Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1968_02_21 Town Board Minutes 65 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK, HELD FEBRUARY 21, 1968 IN THE COUNCIL ROOM OF THE WEAVER STREET FIREHOUSE, WEAVER STREET, TOWN OF MAMARONECK. CALL TO ORDER The Supervisor called the meeting to order at 8:15 p. m. -" ROLL CALL Present: Supervisor Kane Councilwoman Helwig Councilman Chalif Councilman Faicla Councilman Nagel Absent: None Also Present: Mr. Gronberg - Town Clerk Mr. Johnston - Town Attorney Mrs. Brewer - Deputy Clerk Mr. Altieri - Comptroller Mr. Paonessa - Bldg. Inspector Mr. Widulski - Engineer PUBLIC HEARING - Application of Flinn Motor Corp. for erection and maintenance of Outdoor Advertising Signs On motion by Councilwoman Helwig, seconded by Councilman Nagel, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the hearing be and it hereby is declared open. For the record the Clerk presented the Affidavit of Publi- cation of the Notice of Hearing which was herewith ordered received and filed. Councilman Chalif then stated for the information of Mr. Vincent Frontero, Ford Motor attorney appearing on behalf of the applicant, that there was a court stenographer present to cover the hearing and that a transcript of the proceedings would be appended to the minutes of this meet- ing. Mr. Frontero thanked Councilman Chalif stating that he was aware of the court stenographer ' s presence. Upon recognition by the Chair, Mr. Frontero stated that before going into the specifics of the application he would like to state why it was being made. He explained that the Flinn Agency was a franchise Ford auto dealer responsible to the parent organization, Ford Motor Com- pany, which organization about a year and a half ago had -1- TOWN BOARD MEETING Weaver Street & Edgewater Ave. Larchmont, New York February 21, 1968 PRESENT: Supervisor Peter F. Kane - Chairman Deputy Supervisor Christine K. Helwig Councilman Vitalis L. Chalif Councilman Raymond P. Faiola Councilman Carl E. Nagel, Jr. Charles J. Gronberg, Town Clerk Lavenia Brewer, Deputy Clerk William Paonessa, Building Inspector James J. Johnston, Esq. , Town Attorney ALSO PRESENT: Vincent E. Frontero, Esq. , Attorney for Flinn Motors Corp. (111 West Old Country Road, Hicksville, N.Y. ) Constantine Konios Official Court Reporter TOWN BOARD MEETING Weaver Street & Edgewater Ave. Larchmont, New York February 21, 1963 PRESENT: Supervisor Peter F. Kane - Chairman Deputy Supervisor Christine K. Helwig Councilman Vitalis L. Chalif Councilman Raymond P. Faiola Councilman Carl E. Nagel, Jr. Charles J. Gronberg, Town Clerk Lavenia. Brewer, Deputy Clerk William Paonessa , Building Inspector James J. Johnston, Esq. , Town Attorney ALSO PRESENT: Vincent E. Frontero, Esq. , Attorney for Flinn Iuiotors Corp. (111 West Old Country Road, Hicksville:,, N.Y. ) Constantine Konios Official Court Reporter 2 THE CHAIRMAN: The Town Board Meeting of February 21st is in order. We' ll recess the meeting in order to have a public meeting. Will somebody move the public hearing be opened. COUNCILMAN CHALIF: I move that we recess this meeting in order to have the public hearing. COUNCILMAN HELWIG: I second the motion. (Motion carried. ) THE CHAIRMAN: No questions? There is an' application of Flinn Motors Corporation for an erection and maintenance of outdoor advertising signs . TOWN CLERK GRONBERG: Anybody care to address the Board on the subject? MR. FRONTERO: I wish to, please . THE CHAIRMAN: Will you identify your- self for the reason of the fact that we need to have the record complete for the newspapers and for our own Board. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: (Cont°g. ) State your name and address and whom you represent, if you represent anybody. COUNCILPQAN CHALIF: I don't know whether this gentleman knows that we have a stenogra- pher making a record and a transcript of the meeting. MR. FRONTERO: I am aware of that. My name is Vincent E. Frontero, I am an Attorney at Law. For the purposes of this application, I represent Flinn Motor Corporation and indirectly the Ford Motor Company. I appear on behalf of the applicant for the purposes of addressing the Board relative to the application which has been publicly noticed, I presume. Mr. Supervisor, 'Madam, Councilmen, and gentlemen of the Town Board: Before I get into the specific details of exactly what we are applying for, I just want to touch upon, briefly, the reason why we are making this application. I am sure you are aware of Flinn Motor Corpor- ation as a Ford Agency which is franchised by the A Ford Motor Company, and what is called, what is known as a direct dealer, and to some extent is subject to the rules and regulations of the parent corporation as far as dealer facilities are con- cerned - the operation of the dealership and the sale of automobiles . About a year and a half ago the Ford Motor Company embarked on what it calls a dealer iden- tification program, and the purpose of this program was several fold: Primarily its purpose was to unify the image of the corporation throughout the United States via its dealership network. It' s doing this by requiring all of its dealerships throughout the United States to standardize the type of signs, advertising signs , that the dealerships construct and control upon the dealership facilities subject, of course , to regulations by the various municipalities having jurisdiction over each dealer. The uniform sign identification