Planning Commission 433 River St., Ste

Wm. Patrick Madden Steven Strichman Mayor Commissioner of Planning

Monica Kurzejeski Phone: (518) 279-7166 Deputy Mayor [email protected]

Planning Commission 433 River St., Ste. 5001 Troy, New York 12180

Meeting Minutes January 28th, 2021 @ 6:00 pm

The Planning Commission of the City of Troy, New York conducted a public hearing on Thursday, 28 January, 2021 at 6:00pm via Zoom Conferencing, in order to hear and decide on proposals for development as follows:

6:00pm – Meeting called to order

Commissioners in Attendance Deirdre “Dede” Rudolph (DR), Anthony Mohen (AM), Sara Wengert (SW)

Commissioners Absent Suzanne Spellen (SS), Barbara Higbee (BH)

Also in Attendance Andy Brick (Planning and Zoning Attorney), Aaron Vera (Executive Secretary)

Consent

PLPC 2021 0001 – St. Peter’s Parish at 5th and Hutton (101.30-8-32 & 101.30-8-33) Change of Use (SEQR Type II) (101 .30-8-32) Renovate an existing 6-unit residential building (rectory) into an 8-unit apartment building. Existing footprint to remain. (101 .30-8-33) Renovate an existing 3-unit apartment building. Existing footprint to remain.

• Applicant Presentation. • BH in attendance. • Request for public comment. No comment. • SS in attendance. • AM motion to approve, SW seconded.

Absent Yes No Abstain Recused Deirdre Rudolph X Sara Wengert X Suzanne Spellen X Barbara Higbee X Anthony Mohen X Motion to approve passed, 5-0.

Page 1 of 4 City of Troy Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 28 January, 2021

Old Business

PLPC 2020 0046 – 770 Pawling Ave. (112.84-4-2) Site Plan Review (Type II SEQR) J & J Apartments, LLC is proposing to occupy an existing commercial space with three (3) residential units.

• Applicant presentation. • Request for public comment. No comment. • Comments from SW. Improvements are not satisfactory. • Comments from DR. • SW motion to deny, DR seconded.

Absent Yes No Abstain Recused Deirdre Rudolph X Sara Wengert X Suzanne Spellen X Barbara Higbee X Anthony Mohen X Motion to deny passed, 3-2.

PLPC 2020 0011 – Kings Landing II (101.38-9-10) Site Plan Review and SEQR Determination (Type I) BDC Holdings, LLC is proposing to demolish three (3) existing structures and construct a new five-story building with 62 residential units and two levels of parking (68 spaces). The applicant is represented by Nicholas Costa, P.E. of Advance Engineering.

• Applicant presentation. • SW motion to open public comment, AM seconded the sentiment. Drea Leanza 2227 5th Ave. – Discussed SHPO letter from October. o nd o Joe Fama 160 2 Ave. – Various comments on the EAF. Doris Day Bethel Baptist Church – Discussed impact to neighborhood. o th o John Waite 1920 5 Ave. – Discussed historic significance and rehab of existing buildings. o Tom Kutcher – In favor. o Bill Hughes – In favor. o Matt Baumgartner – In favor. o Barbara Nelson – Discussed historic significance and rehab of existing buildings. o Catherine Skopic – Wrong project. o Brad Lewis – Applicant working with salvaging companies. Barbara Higbee 2167 5th Ave. – Not enough parking, not in character with neighborhood. o th o Trudy Hanmer 2142 5 Ave. – Echoed comments against the project. • AM motion to close the public hearing, SW seconded.

Absent Yes No Abstain Recused Deirdre Rudolph X Sara Wengert X Suzanne Spellen X Barbara Higbee X Anthony Mohen X Motion to close public hearing passed, 4-0.

Page 2 of 4 City of Troy Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 28 January, 2021

• AM motion to table, SW seconded.

Absent Yes No Abstain Recused Deirdre Rudolph X Sara Wengert X Suzanne Spellen X Barbara Higbee X Anthony Mohen X Motion to table indefinitely passed, 4-0.

PLPC 2020 0031 – 101-119 County Garden Apartments (112.-4-36.411 & 112.-4-36.412) Site Plan Review and SEQR Determination (Unlisted) Country Garden Acres Limited is proposing 21 new low rise structures containing 144 new dwelling units. The applicant is represented by Roger Keating of Chazen Companies.

• Applicant presentation. • SW motion to table, SS seconded.

Absent Yes No Abstain Recused Deirdre Rudolph X Sara Wengert X Suzanne Spellen X Barbara Higbee X Anthony Mohen X Motion to table indefinitely passed, 5-0.

PLPC 2020 0073 – Taylor Apartments (100.68-1-1./1) Site Plan Review and SEQR Determination (Type I) Taylor I, LLC is proposing to demolish the vacant Taylor 1 and 2 towers and construct a 90-unit, 96,400 sq. ft. mixed-use, mixed income building that includes 64 replacement affordable housing units set aside for existing residents of the currently occupied Taylor 4 building. The applicant is represented by Roger Keating of Chazen Companies.

• Applicant presentation. • Request for public comment. o Liz Malone – How is parking being provided? o Joe Fama – Questions regarding pedestrian circulation. • Discussion of building elevations. • Motion to table to next meeting 2/17, BH seconded.

Absent Yes No Abstain Recused Deirdre Rudolph X Sara Wengert X Suzanne Spellen X Barbara Higbee X Anthony Mohen X Motion to table until 2/17 passed, 4-0.

Page 3 of 4 City of Troy Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 28 January, 2021

Recommendations

1011 2nd Ave. (101.38-9-10) Planning Commission Recommendation to the City Council for Zone Change Kevin Vandenburgh is proposing a zone change from R-1 (Single-Family Residential Detached, §285-52) to P (Planned Development, §285-57). Pursuant to §285-27 of the City Code a public hearing is required. The applicant is represented by Jamie Easton, P.E.

Applicant presentation.

SW motion to close public hearing, AM seconded.

Absent Yes No Abstain Recused Deirdre Rudolph X Sara Wengert X Suzanne Spellen X Barbara Higbee X Anthony Mohen X Motion to close public hearing passed, 5-0.

Commissioner discussion.

SW motion to recommend against zoning change AM seconded. Absent Yes No Abstain Recused Deirdre Rudolph X Sara Wengert X Suzanne Spellen X Barbara Higbee X Anthony Mohen X Motion to recommend against zoning change passed, 4-1.

SS motion to adjourn, AM seconded. All in favor.

Page 4 of 4 TROY’s SACRED FOREST Its culture, ecology, history, archaeology, and signifi cance to the community. SPECIAL THANKS TO THE MEMBERS OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, AND CONTRIBUTORS

Leo Matteo Bachinger, PhD (Environment, Climate, Community Development) Jessica Bennett (Neighbor, Friends of the Mahicantuck) Dr. Brandon Costelloe-Kuehn (Science, Technology and Society, Sustainable Design) Dr. David Hunt (Ecology) James Kruegler (Water Resources) Sarah Pezdek (Friends of the Mahicantuck) Hined Rafeh, MS (Public Health & Policy) Prof. Don Rittner (Archaeology) Bethany Yarrow (Waterfall Unity Alliance) TROY’s SACRED FOREST Its culture, ecology, history, archaeology, and significance to the community.

compiled and published by The Friends of the Mahicantuck www.save1011.org [email protected]

and submitted for consideration to

Mayor of the City of Troy, Patrick Madden President of the City Council of Troy, Carmella Mantello Planning Commissioner of the City of Troy, Steven Strichman The Members of the Troy City Council The Members of the Planning Commission

January 22, 2020 Troy, NY COVER LETTER

Dear Mayor Patrick Madden, With this report, the Friends of the Mahicantuck provide City Council President Carmella Mantello, comprehensive analysis of the signifi cance of the “Sacred Members of the City Council, Forest” located at 1011 2nd Avenue. We provide an assessment Planning Commissioner Steven Strichman, of adverse impacts associated with the potential change in and Members of the Planning Commission, zoning code as well as potential development of the site.

The fi ndings underscore the unique importance of the “Sacred Forest” and highlight its economic, cultural, ecological, archaeological and historical, and social value. In its signifi cance, this site is unique to the entire region.

This report shows the site’s benefi ts to human health; its natural setting; social, cultural, historic, archaeological and recreational values; and inherent ecological sensitivity. The site at 1011 2nd Avenue thereby warrants designation as Critical Environmental Area (CEA), exceeding the designation criteria established in CRR-NY 617.14(g) — which we request the City of Troy to pursue as soon as possible.

The report provides an ecosystem service analysis, detailing the signifi cant benefi ts to health and wellbeing for the residents of Troy, Pleasantdale as well as downstream communities. The site is an important indigenous heritage and cultural site of national signifi cance (National Register eligible) and is an important green-space within the designated “Potential Environmental Justice area” that it is located in.

Ecological surveys, conducted in December 2020 and January 2021 and included in this report, document several county- rare as well as one state-rare species at the site. The survey also documents the site as potentially sensitive habitat for several species, including as feeding habitat of the Bald Eagle.

An economic cost-benefi t analysis shows disproportionate direct as well as indirect costs resulting from the rezoning and associated development of the site. This includes a negative revenue assessment for the school district as well as for the City of Troy.

4 “Lost opportunity costs” must be expected particularly Over 2300 signatures to our petition, more than eight hours regarding the development of the city’s vacant housing stock. of testimony against the rezoning at three public hearings, as Allowing for high density development on this undeveloped well as countless written submissions show that your site would significantly impact Troy’s capacities to develop its constituents are united across party-lines in opposition to vacant housing stock due to insufficient demand. This is con- the proposed rezoning and subsequent development of the firmed through the most recent forecast issued by US HUD Sacred Forest at 1011 2nd Avenue in Lansingburgh. for the region. What is more, the public also shows clear and unbroken Therefore, a rezoning would undermine the strategic support for our vision to protect and preserve this land. We development goals established in the 2018 “Realize Troy” continuously advocate for a win-win solution that would Comprehensive Plan, particularly regarding the development create a long-term preservation for the public good at 1011 of existing housing stock, smart growth, and priority invest- 2nd Avenue, while supporting the City of Troy and the ment areas. developer in identifying an appropriate site to realize Kevin Vandenburgh’s vision on one of Troy’s many vacant sites. While this site certainly deserves preservation, this report raises significant concerns over process flaws and In this letter and attached supporting material, testimony inconsistencies with the law, requiring urgent correction, and evidence, we bring the most critical aspects of our case to should a change in zoning code be approved. Significant your consideration. discrepancies with SEQRA as well as inconsistencies with the 2018 “Realize Troy” Comprehensive Plan strike us as particular- The land at 1011 2nd Avenue is sacred. The land is indigenous ly important. land. It is the city’s last untouched waterfront forest. It is a valuable natural space with rare ecologies. Especially during Based on the findings of this report, we recommend: this pandemic, the land is a critical green-space for the • Making the preservation and protection of the community in a DEC designated Potential Environmental “Sacred Forest” at 1011 2nd Avenue the city’s highest Justice Area. priority;

• Elected officials take the necessary steps to This forest has always protected us, provided us with reprieve, ensure that proper procedural steps are followed and clean air and water. It is now on us to protect the Sacred inconsistencies with the law are remedied; Forest.

• The Planning Commission recommend against the rezoning for a) the significance of the site; b) anticipated adverse environmental impacts of a change Thank you, in zoning code, as well as of a potential development; The Friends of the Mahicnatuck and as c) a positive recommendation would be

premature until SEQRA review is completed; and January 22, 2022 Troy, NY • Designating the site as Critical Environmental Area (CEA) to ensure the adequate consideration of its environmental significance for any future actions on this land.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 8 Chapter Four ECOSYSTEM SERVICES 30 INTRODUCTION 14 AND CLIMATE CHANGE

Chapter One Chapter Five PROCESS AND NEIGHBORHOOD AND LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS 16 CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE 40

Chapter Two Chapter Six ARCHAEOLOGICAL 22 ECONOMIC COSTS SIGNIFICANCE AND BENEFITS 44

Chapter Three ECOLOGICAL CONCLUSIONS 52 SIGNIFICANCE 26 REFERENCES 54

APPENDIX 56

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Approx. Approximately NYS DoS New York State Department of State B.C. / B.C.E. Before Common /Before Common Era NYSERDA New York State Energy Research and C.E. Common Era Development Authority CEA Critical Environmental Area P Planned Development District DEC CP DEC Commissioner Policy PEJA Potential Environmental Justice Area (DEC) PEJA Potential Environmental Justice Area R-1 Residential, Single Family Housing EAF Environmental Assessment Form Res. Resolution e.g. exempli gratia, “for example” SEQRA State Environmental Quality Review Act etc. et cetera SHPO State Historic Preservation Offi ce NHPA National Historic Preservation Act US EPA United States Environmental Protection NY New York Agency NYSDEC/DEC Department for Environmental US HUD United States Department of Housing and Conservation Urban Development

7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Sacred Forest is located at 1011 2nd Avenue in Troy, NY, respond to the comments regarding development plans with one acre of the parcel located in the Town of without additional clarifi cation. In Kirk-Astor Drive Schaghticoke. The entire site is located within a DEC Neighborhood Ass’n v Town Board of Town of Pittsford, 106 designated “Potential Environmental Justice Area” (PEJA). A.D 2d 868, 869, 483 N.Y.S.2d 526, 528 (4th Dep’t 1984), “SEQRA review of a rezoning proposal also had to consider the offi ce This parcel constitutes the majority (about 85-90%) of the park that was planned for the land. Similarly, in Taxpayers last untouched forest along the Mahicantuck (Hudson River) Opposed to Floodmart, Ltd., v City of Hornell Industrial in Troy (with the remaining percent located at the parcel Development Agency, 212 A.D.2d 958, 624, N.Y.S.2d 689 (4th directly to the south; and with the other wooded areas being Dep’t 1995), “environmental review of a proposed annexation brown-fi eld locations in South Troy). It is of high historical, also had to consider a Wal-Mart proposed for the land”. archaeological and cultural signifi cance and is sacred to indigenous peoples. It is National Register eligible for its archaeo- Therefore, under SEQRA, the city cannot separate rezoning logical artifacts dating back to 1500-3000 B.C.E. The property and development as if the two were independent actions. is also an important green-space for the local community, This would constitute a clear case of “segmentation” and including low-income and minority communities. make the city vulnerable to proceedings under Article 78. Furthermore, NYS law explicitly states that SEQRA should begin at the earliest possible time. While the planning LEGAL PARAMETERS AND commission’s recommendation is non-binding, it is A PROCESS REQUIREMENTS fundamentally informing the decision of the City Council and therefore part of the approval process. A.1 Comprehensive Plan Inconsistencies The rezoning from R1-Single Family, Detached to P — Planned A.4 SEQRA and Rezoning Development is inconsistent with the 2018 “Realize Troy” Should the commission or council consider a positive Comprehensive Plan. A rezoning has to be consistent with the recommendation / approval of the request for rezoning, no comprehensive planning document. A rezoning of this parcel further action should be taken until the developer has would require a zoning plan amendment. submitted an EAF and SEQRA has been initiated. SEQRA has to consider development as well as rezoning. Rezoning (as well A.2 Rezoning: Negative Impacts and Capacity Limits as zoning plan amendment) need to be indicated as “discre- Due to the signifi cance of this land, a rezoning to P-Planned tionary actions” on the full EAF as part of the SEQRA review. Development and associated permission of high-density This reports details for each of the aspects of signifi cance development would constitute substantive negative impacts clear reasons for why a rezoning itself would hold signifi cant and exceed the development capacities of this land. potential for negative environmental impacts.

A.3 SEQRA and Segmentation A.5 DEC Potential Environmental Justice Area Any consideration of a rezoning as separate from the known The land is located within a DEC designated “Potential development plans (as if they were separate actions) is a clear Environmental Justice Area”. As part of DEC CP 29, applicants case of “segmentation,” according to SEQRA (and reaffi rmed for state permits (including SEQRA) are required to conduct in case law). Currently, the City of Troy is considering rezoning extended public participation and outreach measures, and development as separate actions. However, on Novem- including a written public participation plan, and are ber 19, 2020, the Planning Commission discussed during a encouraged to do so prior to application (cp CP 29 section D). workshop with the developer Kevin Vandenburgh clear site According to section E of the same DEC policy, a full EAF is plans for a future development associated with the rezoning. required where projects are located within a Potential Additionally, at a Planning Commission public hearing on Environmental Justice Area (cp. Cp 29 section E). December 27, 2020, the developer made reference to his development plans without providing specifi cs and the members of the commission were able to understand and 8 mentioned extensively in historic periodical archives and it CONCLUSIONS AND remains to this day a place used by Lansingburgh and B RECOMMENDATIONS Pleasantdale residents to enhance their quality of life.

1) The Planning Commission must recommend against the C.3 Cultural Signifi cance change in zoning code. At the very least it should recommend As such, this site is of high cultural signifi cance to a number against the rezoning as premature until SEQRA is completed. of indigenous peoples including the Stockbridge Munsee, Lenape, and Schaghticoke First Nations. These ties, grown 2) The City Council must vote against the request for over thousands of years, are still well alive and indigenous rezoning as premature until the developer has submitted an leaders held ceremony on this site as recently as December EAF and rezoning has been incorporated as part of SEQRA for 2020. The cultural signifi cance also extends to the present the development as a “discretionary action” along with the local community, particularly BIPOC youth and local residents zoning plan amendment. of the Lansingburgh Neighborhood. The forest is an essential part of the neighborhood’s character. 3) The Planning Commission should further recommend the designation of the site as Critical Environmental Area C.4 Ecological Signifi cance (CEA). This would ensure that the high signifi cance of this This forest is an important ecological site within the City of site is appropriately considered in the current and any further Troy. In a recent preliminary survey in December 2020, led by reviews of any actions on this property, as is the purpose of Dr. David Hunt, several county-rare species have been such designation. This report shows that the site at 1011 2nd identifi ed, one of which — the scrub oak — is an important Avenue does far exceed the requirement and signifi cance habitat indicator for globally rare species such as the buck criteria for such a designation, as detailed in 6 CRR-NY 617.14 moth. A state-rare species was likely identifi ed as well. (g) and warrants such a designation. Detailed surveys are provided in the Appendix. Findings indicate that more extensive ecological surveys during the SITE SIGNIFICANCE AND growth season (May-September) are required before a C ASSESSED IMPACTS positive decision regarding rezoning would be possible. Initial fi ndings however already show a high ecological signifi cance C.1 Archaeological Signifi cance due to the presence of several rare species on the site. This land is well known for its archaeological signifi cance. Artifacts date back to at least 1500-3000 B.C.E. and the site C.5 Ecosystem Services is National Register eligible. It is part of a larger complex of Due to its ecological composition, location and character, the archaeologically signifi cant sites along the Hudson, including land located at 1011 2nd Avenue provides critical across the river. Most, if not all sites, have been destroyed by ecosystem services to the local community, the City of Troy development in the past further increasing the signifi cance of overall, and downstream and adjacent communities — the this site in particular. loss to which all these communities would be harmed and impacted parties. Some of the most critical ecosystem services, C.2 Historical Signifi cance which would be lost as a consequence of high-density devel- The land encompassing 1011 2nd Avenue was part of the opment on this site, include: stormwater runoff protection, original Stone Arabia Patent, granted in 1670 by the governor urban heat mitigation, clean air, carbon sequestration, fl ood of the province of New York, Francis Lovelace. The land was protection, nature and wildlife habitats including species that then deeded to Abraham Jacob Lansing on July 13, 1769 by the themselves provide important ecosystem services. Patroon Stephen Van Rensselaer. 1011 2nd Avenue has been locally known as “Lansing’s Grove” for 200 years and used as a This aspect is of increased signifi cance, also legally, as the recreational escape for city inhabitants and community primarily harmed community is located in a DEC Potential access to the Hudson River for fi shing, swimming, Environmental Justice Area, causing disproportionate cost for camping and picnics. The community activities at the site are a minority, low-income and/or marginalized community. 9 C.6 Signifi cance for Climate Resilience high number of vacant, abandoned and neglected sites across The Sacred Forest acts as a critical buff er to a range of climate Troy that are explicitly designated as investment priority areas risks and plays an important role in the City of Troy’s climate in the 2018 “Realize Troy” Comprehensive plan. resilience. Due to its geographic location upstream of the entire city this waterfront forest provides critical resilience to In this context, rezoning to encourage high density develop- fl ooding and storm-water impacts. It also acts as a buff er to ment at this undeveloped site appears contrary to the devel- storm-water runoff . Additionally, the forest is an important opment priorities established in the Comprehensive Plan. The carbon sink while also providing mitigative eff ects to the existence of an old housing stock in need for development in Urban Heat Island and heat waves. It’s destruction would combination with limited housing demand establishes clear therefore signifi cantly adversely impact the city’s overall development needs. Developing the site at 1011 2nd Avenue climate resilience and would signifi cantly increase fl ood risks would undermine addressing these development needs and to downstream locations in particular. is contrary to the development strategy established in the Comprehensive Plan. C.7 Community and Public Health The forest provides critical ecosystem services benefi cial to human physical and mental health. This report outlines the signifi cant contribution to overall community wellbeing by DESIGNATION AS CRITICAL providing clean water and clean air and due to its benefi ts to D ENVIRONMENTAL AREA mental health. These services to public health are particularly One measure at disposal to the City of Troy and recommend- critically important during the current pandemic and ed by this report is the designation of the Sacred Forest at 1011 associated impacts on mental and physical health. In turn, 2nd Avenue as “Critical Environmental Area” — see 6 CRR-NY an increase in density, associated with the proposed zoning 617.14: “A local agency may designate a specifi c geographic change would to a signifi cant degree adversely impact public area within its boundaries as a critical environmental area health in this PEJA. Particularly increased particulate pollution (CEA).” as well as noise pollution associated with increased traffi c would threaten the physical and mental wellbeing of the local This report shows that this site qualifi es for designation as community in a characteristically quiet neighborhood. CEA, exceeding the criteria defi ned in 6 CRR-NY 617.14(g): (i) benefi t to human health (see chapter x); (ii) natural setting C.8 Economic Impacts (see chapters x and x), (iii) social, cultural, historic, This report fi nds signifi cant negative economic impacts archaeological, and recreational values (chapter x), and (iv) through rezoning and/or development of the site at 1011 2nd inherent ecological sensitivity (chapter x). Avenue due to a) costs associated with the loss of ecosystem services, b) costs of public services, resulted in an annual loss CONSIDERATION OF in revenue of at least $890,000.00 / year, and c) lost IN-RIGHT DEVELOPMENT opportunity costs, in particular regarding the limited housing E demand and the resulting negative eff ects on capacities to The developer “alternative site proposal” of approx. 38 apart- redevelop vacant sites should this undeveloped green-space ment units would also be subject to SEQRA approval and be opened to high-density development. would constitute a type I action per 6 NYCRR Part 617.4(6)(i).

C.9 Housing Demand & Smart Growth Goals A recommendation against rezoning is not only the only The most recent Comprehensive Housing Market Analysis action consistent with NYS law and the process requirements by the US Department for Housing and Urban Development established in SEQRA; it also means that a negative (US HUD) for Albany-Schenectady-Troy explicitly states that recommendation by the commission (and subsequent denial housing demand is nearly at or already at capacity (cp. US of the request for rezoning by the City Council) would not HUD 2019, p. 1). This is particularly signifi cant in context of a automatically mean that 38 family houses will be constructed on the site: This will require SEQRA approval, would 10 constitute in all likelihood constitute a type I SEQRA action A 38 family housing development should be subject to (along with various required local, state and federal permits). considerations only if an application for such a proposal is The listed concerns and significant environmental impacts received. This further underscores that a recommendation would remain valid and relevant in any future SEQRA should insist on the submission of an application and the associated with the potential 38 single family houses initiation of SEQRA, so the commission can make an informed development option. The designation as Critical Environ- determination about what it is reviewing and provide an mental Area, warranted based on the findings of this report, informed recommendation on a concrete development would constitute additional protections for the site in review proposal that is already known to be associated with the processes. request for change in zoning code.

“The Great Spirit is in all things. He is in the air we breathe. The Great Spirit is our Father, but the Earth is our Mother. She nourishes us. That which we put into the ground she returns to us.” —Big Thunder (Bedagi) Wabanaki, Algonquin INTRODUCTION

OVERVIEW This report provides a comprehensive overview of key issues regarding the signifi cance of the “Sacred Forest” located at 1011 2nd Avenue in the Lansingburgh neighborhood of Troy, NY.

This land, sacred to indigenous peoples and valued by the local community as important green-space and natural recreational space, is currently threatened by a development project.

The development sees construction of approx. 240 “high end” apartment units in three four-story buildings. For the purpose of such a development, a change in zoning code (from R-1 to P) is required and has been requested by developer Kevin Vandenburgh. The land is owned by the Golub family with the developer holding an option for purchase.

This report is intended to provide law-makers and decision makers as well as the general public with in-depth information regarding the signifi cance and value of the forest at 1011 2nd Avenue as well as regarding impacts associated with a change in zoning code and subsequent development of the site. METHODS This report was written, drawing on input and analyses provided by experts, the latest state of the art of academic literature as well as testimonies on the development and site HOW TO READ THIS REPORT provided by experts to the City of Troy during public hearings. This report is structured so decision-makers and the public can read fi rst those sections that are most relevant to them. For the purpose of this report, several analyses and assessments were commissioned with independent experts, An Executive Summary highlights the most important including ecosystem assessments, ecological survey, general fi ndings and conclusions as they pertain to current archaeological evaluation (not survey), and legal analysis. considerations of a change in zoning code for 1011 2nd Avenue. Additionally, the report was shared with an advisory committee for review and feedback. Additionally, each section begins with an overview and provides a convenient info-box with the most important The results are compiled here for overview and review and are highlights of each section — allowing the reader to quickly preliminary results of a larger eff ort to provide decision- assess the most critical information provided in each section. makers and the public with the best possible information as it becomes available. As such, the results presented here The report closes with a conclusions section, providing the are highlights, as data collection, assessments and research reader with a broad-stroke review of the highlights for each continues. individual section.

14 Chapter 5 discusses the cultural significance of the land and STRUCTURE situates it’s role for the character of the neighborhood. This report opens in CHAPTER 1 with a detailed review of past actions regarding development of 1011 2nd Avenue and gives provides an economic analysis of costs and benefits an assessment of the current status of this process. It also Chapter 6 of a) remaining the site in its undeveloped state, b) ecosystem highlights critical process flaws and legal concerns. services and c) rezoning and development,

Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 provide a review of the most The report ends with the with an overview important findings regarding the land’s archaeological and conclusion section of the highlights for each of the preceding sections. ecological significance. This includes the national significance of the site’s archaeology as well as the documentation of The Appendix provides additional resources, including the county- and state-rare species. recent ecological surveys from December 2020 and January 2021, an analysis of the Comprehensive Plan by Scenic Hudson Chapter 4 takes a look at the ecosystem services provided by and Riverkeeper, a NYS Department of State opinion, a the forested land, in particular regarding public health, stormwater runoff analysis and a written statement by flooding and stormwater, and climate and environmental economist Dr. Gowdy. resilience.

15 CHAPTER ONE PROCESS AND LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS This chapter provides a general outline of the process history, current status and next steps in the review of the proposed development at 1011 2nd Avenue and associated/discretionary actions (such as rezoning and zoning code amendment).

It discusses discrepancies with the process as well as remedies and recommendations.

entered into the record alongside petitions with signatures of 1.1 PROCESS HISTORY 24 neighbors of the property, 42 Troy residents and 248 signatures on an online petition. A preliminary report May 2020 — Planning Commission was submitted to the record. The public was fi rst introduced to a potential development of the “Sacred Forest’’ site at 1011 2nd Avenue in May at an information sharing workshop during a City of Troy Planning Members of the Planning Committee voted 1-2 to pass Res. 91. Commission hearing. Conceived as an informal information workshop session, the developer introduced the commission September 10, 2020 — City Council General Meeting At a general meeting of the Troy City Council, the request for and public to plans for developing the site at 1011 2nd Avenue rezoning was taken up again in form of Res. 91. At the public by constructing six apartment buildings accommodating form, a large number of members of the public gave approximately 240 “high end apartment units’’. The public testimony alongside experts and representatives from already at this early meeting provided extensive feedback to organizations such as Scenic Hudson, Schaghticoke First the commission and developer, including an indigenous leader Nations, Stockbridge Munsee, Friends of the Mahicantuck, a — and articulated strong concern and opposition to legal representative of Rupp, Baase, Pfalzgraf, Cunningham potentially disrupting this archaeologically and culturally LLC and others. As was the case for the August 27 hearing, in signifi cant site. over three hours of testimony not a single statement was in support of the development and/or proposed rezoning. August 27, 2020 — City Council Planning Committee Meeting At a hearing of the City Council Planning Committee, a Additionally, a written opinion by New York State Department request for rezoning associated with the development was of State was submitted to the City of Troy assessing the introduced for a vote as Resolution Res. 91 “Resolution residency requirement to speak during the forum as Referring Lansingburgh Zoning Change Request To Planning inconsistent with New York State Open Meetings Law. This Commission For Review and Recommendation (Council requirement was however maintained by the City of Troy President Mantello) (At The Request Of The Administration)”. despite protest by advocacy groups and despite being made aware that this inconsistency results in the exclusion of At the public forum, ten experts from various fi elds provided indigenous leaders to speak at the hearing, including testimony to the members of the committee, arguing for representatives of the Stockbridge Munsee and Schaghticoke the preservation and protection of the site and urged to vote First Nations. against Res. 91 given the high cultural, archaeological, ecological and community signifi cance of the site. Additional to the spoken testimony, several written statements were The City Council passed Resolution 91 with a 3-4 vote.

