[{"_1":2,"_110":-5,"_111":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6552741,"mediaKeyId","5107719-11ae8fa3a426abfd97c1177593edbf85","parentId",5107719,"title","Troy Planning Board declares intent to be lead agency for Second Avenue PDD as neighbors raise environmental and historic concerns","audioSeconds",171,"startMs",3013000,"endMs",3184000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5107719-11ae8fa3a426abfd97c1177593edbf85&start=3013&end=3184","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5107719-11ae8fa3a426abfd97c1177593edbf85/thumbnail_3013000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6552741/Troy/Rensselaer-County/New-York/Troy-Planning-Board-declares-intent-to-be-lead-agency-for-Second-Avenue-PDD-as-neighbors-raise-environmental-and-historic-concerns","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6552741-6430efccc2081c864a6e73e8c18a0dd6/orig.mp4?Expires=1773575787&Signature=Lw6H-WE8mrjCrUK~oAXTOy5OryN4oDhrsCH~cQFxRnp0F-z1kj3oZl4EsF2oIu3SnI8Pi~9iGgngX3oBGck~xfWYYPk4njPkd5GLCnCKwS4uDi8U0RTCSM8x4RQB3s8tuG0xnSF98Dets244khP4SocgiBWh0nUPt6J5T7bS5r~rSC7xXKiUZXBpCMNVkbYYkmFgHqxubx2ziPT0h6blp7cdiGrtW8fzIJfv1k~6gXfXNvgCMRUor8DGD466Abwr-bnZS~6kTlBrl1b1yY3qXSI6vFAwfC6IME76bIEOyCd9Bm9FAz-HCbaTxBtUROdaI2lR5hlyVxSt49oF8QRsrw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Troy, NY","date","2025-06-30T16:19:39Z","article","The Troy Planning Board voted unanimously to declare its intent to act as lead agency for the Second Avenue Planned Development District, PLPB202500291011, a proposed multi‑building residential development on the Hudson River. The board’s action begins the coordinated SEQR process and triggers distribution of environmental review materials to involved and interested agencies.

The decision matters because the project site is largely undeveloped and has repeatedly drawn public attention for archaeological, ecological and neighborhood impacts. Speakers at the public comment period urged the board to require a full environmental impact statement, to include the Village of Waterford as an involved agency, and to use outside consultants funded through the applicant’s escrow for specialized reviews.

At the meeting, Andy Brick of Brick Law Firm, appearing for Starlight Developers, asked the board to declare lead agency so the procedural review could proceed. “We’re simply asking for you to declare yourself as lead agency,” he said, noting the application team had updated the Environmental Assessment Form in response to staff comments. Board members voted in favor; the motion carried without recorded opposition.

Public commenters described a range of concerns the board should consider during SEQR. Monica Willett, a Waterford resident, said the project would amplify noise and light across the river, affect bald eagle and heron habitat, and remove tree buffers along the shoreline. “The document speaks of removing trees and vegetation. This vegetation acts as a buffer to the noise and light and provides habitat,” Willett said. She urged the board to treat Waterford as an involved agency because residents across the river would be affected.

Jessica Bennett, who lives adjacent to the site at 1009 Second Avenue, pointed to omissions and apparent inaccuracies on the EAF. She told the board the application listed “no excavation” despite plans that include subsurface parking and grading. “It’s reasonable to ask that the board obtain a full and truthful application before any decision is made on the project,” Bennett said.

Other speakers urged the board to anticipate a positive SEQR declaration and comprehensive EIS. Alec Lindman urged the board to expect significant impacts to an unusually intact forest, large specimen trees and to archaeological resources; he also said the applicant had not secured consultation or approval from the federally recognized Stockbridge‑Munsee community. Several commenters asked the board to require the applicant to fund outside consultants for specialized reviews, such as archaeology, ecology, and traffic engineering.

Board members and staff responded that the board’s declaration of intent to be lead agency is the procedural first step. Planning staff said they would circulate the EAF and associated materials to involved and interested agencies and that those agencies will have the statutory review period to object or consent. City staff also said they intend to request that the applicant fund outside consultants through the escrow process for technical reviews commonly needed on complex applications.

The board did not reach substantive rulings on the project tonight; declaring lead agency begins the coordination period. If no other involved agency objects within the statutory comment period, the planning board will act as lead and continue SEQR review. If the board later finds it lacks adequate information to make a negative declaration, it may require an environmental impact statement with public scoping, technical studies and consultant analyses paid by the applicant.

