PATTERSON TOWN BOARD MEETING

PATTERSON TOWN HALL

1142 ROUTE 311

PATTERSON, NY 12563

JANUARY 10, 2007

MINUTES

PRESENT: MICHAEL GRIFFIN, SUPERVISOR

GERALD HERBST, COUNCILMAN

ERNEST KASSAY, COUNCILMAN

GINNY NACERINO, COUNCILWOMAN

EDMOND O’CONNOR, COUNCILMAN

ANTHONY MOLÉ, TOWN COUNSEL

ANTOINETTE KOPECK, TOWN CLERK

Supervisor Griffin called the meeting to order at 7:37 p.m. with 12 in the audience.

Salute to the Flag and Roll Call.

REPORTS

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

Putnam Lake Fire Department – None

Patterson Fire Department – None

Code Compliance Officer – February through October

Code Enforcement Officer – August, September, October

Dog Control Officer – October, November

E.C.I. Officer – October, November

MINUTES

None.

AUDIT OF BILLS

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

General Fund $149,488.19, Highway Fund-Item 1 General Repairs $8,954.07, Highway Fund-Item 3 Machinery $1,680.34, Highway Fund-Item 4 Brush and Weeds $1,646.75, Highway Fund-Employee Benefits $67,399.58, Putnam Lake Fire District $32,950.00, Patterson Fire District $51,219.70, Patterson Light District $148.00, Patterson Refuse District # 2 $144,584.42, Patterson Park District $11,928.38, Alpine Water District $517.61, Dorset Hollow Water District $2,106.70, Fox Run Water District $530.49, Capital Fund $174,875.56.

Total Abstract $648,029.79

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

GINNY NACERINO

APPOINT ONE MEMBER TO PARK ADVISORY BOARD

Mrs. Nacerino made a motion to appoint Carrie Weizenecker to the Park Advisory Board.

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

ADOPT REALITY CHECK RESOLUTION/KEY COMMUNICATORS UPDATE

PATTERSON TOWN BOARD JANUARY 10, 2007 PAGE 2

TOWN BOARD MEETING

Mrs. Nacerino introduced the following Resolution for Reality Check Smoke-Free Movies Campaign

R0107-01

WHEREAS tobacco use is responsible for nearly 5,000,000 million deaths every year worldwide,

WHEREAS more than 5,000 youth under the age of 18 try a cigarette for the first time each day in the US,

WHEREAS more than 3.5 million youth between the ages of 12 and 17 are current smokers in the US and 1/3 of them will eventually die from a tobacco related disease,

WHEREAS the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement was intended to prohibit tobacco companies from marketing their products to youth – including the use of movies as a means of marketing,

WHEREAS tobacco shots in the top-ten grossing movies released from May 2002 to May 2003 were in youth-accessible and youth-marketed G, PG and PG-13 films,

WHEREAS, exposure to smoking in movie recruits more than half (52%) of new adolescent smokers,

WHEREAS youth of Putnam County and across the state have collected petitions and postcards calling on major movie studios to adopt the recommendations of the Smoke Free Movie Project,

WHEREAS the World Health Organization, American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, Parent Teacher Association of America, American Legacy Foundation, American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, Society for Adolescent Medicine and others – including the Los Angeles Department of Health Services, US Public Interest Research Group and Interfaith Center for Corporate Responsibility, Assemblywoman Sand Galef, Mahopac Central Schools – have endorsed the smoke free movies solution,

WHEREAS, Reality Check, a statewide youth-led and adult-supported movement out to expose the truth about tobacco and the manipulative marketing practices of the tobacco industry, is involved raising awareness about the impact of tobacco use in films and to call on the motion picture industry to adopt four simply voluntary actions:

1. No Tobacco in Youth Rated Films

No new film which is rated G, PG or PG-13 should depict or imply any tobacco products, brand names of tobacco or tobacco use

2. Certify No Pay-Offs

The producers should post a certificate in the credits at the end of the film declaring that no one involved with production of the movie received anything of value (cash, free cigarettes or other gifts, free publicity, interest free loans or any other item of value) from anyone in exchange for using or displaying tobacco in the movie

3. Require Strong Anti-tobacco Ads

Studios and theaters should require a genuinely strong anti-tobacco ad (not one produced by a tobacco company) to run before any film with any tobacco presence regardless of its MPAA rating

4. Stop Identifying Tobacco Brands

There should be no tobacco brand identification nor the presence of tobacco brand imagery (such as billboards) in the background of any movie scene

PATTERSON TOWN BOARD JANUARY 10, 2007 PAGE 3

TOWN BOARD MEETING

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Town of Patterson endorses the four goals of the Reality Check smoke-free movies campaign.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution shall be transmitted to the Motion Picture Association of America; to major motion picture studios and their parent corporations including Warner Bros., owned by Time Warner; Disney and Miramax, owned by the Walt Disney Corporation; and Columbia Pictures, owned by Sony Corporation of America; the National Association of Theater Owners; New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, New York State Health Department Commissioner Antonia Novello; United States Senators Charles Schumer and Hillary Clinton; and New York State Congressman John Hall.

