Developers seek recommendation for 152‑unit Niskayuna Harbor PUD as board presses for environmental and grading detail

Developers presenting the sketch plan for the proposed "Niskayuna Harbor" planned unit development at 2757 Aqueduct Road asked the Niskayuna Planning Board on June 8 to call for a resolution recommending a zone change to a planned unit development. The application shows about 152 for‑sale condominium units and substantial open space along the canal corridor.

“We finally got down to the 152 units and the elimination of … a significant number of units that we had along the ponds to try to mitigate some of the potential environmental concerns,” said Brett Steamberg of Steamberg Consulting Engineering, who described multi‑year design iterations and consultations with state and federal agencies.

The board and the Conservation Advisory Council (CAC) did not reject the concept, but repeatedly pressed for more technical detail before a recommendation. Dart Strayer, chair of the CAC, told the board the site contains roughly seven acres of jurisdictional wetlands and two acres of non‑jurisdictional wetlands and warned of building close to the canal and bike path. “The water table on this site varies between 6 in and 18 in,” Strayer said, and the CAC raised concerns that concentrating stormwater management near the wetlands could increase thermal and pollutant impacts and alter groundwater support for the existing forest.

Staff and board members also raised procedural questions about the timing of the state environmental review (referred to in the record as the "seeker" process). Planning staff said she had found guidance suggesting the planning board’s recommendation should await the lead agency’s SEQR determination; the board requested the town attorney and staff to confirm whether the planning board should delay a formal recommendation until the lead‑agency SEQR (environmental review) determination is complete.

Engineering questions dominated the technical discussion. The developer’s team estimated two to four feet of fill in low areas to achieve adequate drainage and acknowledged further geotechnical testing and grading work were needed. Board members asked for cross‑sections and elevation views at the Aqueduct Road entrance and along the canal corridor to assess road grades, sightlines and the visual impacts of buildings close to the historic canal bed.

The CAC asked the developer to provide clearer documentation earlier in the process and suggested buffers from the canal; board members and developers discussed mechanisms to preserve riverfront open space if the town will not own the parcel, including a land trust or conservation organization, or maintenance by an HOA with specific management plans. The developer said they are open to drafting open‑space management terms and noted they have already provided agency determination letters from DEC and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for wetlands.

Staff also requested an updated sewer‑capacity letter; staff said preliminary checks show the treatment plant has spare capacity but asked for a current formal letter from the sewer authority. The developer agreed to deliver additional materials, including cross‑sections through the site showing road grades and elevations, updated responses to traffic and TDE comments, and documentation of agency consultations.

Next steps: The planning board asked the applicant to provide the requested engineering cross‑sections and agency letters and agreed to draft a conditional recommendation that lists outstanding data requests and conditions. The board targeted continued discussion and a possible recommendation on June 29, contingent on the town attorney’s guidance on SEQR timing and receipt of outstanding information.

What remains unresolved: the CAC’s formal recommendation (it lacked a quorum the night of the presentation), precise floodplain/wetland buffering and whether the town would accept maintenance responsibility for riverfront parkland or whether a land trust/HOA mechanism will be required.