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 Anna Russo, Deputy Town Clerk, showed the following to be present:
Councilman Redlich
Councilwoman Slavick
Councilman Pastore
Councilman Grimm
Supervisor Runion
ALSO PRESENT: Richard Sherwood, Town Attorney
***************************************************************************
Supervisor Runion welcomed everyone to the evening’s meeting.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD - NO PUBLIC COMMENT
AGENDA ITEMS:
Item # 1 on the agenda concerned a vote on a local law for a re-zone application for a Planned Unit Development project commonly known as Glass Works Village.
Supervisor Runion stated that public hearings had been held on the project over a period of several years.
James Schultz, appearing as attorney for the applicant, stated that he was prepared to answer any questions relative to the project.
Supervisor Runion stated that he had received a number of e-mails and letters over the last several weeks in favor of and opposed to the project. (P 167)
Mr. Shultz asked if the memo from Behan & Associates and the memo from the Town Planner Jan Weston be included in the record.
Councilman Redlich asked if there was anyone able to comment on the traffic for the project.
A representative from Clough Harbor, the firm that was responsible for the traffic study, answered questions from the Board regarding traffic patterns, signal timing, and wait time for the project. (Study available in Town Clerk’s office)
Supervisor Runion asked if there were dedicated senior housing within the project would that create less of a traffic impact during the 15 minutes of peak time at the intersection described? Mr. Kahlbaugh stated that there would be.
Councilman Grimm asked if there were dedicated senior housing or not, it would have the same impact?
Supervisor Runion asked if the library were to expand, would that impact the study?
Mr. Kahlbaugh stated that he did not believe it would.
Councilman Redlich asked if the traffic study took into consideration the road contemplated behind the library.
Mr. Kahlbough stated that it did not because the study was what the impacts of the development would be on the off site transportation infrastructure. The benefit of the road was to be able to move toward the goal of the master plan, which was to reduce the reliance on the main arterial
He further stated that there was a significant benefit to realize that connectivity but it was not an impact mitigation strategy.
Councilman Pastore asked about alternatives such as CDTA and whether this project was what they would look for.
Mr. Kahlbough explained the necessities involved for bus service and stated that this project allowed conversations to happen with CDTA and was a model as far as density and mixed use as to what they were looking for.
Town Planner, Jan Weston, read her memo to the Town Board regarding the project into the record. (P 168A)
Councilman Redlich asked a number of questions relative to the project memo.
Ms. Weston answered questions relative to the project.
Councilman Redlich asked if the parkland, open space, in the development would be available for the residents use and if the proposed legislation incorporated and protected that? It was his understanding that it would be available to Town residents in general.
Ms. Weston stated that she did not know. It was not only the walking trails and such but the also the piazza space, and the amphitheatre space. It was a valid concern that residents brought up asking if there was a guarantee built into this legislation that if a group wanted to use the space there was enough in the legislation to guarantee this because the Town would not own it.
Mr. Shultz stated that the legislation per se did not say that specific areas would be public or open to the public but that has been understood all along. Part of the final sight plan approvals, which would include the restrictive covenants and all of the documentation relative to this project, will address that. This has been clear on the developer’s part that they want that. It was part of the appeal of the Planned Unit Development and what the Town has directed the developer to assure.
Councilman Grimm asked Jan Weston that if the project were turned down would the traffic problem would remain and what the solution was to the traffic problem?
Ms. Weston stated that the Town could provide other connectors.
Councilman Grimm stated we have been doing it the wrong way for thirty or forty years and that this development would mitigate the traffic problem.
Ms. Weston stated that it mitigated it to a certain point but that it would not solve the problem on Route 20.
Councilwoman Slavick stated that a park and ride for bus travel would help to mitigate the traffic issue.
Councilman Pastore asked Jan to comment on the innovativeness of the project.
She stated that it was innovative in that it was a mixed-use project. This is the first time that this was put together on one sight and that the architectural detail has impressed a lot of people.
She further stated that there was a good combination of community services surrounding the property.
Councilman Grimm discussed the use of Mercy Care Lane as an alternative egress to Western Avenue and asked if the road behind the library was a better alternative to Mercy Care Lane and Ms. Weston stated that it was.
Further discussion was held regarding the road behind the library.
Councilwoman Slavick asked about the mitigation fees and what they could be used for.
Ms. Weston explained fee use and the current zoning of the property.
