Private Profit or Public Purpose? (Part 4 of a series)

Save Colonie: A Partnership for Planning has been working for five years to increase transparency and government accountability to residents of Colonie. Our town is now faced with arguably the most consequential decision in a generation, but little information has been provided to the residents. When asked directly, the town board and supervisor have not responded. We deserve better. 

The purpose of this blog is to provide information we’ve obtained and raise questions for our officials to answer publicly. We believe this process is necessary before a wise decision can be made about selling Stony Creek Reservoir or any other valuable town asset. Here is the fourth article:

Article IV: Private Profit or Public Purpose?

The water expert SAVE consulted looked over the DEC’s Stony Creek Reservoir Water Quality Report from 2015, and said, “I see no problem with the water quality. Why would our Town officials, looking down the barrel of unknown development demands and unpredictable impacts of global climate change, even consider selling off an asset such as a viable water resource? Most would say it’s unthinkable.

Let’s assume for the moment that the costs to use the reservoir as an emergency water source are for some reason too high, higher even than the cost of using the Albany Colonie Interconnect in an emergency ($50 to 70K per day, not counting all the expenses to connect, so far, according to the Town). 

This is a large area of open space, in a rapidly developing region. The water resource and recreational demands here are only growing. People want to be able to recreate outdoors, as we have seen through this COVID crisis. News of the reservoir’s sale has created  a lot of interest in Clifton Park and among environmentalists and outdoor enthusiasts. Demand for more publicly available open space is strong.

If it is determined that the Stony Creek Reservoir is no longer a viable raw water source for the Latham Water District, and that has yet to be determined, surely far sighted individuals working together can craft a way to preserve the reservoir for potential future use while achieving some public recreational opportunities there, as well.

Learn more about the Stony Creek reservoir and the town’s proposal to sell it on our webpage.

SAVE Colonie is not opposed per se to the sale of our Stony Creek Reservoir. But without the complete answers to these and other questions, and the data to back them up, it is not possible for residents or for the Town Board to make an informed and rational decision. Sale of a raw water source in a time of climate crisis and development growth in Colonie should be given the highest level of scrutiny - especially when the administration pushing the sale is about to leave town for good.

Colonie’s Stony Creek Reservoir: Resource or Liability? Or Money in the Bank? (Part 3 of a series)

Save Colonie: A Partnership for Planning has been working for five years to increase transparency and government accountability to residents of Colonie. Our town is now faced with arguably the most consequential decision in a generation, but little information has been provided to the residents. When asked directly, the town board and supervisor have not responded. We deserve better. 

The purpose of this blog is to provide information we’ve obtained and raise questions for our officials to answer publicly. We believe this process is necessary before a wise decision can be made about selling Stony Creek Reservoir or any other valuable town asset. Here is the third article:

ARTICLE III:  Selling Stony Creek

First in 2009 (for $9 Million), and again starting in 2020, the Mahan administration has attempted to sell off the Stony Creek Reservoir. Formerly considered a regular raw water source permitted for 5 MGD, it has recently been downgraded by LWD’s language to an “emergency” water source, to an “obsolete” and “run down” asset to be sold off -  Stony Creek is now on the block for a minimum of $5 M. Acquired and created for more than $17 M in today’s dollars, Stony Creek is no longer considered by the Mahan administration to be useful to Colonie. But is this really true?

1. Is there a problem with the water quality of Stony Creek water? More so than the Mohawk? Where is water quality data on our raw water sources?

2. What is the actual annual cost of maintaining the Stony Creek Reservoir? How much per 5 MGD?

3. In 2017, Colonie spent more than $350,000 on repairs for this reservoir. In what way is this reservoir “run down?”

4. How has this valuable town asset become so degraded that it can no longer be used? How much would it cost to render Stony Creek viable once more?

5. How did the Mahan administration arrive at these wildly disparate sales prices for Stony Creek? One assessment? The Comptroller states that best practices Shouldn’t they obtain multiple valuations for such an asset?

Learn more about the Stony Creek reservoir and the town’s proposal to sell it on our webpage.

SAVE Colonie is not opposed per se to the sale of our Stony Creek Reservoir. But without the complete answers to these and other questions, and the data to back them up, it is not possible for residents or for the Town Board to make an informed and rational decision. Sale of a raw water source in a time of climate crisis and development growth in Colonie should be given the highest level of scrutiny - especially when the administration pushing the sale is about to leave town for good.

Colonie’s Stony Creek Reservoir: Resource or Liability? Or Money in the Bank? (Part 2 of a series)

Save Colonie: A Partnership for Planning has been working for five years to increase transparency and government accountability to residents of Colonie. Our town is now faced with arguably the most consequential decision in a generation, but little information has been provided to the residents. When asked directly, the town board and supervisor have not responded. We deserve better. 

The purpose of this blog is to provide information we’ve obtained and raise questions for our officials to answer publicly. We believe this process is necessary before a wise decision can be made about selling Stony Creek Reservoir or any other valuable town asset. Here is the second article:

ARTICLE II: The Interconnect Agreement

Recently, with little discussion or fanfare, Colonie entered into a 10 year Albany-Colonie Interconnect Agreement* (the Interconnect Agreement)(posted here) to share treated water with the City of Albany. Albany’s excellent and plentiful water comes from rural protected reservoirs. Demand for Albany’s water has gone down as the city’s population has decreased. Colonie has reportedly spent millions to connect with Albany’s water system, and is now permitted to withdraw up to a maximum of 13.2 MGD. 

However, Albany’s water is not free to us. There is a complex cost formula and limits to how much Colonie can withdraw - Albany’s needs come first, and despite Colonie’s investment of millions so far, Albany can cancel this agreement at any time. 

1. How much would it cost if Colonie withdrew the permitted amount of 13.2 MGD for one day? For one week? For one year, as a total replacement for Stony Creek?

2. How much have the Town of Colonie and the Latham Water District (LWD) ratepayers spent to date on the Interconnect Project?

3. What are the LWD’s ongoing financial obligations to maintain the Interconnect infrastructure?

Learn more about the Stony Creek reservoir and the town’s proposal to sell it on our webpage.

SAVE Colonie is not opposed per se to the sale of our Stony Creek Reservoir. But without the complete answers to these and other questions, and the data to back them up, it is not possible for residents or for the Town Board to make an informed and rational decision. Sale of a raw water source in a time of climate crisis and development growth in Colonie should be given the highest level of scrutiny - especially when the administration pushing the sale is about to leave town for good.

Colonie’s Stony Creek Reservoir: Resource or Liability? Or Money in the Bank? (Part 1 of a series)

Save Colonie: A Partnership for Planning has been working for five years to increase transparency and government accountability to residents of Colonie. Our town is now faced with arguably the most consequential decision in a generation, but little information has been provided to residents. When asked directly, the town board and supervisor have not responded. We deserve better. 

The purpose of this blog is to provide information we’ve obtained and raise questions for our officials to answer publicly. We believe this process is necessary before a wise decision can be made about selling Stony Creek Reservoir or any other valuable town asset. Here is the first article:

ARTICLE 1:  Where your water comes from.

Colonie’s Latham Water District owns a raw water source in the Town of Clifton Park, the Stony Creek Reservoir.  (It’s not unusual for a town to own property in another place: New York City’s reservoirs are in the Catskills and there are 20 municipally owned reservoirs in the Capital Region.) Until recently, Stony Creek was permitted to supply 5 million gallons per day (MGD) of water to Colonie. Mohawk River is permitted for 30+ MGD, and the well fields along the Mohawk are permitted for approximately 5 MGD. Unless you live in Menands, like some of our town officials, you are drinking Mohawk River water, treated to neutralize e coli and other dangerous pollutants. That’s chlorine you taste, to kill fecal bacteria.

1. What problems have there been with using the Mohawk as our primary water source?

• Chemical discharges?

