REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MAY 4, 2010
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 April 20th, 2010 Town Board meeting.
MOTION #89 Councilman Pastore moved to ACCEPT THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 20TH, 2010 TOWN BOARD MEETING. Councilwoman Slavick 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 – Local Law to revise the Zoning Law (Home Occupations and Mixed Use Development)
Town Clerk, Rosemary Centi, read the legal notice.
Ken Brownell, Chairman of the Committee, reviewed the revisions that the committee was recommending.
Also in attendance were Kathy Burbank, Guilderland Chamber of Commerce, Regina DuBois, Joseph Abbruzzese, Stephen Feeney, Chairman of the Planning Board, and Peter Barber, Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. Brownell stated that the committee, comprised of a variety of backgrounds, worked together to come up with a consensus opinion.
He presented the Board with a flow chart explaining the local law and showing how it would simplify the process to obtain the permit for the Minor Home Occupation.
They also provided a template for a certification of the resident’s Minor Home Occupation.
(P 55A & B)
Board members discussed conditions for obtaining the permit with committee members.
Mr. Brownell stated that this was a self certification.
Councilman Redlich asked if there was any sanction for not getting the permit.
He also asked if the committee felt that people should or should not be penalized if they did not get a permit.
Mr. Brownell stated that the Town Board had the ability to create the penalty.
Supervisor Runion stated that at this time there was no sanction for not getting a Home Occupation Permit.
He further stated that the Town’s Zone Code Enforcement Officer would send the resident a letter asking that they come in for a permit
Mr. Peter Barber stated that the only enforcement measures were in Town Code Section 280-60.
Unless the Board was to incorporate the failure to get a permit into 280-60, there was no penalty for not getting the permit.
Councilman Grimm asked, again, if there were no sanctions for getting a permit.
Mr. Brownell stated that if someone were to call in saying that someone is running a business out of their house; a permit would be available to show the neighbor.
Councilman Grimm said, “If someone says I am no going to get a permit, is there no sanction?” “Yes or no”.
Mr. Brownell said, “That is up to you as a Town Board.”
Councilman Grimm said, “Mr. Barber quoted us earlier there was no sanction for not getting a permit.”
Mr. Barber said, “That is not what I said. I said that there is nothing in that local law that imposes a sanction. I made it clear that, first of all, we had not gotten to 280-60. At some point we may have a discussion about that, but as this law stands right now, the Supervisor is correct. It is the same approach that we take right now. Rodger goes off and investigates if there are any complaints and whatnot. He checks on the Internet, looks for outside sources and generally gets compliance. Or, the person comes before the Zoning Board and gets whatever permit is appropriate. In my mind, at some point, you get to decide if you want to amend 280-60 and start picking up a penalty for not getting a Minor Home Occupation permit. That is your choice.”
Councilman Grimm said, “You agree then, there is no sanction in the law.”
Mr. Barber said, “In the local law, right now. That is what I said two weeks ago.”
Councilman Grimm said, “So, the practical question is, if someone chooses not to get the permit is there any action the Town can take based on this law”?
Supervisor Runion said, “Yes. They can take enforcement under section 280-60, the section that is quoted. This is an omnibus provision under the zoning law which states if anyone violates any provision under the code, the Town would take the following steps.”
Councilman Grimm said that this could be a sanction.
Supervisor Runion said yes and that there should be a sanction. We are asking people to come in and certify their home business. If you do not comply with the law there will be sanctions.
Councilman Redlich asked if the committee was aware of Judge Marinelli’s decision regarding Crossgates with providing notice to people and putting a million square foot limitation on shopping malls. He asked if the committee needed time to review that decision.
Mr. Barber felt that the committee served at the pleasure of the Town Board and they would review the decision if asked.
Councilwoman Slavick asked what the Planning Board’s recommendation was.
Mr. Barber stated that the Planning Board recommended in favor of the local law as written and that the Town Board should send it back to their committee to take a look at the Crossgates issue.
Mr. Barber further stated that representatives from the law firm of Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna, LLP, representing Crossgates, were at the committee’s meeting on April 30th, 2010.
Councilwoman Slavick asked if the Minor Home Occupation would be in any zone.
Mr. Brownell stated that they would be in Residential Zones.
Further discussion was held regarding the Crossgates issue regarding use and non-conforming use.
Supervisor Runion gave background information regarding Judge Marinelli’s decision concerning Crossgates Mall.
The following residents spoke or submitted e-mails in regard to the issue:
Steve Wickham, Executive Drive, stated that he was in favor of a Minor Home Occupation permit plan. He asked if the committee should clarify that a Home Occupation could have an inventory in their home. He further stated that many Home Occupations operate with a home party situation and it was not clear whether that would be legal to do. This was an easy way to get a permit for tax purposes and for banking purposes.
Doug Smith, McKown Road, Vice President of the McKownville Improvement Association, spoke representing the Association. He asked that a letter from Don Reeb, President of the Association be placed in the record. He reviewed the letter for the Town Board.
He further stated that the overriding reason that the Association was opposed to the law was that they did not believe that the Town had the processes and procedures and staffing in place to effectively enforce violation of zone and permitting conditions.
As a result, the Association is opposed to passing rules that streamline the process when an effective enforcement mechanism is still not in place. The Association would like to see theTown adjust priorities and address the enforcement issue before passing new rules that rely on good behaviour.
Councilman Pastore asked if the Association was in favor of the current law.
