Village of Dering Harbor
Trustees Meeting via Zoom
Minutes
April 10, 2021, 9:00 AM

• The meeting was called to order at 9:05am
• Attendance- Mayor Patrick Parcells, Trustees Karen Kelsey, Clora Kelly, Ari Benacerraf, Brad Goldfarb, Vicki Weslek (village clerk), Wayne Bruyn (village attorney), Donna Ritzzmann (stenographer from Flynn Stenography, present on behalf of Timothy Hogue), Marian Brownlie, Albert D’Agostino, Linda Margolin, Andy Rifkin, Stuart Goldman, Stephanie Deustch, Kirk Ressler, Bridg Hunt, Susannah Rose
• Review and acceptance of minutes:

a. A motion to accept the minutes of the March 13th Trustees Meeting was made by Brad and seconded by Ari. All Board members voted in favor.
b. A motion to accept the minutes of the March 30th Special Trustees Meeting was made by Ari and seconded by Brad. All Board members voted in favor.
c. A motion to accept the minutes of the April 5th Special Trustees Meeting was made by Ari and seconded by Brad. All Board members voted in favor.

• Old Business

a. Treasurer Report – Outstanding Bills Abstract
i. A motion for a resolution to approve payment of bills as presented by the clerk was made by Brad and seconded by Karen. All Board members voted in favor.
b. Litigation/Legal Update- no updates and no changes since last month. No new litigation other than the eminent domain proceeding on 9A Yoco Road that the board has authorized a special public hearing for on April 26th.

• New Business

a. A motion to open the Public Hearing – Local Law Amending Chapter 230 of the Zoning Code – Permitted/Prohibited Uses, Driveways and Off-street Parking was moved by Karen and seconded by Brad. All Board members voted in favor.

i. Public Comments:
-Kirk Ressler commented that in terms of setbacks, he feels what’s appropriate for the A Zone is appropriate for the B Zone. That it’s important for the trustees to protect the openness of the roads and for residents to use the ZBA if they want to do something different than what is written in the code. He feels it’s in the best interest of the village. Patrick replied that he thinks it would be inappropriate to impose the same setback requirements in A Zone as they are in Zone B.
-Albert D’Agostino (representing Dering Point Associates) submitted a letter for the record. Patrick asked Mr. D’Agostino for the main point of his letter, which Mr. D’Agostino attempted to do so. Patrick asked Wayne to clarify for Mr. D’Agostino whether his concerns are being addressed by the proposed legislation.
-Patrick commented that he continues to have a problem with requiring the driveway to be located within the building envelope.
A motion to adjourn this Public Hearing and re-notice it for the May 8th meeting was made by Karen and seconded by Brad. All Board members voted in favor.

b. A motion to open the Public Hearing – Local Law Amending Section 230 of the Zoning Code – Definitions: Lot Lines, Yards and Lot Coverage was made by Karen and seconded by Ari. All Board members voted in favor.

i. Public Comments:
-Kirk Ressler referred to the comments he made at the last meeting. There was a back-and-forth discussion with Wayne regarding setback requirements on conforming and non-conforming lots. Kirk views this proposed legislation as weakening the zoning code, which he feels is bad for the village. Karen commented that clearly the BOT is not trying to reduce the zoning requirements in the village. The village should not have a system that requires any number of residents to have to get a variance every time they want to do something on their property. It should be clear what people are allowed to do on their property. Clora echoed Karen’s sentiments and said that in looking back at building permits issued over the last 20 years, she found that variances was arbitrarily applied.
-Wayne clarified and gave context to what the BOT was considering when drafting this legislation.
-Bridgford Hunt commented that he appreciates the distinction that is made between and major and minor roads, which benefits the corner lot that his family owns.
– Albert D’Agostino stands on his letter submitted and had nothing to add.

A motion to close the Public Hearing was made by Brad and seconded by Karen. All Board members voted in favor.
A motion to adopt the following Local Law as written was made by Clora and seconded by Brad. All Board member voted in favor.

WHEREAS, Board of Trustees of the Village of Dering Harbor have proposed a local law amending §230-4B (Definitions; Word Usage); §230-27, §230-34 and §230-37 of the
Zoning Code to update and add various definitions related to lot lines, yards and lot coverage; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on March 13, 2021 and April 10, 2021; and
WHEREAS, by letter dated March 12, 2021, the Suffolk County Planning Commission considered the proposed local law to be a matter for local determination, and
WHEREAS, the adoption of said local law is considered to be a Type II action under 6 NYCRR §617.5(c), SEQRA and will not have a significant adverse impact upon the environment;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that Local Law No. 1 of 2021 is hereby adopted as follows:

