Town of Bethlehem

Identity

Desk

Capital Region Signal Desk

desk_id

capital-region

County

Albany County

Type

town

Slug

bethlehem

municipality_id

albany-county/bethlehem

desk_path

municipalities/albany-county/bethlehem

Official website

—

Desk note

ProgOps export 2026-10-02b. Coverage depth filled. Replaces the 2026-10-02 export.

Tier and pipeline

Tier

BOOTSTRAPPED

coverage_label_raw

BOOTSTRAPPED

pipeline_stage

—

Coverage depth

sources / meeting notes / source registry. Not a percent.

coverage_state

3

coverage_label_raw

BOOTSTRAPPED

source_count

20

meetings_notes_count

9

has_source_registry

yes

decision_grade_permitted

yes

desk_validated

yes

Counts

meetings_count

9

source_count

20

cf_enabled_url_count

8

resources_consumed

not tracked

resources_forecast

not tracked

Technology

unobserved

Documents

No official registry URLs in this manifest.

cf_enabled_url_count: 8. The count does not include URL strings, so none are linked.

Meetings

meetings_count

9

Minutes

POSTED 0 · DRAFT 2 · NOT_POSTED 1 · UNKNOWN 6

Video / recording

NOT_POSTED 1 · NOT_YET_EXPECTED 8

• 2026-08-26 — Town Board

  Minutes: NOT_POSTED

  III. Public Comments. Did not watch. Did not invent seconds.

  comments: none yet

• 2026-09-01 — Planning Board

  Planning Board

  Minutes: POSTED minutes

  comments: none yet

• 2026-09-02 — Zoning Board of Appeals

  Zoning Board of Appeals

  Minutes: POSTED minutes

  comments: none yet

• 2026-09-09 — Town Board

  Town Board

  Minutes: approved

  • George Harder — Good evening. My name is George Harder. I live at 15 Euclid Ave. in Elsmere. For the 35th time, when will you permanently shut off the valve at the Clapper Road water filtration plant that allows carcinogens such as trichloroethane, PFOAs, PFAs, PCBs into our drinking water system? Any level of carcinogens is dangerous. No level of carcinogens is safe to drink, as you claim. Stop deliberately poisoning and killing Bethlehem residents. Stop ripping off taxpayers by wasting multi-millions of our dollars, unquote, extensive investments, unquote, for so-called improvements that will never rectify the problems at this failed facility. Water from this plant should be restricted for commercial and industrial use only. As it had been for about 12 years after the plant became operational. The Beacon Island fiasco has compounded the water pollution problem. You allowed clear- cutting of all vegetation on the island that exposed highly toxic chemicals in fly ash that was dumped there for decades. These toxic chemicals were dispersed into the air, onto the land, and into the river. Eleven wells in the river drew up the chemicals and fed them to the Clapper Road facility from which they were sent into our drinking water. The county legislature should prohibit use of the Hudson River as source water for the drinking water system in Bethlehem and throughout the county. It should use its inherent power to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of its citizens. You should stop your false assertion that water drawn from the aquifer under the river is not Hudson River water. Any reasonable person knows that the surface river water, with any contaminants and pollutants, are pulled by gravity through the soil into the aquifer, a process that has been taking place since the end of the last ice age. Also, pollution of the river has been continuously occurring since the first Europeans arrived here 500 years ago. In a November 12, 2025 presentation, the Commission of Public Works indicated that trichloroethane levels reported in the annual water quality reports are quarterly averages. This practice of averaging conceals the actual monthly readings and presents a false representation of true levels of carcinogens each month. The water quality reports also contain a highly misleading statement that says the treatment facility has the ability to treat 6 million gallons per day. The truth is, the Clapper Road facility has never achieved that level of daily production because the 11 wells are continually being clogged with silt and are offline for varying periods of time. Recently, it was announced that the town signed a new contract with Albany to purchase water from the Alcove Reservoir, and that the water was intended for use by Cogen. I have a novel idea, and I'm surprised none of you thought of this. Send all the carcinogenic water from the Clapper Road facility to Cogen, which will just further contaminate it during their business processes, and send the good, clean, safe water from the Alcove Reservoir into the town residential drinking water system, rather than wasting it on Cogen. Your ignorance and arrogance make you unfit to govern our town. Your inaction leads me to conclude that you just don't care about the health of residents and business owners alike. You have a responsibility to care for the common good, but you are failing to do so. For the safety of Bethlehem, you should all resign immediately. What is wrong with you people? Feeding us carcinogens every day is total lunacy. Stop the deaf, mute, and blind show.