16 Chapter One: Process and Legal Considerations

HIGHLIGHTS

• Treating the rezoning as if it were an independent action under SEQRA constitutes “segmentation” • According to SEQRA, review should start without delay and at the earliest possible time • The site is located in an PEJA, requiring a full EAF for any action on the land. A written outreach plan is also required for actions within PEJAs per DEC CP 29. • Rezoning to P (Planned Development) would be inconsistent with Troy’s Comprehensive Plan and therefore would require a Comprehensive Plan amendment. • Residency requirement to speak at public forums were inconsistent with NYS Open Meetings Law • Public disclosure of archeo-sensitive locations could be a violation of NHPA Section 304

November 19, 2020 — Planning Commission Workshop with and representatives of indigenous groups, raised a range of Developer (No Opportunity For Public Comment) environmental, archaeological, cultural, neighborhood With the referral to the Planning Commission, the matter of character and other concerns. rezoning was taken up by the Planning Commission on November 19, 2020 in a workshop with the developer. The At this meeting, several members of the public were cut off workshop was excluded from public comments. from completing their statements, including an indigenous leader. (Some members of the planning commission stepped The agenda included a “Project Narrative” for the in to allow some members of the public to complete their development provided by the developer, which detailed statements). Additionally, the scope of the public forum was site plans for development of 240 apartment units in three limited by restricting matters of conversations regarding is- four-story buildings. This plan also included the location of sues of segmentation and SEQRA, and by explaining that the archeo-sensitive areas (which is against best practice of public forum would be exclusively about the rezoning and not archaeological preservation and conservation). During this about development site plans. workshop, the members of the Planning Commission discussed the development plans as part of the rezoning.

December 29, 2020 — Planning Commission Public Forum 1.2 CURRENT PROCESS STATUS The Planning Commission held a public hearing to hear public comment on: “Planning Commission Recommendation to the We fi nd signifi cant discrepancies between the current process City Council for Zone Change: Kevin Vandenburgh is proposing and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and fi nd in a zone change from R-1 (Single-Family Residential Detached, part signifi cant process irregularities. §285-52) to P (Planned Development, §285-57). Pursuant to §285-27 of the City Code a public hearing is re- The City of Troy is currently reviewing a request for change quired. The applicant is represented b Jamie Easton, P.E. of M.J. in zoning code for 1011 2nd Avenue. This process is outlined in Engineering”. the City Code, which requires a public hearing (§285-27). This hearing was held on December 29, 2020 (see above). During this hearing the public attempted to raise concerns regarding the potential segmentation of rezoning and This is reaffi rmed in recurrent statements that the development as separate actions, as well as concerns commission is currently tasked with a review and regarding the untimely initiation of SEQRA. Additionally the recommendation exclusively regarding the request for public as well as representatives of organizations, experts, rezoning itself (and not about any development at the site).

17 1.3 INCONSISTENCIES WITH SEQRA

1.3.1. SEGMENTATION The NYS Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) generally prohibits “segmentation”, which is defined as “the division of The City of Troy explicitly stated that it is currently exclusively the environmental review of an action such that various reviewing a request for rezoning as complete action and held activities or stages are addressed under this Part as though a public hearing as part of this process pursuant to §285-27 they were independent, unrelated activities, needing of Troy City Code. Currently the City of Troy is considering individual determinations of significance”. rezoning and development as separate actions, although the rezoning request is explicitly pursuant a known development This applies also for cases where a rezoning is treated as if it proposal. were an independent, unrelated activity. That this is the case was also reaffirmed by the courts. InKirk-Astor Drive Neigh- However, this process applies only to such cases, where the borhood Ass’n v Town Board of Town of Pittsford, 106 A.D 2d rezoning itself is indeed the complete and independent 868, 869, 483 N.Y.S.2d 526, 528 (4th Dep’t 1984), “SEQRA review action. For the case of rezoning 1011 2nd Avenue, however, the of a rezoning proposal also had to consider the office park case cannot be made that the rezoning constitutes a that was planned for the land. Similarly, in Taxpayers Opposed complete action. to Floodmart, Ltd., v City of Hornell Industrial Development Agency, 212 A.D.2d 958, 624, N.Y.S.2d 689 (4th Dep’t 1995), Development plans are known, have been extensively “environmental review of a proposed annexation also had to discussed as part of the current review process, and were consider a Wal-Mart proposed for the land”. repeatedly referred to by members of the Planning Commission. A rezoning is not the complete action and is Therefore, the current review process is contrary to the intent requested by Kevin Vandenburgh pursuant a known of SEQRA and constitutes a clear case of “segmentation”, development project. Rezoning has to be a discretionary making the city vulnerable to proceedings under Article 78. action of what should be the review of the known development project. 1.3.2. TIMING OF SEQRA Concrete development plans were subject of extensive discussion during the November workshop as well as during While the planning commission’s recommendation is the public forum in December. The development plans are non-binding, it is fundamentally informing the decision of the explicitly part of and informing the Planning Commission’s City Council and therefore part of the approval process. considerations and decision. It is also known from Additionally, New York’s SEQRA explicitly states that the statements made by the developer to the Planning process of environmental review pursuant to SEQRA should Commission that the rezoning is pursuant to his development begin at the earliest possible time and without delay. plans. This includes during a workshop entirely dedicated to specific development plans on November 19, 2020, as well as The intent for the law is to avoid cases such as the one conversations and discussions between developer, members currently unfolding for the rezoning review for 1011 2nd of the Planning Commission, staff of the commission and Avenue: This becomes explicit when one considers the next legal council during a hearing on December 29th, 2020. steps in approving the request for rezoning within the process currently pursued by the City of Troy. After a Therefore, the current process of review is inconsistent with recommendation by the planning commission, the matter the intent and outlined process requirements established would return to the Troy City Council for further in SEQRA (State Environmental Quality Review Act). In fact, consideration. Before approval through the City Council, a any consideration of a rezoning as separate from the known SEQRA review will become necessary. Statements made development plans (as if they were separate actions), such as during the November workshop already made clear that the is the case for the review process as currently conducted by Planning Commission would likely be the lead agency in this the City of Troy, constitutes a clear case of “segmentation”, SEQRA review — returning the matter to the commission for according to SEQRA. review once again. Ideally, SEQRA would have been initiated 18 Chapter One: Process and Legal Considerations

with the initial referral to the Planning Commission per City consequences resulting from industrial, municipal, and com- Council resolution 91 in September 2020. mercial operations or the execution of federal, state, local, and tribal programs and policies.” This would have ensured that the required full EAF is submitted, that the planning commission can make its As part of the DEC policy CP 29, applicants for state permits recommendation based on a full review of all material facts (including SEQRA) are required to conduct extended public including SEQRA review, and that the requirement to initiate participation and outreach measures, including a written SEQRA review at the earliest time possible is met. public participation plan, and are encouraged to do so prior to application (cp. CP 29 section D). According to section E of the DEC policy, a full EAF is required where projects are 1.3.3. CONCLUSIONS located within a Potential Environmental Justice Area (cp. Cp 29 section E). Ultimately, the current process (upon request by the City Council) is one where the Planning Commission ended up in a This again relates back to inconsistencies with SEQRA, both in paradoxical situation: One where it, per offi cial statements of terms of segmentation issues as well as timing of initiation. commission staff , is reviewing and making recommendations At the time of application, but ideally before that, the devel- on the rezoning alone as a complete action, while oper is required to submit a full EAF as well as a written public simultaneously also considering and reviewing development outreach plan. None of these requirements have been fulfi lled plans as part of this review and recommendation process. to this date. Importantly, the current discrepancies between the city’s review process and process requirements constitut- Additional confusion about the process emerges, as the ed in SEQRA directly lead to delays in compliance with DEC CP recommendation is non-binding and regards the rezoning 29 regarding outreach obligations and the submission a full request in some capacity — at the same time as the SEQRA EAF. Additionally concerning is in this context a statement by review is still outstanding but will likely be conducted by the the developer’s representative that he would merely provide Planning Commission as lead agency. According to the Planning Commission with a standard EAF instead of the statements made during the workshop in November, the City EAF. Council would like to designate the Planning Commission as lead agency for the SEQRA review for the rezoning (as well The Planning Commission should insist on the full EAF (as well as the SEQRA for the development at a later point, which is as the initiation of SEQRA) prior to any recommendation, as considered by the City as a separate action). a full EAF will become necessary once a SEQRA application is submitted (per DEC CP 29). This makes the purpose of the recommendation diffi cult to bring in consistency with key provisions of SEQRA regarding timing and issues of segmentation. 1.5 DISCREPANCIES WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AREAS Yet another potential — and potentially signifi cant — process The matter becomes further complicated, as the site in fl aw relates to inconsistencies of the requested rezoning with question (1011 2nd Avenue) is located within a DEC designated the Comprehensive Plan (see Appendix 2). “Potential Environmental Justice Area” (DEC CP 29). Extensive analyses were submitted to the record regarding The designation “Potential Environmental Justice Area” means the inconsistencies of a change of zoning code to P (Planned “a minority or low-income community that may bear a Development) with the 2018 “Realize Troy” Comprehensive disproportionate share of the negative environmental Plan. These inconsistencies were only partly addressed in the 19 current review process. The analyses clearly show a range of legal implications described above, a recommendation must inconsistencies with the Comprehensive Plan. This constitutes be made against a rezoning unless concerns of spot zoning potential for process flaws, should the rezoning be approved are eliminated and the comprehensive plan is amended. by the City Council — and must therefore be reflected in any recommendation by the Planning Commission.

New York’s zoning enabling statutes (General City Law §20(25), Town Law §263, Village Law §7-704) require “that 1.8. ADDITIONAL IRREGULARITIES zoning laws be adopted in accordance with a comprehensive Finally, we would like to draw attention to a number of plan” (NYS DOS 2015, p.1). Additionally, the zoning enabling additional, at times significant, irregularities & process flaws. acts continue to require that zoning be undertaken “in accord with a well considered plan” or “in accordance with a comprehensive plan”. 1.8.1. RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT TO SPEAK DURING PUBLIC FORUM AND ITS DISCRIMINATORY EFFECTS Additionally, a rezoning of a parcel of land “to a use category different from the surrounding area, usually to Residency requirements to speak at public meetings imposed benefit a single owner or a single development interest”, unfair restrictions. This was the case for public hearings held constitutes illegal spot zoning (cp. NYS DOS 2015, p. 5). by the City Council Planning Committee (August 27, 2020) and Explicitly, “size of the parcel is relevant, but not determinative. by the City Council (September 10, 2020). While the residency Illegal spot zoning occurs whenever ‘the change is other than requirement was not enforced at the August 27 hearing, it part of a well-considered and comprehensive plan calculated was enforced for the general meeting on September 10. to serve the general welfare of the community” (Ibid.).

A NYS DOS Opinion (Appendix 3) was provided to the City These provisions have at least three direct implications for Council and Council President Mantello ahead of the the request for rezoning. September 10, 2020, meeting. President Mantello responded by exempting one representative of the Friends of the Ma- First, it can be argued that the rezoning benefits solely “a hicantuck from the residency requirement. According to the single development interest” as well “a single owner”, opinion, applying different rules for participation to different constituting . While size is relevant, it is not spot zoning segments of the public (including based on residency) is determinative. Given that the rezoning is for the benefit of a inconsistent with NYS Open Meetings law. single development interest of housing stock, the size of the land is less relevant. The residency requirement had in its consequence discriminatory effects. Indigenous leaders with ties to the This is especially the case, as significant concerns regarding land have significant stake and are directly affected by any de- negative economic, ecological, archaeological as well as cisions about the land at 1011 2nd Avenue. This is particularly development impacts have been raised and referred to — striking in the context of a the history of forced removal from including concerns over housing demand as a limited resource this land and the entire region. Indigenous leaders could not and effects on the development of abandoned and neglected meet the residency requirement and were unfairly excluded sites that are located within the Comprehensive Plan’s from speaking, due to this rule. The City Council President was investment priorities areas. made aware of this effect.

Second, inconsistencies with the comprehensive plan would 1.8.2. PUBLICATION OF LOCATIONS OF in this context also require a Comprehensive Plan amend- ARCHEO-SENSITIVE AREAS ment. The developer as well as the City of Troy violated best Third, any recommendation made by the Planning Commis- practices regarding the disclosure of archeo-sensitive areas sion needs to take these concerns into account. Given the at 1011 2nd Avenue. It is the standard practice, also followed

20 Chapter One: Process and Legal Considerations by NYS SHPO, to not disclose the location of archeo-sensitive the public to raise its concerns freely areas. The City of Troy disclosed the locations of these sites • Urging the public to not repeat itself, where the repetition publicly by providing a map as part of the public agendas for of the same statement can itself be an important act and November 19, 2020, as well as for December 29, 2020. signify public consensus on a matter The developer disclosed the same locations during his • Instances where the ability of the public to prepare for presentations at the workshop on November 19, 2020. public hearings was limited or prevented, including (in part signifi cant) delays in responses to FOIL requests; the This jeopardized National Register eligible archeo-sensitive response to FOIL request after the date of scheduled sites. It could also be a violation of law: Section 304 of the public hearings; and limited or no response by public National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) protects certain offi cials or members of the staff to sincere and important sensitive information about historic properties from questions submitted in writing by representatives of disclosure to the public when such disclosure could result in, advocacy groups. for example, a signifi cant damage to the historic property.

1.8.3. LIMITING THE PUBLIC’S ABILITY TO 1.7. CONCLUSIONS PARTICIPATE IN DEMOCRATIC PROCESSES This chapter outlined several signifi cant issues with the cur- Several instances occurred that are of concern in principles rent process that, some of which potentially amount to of democratic participation and open governance. NYS Open signifi cant inconsistencies with the law, including SEQRA, NYS Meetings Law provides relatively large autonomy to Open Meetings Law, New York’s zoning enabling statutes, communities regarding the conduct of public forums, their and NHPA. Some of these issues include segmentation, spot announcement, the publication of agendas, and their zoning, inconsistencies with the 2018 “Realize Troy” structure and content. Comprehensive Plan, delays in complying with DEC CP 29, and the disclosing of archeo-sensitive locations for a National Yet, the purpose of law is not to provide best practice, but Register eligible site. rather to ensure that minimum legal standards are met. This is also the case for the conduct of public forums and the Others are less explicitly in confl ict with the law and instead shaping of public participation in decision-making represent a failure in fostering participation in democratic processes. Government should not strive to meet minimum processes. legal requirements when it comes to democratic processes,- such as the participation of the public in governance. Rather, We therefore recommend: it should strive to adhere to the best practices possible. 1) the Planning Commission should recommend against the rezoning; at least as premature. Several fl aws undermined the public’s participation 2) The City Council should take the necessary steps throughout a processes that started in May 2020, including: to remedy inconsistencies with NYS Open Meetings law. • refusing to allow the public to fi nish their statements 3) The City Council and Mayor should take the within reason (Hearing on December 29); necessary steps to ensure that participation in • refusing the public to read statements into the record that democratic processes do not only meet the were previously submitted as written (Hearing on requirements of the law, but follow the best December 29) standards available, as to encourage, welcome and • Excluding non-residence from speaking, including foster public participation in democratic processes indigenous leaders (September 10) such as public forums. • A priori restrictions and exclusions of specifi c topics that 4) The Planning Commission should recommend to were within the scope of the agenda during a public designate the Sacred Forest at 1011 2nd Avenue as forum, where public forum should be an opportunity for Critical Environmental Area (CEA).

21 CHAPTER TWO ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE The archaeological, historical and cultural signifi cance of The archaeological signifi cance of the site, combined with the land located at 1011 2nd Avenue is well documented. Its the increased risk for disturbance through foot traffi c signifi cance constitutes eligibility for the National Register. associated with a change to high density zoning, should constitute enough ground for the Planning Commission to High density development zoning would increase foot traffi c recommend against the rezoning. However, if a change in on the site, threatening the destruction of archeo-sensitive zoning code remains under consideration, no recommen- sites. Development would lead to an irrevocable loss of one dation should be made until SEQRA review has completed. of Troy’s most signifi cant historical and archaeological Similarly, SEQRA review should be initiated as soon as possi- locations with a history of over 5,000 years of human ble and without any further delay given the signifi cance of habitation and use. the site.

ranging back to prehistoric times. The site was used by the 2.1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL Mahican people as a quarry and tool making site. The site was SIGNIFICANCE also identifi ed as the potential location of semi-permanent and potentially permanent settlements. Some of the studies A consistent academic consensus exists regarding the also mention strong indications for burial sites (US EPA, 2002). historical, archaeological and cultural signifi cance of this site, particularly regarding the Mahican peoples, but also The EPA cultural resource survey associated with the 2002 Re- prehistoric communities that utilized this site as early as cord of Decision relating the Hudson River remediation (Ibid.) 1600-3000 B.C. (Brumbach, 1987). also emphasizes the historical-cultural and archaeological signifi cance of this site and notes the need for further study Several archaeological studies have been conducted on this of this site for the future — which has not been land, with one of the fi rst signifi cant studies dating back to independently conducted to this date. This report also states the 1980ies (Brumbach, 1987; Lothorp et al, 2018). The existing the high likelihood of yet to be recovered resources. reports, studies and academic publications all consistently conclude that the land in question is of high historical and Finally, two reports associated with the site as well as a archaeological signifi cance, and that the found artifacts second in immediate proximity — both referred together as justify the registration of this land in the National Registry. the Pleasantdale Quarry — explicitly identify the sites as This has also been confi rmed in personal correspondence historically and archaeologically critical and positively review with a lead archaeologist involved in the recent 2020 survey. the archaeological record associated with these sites as The report was not yet made available to the public. eligible for the National Register (Brumbach, 1993).

According to these studies, the sites contain signifi cant One of these reports, referenced and submitted to the record amounts of prehistoric and historic archaeological artifacts. for the Troy City Council hearing on September 10, 20202 The scientifi c consensus agrees that this site is of high was authored by Hetty Jo Brumbach, Paula Zitzler, the Public historic, archaeological and cultural signifi cance. Archeology Facility and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and discusses the “potential eligibility for nomination to the Na- Amongst the artifacts are countless signifi cant ones of tional Registry of Historic Places” (Brumbach, 1993, p 1). members of the Mahican peoples, but also important fi nds

22 Chapter Two: Archaeological Signifi cance

HIGHLIGHTS

• The site at 1011 2nd Avenue is of high archaeological, historical and cultural significance. • Studies found artifacts dating back to 1500-3000 B.C.E. • Due to its archaeological-historical-cultural significance the site would qualify for CEA designation. • Surrounding archaeological sites indicate a high likelihood for additional significant finds on this site. • Considering the significance of the site, “In-Right” development would face SEQRA challenges • Due to the significance of the site, SEQRA should be initiated without further delay • Due to the significance of the site, the City of Troy should designate the site as CEA, and the Planning Commission should recommend to do so.

On page 81, the authors explicitly state that: considering it is near the confl uence of two major river “Stage II survey recovered adequate data to determine valleys, the Hudson and Mohawk. Lansingburgh has been that the prehistoric site … appears to meet the criteria for long known to have been settled by Algonquian speaking eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places. [...] people (Mohican) and various names for parts of the Burgh disturbance to the site has been minimal. Very little arti- have been recorded by early settlers and historians. fact collection has taken place and few of the residents are aware of the presence of the prehistoric material. This territory was recorded as early as 1614 as found on the Thus, unlike some quarry locations of the Hudson Valley, Adriaen Block map of New Netherland and Cornelius the site has not been depleted by collectors” Hendrickson map of 1616, two early Dutch traders of the Hudson Valley and who were responsible for the founding of And continue: nearby Albany. “The site also has the potential for providing unique information pertaining to regional prehistory since it is one of Panhoosicklay north of Troy near the Piscawen Kill the few professionally reported and investigated archaeo- (Middleburgh St). Part of the name is retained in the area logical sites in Rensselaer County. Thus, the site is capable (Hoosick). of yielding information important in prehistory.” Potquassick was an early name for Lansingburgh and might Based on these reports, the site’s unique importance mean “round stones.” One historian applied the name to a becomes explicit and preservation critical. woodland east of the river and “near a small island commonly known as whale fi shing island.” Whale Island was in the It also makes clear that its development would lastingly Hudson directly across from Herman Melville’s home, now the destroy this site and rob the city and its people of a major Lansingburgh Historical Society at 2 114thStreet. The name of aspect of its history. Similarly, a rezoning of the site would a whale is from pootau, “he blows strongly.” The place name cause increased foot-traffi c on the site, increasing disturbance seems to be from petuhqui “it is round” and quassik, means risks to the archeo-sensitive locations. “Stone.” Whale Island is now buried under the raised level of the Hudson River. Whale Island was inspiration for Melville’s writing. 2.2 SURROUNDING SITES1 Sheepschack was on the site of Lansingburgh according to a The proposed development in Lansingburgh/Speigletown at 19thcentury historian. It may be derived from seip, “a river.” 1011 2nd Avenue is an area of high archaeological potential Taescameasick is also placed on the site of Lansingburgh and

23 suggests a ford. Nachtenac was used to describe Waterford On nearby Van Schaick Island, a burial of a Native woman and and the mouth of the Mohawk River. It means “Excellent her child was uncovered on the golf course and in 1926 Homer land.” Quahemiscos is Mohican for Van Schaick Island. Folger of the Burgh, a carpenter at the Matton Shipyard, dis- Tiosaronda is Mohawk for the junction of the Mohawk and covered a Native burial and artifacts near the shipyard, north Hudson Rivers and means “mingling of two streams,” or of the yard. “place where streams empty themselves.” Folger in 1933 found another well preserved Indian burial and In addition, over the last century and a half, many Native in April 1938 he found two burials that had been exposed by sites have been found in the Burgh. the high water of the river at the north tip of Van Schaick Island. The bodies were buried in a fetal position and a Just yards from this proposed development site is a well projectile point was embedded in the skull of one of the known flint mine, now on the property of the Hannaford burials. shopping market. Flint, or Chert, is a sedimentary cryptocrystalline form of Quartz and is found in rocks such as Indian burials were found during WW II when a new frame limestone and chalks and was used extensively for tool building was constructed at Matton. North of Peebles Island making and hunting implements from the first arrivals of other Native burials have been found. In 1981 Native bones indigenous people in the area some 10,000 years ago. were uncovered while a sewer connector was being dug at 43 Hudson River Road, about a mile north of Broad Street in The famous Flint Mine Hill in Coxsacki for example is on the Waterford. North of Peebles Island just across the Mohawk National Register of Historic Places. West Athens Hill, south River Channel three burials were uncovered in 1995 in of us, is a well-known Paleoindian work site that dates back Waterford all in fetal position. There were radiocarbon dates to about 13,000 years ago. These deposits of flint were well to ca. 995 AD. A third burial was dated 1435 AD. known to indigenous peoples of the area and they often lived close by. Many other artifacts were found on the Matton Shipyard over the years north of the yards including eight Owasco Indian Over the last two centuries and particularly in the 19thand Burials with large pit features with fragments of Late early 20thcentury, amateur archaeologists combed the banks Woodland Iroquois pots. of the Hudson River in the Capital District discovering Native sites of various ages. In 1897 a Native cemetery was Menomine’s village moved around and some believe it once uncovered near the intersection of River and Second Avenues; was located on the east bank of the Hudson not far from this a neighboring camp site was also located. There was an early proposed development site near a stream. Also, on a 1639 camping spot of three acres with signs of two occupations on map it shows this possible village on the north side of the nearby Green Island. Mohawk below the Cohoes Falls and is labeledVastichuyt- meaning stronghold. In 1640 a Dutch visitor of the falls The famous Menomine’s Castle (village) was located on recorded there “are many Indians here, whom they call Peebles Island and can be seen on the Van Rensselaer Map of Maquas[Mohawks].” The Mohawks had driven the Mohicans 1631. Chief Menomine was killed in the Mohican war with the from the land earlier. Mohawks between 1624-1626. A village site north of the Waterford Bridge along the Hudson So is Unawats Castle in South Troy. It is an Algonquin word was recorded in 1920. The site was extensive and yielded an and may be derived from oosoowneat, meaning “To swim” as abundance of stone artifacts. This would have been directly a place favorable for bathing, or a customary way of crossing. across from the development site and it is highly likely that a In 1922 Arthur C. Parker reported the discovery of “chipped red settlement was here on the east side of the river and close to slate” projectile points at the southeast end of Peebles island. the flint mine. A collector named Albert C. Hurd of Troy found several sites in Troy, the Burgh, and surrounding area and also found sites at When the Freihofer’s Bakery was being built, several Native the northeast end and on either side of the railroad tracks on skeletons were recovered from it. the island.

24 Chapter Two: Archaeological Signifi cance

At the foot of Glen Avenue in the “Batestown” section of the Burgh, workmen grading the Laureate Athletic grounds in 2.3 CONCLUSIONS 1890 found two well preserved Native skulls about four feet from the surface. There was more as published in the Troy The archaeological signifi cance of the site is well documented Daily Times: and acknowledged by the developer. Based on the presented evidence, this site qualifi es for the designation as Critical An Indian Burial-Ground—Workmen Make an Interesting Environmental Area (CEA), fulfi lling criteria (iii) of CRR-NY Discovery. 617.14(g). The workmen grading the Laureate athletic grounds, at the foot of Glen avenue, were surprised yesterday at the The archaeological signifi cance is uncontested, underscoring discovery of human bones. Two well-preserved skulls were the importance of commencing the SEQRA processes as soon exhumed, about four feet below the surface, on the bank as possible. of the river. The men were digging up the loam which is being placed on the baseball diamond. Other bones were Subsequently, the Planning Commission should refrain from uncovered, and this morning another skull was found. The any positive recommendation for change in zoning code lower jaw was in place and most of the teeth were found. without having the best information possible at its disposal. A The contractor said this morning that the bones of about complete SEQRA review is an elementary part of this a dozen persons had been found. From the location it is information gathering. believed that a burial-place of the old Mohawk Indians was uncovered. Twenty years ago, when the Waters A change in zoning code to P would allow for signifi cant boat-factory was built several feet north, the bones of increase in density, therefore increase foot-traffi c on the site. several persons were found, and with them arrowheads This constitutes a signifi cant environmental impact on this and other Indian relics were discovered. archeo-sensitive site and therefore would require a “pos dec” Troy Daily Times. June 3, 1890: 3 col 6. (positive declaration) as part of the SEQRA processes. This is also the case, if SEQRA is only conducted for the rezoning As late as 2012, artifacts attributed to Mohican occupation itself as independent from the development (which would were found in the South Troy industrial park on the east bank. constitute “segmentation” anyways).

As you can see prehistoric occupation of the Troy-Lansing- Finally, an “alternative site proposal”, which foresees the burgh area is well documented and considering that many construction of approx. 38 singe family houses on the site, is 1) sites have been found near the proposed development, it is not subject of consideration, would require 2) the submission imperative that a well-funded archaeological study must be of a full EAF according to DEC CP 29, and 3) would require its conducted before any decision is made. I feel quite confi dent own SEQRA review. that there might be evidence of Native occupation on the proposed development site. The alternative site proposal should therefore not determine the outcome of the commission’s considerations. Footnotes: However, even if it were considered, mitigation standards of 1 Author of this Section 2.2: Dr. Don Rittner, Professor of Archaeology archeo-sensitive sites require the documentation and mitigation of impact regardless of project, leading to the conclusion that the permitting 38 single family houses would face serious challenges within its own SEQRA process.

Given these issues, and in particular the archaeological significance and adverse impacts of a high density development on the site, the Planning Commission should recommend against the requested change in zoning code.

25 CHAPTER THREE ECOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE The ecology of the forested land at 1011 2nd Avenue, com- Due to these fi ndings, we recommend that no action is monly referred to as “Sacred Forest”, is of high signifi cance. taken on the land until suffi cient ecological study and Two consecutive ecological surveys were conducted on the documentation during the grow season (May-September) site by Dr. David Hunt on December 20, 2020 and January 14, was completed. 2021. The detailed reports are provided in Appendix 1 and are summarized in this chapter. Given the high probability of adverse impacts, and given that in-right development would be subject to its own These preliminary surveys already identifi ed severalcoun- SEQRA review per DEC CP 29, the Planning Commission ty-rare and potentially one state-rare species and found should recommend against the rezoning due the ecological signifi cant indicators for the presence of protected species. signiﬁ cance of the site.

3.1 SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS Because herbaceous and graminoid plants are often not The forested land contains two signifi cant ecological features: detectable under current survey conditions, Dr. Hunt strongly recommends the parcel be studies by a qualifi ed ecologist • “Pleasentdale Bluﬀ s”: A county-important rocky summit/ during the growing season (May to September) to better slope ecosystem complex that contains knolls and cliff s evaluate the suspected/potential presence of several addi- along the Hudson River spanning the Troy/Schaghticoke tional regionally-rare species including municipal boundary with associated county-exemplary occurrences of Pitch-Pinke-Oak-Heath Rocky Summit plus • The state-rare moth inland barrens buckmoth, known to Shale Cliff & Talus Community, as well as 24 known region feed on scrub oak (identifi ed during both surveys in ally rare plants. December 2020 and January 2021) • The state-rare plants pleated-leaved knotweed plus bristly • “Hudson River Schaghticoke”: A county-important riparian rose, both known just to the north in Schaghticoke. ecosystem complex containing the Hudson River, shoreline communities, and an associated fl ood plain, stretching Any decision about potential land use changes should form the Washington County line downstream to the consider the regional importance and rarity of multiple Federal Dam in Troy with associated county-exemplary ecological features here (especially the Shale Cliff and Talus occurrences of Unconfi ned River plus Riverside Sand/ Community, riverside habitat, and rare plant species like scrub Gravel Bar, as well as many regionally-rare plants. oak).

Recent surveys of the parcel at 1011 2nd Avenue on December If any structures are to be built on the parcel, Dr. Hunt strong- 20, 2020, and January 14, 2021, confi rmed the presence of ly recommends that they are placed as close as possible to multiple features of both regionally important sites Second Avenue, farthest away from the ecologically import- (“Pleasentdale Bluff s” and “Hudson River Schaghticoke”) ant features of the site, and that any impacts to the high including multiple characteristic natural communities and knolls, stepp W-facing slopes bordering the Hudson River, and county-rare plants. the river shoreline are minimized. 26 Chapter Three: Ecological Signifi cance

HIGHLIGHTS

• Several county-rare species and likely one state-rare species were documented in recent surveys. • Additional ecological surveys during the growth season (May - September) are needed. • Due to its ecological significance the site would qualify for CEA designation. • The ecological sensitivity and significance of the site warrants a recommendation against rezoning.

