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 Redlich
Councilwoman Slavick
Councilman Pastore Councilman Grimm
Supervisor Runion
ALSO PRESENT: Richard Sherwood, Town Attorney
***************************************************************************
Supervisor Runion welcomed everyone to the evening’s meeting and asked for a motion accepting the minutes of the October 21, 2008 Town Board meeting.
MOTION #211 Councilwoman Slavick moved to ACCEPT THE MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 21, 2008 TOWN BOARD MEETING. Councilman Pastore seconded the motion and it was carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilman Redlich Abstained
Councilwoman Slavick Aye
Councilman Pastore Aye
Councilman Grimm Aye
Supervisor Runion Aye
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD- No Public Comment
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
7:30 PM - Public Hearing on a Local Law Establishing a Planned Unit Development, Route 20, Glass Works Village
Legal Notice read by Town Clerk, Rosemary Centi.
Supervisor Runion stated that a number of letters had been received regarding the project and the proposed development. (P 145 a-d)
James Shultz, appearing as the attorney for the applicant, Atlantic Pacific properties, seeking a re-zone of the property located on Western Avenue and Winding Brook Road.
The project calls for the development of approximately 310 residential living units and approximately 195,000 square feet of commercial space, which would be retail, and non-retail professional space.
He outlined the approvals that the project had received, to date, and what approval was necessary from the Town Board.
He stated that changes needed to be made regarding the proposed legislation; those changes were made and submitted to the Board for review. He gave a brief overview of the changes.
He stated that a key point was removed regarding the proposed road and if the proposed road, to be known as Village Road, were to be constructed, it would not be done for a minimum of two years.
Discussion was held regarding the need for a variance for the height restriction on buildings in Town.
Robert Ganz, representing the majority of the Guilderland Library Board of Trustees reiterated the Library’s position with respect to the project and the paper road behind the library.
He stated that they had made a variety of contacts and had an engineer look at Mercy Care Lane and what the likely cost would be to develop Mercy Care Lane.
He further stated it was the library’s position that Mercy Care Lane improvement was a better solution than the connector road behind the library. A letter was submitted and is made part of the record. (P 146A)
He said, “If in fact the Board needs and feels there needs to be an immediate resolution of the safety issue, we would in fact look at the interim solution provided in the October 30, 2008 letter whereby, after the developer built a one lane road behind the library, the Guilderland Public library would in fact become the owner of that land and roadway, receiving it from the town and we would then absorb all liability for maintenance, for repairs and for any liability that might attach and we would agree to keep it open for vehicle access running from Mercy Care and Winding Brook until such time in the future, whenever that would be, that Mercy Care would be developed and dedicated as a Town road.”
A representative of Girvin and Ferlazzo, appearing as the attorney for the Library, outlined how the library felt that the Mercy Care upgrade project could be legally done by a partnership between the Town and the adjacent landowners and also explained how it could be legally done to utilize the interim proposal of October 30, 2008.
Councilman Redlich asked about the mitigation fee relative to the project and using it for the development of Mercy Care Lane.
Supervisor Runion thanked Mr. Langloid and stated that nine years ago the Town had offered to create a special improvement district, which is what was being described under section 200 of the Town Law, based on the petition of the library and other owners.
The Town is at a point where the safety concerns with exiting left out of Mercy Care Lane are finally resolved. He further stated that creating two private roads would not solve the issue and a public road was necessary.
He said, “The offer was that we would grant the library a two year window to come up with a proposal to upgrade Mercy Care Lane to a public street. We have cost estimates, as well, and there is quite a bit of work that needs to be done to Mercy Care Lane to bring it up bring to standards, including some realignment issues that need to be dealt with. We would ask the current developer of Glass Works Village to review the cost estimates for the road that, for better or worse, is named in the legislation as Village Road, and that there would be a portion of those improvements that would be required to be built regardless of whether there was a public road behind the library including sidewalks and lighting and other types of infrastructure that would be constructed and to utilize the difference for the
upgrade of Mercy Care Lane. I think that resolves the issue of the fees that we cited for mitigation with respect to the SEQR that we proposed”.
He stated that the developer is willing to contribute a portion of the cost for the upgrade of Mercy Care Lane. The mitigation fees were designed to improve some of the off - site impacts that were developed from the system and that 50% of the mitigation fees are going to go to parks and recreation. Other impacts that were identified were fire improvements, additional sidewalks, bike paths and other types of infrastructure identified with the developer. He stated that he would prefer that the mitigation fees go to where they are supposed to go, the other off-site improvements that are needed.
Supervisor Runion explained the parkland and mitigation fees to Councilman Redlich.
He further stated that he had spoken with the Highway Superintendent, Town Engineer and the Town Planner and they all felt that it had to be a two-way connector road.
He reiterated that for a number of years the town had been advised of the safety issue regarding making a left hand turn out of Mercy Care Lane.
Councilman Grimm asked for a clarification of the mitigation fee and how it could be used.
Further discussion was held regarding the road issue.
Mr. Ganz stated that the library would do whatever paperwork was necessary but that it was the Town working with the adjacent landowners that has to do this.
The developers’ contribution would be a great start and the library, over the next ten or twelve years would bear the cost completely with the adjacent owners.
Supervisor Runion stated that he would prefer that the library talk to those adjoining landowners concerning the fact that their taxes would see and increase based on this improvement.
Further discussion was held regarding the willingness of the landowners to agree to the increase in their taxes.
Supervisor Runion stated that he felt more comfortable, and some of the town board members would feel more comfortable, if the landowners who adjoin that road agreed, through petition, to have a special improvement district there. He felt that it should be a voluntary effort of these adjoining property owners and not something that is imposed by the Town Board based on their will.
Mr. Ganz stated that the library would try to do the petition but that was why the library proposed the two ideas together, one as an interim safety measure and the other as the long-term measure.
Supervisor Runion reiterated that what the library was proposing was another sub-standard road in private hands and not something that the Highway Superintendent wanted to see built. He stated that he had to support his Highway Superintendent and the Planning Board who had reviewed this project and all of the ramifications of the safety issue.
