GUILDERLAND — After a contentious discussion that lasted over two hours, the Guilderland Town Board postponed its decision on whether to let the Foundry Square Planned Unit Development proceed.

The developer, Guilderland Village LLC, has proposed two massive four-story buildings with a combined 260 apartments, which is both denser and taller than allowed by town code, at the intersection of Route 20 and Foundry Road.

While one board member said it feels like the Foundry Square developer is holding a gun to the town’s head, the town planner said there was no threat and the developer has made compromises and will do heavy lifting to solve longstanding pollution and traffic problems.

The town board was cool in its reception of the first presentation in May, when it unanimously voted to accept the application, combining residential and some commercial space on 13 acres of land spread across five separate tax parcels between 2298 and 2314 Western Ave.

Judging by their comments on Dec. 10, three of the board members — Deputy Supervisor Christine Napierski, Jacob Crawford, and Amanda Beedle — appeared ready to vote against allowing the nonconforming density and height when Supervisor Peter Barber, who had remained largely quiet throughout the heated discussion, urged postponing the vote until the board’s reorganizational meeting on Jan. 7.

Barber focused on the comments that had been made by Sarah van Leer, who, with her husband, has restored an historic house and barn across Foundry Road from the site of the proposed complex.

She expressed concerns, both on Dec. 10 and in a letter to the board, that toxins left on the property by Master Cleaners could extend to her property.

The dry-cleaning business, which closed in the 1970s, was named by the state’s Department of Environmental Conservation to the Brownfield Cleanup Program in 2016 because of volatile organic compounds left in the soil that the DEC has determined have formed an underground plume traveling toward the Hunger Kill, which feeds into the Watervliet Reservoir, Guilderland’s major source of drinking water.

On Oct. 21, the DEC wrote a letter to Charles Bohl Inc., which owns the properties slated for development, that it objects “to the pace and progress of the Remedial Program at the site” as “the site has been determined to pose a significant threat to human health and environment.”

“The extent to which that plume has gone beyond that property and hit the Hunger Kill or the properties across the street is paramount,” said Barber. 

Barber also said, referring to other board members, “Unfortunately, there were some words that probably shouldn’t ever have been issued. So I’m going to apologize on behalf of the board if there was any misperception.”

He said to the property owner, the engineer, the architect, the environmental lawyer, and the real estate agent who had addressed the board to promote the project, “So the bottom line is, I would like you to make your best case, your best compromise; this is an art of compromise here … But at the same time, and I’m going to be right upfront, I don’t want to miss this opportunity to clean up this brownfield.”

Barber also said of the decision the board will make on Jan. 7, “I think the board has to understand this will get us to the next step,” which includes looking at the design, the parking, the architecture, and more.

“That’s the planning board’s job. Our job is simply just to give the applicant the parameters under which they can do their design …. We need to take a breath of a few weeks.”

Barber referred again to Sarah van Leer’s comments, saying she wants two things: the brownfield and any damage remedied “and she doesn’t want to be looking out at a big building, staring at her front window.”

He said he would like to see the buildings at three stories rather than four.

Barber said he had talked with the DEC and didn’t think the delay of a few weeks would matter. He said he also wasn’t concerned about the density of the proposed 260 units as traffic and other studies had shown that wouldn’t be a concern.

Daniel Hershberg, the engineer who spearheaded the presentation, responded that he had postponed his vacation to “someplace warm” to attend the Dec. 10 meeting.

“So my going-away present is no decision,” said Hershberg. “I would hope that I would end up with some sort of decision. Thank you very much."

“I don’t think you would have liked the decision if we had to take the vote right now …,” said Barber. “It’s best to wait.”

 

Developer’s view

Hershberg told the board that the project would demolish the dilapidated buildings on the site and reduce the environmental hazard of the toxins left by the dry cleaners. He also touted the safety improvements that would be made to the intersection, including turn lanes and an upgrade of pedestrian signals.

Hershberg said that, in the last five years, there have been 88 car accidents at the intersection, “primarily rear-end accidents.”

