A regular Meeting of the Town Board of Guilderland was held at the Town Hall, Route 20 McCormick's Corners, Guilderland, NY, on the above date at 7:30 pm. The meeting was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. Roll call by Rosemary Centi, Town Clerk, showed the following to be present:
Councilman Ricard
Councilwoman Slavick
Councilman Bosworth
Councilman Pastore
Supervisor Runion
ALSO PRESENT: Richard Sherwood, Town Attorney
***************************************************************************
Supervisor Runion welcomed everyone to the evening’s meeting and asked for a motion approving the minutes of the May 2, 2006 town board meeting.
MOTION # 109 Councilman Bosworth moved to APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 2, 2006 TOWN BOARD MEETING. Councilwoman Slavick seconded the motion and it was carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilman Ricard Aye
Councilwoman Slavick Aye
Councilman Bosworth Aye
Councilman Pastore Aye
Supervisor Runion Aye
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD- No public comment
PRESENTATION: Stuart Warner for Kid’s Day America/International presented a resolution for Board approval recognizing May 20, 2006 as “Kid’s Day America/ International”.
This is an international Health, Safety, and Environmental Awareness Day that focuses on these important issues to educate local families and communities.
Supervisor Runion read a proclamation. (P 45A)
MOTION #110 Councilman Bosworth moved to APPROVE THE PROCLAMATION DECLARING MAY 20, 2006 KIDS DAY AMERICA/INTERNATIONAL IN GUILDERLAND. Councilman Ricard seconded the motion and it was carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilman Ricard Aye
Councilwoman Slavick Aye
Councilman Bosworth Aye
Councilman Pastore Aye
Supervisor Runion Aye
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
7:30 pm - Local Law to re-zone 2026 Western Avenue (Local Business to Business Non-Retail Professional).
8:00 PM – Local Law to re-zone 2028 Western Avenue (Local Business to Business Non-Retail Professional).
Town Clerk, Rosemary Centi read the legal notices.
Supervisor Runion stated that in March of 2006, he had received several letters from the residents located in the area of Cornell Avenue, Sumter Avenue, Norman Avenue and Seward Avenue with attached petitions indicating that the persons residing and signing the petitions were writing to request that the current zoning of the following specific lots be reviewed to prevent further commercialization of the immediate neighborhood.
The lots were 2026 Western Ave. and 2028 Western Avenue. The request was to look at the re-zoning of those lots, presently Local Business (LB), and consider re-zoning them to Business Non –Retail Professional (BNRP).
It was the feeling of the residents who signed the petition and forwarded the letters that the businesses that fall under the BNRP zoning would be a comfortable fit in their residential neighborhood and that zoning above the BNRP level would create a multitude of problems and adversely affect quality of life.
As part of the due diligence regarding the applications, Supervisor Runion stated that he had the Town Planner and the Building Department pull some files in order to obtain an historical perspective on 2026 and 2028 Western Avenue.
Prior to 1981, 2026 and 2028 were zoned as residential lots, R-15, but there was a realization at the time that Western Avenue was changing significantly and it had gone from a two-lane highway to a four-lane highway. At the same time, commercialization had begun to impact the roadway its traffic along the roadway so that residential living in homes fronting on Western Avenue did not seem to be appropriate. It was very difficult for those homeowners to sell their parcels and there were a number of requests in 1981 and thereafter for review of the zoning, particularly the Western Avenue properties that bordered the Albany City line to the Stewarts on Western Avenue on the corner of Route 146 leading to Altamont.
In 1981, there was a request to re-zone 2026 and 2028 Western Avenue from R -15 to B-1.
In 1981, the B-1 zone was converted to a local business zone, which is our current classification. The Planning Board at that time reviewed the information on the two parcels and recommended that the request to re-zone the parcels from R- 15 to B-1 be denied. However, the Board did favor a zoning designation of RNB and indicated that since the properties to the South and East of these parcels were residential, it was the feeling of the Board at that time, that residential neighborhood businesses would be more acceptable to the neighborhood. Further, in recent years it had been the concept of the Planning Board that the activities on Western Avenue could appropriately be designated as RNB thus utilizing this transitional type of classification.
RNB was modified to become what it is known today as Business Non-Retail Professional with very similar uses.
Upon review of the application and the recommendation of the Planning Board, the Town Board agreed with the Planning Board at that time and re-zoned the property from R-15 to RNB.
In 1984, the Town Board commissioned a rather comprehensive study of all of Western Avenue from the Albany City line to Route 146. As a result of that study, known as the Emanuel Study, a detailed report was submitted to the Town Board as well as a land use plan and a new map as to how properties should be developed on that strip of Western Avenue.
The Town Board held a series of public hearings, which lasted approximately six or seven months beginning in 1985.