Mr. Smith reiterated that the Association’s position is that enforcement had not been effective in the past and that the permitting process would be made easier without effective enforcement in place.
The Association would like to see that something is changing in the Town’s enforcement approach.
Town Board Members
From: Don Reeb
Subject: Proposed Changes in the Zoning Laws,
Town of Guilderland Local Law No. ________of 2010
(“Amendments to Chapter 280 of theTown Code”)
Date April 18, 2010
The proposed changes in zoning (Chapter 280 of the Town Code) put forth by the Zoning and Land Use Review Committee should not be approved by the Town Board.
Guilderland has the reputation, deservedly, of being a great place to live and do business. As we consider zoning changes, everyone need be cautious that we do not jeopardize that reputation.
The proposed changes in Chapter 280 of the Town Code, while making it easier to do business, does not provide adequate protection to residences because quality of life issues have not been addressed. Presently, McKownville has numerous zoning violations that impinge on the quality of life, and, it can be assumed, similar problems occur in other parts of Guilderland.
Until it can be shown that zoning enforcement is up to the task of effectively protecting resident’s quality of life, the new proposal should not be approved. The increased ease of application for gaining approval to operate a business also makes it easier to violate the zoning law. In the not too distant past, Guilderland authorities found it far too easy to ignore zoning violations and this law does nothing to assure residents that it will not once again occur. Moreover, other portions of the proposal are too broad. The proposals need to be examined against existing circumstances—in many cases, the circumstances for comparison can be found in McKownville.
The proposed Zoning Law has three parts—Minor Home Occupation, HomeOccupation I and Home Occupation II. For McKownville, it is the first two parts that are especially troubling.
The McKownville Improvement Association neighborhood is identical with the area covered by the McKownville Fire District. It is a modest sized hamlet, one square mile in area—640 acres—and contains approximately 1,000 homes. It has more people than Altamont or several other villages in the Capital District and is quite compact. Many of the homes are on lots that measure 50x175 feet—less than a quarter of an acre.
The missing element of the proposed law that strikes us the hardest is enforcement. We need to address the issue of who should initiate enforcement of zoning laws. What are the roles of neighbors and citizens in enforcing the zoning law? What are the mandates for town officials? The police do not rely on drivers to report a fellow driver for speeding but it seems to be the town’s expectation that neighbors are the ones who must detect and report zoning violations. Neighbors should surely be one part of the detection and enforcement protocol, but not the most important part. Since the new proposals do not address this issue, how can we expect adequate Town enforcement when it has failed to protect the quality of life in the past?
A case to consider would be the past use of a property on Western Ave. When a dentist established an office in the residence on the corner of Glenwood, the patients parked in a small parking lot on the property. As the business grew parking flowed onto Norwood and Glenwood streets. Eventually the dentist paved over a significant portion of the residential lot and this had the effect of making the property even less residential. This paving was a terrible solution to a problem that should never have existed in the first place because the dentist neither lived in the home nor did he limit the number of employees to that allowed by the law. The dentist was operating in violation of the Guilderland zoning law and the Town should have acted to stop this use before the property was commercialized. However, the Town had approved the
dentist office in a residence and did nothing to stop him from violating the law.
While McKownville is a small area, it has very important and powerful nearby land uses. Pyramid Crossgates is one, of course, but also the State University at Albany and the City of Albany. NanoTech and the Harriman Office Building Campus of the State of New York are also nearby. There are the three large important highways, Western Avenue, the Northway and the Thruway, in addition to Fuller Road, Schoolhouse Road and McKown Road, all of which are well used by local and through traffic. While little can be done about traffic on major roads, we can work to maintain low levels of traffic on the side streets. Something we feel this zoning law—especially Home Occupation I--would not do. We do not believe these changes would help maintain McKownville as a residential community for its 3,000 or so residents.
The increase in traffic that would result from residential businesses is a concern. Many streets in McKownville are dead end. On the twenty dead end streets in McKownville there are nearly 500 homes—about one-half of the homes in McKownville. A truck making a delivery on such a street passes many homes twice—once going up and once coming down. Because there are no turn around areas at the end of these streets, traffic is a problem. At the present time some residents place traffic cones in their driveways to prevent vehicles (especially delivery trucks) from continually turning around in their driveways. The one through carriageway in the area has become a shortcut for all manner of vehicles. This means “street like” wear and speed on what is in reality the homeowner’s driveway; plowed,
paved and maintained by the homeowners. Despite repeated calls to the companies involved this usage continues.
As expressed in the Town approved McKownville Corridor Study (2003), the nearby large and powerful land uses present an opportunity and several challenges. Improved walkability and better bike paths and walking paths and sidewalks are certainly opportunities to maintain a residential quality. However, as the proposed New York Thruway Exit 24 “flyover” across Western Avenue amply demonstrated, these powerful organizations with their land use priorities have the potential to overwhelm our neighborhood—with noise, vibration and increased air pollution. In the case of the proposed Exit 24 flyover, the quality of life was placed in danger.
The McKownville Corridor Study advocates that many more sidewalks be built—and several have been built—but there are still very few quality sidewalks in McKownville. While more sidewalks will be built, at present the business users, residents, and students must compete for the use of the few sound sidewalks that exist. Alternatively, they must walk in the narrow streets, about 25 ft wide, and due to the lack of driveways, lined with parked cars. We have to be careful not to increase demand beyond a manageable level. Home Occupation I, with its non-resident employment, could increase traffic on these side streets and sidewalks.