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

Mrs. Nacerino stated I attended a Key Communications meeting with the Brewster Central School District. This is a grass roots effort within the district and encompasses all different people within the community. They had a keynote speaker, Dr. Mark Braken, discussing emotional intelligence which gives management effective tools. A brief overview of what exactly emotional intelligence is; it is effective tools management which is self awareness, mood management, self motivation and empathy and managing relationships which entails handling interpersonal interaction conflict resolution and negotiations. I would like to read this quote because to me this is something that I find of great interest: Emotional intelligence is a master aptitude, a capacity that profoundly affects all other abilities either facilitating or interfering with them.

VIOLENCE IN THE WORKPLACE – ADOPT POLICY

Mrs. Nacerino stated this will be a state law as of March 1, 2007 and all municipalities will have to adopt this by July 2007. What we need to do is have training and risk assessment. With the Board’s permission and Mr. O’Connor’s permission I would like to set up a committee for us to fine tune this policy and bring it back before the Board at a later date.

Mr. O’Connor stated we have samples of the policy and we could come up with one of them. We use a training company to provide us with material i.e., films and the like. If it’s the Board’s wish, in the near future we could get the films. I’ve done classes like this before and I could do it again.

Mrs. Nacerino stated it is mandated that we set up the training. Violence in the workplace is defined in many ways which is disruptive behavior, which interferes and prevents the normal work activities such as yelling profanity, intentional physical contact for the purpose of causing harm, engaging behavior that creates a reasonable fear, so on and so forth. We plan on developing something that would be curtailed to our Town’s needs and adopting that at a later date.

WEBSITE SOFTWARE REQUEST

Mrs. Nacerino made a motion for Melissa Brichta to purchase software for an amount not to exceed $1,225.00 for creating and maintaining the Town of Patterson website.

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

MICHAEL GRIFFIN

ASSESSOR’S MEMO – INCREASE SENIOR EXEMPTION

Mr. Griffin stated on an annual basis we get a recommendation to increase the limits for a senior 467 and disability 459c exemptions.

PATTERSON TOWN BOARD JANUARY 10, 2007 PAGE 4

TOWN BOARD MEETING

BURDICK FARMS BARN

Mr. Kursh stated we would be honored and delighted to have your barn.

Mr. Griffin stated that’s great. We have to get some paperwork out of the way and we’ll be all set. Just give our attorney the phone number of your attorney and let them handle it.

Mr. O’Connor stated what town is the barn being moved to.

Mr. Kursh stated the hamlet or village or Hanes Falls, which is in the town of Hunter, Green County.

PAA ACT OF 2005 – DISCUSSION

Mr. Griffin stated we received a letter from the Putnam County Board of ethics regarding the New York State Public Authority Accountability Act of 2005 as attached.

Mr. Griffin stated counselor, have you seen this.

Mr. Molé stated I have not seen it.

Mr. Griffin stated Anthony, I would like more particulars on this. the letter states “One of the burdensome and expensive compliance and governance duties,” so what are the rest of the duties and who does this apply to in the Town of Patterson and what exactly are we going to have to do to get into compliance with this.

Mr. O’Connor stated I don’t think we have any public authorities.

Mr. Griffin stated it says authority but it says “defined to include a not-for-profit corporation affiliated with, sponsored by or created by a county, town or village government.” Does that encompass the library, the fire departments, the historical society, the VFW, etc. What entities would that absolutely apply to and what are the other burdensome requirements of compliance. Anthony, if you could give us some guidance on whom we have to inform, what the time line is, etc. I would appreciate it.

