REGULAR MEETING OF THE TOWN BOARD
TOWN OF GLENVILLE
FEBRUARY 21, 2007
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 7:30 PM. Councilman Bailey gave the Invocation and led 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.
Supervisor Quinn – “We will be going into executive session at the end of this meeting to discuss personnel matters related to the position of Town Administrator.
RESOLUTION NO. 65-2007
Moved by: Councilman Quinn
Seconded by: Councilman Bailey
WHEREAS, a vacancy currently exists in the Police Department for the position of police sergeant; and
WHEREAS, an Interview Committee consisting of town and police officials met with the candidates from the civil service list, conducted interviews and made its recommendation; and
WHEREAS, the Police Chief hereby concurs with the recommendations of the interview committee,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Town Board does hereby authorize the Chief of Police to promote Detective Michael E. Petroski to the position of police sergeant with an effective date of February 26, 2007; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the compensation and benefits for Michael E. Petroski be as set forth in the current P.B.A. Contract; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk, on behalf of this Town Board, be and she hereby is authorized and directed to notify said Michael E. Petroski of the afore mentioned appointment.
Ayes: Councilmen Rosenberg, Quinn, Bailey, Councilwoman DiGiandomenico and Supervisor Quinn
Noes: None
Absent: None
Abstention: None
Motion Carried
RESOLUTION NO. 66-2007
Moved by: Councilman Quinn
Seconded by: Councilman Bailey
WHEREAS, vacancies currently exist in the Police Department for the position of detective, and
WHEREAS, an Interview Committee consisting of town and police officials met with the interested candidates, conducted interviews and made its recommendation, and
WHEREAS, the Police Chief hereby concurs with the recommendations of the interview committee,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Town Board does hereby authorize the Chief of Police to promote Officers Michael T. Lamb and William J. Gallop to the position of detective with an effective date of February 26, 2007; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the compensation and benefits for Michael T. Lamb and William J. Gallop be as set forth in the current P.B.A. Contract; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk, on behalf of this Town Board, be and she hereby is authorized and directed to notify said Michael T. Lamb and William J. Gallop of the afore mentioned appointment.
Ayes: Councilmen Rosenberg, Quinn, Bailey, Councilwoman DiGiandomenico and Supervisor Quinn
Noes: None
Absent: None
Abstention: None
Motion Carried
RESOLUTION NO. 67-2007
Moved by: Councilman Quinn
Seconded by: Councilman Bailey
WHEREAS, a need currently exists in the Police Department for the positions of police officer; and
WHEREAS, Kevin W. Dunbar has requested a lateral transfer from the Scotia Police Department and Charles J. Lavery has requested a lateral transfer from the Schenectady Police Department; and
WHEREAS, an Interview Committee consisting of elected, town and police officials met with the candidates, conducted interviews and made its recommendations; and
WHEREAS, the Police Chief hereby confers with the recommendations of the interview committee,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Town Board does hereby authorize the Chief of Police to hire Kevin W. Dunbar of 14 Fawn Drive, Scotia NY and Charles J. Lavery of 1448 Sumner Ave., Schenectady NY to the positions of Police Officer in the Glenville Police Department, with an effective date of February 26, 2007; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the compensation and benefits for Kevin W. Dunbar be as set forth in the current P.B.A. Contract, as a fourth year officer and for Charles J. Lavery as a second year officer; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk, on behalf of this Town Board, be and she hereby is authorized and directed to notify said officers of the afore mentioned appointment.
Ayes: Councilmen Rosenberg, Quinn, Bailey, Councilwoman DiGiandomenico and Supervisor Quinn
Noes: None
Absent: None
Abstention: None
Motion Carried
Supervisor Quinn – “We appreciate what is going on and the good work our force does. Thank you, welcome aboard and congratulations on your promotions.”
Town Council Reports:
Councilman Bailey – “At a recent meeting we had a resident who spoke and expressed annoyance with the thermal treatment project down at the Lyon’s property. One of the issues was the noise 24-7 throbbing noise that he could hear. My recollection is that when we signed on with this project a long time ago there were constraints on the allowed noise levels. I researched the paper work that I had at home and I found a bunch of information but I couldn’t find anything on the noise.
Do you know if anybody in the town got back to that individual yet?”
Supervisor Quinn – “Yes, I got a hold of DEC on this and the project manager is Mike Mason. I spoke with him last week and he went out on site. They ran sound tests for a couple of days. The decibel readings on the sound tests were within the normal range, 60 decibels certainly wasn’t any kind of violation of the noise and I also asked him what about vibrations because the concern at the last meeting was that there was a lot of vibration causing damage to properties. They also changed some of the operating apparatus on the burner itself. Mr. Mason was going back today to double check that everything was working as planned and then he was going to see Mr. Arroyo. I have not received a report
at this time but if I don’t have one by Friday I will call Mr. Mason.”
Councilman Bailey – “I think all of the Board members received a copy of the Office of Court Administration assessment of the Town Court facilities here. It is a quite broad and far reaching document. There’s a lot of recommendations there, I think as the liaison to the Justice I’d like to encourage my colleagues to make sure that they get familiar with that and then I think we should invite the Justices to a work session in the near future to try and prioritize the things that are in there. There is no way we could do all of them. They are incompatible with our budget and with the size of this facility. There are some things we can and should do.
With regard to the Public Safety Training Center project I spoke with Peter Russo after a call from Ben Hersendorf, both individuals are very active in the project and I advised them of what I knew of the status, which was that the lease was being prepared, a basis for the lease payments is being developed and I also advised them that it was my understanding that the issue of using underground injection of storm water was the major reason that this board voted for a positive declaration and that consequently that issue is back in their architect engineers hand.
I am wondering, Mr. Supervisor, when you do your comments if you could update us if there is more detail.”
Supervisor Quinn – “While I had the note to do that, let’s do it right now.
