This report is based upon personal evaluations and opinions by audience members at a public meeting, what was said, what transpired. Each person is invited to attend Planning Board and other public meetings and draw their own conclusions.
All told, this meeting considered five major projects for a total of 637 new residential units, and a large car wash with 22 outdoor vacuum stations. The meeting ended at about 11:30 PM. We thank all SAVE members and other community members (the room was packed..) who spent their evening and night witnessing our government at work!
As always, the site plan & narratives are archived on SAVE’s website (www.savecolonie.com), even when they are gone from the Colonie’s.
Park Place at Shaker West, 945 & 957 Watervliet Shaker Rd, Rosetti
“Re-issuance” of Concept Acceptance: APPROVED
(This proposal, at the former Shaker site, then Gordon Apartments, received Concept Acceptance in Jan, 2017. This Concept Acceptance would have expired in August, 2018, after the statutory 18 months. How can an expired concept approval be reissued? We must inquire further of the PB attorney, who seems unable to apply the law to the actions of the PEDD. Why?) Originally 6 two-story apartment buildings, this project is now 2 three-story buildings, containing 126 units. PB Chair Stuto did not have the ACPB review and approval conditions in his file. We believe that the NYS General Municipal Law requires Albany County Planning Bd to have another opportunity to review the revised development proposal, since their initial approval/comments may need revising due to project changes. There was no mention by PB Chair, TDE or PEDD Director about a referral to the ACPB.. Frequently referenced TDE letter dated 9/18 was not available to the public**. Apparently the TDE letter details further reviews needed, but we must await the transcript to see what, exactly.
The owner (Coleman) of the neighboring Shaker Shed farm and nursery requested fencing be required to prevent trespass by residents into her farm and fields. (approved)
Hoffman Car Wash, 1066 Troy Schenectady Rd
Concept Acceptance: APPROVED
This proposal is for a 7000 sq ft car wash with 22 outdoor vac stations. Access will be from Residence Inn Drive, off Troy Schenectady Rd.
The major concern here was to prevent traffic congestion and stacking of cars on Residence Inn Drive and unsafe turns onto Rt 7. Also of interest was saving existing mature trees planted along Residence Inn Dr. The Board suggested seeing whether there could be two lanes for exiting onto Rt 7, one turning right and one turning left.
Hoffman Senior Housing PDD, 1 Alice Ave and Rt 2
Application to Amend PDD (from 2011)
This reduced unit (formerly 170, down to 140, with 90 assisted living) market rate senior apartment complex, on a steeply sloped wooded site. Again, much discussion centered around the TDE’s 9/18 letter, which is not available to the public.** Issues raised: Soils on site are clay; nearby buildings are “sliding downhill to Watervliet.” Alice Drive will be for emergency access only, with the entrance on Rt 2. Board asked about project’s “public benefit” which the law requires for a PDD. There was also discussion about how to “calculate” a monetary value to the public benefit already approved, but which will not be built. Suggestions included sidewalks to Route 2, improvements to Alice Dr., pedestrian connectivity with neighborhoods; mitigation fees in lieu of public benefit; concerns about drainage into neighboring yards; more architectural detail desirable. 4 neighbors spoke with concerns.
Radke Mixed Use PDD, 614 Albany Shaker Rd (proposed connector rd to Maxwell circle)
Re-zoning from Single Family Residential, Board Update
Project has been considerably scaled back responding to comments at last meeting. Instead of 6 two story apartment buildings, we have 2 three story buildings, 158 units; retail space removed. The 64 unit assisted living facility remains the same. Again, the TDE comment letter ** was repeatedly referred to, as developer responded to items indicated. Issues discussed: The developer proposes that the public benefit will be donation of the 7.3 acres to site the connector road, plus they will construct the much ballyhooed connector road. Neighbor concerns: Height of buildings, excess traffic onto already burdened Shaker Rd, only 20ft buffer between assisted living facility and homes on Rustyville; uselessness of restricted “right in right out” onto Shaker Rd (Chief, who should know). PB members liked the one story feature of the assisted living facility. They also commented favorably on its appearance and design. Density of SFR for 19 acres: 38 units vs 200 + units proposed. Austin opined no one would buy $400K SF on busy connector rd (Maxwell Village, anyone??) Several neighbors spoke in opposition, citing discordance with community character, excessive density, increased traffic, loss of privacy due to height of these 3 story buildings.
NB: There are reportedly 30 other parcels to be built out along Albany Shaker Rd in future. What will this do to traffic and community character in this residential neighborhood?
Summit at Forts Ferry, 33 & 45 Forts Ferry Rd. (Nigro)
SEQRA & Final Approval: APPROVED
Consideration of this most controversial project commenced after 10 PM, despite numerous calls for it to be postponed to allow neighbors to properly address documents the town finally release just the day before this hearing. Board members and members of the large audience were obviously tired out; comments were made about hurrying things along so people could go home…by the Board! Changes had been made to increase landscape screening behind the senior residence garages; the entrance had been moved further away from the across the street neighbor to moderate headlight disturbance; and stormwater handling was modified to direct most runoff into a wetland constructed southeast of the development..owned by??. Again, reference was repeatedly made, by the developer’s rep and the Board, to the TDE’s letter,** which the town does not make available to the public.
Public comments by WLNA and others: The town’s obstructionism and lack of concern for the neighbors is wrong, citing denial of FOIL; developer’s refusal to meet with neighbors despite PB direction to do so; concerns regarding drainage/runoff due to loss of vegetation on site and increased impermeable surfaces; Concerns about maintenance of stormwater systems & plantings; increases in traffic into local system already horribly congested.
The PB was most concerned with the architectural design & color of the office building in front of the project, rather than any aspects of the 3 story plus monster abutting the residential neighborhood! One member suggested more shade trees on site; one suggested the office building & residence apartments should be the same color…which color?? Where are architectural experts for the TOC?We have lawyers, a former police chief, and music teacher opining on architectural finishes, styles and colors neighbors will live with for years. Notably, there was no discussion about the impact of the proposed development on neighborhood character, especially the need for a 3 story senior apartment building. Storm water plans had been modified after concept approval and after consultation with the Town Stormwater Coordinator John Dzialo. One of the stormwater management methods will allow drainage from the Summit site to go into wetlands on a neighboring parcel.(The PEDD usually requires all stormwater to be handled on site.) Nothing was mentioned about whether the adjacent landowner (Target plaza) was consulted about this stormwater plan.
In the end, about 11:25 PM, the board unanimously approved the SEQRA findings and unanimously approved the Summit.
** The TDE’s letter on each project constitutes a summary of the Town departments’ and engineer’s analysis. SAVE believes that the TDE’s letter is vital to understanding the project’s likely impacts on many levels. Earlier this summer, SAVE sent an email to Chairman Stuto and PEDD Director LaCivita requesting that these letters and applicant responses be uploaded onto the PEDD site with the project narratives and site plans. No response was issued to date. To properly evaluate how a project will impact the neighborhood, residents need to have such information. AND SHOULD! The Town works for US, the residents and taxpayers. Does this town think neighbors should have to hire their own expert to evaluate each project? Apparently. Don’t you love governmental transparency!