Ecological Communities (Appendix 1 - Map 1, Tables 1-2). those to the north within the Pleasantdale Bluff s complex, Three natural communities observed onsite that have county suffi cient observations have now been made to map this to state importance (Shale Cliff & Talus Community, Riverside community on the 1011 2nd Avenue parcel. Sand/Gravel Bar, and Pitch Pine-Oak-Heath Rocky Summit). Rare Species (Appendix 1 - Map 2, Table 3). The Riverside Sand/Gravel Bar probably meets the criteria Several rare species (table 3) for the larger Pleasantdale Bluff s for “state signifi cance”, although not yet documented in the complex were identifi ed. The rare species population map for databases of NY Natural Heritage Program (of NYS DEC). All 3 the parcel best reveals the most ecologically-sensitive part of community types are “county rare” and the cliff community is the site (map 2), from a practical perspective. also “state rare”. The example of the latter community onsite comes close to meeting criteria for “state signifi cance”. Dr. Hunt still has several specimens of potentially rare mosses to evaluate, relying on a close colleague to expedite any iden- Although the patches of Pitch Pine-Oak-Heath Rocky Sum- tifi cations. He expects 1 to 5 county rare species among the mit onsite are very small and narrow, especially compared to collections, possibly 1 state rare species.

27 Important Animal Habitats (Appendix 1 - Table 4). entire nearby Hudson River habitat by the NY Natural Heri- Animal habitats are more fl exibly defi ned than other features tage Program of 3 state-rare odonates suggests the presence and harder to determine. Key observations often depend on of an “odonate concentration area” in the river along the specifi c times of the year or day (e.g., nocturnal) and parcel. specifi c microhabitats (e.g., the bottom substrate of the Hud- son River). Based on observations of abundant spent shells, Dr. Hunt suspects a “riverine mollusk concentration area” in the river Confi rmation of “important habitat” is also complicated next to the site, however, confi rmation would need to involve by the need for a minimal number of diff erent species and shallow underwater observations, best made between May number of individuals, which can be seasonally and annually and September. highly variable. As Table 4 shows, to date the most certain important habitat is a “bald eagle feeding territory”, backed up Although the beaver lodge was mapped and it could be a not just by the one local report/observation but probably also component of an “aquatic mammal concentration area”, by mapping of the entire habitat by the NY Natural Heritage observations of other species would be needed for this Program. designation. Many pieces of information needed for confi rmation of important animal habitat require patience Similarly, although no onsite observations of odonates and the presence of someone onsite for extended periods of (dragonfl ies and damselfl ies) have been made, mapping of the time or the perfect time for observations.

3.1 CONCLUSIONS Given these fi ndings, the surveying ecologist recommends that no action is taken on the land until suffi cient additional The ecological signifi cance of the site is documented in sur- surveys are completed during the grow season (May- veys provided in Appendix 1. These preliminary surveys already September) and include adequate survey of wildlife (including identifi ed a signifi cant presence ofseveral county- nocturnal species). rare and one potentially state-rare species. Given these issues, in particular the presence of sensitive ecol- The fi ndings establish that this site qualifi es for thedesigna- ogies and the potential presence of protected species, adverse tion as a Critical Environmental Area (CEA) by fulfi lling CRR- impacts of a high density development on the site are clear, NY 617.14(g) criteria (iv) and therefore the Planning Commis- and the Planning Commission should recommend against the sion should recommend such designation. requested change in zoning code.

28 Chapter Three: Ecological Signifi cance

29 CHAPTER FOUR ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND CLIMATE CHANGE Besides the intrinsic value of intact ecosystems as a public This section provides a brief overview of essential ecosystem good, the ecology at 1011 2nd Avenue also provides critical services provided by the “Sacred Forest” at 1011 2nd Avenue ecosystem services that enhance the public benefi t and (4.2) and discusses (4.3) the most critical environmental should make its maintenance a high-priority objective for impacts associated with the loss of the natural state of this the City of Troy. site. In section 4.4., critical aspects of this land’s contribution to protections against climate change and to community resilience are elaborated, before providing conclusions in section 4.5.

4.1 ECOSYSTEM SERVICES signifi cant ecosystem services to the benefi t of the entire City, downstream communities, but in particular the The urban landscape exacerbates many environmental residence of the local community of a DEC designated challenges, such as “stormwater runoff and fl ood risk, chem- “Potential Environmental Justice Area” (PEJA). ical and particulate pollution of urban air, soil and water, the urban heat island, and summer heat waves” (Livesley, This means that the loss of this forest would constitute MCPherson, Calfapietra, 2016). It is well documented that signifi cant adverse impacts that would disproportionately urban forests play an important role in mitigating these impact the residents of this PEJA. eff ects and thereby provide important ecosystem services. The forest at 1011 2nd Avenue must be classifi ed as “urban Ecosystem services can be defi ned as the benefi ts that people woodland” due to its size (Forestry Commission, 2011), making derive from nature. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment this site unique as they “tend to be able to provide (MEA, 2005) and the UK National Ecosystem Assessment (UK provisioning and regulating services to a greater degree than NEA, 2011) categorize these as: sparsely planted areas” (Davies et al, 2017).

• provisioning services (providing benefi ts such as food and Davies et al (2017) provide a comprehensive review of timber); ecosystem services delivered by urban forests in general, • regulating services (providing benefi ts such as carbon detailed in the table below. Woodland type urban forested sequestration and fl ood protection); areas, such as the forest at 1011 2nd Avenue provide a • cultural services (providing benefi ts such as public amenity signifi cant amount of ecosystem services, and include2: and opportunities for recreation), • supporting services (providing benefi ts such as soil REGULATING SERVICES: Carbon sequestration, temperature formation and biodiversity/habitats for wildlife). regulation, stormwater regulation, air purifi cation, and noise mitigation. Due to the forested character, natural state, and geographic CULTURAL SERVICES: Health, nature and landscape location along the Hudson River and at the most northern, connections, social development and connections, upstream part of the City of Troy, this land provides education and learning, cultural signifi cance.

30 Chapter Four: Ecosystem Services and Climate Change

HIGHLIGHTS

• The forested land at 1011 2nd Avenue provides a range of critical ecosystem services. • These ecosystem services are particularly critical given the “Potential Environmental Justice Area” • Several ecosystem services are critical to public health, establishing the harm to public health associated with development and rezoning • Developing the land would negatively impact the city’s resilience to climate and environmental risks.

Due to the location of the forest at 1011 2nd Avenue, the services, including the provision of clean air, noise mitigation, provision of regulating services must be deemed as and the mental and physical health benefi ts associated with signifi cantly higher than average urban woodlands. The the access to natural green spaces and woodlands in location along the Hudson River combined with its exclusive particular. For data on detailed aspects of individual status as waterfront forest within the City of Troy increase ecosystem services, see Davies et al. (2017). the value of stormwater regulation and fl ood protection services provided by the forest. Footnotes: Its location in an Environmental Justice Area further 2 Additional services can be generated by proper cultivation, particu- increases the signifi cance of provided regulating and cultural larly food provision.

31 Trees also help prevent asthma, “either by encouraging 4.2 ECOSYSTEM SERVICES outdoor play or through an effect on local air quality” (Lovasi AND PUBLIC HEALTH et al. 2008).

The forested land at 1011 2nd Avenue provides critical Importantly, clean water and drinking water quality are ecosystem services that are beneficial to public health. perhaps one of the most significant benefits of natural open Similarly, a high density development of this undeveloped spaces, especially forested areas, as pollutants that are carried land and forest would result in potentially significant adverse by rainwater into surface waters such as streams, rivers and public health impacts. lakes are absorbed by forested areas. The Hudson River is an important drinking water source for many communities Forested areas and waterfronts in natural state provide a downstream. Additionally, the Hudson River is an important wide range of critical ecosystem services that directly and fishing source for the communities in Troy. The forested land indirectly contribute positively to public health. These at 1011 2nd Avenue provides critical water filtration services contributions are well-known and scientifically established that ensure that pollutants do not reach the sensitive ecology and will be only summarized in this section. Instead, this of the river. section focused on site specific aspects; especially in context of the site’s location in a DEC designated Potential 4.2.2. FORESTED AREAS AND MENTAL HEALTH Environmental Justice Area (PEJA). Trees and forested areas have been also linked to important mental health benefits that become particularly important Increasingly, planners and local governments recognize the during the current pandemic and associated mental health important value of natural or “green infrastructure” spaces, impacts, particularly in PEJAs. This includes reduced stress which comprises an “interconnected network of natural areas and mental fatigue, reduced aggression, and enhanced and other open spaces that conserves natural ecosystem mental, emotional and cognitive development (cp. e.g. values and functions, sustains clean ear and water and Benedict and McMahon, 2006; Wolch, Byrne and Newell, provides a wide array of benefits to people and wildlife” 2014; Kuo and Sullivan, 2001). (Benedict and McMahon, 2006). Today, it is well established that urban forests mitigate the impacts of the urban Van den Berg et al. (2010) show that “the relationships of landscape while providing multiple benefits for stressful life events with number of health complaints and environmental quality and community wellbeing. The perceived general health were significantly moderated by the importance of forested areas for physical and mental health, amount of green space in 3-km radius”. This would highlight especially in urban areas, has become further explicit in con- an important role for trees and other natural features as text of the COVID-19 pandemic — particularly in Environmen- stress buffers. tal Justice Areas. This becomes particularly important during the current 4.2.1. FORESTED AREAS AND PUBLIC HEALTH pandemic, where limited social interactions, increased According to Boyd (2017), forested areas provide many unemployment and economic concerns, and other stressors important benefits for “human physical health [...] including lead to an accelerating mental and physical health crisis. provision of clean drinking water, fostering increased physical These impacts are disproportionately felt by communities in activity, promoting faster healing in hospitals, reduction of Environmental Justice Areas. heat-related mortality, reduced incidence of cardiovascular- related mortality, improved air quality and related reductions The forest at 1011 2nd Avenue is therefore not only an in respiratory-related mortality, reduced incidence of important community resource, but an investment in the childhood asthma, and improved birth outcomes” (cp. also community’s physical and mental health; critical ecosystem Benedict and McMahon, 2006; Cotrone, 2015; Akabri, Pomer- services which would become costly losses if destroyed. antz and Taha, 2001; Beattie, Kollin and Moll, 2000; Nowak, 2002; Lovasi et al., 2008; Wolf, 2008; Mitchell and Popham, 6.2.3. FORESTED AREAS & ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 2008; Donovan et al., 2013). The forest at 1011 2nd Avenue is located in a DEC designated Environmental Justice Area, and therefore provides critical

32 Chapter Four: Ecosystem Services and Climate Change ecosystem services in an area that has historically worse “The majority of the Hudson River shoreline south of the access to green spaces and other green infrastructures that Collar City Bridge has been channelized, which has inter- are critical to physical and mental health. This means that rupted or removed natural ecosystems. Due to this activi- the destruction of this forested area will further exacerbate ty, sediment from the Hudson River is no longer deposited critical injustices. on the banks, and limited habitat is available for fi sh and wildlife species” (p. 16) It is well established that signifi cant gaps exist in the spatial distribution of the urban forests and waterfronts The New York State Department of Environmental across socioeconomic variables; including income, race and Conservation (NYSDEC), estimates that by 2080 the City of ethnicity, housing tenure, and/or population density. Troy could face over 3 feet of sea-level rise on the tidal Hudson River due to global climate change. This is also the case for Troy, NY and this neighborhood in particular. Located in an Potential Environmental Justice Area, Rainfall events are also expected to become less predictable, the forest is a well known community resource used by local more extreme, and occur in the form of heavy downpours or BIPOC youth and community members of all ages as an extended droughts. The elevation of the 100-year fl oodplain easily-accessible natural retreat from the pressures of urban and the city’s history of extreme fl ooding suggest that the life, particularly during the pandemic. This means that the threat of damage to and loss of property is heightened due to loss of provided ecosystem service benefi ts for public health anticipated climate change. would disproportionately impact members of this PEJA community. 4.2.1. STORMWATER AND FLOODING Natural waterfront green-spaces play a signifi cant role in preventing stormwater runoff related fl ooding as well as the contamination through pollutions carried by stormwater 4.2 CLIMATE CHANGE r u n o ff . AND RESILIENCE The forest at 1011 2nd Avenue plays a critical role for the City Natural, forested spaces are a critical asset to the city’s of Troy in preventing runoff contamination and as for the environmental and climate resilience. This area, upstream of city’s fl ood resiliency —particularly in context of growing the entire city, signifi cantly protects the city from fl ooding fl ood risks associated with climate change. directly (as a buff er fl ood zone for fl ooding) and indirectly by preventing runoff and maintaining the integrity of the river The important positive eff ects of green-spaces on bank. The development of the site in the proposed form stormwater runoff , water fi ltration and fl ood protection have would signifi cantly interfere with the ability of this land to been discussed already in this report. An extended runoff absorb runoff and protect the city from river pollution and simulation and analysis is forthcoming and will be provided at fl ooding. a later point.

Studies well-establish that developments, such as the proposed, and the associated displacement of natural waterfront and channelization signifi cantly increase river fl ood risks downstream. The direct eff ects of sedimentary fl ow and associated environmental degradation of the Hudson River additionally exacerbate the increase of fl ood risks downstream at other areas across the City of Troy and other communities along the Hudson River.

This is also acknowledged in the 2018 “Realize Troy” Compre- hensive Plan, which states:

33 4.3 NEGATIVE IMPACTS This development and the associated change in zoning code will, amongst others, have the following adverse impacts due The rezoning and development (combined and individually) to ecosystem service loss and ecosystem impacts: have therefore signifi cant potential for negative - High density zoning and traffi c increase will lead to environmental impacts, including on public health, and increased illness related to air pollution, noise include potentially signifi cant public service costs resulting pollution and water contamination, and increase risks from these negative impacts and the loss of ecosystem of traffi c accidents. services. - Increased pavement and loss of natural runoff buff ers will increase run-off pressures on the Hudson River, There are several environmental impacts that constitute leading to adverse health impacts on downstream direct and indirect public harm as well as economic costs communities. associated with the proposed rezoning of Parcel 70.64-1-1 as - Increase pressures on the already strained combined sewage well as the proposed development of the site. These will also infrastructures is linked to an increase in fi nes for have signifi cant consequences for costs due to lost ecosystem combined sewage overfl ow and will lead to negative services, the negative impacts on the city’s climate and impacts on downstream communities. extreme weather resilience, and subsequently the city’s - Further channelization of the Hudson, already leading to revenue (see box on the right). increased fl ood risks, will be further increased with this development — leading to increased fl ood Increases in impervious surfaces as a result of deforestation hazards for downstream properties across the city. and high-density development have been linked to a number The location of this property in particular will of negative impacts, including decreases in air and water severely increase fl ood risks for the entire city. quality and increases in the magnitude of urban heat islands, - Signifi cant loss of forest and natural waterfront will increase which have been linked to heat-related mortality and the other critical hazards, including urban heat, runoff production of noxious ground-level ozone. pollution, air pollution and their severe impacts on public health. These consequences and impacts stand in direct confl ict with - Eff ects will disproportionately impact communities living in the 2018 Comprehensive Plan, undermining valuable eff orts a DEC PEJA. taken by the city, including its participation in the Climate Smart Communities Program. Additionally, the development does not adhere to critical provisions for waterfront protection and renaturalization established in existing code in 2018, a Health Across All Policies (HAAP) initiative that calls as well as in the additional zoning logics established in the for integrating health considerations into all policy and comprehensive plan (which a change in zoning code must decision making across all sectors and all levels of adhere to). government in New York State 4.

4.3.1. PUBLIC HEALTH 4.3.2. TRAFFIC, EMISSIONS, ROAD SAFETY An individual’s health is determined by many factors includ- A higher density zoning will inevitably increase traffi c at the ing genetics, healthcare, socioeconomic circumstances, site. The developer, for example, proposes a 240 unit environmental exposures, and behavioral patterns. apartment. An average of 1-2 vehicles per apartment unit must be assumed, leading to an increase of vehicles using the Socioeconomic circumstances, environmental exposures, and 2nd Avenue road by 240-480 vehicles. This means that the behavioral patterns are classifi ed as Social Determinants of rezoning to a higher density will inevitably lead to an Health (SDOH), or “non-medical factors that determine health signifi cant increase in vehicle related emissions and an outcomes.” 3 Researchers in public health have determined increased risk of traffi c accidents on this two-lane and bend- that SDOH contribute more towards an individual or ing section of the road. community’s health outcomes than traditional health factors like genetic predisposition or healthcare. With this 4.3.3. SEWAGE OVERFLOW information, Governor Cuomo issued Executive Order No. 190 The city’s sewage and water management infrastructure is 34 Chapter Four: Ecosystem Services and Climate Change already at capacity. In the last few years, Troy was in violation climate risk that is anticipated to signifi cantly increase for of state reporting laws in association with massive sewage the city of Troy and already constitutes a major public health o v e r fl o w s 5 leading to signifi cant cost for the community. In threat today. Development, even if major parts of the forest fact, Troy is the region’s worst polluter regarding overfl ows. would not be destroyed, would signifi cantly impact the accessibility and functioning of this critical asset.11 The city itself acknowledged that “Unfortunately, sewer overfl ow events are fairly routine for shoreline communities A recent article published in the New York Times (August like Troy.”6 24, 2020) discusses the direct relationship between health, income and racial disparities in relationship to exposures to It is in this context that the proposed development and its extreme heat in the urban context. impacts on the loss of this land will signifi cantly escalate this already urgent emergency. The location of the site at the very 4.3.6. AIR QUALITY AND RELATED ILLNESS north of the city, combined with its size and its impact on the Air Quality will be negatively impacted, both directly and city’s sewer system will lead to signifi cant environmental and indirectly. The increased traffi c associated with the monetary costs for the city and all its residents. development will diametrically impact the air quality of this neighborhood. Additionally, the loss of tree and natural space 4.3.4. WATER QUALITY will further exacerbate air quality loss.12 This is directly linked Natural, forested spaces are a critical asset to the city’s to a range of illnesses. environmental and climate resilience 7. This area, upstream of the entire city, signifi cantly protects the city from fl ooding Rensselaer County had the highest rate of asthma directly (as a buff er fl ood zone for fl ooding) and indirectly by hospitalizations for all ages and for ages 0-17 years in the preventing runoff and maintaining the integrity of the river Capital Region. Troy/Lansingburgh had 2.5 times the asthma bank. The development of the site in the proposed form emergency department visit rate and 1.8 times the asthma would signifi cantly interfere with the ability of this land to hospitalization rate as New York State excluding NYC. absorb runoff and protect the city from river pollution and fl ooding. Additionally, asthma hospitalization rates per 10,000 residents in Rensselaer County were signifi cantly higher for The property is directly adjacent to the Hudson. This means black (32.4) and Hispanic (33.3) residents when compared with development impacts on this land will signifi cantly aff ect white non-Hispanic (7.9) residents in Rensselaer County.13 the fl ood resilience of Troy, particularly due to its location Negative impacts to air pollution associated with the upstream of the entire city (last property before the city line); proposed change in zoning will exacerbate existing The undeveloped higher elevation provides additional pro- disproportionate impacts of poor air quality for PEJA tection against runoff and to the integrity of the areas of the community residents. land that comprise a fl ood zone. Studies show the importance of such natural assets in runoff protection.8 4.3.7. NOISE POLLUTION Currently zoned as R1, the rezoning will signifi cantly increase Development, particularly high-density development, will noise levels due to increased population density, increased signifi cantly increase runoff pollution9 through the loss of traffi c and the loss of green space as natural noise shield; this water absorbing forest and forest soils and the use of will signifi cantly disrupt the character, but also public health impervious material as well as the associated increased traffi c of the otherwise characteristically quiet neighborhood. and pollution. This only constitutes10 an increased threat of environmental harm on surrounding communities, 4.3.9. FLOODING downstream communities and the Hudson river itself. Studies well-establish that developments, such as the proposed, and the associated displacement of natural waterfront 4.3.5. URBAN HEAT ISLAND AND HEAT MORTALITY and channelization signifi cantly increase river fl ood risks Forested areas serve as “natural air conditioning” for the downstream (cp. Chen, 2016). The direct eff ects of surrounding communities in urban centers and provide a sedimentary fl ow and associated environmental degradation natural refuge and relief from oppressive summer heat; a of the Hudson River additionally exacerbate the increase of

35 flood risks downstream at other areas across the City of Troy from flood risk,” and “identify and conserve natural areas and other communities along the Hudson River. contributing to stormwater management.” Natural resources, like trees and other green spaces, absorb water from running This is also acknowledged in the comparative plan which off into waterways, and also absorb excess rain and flood states waters. “The majority of the Hudson River shoreline south of the Collar City Bridge has been channelized, which has inter- The developer claims because this area is above the 100-year rupted or removed natural ecosystems. Due to this activi- flood zone, it would not negatively impact flooding. This is ty, sediment from the Hudson River is no longer deposited false, because removing green-space means fewer natural on the banks, and limited habitat is available for fish and resources to absorb excess rain and snow melt, causing more wildlife species” (p. 16) runoff to the Hudson River and surrounding area.”

This risk is exacerbated when one considers the climate projections by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). Rainfall events are 4.4 CONCLUSIONS also expected to become less predictable, more extreme, and occur in the form of heavy downpours or extended droughts. This has important implications for the considerations of a The elevation of the 100-year floodplain and the city’s history current request for rezoning for 1011 2nd Avenue. of extreme flooding suggest that the threat of damage to and loss of property is heightened due to anticipated climate • Ecosystem Services. The forest at 1011 2nd Avenue provides change. critical ecosystem services to the local community, the entire City of Troy as well as downstream communities — Flooding in particular would be gravely exacerbated by with direct and indirect benefits for public health. opening this parcel up to high-density development, as Liz • Disproportionate Harm for Community in Environmental Moran explained in a submission to the record for the public Justice Area. The forest is located in a DEC designated hearing on September 10, 2020, quoted in the following from Environmental Justice Area. This means that the loss of the minutes: ecosystem services would place unfair harm disproportionately on the communities in this area. “This project would threaten the City with more flooding. • Rezoning and development are coupled. The proposed Natural buffers and forests are key for flood prevention, and rezoning is connected to a known development project. this area of Troy has already suffered from significant These development plans are well-known and statements flooding. As the climate continues to warm, more frequent by the developer during meetings on August 27, severe storms will also impact the area. According the New September 10, November 17 and December 29 all reaffirm York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), that the rezoning is sought for the purpose of specific 100-year storms are projected to become 20-50% more likely development plans. A consideration of the rezoning alone by the 2020s, and 70-190% by the 2050s. This translates to would be inconsistent with the intent of SEQRA and 15.3-16.8 feet flood heights along the Hudson River. constitute “segmentation”. This is particularly problematic considering the loss of Additionally, climate change is leading to more frequent ecosystem services provided by the forest and the precipitation east of the Hudson River. By the 2050s, disproportionate harm inflicted on the community living in precipitation may increase 12% from baseline 1971-2000 levels. the PEJA. Additionally, as the climate continues to warm, the Hudson • Negative Impacts of Rezoning: There are clear negative River will continue to rise, causing more flooding over time. environmental impacts on public health associated with a High estimate projections for sea level rise indicate the change in zoning code to allow for high density Hudson River may rise by 27-30” by the 2050s. development, as would be the case for a change in zoning. - Higher density would lead to increased traffic. A To reduce the risk of severe flooding, DEC recommends that change in zoning code to allow for higher density communities “use natural vegetated buffers to protect assets would lead to an increase in traffic and associated public health impacts (noise, air pollution, runoff, 36 Chapter Four: Ecosystem Services and Climate Change

impacts on water quality, impacts on traffi c safety). the aging combined-sewer infrastructure, which Under a density allowed with P, an increase of at least already is at capacity. A higher density rezoning around 240 vehicles must be expected, but a much therefore would lead to increased overfl ow pollution higher number of vehicles is more realistic given with direct public health impacts on local and allowed density parameters in the zoning as well as downstream communities along the Hudson river. vehicle owner statistics. • Negative Impacts of Development. These negative public - Higher density would lead to increased noise health impacts would be exacerbated by the development pollution associated with the increase in population. proposed by Kevin Vandenburgh. Impacts detailed above Noise pollution and increased urbanization is well become particularly explicit with this development and the established for its link to psychological and physical associated canopy loss, increased traffi c, disturbance, health impacts. runoff through pavement of parking lots and construction, - Higher density would lead to increased pressures noise and shading impacts, increased sewage use, increase on public infrastructure. Particularly a change in air and water pollution and the loss of critical density on this parcel upstream of the entire city ecosystem services associated with the development. would lead to signifi cant increases in pressures on

37 Given these impacts, the following conclusions become necessary:

Development and rezoning are (individually and in combination) linked to have highly significant adverse impacts on the public health of the local community of this DEC designated “Potential Environmental Justice Area” as well as on the broader public of Troy. While a development of the Footnotes: site is permissible in R-1, the public health impacts associated 3 https://www.who.int/health-topics/social-determi- with a high density zoning far exceed the impacts of develop- nants-of-health#tab=tab_1 ment within the current zoning. 4 https://www.health.ny.gov/prevention/prevention_agenda/ health_across_all_policies/docs/roadmap_report.pdf This alone should provide enough grounds for the Planning 5 Times Union (July 7, 2017) “Massive Albany Troy Sewage Spills in Commission to recommend against the rezoning. Hudson https://www.timesunion.com/7dayarchive/article/Massive- Albany-Troy-sewage-spills-in-Hudson-11273421.php This underscores the importance of initiating a SEQRA at 6 Statement of City of Troy: “Understanding Tory’s Combined Sewer the earliest possible moment, as is also recommended in the Infrastructure System” July 10, 2017 law itself. Furthermore, it underscores the importance for http://www.troyny.gov/understanding-troy-combined-sewer-infra- avoiding segmentation — that is: the Planning Commission structure-system/ should insist in its recommendation that the proper process 7 USDA Urban Forests and Climate Change https://www.fs.usda.gov/ as outlined in the law should be followed. A rezoning ccrc/topics/urban-forests-and-climate-change independent from the known development is not permissible, 8 Conservation Tools: Working With Nature to Manage Stormwater and the exacerbated risk for harm to public health makes this https://conservationtools.org/guides/166-working-with-nature-to- even more significant. manage-stormwater 9 DOS: Impacts of Urban Runoff https://www.des.nh.gov/organiza- The request for rezoning of the site in question should tion/divisions/water/wmb/tmdl/documents/stormwater_chapt1.pdf therefore be NOT APPROVED by the City Council, and the 10 https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wri014071 Planning Commission should recommend AGAINST A REZON- 11 EPA: Reduce Urban Heat Island Effect https://www.epa.gov/ ING. green-infrastructure/reduce-urban-heat-island-effect 12 Benefits of Urban Trees: (https://www.nature.org/content/dam/ Additionally, given these findings, the sitequalifies for the tnc/nature/en/documents/Public_Health_Benefits_Urban_Trees_FI- designation as a Critical Environmental Area (CEA) by fulfilling NAL.pdf) CRR-NY 617.14(g) criteria (i) and therefore the Planning 13 http://www.hcdiny.org/content/sites/hcdi/2019_CHNA/2019_HC- Commission should recommend such designation. DI-Community-Health-Needs-Assessment.pdf

CHAPTER FIVE NEIGHBORHOOD AND CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE The land at 1011 2nd Avenue contributes importantly to the Schaghticoke, as well as the diff erent indigenous tribes and current neighborhood character of Lansingburgh in nations with historically grown cultural and spiritual ties to benefi cial ways and holds high cultural and social this land. signifi cance to diverse communities within Troy, the neighboring Town of Schaghticoke, as well as to indigenous The value of these cultural services cannot be under- communities across the state. emphasized, especially considering its location within a PEJA.

In terms of ecosystem services, this means that the land The signifi cant cultural value for a wide range of — often provides critical cultural services to the local community, the marginalized — communities should underscore the residence of the City of Troy as well as the Town of importance of a recommendation against the rezoning.

My name is Kanerahtiio Roger Jock. I am and all Earth; and create solutions to the Kanien’kehá:ka (Mohawk) Bear Clan from existential challenges of our time. Akwesasne. My great-grandmother is from the Schoharie region of the Mohawk Valley. This is It’s no longer just the native people of this land where my DNA comes from, and my ancestors who know that we need to respect the Earth, have a long history of relations with the live in reciprocity, and stop destructive Mahican People that continues to this day. development in the name of so-called progress. Our economy should not be based I am also the project director of the Waterfall on destroying the Earth. The native trees have Unity Alliance based in West Fulton, NY -- a right to be here. Our grandchildren have the where we are building a traditional longhouse right to be able to come and visit this forest, as an initial point of return to our ancestral sit by the river, gather medicines. This is a rare soils. The mission of the Waterfall Unity place of peace that is senseless to destroy. Alliance is to protect the Mohawk Watershed Chapter Five: Neighborhood and Cultural Signifi cance

HIGHLIGHTS

• The forest is of high cultural relevance to the original custodians of this land. • Indigenous history was systematically erased. Destroying this site would contribute to that loss. • The land significantly contributes to the neighborhood character of the neighborhood. • A change in zoning code would significantly alter the character of this neighborhood.

to indigenous identity. The destruction of this archaeological 5.1 CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE and cultural space would further perpetuate this erasure. TO INDIGENOUS PEOPLES This land provides a lifeline, a direct connection to the ances- This land is of critical signifi cance to indigenous peoples, as it tral homelands from which the indigenous people were forci- represents a direct connection to their historical homelands bly removed. It’s destruction would constitute a repetition of — a connection that today is still well alive and maintained. past violence and crime. As such, the cultural signifi cance far exceeds the already extensive archaeological importance of this land. It is tied to Perhaps, consider the statement by Kanerahitiio Roger Jock, a history that was purposefully and violently erased through spoken at the public hearing on December 29th, 2020, and colonialism. Connecting past and present, it is as such tied submitted in writing to the record, from where it is quoted:

Now that it is threatened, the people who con- sacred. It is time to protect what is sacred and tinue to love and honor the land are here to say protect what we love. STOP! NO! NO MORE! No more development that destroys the last forests. No more paving We need to stand together and make our old over ancestral land. No more short-term gain agreements new again. As long as the water for long-term destruction. fl ows and the grasses grow, we will respect each other and walk together under the Great We join our voice to theirs and say no more to Law of Peace, protecting the Earth and all this old story that is leading us to extinction. creation.

We need to walk together in a new way. We respect the history of the Mahicans on this land. The land is sacred. The river is sacred. The trees and the breathing life on the riverside are 5.2 CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE 5.3. CHANGE IN TO THE LOCAL PUBLIC NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER

This connection extends to the present local communities The impact of allowing high-density development at this site that live alongside, on, and with this forest. It is well known cannot be understated — and extends to the neighborhood locally as a sanctuary amongst the urban landscape. It is an character. This is a quiet neighborhood of single-family important access point to the river for fi shing, provides shel- housing, and the forest at 1011 2nd Avenue importantly ter and renewal of energy, and is one of the rare access points contributes to the character of this neighborhood as “in the to natural spaces for local BIPOC youth in this Environmental city, but not quite in the city”: It provides a connection to Justice Area. nature and places the neighborhood in it.

