REGULAR MEETING OF THE TOWN BOARD
TOWN OF GLENVILLE
FEBRUARY 1, 2006
AT THE GLENVILLE MUNICIPAL CENTER
18 GLENRIDGE ROAD, GLENVILLE, NEW YORK
Present: Supervisor Frank X. Quinn, Councilmen, Robert E. Bailey, Mark A. Quinn, Edward F. Rosenberg and Councilwoman Valerie M. DiGiandomenico
Absent: None
Supervisor Quinn called the meeting to order at 8:00 PM. Councilman Bailey gave the invocation and lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Supervisor Quinn asked the Town Clerk, Linda C. Neals, to call the roll. Everyone was present and accounted for.
Town Council Reports:
Councilwoman DiGiandomenico – “I just want to confirm that Jamie MacFarland has touched base with Kurt Simon in regard to the Participation in Government Festival on February 15th at 1:00 pm at the Burnt Hills/Ballston Lake High School. Jamie and I are meeting Monday at 2:00 pm to plan the town’s display and to discuss some of the areas that we would like to focus on.”
Councilman Quinn – “I had a meeting briefly with the Park Planning Committee and my first opportunity in being their liaison and unfortunately my first bit of news out of that arena is slightly sad. As you may have already heard the Winterfest for this Saturday has been cancelled but for obvious reasons if you look outside you can see the lack of ice and snow. There is no reschedule date.
One of the items that was discussed with the three new board members, the members of that committee would like to discuss a variety of park planning initiatives and an overall comprehensive plan for the future of our parks. They would like to schedule that on the 28th at 7:30 pm at the Senior Center.”
Councilman Bailey – “Last week at the S-G High School on the 26th of January we had a public information meeting on the sidewalk project down in that area. It allowed the public to see what is proposed and it allowed them to input comments to the team working on the sidewalk.
The second item is the Commissioner of Public Works has made a recommendation regarding the establishment of a Senior Water/Sewer Maintenance Worker position in the Town of Glenville. I think we should be talking about that at the next work session.”
Supervisor Quinn – “Item No. 5 on the agenda is a public hearing to consider the proposed extension to Water District No. 11, along Rector Road.
We visited this one time in the past at a meeting and had a public hearing but there was a problem with the way we put out the public notice. So what we are doing tonight is giving any and all people a second chance to talk about what’s of interest to them about the proposed extension to Water District 11 down Rector Road.
That extension when it connects at the bottom end on Route 5 will create a water loop completely around the area so that it benefits people in all directions. We can use our water and our water storage much more effectively especially in time of emergency.”
Supervisor Quinn opened the public hearing at 8:20 pm.
Michael Caisse, 917 Rector Road – “I am just here in support of this, I hope that the new members will follow what the old Town Council did and vote for the water. There are a lot of people on Rector Road that need it and especially with the snow we have now they’re going to be in trouble next August.”
No one else wished to speak; Supervisor Quinn closed the public hearing at 8:22 pm.
The following people exercised the privilege of the floor:
Neil Turner, 1965 Amsterdam Road – “I just have a small comment on the Homeland Security Center or what ever it is called; I’ve looked at the plans and I’ve listened to the talk and it seems to me that might be a very successful adventure. The down side to me is that it looks too crowded there. I wonder if we really think this is going to be a big success if we shouldn’t think about some place that might have a little more room to it.”
Carla Houst, 26 Marion Blvd. – “I am here today because I am delighted to find out that there is a sidewalk proposal underway and everyone has been complaining for years that it has not been safe for them to walk to school in that one (1) mile radius on certain roads in particular. I was disappointed at the planning meeting to see that Vley Road is excluded from the plans at the moment. I did learn that Route 147 had had some accidents and so I can see that that definitely needs to be taken care of.
I did bring forty-five (45) signatures with me; my children and I went out and gathered them in just two and one-half hours (2½). Of everyone that was home only two (2) people said no.
I would like to propose that if possible maybe because Route 147 has narrow shoulders that perhaps a couple of traffic lights would be sufficient to slow down the traffic that is coming in really fast to protect the kids and also it would give people an opportunity getting in and out of the road by Corporations Park. Maybe it could just be blinking when school is not in session. I suspect that if we did something like that we might be able to move the sidewalks to Vley Road and maybe other areas that are really dangerous. Vley has no where to walk safely, it’s just such a dangerous street, the traffic comes down really quick, there’s no lights and there is just no place to go if you need to get out of the way
especially in the winter time. I am unaware if there are other roads that are as bad as that but of all the kids and everyone that I spoke to in our neighborhood they are in agreement with this.”
No one else wished to speak; Supervisor Quinn closed the privilege of the floor.
Supervisor’s Comments to the Board:
Supervisor Quinn – “One of the things that is going on and you can see and hear it going on outside right now is we are trying to open up as we all know the town meetings and make the government more open, more transparent to all people and so we are encouraging all kinds of public meetings. Last week was the Gilboa Dam so people could learn about that, you just heard about the sidewalks I’m sure and the re-valuation process for people with questions about that were here from 7:00 pm to 8:00 pm and as you can see it continues.
We will continue to try and keep it as open as we would all like it so that everyone can benefit and participate in government.
A couple of announcements about meetings that I’ve been participating in over the last two weeks; I’ve met the people from the leadership of the Zone 5 Police Academy about the proposed training center.