The following people spoke concerning the development:
Maggie Oldendorf, President of the Friends of the Guilderland Public Library, reiterated her position regarding the use of Mercy Care Lane as an alternative to the road behind the library.
Mr. Robert Ganz, Library Board of Trustees, stated that the library supports the approval of Glassworks Village and stated that the road behind the library is not the most appropriate way to address the issue of the safety issue. The most appropriate way to address the safety issue was Mercy Care Lane and its connection at Winding Brook.
Hiram Eberlein, President of the Guilderland Hamlet Neighborhood Association, stated that the Hamlet Neighborhood Association had received notification regarding this development approximately 3 - 4 years ago and there has been unanimous consent within the people who attended the meetings that this was a good project that should be done, and would be a benefit to the area.
He addressed the concerns of neighbors that they had not been aware of the development and stated that they had to be proactive and that the Town had done a good job regarding publishing hearings.
Merry Sparano, Williamsburg Drive, stated her support for the senior designation of the project and to keeping the pricing as low as possible.
Supervisor Runion discussed the economic issues of the project.
Councilman Redlich stated that this would be a good project fiscally for the Town.
Supervisor Runion explained condominium assessment versus typical single-family homes and the taxes that would be paid.
The condominiums would carry a value within the project of $84,200.00 with the STAR exemption it would be $56, 100.00, which would result in a school tax bill for each unit of $1,061.86.
He further stated that he believed that the economic impact statement summary in the document was incorrect in that the assessment figure for the condominium units used was $210,000.00.
The economic advantage to the school district, if they are not senior units and there are children that reside in those units, shows that the school district would end up with a net loss. This was based on the $84,000.00 assessment.
He further stated that in looking at the condos, the school taxes collected would be approximately $906,000.00 and the cost to the school district to educate the children in those units would be $583,000.00.
Supervisor Runion stated that he was under the assumption that the condominiums would have a fixed percentage of senior units, which led him to further study.
This came in after the original economic analysis.
Dan O’Brien stated that they have updated the economic analysis and if you look at the condos individually and at school tax costs that portion of the project is negative but in looking at the project as a whole there is still $2.00 in school tax revenue collected for each dollar that is put out.
The make- up of the units has changed and the number of school children from the condos (80 instead of 115) has changed and that has caused the reduction.
Councilwoman Slavick stated that for town taxes $72 million would be the total base multiplied by $.26 per thousand resulting in $18,720.00 in revenue.
The library’s tax is approximately $.90 per thousand.
Councilman Redlich asked about average retail assessment for the project.
Jennifer Thomas, Longhouse Lane, stated her opposition to the project based on the density.
She felt that better notification was needed for large projects and her concern for the traffic issue.
Supervisor Runion stated that he had a number of discussions with the developer over the last several days regarding dedicating a percentage of the condos for senior use. He also requested that it be in a specific guarantee such as deed restrictions.
Mr. Shultz stated that the developer did not object to that. They would provide restrictive covenants in the final site plan approval.
Mr. O’Brien stated that if the Town wanted to have this mandated they would agree to it.
Supervisor Runion stated that he had asked for 30% of the condo units to be dedicated for senior use.
Mr. O’Brien stated that would be agreeable.
Councilwoman Slavick stated that if they were dedicated as senior use it would lessen the number of trips generated.
Supervisor Runion asked if that would be worked out with the Planning Board?
Mr. O’Brien stated that the Planning Board would make sure that they go in the right places.
Mr. Shultz stated that it could be incorporated in the legislation.
Councilman Redlich asked how they would be designated.
Discussion was held among board members and the developer regarding adding the senior requirement to the legislation.
Councilman Grimm asked if this project was not market driven.
Mr. O’Brien stated that a senior group was what a large part of what the project had been marketed toward.
Supervisor Runion stated that when you get into condo ownership there is a built - in tax break.
He gave a brief history of the condo tax break. He further stated that the Town could not legislate what a developer charges a senior resident, but if we give a tax benefit to a senior for a condo ownership it would be a benefit. He stated that was why he was a proponent for the dedicated senior ownership.
Judy Simon, Chancellor Drive, thanked the developers for their courteous treatment of neighbors and for allowing them to be so well - informed. She spoke in favor of the zoning change and of the project.
Fran Callahan, Gregory Lane, spoke in favor of the project. She stated that as a real estate agent she had been asked by a number of people, particularly seniors and people without children, about the project.