HARVEY BARNES REQUEST

Mr. Griffin introduced the following Resolution for Barnes Subdivision Variance from Chapter 138

R0107-02

WHEREAS, Harvey Barnes owns a 16.382+ acre of land at Route 164 identified as Tax Map No.24.-1-11.2, and

WHEREAS, the Planning Board of Town of Patterson has received an Application for subdivision approval for the parcel entitled the Barnes Subdivision whereby the property owner proposes to create 2 new residential lots; and

WHEREAS, a subdivision plan has been prepared by Badey & Watson, Surveying & Engineering, P.C. entitled “Final Minor Subdivision Plat prepared for Harvey Barnes” dated November 21, 2006; last revised December 18, 2006 which shows the lots and lands proposed to be protected by a conservation easement, and

WHEREAS, the parcel is located in the R-4 Zoning District and the Open Development Overlay District, requiring compliance with the standards and requirements of Part 2 of Chapter 138 entitled Subdivision of Lands; and

PATTERSON TOWN BOARD JANUARY 10, 2007 PAGE 5

TOWN BOARD MEETING

WHEREAS, §138-49(A) requires that a lot shown on a subdivision plat which is located in the Open Development Overlay District shall not be greater in area than 80,000 s.f.

WHEREAS, one or more of the lots, as shown on the subdivision plat under consideration by the Planning Board do not meet the minimum requirements, and must therefore obtain a variance from the standards and requirements of Part 2 of Chapter 138, and

WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Patterson opened a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application and request for variance at its meeting on January 10, 2007and closed the public hearing on January 10, 2007, after receiving comments from the public;

WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Patterson has considered the comments of the public and other involved or interested agencies, and has reviewed the documentation provided by the Project Sponsor concerning the need for the variance; and

WHEREAS, a motion was made and carried by the Patterson Planning Board recommending that the Town Board approve the variance for the Barnes Subdivision.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Patterson in the Application of Harvey Barnes for a variance from the standards and requirements of Chapter 138, Part 2 which standards and requirements among other things limit the maximum lot size to 80,000 square feet, finds that the variance, as modified in accordance with any applicable conditions set forth in this resolution, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Applicant shall place a conservation easement on a portion of each of the two lots which will protect the land as open space.

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

EXECUTIVE SESSION – LEGAL

Deferred until end of meeting.

GERALD HERBST

ADOPTION OF LOCAL LAW NO. 1 – THERAPY DOGS

Mr. Herbst introduced the following Resolution for Adoption of Local Law No. 1 of 2007

R0107-03

WHEREAS, an amendment to Patterson Town Code Chapter 154, Section 154-27(A)(3), entitled “Permitted accessory uses,” has been introduced before the Town Board of the Town of Patterson, as Local Law I-11 of 2006, and

WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on December 27, 2006, upon notice duly published and posted, and

WHEREAS, public discussion was heard at such hearing concerning the merits of said introductory local law, and

WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Patterson wishes to amend Chapter 154, Section 154-27(A)(3), entitled “Permitted accessory uses,” which amendment will revise Chapter 154, Section 154-27(A)(3) with regard to the number of dogs permitted as an accessory use in residence districts in the Town of Patterson, and

PATTERSON TOWN BOARD JANUARY 10, 2007 PAGE 6

TOWN BOARD MEETING

WHEREAS, in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law (the State Environmental Quality Review Act) and 6 NYCRR Part 617 of the implementing regulations the action under consideration constitutes an UNLISTED ACTION, and

WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Patterson has reviewed the Environmental Assessment Form submitted for the local law as well as other supporting documentation for the project,

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Patterson hereby finds that the proposed action will not result in a significant adverse environmental impact for the following reasons:

1. The proposed local law will not create a substantial adverse change in existing air quality, ground or surface water quality or quantity, or noise levels.

2. The proposed local law will not create a substantial increase in potential for erosion, flooding, leaching or drainage problems.

3. The proposed local law will not create a substantial increase in traffic or the use of existing infrastructure.

4. The proposed local law will not create a removal or destruction of large quantities of vegetation or fauna, nor will there be any significant impacts on habitat areas.

5. The proposed local law will not create a significant impairment of the character or quality of important historical, archeological, architectural, or aesthetic resources

6. The proposed local law will not create a significant impairment of existing community or neighborhood character.

FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617.7 issues a NEGATIVE SEQRA Determination.

AND FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Patterson hereby amends Chapter 154, Section 154-27(A)(3), entitled “Permitted accessory uses,” in the form and manner as provided below, which amendment will revise Chapter 154, Section 154-27(A)(3) with regard to the number of dogs permitted as an accessory use in residence districts in the Town of Patterson, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Introductory Local Law I-11 of 2006 of the Town of Patterson is hereby enacted by the Town Board of the Town of Patterson as Local Law No. 1 of 2007 of the Town of Patterson, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a true copy of the law is attached hereto and made a part hereof.

Seconded by Mr. O’Connor.