He also went over estimated costs with a total budget for the project of roughly $90 million. Environmental work and demotion, which he said would likely include asbestos in the old buildings to be torn down, would cost $4.3 million while the on-site improvements required by the state’s Department of Transportation would total $2.5 million.

Hershberg 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. 

Finally, Hershberg said, a playground and “other amenities” were added.

Jeffrey Marx, an environmental engineer with C.T. Male Associates, said the cleanup of the site would cost the developer about $2 million.

“There’s some contaminants that are in the groundwater right now,” he said.

Marx also said, “We’re trying to marry that developer’s proposed plan with actually cleaning up that site.”

His firm has investigated the site, he said, and the DEC has approved its cleanup plan. “We’re really at the jump-off point of that plan,” he said.

Michael Roman, an architect and principal with C2 Design Group, said that, because of concerns raised by the planning board about the height of the four-story buildings right up against Route 20, the buildings had been moved back from the road and the top story had been stepped back.

Consequently, the number of apartments has been reduced to 260.

Hershberg said that, since the first sketch plan was submitted to the planning board, the buildings were moved back from Western Avenue by about 30 feet with a line of parking added at the front.

“Mass and scale is important ...,” said Roman. “We essentially removed the number of units and we’re holding back about 20 feet from the edge of the roof. So it’s a four-story building but along Western Ave., it’s essentially three stories with a step back on the inner side of the building.”

Roman went on, “We also want to kind of look at some of the rhythm that kind of goes along the street edge and also be mindful of some of the nicer materials.”

The materials, which include brick and durable maintenance-free composite products, Roman said, are used not just on the side facing Route 20 but throughout the project.

Balconies, he said, “create some different types of scale and mass along the building.”

The Guilderland firehouse, a modern brick and stone building, is across Route 20 from the proposed complex. “I think it fits within the nice street edge as you’re driving in, walking up Western Ave.,” said Roman of the proposal.

 

Owner’s view

Theresa Bohl, the majority shareholder of Charles Bohl Inc., which owns the property, told the board, “My family’s been here since the 1920s. I grew up on Foundry Road. My parents lived there until they passed a few years ago. I took care of them in that house and I built my own house here.”

Bohl said she has been working for 13 years to clean up and sell the Route 20 properties. She said her family’s company spent $1.3 million dollars in 2010 cleaning up the polluted gas-station site that is part of the property, and that she has also unsuccessfully tried auctioning off the parcels that are not polluted.

“Nobody will buy or develop a site that is next to a potential contaminated site,” Bohl said. 

“We finally have a developer who has the will, the means, the determination, and the urgency to get this done,” said Bohl.

Three developers before have walked away from various proposals for the site, largely put off by the brownfield, which Bohl said covers two acres of the 13-acre property; one acre, she said, is the Master Cleaners lot on Route 20 and the other polluted acre is behind that.

She said of Charles Bohl Inc., “This corporation is $1.7 million in debt. I personally have been paying the taxes and the expenses for the last few years. I will not see any of that back. I will personally benefit nothing from this except for peace of mind, having taken care of a family property.

“If I walk away, that’s $56,000 to $60,000 a year in taxes that will not be paid to the town. That estimated $2.5 million in remediation will be paid for by taxpayers. The brownfield will be left as it is with contamination for 10-plus years and continued accidents on Route 20/Foundry.”

She noted several historic buildings on Route 20 from routes 146 to 155 but said, other than those, such as the Schoolcraft House, owned by the town, and the Hamilton Union Presbyterian Church, she saw no “historical significance” to that stretch of road.

The new proposal, she said, would be an improvement and might provide a needed hub; “maybe there would finally be some kind of a center to the town at that juncture,” said Bohl.

She mentioned the Apex “five-story faceless apartment complex” that was allowed to overlook the historic Rapp Road district.

Bohl said it was “extremely painful” for her to drive by the row of dilapidated buildings her family company owns.

“I have put my heart, my soul, my brain, my treasure into trying to do something with this property. For 13 years, I stepped up. I’ve done everything I can. I can’t do anymore.”

