REGULAR MEETING OF THE TOWN BOARD
TOWN OF GLENVILLE
FEBRUARY 6, 2008
AT THE GLENVILLE MUNICIPAL CENTER
18 GLENRIDGE ROAD, GLENVILLE, NEW YORK
Present: Supervisor Frank X. Quinn, Councilmen, Mark A. Quinn, Edward F. Rosenberg and Councilwoman Valerie M. DiGiandomenico
Absent: Councilman Christopher A. Koetzle
Supervisor Quinn called the meeting to order at 7:30 PM 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 except for Councilman Koetzle who was absent due to surgery.
No Town Council Reports this evening
The following people spoke during privilege of the floor.
Daniel McDevitt, 1558 Van Vranken Avenue, Schenectady – “I am the owner of the 110 acre parcel that is up for the rezone consideration tonight and I just wanted to let the Town Board know that I would be happy to entertain any questions either now or in the future”
Larry DeAngelus, Attorney – “I am here on behalf of Whitney Lawlor, who is here with me tonight. I just want to say a few things regarding item #’s 7 & 8. Whitney lives at 38 Onderdonk Road and that is what these agenda items have to do with.
I would like to apologize neither myself or my clients were present at last months meeting where there was a public comment period. We were given to understand that this matter would be before the board at this meeting and we weren’t provided with any notice otherwise.
As you know we are trying to get the zoning changed to rural residential in order for my client to be able to keep her horses on the property. It is a large parcel and is certainly ample acreage for that and it does seem to be completely compatible with the comprehensive plan and the zone code. I would just like to draw particular attention to Section 270-58 where it says the intent of the provisions that an atmosphere of acceptance be maintained for agriculture activities within the Town of Glenville.
Right now we are in a suburban residential, we are down grading the level of impact on the property to really bring it in line with the spirit of that provision of the code and we do think that it is compatible. It is certainly recreational use of a rural nature and seemed to be encouraged and welcomed in many places of the zone code in particular that one.
Along with Mr. McDevitt we will be present for the agenda items if the board members have any questions for either me or my client.”
Nell Burrows, 1962 Ridge Road – “I work with Freedom Park. Since its inception in 1975 Freedom Park has been supported by the Town of Glenville, Village of Scotia, local businesses and residents. We have a long and proven record of providing service to the Glenville population. There is free entertainment at least three evenings a week in Freedom Park during the summer.
This year The Freedom Park Board is faced with difficult decisions. Grants are not as fruitful as always, we are on the verge of a recession and businesses are cutting back on charitable donations, the Gazette non-profit advertising rate has gone up by 57%, musicians are asking for more money to cover community expenses and now we discover that the Town has cut our funding by nearly 60%. Have we disappointed you? Do you really not value the service we provide?
We understand the need to control taxes; but to cut a budget line by 60% leaves groups that depend on that money in real trouble. Traditionally we receive $2,200 from the Town and this year we’ve been told we’re receiving only $1,000. This means we will be forced to cut at least two shows from our program. The Town’s contribution means more to us than just the number of dollars you grant us. When we apply for grants, we’re viewed much more favorably if we have strong support from the other sources – municipalities, private business, and individual donations. So your withdrawal of funds will potentially cost us more than the $1,200 that you cut from us.
All budget areas are being cut, but I don’t believe you have cut many by 60%. We ask that you restore our budget line to $2,000 so that we may continue to provide the top quality programming that draws people into Scotia and Glenville throughout the entire summer. We serve 45,000 to 50,000 people over the course of the summer and 60% of them are from Schenectady County. We draw about 45% from outside of the county, which is an economic boom.
I can talk about the budget, our budget not yours, if you have any questions.”
Councilman Quinn – “Were you subject to any similar reduction at the Village level as well?”
Ms. Burrows – “No. I have asked Mayor Kastberg that if in deed this goes through if there is anything the Village can do but I don’t think that they are in an awful lot better shape then the Town.”
Councilman Rosenberg – “I can assure you we certainly are not disappointed with what is going on down there. We had to make some tough budget decisions and we weren’t happy with all of them but it certainly…I couldn’t even tell you that I remembered cutting that to be honest with you. There were various volunteer organizations whose money did get cut probably some of them even more than 60%.”
Ms. Burrows – “Well if $1000 makes that big a difference in your budget that is a shame. It makes an enormous difference in our budget.
I go out to the small businesses, almost all of them right in Scotia or Glenville and what do I say – the town cut our budget so will you give us a little more?”
Supervisor Quinn – “We understand, my own comment is I second what Councilman Rosenberg said in the sense that I don’t know of anybody that is disappointed in the programs or anything and he captured the fact that we have most if not all of our non-for-profits went through a budget cut. Statistically I don’t have the data to tell you whether it is 50, 40 30, 20 or 80% cuts but given what you just referred to the revenue streams aren’t there for us as well as for you so beware we love the program that is not the issue, we have got to look at everything else.”