Mr. Griffin stated does this also specify service dogs.

Mr. Herbst stated yes it does.

Mr. Molé stated it specifies therapy dogs, service dogs and Seeing Eye dogs.

All In Favor: aye. Carried.

APPOINT FIRE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER

Mr. Herbst made a motion to appoint David Raines as Fire Code Enforcement Officer for the year 2007.

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

PATTERSON TOWN BOARD JANUARY 10, 2007 PAGE 7

TOWN BOARD MEETING

Mr. Griffin stated this is being done for statutory purposes. There are a number of reports that have to be filed by the Town to the state by the office of the fire code inspector. Mr. Raines is currently our interim CEO/building inspector. We are making this a formal process for the state.

JOHN TAYLOR – PARK ADVISORY BOARD UPDATE

Mr. Taylor stated I would like to inform the Town Board that Mr. Hart, the third grade teacher from Matthew Paterson Elementary School is requesting that he conduct the maple syruping project at the park. As you all know, and those of you who went to the breakfast last year, it was quite a success. We do need the Board’s permission to let Mr. Hart know whether or not he is allowed to do this project again under the same circumstances that he was given last year which was 40 trees and specific heights for the taps and the monitoring by certain officials from the Town, i.e., Mr. Williams and Mr. Kozlowski.

Mr. Griffin stated I have no problem with it.

Mr. Kassay stated I have no problem with it.

Mr. Herbst stated I have no problem with it.

Mr. O’Connor stated I’m sure we should do exactly the same thing we did last year. It worked out fine. Maple Avenue lived up to its name and the children were happy.

Mr. Taylor stated Mr. Hart informed me today that he is so graciously accepting the Town Board’s position that he is planning to collect from the state, maple saplings which he would like to plant in the park as a gift to the Town and to thank you.

Mr. Herbst made a motion that the Town Board grant Mr. Hart permission to conduct the maple syrup project at the Maple Avenue Park based on the terms that were set last year.

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

RECREATION REQUEST – CONFERENCE ROOM TABLE

Mr. Herbst tabled this item permanently.

EDMOND O’CONNOR

BEAR HILL ESTATES SUBDIVISION

Mr. O’Connor stated Mr. Molé, I was wondering where we stand on this. The last letter we have from Hogan and Rossi involving the Bear Hill Estate and the road was January 5^th.

Mr. Molé stated after receiving the letter, I spoke with Mr. Liguori who received more information from a F.O.I.L. request he sent to the Town. His discussion with the Board is going to be different from what is in his letter. He’ll make his comments to the Board and then we’ll address them.

Mr. Liguori stated I want to show the Board what is out there and give a bit of history. I’ll also discuss the information that I received today regarding the highway department. The Kilmeyer survey of Bear Hill Road shows exactly where Bear Hill Road has been constructed. This is the 1930 filed map. That is the map that created the original Bear Hill Road. You can see that just by simply looking at where it was constructed, where it was proposed to be constructed are two different things. Down here is a smaller diagram and we actually have overlay that Rob Cameron can put on the board and that will show exactly where the difference is between the two roads. The pink is the actual

PATTERSON TOWN BOARD JANUARY 10, 2007 PAGE 8

TOWN BOARD MEETING

construction and the yellow was the location of the road as created by the filed map, which is also on the board. The question is, is there a defacto subdivision created by the location of the road. By having the boundaries of the road where they are, did it cut this piece of property into this piece right here, this piece over here, this piece right there and this piece over here. That was the question I was asked to look into. I began my research; I filed a F.O.I.L. request with the Town in connection with whether or not we met the criteria for a highway by use. That is section 189 of the highway law and it says that if you meet two particular type criteria which are that if the Town maintains a road for more than ten years and it is used sufficiently by the public for longer than ten years then the combination of the two the Town law treats it as if the Town has laid out the road as a highway and it should be given the full force and effect of a laid out road. I did the research into that; it was my opinion that a defacto subdivision was created. The issue that came up was when a highway by use is created, the Town only gets an easement; it does not get deed title to the roadbed, so the issue was how could you have the subdivision if the Town doesn’t have deed title to the roadbed. After looking into some of the case law, I was trying to understand why the Town gets an easement and not deed title to the roadway. The case law says that if the Town got deed title to the roadbed this way, they would have to pay just compensation. If that were the case, if you could imagine prior to 1950 or 1960, a majority of the roads in the counties in the State of New York were acquired by use. They weren’t laid out on a map but they are today in the subdivision. You could potentially bankrupt a Town by having them pay people to buy roads that they essentially take upon themselves to maintain so people don’t get hurt. It would be like slapping someone on the wrist for doing something good. That’s the rationale for why you don’t get deed title, why you get a public easement. I filed a F.O.I.L. request for the information from the highway department to find out when the Town started to maintain Bear Hill Road so I could make an argument that there’s a highway by use. I got the information back today from the highway department stating that “Bear Hill Estates map road A” with a length of 2,850 ft. was accepted and dedicated to the Town on October 14, 1949. I have to look into this further. I called the highway department and said “Is that my road, is that Bear Hill Road,” and they said yes that’s Bear Hill Road; town road number 520; we’ve received state aid in connection with the maintenance of that road; that is a town road. This differed with my first conversation with the highway department. They said it was just a Town maintained road so that changes things. I have to look at the history and look in the archives to see if a dedication was actually filed. I don’t know how that was done in 1949. If, in fact, that is the case then the issue regarding the title is no longer an issue. In that case it’s clear cut that an actual subdivision did occur back in 1949 which is prior to the Town of Patterson’s zoning ordinance. It would have happened by operation of those things. Title report of the property shows that the title to the road is still in the title to Anthony Branca, principle of Bear Hill Associates, so from the county’s perspective, from a notice perspective, nothing was recorded back then, I don’t know if things were recorded in 1949 regarding whether roads were dedicated. I think there’s…