They have not made any of the adjustments that are required. These are DEC, NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, requirements and as of today there were no changes and no additions or deletions. So they cannot proceed by not only our demands but the requirements of DEC have not been met either. I am sure it will be a matter of time until the architects and engineers adopt what is going on.
The lease terms and conditions I discussed with the Chairman of the Homeland Security Project and we have the basic agreements on that so we are drafting that contract. No contract will be signed until they clear all of the steps that are required in the zoning requirements.”
Councilman Quinn – “Can we actually draw up a lease that is conditional upon that those adjustments are made that you just mentioned?”
Supervisor Quinn – “Yes, as far as I know.”
Eric Dickson, Attorney – “We can’t because the SEQRA process has to be complete before the Town Board can authorize the Supervisor to enter into a lease. So we can’t do it conditionally we have to complete the SEQRA process.
The Town Board was inclined to vote for a positive declaration but that determination of significance was not finalized because they made certain proposals of changes to the project to mitigate because their request is for a negative declaration.
We have to complete the SEQRA process and then actually we have to call for a public hearing on the question of whether or not this facility is going to be bound by the zoning laws because it is not in conformance with the zoning laws. But being a governmental function up there it is possible for the Town Board to say it is not necessary for them to conform to the zoning laws but that does require a public hearing.
The completion of the SEQRA process and the determination of the Town Board after a public hearing have to be required before we enter into a lease agreement.”
Councilman Quinn – “The Public Safety Committee met twice last week in order to conduct question and answer sessions with prospective communication consultants. They did select one of these firms to prepare our console RFP and if needed provide expert advise during the eventual installation of the equipment. You’ll see this decision reflected in one of our resolutions later this evening.”
Councilman Bailey – “We had a failure in the variable frequency drive at the pump station up on Rte. 147. That drive has been repaired and is back in service and no good deed goes unpunished the other drive has now failed, they are both of the same age, and it was predicted.
Down at the Water Treatment Plant, progress is moving along fairly well there. The clear well cracks have now been sealed and we await disinfecting of the tank.
The Highway Garage roof has been completed.”
Supervisor Quinn – “Item No. 8 on the agenda is a public hearing on the proposed local law to amend Chapter 101, “Building Construction and Fire Prevention” of the Code of the Town of Glenville.”
Supervisor Quinn opened the public hearing at 7:55 pm.
No one wished to speak; Supervisor Quinn closed the public hearing at 7:56 pm.
Privilege of the Floor:
Barb Casey, President of the Alplaus Homeowners Association – “I am here tonight to submit our second set of petitions to you. They are completed and I have a memo with the petitions and lots of information in here for you including a spread sheet which we use to keep track of the process.
Of the 132 parcels included we had 86 signatures, which represents 65.2% of the owners and 62.9% of the assessed value. The owners of 36 parcels told us they didn’t support the petition and 10 property owners didn’t give us a decision one way or another although an attempt was made to contact everyone.
More than twice as many people oppose this this time. They oppose the petition not necessarily sewers. The signatures speak clearly, the people of Alplaus want and need sewers. What is not clear, just from the signatures the numbers are very good and we are very pleased about that, there is an appalling lack of confidence in the town to complete the project, which I am hoping we will be able to restore.
Those who are on the existing system who were not able to sign the petitions are angry and frustrated about being subject to the results of the process without having a say in the process. Many who didn’t sign including people who signed before indicated that they think we need the project but that it now costs too much and they don’t trust the engineering. Even those who did sign many of them indicated to us (the petitioners) that they aren’t certain even now that the extension can be built for the cost that we have been given.
So I am standing here to ask you to prove the doubters wrong and to build a quality sewer project in this year that comes in well under that $904. I think it is possible so I am hoping, as I said, you prove the doubters wrong and we will be able to do that.
I have a few ways that I think we can help to restore faith:
1. Give us a time line for a reasonable completion of the project: when can we get started, when can it be completed, what are the steps that need to be taken and when will they happen?
2. Consider seriously whether a re-bid will help to bring costs down, I know there are many who think that that will not actually help the process but I’d like it seriously considered.
3. Work diligently to get an agreement on paper with the Niskayuna School District and possibly the Knott Farm, that will benefit everybody in the district.
4. Demand from those who work for you, answers to remaining questions about the existing system.
5. Consider hiring a value engineer to review the project as currently designed, two engineering firms have reviewed the project but a value engineer has more freedom to make recommendations for changes that might save significant costs. We believe for a relatively small amount of money and very little time savings could be found and the cost could be added to the project anyway.
We believe all of these steps are necessary and if done expediently will not add any time to the project which is an important consideration for those who have waited so long.”
Richard Longhurst – “I’ve been a resident of the Town of Glenville for the past 15 years and worked in the Town of Glenville as an employee of the Burnt Hills school district from 1981 to 2005. I’ve served on several Town Committees and had fairly regular interaction with town staff over the past 26 years. I’m here tonight because a recent experience with one of those committees has left me feeling that my time has been wasted and wondering what the board really wanted from us.
Back in the fall, I was asked to serve on a three person committee to screen, interview and recommend candidates for the position of Town Administrator. Also serving were a Town Board member and the administrator for a neighboring town. Our charge was to screen applications, interview promising candidates and recommends many as three candidates for further consideration by the Board. We were asked to prepare a written report (which I drafted) identifying particular strengths and weaknesses we saw in each candidate.
At the beginning of the process I asked two questions as a result of some skepticism arising from previous Town Board actions:
1. Has the Town really concluded that they want this position or is the Board likely to eliminate it as they did several years ago after a very short experience with a Town Administrator? I consider the Town Administrator position is a necessary staffing focal point in a town the size of Glenville but I didn’t want to be party to bringing in a qualified candidate only to have the Board eliminate the position after a year or so.