  • Michael Carey — Michael Carey, whistle blower, civil rights, disability rights advocate. I would like the town to address George's whistle blower complaints officially, and I personally do not drink the Bethlehem town water because I have serious concerns. I drink Poland spring water. So, to the 9-11, obviously what happened on 9-11 is horrific. 3,000 people lost their lives. I'm bringing it to the attention again. I think it's somewhere between three and four dozen times that more people die in the New York State mental health care system every single year than the deaths at the World Trade Center. Four to five thousand people with developmental disabilities, mental health issues of different types, are dying in a grossly unsafe and negligent mental health care system in which the federal government is funneling in billions of dollars into the state of New York through Medicaid. It's distributed to a lot of different people. They're enriching themselves. Most of these supposed not-for-profits are cash cows. They're paying their 8 to 10 levels of administrative tiers, CEO, CFO, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, millions of dollars, hundreds of not-for-profits, stealing the money off the top, not putting the basic safety and abuse prevention measures in place, cameras, safe working hours. Caregiver are not licensed. They are not trained. There' re no schooling requirements. The New York State mental health care system is an absolute disaster. And as a result of the Medicaid fraud and the stealing to enrich themselves, and obviously political-connected people funneling money to their friends, family members, et cetera, they're stealing the money that's supposed to provide safe care. Now the end result is four to five thousand people are dying every single year. And the law says that every single institutional death has to be investigated by county medical examiners and coroners. The entity in town that I've been blowing the whistle against, to Bethlehem Police Chief, Corsi and Cocchiara, and to each one of you, and previous board members and supervisors, is basically looking the other way. They are hiding most of the deaths, not saying 100 percent, almost all of them, from county medical examiners and coroners. They cannot go out and take possession of the body, do autopsies, do blood work, et cetera, to determine the cause of death. What is the reason? Because they're trying to protect multi million dollar lawsuits for the negligent, wrongful deaths. And then it's the same damn thing with all the sex crimes. Thousands and thousands and thousands of sex crimes against our most vulnerable every single year. These are the ones that are called in. Most of the sex crimes will never be called in. For developmentally disabled, 3 percent of what's happened are being called in. OPWDD, Office of People with Developmental Disabilities, 1,300 called in, on average, annually, sex crimes, rapes. That's in just one category. They have a whole other category they call sensitive situations. We know the numbers are way more. You multiply that by 33 to get the statistical average of how many people are being sexually assaulted and raped in the developmental disability system. About a third of the population every single year. Now, this is what's going on. The calls are coming in to 161 Delaware Avenue, across from the Delaware Plaza, under the guise of the New York State Justice Center for the Protection of People with Special Needs. It is 100 percent the opposite from the name. It's the Unjust Center for the Protection of the Medicaid Fraud Public Corruption Ponzi Scheme. Bethlehem Chief Cocchiara is 100 percent aware of it. She's got all sorts of documents and evidence I've provided over and over again. She has been told to stand down by Governor Andrew Cuomo and obviously Governor Hochul, which the executive branch is in control of six mental health agencies. Supervisor VanLuven: Thirty seconds. Michael Carey: The stand-down order came through in 2014. I gave you the document many times. 2014 thing from Governor Andrew Cuomo, directing all law enforcement agencies to stand down. We have jurisdiction. You guys get the federal authorities in here to simply investigate the deaths and the sex crimes. I've asked for letters in writing. I'm asking again tonight. Supervisor VanLuven: Thank you. Michale Carey: And I'm asking you to please officially respond right away. Supervisor VanLuven: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the town board meeting?
  • Bruce Grossman — I'm Bruce Grossman from Glenmont. As a retired social worker, I'm going to talk to you about why you must remove the allowance for developers to build multifamily apartments in the proposed NR district where there is no reliable public transportation because it would put undue hardship upon residents who would depend upon it. The language that you have included giving the developer the right by desire to build multifamily units is contrary to the very concept of home rule, and that is the reason that we elected you, not developers, to make decisions on our behalf, so you must exclude it. We might complain, but we pay for $4 gas, then drive off in one of our cars and go about our business. But for others who I will call "workforce families" who are financially challenged, their existence revolves around planning how to travel