – as we know you share at the core of your work – of road safety in the suburbs as a distinct discipline. The accident was shocking for her children standing along with her at the lawn to witness, but it was not a complete surprise to her because of her belief that the intersection can be a hazard. For Dr. Rescoe, proactive steps when the evidence is clear are more important than approaches to traffic calming more appropriate for other environments, even possibly elsewhere in our Village, than this intersection. The principles of reasonableness and uniformity would favor adding two stop signs since other four-way intersections on Sprague right nearby do have all-way stop signs. A lack of consistency here causes confusion at this intersection, which has cars driving at high speeds on one street (Sprague) but cars going relatively slower on the street with existing stop signs (Lyons). Speed tests here show a likelihood of a serious accident – almost 50 speeders per day. After a request by email to add stop signs was made last April that did not result in such stop signs, a crash occurred this August. That is strong proof of the wisdom of supplemental signs here. The intersection is inherently blind regardless of shrubbery. We see no alternative to signs that would prevent such a result. We are more than happy to walk the intersection with you. Finally, we disagree with anyone who believes that slow-rolling over added signs is a serious concern relative to a high-impact crash in this context. The presence of many small children living in this neighborhood make this a clear case for the added signs to avert a crash that would cause personal injury or worse at high speeds. Please make it so in order to avoid the worst. Thank you for all that you do. /s/ /s/ Erin Rescoe John Gliedman Donna Conkling From: Ira Genin <igenin2@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2019 1:13 PM To: Mayor Cc: Steve Pappalardo; Donna Conkling; Trustee Veron; Trustee Ross; Trustee Arest; Trustee Crandall; Trustee Waldman; Trustee Lewis Subject: Re: Sanitation CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Marc, I appreciate your prompt and thoughtful response. While I don’t necessarily agree, I certainly respect your side of the debate. I wouldn’t have implemented this new program without procuring the necessary resources. Clearly, a decision was made to essentially cut back services for a segment of the population. I have a real issue with that. Best Regards Ira. > On Sep 4, 2019, at 12:54 PM, Mayor <mayor@scarsdale.com> wrote: > > Dear Ira, > > Thank you for your email. With this response, I have forwarded your email to the Village Board. > > The Board is very cognizant of the trade-off between property taxes and services and we continually strive to achieve a suitable balance. > > Sanitation collection is a critical service provided by the Village. With the fairly recent (2018) implementation of curb- side food scrap recycling pick-up, there was a balance to strike with respect to holiday weeks. Specifically, as a way to schedule food scrap pick-up with existing staffing and equipment levels, not all residents would get twice a week regular trash pick-up during holiday weeks. > > As part of the implementation of the food scrap recycling program, the Village Board will review the first year of operations to insure that the recycling program is working effectively. We will incorporate your comments into the Village Board’s upcoming review of sanitation services. > > Again, thank you for your email, Ira. > > Best regards, > > Marc > > >> On Sep 4, 2019, at 12:29 PM, Ira Genin <igenin2@gmail.com> wrote: >> 1 >> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. >> >> Dear Mayor, >> >> I would have directed this communication to the entire Board of Trustees, but was not able to locate the proper contact information. >> >> I’ve been a resident of Scarsdale since August 2003. The most common question I get regarding living in Scarsdale from people expressing an interest in moving here are the exorbitant taxes. I’ve always made the argument that for the most part, the tax dollars are well spent. Great schools, snow removal, etc. >> >> To say I’m a bit bewildered by the decision to forgo trash pickup on Wednesday’s, for the homes scheduled for pick up Tues/Friday on those days where a holiday falls on a Monday, would be an understatement. Forgetting for a moment, that this clearly disadvantages those homeowners on the Tues/Friday schedule, the decision itself with all due respect makes absolutely no sense. >> >> Anyway, I think I’ve made my position fairly clear. I find the whole situation