No one else wished to speak; Supervisor Quinn closed the privilege of the floor.
Supervisor’s Comments:
I would like to bring you up to date on some of the activities that I have been involved in in the past couple of weeks and what is coming up that I know of:
Jan 17th – I had the opportunity to present an award up at the Glendaal School. The Schenectady County League of Women Voters has a contest every year and that is how many school age children will go to the voting locations with their parents. Glendaal School had the highest turnout during the last election in November ’07.
Jan 18th – I was the speaker at the Glenville Rotary discussing town finances with those folks and also on the same day I was involved in a conference call between the GSA, the Metroplex and the town doing status checks on where are we at with those properties down there. The field study has to be done on what’s in the ground and what’s it going to take to be mitigated has moved along, they have finally identified the money so that project will get underway now so hopefully within a month, if all is right, we will get the results of that which then says what will they ask for a price for those buildings in the 55 acres and the second piece is what do we think those prices would be worth.
On the other thing there is the building out front that some of you all know is the old Navy Recruiting Command Headquarters, the big long building out on the front that faces Rte. 5. That has moved all the way along and so they are ready for release on that so they are sending the documentations of what they think that property is worth and then we will all put our heads together and we will say, between Metroplex and us, we do or do not like that property at the price that they are asking for it. If that doesn’t work it goes for public auction and whoever wants to bid on the property can enter into it if GSA chooses to go that route.
Jan 29th – I was at the Schenectady Military Affairs Committee. They have a 60th anniversary for their presence at Stratton and so there is going to be a big celebration/open house in October.
I also attended the Local Government Council. This council is sponsored by the Center of Economic Growth which covers nine counties around here. We were discussing what is happening with this…the speaker for that day was the director for shared services out of the Governor’s Office. They were sharing what they had and I gave them two case studies and said you are looking for case studies to sponsor shared services so I shared with him here are three or four things that we are doing with the Village would you please give us some grant money. They are looking at it to see if they can find it.
Feb 4th – We are a member of the Chamber of Commerce and the Chamber’s President and Vice President came over here for a briefing. Tony and I and Mike from the Planning Department were briefing those folks on what is the current development activities, where are we at, what do we see coming down the road, since they have vested interest in economic development as well as helping us with economic development.
One interesting point, for any small business that’s trying to get started the number one agency actually in the county, if I was trying to start a new business the first stop that will tell you all of the different hoops you qualify for or don’t and the different sources of revenues, funding and forms and formats that have to be followed is the Chamber.
Feb 8th – The five town supervisors are going to be meeting over in Rotterdam. We are going to discuss items of mutual interest one of which is the sales tax distribution. That contract ends with the County at the end of October or November and we want to talk about that along with some intermunicipal watershed things and some other fiscal things that we want to find out how the others are dealing with.
Feb 11th – There will be a public hearing here at Town Hall regarding Fortitech, what they are proposing to do and what the IDA will and won’t be doing in relationship to that property. The proposed Fortitech property as you may know is down here off of Rudy Chase Drive. That is a public hearing if you want to attend, it is here at 4:00 pm.
Feb 14th – There will be a meeting that Tony and I will attend with the Comptroller from the City. We are going to discuss the methods and techniques that they are using to manage and control overtime in their departments. They have come up with some new ways apparently for monitoring and keeping track of what’s happening and how to control it. You and I have all read the newspapers how important overtime is and everything else, and they volunteered to share this with us.
Feb 17th – 20th – This is the Annual NYS Association of Towns Convention and training down in NYC. They have a training for the various and sundry rolls and responsibilities in the town government. If you have an interest to go please let us know right a way so we can get the registrations in.
Feb 20th – Mar 5th – I will be in the Country of India. I am going over to do volunteer work with some orphanages over there, I have a son currently over there doing that.
Mar 6th – There is a meeting of the area representatives in the towns and villages over at the Capital District Transportation Council; I am the representative for villages and towns on that so I will be pleading our case about various and sundry projects. You know that the one that is on the books that I keep fighting for is right on Glenridge Road in getting that underpass problem straightened out. That is funded on what is called the TIP and that one is a personal interest to us here in Glenville so I am continuing to pursue that.
By way of a general comment, this is when I put on my hat as the CFO, we all know given our ’08 budget and the poor economic climate what we are looking at in projections; our three most volatile funds as you know, sales tax, Metroplex tax and mortgage tax are looking at a shaky year at best, so we have been very conservative in our revenue projections and so forth but as far as I am concerned any unplanned expense without a revenue is really, really jeopardizing us as you all know. I may sound like I am barking and hawking and everything else about the fact that we take on new expenses and we don’t have a revenue stream. Because I wear this hat as the CFO I am going to keep doing that, not that you people are unaware
of that, but that is what’s going on. We have done all of these things with the budget and we are still looking at expenses that we’re not sure that we can make for the rest of the year.