Bohl’s environmental lawyer, Gary Bowitch, predicted that, if the current proposal didn’t go through, the DEC would put a lien on the Master Cleaners property and the lot behind it.

“Not a lot of developers come in and just plop down $2 million,” he said.

 

Board views

Crawford asked Bowitch, “If this entered the brownfield program in 2016, what has taken place between 2016 and 2024 that we’re now at the point of, if we don’t do X, Y will happen? Why are we there now, sir?”

“We have tried to get developers in,” said Bowitch; this is the third one we’ve tried.”

He said he’d seen “transformative” brownfield cleanups throughout upstate New York where sites abandoned for years have become “vibrant” areas.

Crawford rejoined, “It seems a little interesting that now you’re bringing to the town that, if we don’t act at this exact moment, this is what’s going to happen when you’ve known since 2016.”

“This is the third rodeo,” said Bowitch. “And what we’re trying to do is get to a place where you can build a beautiful housing complex and clean up a contaminated site.”

Bowitch said that Charles Bohl brought the defunct dry-cleaning site because they had a developer that said the whole stretch was needed.

“Charles Bohl made a bad business decision when he purchased it …,” said Napierski. “I think he was an attorney who understood that he purchased a hazardous waste site that he would be responsible for cleaning up. I think he knew that. Why he made a bad business decision, I guess we’ll never know that.”

“Eleven years ago, why wasn’t this raised up the flagpole?” asked Beedle.

She speculated, and the experts in the room confirmed, it would have been easier and less costly to clean up the Master Cleaners site earlier.

Napierski then went through notes she had taken of the Sept. 11 and Sept. 23 meetings when the planning board had reviewed the project.

“It was my strong impression that they were not impressed with this project at all and they had very serious concerns,” she said.

Napierski went on, “This whole proposal of ‘give us everything we want or we’re walking away’ — it feels like you’re just putting a gun to the head of the town and not working with us to find a compromise or reasonable solution."

She went on, “So why can’t we get a proposal with 200 units in three stories? That’s what would fit the area.”

“We’re not threatening anything,” Hershberg responded. “We’re telling you the facts … Unless we have the density …there’s no use for us to continue working on the project.”

 

Town planner’s view

Kenneth Kovalchik, the town planner, wrote an eight-page memo to the board, explaining why he was in favor of the project.

In addition to the environmental cleanup, Kovalchik cited the town board’s approval of becoming a Pro-Housing Community, a state designation that allows it to apply for grants.

His memo cites portions of the recommendations a committee made to update the town’s comprehensive plan that would favor workforce housing.

After two years of working with a consultant on the updates, the committee recently submitted its recommendations to the town board.

One of the passages Kovalchik cited with this: “The Town should be proactive in seeking affordable housing opportunities as this approach can increase neighborhood diversity while meeting the housing needs of low- and moderate-income citizens.”

On Dec. 10, he told the board about the earlier proposals for the same site from which developers had ultimately walked away.

“There’s been four attempts since 2013 to try to make something work at this property,” said Kovalchik. “So I think that says a lot about how hard it is to develop … In terms of threats, developers walking away from projects happens all the time.”

Kovalchick continued, “I don’t perceive this as a threat.” He went on to say his question for the board was: Does the height of the project supersede the threat to human health?

“No,” responded Napierski, “what I’m saying is we can’t accept a bad project … I wish they would work with us to make the planning board happy with terms of height and density that would fit this site.”

“The plan you’re seeing is different than the plan that was presented to the planning board and presented to this town board,” said Kovalchik.

“I don’t think there’s a person on this board, Ken, that would sacrifice health and human safety …,” said Beedle. “That’s not the issue. This is infrastructure left behind.”

“This board did pass a resolution in support of the town’s application to the state where you endeavor to be supportive of increasing density, affirmatively furthering fair housing, taking actions to support affordable housing,” said Kovalchik. “So now the first application that comes before the board, it’s now there’s issues.”

He also said, “With any large project, there’s always compromise. What is the board willing to compromise on? The applicant has already given up 25 units. The applicant is willing to do all these heavy lifts with what DOT wants and DEC wants.”