The issue of population density must also be considered. The narrowness of the lots in McKownville means homes are quite close. Therefore, activities conducted on one property have both visual and sensory implications to adjoining neighbors. When activities are of more than a routine domestic nature they become problematic. A neighbor fixing his own lawnmower, car, or appliance is one thing. However, when it occurs repeatedly then it is like a business. This situation is more than an annoyance—it destroys the residential character of the neighborhood. This may not be a fanciful example—are furbishing business--for vintage motorcycles—might be operating in McKownville presently.
The fact that McKownville does not have large lots should not be considered an anomaly. It appears that other parts of Guilderland are going to look more like McKownville than a sprawling suburb. Glassworks Village, Guilderland Center and the Guilderland neighborhood surrounding the library are likely to have compact development. The “Neighborhood Master Plans” all seem to be directing Guilderland towards residential development that is more compact.
In developments like Woodscape, which is located in McKownville, any business use that produces any outside evidence becomes a horrible burden for neighbors. While it is true that Woodscape has much open land, the homes are grouped tightly. Woodscape has many row houses: about 90 of the 159 homes in Woodscape are row houses. Indeed the lot width in Woodscape might, on average, be less than it is on Norwood Street, for example. Then there are the 51 condominiums off Schoolhouse Road in McKownville—they are often referred to as the Coralberry Condos—they too have shared walls making business activities problematic. The proposal by the State University to build on a residential lot on Western Avenue, 1257 Western, is but one more example of threats to the residential character of McKownville. To this can be added the
continuing discussion from the University for expansion of its dormitories and other buildings. The Town gains much by keeping McKownville as a wonderful residential neighborhood and should not allow it to become an overly dense student or business area.
The visual impact of more home business must also be addressed. Here the issue of signage comes to play with more home business: trucks or cars with attached business signs easily visible, parked on the street, or in the driveway, are more than an annoyance. They decrease property values for all. Again, this is not a fanciful example but exists presently in several places in McKownville. In addition, a business activity inside a home that causes piles of trash to be set at the curb weekly—with or without portions of the trash blowing onto the street and sidewalk and lawns—is another quality of life issue.
In short, both the Minor Home Occupation proposal and Home Occupation I for McKownville (and for Guilderland) seem to be wrong—they are too permissive. Business activities, that might be advantageous for some homeowners, can negatively affect the wider community. The proposed law will permit some annoying activities and possibly create an atmosphere where violations become even more common. In the past, enforcement has not risen to the occasion and there is nothing in the proposed law that strengthens enforcement even though the law gives neighbors less information about neighboring businesses.
A residence is a residence.
The proposed law weakens the protections that safeguard residences and thereby threatens the quality of life for the majority. The Town has expended great effort to enhance neighborhoods and residential life in many ways—this proposal moves Guilderland in the wrong direction and destroys many of the enhancements so carefully achieved.
As conditions change in our society and technology advances, the potential for a business working out of a home that truly has no negative impact on neighboring property owners becomes a more feasible idea. There would be benefit to a zoning law that allowed for this kind of business activity in residences—if we were not relying on the naïve notion that every applicant will honor the conditions and constraints of a permit. What is currently proposed does exactly that. Without enforcement there are no assurances that the monetary profits accrued to one resident do not come at the expense of the neighbors.
In the end these are residential neighborhoods. The vast majority of owners purchased their homes because they wanted a residential neighborhood. That is how most residents use their homes. We can not let the activities of the minority dictate the character of the neighborhood to the majority. We have only to look to the recent housing market crash to see just how easily the blight caused by one home can affect the home values of many.
It is well documented that having laws on the books that are not enforced breeds contempt for the rule of law in general. The examples we have called out here demonstrate that this attitude has been visible in McKownville. The Town's approach to enforcement was deficient for many years--this may have been due to its transition to a business and residential community from one that was decidedly rural. But passing more laws without assuring residents that the quality of residential life will be well protected is jeopardizing what too many have worked too hard to build—a community where residents and businesses are comfortable—and separated----from each other.
He stated that the Association was opposed to the passage of the law.
Carolyn Williams, Siver Road.
She commended the Town Board for creating the Zone Code Review Committee.
Section 280-5 the definitions and size limitations for the various classifications of Shopping Centers.
Reducing the total of the combined of the combined service and business uses in the local shopping center to a maximum of 45,000 square feet does enhance our quality of life and is consistent with our Comprehensive Plan.
However, while the regional shopping center size starts at 45,000 sq. ft. of gross floor it keeps upper limit of one million gross floor space – this seems counterproductive to the town’s quality of life. Additionally, the proposed amendment under Section 280-21(B) adds the Regional Shopping District as a special use to the General Business Districts. The zoning map seems to show a number of these districts scattered throughout the town.
Considering the effect of Crossgates on the quality of life for residents in Westmere, and McKownville, and the cost to the town for the increased public services-police, ambulance, courts, highway, traffic, even having the remote possibility of a one million sq. ft. regional shopping center allowed under our code posed a serious threat to our quality of life and that of our future residents. It certainly does not seem to encourage bicycle and pedestrian access, nor does it seem in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Section 280-37.2 Mixed Use Building
This section does not clearly define where these buildings will be allowed, and in general seems to allow room for interpretation. Specifically, the word “appropriate” in the purpose statement, and the use of the word “generally” in #4 under requirements, provide no guidelines for interpretation and make enforcement difficult.
