Town of Glenville
18 Glenridge Road, Glenville, NY 12302
ph: 518-688-1200
fx: 518-384-0140
Town Board Meeting Minutes 9/3/2008

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

Absent: None

                Supervisor Quinn called the meeting to order at 7:30 PM; Councilman Rosenberg 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.

Town Council Reports:

                Councilman Rosenberg – “We learned this week that Lowe’s successfully purchased their land and the money was transferred to the seller.  They are going to be submitting their work plans shortly.

                In addition to site work they also plan to complete the build out of Freemans Bridge Road this construction season.  Pike Construction was awarded the bid from Lowe’s.

                I applaud our staff and all of the boards for being so pro-active in supporting and making the project reality.  There is already talk and some interest about some future commercial development behind Lowe’s project.  Maybe some more commercial tax base and maybe we can extend Lowe’s driveway out to Sunnyside that they had originally planned.

                In our Assessor’s Office we currently have a term expiring on our Board of Assessment Review.  We do have a communication out to that person whose term is expiring to see if they are interested in serving another term.  As always whenever we have an opening if anyone is interested or if anyone on the board knows of anyone who might be interested we will accept letters of interest and they could forward those to the Town Administrator or our Town Clerk.  That term expires September 30th.”

                Councilwoman DiGiandomenico – “Welcome Lowe’s.  I recall vividly when Rob Jess, Lowe’s representative, first came to one of our meetings and during Privilege of the Floor announced Lowe’s interest in locating in Glenville.  It was with great anticipation that the process was started and now come full circle to construction.  It took the collaboration of many individuals to bring this project to this stage.  I would like to thank some of those involved starting with Rob Jess and associates, Tony Germano our Town Administrator, the town’s planning, engineering, building and highway departments, our Planning and Zoning, Environmental Conservation Committee and Zoning Board of Appeals and the various State agencies such as DOT and Utility Company.

                This is just scratching the surface in an attempt to highlight some of the individuals involved, time and the hard work it takes to get a project of this magnitude to ground breaking.

                We look forward to working with Lowe’s and its grand opening.  May this also serve as an invitation to other developers and builders to locate their businesses in the Town of Glenville and become part of our economic development.


                Councilman Koetzle – “Engineering has been completed for the Woodcrest Sewer extension.  The town has requested bids for the nearly $300,000 job that will connect 19 users to the sewer.  The bids will be received later this month and then submitted to the board for approval.

                Work on the project should begin in October and completed within several weeks.

                On a related note, the Alplaus sewer project is plugging along and should be completed in mid to late October.

                The last time that we met I had reported and you made mention Mr. Supervisor of the energy purchase resolution that is being added to this agenda.  Tony and I met with Reliant Energy to review our energy purchasing practices and try to find ways that we could find savings.  Tony and George have been working with Reliant quite closely over the past few weeks.

                When we met with them we were paying 12½¢ per kilowatt hour, we were able to negotiate a rate of 9.9¢ per kilowatt hour for the next three years.  It doesn’t sound like a lot but when you factor in the Town Center, the Highway Garage, the Water and Sewer Plant we will be saving somewhere over $100,000 from our current per kilowatt hour rate which we all expect that energy is only going to go up so that savings will continue to grow over the next three years.

                I would urge you to vote yes on the resolution because it is going to save the town some money in the long run.”

                Councilman Quinn – “I have news from the Park Planning Commission.  The Glenville Rotary recently met with Jamie MacFarland, Parks Director at Indian Meadows Park to discuss park improvement update as well as future plans.  At the end of that meeting the club handed Jamie checks totaling $10,000 for our entrance improvements.  On behalf of the town I would like to thank the Glenville Rotary Club for their continued support of our parks.  We are also getting a sorely needed parking lot for a growing Pop-Warner Club thanks to the owner of Leader Trucking and Excavation, Dan Borecki; our only investment in this project is the $8,800 cost of materials.  We will be receiving approximately $10,000 worth of work at no cost.