Several of us on the board, myself included, met with New York State Development to hear some of their proposals firsthand about the proposed development and as liaison to the board I have been to the Fire Chiefs meeting and we are all invited to go to the Fire Commissioners meeting on Saturday, February 11th.
A couple of other upcoming meetings that any or all of you are welcome to attend; we are going to be meeting this Friday with folks from Safety Central, who are also one of the key ball players at the Fire Training Center and on Monday the 6th in the evening the Glenville Business and Professional Association will be having a meeting and we are invited to that one.
Chief Boyle has now departed from our Police Department. Deputy Chief Macherone is in charge of the Police Department. We have made some new appointments of officers, we have had a mix of laterals as well as some brand new officers come in and we had the opportunity to bring new people on board and there is an agenda item tonight about a promotion. We will be advertising very shortly for the position of Police Chief and those actions will continue to move because public safety is a critical issue for all of us.
An item of information, I gave to each of you and I don’t know how much time you have had to read it, it’s an initial analyst of the three main funds of the town and what shape we are in at least as of the 31st of the month of January. Some of the trends because the numbers are there I don’t know if you have had a chance to do any of the trending data. As we can see using the date of 2003 what’s been going on with appropriations for the three main funds they have been going up. They have gone up appropriations wise 2.4 million dollars or 31% on the other hand our revenues instead of keeping pace have gone down. So while expenses are going up our revenues are flat and/or as you can plug
and chug the numbers like I did you can see while expenses are going up 31% the revenues have been flat. One of the things of concern for all of us and I do suggest we all obviously need to monitor this is our unreserved fund balances. While that thing has fluctuated between $900,000 to 1.7 million back to $900,000 it’s projected by the end of this year, given what we know so far, we go from $900,000 to $54,000 and that is our unappropriated fund balance. So needless to say now is the time for all of us to tighten the belts and be very careful as we go through this year because I don’t know if any of us would want to have a savings account with so little money in it when we have a budget the size we do.
For personnel costs which make up 73% of our budget obviously pay is up, it is held pretty tight and we thank all of our employees, union or not union for holding the line as well as we have done, but the benefits, we are all facing the benefits increase and the actuaries from the State will tell us we can expect 12-14% increase in that arena regardless of anything that we are doing just because that’s what is going on in the industry; the State Retirement 8-9% and so forth and so on. Our paying benefits and here we go into our union negotiations and we respect our unions and our unions respect us but things are definitely, definitely tight.
We all know that we have had some buy outs as some of our employees have retired recently and cashed in their accounts. Over the last three years through 2005 we’ve had of about $337,000 worth of cash-ins that were not budgeted. We had budgeted amounts and the budgeted amounts were expended but we had another $337,000 that was not budgeted that we had to meet. That came from our fund balance our unappropriated balance.
If I can make the point for all of us, I’m sure we can all do the numbers but here is the point I am trying to make. In 2005 the town put one million dollars into the annual budget to keep taxes down, in 2006, the budget we are under right now, $850,000 was put in to keep the taxes down, if we go according to this years budget and don’t achieve any savings we are going to drop from $850,000 unappropriated fund balance to $54,000. Needless to say now is not the time to spend money we don’t have and we are not going to make this up in the last quarter because of cash flows.
If you have any questions about those numbers, these are not audited numbers this best we know we still have time to close out the books on January to close out December but we have got to get ready for our audit and this is the picture as we are looking at it.”
Supervisor Quinn continued with the agenda items.
RESOLUTION NO. 64-2006
Moved by: Councilman Quinn
Seconded by: Councilman Rosenberg
WHEREAS a vacancy currently exists in the position for Police Sergeant as a result of the retirement of Sergeant Karl Batzinger on 1/20/06, and
WHEREAS the 2006 Police Budget does provide for the funding for this position in its staffing, and
WHEREAS an Interview Committee did meet and conducted interviews with police officers of this department who have successfully completed and are eligible candidates for this position on the Civil Service list provided by the Schenectady County Civil Service Commission,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Town Board does hereby authorize the Chief of Police to promote a member of the department to the position of Police Sergeant on a provisional basis subject to Schenectady County Civil Service Rules and Regulations with an effective date to be determined by the Chief of Police, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that his compensation be as set forth in the current P.B.A. Contract for Police Sergeant.