Section 280-37.3 Home Occupation
Simplifying the process for a Minor Home Occupation seems reasonable, it makes the application less time consuming. However, if the applicant no longer needs to go to the Planning and Zoning Board, the Minor Home Occupation Permit is absolutely essential. One concern, however, is how this permit will be enforced and who determines if the conditions of the permit are being met.
Section 280-52 Home Occupation II (c)
The exterior display of articles or products, storage, vehicles, materials, equipment and supplies in the rear doesn’t place any limit on quantity or visual appearance.
************
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Thu, Apr 29, 2010 10:13 am
Subject: Zoning and businesses in residential areas
Hi neighbors:
The Town is considering amending the zoning law. The proposal (LocalLaw
is attached. It would relax restrictions on businesses locating in
residential areas, like Parkwood Street or Highland or along Western Avenue.
This is not a good idea--we have many many businesses in McKownville
(Stuyvesant Plaza, along Western and various ones on McKown Road,
Schoolhouse Road and on Arcadia) and many businesses on Western Avenue
just across the city line. A business next door does not improve the
quality of life of a family--it just does not.
In fact the Town asked for and received in August 2006 the recommendations
for a change in the zoning law to benefit McKownville residents--the
report is attached--it generally would have down zoned ten business
properties and made other changes to better protect residences in
McKownville. It has yet to be approved by the Town Board.
The Town Board meeting to discuss the easing of restrictions on business
location will be May 4, Town Hall.
We recommend that you read the attachments--the zoning revised attachment
which was written by Board members of the Association--discusses the
proposed easing for business zoning--and send your comments to the Town
Board members listed in the CC line of this email message.
It is your neighborhood.
Don Reeb, president, McKownville Improvement Association
It is good to communicate with you again. I have returned to Guilderland
after two years in Albany.
I support the proposed changes to Guilderland's zoning law put forth by
the Zoning and Land Use Review Committee. I also believe that we should
expand permitted uses, in particular for agriculture.
In my Ph.D. physics studies at the University at Albany I have become
convinced of the necessity to prepare for the impending twin crises of
Peak Oil and Climate Change.
Insofar as these will mean the end of cheap food and fuel, the proposed
law may help Guilderlanders to find employment in their home neighborhoods
when commuting becomes too expensive.
It will be crucial that the town also allow for suburban yards to be
transformed into food gardens, and for essential livestock to make a
comeback.
I have little experience with agriculture. But you can read what Sharon
Astyk, a farmer from Knox, has written in three recent books on these
topics. She makes several recommendations for town governments. The books
are available from the Upper Hudson Library System; sold in The Book
We must also advocate for state, national and international action.
Sincerely,
Phil Erner
9 Farnsworth Drive, Apartment 20
****************
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Sat, May 1, 2010 9:20 am
Subject: Re: Zoning and businesses in residential areas
Town of Guilderland Representatives,
I thank Don Reeb for passing the information along. I certainly understand the concerns that he briefly raised. I too am curious about the future of both residential and commercial development in our Town, and the potential impact that the proposed zoning amendments may have on quality of life and community character in our neighborhoods. Noticing a fair number of vacant buildings along Western Ave.,I have to wonder when and if anything forward thinking and quantitative planning involving public input will be done to strengthen businesses along this corridor as I believe was the intent expressed in the Town Comprehensive Plan - i.e., the recommendations for what was termed a commercial corridor.
While I believe the corridor (in Westmere - from Route 155 eastward) should not have been named commercial because it is a corridor at the fringe of districts and needs to carefully integrate uses, a study and plan is needed just the same. Businesses that serve the nearby residents, are pedestrian friendly and not auto-oriented are needed. Some of the problems related to access can be mitigated by clustering businesses along Western Ave., haring access,and reducing curb cuts. Scattering one-way signs along Western Ave creates a complex, confusing sea of signs, as is the case now, only jams traffic and can cause accidents. Along with enhanced amenities for business development along Western Ave there should be an emphasis on public space for pedestrians as pockets of peaceful places that attract shoppers and strollers. Bs shelters
should be installed to encourage use of public transportation.
Working with CDTA bus frequency along Western Ave between 20 Mall and downtown Albany and back should be increased. this would enable people to do what is called trip training, by bus, get on the bus, go to a shop, make a purchase, then continue to another destination on another bus, within a reasonable amount of time.
There is no good reason to abandon businesses along Western Ave. In fact the changes just mentioned, together, with some others, would encourage businesses to locate here, along the corridor where they belong and can thrive.What we do need is a new vision for how commercial development, and businesses in local business and commercial districts and take a hard look at making certain such are properly integrated along the fringes of districts to more fully and fairly serve the people of Guilderland without impacting quality of life and community character in residential neighborhoods closest to these uses.
The safeguards in place under the current zoning (including definition of customary home occupation) must remain, as, they have prevented certain intensive businesses operating illegally from being made "legal" through the special use permit process, yet, under the guise of customary home occupation. I can give at least one example close to my home where such an attempt thankfully was unsuccessful. I challenge the Town to revisit those special use permits that were denied years past up against the newly proposed changes and determine whether the same safeguards will be in place. But, even before that the neighborhood plans and corridor plans called for in the Town's comprehensive plan must be initiated ad completed. Anything other that that would be premature action, based, on lack of information and planning needed to make wise
decisions in the interest of the people of the Town Guilderland.
Ken Smith
11 Sumter Ave
****************
Hello to all.