LOCAL LAW NO. 1 OF 2021
A LOCAL LAW amending §230-4B (Definitions; Word Usage); §230-27, §230-34 and §230-37 of the Zoning Code to update and add various definitions related to lot lines, yards and lot coverage.
BE IT ENACTED by the Board of Trustees of the Village of Dering Harbor as follows:
SECTION 1. Amendment. Certain definitions in §230-4 B of the Zoning Law are amended by deleting strikethrough words and adding underlined words in alphabetical order as follows:
ACRE
The standard measure of area equal to 43,560 square feet. referred to a lot exclusive of any portions within the bed of public street.
BUILDING
A structure with a roof supported by columns or walls and having a horizontal area of more than 50 square feet and intended for the shelter, housing or enclosure of persons, animals or chattels.
BUILDING INSPECTOR
The person duly appointed to serve in such capacity by the Village Board.
DRIVEWAY
The area of a lot whether improved or in a natural condition by which vehicles take access to said parcel.
FLOOR AREA
The sum of the horizontal areas of the floors of a main building and accessory buildings on a lot, excluding unfinished attics, basement or cellar floor areas not devoted to habitable space, but including the area of all roofed porches, terraces, breezeways and similar features. All dimensions shall be measured between interior faces of walls.
FLOOR AREA, GROUND
The area of a building and other impermeable surfaces and structures in square feet as measured in a horizontal plane at the ground level. Ground floor area shall be measured to the outside of the exterior walls.
FRONTAGE
All the property abutting on one side of a street between two intersecting streets, measured along the street line; or in the case of a waterfront lot, measured along the ordinarily high water line between the adjacent street or lot lines. The portion of a lot measured along the lot line that abuts a street.
LOT, AREA OF
The total horizontal area of a lot exclusive of land in the bed of any street or navigable waterway.
LOT, CORNER
A lot at the junction of and fronting on two or more intersecting streets. A lot abutting upon a curved street shall also be considered a corner lot. In the case of a corner lot, there shall be only one rear lot line. The rear lot line shall be the lot line opposite the shorter front lot line (exclusive of the corner arc). If the front lot lines are the same length, the owner shall designate one of the opposite lines as the rear lot line.
LOT COVERAGE
That percentage of lot area covered by the ground floor area of all buildings and other impermeable surfaces and structures, excluding fences, walls, bulkheads, docks, exterior walkways and stairs, parking areas and driveways. Lot coverage is computed by dividing the lot area into the ground floor area.
LOT DEPTH
The length of the line which can be drawn from the center of the front lot line to the center of the rear lot line.
LOT, FLAGPOLE
A lot shaped like a pole with a fully extended flag at the upper portion thereof, the bottom of the pole being at the street line, the pole portion of the lot having a minimum width of 15 feet for its entire length being designed for use as access to the flag portion of the lot where the principal structure is or will be constructed (sometimes called a “dog-leg” lot).
LOT, INTERIOR
A lot other than a corner lot.
LOT LINE, FRONT
The street line at the front of a lot, except that in the case of a flagpole lot, the front lot line used for the determination of width of lot and the required front yard, which front lot line shall be one of the internal lot lines designated by the owner.
LOT LINE, REAR
The lot line opposite the front lot line.
LOT LINE, SIDE
Any lot line other than a rear lot line or a front lot line.
LOT, THROUGH
A lot extending from one street frontage through to another street frontage.
LOT WIDTH
The distance from side lot line to side lot line of a lot, measured along the street lot line or parallel thereto at the roofed portion of a structure nearest to the street line.
LOT, WIDTH OF
The dimension of a lot measured from side lot line to side lot line along a line perpendicular to the lot depth line at the required minimum front yard setback.
NONCONFORMING BUILDING OR STRUCTURE
A building or structure lawfully existing at the time of the effective date of this chapter or an amendment hereto which does not conform to the dimensional regulations pertaining to the district in which it is located.
NONCONFORMING LOT
A parcel of land lawfully existing at the time of the effective date of the adoption of the Zoning Law on August 22, 1970 or an amendment hereto which does not conform to the dimensional regulations pertaining to the district in which it is located.
NONCONFORMING USE
A building, structure or use of land lawfully existing at the time of the effective date of this chapter or an amendment hereto which does not conform to the use regulations pertaining to the district in which it is located.
PROHIBITED USE
A use of a building or other structure, lot or part thereof which is not a permitted, special exception or accessory use pursuant to the use regulations of the district in which it is located.
SETBACK
The horizontal distance from a lot line to the part of a building or structure nearest thereto.
STREET
Any federal, state, county or municipal highway or road, or any street shown upon a subdivision map filed in the County Clerk’s office, and any private road providing access to subdivided parcels approved by the Planning Board or existing prior to the adoption of the Zoning Law on August 22, 1970. An easement providing access to an individual lot shall not be considered to be a street.
STREET LINE
The dividing line between a lot and a street right-of-way.
STREET, MINOR
Streets including private roads or rights-of-way that are deemed minor by the Board of Trustees, including but not limited to Gardiner Way, Dering Lane, Havens Road, Nicoll Road Yoco Road and South Street.
STRUCTURAL ALTERATION
Any change in the supporting members of a building or structure, such as bearing walls or partitions, columns, beams or girders, or any substantial change in the roof.
STRUCTURE
Anything constructed or erected the use of which requires location on the ground or attachment to something having a location on the ground. Anything constructed or erected on, under or over the ground or upon a building or other structure or building, excluding underground sanitary septic systems and drainage pools, and exterior walkways, provided that anything constructed thereunder or there over shall not be excluded.
YARD
In the case of a front yard, the space within and extending the full width of the lot from the front yard line (or, if a lot is bounded by tidal water, from the ordinary high-water line) to the part of the principal building which is nearest to such front or ordinary high-water line; in the case of a rear yard, the space within and extending the full distance from the rear lot line to the part of the principal building which is nearest to such lot line; in the case of a side yard, the space within the lot extending the full distance from the front yard to the rear yard and from the side lot line to the part of the principal building which is nearest to such side lot line.
YARD, FRONT
An open, unoccupied space on the same lot with a building, situated between the nearest roofed portion of the principal building on, and the front lot line of the lot and extending from side lot line to side lot line in the case of interior lots.
A. A corner lot shall have two such front yards situated between the nearest roofed portion of the principal building and the front lot line along each street on which the lot fronts, except in the case of a corner lot where one of the streets is designated a Minor Street there shall be one front yard and a side yard along the Minor Street.
B. A through lot shall have two such front yards situated between the nearest roofed portion of the principal building and the front lot line along each street on which the lot fronts, except in the case of a through lot where one of the streets is designated a Minor Street there shall be one front yard and a rear yard along the Minor Street.
YARD, REAR
A space on the same lot with a building, situated between the nearest roofed portion of
the principal building and the rear lot line of the lot and extending from side lot line to side lot line.
YARD, SIDE
A space on the same lot with a building, situated between the nearest roofed portion of the principal building and the side lot line of the lot and extending through from the front yard or from the front lot line, where no front yard exists, to the rear yard or to the rear lot line where no rear yard exists.
SECTION 2. Amendment. Section 230-27 of the Zoning Law are amended by deleting strikethrough words and adding underlined words as follows:
§230-27 Building area Lot Coverage.
The total ground surface area lot coverage of the buildings and structures on a lot shall not exceed 10% of the total lot area.
SECTION 3. Amendment. Section 230-34 of the Zoning Law are amended by deleting strikethrough words and adding underlined words as follows:
§230-34 Building area Lot Coverage.
The total ground surface area lot coverage of the buildings and structures on a lot shall not exceed 15% of the total lot area.
SECTION 4. Amendment. Section 230-37 of the Zoning Law are amended by deleting strikethrough words and adding underlined words as follows:
§230-37 Rear yard.
A rear yard shall not be less than 30 feet, and, if the lot is a waterfront lot, the rear yard shall not be less than 40 feet.
SECTION 5. Authority. The proposed local law is enacted pursuant to Village Law §7-712, et. seq. as well as Municipal Home Rule Law §§10(1)(i) and 10(2).
SECTION 6. Severability. If any section or subsection, paragraph, clause, phrase, or provision of this law shall be adjudged invalid or held unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, any judgment made thereby shall not affect the validity of this law as a whole, or any part thereof other than the part or provision so adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 7. Effective Date. This local law shall take effect upon filing with the Secretary of State pursuant to Municipal Home Rule Law.