Ayes: Councilman Rosenberg, Quinn, Bailey, Councilwoman DiGiandomenico and Supervisor Quinn
Noes: None
Absent: None
Abstention: None
Motion Carried
RESOLUTION NO. 65-2006
Moved by: Councilman Bailey
Seconded by: Councilwoman DiGiandomenico
WHEREAS a written petition has been presented to and filed with the Town Board of the Town of Glenville requesting that an extension to Water District No. 11 of the Town of Glenville, to be known as Extension 33, be established to include real property as described by section, block and lot numbers attached to the petition and consisting of thirty-eight parcels of property on Rector Road in the Town of Glenville: and identified as follows by their tax map parcel numbers:
14.-1-15.1, 14.1-16, 14.-1-17, 14.-1-18, 14.-1-19, 14.-1-20, 14.-1-21, 14.-1-22, 14.-1-23,
14.-1-24, 14.-1-34, 20.-4-13, 20.-4.14.1, 20.-4-15.2, 20.-4-15.12, 20.-4-15.111,
20.-4-15.112, 20.-4-41, 20.-4-42, 20.-4-43, 20.-4-44, 20.-4-45, 20.-4-46, 20.-4-47,
20.-4-48, 20.-4-49, 20.-4-50, 20-4-51, 20.-4-55, 20.-4-56, 2.-4-57.1, 20.-4-59, 20.-4-66, 20.-4-67, 21.-1-1, 21.-1-2.1, 21.-1-2.2, 21.-1-3 as shown upon the tax maps prepared by the Schenectady County Real Property Tax Service Agency; and
WHEREAS said petition was signed by owners of properties representing in excess of 50% of the total assessment within the proposed Extension 33, and also representing in excess of 50% of the resident owners within the proposed Extension 33; and
WHEREAS said estimate of the improvements is $1,250,000.00, of which the sum of $165,000.00 shall be borne by the properties within Extension 33 and the sum of $1,085,000.00 shall be borne by the entire Water District No. 11 and all extensions; and
WHEREAS a public hearing was held on February 1, 2006 at the Glenville Municipal Center at which time all persons interested in the proposed improvements were heard; and
WHEREAS the proposed extension to Water District No. 11 is a Type II action under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Law,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Glenville hereby finds and determines that it is in the public interest to provide for the extension of water mains to Rector Road, to be known as Extension 33 and for the improvements to the facilities of Water District No. 11 and its extensions, as described in the preambles hereof, at an estimated cost of $1,250,000.00 and the same is hereby approved and authorized; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Glenville hereby determines and finds as follows:
1. All of the property and property owners within the proposed extension to the Water District are benefited thereby.
2. All the property and property owners benefited are included within the limits of the proposed extension to the Water District.
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Glenville finds that this is a Type II action pursuant to the Environmental Quality Review Act and therefore is not subject to further review and further finds that this action will not have a significant impact on the environment: and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Kestner Engineers PC is directed to prepare definite plans and specifications and a careful estimate of the expense of the aforesaid improvements and the Town Attorney is directed to assist in the preparation of proposed contracts, after bids, and to submit them to this Board for examination and approval.
AND IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Glenville approves the construction of the necessary improvements to provide water in the extension to the Water District as set forth in the Map, Plan and Report; and
AND IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Clerk of the Town of Glenville, within ten days after the adoption by the Town Board of this Resolution establishing the newly created Extension No. 33 to Water District No. 11, shall publish in the Daily Gazette, the official newspaper of the Town of Glenville, the following notice:
NOTICE OF ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION
A Resolution was adopted on February 1, 2006, by the Town Board of the Town of Glenville creating an Extension No. 33 to Water District No. 11 in the Town of Glenville which includes parcels of land at Rector Road. The cost of the improvements shall be borne as follows: $165,000.00 shall be borne by the properties within Extension 33 and the sum of $1,085,000.00 shall be borne by the entire Water District No. 11 and extensions.
AND IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that, the Town Board of the Town of Glenville hereby directs the Town Clerk to file a certified copy of this Resolution in duplicate in the Office of the State Department of Audit and Control in Albany, New York, and direct that said application be executed and verified by the Supervisor of the Town of Glenville after having been prepared by the Town Attorney of the Town of Glenville in conjunction with the Town Engineer and Town Comptroller.
Ayes: Councilman Rosenberg, Quinn, Bailey, Councilwoman DiGiandomenico and Supervisor Quinn
Noes: None
Absent: None
Abstentions: None
Motion Carried
Discussion…
Councilwoman DiGiandomenico – “The resolution contains a statement “The zoning amendments result in greater protection of sensitive areas such as floodplains and runway protection zones through the application of additional “Land Conservation” zoning districts”, since this contains this statement I will be voting no on this resolution.”
RESOLUTION NO. 66-2006
Moved by: Councilman Rosenberg
Seconded by: Councilman Bailey
WHEREAS, the Town of Glenville is proposing numerous revisions to the Town of Glenville Zoning Map and Zoning Text, per the recommendations of the Freemans Bridge Road Master Plan; and
WHEREAS, these zoning amendments constitute a Type I action in accordance with 6 NYCRR Part 617 (State Environmental Quality Review Act {SEQRA}); and
WHEREAS, the Glenville Town Board has assumed SEQRA Lead Agency in this instance; and
WHEREAS, both the Glenville Environmental Conservation Commission and the Planning & Zoning Commission recommended that the Town Board find no significant adverse environmental impacts associated with these proposed zoning amendments, and that the Board issue a SEQRA “Negative Declaration;”
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Glenville Town Board hereby determines that the proposed amendments to the Town of Glenville Zoning Ordinance and Map will not result in a significant adverse environmental impact; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Glenville Town Board hereby issues a SEQRA “Negative Declaration” (attached) for this application, based on the following findings:
· The proposed map and text amendments will put into place the various zoning and land use recommendations of the Freemans Bridge Road Master Plan, so this action clearly complies with officially adopted plans.
· One of the results of the zoning amendments is that future build-out and related traffic impacts from build-out within the Freemans Bridge Road study area will be less under the new zoning than under the existing zoning.
· The zoning amendments result in greater protection of sensitive areas such as floodplains and runway protection zones through the application of additional “Land Conservation” zoning districts.
· This action will not trigger any land development or cause any environmental impacts since this is an administrative action, and an action entirely consistent with an adopted master plan.
· Given that this action essentially amounts to a “down-zoning,” the potential intensity of land use will be less after this action than before. One result of this is that fewer agricultural, open space and recreation resources will be “lost” under the proposed zoning.