I have reviewed the document from the McKownville Neighborhood Association Board regarding long and short term recommendations about zoning. I will not be able to attend the Town Board Meeting due to a previous engagement, but I would like to comment on this process.
I believe that adding/ rezoning the McKownville Corridor for more businesses, and to open closed residential areas for business or professional use, will be a detriment to the family atmosphere of this wonderful neighborhood. I particularly am concerned about commercial and non-commercial properties who would have their parking areas open and extend right up tor esidential properties, without using natural boundaries to enhance the space.
I hope you will consider the McKownville Neighborhood Association proposals.
Thank you.
Debra E.Trees
8 Ayre Drive
Albany, NY 12203
********
Anita Behn, E. Parkwood Street
The following is from Charles Klaer, Meadowdale Road:
It is my understanding that the charge of the Zoning Review Committee is to review current zoning in order to make amendment recommendations to update the Town’s Zoning Code to be in compliance with the Town’s Comprehensive Plan including all it’s subsequent neighborhood master plans, corridor study recommendations, and other related studies.
In that light it doesn’t seem to be unreasonable to expect their products to indicate the reason for their recommendations respective to that charge.
As a past member of the Zoning Board, I became aware that separate and distinct from the Comprehensive Plan development and approval process some anomalies, omissions and contradictions have over time been identified. It is understandable that respective “corrections” should also be addressed during this process.
Nevertheless I would hope that the different types of amendment recommendations would be identified by type and justified accordingly.
With regard to the Comprehensive Plan I did a quick word search on Towns Web site.
I got no hits for “Home Occupation”
During my tenure on the Zoning Board very few home occupation applications came before the board. I was therefore surprised that the Zoning Review Committee has given Home Occupation such high priority. So much so that three levels of home occupation are being proposed. Even finding the need to separate Home Occupations into service occupations and production occupations.
In spite of the contention of some that a Town should have no right to regulate a business conducted from a Town residence, it should be noted that there is a lengthy state-wide history of Town’s requiring special use permits for “home occupations”. It might be useful for the Town Board to review the New York State Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department April 13, 2010 decision in the Matter of Navaretta v Town of Oyster Bay.
My comments related to the sections ofthe proposed public law dealing with Home Occupations are as follows:
1) The term “Customary” according to a word search of the Town Code occurs 10 times. It is also used in relation to customary accessory buildings. Rather than eliminate the term “Customary” in the limited places identified perhaps focus should be on up dating the definition of the term if circumstances justify it.
2) The term “Customarily” similarly occurs an additional 4 times.
3) “Business” on the other hand is initself not defined in the Zoning Code but is used 10 times in conjunction withother definitions. The context of the word in those definitions is for“businesses” more substantial than any “Home Occupation”
4) “Trade” is also not defined in the Zoning Code and is used only once as part of the definition of a “Commercial Vehicle”. Elsewhere in the code it is generally in association with licensed “Trade Schools”.
5) The proposed permissibility of signs related to a home occupation is inconsistent among the three types of proposed levels of Home Occupation.
- For Minor Home Occupation section B.(4) states that “There shall be no advertising structure (undefined) for the home occupation use.” On the one hand but on the other hand, “Any sign for the home occupation shall conform to the requirements for signs as set forth in this chapter.”
- Who one might ask would benefit from such signage if per (6) “There shall be no clients or customers at the property”?
- For both Home Occupation I and II there are no signage conditions listed.
6) It is not clear why some of the B. (1)-(7) conditions for Minor Home Occupation
need to duplicate the referenced C (1)-(9) conditions?
7) It is not clear why a Minor HomeOccupation may use an accessory building (per B
(1)) but a Home Occupation I may not (perC (2)) (And then again perhaps Minor
Home Occupation by reference per B (8)).
8) The Town Board might wish to consider requiring periodic “recertification” of
Minor Home Occupation Permit certifications similar to that required of In-law Apartments
9) The current code Sections 280-24-1(Rural 3) and 24-24.2 (Rural 5) permit up to 3 outside employees,but ONLY if the lot is 7 acres or more. The 7 acre requirement has been deleted and replaced with 20 foot set backs without explanation. Since the Agriculture Zone (2 Acre lot minimum) has now been included under Home Occupation II the 20 foot buffers may not be sufficient.
10) Is woodworking (old), other than furniture repair (new), no longer a permitted Home occupation in the Agriculture Zone, Rural 3 and Rural 5 zones?
11) The term “small engine” doesn’t appear to occur anywhere in the Town Code. Perhaps there should be a definition added.
12) It would appear that D (2) of Home Occupation II is a closed universe of options. If others a applied for what authority would the ZBA have to consider approval?
12) The list of prohibited home occupations does seem to be germane since each of the listed occupations/services are covered by other sections of the Town Code.
The Comprehensive Plan does recommend allowing Mixed Uses. It is not clear to me whether the proposed Mix Use legislation is designed to initially address what is being proposed and approved for Glass Works Village or the narrow lots along Western Avenue. There may be places in Town where Mixed Uses are not appropriate, or as described might encourage development different from that proposed in the Comprehensive Plan.
The replacement of terms Designed Neighborhood, Local and Regional Shopping Center with the term Local and Regional seem to be more of the second kind of amendment, one adding clarity to “facts on the ground” in 2010 rather than envisioned development when the Zoning Code was crafted. It should be noted that there is no explanation for the change in terminology and the changes in “appropriate” respective square footage requirements. Nevertheless, the Zoning Review Committee may wish to revisit the Comprehensive Plan’s lackof emphasis on the role of large shopping centers in the Vision Statement or any of the Comprehensive Plans recommendations. Additionally, the Comprehensive Plan may require additional amendments to the Zoning Code vis a vis Shopping Centers.