Councilman Grimm stated that he was attempting to talk to representatives of the some of the landowners and that improving Mercy Care Lane was the solution with everyone involved pitching in. He also stated that part of the mitigation fee from the developer could be used for the upgrade.
Maggie Oldendorf, President of the Friends of the Guilderland Public Library, offered their concerns regarding the proposed road behind the library.
It was a consensus of the membership that the better plan would be to pursue the development of Mercy Care Lane and its connection with Winding Brook Road. They did not see any reason why there should be a two-lane road behind the library. She asked for a traffic study regarding possible air pollutants and noise and the effect regarding the safety of the children using the library.
They strongly urged the Board to do whatever was necessary to improve Mercy Care Lane.
Supervisor Runion stated that the developer had done traffic studies and had studied issues that had been identified concerning safety issues in that area of Town.
He further stated that there was a lack of foresight, many years ago, in allowing a private road to be constructed in a busy area of Town.
He further stated that the Town is looking for the best solution possible and how important it is for this improvement to be made.
Councilman Redlich stated that there were a least two people on the Board who did not believe that the road should go behind the library but that they should use the Mercy Care Lane option.
Councilman Grimm questioned whether raising taxes for the adjacent landowners was a given.
Councilman Redlich, addressing the Friends of the Library concern regarding making the road behind the library a two lane road, stated that this development would generate a lot of traffic and if this road behind the library is the only road that would be done, then there is a safety benefit to making the road behind the library a two-lane road for vehicles making left hand turns from Western to go to the Library, SPARC, etc and that those left turns would be safer at Winding Brook Road.
Councilman Pastore asked if everyone involved could not come to an agreement to bring Mercy Care Lane up to Town specs; is it the position of the Friends of the Library that there should still not be a road behind the library?
Ms. Oldendorf stated that in that situation, it is the position of the Friends that there should not be a two lane but that a one way; one lane road would be acceptable.
Councilman Pastore stated that his concern was with the most recent proposal of the Library Trustees in that the Town transfer immediately any and all rights it has to the paper street behind the library. He said, “If somewhere down the road whether it be three months from now or two years from now, we come to the final conclusion that the property owners, the businesses that adjoin Mercy Care Lane, can’t come to terms, we can’t bring Mercy Care Lane up to town specs, the transfer of any and all rights to the library of the paper road behind the library doesn’t, to me, seem to be a prudent and sensible approach at this point because we may find later on that Mercy Care Lane may remain as it currently exists”.
George Koh, Hamilton St., stated his concern regarding the Glass Works Village project.
He questioned the notification of the neighbors regarding the issue. He also expressed his concern with the possible increase of the number of children in the school district.
He further expressed his concern that Western Avenue could not support the additional traffic from this development.
Councilman Grimm stated that this project would be a boon to the school district in the amount of one million dollars per year. He further stated that one of the best ways to reduce school taxes was the right kind of commercial development with residential and this development would add significantly to the school district.
Town Clerk, Rosemary Centi, clarified that legal notification from the Town Board had been done for the project as far back as two and a half years. Notification had also been done by the Planning Board for their meetings regarding the development a number of years ago.
The Guilderland Hamlet Study had been done also noticing residents; it had appeared in all of the local papers, on the Town’s web site, Town Crier, the Guilderland access channel and the Town newsletter.
John Candemi, 18 Hamilton St., stated his concern with the scope of the project for that part of Town. He also expressed his concern with the increase in traffic and the probability that his street would be used as a cut through. He was also concerned with the impact on the schools.
Councilman Redlich discussed the increase in the possible wait time as a result of this development.
He stated that the traffic study was done and there would be an increase in the traffic.
He further stated that the Guilderland Hamlet study describes Glass Works Village as a model for future development in the Hamlet area and in other areas of Guilderland. He stated that this development could occur again in other areas of Town and all of these things will add traffic. It would be very hard for the Board to say no to the next development because a precedent has been set. He agreed that the development is too big and too dense.
Councilman Pastore disagreed that there would be a “dangerous” precedent set with this development or other developments in other parts of town.
He stated that this is why we have a Planning Board and a Zoning Board and two boards currently reviewing this under a great deal of time and due consideration.
He stated that to suggest that just because we have Crossgates Mall and because we have that mall we would have a mall the size of The Mall of America is a foregone conclusion based on speculation. He further stated that he did not want a conclusion drawn that just because this particular development occurs we are setting a dangerous precedent to have many more in this area or in other areas of Town. This was an incorrect conclusion.
Councilman Grimm stated that Glass Works Village was developed with the idea of having an ample amount of green space. He further stated that the reality was that we are going to grow. We grow with this kind of development in that we encourage a lot of walking and a mixed use of commercial and that we do not dampen the tax base.
Mr. Candemi reiterated his concern with the scale of the project and the traffic issue. He felt that the Board had not heard from many Town residents.
Councilwoman Slavick stated that the Board had another public hearing last year and a number of residents had spoken.
Carol Williams, Siver Road, stated that she believed one of the proposals of the project was a CDTA bus stop. Also, the project would take about ten years and be done in phases with public transportation available.
She stated that she appreciated the Town’s effort to let everyone in the community know about the project through various means. She commended the Town’s web site. She also appreciated the Town’s offer to put the road on hold for two years while the library and the adjacent landowners try to get together. The mitigation fees were put in for parks, green space, and preservation of trees, walking paths. All of that would benefit from the mitigation fees. She felt that a small portion of the mitigation fee should go to the road.
Councilwoman Slavick stated that at a meeting with CDTA they stated that they would be looking into using some parking lots for park and ride.
Marianne Novak, Fairwood Apts., stated that she and her husband were opposed to the construction of Glass Works Village and in support of the Library. She also expressed her concerns with the number of residences to be constructed and the impact of the traffic on Western Avenue. She asked about the wildlife in the area to be developed.
Jen Oertel, 23 Hanes St., expressed her concern with the disruption of the wildlife on the acreage; type of commercial businesses that would be involved and the cost of the units.
She was also concerned with the traffic impact, the noise from the traffic, and the possibility of using her street as a cut through. Her main concern was the possibility of redistricting the school district and the impact on children. She would not like the school district to become like Shenendahowa and Western Avenue to become like Colonie.