Basically, there was a re-zoning of about 100 parcels of land between the City line and Route 146. Some of the parcels were down zoned to a lower intensity. Some were up zoned. The general theory of the study was that there was an adequate amount of business type properties located within the town that were sustainable as business type uses. There was a recommendation that the general business area should be confined in and around the Crossgates Mall area. The Emanuel Study contained the recommendation that the parcels in question revert back from RNB to R-15. However, the Board felt that Western Avenue had been impacted substantially by the amount of traffic and that in accordance with their review and study of the area, as well as the Emanuel Study; the Town Board felt it was very difficult for
property owners to sell lands along Western Avenue as residential properties.
After a comprehensive review of the entire Western Avenue corridor, the Board determined that the property at 2026 and 2028 be zoned as RNB.
In 1989, when the Town did a re-zoning of the entire town, again, properties were reviewed and the properties at 2026 and 2028 were re-zoned BNRP. In accordance with the BNRP zoning the property was sold and a hair salon was placed.
In 1992, there was a request by Phoebe’s Florist for a re-zone of 2026 and 2028 Western Avenue to a Local Business designation. The comments presented to the Planning and Zoning Boards at that time were that a florist shop was basically similar to other BNRP uses and was not any more intense than a BNRP use.
BNRP type uses are such that traffic is generated during the daytime hours when people residing in the neighborhoods are at work.
The Local Business district contains 18 uses that are more evening type and commercial in nature with a more significant impact on the neighborhoods.
In 1992, the Town Board, for whatever reason, determined by a four to one vote, to re-zone the property form BNRP to Local Business. He further stated that a conditional re-zone could have been done. The lot at 2026 in particular was substandard under the local business zoning classification. The local business designation required buffers to residential areas of 40’. However, because of the low intensity uses of the florist shop, and the testimony that 80% of the business that would be generated would not be walk in traffic but telephone orders that would require deliveries to the people placing orders, those buffers were decreased from 40’ to 20’and variances were granted for a reduction in the buffers. In addition, there were several other variances granted for parking, side yards,
front yard and other variances that would have potentially impacted a residential neighborhood if a more intense use had occurred.
In 2006, it becomes kind of difficult, when a Board shifts from what has comprehensive review of use of that area and all of sudden makes spot changes to the zoning pattern of that area and the variances are granted.
The Zoning Board in 2006 states that though this may be a more intensive use, the variances all run with the property. Even though the restaurant may have a more intensive use
they do not get a chance to review those buffers, the size of the lot or side yard requirements or parking because the variances are all in place. He further clarified that the residents were in support, at the time, of the request of re-zone for the florist and the hair salon.
It became an application that had a very limited review potential because of all of the variances granted and that are in place.
With that background, Supervisor Runion opened the meeting up for public comment. He stated that ground rules would be set, requesting that each speaker be as concise as possible, limited to 3 – 5 minutes. Further, he stated that this Board was not here to listen to criticism of prior boards and their decisions regarding the application process of 2026 and 2028 Western Avenue.
The Board would be looking at this issue as a planning process and that there was also an issue raised of fairness to the current applicant on the property who went through a process with the Zoning Board of Appeals and through no fault of their own, was granted a Special Use permit. He further stated that this Board would not be looking at the Special Use permit, that the Board did not have the power to change the permit that has been granted. They would be looking at the property and what its future classification should be on the zoning map of the Town of Guilderland.
Betty Shields – Sumpter Avenue stated that she appreciated the Supervisor’s comments and was in favor of the re-zone. She stated that the BNRP zone was a better fit for the neighborhood. She asked that they consider the re-zone for the future of that area and the neighborhoods.
Phyllis Rhoades – Cornell Avenue stated that the size of the lot is too small for Local Business; the drive aisle is too small also. She stated that if it were BNRP the lower volume of traffic with no evening hours it would fit. The parking would also be on site.
Asked that their quality of living be considered.
Adrienne Daniels – Cornell Avenue stated her concern with the general traffic build up in the area. 2028 Western Avenue will also be a problem. Exiting will be problem due to the turn lane.
Joel Cornell – State Farm Road stated he was concerned with subsequent zone changes in the future. He complained about his problem with exiting his home due to traffic.
Feels the Town’s zoning in the area is problematic.
Mark Schaffer – part owner of 2028 Western Avenue stated that Route 20 and its traffic couldn’t be changed. His property is a three-lot parcel so lot size is not a problem. He acquired the parcel because of its LB zoning and stated that anything that would go in to the property would be coming before the Planning Board and that would be the time for residents to voice their concerns.
Karen Moreau – Attorney for W&S LLC the legal owner of 2028 Western Avenue stated that she was unaware of the history of the zoning changes of the property. She tended to focus on the Comprehensive Plan as a planning perspective as to what the future of that area would be.