I will give you a case study, it hit the desk yesterday. Here is the notice of tentative railroad assessments. Because our assessment now at the state went from 90% to 85%, they didn’t waste a minute; here they are in for $100,000 reduction in their taxes. We have no choice, that’s what we are set at. There’s a $100,000, if it all works out, we are going to be short revenue that we thought we were going to get for the year. These things come up year round and that’s why I…for all of us. You’re all aware; I keep sending you this stuff so we are all aware no matter what we are looking at including what was brought up here tonight, when we’re taking six figure and five
figure whacks in revenue we’re all going to be careful.”
Councilwoman DiGiandomenico – “In your meetings with the County and the Town could you bring up the prescription process that Schenectady County has and see if we could possibly tie into it?”
Supervisor Quinn – “I brought it up before because they have a really unique good plan and they are buying a lot of their prescriptions, I think all of their prescription drugs, from Canada, so I went to them and said how can I get in on that so that our people can benefit, one - get benefits we need and two - at a price that makes it affordable for all of us. I will bring that up again.
Another interesting feature that they have that we don’t have is they’re self insured and so they have a lot of leverage on how they spend their money because it is their money as opposed to pulling it straight out of taxes.”
Councilman Rosenberg – “Did we ever find out were there actually any other suitors for that GSA property aside from the town and Metroplex going into together, were there other people?”
Supervisor Quinn – “At this point the answer is no. Now, are we talking about the 55 acres or the Navy?”
Councilman Rosenberg – “The 55 acres.”
Supervisor Quinn – “As far as I know the answer is no and I have asked that question. Unless something has changed in the last seven to ten days there are no other suitors for that property.”
Councilman Quinn – “On that Fortitech note, when the County actually sold the land to Fortitech, I assume that’s already a done deal. Assuming that goes through since it is then private land within the environs of the Town of Glenville would we not have independent taxing authority aside from this PILOT they’re trying to implement? I know it is a million dollar question and we may have to wait until the meeting but it’s a curiosity to me.”
Supervisor Quinn – “What is going to happen there as you know the current owner is the County and the County is the one who is going to sell it when the property is sold it goes on the tax rolls. They have already gone forth, the County has, to invite the IDA to say okay because the buyer, Fortitech, is asking for a PILOT, that’s why they’re having the public hearing. So does it go on the rolls, yes; what will be the PILOT is part of this discussion. We talk but they make the final say.
So it will be on the tax rolls, the typical thing, we were all here when Ray Gillen from Metroplex was here, that they are looking at is 50% with 5% increments each year for ten years.”
Councilman Quinn – “But it sounds like in essence at some point they are speaking on our behalf to extend a PILOT that we’re automatically lumped in with; doesn’t seem right to me.”
Supervisor Quinn – “Unfortunately that is the setup and in this case it isn’t on private property where we would have some leverage this is the County’s property that they are selling. So the developer has said I want a PILOT to come in there.”
Councilman Quinn – “So the PILOT is a contingency as it relates to the deal, the land deal.”
Supervisor Quinn – “Yes, that is my understanding, that is correct.”
Councilwoman DiGiandomenico – “It is also my understanding that they were going to talk to the town regarding these PILOTS before they actually issued one.”
Supervisor Quinn – “Yes that is true, that is why they are having the public hearing in our back yard.”
Supervisor Quinn moved ahead with the resolutions.
RESOLUTION NO. 46-2008
Moved by: Councilman Rosenberg
Seconded by: Councilman Quinn
WHEREAS, a zoning map amendment application has been submitted by Whitney Lawlor and Aleda Wright to change the zoning of 35 acres of a 43-acre parcel at 38 Onderdonk Road (tax map # 15.-1-9) from Suburban Residential to Rural Residential/Agricultural; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Glenville Town Board has assumed SEQRA (State Environmental Quality Review Act) Lead Agency for this project;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Glenville Town Board hereby determines that this proposed zoning map amendment will not result in a significant adverse environmental impact. Consequently, the Board hereby issues a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the reasons supporting the Negative Declaration are as follows:
· While Onderdonk Road is primarily residential in nature, this large parcel is primarily undeveloped and it abuts other large vacant parcels. Consequently, this action will not significantly impact the character of the area.
· This action is reasonably consistent with the Town of Glenville Comprehensive Plan in that it promotes agricultural use and open space preservation.
· This proposal will not adversely impact air quality, traffic levels, noise levels, erosion, etc. On the contrary, this proposal will effectively promote open space preservation on a parcel that is not well-suited for residential development due to the presence of wetlands and poorly-drained soils.
· This action will not result in the destruction of large quantities of vegetation or fauna, nor will it result in a significant impact on wildlife habitat.