                Once again I would like to extend a big thank you for such a wonderful contribution from Dan.

                Lastly, we have begun our snack bar at Indian Meadows across from the new playground.  It will be staffed on week ends with volunteers through October.  During this trial period we will be selling non-perishable snacks, beverages and candy.  We have already generated some modest income and raised the visibility of the snack bar.  Please contact Jamie MacFarland is you would like to volunteer.”

                Supervisor Quinn – “I think that project at Indian Meadows, the 10k plus the rest of it, is a classic of how the community came together.  The town came, the Rotary came, the construction outfit came and we are leveraging our community; wonderful, wonderful, opportunity instead of trying to do it all one way or the other.”

                Supervisor Quinn – “Item no. 5 on the agenda is a public hearing to consider a rezoning application by Bordeau Builders to change the zoning at 69 Saratoga Road, and 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 Dover Place from Mixed Use Planned Development to Residential Planned Development.”

                Supervisor Quinn opened the public hearing at 7:43 pm.

                Donald Zee, Attorney for Bordeau Builders – “As the notice indicates we are seeking a zone change from a mixed use planned development to a residential planned development.  Although there are several addresses sited in the notice, 5 single family homes which were part of the PUD (Planned Unit Development) have been built and what we are trying to change is the commercial portion.  The residential homes were built off of Dover Place which is in the rear of the parcel and the front is on Route 50, 417 feet and currently approved for the project, it has been approved for several years.  There was an approval for a 12,000 sq. ft. office building.  My client who is the owner and was the proponent of that project and he has been trying to market for the last five years, that commercial building and unfortunately has been unsuccessful in doing so.

                Bordeau Builders is a residential builder; he has recently completed a condominium project, actually two condominium projects in the Town of Milton.  We prepared a couple of these offering plans for him, we set forth all of the ground rules for a condominium project and he is also proposing another one that is going to come forward.

                What we are seeking is to build a condominium project which consists of two buildings, one being an 8 unit building and one being a 10 unit building plus some garages.  I don’t believe that there is a condominium project in the Town of Glenville today although the Town of Glenville has done very well with regards to multi-family housing such as the units in Highland Square, Shady Lane, Hampton Run, and the big project that has been recently approved behind Trustco.  I don’t believe they have a for sale unit which is running from 1,000 to 1,100 square feet that we are proposing; two bedrooms and we have some garages which would also be part of the project if approved.

                I am pretty familiar with the market and the need for condominium projects such as this and from a demographic stand point if I may just pass out a little bit of information dealing with the census of the Town of Glenville.  Glenville is like many other communities in Upstate New York.  The first sheet that I passed out points out that a good percentage of the population of the Town of Glenville has now become senior citizens.  Senior citizens are defined as those 55 years of age or older and people in that group now have a desire often to have smaller homes, sell their larger homes and buy down.  They also want maintenance free living and in fact this is the type of housing that we are proposing is maintenance free living, maintenance being not only the lawn care and snow removal but maintenance of the exterior of the building.  We find in Glenville well over 30% of the population is over the age of 55 and there is the need, but at the same time we find that people who are age 55 and older are the ones that gravitate towards these condominium projects.  This was witnessed in Cambridge Manor, I think if you go to Cambridge Manor those in the Scotia-Glenville School District, I think out of the 196 units I think there are less then 10 school age children in that development.  So you have a great tax base for the school district but very little impact to the school system and we believe that will be comparable as well here.

                You can see in the handouts there is a very low vacancy rate for homeownership, 1.4% that is very low which means that there is not a lot of excess residential housing units available in the Town and from a rental rate it is 4% which is also very low.

                We also note that a lot of your structures, 85.1% of your housing stock back in the year 2000 were over 20 years of age.  It does not mean that the housing stock is poor but it means that your housing stock may not be accessible or handicap adaptable for seniors.  All of these first floor units will have to be handicap accessible and handicap adaptable.  The majority of buyers would be seniors or first time home buyers.  We believe most of them would be from this area originally.  Seniors have a desire to relocate into an area that they are familiar with and there is a lot of single family detached housing in the area and we believe that those people tend to sell their homes and move into a community like this.