As such, this land is integral to the fabric of social and cultur- Placing high density zoning squarely in the hart of this al identity in the Lansingburgh neighborhood and beyond. neighborhood therefore would irrevocably alter the Public testimony, documented in the zoom recordings as well character of the neighborhood — substantially increasing as minutes, speaks to this importance repeatedly: traffi c through this neighborhood, changing the noise and view scape, and disruption the “sense” the residents ascribe to living in “the Burgh”, and particularly to this area of Lansingburgh.

It is for these reasons that a development of this land would irrevocably destroy the cultural signifi cance of this land, and high density zoning would signifi cantly alter the neighborhood character of this area. High density. The Planning Commission should therefore recommend against I have lived in Troy all my life. I have walked the change in zoning code from R-1 to P. this area and shared this area with my son. We enjoy the ability to go down, enjoy nature and Additionally, the site qualifi es for the designation as a Critical play at the river like any normal child would Environmental Area (CEA) by fulfi lling CRR-NY 617.14(g) criteria love to do. We have too many houses and not (iii) and therefore the Planning Commission should recommend such designation. enough parks or nature. If you build more overpriced lofts you are proving your greed. This doesn’t help our community. If you allow this you are not only destroying and removing trees and land. Your destroying and removing the people that already live here. – Andrea M.B.

CHAPTER SIX ECONOMIC COSTS AND BENEFITS The unique character of the site at 1011 2nd Avenue provides considerable direct and indirect economic benefi ts Finally, there is also a lost opportunity cost to the city and that would be potentially lost with rezoning and the public, associated with benefi ts of the potential subsequent development of the site. Additionally, the long-term protection and preservation of the site. This rezoning and development itself would generate chapter explores the three dimensions in a general cost- economic benefi ts — that however would be off set by benefi t analysis (a detailed analysis of each dimension will additional direct and indirect incurred economic costs be provided at a later time). associated with rezoning and development.

6.1 ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF 6.1.1. QUALITATIVE ECOSYST. SERVICE ANALYSIS Of the common evaluation techniques, three critical values THE CURRENT STATE OF THE SITE are used: direct use market value, indirect use value, and option value. The site provides several critical ecosystem services (cp. Chapters 3 and 4) to the communities. The economic benefi t This section does not provide a complete ecosystem of these ecosystem services are diffi cult to quantify. However valuation. Rather it provides a generalized valuation, based an approximation of the economic benefi ts provided by the on highly conservative estimates, for selected ecosystem ser- ecosystem can be roughly approximated in combining vices provided by this land. See table to the right for analysis. anticipated cost calculations for lost services as a consequence of the site’s disruption and/or destruction 6.1.2. QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS: BASELINE combined with approximation of dollar values for provided Four options are chosen for the analysis: Do nothing would services. leave the site in the current zoning but would not develop it. Option 2 is the in-right development of the site through the It is important to note that ecosystem services are not always construction of approx. 35 single family housing units. Option easy to assign dollar values, nor should they be, as intrinsic 3 is the change in zoning code and subsequent high-density values are lost to such calculations. However, it is useful to development of the site. apply these economic valuing methods in this context, as even the most generalized undervaluation of ecosystem In its current state, the site provides critical ecological services still makes explicit the economic losses incurred by services, but also suff ers from a lack of conservation and their destruction through, for example, development (cp. stewardship activities that mitigate littering and other forms DEFRA, 2007). of pollution of the site, while also preventing the further support of for example additional recreational opportunities This general analysis is qualitative in scope and does not with positive health and public wellbeing outcomes. provide monetary quantifi cations of the services provided. However, the qualitative analysis already shows signifi cant Recreation: The site is currently used for recreational purposes economic benefi ts that warrant further analysis at a later by the local community and serves as important green-space, point. which has direct public health benefi ts. While recreational tourism is virtually nonexistent for this site, and no revenue is generated, recreational uses for the local communities have

44 Chapter Six: Economic Costs and Benefi ts

HIGHLIGHTS

• Significant costs are associated with the loss of ecosystem services. • Additional costs associated with increased public service expenses are expected. • 240 apartment units on undeveloped land will increase public safety cost by approx. $36,000 / year. •They also will increase net-costs for the school district by approx. $495,000 / year.

potentially signifi cant benefi cial outcomes, particularly for Visual Quality of the Landscape: The visual quality of natural mental health. lands is well-documented in the academic literature and its eff ects have been extensively studies. Natural features rank Biodiversity: Currently, ecological surveys (chapter 3) show a thereby particularly high, while development structures need high degree of biodiversity at the site. This includes several to take surrounding land uses and visual consistency into rare species as well as a generally healthy and fl ourishing account, as well as shading impacts and loss of visibility of habitat. The high biodiversity enhances quality of life and natural features. public health, but is also tied strongly to the recreational capacities of the land. As a healthy, diverse ecosystem, this Carbon Sequestration: In average, a mature tree sequesters parcel in particular provides also important ecosystem about 48 pounds CO2 per year. A single street tree returns services far beyond its boundaries, e.g. through pollinators, over $90,000 of direct benefi ts (not including aesthetic, social water quality impacts and air quality impacts. and natural) in the lifetime of the tree, for a marginal planting

45 cost. An acre of trees would sequester about 1 metric ton of carbon per acre and year.

Clean Air: Forested areas play a critical role in providing clean air through their production of oxygen. At the same time, different degrees of development are net-carbon producers — often to significant amounts. This does not include the emissions associated with construction and development itself. A 240 unit apartment, for example, would increase traffic related emissions of greenhouse gases and noxious air pollutants by at least 240-480 additional vehicles — with significant public health costs.

Clean Water: Similarly, forests absorb runoff water and filter rain waters before releasing them again into their environment. This is particularly important in context of runoff pollution and associated fines and costs produced by a new development burdening the existing sewage infrastructure of the city.

Risks and Hazards: Forested waterfronts in particular play a significant role in mitigating flooding hazards for downstream communities. Channelization, as associated with developments of waterfront properties, additionally increase flood hazards and risks, as does increased runoff. The economic costs associated with these hazards are already significant and are likely to rise significantly with the development of this site.

Real Estate Costs and Benefits: The presence of forested areas and/or mature trees has moderate to strong impact on the resale value of homes listed for under $150,000, and significantly strong influence on homes listed for over $250,000. Additionally, a number of studies have shown that real estate agents and home buyers assign between 10-23% of the value of a residence of the trees on the property. At the same time, density changes adversely impact property and resale values in traditionally quiet neighborhoods. Tax Benefits: Tax benefits include a combination of revenue sources for a holistic assessment:

direct tax revenue from the different options + effects on tax revenue from surrounding properties + negative impacts (costs) incurred from direct and indirect public service costs Chapter Six: Economic Costs and Benefi ts

6.1.3. QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS: RESULTS* * The results here (Overall economic benefi ts/cost) assess only the economic costs/benefi ts in relation to provided ecosystem services. An overall interpretation of how the results relate to tax revenue associated with the options is provided in the description.

DO NOTHING REZONING+DEVELOPMENT / HIGH DENSITY (Economic Cost/Benefi t: [+]) (Economic Cost/Benefi t: [- -]) This option would leave the land as-is. This option is the This is the most costly option for the city, due to a easiest to achieve and would maintain several benefi cial combination of factors (see section 4.3.) This includes ecosystem services with direct and indirect economic benefi t increased public services costs, the loss of ecosystem services to the city as well as provide additional economic benefi ts for (same as for in-right development) plus additional costs other services. Recreation and tax benefi ts are the lowest of associated with signifi cant increase in pollution and the benefi ts in this option, are however a net-positive when associated public health and cleanup/mitigation costs. Those one considers public health benefi ts, as well as the tax include costs for combined sewage overfl ow, increased public revenue generated through the site. Additionally, positive health costs due to traffi c and air pollution, and other eff ects eff ects must be noted on surrounding properties (valuation/ that have direct consequences for the city revenue and overall appraisal as well as resale value). budget. Overall moderate economic benefi ts for the city Overall moderate-high economic costs for the city

IN RIGHT DEVELOPMENT / SINGLE FAM HOUSING CONVERSATION AND PRESERVATION (Economic Cost/Benefi t [-] ) (Economic Cost/Benefi t: + +) This option is unlikely, considering the economic cost of This option sees the long-term preservation of the land development (necessary blasting for construction on the through a trust and the additional creation of cultural-ed- shale formation; infrastructure creation, topography). This ucational programming and the maintenance of paths for option has some low economic benefi ts for the city, as it recreational purposes. This option would enhance the ecosys- would generate additional tax revenue for the newly created tem services through stewardship and conservation measures development. as well as the recreational capacities through promotion and soft-green tourism options. The direct public benefi ts are It would result in a net-loss compared to the do-nothing- expected to be high, associated with cultural and educational option due to incurred public service costs and lost ecosystem programming, while generating direct and indirect tax reve- services. This analysis assumes a large-scale disturbance of nue through these economic activities. The costs for the city the ecosystem through development. However, compared are marginal, as the procurement, preservation and long-term to the rezoning+development option, the costs are relatively stewardship is planned to be achieved with private equity. low, as pollution eff ects remain limited. Overall moderate-high economic benefi t for the city Overall low economic costs for the city

47 6.2 COST/BENEFIT OF REZONING/DEVELOPMENT

There are several critical economic impacts that constitute “This thinking is how you end up with two dollars of direct and indirect cost to the tax base and the tax paying public infrastructure for every one dollar of private residents of the City of Troy, associated with the proposed investment. This is how you spend yourself into rezoning of Parcel 70.64-1-1 and the proposed development of bankruptcy”. the site. When the full extent of costs are taken into consideration, including maintenance, public infrastructure and public Based on the attached and here briefly reviewed studies, it is service costs, the proposed development will in fact clear that the proposed development will negatively impact negatively impact the tax revenue in the city. the tax revenue of the city of Troy. Instead, leading economists and development experts rec- Charles Mahron (2018) writes that: ommend prioritizing development of existing infrastructure, “Despite the obfuscation of modern accounting property and sites, especially vacant sites in economically practices, the math equation for a local government is disadvantaged communities. This has the benefit of fairly straightforward: a public infrastructure investment minimizing public investment needs and strengthening tax must generate enough private wealth to pay for the revenue in short- as well as long-term. (cp. Appendix 5: writ- ongoing replacement and repair of that infrastructure or, ten testimony by Prof. John Gowdy). if it is to be sustained, it must be subsidized by a more financially productive part of the system.” This is also made explicit in the 2018 Troy Comprehensive The established rule of thumb is that a ratio of 40:1 ($40 Plan, which identifies the need to develop vacancies in Major private wealth to $1 public investment) is required for a Investment Areas (Comprehensive Plan Map 2 Investment development project to generate and maintain a positive tax Areas), whereas the parcel in question lies outside the revenue (Ibid.). Lansingburgh Investment Area as well as outside the slow development area and is clearly identified as R-1. Consider this While developers often pay for the initial development and quote from the Comprehensive Plan: construction cost, the City of Troy will be responsible for “Troy’s high vacancy rates are also contributing to critical maintenance and public service costs. This includes neighborhood destabilization. There are approximately Increased road maintenance and traffic management costs 23,100 housing units in Troy and approximately 2,100 of Increased resource strain for the public school system with these units, or 9%, are vacant and unused. Prospective the influx of large amounts of new residents in short time residents are deterred from purchasing homes in Increased costs for other public services, including the fire neighborhoods with high vacancy rates as they are department, garbage collection, public safety, etc. perceived as areas with higher crime, and where continued disinvestment may occur. These conditions As Mahron (2018) writes on the case of development costs, a have resulted in a weak housing market and low housing municipality of similar size and structure: values compared to the region.” (p.11) Rapid growth “[...] provided the local government with And the plan establishes sites in direct proximity to the parcel the immediate revenues that come from new growth for which the rezoning is requested as development focus — permit fees, utility fees, property tax increases, sales areas in the spirit of avoiding associated revenue burdens tax — and, in exchange the city takes on the long term associated with spot zoning developments such as the responsibility of servicing and maintaining all the new development proposed for this parcel (see Appendix 2). infrastructure. The money comes in handy in the present while the future obligation is, well … a long time in the The anticipated short-term economic revenue is anticipated future.” to be outweighed by both, short- and long-term economic And concludes: costs, based on the expert testimony by economist John

48 Chapter Six: Economic Costs and Benefi ts Gowdy attached in the appendix (Appendix 5). The (B) Increase in Costs For City of Troy anticipated short-term economic revenue associated with On the Example of Public Safety this development proposal is anticipated to be outweighed by both, short- and long-term economic costs. Estimates for cost increases for Public Safety Services are hard to estimate. One way to estimate this is the per capita spend- What is more, studies explicitly and repeatedly show that ing for safety services. because of market competition and resource constraint associated with a development of land routinely and According to the 2020 proposed Budget, a total of $40,329,791 structurally prevent the development of other, vacant but will be expended for safety services. This excludes overtime, already developed sites (Ordway, 2018). extraordinary expenditures and other expenditures not listed in the general budget itemization. In the immediate proximity of the development site proposed by Kevin Vandenburgh are several vacant properties, including The population of Troy lies at 49,826 for 2017. several that have been identifi ed in the Comprehensive Plan as development priority/focus areas. This results in a per capita spending of (rounded) $800. With 240 units, and an conservatively estimated 1.75 persons living 6.2.1. COST OF PUBLIC SERVICE CALCULATION in each unit, this leads to a increase in cost of: Increased public spending for services outweighs the antici- 240x800x1.75 = $336,000.00 pated revenue. Tax Revenue (240 units)...... approx. $300,000 Based on comparative data of similar developments in similar Cost Increase: safety services………...... approx. $336,000 locations in Troy we off er an (generously calculated) anticipated tax revenue for the city around $300,000.00 NET-LOSS (Public Safety) ...... $36,000/year.

The anticipated tax revenue for the school district is assessed This does not incorporate other increased public service (similarly generously) with $400.000,00. costs, such as road maintenance, etc. (Based on approximated unit value calculations). 6.2.2. LOSS IN PROPERTY VALUE, RESALE VALUE AND (A) Increase in Spending for Public Schools RENTAL INCREASES (TROY SCHOOL DISTRICT) Besides the cost associated with strains on the local infrastructure, this development will also lead to additional At the same time, in the state of New York, an average of direct and indirect costs for the local residents and the overall annually $22,366 are spent per pupil on the public education neighborhood. system14. In Troy this number is closer to $28,000, but we will use the more conservative average. The development will lead to signifi cant loss of property value and resale value due to the loss of green-space and A conservative estimate would be 40 new pupils entering the waterfront, which also negatively impacts the city budget Troy School System — an estimate that is very conservative The tax savings of industrial development may measure a few for 240 apartment units. hundred dollars a year per taxpayer, but the loss in property values measures in the thousands. Typically it takes decades This leads to an increase in spending of $894,640. of tax savings to make up for the loss in property value. Property value will decline with the loss of a signifi cant Increase Revenue ...... …… approx. $400,000 green-space and undeveloped waterfront forest property Increase Spending ...... … approx. $894,640 Rental increases in surrounding housing are expected to NET-LOSS OF APPROX. $494,640 increase due to the amenities at the property, clearly designed for the use of renters at the property.

49 A rezoning discourages the development of already developed 6.3 COST OF LOST OPPORTUNITY / vacant areas with existing infrastructure and public services HOUSING DEMAND in place. The development of this property, and the associated rezoning, stand in conflict with these development needs and Housing demand is a limited resource. The most recent undermine soft and smart growth and development. Comprehensive Housing Market Analysis by the US Department for Housing and Urban Development (US HUD) Accordingly, the rezoning would stand in direct conflict with for Albany-Schenectady-Troy (forecast period: September 1 the provisions and priorities laid out in the Comprehensive 2018 - September 1 2021) explicitly states that housing Plan, the smart growth development principles established demand is nearly at or already at capacity (US HUD 2019, p. 1): in the Comprehensive Plan, and the New York State Smart The current rental housing market is slightly soft. The Growth Criteria. overall rental vacancy rate is estimated at 8.0 percent, up from 7.1 percent in April 2010. The market for apartments In this context, development of a greenfield site — an is balanced, with a vacancy rate of 4.7 percent during the undeveloped site — appears counter-productive and second quarter of 2018, up from 2.4 percent a year earlier undermining smart growth and sustainable development (Reis, Inc.). The average asking rent in August 2018 was priorities outlined in the same Comprehensive Plan. The $1,187, a 7-percent increase from a year earlier. During existence of an old housing stock in need for development in the forecast period, demand is estimated for 1,975 new combination with limited housing demand therefore market-rate rental units (Table 1). The 1,600 units currently constitutes an urgent need for strategic development, under construction will meet most of that demand. recognized in the Comprehensive Plan, as well. Developing the site at 1011 2nd Avenue would therefore undermine the Since that forecast, extensive numbers of new apartment development of these priority investment areas and units saw their construction in Troy, NY, further contributing potentially prevent development of neglected sites and old to the satisfaction of limited housing demand. Whereas this housing stock in need of development. demand can be anticipated to have slightly increased over the forecast period, this increase must be assumed to be mostly This is associated with direct and indirect costs of lost compensated by extensive new construction projects within opportunity to the City of Troy. As detailed above, direct and Troy, NY over the same time. indirect costs of public services arise from developing undeveloped urban green-spaces in particular. At the same This is particularly significant in context of a high number of time, undeveloped vacant properties decrease surrounding vacant, abandoned and neglected sites across Troy that are property values, deter prospective residents, and accelerate explicitly designated as investment priority areas in the 2018 continued disinvestment of affected areas, according to Troy’s “Realize Troy” Comprehensive plan. There are priority own Comprehensive Plan (p. 11). development areas in the direct vicinity of this property. A vacant price chopper as well as several vacant locations across Given limited housing demand, direct and indirect costs the local Lansingburgh neighborhood are identified as priority associated with the development of an undeveloped site, and development nodes in the comprehensive plan. and the additional costs (direct and indirect) arising from lost opportunities to develop vacant site, the anticipated costs for As the plan states (p.11): the City of Troy are significant, considering the already shown “Troy’s high vacancy rates are also contributing to neigh- high revenue loss in section 6.3.2. of this report. borhood destabilization. There are approximately 23,100 housing units in Troy and approximately 2,100 of these A rezoning would therefore be harmful to the economic units, or 9%, are vacant and unused. Prospective residents interests of the City of Troy and the Planning Commission are deterred from purchasing homes in neighborhoods should recommend against the rezoning. with high vacancy rates as they are perceived as areas with higher crime, and where continued disinvestment Footnotes: may occur. These conditions have resulted in a weak 14 https://www.governing.com/archive/state-educa- housing market and low housing values compared to the tion-spending-per-pupil-data.html region”. 50 51 CONCLUSIONS

CHAPTER ONE — PROCESS AND LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

CHAPTER TWO —ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE

CHAPTER THREE —ECOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE • Several county-rare species and likely one state-rare species were documented in recent surveys. • Additional ecological surveys during the growth season (May - September) are needed. • Due to its ecological significance the site would qualify for CEA designation. • The ecological sensitivity and significance of the site warrants a recommendation against rezoning.

52 CHAPTER FOUR — ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND CLIMATE CHANGE

CHAPTER FIVE — NEIGHBORHOOD AND CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE

CHAPTER SIX — ECONOMIC COSTS/BENEFITS

• Significant costs are associated with the loss of ecosystem services. • Additional costs associated with increased public service expenses are expected. • 240 apartment units on undeveloped land will increase public safety cost by approx. $36,000 / year, • And will increase net-costs for the school district by approx. $495,000 / year

RECOMMENDATIONS

1) The Planning Commission must recommend against the 3) The Planning Commission should further recommend change in zoning code. At the very least it should recommend the designation of the site as Critical Environmental Area against the rezoning as premature until SEQRA is completed. (CEA). This would ensure that the high signifi cance of this site is appropriately considered in the current and any further 2) The City Council must vote against the request for reviews of any actions on this property, as is the purpose of rezoning as premature until the developer has submitted an such designation. This report shows that the site at 1011 2nd EAF and SEQRA review has been completed. Within the EAF Avenue does far exceed the requirement and signifi cance rezoning as well as zoning plan amendment must be listed as criteria for such a designation, as detailed in 6 CRR-NY 617.14 discretionary actions (g) and warrants such a designation.

53 REFERENCES Akbari, H., M. Pomerantz, and H. Taha (2001). “Cool Surfaces and Shade Trees to Reduce Energy Use and Improve Air Quality in Urban Areas.” Solar Energy 70 (3): 295–310.

Beattie, Jeff , Cheryl Kollin, and Gary Moll (2000). “Trees Tackle Clean Water Regs.” American Forests.

Benedict, Mark A., and Edward T. McMahon (2006). Green Infrastructure: Linking Landscapes and Communities. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Boyd, Nicholas P. (2017). The Urban Forest and Environmental Justice. A Review of the Literature.

Brumbach, H.J. (1987) “A Quarry/Workshop And Processing Station On The Hudson River In Pleasantdale, New York”. Archeology of Eastern North America, 15(1987), 59-83.

Brumbach, Hetty Jo, Zitzler, Paula (1993) Stage II Archeological Investigation Of the Turnpike/River Bend Road Area. Pleasantdale Wastewater Facility Plan. Town Of Schaghticoke, Rensselaer County, New York (C-36-1270-01). Public Archaeology Facility, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.

Cotrone, Vincent (2015). “The Role of Trees & Forests in Healthy Watersheds: Managing Stormwater,Reducing Flooding, and Improving Water Quality.” University Park, PA: Penn State Extension.

Chen, X., D. Wang, F. Tian, and M. Sivapalan (2016), From channelization to restoration: Sociohydrologic modeling with changing community preferences in the Kissimmee River Basin, Florida,Water Resour. Res., 52, doi:10.1002/ 2015WR018194.

DEFRA (2007). An Introductory Guide to Valuing Ecosystem Services. Defra Publications: London.

Donovan, Geoff rey H., David T. Butry, Yvonne L. Michael, Jeff rey P. Prestemon, Andrew M. Liebhold,Demetrios Gatziolis, and Megan Y. Mao (2013). “The Relationship Between Trees and Human Health: Evidence from the Spread of the Emerald Ash Borer.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine44 (2): 139–45.

Forestry Commission (2011). National Forest Inventory outputs. [Internet] Forestry Commission, Edinburgh [www.forestry.gov.uk]. Accessed 12 January 2016.

Kuo, Frances E., and William C. Sullivan (2001). “Aggression and Violence in the Inner City: Eff ects of Environment via Mental Fatigue.” Environment and Behavior 33 (4): 543–71.

Lothrop, J. C., Burke, A. L., Winchell-Sweeney, S., and G. Gauthier (2018). Coupling Lithic Sourcing with Least Cost Path Analysis to Model Paleoindian Pathways in Northeastern North America. American Antiquity, 83(3), 462- 484.

Lovasi, G.S., J.W. Quinn, K.M. Neckerman, M.S. Perzanowski, and A. Rundle (2008). “Short Report: Children Living in Areas with More Street Trees Have Lower Prevalence of Asthma.” Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 62: 647–49.

54 Marhon Jr., Charles (2018) “Building Resilient Communities” ICMA, August 2018. https://icma.org/articles/ pm-magazine/pm-article-building-resilient-communities

Marhon Jr., Charles (2017) “The Real Reason Your City Has No Money”. Strongtowns. https://www.strongtowns. org/journal/2017/1/9/the-real-reason-your-city-has-no-money

Mitchell, Richard, and Frank Popham (2008). “Effect of Exposure to Natural Environment on HealthInequalities: An Observational Population Study.” The Lancet 372: 1655–60.

Nowak, David J (2002). “The Effects of Urban Trees on Air Quality.” General Technical Report. Syracuse,NY: USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station.

NYS DOS (2015) “Zoning and the Comprehensive Plan”. NYS Department of State: Albany.

US EPA (2002). Responsiveness Summary Hudson River PCBs Site Record of Decision. Appendix C Stage 1A Cultur- al Resource Survey. van den Berg, Agnes E., Jolanda Maas, and Robert A. Verheij (2010). “Green Space as a Buffer between Stressful Life Events and Health.” Social Science & Medicine 70: 1203–10.

Wolch, Jennifer R., Jason Byrne, and Joshua P. Newell (2014). “Urban Green Space, Public Health, and Environmen- tal Justice: The Challenge of Making Cities ‘Just Green Enough.’” Landscape and Urban Planning 125: 234–44.

Wolf, Kathleen L. (2008). “City Trees, Nature and Physical Activity: A Research Review.” Arborist News.

55 Appendix 1 Ecological Survey December 2020

TO: Troy City Planning Board. FROM: David Hunt, Ecological Intuition & Medicine Rensselaer County Biodiversity Greenprint Project RE: Golub Parcel. Proposed Apartment Complex Development. Pleasantdale Bluffs, City of Troy. DATE: December 22, 2020

Planning Board Members,

As part of my effort of over 20 years to map and provide information to landowners and conservation organizations about regionally-important ecological/biodiversity sites throughout Rensselaer County, I would like to bring to your attention information on two important sites connected to the 9.93-acre Golub parcel (Tax Parcel 70.64-1-1) in the City of Troy, on which an apartment complex is reportedly being proposed:

"Pleasantdale Bluffs" a county-important rocky summit/slope ecosystem complex containing knolls and cliffs along the Hudson River spanning the Troy/Schaghticoke municipal boundary with associated county-exemplary occurrences of Pitch Pine-Oak-Heath Rocky Summit plus Shale Cliff & Talus Community, as well as 24 known regionally rare plants.

"Hudson River Schaghticoke" a county-important riparian ecosystem complex containing the Hudson River, shoreline communities, and an associated floodplain, stretching from the Washington County line downstream to the Federal Dam in Troy with associated county-exemplary occurrences of Unconfined River plus Riverside Sand/Gravel Bar, as well as many known regionally-rare plants.

These sites were documented and mapped as part of my contributions to the 2017 Rensselaer County Conservation Plan, coordinated by the Rensselaer Land Trust, focusing on 10 ecological features ranging from relatively small scale (e.g., rare plant concentration areas) to relatively large scale (e.g., regionally-important aquatic networks, forest landscapes, and large-scale conservation sites). Maps have reportedly been accessible on-line since that time for all municipalities and citizens of the county to consult.

I provide an attached packet of summary information about these two sites and their biodiversity components with special focus on the Golub parcel, which explains the basic information available online. More detailed information is available upon request. Each site

56 Appendix 1: Ecological Surveys (Dec 2020)

represents multiple overlapping county-important ecological features, 6 at Pleasantdale Bluffs, 8 at Hudson River Schaghticoke. Because both these ecological sites are somewhat large, much of the prior information was based on field surveys and historical records off the Golub parcel. Both sites were mapped remotely from air photo plus associated datalayers on land cover, hydrology, topography, geology, and soils. A recent survey of the Golub parcel (December 20, 2020), conducted under 2 feet of snow in conjunction with a group of concerned local neighbors, confirmed the presence of multiple features of both regionally important sites including multiple characteristic natural communities and county-rare plants. Because herbaceous and graminoid plants are often not detectable under these conditions, I strongly recommend the parcel be studied by a qualified ecologist during the growing season (May to September) to better evaluate the suspected/potential presence of several additional regionally-rare species including 1) the state-rare moth inland barrens buckmoth, known to feed on scrub oak, which was just found on the parcel, and 2) the state-rare plants pleated-leaved knotweed plus bristly rose, both known just to the north in Schaghticoke.

Hopefully, any decision about potential land use changes of the Golub Parcel should consider the regional importance and rarity of multiple ecological features here (especially the Shale Cliff & Talus Community, riverside habitat, and rare plant species like scrub oak). Whether or not the parcel is further evaluated for rare plants and animals, if any structures are to be built on the parcel, I strongly recommend that they are placed as close as possible to Second Avenue, farthest away from the ecologically-important features of the site, and that any impacts to the high knolls, steep W-facing slopes bordering the Hudson River, and the river shoreline are minimized.

Sincerely in Biodiversity Conservation,

David Hunt. Ph.D. Ecologist. Grafton, NY. Rensselaer County Biodiversity Greenprint Project (Designing an Ark for the Native Species of Rensselaer County)

348 Jay Hakes Road; Cropseyville, NY 12052; (518) 279-4124

57 Site 1. Pleasantdale Bluffs. (See Maps 1-4).

A. County-important Restricted Ecosystem Complex. (Map 1) Complex type: Rocky summit/slope complex, circumneutral, bluff/gorge, Hudson River Valley regional variant, large river escarpment bluff type. Size: 336 acres. County Importance: Importance Tier 1 of 3 (most important). Extent on Golub Parcel: 40% of tract (N half). Contribution of Golub Parcel: 5% of Complex (S edge). Characteristic Community Types: include Pitch Pine-Oak-Heath Rocky Summit, Shale Cliff & Talus Community. (see Exemplary Natural Communities). Associated Rare Species: numerous county-rare plants (see Rare Plant Concentration Area). Description: substrate includes exposed bedrock. contains characteristic open rocky summit/slope community types with associated rare plant species. The known core of this complex, "Pleasantdale Bluffs" in a more strict sense, is represented by knolls/bluffs at the N end of a patch directly along the Hudson River just W of the W end of River Bend Road. More of the site is mapped along gorges to the NE, between Haughney and Brickyard Roads, mostly unexplored to date.

B. Constituent Exemplary Natural Communities. (Map 2)

Shale Cliff & Talus Community (SCTC4) Regional Conservation Importance: County Priority 3 of 4 (near-exemplary). likely "county significant" but not "state significant". Size: 6.3 acres. Location: corrected 2020 from 2017 mapping to bluffs just W of W end of River Bend Road in Schaghticoke plus bluffs along SW edge of Golub tract. Extent on Golub Parcel: 5% of tract (SW edge). presence confirmed during December 2020 field survey. Contribution of Golub Parcel: 40% of community (S patch). Description: steep slope with exposed shale bedrock. open canopy habitat dominated by low shrubs, scattered herbs, graminoids, mosses, and lichens.

58 Appendix 1: Ecological Surveys (Dec 2020)

Site 1. Pleasantdale Bluffs. p. 2.