Ayes: Councilmen Quinn, Rosenberg, Councilwoman DiGiandomenico and Supervisor Quinn
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Koetzle
Abstentions: None
Motion Carried
Discussion…
Councilman Rosenberg – “We did have a public hearing on this matter and a fair amount of neighbors came not in support of this concerned about the typical smells and flies and that type of thing. One of the issues that did come up was that the property that was recently transferred, there was a sale on it recently, that it wasn’t zoned agricultural when the owner bought it, and that was one of the concerns “buyer beware”, if you wanted to have horses you shouldn’t have bought that property.”
Councilman Quinn – “I have to tell you that I’ve anguished over both of these items on our agenda tonight because my first inclination and it might have been a little reactionary at the time was that I didn’t want anything to have an adverse impact on what was really a suburban residential development.
However after doing a fair amount of research and seeing that it was consistent with our comprehensive plan, which is something we laid out years ago and seeing that it was a low impact type of agriculture use I have to say after a great deal of thought I have come full circle and I am going to vote yes for this.”
Councilwoman DiGiandomenico – “I also anguished over this decision. I took a ride and viewed both of the parcels that are on the agenda tonight and in view of the fact that we did have quite a few of the residents that were against it. I’m going to have to vote no.”
Supervisor Quinn – “Like all of us I did my do diligence. I share with some of you who may or may not know this that across the street from my house there are 24 horses. We have no pests, we have no flies, and we have none of that other stuff because they keep the property. I assume these people will also keep the property. It conforms to all of the other pieces and of course we have got the recommendation from our committees. I will vote yes.
The motion fails; we do not have a majority.
Is there, let me ask our attorney, if this applicant wishes to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA), they can go there and see if they can get it changed or does this preclude any action on that part?”
Attorney Dickson – “That is an entirely separate issue and they certainly are entitled to go to the ZBA for a variance.”
Supervisor Quinn – “So they can go to the ZBA and then the ZBA may or may not have conditions that they put on if the ZBA wants to recommend approval.”
Councilman Rosenberg – “What I understand is one of the concerns is by rezoning this property to agricultural, you only want to have two horses but you could have one hundred horses if we change the zoning or if you transferred to someone else in five years, that is part of the problem. Hopefully, my hope anyway because I didn’t want to vote no but there were a lot of complaints from neighbors, you could go through the zoning board and they could say yes you can do it but you could only have two horses and then there is a limit and that sort of takes care of some of the other issues.”
Councilwoman DiGiandomenico – If they could apply for a use variance I would be in favor of it too.”
Councilman Quinn – “Let me ask a legislative question because we are without our fifth member tonight and I’m sure you all feel a little bit unsettled when we have a two/two tie that result in a negative impact on anything. It’s happened before and it always leaves a bad taste in my mouth from a legislative stand point. Is there anything precluding these folks from coming back in two months with the same question if we now have five members instead of four?”
Attorney Dickson – “Legally there’s no barrier.”
Councilman Quinn – “Something that we could certainly discuss in a work session as to re-entertaining it. I’m just speaking from the heart here; I just hate to see a tie result in that type of decision, especially when it may be adversely affecting somebody’s dreams so to say.”
RESOLUTION NO. 47-2008
Moved by: Councilman Rosenberg
Seconded by: Councilman Quinn
WHEREAS, a zoning map amendment application has been submitted by Whitney Lawlor and Aleda Wright to change the zoning of 35 acres of a 43-acre parcel at 38 Onderdonk Road (tax map # 15.-1-9) from Suburban Residential to Rural Residential/Agricultural; and
WHEREAS, the remaining 8+ acres of the parcel in question that is not to be considered as part of this application is currently zoned Land Conservation, due to the presence of a New York State Wetland (Freshwater Wetland BH-5); and
WHEREAS, the Glenville Town Board, as SEQRA Lead Agency, has issued a SEQRA “Negative Declaration” for this action; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Glenville Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this proposed zoning map amendment and recommended unanimously that the Town Board approve the amendment;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Glenville Town Board hereby approves the zoning map amendment application by Whitney Lawlor and Aleda Wright to change the zoning of 35 acres of the 43-acre parcel at 38 Onderdonk Road from Suburban Residential to Rural Residential/Agricultural; and
Be it further resolved, that approval of this zoning map amendment application is based on the following findings:
· This proposal is in reasonable compliance with the Town of Glenville Comprehensive Plan, which calls for the preservation of rural landscape, open fields, sensitive natural features, etc. The Lawlor/Wright parcel contains a single-family home, but over 40 acres of the parcel is untouched, and nearly entirely wooded, with both a stream and freshwater wetland located on the parcel.
· At present, land uses in the vicinity of the Lawlor/Wright property vary from wooded/wetland/pond to the east and southeast, wooded to the north and single-family residential to the southwest and west. This property is in a transition zone between suburban-style housing development and rural/agricultural land uses. Consequently, the zoning change proposal is reasonably compatible with neighboring land uses, particularly when one considers that the applicant’s proposal (keep two horses on the property) and the natural resource constraints of the property effectively limit the scope of any agricultural use of this property.