program also has another object, and that is - as well as uni- formity and identification - it also has as its 5 purpose to require dealers to remove the various different types of signs that exist upon dealership facilities in many of the municipalities that are found to be objectionable as well as to the citizens in the area and to remove the monkey-type appearance automobile dealers have tended to have in the past. Getting down to the specific case before the Board this evening, my client ' s status is trying to comply with this program. It has signs on its faci- lities at present. The signs that are on the faci- lity will be removed if this application is granted not only because the Board might feel that it would require the dealer to do so, but also the parent corporation would want to remove any sign that does not conform with its uniform program. I understand that Flinn Motors has recently tidied up and improved its Used-Car facility. As many of you probably know, a Used Car oper- ation intimately entwines with a New Car operation in that in many cases the dealer does not realize a profit of a sale on a new car until he washes out the trade-in; so that in addition to identifying 6 the dealership as a New-Car facility, we would also like to properly identify him in line with this program which is also in the business of selling used cars. Thirdly, all of the Ford facilities are re- quired to maintain a square footage; the major portion of the square footagewise is to the servicing of the cars itself. And, thirdly, then within the framework of our program, we do want to identify and hold out that this particular dealer and all Ford Dealers are in the business of servicing cars . Again, we want to identify him as having this service available. Now, specifically, in the instant case, we are asking your permisssion to install three types of signs: The dealer identification sign which names the dealer as a factory-direct Ford Dealer. The Used-Car sign, and a small Service sign which iden- tifies him as being in the business of servicing what he sells . And I assume then this application would be made under the provisions of your ordinance which 7 gives the Board power for a variance of the sign ordinance where the Board feels relief is justified. Specifically, let us give you a description of our dealer identification sign. We propose to the dealer, as we don't do in all cases, but because of the fact that the dealership building sits right on the front of the property, we would like to instead of putting the dealer identification sign on a pole which we do in many cases, rather we would ask that it be placed on the tower structure which is in front of the build- ing to replace the neon sign which is presently there. This sign the Building Department construed that this is an application for two signs. I suppose, technically, that ' s what it is - but if this sign was on a pole it would be one sign. Because of the nature of the structure, we propose to erect it by cutting it in half, putting one side on one half of the brickwork and the other half on the other side. While I can see technically this can be two signs, in effect what we're doing is taking one 8 sign and cutting it right down the middle. The dimensions of that sign I don't feel are too much out of line. It' s approximately the same square footage as that which is there now, except that it is a much more subdued sign in the way of lighting. What we have there now are neon letters which we would be replacing with a plastic face interior illuminating sign with fluorescent tubing in back of the plastic face. The lighting is much more soft and much more subdued than a neon-type sign. This sign also has an automatic timing device which can switch off the illumination whatever time the ordinance would require. I believe the ordin- ance says 12 midnight or whatever time this Board would feel appropriate; that goes for all of the signs that we are seeking your permission to erect this evening. The dealer identification sign will bear the inscription "Ford" with a circle around it. And this is because we do have your Mercury Dealers and the signs will be changed accordingly. 9 It has an area of fifty-two square feet per face. In other words , we have this one fifty-two square feet on one side of the pylon and fifty-two square feet on the other. No flashing devices or animated devices on any of the signs. We have a Used-Car sign on the facility now which I notice is one of the type of signs which the Ford Motor Company would like to have removed - we don' t think it' s very attractive. The building sign is now on the front of the building, a com- pilation of signs with a service arrow pointing to the building. We want to replace that sign with a rather dignified type of sign and we, instead of having it hanging out on the sidewalk where it ' s hanging now, we want to replace it with a plastic sign, a plastic faced illuminated sign. It has dimensions thirty-four square feet per face. Again no flashing devices whatsoever as the appropriate time mechanism we feel would add, would improve what is there now. The service sign is a rather small sign. And I think the objection of the Building Department has 10 is that it projects from the building. we would be happy to put it flush with the building if that is no serious objection. We do feel it ' s important but not as necessary as the other two signs, but it does hold the