(What follows is not an official report on the planning board meeting, but rather impressions of
what took place at this public meeting. We encourage everyone to read the transcript when it
comes out. The times listed are when the discussions of each project commenced, not the
agenda’s times. There were six major projects reviewed and the meeting did not end until after
10 PM, again.)
7:00 PM
Rosetti Apartment Complex - Richard Rosetti Sr., Owner; 54 Vly Road
Application for Concept Acceptance
2 Two story 8 unit buildings and 1 Duplex
TDE: Chuck Voss, Barton & Loguidice (TDE letter 9/6/18)
There was much discussion concerning lack of amenities for prospective residents, need for
waiver of road frontage requirement, lack of appropriate landscape screening, excessive density, apparent counting of green space on other Rosetti group owned parcels to satisfy this parcel’s green space requirements, and the question of whether contiguous parcels (with apparently different listed owners ***) have actually been legally merged.
Six neighbors spoke in opposition: unsavory history with Rosetti developments; question about
validity of the green space estimate since they are apparently utilizing the already developed
office park parcels’ square footage toward that calculation; neighbors requested the Board to
consider only the instant 1.38 acre parcel’s green space requirement and its density of
development; challenges to proposed Vly Rd emergency access: why not another New Karner
access from this property for emergency use?
Board comments include: lack of amenities for apt residents (why was dumpster located in the
Office parcel and a patio located across a parking lot and closer to the Office buildings); Vly Rd access concern for future and how property owned by Rosetti would be developed, perhaps in future allowing the proposed apartments to obtain access via busy Vly road; duplex should go & use that space instead for amenities; move dumpster away from neighbors and consider an emergency access directly onto New Karner Road. No mention of any recommendations of the Albany County Planning Commission. Developer’s rep stated they’d come back with issues addressed.
What do you think about how the town is dealing with these Rosetti projects? We have
more information if you are interested in this project. Be in touch.
Determination: Tabled
8:00 PM
Entertainment Complex - Keith Ferraro, owner; 941 Albany Shaker Road
Application for Concept Acceptance
26,250 sq.ft. indoor amusement building w/ 10,000 sq.ft. outdoor use
TDE: Chuck Voss, Barton & Loguidice TDE letter 8/3/18
No neighbors spoke. Board in favor. Questions about architectural enhancements and adequacy of parking for sports complex. (Too bad Colonie has no design/architectural expert.)
Determination: Approved
8:30 PM
Ridgeview Meadows Subdivision – Benjamin Avery, owner; 1126 Loudon Road
Sketch Plan review
23 lot subdivision, formerly a Conservation subdivision with commercial/retail
component and access to Rt. 9
TDE: Chuck Voss, Barton & Loguidice, no TDE letter issued yet
Twenty-one houses with 2 lots reserved for stormwater etc. TDE will be looking at wetlands,
interconnection with neighboring subdivision, now that there is no planned access to Rt 9.
Neighbors spoke about loss of wildlife habitat, loss of mature buffering trees in southern-most
lot.
Board: Emergency access needed; suggested eliminating southern-most house to save mature
buffering trees.
8:45 PM
Tasaddaq Mixed Use – Muhammad Tasaddaq, owner; 363 Troy Schenectady Road
Sketch Plan Review
One story retail/office building and a two story 10 unit apartment building
TDE: Joe Grasso, CHA Companies
Engineer’s comments: Developer must show trees on site at Concept Review; save trees to
separate front bldgs from rear buildings; Add amenities for apt. residents including connections to Rt 7 bus stop, landscape islands to break up large parking area.
9:00 PM
Stewart’s Shop – Stewart’s Shop Corp, owner; 406 Albany Shaker Road
Board Update
3,336 sq.ft. convenience store & 6 pump fuel canopy
TDE: Joe Grasso, CHA
Engineer’s comments: Project improved in response to Bd comments and Albany-Shaker Rd
corridor study report, including smaller store footprint, pushing both site entrances further from intersection, dropping one fueling station (8 pumps to 6 pumps). Noted Corridor Study proposal to reconfigure Everett/Albany Shaker intersection to eliminate second westbound lane and add eastbound turn lane into Crisafulli complex. Stewart’s could contribute to cost (we will see…) as there is no GEIS for this area and consequently no established mitigation fees. About ten neighbors in attendance were not invited to speak, even though we had all waited till 9:30 PM!! Sad.
9:30 PM
Lanthier’s Village PDD – Charles Rosenstein, owner; 4 & 6 Dunsbach Ferry Road
Sketch Plan review
Two 4-5-story senior and market rate apartment complexes with a total of 208 units. Senior and non-senior eligible housing. 7,262 sf clubhouse and six garage structures
TDE: Joe Grasso, CHA Companies (TDE letter not provided)
Engineer’s comments: Only one access point now proposed utilizing the Century Hill Office
Park (no mention of NYS Building Code access requirements and whether the Albany County
Planning Commission has reviewed this project). Discussed the viability of eliminating the
Dunsbach Ferry Road emergency access point. Fire Services, however, recommended that the
emergency access should include Dunsbach Ferry Road. May also need to redesign layout for
emergency turnaround. Boght Road GEIS fees apply and Dunsbach Ferry Road Route 9
intersection identified as problem intersection. Will need a detailed traffic study regarding the
proposed development’s impacts to the Century Hill and Dunsbach Road intersections. TDE
pointed out that Town Board will need to review the public benefit amenities proposed. The
project narrative currently states that the applicant wishes to provide a monetary contribution to any intersection improvements at Dunsbach and Route 9, presumably as the public benefit
required for a PDD (with its increased density).
There were also some side comments that a local park benefit may also be proposed. The Century Hill Office park owners submitted a comment letter to the Town. The TDE read from the letter but this letter was not made available to the
public. Board Member Austin questioned why the development was not going to be exclusively
for Seniors. He further pointed out that if the market rate apartments were rented to families this could have a great impact on the local schools as they are “bursting from the seams” right now. Board member Shamlian stated that the town cannot guarantee that the apartments are rented to 55 and over residents. Applicant’s consultant countered that non-residential development would allow a 180,000 square foot office building. Residential zoning would only allow 48 residential units. 168 units are being proposed for the PDD which results in a 120 unit density “bonus.”
Board members also discussed how the monolithic look of the apartment buildings was not
desirable and suggested that the long buildings be shortened as there are no hotels in the Town at these dimensions. This point was disputed by the applicant’s consultant.
(Members are invited to check out the drawings for these enormous tall complexes, which will
significantly add to the terrible traffic conditions on Rt 9 at the northern end of the town. Perhaps the town will reject this PDD with its 120 unit “density bonus” and go with the currently allowed 48 single family residences on this parcel.)