to get goods and services, and that will be a nightmare for them if you build apartments in the areas of town that has no bus service. When I stood near the bus stop of the Glenmont Price Chopper to collect signatures, I got to meet workforce employees and bus customers like mobility-challenged people who got off the bus and onto scooters and mothers dragging their children behind. They all lived in Albany, reliant upon the bus to get to work and to buy food. I chatted with an elderly lady, and she forewarned, don’t you remember Crossgates Mall? They protested that too, but they built it anyway. You can stand out here, but they will build them apartments anyway. I know what apartment building life is like because I lived in one until age 13. I come from a working-class family. My father took our only car to work while Mom stayed home with my sister and me until we started school. And then, if it weren't for the corner bus, she would not have been able to get to her new job as a school lunch lady and be able to get home in time to meet the school bus. Larry Brown, the famous basketball player and coach, lived in an apartment above a bakery in Long Beach during his high school years because you live where you can afford to live. He was able to spend his free time shooting hoops at a nearby playground because he could walk to it. The point is that people must have easy access to where they need to go, not just to survive, but in some cases to become great. Mom grew up in the Bronx during the Depression. She had to share a bedroom with her brother and sister, and you can expect that in NR apartments, when times are hard, the same will happen. If her building were not a block away from the subway and shops, Grandpa would not have been able to get to work and Grandma would not have been able to buy what she needed to feed the family. Small apartments with young children, annoying neighbors, landlords quick to evict, barking dogs, and used cars that are expensive to maintain. And when they break down, the CDTA becomes the lifeline to keeping a job are just a few of the apartment living stressor's that can contribute to depression, anxiety, and drug or child abuse, particularly for the stay-at-home parent who feels isolated. Privileged kids expect their first car at age 17, and they are off to part-time jobs. But workforce teens will need the bus to get to that job, to save for their first car, and to get home from after- school activities. Stay-at-home parents need to be able to get their children to the doctor or to the library or playground, and for their own mental health, they need to get to places where they can meet and socialize with other adults. They need easy access to shops and supermarkets, and working parents need to drop their kids off at daycare before walking or taking a bus to work. You all got photo ops at Hudson on Nine, but did you follow through to assure reliable transportation was available as required? Do you realize that parents and their children have been walking over two miles along 9W without sidewalks? What will you say to a parent if their child gets hit by a car? We desired to provide transportation, but it was not required. If you are really serious about building apartments to welcome workforce individuals and families into Bethlehem, then you must do so along Delaware Avenue and 9W, where there is public transportation, goods, and services. Otherwise, you are further marginalizing the very people that you hope to uplift. Our Town Planning Director designed Kimmey Point, a conservation cluster single- and two- family neighborhood that defines what should be built in what you are now calling Neighborhood Residential Zone. He is also a missing middle housing expert, which is the premier program that towns are using to build affordable apartments in downtown areas just like ours. And I think that it is time for you to task him too also do so, and why not?
  • Colleen Scott — Colleen Scott from Glenmont, again. I'm going to start with stating what's obvious to many residents, and believe me, I've heard from many of them. There's been a real issue with the way the Town has communicated throughout this process, and its left residents feeling dismissed and as if their voices don't matter. I cannot tell you the number of times I've heard, I'll sign that, but the Town is going to do what the Town wants to do, no matter how many signatures you get. Thank you so much for your efforts. We really appreciate it. But in the end, the Town will pass what the Board and the staff want, not what the residents want. You validate that sentiment every time there's a lack of good governance, and that's exhibited such as dropping a 400-page document after 5 p.m. on a Friday of a holiday weekend, and then holding the meeting presenting the zoning changes after the Town's only been open for two business days and on the second day of school. I'm actually quite surprised we have this many people because it is the second day of school, not to mention the public comment being held at the beginning of this meeting and the presentation being scheduled for the conclusion of the meeting, making it impossible to clarify questions residents may have or for them to comment appropriately. This