                So, that’s from a demographic standpoint of why this is a good housing fit for the community.  In going through the recommendation from the town’s Planning and Zoning Board, they in fact unanimously recommended this project but they didn’t do it on first blush.  They wanted to in fact have my client come forward with more detail designs and the layouts.  Initially the site plan for the office building was one big building; my client initially came forward with a plan for a big box building comparable to what we had presented in regard to the office building.  The Planning Board told us we don’t like that building; we understand that we would have to come back for a site-plan review if the Town Board would agree to the rezone, however let’s work with the developer right now and talk about a better layout.  Some of the concerns that they had raised were the impacts of the buildings on the adjoining residential units.  We had eliminated actually two story buildings from being able to over look the existing residence and what we did was put in garages and those garages are going to be one-story; we have various group lines on it which the Planning Board liked and these garages will be one story, so they would be a nice buffer from a visual standpoint and then we talked about placing the larger 10-unit building and the 8 unit-building.  The way the building is laid out and the width of the building it’s smaller in width then single family homes so as one travels along Route 50 you won’t see a big massive structure on the frontage but rather the side of the building which would be landscaped but also creating a look that is pleasing.

                The Planning Board liked this type of housing, they liked the design and we also showed them the floor plans.  These are all two bedroom units and we are also proposing that the base price of these units start at $170,000.

                With regard to the rezone, if this board were to consider it obviously we could incorporate these documents as exhibits, the site plan that we have shown, the Planning Board desires that would be referenced in any legislation that the board would adopt as well as the look of the building.

                With regards to the operations of the condominiums during the site-plan review process or if this board has certain specific requirements we can always incorporate them in the declaration or conveyance with regard to the operation of the condominium.

                With regard to the environmental impact one of the major concerns always with development along Route 50 is traffic impacts.  We believe that the traffic impacts from eighteen condominium units would be substantially less than a 12,000 sq. ft. office building where travel would be during peek hours, coming to the office in the morning or people leaving during the peek travel times where as in condominiums they do not necessarily travel during peek time.  We do not believe that 18 condominium units with 2 bedrooms would have any adverse impact and would in fact be a lesser impact than the commercial use.”

                Councilman Quinn – “If I am seeing your designs correctly you did indicate that the garages would be a nice buffer to the buildings but I seem to have recalled a tree buffer on three sides that were going to provide an additional buffer to those.”

                Mr. Zee – “Absolutely.”

                Councilman Quinn – “They will be at least the height of the garage is that what you are envisioning?”

                Mr. Zee – “Yes, I would think that normally the Town Planning Department during site-plan review would talk about landscaping around the buildings and they would talk about the size of various trees.  With trees that are leafy trees they talk about the number of inches around and we understand why the Planning Board would want to protect neighbors and that’s why in fact they asked us to go back to the drawing board and present different layouts.”

                Councilman Quinn – “I only ask because ascetically speaking obviously the garages might be more desirable than the building but the tree buffer is optimum.”

                Councilman Koetzle – “Why not continue with single family homes?”

                Mr. Zee – “One, we think single family homes would be not marketable.  You are on Route 50, I think from the investment that my client has made in the project already and I think as I said there is a much greater need in the community because you do have a lot of single family developments that have come forward but I don’t think you have any condominiums projects.  Unlike Hampton Run, which had come forward to the town, anticipated being a condominium project, remember you could always incorporate in your PUD that this project would have to be developed as a condominium project rather than as an apartment project.  You could incorporate that as part of a restriction.”

                Councilman Koetzle – “I appreciate the data in your presentation.  I am a little concerned and I have been troubled for some time over multi-family homes; the rate of proposals that the town is seeing.

