►
Description
The Committee reviewed Resolution 72.81.20R. This legislation will be used upon completion of the SEQRA coordinated review of the zoning map amendment 9.61.20. #Albany #AlbanyCommonCouncil
B
A
C
E
C
C
C
We
are
here
to
discuss
resolution
number
72
8120r
and
that's
a
resolution
regarding
the
state
environmental
quality
review
of
ordinance,
961
20,
which
has
to
do
with
the
the
76
commonly
known
as
the
76
project,
welcome
everyone.
I
wanted
to
check
once
again
we'll
start
with
public
comment.
I
see
I
just
want
to
make
sure
there's
no
one
here
who
wants
to
speak
on
this.
F
I
just
very
briefly
I
sent
in
my
letter.
I
know
it
was
circulated
to
everyone
just
if
anyone
has
any
questions,
and
I
don't
know
how
you're
planning
on
having
your
discussion.
I
know
you're
bringing
in
planning
staff
to
go
over
the
questions
that
were
raised
at
the
last
meeting
and
I
guess
I'd
like
an
opportunity
to
make
a
comment
at
the
end
or
respond
to
any
of
that
depending
on
what
comes
up.
If
you
know,
if
necessary,.
C
So
anybody
is
that
it
then-
and
so
I
know
the
applicant
is
here
and
wants
to
make
a
brief
presentation.
Stephanie
faradino
go
ahead.
Stephanie.
Excuse
me.
I
should
start
by
saying
council
members,
president
judy
daucher
alfredo
ballerin
from
the
committee
and
then
other
council
members,
president
pro
tem
kelly,
kimbrough
sonja,
frederick
councilmember,
stoney,
frederick,
and
then
we
have
our
staff,
michelle
andre
john
rafael,
piccardo
danielle.
Here
tonight
I
don't
see
danielle.
C
G
Can
you
hear
me
now?
Yes,
okay,
good
I've
been
having
off
and
on
problems
with
the
technology
when
I
use
two
screens
so
with
me.
Tonight
are
kelsey
carr
and
ed
larkin,
and
I
just
wanted
to
touch
on
a
couple
of
items
that
I
that
came
up
during
the
last
meeting,
and
I
apologize
there's
some
scurrying
behind
me.
It's
my
daughter's
16th
day
tonight,
she's
racing
out
to
get
dinner.
G
So
a
couple
of
things
that
I
wanted
to
highlight,
for
you
were
the
legal
standards
at
the
last
meeting.
There
was
a
lot
of
discussion
about
an
eis,
and
you
know
some
discussion
about
what
we've
required
in
eis
on
this
project
and
we're
worried
that
the
square
footage
triggers
something
because
on
these
six
different
projects
in
the
city
of
albany,
we've
required
eis.
G
G
Is
there
a
material
conflict
with
the
comprehensive
plan
and
we
have
reviewed
those
in
detail?
Your
board
actually
spent
probably
an
hour
and
a
half
on
those
12
criteria
and
you
there
weren't
any
findings
that
any
of
the
impacts
of
our
specific
project
or
the
amendment
in
general
triggered
any
of
those
12
criteria
and
absent
that
you
would
not
push
something
into
a
pos
debt,
because
that's
the
legal
requirements
for
requiring
a
pause
deck.
So
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
certainly
your
council
has
reviewed
this.
G
If
you
went
to
an
eis,
you
would
identify
the
impacts
through
scoping.
You
would
list
the
studies
that
you
needed
to
do.
You
would
then
study
those
things
and
conclusions
would
be
drawn.
It's
not
any
different
from
what
we
we've
done
right
now
and
I
asked
at
the
last
meeting
and
there
it's
been
crickets.
G
Not
nobody
has
mentioned
anything
since
the
last
meeting
about
one
of
those
12
criteria
that
rose
to
the
level
of
significance
that
we
haven't,
studied
or
or
mitigated,
and
so
that
that
eis
process
in
essence
has
already
run
its
course,
and
we
know
that
your
planning
staff
is
paying
close
attention
to
the
studies
because
they've
reviewed
them
they've
asked
us
to
modify
them.
We've
resubmitted
them.
They've
commented
on
them,
so
absolute
thorough
review
has
been
done.
G
We've
also
appeared
since
the
last
meeting
before
your
technical
review
committee
and,
as
you
know,
that's
all
the
heads
of
the
different
departments.
Water
was
there.
Engineering
was
there.
We
had
the
sewer
guy
there,
they
all
reviewed
the
were
provided
with
the
studies
and
they
found.
We
were
talking
about
both
the
project
and
scott
street
and
they
didn't
identify
any
significant
impacts
that
we
hadn't
yet
already
provided.
Studies
for
the
amendment
impacts
when
you
look
at
the
amendment
as
a
whole,
so
not
not
our
project
specific,
but
the
amendment
as
a
whole.
G
There
are
two
areas
that
we
differ
from
the
current
zoning
to
the
proposed
zoning
height
and
we're
at
the
maximum
on
our
project.
So
we
study
the
highest
height
that
you
could
have
eight
stories.
Eight
and
a
half
stories.
