Town of Glenville
18 Glenridge Road, Glenville, NY 12302
ph: 518-688-1200
fx: 518-384-0140
Town Board Meeting Minutes 12 3 2008
DECEMBER 03, 2008

Present:        Supervisor Frank X. Quinn, Councilmen Edward F. Rosenberg, Christopher A. Koetzle and Councilwoman Valerie M. DiGiandomenico

Absent: Councilman Mark A. Quinn

                Supervisor Quinn called the meeting to order at 7:30 PM; gave the Invocation and led us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

                Supervisor Quinn asked the Town Clerk, Linda C. Neals, to call the roll.  Everyone was present and accounted for except Councilman Quinn who was out of town.

Town Council Reports

                Councilman Koetzle – “I’d like to take a moment to update the Board on the leaf program.  I think the good news is that I am still talking about leafs at this time which means no significant snow has fallen yet.  As I reported they were through Zone 1 and 2 and currently finishing up in Zone 3.  They plan on making another pass around through the town weather permitting.

                I reported last time that County Waste will not be picking up brush any longer including the bagged leafs.  I spoke with the Commissioner and he is working with County Waste on a plan to continue picking those bags up through at least this year and that includes County Waste letting the Commissioner use a packer at no cost.  The Commissioner assures me that he is working on a plan for 2009 that will make sure that we as a town will pick up brush.

                The GECC met last week to consider a zoning proposal that we talked about last week and set up a public hearing for.  They unanimously agreed to issue a negative declaration, as we all know that means they found no negative impact on the environment if this proposal were to be passed by this board.  Just two significant points to really point out is some of the members of that board had concerns over they felt that this proposal would circumvent the process, the zoning process.  After it was explained that this proposal actually allowed a business to transfer non-conforming rights from one property to another non-conforming property really had a site-plan review written into that law that took care of that objection.  Another objection was kind of more general was would it open a can of worms.  As we went through and explained how very specific that the proposed law was written that took care of that objection as well.  The next step is December 8th it will go before the Planning Board and we will see what they have to say about it.

                The GBPA (Glenville Business and Professional Association) met this morning, the President of that Association is here this evening, Alan Boulant.  They made a lot of progress on what they are trying to accomplish here in Glenville, helping small businesses.  They talked about their campaign, there are going to be stickers for members within the town that they can place in their businesses.  They talked about their activities for 2009 including fund raising for community organizations, member recruitment; they are planning a mixer of small business owners and professionals on January 22.  It’s a networking event; I don’t think we have details of it at this time but at least we have a tentative date.

                The Association has already submitted a grant application and we are also working on a new web-site that should be ready to be unveiled shortly.

                December 18 will be the next Small Business Economic Development Committee meeting here at 7:30 am.

                December 7th is the Holiday on the Avenue in the Village of Scotia from 4:00 to 7:00 pm.

                I have reported on the NY Power Authority and NYSEG conducting a facility energy audit in the past we have made some progress on that front.  In addition to the Town signing a three year contract with Reliant Energy for the purchase of electricity the Town Administrator was recently advised that the Power Authority will be working with SERTA conducting an energy audit of all town facilities.  The purpose is to examine ways to reduce power consumption and improve energy efficiency in town facilities.  The Town Hall, Senior Center, Town Highway Garage and Water Plant may be evaluated by qualified energy experts who determine ways to improve energy use.”

                Supervisor Quinn – “The next item on the agenda is a public hearing regarding the Town’s proposed Annual Plan for the Section 8 Housing for 2009.

                Supervisor Quinn opened the public hearing at 7:45 pm.

                James Mastrianni, President Mastrianni Associates – “HUD requires each year that we hold a public hearing.  The annual plan defines all of our discretionary policies and procedures that are used.

                There are no changes to the Plan this year.

                Each of you should have a hand-out of the summary statistics that were compiled this morning about this program.  (Mr. Mastrianni explained the summary).

                We have been working with the Town of Glenville since 1976, administrating this program.  It is funded at a little more than $300,000 annually.  This is completely federal funding, there are no municipal funds used for this program.  That number includes all of the subsidy value as well as our fees.  That number is determined solely by HUD.  This allows us to help 55 families.  HUD allows us to help up to 60 but because of the tightened economy we’re targeting 55 families at this time.

                In addition to the Section 8 Program we also administer a Family Self Sufficiency Program and this program helps participants move out of Section 8, out of welfare and into self-sufficiency.  We have ten participants on this program right now.  We don’t receive any additional funding for this but we are one of the largest administrators in the State and so we are able to wrap that into our other programs.

                A key component of the Self-Sufficiency Program is the escrow account and you will see four participants have an escrow account.  The way this works is HUD has realized that in the Family Self-Sufficiency Program there’s a real disincentive for doing better increasing your income because your subsidy would go down so to mitigate that disincentive the way the program works you can take those differences and place them into an escrow account for the participants so as they start doing better, their income increases, their subsidy goes down that difference we put into an account and it earns interest and we send out a monthly statement to each participant and we try to treat it like a 401K statement.  If you successfully graduate the program and complete your goals you can have that money.

                In addition to our Family Self-Sufficiency Program we offer Homeownership Program, we don’t have any participants yet but we will get some and what this allows is instead of putting the Section 8 subsidy toward the rent of an apartment a participant is able to purchase a home.  We only work the best of our best participants who are highly motivated to do this.