She does not believe the Town can stop the growth on the Western Avenue corridor.
She further stated that the Comprehensive Plan identifies the Route 20 corridor east of the CSX tracks as the logical location for commercial and other mixed business uses, and indicates also that such section was the primary arterial in the town.
Supervisor Runion stated that there were other properties along that strip that were designated Local Business and were re-zoned to BNRP due to the impact on the neighbors.
Councilman Pastore asked who comprised the Emanuel Study.
Supervisor Runion stated that the Town Board commissioned Manuel S.Emanuel Planning Associates to do a planning study of the Western Avenue corridor.
Ms. Moreau further stated that the past is the past. The Town has a recent Comprehensive Plan arrived at through the interaction of residents town-wide interacting with professional planners who came up with a Comprehensive Plan, and identified this particular area as most suited for commercial, business use.
She felt that by designating her client’s property for a less intensive use, especially when the property surrounding it is commercial, will make it harder for her client to market his property. She considers this spot zoning.
She also stated that the Planning Board did not recommend this re-zone.
She further stated that an action by the Board to re-zone her client’s property as proposed would be viewed as arbitrary and capricious on the part of her clients.
Ms. Moreau presented to the Board a petition pursuant to section 265 of Town Law to the Board requiring a super majority vote.
Councilman Pastore asked how long the property had been owned by W&S, LLC.
Mr. Schaffer stated that he has owned the property for 2 years and purchased it because of its zoning classification.
Supervisor Runion stated that the Planning Board recommended opposition to the re-zone without any comments.
He read the recommendation of the Albany County Planning Board. (P 49A) Approved zoning changes.
Town Planner, Jan Weston, read her memo to the Board supporting the zoning change.
(P 49B)
Supervisor Runion read a letter from Victor Caponera on behalf of the owners of the property at 2026 Western Avenue opposing the re-zone. (P 49C)
Supervisor Runion stated that he received an e-mail from Wayne Campbell indicating that he was unhappy with the uses on 2026 Western Avenue.
Phone call from Ken Smith in favor of the zoning changes.
Councilman Pastore asked if Jan’s memo was written before or after the approval by the Zoning Board.
Jan Weston stated that to the best of her recollection it was after such approval
Councilwoman Slavick stated that the memo Councilman Pastore was looking at referred to the next re-zone request.
Councilman Pastore said that “although this is somewhat distinguishable that which is before the Board right now than what will be coming before the Board for the re-zone request in that there has been an application that went before the Zoning Board and the Planning Board that was approved and the Town Board is being asked to consider re-zoning after the approval of an application.”
Jan Weston said, “This was not true in the RA application.”
Councilman Pastore asked if that was at all distinguishable.
Ms. Weston stated that she wasn’t sure she understood the question.
Councilman Pastore asked “is it a more perplexing problem for this Town Board to consider the concerns of the residents, as we should, and view this current re-zone application and the fact that an application went before the Planning Board and the Zoning Board, presumably due deliberation and consideration was given at those two Boards whether or not the restaurant should come in? Decisions were made and now this Town Board is being asked to re-zone this property, after the Planning Board and the Zoning Board determined that, whether or not they were right or wrong, the application be approved.”
Ms. Weston said, “it was based on the current zoning and that this was always a dilemma that the Planning and Zoning Boards have because they were looking at it as being zoned Local Business. They didn’t have a choice and were not asked at that time if it were an appropriate zone. They were looking at an application for something in a Local Business zone. She agreed that it was more perplexing issue for a Town Board to weigh those issues. She was looking at it solely as a planning issue.”
Councilman Pastore asked “should this Town Board refer to your opinion in recommending that this re-zone occur or should we place equal, more or less stock in the decision by the Planning Board not to recommend the approval of this re-zone request.”
Ms. Weston said, “all she could give was her opinion that she felt was right from her perspective.”
Councilman Pastore said, “ We have the Planning Board not recommending the re-zone, we have the Town Planner requesting that the Town Board consider the re-zone by a memorandum, unfortunately, from our perspective, subsequent to the decision by the Planning and Zoning Boards to approve that restaurant?”
Ms. Weston stated that what she has tried over the years to impress upon Town Boards to look at all of the uses within that zone.
She asked the Board to again, when considering this re-zone, to look at all of the uses appropriate for that re-zone.
Councilman Pastore asked what could the properties be used as if re-zoned to BNRP.
Jan Weston stated that almost anything you see from 155 to the Crossgates Mall, the whole street is lined with residential houses that have been converted to doctor’s offices, dentists offices, attorney’s offices, medical offices.
Councilman Pastore asked under BNRP what would be the permitted uses.