We've
already
studied
that
the
other
difference
between
the
existing
zoning
now
and
what
we're
proposing
are
the
uses,
and
so
at
our
first
meeting
before
you
on
july,
9th
we
had
three
slides
and
kelsey
has
those
teed
up.
G
If
you
want
to
go
through
them
again,
we
can,
we
don't
need
to,
but
the
first
slide
identified,
38
identical
uses
the
exactly
what
can
be
allowed
under
the
existing
versus
what
we're
proposing
38
identical
uses.
The
second
slide
identified,
10
conditionally
permitted
uses,
and
you
understand
when
something
goes
to
a
conditionally
permitted
use.
G
G
The
third
slide
identified
kind
of
what
we
lumped
into
as
miscellaneous
uses
and
those
were
uses
where
there
was
no
or
low
impact.
So
things
like
urban
agriculture
or
a
mobile
vendor,
those
are
low
or
no
environmental
impact,
or
we
looked
at
categories
of
of
types
of
uses
that
would
be
unable
to
be
to
fit
on
this
land
because
of
primarily
because
of
topography.
So
one
of
them
would
have
been
a
stadium.
Well,
you
wouldn't
put
a
stadium
there,
because
the
topography
doesn't
support
that.
Likewise,
you
wouldn't
put
a
parking
structure.
G
There
standalone
parking
structure
because
there's
not
enough
land
to
have
the
parking
structure
and
a
separate
use,
and
then
we
started
or
looked
at
the
third
category,
and
that
was
where,
where
things
would
already
have
a
seeker
review
tied
to
them
so
or
they
weren't
or
they
they
just
wouldn't
be
used.
So
you
wouldn't
put
a
dormitory
a
college
dormitory
on
that
land
because
there's
no
college
nearby,
so
you
always
locate
them
near
each
other.
G
I
feel,
like
you
guys,
have
spent
an
exorbitant
time
studying
and
talking
to
us
about
this,
and
we
so
appreciate
the
time
and
the
thoughtfulness
that
you
have
given
to
the
environmental
review.
We're
happy
planning
staff
is
here
and
can
weigh
in
and
we're
happy
to
answer
questions
going
forward
tonight.
C
C
E
Yeah,
actually,
I'm
interested
in
hearing
what
chris
and
amy
have
to
say.
I
think
that
one
of
the
questions
was
the
that
amy
has
answered
in
an
email
to
you
that
you've
shared
with
me
about
the
the
advisory
board.
Oh
yes,
right,
advisory
board.
I
think
that
we
should.
You
know,
put
that
on
the
record,
why
we
are
not
following
that.
E
My
understanding
I
I
just
want
to
provide
people
with
a
little
bit
of
my
perspective,
I'm
a
lawyer
and
over
the
years
I
think,
a
lot
of
projects
wind
up
being
delayed
in
the
courts,
because
people
have
not
followed
the
process
and
have
not.
You
know,
followed
the
the
law
in
the
review
and
so
and
that's
about
the
extent
of
my
knowledge
of
the
seeker
review
process.
E
I
mean
I've
read
the
forms,
but
I
I
don't
have
a
really
you
know
great
handle
on
what
we're
supposed
to
be
doing,
which
is
why
I'm
thrilled
that
the
planning
board
staff
is
here.
I
appreciate
what
stephanie
just
said
about
these
12
criteria,
and
I
do
think
that
we
should
be
talking
a
little
bit
more
about
that.
But
I'd
like
to
get
the
perspective
and
background
background
knowledge
that
mr
spencer
and
amy.
C
H
Yeah
I
mean
there
are
a
number
of
things
that
could
be
looked
at
I
mean
you
can
in
that
declaration
you
can
talk
about
the
topography.
You
can
talk
about
the
economic
circumstances
of
the
site
itself,
about
the
need
to
try
to
raise
raise
the
values
about
the
reinvestment.
That's
required
all
the
different
things
that
this
project
may
bring
to
bear.
You
know
again
and
keep
in
mind
throughout
this
whole
process.
There
are
two
separate
things
happening.
One
is
the
re-zone
of
all
of
this
land.
H
The
other
is
the
potential
for
the
development.
You
are
specifically
looking
actually
at
the
rezone,
not
really
the
development.
So
a
lot
of
the
things
with
the
rezone.
You
know,
they're,
not
100
known,
and
a
lot
of
those
studies
that
we're
talking
about
would
happen
through
the
development
plan
review,
with
the
planning
board
or
or
those
once
the
development
is
actually
going
through.
H
So
I
think
you
know,
I
think
the
neg
deck
is
the
proper
way
to
go
on
this.
I
think
you
know
that's
part
of
the
type
one
you're
looking
at
you
know.
This
is
a
project
that
would
entail
over
200
units.
So
it
would
hit
those
thresholds,
but
again
thinking
about
this
as
part
of
a
rezone
of
a
particular
area.
Why
is
it
important,
and
why
is
that
particular
area,
sort
of
right
for
this
kind
of
a
rezone?
H
I
think
it's,
you
know
what
you'd
want
to
be
looking
at,
and
I
think
you
know
there
are
a
lot
of
different
ways
of
making
that
that
case,
and
just
you
know
again,
it's
really.