George Koh, Hamilton Street, reiterated his concerns. He stated that he was hoping to stall the decision long enough to get some more information for residents concerning the project.
He recommends that the Board get a mailing out to inform all residents of the town to voice their concerns.
Paul Bashant, Hamilton Street, expressed his opinion that the community should be better informed. He had met with the developers and stated that they answered his questions and concerns.
His suggestion to the Board would be to put resources toward sidewalks and for public access to some of the facilities in the project. He cautioned about dedicated senior housing.
Joe Bryant, Foundry Road, felt that no one really knows about this project and that a decision should not be made.
Paula Stone, West Old State Road, stated that there was a need for this type of condo housing in the community and supported this project.
John Candemi, Hamilton Street, reiterated his concerns and his opposition to the project.
Cindy Myers, Steven Place, stated that owing to her position with the Chamber of Commerce she hears from a number of residents concerning approval for the project.
She asked the Board to vote in favor of the development.
MOTION #222 Councilman Pastore moved to ADOPT LOCAL LAW #2 OF 2008 WITH AN AMENDED SECTION 6, #16, WHICH WOULD READ THAT THE FINAL SITE PLAN SHALL REQUIRE BY DEED RESTRICTIONS OR OTHER COVENANTS THAT 30% OF THE RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINUM UNITS SHALL BE RESTRICTED WHERE AT LEAST ONE OWNER SHALL BE 55 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER. Councilwoman Slavick seconded the motion and it was carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilman Redlich - Opposed
Stating, “The problem I have with this project, and there are many good things about this project. The problem I have with this project is what we’ve seen tonight. This is not what zoning should be. What zoning should be is we decide how a property should be zoned and then people work within the game plan of what the zoning is. What we have instead in Guilderland, we’ve had many projects come before us, we don’t like how we’re zoned, now we want to change the zoning, and then we have neighbors from one side come in and people in support of the project come in. It should be that we have a zoning scheme for the whole town that works that everybody can work with that everybody understands. There is concern about traffic on Western Avenue, right now most of Western
Avenue going west of Town Hall, which is a long stretch of road, is zoned residential. So, I am concerned about traffic on Western Avenue. We currently have a large chunk of the Town zoned residential and I think everybody has concerns about traffic on Western Avenue. We should figure out a zoning scheme that works so that instead of everybody, you shouldn’t even come to the Town Board, it’s zoned this, build it. You need to get a building permit to build what you want to build and it should never have to come before the Town Board. My specific opposition to this proposal, number one, I do think, fiscally, it is good for the Town. I don’t think that’s a factor we should consider when making a zoning decision. I don’t know if my house or the development that I live in is fiscally good for the
Town. I don’t know how that judgment is made; I don’t think that is a judgment we should make. But I think the biggest issue is the traffic on Western Avenue. I grew up in this town from the age of seven. It used to be the big problem was people going to GE down 155 from Presidential Estates, Heritage Village, and all these people commuting to GE. Now GE has downsized so much I don’t think that it is anywhere near as big a problem as it was.
There is a tremendous volume of traffic going east and west on Western Avenue going through 155 and 20 and this project you can say… there is going to be 1400 parking spaces when you’re done taking out for park space or whatever, on 40 acres it works out to over 30 parking spaces an acre. My house is half an acre, that’s not including driveways and sidewalks, whatever, that’s like having 15 parking spaces at my house. I think that it’s too dense. That’s my first concern. When you think about 1400 parking spaces 1/5th the size of Crossgates. Crossgates has 7200 parking spaces. So, I see a tremendous amount of traffic, I see Western Avenue at 155 and 20, I hope it doesn’t happen, I hope it works out great, but my concern is that it is going
to back up that intersection a lot worse than it already is.
My second concern is going back to the idea of what zoning should be. The Comprehensive Plan. The Guilderland Hamlet study, this in my mind, and I understand that Jim and I disagree about this, is spot zoning. We are picking a spot and saying you can do this here.
