GUILDERLAND — After a hiatus of four weeks, the Guilderland Town Board on Jan. 7 reversed direction on the proposed Foundry Square project, allowing it to proceed.

The planned unit development, with two massive four-story buildings housing a combined 260 apartments, is both denser and taller than allowed by town code.

The green light given by the town board this week allows the project, located at the intersection of Route 20 and Foundry Road, to proceed to the planning board but is not an approval.

On Dec. 10, three board members — Deputy Supervisor Christine Napierski, Jacob Crawford, and Amanda Beedle — sounded opposed to letting the project proceed while Supervisor Peter Barber apologized for some of their comments and urged waiting till this week’s meeting for a decision.

After more than two hours of discussion with mixed public comments, all four board members present — Crawford was absent — voted in favor of allowing the project to proceed.

The 13 acres of land is spread across five separate tax parcels between 2298 and 2314 Western Ave. and is made up of a row of derelict buildings including a defunct dry cleaners, which has been identified by the state’s Department of Environmental Conservation as a brownfield with an underground plume of toxins stretching from Route 20 towards the Hunger Kill.

The key for the architect leading Tuesday’s presentation was that 260 units be allowed, which he said was needed to make the project, being developed by Guilderland Village LLC, financially viable.

The board weighed the trade-off between the developer’s commitment to clean up the site and to improve a dangerous intersection against the concerns over increased traffic and the inappropriateness of a four-story complex in a suburban part of town.

After a dozen members of the public had spoken, including several volunteer firefighters in favor of the project, Barber said to Michael Roman, an architect and principal with C2 Design Group who led the presentation, “I think the problem is we don’t have all the information we would need to make an informed decision on density. I think there’s a lot of wishful talk on your part.” 

Nevertheless, Barber made the resolution, based on notes taken during the lengthy back-and-forth, with a list of recommendations for the project going forward:

— “We want the building to be downsized as much as possible;

— “We want to eliminate the fourth floor as much as possible,” not just along Route 20 but on the Foundry Road side as well;

— “We want a minimum of 10 percent reserved for workforce housing,” with the board proposing a law that would favor volunteer firefighters living in the complex;

— Underground parking is to be “fully explored,” with the number of spaces meeting requirements; and

— “We want it to be a welcoming site,” with landscaping and screening, and street trees, said Barber.

None of these recommendations are binding.

Roman told the board he didn’t want to do “a bait and switch,” and noted problems with some of the recommendations.

“I don’t think we’ll be able to get rid of all of the fourth floor,” he said.

That top floor had already been moved back from the Western Avenue side, reducing the number of units, and changing the top-floor units from one-bedroom to studio apartments.

Roman said throughout the session that two keys to revising the plans will depend on what a geoengineer says about the slope of the hill in the back of the property and whether the Guilderland Industrial Development Agency will support workforce housing.

With IDA support, Roman said, as much as 15 percent could be dedicated to workforce housing.

On Dec. 10, engineer Daniel Hershberg had said, if the Guilderland Industrial Development Agency lent its support for the project, “we can afford to do the 10 percent” of workforce housing.

That would mean 26 apartments designated to be rented to people earning between 80 percent and 120 percent of the town’s Area Median Income, which is $102,000. 

On Tuesday, Roman estimated it would take about four months before he could return to the board with answers from the geoengineer and the IDA.

 

Environmental clean-up

Jeffrey Marx, an environmental engineer with C.T. Male Associates, had told the board on Dec. 10 that cleaning up the site would cost the developer about $2 million.

His firm has investigated the site, he said, and the DEC has approved its cleanup plan.

On Jan. 7, Marx told the board, “Today, we’re ready.”

He went on, “We started in 2016 with a smaller boundary just around the building for the dry cleaners. And when the project got expanded, that brownfield area got bigger.”

The plan, Marx said, is to remove the contaminated soil at the former Master Cleaners site — “get that problem out of there and away.”

The excavation for the footprint of the building foundations will take a month or so, Marx said, so construction is unimpeded.

Depending on the toxicity of the soil, it is burned at a facility that reclaims the soil or it is shipped to a landfill out of state used for such materials.

But other “remedial action” will be needed, he said, to deal with the plume of contaminants that continues to spread from the original site.

“That remedial action work plan will have a fact sheet, will have a public-comment period, and, if necessary, if there’s enough involvement from the community, there would be a public meeting,” said Marx, stating the air will be monitored throughout.

The goal is to obtain a “certificate of completion” from the state.

“We don’t just walk away at that point,” said Marx, explaining that a site-managament plan is tied to the deed of the property.

The monitoring continues until groundwater standards are met, said Marx, which could range from a year to decades.

Pollutants that have migrated outside the boundaries of the property fall under the purview of the DEC to clean up, he said.