You
know
it's
always
tricky
when
you're
doing
rezoning
particular
areas,
anticipation
or
prompted
by
the
potential
of
a
project,
and
it's
really
hard
to
always
be
able
to
keep
those
two
separate,
separated
and
not
conflate
the
two.
But
you
really
have
to
think
about.
You
know
you're
looking
at
the
muci,
and
why
is
that
the
appropriate
zoning
for
this
area.
C
One
of
the
concerns
that
has
been
raised
is
you
know:
you've
got
residential
and
mostly
two
stories
it
has
been
talk
talked
about.
The
church
is
quite
tall
there,
but
just
the
stark
contrast
between
the
residential
and
this
eight
story
building.
So
how
do
we?
I
know
we
have
made
some
justification
for
that.
H
Well,
I
think
again,
the
the
topography
is
something
that's
you
know
placed
into
into
this.
You
know
you
could
have
two
two
buildings
across
the
street,
but
down
the
street
from
each
other
that
are
the
same
height
and
one
is
always
going
to
appear
taller
because
of
the
topography.
So
I
think
there
are
those
kinds
of
unique
circumstances
to
this
entire
block.
H
H
Just
one
more
thing:
on
the
height
I
mean
those
are
the
some
of
the
things
that,
in
terms
of
the
height
and
the
way
the
buildings
are
articulated
and
how
you
deal
with
the
mass
in
comparison
to
what's
going
on
across
the
street.
Those
are
the
things
that
would
the
planning
board
would
be
taking
a
deep
dive
into
during
the
development
plan
review
or
a
district
plan
for
for
a
site
like
this.
J
Yes,
sorry,
I
was
trying
to
mute,
so
the
reason
why
we
ended
up
going
to
eight
stories
was
actually
directly
in
response
to
a
planning
department
comment
to
reduce
the
scale
of
the
building
along
second
avenue.
So
we
reduced
that
to
six
stories
along
second
avenue,
and
then
we
added
that
story
on
to
building
b,
which
is
eight
stories.
J
H
This
one
in
particular,
you
know
in
general
again
you're
looking
at
you
know
what
is
the
overall.
What
are
they
looking
in
terms
of
the
development,
so
the
development
in
general
is
going
to
be
based
on
pro
forma
and
what
you
know,
what
it's
going
to
cost
to
do
a
project
like
this,
what
what
it,
what
it
needs
to
get
in
the
end
in
terms
of
the
development
so
you're
looking
at
the
development
potential.
That's
that's
required
out
of
something
like
this.
You
know
and
as
kelsey
was
was
noting.
H
H
We're
trying
to
match
the
zoning
district
to
what
the
development
was,
that
they
were
looking
to
do
also
allowing
for
district
plans
or
allowing
for
a
lot
of
different
uses
on
the
same
parcel
and
trying
to
reduce
the
likelihood
of
variance,
or
at
least
the
the
intensity
of
any
kind
of
variance
that
might
they
might
be
looking
for.
You
know
we
didn't
want
to
go
in
five
and
then
have
them
come
and
ask
for
a
three-story,
three-story
variance.
H
E
So
one
of
the
questions
I
have
is,
if
it's
appropriate
to
zone
this
parcel
without
regard
to
this
project,
if
it's
appropriate
to
rezone
this
particular
block
as
m-u-c-I,
then
why
wouldn't
it
be
appropriate
to
re-zone
the
next
block
down
closer
to
pearl
street,
and
maybe
the
block
after
that
that
it
butts
pearl
street
as
m-u-c-I
is,
is?
Is
that
potentially,
the
more
appropriate
action
for
us
to
be
taken?
If
we're
looking
at
doing
this
in
a
sense,
without
regard
to
us
specifically
looking
to
approve
this
project.
H
H
H
You
know
potential
for
this
block,
so
I
think,
in
terms
of
the
the
real
you
know,
sort
of
meat
and
potatoes
of
the
seeker.
A
lot
of
that
really
happens
at
the
project
specific
level
and
that's
where
the
impacts
and
and
any
kind
of
mitigation
is
more
likely
to
occur.
I
think
this
is
more.
You
know
again,
the
zoning
becomes
a
little
more
theoretical
to
some
degree,
it's
hard
to
test
every
you
know
complete,
build
out
of
every
particular
use
and
say
that
that
is
going
to
be
the
impact.
E
E
You
know
it
stands
out
at
me
that
we
went
through
that
process
and
for
this
particular
area
we
looked
at,
and
we
said
the
most
appropriate
thing
is
r
t
and
m:
u
n
e,
so
I
I
I
guess.
I
appreciate
the
fact
that
we
can
all
revisit
our.
You
know
our
thought
process
based
upon
somebody
coming
forward
with
an
application,
but
it
makes
me
a
little
bit
nervous
to
depart
from
that
without
saying,
there's
some
sort
of
level
of
continuity
of
the
purposes
and
the
scheme
of
zoning.
H
The
one
thing
I'd
add
to
that
is
that
this
is
this
is
not
an
individual
parcel.
This
is
32
individual
parcels,
it's
almost
an
entire
city
block,
so
usually,
when
you
think
about
spot
zoning
you're
looking
along
an
area
where
one
or
two
parcels
is
treated
unequally
or
is
treated
favorably
over
everything
else.