Ms. Weston said, “any professional office.” She stated that although the properties are next to a property that is zoned LB, the properties at 2026 and 2028 are next to a large cinder block building different than houses further down the road.
Councilman Pastore asked if any uses permitted under the BNRP zone would be a less intensive use than the restaurant but presumably if the properties were converted to any of the uses permitted in a BNRP zone it would be a more intensive use than what currently exists on those two properties.
Ms. Weston responded yes.
Supervisor Runion read a list of permitted uses in the BNRP zone.
Councilman Pastore stated that the Board is considering these re-zone requests as a response to several concerns raised and petitions signed by the residents who adjoin and who neighbor the properties that are affected.
He asked “is it fair to say Jan, that we are also considering the re-zone request because of this memorandum that you wrote. Would this public hearing have been scheduled if you had not written that memorandum? We would not have just considered it out of thin air? It would have been based upon residents but it was also based upon this memorandum?”
Ms. Weston said, ”You are considering it so you will have to tell me.”
Councilman Pastore asked, “Can a Town Board consider these re-zone requests without Jan’s memorandum?”
Supervisor Runion stated that any Town Board member could raise an issue regarding zoning. It is the prerogative and the authority of the town board to look at zoning within the Town.
If any member of the Town Board had sent a memo to Supervisor indicating that they wanted the Board to consider a re-zoning in and along Western Avenue or any portion of the town, he would ask Jan for an opinion and submit it to the Board to consider whether they wanted a public hearing for a re-zone of the property.
In the past, the Board has had property owners who have submitted requests for zoning changes and the Board has gotten an opinion from Jan and on a number of occasions not scheduled a public hearing.
Supervisor Runion stated that it is the Board’s function.
Jan Weston stated that zoning is a legislative function, hopefully based on comprehensive planning.
Councilman Bosworth stated that even if it were to be re-zoned to BNRP it would still be used as a restaurant.
Supervisor Runion stated that the Special Use permits do not run with the owner they run with the property.
Mark Schaffer gave his views of potential uses of the property as in a LB zone.
Councilman Ricard asked if Mr. Schafer were to retain the property and tried to develop it, would it be worth it to go through all that trouble to remain LB. He felt that it would be an advantage to be BNRP.
A discussion between Mr. Schaffer and Councilman Ricard ensued regarding the advantages of the Local Business versus the Business Non –Retail Professional zone.
Councilman Ricard further stated that a new applicant that may buy that property could face challenges if it stays LB.
.
Councilman Pastore asked, “If the Town Board, how do we guarantee to the neighbors, if this is re-zoned BNRP, that this is not a more intensive use than it is currently being used for?”
Councilman Ricard stated that you couldn’t because there is nothing on there.
Supervisor Runion stated that what the neighbors are saying is that while the BNRP is currently more intensive a use than what is currently on the property it is an acceptable transitional zone.
Councilman Pastore stated that he had a problem with the reasoning of that.
He said, “If the application has already been approved for a restaurant and the restaurant is going in any way, because we cannot prevent that from happening, why are we changing the zoning from Local Business to BNRP? This restaurant could be there for 25 years and it would currently remain in that capacity for 25 years and that is not going to appease the concerns of the neighbors. My concern, however, is if we re-zone this property, we are in essence looking beyond the Planning Board and Zoning Board’s decisions and we are acting as some sort of super arbiter for what the Planning Board and Zoning Board decided.
I don’t think it is up to this Board to determine whether or not they are correct. I think that there is another avenue, which has to be pursued to determine whether or not the Planning Board and Zoning Boards are correct. I think we are treading on some very slippery ice
if the Town Board chooses to consider the merits of the decision that has already been decided.”
Councilman Ricard stated he was not judging the Planning Board and the Zoning Board. He further stated that Jan Weston was correct in stating that the Town Board’s business was land legislation and use. They have to work within the confinements given to them. He used the example of the Inga Barth’s florist and only as a florist. It has come before the Board for re-zones and was denied. He explained that this restaurant has this variance that will go with the property for the rest of its life as a restaurant. If it is BNRP it is viable as something else.
Councilman Pastore stated that the property has already been approved and if re-zoned will effectively undermine the restaurants ability to sell it beyond what it is.
He stated that they were reacting to an event with the restaurant having been approved by two independent boards and now we are being asked to re-zone this property without looking at it from a comprehensive plan perspective. He asked how the re-zone of these two properties would affect the quality of life of these residents.
Neighbors will still be burdened by the fact that the restaurant is coming into their neighborhood whether it is re-zoned or remains the same and stated that this is the problem he has with the reason for the request.
Supervisor Runion asked if he would like to burden them with a much more intensive use then a restaurant. He further stated that he did not think it was the Board’s obligation to insure that someone who decides to open up a restaurant is able to sell it in the future for a more intensive use than the use for which the property was purchased.