dealer out as being in the important business of servicing automobiles. What I would ask if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them to the best of my ability. THE CHAIRMAN: You are asking for a variance. MR. FRONTERO: I am asking -- THE CHAIRMAN: A variance of the new sign ordinance which is effective as of May 24th. MR. FRONTERO: Well, now -- THE CHAIRMAN: Presently the signs that are there, as in other places, are nonconforming and they were giving the people with the nonconforming signs five years, approximately, in which to amortize their monies , and so forth, and which I thought was a fair opportunity for them. Is this the request - for a variance; that ' s 11 all I want to know. MR. FRONTERO: Yes . COUNCILMAN FAIOLA: You say the dealer sign on the tower is fifty-two square feet? MR. FRONTERO: The present one? The proposed sign, the exact dimensions? COUNCILMAN FAIOLA: As far as length and height. MR. PAONESSA: Thirteen by four. COUNCILMAN FAIOLA; What' s the height of the letters? MR. FRONTERO: The letters are not - they are plastic, part of a plastic face. The height of the letters I will have to scale it out. COUNCILMAN FAIOLA: Roughly. MR. FRONTERO: Well, roughly, the whole sign is three feet eleven inches. I would say the letters are approximately - I have to guess at it without a scale - three feet. COUNCILMAN CHALIF: You said before that you have one sign which would turn a corner . You would have one side of the building and the other 12 side of the building. MR. FRONTERO: You have a tower in front of the building and that' s at right angles to Post Road. So , we put it just as it is there in the photograph, except that we replace it and we put one face of that sign there and the other half on the other side of it. (Indicating. ) COUNCILMAN CHALIF: Is each one of these fifty-two square feet? MR. FRONTERO : No. The whole thing? COUNCILMAN CHALIF: Each side would be fifty-two square feet? MR. FRONTERO: Yes . THE CHAIRMAN: So you have one hundred four square feet of sign on the tower. MR. FRONTERO: That is correct. COUNCILMAN FAIOLA: How is this illumin- ated? MR. FRONTERO: Fluorescent bulbs in back of a plastic face within a steel framework. COUNCILMAN FAIOLA: You mentioned the fact that this is a program that the Ford Motor Company 13 is undertaking and you more or less indicated that these will be the only type of signs that is accept- able to the Ford Motor Car Company as far as the Ford Motor Car Company is concerned. MR. FRONTERO: That ' s correct; yes. COUNCILMAN FAIOLA: What you are telling us is if we don't approve of the signs, Mr. Flinn will not be able to put up the sign. MR. FRONTERO: Well , yes . The Ford Motor Company is going to pressure him to take down the signs what he has, but this is what they want him to do. They have invested, and I know this has no bearing, but just as information, they invested a fantastic amount of money in this program and the market of research has shown that in the short period of time the program was in effect, the sales that they derive from this have increased thirteen per cent in just a year and a half. So, they have a deep interest in every dealership. If there is no uniformity, the program is worthless . The whole idea is to tie in the signs 14 on the facility with their advertising via television, newspapers, and magazines. A Ford Dealer, you imme- diately recognize it as being Ford. COUNCILMAN FAIOLA: If we come back with a negative answer to you or Mr. Flinn on this type of sign, will this mean that Mr. Flinn will not be permitted to put up a Ford sign? MR. FRONTERO: That' s right. He has the sign that he has there now. I understand when his amortisation period is over you will make him take them down. He will not be able to replace them. COUNCILMAN HELWIG: I thought there was a small difference in the signs . I thought you said between the sign you are asking for and what is allowed, you mean it couldn't be shrunk down that much to meet the requirement? MR. FRONTERO: No. I ' ll tell you why it cannot. The reason is because the signs are manufactured by a company called Plasti-Line, Incorporated, in Knoxville, Tennessee, and they're mass produced. 15 We realize we 're going to have problems in that each ordinance is going to be different with every other ordinance, and we have come up with an average size. If we had to manufacture each size, the cost would be prohibitive. We tried to come up with something that we feel is not too big and not too small, hoping that we can come before the Boards and talk to you about it and see if you could see the merits of our argu- ment. You have the pictures of the signs. COUNCILMAN NAGEL: Are the signs going to be multi-colored? MR. FRONTERO: Blue and white. Blue background with white lettering. COUNCILMAN CHALIF: Is it going to be black or clear? MR. FRONTERO: The plastic will not be clear. COUNCILMAN CHALIF: Do we know how much light you will put in it? MR. FRONTERO: Fluorescent tubing. I 16 don' t know what the intensity of it - certainly not as bright as what is there, but much softer. THE CHAIRMAN: Anybody have any questions? MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Frontero, at the commencement of your presentation you mentioned Mr. Flinn was considered a factory-direct dealer? MR. FRONTERO: Yes. MR. JOHNSTON: Does this put any more onus on Flinn Motors to comply with the Ford Motor Company than any other dealer? MR. FRONTERO: Let me say that all