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Village Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to publish the following Notice of Adoption:
NOTICE OF ADOPTION

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that after public hearing was held on March 13, 2021 and April 10, 2021 the Board of Trustees of the Village of Dering Harbor at their meeting of April 10, 2021 adopted LOCAL LAW NO. 1 OF 2021 as follows: “A LOCAL LAW amending §230-4B (Definitions; Word Usage); §230-27, §230-34 and §230-37 of the Zoning Code to update and add various definitions related to lot lines, yards and lot coverage.”
Copies of the adopted law are on file in the Village Hall, Monday, Wednesday and Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon, or by appointment, and on the Village’s website.
BY ORDER OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
VILLAGE OF DERING HARBOR

c. A motion to open the Public Hearing – Local Law Amending Chapter 180 – Trees and Vegetation was moved by Brad and seconded by Ari. All Board members voted in favor.

i. Public Comments: there were none.
Wayne clarified that what is new in the legislation is based on what was discussed at the special work session meeting in March, in which the BOT took into consideration the comments they receive from the public.
Patrick further summarized the need for this new legislation.
A motion to adjourn this Public Hearing and re-notice it for the May 8th meeting was made by Brad and seconded by Karen. All Board members voted in favor.

d. A motion to open the Public Hearing – Judge Pastoressa decision discontinuing 17.5 feet of Dering Lane was made by Karen and seconded by Ari. All Board members voted in favor. Wayne asked Vicki to share the survey, which shows the affected area in question.