Mr. Griffin stated they wrote down everything, Mike.

Mr. Liguori stated I know it could possibly be in the Town files but never recorded in the county.

Mr. Griffin stated well that’s where it would count.

Mr. Liguori stated that’s the new information that I have. It does change things a bit.

Mr. Griffin stated yes, there are people out there on Town property. If the road that was dedicated to the Town follows the original map, then that’s a whole different situation as well.

Mr. Liguori stated if we follow the tax map, the Town property begins here, comes up, comes across and it runs right in the middle of formerly lands of Rager, now there is a current owner; we have the Hausman’s here; we don’t have anything physically

PATTERSON TOWN BOARD JANUARY 10, 2007 PAGE 9

TOWN BOARD MEETING

constructed with the inception of this road that does cross the property but there are issues.

Mr. Griffin stated what are you asking us for here tonight, Mike.

Mr. Liguori stated I sent you a letter to make an argument about highway by use and that’s changed significantly. I need to look at the archives to see if the Town highway information is correct. It is logical for us to make sure this is not a loose end. If there is a dedicated road, and it is Bear Hill Road as it exists, what I would ask is that the Town Board abandon the road as shown on the filed map so I can file a new tax map in the county to clear up the issue and to ask the Board to accept a deed for whatever we own to the roadbed that’s out there and what that would do is clear up the missing information that is in the county.

Mr. Molé stated with regard to the old road and the new road, is where you’re saying that the Town took title to the road as it existed on the map in 1930 or the Town took title to the road as it currently stands as it was constructed.

Mr. Liguori stated the map was created in 1930; according to the highway department records the Town took title October 14, 1949. I’m going to look at what the county archives have for whatever maps the Town has. For zoning purposes, the zoning map is treated by what’s out there by the tax map so the zoning map is what’s shown on the filed map; that’s wrong. I’m hoping to find a map out there that shows it built the way it is right there.

Mr. Molé stated before you said one, two, three, four lots, but wouldn’t this be one lot.

Mr. Liguori stated no, this is – you could see the property lines here sufficiently cut it – they would cut the road…

Mr. Molé stated that was prior to 1949.

Mr. Liguori stated it would be after – even if there was anything else, he could look and see exactly when each of these original conveyances were, and actually the sale of this lot but first sale that (inaudible) I think it would be indicative of when this road was built because I don’t think this lot would have been sold if there wasn’t a way to get up there. That’s another way to get to the bottom of it. I didn’t have this information before today otherwise I would have had all that work done already.

Mr. Griffin stated so if this is a road by use and not by dedication then all the Town has is an easement to cross the property so how are you making the case that this is a defacto subdivision if we’ve just been statutorily granted an easement.

Mr. Liguori stated to refer to it as an easement is really inconsequential on the defacto subdivision because we can’t do anything with that piece of property. It’s effectively taken from us. We haven’t had any ability to negotiate for an easement. It wasn’t a grantor/grantee situation. It was completely different. We can’t use it for anything other than road purposes; the Town can’t use it for anything other than road purposes without paying just compensation. The reality of the situation, even though the law says that it’s an easement, is it only says it’s an easement because of the requirement that you would have to pay.

