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

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.