                Now there is a waiting list for this program, there is a greater demand than we can supply so right now we have 141 applicants on the program, 97 of those applicants live or work within the municipality.  They are given a preference on our list.  Our list right now is running about 14 months.

                We are at 100% occupancy, we have 55 participants in the program right now and 69% of those participants are elderly or disabled.  Before any unit can be housed, we have to do an inspection.  This inspection uses a standard called “Housing Quality Standard” defined by HUD, not as restrictive as a code inspection.  The goal of this is to eliminate safety dangers and to create decent housing.

                Four and one half years is the average time that a participant uses this program and the average gross monthly income for a participant is $1,100 a month and the average subsidy is $446.

                Due to the recession our participants are losing their jobs and when they lose their jobs they call us up and we have to recalculate their subsidy and our subsidy increases because their income has decreased.”

                No one else wished to speak; Supervisor Quinn closed the public hearing at 8:00 pm.

                Supervisor Quinn – “Agenda item #6 is a Presentation of our Annual Report concerning our Greens Corners School House.”

                Adrienne Karis gave her report to the board.  A copy of the report is on file in the Town Clerk’s Office.

                Ms. Karis announced in her report that she was resigning and introduced Jim & Ruth Long, who live only two houses from the school and will take over the responsibility of keeping the school opened for visitors.”

                Supervisor Quinn presented Ms. Karis with a plaque recognizing her 34 years of service to the Town of Glenville without compensation as the caretaker of the Greens Corners One Room School House.

                Councilwoman DiGiandomenico – “Adrienne, we all want to thank you for your generous 34 years of service on the Greens Corners One Room School House.  We will greatly miss you and all of the time and effort you have contributed in making the Greens Corners One Room School House part of the Town’s history and again thank you.”

                The following people exercised the Privilege of the Floor.

                James Walsh, Attorney for Auto Solutions – Mr. Walsh explained that Auto Solutions is a body shop that operates out of 78 Freemans Bridge Road.  He explained that they also own the parcel next door at 74 Freemans Bridge Road.  He addressed the Board on the issue of zoning.

                He expressed his clients concern that deals with the master plan that the town adopted.  He went on to inform the board that Auto Solutions has operated at this site for eleven years that they own the property and that they started selling used cars and have a variance to sell used cars at 78 Freemans Bridge Road.  He stated that they started selling used cars at 74 Freemans Bridge Road for approximately three years.  He stated that in 2001 the Code Enforcement Officer for the Town came to them and informed them that they had to stop using the lot at 74 Freemans Bridge Road it is in violation of the master plan of the Town.  He said that his client asked if he could transfer the variance from one parcel to another, how can I continue to operate to sell used cars at 74.  The answer from the town was you can not; it’s not part of our master plan.

                He explained that his client stopped selling cars at 74 Freemans Bridge Road, altered and changed the structure of his business to try and attempt to comply with the town’s master plan.

                He has basically forgone displaying and selling used cars at 74 Freemans Bridge Road for the past 7 years because he was told he couldn’t do it.

                He explained that his client has sold used cars at 78 Freemans Bridge Road.  He pays over $30,000 a year in taxes to the Town of Glenville.  

                He has asked me to ensure that the Town Board is aware of his situation.

                My client is concerned about the rumors he has heard about whether or not the Town is going to allow any changes at all or one change or many changes.  He stated that any change that happens needs to be done with basis of equity.  The town needs to allow all of the residents or businesses within the town to take advantage of possible changes to the zoning.

                He informed the board that if changes are made his client would like to sell used cars out of 74 Freemans Bridge Road.  He further stated that when we are making changes we can’t piece meal changes together that any change that need to be made needs to be done fairly and equity.”

                Alan Boulant – He stated that the majority of the businesses that he has talked to feel the same way.  He stated that he had met Mr. Dicresce about 4 or 5 months ago and it started out with him trying to help a fellow business person who has been in the market place for 16 years.  He commented that now it is about what is right.  He stated that if he feels something is not quite right he is going to do whatever he can to help that person.

                He stated that Councilman Koetzle has introduced a resolution to the Town Board and his own behalf he met with his business attorney, he read through the proposal to find out if what Mr. Koetzle was putting in was something that was viable.  His attorney informed him that with a few language changes it is a very viable resolution.

                Mr. Boulant stated that he feels that it is in the best interest for the town and the business plan.  He stated that Mr. Dicresce made a sacrifice to move his location for the betterment of the community, did he make some bad judgments; some people say yes, some people say no.  He stated that there had been some changes made on Freemans Bridge Road that would allow certain that did not become public as far as changing in zoning to allow certain things.

                He stated that Mr. Dicresce had heard for 2 to 3 years that Lowe’s was coming and that he had to move and it was start, stop, start, stop and he threw his hands up and said until something happens I am not going to worry about it.  Mr. Dicresce was put in a position where he had to make a business choice, some people view it as a bad choice some view it as a good choice.

                He stated that it is much more than Rick Dicresce, we are not going away, and we want you to understand that if we don’t stand up here and tell you how we feel you will just make your own decisions just based on your group.  He continues to tell the board that they are messing with Mr. Decrease’s livelihood.  He stated that the town does not need this “black-eye” in Glenville when we are trying to increase tax base and bring businesses into the community.