                I am a little concerned that we are hearing a lot of assumptions.  We are hearing; one would think it is not marketable; one would think this is marketable; I have a different view of the very same data that you presented.  I think that it is general and it does a good job of giving us some ideas of some basic trends that may be happening but it doesn’t really tell us what the demand for these types of home are and what they may be in the future and it doesn’t really tell us what the demand for single family homes are and what they may be in the future, so I am a little concerned about that.”

                Mr. Zee – “I do have the benefit of handling 50 different condominium projects of which I have done 10 condominium plans this year, 10 condominium plans last year plus I have anticipated another 15 to do in the next two years.  To say there is no demand for condominiums – I easily say there is demand for condominiums.  The place that I would think that you wouldn’t have wanted nor needed any condominiums is further west of Glenville in Fulton/Montgomery Counties.  I am involved in a condominium project in the Town of Amsterdam and that project proposed 56 units and in the first year that it was proposed it constituted 11% of all of the sales of homes in the entire county and here is a community that is set aside, which doesn’t have a new home sale really going on and we have a condominium community being proposed there.  I have another project in the town of Guilderland, right next to the Altamont Fairgrounds.  They are eight unit buildings and this past week end the owner was in my office as well as the realtor (two separate occasions) they had 36 people interested and they had received eleven lot holes in the course of 10 days.  They are telling me that we are going to have twenty contracts in just less than two months for just that condominium project.

                So, from a prospective of condominiums and a need for that I would believe that there is a lot of information out there showing that condominiums are in fact one of the biggest areas that are growing in the Capital District.  I am talking about suburban areas and part of the reason why this project would be desirable is because of it’s proximity to the Town Building Center as well as to the shopping center right at the corner of Glenridge and Route 50, it’s only a certain distance as well as to your other commercial district which is Lowe’s as well as Walmart.”

                Councilman Koetzle – “I understand and I respect your experience in building condominiums, that’s your business and you are here to meet the demand that you believe is here.  

                Our responsibility is to just insure that what we are doing is not getting the community into a position that we are going to have an overstock of housing that may not be marketable in the future and that is my concern and not just this project but because there are many other projects in the pipeline.

                You talked about the fact that single families have a bigger burden on the school district and that condominiums have such a big demand.  You presented data that shows that over the next 30 years the market that you say is in demand for these homes is basically going to be stagnant, there will be no growth in that market from 2010 to 2040 if you look at it the percentages change in each group but basically it is the same percentage.  Now we have residents in many homes right now that are ranches for example, single floor ranches, if you look around Glenville we have a lot of single floor ranches that senior’s live in.  What is going to happen to the value of these home do you think when we start building all of these other new condominiums, not just this project this is a bigger question, all of the other ones that are going up and all of the other ones that are being planned, what is going to happen to the existing stock and the home values of those seniors that are in those homes right now?  If you are telling me that the demand for these is going to be stagnant for thirty years I am afraid it is going to drop.”

                Mr. Zee – “I don’t think I said that the demand was going to drop for these houses, in fact it is going to increase because… I remember when I first wanted to buy a home in the capital district, I was thirty years old and I went out and bought a home and it cost a $100,000, which was a lot.  I defy you today to go and buy a well maintained single family home with three bedrooms, one and a half baths in the Town of Glenville for $100,000; it’s not going to happen.  Even if you go to $150,000 I don’t think it is going to happen.  We have had these units priced at a price point that is really below what the square footage amounts are in the capital district and I think condominiums as a general rule on a square footage standpoint and a cost per square foot offer more.”

                Councilman Koetzle – “I am not disputing that you have a demand today, right now for these homes.  I am not begrudging you that, that’s your business, that’s your right and that’s what you need to do, is meet the market.  I am concerned about how many are in the pipeline; what’s it going to do to our existing stock in the future as we look at our demographics and we conceited that it’s going to stay the same and you say you look around the country my concern is when you look at the housing cost what led that was the over building of condominiums in the very communities that you are pointing to.  If you look at Florida, if you look at Las Vegas, if you look at Phoenix these are all places that were growing and everyone said that there is a demand for these condominiums and there was no doubt that there was a demand but they lost their value quickly.