H
So
I
think
this
one
really
even
with
you
know,
when
you're
looking
at
an
entire
block,
you're
looking
at
potential
plans
you're
looking
at
a
lot
of
different
things
that
can
happen,
it
really
does
not
rise
anywhere
near
to
the
level
of
what
I
think
any
of
the
courts
would
consider
spot
zoning
and
then
I'll.
Just
let
amy
weigh
in
on
that.
If
she
wants
to.
D
I
was
just
going
to
note,
I
think
you
know
the
the
analysis.
Is
you
need
to
take
into
account
that
for
the
seeker
you're
supposed
to
evaluate
the
project
as
early
in
the
process
as
possible?
So
we
do
have
application
here
for
a
specific
project
and
in
that
sense,
speaker
should
start
as
early
in
the
process
as
possible
to
be
looking
at
all
the
impacts
from
that
project
which
starts
with
the
rezoning.
D
E
So
that's
my
that's
my
you
know
my
struggle
here.
We
make
this
decision
and
we
have
basically
declared
this
to
be
appropriate
m-u-c-I.
If,
then,
we,
if
we
then
make
that
decision
that
is
signed
into
law
by
the
mayor
and
then
for
some
reason,
this
project
significantly
changes
or
doesn't
go
through.
There's
a
change
of
ownership.
There's
different
kind
of
plans,
then
we're
in
a
situation.
I
believe
correct
me.
E
So
if
we
were
to
change
this
zoning
and
anything
were
to
happen
to
this
particular
project
which
pretty
much
everybody
favors
and
thinks
is
you
know
you
know
great
idea,
I
mean
putting
together.
You
know
so
many
different
parcels
that
then
directly
benefits
the
community,
but
we
could
wind
up
with
you
know,
market
rate
housing
here.
If,
for
any
reason,
you
know
this
particular
project
did
not
come
to
fruition
after
we
make
the
change.
Am
I
correct
about
that.
D
Yes-
and
I
I
would,
I
would
refer
back
to
the
developers
they
they
at
a
prior
hearing,
I
believe
at
this
committee
I
know
at
the
planning
board,
but
I
believe
at
this
committee
too
they
did,
they
showed
a
comparison
of
the
permitted
uses
and
the
different
uses
that
would
be
involved
in
each
of
these.
So
I
would
refer
back
to
that
and
I
think
stephanie
can
go
over
that
again.
E
I
just
then
wonder
how
the
community,
what
the
community
sentiment
would
be
then
about
potentially
having
an
eight
and
a
half
story,
building
right
along
second
avenue
that
doesn't
have
all
these
other
pieces
that
have
essentially
to
some
extent
been
negotiated
with
the
community
that
has
gotten
the
buy-in.
So
you
know
we
could
make
this
change,
and
I.
K
I
think
I'm
sorry
to
interrupt
stephanie,
but
I
think
council
members
we
have
to
remind
ourselves
all
this
stuff
is
going
to
be
talked
about
the
planning
board
process.
I
mean
we're
getting
all
into
the
weeds
about
development
and
all
that
that
is
not
our
job.
That
is
the
planning
board's
job.
Our
job
is
to
rezone
is
to
focus
on
the
rezoning
of
the
law.
That's
it
after
that.
K
They
go
in
from
the
planning
board
and
all
those
things
are
are
hashed
out
with
the
developer
in
the
development
process
and
for
us
to
be
even
talking
about
development,
the
development
of
it.
We
cannot
talk
about
the
development
of
it
because
the
developer
does
not
own
does
not
have
the
right
to
build
that
there.
K
So
talking
about
oh
what
the
development
is
going
to
look
like
you
have
to
rezone
it
first
and
then
they
have
to
go
through
planning
to
talk
about
the
development
once
it
is
zoned
to
do
what
it,
what
what
it's
supposed
to
do.
So,
I
think
you
know
I
can
appreciate
council
members
and
she'll
show
you
the
slides,
but
we're
really
we're.
Not
that's!
Not
our
role
in
this
in
this
in
this
process.
Right
at
this
point,
once
we
rezone
it,
then
it
goes
to
planning.
K
E
But
if
I
corey,
I
I
beg
to
differ,
because
what
is
driving
our
consideration
of
this
at
all
is
this
particular
project.
And,
frankly,
I
think
if
the
question
is
absent,
this
project,
absolutely
what
is
the
appropriate
zoning
for
this
particular
location?
In
my
opinion,
it
should
be
what
is
the
appropriate
zoning
for
the
next
block
down
and
the
next
block
down
after
that.
K
Opinion
I
can
appreciate
that
opinion
absent.
No
one
else.
No
one
else
is
trying
to
build
projects
like
this
in
the
south
end,
so
we're
we're
holding
up
on
well
absent
this
project.
No
one
else
is
trying
to
build
a
project
like
that
here
and
that's
what
we're
trying
to
spur
to
have
those
conversations,
because
I
I
will
stand
on
my
soapbox
and
say
when
they
re-zoned
this
city.
They
did
not
look
at
those
neighborhoods,
the
ones
where
people
knew
they
wouldn't
be
invested
in
the
ones
they
knew.
K
No
one
would
go
there
and
spend
money,
and
now
we're
gonna
say
well.