• Knolls Atomic Power lab discharges?

• Upstream Sewage Overflows?

• Direct sewage discharges?

• Upstream agricultural runoff?

• Seasonal water level reductions?

• Albany County Airport de-icing operations?

• Upstream Colonie sewage treatment plant discharges?

2. What hazards, if any, are associated with the breakdown of chemicals from chlorination and disinfection?

Learn more about the Stony Creek reservoir and the town’s proposal to sell it on our webpage.

SAVE Colonie is not opposed per se to the sale of our Stony Creek Reservoir. But without the complete answers to these and other questions, and the data to back them up, it is not possible for residents or for the Town Board to make an informed and rational decision. Sale of a raw water source in a time of climate crisis and development growth in Colonie should be given the highest level of scrutiny - especially when the administration pushing the sale is about to leave town for good.

PHOTOS: SAVE Colonie's New Year Meet & Greet

We were excited by the great turnout for SAVE Colonie’s 2nd annual “meet and greet” which was held on January 5th at Swifty’s. Thank you to everyone who joined us for a fun time!

Members were able to connect in person, discuss issues related to the Town of Colonie’s future that are important to them, and share ideas about how SAVE Colonie can continue to make a difference in 2020 and beyond.

We are grateful to our elected officials who took the time to join us, including Assemblymember Phil Steck and County Legislators Jennifer Whalen, Joseph O’Brien and Nathan Bruschi.

Happy New Year!

New Year's Resolutions for Colonie

SAVE Colonie recently sent a letter to town officials with some suggestions for 2020.

This year, the town should make the development review process more efficient and user-friendly for all stakeholders, update the town’s Ethics Law and the create a Town Resident Advocacy position.

Below is our letter, which was also published in the Spotlight Newspaper.

Dear Supervisor Mahan and Town Board members:

In her message on the Town’s website, Supervisor Paula Mahan reminds us that the town’s “highest priority is to provide a high quality of life for our residents. Citizen participation is an essential component to maintaining an efficient and transparent government.”

For almost four years, SAVE Colonie has worked to bring Colonie residents’ concerns into the town’s development review process. Each year, we have submitted a list of easy and cost effective process changes to make the development review process more efficient and user friendly for all stakeholders. While we can count some successes — the town’s Comprehensive Plan update has been completed, the Neighborhood Coalition is stronger and more involved than ever before, Planning Board meetings are slated to be publicly broadcast, and project presentations are now projected — more improvements are needed.

The supervisor and Town Board members who will be seated effective Jan. 1, 2020 have an opportunity to build upon the results of the town’s Comprehensive Plan 2019 update and adopt SAVE’s proposals for better town government. The November 2019 election results clearly demonstrated there was no overwhelming majority who endorsed continuing “business as usual” for development reviews in the town. In fact, nearly half of
Colonie voters expressed dissatisfaction with the status quo, much of it over the pace and review of development in Colonie. It behooves the town to address citizens’ obvious dissatisfaction.

Here are some easy and cost effective steps the town can take to make the development review process more efficient and user-friendly for all stakeholders, along with two necessary updates to the town’s Ethics Law and the creation of a Town Resident Advocacy position:

1. Require developers to reach out to neighbors, early in their project planning.

It is common for neighbors of land under development to be leery of changes the development might bring. Also, neighbors may have specialized knowledge of site characteristics, or particular local issues of use to a developer. Early involvement may calm neighbors’ concerns and allow a cooperative relationship to develop, which would be beneficial to all. In addition to notifying neighbors when a nearby project will come before the Planning Board, there should be a 500-foot notice requirement for all projects before they come to the Department Coordinating Committee.

2. Provide on-line access to all project documents, throughout the review process, and archive them thereafter. It is unfair to residents that project documents are unavailable except through a FOIL request; even posted plans disappear after the Planning Board meeting date. Other municipalities maintain complete on-line files which are readily available to the public. This eliminates time-consuming and costly town FOIL responses, and readily provides the public what it is entitled to, anyway.

3. Post project information on line as soon as it becomes available; maintain current “applications received” page on Planning and Economic Development Department website once again. The PEDD website should provide a current list of all projects for which applications have been received. Upcoming milestone dates should be included. Developers know well in advance when their project will be reviewed by the Planning Board; residents deserve as much notice. Rather than merely posting agendas only a few days before a meeting, the town should maintain a public schedule of Planning Board agendas as they are being formulated, with links to the relevant files.

4. Allow and encourage public comment at sketch plan review. Frequently, neighbors are much more familiar with a site and its characteristics than the Planning Board when a project comes before them for sketch plan review. The board can learn valuable information and better assess a project’s impacts if residents are allowed to raise issues at sketch plan review and at concept. Earlier input offers a better opportunity to resolve difficulties before a developer is heavily invested in a particular plan and while neighborhood input can be meaningful.

5. Update the Town of Colonie Ethics Law to expand the Ethics Board’s membership to include members of both political parties and to provide for ethical oversight of town designated engineering firms and consultants who conduct business with and before the town.

6. Create a citizens advocacy position to serve as a point of contact for town residents formatters affecting their neighborhoods. Founding members of SAVE Colonie: A Partnership for Planning chose our name as an aspirational goal. We would prefer an actual partnership with our town. We want to work with you to create the changes Colonie needs to ensure that growth and development is sustainable, professional, and fair, and that Neighborhoods First becomes the highest priority for our town.

Sincerely,

SAVE Colonie: A Partnership for Planning

SAVE Colonie Candidate Interviews, Round 2

In November 2019, Colonie has a town-wide election. Voters will choose candidates to serve as Supervisor and fill four Town Board seats. It can be tough to learn about local candidates. In order to help learn where the candidates stand on key issues, SAVE Colonie sent relevant and timely questions for all candidates running for these positions.

Thanks to Supervisor Candidate George Scaringe and Town Board Candidate Rick Field for responding in detail. Below are our questions and their answers. We are disappointed all candidates didn’t take time to answer these questions, or the previous round, but are sharing the answers received for information purposes.

You can read our first round of questions and candidate answers here.

SAVE Colonie Candidate Interviews, Round 2: Ethics

1)     Our research shows that developers and others in Colonie often make political contributions within a short time before their projects appear before the Town. Will you commit to refusing developer contributions to your campaign?

 Field:      No – but we need strong disclosure requirements for all developers and companies doing business in front of the Town.

Scaringe:      No – However I believe strongly that the Town must require all developers and their related legal entities to disclose ALL political contributions. That goes for attorney’s practicing before the town and professional consultants such as the Town designated engineers, major vendors and CPA firms. Anything contributed needs to be fully disclosed under current election and political disclosure laws.

2)     Will you support a change to the land use law to require that applications identify whether they or their affiliated legal entities and members of their immediate family have made political contributions within 24 months to Town Elected officials and Town committees and list the amount of the contribution and the recipient?

 Field:      Yes – I believe that greater disclosure is critical to the public trust.

 Scargine:  YES – I believe that sunlight and disclosure are critical to the public trust.

3)     Will you agree to update the Town’s ethic laws including the expansion of the Town Ethics Board to 7 members, and include multiple political parties, and provide a process for making ethics complaints?

 Field:      The ethics board should be expanded, diversified and strengthened to provide greater oversight and protection for taxpayers.

 Scaringe:      I have no issue with expanding the Ethics Board to 7 members, and include multiple major and minor political parties to better represent Town residents. Also, I believe the scope of the Ethics Board should be expanded to provide greater oversight and protections for taxpayers.

4)     Will you require that the Town review its town designated engineering (TDE) practice and evaluate whether the Town should 1. Continue to utilize TDE’s in the current manner; or 2. Hire a professional planning staff and employees to conduct these reviews, or 3. Expand the eligibility list of engineering firms to more than two engineering firms and 4. Require that every selected TDE firm will not represent clients in the Town of Colonie?