Pitch Pine-Oak-Heath Rocky Summit. Regional Conservation Importance: County Priority 2 of 4 (co-exemplary). likely "county significant" but not "state significant". Size: 2.7 acres. Location: corrected 2020 from 2017 mapping to knoll just W of W end of River Bend Road in Schaghticoke. Extent on Golub Parcel: not mapped on tract, but both highest knoll and upper crest of cliff resemble this community type based on December 2020 field survey.

C. Rare Plant Concentration Area. (Map 3) County Importance: concentration priority 3 of 7 (highly concentrated). 28th most important rare plant site in county as of 2017; 5th town priority for Schaghticoke as of 2017. Size: 29 acres. originally mapped at 129 acres but in incorrect location. corrected to patch of Pleasantdale Bluffs ecosystem complex bordering Hudson River. Species Composition: with 17 county rare species/1 state rare species (1 state watch list, 7 county active list, 10 county watch list) documented for 2017 county conservation plan; recently expanded to 24 county rare species/3 state rare species (1 state active list, 2 state watch list, 10 county active list, 14 county watch list). Information on individual species shown in Table 1. Several additional rare plant species are expected, associated with historical specimens at the NY State Museum labelled "Lansings Grove", reportedly the local name for this site, that have not yet been attached to this site. Extent on Golub Parcel: 40% of tract (N half); as ecosystem complex. presence confirmed during December 2020 field survey. Contribution of Golub Parcel: 15% of concentration area (S edge). Location: corrected 2020 from 2017 mapping to match corresponding patch of rocky summit/slope ecosystem complex along Hudson River.

59 Site 1. Pleasantdale Bluffs. p. 3.

D. Rare Animals. No rare animals have yet been identified from Pleasantdale Bluffs, most of the field surveys being focused on natural community types and vascular plant species. The observed presence of several individuals of scrub oak on the rocky summit and cliff community types suggests the potential for the state-rare moth "inland barrens buckmoth", which is known to feed primarily on that shrub. Similarly, no surveys for Karner blue butterfly, a globally rare moth characteristic of pitch pine barrens, are known to date from the site.

E. County-Important Roadless Blocks see Hudson River Northern Rensselaer County Block below, under Site 2 (Hudson River Schaghticoke).

F. County-Priority Conservation Site North Troy Hills & Bluffs. (Map 4) Site type: Level-2 site (mostly moderate-scale local ecosystems). Description: large aggregate of rocky summit/slope complexes. County-Importance: Tier 2 of 4 site (moderate county priority). Size: 1168 acres. Ecosystem Complex Composition: includes complexes associated with Bald Mountain Brunswick, Oakwood Cemetery Troy, Pleasantdale Bluffs, and River Road Schaghticoke. Extent on Golub Parcel: 40% of parcel. Contribution of Golub Parcel: 2% of conservation site.

60 Appendix 1: Ecological Surveys (Dec 2020)

Site 2. Hudson River Schaghticoke (See Maps 5-8).

A. County-important Restricted Ecosystem Complex. (Map 1) Complex type: Riparian complex. non-tidal, confined river, large river type (main channel) in calcareous flats. Size: 1191 acres. County Importance: Importance Tier 1 of 3 (most important). Extent on Golub Parcel: <1% of tract (borders entire W edge of tract, tract influences local quality of site). Contribution of Golub Parcel: <<1% of the complex (inland edge) Characteristic Community Types: include Unconfined River and Riverside Sand/Gravel Bar (see Exemplary Natural Communities). Associated Rare Species: several county-rare plants (see Rare Plants). Description: includes river, shoreline communities and associated floodplain. Location: Stretches along the entire non-tidal portion of the Hudson River from the Washington County line downstream to the Federal Dam in Troy. Only the Rensselaer County part of this complex has been mapped to date. The complete site extends N into Washington County and W into Saratoga County.

B. Constituent Exemplary Natural Communities. (Map 5)

Unconfined River Regional Conservation Importance: County Priority 2 of 4 (co-exemplary). likely "state significant". Size: 949 acres. Location: representing entire non-tidal portion of Hudson River from Washington County line downstream to Federal Dam in Troy; only the Rensselaer County part of this community has been mapped; it extends N into Washington County and W into Saratoga County. Extent on Golub Parcel: <<1% of tract (borders entire W edge of tract; tract influences local quality of large community example). Contribution of Golub Parcel: <<1% of community border. Description: wide, slow flowing, moderately deep river dominated by run and pool microhabitats, relatively confined within shale

61 Site 2. Hudson River Schaghticoke. p. 2.

stream terraces in a moderately wide valley.

Riverside Sand/Gravel Bar A 37-acre county co-exemplary site for this community type has been mapped along the Hudson River 1.8 miles to the north of the Golub parcel in Schaghticoke. One patch of this community is believed to be present on the Golub tract (but was under snow during the December 20, 2020 field survey). If intervening patches are present upstream within 1.0 miles, the Golub patch would be lumped into this exemplary occurrence. The community was mapped using air photos; field surveys allow a much more precise mapping of this community, which typically occurs as narrow, linear bands that are difficult to detect on air photos.

C. Rare Plants. Although no rare plant concentration area has been mapped yet to this aquatic-based site, pending sufficient surveys of its shoreline and nearshore areas, at least one county-rare plant was observed on the Golub tract within this site: cocklebur. Several individuals of this county watch list plant were observed on a shoreline community of the Hudson River, probably Riverside Sand/Gravel Bar (but buried under deep snow during the December 2020 field survey). Other county-rare shoreline plants are suspected from this site and would be most detectable during the growing season.

D. Important Animal Habitats County Importance: Conservation priority 4 of 7 ("concentrated"). Size: 949 acres. (corresponding to Unconfined River) Animal Concentration Area Composition: 1 known probable animal concentration area (odonates). Other potential concentration areas are likely (large river fish, shorebirds, riparian birds), but information is not yet available for analysis. Additional areas would raise the importance level of this site, if confirmed. Rare Species Composition: 3 known state & county-rare animal taxa (odonates), all documented with NY Natural Heritage Program. Location: Boundary follows that for exemplary Unconfined River community. Extent on Golub Parcel: <<1% of tract (borders entire W edge of tract; tract influences

62 Appendix 1: Ecological Surveys (Dec 2020)

Site 2. Hudson River Schaghticoke. p. 3.

local quality of large site). Contribution of Golub Parcel: <<1% of habitat.

E. County-Important Aquatic Network Hudson River Main Channel (Network AN62) (Map 6) Network type: main channel, non-tidal network. Size: 4002 acres/14.5 stream miles. County Importance: Priority Tier 1 of 4 (most important). Extent on Golub Parcel: NW 70% of tract (as coarsely modelled with assistance from RLT). Contribution of Golub Parcel: <<1% of network. Network Composition (on Golub parcel): forested "riparian strips" coarsely mapped based on regional land cover database; a more precise local mapping using air photos and field evaluation would probably extend the forested buffer boundary eastward to cover 80% to 90% of the tract.

F. County-Important Roadless Blocks (Map 7) Although the Golub parcel is not situated within a Level-4 (strictest level) regionally important forest matrix block, it is mapped within a large "aquatic matrix block", the Hudson River Northern Rensselaer County block.

Hudson River Northern Rensselaer County Block. Location: This block includes the Hudson River from the Washington County line south to the Federal Dam in Troy, plus lands eastward to the first public road, constituting a narrow buffer inward of the river. While the concept should ideally include similar land N of the county line in Washington County and W of the river in Saratoga and Albany Counties, only the Rensselaer County "subsite" was precisely mapped. Size: 11089 acres. County-Importance: Priority Tier 1 of 4. Extent on Golub Parcel: 100% of tract. Contribution of Golub Parcel: <<1% of block.

G. County-Important Forest Corridors. Although the parcel is not within a mapped regionally important forest corridor, being situated in the general urban setting of Troy, it is contained within an important "aquatic corridor" (see information on county-important aquatic networks and

63 Site 2. Hudson River Schaghticoke. p. 4.

roadless blocks).

H. County-Priority Conservation Site Hudson River Corridor. (Map 8) Site type: Level-1 site (large regional landscapes). Description: large important aquatic corridor. County-Importance: Tier 1 site (highest county priority). Size: 13662 acres. Site Composition: includes river plus adjacent areas, especially with natural cover, deemed important to maintain the high water quality and native biota of the river. includes a strip throughout the W edge of Troy. Extent on Golub Parcel: 100% of parcel. Contribution of Golub Parcel: <<1% of conservation site.

64 Appendix 1: Ecological Surveys (Dec 2020)

Feature Concepts and Definitions.

County-Important Restricted Ecosystem Complexes the largest, most intact, and most ecologically-important examples of ecosystem complex types with restricted distribution and total size in Rensselaer County, thought to be the best set of sites necessary to conserve the complete diversity of natural community types and native biota of those complexes in the county. Restricted types include rocky summit/slopes, wetlands, lakes, and riparian areas. Habitats typically delineated based on air photo interpretation of natural community types, hydrology, topography, geology, and soils.

County-Important Natural Communities the largest, most intact, and most ecologically important ("exemplary") examples of every natural community type in Rensselaer County, representing the "benchmark" for its biodiversity composition, condition/quality, and landscape setting relative to all other examples of the community type within the county. Types follows standard state classification of ecological community types (New York Natural Heritage Program).

Rare Plant Concentration Areas the largest concentrations of "rare" plant taxa in Rensselaer County, those that are rare at least at a county level, with sites prioritized by rarity level and abundance of rare species, giving highest priority to global and state rare plants. includes all groups of vascular plants and limited groups of non-vascular plants. Rare plants at 3 levels (global, state, and county) are divided into "active list" species (actively tracked as "very rare" and the highest priority for conservation) plus "watch list" species (others that are "moderately rare" and monitored over time to assess their trends in status, either decreasing, stable, or increasing). Species concepts follow the 2017 New York state flora. Global and state rarity assessments are derived and maintained by the New York Natural Heritage Program. County rarity assessments are derived and maintained by the Rensselaer County Biodiversity Greenprint Project, following standard methods of the natural heritage network.

County-Important Animal Habitats the most ecologically important habitats in Rensselaer County for sets of animals and/or animal behavior types with restricted distribution in the county. Includes rare animal populations, dense animal concentration areas, and important animal behavioral features such as dens and breeding areas.

County-Important Aquatic Networks the largest, most intact, and most ecologically important aquatic landscapes in Rensselaer County, thought to be the best set of sites necessary to conserve the complete diversity of natural aquatic community types (especially river types) and native aquatic biota of the county. Sites include the central waterway of the network ("stream system") plus two key surrounding land features that

65 contribute most to the high water quality and native biota composition of the stream system: 1) riparian corridors [buffer strips] directly along the stream system, typically its mainstem, and 2) wider intact subcatchment areas, typically in headwater positions. Feature Concepts and Definitions. p. 2

County-Important Roadless Blocks the largest, most intact, and most ecologically-important "blocks" in Rensselaer County, thought to be the best set of sites that 1) contain a matrix of natural communities characteristic of the local physiographic area and 2) are necessary to conserve the complete diversity of native biota of the county (especially large forest mammals and species vulnerable to disturbances associated with disturbance corridors such as roads). Roadless blocks, like "city blocks", are bounded by public roads and have no internal public road "bisections". "Aquatic blocks" are bisected by dams rather than roads, specifically those with high bridges over water that do not impede water flow and movement of aquatic biota.

County-Important Forest Corridors. the widest, most intact, and most ecologically important forest ("wildlife") corridors in Rensselaer County, connecting a related set of county-important forest landscapes to form one connected "forest network".

County-Priority Conservation Sites the most important ("priority") large to moderate-scale biodiversity conservation sites in Rensselaer County, the complete set of which is designed to represent a group with the least amount of sites needed to conserve all native/natural biodiversity and ecological features of the county.

66 Appendix 1: Ecological Surveys (Dec 2020)

Table 1. Rare Species of Pleasantdale Bluffs Ecosystem Complex site.

Species Name Subsite Presence (# individuals) Scientific Common Schaghticoke Golub Parcel

1. State Rare (3)

Juglans cinerea Butternut 1 not yet found Polygonum tenue Pleated-Leaved Knotweed 8 not evaluated Rosa acicularis Bristly Rose 50 not evaluated

2. County Active List (8)

Carex umbellata Parasol Sedge present not evaluated Crocanthemum canadense Frostweed 10 not evaluated Cyperus lupulinus Eastern Flat Sedge 50 not evaluated Galium pilosum Hairy Bedstraw 40 present Quercus prinoides Dwarf Chinquapin Oak present not yet found Selaginella rupestris Rock Spikemoss present not evaluated Solidago squarrosa Stout Goldenrod 5 probably found Symphyotrichum patens Late Purple Aster present not evaluated

3. County Watch List (13)

Abietinella abietinum Wiry Fern Moss present not evaluated Amelanchier sanguinea Round-Leaved Shadbush present probably found Andropogon gerardi Big Bluestem present not evaluated Arabidopsis lyrata Lyre-Leaf Cress 100 not evaluated Asplenium trichomanes Maidenhair Spleenwort 50 not evaluated Borodinia canadensis Sicklepod present not evaluated Drymocallis arguta Tall Cinquefoil not yet found ~10 Houstonia longifolia Long-Leaved Bluets present not evaluated Lechea intermedia Large-Podded Pinweed 5 not evaluated Lespedeza violacea Wand-Like Bush Clover 5 not evaluated Polygonatum biflorum (commutatum) Large Solomon's-Seal present not evaluated Quercus ilicifolia Scrub Oak present ~5 Woodsia ilvensis Rusty Woodsia 20 not evaluated

67 Ecological Survey Updates Jan 2021

FROM: David Hunt, Ecological Intuition & Medicine Rensselaer County Biodiversity Greenprint Project RE: Pleasantdale Bluffs, City of Troy. (Golub Parcel). Supplemental Biodiversity Information DATE: January 14, 2021 ------

Thanks for requesting more of my help to provide information on the ecological importance of the Golub parcel in North Troy, part of the larger "Pleasantdale Bluffs" important ecosystem complex. As promised, I now provide more detailed biodiversity information, updated from our January 12, 2021 field visit, with improved abilities to make field observations due to melting of the prior snow cover. As mentioned, field observations that contribute any further detailed important information, such as rare species, would likely need to be made during the growing season (May to September), after plants have emerged to a more easily identifiable state. The only further improvements I can think of at this time of year would be to acquire any animal sampling information from state agencies (NYS DEC and the NY State Museum), especially for fish and macroinvertebrates associated with the adjacent reach of the Hudson River.

As part of the expanded information, I focused on 3 smaller-scale ecological features: ecological communities, rare species, and important animal habitat components. Accordingly, I provide 1) a summary of key findings from our last visit, 2) revised excerpts from my prior summary text, 2) detailed information tables, and 3) maps of specific parcel locations for these features. For excerpts, I expanded, updated, or revised relevant portions of the summaries provided for the recent public hearing.

With more time, I could consolidate this into one updated summary document, like before. Next, I provide 4 tables, two for ecological communities, one for rare species, one for important animal habitats. One community table focuses on all community types observed onsite and includes their size and estimated importance at various geographic levels. The second community table focuses on the 3 natural communities observed onsite that have county to state importance, documenting my analyses to back up claims of any "regional importance".

The rare species table, updated from my prior version, now includes animals (expanding the prior table from only plants), species from the Golub parcel that are new to the larger complex noted on our January visit, additional species to the Golub parcel noted on our January visit but already known elsewhere in the larger complex, and an estimate of identity certainty, based, in part, on my recent examination of specimens using multiple technical identification references. The important animal habitat table is new, based on much improved field observations from our January visit. It presents several types of animal habitats that may be present onsite, an estimate of their certainty, and any features observed to date to support those certainties. Lastly, I provide 2 new detailed maps, one for ecological communities, one for rare species. The community map is comprehensive for the entire parcel, based on our 2 field visits, coupled with air photo interpretation plus topographic contours. The rare species map, which includes both plants and animals, attempts to

68 Appendix 1: Ecological Surveys (Jan Update)

delineate areas where I have observed rare species to date, relying heavily on the community map plus also air photo interpretation and topographic contours. No map of specific important animal concentration areas has yet been created, due to the high uncertainty of both the identity and any associated boundary of many types. However, the observed beaver lodge was added to the rare species map (Code=BL*). All of these areas fall within the larger "Hudson River Schaghticoke" important animal habitat site.

Sincerely in Biodiversity Conservation,

David Hunt, Ph.D. Ecologist. Grafton, NY. Rensselaer County Biodiversity Greenprint Project (Designing an Ark for the Native Species of Rensselaer County) 348 Jay Hakes Road; Cropseyville, NY 12052; (518) 279-4124

69 Pleasantdale Bluffs: Significance of Ecological Features Key Ecological Findings from the Golub Parcel, January 12, 2021 Survey January 14, 2021

Key updated findings from observations of small-scale ecological features during the January 12, 2021 field survey are summarized below.

1. Ecological Communities (Map 1, Tables 1-2). More precise and detailed information on the 3 natural communities observed onsite that have county to state importance (Shale Cliff & Talus Community, Riverside Sand/Gravel Bar, and Pitch Pine- Oak-Heath Rocky Summit) include precise maps and analyses to confirm their regional importance. The Riverside Sand/Gravel Bar probably meets the criteria for "state significance", although not yet documented in the databases of NY Natural Heritage Program (of NYS DEC). All 3 community types are "county rare" and the cliff community is also "state rare". The example of latter community onsite comes close to meeting criteria for "state significance". Although the patches of Pitch Pine-Oak-Heath Rocky Summit onsite are very small and narrow, especially compared to those to the north within the Pleasantdale Bluffs complex, sufficient observations have now been made to map this community on the Golub parcel.

2. Rare Species (Map 2, Table 3). Several updates to the rare species table for the larger Pleasantdale Bluffs complex were made, including 5 additional species not previously known from the Golub parcel, most being covered by snow during the December 2020 field survey. A total of 3 species were found that are new to the Golub parcel but known from the main patch of the ecosystem complex in Schaghticoke, the most interesting being rock spikemoss (Selaginella rupestris), the others being lyre-leaf cress (Arabidopsis lyrata) and rusty woodsia (Woodsia ilvensis). Two species were found on the Golub parcel that are new to the entire complex, one plant on the shale cliffs, rock sandwort (Sabulina michauxii), and one animal, identified as state rare, sharp hornsnail (Pleurocera acuta), the elongate snail shell found along the Hudson River shore. The rare species population map for the parcel best reveals the most ecologically-sensitive part of site, from a practical perspective. I still have several specimens of potentially rare mosses to evaluate, relying on a close colleague to expedite any identifications. I expect 1 to 5 county rare species among the collections, possibly 1 state rare species.

3. Important Animal Habitats (Table 4). Animal habitats are more flexibly defined than other features and harder to determine. Key observations often depend on specific times of the year or day (e.g., nocturnal) and specific microhabitats (e.g., the bottom substrate of the Hudson River). Confirmation of "important habitat" is also complicated by the need for a minimal number of different species and number of individuals, which can be seasonally and annually highly variable. As Table 4 shows, to date the most certain important habitat is a "bald eagle feeding territory", backed up not just by the one local report/observation but probably also by mapping of the entire habitat by the NY Natural Heritage Program. Similarly, although no onsite observations of odonates (dragonflies and damselflies) have been made, mapping of the entire nearby Hudson River habitat by the NY Natural Heritage Program of 3 state-rare odonates suggests the presence of an "odonate concentration area" in the river along the Golub parcel. Based on my observations of

70 Appendix 1: Ecological Surveys (Jan Update) abundant spent shells, I suspect a "riverine mollusk concentration area" in the river next to the site, however, confirmation would need to involve shallow underwater observations, best made between May and September. Although the beaver lodge was mapped and it could be a component of an "aquatic mammal concentration area", observations of other species would be needed for this designation. Many pieces of information needed for confirmation of important animal habitat require patience and the presence of someone onsite for extended periods of time or the perfect time for observations.

71 Pleasantdale Bluffs: Significance of Ecological Features Revisions and Additions to December 2020 Summary. January 14, 2021

Revisions and additions to the December 2020 summary submitted to the Troy City Council are made to excerpts from that document and noted below by the symbol "***".

Site 1. Pleasantdale Bluffs.

B. Constituent Exemplary Natural Communities. (see Map 1)

Shale Cliff & Talus Community (SCTC4) Size: 6.3 acres. ***corrected to 1.6 acres. Location: (Dec 2020) corrected 2020 from 2017 mapping to bluffs just W of W end of River Bend Road in Schaghticoke plus bluffs along SW edge of Golub tract. ***Jan 2021: additional small patch added at NW corner of Golub tract in town of Schaghticoke. patch along SW edge of Golub tract slightly expanded based on more precise air photo interpretation coupled with ground truthing. Extent on Golub Parcel: ***5% of tract (SW edge and NW corner). presence confirmed during December 2020 and January 2021 field surveys. Contribution of Golub Parcel: ***60% of community (S and middle patches).

Pitch Pine-Oak-Heath Rocky Summit. Size: 2.7 acres. ***corrected to 1.0 acres. Location: (Dec 2020) corrected 2020 from 2017 mapping to knoll just W of W end of River Bend Road in Schaghticoke. ***Jan 2021: two additional small patches added: one at NW corner of Golub tract in the Town of Schaghticoke, one at the crest of the cliff along SW edge of Golub tract, both with narrow width and transitional in nature; mapped based on more precise air photo interpretation coupled with ground truthing. Extent on Golub Parcel: ***newly mapped on tract, on upper crest of cliff patches based on December 2020 and especially January 2021 field surveys. transitional in nature between cliff and forest communities, but areas with canopy naturally open enough in both patches, the NW corner patch due to exposed shale surface, the SW edge patch due, in part, to beaver cuttings. An additional area on the highest knoll of the tract is deemed to have probably undergone succession to Appalachian Oak-Pine Forest but was likely this community type in the past, now with species like scrub oak as a suspected remnant of this former community type. Contribution of Golub Parcel: ***20% of community (S and middle patches).

72 Appendix 1: Ecological Surveys (Jan Update)

Site 1. Pleasantdale Bluffs. p. 2.

C. Rare Plant Concentration Area. (see Map 2)

Species Composition: (Dec 2020) with 17 county rare species/1 state rare species (1 state watch list, 7 county active list, 10 county watch list) documented for 2017 county conservation plan; expanded in December 2020 to 24 county rare species/3 state rare species (1 state active list, 2 state watch list, 10 county active list, 14 county watch list). ***January 2021 update (see Table 3): 5 of these taxa were found on the Golub tract during a December 2020 survey (1 county active list, 4 county watch list); 4 additional rare plant species were found on the tract during the January 2021 survey (2 county active list, 2 county watch list). One plant species new to the entire ecosystem complex was found on the parcel: rock sandwort (Sabulina michauxii), located on the Shale Cliff & Talus Community. cumulative tally for the complex expanded in January 2021 to 25 county rare species/3 state rare species (1 state active list, 2 state watch list, 10 county active list, 15 county watch list). Information on individual species, updated from the January 2021 survey, are shown in Table 3, along with the newly added certainty of their identifications. (Dec 2020) Several additional rare plant species are expected, associated with historical specimens at the NY State Museum labelled "Lansings Grove", reportedly the local name for this site, that have not yet been attached to this site. Extent on Golub Parcel: (Dec 2020) 40% of tract (N half); as ecosystem complex. presence confirmed during December 2020 field survey. ***presence on parcel strengthened January 2021 with additional species of concentration area also found onsite. Location: (Dec 2020) corrected 2020 from 2017 mapping to match corresponding patch of rocky summit/slope ecosystem complex along Hudson River. ***minor changes in the site boundary to match the known extent of rare species populations are pending.

D. Rare Animals. (Dec 2020) No rare animals have yet been identified from Pleasantdale Bluffs, most of the field surveys being focused on natural community types and vascular plant species. The observed presence of several individuals of scrub oak on the rocky summit and cliff community types suggests the potential for the state-rare moth "inland barrens buckmoth", which is known to feed primarily on that shrub. Similarly, no surveys for Karner blue butterfly, a globally-rare moth characteristic of pitch pine barrens, are known to date from the site. ***January 2021 update: See Site 2 for the relevance of any observations of animals onsite.

73 Site 2. Hudson River Schaghticoke

B. Constituent Exemplary Natural Communities. (see Map 1)

Riverside Sand/Gravel Bar (Dec 2020) A 37-acre county co-exemplary site for this community type has been mapped along the Hudson River 1.8 miles to the north of the Golub parcel in Schaghticoke. One patch of this community is believed to be present on the Golub tract (but was under snow during the December 20, 2020 field survey). If intervening patches are present upstream within 1.0 miles, the Golub patch would be lumped into this exemplary occurrence. The community was mapped using air photos; field surveys allow a much more precise mapping of this community, which typically occurs as narrow, linear bands that are difficult to detect on air photos. ***January 2021 update: Two narrow, linear patches of this community, previously under deep snow cover, were confirmed on the Golub tract during a January 12, 2021 field survey, in a shoreline mosaic with smaller patches of Cobble Shore and Shoreline Outcrop. If small intervening patches are present upstream within 1.0 miles, as expected, the Golub patch would be lumped into this exemplary occurrence, representing the southern extent of that long occurrence. Patches on the Golub tract were newly mapped using air photo interpretation coupled with ground truthing from the field survey. The community occurrence was originally mapped in 2017 using only air photos, pending field surveys which are necessary to allow a much more precise mapping of this community type, which typically occurs as narrow, linear bands that are difficult to detect on air photos (such as any aforementioned intervening patches).

C. Rare Plants. (See Map 2) (Dec 2020) Although no rare plant concentration area has been mapped yet to this aquatic-based site, pending sufficient surveys of its shoreline and nearshore areas, at least one county-rare plant was observed on the Golub tract within this site: cocklebur. Several individuals of this county watch list plant were observed on a shoreline community of the Hudson River, probably Riverside Sand/Gravel Bar (but buried under deep snow during the December 2020 field survey). Other county-rare shoreline plants are suspected from this site and would be most detectable during the growing season. ***The January 2021 field survey revealed cocklebur in a mosaic of Riverside Sand/Gravel Bar, Riverside Mudflats, and/or Shallow Emergent Marsh. Other shoreline plants were not detected but potential habitat exists for numerous rare species, all known from riverside communities in the larger site not far to the north in Schaghticoke such as the 3 state-rare plants northern shore quillwort (Isoetes septentrionalis), red- rooted flatsedge (Cyperus erythrorhizos), and Davis's sedge (Carex davisii) plus the 13 county-rare plants sandbar lovegrass (Eragrostis frankii), red-topped panic grass (Coleataenia rigidula), shining flatsedge (Cyperus bipartitus), intermediate spikerush (Eleocharis intermedia), three-square bulrush (Schoenoplectus pungens), golden hedge hyssop (Gratiola aurea), false pimpernel (Lindernia dubia), germander (Teucrium canadense), northern wild senna (Senna hebecarpa), common silverweed (Potentilla anserina), thin-leaved sunflower (Helianthus decapetalus), green-headed coneflower (Rudbeckia laciniata), and sandbar willow (Salix interior). Many of these species may be difficult to

74 Appendix 1: Ecological Surveys (Jan Update) detect in winter condition. Several additional state- to county-rare aquatic plants have strong potential to be present in the adjacent Hudson River waters and would ideally require searches between May and September.

75 Site 2. Hudson River Schaghticoke. p. 2.

D. Important Animal Habitats

Animal Concentration Area Composition: (Dec 2020) 1 known probable animal concentration area (odonates). Other potential concentration areas are likely (large river fish, shorebirds, riparian birds), but information is not yet available for analysis. Additional areas would raise the importance level of this site, if confirmed. ***January 2021 additions: observations and reports of multiple characteristic animals may suggest the potential for additional "animal concentration areas" within this mapped site, but more information is needed on any additional species or concentration abundances. The following need further evaluation.

1. Aquatic mammal concentration area. a beaver lodge, suspected to be currently active, was noted at the base of the Intermittent Stream on the Golub parcel. Coupled with evidence of numerous beaver-cut trees along most of the western edge of the tract and first-hand observations of beaver along the shore of the tract, it is certain there has been an active resident beaver on the tract in recent times. Presence of another aquatic mammal, usually otter and/or muskrat, is usually necessary to designate an "aquatic mammal concentration area". Observations of a muskrat to the north at Pleasantdale Bluffs proper during a September 2020 field survey further suggests the presence of such an area.

2. Riverine mollusk concentration area. numerous spent shells of two mollusk species were found along the shoreline of the river on the Golub parcel: pea (or pill or fingernail) clam (Sphaerium sp.) and sharp hornsnail (Pleurocera acuta), suggesting that these two species are abundant in the bed of the adjacent river and the presence of a nearby mollusk concentration area. Confirmation of such an area would be strengthened by further evidence that the shells are derived from living individuals in adjacent or nearby upstream areas of riverbed plus observations of additional mollusk species, with common elliptio (Elliptio complanata) most expected. Such records of mollusks might be kept in files of the NYS DEC water quality unit or NY State Museum, if any nearby sites have been historically sampled. Inferences might be made, for example, from the reference "Freshwater Snails of New York State", which has statewide dot maps for all freshwater snail species.

3. Shorebird concentration area. the call and tracks of spotted sandpiper were noted during the January 2021 field survey, suggesting potential for a shorebird concentration area. Further evidence would be needed to determine if such an area exists onsite, especially during ideal times of the year, thought to be between April and September. Key evidence would include any abundance of shorebird individuals and the diversity of shorebird species, especially distinguishing shorebirds from waterfowl and riparian bird species, treated as separate concentration area types.

4. Bald eagle habitats. one report of a bald eagle feeding on a fish in the river offshore of the tract has been made. To date, only nesting sites have been designated as county important for bald eagle, and they are also state important. Although feeding territory for bald eagle was not designated an important animal habitat in the county conservation plan, such areas have some county importance, often correlated with other county-important ecological features, especially aquatic-based ones. However, the specific feeding territory in the adjacent Hudson River is apparently mapped as "state-important animal habitat" at NYS DEC and probably follows a "feeding territory" concept, especially for nesting individuals. A nesting site is known about 1.5 miles to the north of the Golub parcel and has

76 Appendix 1: Ecological Surveys (Jan Update)

been field confirmed by multiple experts. Those nesting individuals are suspected to be using a long stretch of the river for feeding territory. I am less sure of any "roosting territory" which could include large trees along the river that could serve as a vantage point to scout fish for food, such as the several large trees, especially red oak, observed along the shore of the Golub tract. No nests have been observed on the Golub parcel to date.