                Do we have a percentage of these condominiums that end up as rentals; do we have any data on that over time?  They start out as purchased but how many of these end up as rentals?”

                Mr. Zee – “I want to qualify my statement because in the Town of Milton, we had some rentals where children purchased one and rented it to their parents.  In that development I do not believe that there are any rental units out of the 68 units in this project in the Town of Milton.  With regard to the Rollins Corner where we have 4 units left out of 56 there are no rental units there.  With regards to Cambridge Manor I believe there are some rental units in that development but I believe it is fewer than 10%.”

                Councilman Koetzle – “Just one more question and I thank you for your patients and indulgence both to the board and our speakers.  Have we done an analysis on the difference in property tax revenue to both the school district and the town comparing your first project of office building and single family homes there and this one.  Is there a net loss or gain to either the municipality or the school district?”

                Mr. Zee – “I would believe that first it’s hard to do a comparison with regard to the office buildings since they have been marketed for five years and we have generated no tax revenue but for vacant land value.  With regard to single family homes that would be built in this area you can’t build a single family home for less than $350,000 but I would tend to believe that as a general rule when you have single family homes you are talking about requiring certain services like school services and that as a general rule a single family home with at least one or two children they do not pay their way by way of school taxes.  Where as in a project like this where we are proposing the condominium everything is going to be owned and maintained by the association.  Snow removal is going to be a cost by the homeowners share and we believe in a community of 18 units that if you have two school age children that will be a lot in this development when you have two bedrooms and I would think that the school taxes that are generated by the 18 units would be a benefit to the school district rather than a drain on the school system itself.”

                Councilman Rosenberg – “You had said that the original office building was 12,000 sq. ft. that was approved, was that a two story building?”

                Mr. Zee – “Yes it was.”

                Councilman Rosenberg – “Was that a 6,000 sq. ft. foot print?”

                Mr. Zee – “Yes”

                Councilman Rosenberg – “What is the foot print on the proposal that is before us today?”

                Mr. Zee – “Actually it is 13,200 sq. ft. because it was 6,673 sq. ft. foot print of the office building.”

                Councilman Rosenberg – “What is the total foot print of the build out?”

                Mr. Bordeau – “Under 10,000.”

                Councilman Rosenberg – “Under 10,000 so it is approximately a 50% increase of what was approved before.

                Mr. Zee – “Excuse me it is 18,000 sq. ft. total.”

                Councilman Rosenberg – “So we have almost doubled the square footage.

                Are you going to require, as part of that, any variances as far as green space based on the proposal for square footage?

                (The Town Planner responded but the microphone did not pick up his response.)

                Councilman Rosenberg – “They should be okay to build what they have with the amount of property that they have.

                I think that I could support a project like this if there were a couple of restrictions attached; one of them being that the units couldn’t be rented down the road and the second thing is that we could get reassurances as part of the approval that there wouldn’t be any more than 2 bedroom units put in.”

                Mr. Zee – “That is what we are proposing, 2 bedroom units.”

                Councilman Rosenberg – “There are a couple of flaws pro and con to what you are saying; one of the things is you have to assume that the majority of the people that are going to be buying these condominiums probably won’t have children, I would agree, but they probably will be coming from the community in larger houses which will be sold to younger families with children so there will be an extra burden on the school district, not at your project but probably spread throughout the town.  I think that is what is going to happen, I actually sell real-estate and I have done it for a long time and I think that is what you will see.  The empty nester may want to move from their 3 bedroom colonial into the condominium but then a family is going to move into that colonial.  On the other stand point I think there are some issues as far as being able to save some tax dollars.  This particular unit is not going to have any public roads so the town won’t realize any additional servicing.  Is there going to be a drainage district, will there be anything that the town will have to maintain?”