i. Public Comments:
-Albert D’Agostino referred to his letter and questioned why the village didn’t file a notice of appeal. He submitted that there are rights of owners that still exist, regardless of municipal action.
-Kirk Ressler commented that he thinks this would be the saddest day in the history of the village. It’s clear to him that the village had an opportunity to appeal the court’s decision and he doesn’t understand why it didn’t, especially since it had spent about $100,000 defending itself in this case. The village had an opportunity to defend its streets in this case but instead, is giving away village property.
-Linda Margolin (attorney representing Martha Baker in this matter) commented that there is currently an order in judgement which was entered to the court clerk on November 23rd, 2020. The village did not appeal and the decision is final. If the village fails to adopt this resolution, which formally ratifies an abandonment that occurred in 1943, it will be in contempt of court. The village has no ability to revisit this litigation.
-Kirk Ressler, who expressed that he wished he had brought his attorney to this hearing, was surprised by what Ms. Margolin had to say and asked if what she said is correct. Wayne responded that the village had a full motion to dismiss, which was acknowledge and subsequently decided. When the judgement was filed, the village did contemplate whether or not to appeal and there was a decision by the BOT not to do that. Mr. Ressler was shocked to hear this and said he plans to take legal action against the village. There was an exchange between Wayne and Mr. Ressler regarding the specifics of various cases and their merits (minute 63 of the Zoom recording).
-Albert D’Agostino made further comments in defense of Mr. Ressler’s comments and that his client, Dering Point Associates and Marian Brownlie, were not named or noticed in this case and that his client will rely on their rights.
-Ms. Margolin commented that Mr. D’Agostino assertions do not belong in this forum and clarified the maps that were used in deciding this case.
-Mr. Ressler reiterated that he laments not having his attorney present and requested the board hold off on voting on this matter until the next meeting.
-Patrick commented with an explanation of the 1943 map that was filed with the county clerk.
-Karen asked Wayne if there is a mechanism for adjourning the matter as requested. Wayne deferred to Ms. Margolin to answer that question. Her response- Mr. Ressler, Mr. D’Agostino’s client, and others had opportunities over the years to intervene in the case and they did not. The fact is, the case came to final judgement, after years of litigation, and the parties who are speaking at the hearing today should have taken part in the formal process years ago. The idea that someone is saying the litigation has failed to give them their say is not well-taken by her and she doubts it would be well-taken by the court. She urged the village to action immediately and not adjourn the matter.
-Mr. D’Agostino clarified who he represents and that it’s his contention that his client was not properly noticed.
-Mr. Ressler responded by saying that Ms. Margolin is correct that he would be a beneficiary of this decision. But he doesn’t see it that way. He wants what is in the best interest of the village.
-Wayne suggest the BOT adjourn to Executive Session at this point of the meeting.

A motion to close the Public Hearing and go into Executive session at 10:26am was moved by Karen and seconded by Ari. All Board members voted in favor.
A motion to reopen the Public Hearing was made by Ari and seconded by Karen. All Board members voted in favor.

Patrick commented that after taking all of the public comments into consideration, and speaking to counsel in executive session, he asked for a motion to close the public hearing on the matter, which was moved by Karen and seconded by Ari. All Board members voted in favor.

A motion to adopt the following resolution was made by Ari and seconded by Karen. Brad announced that to avoid an appearance of impropriety, he would abstain from voting. There were 4 votes in favor (Ari, Karen, Clora, Patrick) and 1 abstention (Brad). Motion passed.