An additional odonate concentration area is apparently inferred from the adjacent Hudson River based on important animal habitat mapped by the NY Natural Heritage Program (of NYS DEC). Onsite assessment of odonate presence and abundance are ideally made from about June to August.

Site 2. Hudson River Schaghticoke. p. 3.

D. Important Animal Habitats (continued)

Rare Species Composition (see Map 2): (Dec 2020) 3 known state & county-rare animal taxa (odonates), all documented with NY Natural Heritage Program. ***January 2021 additions: Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is a state rare animal. Its feeding territory, although not explicitly mapped as a county-important animal habitat, as noted above, has apparently been mapped as a state-important animal habitat by NYS DEC. The sharp hornsnail (Pleurocera acuta), mentioned under a potential riverine mollusk concentration area above, is also state rare. It is tracked by the NY Natural Heritage Program of NYS DEC as a "state watch list" species (i.e., a "moderately state rare" species), with a rarity rank of "S3", thus it would also be designated as "county rare". Although I used two technical keys for its identity, I am less skilled with animal identifications than with plants, but I am relatively certain of this species and I intend to forward a specimen to a statewide mollusk expert for confirmation/evaluation. The technical reference book I used, the prime taxonomic reference for NY freshwater snails (Jokinen 1992: The Freshwater Snails of New York State), cites historical observations of this snail from the adjacent reach of the Hudson River in North Troy during the 1980s, so it makes sense that it could still be here 40 years later.

G. County-Important Forest Corridors. (Dec 2020) Although the parcel is not within a mapped regionally-important forest corridor, being situated in the general urban setting of Troy, it is contained within an important "aquatic corridor" (see information on county-important aquatic networks and roadless blocks). ***January 2021 additions: Observations of multiple dens and abundant tracks of what was suspected to be a red fox were noted along the soiled clay banks of the river on the Golub parcel during a December 20, 2020 field survey, suggesting the presence of a potentially viable forest corridor associated with the aquatic network (Feature 2-E) and aquatic matrix block (Feature 2-F). ***January 2021 additions: Observations of one pileated woodpecker, a characteristic forest-interior bird, on the Golub parcel during a January 12, 2021 field survey also suggest the presence of a potentially viable forest corridor associated with the aquatic network (Feature 2-E) and aquatic matrix block (Feature 2-F).

77 Map 1. Ecological Communities Schaghticoke SCTC PORS

cult

AOH

RSGB

AOP

AOH Troy PORS

SCTC

AOP

cult RSGB

78 Appendix 1: Ecological Surveys (Jan Update)

Map 2. Rare Species Populations

QiSs Schaghticoke

Pa Qc

BL*

AlQc Qi Ss Troy WiSr Sm

Gb Li SmSsWi Al

79 Table 1. Ecological Communities of the Parcels. Composition & Importance.

Community Name (Parcel Map Code)Community Type Acres Est.Rank Est.Max.Importance

Appalachian Oak-Hickory Forest (AOH) Natural/Upland Forest 2.1/~10 C local (Troy riverfront) Appalachian Oak-Pine Forest (AOP) Natural/Upland Forest 6.0/~50 CD local (Troy riverfront) (includes Successional Southern Hardwoods) Intermittent Stream (IS) Natural/River 0.09/0.09D local (Troy riverfront) Pitch Pine-Oak-Heath Rocky Summit (PORS) Natural/Upland Barrens 0.2/1.0 C county (co-exemplary) Riverside Sand/Gravel Bar (RSGB)Natural/Upland Open Canopy 0.7/38.0 Bcounty (co-exemplary) /state significant (includes Shoreline Outcrop and Cobble Shore) Shale Cliff and Talus Community (SCTC) Natural/Upland Open Canopy 0.9/1.6 C county (near-exemplary) cultural (cult) Cultural 1.9/- NA none (includes younger successional areas) Natural/Upland successional

Notes: Acres = on parcel/entire occurrence; Rank estimated for entire occurrence.

------

Table 2. Natural Community Regional Importance Analyses

Complete Occurrence...... Community...... Rank Estimates...... Significance...... Rarity...... Community Name Acres Size Condition Landscape Occurrence County State County State

Pitch Pine-Oak-Heath Rocky Summit 1.0 D BC BC C Y** N Y N~ Riverside Sand/Gravel Bar 38.0 AB BC BC B Y** Y Y N~ Shale Cliff and Talus Community 1.6 D B BC C(BC) Y* N? Y Y

Notes: * = also county near-exemplary; ** = also county co-exemplary.

------

80 Appendix 1: Ecological Surveys (Jan Update)

Table 3. Rare Species of Pleasantdale Bluffs Ecosystem Complex site.

Species Name Subsite Presence (# individuals) Scientific (Parcel Map Code) Common Schaghticoke Golub Parcel/ID certainty

1. State Rare (4)

Plants (3) Juglans cinerea Butternut 1 not yet found Polygonum tenue Pleated-Leaved Knotweed 8 not yet found Rosa acicularis Bristly Rose 50 not yet found Animals (1) Pleurocera acuta (Pa) Sharp Hornsnail not yet found ~100 confirmed Jan 2021 (80% certainty)

2. County Active List Plants (8)

Carex umbellata Parasol Sedge present possibly observed Jan 2021 (20% certainty) Crocanthemum canadense Frostweed 10 not yet found Cyperus lupulinus Eastern Flat Sedge 50 not yet found Quercus prinoides Dwarf Chinquapin Oak present probably not present Sabulina michauxii (Sm) Rock Sandwort not yet found ~30 confirmed Jan 2021 (80% certainty) Selaginella rupestris (Sr) Rock Spikemoss present 3 confirmed Jan 2021 (100% certainty) Solidago squarrosa (Ss) Stout Goldenrod 5 ~200 confirmed Jan 2021 (90% certainty) Symphyotrichum patens Late Purple Aster present not yet found

3. County Watch List Plants (14)

Vascular Plants (13) Amelanchier sanguinea Round-Leaved Shadbush present not yet found Andropogon gerardi Big Bluestem present probably not present Arabidopsis lyrata (Al) Lyre-Leaf Cress 100 ~50 confirmed Jan 2021 (100% certainty) Asplenium trichomanes Maidenhair Spleenwort 50 not yet found Borodinia canadensis Sicklepod present not yet found Drymocallis arguta (Da) Tall Cinquefoilnot yet found ~10 confirmed Dec 2020 (90% certainty) Galium boreale (Gb) Northern Bedstraw 40 ~20 confirmed Jan 2021 (95% certainty) Houstonia longifolia Long-Leaved Bluets present not yet found Lechea intermedia (Li) Large-Podded Pinweed 5 ~5 confirmed Dec 2020 (95% certainty) Lespedeza violacea Wand-Like Bush Clover 5 not yet found Polygonatum biflorum var. commutatum Large Solomon's-Seal present not yet found Quercus ilicifolia (Qi) Scrub Oak present ~30 confirmed Jan 2021 (100% certainty) Woodsia ilvensis (Wi) Rusty Woodsia 20 ~50 confirmed Jan 2021 (70% certainty)

81 Non-Vascular Plants (1) Abietinella abietinum Wiry Fern Moss present not yet found

Notes: 1. Any state to county rare mosses, among several ones potentially found onsite, are pending examination and evaluation of specimens from the foremost county bryophyte expert, Tom Phillips, DVM. 2. Any additional expansion of the list of taxa known from the Golub Parcel would likely require observations of the site during the growing season (May to September).

------

Table 4. Important Animal Habitats on and near the Golub Parcels.

Animal Group Habitat Type CertaintyEcosystem Known Component Features

Bald eagle feeding territory 90% riverfeeding on fish/state-mapped important habitat Odonates concentration area 80% river,shore,banksinferred from multiple nearby state- documented populations of 3 state- rare odonate taxa/state-mapped important habitat Riverine mollusks concentration area 70% river abundant spent shells of 2 taxa Large river fish concentration area 30% river suspected from nearby observations of river Aquatic mammals concentration area 20% river,shore,banksbeaver lodge/abundant cut trees/swimming individual; nearby muskrat Shorebirds concentration area 5% rivershore, river tracks and call of spotted sandpiper Large mammals denning concentration <5% riverbanks, forestmultiple holes under large tree roots thought to be potential dens of red fox Bald eagle nesting territory <5% riverbankslarge potential nesting trees but without observed nests Forest birds breeding concentration <1% forest pileated woodpecker fly- through, suggesting potential small forest-interior area

Notes: certainty = certainty of habitat type on and/or adjacent to the parcel (e.g., a "concentration" area)

82 83 Appendix 2 Quoted from public record, as submitted by Scenic Hudson COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS

September 9, 2020

By email: [email protected]

Ms. Carmella Mantello, President and Members of the City Council City of Troy 433 River Street, Suite 5001 Troy, NY 12180

Subject: Ordinance Authorizing Amendment Of City Of Troy Zoning Map Established By Troy Code Section 285-49 (A) To Rezone Tax Map Parcel Number 70.64-1-1 On 2nd Avenue In North Troy From R-1 Single Family Residential Detached To P Planned Development

Dear Ms. Mantello and Members of the City Council:

Scenic Hudson is writing to urge the Troy City Council to deny the rezoning request referenced above on 2nd Avenue from R-1 (Single Family Development--Detached) to P (Planned Development). Such a rezoning would not be in accordance with the recently adopted Realize Troy Comprehensive Plan (2018) as required by N.Y. General City Law Section 28-a(12).

Realize Troy Comprehensive Plan—its purpose and how it was created Urban Strategies, Inc., the planning firm hired by the City to craft Realize Troy, describes the Comprehensive Plan as a three-part community planning initiative: an economic strategy, a waterfront master plan, and a city- wide comprehensive plan. According to Urban Strategies, the planning process was based on a “strong focus on public consultation, both in-person and using a variety of social media channels, and aimed to establish a clear vision and set of action strategies to address both the current and future needs of the City” (emphasis added).

Further, Urban Strategies’ website states that the Comprehensive Plan established “a clear community-based vision and action plan to guide the city’s overall development over the next 20 years” (emphasis added) and Realize Troy identified “short and longer-term community needs, reinforced and confirmed a set of broadly supported community goals and created a blueprint for future government actions” (emphasis added).

SOURCE: https://www.urbanstrategies.com/project/realize- troy/#:~:text=Realize%20Troy%20is%20a%20three,a%20city%2Dwide%20comprehensive%20plan.&text=It%20w ill%20establish%20a%20clear,over%20the%20next%2020%20years.

Scenic Hudson’s recommendations are prefaced with the City’s Planning consultant’s description of the Comprehensive Plan’s purpose, as well as and the robust public participation on which the plan, its vision for the City, and its land use recommendations are based.

84 Appendix 2: Comprehensive Plan

Rezonings must be in accordance with Comprehensive Plans The requested rezoning would directly conflict with Realize Troy’s recommendations—and, therefore, the community’s vision—for the subject parcel. If it were to be in the best interest of the City of Troy and its residents to commit this undeveloped, wooded parcel to high density development, in this case 240 apartments, one would think that Realize Troy would have recommended this parcel for higher density uses as a Major Reinvestment Area. However, Realize Troy envisions just the opposite.

N.Y. General City Law Section 28-a(12) requires that “All city land use regulations must be in accordance with a comprehensive plan adopted pursuant to this section.” Scenic Hudson believes that a rezoning from Single Family Residential to Planned Development would not be in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan’s designation of Low Rise Residential and would therefore violate N.Y. General City Law Section 28-a(12).

Further, according to the New York State Department of State "New York’s zoning enabling statutes (the state statutes which give cities, towns and villages the power to enact local zoning laws) require that zoning laws be adopted in accordance with a comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan should provide the backbone for the local zoning law." https://www.dos.ny.gov/lg/publications/Zoning_and_the_Comprehensive_Plan.pdf

Realize Troy’s vision for the subject parcel First and foremost, the Comprehensive Plan (Map 14) identifies the subject tax parcel as "low rise residential" (see Appendix A attached to this letter). The parcel is currently zoned R-1 (Single Family Residential—Detached) which would permit approximately 10 single family homes on the site. The concept plan submitted in association with this rezoning requests proposes 240 multi-family units, a land use with density wholly inconsistent with low rise residential and would therefore not be in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan as required by N.Y. General City Law Section 28-a(12).

Further, one of the “action strategies” proposed in Realize Troy Comprehensive Plan is the establishment of seven “Major Reinvestment Areas.” According to Realize Troy:

“Major reinvestment areas are locations in the city in most need of renewal and which also have the potential to accommodate most of the population and employment growth planned for Troy. Strategic initiatives in these areas are intended to catalyze neighborhood revitalization, transform derelict portions of the waterfront and spark economic development. They include large-scale redevelopment opportunities that can result in distinct new employment and mixed-use areas, sites appropriate for significant park and other public realm improvements and areas for neighborhood growth and revitalization.” Realize Troy, page 68

These Major Reinvestment Areas are the places envisioned by the community as priorities for renewal, neighborhood revitalization and large-scale development.

The Plan identifies two Major Reinvestment Areas in Lansingburgh. One area includes the Hannaford’s parcel immediately to the south of the subject parcel. Realize Troy conceptually proposes redeveloping the Hannaford’s site with a large building fronting 126th Street, parking behind the building, and mixed-use 1-4 story residential buildings with required ground floor retail fronting 2nd Avenue (see Revitalize Troy, page 71 and 72; also attached here as Appendices B-1 and B-2). Realize Troy does NOT propose extending this mixed-use development—nor any high-density development, including apartments as proposed in this rezoning—onto the undeveloped, wooded parcel to the north.

Conclusion During the development of the Realize Troy, undertaken with robust public involvement and adopted by the City Council just two years ago, it was not anticipated that the undeveloped, wooded subject parcel (Tax Map Parcel Number 70.64-1-1), zoned R-1 and identified in the Comprehensive Plan as Low Rise Residential, would be an appropriate place for intense development. If so, the adjacent Major Reinvestment Area would have been extended to include this parcel. Further, Realize Troy specifically includes this parcel in the “Low Rise Residential” land use category. Therefore, the requested rezoning would not be in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan.

In light of the above Scenic Hudson urges the Troy City Council to deny the application to rezone Tax Parcel Number 70.64-1-1 on 2nd Avenue from R-1 (Single Family Development) to P (Planned Development). Such rezoning would not be in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan as required by N.Y. General City Law Section 28-a(12).

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey Anzevino, AICP Director of Land Use Advocacy

Attachments Appendix A Appendix B-1 Appendix B-2

86 Appendix 2: Comprehensive Plan

Attachment A

Realize Troy, Map 14, Land Use

Note: Subject parcel is designated in area for Low-Rise Residential

87 Attachment B-1

Realize Troy, Map 14, Land Use

Note: Adjacent Hannafords site in Majpr Reinvestment Area and proposed for redevelopment with building fronting 126th Street, parking behind, and 1-4 story residential; buildings with ground floor retail

Note: Subject parcel is NOT in Major Reinvestment Area and designated as for Low-Rise Residential

88 Appendix 2: Comprehensive Plan

Attachment B-2

Realize Troy, Major Reinvestment Areas

Note: Subject parcel is NOT in Major Reinvestment Area and designated as for Low-Rise Residential

89 Appendix 3 Department Of State Opinion

From: Oneill, Kristin (DOS) [email protected] Subject: RE: Residents-Only restriction for public meeting at public meetings at the City of Troy Date: September 9, 2020 at 3:11 PM To: [redacted: email address]

Good Afternoon [REDACTED: NAME],

Thank you for contacting the Committee on Open Government. The Open Meetings Law provides a right to attend to the "general public." (Open Meetings Law Section 103(a)). A resident Schenectady, Albany, or even Buffalo or New York City would have the same right to attend a meeting of the Troy City Council as a resident of the City. That being so, I do not believe that a public body could validly require that those who attend or seek to attend identify themselves by name, residence or interest. In short, it is my view that any member of the public has an equal opportunity to partake in an open meeting, and that an effort to distinguish among attendees by residence or any other qualifier would be inconsistent with the Open Meetings Law and, therefore, unreasonable. Moreover, people other than residents, particularly those who own property or operate businesses in a community, may have a substantial interest in attending and expressing their views at meetings of City Councils and other public bodies. Prohibiting those people from speaking, even though they may have a significant interest in the topics being discussed, while permitting residents to do so, would, in my view, be unjustifiable.

In addition, I note that Section 110(1) of the Open Meetings Law states “Any provision of a charter, administrative code, local law, ordinance, or rule or regulation affecting a public body which is more restrictive with respect to public access than this article shall be deemed superseded hereby to the extent that such provision is more restrictive than this article.” In other words, any aspect of the City Code that is more restrictive with respect to public access (i.e., a residency requirement), is superseded by the Open Meetings Law.

I hope this information proves useful.

Sincerely,

Kristin O’Neill Assistant Director, Committee on Open Government

New York State Department of State One Commerce Plaza, Albany, NY 12231 (518) 474-2518 http://www.dos.ny.gov/coog/

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails.

90 Appendix 4 STORMWATER AND ECOSYSTEMS

6WDWHPHQWRI -DPHV.UXHJOHU UG6WUHHW7UR\1<

&LW\RI7UR\3ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQ

63(&,$/0((7,1* 'HFHPEHU

³6HFRQG$YH 3ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQ5HFRPPHQGDWLRQWRWKH&LW\&RXQFLO IRU=RQH&KDQJH.HYLQ9DQGHQEXUJKLVSURSRVLQJD]RQHFKDQJHIURP5 6LQJOH)DPLO\ 5HVLGHQWLDO'HWDFKHG WR3 3ODQQHG'HYHORSPHQW 3XUVXDQWWRRI WKH&LW\&RGHDSXEOLFKHDULQJLVUHTXLUHG7KHDSSOLFDQWLVUHSUHVHQWHGE\-DPLH(DVWRQ3( RI0-(QJLQHHULQJ´

'HDU0HPEHURIWKH3ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQ0\QDPHLV-DPHV.UXHJOHU,OLYHDWUG6WUHHW DQG,ZDQWWRVSHDNWRGD\LQRSSRVLWLRQRIWKHSURSRVHGFKDQJHLQ]RQHFRGH,ZDQWWRVWURQJO\ XUJHWKH3ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQWRUHFRPPHQGDJDLQVWWKHUHTXHVWHG]RQHFKDQJH

,QJHQHUDOWKHQHJDWLYHLPSDFWVRIUH]RQLQJDQGWKHDVVRFLDWHGSURSRVHGGHYHORSPHQWSURMHFW RQWKHSURSHUW\LWVXQLTXHKLVWRU\DQGHFRORJ\WKHVXUURXQGLQJFRPPXQLWLHVDQG QHLJKERUKRRGVDQGWKH&LW\RI7UR\RYHUDOODUHIDUWRRJUHDW

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³ZRXOGEHGHVLJQHGVRWKDWWKHWRWDOVLWHUXQRIIRI VWRUPZDWHUZLOOEHOHVVWKDQRUHTXDOWRH[LVWLQJFRQGLWLRQV´+RZHYHUWKLVLVDYDJXHFODLPWKDW LVQRWVXSSRUWHGZLWKDQ\YHULILDEOHGHWDLOVDQ\ZKHUHHOVHLQWKHSODQ7KH³3URMHFW1DUUDWLYH´ FXUUHQWO\EHIRUHWKH3ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQSURPLVHVDORWEXWSURYLGHVVROLWWOHVXSSRUWLQJ LQIRUPDWLRQWKDWWKHVHSURPLVHVFDQQRWKRSHWREHLQYHVWLJDWHGZLWKDQ\ULJRU2QWKLVSRLQW DORQHWKH3ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQDQGWKH&LW\&RXQFLOVKRXOGQRWFRQVLGHUUH]RQLQJXQWLODPRUH GHWDLOHGTXDQWLWDWLYHDVVHVVPHQWRIWKHSURSRVHGGHYHORSPHQWLVSXWIRUZDUG

&RQVLGHULQJWKHSRWHQWLDOQHJDWLYHLPSDFWVRIWKHSURSRVHGUH]RQLQJDQGDVVRFLDWHG GHYHORSPHQW,DOVRVWURQJO\XUJHWKH3ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQDQGWKH&LW\&RXQFLOWRPDNHD SRVLWLYH6(45$ 6WDWH(QYLURQPHQWDO4XDOLW\5HYLHZ$FW GHFODUDWLRQ3HUWKH6(45$ZKHQD GHYHORSPHQWSURMHFWRIWKLVVL]HUHTXLUHVDSURSHUW\EHUH]RQHGWKHUH]RQLQJLVDUHYLHZDEOH DFWLRQXQGHUWKH6(45$7KHGHYHORSHUPXVWDOVRLGHQWLI\WKH]RQLQJFKDQJHWKH\QHHGDVSDUW RIWKHSURMHFW¶V(QYLURQPHQWDO$VVHVVPHQW)RUP ($) ,WLVFULWLFDOWKDWDOODQWLFLSDWHGGHFLVLRQV DUHLGHQWLILHGIURPWKHVWDUWLQWKH($)VRWKDWWKHSRWHQWLDOHQYLURQPHQWDOLPSDFWVDVVRFLDWHG ZLWKWKHPFDQEHFRQVLGHUHGWRJHWKHU)RUDSURMHFWRIWKLVVL]HUH]RQLQJFDQQRWEHFRQVLGHUHG VHSDUDWHO\IURPWKHSURSRVHGGHYHORSPHQWLWVHOIWKLVZRXOGFRQVWLWXWH³VHJPHQWDWLRQ´FRQWUDU\ WRWKHLQWHQWRI6(45$

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

7KDQN\RXIRU\RXUFRQVLGHUDWLRQ -DPHV.UXHJOHU

91 Appendix 5 WRITTEN OPINION BY Dr. JOHN GOWDY

The economics of development favor the sort-run over the long-run Economic theory, and the market economy it describes, looks at the world through the eyes of a single person making decisions from the point of view of the immediate present. In economic jargon this is called “discounted present value.” The question is “How much is it worth to me now to get something in the future?” The discount rate indicates how quickly something losses value the further into the future we receive it. For example, at a 5% discount rate, something worth $100 million if I get it today is worth $78 if delivered five years from now, and only $61 million if received 10 years from now.

Consider the benefits of developing a natural, forested area, compared to the benefits of preserving it. The economic benefits of development are received almost immediately—construction jobs, tax revenue, more customers for local businesses. The benefits of development are relatively large, but generally last only a few years. The benefits of preservation are relatively small, but they last indefinitely. With even a relatively low discount rate (the lower the rate the less something loses value through time) the benefits of development will overwhelm the benefits of preservation in a purely economic cost-benefit study.

But should short-term economic benefits be the only criterion for making a choice between development and preservation? Another way is to consider a development project from the point of view of someone living in the future, say 25 years from now. Using the example above, preserving something worth $100 million now will be worth only $29 million in 25 years. But from the point of view of a person living 25 years from now, its value would be $100 million. The question is “What kind of world do we want to leave for the future?” Imagine your daughter or granddaughter living in Troy 25 years from now. Would her life be better with an apartment complex or a natural wooded area? Certainly, the economic benefits of a new apartment complex should be considered, but so should the non-monetary benefits of preserving natural areas. Studies of the benefits of even short walks in wooded areas have produced some remarkable results. For example, researcher found that people who live in cities with fewer trees have greater death rates from lower respiratory tract and cardiovascular illness. (https://www.asla.org/ContentDetail.aspx?id=39564)

92 Appendix 1: Ecological Surveys (Jan Update)

Life is becoming more sedentary, and wooded areas in and near cities are becoming more scarce. Undeveloped open space will be even more important in the future to human wellbeing. The question is, what kind of city do we want to leave our children and grandchildren?

A discount rate calculator can be found at: https://www.aqua- calc.com/page/discounted-present-value-calculator

• Donovan, G. et al. 2013. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 44(2),139- 145. DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2012.09.066

John Gowdy, Professor of Economics, Emeritus, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

To: The Members of the Planning Commission

Regarding: Planning Commission Review of request for zone change from R-1 to P; 1011 2nd Avenue in Troy, NY; Written statement for Planning Commision hearing on January 28, 2021

January 28, 2021

Dear Members of the Planning Commission,

The Friends of the Mahicantuck submit this statement, as well as attached material, for the consideration of the Planning Commission in their review of a proposed rezoning of 1011 2nd Avenue.

We urge you to recommend against the rezoning.

In this letter, we identify significant inconsistencies with the law and process flaws in the current reviewing the request in zone change. On substance, we bring to your attention significant reasons for a recommendation against the rezoning.

Based on these significant inconsistencies with the law, process flaws, and substance arguments we strongly urge you to recommend against the rezoning.

1. ON MATTERS OF PROCESS AND LAW

The developer has submitted a full EAF as well as a “Project Narrative”. Additionally, the City of Troy is already acting on a request for change in zoning code (Res. 91). It must therefore be assumed that an application to approve an action, in this case at least a request for change in zoning code, was formally submitted to the city.

We draw your attention to significant process flaws and inconsistencies with the law.

1.a. SEQRA AND TIMING

SEQR should have already started: SEQR should be started “as soon as an agency receives an application to fund or approve an action”, in this case at least a request for change in zoning code. (However, as the change in zone code, per the developer’s own statements, is pursuant to a concrete development plan, considering rezoning as independent action would constitute “segmentation” in SEQRA; see 1.b.)

According to statements during the Planning Commission hearing on December 29, 2020, SEQRA did not yet start. As SEQR should start with an application, review should have started even as the Planning Commission is currently only providing recommendation to the Council.

1.b. SEQRA AND SEGMENTATION

The developer submitted an EAF with significant omissions. This EAF addresses only the rezoning and does not appropriately include the development plans itself. However, the developer explicitly stated at the Planning Commission special meeting on December 29, 2020, that the rezoning is pursuant to a specific development and submitted extensive site plans and project narratives.

A SEQRA review must review the development and include the requested rezoning as one of the “discretionary actions” (alongside amongst others the Comprehensive Plan amendment). Completing separate SERQA reviews for the rezoning and development, as if rezoning were an independent and complete action, would constitute segmentation.

The courts agree with such an assessment, as case law reaffirms — for example: Kirk-Astor Drive Neighborhood Ass’n v Town Board of Town of Pittsford, 106 A.D 2d 868, 869, 483 N.Y.S. 2d 526, 528 (4th Dep’t 1984).

However, per statements of city officials at public hearings on September 10, 2020, November 19, 2020 and December 29, 2020, the city intends to review the rezoning as independent action, which is contrary to the intent of the State Environmental Quality Review Act.

The Planning Commission should insist that Troy follow the laws, and recommend against the rezoning as premature until SEQR for the development (with rezoning as a discretionary action) is completed.

1.c. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM

The developer submitted an Environmental Assessment Form, which was made available to the public via the agenda of the upcoming meeting. A detailed analysis of this form was not possible in time due its recent publication. However, several concerning omissions and discrepancies have already been identified that we want to bring to your attention. This is provided in detail in the appendix to this letter.

The Planning Commission should insist on reviewing all facts before making a recommendation. The incomplete and inconsistent statements in the EAF are concerning in that regard, particularly given the in our opinion substantial omissions and mis-statements.

1.d. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AREA

The project site is located within a DEC designated “Potential Environmental Justice Area” (DEC CP 29). As part of the DEC Commissioner Policy 29, applicants for state permits including SEQRA are required to conduct extended public participation and outreach measures, including a written public participation plan to be submitted with an application.

We have asked for disclosure of the written participation plan, yet there was no disclosure and so we assume there is none. By all indication an application was submitted, yet a public participation plan was not disclosed — constituting a concerning inconsistency with requirements established in DEC CP 29.

This is not the time to be flouting environmental justice (EJ) concerns. The DEC designation as “Potential Environmental Justice Area” includes indigenous rights and impacts on indigenous communities. We are certain that Troy is taking such justice matters seriously. However, by flouting issues of environmental justice, the city is sending the opposite message.

We think environmental justice matters in Troy. However, the current inconsistency with legal requirements for public outreach and written outreach plans associated with the DEC Commissioner Policy on Potential Environmental Justice Areas speaks a different language.

2. ON MATTERS OF SUBSTANCE

2.a. REZONING NOW IS A “BLANK CHECK” — FOLLOW THE CORRECT PROCESS!

Should a rezoning be approved independent of site plans, the developer receives a “blank check” for any development plans permitted under the new zoning code (in this case P — Planned Development).

Approving the rezoning independent from concrete development plans would not only be inconsistent with SEQRA. It is reckless.

Any questions regarding appropriate land use for this site become immaterial once a rezoning is approved as independent from development plans. This would open the door for a much higher-density development project on the site than currently proposed. It would allow the developer to pursue a project that seeks to maximize density on the site, or sell the site to another developer with new plans.

The developer has provided significant site plans and development plans and stated explicitly that the request for rezoning is pursuant of concrete development plans.

The Planning Commission should therefore recommend against the rezoning as premature until an EAF for development was submitted and SEQR for the development (with rezoning as one of the discretionary actions) was completed. This would ensure that a rezoning is conditional to specific development plans.

This not only restores consistency with SEQRA (see 1.b.), but furthermore ensures that any rezoning does not open the door to a much higher density development project than the developer is currently presenting.

2.b. THERE IS LIMITED HOUSING DEMAND! DEVELOP STRATEGICALLY AND SMART!

The most recent Comprehensive Housing Market Analysis by US HUD (2019) explicitly states for Albany-Schenectady-Troy that housing demand is already met with housing development projects that are in existence or under construction.

This is particularly relevant, considering the high number of vacant, abandoned and neglected sites across Troy that are identified as development priorities also in the 2018 “Realize Troy” Comprehensive Plan.

Rezoning would encourage high density development at a natural site, and appears in this context as contrary to development priorities and redevelopment needs. The existence of an old housing stock and vacant sites in need of redevelopment, in combination with limited housing demand, establishes the rezoning as contrary to the City’s development needs. This is reaffirmed in the Comprehensive Plan.

The Planning Commission should therefore recommend against the rezoning.

2.c. REZONING IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

Whereas the developer’s “Project Narrative” addresses some — general — aspects of the 2018 “Realize Troy'' Comprehensive Plan, the “Project Narrative” commits substantial inconsistencies with the Comprehensive Plan. For example, the “Project Narrative” does not address the fact that this area is explicitly zoned as R-1 in the Comprehensive Plan.