Councilman Pastore said, “What would be distinguishable in that scenario in the future, in my opinion, and it is a better distinction that what prevails here, is that if we get a re-zone request before another application for something more intensive than a restaurant comes before the Planning Board, Zoning Board and Town Board.
What we have here is after the fact that this restaurant been approved we are now asking the members of the Town Board to re-zone.”
Supervisor Runion stated that Councilman Pastore was talking about 2026 because what was just said fits for 2028.
Councilwoman Slavick asked what would occur if the property on 2026 were re-zoned BNRP for future sale.
Supervisor Runion stated that if this were re-zoned back to BNRP and the Board, as a condition to the re-zone, honors the Special Use permit granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals, the property could, in the future continue as a sit down restaurant and any other uses in the BNRP zone.
Councilwoman Slavick asked if it could continue being used as a restaurant in the future.
Supervisor Runion responded that it could and would not be limited to a specific type of restaurant.
Councilman Ricard stated that the other assumption would be that the owners of the parcel where the parking will be across the street would agree to continue to allow parking for the restaurant business coming in, otherwise they will not have any parking which poses a future problem.
Councilwoman Slavick asked if all of that would carry to a new owner.
Supervisor Runion stated that it did with a requirement under the current Special Use permit that required 43 spaces. 23 were located across the street.
If for any reason the parking on the East was lost, the applicant for 2026 would have to come before the Zoning Board for a variance or they would lose their Special Use permit.
Jan Weston stated that if you were to bring in the restaurant into a BNRP zone it would limit that restaurant from expansion in the future.
Supervisor Runion stated that it would be by 25%.
Councilwoman Slavick asked Ms. Weston if one of her reasons for the zone change was to limit expansion and Ms. Weston responded that it was one of the reasons.
Councilman Pastore asked if the zone went from Local Business to BNRP the restaurant would in effect be a pre existing non–conforming use.
Ms. Weston stated that it would be a non-conforming use.
Councilman Pastore stated that this would prevent the restaurant from expanding but that they would still have to go before the Planning Board whether or not the expansion could occur.
Ms. Weston responded that it would.
Councilman Pastore said, “My concern is, with the residents here, is that they would be concerned, well, what we lose by not re-zoning, is that we potentially could have this restaurant expand its use well above and beyond even our wildest nightmares but they would still have another bite of the apple so to speak to prevent any extension of expansion of the use of the restaurant which is going in anyway, regardless.”
Jan Weston said, “yes and no Paul. The difference being, under the LB zoning there is the presumption that that is a permitted use and fits. There is the presumption. If it’s a non-conforming use there is the presumption that we are borderline to begin with. I think again, what Mike reiterated was that when you say the Planning and Zoning Board approved it they did because they were told it was Local Business. This is a permitted use in a Local Business zone. They have no leeway there. They have leeway in parking and buffering and things like that but the use, they are told, is a permitted use by the zoning ordinance.”
Councilman Pastore responded they could put a lot of conditions on the eventual use.
Supervisor Runion stated that a lot of their conditions were taken away from them because they no longer had the ability to look at the variances that had been granted for a less intensive use on the site. So they couldn’t force additional buffering on the site because there had already been a variance granted that reduced the buffering from 40’ to 20’ and that ran with the land. It was granted for a much less intensive use that did not require the number of parking spaces, dumpsters or evening type traffic going in and out of the site.
It is a totally different type of use generating a lot of traffic.
He further explained the differences between the uses of the property.
Jan Weston further stated that the Zoning Board had tried to put some conditions to protect the neighborhood because it is LB.
Councilman Pastore stated that whatever the appropriate zoning is for these properties could have been brought to this Board previously or subsequently. He stated that the problem is that we have two Boards that approved an application and now we are asking to change the zone after the fact. He further stated that even if the Board chooses to re-zone this, who is to say that BNRP is still the best zone. He felt that all of the neighbors concerns should be considered and that the Board should consider that in the totality of circumstances and not just reduce the intensity of the use from LB to BNRP immediately or subsequent to the approval of an application.
Supervisor Runion stated that the Board is honoring the decisions of the Planning Board and Zoning Board that granted the Special Use permit by saying that the restaurant can go on the site.
Councilman Pastore asked,” what if one of the residents or many of the residents say we appreciate the fact that you are honoring the decision made by the Zoning Board and the Planning Board but we still, in our heart of hearts, believe that the decision made by the Planning Board and the Zoning board was incorrect. Was wrong. There shouldn’t be a restaurant at all. The fact that the zone has been re-zoned does not negate the fact that a restaurant is going in and we are going to challenge the restaurant going in by the fact that the property is zoned BNRP?”