She questioned the price of the homes in the project.
Supervisor Runion stated that it was a concern of the Board regarding affordable housing in the project.
Mr. Shultz stated that the project did not have subsidized senior housing, but that some of the type of housing in the project would be attractive to the senior population.
Robert Littlejohn, stated that he supported the comments regarding the development of Mercy Care Lane. He did not want a road or even a walking path behind the Library. He appreciated the concern for the green space. He stated his concern for the proximity of the Library building to the proposed road.
Lynn Asvestas, 15 Hamilton St., stated that she was in agreement with her neighbors regarding the Glass Works Village project.
Barbara Fraterrrigo, Guilderland School Board member, Library trustee, appreciated that the Town was willing to work with the Library, asked what incentive would there be for a developer to pay extra taxes. She further stated that the benefit would be for the residents of the Town and was asking for the Board’s consideration in taking the lead in establishing that special use zone and working with the Library in developing Mercy Care Lane.
She further stated that if the Town said this is what we are going to do for the benefit of the community because we know it’s a need, and if we get some of the money for the road from the developer that they were going to put in, and by using some of the mitigation fees and taxing the districts this would be appreciated by the town’s people.
She asked the Town Board to reconsider taking the lead because she did feel that it would be difficult for those parties to come forward and pay extra taxes but that the taxpayers in the Town would benefit from the safety feature.
Supervisor Runion stated that the Library was a taxing authority as well and that they would have the opportunity through their taxing power to build that road.
He also clarified that it was a Guilderland School District Library and not all of the Town is paying taxes towards the Guilderland Library. A portion of the Town is within other school districts.
He further stated that they were both taxing entities and a discussion would have to be held on how to do that.
Ms. Fraterrrigo stated that a number of people outside of the Town used the Library, and if you make this special use district, it would still be paying the Town back and they were willing to go out and sell that.
Supervisor Runion asked if the Library had had any discussions with the adjacent property owners regarding contributing to that road?
Ms. Fraterrrigo stated that they had asked about the traffic study.
Supervisor Runion asked about the cost of maintaining the road and if the library contributed to the upkeep?
Ms. Fraterrrigo stated they did not contribute to the upkeep. She further stated that they would explore any avenue, obtain facts and figures and work with the Highway Superintendent. If it doesn’t happen, the Town Board should take on the leadership role and say sorry to Columbia Development and SPARC and impose this type of situation.
Councilman Grimm explained that Mercy Care was privately owned.
Ms. Fraterrrigo stated that the Town could make it into a Town Road.
Councilman Grimm questioned if they were against the idea, why would they turn the road over to the Town?
Ms. Fraterrrigo stated the Town could take it by eminent domain.
Supervisor Runion stated that it would have to pay them.
Councilwoman Slavick stated that it was a complicated issue and all of the issues and facts needed to be laid out and discussed.
Ms. Fraterrrigo stated that the Library would be willing to gather all of the facts and figures and challenged that if it didn’t work, would the Town Board step up and impose this as a district with taxes that would have to be paid back as a Library entity but it would be for the good of the people?
Paul Bashant, Hamilton Street, stated he was opposed to the project, as proposed. He questioned the awareness of residents of the project. He expressed his concern that the size of the project was the size of a small town. He further stated that perhaps greater notification could be done. He could not see a positive impact on his quality of life and questioned what it would do to the schools and class size.
He felt that once you change a zoning rule it made it harder not to do it in the future.
There were a number of concerns to be addressed before the Board voted on the issue and that the residential community should have a greater voice in these discussions.
Mary Schmitz, Carman Road, lifelong Guilderland resident, stated that while everyone was discussing how this project would affect the quality of life for residents, she remembered that a number of projects that had occurred in the past with a quality of life issue turned out not to be a detriment to Guilderland and she did not believe that this project would be a detriment to Guilderland.
She further stated that in this difficult economic time we should seize this type of development for Guilderland. In study circle discussions of years past, this type of development was what was wanted; this clustered almost village type of development, and applauded the Town Board for looking to do something like this.
She stated that regarding notification, it had been in the Times Union, Gazette, Spotlight, Enterprise, on the Town’s web site, and that she had been following it for a long time.
Concerning the road, she was strongly urging the Board to put the road in. It was very difficult to not only exit left onto Western Avenue from the library, but that it was difficult when heading west on Western to make left into the library.
She stated that if the road were put in behind the library the developer would bear the cost, but if we look to improve Mercy Care Lane, she was hearing taxes either library or Town and she did not want her taxes going up when a developer was willing to pay for the road.
She did not believe that her quality of life would be hurt by this development.
Mike Italiano, Chancellor Drive, stated that this development would increase traffic in the area by 40%.
Supervisor Runion stated that, over time, the traffic study showed an increase in the background traffic coming from outside the Town not coming from this development.
Councilman Redlich stated that he remembered that the developer did the traffic study and he stated that more than half came from this development.
Mr. Italiano stated that he would hope that the Town Board would take time to review the issues. He stated that there was a lack of an engineering study done and questioned whether a study of water runoff was done.
Ken Johnson, Town Designated Engineer, stated that the water runoff would not get worse because the basins for the project were designed to hold the water within the development.
Jim Shultz stated that the developer was not the only one to submit a traffic study. He further stated that there was a Town Designated Engineer, and through the environmental process, which encompassed over two years, that was looked at extensively.
Councilman Grimm asked Mr. Shultz to comment on the traffic impact.
Mr. Shultz stated that there would be traffic associated with this project. The Environmental Impact Study was done and the traffic impact study showed that the amount of impact related to this project, relatively speaking, would be minimal.
A lot of the traffic designed to come to this project, would be coming opposite the general flow of traffic.
Councilman Redlich stated that the Environmental Impact Statement was modified by this Board, with Mr. Shultz’ agreement to the term substantial.
Mr. Shultz stated that Mr. Redlich had mischaracterized his own interpretation of what the process was. Mr. Shultz did not want the public to believe that the developers had submitted a traffic study and that the Board was bound to accept it and that no other review occurred.