A detailed analysis of inconsistencies and their implications was provided in the Appendix of the 2021 “Troy’s Sacred Forest” (FotM, 2021) report submitted to the record by the Friends of the Mahicantuck on January 22, 20201. Additionally, Scenic Hudson and Riverkeeper provided in-depth analysis and discussion of Comprehensive Plan inconsistencies.

We would like to additionally bring to your attention significant inconsistencies with the strategic development goals detailed in the Comprehensive Plan, as they relate to 2.b..

The Comprehensive Plan outlines strategic development goals that are aligned with the NYS smart growth criteria. The Comprehensive Plan explicitly designates priority (re-)investment areas to ensure soft and strategic development and prioritizes the (re-)development of existing vacant and abandoned housing stock as well as vacant formerly developed sites.

The Comprehensive Plan also makes note of limited housing demand and its impacts on the city’s ability to develop such sites. It also is in this context, that Priority Reinvestement Areas are defined in the Comprehensive Plan. The most recent Comprehensive Housing Market Analysis by US HUD (2019) explicitly states for Albany-Schenectady-Troy that housing demand is already met with housing development projects that are in existence or under construction.

In this context, a rezoning to allow for high-density development on an undeveloped, natural area at 1011 2nd Avenue would be contrary to the development priorities established in the Comprehensive Plan.

The Planning Commission should recommend against the rezoning, as allowing high density development at this undeveloped, natural site would be contrary to the strategic development goals established in the Comprehensive Plan.

2.d. HIGH-DENSITY ZONING EXCEEDS THE CAPACITY OF THE PROJECT SITE

Previously submitted documents detail a range of anticipated negative impacts associated with a change in zoning code to allow for high density development on the one hand, a subsequent development of the site on the other. This includes high archaeological significance of the site, cultural importance, the presence of county-rare and state-rare species on the site, as well as critical ecosystem services provided by this land and at risk of loss through rezoning and/or development. Refer to our report, “Troy’s Sacred Forest”, submitted on January 22, 2021.

The requested change in zoning code would result in a significant increase in traffic on the site, as it would allow for high density development. This is significantly different in terms of impacts on the sites sensitive ecology and archaeology from permitting low-density development. For example, the permitted development characteristics under P would inevitably result in more extensive and deeper ground disturbance than developments permitted under R-1. This also the case regarding impacts from stormwater runoff, additional combined sewer overflows and other direct and indirect impacts on the Hudson River and other water resources connected with this site.

The Planning Commission should recommend against the rezoning as exceeding the capacity of this site.

2.d. EVEN WITH A REZONING, THE DEVELOPER SAYS VARIANCES WILL BE NEEDED!

The current development plans provided in the most recent “Project Narrative” would still require zoning variances, even with a code change to P - Planned Development (see. “Project Narrative”, p. 18). According to the report, variances would be required for: Maximum Density, Building Height, and Off-Street Parking.

Additionally, section §285-57 defines the City’s Philosophy for the justification to change to the P Zone, and specifically requires a planned mix of residential uses. Such a mix of residential uses is not provided in the current form of the project outline and site plans. One-bedroom and two-bedroom apartment units do not qualify as a mix of residential uses.

It would be unreasonable for the Planning Commission to recommend a change in zoning code pursuant of a known development project, when the developer already stated the necessity of additional variances, suggesting this development would be appropriate for a site that does not require changes in zoning code, comprehensive plan amendments, and subsequent zoning variances.

The Planning Commission should therefore recommend against the rezoning.

3. CONCLUSIONS In review of these critical issues, we hope that the Planning Commission recognizes the significance of the land at 1011 2nd Avenue. The public certainly agrees with the concerns raised here. 2500 signatures to our petitions and over 8 hours of testimony against rezoning and development during three public hearings show that the public is unified in its opposition and supports a vision of preserving and protecting the Sacred Forest at 1011 2nd Avenue.

Consider the We strongly urge the Planning Commission to recommend against the rezoning. significance of this forest, the dramatic negative impacts associated with high-density zoning and development, significant process flaws and inconsistencies with the law, inconsistencies with the comprehensive plan.

The city should not give the developer a blank check. A rezoning independent from development would allow the developer to reconsider his plans and seek to maximize density on this site. Instead, the rezoning should be reviewed as “discretionary action” within the SEQR of a specific development application.

Do not give developers a blank check for maximum density at this site. Recommend against the rezoning.

Thank you for your consideration,

The Friends of the Mahicantuck www.FriendsOfTheMahicantuck.org [email protected]

APPENDIX I — PRELIMINARY LIST OF OMISSIONS AND DISCREPANCIES IN THE EAF ● Whereas according to the EAF Bi. Is Project Listed as a Designated Inland Waterway — ”NO”. This is incorrect. The Hudson River north of the Troy Federal Dam is a designated inland waterway according to DoS. ● Whereas according to the EAF D.2 a. Does Proposal include excavation — ”No”. It appears impossible to build the proposed development as detailed in the submitted Project Narrative without excavation. ● Whereas according to the EAF D.2.d. Does the existing wastewater treatment plant have capacity to serve the project — ”Yes”. However, according to the Project Narrative, this project will increase the amount of sewage overflow into the Hudson River: “Any new connections or sewer flows to the CSO should be offset by removing CSO connections elsewhere in the system”. It is unclear how this can be provided. ● Whereas according to the EAF D.2.f Does Proposal require a NY State Air Registration, Air Facility Permit — ”No”. However, it is unclear how heating will be provided at this stage of planning. If fuel combustion will be used for heating, a permit will be required. ● Whereas according to EAF D.2.j Does Proposal substantially increase traffic — ”No” While the traffic analysis anticipates no significant traffic increase for the analyzed intersection with the Waterford bridge, significant traffic increase must be expected for the neighborhood itself and would constitute a significant impact to the neighborhood.

The traffic analysis provided in the project narrative anticipates an increase of 111 additional cars; compared with a traffic increase between 2015-2019 of only 35 cars. At the same time, the project location is not served by public transport, raising significant questions about the validity of an increase by only 111 cars to serve 240 apartment units. ● Whereas according to EAF E.2.b. Are there bedrock outcroppings on the site — ”No”. However, extensive bedrock outcroppings are present at this site, particularly along the Hudson River waterfront. For additional information see discussion of ecological findings provided in the Friends of the Mahicantuck “Troy’s Sacred Forest” report of January 22, 2021. ● Whereas according to EAF E.1.c. Is the project site presently used by members of the community for public recreation — ”No” However, although this site is privately owned, it is not posted and public uses are tolerated by the owner. The site is well known as water access for the community and frequently used by members of the public for recreational purposes including nature walks and fishing. ● Whereas according to EAF E.2.p. Does the project site contain any species of plant or animal that is listed by NYS as rare, or as a species of special concern? — ”No” However, ecological surveys of December 2020 and January 2021 document the presence of several county-rare species as well as of at least one state-rare species (Sharp Hornsnail) on the site. Aaron.Vera

From: Jessica Bennett Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2021 8:08 PM To: Patrick.Madden; Carmella.Mantello; citycouncil; Steven.Strichman; James.Rath Subject: Protect Troy's Sacred Forest at 1011 2nd Avenue

Dear Mayor Patrick Madden, City Council President Carmella Mantello, Members of the Troy City Council, Planning Commissioner Steven Strichman, and Members of the Planning Commission

My name is Jessica Bennett. I live in the Northern Lansingburgh neighborhood in Troy.

I am writing to you to oppose the requested zoning change for 1011 2nd Avenue (Tax Parcel 70.64‐1‐1).

The %u201CSacred Forest%u201D at 1011 2nd Avenue is the city%u2019s last untouched forest along the Hudson River as well as a nationally significant (National Register eligible) indigenous heritage site with artifacts dating back to 1500‐ 3000 B.C. The indigenous peoples maintain ties to this land that grew over 5000 years. For them, this is sacred land. It is unique for its history and cultural heritage.

The %u201CSacred Forest%u201D is also unique for its ecology. There are several county‐rare plant species present on this land, some of which are habitat indicators that make the presence of globally rare species likely (the scrub oak as an indicator for the globally rare buck moth, for example).

As the last natural forest of its kind it provides critical ecosystem services to a community located in a DEC designated %u201CPotential Environmental Justice Area%u201D (requiring amongst other a full EAF as part of SEQRA, as established in DEC CP 29 %u2014 Section E). Its destruction would be an incredible loss for us all. The loss of critical ecosystem services would disproportionately harm the local community of the Potential Environmental Justice Area.

Changing the zoning to accommodate a known project prior to the State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) process is segmentation ( Kirk‐Astor Drive Neighborhood Ass%u2019n. v. Town Board of Town of Pittsford, 106 A.D.2d 868, 869, 483 N.Y.S.2d 526, 528 (4th Dep%u2019t 1984)).

A zoning change should be included as a consideration in the project%u2019s Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) if it moves forward with its environmental review. Additionally, a change in the zoning to allow a different use than what is stated in the 2018 %u201CRealize Troy%u201D Comprehensive Plan would require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, and should be indicated as a %u201Cdiscretionary action%u201D alongside the rezoning in the full EAF.

As public officials it is your responsibility to listen to your constituents. Considering our clear position across party lines alongside the historical, archeological, cultural and ecological significance of this sacred land, and its being located in a New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) %u201CPotential Environmental Justice Area%u201D, the planning commission and the city must make the protection and preservation of this land its highest priority.

1 Considering the issues of segmentation, inconsistencies with the comprehensive plan and process requirements established in SEQR, the Planning Commission must recommend against rezoning at this time for all of the reasons stated.

Thank you.

Jessica Bennett 1009 2nd Ave. Troy, NY 12182 516‐375‐1235

2 Aaron.Vera

From: Christopher P.C. Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 1:46 PM To: Patrick.Madden; Carmella.Mantello; citycouncil; Steven.Strichman; James.Rath Subject: protect 1011 2nd Ave

Hello,

As a resident of Troy, I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed development of 1011 2nd Ave for a housing project. This land should be preserved, undeveloped, for the benefit of our local people and wildlife.

Thank you, Christopher Caulfield

‐‐ Christopher Caulfield | he/him Doctoral candidate in Science and Technology Studies Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY Areas of research: opioid crisis, telecare, stigma, harm reduction

1 Aaron.Vera

From: sheree c Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2021 12:57 PM To: Steven.Strichman; James.Rath Cc: Aaron.Vera Subject: 1011 Second Ave. comments for Jan. 28

Dear Members of the Planning Commission,

* Please enter this letter in the minutes of the Jan. 28 Planning Commission Hearing.

My name is Sheree Cammer. I live in Wynantskill.

Dear Planning Commission,

I acknowledge that I live on lands stolen from the Mahican people, who have stewarded these lands for thousands of years. Like the Friends of the Mahicantuck, I support protecting the land at 1011 Second Avenue.

I would like to organize a neutral forum. I would invite an expert to describe the land, and the place of this land in the surrounding ecosystems. I would invite each major viewpoint to be represented on a panel, including the Stockbridge‐ Munsee Band of the Mohican Nation, Schaghticoke First Nations’ Sachem (chief) HawkStorm, developer Kevin Vandenburgh, Friends of the Mahicantuck, and local youth and environmental justice communities. Each panelist would succinctly present their vision for this land, and their understanding of the key facts that are in dispute. I would invite comments from experts in areas such as Troy tax codes, city budget, zoning, SEQRA process and land conservation.

We can go forward from that foundation.

Thank you.

Sheree (Cheryl) Cammer Wynantskill [email protected]

1 Aaron.Vera

From: Ragliacci Sent: Monday, January 18, 2021 9:29 PM To: Patrick.Madden; Carmella.Mantello; citycouncil; Steven.Strichman; James.Rath Subject: Re: Protect Troy's Sacred Forest at 1011 2nd Avenue

Dear Mayor Patrick Madden, City Council President Carmella Mantello, Members of the Troy City Council, Planning Commissioner Steven Strichman, and Members of the Planning Commission,

My name is Kristoph DiMaria. I live in South Troy.

I am writing to you to oppose the requested zoning change for 1011 2nd Avenue (Tax Parcel 70.64-1-1).

The sacred forest located at 1011 2nd Avenue is the city's last untouched forest along the Hudson River as well as a nationally significant (National Register eligible) indigenous heritage site with artifacts dating back to 1500-3000 B.C. The indigenous peoples maintain ties to this land that grew over 5000 years. For them, this is sacred land. It is unique for its history and cultural heritage.

The sacred forest is also unique for its ecology. There are several county-rare plant species present on this land, some of which are habitat indicators that make the presence of globally rare species likely (the scrub oak as an indicator for the globally rare buck moth, for example).

As the last natural forest of its kind it provides critical ecosystem services to a community located in a DEC designated a Potential Environmental Justice Area (requiring amongst other things a full EAF as part of SEQRA, as established in DEC CP 29 Section E). Its destruction would be an incredible loss for us all. The loss of critical ecosystem services would disproportionately harm the local community of the Potential Environmental Justice Area.

Changing the zoning to accommodate a known project prior to the State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) process is segmentation (Kirk-Astor Drive Neighborhood Assn. v. Town Board of Town of Pittsford, 106 A.D.2d 868, 869, 483 N.Y.S.2d 526, 528 (4th Dept 1984).

A zoning change should be included as a consideration in the project's Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) if it moves forward with its environmental review. Additionally, a change in the zoning to allow a different use than what is stated in the 2018 Realize Troy Comprehensive Plan would require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, and should be indicated as a discretionary action alongside the rezoning in the full EAF.

1 Environmental Justice Area, the planning commission and the city must make the protection and preservation of this land its highest priority.

Considering the issues of segmentation, inconsistencies with the comprehensive plan and process requirements established in SEQR, the Planning Commission must recommend against rezoning at this time for all of the reasons stated.

Thank you, Kristoph DiMaria Troy, NY January 18th, 2021

2 Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone

------Original message ------From: Ellie Irons Date: 1/28/21 9:50 AM (GMT-05:00) To: "Steven.Strichman" Subject: Fwd: Written Statement: Save 1011 2nd Ave — Planning Commission Hearing Thursday JAN 28,

Dear Steve,

I had a faulty email address for you on the first round that went to you and your colleagues, so I’m forwarding this.

Best regards,

-Ellie

Begin forwarded message:

From: Ellie Irons Subject: Written Statement: Save 1011 2nd Ave — Planning Commission Hearing Thursday JAN 28, Date: January 28, 2021 at 9:26:01 AM EST To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Dear Members of the Planning Commission,

Please enter this letter into the record and include it in the minutes of today’s Planning Commission Hearing (January 28, 2021) My name is Ellie Irons and I live on 9th Street in Troy.

I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the planned development of the last remaining stand of forest along the Hudson River in Troy, 1011 2nd Avenue in Lansingburgh. I ask the Planning Commission to: Recommend against the rezoning, and recommend for the land at 1011 2nd Avenue to be designated as Critical Environmental Area.

1 There are so many reasons to preserve this land as waterfront green space, from concerns relating to environmental justice and climate change mitigation to its status as a culturally important site for local Indigenous groups, with artifacts dating back to 1500-3000 B.C. As such, it is nationally significant (National Register eligible) indigenous heritage site. Additionally, from what I understand (and what I have observed in the neighborhood myself) there are ample alternative locations for development like this if it must take place. Stopping the proposed re-zoning and subsequent development of this land should be an obvious win for the council and the city planning commission.

As a resident of Troy, I find access to the waterfront along the Hudson to be a hugely valuable resource for our community. I spend a lot of time along the waterfront with my family. We ride bikes along the Uncle Sam Trail in downtown, visit the boat launch at Ingalls Avenue, and enjoy the forested knolls and amazing river views at 1011 2nd Avenue. The more waterfront we can preserve for public access, the better. It’s high time to reverse the destructive practice of privatizing our waterfronts. This is an environmental justice issue because green space—and all be benefits it brings with it—tends to be more accessible to wealthier communities. Keeping this land undeveloped and preserving it as a park would put more green space in reach of more people, both in the immediate neighborhoods and in the general Troy area. This is also a climate change mitigation issue. Waterfront developments have the potential to increase the risk of flooding, not just for residents in the developments, but also for the area in general. As I’m sure planning commission members are well aware, soft, undeveloped edges in riparian habitats provide a buffer against flooding, while additional developed land creates more surface runoff and channelizes the river in such a way that flooding in surrounding areas is potentially increased.

In closing, I will return to the site’s historic and ongoing importance for local Indigenous people. Our country is in the midst of yet another desperately needed reckoning around the roots of racism and oppression of people of color. This site presents us with an opportunity to take a stand against the literal paving over of Indigenous history and land. Representatives of both the Schaghticoke first nations and the Munsee have made it clear that the existence of archeological sites, including a quarry and tool making site, make this a site of ongoing value for them. Troy has an opportunity to begin to do the right thing here, and preserve this land as it is, so that it can continue to evolve as a sacred forest into the future. Our decedents will thank us.

I hope the committee and others involved in this decision making process will see the value in preserving this last stretch of untouched forest along the Hudson River. I urge you to do whatever is in your power to preserve 1011 2nd Street, including recommending against the rezoning, and designating the site as a Critical Environmental Area.

Thank you for your time.

Best regards,

-Ellie Irons 9th Street, Troy, NY January 28, 2021

2 From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, January 25, 2021 5:27 PM To: Patrick.Madden; Carmella.Mantello; citycouncil; Steven.Strichman; James.Rath Subject: PROTECT AND PRESERVE THE SACRED SITE AT 1011 2nd AVE

Dear Mayor Patrick Madden, City Council President Carmella Mantello, Members of the Troy City Council, Planning Commissioner Steven Strichman, and Members of the Planning Commission,

My name is Vivian James. I live on 3rd Ave in the North Lansingburgh neighborhood of Troy and (other than working remotely due to the pandemic) work at the Hedley Building downtown where I take my work breaks on the bank of the Hudson River.

I am writing to you to oppose the requested zoning change for 1011 2nd Avenue (Tax Parcel 70.64-1-1).

The “Sacred Forest” at 1011 2nd Avenue is the city’s last untouched forest along the Hudson River as well as a nationally significant (National Register eligible) indigenous heritage site with artifacts dating back to 1500- 3000 B.C. The indigenous peoples maintain ties to this land that grew over 5000 years. For them, this is sacred land. It is unique for its history and cultural heritage. The Hudson River in North Lansingburgh has a rich archaeological and historic significance and I have sworn to preserve the historic and cultural value of New York as a Registered Professional Archaeologist and member of the New York Archaeological Council.

The “Sacred Forest” is also unique for its ecology. There are several county-rare plant species present on this land, some of which are habitat indicators that make the presence of globally rare species likely (the scrub oak as an indicator for the globally rare buck moth, for example). As the last natural forest of its kind it provides critical ecosystem services to a community located in a DEC designated “Potential Environmental Justice Area” (requiring amongst other a full EAF as part of SEQRA, as established in DEC CP 29 — Section E). Its destruction would be an incredible loss for us all. The loss of critical ecosystem services would disproportionately harm the local community of the Potential Environmental Justice Area. Changing the zoning to accommodate a known project prior to the State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) process is segmentation ( Kirk-Astor Drive Neighborhood Ass’n. v. Town Board of Town of Pittsford, 106 A.D.2d 868, 869, 483 N.Y.S.2d 526, 528 (4th Dep’t 1984)). A zoning change should be included as a consideration in the project’s Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) if it moves forward with its environmental review. Additionally, a change in the zoning to allow a different use than what is stated in the 2018 “Realize Troy” Comprehensive Plan would require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, and should be indicated as a “discretionary action” alongside the rezoning in the full EAF.

The Hudson River is the greatest treasure that Troy has. I enjoy walking along the riverbanks and being able to sit and watch the river flow by as well as the ducks, geese, eagles, woodchucks, and other wildlife. There are few places left to do so that are not private property. I choose to live in Troy because I was born here and in Lansingburgh because I can walk to the Hudson River and the “Sacred Forest” and now, even the Farmer’s Market during the winter months. The forest helps maintain breathable air in Troy as well as contributing to improved mental health for residents, which are important in all urban areas from a public health perspective. My neighborhood is barely above sea level and clearcutting removes the natural defenses against flooding and

1 storm damage. As a National Weather Service storm spotter, I can say that there has been nothing to report in the last two years; but this could change if you remove our natural defenses along the Hudson River.

During three public hearings the public provided more than eight hours of testimony in opposition to the rezoning, alongside numerous written submissions, expert testimonies and reports. The public is united in its opposition to approve the rezoning of this property to make way for a 240 unit housing development. As public officials it is your responsibility to listen to your constituents. Considering our clear position across party lines alongside the historical, archeological, cultural and ecological significance of this sacred land, and its being located in a New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) “Potential Environmental Justice Area”, the planning commission and the city must make the protection and preservation of this land its highest priority. Considering the issues of segmentation, inconsistencies with the comprehensive plan and process requirements established in SEQR, the Planning Commission must recommend against rezoning at this time for all of the reasons stated.

There are plenty of places around Troy away from, but within short walking distance to, the Hudson River that are blighted and would be more appropriate for development, especially large-scale residential development.

Thank you for protecting the natural and cultural resources of Troy so everyone can enjoy them, Vivian

Vivian S. James, M.A. Lansingburgh, Troy, New York RPA #28576725 Phone: (770) 548-1384 Email: [email protected]

2 Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone

------Original message ------From: Ijustino Date: 1/28/21 1:37 PM (GMT-05:00) To: "Steven.Strichman" , "James.Rath" Subject: WRITTEN STATEMENT FOR PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING ON THURSDAY, Jan 28th, 2021

Dear Members of the Planning Commission

* Please enter this letter into the record and include it in the minutes of the upcoming Planning Commission Hearing (January 28, 2021)

My name is Ian Justino. I live in the Albany area.

I am writing to you to oppose the requested zoning change for 1011 2nd Avenue (Tax Parcel 70.64-1-1).

The “Sacred Forest” at 1011 2nd Avenue is unique. It is part of this area's history. It is an important indigenous cultural and historical heritage site. It has a rare and important ecology. It protects the city and contributes to public health.

This forest deserves our protection!

I ask the Planning Commission to:

– Recommend against the rezoning

– Recommend for the Sacred Forest at 1011 2nd Avenue to be designated as Critical Environmental Area.

1 Because of the significance of this forest, you should recommend this forest to be designated as Critical Environmental Area. The City of Troy can make this designation right now — it would ensure that the ecological, cultural, historical-archaeological and community significance of the forest is taken into full consideration for any future actions and developments of this site. The “Sacred Forest” at 1011 2nd Avenue exceeds all criteria for such a designation.

Thank you.

Ian Justino Albany NY 1/28/2021

2 Aaron.Vera

From: Tim John Kennedy Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2021 4:13 PM To: Patrick.Madden; Carmella.Mantello; citycouncil; Steven.Strichman; James.Rath Subject: Protect Troy's Sacred Forest at 1011 2nd Avenue

Dear Mayor Patrick Madden, City Council President Carmella Mantello, Members of the Troy City Council, Planning Commissioner Steven Strichman, and Members of the Planning Commission

My name is [insert name]. I live in the [insert city/town/village].

I am writing to you to oppose the requested zoning change for 1011 2nd Avenue (Tax Parcel 70.64-1-1).

The %u201CSacred Forest%u201D at 1011 2nd Avenue is the city%u2019s last untouched forest along the Hudson River as well as a nationally significant (National Register eligible) indigenous heritage site with artifacts dating back to 1500-3000 B.C. The indigenous peoples maintain ties to this land that grew over 5000 years. For them, this is sacred land. It is unique for its history and cultural heritage.

The %u201CSacred Forest%u201D is also unique for its ecology. There are several county-rare plant species present on this land, some of which are habitat indicators that make the presence of globally rare species likely (the scrub oak as an indicator for the globally rare buck moth, for example).

Changing the zoning to accommodate a known project prior to the State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) process is segmentation ( Kirk-Astor Drive Neighborhood Ass%u2019n. v. Town Board of Town of Pittsford, 106 A.D.2d 868, 869, 483 N.Y.S.2d 526, 528 (4th Dep%u2019t 1984)).

1 its being located in a New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Potential Environmental Justice Area, the planning commission and the city must make the protection and preservation of this land its highest priority. At minimum reduce the site plan foot print to less than 25% of disrupted forest land.

Thank you.

Sincerely, - TJ Kennedy 262 Stow Avenue, Troy NY 12180

2 Aaron.Vera

From: lanoue3 Sent: Monday, January 18, 2021 6:27 PM To: Patrick.Madden; Carmella.Mantello; citycouncil; Steven.Strichman; James.Rath Subject: Protect Troy's Sacred Forest at 1011 2nd Avenue

Dear Mayor Patrick Madden, City Council President Carmella Mantello, Members of the Troy City Council, Planning Commissioner Steven Strichman, and Members of the Planning Commission

My name is Michelle Lanoue. I live in the town of Pittstown, NY.

I am writing to you to oppose the requested zoning change for 1011 2nd Avenue (Tax Parcel 70.64-1-1).

The �201CSacred Forest�201D at 1011 2nd Avenue is the city�2019s last untouched forest along the Hudson River as well as a nationally significant (National Register eligible) indigenous heritage site with artifacts dating back to 1500-3000 B.C. The indigenous peoples maintain ties to this land that grew over 5000 years. For them, this is sacred land. It is unique for its history and cultural heritage.

The �201CSacred Forest�201D is also unique for its ecology. There are several county-rare plant species present on this land, some of which are habitat indicators that make the presence of globally rare species likely (the scrub oak as an indicator for the globally rare buck moth, for example).

As the last natural forest of its kind it provides critical ecosystem services to a community located in a DEC designated �201CPotential Environmental Justice Area�201D (requiring amongst other a full EAF as part of SEQRA, as established in DEC CP 29 �2014 Section E). Its destruction would be an incredible loss for us all. The loss of critical ecosystem services would disproportionately harm the local community of the Potential Environmental Justice Area.

Changing the zoning to accommodate a known project prior to the State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) process is segmentation ( Kirk-Astor Drive Neighborhood Ass�2019n. v. Town Board of Town of Pittsford, 106 A.D.2d 868, 869, 483 N.Y.S.2d 526, 528 (4th Dep�2019t 1984)).

A zoning change should be included as a consideration in the project�2019s Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) if it moves forward with its environmental review. Additionally, a change in the zoning to allow a different use than what is stated in the 2018 �201CRealize Troy�201D Comprehensive Plan would require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, and should be indicated as a �201Cdiscretionary action�201D alongside the rezoning in the full EAF.

As public officials it is your responsibility to listen to your constituents. Considering our clear position across party lines alongside the historical, archeological, cultural and ecological significance of this sacred land, and 1 its being located in a New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) �201CPotential Environmental Justice Area�201D, the planning commission and the city must make the protection and preservation of this land its highest priority.

Thank you. Michelle Lanoue Pittstown January 18, 2020

Sent from my Galaxy

2 Stormwater Quantity and Quality Analysis of 1011 Second Avenue, Troy, NY

Prepared by James Kruegler, water resources specialist Executive Summary Possible development scenarios[1] for the land at 1011 Second Avenue, Troy, NY were analyzed in terms of changes in land cover that would accompany each development scenario. The effects of these changes in land cover on surface runoff and surface water pollution were simulated and compared using the i-Tree Hydro hydrology model[2]. The current scenario was simulated with the “Current” land cover in place, and the two development scenarios were simulated respectively with the “Development 1” and “Development 2” land cover in place.

Relative to the Current scenario, the Development 1 land cover produced 19.3% more surface runoff and the Development 2 land cover produced 19.2% more surface runoff (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Surface runoff for each modeled scenario, classified by the land cover types where the surface runoff was generated.

Based on the above changes in surface runoff, both Development scenarios also generated more pollution, ranging from 142% to 164% increases for each of the pollutants assessed (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Surface water pollution for each modeled scenario, tracking the common surface water pollutants phosphorus (total phosphorus), nitrogen (total nitrogen), and sediment (total suspended solids). Note the y-axis uses a logarithmic scale.

The Development 1 and Development 2 land cover scenarios both produced greater surface runoff and surface water pollution than Current land cover. Assuming the land cover changes involved in the proposed development are reasonable representatives for what would happen in any similar development on this land, it is unlikely that development and the prerequisite zone change could maintain surface runoff and surface water pollution levels comparable to Current land cover.

The accuracy of absolute values reported in this analysis could not be evaluated, and instead it is recommended the relative (%) change values are emphasized within the context of a qualitative rather than quantitative assessment. Given certain characteristics of the land at 1011 Second Avenue, the feasibility of the proposed development (with respect to maintaining state-mandated surface water quantity and quality) is uncertain and cannot be quantitatively evaluated with the present level of detail available.

Background & Objectives This analysis was designed to calculate the surface runoff and pollutant loading of two tax parcels (hereafter referred to as the “Project Area”) located along the Hudson River waterfront and on either side of the border between the City of Troy and the Town of Schaghticoke (Figure 3). The Project Area was analyzed within the context of possible future zone change and development scenarios presently being considered by parties within the City of Troy. These possible future development scenarios, detailed in a document hereafter referred to as the “Development Plan”[1], were analyzed in terms of the changes in land cover distributions that would accompany each development scenario. The effects of these changes in land cover on surface runoff and pollutant loading were simulated and compared using the i-Tree Hydro hydrology model[2]. Figure 3. Location of the Project Area (red) relative to the City of Troy (blue) and the Town of Schaghticoke (pink). Yellow box in image (a) corresponds to the full outline of image (b). Imagery from Google Earth, originally dated circa 2018.

Data and Methods Hourly weather data for the period of 1/1/2010 – 12/30/2010 were derived from a local weather station at Albany International Airport (USAF-WBAN: 725180-14735). This calendar year was selected as a representative sample of annual precipitation for the Project Area, having recorded the median total annual precipitation at this weather station for the years 2001-2019. The current land cover in the Project Area (Table 1, “Current scenario” column) was calculated using the i-Tree Canopy tool[3], which has users photo-interpret Google Earth imagery (image date circa 2020) to classify points within an area of interest. Within this Project Area, 200 randomly-located points had their land cover classified to bring standard error below 2%. The land cover of possible development scenarios (Table 1, columns 3-4) were estimated based on information provided in Table 2-1 and Exhibit 4 of the Development Plan[1].