 Field:      The Town of Colonie designated engineers should not be able to represent businesses before the Town Boards. I do believe there needs to be some outsourcing of planning analysis and would support increasing the number of TDE’s working in conjunction with an INDEPENDENT and EXPANDED Colonie planning staff.

 Scaringe:      I do not believe the Town of Colonie designated engineers should be able to represent businesses before Town boards. I do believe there needs to be some outsourcing of planning analysis and would support increasing the number of TDE’s working in conjunction with an INDEPENDENT and EXPANDED Colonie planning staff. Any firms added must be prohibited from doing business in front of the Town of Colonie.

5)     Although required to make such disclosures, planning board members have often failed to recurse themselves from consideration of projects in which family members, by blood or marriage, have a financial interest. How should this issue be addressed when it occurs?

 Field:      Town law should be changed to require that planning board members must recuse themselves from any vote where there is a conflict of interest, personal, family or business connection, with the project before the board.

 Scaringe:      I would work to change town law to require that planning board members must recuse themselves and be prohibited from any vote where there is a conflict of interest, personal, family or business connection, with the project before the board.

Ethics Rules Should Be Overhauled in Colonie

Did you know that despite all of the development going on in the Town of Colonie, there is nothing requiring project developers to disclose their political contributions to town officials on their applications?

Neighboring towns, notably Clifton Park, have Ethics Committees that meet regularly throughout the year, and follow good government practices such as requiring ethics disclosure forms to be submitted along with any site plan or subdivision application.

These tools provide the public transparency about political connections between developers and others seeking to do business with the Town. This transparency can prevent misuse of taxpayer dollars, favoritism in decision making, conflicts of interest, and a “pay to play” environment.

It is not against the law for companies or individuals doing business in the Town to contribute to politicians who run for office there.  However, these contributions can create a real or perceived sense of a “pay to play” environment in town government. If Town officials do not voluntarily decline such contributions, more must be done to increase transparency around these contributions during the planning and development process. 

In Clifton Park, every time a person or company submits a site plan or subdivision plan application to the planning department, they must fill out a stack of forms. Along with environmental assessments and engineering plans, the town requires an ethics form be completed in order for every application to be deemed complete.  This form asks questions about campaign contributions from the applicant to any town officials in the previous five years, and it asks for disclosure of any town employee that may have an interest in the projects.

Some of this information is available if one goes searching and digging on the New York State Board of Elections website.  But the Clifton Park form provides an important service to the town taxpayers and planning department.  It puts the onus on the applicant to disclose the information again right there, along with their application, so that it is easy to find.  Of course, town employees would need to check to ensure the accuracy of the data, but it is an important first step.  Second, while some of the information in the second question about town employee interests in projects could be found through town employee ethics disclosures, again, this information should be provided in a forthcoming way directly to the planning department.  Furthermore, due to the use of LLCs for financial reasons for many development projects, it is not always simple to see who is actually involved in a project.  By affirmatively asking for this information, the town can be sure it understands where conflicts of interests might arise.  This is the town doing its job for the taxpayers.

Unfortunately, here in the Town of Colonie, we have no such disclosure requirement.  Town residents are left to wonder about the connections between project applicants and town officials.  Taxpayers can see that there are significant contributions from the development community to town officials, such as the current Town Supervisor, but there is no required disclosure at the time they submit their application to the planning and economic development department. 

As you can see, running for Town Supervisor is expensive.  Elections over the last decade have required candidates to raise tens of thousands of dollars to put their names and ideas out there for consideration of the voters . This is not new or unique. But where those dollars come from is important to how the person who wins the election, and presumably would like to run for re-election two years later, will govern.

The taxpayers have a right to understand the connections and real or possible conflicts of interest that exist in development projects being evaluated by town officials.  How are contributions fueling campaigns influencing the views and decisions of town officials and the boards they appoint and employees they hire? What kind of unconscious bias does this set our town officials up for? By having “Friends of” committees stacked full of developers, consultants and other professionals who appear before the town for development and other project contracts, how are town officials influencing or limiting their own decision making ability? And, how can the town do a better job of preventing real or perceived conflicts of interest and ethical issues? Should Colonie be adopting a form like the one Clifton Park is using? Should Ethics Committee meeting minutes be available for the public to review? What other best practices can be used in Colonie to improve transparency and reduce concerns about “pay to play”?

When SAVE Colonie issued questionnaires to all candidates running for town-wide offices this year, one of the questionnaires was focused on ethics issues. The questionnaire asked candidates about these exact issues.  To date, the only response SAVE has received has been from George Scaringe, candidate for Town Supervisor.  No other candidates have responded. Check back on the blog soon for his response, unfortunately alone, since no one else running for Supervisor or Town Board bothered to reply and speak to these important issues.

Until then, here is an example of the kind of contributions that create a perceived or real conflict or bias.  Below are corporate/business contributions to Friends of Paula Mahan, the election committee for the current Town Supervisor, for the last year or so.

SAVE Report: September 24 Colonie Planning Board Meeting

(What follows is not an official report on the planning board meeting, but rather personal impressions of what took place at this public meeting.  We encourage everyone to read the transcript when it comes out. )

Present: Ashworth, Mion, Stuto, Heider, Milstein, Austin

PB attorney Marinelli, TDE Chuck Voss Barton and LoGuidice, TDE Joe Grasso Clough Harbour

Town Board member Rosano

PEDD Director LaCivita

Prior to the meeting, the PB members were observed meeting upstairs. Was this a quorum per the  NYS Open Meetings Law?

Cold Springs Conservation Subdivisoin-Owner Frank Barbera
499-507 Albany Shaker Road

Board Update
40 lot single family residential subdivision

TDE Chuck Voss

Present Frank Barbera, Theresa Bakkner Esq. Dan Hershberg Hershberg and Hershberg 

No TDE documents provided.

The Board heard that the exit road configuration has changed. According to Hershberg, Albany County would not approve an exit from the development that lines up with the Shaker El light and intersection. As a result, they will need to move the exit road further westward along Albany Shaker Road.  Hershberg also stated that there will be traffic issues with the development traffic exiting. However, Hershberg stated this will just be a fact of life for the development occupants and they will know this when they move in. In addition, Hershberg noted that this summer the Town adopted a new Appendix D of the International Industrial Code standards for fire safety. As a result, if the developer requires more than 34 residential lots there will need to be 2 access roads. The current development proposal has 40 lots. Hershberg stated that they would like to keep the 40 lots and propose that one of the exits be for emergency access only as they believe this satisfies the new International Industrial Code standards. PB member Mion noted that the Board doesn’t like emergency access roads because there is no one to plow and maintain the road and  people use them for recreational areas. This view was echoed by PB Member Ashworth and Heider. They worried about snow plowing and lack of maintenance. Apparently, the Town fire services office doesn’t like emergency access exits also. (As an aside, there have been several emergency access roads approved by the Planning Board over the past several years. Issues or concerns with emergency access roads were rarely verbalized during those project reviews thereby allowing developments to satisfy fire safety requirements by utilizing emergency access only connections). Chairman Stuto asked PEDD Director LaCivita if he has received Fire Safety’s position in writing. Lacivita stated that he is waiting for the Town fire Safety letter regarding the emergency access road. Stuto directed that LaCivita investigate further why there can not be an additional curb cut on Albany Shaker Road. LaCivita stated that he will contact Bill Anslow at Albany County about this issue. He has already met with Bill Anslow on site. 

TDE Voss stated that he has not  seen the exit plan yet but he would support a new traffic study to see how the driveways will operate. Attorney Bakkner made sure to confirm that Lacivita will be the Town contact with Bill Anslow on this issue and “the ball is in the Town’s court” now.

