Three hours at a Planning Board public hearing was not enough time for those opposed to the proposed luxury condos at the former Eamonn’s Loudon House, as many of them spoke up at a later Town Board meeting on Thursday, Oct. 6. On the agenda for the evening was a resolution to accept or reject the Planning Board’s recommendation on whether to allow BCI Construction to develop condominiums or apartment units at the Loudon House, located at 6 Schuyler Road and 151 Menand Road. BCI was seeking an amendment to Local Law No. 12 of 2007 that would allow for apartments or condominiums instead of luxury condominiums at the former Loudon House site, but the Planning Board rejected the plan. Several residents expressed their dissatisfaction at the public hearing — which eventually led to the Planning Board’s decision — over the idea of apartments or condominiums. That wasn’t enough, though, as many of them don’t want a complex there at all. “I understand the invested money in this project… but the investment won’t be what it’s worth if this is built,” said resident Joan Lemme. “You can put in five single-family homes or town houses and I would be fine with that. It’s not fair to those of us that bought houses where there would not be 24 condominiums in our backyard.” A fact sheet being distributed before the meeting on Loudon House letterhead contained the basic scope of the project. There is proposed to be 24 units with interior layouts ranging between 1,288 square feet to 1,946 square feet. The project is also proposed to have an underground parking garage that would hold 33 parking spaces and a parking lot above ground with 25 parking spaces. The amount of green space provided at the site would be 74,000 square feet, or 64 percent of the overall site. All of this is proposed to be built on a 2.3-acre plot of land.
Much of what would surround the condominium complex are single-family residential homes. Many of the residents that live in that area complained at the meeting that the traffic situation is already horrendous and that adding a high-density project to the area would increase the headache. One resident named Harry Kornblau just moved into Loudonville last year. He said he chose to move there because of the reputation the area has built up as a nice place to live, but feels with a project such as Loudon House bears a threat to that reputation. With doubling the volume of the area, he said it would cause even more havoc to the Route 9 traffic situation. “Route 9 is treacherous,” Kornblau said. “The mornings and evenings are horrible and when there are sporting events it is difficult. When I have company coming over I have to give a 10-minute forewarning of the turning lane and the dangers involved. This will add to the treachery.” The density situation was not the only issue for the residents, though. Many of them also had problems with the lack of notification of the meetings about the project. Several residents said they had problems with the Mary Brizzel administration and how it disseminated information out to the public. Supervisor Paula Mahan said it was an issue her administration was trying to correct and that the Planning and Economic Development Department tries to give notices to everyone within 200 feet of the property line, which is based off the town’s land use law. “We’re looking to broaden that,” said Planning Department Director Joe LaCivita. “We’re looking to bring ourselves out to the public more than in the past.” The developer, Mike Benson, held a meeting for residents on Wednesday, Oct. 5, to hear concerns. Several residents at the Town Board meeting were outraged that they were not notified of the meeting and saw it as another example of the disorganization of the developer. “I was not notified of the meeting,” said resident Alice Stark. “If you can’t get letters out to people then how can you possibly run an organization?” There were some members of the crowd that tried to express their empathy for the developer and his need to have a return on his investment. Sharon Bright Holub, former president of the Greater Loudonville Association, said she was involved in the process in 2007 and said she had attended several meetings where the developer explained what the project would look like. She asked the residents to give the developer a chance to finish the project correctly and how it was agreed upon back in 2007. “I agree with the lady who said ‘let’s finish it,’” she said. “Let’s do it right. The developer has already said he won’t do apartments and would like to go back to the original proposal. I believe that is reasonable and a sound idea.” At the end of the Planning Board public hearing for the Loudon House project in September, Benson tried to withdraw his application for an amendment to the local law. He did this after hearing three hours worth of concerns brought forward by residents, which is one of the reasons why Town Attorney Mike Magguilli would not allow it. Still, Benson’s attorney, Bob Sweeney of Whiteman, Osterman & Hanna LLP, tried to clarify during the meeting that the application had been withdrawn and that it was unnecessary to vote on anything that evening. Magguilli countered and said that the request to withdraw was never accepted. “The town has spent a considerable amount of time and effort on this,” he said, adding that the town is following the code and acting on the recommendation from the Planning Board. “We’re not going to hear it again after this.” Magguilli said the town is still looking into whether the 2007 approval of the final site plans have expired. The building permit on this project has since expired but Magguilli said the final site approval did not set any limitations for when the project had to be finished. The provision itself, though, says the Town Board must decide whether or not substantial or continuous steps have been taken by the developer to move the project forward. Even with all of the opposition to the project, Magguilli said to the crowd that the must at least give the developer due process. “The developer should be able to be heard and describe what steps have been taken,” he said. “It’s up to the board to decide whether or not it has been substantial. Tonight, that is not before us.” Mahan said a discussion between the developer and the public needs to happen soon. LaCivita tried to propose a meeting at the Public Operations Center on Thursday, Oct. 13, but many residents felt there wasn’t enough time for proper notification in the newspapers. The date for that meeting has yet to be determined. “We need some answers and we need them as soon as possible,” Mahan said. “The election has nothing to do with this issue. It’s been a long-standing issue for a lot of years.”