Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Capital Center Expansion topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board issues SEQR negative declaration and defers final plan review for Capital Center expansion at 126 State Street
Summary
Board adopted a SEQR negative declaration for the Capital Center expansion and deferred detailed Development Plan Review and CUP to the May meeting pending outstanding departmental comments and revised plan sets.
The Albany City Planning Board voted to issue a negative declaration under SEQR for the proposed expansion of the Capital Center (126 State Street) and to defer final Development Plan Review (DPR) and the conditional use permit until the applicant addresses outstanding departmental comments.
Representatives for the Capital Center and BBL Construction presented plans for a 57,499‑square‑foot expansion, partial demolition to the rear of the existing 126 State Street building and a 2,316‑square‑foot pedestrian bridge connecting the addition to the adjacent parking parcel at 120 State Street. Project materials emphasized stormwater management (including an underground storage chamber and hydrodynamic separator), rooftop and courtyard landscaping, exterior lighting and utility coordination in an area served by combined sewers.
Staff briefed the board on interagency reviews: the project was referred to the Albany County Planning Board, which recommended coordinated local review and asked the city to consult the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation regarding historic resources. Staff said the project requires HRC (Historic Resources Commission) certificate of appropriateness; water‑ and sewer‑department comments and several design clarifications remained outstanding. Traffic engineering provided mitigation recommendations; an easement agreement will be required for the pedestrian bridge. Staff recommended a SEQR negative declaration and to defer DPR/CUP until revised plans respond to departmental comments.
The board moved, seconded and approved the negative declaration and voted to defer DPR and CUP review to a future (May) meeting to allow the applicant to resolve the listed technical comments.
Staff asked the applicant to submit revised plans addressing right‑of‑way coordination, stormwater BMP clarifications, water and sewer engineer reports, photometric lighting details, signage details and the reduced curb cut width reflected in the latest plan set. Several departments (DGS, Water, DEC/DOH coordination) will require further documentation before final approvals.
Board action clears the SEQR threshold, allowing environmental review to conclude, but the project remains subject to final DPR, CUP and HRC approvals after the applicant submits the requested revisions.