2. Is the Board friendly to the idea of an internal candidate? I was unwilling to sit on a committee that resulted in a repeat of the police chief situation of several years ago where the Board rejected a committee’s recommendation of an internal candidate and went elsewhere. I was assured that the Town had learned its lesson from these two previous experiences and that I had no reason to be concerned. With that reassurance, I approached the task seriously and carved out the required time.
Over a total of three meetings, we did what we were asked to do and reached a consensus that an internal candidate presented, by far, the best qualifications, experience and temperament for this important position. We also referred a second candidate to the Board but described exactly why we considered the qualifications of the internal candidate to be superior.
Last week I received a letter from Mr. Quinn thanking me for my time but stating that the Board was going in a different direction. To get a further explanation, I called the Board member who served on our committee. I was told that this Board member reversed support for the internal candidate because of the way a question had been answered in the board interview. That surprised me. The answer to a single question counts more that 20 years of superior performance?
I am in no way challenging the Board’s right to identify the process for candidate selection and to ultimately pick the successful candidate. BUT it was the Board who defined the process and the committee that was to make recommendations, did so. For whatever reasons, the Board went its own way, with the full support of the Board member who sat on the screening committee. The only conclusion I can reach is that the Board’s commitment to the citizen screening process was not heartfelt. You as the Town Board may not have known what you did, but if you knew what you didn’t want, that should have been communicated up front to both the internal candidate and to the screening committee. Unfortunately,
I know how Carl McCall and the other members of the Comptroller candidate screening committee must have felt when the State Legislature made their recent choice for State Comptroller!
If I learned nothing else in my school administration career it’s this. You can’t expect a community committee to be a rubber stamp. If you request input from a community committee, it has to be because you really want it and are prepared to carefully consider whatever recommendations and rationale the committee might make. If you can’t, from the bottom of your hearts, conclude that you want input under those conditions, you damage your credibility by asking for it.”
Supervisor’s Comments:
Supervisor Quinn shared the following information:
February 13th – Participated in a meeting from the Center for Economic Growth which covers the seven county area of the Capital District. The subsidiary of that is the Local Government Council where the Mayors and Supervisors of the towns as well as County Managers for these areas get together to see what can we learn and what can we plan on and discuss about happenings in the area, across the whole Metropolitan area.
The primary thing that came out of it is, as you all may know, the Governor has instituted two regions for economic development in NYS, referred to as downstate and upstate. The question was where will Schenectady, Albany, Renesselaer, Saratoga, Montgomery all of these counties that make up this group will they be considered in the down state, that has one regional director or in the up state that has a separate regional director both having the same charge.
The interesting outcome of the process is that Schenectady County and Montgomery County have been included in the upstate and all of the other counties are being considered in the downstate.
February 13th – I had a meeting with the CEO of the Galesi Group and we discussed the fact that they are making a proposal as one of several that FedEx is considering on what we know as the Burgess property. This would be a land terminal.
We were asked to submit a letter of support for their proposal, so I drafted a letter saying that we would definitely work with and support the Galesi Group on this particular project.
On the 14th, as you know, we had a little snow and there was a period of time when the Schenectady County Emergency Group declared a snow emergency for the whole County and we of course participated in that and declared one for our Town. Our highway crews spent 22 hours on the first day and many hours afterwards making sure our roads were safe. They did a commendable job.
On the 15th the Intermunicipal Watershed Board met and I was re-elected to be chairman for the coming year. We developed our goals and you will all get a copy. We have seven goals for the coming year all of which involve all of the participants in the Intermunicipal Watershed.
We also discussed how to improve the local zoning ordinances to increase, especially the fines for any violations of any of the aquifer regulations.
We adopted in the town all of the Intermunicipal Watershed Rules and Regulations but the weakness and the flaw in them are that the fines for violations are minimal. We had an incident in one of our sister towns found to be contamination, they were ordered to remove stuff and they were actually fined. The fine under state law was $100, that’s all. Many businesses laugh that off, including the one that I am referring to laughed that off.
We will be seeing some recommendations very shortly on how to change and increase the severity of the fines so that people will think twice. The idea being; a.) there will be a fine, b.) it will be cumulative, it is not a one time fine. For each number of days you violate it it gives our Judges in our Town Court as well as up at the County level the opportunity to fine people by the day for violations not just a one shot deal.
We also developed an action plan for changing the actual NYS law that sets on top of all of this. The apparatus for implementing and carrying out the protections is not good, it’s not clear and it leaves too much vagueness of that and therefore not only the municipalities, the judges but also the people being governed by it. There are too many opened holes.
On the 16th of February I met with Mr. Mastrianni, someone that spoke at the last town board meeting referenced his concerns about his property on Maple Avenue and the fact that we are looking at amendments and eventually the actual zoning for that area. So, for tonight we are looking at amendments to the Master Plan, not the actual zoning. He was concerned his property would not be of value if we did it. We discussed what was happening, that it was the Master Plan and not the zoning. We went over some options that he could consider and take some actions to protect his investment and so forth. He is going to do what he has to do about his property. There were a couple of alternatives that he hadn’t considered of that he could do to make sure that his property and his investment over the years was taken care of and to protect his investment.
He was happy when he left and he was going to pursue some thoughts he hadn’t had before that time.
We talked about the gentleman who was here on a different matter regarding the noise and the vibrations. I have been working with Schenectady County on a vacancy in the County Veterans Office, where veterans apply for benefits. Last October, the director of that office, who retired, they hadn’t filled the vacancies, applications were piling up, the American Legion from our town came to see me and said can you do something the help them fill the vacancy? I called the various people in the Legislature and the staff working has since hired a manager and next week he will take the office and that stuff will proceed.
Upcoming events:
Friday the 23rd at 10:00 am there will be a swearing in ceremony of the new officers.
On Thursday the 1st of March the Schenectady County Intergovernmental Group meets. We discuss at that time opportunities for mutual cooperation and mutual activities.