A look at the Town’s Zoning Map identifies only two undeveloped parcels of land designated as General Business. One at the corner of Route 146 and Route 158 along the Black Creek. The parcel would be appropriate for very few of the General Business permitted uses, doubtfully a Regional Shopping Center in excess of 45,000 square feet. The second is between Spawn Road and Lone Pine on Carman Road, it too would seemingly be appropriate for a limited number of permitted General Business uses, doubtfully a Regional Shopping Center in excess of 45,000 square feet.
Crossgates with 1.6 million square feet according to current code is a non-conforming use. A fact on the ground. I think a reasonable reading of the approved Comprehensive Plan would conclude that there is little support for adding additional large Shopping Centers. If the Town stands by assigning Crossgates non-conforming use status then there does seem no justification to having code suggesting that another regional shopping center is encouraged elsewhere in town. The Zoning Review Committee should give serious thought based on the “facts on the ground” to capping the size of Shopping Centers by any name to the largest currently in respective zones.
In conclusion I guess I’d like an explanation as to how the Zoning Review process is going to be operationalised. Is this the first such proposal to be released? Are there more in the works? Is this the total product of their efforts?
PS:
Below is a list of items the Zoning Review committee might find appropriate for their consideration. It is a preliminary list I drafted some time ago.
1) The Zoning Board of Appeals has decided that it was an oversight not to permit in-law apartments in Ag Zones (now RuralZones 3 and 5). If the Zoning Board’s decision was correct, the Town Zoning should be revised to permit in-law apartments in Rural Zones 3 and 5.
2) Add a definition for “Hamlet” (vs “Country Hamlet”) as used in Section 280-24.3
3) Review whether the Town Board really wants to take on the role of Zoning Board/Planning Board throughout the approval process for Planned Unit Developments and Country Hamlet.
4) Review whether the decision of the Zoning Board Attorney that the eastern branch of Hungerkill is NOT a watercourse should stand in spite of its designation as a Class C stream by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.
5) Currently the zoning related to angle of repose is only applicable if there is a watercourse at its toe/base. A Town Designated Engineer (Ken Johnson) noted that the dynamics relating to slope failure apply equally to slopes whether or not there is a watercourse at its base/toe.
6) Review whether the decision by the Zoning Board Attorney should stand that there is no size cap on “Drug Stores” seemingly now defined as any business type that includes a pharmacy, making “Drug Stores” the only business type in a Local Business Zone in Guilderland without a size cap.
7) There have been a number of stories recently related to construction projects that have had to be abandoned in midconstruction due to a developer’s failure to get required financing. Should our revised zoning include a process to protect the Town from the eyesore created by abandoned construction projects?
8) Now that we have two examples of roofs topped with sedum to reduce heating and air conditioning energy consumption and impervious surface run off, perhaps new construction, particularly with flat or practically flat roofs justify why a new or repaired flat roof should not be topped with sedum or an equivalent sod covering.
9) The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, FEMA and US Department of Fish and Wild Life now have web based mapping resources identifying not only flood plains, and wetlands, but also land harboring wild life and plant life worthy of human protection. Should reference to such resources be added to the Zoning Code, perhaps requiring a permit, variance or mitigation plan if threatened by a project?
10) Has the time finally arrived to add zoning protection to the Watervliet Reservoir water shed and the Helderberg Escarpment?
11) The Town of Ossining among others has a tree ordinance. The National Arbor Day Foundation has a model tree ordinance. If Guilderland is ready for a tree ordinance, this may be an item worth considering.
12) The Mountain State of West Virginia may eventually become just another plains state, having already lost 500 mountain tops to the coal industry. The current Guilderland code as it relates to excavation and topographical alteration has failed to protect many of Guilderland’s ancient sand dunes from being excavated for later use as fill else where or raised bed septic fields. This may be a good opportunity to review the topographical features we have left in Guilderland.
He suggested that more work needs to be done.
Anita Behn, E. Parkwood St. (P 68A)
Councilman Redlich stated that, in defense of the Zoning Review Committee, they were open to the public and commended the committee for their work.
Liesse Mohr, Gipp Road, stated that she appreciated the problems that the committee had to look at.
She further stated that the local law regarding Minor Home operation was strict. Most of the items that the committee came up with were heard at Zoning Board hearings.
With self certification we would need to let the neighbors know that this is happening where they could speak in a legal format like a public hearing before the person gets a permit.
She said, “Does the Town really have the right to know what is going on in every home.” She stated that she would like for residents to be able to say “self need”. For example, if they have a need such as for insurance or tax issues.
She felt that there is a standard and if you advertise, if you have a website stating that you have a business in your home, you should get a permit.
For Rural Home Occupation 2, she questioned that the only thing that can be sold is what can be wholly produced. She asked what the purpose of that was.
Mr. Abbruzzese stated that this was not a Home Occupation.
She questioned a number of occupations that were allowed under the local law, storing product on the premises, number of employees, non-resident employees, and days of operation not being mentioned.
She felt that the committee was tight on home occupation.
Councilman Redlich asked what the dividing line was between a right to privacy and the kind of business that would need a permit.
Liesse Mohr stated that if you were a quiet person, making no noise, you should not have to answer to anyone, or get a permit and it was an invasion of privacy. However, if you are advertising or needed to be certified, then you should get the permit. This was an easy way to do it.