· The keeping of two horses on a 43-acre parcel should not negatively impact nearby property values, particularly given the Town’s setback requirements relative to the placement of barns and other agricultural buildings. And again, the natural resource constraints of this property will keep the scale of any agricultural operation in check.
This proposal would also result in the preservation of 40+ acres of open space. The presence of open space, whether it be for the keeping of horses, farming, open fields, or forests, is typically viewed as desirable by neighboring residential landowners. Consequently, nearby property values should not be compromised as a result of this proposal.
· This proposal is compatible with various other provisions of the Town of Glenville Zoning Ordinance. Most notably, this proposal meets certain objectives outlined in Article I of the Town of Glenville Zoning Ordinance including the call for establishment and protection of open space, and protection of natural features such as wetlands and stream corridors, both of which exist on the Lawlor/Wright property.
Ayes: Councilman Quinn and Supervisor Quinn
Noes: Councilman Rosenberg and Councilwoman DiGiandomenico
Absent: Councilman Koetzle
Abstentions: None
Motion Defeated
RESOLUTION NO. 48-2008
Moved by: Councilman Rosenberg
Seconded by: Councilwoman DiGiandomenico
WHEREAS, a zoning map amendment application has been submitted by Daniel McDevitt to change the zoning of a 110+ acre parcel off of Swaggertown Road and Schlensker Drive (tax map # 15.-1-15.111) from Suburban Residential to Rural Residential/Agricultural; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Glenville Town Board has assumed SEQRA (State Environmental Quality Review Act) Lead Agency for this project;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Glenville Town Board hereby determines that this proposed zoning map amendment will not result in a significant adverse environmental impact. Consequently, the Board hereby issues a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the reasons supporting the Negative Declaration are as follows:
· This action is consistent with the Town of Glenville Comprehensive Plan in that the Plan calls for agricultural/rural residential use of this property.
· This proposal complements the character of the area in that the predominant land uses in the vicinity of the project site are agriculture, vacant land and residential. The project site, in fact, abuts an existing farm.
· This proposal will not adversely impact air quality, traffic levels, noise levels, erosion, etc. On the contrary, this proposal will effectively promote open space preservation on a parcel that has been used for agricultural purposes previously.
· This action will not result in the destruction of large quantities of vegetation or fauna, nor will it result in a significant impact on wildlife habitat.
Ayes: Councilmen Quinn, Rosenberg, Councilwoman DiGiandomenico and Supervisor Quinn
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Koetzle
Abstentions: None
Motion Carried
Discussion…
Councilwoman DiGiandomenico – “It doesn’t have the impact of residents as it does on Onderdonk, so I viewed it as more agricultural then residential.”
RESOLUTION NO. 49-2008
Moved by: Councilman Rosenberg
Seconded by: Councilman Quinn
WHEREAS, a zoning map amendment application has been submitted by Daniel McDevitt to change the zoning of a 110+ acre parcel off of Swaggertown Road and Schlensker Drive (tax map # 15.-1-15.111) from Suburban Residential to Rural Residential/Agricultural; and
WHEREAS, the Glenville Town Board, as SEQRA Lead Agency, has issued a SEQRA “Negative Declaration” for this action; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Glenville Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this proposed zoning map amendment and recommended unanimously that the Town Board approve the amendment;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Glenville Town Board hereby approves the zoning map amendment application by Daniel McDevitt to rezone a 110+ acre parcel off of Swaggertown Road and Schlensker Drive from Suburban Residential to Rural Residential/Agricultural; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that approval of this zoning map amendment application is based on the following findings:
· This proposal is in accordance with the Land Use Plan of the Town of Glenville Comprehensive Plan, which targets this property for Rural Residential/Agricultural use. Further, this proposal is also consistent with various objectives of the Comprehensive Plan relative to preservation of the rural landscape, open fields, sensitive natural features, etc.
· At present, land uses in the vicinity of the McDevitt property include a mix of agriculture (Breithling farm and Glindmyer farm), vacant land and residential. As one travels north on Swaggertown Road towards the McDevitt property, there is a rather distinct change in the pattern of development, as suburban housing developments give way to a more rural/agricultural landscape, with housing mixed in. Consequently, the zoning change proposal is compatible with neighboring land uses.
· The establishment of a low intensity agricultural operation on a parcel that was formerly farmed and is now vacant, should not negatively impact nearby property values. There are already two farms in the vicinity of the McDevitt property, so this zoning change will only further the existing neighboring land use pattern.
Further, the applicant intends to operate a “hobby farm.” The McDevitt proposal will not result in a commercial farming operation, nor would the land support an intensive agricultural operation due to the presence of scattered wetlands and poorly drained soils.
This proposal would also result in the preservation of open space. The presence of open space, whether it be in the form of farming, open fields, or forests, is typically viewed as desirable by neighboring residential landowners. Consequently, nearby property values should not be compromised as a result of this proposal.
