DOCSLIB.ORG

NEW YORK RISING COMMUNITY RECONSTRUCTION PROGRAM CONCEPTUAL PLAN City of Schenectady, Town of Rotterdam

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
NEW YORK RISING COMMUNITY RECONSTRUCTION PROGRAM CONCEPTUAL PLAN City of Schenectady, Town of Rotterdam NEW YORK RISING COMMUNITY RECONSTRUCTION PROGRAM CONCEPTUAL PLAN City of Schenectady, Town of Rotterdam October 2013 ISI Y R NG N C O S M IE M U NIT This document was developed by the City of Schenectady and the Town of Rotterdam Planning Committee as part of the NY Rising Community Reconstruction (NYRCR) Program within the Governor’s Office of Storm Recovery. The NYRCR Program is supported by NYS Homes and Community Renewal, NYS Department of State, and NYS Department of Transportation. Assistance was provided by the following consulting firms: Ecology and Environment, Inc. and River Street Planning & Development FOREWORD The New York Rising Community Reconstruction (NYRCR) program was established by Governor Andrew M. Cuomo to provide additional rebuilding and revitalization assistance to communities damaged by Superstorm Sandy, Hurricane Irene, and Tropical Storm Lee. This program empowers communities to prepare locally-driven recovery plans to identify innovative reconstruction projects and other needed actions to allow each community not only to survive, but also to thrive in an era when natural risks will become increasingly common. The NYRCR program is managed by the Governor’s Office of Storm Recovery in conjunction with New York State Homes and Community Renewal and the Department of State. The NYRCR program consists of both planning and implementation phases, to assist communities in making informed recovery decisions. The development of this conceptual plan is the result of innumerable hours of effort from volunteer planning committee members, members of the public, municipal employees, elected officials, state employees, and planning consultants. Across the state, over 102 communities are working together to build back better and stronger. This conceptual plan is a snapshot of the current thoughts of the community and planning committee. The plans will evolve as communities analyze the risk to their assets, their needs and opportunities, the potential costs and benefits of projects and actions, and their priorities. As projects are more fully defined, the potential impact on neighboring municipalities or the region as a whole may lead to further modifications. In the months ahead, communities will develop ways to implement additional strategies for economic revitalization, human services, housing, infrastructure, natural and cultural resources, and the community’s capacity to implement changes. Implementation of the proposed projects and actions found in this conceptual plan is subject to applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations. Inclusion of a project or action in this conceptual plan does not guarantee that a particular project or action will be eligible for Community Development Block Grant – Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) funding. Proposed projects or actions may be eligible for other state or federal funding, or could be accomplished with municipal, nonprofit or private investment. Each NYRCR Community will continue to engage the public as they develop a final plan for community reconstruction. Events will be held to receive feedback on the conceptual plan, to provide an understanding of risk to assets, and to gather additional ideas for strategies, projects and actions. October 31, 2013 New York Rising Communities Find out more at: StormRecovery.ny.gov/Community-Reconstruction-Program The Daily Gazette The Daily Gazette The Daily Gazette EXECUTIVE SUMMARY October 2013 The City of Schenectady and the Town of Rotterdam will be resilient: they will anticipate flood risks, limit impacts to property and infrastructure when flooding is unavoidable, and respond efficiently and recover quickly, in a manner that protects traditional community neighborhoods, quality of life, and takes advantage of waterfront opportunities. –Community Vision Statement New York Rising Communities Program WORKING DRAFT Conceptual Plan City of Schenectady, Town of Rotterdam Impacts of Recent Flooding City of Schenectady Preliminary Priority Projects On August 29, 2011, Tropical Storm Irene caused extensive damage throughout Schenectady County. Install an emergency generator at Schenectady County Community Install generator back-up at Rotterdam wellhead and protection from A week later, Tropical Storm Lee hit the same area, compounding the damage already caused by Irene. College (SCCC) for critical services. flooding through the use of berms. Schenectady (population 66,000) As the floodwaters receded, hundreds of home and business owners were faced with the need to Elevate or protect the parking garage at SCCC. Complete a Canalway Study for drainage management and access. has a heritage of industry tied to its rebuild and/or renovate. Rotterdam Junction was severely impacted by the flood waters from Tropical location along the Mohawk River, Erie Storms Irene and Lee. The primary flooding inundated eighty-four homes; 52 were flooded on the Conduct a River Flow Management study with the Canal Corporation to Expand Riverside Park and create new public access on the River adjacent Canal, and major roadways. It is the first floor and 32 were flooded up to the second floor. Flood waters reached 18 feet high on Scrafford better manage high water. to East Front Street neighborhood in Schenectady. home of General Electric (GE) and the Lane, Isabella Street, Lock Street, Iroquois Street and Erie Street (Figures 1, 2). Flood waters remained in Implement the City’s Gateway Implementation