Neighbors could be notified about the permit.
Supervisor Runion stated that someone who just works out of their home such as a computer programmer would not have to come in for a permit. When you take it one step further and you advertise in publications such as Chamber of Commerce, or the Internet, those are the types of homes that should come in for the Minor Home Occupation permit.
Ms. Mohr agreed. She further reiterated that neighbors should be able to comment on the permit at an open forum on a case by case basis.
She asked that hours of operation be included.
Mr. Brownell explained that for Home Occupation I and II you would need a Special Use Permit and would be required to provide your hours of operation before the Zoning Board.
Further discussion was held regarding notification to the neighbors of a permit being applied for.
Councilman Redlich stated that in looking at Judge Marinelli’s decision, the Town Board should not go forward with the law and he suggested that it go back to the committee.
He further suggested that the committee review and address to what extent the proposed changes interact with the Comprehensive Plan.
Supervisor Runion stated that he thought that this should go back to the committee for review. He stated that the committee did a good job in handling and streamlining the process and making it easier for people in Town to conduct their businesses out of their house.
He further stated that the Town would be looking for indicators that someone is conducting a business such as advertising in some form of a book such as the Chamber of Commerce or a separate phone number etc., and we have done a good job with that.
He further stated that he had some issues with the Mixed Use provisions.
He explained that this could create a second round of intensive development on Western Avenue.
Someone could say, I have a business on my lot and I would like to add three apartments on top of it.
If we do that, it could have an impact on the school district. He suggested that the committee look at the Mixed Use Development as similar to a floating zone, smaller in size, with some controls.
He further stated that Crossgates Mall was another issue. We were not aware of the 1998-99 problems that arose.
He stated that he liked Mr. Barber’s suggestion that we look at a separate zone that specifically deals with large size regional shopping centers.
He would like the committee to take a closer look at these issues.
Councilwoman Slavick thanked the committee for their hard work. She said that the definitions were clarified from the old ones.
She asked that they look at the term “generally”.
Supervisor Runion stated that in applying for the permit, some ambiguity was necessary to give the Zoning Board some leeway in managing conditions that could be imposed on those home businesses.
Councilman Grimm stated that he did not want the government or neighbors making the determination if the resident was operating a home business.
He further stated that this was a right to privacy issue as long as you were not bothering your neighbor. A set of conditions should be developed.
Councilman Redlich asked that the committee define what does not need a permit.
Supervisor Runion stated that that could be done by definition and would be a good idea to distinguish between someone who is working out of their home and someone who is conducting a business.
Councilman Grimm stated that it didn’t really matter if they are working out of their home or calling it a home business as long as they are not affecting their neighbor.
Supervisor Runion stated that when people start to advertise and are conducting a business from their home, and people have purchased a residential property, there is an expectation that all of the properties would remain residential. When people advertise and outwardly show the public that they are conducting a business from their homes, there should be a minimum reporting requirement.
Further discussion was held among Board members.
Councilman Pastore asked Rodger Stone, Zone Code Enforcement Officer, what he thought of the proposal. He stated that if you have certain standards by which residents have to abide, that is a beginning point and then we can determine how to enforce or not to enforce.
Rodger Stone stated that if he receives a complaint he would investigate and attempt to get compliance.
The new proposal is much easier for those residents that have a Home Occupation to get a permit. He further stated that his job would not change.
Councilman Pastore asked Mr. Stone if the self certification is as equally as beneficial to the person conducting a business as it is to the surrounding neighbors.
Rodger Stone stated that it is more beneficial to the neighbors as there is nothing that shows there is a business being conducted.
Supervisor Runion again thanked the committee and asked that they take a look at the various issues that were raised.
BREAK: 9:40 PM
RETURN: 10:03 PM
Public Hearing:
8:00PM – Local Law establishing storm water management districts
Town Clerk, Rosemary Centi, read the legal notice
Ken Johnson, Delaware Engineering, explained the State regulations regarding cleanup of stormwater basins and storm sewer collection systems.
He stated that what they tried to do was come up with a way of funding each new subdivision as it comes before the required Boards and upfront the money and have the residents pay a minor feeper year.
This would be for a Major Subdivision. They would be looking at a Minor Subdivision and Commercial at another time.
He further stated that this would be a routine maintenance fee set by the Town Highway Department and approved by theTown Board.
Councilman Grimm asked how this worked.
Mr. Johnson stated that the storm sewers going into a dedicated system would have a mechanism for cleaning.
The detention pond would need regular cleaning and this would be a mechanism for the Town having the funds upfront for any issues that could arise.
In the past, Homeowners Associations and the Town would have to do the cleanup.
He further stated that prior to the first building permit the developer would have to put up the fee into an account to be used solely for that subdivision based on the design of the subdivision. This would be drawn out on a needed basis.
The $50.00 yearly fee per unit would be more of a maintenance to review and check after each storm.
Councilwoman Slavick asked if the $75,000 fee would be paid up front to give the Town some money that could be used if something were to happen.
Mr. Johnson stated that it would.
This would apply to any new MajorSubdivisions.
Councilwoman Slavick asked if the drainage district is not established who would be responsible for any cleaning.
Mr. Johnson stated that the Town has had responsibility in the past
Mr. Johnson further stated that the drainage district would be established at the subdivision approval.
Councilman Grimm asked if the drainage district would be responsible for all costs associated for the storm sewers.