Ford Dealers are factory-direct dealers and they have a franchise agreement. As part of that agreement they are required to abide by certain rules and regulations which include these signs. MR. JOHNSTON: You say the collective "We. " Do you mean the Ford Motor Company? Like "We want the signs, " and "We advertise , " and "We expended the sums of monies. " MR. FRONTERO: The Ford Motor Company 17 is the one that initiated the program. COUNCILMAN NAGEL: If this osten- sibly would be granted, would these signs be put up at the cost of the Ford Motor Company? MR. FRONTERO: The dealer identi- fication would, and the other signs would be at the expense of the dealer. MR. JOHNSTON: That would be the Used-Car sign and the lot sign. May I ask the building inspector how these signs do not conform? MR. PAONESSA: Let' s take the Used- Car sign in front of the Used Car lot which will replace this sign. I think everybody seen this . (Indicating to a photograph. ) The area of the proposed sign is about thirty-four square feet. This is four square feet more than we allow according to the sign. We have as a maximum height of sixteen feet four inches . This is about a foot and a half above our limit which is fifteen feet. I notice from this particular drawing that was 18 submitted to our department from the Plasti-Line Company that the signs seem to be a combination of two signs placed end to end. From the mechanical drawings it would seem that one of the signs, the Used-Car sign itself is approximately five and a half feet long and about three foot ten high. This would give in an area that particular end, twenty square feet. MR. FRONTERO: I don't know what you mean. One sign? MR. PAONESSA: This drawing, this sign here is an individual sign, plus this sign. (Indicating. ) Well, according to the list of materials and the way it' s set up on the plan, it calls for two different fronts , two separate lighted circuits . MR. FRONTERO: Yes, this is all one framework. (Indicating. ) We couldn't just put up the front of it. MR. PAONESSA: I don't agree with that. I also believe the standard the signs are placed 19 on is constructed in such a way the standard can be cut approximately a foot and a half below the sign. MR. FRONTERO: We 'd be happy to do that. MR. PAONESSA: The Service sign which will replace this particular sign is approximately four feet by three feet four inches high. (Indi- cating. ) It will project or be placed or planned to be placed at right angles to the front wall of the building. Our code, of course, specifies that this is not allowed and should be placed flat and parallel against the front wall and also that it should be no higher than three feet. It seems from the wording on the sign and the words of the application, the wording is only a 7-lettered word which reads, "Service, " and the overall height of the sign which is three foot four by four feet doesn' t seem to be in direct proportion of the wording of the sign. I can't possibly see why this is permitted. What I am driving at is you got almost 20 a rectangular sign. THE CHAIRMAN: That' s four by three and a half. AIR. PAONESSA: The pylon signs are a problem. The signs that have been picked out to replace the pylon signs have been picked out in such a way that the dimensions fit into the pocket created by thesign. In other words , it will be uniformly squared off. Also, as our code does specify, one free stand- ing sign is replaceable by a pylon sign. Mr. Flinn would be allowed two free standing signs. He technically, as Mr. Frontero claims , we have to consider as two signs because it is divided by a structure. With the exception of the pylon sign, I think the other signs could very well be modified to fit our ordinance. THE CHAIRMAN: Is this the first application that has been brought to your attention insofar as the new sign ordinance is concerned which 21 was put into effect five years ago? MR. PAONESSA: We had one previous application. I think it was from the First West- chester National Bank on the Post Road. THE CHAIRMAN: Well , that was a new sign. This was not anything to correct or rectify that which was in effect. MR. PAONESSA: That ' s right. THE CHAIRMAN: This is a brand new thing. This is an attempt to a suggestion of Mr. Flinn, through his attorney or the Ford Motor Company attorney for a variance, sort of speak; is that not true? MR. FRONTERO: I guess you could put it that way. THE CHAIRMAN: Anybody else care to say anything? MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Frontero , within what time element has the Ford Motor Company decreed that their own dealers conform with this program once it' s initiated? MR. FRONTERO: There is no time element. 