|
Sidewalks For new sidewalks on East Main Street in Jefferson Valley, see Community Development Block Grant Program Along Route 118 11/13/2007 This was not on the agenda but was brought up by Hwy Supt Eric DiBartolo. The issue was the planned construction of sidewalks along Rte 118 from Downing Drive to I believe at least Kear St. (I'm not sure if they would extend to Underhill.) Plans for the sidewalks have been in the works for three years and much of financing will be from grants with possibly about $100,000 or so in town money. Apparently, there are people from Beaver Ridge and Alan Ave who currently walk the area on the road. They go to the shopping center as well as the nutrition center. Because Rte 118 is a state highway, there are special requirements dealing with issues like snow removal. This means that the sidewalk would be built BEHIND the existing guardrail. Because of the slope of the land, it would also require a wall to be built at the lower end of the slope. The wall would vary in height but could be 6ft in some places. DiBartolo was also concerned about cost of clearing sidewalks after snow and liability to town if they didn't remove ice in timely manner and someone was hurt. DiBartolo argued against the sidewalk saying that it didn't make sense putting it behind the rail and that the wall would deteriorate (under natural conditions) after 15 years and the town would have to pay to repair/replace it. (He cited what sounded like an existing comparable problem: Santori, or something like that.) His suggestion was that people from Beaver Ridge area be directed to walk down Kear St and through shopping center and then exit at Burger King and end up at same location. DiBartolo suggested placing directional signs telling people where to walk but Board felt that town couldn't “direct” people where to walk, especially through private property. (Town couldn't place directional signs leading to private property.) Tedeger talked about how sidewalks were a recommendation in the master plan. Roker brought up the “process” question; do we have a problem when two departments, planning and highway, aren't talking to each other on an issue such as this. DiBartolo said he had raised objections to the sidewalks to previous supervisor, Linda Cooper, (didn't say at what point in planning process) but Cooper had dismissed them saying that sidewalks were wanted. Tegeder reminded board that if it wanted to change anything, it had to do so quickly as contracts were about to be let. As no decision was made, it appeared that the board continued to support the sidewalks and the project would continue as planned. In general, with Bianco more vocal, there seemed to be support for concept of making downtown more pedestrian friendly. 11/27/2007 (work session) 1. concern expressed that trees will have to be taken down during construction, as per requirements of state DOT. 2. Board agreed that it wants them to be replaced February 12, 2008, work session 1. Update on Jefferson Valley sidewalks scheduled for construction in 2008. 2. Veterans Road: See Community Development Block Grant Program 3. East Main Street/Mohegan Streetscape: See Community Development Block Grant Program
May 20, 2008 See Community Development Block Grant Program for an update on proposed new sidewalk projects. Coach n Four sidewalks October 21, 2008 During Courtesy of the Floor, Nancy Treptow, a resident of Coach n Four on East Main Street in Jefferson Valley presented the board with a petition from residents requesting sidewalks for their development.
11/27/07 (work session) Discussion dealt with deteriorated sidewalks on Mark Rd, Ellen, and Sherry in the Pine Grove neighborhood. 1. General feeling of homeowners and board members was that they serve no purpose and go to no where (once a school was planned in the area which may have been reason why they were required); people walk in street 2. sidewalks are 40 or so years old; grass grows in them, they're buckling, etc. Creates a liability to town. 3. snow is plowed onto them so homeowners can't keep clean and/or remove ice 4. homeowners want them taken out 5. DiBartolo offered to take them out last year but Jeff Econom, former assistant town engineer, said he couldn't. Again DiBartolo repeated his offer to take them out now ( would just be a day's work) 6. Tegeder explained that sidewalks were put in pursuant to a planning board resolution and that current planning board did not want to revisit and undo what a previous board had done. 7. ISSUE: whether town board had authority to vacate a planning board decision. This needs to be researched so no action could be taken. Campisi said board discussed this a year ago but at time didn't think board had authority to remove what planning board said it wanted. 8. Issue has broader implications for other subdivision sidewalks that go no where 9. Martorano: some sidewalks make sense; others don't; we need to exercise some common sense. Tegeder said even if they go no where, they can be used by people walking dogs 10. Discussion ended with Roker asking town attorney to research issue and do it quickly before snow becomes an issue. “Legally we don't know where we stand.” 