                Dan Carlton – Mr. Carlton stated that he was going to set the record straight.  He stated that he met with 3 other Town Supervisors and informed the Town Attorney to listen to them because he felt it is relevant if he is going to counsel the board on this.  Mr. Carlton informed the board the Supervisors he had spoken with said that this board is splitting hairs.  Mr. Carlton expressed that he was offended by the fact sheet that was put out by the Town.  He said that there were a lot of untruths mentioned on the fact sheet.

                Mr. Carlton stated that there is a very thin line for a discrimination lawsuit and for a defamation of character lawsuit.  He warned the board that it is heading in that direction.

                Mr. Carlton stated that according to the fact sheet when the zoning was changed in 2001 to disallow used car sales in a general business zoning district Enterprise was operating a car rental business which is permitted in the general business district, consequently there was no non-conforming used car sales business on this property in 2001.  Mr. Carlton attended the GECC meeting last week the Chairperson was aware that Salisbury Chevrolet had been to their same board and they stated that we had authorization to sell vehicles from that property and that we had variances that we could operate that as a used car lot.  He stated that Salisbury Chevrolet has owned that property for almost 25 years, it was not owned by Enterprise Rent Car, and they did not operate the property.  He stated that he was sick of the town making statements representing Enterprise Rent a Car as the owner of said property.  Any variances that were given Enterprise Rent a Car were variances that were given for them to operate business as a rental, they rented from me.

                Mr. Carlton continued to criticize the Board for their procedures in handling Mr. Decrease’s situation.  He continued to disagree with the fact sheet that had been put together by the Town.

                Mr. Carlton read an article from the Daily Gazette that Super Steel was closing and 140 employees would be loosing their jobs.  He criticized the government for going out of their way to help Super Steel when they came to Glenville and now there will be another empty building in Glenville.  He stated that Salisbury Chevrolet has never asked for anything from the Town.

                Mr. Carlton stated that there is collusion going on about this issue.  He continued to attack each board member, the town attorney and other town employees for the way they handled this situation.  He attacked Councilman Rosenberg and stated that he finds it to be a conflict of interest for somebody to be on the town board that is a realty agent.  He finds it to be a conflict of interest to have somebody in a position that can control zoning laws that can profit from them.

                Mr. Carlton continued to criticize the Supervisor and Board members regarding the way they handled the Dicresce situation.

                He closed by stating that there is an individual that has a business and there is a need to get him back open and we need to get him back open before Christmas.

                No one else wished to speak; Supervisor Quinn closed the Privilege of the Floor.

Supervisor’s Comments:

                Supervisor Quinn shared the following information:

                Nov 20th – attended a meeting with the Town of Ballston Supervisor.  We reviewed the current status of the water contract with the Town of Ballston.  We discussed their future plans regarding the new water system that Saratoga County is bringing on line.  We discussed, what’s the customer’s satisfaction with Glenville water that is provided to the Town of Ballston residents, and we were assured that they are very happy with the quality of the water Ballston is currently caught in a dilemma, they have a long standing contract with us that will continue on for another 10 years and they have a commitment that they are tied into now because of their board actions about buying water from the new Saratoga County water system.  This dilemma is not only theirs but as you know we sell to Charlton and we also sell to Clifton Park so each of these three towns are facing the same dilemma and periodically we hear from any one or all three of them.

                We talked over the pros and cons and what would be involved.  If we were caught in that situation with the three towns we would be trying to reduce the amount of money you pay for water from Glenville because you have to pay the other guys and you are committed to a contract on the other side.  So they are seeking to feel if they can get a better price, can they reduce the cost to them and so forth.  They are seeking commitments from us and we assured them that we value them as a customer and we will honor all of our contracts that we have but we can’t reduce the price for one without treating all the same.  We certainly cannot reduce the price of the water because the Town of Glenville residents would have to pick up the difference in the revenues.

                Nov 25th – attended the Local Government Council meeting.  I received a fact sheet and gave all of you a copy incase you ever needed some facts and figures about the taxing bodies in the surrounding 19 county area.  They are using this because the local governments potential impact by the arrival of AMD and what are the issues that various and sundry Towns Supervisors and elected officials and City Mayors have.

                The second part of the agenda was a presentation by one of the Chairs of the Rockefeller Institute on Government Study.  What they were talking about and proposing that all of the towns should be considering is the fact that is there a model namely BOCES that serves school districts would that also serve the towns?  So each of the BOCES in the area provides, for a fee, many of the administrative technical services for school districts.  Items like payroll, information management, insurances, printing publications, legal so forth and so on as well as various technical service and training services and so on.  Could that be tailored so that the Towns, Counties and Villages could go to some place and contract and therefor help increase efficiency and reduce the cost for the towns?

                On the Supersteel issue since it came upon all of us, recession comes to Glenville kind of thing, I learned about it Monday morning.  I had no idea that that was coming out.  I was trying to point out that yes it’s a shame to loose the jobs but also it is a loss of revenue for the town, school district, county and so forth and all of the supporting districts because of their revenue streams drying up.  They own the building, they will get a tax bill for 2009 and we will be hopeful that they will pay it, the lay offs will be January, February and March.