Mr. Johnson stated they would.
Councilman Grimm asked if this was now being taken care by the private sector and what the problem with this method was.
Mr. Johnson stated at this point the Town was responsible.
Supervisor Runion stated that this would come out of the Highway Fund.
He further stated that the rationale is that either all of the taxpayers pay for the new subdivision coming in or the new subdivision, which is responsible for their storm drainage, pays for it themselves.
Councilman Grimm stated that there were a number of regulations that had to be met regarding the storm drainage district.
Mr. Johnson stated that was true.
Supervisor Runion stated that there was ongoing maintenance of the storm drainage district.
This would be a new drainage district for each new Major Subdivision.
Councilman Redlich asked if there was anything in this Law to prohibit the Town Board from expanding the drainage districts to existing developments.
Mr. Johnson stated that all of the residents would have to agree to it as you would be charging a new fee.
Councilman Redlich asked if this law required unanimous consent of the homeowners of an old development in order for a drainage district to be created.
Town Attorney, Richard Sherwood, stated that this would only apply to new subdivisions.
Councilwoman Slavick stated that that had been added in to the law at the last meeting.
Councilman Grimm asked how many districts have had trouble.
Mr. Johnson stated that a few have had problems such as Blackberry Estates and McKownville and the Town had to useTown funds to address those situations.
Councilman Grimm stated that the fee would be coming from the homeowner in any case.
Supervisor Runion mentioned that the Board had received a letter from Amedore Homes.
(P71A)
Supervisor Runion reiterated that although each unit would be paying $2,500.00 to support the storm drainage district, all residents of the Town would not be encumbered through taxes.
He further stated that new subdivisions that have been coming in all seem to have stormwater drainage issues.
He reviewed the verbiage that had been changed in the local law.
Chuck Klaer stated that he was glad that he would not be paying taxes for drainage issues.
MOTION #90 Councilwoman Slavick moved to CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON A LOCAL LAW ESTABLISHING STORM WATER DRAINAGE DISTRICT. Councilman Pastore seconded themotion 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 #91 CouncilwomanSlavick moved to ADOPT LOCAL LAW #2 OF 2010 ENTITLED DRAINAGE DISTRICT FEE WHICH WOULD CREATE NEW STORM WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS FOR NEW MAJOR SUBDIVISIONS. Councilman Pastore seconded the motion and it was denied by the following roll call vote:
Councilman Redlich |
Opposed– Said, “A few days ago the Attorney General of the State of New York spoke at the NYS Rural Democratic Conference, he spoke, at one point, about the number of governments in the State of N.Y. I think his number was 10,521. He said it was too many. He included, as Councilwoman Slavick just noted, this is like a lighting district. When Attorney General Cuomo talked about the number of governments,he specifically referenced lighting districts as one of the layers of government. He said there were too many layers of government, there are too many kinds of government, there’s too many governments in NYS. We do not need to create more governments. There could be ten new governments, in Guilderland alone, layers of government, ten new districts in Guilderland. Multiply this across the 1,000 to 1,500 or so towns in NYS. We don’t need more governments in the State of New York. We don’t need more government in the State of New York; we need less government in the State of New
York. We don’t need more government in Guilderland. We don’t need more governments in Guilderland. We need less of the government interfering with our lives, raising our costs, driving people out of our State and our Town. So I am opposed to the drainage district law.” |
Councilwoman Slavick |
Aye |
Councilman Pastore |
Aye |
Councilman Grimm |
Opposed- “This creates a whole new layer of government, it creates a new tax, it also adds to the cost of the homes. We talked a lot about affordability in Guilderland. A lot of young people would love to live here and they can’t afford homes. There is no question that this creates a new layer of government, this creates a new tax and makes it more expensive to buy a home. To the point, well let’s let the individuals in that area pay and not the Town, there are many instances where we use town funds to deal with isolated cases. We have had traffic calming studies in certain areas, we have helped with flooding in other areas, that’s what Town taxes
do, is they speak to issues in various ways across the Town. These people that are in these new developments are paying a lot of taxes and they should expect if there is a problem that in some way theTown should deal with it. The fact of the matter is, it is not easy to build a new development in this Town, there are a lot of requirements, and they pay a lot of attention to the storm water issues. A lot of these Associations have dedicated funds to manage the storm water issues themselves. So on balance, I do not think that this is a good idea. New York is a State that does have far too many governments and once we create these districts they live forever and so do the taxes.”
|
Supervisor Runion |
Opposed - “You may be surprised. The problem we have is we have not too many governments; we have too many new subdivisions coming into Town. Maybe one way to control new subdivisions is not to have storm water drainage districts because without storm water drainage districts, I don’t think it is fair for us to be rezoning land for new subdivisions coming into Town and create an additional burden on all of the taxpayers within the district. So based on that, I am going to oppose the law as well.” |
Agenda items:
MOTION #92 Councilman Redlich moved to AUTHORIZE AWARDING THE BID FOR PAVEMENT ROLLER PER REQUEST OF THE DEPT. OF WATER AND WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $13,566.00. 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 #93 Councilwoman Slavick moved to AUTHORIZE THE SUPERVISOR TO SIGN A COLLECTOR’S WARRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $400,781.85. Councilman Redlich 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 #94 Councilman Redlich moved to ADJOURN THE MAY 4, 2010 TOWN BOARD MEETING AT 10:03 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 |
Respectfully submitted,
Rosemary Centi, RMC
Town Clerk
| 