 

Architect’s overview

Roman noted the properties were purchased by Charles Bohl Inc. in 2011 and went over three failed attempts to develop the site.

He noted that the current developer would remove the derelict buildings as well as clean up the old dry-cleaners site.

For the current developer, the initial plan was for 285 apartments at a full four stories with 10,000 square feet of commercial space, said Roman.

That was reduced to 260 units and 5,000 square feet of commercial space; another 5,000 square feet could be “flex space,” he said, converted to residential space if warranted.

At the planning board’s request, the buildings were set back further from Route 20 with a row of parking added in front, and the fourth floor, on the Route 20 side, was set back 18 to 20 feet.

The current plan has 395 parking places, which is 20 spaces short of the town’s requirements. Underground parking will be explored, said Roman.

Roman described the improvements the developer will make for the intersection, including improved traffic and pedestrian signals, a turning lane from Route 20 onto Foundry Road, and a turning lane on Foundry itself as well as sidewalks along the length of the property.

The current plans call for 40 percent of the 260 units to be one-bedroom apartments and 60 percent to be two-bedroom apartments.

Depending on what the geoengineer determines, Roman said, it may be possible to nestle apartments into the hill.

“We are not looking to put vinyl onto this building,” said Roman, describing the proposed materials as “high-end”: wood veneer, brick veneer, fiber cement panels, and a standing-seam metal roof.

“We added the roof going all the way down on both buildings on Western Ave. to kind of help kind of visually bring down the scale of the project,” said Roman, stating that the “rhythm of the building” with its porches and cement panels “softens some of the size.”

Also, a reduced use of glass, he said, gives the buildings “more of that residential feel.”

Roman said of the sloped terrain, “This is a challenging site. I’m not going to lie.”

 

Public comment

Robyn Gray, who chairs the Guilderland Coalition for Responsible Growth and has been a strident critic of the proposal, said that “fake brick and fake wood veneer” don’t belong on a scenic highway, that approving the proposal would set a dangerous precedent, and that the complex “does not have a residential feel.”

Gray said neighbors of the Apex at Crossgates and of Hamilton Parc were not listened to. “Some of you are up for re-election,” she told board members.

Westmere residents had sued Pyramid in an attempt to stop the massive apartment complex now called Apex. And the Guilderland coalition was formed by neighbors protesting the Hamilton Parc complex.

But on Dec. 10, although it was not a public hearing, about as many residents spoke in favor of the Foundry Square proposal as against it.

The three Foundry Road residents who spoke opposed the project. 

Ryan Downey, who lives directly behind the proposed project at 6168 Foundry Road, called it a “terrible idea.” He said people use Foundry to bypass the intersection of routes 20 and 155 and the project would make the road “even less safe.”

He also said, because the hill at the back of the project drops 20 feet, a four-story building would look like a six-story building.

“This project doesn’t fit this location,” he said, adding that 200 units “would be fine with me.”

Edward Downey, of 6202 Foundry, speaking for himself and his wife, Jane, reiterated traffic concerns he had made in a letter to the board: “Bottom line, there should be no entry or exit to/from Foundry Rd for this planned development.”

 Sarah van Leer, who, with her husband, has restored an historic house and barn across Foundry Road from the site of the proposed complex, reiterated concerns she had raised on Dec. 10.

“I still don’t like the looks of it,” she said of the proposed complex. “I still want the brownfield cleaned up.”

Joan McKeon, who lives in Westmere, raised concerns about the pollution that will be caused by increased traffic and about how the traffic on Route 20 will affect the health of Foundry Square residents.

She decried the air quality in Guilderland in general, with prescribed pinebush fires, neighbors who heat with wood stoves, and people who have recreational bonfires.

Karen White said she’d rather have the IDA support another project for affordable housing.

Ted Neumann of Altamont likened Charles Bohl Inc. sitting on the property to Pyramid buying up the neighborhood in front of Crossgates and letting it decline on the site that has now been approved for a Costco warehouse.

“We’ve allowed the owner of this property to just sit on this property. It turns into a mess and now they can do whatever they want to with it,” said Neumann. “There’s like a history here of: If you don’t take care of your property, you’re allowed to do anything you want with it eventually.”

John Haluska, a booster of the project, urged an affirmative vote, again citing the “just awful” row of buildings across the street from the recently painted town-owned historic Schoolcraft House.

Brian Forte, of 15 Schoolcraft, a residential street across Route 20 from the proposed complex, spoke in favor of Foundry Square.

“The positives far outweigh the negatives ….,” he said, adding “Something I’ve had to look at for 40 years … could get cleared up.”