                In the last week or so I have been involved in some activities.  As you know from reading the newspapers I suspect Schenectady County is coming up with a contract on sales tax distributions.  The current one is up so there is a new contract being drawn up.  Currently it has involved the City and the County, although the five towns and two villages are impacted we have no input to it.  The regular sales tax distribution as well as the Metroplex sales tax distribution, which you know is millions of dollars for us between the two of them.  Both the city and the county have the legal authority to levy sales tax.  In the 90’s the city gave it up and the county provided them with a significant share.  This new tax formula is being developed and it covers four years as far as I can find out.  The negotiations, the terms and conditions of this, none of the towns have been involved in it, we don’t input, we don’t get any negotiating rights or privileges or anything else yet Glenville, Niskayuna and certainly Rotterdam are the principal contributors to the sales tax for Schenectady County.  We don’t have a seat at the table but we are the principal when they say where did the sales tax come from and so that is a piece of it.  We bare the cost of servicing where that sales tax is generated between police services and all the usual services that the town provides.

                So I contacted a bunch of our representatives and I talked to Susan Savage and Bob Farley and Marty Finn and Jim Buhrmaster and pointed out our concerns that as the city and the county negotiate over this sale tax the city can come back and institute the sales tax again if they want.  I called the County Attorney, Chris Gardner and I put a call in but I didn’t get an answer from Kathy Rooney yet.

                We are not a partner in this but are we going to loose revenue in this, it is a four year contract are we really looking at a formula that causes us to loose revenue over four years, not because of the sales tax but because of the formula and the criteria that are being used.  Is there going to be any sufficient increase in revenues or decreases, so what is going on here, we all have to make budgets.

                While our operating costs will go up we need information and details, what are you doing to the criteria, what are you doing to the distribution formula, what is going on here and you as our County Legislature leaders from District No. 3 what are you doing to help us here.  The three County Legislatures, not the Chair she did not answer me, but the other three said they have no details, no details so the negotiations are going on.  The County Attorney has assured me that we won’t suffer any negative impact.  My response to all of them is “In God We Trust” the rest of you bring facts and figures so we know what is going on.

                I also gave you a hand out that I received today regarding the public hearing that is going to be held over at the Schenectady County Office Building on the 6th floor concerning central dispatch.

                Yesterday I attended the grand opening of the Jason Morris Judo Center and Councilman Quinn was there as well.  Jason is the Silver Medal Winner for the Olympics but he is also personally  involved in all of the international things.  What he is doing is this was a year late because he was coaching in the Olympics last year when he officially opened.  The Chamber sponsored it.  The First National Bank helped finance the opening of his business and provides financial services.  He has all kinds of volunteers that are helping to run the center.  He currently has about 80 students enrolled.

                He started out as an eight year old learning about judo by going to the Parkside YMCA.  His whole commitment is to train future national and international athletes and they had some in this past Olympics.

                We have a work session scheduled for next Wednesday, December 10th and a regular Town Board Meeting on the 17th.  We need to schedule a date for our Year-end meeting and our Organizational Meeting will be held on January 7th 2009.

                Supervisor Quinn moved ahead on the agenda with the resolutions.


Moved by:       Councilman Koetzle
Seconded by:    Councilwoman DiGiandomenico

                WHEREAS the Town of Glenville operates a Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; and

                WHEREAS the Town of Glenville is required by the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to prepare and adopt a written Annual Plan that establishes local policies for administration of the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program in accordance with regulations of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; and

                WHEREAS the Town Board of the Town of Glenville has caused a written Annual Plan for 2009 to be prepared establishing local policies for administration of the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program in accordance with regulations of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and has reviewed such written plan,

                NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Glenville hereby adopts the Annual Plan for 2009 for operation of the Town of Glenville Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program.

Ayes:   Councilman Koetzle, Councilwoman DiGiandomenico and Supervisor Quinn
Noes:           None
Absent: Councilman Quinn
Abstention:             Councilman Rosenberg

Motion Carried


Moved by:       Councilman Koetzle
Seconded by:    Councilman Rosenberg

                WHEREAS, there are twenty-five fire departments, seven police agencies and three emergency medical service agencies serving Schenectady County; and

                WHEREAS, the current decentralized dispatch system in Schenectady County includes five public service answering points located in the City of Schenectady, Glenville, Niskayuna and Rotterdam Police Departments and the State Police facility in the town of Princetown; and

                WHEREAS, the need for enhanced interagency cooperation and interoperability has increased within the emergency response systems; and

                WHEREAS, the County of Schenectady and its municipalities secured a New York State Shared Municipal Services Incentive Grant to explore the feasibility of establishing a centralized dispatch system; and

                WHEREAS, the feasibility study has been completed and recommends the centralizing of dispatch operations to improve public safety and increase effectiveness of response throughout Schenectady County; and

                WHEREAS, the feasibility study states that centralizing dispatch operations is expected to benefit the residents and taxpayers of Schenectady County; and

                WHEREAS, the County of Schenectady and its municipalities desire to implement the feasibility study recommendation to centralize dispatch operations; and

                WHEREAS, the New York State Department of State has issued a grant application entitled the Local Government Efficiency (LGE) Grant Program that may provide funding,

                NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town of Glenville, New York is authorized to participate with the County of Schenectady and the other County municipalities in the implementation of the feasibility study recommendations; and participate in the submission of application(s) to the New York State Department of State Local Government Efficiency Grant Program for the purposes of implementing centralized dispatch operations in the County of Schenectady; and

                BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town of Glenville, New York, affirms its commitment to continue participating in contract development negotiations for the establishment of centralized dispatch in the County of Schenectady; and

                BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town of Glenville, New York shall dedicate the staff resources necessary to participate in and assist in the work development of the grant application(s).