remarkable in a ludicrous way. >> >> Best Regards >> Ira > 2 Begin forwarded message: From: Robyn Segal <myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com> Subject: Join other local governments & stand against illegal 5G rollouts Date: August 27, 2019 at 11:18:26 AM EDT To: Dan Hochvert <mayor@scarsdale.com> Reply-To: Robyn Segal <rpsegal@aol.com> Re: Join other local governments & stand against illegal 5G rollouts Dear Hon. Hochvert, You are my elected representative. This legal notice of liability is designed to be used as evidence in court if needed and intends to enlighten you and to protect you from attracting civil and criminal liability in relation to your actions and/or omissions surrounding the deployment of 5G technology within your constituency. 4G/LTE small cells form an integral part of the 5G deployment. This 5G technology will cause me to be exposed to wireless non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation against my consent and in my home. Contamination of my home with 5G may cause damage to my home if it becomes a health risk to me and thus render my home uninhabitable. Irradiating me with wireless non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation against my consent would be an application of force against my person and which causes fear of bodily injury and could be classed as a civil trespass and/or a criminal assault. Any level of exposure of man-made non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation can be diagnosed by my medical practitioner as an adverse health effect pursuant to the WHO’s International Classification of Diseases ICD-10, code W90 thus rendering any safety limit as set by the government safety standards obsolete as to protecting my health. As needed, I may see my doctor for advice on the 5G issue. If 5G technology is deployed within your constituency, I expect that you as my elected representative will exercise due diligence to certify that all parties deploying 5G technologies have sufficient insurance cover to compensate for damage or harm caused by the emission of wireless non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation. Please note that this could be a problem, since underwriters such as Lloyds of London do not insure for such harm and damage. I urge you, as my elected official, to act in the public interest by addressing the potential cumulative harms of densification (the crowding of small cells into a limited area to enable 5G) and insisting that public safety regulatory authorities need to prove that such densification of 5G technology is safe and that any deployment of 5G, Artificial Intelligence (AI), and/or the Internet of Things (IoT), is regulated appropriately to ensure that the national security and the safety and privacy of the public and myself is not compromised. You need to protect the public from other harmful wireless technologies such as Wi-Fi in schools, “smart” meters on dwellings, and the like, and to replace those technologies with safe and efficient wired technologies, such as Ethernet and/or fiber optics, as the end-nodes of internet delivery systems to dwellings, schools and commercial buildings. Forward-thinking cities are already doing this. I am genuinely concerned for your welfare, the general public and mine, and this is a situation of the utmost urgency. As I have studied the relevant facts and am thus aware of the danger, I experience fear and I take the risk of harm and damage to me, very seriously. To help bring you up to speed on this extremely important topic, please go to the5Gsummit.com, and listen for free to what 40 highly regarded experts inclusive of scientists, medical practitioners and lawyers from around the world have to say on the 5G subject. Experts who are not censored by the telecommunications industry, nor their captured governments, nor the captured media. Further, to assist with your education, please look at the Bio-initiative Report 2012 (updated 2017) - A Rationale for Biologically-based Public Exposure Standards for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF) bioinitiative.org and Physicians for Safe Technology – 5G Mobile Communications mdsafe.org. I implore you as my civic leader, and as my elected representative to get educated on this important topic, and show me by your decisions, actions and omissions that you are taking precautionary steps to address the risk of harm to me and all the people within your constituency. As an elected official you are deemed accountable if you do not take appropriate action to attempt to abate, or prevent such harm, to me or the public. Therefore you attract liability in either