22 It varies from municipality to municipality. MR. JOHNSTON: when was the program initiated? MR. FRONTERO: About a year and a half ago. I have one further comment on the Service sign. We would - I would be happy to modify the application to eliminate the projection aspect of it and put it flush against the building. As far as the Used-Car sign, I leave in your hands. THE CHAIRMAN: Let the record so show. I recommend that we take the question under advisement and reserve decision. That' s the feeling of the entire Board. I' ll entertain a motion to recess . I 'll move it myself if necessary. COUNCILMAN FAIOLA: So moved. THE CHAIRMAN: All right, it' s seconded. (Motion carried. ) THE CHAIRMAN: If there aren't any 23 further questions , we 'll take it under advisement and reserve decision. The meeting is adjourned. (Whereupon the meeting was adjourned and the Board continued with the regular order of business. ) inaugurated a ,program for the use of standardized Ford signs which signs, while coming close, nevertheless failed to meet exactly the requirements of the Town' s Sign Ordinance. He explained that the new proposed signs were part of a nation-wide Dealer identification program intended to standardize the appearance of all Ford dealerships and remove the honky-tonk appearance auto dealers have had in the past in many instances. He further explained that his client, the Flinn agency, was expected to comply with the parent company program and was therefore applying for a variance in order to permit the installation of the three signs as produced by the Ford Company since they did not comply with the local Ordinance requirements. He described each in detail and following a lengthy discussion with the Build- ing Inspector, indicated that the signs for the Used Car and Service areas probably could be altered so as to comply with the requirements. The sign for the New Car Sales area however presented difficulties which remained unresolved at the conclusion of this discussion. The Supervisor then inquired whether anyone else wished to be heard either in favor of or in opposition to the application and since no one did, on motion by Council- man Faiola, seconded by Councilwoman Helwig, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the hearing be and it hereby is closed with decision on the application reserved. -- OLD BUSINESS There was no old business to come before the Board at this time. NEW BUSINESS 1. Application for Special Permit - Winged Foot Golf Club (Addition and Alterations to Club House) The Clerk presented a memorandum addressed to the Board by the Building Inspector with reference to the above indicated application for a Special Permit, under date of February 19, 1968, which was herewith ordered receiv- ed and filed for the record. In accordance with regular procedure pursuant to Section 432 of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance, on motion by Councilwoman Helwig, seconded by Councilman Faiola, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the application of Winged Foot Golf Club for a Special Permit for an addition and alterations to the Club House be and it hereby is referred to the Planning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck for study and report to this Board at its next meeting on March 6, 1968. -2- 6 2. Authorization to Publish Annual Report of Supervisor for the year 1967 Pursuant to memorandum of the Comptroller dated Febru- ary 19, 1968, herewith presented and filed for the record, on motion by Councilman Chalif, seconded by Councilman Nagel, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that authorization is hereby granted to file the Annual Report of the Supervisor for the year 1967 and publish same in the official newspaper of the Town of Mamaroneck, "The Daily Times" , in accordance with paragraph 29 of the Town Law as amended by the addition of sub- division 10A. 3. Authorization - Tax Anticipation Note, 1968 Pursuant to memorandum of the Comptroller dated Febru- ary 19, 1968 herewith presented and filed for the record, on motion by Councilwoman Helwig, seconded by Councilman Chalif, it was unanimously RESOLVED, by the Town Board of the Town of Mamaroneck, Westchester County, New York as follows: Section 1. Subject to the provisions of the Local Finance Law, the power to authorize the issuance of and to sell not exceeding $150, 000 Tax Anticipation Notes of the Town of Mamaroneck, West- chester County, New York, in anticipation of the collection of real estate taxes levied for Town purposes for the fiscal year of said Town, commencing January 1, 1968, is hereby delegated to the Super- visor of said Town, the chief fiscal officer thereof. Such notes shall be of such terms, form and contents, and shall be sold in such manner as may be prescrib- ed by said Supervisor consistent with the provisions of the Local Finance Law. Section 2. This resolution shall take effect immediately. 4. Authorization - Transfer of Funds Water District 01 Pursuant to memorandum of the Comptroller dated February 19, 1968, herewith presented and filed for the record, on motion by Councilman Chalif, seconded by Councilman Nagel, it was unanimously -3- 6 RESOLVED, that this Board hereby authorizes the transfer of the following funds within the 1968 Budget & Surplus Funds to cover cost of services rendered by John L. Delius, Esq. , in connection with appeal, Town of Mamaroneck vs Westchester Joint Water Works: From: Water District #1 Surplus $500. To: Water District #1 Supplies and 500. Other Expenses (A/C 405) 5. Authorization - Transfer of Funds - General Town Contingency to Town Office Rent Pursuant to memorandum of the Comptroller dated Febru- ary 21, 1968, herewith presented and filed for the record, on motion by Councilman Chalif, seconded by Councilman Nagel, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that this Board hereby authorizes the transfer of the following funds within the 1968 Budget & Surplus Funds to cover an increase in rental for the year 1968: From: General Town Contingency A/C 507 $600. To: Town Offices - Rent A/C 405 600. 