Mr. Molé stated the difference too is in an easement, the Town would only have what is actually used, in other words, that width. If it’s not an easement then you have the actual road width itself.

Mr. Griffin stated or whatever is actually specifically laid out.

Mr. O’Connor stated three rods.

PATTERSON TOWN BOARD JANUARY 10, 2007 PAGE 10

TOWN BOARD MEETING

Mr. Liguori stated yes, three rods which I think is 49 ½ ft. The argument is that the courts have said it’s an easement because there were financial ramifications that would be associated if they said the Town had deed title. That’s really where the argument lies. It would have been punishment for the courts to say you have to pay when a town or county acquired these roads by virtue of the fact that they needed to maintain them. The actuality is that it really does cut the property in half. If we had the ability to go in there and close the road, if we had rights that were that strong then I would say we really don’t have an argument; there would be no argument for a subdivision but because of the lack of rights that we have, what we are limited to do which is just to cross it, couple that with the fact that the entirety of the public is allowed to cross this road without impunity. If you total those situations together, that’s the argument.

Mr. Griffin stated as an easement you would have one conforming lot. With a situation where we consider the defacto subdivision, now you have two non conforming lots.

Mr. Liguori stated the only non conforming lot…

Mr. Griffin stated well it’s only two acres – if it’s a four acre piece it’s in question right.

Mr. Liguori stated no, we are talking about more than four acres. In order to meet the current code, each lot would have to be greater than four acres. This piece is greater than four acres, this piece right here is greater than four acres, this piece is greater than four acres; this is the only non conforming piece. Tony Branca and Rob Cameron went to the zoning board and obtained a variance to construct on a substandard lot for that piece.

Mr. Griffin stated if we accept these two lots, how big are the two lots going to be.

Mr. Liguori stated by virtue of a defacto subdivision, the first lot would be 16 acres. That would be this piece over here; the second lot would be 8.2 acres and that would be these two pieces; the third lot is this piece over here and that is a total of 4.93 acres and the fourth piece is the substandard piece which is 2.69 acres.

Mr. Griffin stated what does the yellow line indicate in the middle with the boxes.

Mr. Liguori stated these are parcels that were conveyed off in connection with the 19…

Mr. Griffin stated I’m just trying to figure out how those two parcels currently connected.

Mr. Liguori stated which two.

Mr. Griffin stated the 16 acres and the 8 acres that were going to be – assume that what you are telling me, if I understand correctly, is that currently the 16 acre parcel and the 8 acre parcel are contiguous lots if you consider it an easement. They are one piece. Is this what I’m hearing.

Mr. Liguori stated if this was looked at as an easement the 16 acre piece would connect with the 2.69 acre piece which would connect with the – I have to go back to the tax map. We would have two parcels. We would have this piece over here and this piece over here because the 1930 filed map road did cut it into two separate pieces.

Mr. Rich Williams, Town Planner, stated we are just spinning our wheels. Clearly, a portion of the road was not set up as a road right of way where an offer of dedication was made otherwise it would show up on the plans so regardless, there is going to have to be, even if we do it the way Mike says which is fine, we are still going to have to sever property boundaries. We are still going to have to do a subdivision.

Mr. Liguori stated the subdivision would occur.

PATTERSON TOWN BOARD JANUARY 10, 2007 PAGE 11

TOWN BOARD MEETING

Mr. Williams stated if what you are saying is that you are just going to file a correction deed…

Mr. Liguori stated after an abandonment there would be a correction deed.

Mr. Williams stated the correction deed would actually be creating a new parcel which the road would now sit in so it’s still subdividing land. We should just do the subdivision and correct it. It would be the easiest way to go. Just get it done.

Mr. Liguori stated we disagree because of the cost associated with doing that. If the highway department records prove out, which I don’t want to make any assumptions about whether they prove out, but I don’t think that we would have that record in there if it didn’t exist, the subdivision is already created. It’s done already and that’s markedly different than going to the planning board and having to continue with this subdivision as it stands right now. We are talking the difference between abandoning a road which is not a lengthy proceeding, filing a deed and that would be it rather than going to the planning board incurring significant amounts of fees, dealing with updated regulations, various regulations and potentially another year to year and half in time. It’s not as simple as just going to the board. We all feel the same way – get in front of the planning board and it’s dread – it’s just not that simple and that’s why we are looking to go this way. We don’t make any bones about it; we are not trying to hide anything.

Mr. Molé stated we are discussing something that we just don’t know. I understand he has a list of roads where it’s stated on the list that it is a Town road, but I think we need to determine that ultimately because that’s going to stem where we go from there. If it is not a Town road and it is an easement then that may result in one course of action; if it is in fact a road that the Town accepted then that’s a different course of action entirely. We need to find this out first.