Plan to enhance a key Develop additional passive and active recreational amenities on the former home of American Locomotive these neighborhoods for up to six days following the storms. Residents who had not evacuated found City gateway, improve connections between SCCC, downtown and the River in the area of East Front Street and in connection with the Hudson Company (ALCO). In recent years, themselves trapped in the Hamlet because Route 5S was flooded, the Route 103 bridge was damaged Stockade Neighborhood. Mohawk Bike Hike Trail. GE has scaled back operations while its roadway and embankment was washed away. This effectively turned Rotterdam Junction into and ALCO is bankrupt, leading to an island surrounded by debris-laden flood waters, making it that much more dangerous to attempt to Daylight/restore Cowhorn Creek, Hans Groot Kill (College Creek), and Overhaul and install new drainage system on SCCC Washington Avenue tough financial times and a loss of leave. Areas of the City of Schenectady were also inundated during Tropical Storms Irene and Lee. Key other tributaries. campus to alleviate backups. population. The Town of Rotterdam damage recorded: (population 29,000) includes rural Complete North Ferry Street Pump Station flood mitigation. Provide flood protection for the National Grid substation. housing and small villages in the hills • Schenectady’s wastewater system, including the North Ferry Street Pump Station, built in 1913, and west of Albany and Schenectady, the South Ferry Street pump station were inundated. Identify a flood mitigation strategy for the Stockade Neighborhood and Create a greenbelt loop and interconnecting greenspace along the East Front Street absent the ability to move all structures out of the flood Mohawk River incorporating Glenville/Scotia and Schenectady via the and some heavy industry; the • Low-lying areas of the city’s historical neighborhood, the Stockade, were flooded. hamlets of Rotterdam Junction and prone area. Riverside Park and ALCO site. • The East Front Street neighborhood was flooded. Pattersonville (combined population Identify a plan for berm protection of the City Waste Water Treatment 1,000), are within the floodplain of the • Riverside Park and Gateway Landing- Rotary Park were flooded. Plant on Anthony Street. Mohawk River. • Schenectady County Community College (SCCC) sustained an estimated $1 million worth of flooding damage. Flood waters inundated the main parking lot, the first floor of Elston Hall, and up to the windows within the Begley building. Town of Rotterdam Preliminary Priority Projects • Commercial buildings along Van Guysling Avenue were flooded. Install a generator at the Rotterdam Junction Fire District #1 Station. Install backup generators at each of five sanitary lift stations. • The Department of Social Services (DSS) and a National Grid site were flooded. • A sewer at Nott Street and East Front Street overflowed to the street. Replace two culverts at the railroad crossing at Scrafford with appropriate A streetscape project should address poor sidewalk conditions, capacities and elevations, as well as replace the culvert at Mabie Lane to consolidation and elimination of curb cuts, street trees, pedestrian improve drainage to the east. benches, and decorative lighting along the Mohawk River in Rotterdam. Remove the sewage pumps on Lock Street and replace them with a gravity Perform stormwater upgrades to pipes, culverts, and catch basins along Rebuilding Better drainage line that runs from Lock Street to Scrafford Lane to help eliminate Scrafford Lane and along the Old Erie Canal. Determine ownership and Despite these impacts, the communities are committed to rebuilding. They recognize that flooding of flooding on Lock Street. remove debris to open drainage. this magnitude can happen again, so rebuilding plans all must include flood mitigation to avoid the devastating effects of future flooding. Install an automatic transfer switch at the Rotterdam Junction - Town Drill a new well at the Rotterdam Water District #5 facility located on River of Rotterdam District #3 well
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Niskayuna Town Historian, Denis Brennan
    Schenectady County Historical Society Newsletter Vol. 63, No. 2, Spring 2019 | 518.374.0263 | schenectadyhistorical.org Schenectady's Silent Witness to History By Neil B. Yetwin One of the most enduring and intriguing of Schenectady’s many antiquities is the mounted cannon at the end of North Ferry Street in the Stockade’s Riverside Park. For nearly a century this imposing piece of ordnance has stood watch eastward over the Mohawk River as if expecting momentarily to defend the city against any who threatened the peace and security of its inhabitants. Schenectady historian John J. Birch suggested in 1961 that the cannon’s history is "a mystery which undoubtedly will never be solved." Yet physical clues and scattered anecdotal evidence might shed light upon those mysteries that have shrouded the cannon for more than two centuries and perhaps help restore it to its proper place in Schenectady’s history. It was once assumed that the cannon was cast in bronze, but it is in fact iron, weighing in excess of 2,300 pounds and measuring 7’9” from breech to muzzle. It was once mounted on an oak carriage twice its length (for balance) and fired a solid iron softball-size round shot weighing 9.1 pounds – thus its designation as a nine-pounder. The cannon had two trunnions, cylindrical projections near the barrel’s center allowing it to be easily raised or lowered. Vestiges of those trunnions remain visible, as does the vent or touch-hole above the breech. Cascabel, two handles on which to attach ropes to reduce recoil, once graced its barrel.