He further stated that a number of people, on behalf of the Town, looking out solely for the Town’s interest, had reviewed that and had signed off on it.
Councilman Pastore asked if a decision, with respect as to the road proposed, looking to be built behind the library and or not, and whether the road would be one lane or two lanes, was going to be made this evening?
Councilman Redlich stated that the proposed local law specifically references the road and it was on the map. If the Board voted on this law the way it is written, we are telling the developer they have to build that road.
Mr. Shultz stated that there is a minimum of two years. There is also a requirement that we would not have to construct that road until a certain number of permits are pulled for the development. If the developers were able to pull the building permit that triggers the threshold when the road had to go in, it could not be done until two years had elapsed from the time the final site plan approval had been given by the Planning Board. By the time that stage of the development occurred it would probably be longer than two years.
He further clarified that it was the way that it was designed and that the direction that the developers got was based on the directive of the Planning Board.
What the developers were asked to do was to provide a lot of flexibility and that the one piece of flexibility was to provide this minimal two year window to enable to provide for an alternative.
He further said, “We have been on record to say whatever you choose to do, we will accept. And if there is an alternative that would enable the elimination or the reduction or whatever of that roadway, then that is what will occur and we will not object to that amendment.
If there is no ability to do that, then we will have to put that roadway in”.
Joe Bryant, Foundry Road, reiterated his opposition to the project stating his concerns with the increase in traffic. He further stated that he had not seen a timeline for the construction.
Councilman Redlich stated that there is a requirement that they build in a certain proportion.
Supervisor Runion stated that the phasing was discussed at a prior meeting.
Mr. Shultz stated that as of October 9, 2008 the language had not changed.
Mr. Bryant stated that he had a concern that a lot of zoning changes were being made for this developer and that down the road accommodations would be made and we would begin to look like Clifton Park. We do not need anymore.
Councilman Redlich questioned about parkland and what percent was parkland to be used in the development.
Mr. Shultz stated that 69% was green active and passive open space.
Councilman Redlich asked if any of the 69% was considered for park purposes?
Mr. Shultz stated that it was more than 50%.
Mr. Redlich said, “Mr. Runion said earlier that they had an obligation pursuant to the Town Code to pay a $1,500.00 per unit fee and as I read Section 247-32 that only applies if you do not have enough parkland in your development and it sounds as if you do.”
Supervisor Runion stated that they would have to dedicate it as a public park and the Town would have to take it over as a public park, and this was going to remain in the developers’ hands.
A discussion was held regarding the law.
Mr. Redlich expressed his concern that it violated zoning principles and that this constituted zoning for sale.
Councilman Grimm asked if there would still be green space and animal habitats that would remain.
Mr. Shultz stated that there would be and that this had all been the subject of the environmental scope.
Councilman Pastore asked if another plan were proposed would it be conceivable that the
Town would have less in green space?
Councilman Redlich stated that the plan worked out to 20-30 parking spaces per acre.
Mr. Hershberg, engineer for the project, stated that the total area of green space is defined as “that area not covered by buildings and parking”.
69% of the plan is green space. He described the type of green space. All of the wetland on the site is preserved, as is. He stated there was a confusion of terms. There is no parkland; there is green space with dedicated uses to be maintained by the homeowners association and the commercial condominium associations.
It will allow other people to use it but will not be a dedicated town park, maintained by the Town.
Daniel O’Brien, applicant said, “I really appreciate this whole process, I’ve got to tell you it is frustrating in some ways but very enlightening in others. When we started this four and a half years ago, we wanted to build a community that was based on the historical nature of the Town. What was our first step, our first step was to meet with Alice Begley and understand what the historical components were of this area. Do you know why this is called Glass Works Village? Because there was more glass produced here than any other place in America. I think that we have always had concerns with the traffic, we have always had concerns with the green area we’ve had concerns with the density. We were offered, at one time, to have it be more dense to have more parking, it is
a village, it’s what you would hope to go to, two hundred years back in history, and have that village be someplace where you would want to live.
What would you want in that village? Would you want a gym, would you want a YMCA, would you want a Gold’s gym, would you want to be able to walk to a market like Price Chopper, would you want to be able to walk to an elementary school, or to a library? This is the right place for a village. The Town may or may not accept this, but this is the right place for a village. People can argue about density, there is a certain amount of critical mass. Let’s all go to downtown Albany and the density will be 15 fold of what we are talking here.
I think that whether we work for four years or fifteen years it doesn’t really matter, we have been here at lest seven times, it feels like fifty, but I think its eleven, where we have tried to make a public display of what we are trying to do.
How hard we’ve worked on this doesn’t matter whether it should be approved, at the end of the day is it the right plan, I think that, on our 21st plan, as Mr. Grimm said, I think it is the right plan. I appreciate very much the Hamilton neighborhood coming out, because I haven’t met with any of them before. We’ve met with, I just want to give you some of the people, we’ve certainly met with over a thousand people and certainly hundreds of groups, I think that Jan Weston and other people in the town could attest to that.
We get calls every day from people, we get calls from Arkansas on this thing, it’s amazing where they come from. And, so, I understand if people, and I’m the same way, that I don’t know what is happening in my back yard. I would say tonight there is an open invitation to anyone, and I’ll stand outside for a half hour, who needs a card to understand better or if they have a great suggestion. Because that is what we want, this to me is the best village. We are on our twenty-first plan. We’ve called everyone that we know in the neighborhood, the YMCA, the Library. I’m a little disappointed that I don’t think that the Library was for the project, and I always thought they were. We’ve killed ourselves. We’re working with the architects; we’re
also focused on whether it should be a one lane or a two-lane road. For the record, we don’t care. Whatever the Town Engineers, Town Board, town planning people think is the best thing, safest for the community, best linkage, that’s what we’re for and we will help pay for it, we want to contribute to it.
I think some of the people we’ve met with at least five times are the Library, YMCA, the Twenty Mall, the fire department, the parks and pathways people, the highway, the water and sewer, the planning boards, the hamlet committees, the historical groups, at anytime there were people who dropped in and got a better sense of what we were trying to do and made tremendous improvements to our plan.
