Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Large Scale Housing Development topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Planning board approves major DPRs for MDG’s South Bend project, moving 166 units forward

3540884 · May 7, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Albany City Planning Board approved four major development plan reviews for the MDG South Bend project — part of a larger 166‑unit, 62‑structure development — with conditions tied to water and infrastructure comments.

MDG Development representatives presented revisions to a large South Bend housing project Tuesday, and the Albany City Planning Board voted to approve four major development plan reviews covering several multi‑unit buildings, subject to two departmental conditions.

Andrew Burns, representing MDG Development, described the project as a citywide package of approximately 166 dwelling units across about 62 structures on roughly 63 parcels, with the meeting focusing on four major DPRs (DPR‑0183, DPR‑0184, DPR‑0185 and DPR‑0188). The applicant said the overall project is financed primarily through low‑income housing tax credits with an income‑averaging strategy that targets a 60% AMI average across units; the team said they reserved some units at lower and higher AMI tiers to meet program requirements.

The project has undergone Historic Review Commission review; the applicant reported receiving 27 Certificates of Appropriateness for necessary historic work. Planning staff noted the outstanding issue primarily concerns coordination with the water department and public infrastructure upgrades, including replacement or lining of water and sanitary mains and curb/sidewalk repairs tied to the project. Staff recommended approval of the four DPRs with two conditions, and the board moved, seconded and approved the motion by voice vote.

Board members asked about accessibility routing from bus stops, ADA entrances, unit mixes and community amenities such as shared laundry and fitness spaces; the applicant said the larger buildings include common laundry and fitness rooms and that most First‑Floor units would be accessible. Staff noted the project had received “no impact” letters under state historic/state environmental review where required and that final engineering responses remain outstanding.