Supervisor Runion said, “They could not do that”. Their time to appeal has expired.
From March 30, 2006 they had 30 days to file and if someone wanted to challenge the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals, they would have had to file an Article 78 proceeding before April 29, 2006.
Councilman Bosworth asked if they had been advised of that and Supervisor Runion stated that he believed that they had. He said, “Whether they were aware of it or not, ignorance of the law is no excuse and they were subject to those time frames. They are the strictest time frames imposed by the law.”
Ms. Shields stated that they were not aware of the property and the zoning until they received notification and that at the meeting we were told that it was zoned commercial and that they could not do anything about it.
She further stated that filing an Article 78 would have been expensive and we only had three weeks to do anything. Now they are looking to the future.
Joe Abbruzzese stated that everything that comes before the Zoning Board requires a Special Use Permit.
MOTION #111 Councilman Bosworth moved to CLOSE THE 7:30 PM PUBLIC HEARING ON A RE-ZONE REQUEST OF 2026 WESTERN AVENUE. Councilwoman Slavick seconded the motion and it was carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilman Ricard Aye
Councilwoman Slavick Aye
Councilman Bosworth Aye
Councilman Pastore Aye
Supervisor Runion Aye
***************************************************************************
MOTION #112 Councilman Bosworth moved to CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON A RE-ZONE REQUEST OF 2028 WESTERN AVENUE. Councilman Ricard seconded the motion and it was carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilman Ricard Aye
Councilwoman Slavick Aye
Councilman Bosworth Aye
Councilman Pastore Aye
Supervisor Runion Aye
***************************************************************************
Councilwoman Slavick asked what would be disadvantageous to the applicant if the property were re-zoned.
Supervisor Runion stated that expansion would be limited to 25%.
Councilwoman Slavick asked if there would be an effect on the resale of the property.
Supervisor Runion stated that all zoning changes don’t affect resale necessarily but because of the types of uses on a property it could affect to a certain extent value. However, he stated that the value of this property was its value as a restaurant due to the expenses incurred. The likelihood of the property going to another type of use is minimal.
Councilwoman Slavick stated that it looked like it would stay a restaurant.
Supervisor Runion stated that it looked like it would. He further stated that the value would be the ability to combine other lots.
Councilman Ricard stated that he alluded to that fact concerning Walgreen’s.
Councilwoman Slavick asked, “can be any legal action against this Board for changing the re-zone after this application has already gone through?”
Supervisor Runion said, “The Town Board is exercising its legislative function and I disagree that this would be spot zoning because there is a BNRP district located to the East so this would be an extension of the BNRP district as well as the fact that the property was originally zoned BNRP in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan of Western Avenue and that was the recommendation. If anything the spot zoning occurred in 1992 when the Board changed the zoning at that time from BNRP to Local Business.”
Supervisor Runion read the SEQR. All environmental questions answered in the negative for both properties.
MOTION #113 Councilman Ricard moved that A RE-ZONE FROM LOCAL BUSINESS TO BNRP FOR 2026 WESTERN AVENUE WOULD NOT HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Supervisor Runion seconded the motion and it was carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilman Ricard Aye
Councilwoman Slavick Aye
Councilman Bosworth Aye
Councilman Pastore Abstain
Supervisor Runion Aye
Councilman Bosworth asked that the Board continue this for decision only at the next meeting. He stated that he would like to examine the issue of spot zoning further.
Supervisor Runion stated that they would continue the issue for decision only on June 6, 2006.
MOTION #114 Councilman Ricard moved that A RE-ZONE FROM LOCAL BUSINESS TO BNRP FOR 2028 WESTERN AVENUE WOULD NOT HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Supervisor Runion seconded the motion and it was carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilman Ricard Aye
Councilwoman Slavick Aye
Councilman Bosworth Aye
Councilman Pastore Abstain - Did not have all of the forms for a review
Supervisor Runion Aye
Continued until June 6, 2006 for decision only.
BREAK: 9:30
RETURN: 9:45
PRESENTATION:
City of Albany representative Frank Lavadera of Clough Harbour presented on the status of Rapp Road Landfill. He explained the various expansion opportunities that the City of Albany is looking at.
PUBLIC HEARING: 8:00 PM – Local Law to re-zone areas within the Normanskill Flood Plain (RO-40 to RA-3)
Town Clerk, Rosemary Centi, read the legal notice
Jan Weston, Town Planner, read her comments on this re-zone request. (P 57A)
T. R. Laz, Krumkill Road, stated that the development was too large and “enough is enough”. He thanked the board for maintaining their rural way of life.