I think, I want to just mention, the six or nine people that came and sent letters last time and I appreciate it very much and I’m kind of looking for them tonight, and all of the people over the last three years who have come to speak for it.
As far as schools, just to address that, I have five and seven eighths children and one that might be coming momentarily here and I am very sensitive about the schools.
I want people to know, please call us. What is this Village intended to be? It’s intended to work for the different parts of the community that aren’t always the family. And that is, most families, including ours, we don’t drive a convertible two door midget and we don’t live in a two bedroom condo, but my parents might like to, my niece might like to and that’s what this Village is much more about.
We have been very sensitive for the last three years in addressing the schools.
The Library, I think, will be a wonderful neighbor and we’ll do whatever you want as far as linkage. I’ve heard some people say they don’t want the pathways, they do want the pathways, the right thing is to do the pathways and have people walk as much as possible, that’s what we want, it is completely up to what the Board decides.
As far as traffic, there is going to be an increase in traffic. But I can tell you if Guilderland had, twenty-five or thirty years ago, had five more of these projects that really concentrated on the environment, LEEDS designations, concentrated on pathways. I would like to have a list right now of all the neighborhoods that had sidewalks put in on a linear footage one tenth of what we are talking about here. And I’ll really push anyone to come up with five. We so much would like to see this thing happen and Mr. Redlich you and I have had some very colorful conversations I would say.
I am trying to get inside your shoes to understand some of this. The last time we spoke you felt this site would be better as a large car dealership and that Guilderland needed a car dealership. I question the aesthetics to that and you said that you were tired of going to Colonie and the aesthetics weren’t quite as important to you and a car dealership would be important to Guilderland. I question the traffic on that and the green LEADS and the design that we are trying to do. If that’s the better thing I think it should be voted down and be put in a car dealership. I think you also said that you were going to vote against this, you were going to tell right up front that you were going to vote against it, you were going to petition people to try to promote to go against the
project which I applaud you, you’ve done a wonderful job, I think on that. I think it’s been harsh but I think that, you’ve also said if in fact it does get approved and you said you’d go on record you’d like to live there and you’d like to have your office there. Is that true?
Councilman Redlich said, “I think you guys have done a tremendous effort, and you talk about the number of people that have called about this project, my mother wants to live in this project.”
Further discussion was held regarding the plan for the Village.
Mr. O’Brien further explained the linkage from the Village
Jennifer Italiano stated that a lot of Guilderland was blindsided. She expressed her concern with the number of accidents that have occurred on Western Avenue. She also stated she wanted statistics on the number of accidents. She also commented on her tax increase and stated that a number of residents did not want this project.
Jane Downey, Foundry Road, expressed her concerns with the possibility of traffic and her hope that a larger plan will be looked at regarding traffic over the next ten years. Also, she stated her concern that Foundry Road, which is historical, is not sacrificed for the new concept.
(Ms. Downey submitted a letter to the Town Board.) (P 156A)
Joe Bryant, Foundry Road, stated this project would bring increased traffic on Foundry Road and that in the case of an accident on Western Avenue the traffic would be re routed through Foundry Road.
Mary Schmitz reminded the Board that when a Southern Bypass, which would have alleviated a lot of traffic on Western Avenue, was recommended it was voted down. She hoped that this opportunity does not go by like the Southern Bypass.
She asked the Board to remember that they represented the entire Town and that this project was good for the entire population of Guilderland and not just a small portion of it.
MOTION #212 Councilman Redlich moved to CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON A LOCAL LAW RE: GLASS WORKS VILLAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. 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
Supervisor Runion started that he wanted an opportunity to review documents and to return at the next Board meeting for a vote only. He also wanted to discuss with the adjoining landowners regarding a special use district.
Discussion was held regarding changes in the local law.
Councilman Redlich stated that the road would not be built for at least two years, so if we are able to work with the property owners and find a way to build out Mercy Care instead we could amend the law at a future meeting to take out the requirement to put in Village Road.
He said, “Just because we passed the local law tonight doesn’t mean we can’t come back, it kind of, something Mr. Runion said before, puts that burden on the Library to make something happen within that two year period before the road is built.” If they get it done before the road is built there would probably not be any opposition to an amendment to take out the requirement of the road.
Mr. Shultz stated that they have been on the record that they do not care what the Town does regarding the access road. He also stated that they were on record in saying and this was how this local law was designed; it gives a two-year window to give the possibility of something different to be done for the Village Road. We will not oppose any request that this local law be amended and as long as we are not out-of-pocket, we are not at expense to go through the process, we support it.
Councilman Redlich asked if instead of spending money on building the Village Road they might be willing to contribute to the other road.
Mr. Shultz stated if they were told to eliminate Village Road, the savings that we realized by not putting in that road they would contribute to Mercy Care Lane. “Whatever the cost savings is, we would contribute to Mercy Care Lane”.
Councilman Pastore asked if this Board could approve the proposed legislation or some variation of the proposed legislation and if it was possible that the road behind the library is not in fact built. Because in the two-year period that it would have to be built the parties could agree and the modifications could be made to Mercy Care Lane?
Mr Shultz stated that it would require that Planning Board and the town Board approving the elimination of the road.
Councilman Pastore asked if the Planning Board had voted 7 -0 for a road behind the library and that road is to be two lanes?
Mr. Shultz stated yes and explained the vote.
Councilman Slavick asked if it would have to go back to the Planning Board if it goes from Village Road to Mercy Care Lane.
Mr. Shultz stated that it would.
Councilman Pastore asked, “If, in fact, a determination is made change to the proposed legislation that the road be removed entirely, then that decision would be contradictory to a 7-0 vote of the members of the Planning Board?”
Mr. Shultz stated that it would and even if it were a one-way road it would be contradictory to the Planning Boards 7-0 vote.
Supervisor Runion stated that it would be contradictory to the Highway Superintendent’s request.
He expressed his concern about the removal of trees behind the library. He stated if the object is to preserve trees why would we put any infrastructure behind there and just rely on the other sidewalks that are to be constructed as part of the project?