Hershberg (with a gleeful tone) also spoke about the Trump administration’s new wetlands rule proposal which would deregulate wetlands and allow fill. No one from the PB, the PB attorney or the TDE disputed this analysis or attempted to argue that these wetlands areas should still remain protected by Town Land Use law provisions  Hershberg noted that some of the wetlands areas on the site fall within this new rule. The applicant is now proposing a larger stormwater catch basin and has been speaking with Mary Berry at Region 4 NYSDEC about this issue. Because of the larger catch basin location, they are moving 2 lots directly along the front of Albany Shaker Road.  TDE Chuck Voss had no comment. Attorney Bakkner stated that the applicant will need to revise the site plan for a new concept submission. 

Two neighbors were present and spoke about a large tree on the boundary of one of the homes which needs to be trimmed. TDE Voss noted that it was one of the larger trees along the perimeter and should be retained. The neighbor also noted that there could be issues with moving the access roads further westward as that will now compact the traffic further towards the existing neighborhoods. No response was provided by the applicant.

Board comments:

Heider- wants emergency access

Austin- no comment

Mion-HOA for the access road needed

Ashworth-concern with emergency access road

Milstein-whatever makes the traffic less problematic

Determination:  Tabled   

British American Mixed Use – Jack Faddegon and British American Owners
1148 Troy Schenectady Road 

Sketch Plan Review 

Construct 3 Four story apartment buildings with a total of 68 apartments and 12 one story buildings for a total of 42 cottages. 

Nick Costa Advance Engineering
TDE Chuck Voss

The project encompasses two separate parcels totaling 30.18 acres. The current zoning is Commercial Office. The project is located in the Niskayuna School District. The applicants (Faddegon and British American) will be seeking a Special Use Permit at the Colonie Zoning Board of Appeals rather than a zoning change. PEDD Director LaCivita advised the Board that he fortuitously found a provision in the land use table that allows this applicant to obtain a Special Use Permit rather than a zoning amendment to allow this project to move forward. Jack Faddegon is taking an active role designing the outside amenities. He advised the PB that he wants the project to be more about the outside than the inside. Walking trails, bike connection, sitting areas, fire pits will be part of the design. The project will develop 24% of the 30 acres site with 3- 4 story apartment buildings and 42 1200 sq foot cottages arranged in 3plexes. 180 units total. Apartments will be 2 bedroom. All located in Niskayuna School district. Town Designated engineer commented that density is an issue, wants traffic study, tree survey. 

It is not clear where this matter is now procedurally- will the ZBA now have to consider all of these issues as part of their Special Use Permit review? When will this be back before the PB? Unfortunately, the current ZBA meetings have their own public notice provisions and meeting minutes and ZBA decisions are lacking in any detail. Furthermore, the Town attorney’s office has declared that ZBA transcripts are not available to the public. The Town does not require the ZBA stenographer to transcribe her meeting notes. 

Loudon Road PDD owner; Loudon Road LLC
606 and 608 Loudon Road

Board Update

Attorneys Donald Zee, Andy Brick and Linda Leary
Chris Burke restaurant developer
Architect Senior Housing 
TDE Joe Grasso no TDE letter issued

The applicants provided a video project simulation and photographs. This video and photographs purported to show what the views from Route 9 and from the neighboring projects would be when the project is developed. TDE Grasso noted that the video did not correspond to what was shown on the project plans and what the views would be when there were no leaves on the trees. This video and photographs were not provided to the public in advance of the meeting as required by the NYS Open Meetings Law. 

Andy Brick updated the Board that they were UNABLE to reach an access agreement with the adjacent Newton Plaza owners. The plans will still show a possible future road connection if a future connection can be negotiated in the future. Apparently, there were meetings with the Town Fire Safety Joe Bisignano about the width of the road circling around the senior housing units. According to Attorney Brick, Fire Safety was ok with a 20 foot wide road with 4 40x26 pad locations for Fire vehicles. Landscaping would be located along the property line and along the building. 

Andy Brick also noted that there are 414 parking spaces required for the entire property. However, it should be noted that the PDD will result in a subdivision of the property into 2 separate parcels- one parcel for the senior housing and the other parcel for the restaurant. The restaurant parcel currently does not have enough parking available. Brick proposed that the extra parking would be provided by the senior housing parcel via valet parking and possible spaces set aside in the underground garage. Board members were uncomfortable about this proposal and reiterated their concerns that there is a parking deficiency with this proposal. This discussion prompted Mr. Burke who will be operating the restaurants to complain that the Board does not understand the type of restaurants he is seeking to bring to this location. According to Burke, he needs 400 seats as a maximum as these restaurants will be high end and not require many parking spaces. He stated he can’t provide the identify of the restaurants. He needs the PDD approval with the 400 seat maximum to go out and shop the property around. The Board was unconvinced by this argument much to Mr. Burke’s frustration. 

Because the property will become a two lot subdivision, the Town will require the applicant to apply for an Open Area Development approval. It is unclear why this will be required as the applicants are seeking a PDD approval. Wouldn’t this road issue be part of that PDD approval?

There was limited discussion regarding about the public benefit. The applicants representatives disclosed that this summer there have been meetings with the applicants, Supervisor Mahan, Town Attorney Magguilli and PEDD Director Lacivita about the public benefit and a $$ was provided by the applicants. This $$ amount was not publicly disclosed. Rather, the applicants noted that it was their understanding that PEDD Director LaCivita was tasked with looking around the town for a suitable project. In the past the applicant had proposed paying for sidewalks along Aviation road. One neighbor present at the meeting suggested that maybe the town should consider building a bridge across the wetlands so that the neighbors can have walking access to Route 9. 

Donald Zee advised the Board that there are ACOE wetlands onsite but they don’t have to worry about federal wetlands on the project site because of the new Trump Administration rule change. He noted that there are no planned activities in the NYSDEC regulated wetlands or buffer.  No one from the PB, the PEDD Director, the TDE or the PB attorney disputed Attorney Zee’s claims about filling in the federal wetlands or raised concerns about the potential rule change (this trump admin rule change will surely be challenged in federal court with a stay requested of the rule implementation).  TDE Grasso in fact noted that he can now check those federal wetlands off the list! 

Board comments:

Milstein most vocal, concerned about the parking numbers, project density, where will visitors, and employees park,wants Albany County Department of Aging opinion

Austin-are you sure the access road is not too congested like the Loudonville Home, project “feels big”

Heider-how will snow be maintained on the ring road, parking concerns for restaurants, are their sufficient handicapped spots, not against the height of the building.wants trees along property line.

Stuto-didn’t like the valet parking solution, concerned with parking, wanted to know what would be allowed density-wise for current zoning Vertically a big project.

TDE Grasso- noted that this design was “new urbanism” and not sure how it would fit into the Town’s suburban setting but the design is very well done.  Likes the animation video, is parking sufficient?, fire services must be comfortable with layout, no waivers for parking needed if a PDD, wants parking clarity between senior housing and restaurant.town board will be SEQRA lead agency believes this is now an unlisted action.   

Residents questioned whether the proposed restaurants will be catering and banquet venues, wanted a barrier and trees behind their homes and the back of the Senior housing, wanted to see photographs showing views with no leaves, suggested walking bridge for neighborhood behind project. Burke said if neighbors want trees they can plant the trees on their own property.          

Determination Tabled.

SAVE Colonie Sends 2nd Set of Interview Questions to Candidates for Town Offices

As we shared in our previous blog post, SAVE Colonie created a list of relevant and timely questions for all candidates running for Supervisor and Town Board in the town-wide election that will take place in November 2019. Today we sent our second set of questions, focused on ethics issues, to all the candidates. Below is a copy of the message and questions we sent. We will be sharing the responses we receive publicly, following the September 18th deadline for reply.

** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **

Dear Candidate for Colonie Town Office:

As you know, SAVE Colonie is working to provide Colonie voters with information on town candidates' positions and views on issues of local interest. As with our prior questions on public participation in town governmental functions, we will publish your answers on our popular Facebook site and our SAVE Website, and will furnish them to our email members, as well. So this is a fine opportunity to reach more than 1000 local residents who care about current political issues.