the civil or criminal jurisdiction. Your people are rising up and I implore you to take leadership and be a champion for the health and safety of all of us. If you do, many voters, legislators and I will wholeheartedly support and campaign for you. [Settled by Ray Broomhall, Barrister-at-Law&quot;] Sincerely, Robyn Segal rpsegal@aol.com 252 Madison Rd Scarsdale, NY 10583 Constituent Town Board Meeting 08/13/2019 P a g e | 841 TOWN BOARD MEETING Rutherford Hall Town of Scarsdale August 13, 2019 A Meeting of the Town Board of Scarsdale was held in Rutherford Hall of Village Hall on Tuesday, August 13, 2019 at 9:15 p.m. Present were Mesdames Crandall, Veron & Waldman; and Messrs. Arest, Lewis, Ross, and Samwick. Also present were Village Manager Pappalardo, Town Counsel Sapienza-Martin, and Town Clerk Conkling. Mr. Samwick presided. ******* Minutes The minutes of the Town Board Meeting of July 9, 2019 were approved on a motion entered by Ms. Crandall, seconded by Mr. Lewis, and carried unanimously. The minutes of the Special Town Board Meeting of July 23, 2019 were approved on a motion entered by Mr. Ross, seconded by Ms. Crandall, and carried unanimously. ******* Report of the Custodian of Taxes Village Clerk Conkling reported for Custodian of Taxes McClure, stating that the Board has received the Town financial reports for July 2019. Ms. Conkling reported that 99.04% of the County Tax levy has been collected. This is down slightly from last year’s collection rate of 98.77%. The Treasury staff continues to collect the 2019/2020 Village tax. Collections through st July 31 were 94.66%, which is up from the 2018 collection rate of 93.37%. She stated that reminder notes were sent out last week. ******** Public Comments Mayor Samwick opened the second public comment session; there being no one present in the audience, the public comment period was closed. ******** Town Board Meeting 08/13/2019 P a g e | 842 Future Meeting Schedule  Tuesday, August 27, 2019 – 8:30 AM – Village Board Limited Agenda Meeting – Trustees’ Room  Thursday, September 5, 2019 – 6:30 PM – Village Board Work Session – 3rd Flr. Mtg. Rm.  Tuesday, September 10, 2019 – 6:30 PM – Village Board Work Session – Trustees’ Room  Tuesday, September 10, 2019 – 7:30 PM – Agenda Review Meeting – Trustees’ Room  Tuesday, September 10, 2019 – 8:00 PM – Village Board Meeting – Rutherford Hall ******** Village Hall Schedule  Monday, September 2, 2019 – Labor Day – Village Hall Closed ******** There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:17 P.M. to on a motion entered by Ms. Crandall, seconded by Mr. Ross and carried unanimously. Ms. Crandall moved that the Village Board reconvene in Executive Session to further discuss personnel matters, seconded by Ms. Veron, and carried unanimously. _________________________ Donna M. Conkling Town Clerk RESOLUTION RE: INTER-MUNICIPAL AGREEMENT WITH TOWN/VILLAGE OF SCARSDALE TO REPRESENT THE TOWN OF EASTCHESTER IN GRIEVANCE PROCEEDINGS AND ANY OTHER SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS CHALLENGING THE 2019 ASSESSED VALUATION WHEREAS, a grievance petition challenging the 2019 assessed valuation has been filed for a property owned by a current member of the Eastchester Town Board of Assessment Review, located within the Town of Eastchester at 311 White Plains Road, Eastchester, NY; and WHEREAS, to preserve the integrity of the parties and prevent a potential conflict of interest or the appearance of impropriety, it is in the best interest of all parties that this application be reviewed by an alternate Assessment Review Board; and WHEREAS, the Town Attorney, appointed by the Town Board of Trustees, serves as Counsel to the Town of Eastchester Board of Assessment Review and may be called upon to advise, appear and defend grievances and SCAR proceedings involving the Town; and WHEREAS, the Town Assessor, appointed by the Town Board, is charged, together with the Town Counsel, with the responsibility of defending grievances and SCAR petitions; and WHEREAS, the Town of Scarsdale has agreed to represent the Town of Eastchester in the aforementioned grievances and any subsequent proceedings regarding this case; and WHEREAS, General Municipal Law § 119-o authorizes a municipality to jointly enter into or assign a municipal function to another municipality by execution of an inter-municipal agreement with that municipality; and WHEREAS, New York State Real Property Tax Law § 523 authorizes the execution of an inter-municipal agreement with another municipality in the county to permit the hearing of the complaint in another municipality; and WHEREAS, in the interest of