If
this
is
the
property
proper
rezoning,
this
is
the
proper
rezoning
for
a
project
of
this
magnitude
for
a
project.
That's
gonna,
that's
going
to
put
interest
in
this
neighborhood
and
for
us
to
be
caught
up
in
well.
Is
it
supposed
to
be
zoned
this
way
for
a
project
like
this?
K
K
The
these
these
men
and
women
and
the
people
worked
hard
on
this.
They
come
in
front
of
us
with
an
opportunity
for
the
city,
an
opportunity
for
this
neighborhood,
and
we
are
trying
to
ask
a
hundred
million
questions
that
has
already
been
answered.
That's
already
been
presented,
and
and
and
and
for
me,
everyone
I'm
getting
taxes,
people
who
are
watching
and
saying
what
is
wrong
with
their
council.
Why
are
they
against
the?
Why
are
they
against
this
development
and
we've
gotten
letters
about
it?
K
So
I
the
questions
you're
asking
judy
I
can
appreciate,
but
the
question
is:
there's
no
other
development
down
there.
This
this
developer
came
they're
from
this
neighborhood.
They
said
this
is
the
project
the
the
planning
board
has
said
for
to
start
that
process.
This
is
what
we
suggest
you
rezone
it
as
our
job
is
to
rezone
it
and
then
then
go
in
front
of
the
planning
board
and
allow
them
to
go
further
with
planning
of
the
project
and
how
they're
going
to
develop
it.
That
is
our
job.
C
G
These
are
just
all
of
the
the
38
identical
uses
that
are
in
both
what
exists
now
for
zoning
and
what
would
be
this
is
allowed
in
the
the
proposed
zoning.
The
next
slide
is
maybe
a
little
bit
more
helpful
and
these
are
conditionally
permitted
uses.
So
these
are
uses
that
would
require
a
separate
seeker
process
if
they
were
to
be
utilized.
G
These
are
the
ones
that
are
kind
of
like
you
know.
This
is
like
our
mixed
bag
here.
So
we've
got
things
like
urban
agriculture,
which
is
low
impact,
so
you
know
it's
accessory
allowed
in
the
existing
zoning.
It's
permitted
in
the
new
zoning.
It's
low
impact,
so
you
don't
care
parking
structure,
just
wouldn't
be
required
here.
Things
like
a
plant
nursery
automobile
wash.
Those
are
not
permitted
in
the
existing
zoning
they're
allowed
as
accessory
uses,
but
what
would
they
be
accessory
to?
G
And
and
so
the
topography
in
a
lot
of
these
is
not
compatible
to
having
a
transit
facility
or
a
vehicle
fueling
station,
because
why
would
you
put
it
on
this?
These
particular
parcels,
so
these
are
ones
where
there
either
is
low
or
no
impact
or
there
the
topography
doesn't
or
the
site
for
whatever
reason
wouldn't
support
those
uses
or
they
would
have
their
own
separate
seeker
process.
G
G
A
lot
of
it
just
depends
on
the
approval
process,
so
once
the
project
is
approved,
then
we
need
to
go
through
the
permitting
process
and
we'll
be
concurrently
dealing
with
additional
financing
at
that
time,
and
I
think
likely
it's
a
few
months
from
approval
when
shovels
could
be
in
the
ground
and
kelsey
or
ed,
probably
have
much
better
a
sense
of
that,
because
nobody
talks
to
me
once
they
get
their
approvals.
I'm
out
of
the
picture.
B
Yeah,
just
I
don't
want
to
go
into
a
ton
of
detail,
but
our
goal
was
to
go
through
this
at
a
responsible
but
brisk
pace
so
that
we
could
have
shovels
in
the
ground
this
year
that
that
was
the
client's
goal.
That
was
our
goal.
That's
getting
harder
by
the
day.
You
know,
as
the
months
go
by
we're
running
low
on
time,
but
our
previous
goal
was
to
have
shovels
in
the
ground
this
year.
C
L
I
just
wanted
to
kind
of
say
I'm
hoping
that
this
project
is
able
to
move
forward
past.
This
point:
we've
I'm
not
on
the
planning
committee
any
longer,
but
I've
been
in
a
lot
of
meetings
for
it,
and
I
appreciate
the
time
that
everybody's
taken
to
talk
about
the
project
and
all
the
intricacies
of
it,
and
I
really
appreciate
the
different
council
members
who
do
support
this
area,
who
have
really
dug
in
and
have
shown
their
support
for
the
project.
C
E
A
C
E
As
I
was
going
through
the
setbacks
and
the
size
of
the
buildings
allowed
in
muci,
I
noticed
that
there
is
something
here
that
says:
no
local
street
adjacent
2
are
passing
through
an
r1,
r2
or
districts
shall
be
used
to
access
a
parking
garage
or
a
parking
lot
containing
more
than
100
vehicle
spaces.
I'm
just
wondering
is
that
something
for
which
a
variant
has
been
requested
or
is
contemplated.
E
B
Yeah
great
go
ahead.
Thank
you.
Yes,
so
we're
aware
of
that
section.
We've
been
following
it
closely.
The
project,
as
you
know,
has
evolved
as
we've
gone
forward.