Mr. Hershberg stated that there was enough space to put in a curvilinear walk to allow for five-foot wide walk through there, with lights without disturbing a single tree.
Further discussion was held regarding sidewalk placement.
Councilman Grimm stated that there was a difference between removing a few trees for a sidewalk and removing trees for a roadway.
Supervisor Runion asked the developer to address the concerns that were raised at the evening’s meeting and to share cost data with the Town Designated Engineer.
He further requested that information regarding traffic and impact on schools be disseminated to the group from the Hamilton Street neighbors.
Supervisor Runion clarified that part of the mitigation fees to be paid by the developer could be used for such items as sidewalks further down Western Avenue.
MOTION #213 Councilman Redlich moved to TABLE THE ISSUE OF A LOCAL LAW ESTABLISHING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, ROUTE 20, GLASS WORKS VILLAGE UNTIL NOVEMBER 18, 2008 FOR A VOTE ONLY. 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
Councilman Grimm thanked all who attended and provided input to the discussion.
Supervisor Runion thanked everyone for coming and stated that it was a good thing that there were a variety of views that were expressed regarding the project.
He explained that that the Board was there to hear comments, digest them and vote accordingly based on what we hear. He further stated that he wanted the public to understand that the Board did not make up their minds beforehand and that the opportunity to comment on a project is closed or that anyone of the Board had closed minds.
Town Board Break - 11:10 PM
Returned - 11:30 PM
AGENDA ITEMS:
Supervisor Runion stated that items #1-6 had to be discussed because they could impact the 2009 town budget.
Item #1 on the agenda concerned retaining the services of Robert Roche, Esq. at the rate of $165.00 per hour to advise the Ethics Board in their investigation and decision in a complaint made by the Town Board members Mark Grimm and Warren Redlich.
Councilman Redlich stated that he did not recall suggesting that this be submitted to the Ethics Board.
Supervisor Runion stated that he had read a number of articles in the media concerning comments made by Mr. Grimm and Mr. Redlich indicating that they had some concerns regarding an ethics issue regarding the Town Attorney.
Supervisor Runion further stated that he felt that this constituted a complaint.
Councilman Redlich asked if the Ethics Board requested an attorney.
Supervisor Runion stated that the town provides an attorney to advise each and every board.
He also stated that Mr. Redlich stated in the local paper that he wanted an independent attorney to review the issue.
Mr. Redlich stated that he wanted an attorney to review the assessment. He also stated that an attorney wasn’t necessary and that the ethics board had a member who was an attorney.
Supervisor Runion stated that relying on a member who was an attorney would be like representing themselves and it would be wrong.
Councilman Redlich stated that if Supervisor Runion wanted to spend taxpayer money on the issue it was his prerogative to make such a motion.
Supervisor Runion stated that Mr. Redlich had raised the issue and he would not leave an accusation against a public official out there in the open without it being investigated. He stated that they had a duty as a Board that when Board members raise issues about other public officials that they be investigated and investigated promptly.
Councilman Grimm said, “We should explain what we are talking about. Guilderland Town Attorney, Richard Sherwood negotiated a deal that resulted in a $540,000.00 tax assessment reduction without revealing his connection to the property, and these are the facts”.
Supervisor Runion said, “These are your facts. If we refer this to the Ethics Board for review, the Ethics Board is going to make a decision and determination, that decision and determination may come back to this Board for review. Your slant on the facts or my slant on the facts or any other board member’s slant on the facts shouldn’t be discussed here until the facts are actually investigated by the Ethics Board. Because it is very unfair of you and you have already made a determination as to whether there is a violation or there isn’t a violation”.
He further stated that until we have this investigated it is not proper for Board members to be discussing the case.
That is for the trier of facts and that is the Ethics Board.
Councilman Grimm stated that the people responsible for the ethics in this town are the Town Board. He asked Supervisor Runion and Council members Slavick and Pastore if they were aware of the connection between Mr. Sherwood and Mr. Segel at the time for their votes in June. Each replied that they were not.
Supervisor Runion said, “That is not true. We have an Ethics Board, a duly appointed, independent Ethics Board and questions concerning ethics are referred to the Ethics Board. Anyone can refer a matter to the Ethics Board, including a private citizen or a board member. We are not the trier of facts on ethics. In fact, it is illegal for the Town Board to act as an ethics board because the people that sit on ethics boards are not supposed to be public officials”.
Further discussion was held.
MOTION #214 Supervisor Runion moved to RETAIN THE SERVICES OF ROBERT ROCHE, ESQ. AT THE RATE OF $165.00 PER HOUR TO ADVISE THE ETHICS BOARD IN THEIR INVESTIGATION AND DECISION IN A COMPLAINT MADE BY TOWN BOARD MEMBERS MARK GRIMM AND WARREN REDLICH. Councilwoman Slavick seconded the motion and it was carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilman Redlich Opposed
Councilwoman Slavick Aye
Councilman Pastore Aye- said, “My concern about the issues at hand are profound. My concern is, before casting my vote; we have an individual who has served, I think, quite dutifully as a public servant for the Town. I think we have an Ethics Board that should, separate and distinct from any partisan politics, investigate this issue, when we are talking about an issue that is in litigation, that has been recommended for settlement. In light of that, I think that it is a prudent course to refer the matter to the Ethics
Board and if the policy has been throughout that the members of the Ethics Board should receive some counsel in their discussion, deliberation and final decision then I think that is a prudent course to take.”
Councilman Grimm Opposed - He said, “It is a waste of taxpayer money. I vote no.”
Supervisor Runion Aye
Agenda #2 on the agenda concerned rescinding the approval of the Assessor’s request to settle tax litigation matter entitled Walgreen’s against the Assessor of the Town of Guilderland.
Councilman Grimm said, “The Ethics Board is appointed by the Town Board. They are appointees, they report to us. Ultimately it is our determination; it is up to us to make a judgment as to what the appropriate ethics are.”
Supervisor Runion said, “After it has been reviewed by the Ethics Board, they make a determination and they give an opinion back to the Town Board”.
Councilman Grimm said, “You hit the nail right on the head, an opinion. They are simply an advisory body”.