Ayes:   Councilmen Koetzle, Rosenberg, Councilwoman DiGiandomenico and Supervisor Quinn
Noes:           None
Absent: Councilman Quinn
Abstention:             None

Motion Carried

New Business:

                Councilman Koetzle – “I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the BH-BL football team and their coach what a great season you had.  You represented us well in Syracuse, we watched it on TV.  We are proud of you, good job!

                The zoning proposal that I put forward at the last meeting it’s been talked about here a little bit tonight.  There is some confusion about it.  I would like to have it on the work session for next week.  It’s making its way through all of the processes we are set for the 17th with a public hearing and maybe taking action that same night.”

                Councilman Rosenberg – “There will be an opening on Zoning Board of Appeals for 2009.  I think we should discuss this at our next work session.  I would also ask if there is anyone interested in this vacancy to contact our Administrator.

                As a result of some comments made tonight.  First and foremost I want to make it very clear the fact that I do not like Mr. Carlton, it has been a direct result of some comments and some finger pointing towards me at these meetings and my opinion of him does not reflect one iota on Mr. Dicresce.  It may mean that I don’t bring my cars to Salisbury Chevrolet anymore for service as I have in the past because he is representing them.

                I do have a couple of resolutions that I would like the Town Board to consider and this comes directly from some of the folks that have been identified as not wanting to participate in helping Mr. Dicresce so I will make a correction as to Mr. Carlton’s facts.  There are people other than one person in the town or two people that you might think and certainly not as democrat/republican.  I have been on this board for three years and not once in any of our deliberations has that ever been an issue as to whether someone is a registered democratic or republican.  We have all participated and cooperated.  I don’t know where you are getting your information from but it is wrong.  I don’t do business that way.

                I would like to pass out copies of the two proposals that I would like the town board to consider.

                One of my concerns is the proposal that is on the table and going through committees now and scheduled for a public hearing at our next meeting.  There are two flaws in that proposal I believe, one of them is it may open the door to other potential changes in people that we may not be necessarily looking to help, if nothing else if we are looking to help Mr. Dicresce relocate.  I don’t have a problem with him relocating, he was already there and if he moves to another spot if we can legally move him to another spot I don’t have a problem with that.

                Can we schedule a public hearing and if the board can come to a conclusion one of the three resolutions that are on the table at our next work session then we cancel the public hearings on the other two.”

                Attorney Dickson – “A public hearing is just a time for people to be heard on a particular proposal that may be useful with your determination.  You could certainly have all three on the same night if you wanted to.”

                Councilman Koetzle – “I would like to make a few comments because this is the very issue that I am talking about where there is miscommunication coming out or misunderstanding.  I would like Councilman Rosenberg to be specific about what potential ramifications and changes that you are talking about because the GECC had the same exact comment and they had the same exact concern until they actually read the resolution.  This is about as a tight of a proposal change that you can make and it will not have any ramifications that you are concerned about.  They all unanimously agreed after they understood that you have to be a non-conforming property to move to another non-conforming property after a conforming property wants to buy you out.”

                Councilman Rosenberg – “Okay, so we can start to clear up some of the communication problems that you may have shared with somebody else, I guess.”

                Councilman Koetzle – “I tried to share with you.”

                Councilman Rosenberg – “Are we clear that Enterprise Rental Car was a non-conforming use?”

                Councilman Koetzle – “This is what I said last time and I have said it over and over and over again that this board should not be focused on one issue.  My proposal is not looking to rectify one individual’s problem.  My proposal is looking to help small businesses, if this person is helped by it that’s wonderful, but what I have identified as a problem that this town has and I’m trying to fix that problem in a zoning process.  You are focused on one issue, I am focused on how can we help this from not happening again and if it helps this person great.  I would say that there is a very strong case, if you are asking specifically about this position that there is a non-conforming issue.”

                Councilman Rosenberg – “No, that is not what I meant.  My question was pretty specific.  Was this resolution and this is where I am concerned that we are going to go through this process and it isn’t going to help Mr. Dicresce so I don’t want him to hang his hat on something that may in the end not work.  So that is what I am asking if your intention is not specifically to try and accommodate an existing issue, that is what you are saying right?”

                Councilman Koetzle – “My resolution is not looking to rectify an individual situation but if that individual situation is rectified that’s wonderful.”

                Councilman Rosenberg – “Your resolution calls for being able to place or combine two non-conforming uses.”

                Councilman Koetzle – “Right”

                Councilman Rosenberg – “Do you have any idea whether or not the Enterprise…if in fact the Enterprise use of that lot was a non-conforming use?”

                Councilman Koetzle – “Yes”

                Councilman Rosenberg – “It was?”

                Councilman Koetzle – “There are opinions that certainly, in my latest conversation with the Town Administrator suggests that you know what on further review and looking at it quite detailed it may very well have been a non-conforming property, yes.”