· This proposal is compatible with various other provisions of the Town of Glenville Zoning Ordinance, including the purpose of the Rural Residential/Agricultural zoning district, which states that Rural Residential/Agricultural districts are meant to “maintain low-density residential and agricultural development in areas that are considered rural ...” The land use pattern in the vicinity of the McDevitt property is primarily rural, with existing farms and undeveloped parcels occupying much of the landscape.
This proposal is also consistent with various objectives outlined in Article I of the Town of Glenville Zoning Ordinance including the call for establishment and protection of open space and protection of natural features such as wetlands and stream corridors, both of which exist on the McDevitt property.
Ayes: Councilmen Quinn, Rosenberg, Councilwoman DiGiandomenico and Supervisor Quinn
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Koetzle
Abstentions: None
Motion Carried
Discussion…
Supervisor Quinn – “These changes are brought about by several different things; one, it has been at least three or four years since we have upped our fees in any way, shape or form across the board, look at the whole thing. We did compare ourselves to other municipalities adjacent to us. Most of these have to do with straight up and down development and construction issues, inspections, applications, permits and administrative fees. Overall the difference, if you asked me to make a summary, is in the neighborhood of about $30,000 to $36,000 increase.
Councilman Rosenberg – “I think that our intent with this new fee schedule was to better reflect the costs that are actually associated with providing the services to those who are actually using them. This is more in line and probably still less then what it actually costs us for personnel time and the likes.”
Councilman Quinn – “I agree with Councilman Rosenberg and I must say in looking at other municipalities fees we were, if anything, at a low point compared to many of our neighboring towns and cities. This brings us up to speed with more comparable rates on a lot of these fees. I always feel better when it is a user only fee.”
Supervisor Quinn – “Yes, we are not all the citizens to bear this, you need it, you use it, and you pay.”
Councilman DiGiandomenico – “I think this brings us in line with the other municipalities.”
RESOLUTION NO. 50-2008
Moved by: Councilman Quinn
Seconded by: Councilman Rosenberg
WHEREAS the Town Board of the Town of Glenville has recommended an increase in fees for services provided by the Town of Glenville,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Glenville hereby increases the following fees for services provided by the Town of Glenville, effective February 6, 2008:
Fee Authority |
Current Fee |
New Fee |
|
|
|
|
Misc. Documents |
|
|
|
Zoning Ordinance |
$5 |
$15 |
|
Subdivision Rules |
$10 |
$10 |
|
Zoning Map |
$10 |
$15 |
|
Comprehensive Plan |
$10 |
$10 |
|
Landscape Manual |
$5 |
$5 |
|
Design Manual |
$5 |
$5 |
Town Clerk's Office |
|
|
|
Marriage Certificate |
$40 |
$40 |
|
Fire Works Permit |
$100/application |
$100/application |
False Alarm fees |
|
|
|
False Alarm (1-4) |
$25 |
$50 |
|
5 or more |
$50 |
$75 |
Dogs |
|
|
|
Dog Seizure |
$10, $20, $30 |
$50 |
|
|
|
|
Building Construction |
|
|
|
Residential Bldgs. |
|
|
|
Single Family |
$2.20/$1000 |
$2.50/$1000 of value or portion thereof |
|
|
|
|
|
Two Family |
$2.20/$1000 |
$2.50/$1000 of value or portion thereof |
|
|
|
|
|
Multiple Dwelling |
$2.20/$1000 |
$2.50/$1000 of value or portion thereof |
|
|
|
|
|
Townhouse |
$2.20/$1000 |
$2.50/$1000 of value or portion thereof |
|
|
|
|
|
Combination |
$2.20/$1000 |
$2.50/$1000 of value or portion thereof |
|
|
|
|
|
Assessory Structure |
$20/100 + $20 |
$25/100 sq ft or portion thereof |
|
|
|
|
|
Additions, etc |
$50/$1000 + $10 |
$50/$1000 + $10 for ea add’l $1000 or portion thereof |
|
All other |
$25/1000 + $10 |
$30/$1000 + 10 for ea add’l $1000 or portion thereof |
|
Demolition |
$30 |
$50 |
|
Wood burning equip |
$35 |
$40 |
|
Plumbing |
$30 + $5 |
$35 + $5 for ea fixture |
|
Pools |
|
|
|
In-ground |
$75 |
$75 |
|
Aboveground |
$35 |
$40 |
Commercial and nonresidential |
|
|
|
New construction |
$300/1000 + $10 |
$2.50/$1000 of value or portion thereof |
|
|
|
|
|
Additions |
$100/$1000 + $10 |
$150 for 1st $1000 of value + $10 for ea add’l $1000 of value |
|
|
|
|
|
Accessory Structures |