There is a meeting and the time is to be determined regarding options on the GSA property. DEC has completed its study on the contamination but they haven’t published it yet. We got a briefing on what’s in the study so that we would know what the tech report is going to indicate. It has to be finalized and signed off but at least at this point subject to any change that happens, the contamination that is on that property and it is not only the GSA property but adjacent pieces all the way down to and across Route 5, there is a vapor trail there, contamination, much like the one you saw referred to in the paper about Freemans Bridge that DEC is currently working on. We are going to look at options and as soon
as I have a date on that I’ll share it with all of you and say okay where do we go from here? All of us involved will look at what will we do if this report gets printed as it is what are our options?
On March 2nd, we are all invited as Elected Officials, to the County Legislative Leaders Meeting, at the Gazette from 5:00 pm to 7:00 pm.”
RESOLUTION NO. 68-2007
Moved by: Councilman Rosenberg
Seconded by: Councilman Quinn
WHEREAS, the Town of Glenville is proposing amendments to the Town of Glenville Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the amendments center around the addition of “Not-for-profit recreation facility” to the list of uses permitted by site plan review within the Suburban Residential zoning district; and
WHEREAS, these zoning amendments constitute an unlisted 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 for this action; 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 this proposed zoning amendment, 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 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 action, based on the following findings:
· The action in question involves minor zoning text amendments. Consequently, the action does not result in any construction, land disturbance, or activities that could lead to an environmental impact.
· This action will not result in any adverse changes to air quality, ground or surface water quality, traffic levels or noise levels.
· There will be no removal or destruction of vegetation or fauna, nor any impacts on significant habitat areas as a result of this action.
· This action will not create a conflict with any Town-adopted plans or policy, nor will it be contrary to any adopted community goals or objectives.
Ayes: Councilmen Rosenberg, Quinn, Bailey, Councilwoman DiGiandomenico and Supervisor Quinn
Noes: None
Absent: None
Abstentions: None
Motion Carried
RESOLUTION NO. 69-2007
Moved by: Councilman Rosenberg
Seconded by: Councilwoman DiGiandomenico
WHEREAS, this Local Law No. 1 of 2007 has been introduced; and
WHEREAS, public hearing has been duly held thereon; and
WHEREAS, the Glenville Town Board, as SEQRA Lead Agency, has issued a “Negative Declaration” for this action; and
WHEREAS, both the Glenville Environmental Conservation Commission and the Planning & Zoning Commission recommended that the Town Board approve these zoning amendments;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Glenville adopt Local Law No. 1 of 2007, a Local Law to amend the Code of the Town of Glenville, Chapter 270, “Zoning” as follows:
Chapter 270 “Zoning”
270-3. Definitions (add)
Not-for-profit – An entity organized and existing under the Not-for-Profit Corporation Law of the State of New York, established for charitable, education, or humanitarian purposes and not for making money.
Not-for-profit recreation facility – A building(s) and/or property, owned or operated by a not-for-profit group, whose principal use is recreation. Recreation uses typical of such a facility include, but are not necessarily limited to tennis, swimming, basketball, racquetball, soccer, baseball, hockey, and fitness. Activities may occur indoors or outdoors, but there shall be no motorized sports or discharge of firearms on the property, either indoors or outdoors. YMCAs, YWCAs, and youth sports organizations are typical examples of not-for-profit recreation providers.
270-15C Suburban Residential District (add)
C. (4) Not-for-profit recreation facility.
270 Attachment 1:1 (add)
“Suburban Residential” Use
Not-for-profit recreation facility
Minimum lot size:…………………40,000 sq. ft.
Minimum lot width:…………………..140 feet
Minimum lot depth:…………………..180 feet
Minimum front setback:……………….35 feet
Minimum side setback:………………..30 feet
Minimum rear setback:………………..40 feet
Maximum building height:…………….35 feet
Maximum lot coverage:………………..30%
BE IT FURTHER RESOVED that the Glenville Town Board adopts the zoning amendments based on the following findings:
· These zoning text amendments will allow the Greater Glenville Family YMCA to pursue a modest expansion of their Droms Road facility, which is entirely consistent with the land use plan of the Town of Glenville Comprehensive Plan.
· The only tangible impact of these zoning text amendments is a minor expansion of the YMCA. The YMCA is a long-established fixture in the Droms Road neighborhood. Consequently, the expansion will be compatible with neighboring land uses.
· These zoning text amendments will not have a negative impact on land values. Should the amendments result in proposals for not-for-profit recreation facilities other than the YMCA expansion, said proposals would have to go before the Planning and Zoning Commission for site plan review, and individual SEQRA review.
· These zoning text amendments are compatible with other provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, most notably the provisions of Article I – “Purpose.”
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED this local law shall take effect on the date of the filing with the Secretary of State of the State of New York.
Ayes: Councilmen Rosenberg, Quinn, Bailey, Councilwoman DiGiandomenico and Supervisor Quinn
Noes: None
Absent: None
Abstentions: None
Motion Carried
RESOLUTION NO. 70-2007
Moved by: Councilman Bailey
Seconded by: Supervisor Quinn
WHEREAS, the Town of Glenville is proposing amendments to the Freemans Bridge Road Master Plan; and
WHEREAS, the amendments consist of changes to the land use plan portion of the Master Plan, amounting to the reclassification of land use designation for approximately 115 acres of property within the Freemans Bridge Road study area; and
WHEREAS, these Master Plan amendments constitute an unlisted 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 for this action; 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 the proposed amendments to the Freemans Bridge Road Master Plan, 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 Freemans Bridge Road Master Plan 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 action, based on the following findings:
· These amendments to the Freemans Bridge Road Master Plan essentially offset each other in terms of develop ability/build-out within the Master Plan study area. Approximately 57 acres would be “upgraded” to a land use category that allows for more intense development, while roughly 58 acres would be “downgraded” to a less intense land use category.