The
parking
limits
were
initially
reduced
significantly
below
the
current
level.
We
provided
more
to
meet
the
you
know:
residents
concerns
for
parking
in
the
neighborhood,
but
with
our
with
our
structure
in
the
three
buildings
in
phase
one
and
one
and
phase
two,
we
actually
have
multiple
entrances
to
the
parking
lot.
E
It's
actually
not
the
entrances.
It
says
that
a
street
shall
not
be
used
to
access
a
parking
garage
or
parking
lot
containing
more
than
100
vehicle
spaces.
So
it's
not
100
vehicles
exiting
or
entering
a
particular
one.
I
mean
I,
you
know
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
people
are
thinking
about.
You
know
that
particular
provision
and
whether
variance
might
be
necessary,
because
I
think
the
last
you
know
something
I
read
I
was
looking
for
the
number
of
parking
spaces.
It
looks
like
we're
talking
about
potentially
250
in
the
garages.
H
H
K
Thank
you,
you're
not
going
to
know
until
we
rezone
the
doggone
thing
and
they
start
that
process
and
once
again
we're
asking
development
questions
in
a
rezoning
hearing
once
it's
rezoned
they
will
those
plans
will
be
submitted
and
if
there's
variances
needed,
the
planning
board
will
be
there
with
that.
Why
are
we
jumping.
E
C
C
I
Thank
you.
I
just
want
to
say
you
know,
I
appreciate
all
the
councils
and
council
members
questions
and
and
research,
and
you
know
time
that's
been
put
into
this
and
raising
appropriate
questions
and
wanting
to
do
this
right.
I
will
say
this
project
will
bring
immense
economic
prosperity
to
the
south.
End
much
needed,
and
you
know
it's
it's
really.
In
my
perspective,
I
hope
this
goes
for
a
vote
soon.
I
C
F
Thank
you
very
much
council
person
of
fey.
I
really,
I
really
greatly
appreciate
this
and
I'll
be
I'll,
try
and
be
brief,
and
all
due
respect
to
council
president
ellis
he's
wrong
in
terms
of
what
the
review
is.
This
is
your
coordinated
review
under
seeker.
You
are
going
to
be
making
the
determination.
The
secret
determination
is
going
to
be
binding
on
the
planning
board.
F
So
when,
assuming
you
gave
the
rezoning
for
this-
and
you
didn't
have
appropriate
conditions
on
it
or
you
know
had
dealt
with
it,
the
planning
board's
review
is
going
to
be
constrained.
It
will
not
have
the
same
discretion
to
look
at
the
broader
environmental
impacts
associated
with
this
project
and
I'd
like
to
and
to
respond
to
what
ms
faradino
said:
there's
an
enormous
difference
between
an
eaf
and
an
eis
where
you
have
the
potential
for
a
significant
adverse
environmental
impact
which
you
clearly
do
here
in
a
number
of
regards.
F
What
happens,
then,
is
not
just
the
regurgitation
of
the
information
that
has
already
been
provided.
It
is
a
consideration
of
the
alternatives
that
will
happen
and
can
be
considered.
So
you
can
look
at
questions.
Does
the
buildings
have
to
be
as
tall
as
they
have
to
be
that?
Where
do
you
deal
with
the
parking
issues,
because
this
rezoning
is
tied
to
this
specific
project
and
that's
what
you
have
to
do?
F
You're
looking
at
it-
and
I
know
the
council
obviously
is
not
normally
used
to
dealing
at
this
kind
of
a
level
but
where
you
are
rezoning,
something
in
conjunction
with
a
specific
project
and
the
application.
That's
before
you,
you
look
at
the
master
application.
The
master
application
is
not
simply
for
a
rezoning,
it's
for
rezoning,
it's
for
a
demolition,
and
it's
excuse,
my
cat,
it's
a
rezoning,
it's
a
demolition
and
it's
a
development
permit.
F
So
you
have
to
look
at
all
those
broad
impacts
together
and
a
final
point,
and
I
do
really
appreciate
you
giving
me
that
this
this
time
to
talk
about
it
is
you
can
address
your
concerns
about
a
rezoning
of
this
property
for
a
project
that
may
not
be
developed
and
it's
not
an
attack
on
the
project
developers.
Projects
fail
for
any
number
of
reasons.
They
don't
fully
get
developed
out
and
we
don't
have
to
go
through
all
the
details
of
that.
F
We
all
know
it,
but
what
you
can
you
have
the
power
under
this
code,
under
your
on
the
usdo,
for
when
you're
doing
a
rezoning
to
put
a
durational
limit
on
the
rezoning,
because
you
do
not
have
the
general
powers
of
doing
a
planned
unit,
development,
district
or
pdd
is
happens
in
other
places.
You
specifically
have
limits
that
you
can
place
on
that.
F
So
I
would
strongly
suggest-
and
this
is
not
instead
of
or
in
lieu
of
doing
an
eis,
because
I
think
eis
is
still
required,
but
you
can
put
a
durational
limit
on
this
rezoning
and
tie
it
to
this
project
and
say
if
this
project
does
not
receive
all
of
its
approvals
within
x
period
of
time
and
produce
the
bonds
to
assure
that
it
gets
built
in
that
period
of
time.