    [Show full text]
  • Community Profile
    Community Profile City of Schenectady Comprehensive Plan 2020 Reinventing the City of Invention Brian U. Stratton Mayor Community Profile Table of Contents Demographic Characteristics ............................................................................................................ 5 Economic Profile ..........................................................................................................................13 Real Estate and Tax Base Analysis .....................................................................................................31 Housing ......................................................................................................................................43 Infrastructure and Transportation.....................................................................................................59 Natural Resources .........................................................................................................................72 Community Character & Historic Preservation......................................................................................76 Recreation ..................................................................................................................................83 Government, Public Safety and Community Institutions..........................................................................90 List of Tables and Figures Tables Table 1: Summary Demographic Table, City of Schenectady ......................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Route 5 Transit Gateway
    Final Land Use and Transportation Plan Route 5 Transit Gateway Submitted to the City of Schenectady and the Capital District Transportation Committee by IBI Group with River Street Planning & Development, LLC and Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP August 30, 2010 IBI GROUP FINAL LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLAN – ROUTE 5 TRANSIT GATEWAY Route 5 Transit Gateway Land Use and Transportation Plan Acknowledgements Study Advisory Committee Steve Caruso, Assistant to the City Engineer, City of Schenectady Michael Dussault, General Electric Todd Fabozzi, Capital District Regional Planning Commission Stephen J. Feeney, Schenectady County Department of Economic Development and Planning Michael A. Finocchi, YMCA Pat Godlewski, Schenectady County Community College Lyn Gordon, Stockade Neighborhood Association Jim Phelps, AAA Northway Susan Rank, The Chamber of Schenectady County Jim Salengo, Downtown Schenectady Improvement Corporation Doug Sayles, Cornerstone Advisors, Ltd. Mila Vega, Capital District Transportation Authority Carrie Ward, Capital District Transportation Authority Michael Wyatt, New York State Department of Transportation Project Team Steve Strichman, Schenectady City Planning Christine Primiano, Schenectady City Planning Anne Benware, Capital District Transportation Committee Sreekumar Nampoothiri, Capital District Transportation Committee Consultant Team IBI Group River Street Planning & Development Creighton Manning Engineering And The members of the public who contributed to the two public meetings. AUGUST 30, 2010 iii IBI GROUP FINAL LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLAN – ROUTE 5 TRANSIT GATEWAY Disclosure Statement This report was prepared in cooperation with the City of Schenectady, Capital District Transportation Committee (CDTC), Schenectady County, Capital District Transportation Authority (CDTA), and New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT). This report was funded in part through grant[s] from the Federal Highway Administration [and Federal Transit Administration], United State Department of Transportation.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Armory Historic Context
    FINAL ARMORY HISTORIC CONTEXT ARMY NATIONAL GUARD NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU June 2008 FINAL HISTORIC CONTEXT STUDY Prepared for: Army National Guard Washington, DC Prepared by: Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc Engineers-Architects-Consultants Kansas City, Missouri And Architectural and Historical Research, LLC Kansas City, Missouri Below is the Disclaimer which accompanied the historic context when submitted to the NGB in draft form in 2005. Due to reorganization of the document prior to its finalization, the section in which Burns & McDonnell references below has been changed and is now Section II of the document, which is written in its entirety by Ms. Renee Hilton, Historical Services Division, Office of Public Affairs &Strategic Communications, National Guard Bureau. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION, BACKGROUND, AND METHODOLOGY ........................... 1-1 1.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 BACKGROUND............................................................................................. 1-1 1.3 SURVEY BOUNDARIES AND RESOURCES ............................................... 1-2 1.4 SURVEY OBJECTIVES................................................................................. 1-2 1.5 METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................... 1-3 1.6 REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS.............................................................. 1-4 1.7 HISTORIC INTEGRITY ................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • January/February 2007
    Schenectady County Historical Society Volume 50 NumberNewsletter 1-2 January - February 2007 32 Washington Avenue, Schenectady, New York 12305 (518) 374-0263 Web site: http://www.schist.org • Editor email: [email protected] FAX: (518) 688-2825 Librarian email: [email protected] • Curator email: [email protected] Together, all extant armories chronicle the history of the volunteer militia from its emergence during the early years of the Republic, through its heyday during the Gilded Age as the backbone of the Ameri- can military system, to its early twentieth century role as the nation’s primary armed reserve force. Come to the lecture on Janu- ary 13th and learn all about the Washington Continentals, the Schenectady Citizens’ Corps, the Thirty-sixth and Thirty Seventh Separate Companies, and the 105th Infantry Regiment and their respective arsenals and armories. In 1992, the New York State Divi- sion of Military and Naval Affairs (DMNA), the agency in charge of the Army National Guard, entered into partnership with Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preserva- tion (OPRHP) to identify and evaluate all pre-World War II armories in the state. With Historic Armories of New York State funding provided by the U.S. Department of Defense’s Legacy Resource Management Program, DMNA New York’s arsenals and armories are among the most sponsored the nomination of most of its historic armories to the imposing monuments to the role of the citizen soldier in American National Register of Historic Places. Nancy L. Todd, on staff at military history and were built to house local units of the state’s OPRHP since 1982, directed the project.