Scott Jill, who chairs the Guilderland fire commissioners, spoke in favor of the project. The Guilderland firehouse is directly across Route 20 from the proposed project site.

Jill said the intersection of Route 20 and Foundry Road typically has an accident once a week and that the state’s Department of Transportation had informed the fire department it had no plans to address it.

He also said that the derelict buildings on the site pose “a public safety risk and a risk to our firefighters” and, further, that workforce housing would be “a big boon” for recruiting volunteer firefighters.

Jim Schanz, of 3 Schoolcraft St., president of the Guilderland Fire Department, said the department’s membership endorses the Foundry Square project.

“Common sense says, in order to get this cleaned up at somebody else’s expense, they’re going to have to be able to make money ….,” said Schanz. “Because how much money are you going to dig out of your own personal pocket before it’s too far to go and you’ve wasted hundreds of thousands of dollars only to find out later that maybe this board made up their mind three months before they spent hundreds of thousands of dollars.

“And I think it’s wrong as a common sense businessman to continue to ask somebody to keep coming back spending their own money if there’s been a decision and it’s not going to happen.”

Eric Wells, a volunteer firefighter who lives in Carpenter Village Apartments, had spoken to the town board in 2022 about how hard it was for young people to move out of their parents’ homes in Guilderland because of the high rents in town, making it tough for fire departments to retain members.

To be a member of the Fort Hunter Fire Company, Wells told the board two years ago, volunteers had to live within a mile of the edge of the district as the crow flies. Six of seven members who are living in apartments outside of their parents’ houses are outside of the district, Wells said, causing the department to change its rules.

On Jan. 7, Wells told the board, “Traffic’s going to increase no matter what” and that pollution will become less of an issue as people move to hybrid cars or electric vehicles.

“It’s hard to find an apartment you can afford,” Wells said, stating he favors the Foundry Square proposal. “All I see on this is a win-win-win-win.”

Christopher Degnan of Victoria Drive, off of Willow Street — Willow Street is across from Foundry Road where it intersects Route 20 — lauded the Guilderland Public Library.

The library is about half a mile from that intersection.

Degnan favored the Foundry Square project in part because of its sidewalks, which would help people walk to the library.

He also called the row of derelict buildings “absolutely embarrassing” and said something has to be done to stop the contaminants.

Further, Degnan, who is also a volunteer firefighter, said Foundry Square would give the department more people to protect and to recruit. He said a lot of recruits come from “high-density environments.”

“We can’t kill a good deal in search of some perfect opportunity that doesn’t exist,” said Degnan.

 

Board votes

Before casting her vote in favor of the proposal, Beedle said, “Every board member sitting here has met with the developer extensively over the past two weeks and listened to a lot of the concerns and having to weigh both sides ….

“Not one of us wants a four-story building, but there has to be this compromise of back and forth and that’s why there’s so much passion and energy behind this project. Because we know something has to get done,” said Beedle, lauding Roman’s presentation as better than the one led by Hershberg on Dec. 10.

Roman had described himself as a Guilderland resident who got into architecture “to be a problem-solver for the community.”

“At the end of the day, we’re going to do it the right way ….,” he said. “It’s going to be a great project for the community. Not everyone’s going to be on board, but that’s just on every project.”

Before casting her vote in favor, Napierski spoke at length about her reservations. She said the developer should be more flexible on density.

“They’re going to make their money back. Whether it’s a year or two years maybe, it’s going to happen. … They could listen to us and hear what we’re saying … We want to see it reduced in size and density.”

Napierski also noted there are no other four-story buildings in the western part of town.

“To allow you to build the four stories because there is a brownfield, because there is a dangerous intersection, it still sets a precedent,” she said, “and makes it much harder for our planning board and the town board to say no to the next developer that comes along and wants to do four stories.”

A lot of residents, Napierski said, want to preserve the character of Guilderland as suburban rather than urban.

With a brownfield and a dangerous intersection, Napierski said of the board, “We’re pushed in a corner.”

Napierski said she cast her vote “with strong reservations and with the hope that we can still keep improving this project and come down from 260 and four stories.”

Roman then asked Napierski how many units would be acceptable to her.

“What I want is what the planning board recommended, which was 200 to 230,” Napierski answered.

Roman encouraged her to attend charettes he would hold so community members could air their concerns as the architects seek solutions.

Napierski told Roman, “Just do your best. I’m trusting you.”

Councilman Gustavos Santos said he wanted to make sure the issues raised by people living in the area were addressed “because it’s very important that we listen to the pros and cons.”

He stressed, “It’s a work in progress; it’s a draft. It’s not final yet, so we still have ways to accommodate and make some changes.”

 Santos said he was voting in favor “because of the strong recommendations that we have to make this project the best project there is and to make it a win situation for all of us.”