WHEREAS, Martha Baker, the owner of 16 Harbor Lane shown as Lots 27, 29, 31, 33 & 35 on the subdivision map entitled “Map of Shelter Island Park filed in the office of the Clerk of Suffolk County Clerk on January 25, 1875 as Map No. 150, has claimed title to an approximately
17.5 foot wide portion of Dering Lane (formerly known as Aquebogue Avenue) that abuts the front lot line of her property on the south; and
WHEREAS, the width of Dering Lane (formerly known as Aquebogue Avenue) on the filed subdivision map is shown as 60 feet; and
WHEREAS, in 1917, the Village, by deed, dated October 24, 1917 and recorded in the office of the Clerk of Suffolk County under Liber 953, page 459, acquired fee title to Dering Lane (formerly known as Aquebogue Avenue); and
WHEREAS, by resolution dated December 5, 1917 adopted and approved the official Village Map (“1917 Village Map”) showing the plan for the streets, highways and parks of the Village, which map showed the width of Dering Lane (formerly known as Aquebogue Avenue) as 60 feet; and
WHEREAS, by resolution dated October 8, 1932, the Village adopted an Amended Village Map, dated August 17, 1932, to supersede the official map adopted on December 5, 1917; and
WHEREAS, by resolution, dated September 8, 1943, the Village authorized and directed the Village Clerk to file the Amended Village Map made on August 17, 1932, and checked by the surveyor on August 7, 1943 (“1943 Amended Village Map”), and further directed the Village Clerk to file with the State Tax Commission the amended tax map adopted on August 4, 1942 as checked by the surveyor on August 10, 1943; and
WHEREAS, the 1943 Amended Village Map changed the name of Aquebogue Avenue to Dering Lane and the width of Dering Lane from 60 feet to 25 feet; and
WHEREAS, the Village has not adopted any revision to the official Village Map since 1943 and there is no subsequent record of specific resolutions expressly referring to the discontinuance of a portion of the right-of-way of Dering Lane; and
WHEREAS, Martha Baker sought and obtained an Order and Judgment signed by the Honorable Joseph C. Pastoressa, J.S.C. on November 12, 2020 and entered on November 23, 2020 in the matter of Brad Goldfarb, Alfredo Paredes and Martha Baker v. Village of Dering Harbor, et.al, Supreme Court of the State of New York, Suffolk County, Index No. 21637/2015, which determined that the Village of Dering Harbor, no later than October 14, 1943, discontinued the strip of land abutting and south of the deeded front lot line of the Baker premises by filing the 1943 Amended Village Map, which narrowed Dering Lane to only 25 feet, and ordered the Village to adopt a formal resolution of discontinuance of the Baker southerly strip to Martha Baker pursuant to New York State Village Law §6-612; and
WHEREAS, By letter dated March 10, 2021, the attorneys for Martha Baker made demand for the Board of Trustees to adopt a resolution as ordered by the Court and included surveys prepared by Nathan Taft Corwin, last dated January 19, 2021, proposed deed with legal descriptions and recording instruments; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to New York State Village Law §6-612 the Board of Trustees “may by resolution provide for laying out, altering, widening, narrowing, discontinuing or accepting the dedication of a street in the village;” and
WHEREAS, pursuant to New York State Village Law §6-614 a public hearing was held on April 10, 2021; and
WHEREAS, in furtherance of the Order and Judgement of the Court the Board of Trustees find that:
(1) Dering Lane is an approximately 550-feet long cross street extending between Locust Point Road on the east to Harbor Lane on the west.
(2) There are four parcels of land having frontage on Dering Lane with only Baker’s property (a corner lot on Harbor Lane) and one other property (a corner lot on Locus Point Road) currently using Dering Lane for physical access to their property.
(3) The paved width of Dering Lane is approximately 15-20 feet with the remaining portion of the right-of-way consisting lawn or landscaping by abutting owners.
(4) The 17.5-foot wide portion of Dering Lane abutting the Baker property as depicted on the survey prepared by Nathan Corwin, last dated January 19, 2021, has been maintained and planted with trees, hedges and lawn, which have remained undisturbed and unused by the public for several decades.
(5) The existing paved width of Dering Lane provides suitable physical access to the abutting properties and for passage by the public and emergency vehicles.
(6) Like nearby Gardiner Way, Dering Lane will have a 25-foot right-of-way, and act as minor cross-street, both of which are not considered, used or planned to be major thoroughfares.
(7) The remaining right-of-way of Dering Lane can accommodate the existing public improvements, including utilities, and reasonable future expansion thereof.
(8) The 17.5-foot wide portion of Dering Lane abutting the Baker property is no longer needed as a thoroughfare and is useless as a public street.
(9) As determined by the Court, the 17.5-foot wide strip of land abutting and south of the deeded front lot line of the Baker property was effectively discontinued as the consequence of the Village’s filing of the 1943 Amended Village Map, which narrowed Dering Lane to only 25 feet.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that pursuant to New York State Village Law §6-612 and the Order and Judgment signed by the Honorable Joseph C. Pastoressa, J.S.C. on November 12, 2020 and entered on November 23, 2020 in the matter of Brad Goldfarb, Alfredo Paredes and Martha Baker v. Village of Dering Harbor, et.al, Supreme Court of the State of New York, Suffolk County, Index No. 21637/2015, the Board of Trustees of the Village of Dering Harbor hereby affirms the discontinuance of the 17.5-foot wide strip of land abutting and south of the deeded front lot line of the Baker premises as more particularly shown on the survey prepared by Nathan Corwin, last dated January 19, 2021, and described in the metes and bounds in said Order and Judgement; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor is authorized to sign the deed and all necessary recording instruments to cause title to said strip to be conveyed to Martha Baker as herein described.

e. A motion to open the Public Hearing – FY 2022 Preliminary Budget was moved by Ari and seconded by Karen. All Board members voted in favor.Patrick quickly commented that the preliminary budget has been available to view on the website, that it’s been discussed at previous meetings, and that the Final Budget will be adopted at a later Special Meeting, pending any comments from the public during this hearing. Over the past 3 years, the budget has declined by about 37% and property taxes have declined by about 44%. This year, he anticipates village property taxes to decrease by about 12%. Included in the budget is a page which includes town tax rates so that village residents can see how their combined taxes affects them individually.
There were no public comments.
A motion to adjourn the public hearing until the Special Meeting on April 26th at 10am was made by Ari and seconded by Brad. All Board members voted in favor.

f. A motion to open the Public Hearing – Local Law authorizing Tax Levy in excess of 2% cap was made by Ari and seconded by Clora. All Board members voted in favor. Patrick explained the need for this law, which is required by the state.
There were no public comments.