George Harder, Delmar, stated that he owned 100 acres in the area and strenuously objected to the zoning change because he felt that it was robbing him of his property. He felt that it restricted the ability to fairly develop his land. He asked the board what they felt they were doing to the value of his land. He further stated that he felt they were trying to restrict the number of people coming into the community.
Supervisor Runion explained to Mr. Harder stated that the RA started at three acres but there were a number of incentives given for a variety of items.
Angela Pitorski, Chaucer Place, stated that she was in favor of the re-zone. She was concerned with the increase of traffic on Church Road and the displacement of wild animals.
Truman Onderdonk, Hanley Lane, felt that RA – 3 did not apply. His property was only 2 acres. It didn’t fit into the flood zone or the size of the property.
Gary Pruskowski, stated that he only had 1.5 acres and does not understand why it was included in the flood plain. He felt that this re-zone was in retaliation for his support of the re-zone in the west end of Town. He felt that the RA zoning is not consistent with that section of Town.
Shelly Lupe – (daughter of Joan Lupe) stated that her family had 200 acres. Their land was not in the flood plain and their properties were developable and zoned RO-40. The three-acre lots would reduce the value of their property by 30%. She understood the incentives but did not understand why it could not be done with 1-acre lots. She asked that it not be re-zoned and that the property owners are met with.
She read a letter from Steven Owen Lupe in opposition of the re-zone asking. (P 57B)
Doris Govel, Hanley Lane, stated that she was in favor of the re-zone. She felt that if the area were developed she would suffer from flooding.
Jane Daniels Cervera, Nott Road, property not on the list. She is in favor of the re-zone and stated that the area has quite a bit of water on it indicative of the area. The re-zone takes into account the nature of the property. She thanked the Board for trying to maintain the natural habitat of the area.
Dean DeVito, J.L. Realty, stated that he understood the Town’s desire to protect the Normanskill Preserve and does not disagree with it. He does not understand the rationale behind the properties that were selected. He felt that 3-acre lots would be too expensive. He further stated that he would encourage the Board to look at buffers to mitigate the problem with the environment and still maintain the one-acre zoning. Protecting the environment would protect the owner’s investment.
He asked that they look at each parcel.
Jan Weston stated not all properties are in the flood plain per se. It was used as a general description not meant to cover every parcel. Some parcels were included because of their rural or agricultural uses.
Councilman Pastore asked about the status of the application and Jan Weston stated that they had made an application for concept approval and had not received concept approval.
Ms. Weston also explained the concept of Conservation Subdivision and the incentives that would be available for a good development plan.
Councilman Ricard stated that he had a problem with this re-zone because when the West End study had been done, months of hearings had been held with a lot of information. He further stated that it did not seem that this re-zone was understood.
Shelly Lupe stated that there was no reference to Conservation Subdivision information and would like time to discuss this issue.
Jim Harder stated that there had been no information given as to what the incentives would be to the property owner. He felt that there doesn’t need to be a re-zone in order to have the same effect. A one-acre lot could work effectively without changing to 3-acre lots.
Cluster plans work great.
Celia Wellman, Schoolhouse Road, stated that the Board needed to look at the impact of additional traffic. This new zoning would lessen the impact. She expressed her concern with the overflow valve on Schoolhouse Road and how it would affect the amount of water going into the areas. She is in favor of the re-zone.
Desiree Laz, Krumkill Road, is in favor of the re-zone. She stated that those people interested in developing do not live in Town those that are interested in the re-zone do live in Town.
Juan Moda Church Road, stated his support of the re-zone. He is asking for some consideration for a more rural atmosphere and that this re-zone would bring that.
Linda McKinley, Johnston Road, stated that there is an over saturation of development and was in favor of the re-zone. She would like to maintain the rural atmosphere.
Jeff Hines, Caroline Street, stated that Westmere has become downtown Guilderland. He is confused as to how some of the properties were included. He expressed his concern with the traffic increase.
Roberta Miller, Zorn Road stated her concern with the increase in traffic. Based on her knowledge, about one third of the Lupe property is developable. It is a very unique environment. She strongly supports the re-zone. She asked about the process for approving developments.
Supervisor Runion asked her to speak with Town Planner, Jan Weston.
Shirley Daniels, Nott Road, in favor of the re-zone. She stated her concern with the impact of traffic and the speeding along her road. She asked that they consider maintaining certain areas as rural. She also stated that water is a problem.
Dave Seidner, Alexa Lane stated that it is the Planning Board that has the responsibility on these properties with protections.
He is not in favor of the re-zone because he feels that the Planning Board can do its job. They can give builders incentives to build responsibly. He stated that it did not seem right to possibly limit what they could build.
Hank La Barba and Margot Thomas, Trillium Lane and Saratoga Springs, sent a memo to the Town of their research regarding their property included in the re-zone.