The planning board meeting record shows extensive written public comment already on file with staff. Board members said they will incorporate those submissions into the record and that interested parties can expect notices when the lead‑agency mailing occurs.

The board’s next steps include mailing the EAF to involved agencies, receiving any objections to lead‑agency status, and identifying specific technical reports or consultant expertise needed to complete environmental review.

Votes and procedural actions on this item are recorded in the meeting minutes and will be included in the SEQR distribution packet.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Planning Board Hearing/Meeting (June 17, 2025)","oneSentenceSummary","The Troy Planning Board voted unanimously to declare its intent to act as lead agency for the Second Avenue Planned Development District, PLPB202500291011, beginning coordinated environmental review under SEQR.","taxTitle","Troy, Rensselaer County, New York","taxId",66125,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6552728,"Votes at a glance: Troy Planning Board (June meeting) — approvals, tables and next steps",2939,27000,2966000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5107719-11ae8fa3a426abfd97c1177593edbf85&start=27&end=2966","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5107719-11ae8fa3a426abfd97c1177593edbf85/thumbnail_27000.jpg","/articles/6552728/Troy/Rensselaer-County/New-York/Votes-at-a-glance-Troy-Planning-Board-June-meeting-approvals-tables-and-next-steps","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6552728-2d236b04832ad8fb5901bb783db4e553/orig.mp4?Expires=1773575787&Signature=joelw5Ig0Ra017-mykTsj3rbHDhRHdOb22w8~4Nmr5lZp0MTcslqVfS6q96zHsC1affEmIGhx9exbiNPdi4OLQbF4YKB8JrP1qgiLa6eo5SQFGEMcOetzOf0JHz~CHKqwTt0PV9McPlZaJzcQG7~xSgeoVJ3Oyq2d5-PWa9u8CF2gdVB5tZj~fbIFLKqQHuNJ6WdDuoKLoxdCBZCRT4rDPtn6DH5NiWhjV8HBLY1yJL1ZC~lA5ZKK~o4QqVEDPkhnpp0IR65h7SRuefNumqW-VnXpH7Ne-68~dwxDTN6kNeZTv41tk6btH98uNTyaHTA3erUJsf1rSNTX-wM0i4~fQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At its June meeting the Troy Planning Board recorded the following formal actions (motions, seconds and outcomes) on planning applications. For clarity, items are listed by agenda identifier as recorded in the meeting.

1) Approval of minutes — Motion to approve minutes of prior meeting carried unanimously.

2) PLPC 20250002604 (Seventh Avenue) — Applicant requested an extension of the review period; applicant not present. Board motioned to table the item to allow the applicant to complete outstanding reviews with DPU and the city engineer. Motion to table carried unanimously.

3) PLPB 20250017285 (Pauling Avenue; “back of the house” project) — Applicant returned for final approval. Board approved final project application and separately approved the proposed demolition contained in the project proposal. Both motions carried unanimously.

4) PLPC 202500061820 (20 Stowe Avenue) — Final approval granted for a six‑unit residential replacement building to replace a fire‑lost building; approvals included the applicant’s commitments on windows, a rear egress roof and sidewalk replacement coordination with codes/building staff. Motion carried unanimously.

5) PLPB 20250027416 (Third Street) — Final site plan approval granted for the Third Street project (applicant proposed 31 additional parking spaces, landscaping and stormwater measures). Motion carried unanimously; applicant to coordinate sidewalk replacement with city departments and implement landscaping and stormwater practices per staff recommendations.

6) PLPB 202500280 (Farrington Avenue / 170 Winter Street) — Board approved a lot‑line adjustment to create a new parcel intended for single‑family use. The board and engineering staff confirmed the parcel is zoned for single‑family and any further subdivision or multi‑unit housing would require separate review and ZBA action. Motion carried unanimously.

7) PLPC 2024005980 (Fourth Street) — The board tabled the site plan / modification pending additional documentation. Outstanding items include a written building‑department determination about whether the rear carriage house work constitutes new construction or remodel (which affects zoning/unit minimums), DPU permit/flow verification, Historic Review Committee correspondence on salvaged cornice/bricks, and a final hazardous‑materials test. Staff will renotice adjacent property owners if the demolition constitutes substantial deconstruction (>75%). Motion to table carried unanimously.

8) PLPB 202500291011 (Second Avenue PDD) — The board declared its intent to act as SEQR lead agency for the proposed Planned Development District and will distribute the EAF to involved and interested agencies for the statutory comment period. Motion carried unanimously.