“It’s not a compromise,” said Napierski, again stating, “This is a ‘we’re walking away unless we get our demands met.’”

Kovalchik said he worked with a developer who walked away from the site because 200 units weren’t enough to make it work financially.

“This is a question that this board is going to have to address as you start your adoption process of the [comprehensive] plan because all of these issues have been discussed over the past two years,” he said.

Kovalchik noted that the proposed comprehensive plan update favors public transportation to the western part of town.

“So how do you increase service?” he asked, continuing, “If you want to address the priorities of the constituents in this town, we’re going to have to start looking at how you redevelop the [Route] 20 corridor.”

 

Public comment

Robyn Gray, who chairs the Guilderland Coalition for Responsible Growth, said she agreed with Napierski’s stance and had outlined those concerns in a letter to the board.

Gray also raised this issue: Would the proposal tax Guilderland’s water and sewer service?

Bill Bremigen, superintendent of water and wastewater management, said upgrades to the water plant as well as interconnects with other municipalities meant there would be enough water.

Resident Jerry Houser, who also wrote to the board, favors the Foundry Square proposal.

He noted that the chemicals from the dry cleaners will continue to spread.

He said of Guilderland Village, “They’ve made many changes from the beginning … I think they’ve been cooperative and I think the board should also be cooperative.”

John Haluska, who has spoken to the board many times about derelict buildings in town, spoke passionately in favor of the Foundry Square proposal.

“Perfect is the enemy of good,” he said, quoting Voltaire.

He said he was appalled by some of the board members’ comments

He asked the board, “Do you want the crap that is there now to continue for the next 20 years?”

He described the stretch of Route 20 from routes 146 to 155 as having “no character" and described it as “a speedway.”

Sarah van Leer, who lives on Foundry Road across the street from the proposed complex, told the board, “My husband and I want the brownfield cleaned up.”

In her letter to the board, she wrote that it would be appropriate to have state taxpayers cover the cost for cleanup.

She said of the proposed apartment complex, “It is going to look awful.”

Guilderland resident Karen White said, “Kicking the can down the road is a good way to describe what is happening.”

Real estate agent Anthony Carrow, who represents the buyer, told the board there is “no gun to your head.”

He said of the stretch to be developed, “It looks like a disaster. It’s contaminated; it’s getting worse. It certainly does affect the character of the town of Guilderland."

Carrow went on, “I’m not going to say the town has done nothing. What I will say is nothing’s been done.”

Carrow also said, “We’re at a crossroad. We have an opportunity to address this issue.”

Carrow said the same developer also built Hamilton Parc, an apartment complex for seniors on Route 155, “which is beautiful.”

“Well, it’s subjective,” interjected Napieriski.

That triggered Carrow to say he grew up on Western Avenue. “I don’t remember many of you standing up on Crossgates being proposed ….

“I had a sister that was killed by a drunk driver, hit and run, dead on my front lawn. Fact, 1973,” Carrow told the board. “So I’ve seen tremendous change.”

Carrow noted that the Apex at Crossgates apartment complex on Rapp Road is five stories.

“You can’t make another mistake like that,” Napierski said.

Carrow went on to say that Route 20 is “a major highway” where four stories is appropriate as opposed to Apex, which was built up against a residential neighborhood.

Towards the end of the meeting, Carrow said he had the developer on the phone.

“He wanted me just to reiterate that there’s no threat to the board. It’s a tremendous opportunity. It’s a commitment to the town of Guilderland,” said Carrow. “I asked, do we need this decision tonight?’”

“This is: yes, we would have to walk away because it’s not financially feasible,” Carrow reported.

However, the board ultimately acquiesced to Barber’s recommendation to vote on the matter at its next meeting, Jan. 7.

“This is my legacy. This is the board’s legacy. This is Ms. Bohl’s legacy,” said Beedle, echoing a phrase Bohl had used in a recent letter to the Enterprise editor. “It’s not a decision to take so lightly …. I don’t want to say no, and I don’t want to say yes right now, but to sit back and digest what we all learned tonight.”