He feels that after listening to the residents and Jan, they have more work to do. Mr. La Barba hoped that the Town would proceed cautiously. He feels that his property could be given some consideration. He recommended forming a committee and to continue the public hearing.
Margot Thomas stated that the document filed should be looked as for consideration for a transitional property. She stated that she did not feel BNRP property should be up against what could go into an RA – 3 designation and the Board should continue discussion.
Board members requested maps and narratives from the Town Planner.
Public Hearing continued until June 20, 2006 7:30 PM.
Presentation by Don Fletcher of Barton & Loguidice, P.C. in regard to Stormwater Management Annual Report.
Mr. Fletcher stated that there is a five-year time line starting in March of “03 for full implementation. An annual report had been sent to the Town Highway Department and the Town Board for review.
This evening presentation culminates year three of the five-year program
There are six (6) minimum measures defined by DEC as part of the program.
They are: public education, public participation, elicit discharge detection and elimination, construction sight storm water and erosion control, post construction management and good housekeeping internally for the Town.
Steady progress and goals had been achieved in year three particularly in the areas of public education and good housekeeping portions of the program. Several training sessions were held in the Town Highway Department and the annual report has been placed on the web.
The major items to be accomplished in year four (4) are to put together the base mapping of all storm sewer outfalls in the area, begin the elicit discharge program which is taking some mapping and looking at different areas in the Town in order to establish an elicit discharge program. Three local laws need to be passed with public comment and public review.
Finally, the last item is how to fund the project. On June 14, 2006 there will be a panel workshop in Colonie essentially on how to fund the program, as it is basically an unfunded mandate.
Agenda items:
MOTION #115 Councilman Ricard moved to ADOPT A RESOLUTION TO SET A PUBLIC HEARING ON JUNE 20, 2006 AT 8:00 PM FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF WATER DISTRICT EXTENSION NO. 72 ( GRANT HILL ROAD). Councilwoman Slavick seconded the motion and it was carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilman Ricard Aye
Councilwoman Slavick Aye
Councilman Bosworth Aye
Councilman Pastore Aye
Supervisor Runion Aye
MOTION #116 Councilman Ricard moved to ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SUPERVISOR OF WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT TO EXECUTE SAID JOINT APPLICATION FOR PERMIT AND APPICATION FOR A PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY PERMIT FOR WATER DISTRICT EXTENSION #72 AND TO SUBMIT SAME TO THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION. Councilwoman Slavick seconded the motion and it was carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilman Ricard Aye
Councilwoman Slavick Aye
Councilman Bosworth Aye
Councilman Pastore Aye
Supervisor Runion Aye
MOTION #117 Councilman Bosworth moved to APPROVE AUTHORIZING THE APPROPRIATION OF $16,000 INTO THE AIR POLLUTION B FUND FOR THE PURCHASE OF A USED BRUSH LEAF VACUUM MACHINE FROM THE TOWN OF WILTON. Councilman Ricard seconded the motion and it was carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilman Ricard Aye
Councilwoman Slavick Aye
Councilman Bosworth Aye
Councilman Pastore Aye
Supervisor Runion Aye
MOTION #118 Councilwoman Slavick moved to APPROVE THE SETTLEMENT OF TAX ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING FOR 821 GREENTHORNE BLVD. AS RECOMMENDED BY THE TOWN ASSSESSOR, CAROL WYSOMSKI. Councilman Ricard seconded the motion and it was carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilman Ricard Aye
Councilwoman Slavick Aye
Councilman Bosworth Aye
Councilman Pastore Aye
Supervisor Runion Aye
MOTION #119 Councilwoman Slavick moved to APPROVE TRANSFERS AS SUBMITTED BY COMPTROLLER, JEAN STERLING. Councilman Pastore seconded the motion and it was carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilman Ricard Aye
Councilwoman Slavick Aye
Councilman Bosworth Aye
Councilman Pastore Aye
Supervisor Runion Aye
***************************************************************************
MOTION #120 Councilman Bosworth moved to APPROVE AWARDING BIDS FOR VARIOUS HIGHWAY MATERIALS AS RECOMMENDED BY THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT. Councilwoman Slavick seconded the motion and it was carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilman Ricard Aye
Councilwoman Slavick Aye
Councilman Bosworth Aye
Councilman Pastore Aye
Supervisor Runion Aye
MOTION #121 Councilman Bosworth moved to ADJOURN THE TOWN BOARD MEETING OF MAY 16, 2006 at 11:45 PM. Councilman Ricard seconded the motion and it was carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilman Ricard Aye
Councilwoman Slavick Aye
Councilman Bosworth Aye
Councilman Pastore Aye
Supervisor Runion Aye
Respectfully submitted,
Rosemary Centi, Town Clerk
| 