Ayes: Councilmen Quinn, Bailey and Supervisor Quinn
Noes Councilman Rosenberg and Councilwoman DiGiandomenico
Absent: None
Abstentions: None
Motion Carried
Discussion…
Councilwoman DiGiandomenico – “I received two letters from land owners on Freemans Bridge Road that I would like to read:
I, Richard Pahl would like to thank the Board for allowing me to speak at the January 25th meeting. Since I am scheduled for back surgery and will not be able to attend the February 1st meeting I would like to voice some concerns that I have.
One, taking and rezoning land from Glenville businesses, i.e. Pahl, Lukes, Sarnowski etc.
Two, building homes in an industrial area is not what the town should endorse.
Three, I have paid taxes for the past thirty years and now find myself restricted by the town’s proposed master plan.
Four, I am presently negotiating my land to bring a major business into the area that would be put on the tax roll.
Five, for the proposed master plan I would be losing some of my land because it is classified as conservation.
I feel all of my years of sweat, improvements and taxes have been in vain. I planned on this land becoming a part of my retirement master plan. Since we the landowners just became aware of the proposed changes to the master plan by reading about it in the paper. We believe the best interest for all is to schedule a new public meeting so both sides can voice their concerns. We do not want to exercise our legal rights if these issues can be resolved now to benefit the town and property owners for a win win situation.
Since three of the five board members are new this year I feel that the board should have the opportunity to become involved in the planning process and speak to the individual landowners who are affected the most by the proposed changes. Please take into consideration all of the above before voting for the proposed master plan changes.”
I also have a letter from Silar Laboratories:
Our company Silar Laboratories has been doing business at 37 Maple Avenue for over thirty years. We began the year 2006 with ten employees and are adding an additional three to our staff this month and next. With the additional staff our payroll will be $750,000 per year. Our business has recently been expanding to the point that we need additional space. We have just begun looking at acquiring an adjacent property.
Last month we learned for the first time our property which is zoned light industrial and the adjacent property are being considered by the Glenville Board to be rezoned residential. We also understand that the town has been considering this alternative for two or three years without public or private notification to us or any adjacent business landowners.
By this letter we ask your consideration in voting against down grading our property and adjacent properties to residential. We are perplexed as property owners to only have a few days to deal with the initial of this magnitude that the town has considered behind closed doors for three years.”
Councilman Rosenberg – “This master plan was originally adopted June of 2004 which is almost two years ago now for whatever reason I can’t explain it wasn’t implemented expeditiously anyway. It’s been over a year since then and several years since the plan was originally envisioned. We have had multiple objections by landowners already who claim they weren’t properly informed. We are already negotiating changes with several people that are involved in this and I feel it is setting a bad precedent. I feel like the master plan is no longer viable. I cannot agree with allowing one person on one side of the road to be able to do commercial and not the other. It doesn’t
seem fair. I am certainly not in favor of a residential area on Maple Avenue that was proposed but the zoning change that would be flanked by an airport, commercial in the front on Freemans Bridge Road, a junk yard and railroad tracks.
I am cognizant of the many people, hours and dollars that have been spent on this project however I feel I would be doing a disservice to the residents by going forward to match the zoning to the plan which I don’t agree with.”
Councilman Quinn – “I think the original intent of the master plan in the Freemans Bridge area has merit. However I think the Freemans Bridge corridor first and foremost is a business corridor. Although I am sensitive to conservation and open spaces and we need to protect the designated wetlands in my opinion in its current state gone a little bit to over zealous with our conservation designation as a result of that I plan on voting no on this motion.”
Councilman Bailey – “A lot of thought has gone into the master plan; work began back in February of 2001. We hired Synthesis Architects, Transportation Concepts, River Street Planning and Development, we worked with the Capital District Transportation Committee and Glenville’s Planning Department and when I say we that was before I was on the board.
Committee meetings were held on March 28th of 2002 at the Senior Center and then approximately one month later on April 29th at the Town Hall where people were encouraged to bring their input forward and help us, tell the board at that time what they wanted.
Then in the summer of 2002 a survey was sent out to all property owners and it was included in the Glenville News Letter and in fact it went to the board at that time was that the residents in the Town of Glenville wanted some planned development meaning, not haphazard but let’s have a plan and let’s stick to it. They wanted pedestrian friendly spaces, attractive architecture, development preferences were for office, commercial, retail, light industrial and I think the last item listed was recreation open space and this is not a particularly good area for recreation although there are some spots on the river that would be ideal.
One thing that was pounded on was residents said they wanted no more Wal-Mart type development.
The Master Plan was adopted on June 16th 2004 and I estimate that we spent approximately $50,000 coming through that process that I just indicated, to do it over again, Mr. Supervisor, there goes your $54,000.
The present corridor has some very nice businesses there in the business area however they are making do because they are set in a very unattractive environment. There’s decaying buildings, there’s junk piles, there’s auto scrap yards, there’s refuse piles. You can’t walk to any of those businesses, you really can’t, you are either going to fall in the ditch or you are going to get run over.
One of the biggest things is if we want to help businesses ideally is we need to have some walk-able spaces in those areas. Walk-in customers buy things too; you just don’t have to drive there.