When I asked the Town Planner what about the Bumble Bee diner, well I’m not sure we’d do that there. Where else in the Guilderland Hamlet would you do this? When the Guilderland Hamlet Study itself says this is a model for development in the Guilderland Hamlet and then the Town Planner says there is nowhere else in the Guilderland Hamlet we’re going to do it, then it is not a model and we are not really doing what the Comprehensive Plan says. I’m worried that if this development goes through, if it is our plan for zoning in Guilderland, that Gade Farms will end being the same thing but four times as big. The Bumble Bee diner area will be the same thing about the same size, that Hiawatha Trails we heard about just today, apparently Hiawatha Trails is a potential development
now, Hiawatha Trails, I don’t know how many acres that is, that could be another development like this. How many cars are we going to try to squeeze through Western Avenue and 155? We don’t have a solution to the traffic problem at that intersection and this is going to make it worse.
I really appreciate the amount of time that you guys have put into this, I really appreciate the amount of effort you put into this. But this isn’t the way zoning should be. You shouldn’t be made to jump through all these hoops; this shouldn’t have taken four years. It should be that if this is the appropriate zoning it should have been zoned commercial in the front residential in the back, go ahead and build it.
If that’s what we think the appropriate zoning should be it should have just been zoned that way from the beginning. Because we don’t really have a Comprehensive Plan for the Town it wasn’t really zoned that way before and now you are coming and asking us for that. I think if we’re going to do something like this we’ve got to promise future developers that we are going to treat them the same way and we are not doing that. That’s what spot zoning is, we’re picking one lot we’re saying one thing, we’re picking another lot and saying another.
I can’t believe what you guys have been through. I have looked at this list of meetings and I’m trying to figure out what happened between April 17, 2007 and March 4, 2008, there was almost a year gap where nothing happened, if you guys had gotten this done before I had gotten elected maybe you wouldn’t have had a problem. I vote no”.
Councilwoman Slavick - Aye
Said, “ I would like to start by saying, talking about the Comprehensive Plan, actually I was involved in that, in 1999 I was a study circles facilitator. I was very involved in it and I was also involved in editing it when it all came together and then when it was adopted I became a town board member.
One of the things in the Plan was for a central location in Town and this is the location. As we know, surveys went out and 30% of the residents did respond and one of the responses was they would like to see a center of town in that area and I think this is the spot. Also, we have an opportunity here for this New Urbanism; a walking community that people can walk from their residence to the library, to the YMCA, to the Twenty Mall, which I think, is a good thing. I’ve talked to many people about this, I talked to some of my co-workers, people I meet at other meetings and I ask them what do you think of this proposal and what do you think about the traffic on Western Avenue? Some people have told me they feel the traffic moves on Western Avenue. Yes, they have to stop
at the light, however, they think it moves and they don’t see any problem with hold-ups or anything. Again, I think it’s good for the tax base. While the town is getting the lowest share of the taxes, obviously, it’s good for the school district and the library; they’ll all be getting tax revenue. Also, I‘m glad that we put the clause in for the seniors. I have also spoken with many seniors or people that are ready to retire; they do want to stay in this town, they like this town for many reasons, for the many benefits that it offers.
Also, I know you have gone through, I think it’s four years, you’ve been through this process, you’ve gone through all processes and I think we have to rely on our Planning Board, our Town Planner about this and some of the other organizations who gave you their approval and the traffic studies and some of the other studies in this big binder. I am in favor of the project”.
Councilman Pastore - Aye
Said, “ This project has been before the members of this Town Board and the members of the Planning Board as we’ve heard, for years. It is absolutely imperative of a development or a proposed development of this size or this significance that a process be followed, adhered to and that process requires a great deal of study and analysis. It requires findings and conclusions and, in this case, the developer has shown a willingness to, in my opinion, go beyond the mere standards of a process.
In meeting with individuals, in meeting with members of our community to advise them and inform them of the project. We are all, each one of us, entitled, obviously, to our own opinion about the merits of this project. But, regardless of the conclusions that we draw the question still remains as to whether or not this project should be approved and whether it’s in the best interests of our Town and our community to approve this proposed development.