time, the Town of Scarsdale Board of Assessment Review has already reviewed and rendered a decision concerning the grievance petition for the property located at 311 White Plains Road, Eastchester at their previously scheduled meeting on September 4, 2019; now therefore be it RESOLVED, that the Town/Village Manager is herein authorized to execute an Inter- Municipal Agreement in substantially the same form as attached hereto, for the Scarsdale Town Board of Assessment Review to review and render its decision on the Petitioner’s Grievance, and to further have the Assessor for the Town of Scarsdale represent the Town of Eastchester in the grievance proceeding and any subsequent proceedings involving the challenge to the 2019 assessed valuation of the property located within the Town of Eastchester at 311 White Plains Road; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Town of Eastchester shall abide by any recommendation from the Town of Scarsdale Assessor or any determination from the grievance and SCAR proceeding should one be filed; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Town of Eastchester shall reimburse the Town of Scarsdale for any and all costs in connection with the grievance proceedings for said property and any other proceedings challenging the 2019 assessed valuation. Submitted by: Village Manager Date: September 4, 2019 For: September 10, 2019  AGREEMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 523 OF THE NEW YORK STATE REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW BETWEEN THE VILLAGE/TOWN OF SCARSDALE AND THE TOWN OF EASTCHESTER FOR THE BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW OF THE VILLAGE/TOWN OF SCARSDALE TO HEAR A TAX ASSESSMENT GRIEVANCE FILED BY A CURRENT MEMBER OF THE TOWN OF EASTCHESTER’S BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW OF THE TOWN OF EASTCHESTER THIS AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”) is made this 4th day of September 2019, by and between the Village/Town of Scarsdale (“Scarsdale”) , a municipal cooperation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York, with its principal place of business located at 1001 Post Road, Scarsdale, New York, and the Town of Eastchester (“Eastchester”), a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York, with its principal place of business located at 40 Mill Road, Eastchester, New York, with regard to the hearing and determination of an assessment challenge filed by a current member of the Eastchester Board of Assessment Review. WHEREAS, General Municipal Law § 119-o authorizes a municipality to enter into or assign a municipal function to another municipality by executing an inter-municipal agreement with that municipality; and WHEREAS, a member of the Eastchester Board of Assessment Review has a direct or indirect interest(s) in a property for which a complaint has been filed, and New York State Real Property Tax Law § 523 authorizes the execution of an inter-municipal agreement with another municipality in the county to permit the hearing of the complaint in the other municipality; and WHEREAS, Michael DiSanto, an Eastchester resident and property owner, was appointed to the Board of Assessment Review and has served in that capacity since September 2006; and 1  WHEREAS, Michael DiSanto filed a complaint to challenge the 2019 tentative assessment for a property where he resides and is the owner of record, located at 311 White Plains Road, Eastchester, New York, 10709, further identified as Section 69, Block 6, Lot 5 on the Town of Eastchester’s Tax Map (“Property”); and WHEREAS, the Town Attorney, appointed by the Board of Trustees, also serves as Counsel to the Town of Eastchester Board of Assessment Review and may be called upon to advise, appear, and defend grievances and SCAR proceedings involving the Town of Eastchester; and WHEREAS, the Eastchester Town Assessor is appointed by the Town Board, and together with Counsel, is charged with the responsibility of defending grievances and SCAR petitions; and WHEREAS, the Board of Assessment Review of the Town of Eastchester hears grievances filed by owners of real property located within the Town of Eastchester; and WHEREAS, the members of the Board of Assessment Review of the Town of Eastchester are appointed by the Town Board of the Town of Eastchester; and WHEREAS, pursuant to New York State Real Property Tax Law § 523, Michael DiSanto in his role as a member of the Board of Assessment Review of the Town of Eastchester, has a direct interest in said complaint involving the Property; and WHEREAS, to avoid a conflict of interest, or the appearance of impropriety on the part of the Eastchester Board of Assessment Review, the Village/Town of Scarsdale’s Board of Assessment Review has agreed to hear the complaint of Michael DiSanto and render a decision on such complaint, which will be upheld by the Eastchester Board of Assessment Review, now therefore be it; 2  RESOLVED, in exchange of the mutual covenants expressed herein, the Town of Scarsdale and the Town of Eastchester agree as follows: 1. The Eastchester Town Assessor shall refer the Petitioner’s 2019 grievances and SCAR petition, should one be filed, to the Town of Scarsdale to take any and all appropriate action, including defending the 2019 property assessment. 