We will publish responses we receive on or before September 18th. If you choose not to respond, we will so state next to your name.

Please reply electronically, and feel free to email me for more information about any of these questions/topics if you need clarification. This set of questions concerns the hot topic of ETHICS in local government.

Thanks in advance for helping inform Colonie's voters.

SAVE Colonie: A Partnership for Planning

SAVE's Ethics Questions

Pay-to-play undermines people’s trust in government. Ethics is important to maintaining the legitimacy of our government. Insider favoritism costs taxpayers thousands of dollars annually in unnecessary expenditures and distorts public policy. The appearance of favoritism is corrosive of democracy.

1. Our research shows that developers and others (such as property owners, engineers, real estate attorneys, landscape architects) with a vested interest in advancing a project often make contributions to officials & candidates within a short time before or after their projects appear before the town. How would you handle contributions from such persons to your campaign?

2. Will you support a change to the land use law to require that applicants identify whether they or their affiliated legal entities and members of their immediate family have made political contributions within 24 months to town elected officials and town political committees and list the amount of the contribution and the recipient?

3. Will you agree to update the Town’s ethics laws including the expansion of the town Ethics Board to 7 members, and include multiple political parties, and provide a process for making ethics complaints?

4. Will you require that the Town review its town designated engineering (TDE) practice and evaluate whether the Town should 1. continue to utilize TDE’s in the current manner; or 2. hire a professional planning staff and employees to conduct these reviews, or 3.expand the eligibility list of engineering firms to more than 2 engineering firms and 4. require that every selected TDE firm will not represent clients in the Town of Colonie?

SAVE Colonie Candidate Interviews, Round 1

In November 2019, Colonie has a town-wide election. Voters will choose candidates to serve as Supervisor and fill four Town Board seats. It can be tough to learn about local candidates. So SAVE Colonie created a list of relevant and timely questions for all candidates running for these positions. In June 2019 we sent out the first set of four questions to each candidate.

Thanks to Supervisor Candidate George Scaringe, and Town Board Candidates Danielle Futia and Rick Field for responding in detail. Below are our questions and their answers.

Although none of the other candidates responded, we hope all candidates will respond to the next set of questions, which will be sent to everyone later this month.

1. Public participation is a hallmark of democracy. How can we encourage greater public participation in Colonie?

SCARINGE: increasing and enhancing public participation is important to me and will go a long way toward protecting the character of our town. To accomplish this, we need to:
* do a better and timelier job of informing residents of public meetings by increasing the area of required neighborhood notification by mail and through creation of a town-wide email and text notification system;
* modernize audiovisual equipment and web archiving and streaming availability at both the town board and major development board meetings;
*reform the town’s development review process to bring residents into the process earlier;
* require that all applications and action items, together with background documents, be publicly available on the web before any action can be taken by any town planning, zoning or other land use or economic development board;
* require the Zoning Board of Appeals to transcribe all meeting minutes, and post and maintain an online archive of these documents.

FIELD: We need to do two important things to increase public participation. First, change the culture in Town Hall to be more conducive to public input. It feels like the town officials are openly hostile to the public. Public input should be encouraged, not attacked. We need to put a stop to this abusive culture …and hold town officials and employees to a higher standard. Second, utilize technology to give residents more information in a timely and more transparent manner; create a text & email alert system for all meetings, keep all background info on local projects available on line. By promoting transparency and openness and encouraging public dialogue, we can make Colonie a better place to call home.

FUTIA: With so many lives always on the go, it is hard for people to stay connected by attending weekly and/or monthly meetings. I believe technology would create a way for people to be and stay engaged while also living their lives. Social media is a great tool for residents to know what is going on, what changes are coming, what events are happening, etc. Creating these pages is not just enough, it takes constant updating to stay current. Interest from residents on these pages would be lost if there is no activity on them.
Creating an app for smart phones is another way to keep residents engaged. Notifications going directly to a cell phone, a device that is used daily by most, is constant engagement. It would be nice to see an app where each resident can set their settings to their preference – some may not want daily notifications while others would, but those who choose not to receive them can still participate in the app by checking it as little or as often as they would like. Traffic alerts, events in the area, town meetings and special weather alerts are just a few topics among many that could be included in the app.

2. Some say earlier and more effective public involvement is needed in Colonie’s development review process. Lately, some developers have met with neighbors early in the process, which has worked well for both; others have refused to meet at all. Do you see a value in early involvement with neighborhoods? If so, would it be beneficial to build it into the process? How could this be accomplished?

SCARINGE: Community involvement needs to be a critical component of Colonie’s development review process. It will pay huge dividends in protecting the character of our neighborhoods and is an evolution I fully support. As supervisor, I will require public involvement in the process before any new project can move forward. All new projects must meet simple criteria: is it good for the town/local community? We must abandon the current developer-centric model of unsustainable growth and move to one that is more community and neighborhood-preservation focused. This involves real and constant community involvement with residents and those with development proposals.

FIELD: As a realtor, I can tell you there are good and bad developers. Good ones take the time to meet with residents and businesses to determine what project would best fit the region. I believe it is good public policy to require public input early and often in the development review process. The Town must do a better job protecting the character of our neighborhoods and open space.

FUTIA: I 100% see a value in early involvement with neighborhoods during a planning process. Our neighborhoods include parents raising families and elderly who have more than likely lived there for many years. If the character of residents, a current tax payer, neighborhood will be impacted somehow, then their involvement shouldn’t even be questioned. I believe it is important for both the developer and the residents to hear the pros and cons of what each have to say. I believe communication is key to any success story.

3. Another concern has been perceived lack of transparency regarding development review at both the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals levels. Development applications, town-generated review documents and other official records are not posted on line or available without a FOIL request; ZBA decisions and rationales are not posted. Will you change these policies and how?

SCARINGE: We need to increase transparency in Colonie. Lack of sunlight merely serves as a way to cloak corruption and incompetence. Utilizing technology and changing the culture at Town Hall are the first steps, coupled with requiring:
* all applications & action items be publicly available on the web before any action is taken by planning, zoning or other land use board; background documents should be available;
* the Zoning Board of Appeals’ minutes must be transcribed, posted, and maintained in an online archive;
* full transparency of ALL projects, including GEIS mitigation funding, fees, and credits awarded to developers.

FIELD: Town Hall needs to be more open and transparent and public information needs to be made readily available and stored online to give the public the information they need, easily. I would sponsor an “Open Colonie” resolution to outline new requirements for posting Town documents.

FUTIA: Like communication, transparency is important. Documents of all types, including meeting minutes, should be available to all residents before any action be taken on any project. This goes hand in hand with the use of technology and getting more residents engaged.

4. Many local governments, and the federal and state legislatures, operate under a geographic system of representation, rather than an “at large” system, as Colonie does. Some argue that the current system leaves neighborhoods without someone to contact on neighborhood issues, someone who would clearly represent their interests to the Town. Would you support a geographical or neighborhood system for our Town Board? Why or why not?

SCARINGE: I fully support the creation of a ward system; it will be a key component of my reform plan that includes term limits, lengthening the supervisor’s term from 2 to 4 years, and increasing transparency throughout Town Hall.

FIELD: As Colonie continues to grow and becomes more diverse, I feel that town residents are underserved by the current configuration of town government. Instead of six at-large board members, Coloonie should adopt a ward system to give neighborhoods throughout Colonie a greater voice in Town Hall.

FUTIA: I believe a ward system would be beneficial to the Town. Since petitioning and campaigning, I have heard many concerns from residents in South Colonie that feel they are forgotten about compared to North Colonie. A ward system would bring all neighborhoods concerns to the table so no resident feels like they are unheard.

