The Colonie Planning Board gave the green light on Tuesday, May 8, for construction of two retail and office buildings on Albany-Shaker Road over protests of neighbors.
The developer of the project targeted for 447 Albany Shaker Road will have to make some aesthetic adjustments before putting shovels in the ground. The plan has been before the town since early 2011. The Planning Board was not pleased with the original 20,000-square-foot plans and since then, the project was scaled back to a total of 12,250 square feet. A new bank is targeted for one building and a mixed used retail/office space for the other.
The 1.7-acre property has been owned by a family for the past 31 years and they recently decided to redevelop the property, according to Victor Caponera Jr., of The Caponera Law Firm P.C. The lot sits next to both residential and commercial property. Caponera said developers met with some of the adjacent neighbors on May 1 to discuss any of their concerns and thoughts about the project.
One issue discussed was having an 8-foot fence built, with an additional 2 feet of decoration around the property to create a sound buffer. Caponera said they would do a 6-foot vinyl fence and that the new building would not create any extra noise on top of what already comes off of Albany-Shaker Road. Many of the residents said they wanted the higher fence not only for the sound buffering but also to have a barrier with a more natural material. Board Member Brain Austin said the property owners would only have to maintain their side.
“A more natural material fence is much more maintenance,” Board Member Brian Austin said to the residents. “You would have to go out and maintain (the other side).”
Other issues brought up included additional traffic on the road and lighting from the property at night. Caponera said the buildings would only feature downward lights that shine on the property with low illumination that would not go out into neighboring homes.
Residents also said they were worried about having an ATM drive thru at night might bring extra noise, but Caponera said the ATM would be at the side closest to the commercial use, away from residents.
Resident Tami Meek, of Shaker Drive, said she was worried about the parking lot because of possible “drug exchanges, partying” or potential bank robberies. Having security cameras on the property, she said, also threatened her privacy.
“I enjoy hanging out in my backyard in my hammock. That’s my peace and serenity. I know this place will impact that,” Meek said. “I do not want to be on somebody’s security camera while having a gathering in my backyard or lying on my hammock.”
Jennifer Novack, who said she was speaking on behalf of many residents, listed several more concerns, including the developer’s choice of trees. Novack said neighbors wanted native species and “not crab apples.” She also said she didn’t want the developers to harm the three fox dens on the property and handed the board members a petition signed by several neighbors.
“You seem to have a laundry list of things for us to consider,” Planning Board Chairman Peter Stuto said. “Our role is to mitigate the impacts on the neighborhoods. … We try to work through each and every issue but they are entitled to this use.”
In general, many of the residents at the meeting stressed they were not given ample time to think about the project, saying they had only heard about it three weeks ago.
Planning and Economic Development Director Joe LaCivita said after the meeting that he “didn’t buy the fact that they never heard about it.” He said when the project was first proposed, he spoke to a number of residents, some at the property and some at a board meeting.
“A lot of it (is) that the neighbors didn’t want it there. (But) when someone owns a piece of property, they have the right to develop,” LaCivita said.
“Looking at this particular plot of land, in my opinion, they’re doing their due justice. We appreciate your comments … but we’re also looking out for the applicant,” Austin said.
Board members did express they were concerned about the outward appearance of the property, saying they wanted it to blend in better with the homes. At the meeting, the project’s architect sketched an alternative plan that included a more colonial design that impressed the board.
“Even though it’s a commercial activity, it looks like a home (now) because it has a clapboard, a peak or valley, not a square roof brick that you typically associate with commercial activity,” LaCivita said. “It looks more residential and blends into the community.”
The board voted on and approved three waivers, including a condition to fix the building’s façade, and the project was granted final site approval. Stuto and board member Susan Milstein dissented.