by Doug La Rocque
Prior to the Thursday, September 15 Brunswick Planning Board meeting, a public hearing was held on Paulsen Development’s plan to build a two-story medical building at 112 McChesney Avenue (adjacent to the side entrance to Market 32).
The two main points raised at the hearing where the size of the complex and pedestrian traffic. Ortho NY is the proposed tenant, and one speaker asked if the Brunswick complex would rival the Ortho NY facility on Everett Road in Colonie. The answer was no—in fact it would only be about one fifth of the size. The second issue is whether there would be a sidewalk in front of the building. The developer stated they were not opposed to a sidewalk, but asked if other portions of the road would have sidewalks installed as well. They contest a sidewalk just in front of their building, with no connections on either end, would really be a sidewalk to nowhere and were opposed to such. The also asked if such a sidewalk would actually be on private land, which could make them liable for any injuries. If so, they were again in opposition.
The answer apparently is determined by whether McChesney Avenue is truly a County owned road with a right of way, or simply a user road maintained by the County. The answer to that question was not immediately available.
The Planners also discussed a pedestrian walkway from the rear entrance to Walmart out to Hoosick Road (NY Rt. 7). These talks ranged from a full sidewalk to enlarging the roadside. Board Chair Russ Oster made it clear whatever the outcome, Paulsen would only be on the hook for the land in front of their building, not the entire roadway.
Oops, Wrong One
Atlas Renewables (North Troy Solar) was at the meeting hoping to complete their State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) paperwork, but ran into a logistical hitch. Atlas’ first site plan was to place their solar array on top of the old Troy Incinerator site on Oakwood Avenue. That plan was shot down by the NYS Department of Environmental conservation, and Atlas thusly filed a new plan using adjacent land. The first site plan was never withdrawn however, and the SEQRA Lead Agency request paperwork was send out using the first site’s coordinates. Thusly, when the error was discovered, the SEQRA request was deemed to be faulty. A second request using the correct site has been sent out with the possibility the Board might be able to conduct its SEQRA review at their October 6 meeting.