Mr. O’Connor stated how long do you think it would take to check the file.

Mr. Liguori stated I did a F.O.I.L. already. The question is just getting over to the – putting the county archives, whoever administers that, on notice and take a look at what records are there. There is no guarantee that I have everything from the highway department. I have a list but there could be some maps in the highway department which would require gaining access to those maps and looking at them.

Mr. Molé stated what is the difference in the subdivision. How many lots are you going for now and how many lots will the subdivision be considered if it were a Town road.

Mr. Liguori stated if it were considered to be a Town road we would go from a 5-lot subdivision to a 2-lot subdivision in front of the planning board. We would still continue to try to obtain the two lots on the left hand side to subdivide the 8 acres into 4 so we’re not totally out of the planning board process.

Mr. Molé stated does that go from major to minor up to five lots.

Mr. Williams stated it goes from a major to a minor but I think we are so far along in the process on this application that it’s again a moot point. Essentially what he is doing is creating one property boundary in the Town right of way. Once he creates that Town right of way on the subdivision we are looking at now, he does in fact create those lots without ever having to do anything. The subdivision road would create the lots just like filing a correction deed.

Mr. Liguori stated if the road was dedicated then this is ancient history. It would have happened in 1949 and it is what it is. Would we be going from a major subdivision to a minor subdivision, most certainly. We would be going from five lots to just two lots in front of the board but if it already happened then I think it would be safe to say that it is what it is.

PATTERSON TOWN BOARD JANUARY 10, 2007 PAGE 12

TOWN BOARD MEETING

Mr. Molé stated is it a list that the highway department has now.

Mr. Liguori stated yes a handwritten list. It is not a typed list, it is a list that says roads dedicated and accepted and it says road number 520 Bear Hill Estates Road A, 2,851.2 ft., October 14, 1949 so we have a bit more work to do.

Mr. Williams stated it is a road inventory.

Mr. Liguori stated right, it’s our road inventory. It’s evidence that weighs in our favor instead of having nothing, at least I have something that could be more.

Mr. Williams stated might I also suggest that we research our Town records to see if there was an offer of dedication accepted by the Town Board because that’s really what’s going to determine whether this is a Town accepted and dedicated road.

Mr. Liguori stated I will F.O.I.L. the DOT because I think they keep a list of all roads in the state of New York and I think we would be able to take a look back; it may not be evidence of whether the Town Board adopted a resolution in 1949 but if there is some record of it becoming a Town road for instance if they don’t have a record in 1948 but they do have one in 1949 then we could build on that.

Ms. Evelyn DeBaerstrand stated I live at the very end of Bear Hill Road and I own what is called the turn around which is in front of my next door neighbors house. When my husband and I bought the house in 1982 that’s the way it came; it came with two parcels of land. I have been involved in the Hausman’s and now here because there’s a question of whether or not someone is going to take my land away. I pay taxes on this land and I have said to Tony Branca that I would flip him this land if he would put it back at the end of mine, which is a ledge. I’d be flipping him a flat piece of land for a rock ledge but I’d be keeping the property size the same, which is 1/8 of an acre, but he refuses. I want to state that I’m here because I don’t want my land taken away from me. I don’t want anyone using it. If this is a subdivision, they need a turn around so that the fire trucks could come up and I don’t want that taken away from me. I know most of these houses were built in 1935, mine was built in 1938. The scuttlebutt was, with people who had lived there since the 1940’s, the road was supposed to be built to a road that they are just now talking about. Thank you.

Mr. Liguori stated I haven’t been involved with any of the negotiations with Mrs. DeBaerstrand. We do know what the properties of our boundary lines are and we certainly would not be taking any property from Mrs. DeBaerstrand in any sense of the way. We are only limited to do what we can do on our own property. Thank you for your time.

ASCAP LETTER – LICENSE AGREEMENT

Mr. O’Connor stated the Town received a letter from ASCAP. The letter was sent to Sandy Coe at the recreation center

Mr. Molé stated I have spoken with Sandy Coe on this before and I saw this letter again. My question regarding this is does the Town have some sort of license agreement with ASCAP and if so, would that cover the recreation center or do they need a separate agreement.