Supervisor Runion said, “ So you would prefer to short circuit that approach and avoid the Ethics Board because you have your own personal opinion or your own personal agenda?”
Councilman Grimm said,” No, It is not a personal agenda. What transpired is a serious ethical issue.”
Supervisor Runion said, “If it was serious ethical issue as you claim, then let’s refer it the ethics board, as I have already done so, and let’s hire the appropriate personnel to conduct the investigation.”
A discussion was held regarding the items 2-4 on the agenda and whether they should have been in Executive Session.
Councilman Pastore stated in response to Councilman Redlich’s question regarding what was discussed in an Executive Session that what occurs in Executive Session stays in Executive Session.
Items 2, 3 and 4 were discussed further.
Supervisor Runion stated that he had provided board members with information concerning the Walgreen’s assessment including the cost to the Town if they rescind the proposal and the actual taxes that are in conflict. Based on what the Town would lose if a settlement was followed, as recommended by the Assessor, would be Town tax in the amount of $134.82, highway tax of $539.11 and water tax $552.87 for a total of $1,226.80.
Councilwoman Slavick asked for the amount of the total cost of litigation.
Supervisor Runion stated that the memo from the attorney who has handled similar cases with drugstores and that the total attorney’s fees would be between $40,000.00 to $50,000.00.
Cost of the appraisal is $5,500.00 and the appraiser would be charging $175.00 per hour for consultation, trial preparation and court fees.
Councilman Redlich stated that the Board should be looking at whether there are options that are less expensive.
Councilwoman Slavick stated that a cost benefit analysis should be done regarding the money to be spent doing this and the loss in tax revenue.
Discussion was held regarding taxes to be saved and the cost of litigation and its impact on the Town budget. Further discussion was also held on the question of whether the assessment was appropriate, steps to be taken and the cost for an appraisal and for possible litigation of the issue.
Supervisor Runion stated that he had contacted the school district as to whether they were interested in litigating and had not, as yet, heard anything. He explained the difference between a small claims proceeding, by a resident, handled by the Assessor, and a certiorari litigation, against commercial establishments, which requires an appraisal and an attorney to represent the Assessor in Supreme Court.
Councilman Grimm stated that the problem with this case is a conflict.
Supervisor Runion stated that the conflict was an allegation made by Councilmen Redlich and Grimm and that the Board did not have definitive proof of a conflict and we won’t know that until it is investigated. That is why we have an ethics board, to make that determination.
Councilman Grimm stated that the answer is to steer away from these conflicts.
Supervisor Runion stated that the way to steer away from these conflicts is to hire outside counsel.
Councilman Grimm stated that information should have been disclosed.
Supervisor Runion stated that the information that was disclosed was how much defending this case would cost, the cost of the appraisal and the cost benefit of pursuing this litigation.
Councilwoman Slavick brought up the question of the cost benefit regarding litigating the case.
Further discussion was held regarding the cost benefit to the Town to litigate the case.
Councilman Grimm asked to have time to review before making a decision.
Supervisor Runion stated that if the decision is to be rescinded, money should be set aside to litigate and there were a number of time constraints to be met.
Councilman Pastore asked if it mattered to Mr. Redlich if the Ethics Board came back with a decision that there was no conflict and Mr. Redlich stated No.
Councilman Grimm stated that he would like to hear their decision but that it was ultimately the Town Board’s decision.
Councilman Pastore stated that if we rescind the approval of the Assessor’s request to settle the matter, we are making that decision based upon a potential conclusion that there is a conflict and yet if there is a decision by an independent Ethics Board that there is no conflict, apparently that doesn’t matter.
Councilman Grimm asked if this should have been disclosed?
Councilman Pastore stated that the facts need to be reviewed and that when we allege that an attorney has a conflict of interest that is a strong accusation, allegation.
Supervisor Runion stated that Councilmen Grimm and Redlich were alleging that there was a conflict but until it was investigated and there is proof, and from the various things I heard, I don’t see the conflict, that he was willing to investigate it which was why he immediately sent off to the Ethics Board.
Councilman Grimm stated that the disclosure did not occur.
Supervisor Runion stated that the litigant in the case was Walgreen’s.
Councilman Grimm stated that he signed the mortgage.
Supervisor Runion clarified that the tenant signed the lease and the litigation was Walgreen’s v. the Town of Guilderland.
Councilwoman Slavick asked if the conflict issue did not come up, would you want to rescind this?
Councilman Redlich stated no.
Councilman Grimm stated that this case required a more thorough review because of the disclosure issue and it should be done in the most cost effective way.
Supervisor Runion stated that Councilman Grimm did not want to review the cost benefit of settling this case; he wanted to review his claim against an individual not disclosing. The disclosure issue has to be sent to the Ethics Board.
This has to be based on the cost benefit to the Town in proceeding with the litigation.
Further discussion was held.
Councilwoman Slavick stated that she was concerned with the cost benefit to the Town.
Councilman Grimm stated that he wanted to review both. He felt that the Town did not get the best deal based on the conflict of disclosure and that we took the first offer. He further stated that he would have preferred a more thorough review but in terms of the cost benefit the arguments were persuasive.
Items 2,3,4 and 6 were withdrawn from Board vote.
MOTION #215 Councilman Redlich moved to APPROVE AUTHORIZING THE SUPERVISOR TO SIGN A COLLECTOR’S WARRANT FOR THE GUILDERLAND WATER DISTRICT. 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
Public Hearing: 8:00 PM - 2009 Town Budget
Town Clerk, Rosemary Centi, read the legal notice
John Zekell, Carpenter Village Apt., asked if there was a revised budget that the Board would be voting on?
Supervisor Runion stated that proposed budget called for a tax levy of $762,201.00 for the General town wide A fund and the B fund is funded completely by sales tax revenue.
If the budget were to be adopted, as written, the Town tax rate would be $.26 per thousand, the Highway rate would remain a $.997 per thousand.
MOTION #216 Councilwoman Slavick moved to CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE 2009 TOWN BUDGET. 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
Councilman Redlich asked how town board member’s salaries were arrived at.