There certainly are pros and cons, those who approve and those who are against, there are many issue that have been raised throughout the last couple of years and I think that in the record reflects that the developer has shown a willingness, has attended the meetings, but has also worked diligently to address the concerns. As part of the SEQR process, it is essential that a development like this, findings be made to determine whether or not there are significant impacts upon our community, upon the environment. If the determination is made, as it has been in this case, that there may be significant impacts in whatever way, be it environmental, noise, traffic, that certain mitigative and remedial measures be contemplated and be analysed and in the best interests of the residents of the Town
that they be implemented. I am a proponent of smart growth. I am a proponent of careful and prudent planning when it comes to whether or not we should develop a particular parcel. Over the past couple of years, we’ve had a great deal of analysis, not just by those here at this Board, but some of the predecessors on this Board, members of our Planning Board, our Town Planner, to determine whether or not, a project that is in this style as proposed is something that should be developed. I think that it can be said, and quite reasonably, that, neither the proposed legislation that we are considering tonight, nor the proposed project, if developed, will be perfect. I agree that neither is nor will they ever be. But we owe it to the residents of the Town and the members our community to make sure that we have done everything we possibly can to determine whether or not, if developed, this project is something that is in the best interests of the
residents of our Town. We can only speculate as to whether this type of imaginative and innovative design and project is something of the wave of the future. Perhaps, if implemented and approved and developed, this type of project may or may not have helped to avoid some of the issues that we have grappled with over this period of time in determining whether or not the development should proceed.
But regardless, the real question still remains this evening as to whether or not this project, as proposed, is something that should be developed. I think it my responsibility as a member of this Board to, in no small measure, rely upon those who are expert in areas beyond perhaps our own ken of knowledge. And I think that we have done that throughout this process. The opinions and the findings that were made may not be entirely agreed upon but a process is required, a process was employed, a process was followed and a decision must be made. There are individuals who are opposed to this project. There are concerns that have been raised, but there are also individuals and experts who have been retained, not only by the developer but also members of our community, residents of our
Town, and our own Town Designated Engineer who support the project, who support the concept and who support the design. I think it also imperative that I rely upon the opinions of those individuals who are expert in areas of traffic studies, environmental concerns, those who may analyze more closely certain issues with respect to the effects upon our school system if any, the benefits, if any, for our seniors. And many of those individuals are supportive of this project. I, too, am in support of the project and I vote in favor of the motion “.
Councilman Grimm -
Said, “ First of all, I would like to thank everyone for their input, the folks here and the folks at home watching because I’ve heard from a lot of folks lately. A lot of disagreement but you all agree on one thing, you all want what is best for Guilderland and everybody has a different interpretation of what that is and that’s understandable. I do appreciate the input we’ve received from everyone. We do listen, sometimes you say, ‘well I went up and spoke and they didn’t listen to what I have to say’ and I have listened to all of you. But ultimately it is my responsibility to make a decision based on what I believe is in the best interest in Guilderland and that is what I intend to do tonight.
I fully appreciate that the traffic on Western Avenue drives all of us nuts.
It’s been a problem for a long time and I hope we can make it a real top priority. The answer to the traffic on Western Avenue is complicated, it’s difficult and it’s expensive. But we really need to focus all of our efforts on that because there is no question in my mind that’s one of the top quality of life issues. The answer is not to grow. We want to live in the town where people want to grow. The Northeast is littered with cities where people didn’t want to grow anymore. The fact that people want to grow here, expand here, and do business here is a good thing. I moved into a new development myself seven years ago and I was walking around the first night and I met some neighbors who said, ‘Oh, how are you, we protested you’
and I said well it’s nice to meet you too. We had a very amiable discussion. But it struck me, because every one of us lives in an apartment or a home that when it was built, that was growth. So the question of no growth is not the solution. The solution is managed growth. How do we manage growth? How do we manage growth, how do we do it in a responsible way that we protect all the aspects of quality of life? And by the way, property taxes are a quality of life issue too and this will help with respect to our property tax base. For fifty years we have been doing it the wrong way. Building these single use projects where we stick in a bunch of homes in a suburban sprawl development where everybody has to jump in their car to get a quart of milk. We’ve learned there is a better way, an innovative way and that innovative way is the village concept. By the way, it’s not all that new, in fact I’ve done quite a bit of
research on this concept and there have been a lot of studies on this. (Read article)
So, yes there will be added traffic, with this design it is designed with mitigating the traffic impact from development. That is what we have been searching for for fifty years. So for us to turn our backs on this innovative concept, the first in Guilderland, I think, would be a tremendous mistake. I agree with our Town Planner, Jan Weston, who said, quote, “ this is some of the best planning the Town has ever done’. As far as the senior housing, no question that it is another priority. How do we get more senior housing in Guilderland? I’ve talked to many many seniors who want to downsize and they want to stay here in Guilderland, they don’t want to move anywhere else.