6. Appointment Approval and Salary Authorization - Highway Laborer Pursuant to memorandum of the Comptroller dated February 19, 1968, herewith presented and filed for the record, on motion by Councilman Faiola, seconded by Councilwoman Helwig, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that this Board hereby approves the appointment and authorizes payment of compensation at the rate of $2. 60 per hour to Giuseppe Robino as a laborer of the Town of Mamaroneck Highway Department pending passage of physical examination. 7. Authorization - Transfer of Funds - Extra Work at Fire House Pursuant to memorandum of the Comptroller dated February 19, 1968, explaining in detail the necessity for the ex- penditure of an additional $200. over the original $7, 000. contract, herewith presented and filed for the record, on motion by Councilman Nagel, seconded by Councilwoman Hel- rwig, it was unanimously -4- 9 RESOLVED, that this Board hereby authorizes the expenditure of a sum not to exceed $200. to cover the cost of extra work at the Fire House, and be it further RESOLVED, that this Board hereby authorizes the transfer of the following funds within the 1968 Budget and Surplus Funds: From: Fire District #1 - Surplus $7,600. To: Building Operation A/C 402 7,600. COMMUNICATIONS 1. Notice of Meeting, Zoning Board of Appeals, Village of Larchmont The Clerk presented a Notice of Public Hearing before the Village of Larchmont Zoning Board of Appeals which had been referred to the Attorney and upon his advice that no action was required by this Board was ordered received and filed. 2 and 3. Letters re Insurance The Clerk called to attention letters addressed to the Board by John M. Coughlin, President of Coughlin Larch- mont Agency, Inc. , and Anthony L. Gagliardi of Knox, Kent and Tucker, under dates of February 16th and 15th, 1968 respectively with regard to the matter of the bids for insurance coverage submitted to the Town of Mamaro- neck which, since copies thereof had been furnished to each of the members of the Board upon receipt, were ordered received and filed. It was pointed out in response to a statement in Mr. Coughlin' s letter that the Town Council in rejecting the bids had in no way intended to question the competence of any of the bidding firms. It was further noted that Mr. Coughlin had called attention to errors in the exhibits appended to the specifications, and to the fact that experience rating information was not avail- able to bidders upon request. Councilman Nagel stated that he felt the last paragraph of Mr. Coughlin' s letter should be answered as certain- ly there was no negative feeling about any of the agencies on the part of the Board, whereupon the Board — being in agreement, authorized him to reply on its behalf. Mr. Peter D. Mosher of 132 Chatsworth Avenue, upon recog- nition, addressed the Board inquiring whether the rejec- tion of all bids and renewal of existing coverage did -5- not postpone indefinitely the Town' s having coverage for false arrest and other protections included in the new insurance package and whether this did not create a very real hazard for the Town. In reply, Councilman Chalif stated that the postponement would be indefinite only in that it was pending on the -- Town' s obtaining a list of qualified experts to prepare the specifications, and the Supervisor pointed out that the "hazard" which Mr. Mosher spoke of due to lack of coverage for false arrest had not been proven by experi- ence since in fifty years the Town had had only one challenge and that had not stood up in court. He further stated that of course such coverage was desirable and would be included in the new specifications with which the Town was proceeding with all due haste. REPORTS The Town Clerk - - The Clerk presented the following report which was here- with ordered received and filed: Town Clerk' s Report for the month of January, 1968. The Supervisor - - 1. Appointment of Alternate, Incinerator Commission The Supervisor explained that the Incinerator Commission was a two-man Board and thus in the absence of either the Supervisor or Mayor, was unable to function, and he there- fore recommended the appointment of Councilman Nagel to the Commission to act in his absence or inability to serve.: Whereupon in accord with this recommendation, on motion by Councilwoman Helwig, seconded by Councilman Chalif, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that Councilman Nagel be and he hereby is appointed permanently to the Larchmont-Mamaroneck Joint Garbage Disposal Commission to act in the absence or in- ability of the Supervisor whenever the Super- visor is not available for a Board meeting. Councilman Faiola - - Councilman Faiola stated that he had no report to present at this time but would like to comment on the editorial in tonight' s press entitled "A Commendable Police Job" , -6- which commends the Police Departments and Police Chiefs of the Town and Village of Mamaroneck for their fine work in connection with the drug problem in these com- munities. The Supervisor and members of the Board endorsed Coun- cilman Faiola ' s comments with the Supervisor praising the Editor highly on this editorial. He also commended the Youth Council and Councilman Faiola, Liaison, for their fine work in this area. Councilwoman Helwig - - 1. Report on Business Session - Annual Meeting, Association of Towns Councilwoman Helwig reported on the resolutions adopted at the Business Session of the Annual meeting of the Association of Towns and proposed that the Town Council take the same position as the Association which voted to: 1. Recommend that aid and support be given to a Joint Legislative Committee studying re- codification of town law and to a special committee studying fiscal provisions of the town and highway laws. 2. Ask for creation of a State Board of Highway Review, giving municipalities the right to be heard on state road plans. 