12/11/2007 (work session) This item was dropped from the agenda at the last minute because the town attorney hasn't been able to complete his research into the issue. Because some homeowners from the neighborhood were there (they hadn't heard about the postponement) Roker had the attorney give them an update. So far, the attorney has found no legal authority for the town board to supersede a planning board action. Once the town board delegates power to a planning board, it's irrevocable. The only time an earlier planning board decision can be reviewed and modified AFTER the subdivision has been entirely built out is under extraordinary circumstances, e.g., fraud on the part of the developer is discovered or some other problem arises that undermines the basis of the original approvals. Martorano wanted to know if a “change of times” based on public interest would qualify. Attorney said no. Roker also raised question as to who owns the sidewalks. This also is still unclear. Attorney has to check back to original subdivision papers to see if any roads were dedicated to the town and along with the road dedication there was a dedication of any related accessories like sidewalks. Typically, when a dedication is made, three things have to happen 1) paperwork sent to town indicating the intent to transfer ownership to the town 2) acceptance of the road, or whatever, by the town 3) recording of the transfer of title Because the subdivisions were approved 40 years ago, it's time consuming to locate the paperwork, which may also be incomplete and isn't easily accessible. Also the developers changed over time. He said this search was similar to what had to be done earlier on ownership of Mill Pond. So far attorney hasn't found any evidence of any formal dedication to the town. Campisi said he thought the residents owned the sidewalks but that the town was responsible for maintaining them. March 11, 2008, work session This was a continuation of earlier discussions with no new information being presented. John Buckley, who took over as town attorney from Kevin Sweeney said that he and deputy town attorney Tara Lupoli had researched the issue and concluded that 1) the sidewalks were owned by the town 2) the town had the right to require homeowners to remove snow from them, indicating that Yorktown's existing law requiring clearance within 24 hours was more lax than some other communities 3) based on the Comprehensive Plan, it was in the town's interest not to remove them. The problem continued to be the legal issue of whether the town board could authorize the removal of sidewalks that were required by an earlier planning board. Councilman Bianco said that the potential existed for the planning board to sue the town board if the latter vacated an order from the former. He asked if there was some way that the town could dispose of its ownership of the sidewalks. Mr. Buckley said he would research that issue. Councilman Martorano felt that the sidewalks should be removed as they were useless, in contrast the sidewalks in the downtown areas that served a purpose. (When the subdivision was approved 40+ years ago, a school was planned in the area and sidewalks would have enabled some students to walk to school.) He felt that an exception should be made to the rule. Councilman Campisi questioned how the town could remove them when it had no authority. He also raised the issue of other sidewalks in residential neighborhoods that didn't appear to serve any purpose. Councilman Metz asked if there was a way that the town could distinguish between different sidewalks and suggested that the board meet with the planning board to see if it will reconsider its earlier position to amend the site plan for subdivision that required the sidewalks. The issue of sidewalks and compliance with the American Disabilities Act was raised. Mr. DiBartolo indicated that while there is one person in the neighborhood who uses a wheelchair and could avail himself of sidewalks, the existing sidewalks are in unconnected sections so that they do not, as a unit, lead to any specific destination such as a bus stop on Route 202. Mr. Buckley said that the law requires the town to make a "reasonable accommodation" for a disabled person. The discussion ended with the board's assurance to the homeowners not to worry about the unresolved summonses they received last year from the town's code enforcement officer when they failed to clear the sidewalks of snow – the issue that triggered the initial discussion. The summonses have been pending in town court ever since. The board agreed to meet with the planning board, or its chairman, David Klaus, to discuss the issue further and possibly make the planning board feel "more comfortable" with changing the requirements of an earlier board. May 13, 2008 work session Town Attorney John Buckley advised the board that as the road had been dedicated to the town, the town owned the sidewalks and had the right to maintain, repair or remove them. These rights superceded any site plan requirements. Mr. Buckley said he had conferred on the issue with Lester Steinman at the Municipal Law Resource Center. Although Steinman had never heard of the problem, he said that the road dedication carried with it the implied dedication of the sidewalks. Councilman Campisi raised the question of what would happen if and when homeowners in other neighborhoods with sidewalks “that went nowhere, ” e./g., Curry St, wanted them removed. He felt that by removing the Mark Rd sidewalks, the town could be letting itself in for a big problem and was opening a can of worms. Mr. Buckely responded that each case should be considered on its own merits and that issues such as the state of disrepair and any liability issues would have to be considered on a case by case basis. Supervisor Peters noted that it would cost more to repair the sidewalks than to remove them. It was pointed out that the only reason the Mark Rd sidewalks came to the board's attention is that an area resident who uses a wheelchair complained that the snow had not been removed from the sidewalks, which in turn, led to the homeowners receiving a summons for not having cleared the snow. The board will hold a public hearing on the removal of the sidewalks on June 3rd. When Mark Rd resident Albert Krauss asked, “What if one person wants them,” Councilman Metz replied, “We deal with that kind of issue all the time.” The town will send letters to area residents informing them about the pending public hearing. June 3, 2008 The board convened a public hearing to get input on whether or not to remove the sidewalks.