Supervisor Runion stated that all board members were required to fill out a time sheet for one month and the time spent during that month becomes the hours that are reported to the pension system.
Line items were reviewed and discussed by board members.
Town Bookkeeper, John O’Mara answered questions from board members concerning the 2009 budget.
Supervisor Runion stated that because the Senior Director would be making more home visits to seniors, she recommended that the town not utilize the services of Community Caregivers.
A discussion was held concerning the increase in fees.
Councilman Redlich made a proposal that instead of a 3% pay increase for Town Board members, they accept a pay cut of 5%. He moved to cut the salaries of elected officials, non- union personnel and appointees. There was no second to the motion.
He then moved to freeze the pay of the Town Board.
Supervisor Runion responded that the amount was minuscule and would not impact the budget.
MOTION # 217 Councilman Redlich moved to MOVE TO FREEZE THE SALARIES OF ALL ELECTED AND APPOINTED OFFICIALS OF THE TOWN OF GUILDERLAND. Councilman Grimm seconded the motion and it was defeated by the following roll call vote:
Councilman Redlich Aye
Councilwoman Slavick Opposed -said, I’m not in favor of that. Everyone here that works for the Town does a great job and it isn’t fair to take away their 3%”.
Councilman Pastore Opposed - said, “I think there is some potential perceived benefit to doing that with respect to a change in the reduction in the totality of the budget expense. The problem is that the costs are rising as well, cost of living is rising, as well, and that I do not feel comfortable making that a Town wide policy. It might not affect as much the some of the part-time employees, but for those that are full-time it could create a most detrimental effect with a rising cost of living”.
Councilman Grimm Aye - said, “Just for folks to know, we are not talking about rank and file or union members we are talking about the elected officials and the political appointees and I do think it is appropriate as we entering into these hard economic times”.
Supervisor Runion Opposed - said,” In the past, prior boards had attempted to do the same thing. I can remember one prior administration tried to do the same thing to the highway department. It is a poor attempt to try and eliminate some budget lines on the backs of people that do work hard for the residents of this Town. And frankly, I would say that is political grandstanding. I submitted the budget and I feel that the budget is a good one. We’ve estimated our revenues extremely conservatively and all the
people who work for the Town, including the elected and appointed officials, work very hard and they deserve the same type of a raise that all of the other union and non-union employees receive.
Town Clerk, Rosemary Centi stated that the Supervisor had sent around a memo asking everyone in Town Hall to tighten his or her budgets.
That everyone in Town Hall tried to do his or her best.
Supervisor Runion reviewed all costs that the Town had no control over but that he had bid out try and tried to get the best rate to reduce costs. He stated that this is a very slim budget with a town tax rate that was only $.26 per thousand, which is the lowest in the Capital District, and even if we doubled it, we would still be the lowest in the Capital District. When people complain, they are not generally complaining about town taxes.
Councilman Redlich asked for an increase in the budget line for playground equipment in the amount of $50,000.00
Supervisor Runion stated that it would be an 8% tax increase.
Further Discussion was held.
Councilman Grimm stated that people were going to pay more based on this budget.
He stated that he wanted to restore some items there were cut, particularly money to Community Caregivers.
Councilwoman Slavick stated the Senior Director would be providing the service.
Supervisor Runion stated that a part-time position at a cost of $13,000.00 was being added to the Senior Services department to help with the services the Town is taking over from Community Caregivers.
Councilman Grimm stated that Community Caregivers does a great job.
Councilman Pastore stated that the Town would still provide services.
MOTION #218 Councilman Grimm moved to RESTORE THE AMOUNT OF $7,210.00 FOR COMMUNITY CAREGIVERS. Councilman Redlich seconded the motion and it was defeated by the following roll call vote:
Councilman Redlich Aye
Councilwoman Slavick Opposed - stating residents who require this service would still get these services.
Councilman Pastore Opposed - stating the services would not be terminated.
Councilman Grimm Aye - stated that Community Caregivers would be able to do it in a better way and for less money.
Supervisor Runion Opposed
Councilman Grimm stated that the playground issue was a big issue. He had spoken with parents who would like better equipment. I would like to propose a $9,000.00 additional contribution to enhance our playground. He stated that the freeze of salaries of top officials and apply that money to Community Caregivers and the playground, this would not have cost any more in tax money.
MOTION #219 Councilman Grimm moved to BUDGET ADDITIONAL FUNDS IN THE PARKS DEPARTMENT BUDGET FOR $9,000.00 TO PURCHASE PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT. Councilman Redlich seconded the motion and it was defeated by the following roll call vote:
Councilman Redlich Aye
Councilwoman Slavick Opposed - I think I am opposed, but I would certainly consider playground equipment next year after we look at the economic times of next year, if there is a turnaround. I am certainly in favor of having good playground equipment for the children.
Councilman Pastore Opposed - There is a line item with respect to repairs to the equipment. I want to clarify again my concern that, as noted by Councilman Grimm, the proposed freeze on the salaries was not limited to just those who are higher paying but to all elected officials and I’ve already stated my concern for that.
Councilman Grimm Aye - Money well spent on the playgrounds. There is no question that there is a desire out there to enhance our playground and this could help do this in a pretty substantial way.
Supervisor Runion Opposed
MOTION #220 Councilman Pastore moved to ADOPT THE 2009 BUDGET AS SUBMITTED. Councilwoman Slavick seconded the motion and it was carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilman Redlich Aye - I am not happy with the way the budget went as a whole, but overall we have to have a budget.
Councilwoman Slavick Aye
Councilman Pastore Aye - I think we are experiencing difficulty in our current economic state, I think we have tried and we’ve endeavored to limit this and keep the budget pretty tight and slim and I agree with the Supervisor in that assessment.
Councilman Grimm Opposed - I think that the recommendations that I made would have improved it and I am disappointed we didn’t agree to those improvements.
Supervisor Runion Aye
MOTION #221 Councilman Redlich moved to ADJOURN THE NOVEMBER 6, 2008 TOWN BOARD MEETING AT 3:10 AM. 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
Respectfully submitted,
Rosemary Centi, RMC
Town Clerk
| 