Each of the motions above was recorded in the meeting minutes. In several cases the board required follow‑up documentation or conditions (for example, sidewalk replacement coordination, renotification of neighbors for significant demolition, and DPU/utility confirmations). Where the transcript did not name a specific mover or seconder, the minutes record the motion as made and seconded and the vote as carried unanimously.","A summary of motions and outcomes recorded at the June meeting of the Troy Planning Board, including approvals for multiple site plans and a tabled historic‑resource application. All recorded votes were unanimous.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6552733,"Planning Board approves Third Street site plan adding 31 parking spaces for St. Joseph’s after public debate over neighborhood impacts",548,491000,1039000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5107719-11ae8fa3a426abfd97c1177593edbf85&start=491&end=1039","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5107719-11ae8fa3a426abfd97c1177593edbf85/thumbnail_491000.jpg","/articles/6552733/Troy/Rensselaer-County/New-York/Planning-Board-approves-Third-Street-site-plan-adding-31-parking-spaces-for-St-Josephs-after-public-debate-over-neighborhood-impacts","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6552733-3aae0a48215b4dedf2280ae9af3b2743/orig.mp4?Expires=1773575787&Signature=Dxzm4xtI7v~9zVnBRMnXQKpXs4fzLCY8Oq8eygdoJ9u656DEG8uxiN10kVMu-EX8M4kf6GXSxmW3s9GDGLTDbbfsCFwJaP3oBCjGvQlkW~GMIzJ2-TRvthIE8l-Fc8vaijvaXG7jKOOlZ3M~ARtnwPTKxgTqXw~j2nD-MgoJNRQ6urZQQyllF7~jom-wI1lqGP1TEBYvRWfKENFINCp1KKUcxiBqsy~MYRHqAVsc0aXmegSuJrzeZLg3PlylPU7vss-ak~yVYDrGwEz5GfhwXziKtYfiR-RQy-MhuPbWW2Oxtc6W23vYD2OIilP8Bk3-JTLOeV-Xae07WptiLnTHYQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Troy Planning Board voted unanimously to approve the site plan for a property on Third Street (PLPB20250027416) that adds 31 parking spaces intended in part to serve nearby St. Joseph’s church.

Applicant representatives said the proposal includes landscaping, shade trees between existing and proposed parking areas, an island with trees, improved circulation and removal of an existing chain‑link fence to allow access on both sides. The applicant said they will work with the planning and codes departments to replace damaged sidewalks that were destroyed by prior demolition and firefighting activity.

Neighbors mounted substantial public comment in opposition and in support. Steven Mables of 511 Second Street, a transportation planner by training, told the board the Transportation Demand Management Plan “has not, repeat, not shown the need for this demand” and that the TMP lacked the rigorous street‑parking analysis required by local standards. “For that reason alone, I would say the TMP is not adequate according to our own law,” Mables said.

Other residents emphasized pedestrian and senior access concerns. Rich LaRose, a parishioner, described multiple Sunday services at nearby churches and the difficulty older parishioners would have walking several blocks to worship. “He’s looking to kind of make it a little bit more amenable to the parishioners,” LaRose said of the pastor’s intent to improve access.

Pamela Benteen, a neighborhood resident, said she worried about losing green space and increasing summer heat in the area: “To have more paving and to have the heat generated by that is a big concern to me.” Some commenters suggested alternatives such as curb‑management reserving spaces for people with mobility needs and limiting the scope of surface paving.

Applicant and architectural representatives said they had added landscaping, screening, shade trees and stormwater infiltration practices, and they said trees along Third Street would remain. The applicant also described retaining green space for summer festivals and preserving an island within the layout.

Board members asked a series of technical questions about the number of spaces, landscaping, island design and the applicant’s coordination with the church on service schedules. After discussion the board voted to approve the site plan application; the motion passed unanimously.