A motion to close the public hearing was moved by Karen and seconded by Ari. All Board members voted in favor.

A motion to adopt the following local law was made by Brad and seconded by Karen. All Board members voted in favor.
WHEREAS, Board of Trustees of the Village of Dering Harbor have proposed a local law authorizing a Property Tax Levy in excess of the limit established in General Municipal Law §3-c for Fiscal Year 2021; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on April 10, 2021; and
WHEREAS, the adoption of said local law is considered to be a Type II action under 6 NYCRR §617.5, SEQRA and will not have a significant adverse impact upon the environment;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that Local Law No. 2 of 2021 is hereby adopted as follows:
LOCAL LAW NO. 2 OF 2021
A LOCAL LAW authorizing a Property Tax Levy in excess of the limit established in General Municipal Law §3-c for Fiscal Year 2021.”
BE IT ENACTED by the Board of Trustees of the Village of Dering Harbor as follows:
Section 1. Title, Intent and Purpose.
1.1. Title. The title of this local law shall be the “Tax Levy Limit Override 2021.”
1.2. Legislative Authority. This local law is adopted pursuant to New York State General Municipal Law (GML), §3-c(5) that expressly authorizes a local government’s governing body to override the property tax cap for the coming fiscal year by the adoption of a local law approved by a vote of 60% of said governing body
1.3. Purpose. It is the intent of this article to allow the Village of Dering Harbor to adopt a budget for the fiscal year commencing June 1, 2021 that requires a real property tax levy in excess of the tax levy limit as defined by General Municipal Law §3-c.
Section 2. Tax Levy Limit Override. The Board of Trustees of the Village of Dering Harbor is hereby authorized to adopt a budget for the fiscal year commencing June 1, 2021 that requires a real property tax levy in excess of the amount otherwise prescribed in the GML, §3-c.
Section 3. Repeal. If the Board of Trustees of the Village of Dering Harbor adopts a budget for the fiscal year commencing on June 1, 2021 that does not require a real property tax levy in excess of the amount otherwise prescribed in General Municipal Law §3-c (to wit, if the authorization contained in Section 2 of this Local Law is not utilized), the override authority under this local law may be repealed by resolution of the Board of Trustees (to wit, without a public hearing and without any further local law).
Section 4. Authority. The proposed local law is enacted pursuant to General Municipal Law §3-c(5) and Municipal Home Rule Law §§10(1)(i), 10(1)(ii)(a), 10(1)(ii)(a)(12), and 10(1)(ii)(e)(3).
Section 5. Severability. If any section or subsection, paragraph, clause, phrase, or provision of this law shall be adjudged invalid or held unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, any judgment made thereby shall not affect the validity of this law as a whole, or any part thereof other than the part or provision so adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 6. Effective Date. This local law shall take effect upon filing with the Secretary of State pursuant to Municipal Home Rule Law.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Village Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to publish the following Notice of Adoption:

NOTICE OF ADOPTION
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that after public hearings were held on April 10, 2021, the Board of Trustees of the Village of Dering Harbor at their meeting of April 10, 2021 adopted LOCAL LAW NO. 2 OF 2021 as follows: “A LOCAL LAW authorizing a Property Tax Levy in excess of the limit established in General Municipal Law §3-c for Fiscal Year 2021.”
Copies of the adopted law are on file in the Village Hall, Monday, Wednesday or Friday, from 9:00 a.m. to 12 noon, or by appointment, and on the Village’s website.
BY ORDER OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
VILLAGE OF DERING HARBOR, NEW YORK

g. A motion to adopt the following resolution was made by Ari and seconded by Brad. All Board members voted in favor.
RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees of the Village of Dering Harbor hereby appoints the following individuals as election inspectors for the 2021 Village General Election: Angela Corbett and Jane Ritzler; and the following as alternates: Janet Jernick and Lois Corbett.
h. Amend procurement policy- needed to be updated and parts of it amended to be in line with what is required by state law.