Table 1. Percent land cover estimates for all modeled scenarios. Due to rounding, estimates may not add up to exactly 100%. Land cover Current scenario Development 1 scenario Development 2 scenario

Trees over pervious 91.5% 22.5% 18.0% Trees over impervious 1.0% 0.25% 0.20% Grass/herbaceous 3.5% 41.2% 46.5% Impervious, no trees 1.0% 36.1% 35.3% Bare soil 3.0% 0% 0%

The i-Tree Hydro model used the above data inputs, along with digital elevation model (DEM) data, to simulate flow and water quality in the Project Area for the period of 1/1/2010 – 12/30/2010. The current scenario was simulated with the “Current” land cover in place, and the two development scenarios were simulated respectively with the “Development 1” and “Development 2” land cover in place. In terms of model output, the total flow Hydro simulates is made up of runoff from pervious surfaces, runoff from impervious surfaces, and baseflow (water traveling underground). For this analysis, surface runoff was defined as the sum of pervious surface flow and impervious surface flow components.

Because the Project Area was not a watershed (i.e., there is more than one point from which all the Project Area’s water leaves that area), Hydro model output could not be calibrated to streamflow observations. This means the accuracy of the absolute values of surface runoff and pollutant loading could not be known. Instead, the relative changes in these values between scenarios were used to describe surface runoff and pollutant loading from the Project Area.

Event mean concentration (EMC) data were multiplied by surface runoff volumes to estimate pollutant loading for total phosphorus (TP), total nitrogen (TN), and total suspended solids (TSS). The EMC values used were based on HUC-8 basin specific pollution export coefficients[4]. The Project Area is located within the HUC-8 basin 02020003, so this was used as the representative basin for extracting pollution coefficients. These data were then used to compute the localized EMCs based on distributions of National Land Cover Database (NLCD) land cover classes[5]. The distributions of NLCD land cover for development scenarios were estimated based on information provided in Section 1.3 and Exhibit 4 of the Development Plan[1]. The Current and Development scenarios each had unique NLCD land cover (Figure 4), and correspondingly a unique set of EMCs was calculated for each scenario (Table 2; median values used for pollutant loading calculations in bold).

Figure 4. Distributions of NLCD land cover classes within the Project Area for all scenarios. All maps are oriented with north at the top.

Table 2. Distributions of localized event mean concentrations (EMCs, oz/ft3) based on White et al. (2015)[1] and Stephan et al. (2017)[6]. Median values used for pollutant loading calculations in bold. Scenario Pollutant Minimum Low Median High Maximum (oz/ft3) (oz/ft3) (oz/ft3) (oz/ft3) (oz/ft3) TP 2.85E-05 5.94E-05 2.32E-04 5.59E-04 8.39E-04 Current TN 1.17E-03 1.67E-03 3.51E-03 6.49E-03 9.44E-03 TSS 0.0309 0.0520 0.178 0.707 1.31

TP 7.45E-05 1.11E-04 5.00E-04 1.29E-03 1.79E-03 Development TN 2.81E-03 3.70E-03 7.64E-03 0.0142 0.0191 1 TSS 0.0909 0.132 0.361 1.72 3.33

TP 7.61E-05 1.13E-04 5.10E-04 1.31E-03 1.83E-03 Development TN 2.86E-03 3.76E-03 7.78E-03 0.0145 0.0194 2 TSS 0.0929 0.135 0.369 1.76 3.40

Results Relative to the Current scenario, the Development 1 land cover produced 19.3% more surface runoff and the Development 2 land cover produced 19.2% more surface runoff (Table 3; surface runoff column in bold). In Development 1, about 36% of this extra surface runoff was generated over pervious surfaces and 64% was generated over impervious surfaces. In Development 2, about 40% of this extra surface runoff was generated over pervious surfaces and 60% was generated over impervious surfaces.

In both Development scenarios, the increase in impervious cover (Table 1) from the Current scenario meant that a much higher fraction of that impervious cover was considered directly connected to the Project Area’s outlets. This in turn made it more likely that precipitation falling onto impervious surfaces would have been carried to an outlet exclusively along impervious surfaces, rather than that impervious runoff encountering pervious surfaces to infiltrate or become pervious runoff.

Table 3. Surface runoff (bold) and its components for the Current and Development scenarios, in millions of cubic feet and percent change from Current land cover. Scenario Pervious runoff Impervious runoff Surface runoff Current (mil. ft3) 0.836 3.21E-05 0.836

Development 1 (mil. ft3) 0.894 0.103 0.997 Change from Current 6.98% 3.22E+05% 19.3%

Development 2 (mil. ft3) 0.899 0.0970 0.996 Change From Current 7.59% 3.02E+05% 19.2%

Based on the above changes in surface runoff, both Development scenarios also generated more pollution for each of the pollutants assessed (Table 4). In both cases, total nitrogen experienced the greatest relative (%) increase in pollution and total suspended solids had the greatest absolute (tons) increase in pollution. The percent changes in pollutant loading are different for each pollutant because the distribution of NLCD land cover classes shifted between each scenario, which changed the EMC calculation as described in the “Data and Methods” section. As each of the NLCD classes is associated with its own range of EMC values for each pollutant constituent, a change in the amount of any one NLCD class can affect the loading of each pollutant differently by affecting both pollutant concentrations and runoff volume.

Table 4. Estimated pollutant loading of total phosphorus, total nitrogen, and total suspended solids for all modeled scenarios, in tons (2,000 lbs) and percent change from Current. Scenario TP (tons) TN (tons) TSS (tons) Current 0.00606 0.0917 4.65

Development 1 0.0156 0.238 11.3 Change from Current 157% 160% 142%

Development 2 0.0159 0.242 11.5 Change from Current 162% 164% 147%

Discussion & Conclusions The Development 1&2 land cover scenarios both produced greater surface runoff and surface water pollution than Current land cover. The distributions of land cover types between the two Development scenarios were similar, and in turn these scenarios resulted in similar changes in water quantity and quality for the modeled Project Area. Amounts of tree and impervious cover both influence what fraction of rainfall Hydro will partition into surface runoff. Removing tree canopy and expanding impervious surfaces are two separate but interrelated changes that increased surface runoff and surface water pollution in the Development scenarios. Assuming the land cover changes proposed in the Development Plan are reasonable representatives for what would happen in any similar development of the Project Area, it is unlikely that development and the prerequisite zone change could maintain surface runoff and surface water pollution levels comparable to Current land cover.

The accuracy of absolute values reported in this analysis could not be evaluated, and instead it is recommended the relative (%) change values are emphasized within the context of a qualitative rather than quantitative assessment. The fact that the Hydro model could not be calibrated contributed some uncertainty to the analysis, but a lack of necessary details in the Development Plan made it impossible to perform a more quantitative assessment, let alone to rigorously evaluate such an assessment. For example, the Development Plan states (pages 4-5[1]) that stormwater management mechanisms such as “bioretention basins” and “stormwater ponds” would be incorporated into the Project Area, and that proposed development “would be designed so that the total site runoff of stormwater will be less than or equal to existing conditions and in conformance with NYSDEC storm water permit 15-00-002”. This is the full extent of details offered in the Development Plan regarding stormwater management infrastructure, however. At no point is any of this infrastructure described in terms of the specific performance criteria required by the latest iteration of the aforementioned NYSDEC stormwater permit[7] and the New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual[8]. These performance criteria would provide the information necessary to quantitatively evaluate if the proposed development in the Development Plan is feasible and practical for the Project Area. Given certain characteristics of the Project Area (steep and highly variable grade[1], low/no depth to bedrock[9]), the feasibility of the Development Plan with respect to maintaining state-mandated surface water quantity and quality is uncertain with the present level of detail available.

References 1. M.J. Engineering & Land Surveying, P.C.. Project Narrative for SECOND AVENUE: City of Troy & Town of Schaghticoke Rensselaer County, New York. Prepared for Kevin Vandenburgh, October 28, 2020. 2. Wang, J., Endreny, T.A. and Nowak, D.J. (2008), Mechanistic Simulation of Tree Effects in an Urban Water Balance Model1. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 44: 75-85. doi:10.1111/j.1752-1688.2007.00139.x 3. i-Tree. 2011. I-Tree Canopy technical notes. I-Tree Methods and Files Archives. https://canopy.itreetools.org/resources/iTree_Canopy_Methodology.pdf 4. White, M., D. Harmel, H. Yen, J. Arnold, M. Gambone, and R. Haney. 2015. Development of sediment and nutrient export coefficients for U.S. ecoregions. Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) 51(3): 758-775. 5. Homer, C. G., Dewitz, J. A., Yang, L., Jin, S., Danielson, P., Xian, G., Coulston, J., Herold, N. D., Wickham, J. D., and K. Megown. 2015. Completion of the 2011 National Land Cover Database for the conterminous United States—Representing a decade of land cover change information: Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 81(5): 345–354. 6. Stephan, E.A., Coville, R.C., White, M., Endreny, T.A., and D.J. Nowak. 2017. Estimating pollutant coefficients for sediment, total N, and total P specific to NLCD classes within HUC-8s nationwide. (Research in progress.) SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, NY. 7. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2020. SPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges. Effective date January 29, 2020, available online at https://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/water_pdf/constgp020001.pdf. 8. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2015. New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual. Updated by NYSDEC January 2015, available online at https://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/29072.html. 9. Friends of the Mahicantuck. 2021. TROY’S SACRED FOREST: Its culture, ecology, history, archaeology, and significance to the community. Compiled and published January 22, 2021, available online at http://www.friendsofthemahicantuck.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/final-jan2021-Report- SACRED-FOREST.pdf.

Aaron.Vera

From: Angela Maleski Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2021 10:34 PM To: Patrick.Madden; Carmella.Mantello; citycouncil; Steven.Strichman; James.Rath Subject: Protect Troy's Sacred Forest at 1011 2nd Avenue

Dear Mayor Patrick Madden, City Council President Carmella Mantello, Members of the Troy City Council, Planning Commissioner Steven Strichman, and Members of the Planning Commission

My name is [insert name]. I live in the [insert city/town/village].

I am writing to you to oppose the requested zoning change for 1011 2nd Avenue (Tax Parcel 70.64-1-1).

The ��201CSacred Forest��201D at 1011 2nd Avenue is the city��2019s last untouched forest along the Hudson River as well as a nationally significant (National Register eligible) indigenous heritage site with artifacts dating back to 1500-3000 B.C. The indigenous peoples maintain ties to this land that grew over 5000 years. For them, this is sacred land. It is unique for its history and cultural heritage.

The ��201CSacred Forest��201D is also unique for its ecology. There are several county-rare plant species present on this land, some of which are habitat indicators that make the presence of globally rare species likely (the scrub oak as an indicator for the globally rare buck moth, for example).

As the last natural forest of its kind it provides critical ecosystem services to a community located in a DEC designated ��201CPotential Environmental Justice Area��201D (requiring amongst other a full EAF as part of SEQRA, as established in DEC CP 29 ��2014 Section E). Its destruction would be an incredible loss for us all. The loss of critical ecosystem services would disproportionately harm the local community of the Potential Environmental Justice Area.

Changing the zoning to accommodate a known project prior to the State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) process is segmentation ( Kirk-Astor Drive Neighborhood Ass��2019n. v. Town Board of Town of Pittsford, 106 A.D.2d 868, 869, 483 N.Y.S.2d 526, 528 (4th Dep��2019t 1984)).

A zoning change should be included as a consideration in the project��2019s Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) if it moves forward with its environmental review. Additionally, a change in the zoning to allow a different use than what is stated in the 2018 ��201CRealize Troy��201D Comprehensive Plan would require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, and should be indicated as a ��201Cdiscretionary action��201D alongside the rezoning in the full EAF.

As public officials it is your responsibility to listen to your constituents. Considering our clear position across

1 party lines alongside the historical, archeological, cultural and ecological significance of this sacred land, and its being located in a New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) ��201CPotential Environmental Justice Area��201D, the planning commission and the city must make the protection and preservation of this land its highest priority.

Thank you.

Angela Maleski Lansingburgh 11/16/21

2 Aaron.Vera

From: mercs hej Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 2:32 AM To: Patrick.Madden; Carmella.Mantello; citycouncil; Steven.Strichman; James.Rath Subject: Protect Sacred Forest at 1011 2nd Avenue

Dear

Mayor Patrick Madden, City Council President Carmella Mantello, Members of the Troy City Council, Planning Commissioner Steven Strichman, and Members of the Planning Commission

My name is Sheila Mercer. I live in North Troy.

I am writing to you to oppose the requested zoning change for 1011 2nd Avenue (Tax Parcel 70.64‐1‐1).

The “Sacred Forest” is also unique for its ecology. There are several county‐rare plant species present on this land, some of which are habitat indicators that make the presence of globally rare species likely (the scrub oak as an indicator for the globally rare buck moth, for example).

As the last natural forest of its kind it provides critical ecosystem services to a community located in a DEC designated “Potential Environmental Justice Area” (requiring amongst other a full EAF as part of SEQRA, as established in DEC CP 29 — Section E). Its destruction would be an incredible loss for us all. The loss of critical ecosystem services would disproportionately harm the local community of the Potential Environmental Justice Area.

Changing the zoning to accommodate a known project prior to the State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) process is segmentation ( Kirk‐Astor Drive Neighborhood Ass’n. v. Town Board of Town of Pittsford, 106 A.D.2d 868, 869, 483 N.Y.S.2d 526, 528 (4th Dep’t 1984)).

A zoning change should be included as a consideration in the project’s Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) if it moves forward with its environmental review. Additionally, a change in the zoning to allow a different use than what is stated in the 2018 “Realize Troy” Comprehensive Plan would require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, and should be indicated as a “discretionary action” alongside the rezoning in the full EAF.

As public officials it is your responsibility to listen to your constituents. Considering our clear position across party lines alongside the historical, archeological, cultural and ecological significance of this sacred land, and its being located in a New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) “Potential Environmental Justice Area”, the planning commission and the city must make the protection and preservation of this land its highest priority.

Thank you.

Sheila Mercer Troy, NY January 19, 2021

2 Aaron.Vera

From: V Perrins Sent: Friday, January 15, 2021 8:32 PM To: Patrick.Madden; Carmella.Mantello; citycouncil; Steven.Strichman; James.Rath Subject: Protect Troy's Sacred Forest at 1011 2nd Avenue

Dear Mayor Patrick Madden, City Council President Carmella Mantello, Members of the Troy City Council, Planning Commissioner Steven Strichman, and Members of the Planning Commission

My name is Valerie Perrins. I live in the City of Troy.

I am writing to you to oppose the requested zoning change for 1011 2nd Avenue (Tax Parcel 70.64‐1‐1).

The Sacred Forest at 1011 2nd Avenue is the city’s last untouched forest along the Hudson River as well as a nationally significant (National Register eligible) indigenous heritage site with artifacts dating back to 1500‐3000 B.C. The indigenous peoples maintain ties to this land that grew over 5000 years. For them, this is sacred land. It is unique for its history and cultural heritage.

The Sacred Forest is also unique for its ecology. There are several county‐rare plant species present on this land, some of which are habitat indicators that make the presence of globally rare species likely (the scrub oak as an indicator for the globally rare buck moth, for example).

As public officials it is your responsibility to listen to your constituents. Considering our clear position across party lines alongside the historical, archeological, cultural and ecological significance of this sacred land, and its being located in a New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Potential Environmental Justice Area, the planning commission and the city must make the protection and preservation of this land its highest priority.

We have lost too much of our natural environment already and need to preserve what we have left.

Thank you.

Valerie H. Perrins 38 Pinewoods Ave. Troy, NY. 12180 01/15/21

1 Aaron.Vera

From: Steven.Strichman Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2021 1:19 PM To: Aaron.Vera Subject: FW: Protect Sacred Forest at 1011 2nd Avenue

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Kurt Przybilla [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2021 1:11 PM To: Patrick.Madden; Carmella.Mantello; citycouncil; Steven.Strichman; James.Rath Subject: Protect Sacred Forest at 1011 2nd Avenue

Dear Mayor Patrick Madden, City Council President Carmella Mantello, Members of the Troy City Council, Planning Commissioner Steven Strichman, and Members of the Planning Commission

My name is Kurt Przybilla and I am proud to live in Troy.

I am writing to you to oppose the requested zoning change for 1011 2nd Avenue (Tax Parcel 70.64‐1‐1).

The “Sacred Forest” at 1011 2nd Avenue is the city’s last untouched forest along the Hudson River (!!!) as well as a nationally significant (National Register eligible) indigenous heritage site with artifacts dating back to 1500‐3000 B.C. ! The indigenous peoples maintain ties to this land that grew over 5000 years. For them, this is sacred land. It is unique for its history and cultural heritage.

1 As public officials it is your responsibility to listen to your constituents. Considering our clear position across party lines alongside the historical, archeological, cultural and ecological significance of this sacred land, and its being located in a New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) “Potential Environmental Justice Area”, the planning commission and the city must make the protection and preservation of this land its highest priority.

Thank you.

Kurt Przybilla

Troy, NY Jan. 27, 2021

2 Aaron.Vera

From: John Raup Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 7:01 PM To: Patrick.Madden; Carmella.Mantello; citycouncil; Steven.Strichman; James.Rath Subject: Protect Troy's Sacred Forest at 1011 2nd Avenue

Dear Mayor Patrick Madden, City Council President Carmella Mantello, Members of the Troy City Council, Planning Commissioner Steven Strichman, and Members of the Planning Commission

My name is John Raup. I live in Troy NY.

I am writing to you to oppose the requested zoning change for 1011 2nd Avenue (Tax Parcel 70.64-1-1).

John Raup 18 Chester Ct. Troy, NY 12182 (518) 238‐1288

1 Aaron.Vera

From: Steven.Strichman Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2021 10:56 AM To: Aaron.Vera Subject: FW: Written Statement: Save 1011 2nd Ave — Planning Commission Hearing Thursday JAN 28, 2021

Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone

------Original message ------From: Jacob Shipley Date: 1/27/21 6:34 PM (GMT-05:00) To: "Steven.Strichman" Subject: Written Statement: Save 1011 2nd Ave — Planning Commission Hearing Thursday JAN 28, 2021

Dear Members of the Planning Commission

* Please enter this letter into the record and include it in the minutes of the upcoming Planning Commission Hearing (January 28, 2021)

My name is Jacob Shipley and I am from Troy, NY.

I am writing to you to oppose the requested zoning change for 1011 2nd Avenue (Tax Parcel 70.64-1-1).

The “Sacred Forest” at 1011 2nd Avenue is unique. It is part of our history. It is an important indigenous cultural and historical heritage site. It has a rare and important ecology. It protects the city and contributes to public health.

This forest deserves our protection!

I ask the Planning Commission to:

– Recommend against the rezoning

– Recommend for the Sacred Forest at 1011 2nd Avenue to be designated as Critical Environmental Area.

Because of the significance of this forest, you should recommend this forest to be designated as Critical

1 Environmental Area. The City of Troy can make this designation right now — it would ensure that the ecological, cultural, historical-archaeological and community significance of the forest is taken into full consideration for any future actions and developments of this site. The “Sacred Forest” at 1011 2nd Avenue exceeds all criteria for such a designation.

In a time of reckoning for us all where we are learning to engage and repair communities that have been so long underserved, to go against the will of our local indigenous communities would be an absolute failure. We have the chance to not only be on the right side of history, but to begin to right the wrongs of our ancestors. Let us designate this site as a Critical Environmental Area and help it to retain the meaning and value it has for the peoples who long inhabited this land before we came here.

Thank you. Jacob Shipley Troy, NY 1/27/2021

Jacob Shipley he/him www.jacobshipley.com insta: @jacobtshipley

2 Aaron.Vera

From: Erin S Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2021 4:48 PM To: Patrick.Madden; Carmella.Mantello; citycouncil; Steven.Strichman; James.Rath Subject: Protect Sacred Forest at 1011 2nd Avenue

Dear Mayor Patrick Madden, City Council President Carmella Mantello, Members of the Troy City Council, Planning Commissioner Steven Strichman, and Members of the Planning Commission

My name is Erin Sickler. I live in Troy.

I am writing to you to oppose the requested zoning change for 1011 2nd Avenue (Tax Parcel 70.64-1-1).

Changing the zoning to accommodate a known project prior to the State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) process is segmentation ( Kirk-Astor Drive Neighborhood Ass’n. v. Town Board of Town of Pittsford, 106 A.D.2d 868, 869, 483 N.Y.S.2d 526, 528 (4th Dep’t 1984)).

As public officials it is your responsibility to listen to your constituents. Considering our clear position across party lines alongside the historical, archeological, cultural and ecological significance of this sacred land, and its being located in a New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) “Potential Environmental Justice Area”, the planning commission and the city must make the protection and preservation

1 of this land its highest priority.

Thank you.

Erin Sickler Troy, NY 1/16/21

2 Aaron.Vera

From: Friends of the Mahicantuck Sent: Friday, January 22, 2021 1:16 PM To: Patrick.Madden; Carmella.Mantello; Steven.Strichman; Mara.Drogan; citycouncil; Aaron.Vera; James.Rath; Jim.Gulli; kim.Mcpherson; Sue.Steele; Anasha.Cummings; Ken Zalewski; Eileen.Mcdermott Cc: Friends of the Mahicantuck Subject: Report on the Sacred Forest at 1011 2nd Avenue in Lansingburgh, Troy, NY Attachments: 2021_01_22 SACRED FOREST Report.pdf

Dear Mayor Patrick Madden, City Council President Carmella Mantello, Members of the City Council, Members of the Planning Commission, and Planning Commissioner Steven Strichman,

Please find enclosed for your consideration our comprehensive report on the significance of the “Sacred Forest” in Lansingburgh at 1011 2nd Avenue.

We hereby also submit this report to be added to the record and to the minutes for the upcoming Planning Commission hearing on January 28th at 6pm.

You will find this report provides you with

1) a comprehensive assessment of the significance of the land at 1011 2nd Avenue in Troy, NY, including the site’s qualification to be designated as Critical Environmental Area

2) an analysis of several significant negative impacts associated with the lands rezoning to higher density,

3) an analysis of several significant negative impacts associated with development of the site,

4) recommendations for further actions.

We hope you find this report helpful in your considerations.

How to access the most comprehensive information contained in the report: The report, although extensive, can be useful in many ways. - It is designed to provide the most critical information in fast and easy ways through an Executive Summary - Additionally, each section opens with a “highlights - box” that provides the most important information of each section at a glance. - Finally, the sections themselves provide in-depth and detailed information, analysis, references and evidence. - The report is concluded with an overview of all highlights for the preceding sections. - The Appendix provides further testimony and studies of the site.

1 Based on the evidence provided in this report, alongside the 8+ hours of public testimony in opposition to rezoning and development, countless written submissions, as well as 2500 signatures to our petitions we therefore recommend:

1) Making the preservation and protection of the “Sacred Forest” at 1011 2nd Avenue the City of Troy’s highest priority

2) Elected officials take the necessary steps to ensure that proper procedural steps are followed and potential inconsistencies with the law are remedied

3) The Planning Commission recommend against the rezoning for a) the significance of the site; b) anticipated adverse environmental impacts of a change in zoning code as well as of a potential development; and as c) a positive recommendation would be premature until SEQRA review is completed;

4) The City Council to follow such a negative recommendation in its subsequent decision about rezoning;

5) The Members of the City Council to introduce action initiating process to designate the site as CSA at the next regular meeting on February 4, 2021.

6) The City of Troy designate the site at 1011 2nd Avenue as Critical Environmental Area (CEA) to ensure the adequate consideration of its environmental significance in any future actions on this site and as this site meets and exceeds all necessary criteria for such a designation as outlined in CRR-NY 617.14(g)

We anticipate you will take swift and decisive action towards long-term preservation and protection of this site.

Thank you for your consideration!

Friends of the Mahicantuck www.save1011.org [email protected]

2 To Whom it May Concern,

The preservation of Troy’s last remaining, culturally historical, untouched forest along the Hudson River is an absolute pertinent decision in standing for the positive direction our city desperately needs and desires. Nearing roughly 5,000 years of historical and cultural value, Troy’s sacred indigenous forest at 1011 2nd Avenue in Lansingburgh MUST be preserved, out of respect for both current residents and of course, the Native peoples of Troy.

In part, the future of Troy relies on the level of respect we hold for our past. The Natives of Troy were once forced out of their home, their beloved community, in which they had worked painstakingly hard to establish. Now, after 250 years, ancestors have certainly never forgotten their home…a place they still return to visit, to this day. We cannot take that away from these people.

Please do not neglect the fact that this location has been recognized as eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Do not forgot, this development plan is inconsistent with the city of Troy’s 2018 “Realize Troy Comprehensive Plan”. This also works in contrast to our city’s efforts of cultural inclusion. Let us not go back on our word. Stand for what is right, stand for Troy’s Historical Preservation.

In addition, this land is a perfect alternative to indoor activities during the global pandemic. Troy is known for our historical sites and we cannot destroy any part of our last remaining forest along the Hudson. Please consider preserving this rare, natural space in an effort to rescue our city’s safe escape during these unfortunate, unprecedented times.

Do you want to DESTROY Troy’s last remaining riverfront forest? Do you want to DESTROY and pave over the last remaining cultural and historical cite many members of the community (especially those who cannot afford a vehicle) can currently utilize for fishing access? The list goes on.

As you can see, the city of Troy’s Planning Commission should undoubtedly recommend against the rezoning plan and come together to act in effort in the preservation of our Sacred land by recommending the forest’s designation as a Critical Environmental Area.

Respectfully,

Dakotah Toma

1 Aaron.Vera

From: Brian Trautman Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2021 3:23 PM To: Patrick.Madden; Carmella.Mantello; citycouncil; Steven.Strichman; James.Rath Cc: [email protected] Subject: PROTECT AND PRESERVE THE SACRED SITE AT 1011 2nd AVE

Dear Mayor Madden, City Council President Mantello, Members of the Troy City Council, Planning Commissioner Strichman, and Members of the Planning Commission:

Good day. My name is Brian Trautman, and I live in North Greenbush, NY and work, volunteer and recreate in the city of Troy, NY. I have been a resident of the area since 2008.

I am writing to you to oppose the requested zoning change for 1011 2nd Avenue (Tax Parcel 70.64-1-1).

As public officials it is your responsibility to listen to your constituents. Considering our clear position across party lines alongside the historical, archaeological, cultural and ecological significance of this sacred land, and its being located in a New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) “Potential Environmental Justice Area”, the planning commission and the city must make the protection and preservation of this land its highest priority.

It is absolutely imperative that we do everything in our power to protect and defend sacred Indigenous sites and to respect and honor ancestral lands and their original inhabitants and descendants. It is incumbent upon us not to allow greed, political or corporate pressure, and ethnocentrism cloud our moral judgment and prevent us from acting as a protector and guardian of sacred lands and all of Nature on behalf of past, current and future generations. Please follow your conscience and be on the right side of history in your deliberations and decision on this most urgent and critical of issues.

Thank you for listening.

Brian Trautman

North Greenbush/Troy

1/21/21

2 Environmental Protection Fund Local Waterfront Revitalization Program

List of Coastal Waterbodies and Designated Inland Waterways

COASTAL WATERBODIES

Arthur Kill Lake Ontario Atlantic Ocean Lake Erie East River Long Island Sound Harlem River Niagara River Hudson River (south of federal dam at Troy) St. Lawrence River Kill van Kull

DESIGNATED INLAND WATERWAYS

Allegheny River Little River (in the Adirondack Park) Ausable River Little Salmon (North and South Branches) Big Tupper Lake Little Sandy Creek Black Lake Long Lake Black River Mad River Boquet River Mettowee River Buffalo River Mirror Lake Bush Kill Mohawk River Canadarago Lake Moose River (North and Middle Branches) Canandaigua Lake Oatka Creek Canisteo River Oneida Lake Cattaraugus Creek Onondaga Creek Cayuga Lake Onondaga Lake Chaumont River (including Chaumont Bay) Oswegatchie River Chautauqua Lake Otisco Lake Chemung River Otsego Lake Cincinatti Creek Owasco Lake Cohocton River Raquette Lake Conesus Lake Raquette River Cranberry Lake Sacandaga Lake Delaware River Sacandaga River Deer River Salmon River East Kill Sandy Creek Esopus Creek (Upper and Lower Branches) Saranac River Fish Creek (East and West Branches) Saratoga Lake Fulton Chain of Lakes Schoharie Creek Genesee River Schroon Lake Gooseberry Creek Seneca Lake Grasse River Silver Lake (in Wyoming County) Great Sacandaga Lake Skaneateles Lake Honeoye Lake South Sandy Creek Hudson River (north of federal dam at Troy) State Barge Canal System Indian Lake Susquehanna River Indian River Tioga River Keuka Lake Tioughnioga River Lake Champlain Tonawanda Creek Lake George Upper Saranac Lake Lake Placid Wallkill River Lake Ronkonkoma West Kill

NOTE: Coastal waterbodies and designated inland waterways are defined in Executive Law, Article 42, Section 911. Coastal waterbodies also include embayments and tributaries that are within New York State's Coastal area.

Revised July 2012 Aaron.Vera

From: Sharon Wesley Sent: Monday, January 18, 2021 12:07 AM To: Patrick.Madden; Carmella.Mantello; citycouncil; Steven.Strichman; James.Rath Subject: Opposed to housing development at 1011 2nd Ave

I believe historic Lansingburgh can market charm and history as much or more than downtown Troy has. Why not make it city-wide identity? It's also heartbreaking to see how Cohoes across the river has allowed so much potential Hudson River access to simply become exclusive and privately owned - wall to wall buildings - No green space. Only NYS has held any green space for public use there and it is still limited functionally. Maybe we can do better and gind a way to still promote compatible business and Nearby but not shoreline desirable housing. So tired of the ugly flat-topped buildings going up around the Capital Region. And very desirous of seeing Native indigenous history revealed and promoted. Sharon Wesley 509 3rd Ave

1 Aaron.Vera

From: Kirk Winans Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2021 7:12 PM To: Patrick.Madden; Carmella.Mantello; citycouncil; Steven.Strichman; James.Rath Subject: Protect Sacred Forest at 1011 2nd Avenue

Dear

Mayor Patrick Madden, City Council President Carmella Mantello, Members of the Troy City Council, Planning Commissioner Steven Strichman, and Members of the Planning Commission

My name is Kirk Winans. I live in Troy.

I am writing to you to oppose the requested zoning change for 1011 2nd Avenue (Tax Parcel 70.64-1-1).

1 being located in a New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) “Potential Environmental Justice Area”, the planning commission and the city must make the protection and preservation of this land its highest priority.

Thank you,

Kirk Winans Troy, NY

Assistant Manager College Experience Program Living Resources