SAVE Report: May 28 Colonie Planning Board Meeting

Here is SAVE's report on last night's Colonie planning board meeting.  As always, we caution that this represents our members' impressions of this public meeting and is in no way an official document.

The entire board was present as well as Town Board members Rosano and Whalen. LaCivita was replaced by Tengeler and CHA’s Joe Grasso was replaced by Heather Wild. Just for the record, there were several inaccuracies with the material presented to the PB. The first was that the site plan for the mini warehouse showed an office building that was no longer contemplated; the second was that the office building was listed in the agenda as a medical building and it is an office building; the third is that it was listed as a 44,000 square building and it is a 40,500 square foot building; and the fourth inaccuracy was that the Starlite documents did not show a day care facility, just office & retail. So the Planning Department is still presenting sloppy material to the Planning Board. 

—Mini Warehouse Storage Facility (Concept Acceptance) Approved
39 Old Sparrowbush Road
This project would construct a storage facility for large recreational vehicles. Part of the original parcel has been sold to Upstate Veterinary Hospital next door. The facility shouldn’t generate much traffic since renters will only come to the site once or twice a year and stay for about 20 mins a visit. They are not allowed to work on the vehicles or do anything else onsite. The applicant owns a couple of other RV storage businesses. Stuto was concerned that the plan in front of the didn’t accurately reflect that the parcels had changed and were now non-conforming. Milstein was unhappy that the original office building wasn’t going to be built but remained on their plan.  It has an unlisted SEQRA designation. Brian Austin was busy re-designing the building architecturally, suggesting that the large window in the front might not be appropriate for a storage facility. Stuto made the point that the former approvals given to the parcel would be nullified due to the modifications from the original plan. Concept approved. 

—J Luke (Hodorowski) Office  Building (Concept Acceptance) Not Approved
767 Troy Schenectady Road
This project took about an hour and a half of the meeting. There were about 10 residents in attendance. The project would construct a 44,000 square foot office building on an empty lot on Route 7, across from the State Police barracks in Latham. It is zoned COR and is surrounded by single family homes. The plan called for entrance on Route 7, exit on Whitney and an access road on Bailey. The bulk of the time spent concerned traffic, the appropriateness of the egress and ingress and other options. CHA pointed out that their opinion and NYSDOT’s were that both the Whitney and Bailey access points should be omitted from the plan. The applicant agreed after extended discussion to revisit the traffic...their engineer pointed out that although traffic isn’t required at concept, they had ‘spent the money’ to hire a traffic engineer to do a study. The Planning Board indicated an interest in postponing a vote until the traffic issues are resolved. The applicant’s representatives pushed for a vote and the vote failed, concept not approved. Now they must go back and develop new traffic options for the plan. 

—Starlite  Retail Plaza
625 Columbia Street (Sketch)  No vote
This sketch presentation was a little odd. It began with Stuto announcing that they had just received an email from the TDE that the applicant (Galesi) had not yet seen. They passed out copies to the applicant’s representatives....Paul Felati, the architect and a substitute for Dan Hershberg. Of course the public didn’t have the luxury of seeing the letter so it was a little difficult to follow the discussion. The project would be a three building mixed office/retail property. One would be a two story, 20,000 square foot day care and office combination with a playground in the back. The second would be a bank with a drive through, and the third ‘food-related’ retail. They would require several waivers for setback, parking and the drive through. The TDE briefly mentioned some of the issues in the email, which included moving the building closer to Columbia, many poor sight lines and bad corners, need for additional curb cuts, etc. She noted that the right in/right out on Columbia would require NYSDOT approval. The commercial subdivision needs to be submitted together with a conservation analysis as part of the package. Trip generation data for project should be put together with original traffic data to analyze full impact. Brian Austin suggested that the Latham Ford driveway should be shared for this project....they kept saying ‘when Latham Ford gets developed’ which was odd because there is a long-time active business there. Shamlian didn’t like the Latham Ford shared driveway concept, and Chief didn’t either. Stuto noted that CHA had a ‘lot of comments’ and Starlite should come up with a better plan to get a better reaction out of the PB. Several were concerned about the daycare parking...meanwhile, the plan that the TDE had been given didn’t show a daycare at all, but just an office building. The TDE also suggested that green space be reserved around the daycare building. Shamlian noted that they were getting a lot of credit for green space around Coliseum and not enough around Columbia. Stuto is concerned where the conservation overlay borders are and where the parcel sits within the conservation district and that it should be looked at in its entirety. The TDE said that the entire parcel is located within the conservation district. Heider said that it was a vintage 1970s parking mall look on a ‘very important corner’ and he would like to see something a little more impressive. No one mentioned that issue of segmentation resulting from considering several phases of the same project independently. No public comments were allowed.

Colonie Zoning Board of Appeals vacancy

The Town of Colonie has a vacancy on the Zoning Board of Appeals.  This is an important point of action for protecting the community from poor development choices.  Running under the radar, failing to keep and make public proper records, having jurisdiction over community-changing decisions, this board is very important.

The town is accepting applications from residents who wish to serve. If you are interested in serving, see the notice copied below and apply directly with the town by May 8th.

Zoning Board of Appeals Vacancy

There is currently an opening for a Colonie resident to serve as a member of the Town of Colonie Zoning Board of Appeals. The Board meets at 7 p.m. on the first and third Thursday of each month at the Public Operations Building.

The Zoning Board of Appeals is the body that considers, reviews, and decides appeals arising from decisions of Town officials regarding administration and enforcement of the Colonie Land Use Law and Town Law § 280-a. The Zoning Board of Appeals also hears applications for special use permits.

Membership on the Zoning Board of Appeals provides compensation of $3,639 per year and requires a significant time commitment.

For more information about the Zoning Board of Appeals click here. To apply click here. Applications will be accepted until May 8, 2019.

Informational meeting with Hoffman's PDD developer on May 2nd at 6:30 PM

INVITATION TO MEET DEVELOPER OF PROPOSED PDD AT FORMER HOFFMAN’S PLAYLAND SITE

MEETING IS ON MAY 2, 6:30 PM AT BEST WESTERN AT 200 WOLF RD.

As you may know, there is a project before the Colonie Planning Board to rezone 606 & 608 Loudon Road, the Hoffman's Playland property, to allow 101 senior apartments and 99 assisted living units, together with 30,000 sq ft of restaurant/retail space. The project narrative states that this property is zone for fast food restaurants and gas stations.

This project appeared before the Planning Board for sketch plan review on January 22.   Among issues discussed, were:

1. Increased traffic due to additional units under the proposed Planned Development District (PDD);

2. Consistency with existing single family neighborhood  to the East;

3. Potential impact of multi-story structures on nearby development. Due to these and other issues, the Planning Board took no action on the applicant's sketch plan.

SAVE has been advocating, practically since we formed more than 3 years ago, that developers and neighbors of a project would both benefit from discussion prior to an application getting too far along in the process.  If issues could be discussed before a project were "set in stone," we think the review could be smoother and the project could be better for everyone.  We are advocating that early stage meetings like this one will be incorporated into planning department review procedures. This is the third time SAVE has been invited to help facilitate such a meeting, 

We encourage all our members, Loudon Road neighbors, and other concerned citizens to attend the informational meeting hosted by the developer team on THURSDAY MAY 2ND 6:30-8 PM at the "Sure Stay Plus" Best Western, 200 Wolf Rd, Colonie. 

Here is the link to the narrative and site plan for this application on SAVE's website.

SAVE Report: March 21 Colonie Comprehensive Plan Public Hearing

First, special thanks to the many SAVE Colonie members and friends who endured the long and laudatory Comprehensive  Plan presentation and waited their turn to make such cogent and articulate comments.  It was unfortunate that the administration felt the need to respond at length to nearly everyone who spoke, which was extremely inappropriate.

Thanks to everyone who came to show their interest and support.  The crowd was overwhelming. 

