Developers can move forward with plans
The old Stanford Home might not be in the same location the next time you pass by.
The community group Friends of the Stanford Home had filed a motion to appeal the decision by New York Supreme Court Judge Barry Kramer made on Sept. 3, which granted Highbridge Development the right to move the historic property to a new location on 12.5-acre site.
On Wednesday, Oct. 13, the Supreme Court Appellate Division of the Third Judicial Department denied the motion brought by the preservationists to keep the building located on its current site. When the group filed the appeal on Sept. 28,the Order to Show Cause stated the developer couldn’t move the Stanford Home, but plans can now resume for the move.
I was disappointed, said Alex Brownstein, attorney for the community group, about the recent decision. `All we were really asking for is that the developer honors the proposal made to the town when initiating the project.`
Peter Scagnelli, town attorney for Niskayuna, said he was glad to see the Supreme Court agreed with the town’s decision to approve the move. When the developer approached the town about the move, the town Planning Board, as advised by Scagnelli, approved the change and said a further State Environmental Quality Review wasn’t needed.
`It is a building with historical value, we don’t want to see that destroyed, but we have to play the hand that is dealt to us,` said Scagnelli. `The developer is going to move the house and it is going to be preserved.`
ir lawsuit doesn’t stop all development of the site and only restricts the move of the home, which in the original approval from 2007 stated the building would remain on the current site.
`The courts are very reluctant to stop work once it has begun, particularly once there has been an investment of dollars,` said Brownstein. `I think there is a recognition that development would be discouraged if there were stops regularly in courts.`
It is unclear what could be done now to stop the move of the house. The building’s original stone foundation and the basement, which historically served as the kitchen, would be lost in the move. Also, in June 2009 an 80-year-old addition that was added to the early nineteenth century building was tore down.
`We are still appealing the matter, even if the house is moved,` said Brownstein. `There is still the q uestion of should this loophole exist.`
John Henry, attorney for Highbridge, previously said the modification of the plan to relocate the building is only a small revision. John Roth, from Highbridge, has stated the change is to allow for a better flow within the planned plaza. The building is planned to be integrated into the plaza and surrounding stores.
The developer said if the building wasn’t moved soon the company doing the move wouldn’t be able to do it for another year, according to Scagnelli.
`Smart growth balances growth with respect for things of lasting value and we are not seeing that balance being played out here and that is what concerns us,` said Brownstein.“