So, this development has a significant senior housing component to it. I’m not for mandating on businesses a 30% threshold. I don’t think that is a good idea; I think the marketplace should play a role there. The reality is there is a market for senior housing but the economy changes, as we know from day to day and from month to month. So, I don’t think there should be a mandate but I’m going to accept it because that’s the package, that’s the hand I’ve been dealt and I think the developer probably feels the same way.
As far as the schools go we’ve heard tonight 80 school students. For those who have followed the school district closely, we’ve had declining enrolment over the last several years in the Guilderland School District and even with these 80 students we will be several hundred students below where we were a few years ago. So, this, by no means, will over- burden the Guilderland School District. It will also add some money, we had a little hiccup in the financing tonight, but overall there is still a 2 to 1 ratio with respect to how much school taxes will be added versus how much it will cost to educate the students that come from there.
Dan and Joe I want to salute you. You are model developers. I have dealt with a lot of developers in my lifetime. Where you get your patience; I don’t know where you get it.
This has been a four-year process; you’ve listened to everyone even the ones that were attacking you, you’ve taken the time to sit down with them. I was really struck tonight with the different tone throughout this process the people have had after they have had a chance to speak with the two of you. You really are the model in community relations with respect to how developments are and I salute you. Certainly there have been many examples where developers didn’t have the ear to the ground in terms of the community development.
Now, I understand, there’s a lot of people, I’ve heard a lot of people say, ‘I’ve just heard about this and I’m against it’. What I would say just mildly is well let’s hear some of the facts and we’ve had a chance to air those out a little bit. You certainly have a right to be frustrated about Western Avenue traffic and all of us are going to work collectively to try to do something about it because we get it when you talk about the traffic problem. The reality here, we heard tonight that it’s a ten second additional wait and that was with the 345 units not the 310, so it’s going to be less than that. So, on balance, the benefits definitely out way the cost of this project, in my mind, in terms of what’s best for
Guilderland.
69% of this project will be green space, so it’s another example, it’s going to add money to the Library, it’s going add to our school district, it’s going to add money to the Town, it’s going to add to the fire district. There are pretty substantial across the board, financial implications involved in this. But more than that, it makes a statement that we in Guilderland are prepared to embrace innovation in development. This village concept is the future. The fact of the matter is if our developments were built like this; we wouldn’t have so much traffic on Western Avenue. So, it’s a hard thing to say we hate Western Avenue traffic but we are opposed to a plan that was designed with the idea to do something about traffic on external roads
in the first place. That’s pretty much it. I think we are embracing the future tonight. I think it’s an important step. I think people are going to look back on what we are doing here tonight, ten, twenty, thirty years from now and say, hey this Glass Works Village is a pretty nice project. I vote in favor”.
Supervisor Runion - Said, “I am going to try and be a little briefer than some of my colleagues because these meetings are just going way too long for me. The developer on this project has worked exceedingly hard. I compliment all the professionals that Platform Reality has hired to work on the project. Even this evening we have received a number of materials on benefits of smart growth, copies of articles from New Urban News from Dominick Ranieri, who is the architect on this project and who also is the architect on the condominium project in Altamont that I had
mentioned and he does great work. I think that you should be complimented on hiring good professionals.
I was kind of, at the last meeting, and it could be partially my fault, sometimes I get so busy and we deal with so many different projects that you can confuse one with another. It was always my understanding that this project would have a significant amount of dedicated senior housing within it. That was one reason why, despite some concerns that I had received from our previous assessor about the merits of having condominiums due to the taxing structure and the tax benefits that we do lose, I was in favor of this project. It was due to that senior component. When I was advised two weeks ago at the public hearing that there was not a dedicated component for senior housing, I was a little bit dismayed. But the developer worked with us over the last two weeks and has rectified that
situation and has offered to dedicate 30% of the condominium units to seniors. I think that shows how committed this developer is to working with the Town, to living up to their commitments, even their perceived commitments that they have made to Town officials. All in all, this project has probably gone through twenty changes in the four-year time frame. I know Councilman Redlich mentioned why it took you one year. They worked on the environmental review. They made sure that the environmental review was done to the greatest detail possible so that when they presented it to the Town Board and when they went to the various other agencies they could get favorable opinions. They did a scoping session to flush out environmental issues and they dealt with them. They’ve dealt with traffic issues on Route 20 and they’ve been hammered by this Board, well not the whole board, but a portion of the board, on traffic issues again and again and again. But I think all of the additions and
the revisions that you have made over the last four years have made this project a great project. And we’ve tweaked it, and the final tweak, in my opinion, was to get the dedicated senior housing because I feel that this Town has a very aging population. We have an aging population. I think all of the communities in the Northeast have aging populations and our seniors are looking for places to live. They are looking for places that are affordable. A $210,000.00 condominium unit, with the ability to possibly have lower taxes than what a single-family home would pay, I think, is a benefit for a senior and gives that senior the ability to live in our community. It’s like, sometimes buying a house, or buying a living unit is like buying an automobile, the bottom line is what’s your monthly payment. You’re looking for what’s a combination of the mortgage payments, the taxes and the utilities.