2. a) Eastchester grants the Assessor for the Town of Scarsdale the authority to take any and all appropriate action to defend the Property’s 2019 assessment before the Scarsdale Board of Assessment Review and in Court in a SCAR proceeding should the petitioner file a SCAR proceeding challenging the Property’s 2019 assessments. b) Eastchester also grants the Scarsdale Assessor the authority to negotiate a resolution of the Petitioners’ Grievances and will abide by and/or approve any settlement that the Scarsdale Assessor may reach with the Petitioner or his representative. c) If the Scarsdale Assessor deems an appraisal(s) of the Properties be necessary, Scarsdale shall order such appraisal and Eastchester shall reimburse Scarsdale for the cost of such appraisal. Eastchester shall reimburse Scarsdale for any and all costs in connection with Scarsdale’s Assessor’s time, and for additional appraisals, if needed. 3. This Agreement shall terminate and all obligations that the Scarsdale Assessor must perform hereunder shall cease if: (a) the Petitioner does not file a SCAR proceeding or commence a proceeding pursuant to Article 7 of the Real Property Tax Law after the Scarsdale Board of Assessment Review renders its decision on the Petitioner’s Grievance, or (b) a SCAR proceeding(s) is adjudicated by the Supreme Court of the State of New York, or (c) the Scarsdale Assessor negotiates a resolution of the Petitioner’s Grievance, or (d) the Petitioner commence either (i) a proceeding pursuant to Article 7 of 3  the Real Property Tax law after the Scarsdale Board of Assessment Review renders its decision on the Petitioner’s Grievance, (ii) an Article 78 proceeding challenging the determination made by the Supreme Court of the State of New York in a SCAR proceeding(s) or (iii) any other litigation challenging the Property’s 2019 assessment, it being understood that this Agreement does not authorize or require the Scarsdale Town Board, the Scarsdale Assessor, the Scarsdale Board of Assessment Review or any of its other officers, employees, consultants, representatives, attorneys or volunteers to represent the Town of Eastchester in any litigation other than the Scarsdale Assessor representing the Town of Eastchester in a SCAR proceeding brought by the Petitioner to challenge the Property’s 2019 assessment. 4. The respective representatives of each municipality, who execute this Agreement on behalf of their respective municipal corporations, are duly authorized and empowered to execute this Agreement. 5. Any and all notices, communications, payments and demands required under this Agreement shall be made in writing, addressed as follows, or to such other address as may be hereafter designated, in writing, by each party hereto. a. To Scarsdale: Town Manager Town of Scarsdale 1001 Post Road Scarsdale, New York 10593 b. To Eastchester: Town Supervisor Town of Eastchester 4  40 Mill Road Eastchester, New York 10709 6. This Agreement contains the entire understanding of the parties who hereby acknowledge that there has been and are no representations, warranties, covenant or understandings other than those expressly set forth herein. 7. Neither this Agreement, nor any provision hereof, shall be amended or modified, or deemed amended or modified, except by an agreement in writing duly subscribed and acknowledged by all parties to this Agreement with the same formality as this Agreement. 8. This Agreement shall be binding upon, and for the benefit of, the parties, their heirs, successors and assigns. 9. All matters affecting the interpretation of this Agreement and the rights of the parties hereto shall be governed by the laws of the State of New York. IN WITNESS THEREOF, Towns of Mamaroneck and Scarsdale have agreed to the terms and conditions set forth therein. ___________________________________ __________ Anthony S. Colavita, Town Supervisor Date ___________________________________ __________ Stephen M. Pappalardo, Town/Village Manager Date 5