· The Freemans Bridge Road Master Plan, originally adopted in June, 2004, examined the natural resource constraints of the study area to determine build-out, with the end result being a land use plan that calls for less development and more land conservation than allowed by current zoning. The proposed amendments to the Master Plan do result in changes to the land use plan, but on balance, there is no increase in would-be build-out as a result of the amendments.
· This action will not result in a substantial adverse change in existing air quality, ground or surface water quality, traffic or noise levels, nor will there be an increase in solid waste production, erosion, or flooding as a result of this action.
· The proposed amendments to the Freemans Bridge Road Master Plan will not result in the destruction of large quantities of vegetation or fauna, nor will they impact significant habitat areas.
Ayes: Councilmen Quinn, Bailey, Councilwoman DiGiandomenico and Supervisor Quinn
Noes: None
Absent: None
Abstentions: Councilman Rosenberg
Motion Carried
Discussion…
Councilwoman DiGiandomenico – “I would like to read the following prepared statement:
As some of you know Freemans Bridge Road zoning has become a passionate subject for me. I have researched Freemans Bridge Road extensively and would like to express my views one final time before the Board votes.
I would like to address two parcels of land that are going to be rezoned. The first is the Luke, 20 acre parcel located right on FBR known as Schenectady Seed. As 16 acres are located in the Runway Protection Zone of Schenectady County airport, the proposed zoning on this land is LC. By virtue of being in the Runway Protection Zone, the FAA places its own restrictions as to what can be built on this property. I do not see any further need for the town zoning to be land conservation. This is so restrictive it almost renders the owners property valueless.
Schenectady County has purchased land around the airport so as to keep structures out of the runway protection zone however when the County was approached regarding the Luke property Luke was told no funds were available to purchase his property.
By the way there are two or three other landowners in the runway protection zone but their lands have not been zoned land conservation. My recommendation is that we also leave the Luke property as it is presently zoned.
The second case is 12 acres on the Piotrowski property that will be zoned land conservation. This designation did not appear until the present clean up of the Lyon’s contaminated property on Freemans Bridge Road began. The proposed zoning for this 12 acre property that will eventually be cleaned up is business. In exchange 12 acres on Piotrowski’s property will become land conservation. Why should Piotrowski give up 12 acres of his land in exchange for land that is being cleaned up? A better alternative solution as suggested in a letter to the board on February 7th by the Piotrowski Family would be to locate the area across Sunnyside Road where the former landfill for Glenville was located
and designate that as land conservation if an exchange is necessary.
Piotrowski went on to further state Northeast Land Development Consultant and Knapp Associates are working to resolve flood plain and flood way concerns associated with the project known as The Reserve at Glenville on Sarnowski Drive. They are in process of application to FEMA. Piotrowski suggested that any decision affecting this area be carefully considered as it is very likely that downward revision of the flood plain maps will occur which will completely alter the potential for this area.
An acceptable use of land conservation for me is a development that is going to be built right behind the Town Hall. NY Development has proposed 200 plus condos with a mini mall and a piece of land that would be set aside as land conservation. This sounds like a win/win for all parties involved. This approach may also be viable for future land use on the Piotrowski property.
In an attempt to keep this brief I would like to point out a few concerns and quotes.
The first quote from the Freemans Bridge Master Plan reads – 5.3.3 redesign Freemans Bridge Road to incorporate a planted boulevard and provide tree lined sidewalks.
Can I live with that? Yes even though I feel that type of plan is more conducive to the Florida region and weather.
The second quote from Freemans Bridge Road Master Plan under Recreations/Conservation areas states “The Freemans Bridge Road Master Plan study area includes considerable frontage on the Mohawk River. The southernmost portion of the study area should be preserved primarily for conservation purposes.
Can I live with that statement? YES.
The third quote listing land conservation uses permitted are: a) public and private parks, preserves and open spaces b) bird sanctuaries and wildlife c) bike and pedestrian trails d) interactive structures associated with the above uses e) agriculture activities f) private docks and g) commercial logging, excluding clear cutting.
Can I live with the two proposed land conservation properties located on Freemans Bridge Road? NO.
I have been accused of carrying the torch for several land owners on Freemans Bridge Road when it comes to land conservation. But in reality I am representing a larger number of constituents’ views promoting their property rights. Landowners do want some checks and balances but do they want heavy restrictions imposed by government? I don’t think so.
I appeal to the Board to reconsider the impact of taking property and rezoning it as land conservation. I am not asking the Board to redo the Freemans Bridge Road Master Plan. Please eliminate the land conservation designation when it impacts individuals on Freemans Bridge Road who own land that will be classified as land conservation in the middle of an area that would be better served zoned to conform with the surrounding areas. Land conservation does not fit into the commercial corridor leading to Glenville where this land could be designated as viable land that will bring in tax revenue. Land conservation does fit in the areas where it could be viewed a win/win by land owners and the town.”
Councilman Quinn – “Kevin, just a quick question with regard to the land that abuts the runway. Is it restrictive in that presently; is it restrictive that they can only build certain structures, certain height structures because of runway concerns?”
Mr. Corcoran – “Right, a couple of things with that property. There are no changes to that property on the table as far as what is in front of us right now. It is already targeted land conservation. Yes you are correct there are things called navigation easements where there are height restrictions (microphone did not pick up comments)
Councilman Quinn – “Is there a way to render less of it, non useable for development in that directly below the runway more restrictive but perhaps on the side not as much. I do share Councilwoman DiGiandomenicos’ concerns. Obviously any type of amendment or revision we might make I want it to be in short order because we have been anguishing over this for months but if you go back to the original master plan years now.