Thanks especially to SAVE members Lisa Barron and Mary Beth Buchner who stayed till the end at about 10:30 PM and commented about the need to address climate change at the local level and about addressing the now and future Colonie, rather than the situation in 2008. Thanks to Susan Laurilliard who did the “heavy lifting” on the Comprehensive Plan analysis for SAVE, putting together much of the content that informed our letter to town officials, and to Jessica Mahar who participated as a member of the Comprehensive Plan Committee.  

It is clear that SAVE Colonie has had a major impact on the Comprehensive Planing process.  Supervisor Mahan and others from her administration met with core members of SAVE Colonie after we sent them a letter that called attention to the serious deficiencies of the draft Plan.  She acknowledged at the meeting that the Plan was not ready to move forward.  No vote to approve the draft was taken.  More hearings on the draft Plan will be held, as we requested.  Changes are being made to address our concerns and those others raised.

You can view a copy of the very long presentation that was given at the beginning of the hearing by Chuck Voss of Barton & Loguidice, the Town’s consultant for the Comprehensive Planning Process here.

If you were unable to attend the March 21st meeting, you can watch the video on the Town Board website.

We will be following this and reporting to you as the progress continues.  We can only hope future public hearings are conducted more professionally and focus entirely upon the Comprehensive Plan, rather than coming at the end of a lengthy but sadly pro-forma Town Board business meeting.

Again, thanks for all you do to make things better in the Town of Colonie.

Susan Weber for SAVE Colonie: A Partnership for Planning

SAVE Colonie meets with Supervisor Mahan and town officials on draft Comprehensive Plan

On March 7th several members of SAVE Colonie met with Town Supervisor Paula Mahan and other town officials, as well as Chuck Voss from the town’s retained firm Barton & Loguidice about the draft Comprehensive Plan update.

Following the February 27th Comprehensive Plan Committee meeting, the final meeting of that group, SAVE Colonie prepared a letter and list of issues that we believe must be addressed before the current draft is considered final. The purpose of this meeting was to review and discuss these issues.

The dialogue throughout the two and a half hour meeting was respectful and constructive overall, and useful ideas were exchanged. This meeting and the Comprehensive Plan are important because what is in the Plan will guide the Town Board in making policy for things residents care about in the future: development, green space, traffic, senior services, historic and environmental resources, recreation, the landfill… wouldn’t it be nice to KNOW how much senior housing is needed and in what income bracket BEFORE the Planning Board stuffs the Town with it? That’s what all this is about.

We will keep you posted as this document changes, but for now, it was nice to be heard.

SAVE Colonie members outside of Town Hall on March 7th.

SAVE Report: January 22, 2019 #Colonie Planning Board Meeting

What follows are impressions of and notes by some SAVE members who attended this meeting.  This is not an official report, and we encourage you to attend these interesting meetings and form your own opinions and conclusions.  Official minutes are taken and are eventually available on the PEDD website. 

All board members, attorney and PEDD director were present.  New PB member Chip Ashworth was welcomed. 
           
Century Hill Plaza, First Columbia, owner
15 & 16 Plaza Drive 
Application for Final Review:  APPROVED
A new 3 & 4 story, 150,000 sq ft buiding(s) and a 4 story 66,688 sqft building
Presented by Advanced Engineering’s Nick Costa, and Kevin & Chris Bette 
TDE – “Skip” Francis from Barton & Loguidice
               
“TDE Letter” discussed but not available to the public.  “Fortune 500” tenant(s) not revealed.  Traffic congestion sure to be an issue due to these two large office buildings with a required 1,000+ parking spaces, but not mentioned or discussed.  Kevin Bette mentioned approaching CDTA concerning a park & ride situation due to expected “sufficient density” in this area. Bette mentioned tenant wants LED sustainable building, walking pathways.  Much discussion of parking spaces needed, required, &/or to be banked.  Confusing on-the-spot parking calculations consumed much time, with an eventual waiver granted.  Question whether the plans actually showed all matters being discussed; Chairman Stuto chastised TDE, PEDD & developer for failing to provide final plans to PB lately…”The PB is not accepting plans not final anymore…they should catch that stuff.”

Aside:  Add these 1,000+ cars to the 1000+ cars at AYCO for more than 2K new vehicles at Rt 9, Rt 87, Rt 9R intersection during drive hours, and you have the  definition of gridlock.  Or not?  What does PEDD say???

Stewart’s Shop, Stewart’s Corporation, owner                    
406 Albany Shaker Road
Application for Concept Acceptance:  APPROVED
Redevelopment of existing facility constructing a new 3,336 store with 6 fueling stations
 
Presented by Advanced Engineering
TDE – Joe Grasso, CHA Companies
              
TDE Grasso’s Jan 11th letter discussed but not available to the public.  Stewart’s has obtained required Special Use Permit to locate w/in 200 ft of residences.  Will add landscaping , sidewalks; will move both entrances further from the intersection; will contribute to structural improvements to intersection identified in Corridor Study, such as:  marked crosswalks in all directions, pedestrian signals, eliminating the second westbound lane (and the second left turn lane at the top of Everett?), and perhaps installing some sort of decorative “gateway to Colonie” structure.  This is a SEQRA Type 1 action due to historic Audi home (and ancient 18 ft tree?), PB to be lead agency. PB Heider questions the stated 350 gpd water usage figure, safety of left turns onto Everett.  Current design reduces size of shop and number of pumps from 8 to 6 (that’s 3 fueling sites under one large canopy.) No public comments were invited or entertained, despite one resident’s raised hand and considerable interest at prior meetings on this project.

Loudon Road PDD, Loudon Road, LLC, owner
606 & 608 Loudon Road
Sketch Plan Review - Request for Zone Change (From NCOR to PDD)
Retail, Assisted Living and Senior Apartments uses proposed
Presented by Advanced Engineering
TDE – Joe Grasso, CHA Companies 
  
This appears to be a high end, well-planned, attractively designed mixed use development at the former Hoffman’s Playland property, now vacant & mostly paved 8.4 acre site.  Two story retail (“boutiques”)with roof-top space and parking in front, a courtyard “piazza” behind;a 4 story 110 unit rental senior residence, and 3 story 60 unit rental assisted living and 30 unit memory care facility, all with parking and utilities such as dumpsters beneath.  Perimeter roadway would connect with signaled intersections on Rt 9. TDE stressed increased density resulting from this project vs current zoning, from approx 38 residential/28 K sqft commercial vs 200 residential units/30K sqft retail. Applicant stressed high end nature of this development & better fit with Newton Plaza & recently built projects to the north.  Presentation by SAGE Life & TGX was very detailed and professionals; certainly raised the bar for Town of Colonie applicants.  (Senior project developer SAGE Life has similar projects near Philadelphia, in Maryland, and in Southern NJ. TGX LLC [Jon Grant] has apartment complexes before the Albany City Planning Board.)

PB Austin “wished” he could afford to live there, but doubts the project would accept Medicaid; hopes the project is designed well for the benefit of nearby higher end neighborhoods.   There were no ideas presented about the necessary “public benefit” to be provided to town residents to, as it were, compensate for increased density and negatives of such a project.  Heider:  “work with Joe for a public benefit.” Senior living developer SAGE Life has developed similar properties throughout the nation.  Projected price of assisted living unit:  $5 K per month; base for independent living:  $3500/mo.  

There will be opportunities for community input as review of this project continues. Suggestions might include fewer units (ie less density), practical shops for seniors’ needs in the retail space such as pharmacy, grocery market, etc.

Meeting Notes & Presentation: Al Tech Specialty Steel Site

Thanks to SAVE Colonie member Jeffrey Wilson, we have an update on the public meeting that NYS DEC held on January 22, 2019 regarding the Al Tech Specialty Steel Superfund Site.