Several residents from the Mark Road area spoke, most in favor of taking out the sidewalks out and two in favor of leaving them in. October 14, 2008, work session Four months after the board held a public hearing on the future of the sidewalks (see above meeting summaries), it resumed the discussion as no decision had been rendered during the interim period. There was some confusion over whether the board had indeed come to a decision on the matter although it was clear that the earlier summonses for not removing snow had been eliminated. Councilman Campisi recollected that the board had decided to have Mr. DiBartolo fix the sidewalks and in the future require the homeowners to abide by existing town law requiring them to remove the snow. An overriding issue for the board was whether the decision to remove or fix the sidewalks on Mark Rd would lead to future requests to remove or fix sidewalks in other subdivisions that generally were “sidewalks to no where.” Director of Labor Operations Eric DiBartolo noted that his annual budget for sidewalk repairs was $10,000; he said that $4,800 was left in this year's budget. If the sidewalks are only being repaired as opposed to being replaced, they do not have to be brought up to existing ADA (Americans With Disabilities Act) standards. One person in the neighborhood uses a wheelchair and uses the sidewalks. It was this person who filed the complaint two years ago about the sidewalks not being cleared after a snow storm that precipitated the current discussions. Councilman Bianco noted that at the public hearing this person stated that he had bought his house because there were sidewalks. He added that in general he thought sidewalks were a “good thing.” Although only one homeowner from Mark Rd attended the meeting, the discussion became heated at times with the homeowner saying that if the town fixed the sidewalk, he wanted an exemption from the snow clearing requirement because of his bad back. He threatened to go to court if necessary if he was required him to shovel the snow. He said the problem was made worse when the town plowed the road and dumped additional snow on the sidewalk. In response, Mr. DiBartolo said that when a snow storm was in the one foot range, he typically had trucks return to areas with sidewalks to “wing” the snow off them. Councilman Metz advised the homeowner that he didn't think that individual homeowners could be exempted from the law's requirements. In the end, the board decided to have the sidewalks fixed and to speak to the town's code enforcement officer about exercising some common sense before issuing a summons for not shoveling them.
March 3, 2009 April 21, 2009 Geri Schwalb, speaking as the president of the Woods II Board of Managers and citing a town law, gave the board official notice of the unsafe condition of portions of the sidewalks on Rochambeau Dr. She said that according to the local law, the town was obligated to repair the sidewalks within a “reasonable” amount of time. April 29, 2009, work session Town Clerk Alice Roker said that the notice the town had been given at its April 21st meeting about the dangerous conditions of the sidewalks on Rochambeau Dr had “opened a Pandora's box” that the board had to address. The board acknowledged, that based on past legal opinion, the town was responsible for sidewalks along town roads once the town had accepted ownership of the road. Highway Superintendent Eric DiBartolo acknowledged that the town would have to repair these sidewalks and estimated that there were 40 miles of them in the town. Councilman Bianco raised the issue of whether the town should adopt a local law requiring property owners to maintain the sidewalks in front of their property. He said Ossining (it was not clear if he meant the village or the town) and New York City had such a law. The new law would be in addition to the existing town law requiring property owners to shovel snow on the sidewalks in front of their property. If the board were to pass such a law, it was not clear if previously built sidewalks would be grandfathered in and whether the new law would apply only to new sidewalks. (Note: The town attorney was not present at the meeting to offer any opinion.) Mr. DiBartolo also suggested that in the future, if the planning board required sidewalks in a new subdivision or site plan, that the approval stipulate that the property owner would be responsible for maintaining the sidewalk. Mr. DiBartolo said that he would attend to the Rochambeau sidewalks by the end of the week. On a related issue, Mr. DiBartolo advised the board that there was a 17 unit subdivision in town where the developer had constructed concrete sidewalks and concrete lips at the end of the driveways to each house. He said that the driveway portion at one house needed repair and that he would undertake the repair, but with blacktop, not concrete. He said that although the blacktop might not look as nice, it would cost $36,000 to repair the driveway with concrete. |