We have to try and keep all of those factors balanced to provide some affordability. I’m dismayed by some board member’s comments concerning spot zoning. This couldn’t be any further from spot zoning than the man in the moon. When Jan Weston mentioned that there is an acreage requirement, she is absolutely correct. If you read the case law you will find that when the property goes above ten acres the likelihood of spot zoning is significantly reduced.
There are court of appeals cases that I would welcome you to read at your leisure on that issue.
I’m also quite shocked that there is discussion concerning some of the issues that have been raised because I know that Councilman Redlich in the past supported a MacDonald’s rezone on Western Avenue. He raises an issue on spot zoning on a 57-acre parcel that has gone through the Comprehensive Plan, gone through the Guilderland Hamlet Study, yet he didn’t find spot zoning when he came before the Board and spoke in favor of McDonald’s being rezoned to have a drive through window on Western Avenue.
He also, I believe, supported a soccer center that was going to be a facility on Curry Road Extension. It was going to be about one and a half times the size of the Knick arena, on a two-lane road that had a significant amount of acreage dedicated to fields and basically a 24 / 7 facility. This would have been a commercial facility located in a rural, residential zone. I find the comments he has made about this project to be somewhat insincere based on what he has supported in the past.
I do not agree with Councilman Grimm on some of the tax benefits, but I think that is going to be something that will be proven as time goes by. It isn’t enough for me to vote against the project. While I think that some of the economic data that we have may be either outdated or is erroneous in the way it has been presented, overall I guess I am very pleased, again, with the developer and their cooperation. I am also pleased with the comments we have gotten from the community. We do not make decisions in a vacuum. We do need to hear from all of the community members or as many community members as we can. I know over the last several weeks, my phone has just been ringing off the hook with people either in favor or in opposition. We take in all of those comments; we
use them to get to our final decision. Again, thank you and congratulations Dan, again, and I am going to vote in favor of the project.
We will take a five-minute break.
Break 10:44
Return 11:05
Item #2 on the agenda concerned setting a public hearing on the Agency Plan for the Town of Guilderland Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program for 2009. Tabled.
Supervisor Runion explained that although the Town no longer needed to set a public hearing on the Plan, he would have Mr. Mastrianni come in to explain the program sometime in the early spring.
MOTION #223 Councilman Redlich moved to APPROVE TRANSFERS AS REQUESTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT. Councilwoman Slavick seconded the motion and it was carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilman Redlich Aye
Councilwoman Slavick Aye
Councilman Pastore Aye
Councilman Grimm Aye
Supervisor Runion Aye
MOTION #224 Councilman Redlich moved to APPROVE THE REQUEST OF THE WILLIAMSBURG NEIGHBORHOOD COMMITTEE TO LOCATE ENTRY SIGN IN THE TOWN RIGHT OF WAY. Councilman Pastore seconded the motion and it was carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilman Redlich Aye
Councilwoman Slavick Aye
Councilman Pastore Aye
Councilman Grimm Aye
Supervisor Runion Aye
A discussion was held regarding certain fees.
Councilman Redlich moved to remove the parking fee and the pool entrance fee. There was no second.
MOTION #225 Councilwoman Slavick moved to APPROVE THE NEW FEE SCHEDULE FOR 2009. Councilman Pastore seconded the motion and it was carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilman Redlich Opposed
Councilwoman Slavick Aye
Councilman Pastore Aye
Councilman Grimm Opposed
Supervisor Runion Aye
MOTION #226 Councilman Redlich moved to ADJOURN THE NOVEMBER 18, 2008 TOWN BOARD MEETING AT 11:15 PM. Councilwoman Slavick seconded the motion and it was carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilman Redlich Aye
Councilwoman Slavick Aye
Councilman Pastore Aye
Councilman Grimm Aye
Supervisor Runion Aye
| 
