GUILDERLAND — For the second time, members of Guilderland’s zoning board turned down, with a unanimous vote, a request from Michael Floccuzio to build within the 500-foot buffer of the Watervliet Reservoir.

Five residents at the July 17 public hearing also spoke against the proposal.

Last October, Floccuzio sought a variance to build a warehouse on the 10.7 acres he’d bought in the Rural Agricultural district at the corner of routes 20 and 158.

This month, he sought a variance to build three houses on the same acreage.

His engineer, David Kimmer with ABD Engineers, told the board that deed restrictions would keep the 300-foot setback from the reservoir “forever wild” and that there would be “a permanent access easement to the historic cemetery that is on the site.”

Kimmer maintained that the three new homes would not change the character of the neighborhood and said that other houses are built within the 500-foot buffer.

A century ago, the 300-foot buffer, marked in red on town maps, was established while the 500-foot buffer, marked with a blue line, was established more recently.

With the current restrictions, Kimmer said, only 6 percent of the parcel is usable for development with only 2 percent available for building.

“The variance being sought would increase the usable area to a more reasonable 25 percent,” he said.

Kimmer conceded that the difficulty was “self-created” since Floccuzio had known about the setback restrictions when he purchased the property.

While the reservoir is Guilderland’s major source of drinking water, Robyn Gray, speaking for the Guilderland Coalition for Responsible Growth said, “The city of Watervliet gets all of their drinking water from there.”

Joseph LaCivita, Watervliet’s general manager, wrote a July 12 letter saying that the city strongly supports a recommendation made by the Albany County Planning Board that the town discourage projects encroaching on the watershed.

The recommendation, LaCivita said, “protects the drinking water supply for both of our communities.”

“If we start granting variances …,” said Gray, “the city of Watervliet can come back to us and say, ‘You’re granting variances; no more water.’ And I don’t think that’s a risk we want to take.

Peter Scofield, who lives near the reservoir, spoke forcefully on the need to protect the reservoir, calling it “the most dear resource we have in our community.”

Often, Scofield said, communities don’t realize the damage done by encroachment until it is too late. “All of a sudden, homes become unsellable, businesses close up and the town becomes a ghost town,” he said.

He assumed that Floccuzio had gotten “a significant discount because the previous owner could not develop on it; the previous owner could not sell it,” he said of the 10.7-acre property.

Scofield said there is no way to guarantee that, in the future, septic systems wouldn’t leak and swales would be maintained. “The future is unknown,” he said.

Joe Masterson cited a study prepared by the Capital Region Planning Commission that identified threats to the Watervliet Reservoir. Among those threats were street pavement, motor vehicles, atmospheric fallout, vegetation, spills, litter, and chemicals.

“This is all due to subdivisions,” he said.

He concluded, “I’m a blue-line person and I’m asking for that 500-foot setback to remain to protect our community and not change the character of the neighborhood.”

Bob Weatherwax, who lives near the reservoir, said, “As goes the reservoir, so goes my wells.” He also identified himself as “a blue-liner” and concluded of the setback, “It was made for a reason and it should stay intact.”

Janet Betlejeski with her sister owns property that abuts the Watervliet Reservoir. “This is basically our heritage,” she said.

“I live right down the road from Black Creek Estates,” she said, “and the 100-foot setback that was put around the development along the road to preserve the trees is a little inadequate.” Residents, she said, are “creeping into the open space to, for example, “put up a swing set for the kids.”

While it seems benign, Betlejeski said, it is eating away at the protected area “piece by piece.”

After the public hearing was closed, Kimmer countered that he, too, lived in Guilderland. “I think a lot of people don’t really even understand how to read this,” he said. All of the water would run to the road, he said.

“We would not be changing anything or disturbing anything …,” Kimmer said. “I don’t see how we could pollute the water.”

Board member Nichole Ventresca-Cohen suggested one house could be built on the property without running afoul of the 500-foot setback.

“We’re trying to build a nicer home …,” responded Kimmer. “It would be tight.”

Kimmer also said, “Last time, eight months ago, a lot of people said, ‘Why don’t you build a home?’ …. So that’s why we went this route. And, you know, months and months later in time, we’re proposing this, not trying to do anything to hurt anybody.”

Elizabeth Lott, the board’s chairwoman, read a lengthy statement, citing a decision from the the state’s highest court, the Court of Appeals that “the zoning board must apply a balancing test, weighing the benefit to the applicant against the detriment to the health and safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community.”

Lott then went through the balancing test, point by point. She said that, even if the immediate neighborhood suffered no ill effects, the larger community, which depends on the water, could be hurt.

Board member Sharon Cupoli, who seconded Lott’s motion to deny the variance, said, “Not all land in our town needs to be developed.”