                Mr. Zee – “We would propose that any storm water management system be maintained by the condominium association and that the board would submit an offering to the Attorney General’s Office that the budget and the language of the condominium offering plan be reviewed by your town engineers and your legal department.  Make sure that what we say with regards to the money set aside for the maintenance both short term and long term are set forth in the offering plan as well as the language with regard to any restrictions that the Town Board would want as well as the Planning Board would be incorporated into the documents.”

                Councilman Rosenberg – “Was there any thought given the fact that this was approved commercial entity, was there any thought of trying to mix commercial and residential and maybe trying to have small store out front and condominiums in the rear?”

                Mr. Bordeau – “The whole problem on commercial use is the parking.  There was I believe 34 spaces and anybody that looked at it for that use needed double the space.”

                Councilman Rosenberg – “I am not talking about your original project; I am talking about a hybrid of your original project and your new project.”

                Mr. Bordeau – “It would be a problem because of the parking.  Once you go into that commercial use you need those extra parking spots.  Even though it meets all of the town’s zoning requirements for parking a buyer is looking…”

                Councilwoman DiGiandomenico – “The only question I really had or concern is this is going to be senior housing targeted I’m not very… when you have the garages separated and they are not part of the condominium itself I don’t like the looks of the project.  It looks like an apartment building with parking.  I would like the condominium to look more like a house which includes the garage as part of the project.  This to me looks like apartments more so than condominiums.”

                Mr. Bordeau – “As you can see the book print of the building is huge and they become bigger than our original building that we have there (Mr. Belmonte did not come up to the microphone)…could not pick up his comments.

                Mr. Zee – “When you have the garages and you have a second story you are going to take the benefit of having the space over the garage and then you are going to have the better likelihood of 3 bedroom units which then increases the likelihood for school age children.”

                Councilwoman DiGiandomenico – “I’m sure that you can develop a plan that includes the garage as part of the building without increasing the foot print that much.  If you add in your foot print for the garage as you have now their still taking up that space.  I also come from a building family and do know that you can configure your plans to meet those specifications.  That’s all that I am asking for.”

                Mr. Zee – “I understand and I think that would increase the value and the cost of the units by adding garages.  What we were trying to do with the mix that we had proposed earlier was address some of the concerns raised by the Planning Board with regard to the layout and the configuration as it relates to some of the homes on the existing street.

                If this Board were to direct us and say hold it we want exclusively units with attached garages we would obviously go back to the drawing board but it would change the location of the buildings and would potentially create a situation where we would have two story units overlooking the rear of existing homes which is what the Planning Board specifically asked us to avoid from happening.  They also wanted us to have smaller buildings on the site rather than the larger buildings just because of the look from Route 50 so we drew up this plan in response to the comments raised by the Planning Board.”

                No one else wished to speak; Supervisor Quinn closed the public hearing at 8:30 PM.

                No one exercised the privilege of the floor.

Supervisor’s Comments:

                Supervisor Quinn shared the following information:

                I would like to thank the Town Attorney, Eric Dickson, for his work on the Lowe’s Project.

                We have the Shared Municipal Service Grant, you all received a handout on it, so we can move this $570,000 project along I encourage all of you to vote for that.

                We as a Board have got to come to closure and get some dates of when you are available for budget meetings.  I have got to put forward the Tentative Budget for 2009 by September 30th, so you don’t want me without you having some input in that process.  We have got to schedule some work sessions where we can hear from our department heads and I have got to have some time after that as well as our Comptroller so we can put it all together.

                We need to schedule two meetings within the next two weeks.

                Supervisor Quinn continued with the agenda items.