3. Support legislation allowing towns with com- prehensive master plans to adopt 15-year capital improvement plans. A six-year limit now imposed is considered too short a time for proper projection of capital outlay. 4. Oppose all legislation mandating salaries for employees of local government. 5. Ask for amendment of the village, general municipal and city laws to prevent cities of villages from annexing lands without consent of any or all other governments affected, including school districts, as well as consent of all residents. 6. Support an assessment improvement bill, urged by Mamaroneck Town officials for many years, which would improve assessment pro- cedures throughout the state. 7. Ask for changes in the vehicle and traffic law which would return to local governments a greater percentage of the fines collected by local courts. -7- Councilwoman Helwig recommended that this district ' s legislators in Albany be requested to give these resolutions (which were being forwarded to them by- - the said Association of Towns) their favorable con- sideration, supporting legislation to implement their passage into law. Whereupon, since this was the pleasure of the Board, on her motion, seconded by Councilman Chalif, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that this Board hereby authorizes the Clerk to address a communication to Hon. Anthony B. Gioffre, Senator, and Hon. Joseph R. Pisani, Assemblyman, urging and requesting their favorable consideration and support of legislation to implement passage into law resolutions #1 through #7 adopted by the Association of Towns of the State of New York at its 1968 Annual Business Session and for- warded to them by said Association. Mr. Peter D. Mosher Mr. Mosher addressed the Board to request that the Council give thought to a further study of Resolu- tion #4. He stated that he felt this was the only controversial one because there is much support of the idea of certain mandated -salary minimums. Councilwoman Helwig disagreed on the merit of such mandates and Councilman Chalif pointed out that the 350 or 400 representatives at the Association meet- ing were unanimous in endorsing the proposal. Councilman Chalif - - 1. Report on Determination of Bargaining Agent - Town of Mamaroneck Paid Firemen ' s Association With respect to the Paid Firemen ' s Association' s request for recognition by the Town Council as Bar- gaining Agent for the firemen under the provisions of the State ' s Taylor Act, Councilman Chalif stated that since this Act was presently under review, he would recommend that the Board go slowly in the matter of recognition of Bargaining Agents. He stated further that he realized this was the only group requesting such recognition as far as the Fire Department went,but still asked for time -- to meet with the Association' s spokesmen in order to determine the validity of the claim submitted for recognition to act as representative for all the firemen. He added that he would like to dis- cuss this with the group before formal approval of the request. -8- 73 Supervisor Kane stated that since this was the only request from the firemen he would prefer to accept it now as he could see no reason why it should not be approved. Councilman Chalif asked the Supervisor whether he knew for a fact that the group requesting- recognition represented a majority of the paid fire- men. His reply was that he accepted their statement as a true fact. Mr. Kane further suggested that Councilman Faiola, Liaison to the Fire Department, and the Town Attorney meet with any group to discuss proceedures, with which thinking the Board agreed. And thereupon in view of Councilman Chalif ' s request for more time, the Supervisor recommended that the matter be tabled, which was so directed. 2. Insurance (Not on Agenda) With respect to the insurance matter Councilman chalif requested the Attorney to obtain lists of qualified experts to prepare the insurance specifications as - promptly as possible, which the Attorney assured Coun- cilman Chalif he would do. In line with the matter of insurance the Supervisor ad- vised the Board that he had met with Mayors Goldsmith and Phillips and that one of the subjects discussed was the possibility of joint insurance coverage for the three municipalities. He stated that the two Mayors would request that lists of properties, equip- mentc, etc. be compiled for the further consideration of this proposal. In this connection Councilman Faiola then suggested that the Joint Economies Stud Committee be called upon for its thinking. Council- man Nagel stated that he endorsed this suggestion and that while he did not know the results he consider- ed it a step in the right direction. Councilman Nagel - - Councilman Nagel stated that he had no report to pre- sent at this time. The Town Attorney - - The Attorney stated that he had no report to present at this time. OTHER BUSINESS 1. Weaver Street Sidewalk (Not on Agenda) -9- 7 Mrs. Joan Devlin, upon recognition, asked the status of the proposed Weaver Street sidewalk which question was referred by the Chair to the Town Engineer. Mr. Widulski stated that he had obtained the survey showing the lands that must be acquired which he had turned over to the Town Attorney so that he could pr-c- ceed with obtaining the necessary appraisals and re- quired legal procedure. A statement from the Women ' s Guild of Sts. John and Paul Church requesting and urging the construction of this sidewalk was also presented at this time. 2. Parking Situation Mr. Vincent J. Ciardullo of 118 Laurel Avenue addressed the Board regarding the parking situation in the spaces along Memorial Park and on both sides of Myrtle Boule- vard particularly on Friday, Saturday and Sunday since the condition was an extreme hazard to the children. The Board thanked Mr. Ciardullo stating that his complaint would be referred to the Board of Police Commissioners. 