I did a little experiment back just before Christmas, my wife and I parked in the Hannaford parking lot and I said I am going to walk over to K-Mart and buy some socks and on my way back I am going to drop a letter in the mail box at the post office, well I don’t know whether it’s because I am a Councilman or not but I was a target on the road. I waited and waited and I finally darted across traffic from First National Bank parking lot, went through the automatic teller machine on foot up to K-Mart, bought the socks, came back dropped the letter off at the post office now I am walking out of the post office driveway against incoming traffic, no place to walk, I am on a snow bank and again I almost got hit there. I
managed to get across to Mayfair Jewelers and back to my car. The total distance I walked was probably less than two football fields and I’m reasonably athletic and in good shape but it was not easy and there were some risks I took in doing that. I would submit that anyone who is using a cane or is trying to carry a bag of groceries because they want some exercise yet want to buy something they would never make that walk and in fact there was nobody else out there I was the only crazy one.
I think what we would all like, what I would like; I don’t speak for you but we need a sense of community in Glenville, we would like to have a place where you can leave your home, your apartment, walk out and see your neighbors, go buy something, have a cup of coffee. We don’t really, except in a few discrete neighborhoods we don’t have that and we certainly don’t have that in the Town Center. We don’t have it in the Freemans Bridge Road area and I think that is the kind of vision that we are looking towards here.
We are not trying to do away with business, absolutely not I want to see a viable collection of businesses there and I think the master plan factors that in. I don’t think we want big box stores, my little experiment with our medium box store K-Mart, getting across that parking lot was not fun. Nobody walks in front of Wal-Mart.
One of the things that happened here with the Sarnowski’s is they were contacted by what turned out to be Lowe’s and who wanted to put in a last minute bid to try and take advantage of an opportunity but when they got serious about it they realized this area has got road restrictions that doesn't support the volume of traffic that we need to come to Lowe’s to make it profitable. They are not going to put a store where it is not profitable and when you have a business that’s very good at sighting buildings and stores where they will be profitable and they come and tell you “the roads don’t support it” that is exactly what our master plan said, the roads don’t support big box build
out.
Over the past several weeks as a result of going through the Lowe’s issue and other concerns the Sarnowski’s came forward and from what I can see worked in an extremely cooperative way with the Town and I kind of feel like the Town and the Sarnowski’s worked together for the common good, it’s a win win compromise that both sides were happy with. My hats off to both of them and I think we have a moral obligation to honor that. The agreement saves the master plan, it doesn’t compromise the master plan yet it gives them the additional general business area that they needed to expand their business.
With regard to the Lukes’ property most of that is at the end of an airport runway, which is an undesirable place for people to be camping; you can get landed on by a plane and that is not what we want. Other parts of that land are wetlands also very poor places for people to live or congregate. I don’t have any problem designating the area that is in the FAA runway protection zone as land conservation.
Now having said that I don’t say that lightly because I myself know the sting of having property turned into land conservation; before I was on the board the town rezoned about thirty (30) acres of my property as land conservation so I understand. I know that is not your problem that’s mine but you should understand that I know what it feels like so I know what I am doing.
The Piotrowski lands have perhaps fifty (50) acres that would be zoned land conservation and that is in recognition of existing wetlands and flood plains should you have severe flooding. Again that is an area you would not want to put buildings. They are going to get flooded at some point, maybe not this year, not next year maybe five (5) years and you are going to be pumping water out of your living room. There is a financial aspect to that too whether you realize it or not people happen to have residences or structures in areas that have since been designated as flood plains they can buy flood insurance through the National Flood Insurance Protection Program. That assures you that you can have coverage. If the
Town undertakes a practice of allowing development in areas in low areas that are apt to get flooded we will loose our ability to participate in that program and what that will mean is people who presently have that flood insurance they will loose it. Loose your flood protection, insurance, what do you do? You either have no insurance or you try and find somebody who will underwrite your property and protect you. That is one of the things that we worry about when we designate those green areas there.
You can fill a wetland, but that is simply, water is almost an immovable force, you stop it, it is going to go somewhere, if it rains the water is going to go somewhere. So if you create an island by filling a wetland that water is going to go somewhere else. I’ve gotten, I can’t tell you how many calls from residents around town who are dealing with wet basements or lakes or ponds in their yards, we don’t want to create more of that, we need to be smarter in the future about development so that we don’t create those situations.
There was a question about impact on schools. One of the concerns here is that there is not as much general business, there is not as much of commercial and if there should be or perhaps there is too much residential. The plan, if you read it, calls for one hundred and eighteen (118) single family residences at maximum build out which means twenty (20) or thirty (30) years down the road there might be one hundred and eighteen (118) single family structures there.
Single family structures are the ones that tend to have kids, swing sets and tricycles in the driveway that is where the kids are. There are also a large number of multi-family residential areas and town houses and yes there are kids that live there from time to time but if you go down and look at Cambridge Manor you’re not going to see the same number of kids getting on school buses there as you would on a single family residential area. I don’t think the impact on the schools is going to be significant. In any event if the houses aren’t here and somebody really wants to live in Glenville they will go find another home site to build on. When you are considering one hundred and eighteen (118) houses
that’s not very big; we have four (4) times that many right now under construction in the town. That is a far bigger impact and we have builders and developers coming in talking about hundred unit single family residences so this is a drop in the bucket.
As far as the riverfront, I have done some thinking about that, the riverfront we don’t really do anything with right now it’s right there, there is a spot to launch your boats, there is a marina but it doesn’t really have any slips that can be used by the public. That would be, there is provision in the plan for developing the riverfront into something that eventually again over time could be a very attractive place to walk along. It’s already kind of started, we’ve got the Lighthouse Restaurant there that the town worked cooperatively with the owner of that facility, that enterprise and it is very successful. If you have been down there it’s a beautiful place. There is an
opportunity to build a promenade right along the river, it is not there yet but people are thinking about it. It is just a sense of things that could happen if we let this go forward.