Approximately 30 in attendance

Presenters:

• Ruth Curley PM DEC for Al Tech site

• Mike Komoroske, DEC

• Steven Berninger PM DOH

• Jean Firth PM MATEC

• Steven Berninger – DOH

• Paul Rosano – Colonie Councilman was in attendance -

Al Tech cleanup is a New York State Superfund project — the State is funding the full project — identify site, investigate, alternatives to cleanup, proposed action plan, public meeting, comment period, may modify remedy, issue record of decision.

Al Tech site is in Colonie , borders Menands. 99 acres, 31 acres on North, 68 acres on South.

The Site is divided into "Operable Units" or OUs: OU1 Main plant, OU 4 - Kromma Kill

Current proposal is for OU1 and OU4. A public hearing was held in February 2018 for OU2 and OU3. Those units are currently being monitored. OU5 is a downstream part of the Kromma Kill and will be evaluated at a later time.

• All DEC documents available in the Colonie Town library or at DEC office.

• Public comment period ends on February 2

Kromma Kill is contaminated with lead – 400 ft of contaminated dirt in front of Al Tech along Lincoln Ave – the presence of lead is inconsistent with the type of activity that took place on site. It was likely brought in specifically to build Lincoln Ave.

• Lead in front on Lincoln Ave 2 to 5 feet deep - they think they got the dirt from somewhere else to build the road. Lead contamination is limited to 400 ft along Lincoln Ave

• Other metals onsite are typical of what you’d expect: chromium, nickel, some copper

• Site is contaminated with PCBs

• Groundwater is contaminated with PCBs and petroleum, has not migrated off-site

• Petroleum blooms in rolling mill area – vendor removes three inches every couple months

• All buildings onsite will be dismantled and removed, except one on the south side that was built much later and is still structurally sound. The other buildings have a high presence of asbestos. Also, when site responsibility shifted to RealCo, Inc. During site decommissioning, the crews undermined the structural integrity of the buildings.

• Per Steven Berninger of DOH, low risk to public health, would require direct exposure through breathing, direct contact, or ingestion.

• Timeline for remediation, TBD

For more information on the site and public comment process:

DEC Al Tech Superfund Site Fact Sheet

DEC Presentation Slide Deck

More information about Kromma Kill here:

http://www.hudsonwatershed.org/images/WaterShedGroups/Kromma_Kill_Watershed_Fact_Sheet_12_15_FINAL.pdf

http://www.krommakillwatershed.org/

http://www.stormwateralbanycounty.org/wpcontent/uploads/2011/12/GTKTSND_CemetaryCreek_2015_11x17.pdf

http://www.stormwateralbanycounty.org/wpcontent/uploads/2011/12/GTKTSND_KrommaKill_2015_11x171.pdf

https://www.epa.gov/hwcorrectiveactionsites/hazardous-waste-cleanup-realco-incorporatedwatervliet-new-york

http://www.stormwateralbanycounty.org/maps-and-webmappers/

Meeting Report: Developer meets with SAVE and Neighborhood Association

Frank Barbera of Barbera Homes invited representatives of the Green Meadows Neighborhood Association and SAVE Colonie, and local county legislators, to review his plans to develop the “Foegtli Farm” property on Albany Shaker Road.  The owner is Starlight LLC. owned by Don Luccarelli; Barbera Homes is the builder; Dan Hershberg is the engineer. The original plan submitted by another builder several years ago, had proposed 80 duplex and triplex residences and a Planned Development District, and was not approved by the Town.  Meeting attendees Suzanne Maloney, Patrick Quinn, and Paul Burgdorf examine Barbera's plans.

The new plan, now named Cold Springs, proposes 39 single family ranch and colonial style structures. The design has a single entrance dividing into two roadways, each terminating in a cul de sac,  with a short road required by fire department linking both. The plan leaves a large treed portion of the property untouched, and a ground water fed seasonal pond undisturbed, covered by a conservation easement. It makes use of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to collect and hold storm water and allow it to drain naturally. The soil in this area is mainly sand so drains well.  A 25 ft no-cut treed buffer would remain untouched along the north and east boundaries.

There was much discussion regarding this natural visual buffer benefiting existing neighbors on James and Danielwood, and perhaps expanding these buffers somewhat, where possible. It was suggested that Mr Barbera depict them in illustrations to be shown at the public meeting, in addition to the tree inventory he is doing, as required by the Town of Colonie tree ordinance Chapter 177 of the Town Code.

Mr. Barbera will hold a similar meeting for immediate neighbors at the Shaker Rd Firehouse on Jan.29th.
SAVE thanks Mr. Barbera for holding these meetings with neighbors early in the process.  We encourage other builders to follow suit. 

SAVE Report: January 8, 2019 Colonie Planning Board Meeting

This unofficial report is for the use of SAVE Colonie members only, and reflects only the impressions of some residents who attended the Planning Board meeting. Residents are invited to attend these public meetings and form their own impressions. Any errors are unintentional and regretted. We all do our best!

7:00 PM

Acadia Plaza Bank Acadia New Loudon LLC, owner 873 Loudon Road
Sketch Plan Review: No action taken
3,375 sq.ft. bank with drive thru teller

Presented by LaBerge (Phil Kozel), TDE: Chuck Voss, Barton & Loguidice
This bank is to be constructed in an unused portion of the shopping center parking lot. Voss opined that this project is an appropriate use of the area, would actually increase green space and decrease the pavement area. Entrance to the bank would be from behind the shopping center, from Old Loudon Rd.

7:05 PM

Rosetti Warehouse Richard Rosetti, owner 2 Lear Jet Lane
Sketch Plan Review: No action taken One-story 45,500 sq.ft. warehouse

Presented by Advance Engineering (Nick Costa), TDE: Joe Grasso, CHA Companies
The sketches presented by the owner were not accurate and up-to-date, so the entire discussion was a waste of time and Town of Colonie money. A Special Use Permit would be required for this large warehouse, which Chairman Stuto opined was “too large for this site,” and Board Member Milstein asked why they “deserve” a Special Use Permit. The drawing projected on screen, but not the narrative, depicted a “store.” There are questions about wetlands on this heavily wooded site, a buffer to screen neighbors, problems with large trucks coming in and out of premises, and access to Wade Rd. (Query: Who owns the nearby buildings?? What do they think? Where is the tree inventory?) This project must be limited in height due to its location in the airport flight path. General feeling seemed to be irritation with lack of specificity and current information on the plans. Developer instructed to come back with sufficient information for another sketch plan review OR for concept, their choice.

7:10 PM

Hoffman PDD Stewart Hoffman, owner
1 Alice Avenue
Application to Amend PDD: Tabled
170 Market rate senior apartments reduced to 140 market rate senior apartments, the 90 assisted living remains unchanged

Presented by ABD Engineering (Luigi Palleschi), TDE: Joe Grasso, CHA Companies
The Town Board had approved this PDD in 2011, but nothing had been done on this exceedingly steep and wooded site since. The owner seeks to reduce the number of units by 30. City of Watervliet, down slope from this site, has expressed concerns about impacts to the City from stormwater runoff if this site is cleared for development. Planning Board questioned adequacy of public benefits to justify the PDD (which increases the allowed density from fewer than 20 single family homes to more than 200 rental units!!!) Public benefits should benefit all residents of the town, not just residents of this project, as those offered here do: widening Alice Lane for proper emergency access to the site, an overlook (for residents), water and drainage improvements, unspecified $$ in lieu of sidewalks to and along Rt 2. Chair Stuto suggested the owner “go back to the supervisor to work out a public benefit.” He would favor so much $$$ per excess unit. General impression was one of irritation with the project’s extreme density and lack of public benefits to justify granting a PDD in the first place. We believe the PB has the power to rescind the PDD granted 8 years ago, due to inaction. This is part of a larger parcel, the rest of which has already been developed. Seems as if it is up to the supervisor to establish a “public benefit” and then the project would go forward.