A motion for a resolution to adopt the following procurement policy was made Brad and seconded by Ari. All Board members voted in favor.
WHEREAS, §104-b of the New York State General Municipal Law requires the governing body of every municipality to adopt a procurement policy for all goods and services which are not required by law to be publicly bid; and
WHEREAS, the Village of Dering Harbor has adopted a Procurement Policy, which upon further review has been determined to not reflect current New York State minimum bidding thresholds and is generally out-of-date.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees of the Village of Dering Harbor hereby repeals the current procurement policy and adopts the following as the updated Procurement Policy, which is intended to apply to all goods and services which are not required to be publicly bid.
VILLAGE OF DERING HARBOR
PROCUREMENT POLICY

1. Initial review of purchase.

A. Every purchase to be made must be initially reviewed to determine whether it is a purchase contract or a public works contract. Once that determination is made, a good faith effort will be made to determine whether it is known or can reasonably be expected that the aggregate amount to be spent on the item of supply or service is not subject to competitive bidding, taking into account past purchases and the aggregate amount to be spent in a year. The following items are not subject to competitive bidding pursuant to §103 of the General Municipal Law: purchase contracts and public works contracts under the bid thresholds established by §103 of the General Municipal Law, as amended from time to time; emergency purchases; certain municipal hospital purchases; goods purchased from agencies for the blind or severely handicapped; goods purchased from correctional institutions; purchases under state and county contracts; and surplus and secondhand purchases from another governmental entity.
B. The decision that a purchase is not subject to competitive bidding will be documented, in writing, by the individual making the purchase. This documentation may include written and verbal quotes from vendors, a memo from the purchaser indicating how the decision was arrived at, a copy of the contract indicating the source which makes the item or service exempt, a memo from the purchaser detailing the circumstances which led to an emergency purchase, or any other written documentation that is appropriate.

2. Method of purchase.
All goods and services will be secured by use of written requests for proposals, written quotations, verbal quotations, or any other method that assures that goods will be purchased at the lowest price and that favoritism will be avoided, except in the following circumstances: purchase contracts and public works contracts in excess of the bid thresholds established by §103 of the General Municipal Law, as amended from time to time; goods purchased from agencies for the blind or severely handicapped pursuant to §175-b of the State Finance Law; goods purchased from correctional institutions pursuant to §186 of the Correction Law; purchases under state contracts pursuant to §104 of the General Municipal Law; purchases under county contracts pursuant to §103(3) of the General Municipal Law; or purchases pursuant to section 6 of this policy.

3. Proposals or quotations.

A. The following method of purchase will be used when required by this policy in order to achieve the highest savings:
Estimated Amount of Purchase Contract
Method
Up to $999.99
No bid process necessary; needs Mayor or Trustee approval
Estimated Amount of Purchase Contract
Method
$1,000 to $4,999.99
2 written/fax/email quotes
$5,000 to State threshold*
State threshold and above
3 written/fax quotations or written request for proposals
Sealed bids in conformance with §103 of the General Municipal Law
Estimated Amount of Public Works Contract
Method
Up to $999.99
No bid process necessary; needs Mayor or Trustee approval
$1,000 to $9,999.99
2 written/fax/email quotations
$10,000 to State threshold*
State threshold and above
3 written/faxed/email quotations or written request for proposals
Sealed bids in conformance with §103 of the General Municipal Law
NOTES:
*To the minimum bid threshold as established by §103 of the General Municipal Law, as amended from time to time. Currently the thresholds are $20,000 for Purchase Contracts and $35,000 for Public Works Contracts

B. A good faith effort shall be made to obtain the required number of proposals or quotations. If the purchaser is unable to obtain the required number of proposals or quotations, the purchaser will document the attempt made at obtaining the proposals. In no event shall the failure to obtain the proposals be a bar to the procurement.

C. The Village Board of Trustees, prior to committing to the purchase, must approve all purchases in an amount in excess of $999.99. Inclusion in the annual budget does not constitute automatic approval by the Board.

4. Documentation of all actions.
Documentation is required of each action taken in connection with each purchase.
5. Award to other than lowest responsible bidder.
Documentation and an explanation are required whenever a contract is awarded to other than the lowest responsible offeror. This documentation will include an explanation of how the award will achieve savings or how the offeror was not responsible. A determination that the offeror is not responsible shall be made by the purchaser and may not be challenged under any circumstances.
6. Best Value Procurement Standard

A. The Board of Trustees of the Village of Dering Harbor hereby authorizes the use of the best value standard as part of the Village procurement policies.
B. The term “best value” is defined in §163 of the Finance Law of the State of New York, and that definition is hereby incorporated into this article. When awarding contracts under the best value standard, the Village must consider the overall combination of quality, price, and other elements of the required commodity or service that in total are optimal relative to the needs of the Village. Use of the best value standard must rely, whenever possible, on objective and quantifiable analysis. The best value standard may identify as a quantitative factor whether offerors are small businesses or certified minority or woman-owned business enterprises as defined in New York Executive Law §310. The best value standard may only be used for purchase contracts which includes contracts for service work, but excludes any purchase contracts necessary for the completion of a public works contract pursuant to Article 8 of the New York State Labor Law.