A sense of community, we hear over and over again that Glenville is not a community; it’s just a collection of houses and business that are more or less haphazardly thrown down. We get criticized because we are not like Saratoga. Saratoga is the local place that is everybody’s dream place to live and in fact it is growing like mad. This is an opportunity to create a backbone or a structure that kind of pushes us in that direction or helps us get in that direction and that certainly won’t happen overnight. If we don’t start somewhere it will never happen.”
Supervisor Quinn – “To me what we are looking at here is a continuation of four (4) plus years of and dozens and dozens of meetings. First to get obviously the master plan approved and now our job is to align the zoning to that master plan.
This proposed zoning change is in fact real change; it’s a blueprint for what a key corridor in our town should really look like in the future. It’s planned growth, its measured growth, its managed growth in change a systematic systemic approach to what should be happening and it helps us to clearly avoid piece mail development in our town.
A related issue, the public, our citizens, land, business owners, interest groups, government agencies, stake holders from all over not just in this town, stake holders from all over have many many opportunities to input and comment on this process and this proposal, from the master plan through where we are tonight. Now whether these people, or their groups, or their organizations did participate in fact performed their own do-diligence that can be questioned but we know it was an open pubic process, there were many opportunities, everyone with an interest had chances, meetings, mail, phone or anything else to have a say. While everyone had a clear change to have their say, in our democracy we all know not everyone is going to get
their way. Now while no plan is perfect, no plan meets the needs and the values and the beliefs of all the interested parties and persons and also while no process or procedure is perfect for collecting, for analyzing, for inputting, for doing data analyzes and drawing conclusion, the plan that’s over here before us is a product of an open process and years of collecting input, information, data analyze, options, drawing conclusions and we have had a lot of lot of work done on this by our citizens as well as outside agencies and organizations.
Property values, investments, savings, business operation all those kinds of things are influenced positively and negatively by many many things. The market place is beyond the control or influence of much of our government, we don’t control the market place, its controlling us for many many reasons. Yes the proposed zoning changes will influence some peoples businesses and some groups will be affected more than others, some positive, some negative but these zoning changes are one of many factors that will influence what happens to the values and investments and savings and business operations etc. These zoning changes take into consideration the needs, the values, the beliefs, financial economics, and social interests
for all the people in the town. These aren’t just about Freemans Bridge, this is about what we want our town to look like and be like as we’re going down the road. It was done and developed by our citizens as well as other government organizations.
These zoning changes as far as I am concerned impact or influence far far more people than obviously the people on Freemans Bridge. There are checks and balances, if we pass this rezoning resolution then there are systems and procedures both in place, ZBA, litigation, all of those things for anyone and everyone to present their case for change to any of these proposed changes, so in summary what I would say is this – it’s time for the decision and vote, we will do that in a minute, it’s time prevent paralyzes by analysis not only now but in the future if we don’t pass this tonight. We have been called upon to make a decision for the good of all the people in this town, not just the people in the Freemans
Bridge area. While we are being called upon to make a decision here under conditions of uncertainty do-diligence has in fact been performed as best we can by those closest to the problem for many many years. There are procedures we know for any negative impacts on these zoning changes to be addressed, by voting now for or against these changes this is going to have obviously serious real consequences for all of our citizens, all of our citizens now and in the future. We all live and we all learn from decisions and any changes that we make to improve the process in the future we’ll learn from this process. If we vote no tonight then we need anyone who does needs to put forth an alternative as soon as possible because this needs to be done. We have a master plan and if we vote no we are out of sync and all kinds of chaos in development can happen from it.”
Councilwoman DiGiandomenico read the following statement:
“In an effort to keep my comments to a minimum, I would like to read an overview and my major concerns regarding the Freemans Bridge Road proposed zoning changes.
The Freemans Bridge Road corridor is essentially the commercial gateway into Glenville. Over the years it has developed piece by piece into what it is today. After three years of various studies and in an effort to organize the development of this corridor, a master plan was approved by the Town Board in June of 2004. The past 18 months have been spent rezoning the land so that it will conform to the approved 2004 Freemans Bridge Road master plan.
At the January 18th Town Board meeting, a resolution to accept or reject the proposed zoning changes to the Freemans Bridge Road master plan was tabled so the new members on the Board (including myself) could educate themselves on the subject. Since then I have made it my mission to talk to several landowners that are adversely impacted by the zoning changes. I have met with them, walked their land and held very informative discussions regarding the impact the zoning changes will make on their properties.
One of the major properties that has been impacted is the Sarnowski property along the east side of Freemans Bridge Road. The property in question is presently zoned research/development/technology. The proposed zoning changes approximately 42 acres into 12 acres of commercial zoning and the remaining 30 acres as traditional neighborhood. If one were to inspect the 30 acres that are proposed as traditional neighborhood, you would find that the land borders the railroad tracks and faces the back yards of the various commercial establishments on Maple Avenue and Freemans Bridge Road.
Moving up the road you come to a piece of property owned by Dick Pahl. A portion of Pahl’s land that is adjacent to the Sarnowski property is presently zoned research/development/technology and would become traditional neighborhood under the proposed zoning. This land, like the Sarnowski’s, is located behind commercial buildings and borders on the railroad tracks. It would be difficult to envision a traditional neighborhood development or that anyone would even think of building housing of any type facing these commercial buildings, power line and adjacent to the railroad tracks.