$50/$1000 |
$50/$1000 of value or portion thereof |
|
|
|
|
|
Signs |
$30/$1000 |
$40/$1000 of value or portion thereof |
|
|
|
|
|
Plumbing |
$50 + $5 |
$50 + $5 for ea fixture |
|
Tanks - Chemical, Gasoline, Propane, etc. |
$50/unit |
$100/unit |
|
|
|
|
|
Combination |
$2.20/$1000 |
$2.50/$1000 of value or portion thereof |
|
Demo and removal |
$50 |
$100 + $10 |
Miscellaneous |
|
|
|
C.O. |
$30 |
$35 |
|
Cert. of compliance |
$25 |
$35 |
|
Day Care center |
$25 |
$35 |
|
|
|
|
|
Moving structure |
$100 + $5 |
$200 minimum + $5/$1000 of value determined by Assessor’s records |
|
Supp. Permit |
$25 |
$100 |
|
Other inspections |
$35 |
$50 |
|
Change of Occupancy |
$0 |
$50 |
State Environmental Quality Review Act |
|
|
|
Project Fee |
1% of cost |
1% of cost |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Floodplain Review |
|
|
|
Review Fee |
$40 |
$75 |
|
SEQRA Fee |
$50 |
$75 |
Massage Businesses |
|
|
|
Massage Permit |
$50/year |
$100/year |
|
Masseurs Permit |
$50/year |
$100/year |
Mass Gatherings |
|
|
|
Fee |
$500 |
$500 |
Mobile Home park License |
|
|
|
Annual fee |
$10/mobile home |
$20/mobile home |
|
|
|
|
Peddlers, vendors and solicitors |
$100/mo. + 25% of fee for ea add’l vendor |
$150/mo. + 25% of fee for ea add’l vendor |
Public exhibitions and entertainments |
|
|
|
Carnival, etc fee |
$100 |
$150 |
|
Circus, etc fee |
$500 |
$600 |
|
Theater fee |
$100/year |
$200/year |
|
Amusement park |
$25 |
$150 |
|
Amusement park |
$100/year |
$200/year |
Public Improvement Permits |
|
|
|
Under $10,000 |
6% of project cost |
6% of project cost |
|
|
|
|
|
Over $10,000 |
$600 + 5% of project cost over $10,000 |
$600 + 5% of project cost over $10,000 |
Septic disposal system |
|
|
|
Residential (repair/new construction) |
$35/$75 |
$50/$100 |
|
Commercial (repair/new construction) |
$100/$150 |
$150/$200 |
|
Percolation test |
$30 |
$50 |
|
Boring test |
$35 |
$50 |
Sewers |
|
|
|
Inspection and Hook up fee |
$100/$150 |
$100/$150 |
Sidewalk Cleanup by Town |
|
|
|
Cleanup charge |
$1/foot |
$1.50/foot |
Garbage and rubbish collectors |
|
|
|
Fee |
$250/yr + |
$350/yr + |
|
Truck fee |
$100/truck |
$150/truck |
Street Standards |
|
|
|
Spec copies |
$10/copy |
$15/copy |
|
Shoulder cut |
$100 |
$150 |
|
One-half cut - 2' |
$200 |
$250 |
|
One-half cut - 3' |
$300 |
$350 |
|
One-half cut - 4' |
$400 |
$450 |
|
Full road cut - 2' |
$400 |
$450 |
|
Full road cut – 3' |
$600 |
$650 |
|
Full road cut – 4' |
$800 |
$850 |
|
Catch Basins |
$100/cut |
$150/cut |
Vehicle Impoundment |
|
|
|
Fee/day |
$15 |
$25 |
|
Fee/month |
$150 |
$250 |
Water Fees |
|
|
|
Water Meter |
$180.00 |
$200 |
|
Double Check Valve |
$35.00 |
$50 |
|
Service Permit - Residential/Commercial |
$35 / $60 |
$100 / $150 |
|
MXU - Serial # |
$150.00 |
$150 |
|
Outside User - Residential/Commercial |
$1,250.00 |
$1,250.00 |
|
City of Schenectady - Residential/Commercial |
$200 / $500 |
$200 / $500 |
|
Tapping of Water Main Permit |
$400/ $500 |
$600 / $700 |
|
Lawn/Irrigation Permit and Inspection |
$35.00 |
$100 / $150 |
|
Sewer Lateral Service Permit and Inspection |
$100 - $800 |
$100 - $800 |
|
Water Main Installation Inspection – 2” Main or Larger |
$100 - $1000 |
$100 - $1000 |
|
Connection Fee |
$2 |
$100 |
|
Re-Connection Fee |
$2 |
$100 |
|
Supply to Contractors |
$6 |
$200 |
|
Testing of Meter |
$5 |
$50 |
Zoning applications and administration fees |
|
|
|
Zone Change to residential |
$275 |
$350 per lot |
|
Zone Change to non-residential |
$375 |
$500 per lot |
|
Development Plan (Site Plan) - Residential |
$150 |
$275/5 units + $50 ea. add’l unit |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Development Plan (Site Plan) - non-Residential – per sq. ft. |
|
|
|
0 – 4,999 |
$150 |
$350 |
|
5,000 – 9,999 |
|
$500 |
|
10,000 – 29,999 |
|
$0.06/sq.ft. |
|
30,000 – 99,999 |
|
$0.04/sq.ft. or min $1,800 |
|
100,000 - + over |
|
$0.03/sq.ft. or min $4,000 |
|
Conditional use permit |
$250 |
$300 |
|
|
|
|
|
Area Variance - Residential |
$150/$200 |
$150 + $50 for ea add’l area variance included in the application |
|
Use Variance – Residential |
|
$200 |
|
|
|
|
|
Sign Variance |
$185 |
$185 + $50 for ea add’l sign variance included with the application |
|
Other Variances |
$150 + $35 |
$200 |
|
Planned Unit Development |
$200 + $50 |
$350 + $50 for every add’l bldg |
|
Subdivision Approval |
$50/lot |
$275/5 lots+$100/lot |
|
Recreation Impact fee (subdivision) |
$1000/lot |
$1000/lot |