7. Use of State, County, Town or Other Municipal Contracts.
The use of Federal, State, County, Town or Other Municipal Contracts for procurement of goods and services (a/k/a “Piggybacking”) shall be encouraged, provided those contracts clearly state that they are available for use by other governmental entities within the requirements of §103(16) of the General Municipal Law
8. Exceptions.
Pursuant to General Municipal Law §104-b(2)(f), the procurement policy may contain circumstances when, or types of procurement for which, in the sole discretion of the governing body, the solicitation of alternative proposals or quotations will not be in the best interests of the Village of Dering Harbor to solicit quotations or document the basis for not accepting the lowest responsible bid:

A. Professional services or services requiring special or technical skill, training or expertise. The individual or company must be chosen based on accountability, reliability, responsibility, skill, education and training, judgement, integrity, and moral worth. These qualifications are not necessarily found in the individual or company that offers the lowest price and the nature of these services are such that they do not readily lend themselves to competitive procurement procedures. In determining whether a service fits into this category, the Board of Trustees shall take into consideration the following guidelines: whether the services are subject to state licensing or testing requirements; whether substantial formal education or training is a necessary prerequisite to the performance of the services; and whether the services require a personal relationship between the individual and municipal officials. Professional or technical services shall include but not be limited to the following: services of an attorney; services of a physician; technical services of an engineer engaged to prepare plans, maps and estimates; securing insurance
coverage and/or services of an insurance broker; services of a certified public accountant; investment management services; printing services involving extensive writing, editing or art work; management of municipality-owned property; and computer software or programming services for customized programs, or services involved in substantial modification and customizing of prepackaged software.
B. Emergency purchases pursuant to §103(4) of the General Municipal Law. Due to the nature of this exception, these goods or services must be purchased immediately and delay in order to seek alternate proposals may threaten the life, health, safety and welfare of the residents. This section does not preclude alternate proposals if time permits.
C. Purchases of surplus and secondhand goods from any source. If alternate proposals are required, the Village is precluded from purchasing surplus and secondhand goods at auctions through specific advertised sources where the best prices are usually obtained. It is also difficult to try to compare prices of used goods, and a lower price may indicate an older product.
D. Goods or services under $999.99. The time and documentation required to purchase through this policy may be more costly than the item itself and would therefore not be in the best interests of the taxpayer. In addition, it is not likely that such de minimis contracts would be awarded based on favoritism.

9. Annual Review.
The Village of Dering Harbor shall review this procurement policy on an annual basis and adopt updates as may be required.
• Clora spoke on protocols for moorings and how the village makes decisions related to moorings. From what she can tall, the village doesn’t have any guidelines a part from the waterway’s commissioner reference to the Chapman Guide. She suggested the BOT develop a policy regarding moorings that is more transparent and fair. She’s concerned about the current process of deciding mooring locations for non-waterfront property owners and how they are decided. In looking into a recent mooring application for a non-waterfront property owner, she did her research, including speaking to the SI Town Waterway Committee. Her conversations with them highlighted the need for equity in access to the water, moorings, and water activities. The “Ram Island model” came up: a mooring field dedicated for non-waterfront property owners. That can be mimicked in the village in from of the Julia Dodd culvert, which she then realized is something Sam Hird had already been doing for over 50 years and that some waterfront property owners already use to have a more sheltered spot for their moorings than what is in front of their property. It is a good spot for a number of reasons, including that it does not sit directly in front of any waterfront homes in the village. As waterways commissioner, she requested the BOT develop a policy she can follow and form a Waterways Committee of 3 people. Patrick commented that he thinks the current law regarding moorings is seriously deficient and appreciates Clora’s suggestions on how to improve it. He suggested that perhaps the village ask John Armentano, who has written on riparian rights and who is already helping the village on another matter, for guidance.
There was a subsequent conversation about “riparian rights”, how they are applied in the village, how many vessels could possibly fit in the proposed mooring field, how many moorings each property owner can have, and the process of transferring ownership of a mooring once a village property is sold. Clora emphasized that there is plenty of room for everyone in the village to have a mooring. Wayne suggested the BOT start first by looking at the current law and seeing where it needs to clarified based on Clora’s concerns. His first recommendation is identifying the issues and whether or not they can be addressed by regulation/policy versus an amendment to the code. A Public Hearing would need to be scheduled if a change to the law is proposed. In the meantime, Clora can identify to the BOT and to residents what guidance she is using, as Waterways Commissioner, to make determinations in these matters.

• Date for next meeting – April 26th, 2021 at 10:00 am- Special Meeting- Public Hearing – Eminent Domain Proceding – 9A Yoko Road LLC
• Date for next regular meeting- May 8th, 2021 at 9:00am
• A motion to adjourn at 11:34am was made by Karen and seconded by Brad. All Board members voted in favor.