Now we move up to Schenectady Seed owned by the Luke family. The Luke’s have approximately 20 acres which is currently zoned General Business. The proposed zoning takes 17 of the 20 acres and labels it land conservation. Land conservation means just that. It renders the land basically useless, allowing for possible farming only. This is a family that has been here for many years, paying taxes and we now have restricted the use of the majority of their property and rendered it valueless.
As we move across the street Piotrowski land we now look at the present zoning and see that approximately 16 acres are zoned land conservation. The proposed zoning takes an additional 34 acres for a total of 50 acres designating it as land conservation. This now triples the land conservation. I do understand that some of this land lies in the flood plain, but as we all know, land can be reconfigured to allow it to become buildable and useful.
Finally, the proposed zoning takes land that is located next to Stewart’s on Maple Avenue from research/development/technology to traditional neighborhood. Included in this area are 2 residences and 4 commercial properties. Grandfathering can come into play here, but does anyone envision new homes being built here. With the price of land today one probably would have to build a home with a price tag of $250,000 plus on Maple Avenue in the middle if general business. Not too likely.
In conclusion, I have spoken to several constituents with the majority being in favor of Lowe’s or other big box locating here. They also would like to see TGIF type restaurants in the area. I have also received 2 letters, one in favor and one in opposition to the proposed zoning and informed both parties of tonight’s meeting. If the Town is to encourage commercial development in Glenville, this appears to be the best area available. We need to bring a commercial base to help fund the taxes needed to run the Town of Glenville and help the home taxpayer.
We as members of the Town Board have an obligation to the residents of Glenville as well as the business owners of Freemans Bridge Road to do what is best for both so we can live harmoniously. We owe it to the landowners who have been paying taxes for many years not to put undue restrictions on their property by designating their land as land conservation and therefore essentially of no value.
I urge the other board members to vote no on the proposed zoning to Freemans Bridge Road. NOW is the time for the Town Board and the property owners on Freemans Bridge Road as well as the residents of Glenville to hold a meeting with open dialogue from all parties so we can work out an agreeable resolution and it becomes a win-win situation for Glenville.”
Supervisor Quinn – “I would close by saying, and I respect certainly what Councilwoman DiGiandomenico brought forth of the five (5) or six (6) people that she mentioned, my concern is for the twenty-eight thousand five hundred (28,500) people in the Town of Glenville and what this corridor means to them. No system is perfect, we’ve given it our best shot, it’s time to vote.”
RESOLUTION NO. 67-2006
Moved by: Councilman Rosenberg
Seconded by: Councilwoman DiGiandomenico
WHEREAS, a number of zoning map and zoning text amendments have been proposed for the Freemans Bridge Road, Dutch Meadows Lane, and Sarnowski Drive areas, per the recommendations of the Freemans Bridge Road Master; and
WHEREAS, the most notable amendments include the addition of four new zoning districts: 1) Traditional Neighborhood 2) Mixed Residential 3) Multi-Family/Office
4) Freemans Bridge Road/Dutch Meadows Lane Overlay, as well as the identification of allowed land uses and dimensional regulations for these new districts; and
WHEREAS, the Glenville Town Board, as SEQRA Lead Agency, has issued a SEQRA “Negative Declaration” for this action; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to New York State Town Law and the Town of Glenville Zoning Ordinance, the Glenville Town Board held a public hearing on these amendments on December 7, 2005, with notification of said hearing having been properly posted in the Daily Gazette, the Town’s official newspaper;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Glenville Town Board hereby approves the proposed zoning map and text amendments; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that approval of these zoning ordinance amendments are based on the following findings:
· The foundation for these zoning amendments can be found in the Freemans Bridge Road Master Plan, which was adopted by the Glenville Town Board in June, 2004.
· The proposed zoning map amendments will be compatible with neighboring land uses, and in most cases, will improve compatibility in that the proposed amendments include elimination of most of the existing industrial-oriented Research/Development/Technology zoning designations from the Freemans Bridge Road area. In short, the overall rezoning essentially amounts to a “down zoning,” which ensures better land use compatibility between existing residential and commercial development and whatever development may occur within the new zoning districts.
· The proposed zoning amendments should not harm nearby land values. In fact, the elimination of much of the industrial-zoned land within the Freemans Bridge Road study area should help maintain if not boost nearby land values, particularly residential areas which are often not compatible with industrial uses.
· The proposed zoning amendments will not jeopardize the character of the project area, and in fact, may positively impact the character of the area due in part to the elimination of most of the industrial zoning, and the fact that the new Overlay District calls for improved architecture and site design, as well as better traffic management.
· The proposed amendments are consistent with other provisions of the Town of Glenville Zoning Ordinance, including the “Purpose” provisions outlined in Article I of the Ordinance. As an example, the proposed amendments comply with stated purposes that call for protection of natural features such as wetlands and floodplains; minimizing traffic congestion on arterial and collector roads such as Freemans Bridge Road and Dutch Meadows Lane, respectively; increasing housing options so as to accommodate a broader spectrum of income groups; improving the appearance of the Town through the use of building design standards; ensuring that new development in Glenville does not
conflict with existing land use patterns in adjacent municipalities, and in particular, the Village of Scotia.
