GUILDERLAND — After close to a dozen committee meetings over the past two years, the update to Guilderland’s two-decades-old land-use plan is nearing its final form. 

A public hearing was held Sept. 10 on the proposed update, which is meant to “create a vision for the future for the town of Guilderland,” and is “intended to be a blueprint for the town and identify recommendations for a series of topics,” consultant Jaclyn Hakes told plan update committee members.

The draft plan offers recommendations meant to bolster the town’s official land-use policy in six areas: 

— Agriculture;

— Business, employment, and fiscal resources;

— Environment, climate change, and resiliency;

— Neighborhoods and housing;

— Parks, recreation, open space, and historic resources; and

— Transportation and mobility.

The comprehensive plan update committee will hold one more meeting, on Oct. 10, to review the comments made during the September public hearing, after which the plan will be referred to the town board. 

The town board’s adoption process includes another public comment period, referral of the plan to neighboring municipalities and the Albany County Planning Board, the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR) process, another public hearing, and finally adoption, Town Planner Kenneth Kovalchik told The Enterprise by email. 

To ensure the plan doesn’t just sit on a shelf collecting dust but actively guides future development and policies, the committee recommends establishing a dedicated body or mechanism to oversee the plan’s implementation.

To that end, a five-year action plan is recommended.

The five-year plan calls for annual updates and progress reports to the town board, and would outline specific steps and actions needed to implement each recommendation, along with targeted timeframes for their initiation and completion.

The recommendation states the town’s planning department is expected to play a significant role in crafting this action plan, and that the town board should assign clear responsibility for overseeing implementation of five-year action plans, ensuring there’s accountability and a clear line of communication. But the recommendation stops short of explicitly stating the planning department should be the designated department. 

In addition to establishing a guiding body for the five-year action plan, the update committee recommends a push to review, evaluate, and amend the zoning ordinances and subdivision regulations to ensure they align with the new plan.

To meet this end, the committee recommends a thorough “zoning diagnostic,” or regulatory analysis. The process would identify any inconsistencies between current zoning codes and the newly adopted plan, offering potential solutions to rectify them.

Public hearing

 Jeff Mirel, a principal with Rosenblum Development, whose company has operated in Guilderland for three decades and who himself will soon be a town resident, largely praised the plan but also offered some concrete additions.

“While the plan invokes a new village-like plan community that incorporates a mix of land uses, one specific strategy that I’d like to offer tonight that I believe will increase housing options and grow the town’s tax base where it is most appropriate is to expand the transit-oriented development district to both sides of the Route 20 corridor and west towards state Route 155 with appropriate modifications for requirements like density … to [the] west of Rapp Road,”  he said.

Mirel said that leveraging the TOD district to focus on properly-scaled mixed-use retail, commercial, and higher density housing development, as contemplated in the draft plan along the Route 20 corridor, would, “One, expedite the conversion or replacement of underutilized, outmoded, and, in many cases dilapidated commercial buildings cited in B2 of the draft plan.”

Secondly, he said shifting parking to the rear of lots and reducing building setbacks, bringing storefronts and multi-family housing up to the sidewalk, would create a safer, more inviting pedestrian boulevard to an expanded TOD district. 

“And then, three, increased mixed-use activity will motivate improvements in public transit service ….”

Mirel concluded, “I think this combination of new and existing housing, improved walkability, and enhanced public transit will create a virtuous cycle that supports more services, retail, restaurants, and entertainment, which was diminished by the COVID-19 pandemic, stimulating the town’s economic base, resident wealth creation, and a true mixed-use town center for all.”

Anton Konev, a town resident living in an apartment, pointed out what he saw as a disconnect between the plan’s praise for the Capital District Transportation Authority (CDTA) and the reality of reduced bus service in parts of Guilderland.

“Over the last few years, CDTA has disconnected the village of Altamont, the village of Voorheesville, from the rest of the town, having disconnected the routes that used to connect with villages in the town," Konev said.

Konev urged the committee to address the cuts to bus service and to push for expanded FLEX+, which involves pre-booking trips to local destinations, and regular CDTA transportation services, particularly in the western part of town, and emphasized the importance of public transportation for economic development and environmental sustainability.

“If we’re going to develop this town, we need to develop public transportation," Kovev said.

The preservation of Guilderland’s rural character, particularly in outlying areas of the town, emerged as a significant concern for some residents who spoke at the hearing.

Ken McIver, a resident of Armstrong Drive, expressed apprehension about a proposed water line extension to Altamont and its potential impact on development in rural areas.

An extension has been discussed extensively in the past, largely for development purposes; however, Altamont has no emergency interconnects with other municipalities

“My concern is that it is the death knell for our rural section of town,” McIver said. He worried that the installation of water infrastructure could lead to increased development pressure, transforming rural areas into more suburban landscapes.

Susan Mosier of West Highland Drive touched on the importance of environmental protection in the comprehensive plan. Mosier questioned whether the plan adequately addressed runoff from housing developments and commercial areas, not just agricultural lands.

“Where has it stated that you have concerns about the runoff from the housing developments that all use pesticides, fertilizers, and herbicides on their lawns?” Mosier asked. She emphasized the need for a holistic approach to water-quality protection that considers all potential sources of pollution.

Robyn Gray of the Guilderland Coalition for Responsible Growth, touched on a number of issues, business and housing among them.

Gray quoted one of the plan’s goals, “Establish and promote a diverse and strategic economic base that provides income, employment, and revenue in a manner that is compatible with future land use and identity of Guilderland.”

Gray said, “These businesses claim hardship to the town, asking for reduction in tax assessments and ultimately file for tax certiorari hearings to reduce their burdens. This is costing taxpayers money and does not help the housing shortages of affordable or senior housing in our town.”