Moved by:       Councilman Rosenberg
Seconded by:    Councilwoman DiGiandomenico

                WHEREAS, the Town of Glenville is proposing a number of revisions to the Town of Glenville Zoning Ordinance, most of which are minor; and

                WHEREAS, these zoning amendments constitute an “Unlisted Action” in accordance with 6 NYCRR Part 617 (State Environmental Quality Review Act {SEQRA}); and  

                WHEREAS, the Glenville Town Board has assumed SEQRA Lead Agency in this instance; and   

                WHEREAS, the Glenville Environmental Conservation Commission finds no significant adverse environmental impact associated with these proposed zoning amendments and recommends that the Board issue a SEQRA “Negative Declaration;”

                NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Glenville Town Board hereby determines that the proposed amendments to the Town of Glenville Zoning Ordinance will not result in a significant adverse environmental impact; and  

                BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Glenville Town Board hereby issues a SEQRA “Negative Declaration” (attached) for this application, based on the following findings:

·       This action involves relatively minor zoning text amendments.  There will be no physical alteration to the landscape as a result of this action.
·       This action will not adversely impact air quality, ground water, surface water, or any other natural resource.
·       This action will not create a material conflict with the Town of Glenville Comprehensive Plan or Zoning Ordinance.  On the contrary, this action results in the clarification of certain regulations and definitions as well as the elimination of conflicts between our Zoning Ordinance and other regulations, most notably the New York State Building Code relative to home occupations.
·       This action will not impair any important historical, archeological, architectural, or aesthetic resources.

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

Motion Carried


Moved by:       Councilman Rosenberg
Seconded by:    Councilwoman DiGiandomenico

                WHEREAS, the Town of Glenville is proposing a number of revisions to the Town of Glenville Zoning Ordinance, most of which are minor in nature; and

                WHEREAS, said proposed amendments (attached) address the following topics: 1) Accessory uses and structures; 2) Home occupations; 3) Expiration of site plan approvals; and 4) Definitions; and

                WHEREAS, the primary purpose of these zoning amendments is to better define terms, eliminate conflicts with other regulations and clarify certain provisions; and

                WHEREAS, the Glenville Town Board, as SEQRA Lead Agency, has issued a SEQRA “Negative Declaration” for this action; and

                WHEREAS, pursuant to New York State Town Law and the Town of Glenville Zoning Ordinance, the Glenville Town Board held a public hearing on these amendments on August 20, 2008;

                NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Glenville adopts Local Law No. 4 of 2008, a local law to amend the Code of the Town of Glenville, Chapter 270, Zoning; and

                BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that approval of the zoning ordinance amendments is based on the following findings:

·       The amendments being approved are minor, with the primary purpose being to eliminate conflicting provisions, clarify certain regulations and better define certain terms.
·       The amendments do not conflict with the Town of Glenville Comprehensive Plan, Town Center Plan, Freemans Bridge Road Master Plan or any other adopted planning-related policy or land use regulations.
·       Given the relatively minor nature of the zoning amendments, the adoption of these amendments will not negatively impact land values, nor will they result in incompatible neighboring land uses.

·       The proposed amendments will not adversely impact any particular neighborhood’s character.

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

Motion Carried


Moved by:       Councilman Koetzle
Seconded by:    Councilman Quinn

                WHEREAS, the Town of Glenville and co-applicants Town of Clifton Park and the Niskayuna Glencliff School were recently awarded a $579,600 grant in connection with the Alplaus Sewer project (NYS Contract # C-078817), and

                WHEREAS, the Town of Glenville has authorized a capital project that will require the Town to contribute more than the $64,400 required match to allow the project total cost to exceed $644,000,

                NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Board of Glenville authorizes the Town Supervisor to sign and accept the grant agreement and the required Intermunicipal agreement with the co-applicants.

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

Motion Carried


Moved by:       Councilman Koetzle
Seconded by:    Councilman Quinn

                WHEREAS, the Town Board has been considering the purchase of electricity at a fixed price over a multi-year term, and

                WHEREAS, competitive bids have been solicited, received and analyzed by the Town Administrator and the Town Comptroller who have recommended the acceptance of a proposal from Reliant Energy Solutions Northeast, LLC.

                NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor be and hereby is authorized to enter into an “Electricity Sales Agreement” with Reliant Energy Solutions Northeast, LLC, 1000 Main Street, Houston, Texas, 77002, for the purchase of electricity at the contract price of $.09995 per kilowatt-hour for a term beginning October 1, 2008 and ending September 30, 2011.