The board’s approval included the applicant’s commitment to work with city departments on sidewalk replacement and to follow staff recommendations regarding lighting, landscaping and stormwater measures. The public record for the application includes multiple written submissions from neighbors that will remain part of the planning file.","The board granted final approval for the Third Street site plan (PLPB20250027416), which adds 31 new parking spaces for a nearby church. Neighbors raised concerns about lost green space, heat island effects, and an inadequate transportation demand management plan; the board voted unanimously to approve.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":80,"_47":104,"_49":105,"_51":106,"_53":107,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":108,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":109,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6552738,"Fourth Street renovation paused after board seeks more detail on carriage‑house demolition, utilities and historic review",1319,1647000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5107719-11ae8fa3a426abfd97c1177593edbf85&start=1647&end=2966","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5107719-11ae8fa3a426abfd97c1177593edbf85/thumbnail_1647000.jpg","/articles/6552738/Troy/Rensselaer-County/New-York/Fourth-Street-renovation-paused-after-board-seeks-more-detail-on-carriagehouse-demolition-utilities-and-historic-review","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6552738-d09b5710b7f68d9b3f5bda6c7d8dbb92/orig.mp4?Expires=1773575787&Signature=alvur8LSnokc-76SJW8B5HPMEa2xv-NjsNOPw4oRyrdK2jG~4qC1okGJ4uZlOrKbDTYFA8d27GLw7HKhAklGlYjGBEdIBBaDruMeKgwnpSWdXbRsia3d7pTlIAXRhjgWbXaI3Gy3A4vNT9okLCGplVOrwHDgN0S0hcb05U1R533M3TTlRl96URaiEWdzqNVHgIs4I1l3tzElbO~JErQlcfmFuAyPMkF5UL814U0cE8XuD~7ttKdjkTgLw1ON28wC61fFfu3CrXCDB6EQP~UMa7dKtdpUVGoYWTmGaGGN1U7C9uXqvdahS1WcqR2x1vxFgSISNcnfzoUSoDHRYVwc0g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Troy Planning Board voted unanimously to table action on the Fourth Street renovation and rear‑courtyard addition, PLPC2024005980, after members and staff identified outstanding technical and historic‑resource issues.

Applicant representatives described extensive structural work to an existing rear carriage house and said much of that rear structure would be rebuilt. “We are salvaging the alley exterior wall for historic purposes,” Kyle Angstrom of MU Studio Architects told the board, describing new foundations, floor plates and roofing that the team said would result from the scope of work.

Board members and staff repeatedly sought clarity on whether the rear building should be treated as an existing structure (subject to zoning limits on minimum unit sizes) or as effectively new construction exempt from those limits. The distinction matters because zoning rules cited by staff set minimum unit square footage for remodeled units; the applicant argues the work is de‑facto new construction and should not trigger the same limits.

Other topics the board asked the applicant to resolve before declaring the application complete included:
- Historic‑district review: the applicant said the Historic Review Committee had asked the team to preserve a corbelled cornice and sample masonry; staff asked for documented HRC concurrence.
- Adjacent‑owner notification: staff said adjoining property owners should have been notified if demolition exceeded thresholds; the applicant agreed to re‑notice the proposed deconstruction/demolition.
- Fire and life‑safety: the fire chief had negotiated changes to the rear egress; the applicant said it had revised plans accordingly.
- Utilities and municipal approvals: applicant representatives said they had retained engineers, completed flow calculations and planned to tap the street water and sewer; the city engineer and DPU staff asked for confirmation of permit status and flow approvals prior to site plan approval.
- Hazardous materials: the applicant reported asbestos testing had been carried out with largely negative results, with one remaining element to test (an old walk‑in fridge).

Several board members and the city engineer said they want written confirmation from the building department that the carriage house demolition/reconstruction qualifies as new construction, or, alternately, documented ZBA relief if minimum‑unit‑size variances will be required. The building department staff said a written determination was forthcoming.

The board also directed staff to renotice adjacent owners if the deconstruction constitutes substantial demolition. That renotification was requested after staff said it had not been made for the scope now described by the applicant.

The applicant asked to proceed quickly and said financing is in place and that work on water/sewer taps is advanced. Still, the board concluded it lacked sufficient documentation to declare the application complete and scheduled the item to return after the applicant provides the requested materials and after staff re‑notices adjacent owners.

The motion to table was made and seconded; the motion carried unanimously. The applicant was asked to provide documentation of DPU/tap permits, a written building‑department position on “new construction” vs. “remodel,” HRC correspondence and the remaining asbestos test results prior to the next meeting.","Troy Planning Board voted to table PLPC2024005980 for additional information after debate over whether a deteriorated carriage house constitutes new construction or demolition, and while water/sewer, fire safety, and historic‑resource issues remain unresolved.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Troy Planning Board declares intent to be lead agency for Second Avenue PDD as neighbors raise environmental and historic concerns

Votes at a glance: Troy Planning Board (June meeting) — approvals, tables and next steps

Planning Board approves Third Street site plan adding 31 parking spaces for St. Joseph’s after public debate over neighborhood impacts

Fourth Street renovation paused after board seeks more detail on carriage‑house demolition, utilities and historic review