3. Incinerator Mr. Peter Mosher spoke on behalf of Mr. John Dahne of 9 Overlook Terrace complaining of the flyash from the incinerator stack which was of grave concern to Mr. Dahne' s health. He inquired whether there were not any steps to be taken to alleviate this condition rectification of which had been promised by last March 1st. Following discussion and review of the present status of the incinerator situation, it was pointed out that new screens had been installed in the present incine- rator in order to alleviate the condition about which Mr. Dahne complained and that there was no other im- mediate solution available. 4. Westchester Joint Water Works - Proposed Rate Rise The Supervisor reported that there was no further infor- mation on the possible proposed raise of water rates at this time. 5. Mr. Frank Claps Mr. Claps addressed the Board inquiring whether it was aware of the new high pressure chamber digestor method for the disposal of garbage, and presented a letter addressed to him by Congressman Ottinger in reply to -10- the Turf Association' s letter requesting introduction of federal legislation for an appropriation to be used for research purposes in the matter of garbage dis- posal towards resolving this nation-wide problem. The Supervisor stated that it would be only wishful thinking to say that a solution would be found by April 1st, April 30th, or any other specific date, but that both the County and local governments were continuing to study this problem. He called to atten- tion in connection with the digestor method the clos- ing of the new $2, 000, 000. St. Petersburg, Florida, digestor plant due to the odor problem therefrom which would indicate that this procedure was still not per- fected. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the meeting, on motion duly made and seconded, it was declared adjourned at 9:50 p, m. , to reconvene on March 6, 1968. BOARD OF FIRE COMMISSIONERS The meeting of the Board of Fire Commissioners was con- vened immediately upon the adjournment of the Town Board meeting. 1. Claims Commissioner Faiola presented the following claims, re- questing approval and authorization of payment thereof, and thereupon on his motion, seconded by Commissioner Chalif, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Fire Department claims, which had been audited by the Comptroller and approved by the Fire Chief, are hereby approved, and the Supervisor and Comptroller authorized to pay the same out of the budget for the Fire Department: R. G. Brewer, Inc. $ 24.44 Con Edison 124. 98 Dri-Chem Extinguisher Co. 158. 25 Stephen J. Loiaconi 24. 00 McGuire Bros. , Inc. 7. 00 New York Telephone Co. 7. 43 - Suburban Fuel Oil Service, Inc. 194. 58 Westchester Joint Water Works 2,740. 00 Total $3, 280. 68 -11- 6 Reports 1. Fire Department Annual Report Commissioner Faicla presented the annual Fire Report for the year 1967 which was ordered received and filed for the record. He complimented the Fire Chief highly on this report and requested that copies thereof be forwarded to each mem- ber of the Commission for his individual information. Communications 1. Letter, Secretary - Fire Department. Commissioner Faiola presented a letter addressed to the Board of Fire Commissioners by the Town of Mamaroneck Fire Department under date of February 20, 1968 listing the slate of officers for 1968 as elected by the Depart- ment at its thirty-fifth annual meeting on February 19, 1968, and thereupon on his motion, seconded by Com- missioner Chalif, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that this Commission hereby approves the elction of the following officers to the following offices for the year 1968 : Stephen J. Lciaconi Chief Ralph F. Condro 1st Dep. Chief Dominick J. Forti 2nd Dep. Chief Arthur M. Brown Secretary Augustus R. Funck Financial Sec 'y. L. Douglas Fletcher Treasurer Dr. Lincoln Stulik Surgeon Monsignor Robert E. Delaney Chaplain Reverend Tom Wedsworth Chaplain Rabbi Balfour Brickner Chaplain Joseph Roma Sergeant-At-Arms Other Business 1. Fire Chief a) Conditions at Larchmont Acres The Fire Chief reported considerable improvement in the conditions outlined at the last meeting of the Commission at the Larchmont Acres Apartments with respect both to the cleaning up of the building and the parking situation in the circles. b) Installation Dinner The Chief reminded the Commission that the Installation Dinner would be held on Saturday evening, February 24, 1968. -12- Adjournment There being no further business to come before the meet- ing, on motion duly made and seconded, it was declared adjourned at 10 :00 p. m. to reconvene on March 6, 1968. Tow Clerk -13-