|
Recreation Impact fee (subdivision) |
$400/lot |
$400/lot |
|
Home occupation registration |
$25 |
$50 |
|
Review of Revised Plans |
$45 |
$50 |
|
|
|
|
|
Area Variance – non-residential |
$225 |
$250 + $50 for ea add’l area variance included with the application |
|
Use Variance – non-residential |
$300 |
$500 |
|
PZC Review of sketch plans |
New |
$50 |
|
PZC Review of revised sketch plans |
New |
$150 |
|
|
|
|
|
MS4 Review Fee (non-refundable) |
New |
$500 for 1st acre disturbance + $100 ea add’l acre |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ayes: Councilmen Quinn, Rosenberg, Councilwoman DiGiandomenico and Supervisor Quinn
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Koetzle
Abstentions: None
Motion Carried
RESOLUTION NO. 51-2008
Moved by: Councilman Quinn
Seconded by: Councilwoman DiGiandomenico
WHEREAS the Town of Glenville operates a Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; and
WHEREAS the Town of Glenville is required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to prepare and adopt a written Annual Plan that establishes local policies for administration of the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program in accordance with regulations of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; and
WHEREAS a public hearing is required to be held on said plan,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Glenville will hold a public hearing on April 2, 2008, at 7:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as it may be heard, at which time the Town Board will hear all persons interested in the written Annual Plan for 2008 to be prepared establishing local policies for administration of the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Clerk is hereby directed and authorized to publish a notice of this public hearing in the Daily Gazette at least forty-five days prior to the date of the hearing.
Ayes: Councilmen Quinn, Rosenberg, Councilwoman DiGiandomenico and Supervisor Quinn
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Koetzle
Abstention: None
Motion Carried
RESOLUTION NO. 52-2008
Moved by: Councilwoman DiGiandomenico
Seconded by: Councilman Rosenberg
WHEREAS, in order to maintain the destruction of obsolete records per "Records Retention and Disposition Schedule" published by the State of New York, and
WHEREAS, all 2008 departmental records, files, reports and other miscellaneous material must be indexed and filed within the archives of the municipality,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Glenville hereby reappoints the following individual as a Part-time Inventory Clerk, Joan Spencer Szablewski, 88 Skyway Drive, Glenville,
NOW BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that she be paid at an hourly rate of ten dollars and fifty cents ($10.50), not to exceed seventy-five (75) hours, without any benefits, to be taken from budgeted account 01.00.1410.1000.
Ayes: Councilmen Quinn, Rosenberg, Councilwoman DiGiandomenico and Supervisor Quinn
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Koetzle
Abstentions: None
Motion Carried
RESOLUTION NO. 53-2008
Moved by: Councilwoman DiGiandomenico
Seconded by: Councilman Rosenberg
BE IT RESOLVED, that the minutes of the regular meetings held on December 5, and 19th, the year-end meeting held on December 27th 2007 and the organizational meeting held on January 2, 2008 be and they hereby are approved and accepted as entered.
Ayes: Councilmen Quinn, Rosenberg, Councilwoman DiGiandomencio and Supervisor Quinn
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Koetzle
Abstentions: None
Motion Carried
New Business:
Councilman Rosenberg – “I have a recommendation to the Board. Mr. Gillen from Metroplex mentioned that we are getting some sales tax revenue from Metroplex. Its original intention, many many years ago, was to help with economic development in the town and I am not convinced that we are using any of that money for that and we are using it for our budget probably. I think we should talk about this at our next work session, exactly how much money we are bringing in and I realize we are using it for our budget right now but perhaps even a small percentage of it could be used for economic development.”
Motion to adjourn was moved by Councilman Quinn Seconded by Councilman Rosenberg.
The Town of Glenville Town Board Meeting was adjourned at 8:30 PM.
ATTEST:
______________________________
Linda C. Neals
Town Clerk
| 