Ayes: Councilman Bailey and Supervisor Quinn
Noes: Councilmen Rosenberg, Quinn and Councilwoman DiGiandomenico
Absent: None
Abstentions: None
Motion Defeated
RESOLUTION NO. 68-2006
Moved by: Councilman Rosenberg
Seconded by: Councilman Bailey
WHEREAS, I am introducing a proposed local law amending the Town’s Local Law #2 of 1997 regarding increasing the maximum tax exemption for veterans; and
WHEREAS, a duly scheduled public hearing must be held in order to change such a law,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Glenville will meet at the Glenville Municipal Center on Wednesday, February 15, 2006, at 8:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter can be reached, at which time and place it will hear all persons interested in a proposed local law to increase the maximum tax exemption for veterans; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Clerk be and she hereby is directed to prepare the proper notice of said hearing in accordance with law.
Ayes: Councilmen Rosenberg, Quinn, Bailey, Councilwoman DiGiandomenico and Supervisor Quinn
Noes: None
Absent: None
Abstention: None
Motion Carried
RESOLUTION NO. 69-2006
Moved by: Councilman Rosenberg
Seconded by: Councilman Quinn
WHEREAS, the Town of Glenville is concerned that open space, including agricultural resources, is being lost as a result of new development, particularly residential development; and
WHEREAS, the Glenville Town Board believes that the subject of open space should be studied to determine if action is warranted to address the preservation of open space; and
WHEREAS, the Town Board has determined that an Open Space Committee should be appointed to study this topic;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby establishes a seven-member open space committee, with appointment of individual members to follow after consideration of the qualifications, interests, and addresses of the 26 Glenville residents who have expressed an interest in serving on an Open Space Committee; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the charge of the Open Space Committee is as follows:
· To determine if strategies for the protection of open space in Glenville are warranted, based on numerous land use, census, and mapping resources, and based on guidance from various agencies such as the New York Planning Federation, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Capital District Regional Planning Commission, Schenectady County Planning Department, Town of Glenville Planning Department, and municipalities that have already examined open space matters and/or have adopted open space plans, etc.
· If it is determined that the Town should address the loss of open space, the Committee shall articulate the range of options that are available regarding preservation, strengths and liabilities of the various options, relative costs of the these options, and anticipated level of staff commitment.
· To produce a written report to the Town Board, within nine months of appointment of the Committee, with said report outlining the merits of an open space planning effort, and with recommendations as to framework, scope, costs, staff/consulting needs, etc.
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town of Glenville Planning Department will serve as staff to the Committee, with Councilwoman DiGiandomenico to serve as the Town Board liaison to the Committee.
Ayes: Councilmen Rosenberg, Quinn, Bailey, Councilwoman DiGiandomenico and Supervisor Quinn
Noes: None
Absent: None
Abstentions: None
Motion Carried
RESOLUTION NO 70-2006
Moved by: Councilman Rosenberg
Seconded by: Councilwoman DiGiandomenico
BE IT RESOLVED, that the minutes of the Special Town Board Meeting held on January 18, 2006 be and they hereby are approved and accepted as entered.
Ayes: Councilmen Rosenberg, Quinn, Bailey, Councilwoman DiGiandomenico and Supervisor Quinn
Noes: None
Absent: None
Abstentions: None
Motion Carried
Discussion…
Councilman Quinn – “I want to preface my upcoming statements, with the assertion that I think Mr. Dickson is going to be a fine attorney for the town, I think he has already been very impressive in what I have seen with his regard to understanding municipal law and his judgment. The objection you are about to hear is more of a procedural nature. I was under the impression we eliminated the Town Attorney position and that we were going to retain the professional services of someone with no benefits and when someone tells me no benefits I believe that is the way the position should be constructed.
This resolution not only provides for retirement contribution for our new attorney but it also gives him a Civil Services designation. In my opinion we are going down a very slippery slope here. In terms of making him an employee that was not the initial agreement.”
Supervisor Quinn – “As you recall we started with three (3) town attorneys and narrowed that down to two (2). While I concur with the basic principal that Councilman Quinn brought up for us in fact when you do the bottom line analysis of pay and benefits from where we were last year to this year we are in fact saving money even given that there is a civil service appointment involved here. So the town is in fact saving money as well as getting experienced attorneys in town municipal activities.”
RESOLUTION NO. 71-2006
Moved by: Councilman Quinn
Seconded by: Councilman Rosenberg
WHEREAS, in order to provide for legal services needed by the Town of Glenville, it is necessary to create Civil Service positions; and
WHEREAS, the Schenectady County Civil Service office has advised the town that the appropriate title for such positions is Attorney Part-time,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Glenville hereby authorizes the Supervisor to execute such paperwork as is necessary to create two (2) Attorney Part-time positions; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Margaret Huff, 1018 Tomahawk Trail, Glenville, N.Y. shall be appointed to the position of Attorney Part-time, effective 1/1/06 at the rate of $18,214 per annum (no health benefits), and Eric Dickson, 771 Trottingham Way, Niskayuna, N.Y. shall be appointed to the position Attorney Part-time, effective 1/12/06 at the rate of $54,000 per annum (no health benefits).
Ayes: Councilmen Rosenberg, Bailey, Councilwoman DiGiandomenico and Supervisor Quinn
Noes: Councilman Quinn
Absent: None
Abstention: None
Motion Carried
Motion to adjourn was moved by Councilman Bailey and Seconded by Councilwoman DiGiandomenico.
The Town of Glenville Town Board Meeting was adjourned at 9:26 PM.
ATTEST:
______________________________
Linda C. Neals
Town Clerk
| 