So
you're
not
left
with
a
white
elephant
or
half
of
a
project.
F
That's
just
something
that
you
should
be
doing
and
look
at
those
issues,
but
that's
something
you
can
just
rush
into
right
here.
It
is
part
of
the
review
that
should
take
place
through
the
environmental
impact
statement.
You
look
at
the
full
conditions
and
appear
permutations
of
what's
being
proposed,
but
for
this
project
because
it
is
so
tied
to
this
rezoning.
You
have
to
look
at
the
environmental
impacts
of
those
now
because,
believe
me,
ms
faradino,
which
is
not
in
your
head,
is
going
to
tell
you
later.
No,
you
can't
look
at
shadow
impacts
later.
F
F
You
are
building
something
of
a
scale
and
it's
not
just
the
height,
it's
the
mass
that
is
so
much
greater
than
what
is
there
for
the
church
and
the
other
area
is
that
you
are
permanently
altering.
What's
going
to
happen
there,
it's
not
saying
that
this
is
a
bad
project
or
it
doesn't
provide
benefits
to
the
community.
F
They
can
go
together,
but
it's
a
matter
of
you
have
to
engage
in
the
proper
planning
of,
what's
of,
what's
going
to
happen,
especially
tied
to
the
question
of
affordable
housing,
because
any
representations
of
affordable
housing,
if
they're
not
embodied
within
the
zoning
amendment,
can
vanish
at
any
time.
There's
no
requirement
that
this
has
to
have
the
affordable
housing
component.
So
again,
I
really
appreciate
you
giving
me
that
extra
time-
and
I
urge
you
to
be
really
careful
about
this.
C
E
A
E
This
resolution
is
all
about
this
particular
project
right
jr
and
you
know
that's
what
you're
measuring
it
against,
and
so
I'm
wondering
if
it
is
possible
for
us
to
make
a
negative
deck,
make
this
resolution
specific
to
this
particular
project.
And
if
there
are
substantial
changes
to
this
project,
then
this
seeker
determination
would
have
to
be
reconsidered,
which
makes
sense
to
me,
but
I
don't
know
if
we
can
do
that.
A
I'm
trying
to
recall
there
was
a
case,
I
believe,
and
I
believe
we
were
actually
the
defendants.
In
the
case,
I
think
it
was
matter
of
save
the
pine
bush
versus
common
council
of
the
city
of
albany,
where
the
court
of
appeals
ruled
on
the
secret
determination
when
it
comes
to,
and
you
can
it's
it
basically
in
some
of
what
the
case
said
was
when
it
comes
to
a
determination
on
the
secret.
It
comes
down
to
a
logical,
orderly
and
logical
fashion.
A
I
can't
remember
the
exact
terminology
that
the
court
of
appeals
stated,
but
basically
in
some
what
is
what
has
learned
from
2007
to
now
and
amy.
You
can
jump
in
on
this
one
because
I
believe
we
spoke
on
this
too.
Is
it
comes
down
to
you?
Look,
you
can
use
the
project
as
one
way
and
then
you
can
use
the
other
aspects
of
what
is
allowed
under
us.
It's,
but
it's.
How
can
I
say
this?
A
It
is
one
way,
there's
many
ways
you
can
look
at
it,
but
it
comes
down
to
as
it's
a
logical
summation
of
what
can
be
zoned
in
here.
What
cannot
and
as
the
developers
that
stated,
you
know,
there's
you
know
a
stadium
could
be
developed
there,
but
a
stadium
can't
go
there
because
not
enough
land
for
it,
you
can't
put
a
dormitory
in
there
because
it's
usually
associated
with
the
school.
G
H
I'm
going
to
let
amy
go
because
I
had
discussed
this
with
amy
whether
there
was
you
know,
an
opportunity
to
trigger
this
or
put
a
sunset
or
some
other
trigger
for
the
zoning
or
to
say
that
zoning
does
not
take
effect
until
the
property
gets
development
plan
review.
There
are
a
number
of
different
ways
that
I
had
asked
about.
I
think
amy's
got
probably
a
lot
more
background
in
terms
of
what
we
could
legally
do
in
terms
that
you
know.
D
I
mean
at
this
point
in
the
project.
You
know:
we've
already
started
down
this
path.
You
know
floating
zone
is
certainly
one
way
to
deal
with
these
things,
and
we
do
have
that
set
up
somewhat
through
the
district
plan
process
that
we
have,
but
a
district
plan
wouldn't
be
allowable
here
until
until
it
was
rezoned
to
muci
in
the
first
place.
I
I
haven't
looked
through
the
proposed
resolution
in
detail
at
this
point,
but
I
mean
it.
D
I
agree
with
what's
been
said
to
the
extent
that
you
know
it
should
be
looking
at
both.
You
know
the
effects
of
the
rezoning
in
and
of
itself,
and
then
also
this
being
the
seeker
determination
for
this
project
and
the
secret
starting
as
soon
as
possible
in
the
project
time
frame.
So
this
should
look
at
both
things
again,
I
having
not
gone
through
this
in
detail.
I
don't
want
to
speak
to
that
and
I'll
defer
to
jr
on
that.