                Attorney Dickson – “When we were talking about your proposal last time, Councilman Koetzle, I pointed out that the text of the local law does not confine the parcel that you are moving to be a non-conforming parcel.  I thought you wanted that change but the Town Clerk circulated the local law a couple of days ago and it still has not been changed.  The legislation has to be in final form 10 days before the public hearing so we are at the point now that if we want to make changes to your proposal we have got to do it within the next couple of days.”

                Councilman Koetzle – “Well I have been trying to get town staff together on their particular concerns and that has been problematic so maybe what we need to do, Tony, is make sure this is done tomorrow.”

                Mr. Germano – “In the absence of surety it is the building inspector that basically will make the ruling.  He has ruled that the property that Enterprise was operating from now owned by Mr. Dicresce, is a conforming lot, it is not non-conforming.  So in the absence of any other proof he would make that determination…

                Councilman Koetzle – “But the final determination is a judge.”

                Supervisor Quinn – “If it is challenged, yes.”

                Councilman Koetzle – “I think it is clear that there is going to be a challenge to that position.”

                Mr. Germano – “He did not make that determination just on hear-say.  He also talked to the Department of Motor Vehicles and he also talked to the past tenant and looked at past documents that Enterprise had to operate

                Councilman Koetzle – “We had a discussion where I pointed out in our zoning law that it clearly says any part of that parcel that is used for any of this activity would be considered non-conforming even though other parts of it are considered conforming.  You and I also talked about the fact that there’s been proof that there have been used car sales on parts of the property.”

                Mr. Germano – “I have not seen any proof…I have talked to the building inspector and he has information from the Department of Motor Vehicles as well as the special use permit disposition...

                Councilman Koetzle – “For the building only, we talked about the fact that the owner of that property was never informed that the company was going to seek that variance and it was changed under the owners nose without the owner knowing about it, which brought up problems from the attorney’s that I have talked to.  Your last comments to me and this is a quote “you very well may be right Chris” so that leads me to believe that we continue down this road.  Now to get at this point where the Town Attorney is advising us that we are at the stroke of midnight and no one has come back to me and said otherwise, the last comment that I had was “you very well may be right” and we are proceeding.”

                Mr. Germano – “But I changed your wording when you had asked this resolution to go to public hearing to make sure it conformed to what our building inspector knew it was and basically the wording was changed to go from non-conforming to another lot.  The net effect is the same in terms of what you are doing here.  You are taking an existing non-conforming and you are just relocating.  The net effect remains the same.”

                Councilman Koetzle – “I think the essence of my proposal and that change was made and caused confusion last time without my knowledge is that going from a non-conforming to a non-conforming is the benefit to the town.  Going from a non-conforming to a conforming…

                Mr. Germano – “You are still allowing a non-conforming use…

                Councilman Koetzle – “The net effect is you are not, the net effect is that you are just moving it to a conforming use.  I am taking two and moving into one, your proposal is you are taking one and moving it back into another one.”

                Mr. Germano – “But under both proposals one non-conforming goes away.”

                Councilman Koetzle – “But it just pops up somewhere, it’s like a weed it just pops up somewhere else.”

                Mr. Germano – “You only get one move for that one operation so the net effect is either proposal there is only one remaining non-conforming use.”

                Supervisor Quinn – “As part of the discussion obviously besides us including the Town Attorney it sounds like it has some legalese mixed in with the no matter what.  We have a work session on the 10th , there is a town board meeting on the 17th then there is no other regular town board meeting for any other action until the third Wednesday in January because the Organizational Meeting at the beginning of the year is set up by law to be an organizational meeting only.  We would want to sort this out ASAP, even if we have to get off line today, tomorrow or the next day so that we can meet the 10 day notice to get this resolved by the 17th.”

                Attorney Dickson – “This legislation has to be in the hands in final form 10 days before the public hearing and all I am doing is just warning you that if we have the public hearing, the laws in a particular status and some board member never fails to ask me can we just change it, the answer is no, we have to start all over again with another public hearing if you are going to make a substantiate change.”

                Councilman Koetzle – “If we have the public hearing on the 17th can we vote on the resolution on the 17th?”

                Attorney Dickson – “Sure you can but a resolution on what is it moving as it is written now any lot within the business district or is moving to only another non-conforming lot.”

                Councilwoman DiGiandomenico – “We really have an easier solution if we would all set back.  The master plan was approved in the year 2000 it is now nine years later, do we all need to sit down and look at that master plan again?  Is there reason that we can’t change that master plan?  It was changed in the year 2000.  Does it need to be changed again now?  The simplest solution is to look at it, decide whether we do want to change it and don’t have to go through this whole hassle of trying to find a solution to this problem.  I have been on board with changing the zoning which would require a majority of this board so that Mr. Dicresce can get back in business and helping the other gentleman that wants to expand his business.  I am for business in the Town of Glenville.  We are hurting ourselves right now with all of the publicity that we are getting.  If we want to reduce taxes, if we really want to reduce taxes the only way we are going to do that is to bring in businesses.  If that takes a majority of the board to look at the master plan and redo it, that’s the easy way of accomplishing this without trying to stand on our heads and re-invent the wheel.  We do have a process in place now we as a board need to sit down and do we really want to change things in Glenville or do we want to go on business and usual.  I am totally for change and I have been from the beginning.  I have been accused of grandstanding because I do want change.  I am not grandstanding; I am for the business person and businesses in Glenville.”

