Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Housing Development topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Planning Board weighs two designs for independent-living facility at 3400 Carman Road; board prefers two-building option

Town of Guilderland Planning Board · January 14, 2026
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

RRA Properties presented two layout options for a proposed independent-living facility on 1.4 acres at 3400 Carman Road; the board expressed a design preference for Option 1 (two smaller buildings) but recorded no formal vote and asked follow-up questions about setbacks, fire-code compliance and dead-end parking.

RRA Properties presented two site layouts to the Town of Guilderland Planning Board on Jan. 14 for a proposed independent-living residential facility at 3400 Carman Road on a 1.4-acre parcel in the Local Business (LB) district.

Option 1 called for two buildings (an eight-unit building and a 10-unit building) but would require an area variance from the 100-foot building setback requirement. Option 2 would place the development in one 2½-story, 21-unit building with a separate accessory building providing 18 garage spaces; Option 2 would not require setback variances.

Luigi Palleschi of ABD Engineers summarized each option and showed example unit styles. The board discussed the feasibility of the setback variance for Option 1, fire-code compliance, and a dislike for dead-end parking arrangements. Laura Barry asked about the purpose of a proposed retaining wall; the applicant said the wall would retain soil from the neighboring property to the north and that an emergency exit area is proposed for egress. The board discussed potential additional green space and parking layouts.

During public comment, residents raised concerns about affordability and differences between the two options; the applicant clarified the unit-size differences and Town Planner Ken Kovalchik addressed questions about rental turnover and confirmed the town does not require affordable housing for this project. After discussion, board members said Option 1 was the more pleasing design. There was no formal vote recorded on the site plan or on any variances at the Jan. 14 meeting.