    [Show full text]
  • Changing Their Course, One Class at a Time
    For alumni and friends of Schenectady County Community College Spring 2016 alumNEWS Changing Their Course, One Class at a Time Inside this issue Whether they’re called “returning adult students,” 2 Inauguration 2016 “mature learners” or “adult learners,” 49 percent of students at community colleges across the country are 3 A New Presence in between the ages of 22 and 39, with 14 percent over Downtown Schenectady the age of 401. Last semester, 15 percent of full-time students, 38 percent of part-time students and 24 4 Alumni Spotlight: percent of all students at SCCC were 30 years old An Authentic Taste and older. of France At SCCC, support for the returning adult student 5 Alumni Spotlight: ranges from the RESTART online club, to the Plus 50 Encore Completion Grant program the College Getting Big Laughs on launched in 2013, part of a nationwide initiative to The Tonight Show recruit and support older students (50 years old and 6 Remembering above) pursuing a new career. Toby Strianese The paths that led them to SCCC are often just as interesting as the students themselves and the goals and Samantha Vasquez 8 Gala Honors Community aspirations they have set. Samantha Vasquez and James Leaders, Alumna LaRose are two such students, one with an eye toward working in the criminal justice system and the other 9 A New Scholorship... planning for a second career after retirement. 10 Class Notes There are times when she has to tune her family out and 11 Upcoming Alumni Events the house “will be a wreck,” but it’s been worth it for Samantha, a 31-year-old single mother with two young sons ages 7 and 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Mohawk River Waterfront Revitalization Plan for Schenectady County
    Mohawk River Waterfront Revitalization Plan for Schenectady County March 31, 2010 Developed and submitted by: Town of Glenville Town of Niskayuna Town of Rotterdam County of Schenectady City of Schenectady Village of Scotia This report was prepared for the New York State Department of State with funds provided under Title 11 of the Environmental Protection Fund. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1 Section I.Mohawk River Waterfront Revitalization Area Boundary .................................................... 2 Town of Glenville .......................................................................................................... 2 Town of Niskayuna ......................................................................................................... 3 Town of Rotterdam ........................................................................................................ 4 City of Schenectady........................................................................................................ 4 Village of Scotia ............................................................................................................ 5 Section II. Inventory and Analysis ...........................................................................................10 1. Mohawk River Waterfront Revitalization Area—Local Laws and Regulations ................................. 10 2. Existing Land Use .....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix a Preliminary Scopin
    NextEra Energy Transmission New York, Inc. Marcy to Pleasant Valley Project Part A Application – Appendix A Preliminary Scoping Statement and Schedule NextEra Energy Transmission New York, Inc. Appendix A: Marcy to Pleasant Valley Project Preliminary Scoping Statement and Schedule Table of Contents Section Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................... A1-1 2.0 BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND SCHEDULE ................................................................................. A2-1 2.1 Proposed Project ............................................................................................ A2-1 2.2 Proposed Project Schedule ............................................................................ A2-2 3.0 PROPOSED SCOPE OF ARTICLE VII STUDIES - EXHIBIT 4 ... A3-1 3.1 Land Use and Public Policy .......................................................................... A3-1 3.1.1 Existing Setting ................................................................................. A3-2 3.1.2 Proposed Program Studies ................................................................ A3-4 3.2 Visual Resources ........................................................................................... A3-5 3.2.1 Existing Setting ................................................................................. A3-5 3.2.2 Proposed Program Studies ................................................................ A3-8 3.3 Cultural Resources .......................................................................................
    [Show full text]