D
With
regard
to
the
conditional
rezoning,
I
mean
it's
my
it's
my
understanding,
based
on
case
law,
that
it's
it's
rather
tricky
thing
to
do
it.
This
way,
I've
previously
suggested
that
having
a
sunset
in
here,
as
was
previously
suggested
by
stephanie,
would
not
necessarily
be
legal
under
new
york
state
law,
and
I
continue
to
believe
that
whether
or
not
there
is
perhaps
a
similar
way
of
doing
that
that
you
know
we
could
continue
to
talk
about
that.
But
I
think
it's
certainly
tricky.
A
And
and
that,
when
with
in
terms
of
the
sunset,
I
share
the
same
sentiments
with
amy
we've
worked
on
this
together
and
looked
in
research
and
one
research.
One
thing
that
did
come
up,
as
mr
spencer
mentioned,
was
the
float
zone,
where
a
sunset
clause
in
a
float
zone
would
be
much
more
appropriate
on
that
sense.
But
since
this
is
a
kind
of
a
definitive
zone,
it's
a
little
trickier
under
new
york
state
law
legally
wise,
but
for
float
zone.
A
H
So,
in
this
case
you
wouldn't
know
the
particular
height
you
wouldn't
know
the
massing
of
the
building
until
you
have
that
development
plan
review
and
the
planning
board
can
certainly
look
at
that
through
the
development
plan
review,
because
the
planning
board
can
look
at
the
significant
adverse
impacts
on
the
surrounding
neighborhood
or
any
significant
impacts.
That
would
be
limited.
H
So
I
think
there's
that
opportunity.
The
planning
board
will
be
looking
at
those
things
they
they
do
tend
to
look
at
all.
Those
things
through
the
development
plan
review,
so
I
don't
think
the
this
zoning
change
having
not
gone
through
and
done.
A
shadow
study
shuts
the
door
on
that
again,
we
would
be
looking
at
a
specific
project,
a
specific
configuration
of
the
building.
C
B
A
C
M
M
The
fact
that
this
is
a
project-
that's
100,
sustainable
the
fact
that
it's
60
affordable,
that
it's
mixed
income
project,
the
fact
that
it
has
found
creative
ways
for
those
residents
to
live
in
there
to
find
potential
income
with
the
three
bedrooms,
one
studio
concept,
which
is
very
creative
to
you
know
for
this
type
of
project.
You
know
that's
and
the
fact
that
the
amenities
are
going
to
be
open
to
the
entire
community,
and
not
just
residents
in
in
these
complex
is
why
people
feel
comfortable
and
want
to
see
this
move
forward.
M
It'd
be
a
very
different
scenario.
This
was
a
luxury
building
project
where
you
know
there
would
be
discussions
about
gentrification
and
discussions
about
you
know
having
two
different
classes,
you
know,
and
what
we
and
how
this
is
actually
benefiting
the
community.
So
this
project
people
feel
comfortable
with
this
project.
People
feel
you
know
like
they
want
to
see
this
in
this
neighborhood
and
that
this
neighborhood
deserves
something.
M
You
know
that's
going
to
bring
positive
vibes
for
no
for
lack
of
a
better
word
and
positive
energy
and
and
opportunity
for
growth
in
this
community.
So
it's
it's
a
risk,
it's
a
risk
and
I'm
hoping
that
the
developer
and
I'm
hoping
that
those
who
are
working
on
this
project
get
this
completed,
because
if
this
is
not
the
project
that
goes
up
then
you
know,
then
we
then
then
really
I
mean.
Hopefully
that's
not
the
situation,
but
but
we
won't
forget.
E
If
you
look
at
the
south
end
development
plan,
one
of
the
things
that
they
want
to
get
rid
of
are
the
towers,
and
I
lived
for
10
years
in
sheridan
hollow
which
a
lot
of
people
consider
arbor
hill
and
watched.
Some
developments
happen,
and
I
want
to
say,
with
a
lot
of
enthusiasm,
get
pushed
through
that,
ultimately
we're
not
in
the
best
interests
of
clinton
avenue
in
that
community.
E
E
E
I've
looked
at
the
shadow
studies
that
have
been
provided
and
and
the
other
information,
and
I
think
that
we
have
been
provided
with,
I
think,
basically
as
much
information
as
if
a
full
eis
was
was
done,
and
here,
while
I
have
reservations
and
as
alfredo
says,
I
think
that
there's
some
risk
associated
with
this-
and
I
hope
you
know-
I
hope
I
don't
regret
my
decision,
but
I'm
I'm
you
know
also
listening
to
the
community,
the
you
know
when
I
look
at
well.
Why
do
we
zone
in
one
way?
E
E
I
am
a
little
bit
concerned
about
these
being
the
new
towers
that
30
years
from
now,
people
will
want
to
take
down
because
it's
disruptive
to
the
neighborhood
feel
and
and-
and
so
those
are
some
of
my
reservations,
but
I'm
respectful
of
miss
frederick's
support
of
this.
Mr
johnson's
support
of
this,
mr
alice's
report,
miss
love's
support
of
this,
and-
and
I
understand
that
sometimes
you
have
have
to
take
a
leap
of
faith
and
think
boldly,
and
I
am
trusting
that
people
will
not
disappoint
me.