I am very concerned about the property rights of these folks, many of whom have come before us and spoke at the privilege of the floor by the same token I think we have shown latitude with regard to limiting land conservation as you remember that was one of my requests in certain areas. I guess my second question is across the road. Mr. Turner came to that very podium and said it seems like a rather arbitrary placement all of a sudden the clean-up is going on on the other side. Was there any rational from a planning stand point to putting it over on the other side of the road?”
Mr. Corcoran – “Yes, remember that was a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission and it was not a proposal before you folks. I brought it up at the beginning of the public hearing. I felt it was my obligation before Planning and Zoning Commission recommend it. Their process was (audio was not clear, too far from microphone)
Councilman Quinn – “When we used a less definition of the flood plains, how much did they gain at that point in terms of developable land, do you remember?”
Mr. Corcoran – “Forty-two acres.”
Councilman Quinn – “We are taking back twelve acres. So from the original plan until now they have still gained a fair number of acres for development purposes. I guess my question is can this be amended in short order and is there a happy medium? Is there something that can be done without another public hearing?
In my mind it is more important in the runway protection zone but it just seems they already have restricted property there do we necessarily have to put a conservation strip all the way across that?”
Again Mr. Corcoran responded (too far from microphone.)
Councilman Bailey – “I have a couple of thoughts. In preparation for this evening I went back and I collected all of the various property owner comments and reviewed them. What I found is taking an action that seems to please one property owner infuriates the other. I couldn’t find any clear path to keep anybody happier. So what I said was well let me stand back and just look at the proposed amendments in terms of what makes sense and what doesn’t make sense to Bob Bailey.
One of the things I notice is what I don’t think makes sense is changing thirty acres south of the B&M Rail Line from office technology to multi-family housing. It is my belief that putting housing directly adjacent to a rail line just doesn’t make sense. That is not a good place for housing. We already have housing proposed directly north of the B&M Rail Line and that is not the subject of this particular amendment but what we are talking is adding more south so now you would have housing with a rail line running right through it and I see that as a recipe for kids crossing the rail line and you know what happens when kids play on a railroad track.
On the other hand something that makes sense that I like about this is that we are changing fifteen acres north of the power line easement and east of Freemans Bridge Road from multi-family to commercial mixed use, I think that is an excellent idea. I believe it is better to not put housing adjacent to the power line right-a-way where it’s apt to limit property values.
Something that doesn’t make sense is to change twenty-eight acres of both sides of Maple Avenue from multi-family housing to traditional neighborhood. This is the area that is in the vicinity of Scotia Lock-Up and Silar Labs; that area is already more industrial than residential yet alone traditional neighborhood. There’s also another one of those pesky rail lines adjacent as well. It just doesn’t seem to me to be a good place for traditional neighborhood.
We are changing forty-two acres of the Horstman Creek flood plain from preservation/conservation to multi-family housing on the west side of the creek and to commercial mixed use on the east side; is what is proposed. My concern here is that this is an area that is seasonably wet and I think we are asking for future trouble if we heavily develop there. I think we should learn a lessons from some of the other areas around like Harwood Drive, Harlau Drive, Regal and Spearhead Drives and I get all kinds of calls about wet basements and rising water table in those areas and to build in an area that is already seasonably wet and I know we can fill and construct drainage and what not but it never seems to work as well as you would like
it to do.
The twelve acre Lyon site where the thermo clean-up is under way right now is to be designated preservation/conservation in both the existing and the proposed maps. Given what is going on there I don’t see that there is going to be much to preserve or conserve so in my opinion I think a better use would be a commercial mixed use which happens to be what Planning and Zoning recommended. To take property that has been heavily contaminated and then recycle through the process that we are going through and then try and make it preservation/conservation none of us will live long enough to see anything there that resembles a natural state.”
Supervisor Quinn – “We are talking about amendments to the Master Plan, we are not discussing in this resolution zoning. So all of our concerns, which are all valid about zoning come after this, not this, this is the Master Plan not the specific zoning within the Master Plan. Once we make these adjustments whether we do or don’t vote them tonight, once this is done then we go to zoning not now and not in this resolution. So there is plenty of time to talk about zoning.
The runway protection zone and having it land conservation, my understanding is that anybody’s property that’s in the runway protection zone is bought by the County but it is FAA money (90% of the money). So what I am saying is 90% of this money is coming from not Schenectady County but from the FAA and so anybody that is in there already can or cannot sell their property depending on the negotiations between them through the County to the FAA.
On land conservation itself, which is part of the Master Plan, my interest is land conservation is found through out the town including Freemans Bridge Road and we don’t end up with one shop after another so that we end up driving up Freemans Bridge and having a honky-tonk on Freemans Bridge and therefore Freemans Bridge should have land conservation like other parts of the town and not just all land conservation is in West Glenville. So in the Master Plan I hope, personally I am one vote that our town looks like a town that you would want to be in because there is conservation in different places throughout the town.
I think we are all aware that besides the town planning staff several committees of our town who have subject matter expertise in this have looked at all of this and that’s where the proposal has passed through before it came to us.
Do I understand right that the housing designation directly south of the railroad, that is not limited to just housing if I understand the Master Plan. You can have small businesses in that same area.
More than anything I would say for all of us here on the board it is time to make a decision on this. We go round and round and our predecessors have gone round and round, it is time for our developers in the area as well as the staff as well as the owners of property to hear from us make a decision on these amendments to the Master Plan so that all of us can plan and act in the future. One way or another we need to vote this again I say these are amendments to the Master Plan not zoning.”
Councilman Bailey – “The zoning follows closely. The zoning is based on the Master Plan.”
Supervisor Quinn – “We all know that some property owners will benefit some property owners will either proceed and or loose something. What is the best for all of the citizens in the Town of Glenville?”