Mr. Griffin stated we don’t have any licensing agreements with anyone at this time. Normally what we do is we hire individuals if we have a DJ for a dance. When we have an event we hire a company to come in for entertainment purposes. We’ve assumed through the years that would be their responsibility not ours. The question Ed and I were discussing this afternoon was that this gets into serious detail and I’ve gotten some correspondence from another company that does the same thing. They are talking about

PATTERSON TOWN BOARD JANUARY 10, 2007 PAGE 13

TOWN BOARD MEETING

elevator music and putting music on the phone when you put people on hold. Is this legitimate or is this just so much …

Mr. Molé stated it is a legitimate organization and they do…

Mr. O’Connor stated is this a typical shotgun letter that is sent to everyone in the world who has a loudspeaker in their building.

Mr. Molé stated I’ll give you an example. If you own a store and a store has music playing, they have to pay royalties if it’s music that they’re playing. If they get the license through ASCAP, then that’s how it’s taken care of; their license fee is to ASCAP and they take care of the royalties from there. In certain circumstances it is required; unfortunately it’s the world we live in.

Mr. Herbst stated how much is this per month.

Mr. O’Connor stated do we have any idea how much a license for non specific music like that background music, elevator music is.

Mr. Molé stated I don’t know what the recreation center plans on using the music for; I don’t know why they would need a license.

Mr. Griffin stated how ridiculous can you get with this. If someone brings in a boom box and while they are playing basketball puts on a CD, are we at risk. Other than people using things for background in their offices, I don’t know that there’s any music piped throughout the building.

Mr. Molé stated the theory is they would have purchased the music ahead of time and that’s their music and they can play it whenever and whenever they want to. If you’re using it in a public building where the public comes, you’re basically broadcasting that music to the public as they come in and out so it’s a little bit different…

Mr. O’Connor stated you see all the time that this movie or whatever it is can not be used for public commercial use. We couldn’t advertise come pay the town $5.00 to listen. We’re not doing that.

Mr. Griffin stated so we should just ignore this.

Mr. Molé stated if you would like, I could call an attorney who deals with copyright issues.

Mr. Griffin stated I can’t imagine that we could have any possible exposure.

Mr. Molé stated they are giving an entire session on ASCAP at the Association of Towns this year.

Mr. Griffin stated when you get put on hold in Patterson, you get sent to never-never land. There’s nothing.

Discussion ensued with Board members and Mr. Molé regarding this issue.

BUILDING CODE CHANGES

Mr. O’Connor stated we have a suggestion from the attorney that we exercise patience in this matter and not make changes while there is litigation being pursued that might be interfered with.

Mr. Griffin stated she refers in her letter to the abolishment of a position.

PATTERSON TOWN BOARD JANUARY 10, 2007 PAGE 14

TOWN BOARD MEETING

Mr. Molé stated in her new letter she understands that that is not what we intend to do.

Mr. Griffin stated I just read the beginning of the letter. Even though we have no intention of abolishing, she still (inaudible) a problem.

Mr. Molé stated exactly.

Mr. O’Connor stated in the letter it states based on the above, I urge the Town Board to be patient and leave the position status quo until such time as the other matters pending are settled.

Mr. Griffin stated the next question is what jeopardy does this put us in with the state not being in compliance or being able to enforce certain…

Mr. Molé stated the only question that comes in with the state is what we planned to do was adopt an entirely new section which the Town is not required to do. There are two sections in the new law that differ from the old law and any sections of the uniform code that you site may be different because of how they have the code laid out now and they want us to change those sections to refer to the correct sections in case anyone wants to look it up. Other than that, there is no real substantial change. We’re just adopting an entirely new one out of convenience.

Mr. Griffin stated we’re not in any issue with not being able to enforce certain portions of the New York State uniform building and fire codes.

Mr. Molé stated no, we could enforce the entire uniform code as it stands.

Mr. O’Connor stated the letter states the Town has already created the office of Code Enforcement Officer and it simply never created the corresponding civil service title, but that would not mean the title is not there.

Mr. Molé stated the titles usually have been used interchangeably for years and typically are in many Towns and that’s where an issue arises.

Mr. O’Connor tabled this item until further notice.

PROPERTY APPRAISALS

Mr. O’Connor stated the Town is looking to purchase certain properties. We did receive an appraisal. The package is quite extensive and is very defensible that the estimated market value of the property in back of Town Hall is $475,000.00. Based on this information, it would be appropriate to purchase the property at the amount agreed upon.

Mr. O’Connor made a motion to accept the appraisal performed by New York State Appraisal, Inc. as written.

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

VACATION REQUEST

Mr. O’Connor made a motion to accept the vacation request dated 01/08/07 as written.

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

ERNEST KASSAY

CHRISTMAS TREE PICK-UP

REPORTS

ADJOURNMENT