                Councilman Koetzle – “Mr. Supervisor I know Councilman Rosenberg said that there is two flaws with this and only identified one.  I think we have addressed that one and I don’t think it is an issue but the second one…

                Councilman Rosenberg – “I think the first resolution that I have put in front of you is a home run.  I don’t know…it would allow for used car sales in the airport zone and if we change the zoning on Mr. Dicresce’s parcel it would allow everything in the airport zone which includes used cars.”

                Councilman Koetzle – “I believe this one is flawed because I was in the building inspector’s office and I suggested this very thing three weeks ago and he shot it down for a variety of reasons.  I just want again to ask the second issue that you have with my resolution is what?”

                Councilman Rosenberg – “The second issue is I guess which would relate to actually a comment that Mr. Carlton also made.  Mr. Dicresce did not own the parcel that he moved from.  He had made a statement that Salisbury Chevrolet had a right to sell used cars there even though Enterprise had been opened for many years effectively canceling out the grandfather clause that should have remained with the property owner.  So I guess we are sort of mixing things because I have heard you say the same thing.  Are we talking about the business owner or the property owner?  The zoning goes with the property not the business.”

                Councilman Koetzle – “For two weeks I have been standing ready to answer any questions and I have gotten no calls from anybody.  The answer is the zoning goes to the property not the owner.  We are suggesting that the grandfather rights on that property move from one property to another.  The fact that the owner or the business owner is moving is inconsequential to the fact that we are moving the property from one parcel to another.  We are suggesting that the town will have now this ability to do a one time transfer from one parcel to another.”

                Councilman Rosenberg – “Who gets the one time the business owner or the property owner?”

                Councilman Koetzle – “The property…

                Councilwoman DiGiandomenico – “I think we should be discussing this at the work session and not here at this meeting right now and I would also like to point out that the other municipalities around us do not make one set of rules for new cars and one set of rules for used cars.  The two are combined in all municipalities.  Why we make a difference between new and used I don’t know but maybe we should look into that and conform to that.”

                Councilman Koetzle – “With respect however, I think we have heard it here tonight, this board has said let’s discuss this next week, let’s discuss this at our next session.  We are here, we have got proposals in front of us, and we have had time to look at them, maybe not yours Councilman Rosenberg.  I think we owe it to the public to have an open discussion on this and have a quite lengthy discussion because it is important.”

                Councilwoman DiGiandomenico – “You are right.”

                Councilman Koetzle – “There are some problems with this resolution Ed, have you thought about the can of worms that it is going to open.  As our building inspector pointed out to me that as soon as you move the line now we are abutting another property and what happens when that owner says guess what I want to be in this zone too.  What’s our recourse to say okay we did it for this person but we are not doing it for you?  What’s our defense when someone else in the town, anywhere else, is abutting a zoning area that they want to be moved into and they come to you and say and now I want to be moved into residential or I want to be moved into general business we have no defense.  We have to essentially make all of these changes anytime a resident wants us to.  So this one I think opens a can of worms that we don’t want to get to.”

                Attorney Dickson – “No, you make a case by case determination on each application.  You are never required to change the zoning; you do it if you think it is in the best interest of the community.”

                Councilman Koetzle – “Not required but as our council would you suggest that we would be opened to a legal challenge doing it for one case and not the other?”

                Attorney Dickson – “I wouldn’t think a legal challenge but you’re correct you might have a practical problem explaining it.  You always have to make hard decisions and in some cases you have to say no and in some cases you say yes.”

                Councilman Koetzle – “I think it jeopardizes the credibility of the board.”

                Supervisor Quinn – “Let me throw some parts to the discussion.  Given our fiduciary responsibility not to expose the town to litigation, we are all under that rule, on any of these resolutions the two that Councilman Rosenberg put forth and the one we already have for the 17th that Councilman Koetzle put forth.  As far as I am concerned until we have and we have one of them done right now, GECC has commented on Councilman Koetzle’s but not on these two.  We have got Planning and Zoning that needs to advise us since they are the subject matter experts, we have got maybe Zoning Board of Appeals to get their opinion, and we need the Planning Department pros and cons on all three of these.  We need the input from the code enforcement to say this helps or hinders anything else about code enforcement.  We also need the lawyers to look not only at these two but at the one that we have already started down the track.

                I would suggest that we do our do-diligence; we have at the work session exactly the one that is on the table that Councilman Koetzle introduced and if we want these two at the work session to have them there.  If we have scheduled a public hearing, we could if we so choose have a public hearing that night on one two…

                Attorney Dickson – “If you want to have a public hearing on all three of these proposals on the same night I suggest that you call for a public hearing presently for the 17th.”

                Supervisor Quinn – “Without Planning and Zoning, ZBA, Planning Department, Code Enforcement and lawyers cut on these yet alone the one we have in progress we shouldn’t be going anywhere.  I don’t care whether it takes time or not we owe it to the 28,300 residents not just anyone business or a group of businesses, we owe the 28,300 to do it right and I think we are all committed to doing it right but how do we do it right when we haven’t had the pros and the cons of the rest of it.  To change the zoning law without those inputs, to change the master plan without those inputs as far as I am concerned would mean we didn’t do the do-diligence that we should have done for the short as well as the long term implications.  I am not in favor, nor would I vote for it if it came to a vote it if it came to a vote tonight or any other night, of us moving the public hearing until we get the input on these two and then once we have our work session then if we need to say the 17th is just a public hearing.