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

Motion Carried

Town Administrator’s Report:

                Tony Germano – “On the personnel front I think you all know that Jill Walsh accepted a transfer to the Comptroller’s Office.  She is now actively engaged in that and Amanda Galvan has moved from the Engineering Department to the Building Department and that has been a good transition as well.  We are now looking at options for the backfill of Amanda’s position to take care of Engineering and also to back up the Water Department.

                We also did some re-organization in those departments to allow for better access to the counter and better service to customers.

                Before we take the next step with respect to back filling Amanda’s position we would of course come to the Town Board to seek approval.

                The Highway Commissioner and I met with Dave Mosher from the County Farm a few weeks ago to talk about some innovated ideas relative to leave pick up and bulk item pick up.  We don’t have anything yet to present to the Board.  I hope that at our upcoming work shop meeting maybe we could get Mr. Mosher to attend and we could talk about some opportunities that exist for us to partner with the County Farm.  Maybe find better ways for us to pick up leaves and to also have bulk items brought to their facility.  We have talked about that facility many times.  It is a marvelous facility it’s very convenient to a lot of people in town and they are looking for business and we have business to offer them.  So we are looking at creative ways that we could partner.

                Commissioner LeClair and I also met with Belmonte Builders and as you all know this was a project that the excavation was started off of Swaggertown Road for 66 homes and 23 twin homes and that project was about to be sold to another developer and unfortunately that deal did not get consummated so Belmonte still has that project and of course the interest in that project is the extension of sewer for some fifty or so residents that would benefit once that sewer line is put in for his development.

                We met with him to find out pretty much where things stand.  He is right now obtaining funding and plans to move forward with the project.  He left us very comforting during our meeting that he is doing everything that he can to hopefully get the sewer installed by this year.

                Even though there has been some inactivity on this site we have been assured by him that he is moving as quickly as he can to put a funding proposal in place and go ahead and start the build out.”

                (Budget work shop meetings were set up for Wednesday, September 10th at 8:00 am and Friday, September 12th at 1:00 pm.)

New Business

                Councilman Rosenberg – “In regards to the public hearing that we had for Bordeau Builders.  Normally when these things come through they are not as big a deal and not opened to that much discussion from the board.  We have a public hearing, we hear what they had to say and at the next meeting we come to vote on it.

                This I think we need to talk about before we get to that vote.  I think that should be on our work session agenda.  We may want some restrictions on the project before it is approved.”

                Attorney Dickson – “ The Board can put restrictions in the resolution.”

                Councilman Rosenberg – “It is a very hard pill to swallow, the fact that we have mandatory increases in our spending because of contract agreements and insurance costs and things that we have no control over.  We as a board try to keep our tax increase at a certain level but there are a couple large items on our agenda that in my mind, I am thinking about not voting for them because of the overall increase.  Maybe as a board we should consider anyway the fact that, for instance our console it’s going to be an increase but maybe it is necessary and it really shouldn’t be considered in our overall increase and when we tell the public 11this is going to be your tax increase next year but this much of it is because of an expenditure.  Maybe it is trucks or maybe we had to have a bond for roads.  But maybe the thought process has to change a little bit.

                There is no way that we can keep our spending down with out getting rid of people.  It is going to be impossible.  I know myself this is going to be my third year facing this do we keep putting off the major expenditures and we just keep putting it off and it has been done by previous boards.  At some point it is really going to come back to bite us all.  Maybe we just need to bite the bullet and say okay we really wanted to do a 3½% increase but it is going to be 7% this year and 3½of that is because of these projects that needed to be done and we had no choice.

                I know where I want to be next year but I don’t know how we could possibly be there with the amount of staff that we have.”

                Motion to adjourn was moved by Councilman Rosenberg; Seconded by Councilwoman DiGiandomenico.

                The Town of Glenville Town Board Meeting was adjourned at 9:00 PM.


Linda C. Neals
Town Clerk