Councilwoman DiGiandomenico – “The land that is listed as land conservation can only be used as the items that I previously read; private and public park, preserves, open space, bird sanctuaries, wild life, bike/pedestrian, etc. That does not sound like it is a good use of any land that is on Freemans Bridge Road that is really the commercial gateway to Glenville. I do not see a park behind the Luke property fitting that land conservation description as a good use of that land. It already has a restriction from the FAA why are we taking that piece of land and going to label it land conservation. The land along the river sounds like it would be more appropriately labeled land conservation than good commercial
property that could become a plus to the town in the tax benefits that we would get from it. Also the land on Maple Avenue can only be grandfathered for the uses that they presently have on that land. That land cannot be sold for other commercial endeavors so it is very limited in what can go on the property. I think these things really have to be considered before we make amendments to the present Master Plan which would restrict what we could do as far as the zoning.”
Councilman Rosenberg – “If I could just remind the rest of the Board, whether I agree or disagree with the amendments that are on the table, we did come to a situation where we needed to as a group make a decision where we were going with this and the amendments came up as a tally. I know how I feel about the amendments and I know that other people have some issues with some of them. We’re all not going to get our way anymore than anybody else is. I think at this point it just needs to go to a vote. We need to move on here. It took way too long to even get this far in my mind.”
Supervisor Quinn – “Kevin, if we vote this down in other words if we don’t pass these amendments what is the approximate ball park, whatever you want to call it, time it would take for this to be re-studied, put back together through all of the committees and come back to the board for future decision.?”
Kevin Corcoran – “It probably would be 10 – 12 month to get back to this board. I would say closer to one year. If you vote it down this time you still have the Master Plan in place. Where we get tripped up is when we try to amend the zoning.”
Councilman Rosenberg – “Kevin, something that you just said didn’t go with what I understood anyway. I know that there is an issue and particularly in front of Walmart right now where there is a proposed gas station. From what I understand the Freemans Bridge Master Plan doesn’t really want anymore gas stations along that road. So now I think the Planning and Zoning are struggling. They don’t know where to go with this because current zoning allows it the Freemans Bridge Master Plan doesn’t want it. So where does that leave us?”
Kevin Corcoran – “The zoning prevails. (response was not recorded – too far away from microphone)
Supervisor Quinn – “Land use to me on the river is worth far far more money for a developer in my own personal opinion. Making that land conservation is taking a very very large chunk out of developmental land that’s prime value for any developer as we know.
My personal concern if we make Freemans Bridge into a run of business after business, shop after shop and don’t have any land conservation we are painting a whole different picture of welcome to Glenville. On the other hand I recognize that we need to enhance business and commercial properties it’s just at what price is where I am stumbling on it.”
Councilwoman DiGiandomenico – “You just said that the land along the river is more valuable, this is a quote from the Freemans Bridge Master Plan, which says: “the Freemans Bridge Master Plan study areas includes considerable frontage along the Mohawk River, the southern most portion of the study area should be preserved primarily for conservation purposes” that is what the Freemans Bridge Road Master Plan states so now you are going against what the Freemans Bridge Road Master Plan would like in that area.”
RESOLUTION NO. 71-2007
Moved by: Councilman Bailey
Seconded by: Councilman Quinn
WHEREAS, the Town of Glenville is proposing amendments to the Freemans Bridge Road Master Plan (see attached); and
WHEREAS, the amendments consist of changes to the land use plan portion of the Master Plan, amounting to the reclassification of land use designation for approximately 115 acres of property within the Freemans Bridge Road study area; and
WHEREAS, the Glenville Town Board has issued a SEQRA “Negative Declaration” for this action;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Glenville Town Board hereby approves the proposed amendments to the Freemans Bridge Road Master Plan based upon the following findings:
· The amendments to the land use plan portion of the Freemans Bridge Road Master Plan fundamentally offset each other in terms of development potential within the Master Plan study area. Approximately 57 acres would be “upgraded” to a land use category that allows for more intense development, while roughly 58 acres would be “downgraded” to a less intense land use category. The end result is a Plan that maintains a balance in terms of development and preservation.
· The proposed amendments to the land use plan portion of the Freemans Bridge Road Master Plan, while fairly substantial in terms of total involved acreage, is still consistent with the overall land use goal of the Master Plan, as adopted in June, 2004, which reads as follows:
“To establish a framework for land use decisions in the study area that includes identification of areas best suited to various types of land uses, as well as areas best left undeveloped or developed for recreational purposes.”
Ayes: Councilman Quinn and Supervisor Quinn
Noes: Councilwoman DiGiandomenico and Councilman Bailey
Absent: None
Abstentions: Councilman Rosenberg
Motion Defeated
RESOLUTION NO. 72-2007
Moved by: Councilman Rosenberg
Seconded by: Councilman Quinn
WHEREAS, a zoning map amendment application has been submitted by Robert Mortensen to change the zoning of a vacant 2.8-acre parcel on Amsterdam Road (tax map # 29.-4-36.1) from Professional/Residential to Multi-Family Residential; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the zoning map amendment is to allow for the construction of two apartment buildings consisting of 16 units; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to New York State Town Law, zoning map amendment applications require a public hearing on the part of the Town Board,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Glenville Town Board hereby schedules a public hearing for Wednesday, March 7, 2007 at 7:30 p.m., or as shortly thereafter as possible, at the Town of Glenville Municipal Center, to consider comments on the proposed rezoning application by Robert Mortensen for his property located on Amsterdam Road.