                I don’t know how you are going to get all of the input that I am looking for and the two that Councilman Rosenberg put on the table at least prior to make the 10 days notice.”

                Attorney Dickson – “You can’t act on them until all of the other things have happened.  You could call for a public hearing and hold the public and your decision would await the input from the other committees.”

                Councilman Koetzle – “I would also suggest that my proposal and Councilman Rosenberg’s proposal are not mutually exclusive.  We can enact both of them because mine deals with a much broader issue and this one deals with a more specific zoning district change.  So both of them can move on parallel tracks as far as I am concerned, I don’t see them to be in competition with each other.”

                Councilman Rosenberg – “That was my intention, not to derail yours but to put forth something else that may actually, should your plan not come to fruition that there is something else going on that may help.”

                Councilman Koetzle – “I think in fairness to Councilman Rosenberg we move my proposal without having any input and I think it would make sense to have the public hearing on all of these issues at once.  I think we should put this up for a public hearing on the 17th.”

                Councilwoman DiGiandomenico – “I would like to propose a resolution that we go forward and try to change the zoning.  If we are going to have these other resolutions up for discussion I would also like to have a resolution saying that we take a look at the zoning again after nine years and do we want to go in that direction or not and have that as an option too.”

                Councilman Rosenberg – “Did you get a chance…this second resolution does address changing what is allowed in the general zoning business and if that is what you are looking for and that would allow used car dealerships in the general business zoning district in the entire town.”

                Councilwoman DiGiandomenico – “Okay, that’s great, I did not see that and I would like the two combined not to say you can sell new from one and used from the other.  I would like it to say new and used.”


Moved by:       Councilman Rosenberg
Seconded by:    Councilwoman DiGiandomenico

        WHEREAS, the Town of Glenville Town Board is proposing amendments to the Town of Glenville Zoning Ordinance relative to the zoning of 178 Freemans Bridge Road (tax map #30.10-3-3) and to the land uses permitted within the Airport zoning district; and  

        WHEREAS, this proposal includes a zoning map amendment that would change the zoning of 178 Freemans Bridge Road from General Business to Airport; and

        WHEREAS, this proposal also involves zoning text amendments, one of which would add Used Car Dealerships as a use permitted by conditional use permit and site plan review within the Airport zoning district and another involving the addition of a definition for the term “used car dealership;” and

        WHEREAS, the proposed text amendments constitute the addition of new provisions to the Town of Glenville Zoning Ordinance, as follows:

270-3.  Definitions.

Add:  USED CAR DEALERSHIP – Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of used or pre-owned cars where service and repairs are incidental to the use.  Any automobile dealership with more than 20% of the cars being used or pre-owned is considered a used car dealership.

270-24 AZ Airport Zoning District.

        Add:  C(4)  Used Car Dealerships
        Add:  D(3)  Used Car Dealerships

        NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Glenville Town Board hereby schedules a public hearing for Wednesday, December 17, 2008 at 7:30 p.m., or as shortly thereafter as possible, at the Town of Glenville Municipal Center, to consider the above-noted proposed revisions to the Town of Glenville Zoning Ordinance.

Ayes:   Councilmen Koetzle, Rosenberg, Councilwoman DiGiandomenico and Supervisor Quinn
Noes:           None
Absent: Councilman Quinn
Abstentions:            None

Motion Carried

                Supervisor Quinn – “Let me explain my vote.  The complexities of all three of these on the same night bring a sleeping bag.”


Moved by:       Councilman Rosenberg
Seconded by:    Councilman Koetzle

        WHEREAS, the Town of Glenville Town Board is proposing amendments to Section 270-3 (Definitions) and Section 270-19 (General Business District) of the Town of Glenville Zoning Ordinance; and  

        WHEREAS, said amendments include the addition of a definition of “Used Car Dealership” and the addition of used car dealerships as a use permitted by conditional use permit and site plan review within the General Business (GB) zoning district; and

        WHEREAS, the proposed amendments constitute the addition of two new provisions to the Town of Glenville Zoning Ordinance, as follows:

270-4.  Definitions.

Add:  USED CAR DEALERSHIP – Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of used or pre-owned cars where service and repairs are incidental to the use.  Any automobile dealership with more than 20% of the cars being used or pre-owned is considered a used car dealership.

270-19 GB General Business District.

        Add:  D(6)  Used Car Dealerships

        NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Glenville Town Board hereby schedules a public hearing for Wednesday, December 17, 2008 at 7:30 p.m., or as shortly thereafter as possible, at the Town of Glenville Municipal Center, to consider the above-noted proposed revisions to the Town of Glenville Zoning Ordinance.

Ayes:   Councilmen Koetzle, Rosenberg, Councilwoman DiGiandomenico and Supervisor Quinn
Noes:           None
Absent: Councilman Quinn
Abstentions:            None
Motion Carried

                The Town of Glenville Town Board Meeting was adjourned at 9:45 PM.


Linda C. Neals