Ayes: Councilmen Rosenberg, Quinn, Bailey, Councilwoman DiGiandomenico and Supervisor Quinn
Noes: None
Absent: None
Abstentions: None
Motion Carried
RESOLUTION NO. 73-2007
Moved by: Councilman Quinn
Seconded by: Councilman Rosenberg
WHEREAS, the Communications Console and related emergency equipment utilized to dispatch personnel from two (2) police departments and seven (7) fire departments in the Town of Glenville and the Village of Scotia has been in continuous operation since 1985; and
WHEREAS, said Communications Console and related emergency equipment are starting to fail and are no longer supported by the maker; and
WHEREAS, the Town Public Safety Committee has recommended the upgrade and inclusion of needed emergency equipment; and
WHEREAS, the Police Chief and the Public Safety Committee requested proposal from two different consultants to provide both need assessments and RFP’s for the consoles and equipment; and
WHEREAS, the Public Safety Committee has reviewed both proposals and interviewed both consultants, and has recommended that NYSTEC, 100 State Street, Suite 900, Albany, New York 12207 be retained as the consultants for this project,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Glenville hereby accepts and approves the proposal of NYSTEC, 100 State Street, Suite 900, Albany, New York 12207 at a cost not to exceed $21,600 to provide consultant services for the replacement and/or upgrading of the police and fire communication console and equipment.
Ayes: Councilmen Rosenberg, Quinn, Bailey, Councilwoman DiGiandomenico and Supervisor Quinn
Noes: None
Absent: None
Abstentions: None
Motion Carried
RESOLUTION NO. 74-2007
Moved by: Councilwoman DiGiandomenico
Seconded by: Councilman Quinn
BE IT RESOLVED that the Monthly Departmental Reports for January 2007 as received from the following:
Assessor Department
Building Department
Dog Control
Human Services
Highway Department
Justice Department
Planning Department
Section 8 Housing Payments
Town Clerk's Office
Water Department
be, and they hereby are accepted, approved for payment and ordered placed on file.
Ayes: Councilmen Rosenberg, Quinn, Bailey, Councilwoman DiGiandomenico and Supervisor Quinn
Noes: None
Absent: None
Abstentions: None
Motion Carried
RESOLUTION NO. 75-2007
Moved by: Councilman Quinn
Seconded by: Councilman Rosenberg
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Glenville hereby adjourns into Executive Session to discuss personnel matters pertaining to the Town Administrator position.
Ayes: Councilmen Rosenberg, Quinn, Bailey, Councilwoman DiGiandomenico and Supervisor Quinn
Noes: None
Absent: None
Abstention: None
Motion Carried
Discussion – 2007 Annual Re-evaluation:
Supervisor Quinn – “What I would like to do is open it up for discussion on what we see, we do or don’t want to do and any thoughts and ideas we have about this. This item is pending and if we are going to pull this off, actually do another re-evaluation, this year to upgrade the one we just finished then our staff as well as us has to get up to speed on how this is going to work.”
Councilman Quinn – “I can start with a hopefully concise view of this whole situation. Although an annual re-val is a laudable goal I think a more practical goal for a variety of reasons in tri-annual re-evaluation.”
Councilman Bailey – “I share that view. I think that we are not in a position to execute smartly at this point it is late in the year. There’s a lot of work that needs to be done. I don’t think we have the resources to do that on staff presently. We would have to go out for additional support. The contractor that we thought we would use has refused to engage, leaving us without that resource either. Better to do it in three years than to fumble the ball now.”
Councilman Rosenberg – “I probably agree that given the information from our town employees as to where we are and the options we have it’s probably not going to get done correctly anyway. I am extremely disappointed that the town just spent a lot of money to get this town up to full value and we had enough notice to get this done and I had work involved in this and I really thought we were on board and this really got taken off the tracks at the last minute. I’m really not sure why, I think it is a shame because in three years it is going to cost us more money and we will get reimbursed, hopefully, but it won’t be at the rate that it is going to cost us. This decision to not do it is going to
cost each of us and everybody out there who pays taxes more money in year three.”
Councilwoman DiGiandomenico – “I think at the present time we have a considerable amount of back log existing from the re-val that we just had. If we proceed on the yearly basis I don’t see with the time frame that we have now I think we are behind the eight ball. I am in favor of the three year process.”
Supervisor Quinn – “Number one we were notified as a town that the shift has taken place in the property evaluations. This is the NYS Office of Real Property Services and it is a 12-14% increase no matter what we are seeing or hearing in the newspapers and or on the television. The water in the lake in which we are a boat rose by 12-14% and is almost totally on the private homeowner properties not commercial, not industrial, not vacant land so a re-val right now, to me, is a one year 12-14% increase, 90 some percent of this will be born by the homeowners rather than businesses, commercial, industrial or anything else and that’s a heavy burden. Unfortunately we’re caught in something that going around
us not necessarily that we are doing anything.
Number two I remind all of us in the town that a re-evaluation does not equal a tax increase. A tax increase only comes about if the people putting budgets together, Town Board, School Board, County Boards and so forth increase their tax budgets. The re-val just levels the playing ground for all of the property and homeowners and all of the commercial people, but remember a tax increase only comes if this town board, school board, county boards raises the taxes. The re-val doesn’t do that.
I do not think we should proceed with this at this time. Therefore we will proceed to prepare for a tri-annual. The state reimbursement fees are based on annual or tri-annual and hope that the water in the lake doesn’t keep going up.”
RESOLUTION NO. 75a-2007
Moved by: Councilman Quinn
Seconded by: Councilman Rosenberg
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Glenville hereby adjourns into Executive Session to discuss personnel matters pertaining to the Town Administrator position.
Ayes: Councilmen Rosenberg, Quinn, Bailey, Councilwoman DiGiandomenico and Supervisor Quinn
Noes: None
Absent: None
Abstention: None
Motion Carried
Supervisor Quinn adjourned this portion of the meeting at 9:10 p.m. and moved into Executive Session to discuss personnel matters and the Town Administrator position.
Time being 10:45 pm Supervisor Quinn reconvened the meeting.
Motion to adjourn was moved by Councilman Rosenberg and Seconded by Councilman Bailey.
The Town of Glenville Town Board Meeting was adjourned at 10:46 PM.
ATTEST:
______________________________
Linda C. Neals
Town Clerk
| 