is out of touch with the concept of building back trust with the public, which has eroded during this process. It leaves folks feeling like this version of the plan is just another bait-and-switch. That said, I do want to recognize the Board did listen to residents and make some substantial changes to the proposed zoning, including reducing density of dwelling units per acre. I really appreciate that. However, I don't know how many times I've stood before you and spoken and said, and I'm sure you all can't count the number of times at this point either that I've said the same thing, which is it's the overall density that is really concerning. The bulk of that density is focused on the Feura Bush Road corridor, and there's been no research to determine what that area can support. We have had residents complaining about traffic congestion, emergency responders stating on the record that they have to take longer routes to avoid that same traffic congestion which affects emergency response times. Schools rezoning children to an elementary school that is not their home elementary school, including busing 150 children to Slingerlands, which is the furthest elementary school from Glenmont, causing longer commutes and other logistical concerns for parents. Bus stops being moved nearly a mile from the kids' homes because the bus cannot navigate to turn onto busy roads in Glenmont. Flooding issues in both people's homes and on main roads. The last storm literally closed Feura Bush Road for a good length of time too. Residents complain they cannot get cell service in some areas of the town, which has caused real concerns when 911 is needed. When you know all of that and you've heard all of that, it's mind-boggling that the town would move forward without the proper information about what changes may be needed to support the current residents, let alone future growth. Why does the town insist on pushing through changes that cannot help but impact the town, or at least large swaths of the town, without the proper information about what infrastructure it can support? For the life of me, I just can't understand the motive that this is possible for the town to pass the majority... It is possible for you guys to pass the majority of the changes that are not upsetting people and deal with the legitimate issues that people have brought to the forefront. On the subject of traffic, it's been stated many times that folks don't need to worry about Feura Bush Road because alternate parallel routes will be created through neighborhoods. That's exactly what we're complaining about. Cut-through speeding traffic is a major concern on many residential streets in the town and is currently unaddressed. Increasing connectivity in an effort to make the main road less congested only increases concern for pedestrian safety. Just the other day, I was speaking with a board member who was trying to clarify information on the zoning plan for me, and a truck slammed on their brakes at the corner that I've been concerned about in my neighborhood, and I had to, like, run from the phone to make sure somebody wasn't hit. There was an older woman walking her dog, and the person just narrowly avoided her. This is a regular occurrence, and thanks to the Traffic Safety Committee, there will eventually be a stop sign installed there, which is great because none of my neighbors know why it came down or when it happened. But one stop sign is not a cure for speeding or cut-through traffic that will only increase with the current plan of how to deal with traffic congestion. I urge the board to seriously consider the concerns residents have brought forth and engage in true open dialogue with the public, you know, the people that these changes will affect. This is a crucial piece, and I'm taking buy-in from residents, and you never know, a bunch of us smart, concerned citizens just may have some suggestions that improve the proposal and create a better outcome for everyone. Side note, I worked at that assisted living. I'm heartbroken to hear that, and I really hope the nursing home gets looked at, too. Thank you.
  • Barbara Silber — Just short and sweet. I'm Barbara Silber for Brightonwood Road. Not going forward, which you stated, on the rezoning for Feura Bush Road means just that, you haven't decided. It's subject to any change or no change at all. Every 10 or 20 acres, according to your zoning, must have multifamily units, six per building, and then there's a 50% bonus increase for certain applications. Now, 20 acres or 10 acres can be any place in the town, including the Feura Bush Road corridor. So, I'm concerned about that. We already are allowed two-family houses on Feura Bush Road, so with your proposed changes, will that allow for greater density of buildings on Feura Bush Road? And then are the multi-unit houses allowed among the senior, I mean, excuse me, the single-family homes, or how are you going to separate them? We need town studies to see what our town can handle, so I'm hoping that you will do that before any decision is made. Thank you.
  • Karen Bonventre — Hello. Karen Bonventre, 15 Dover Drive. I also would like to join people in thanking you for listening to the concerns of the hundreds of people who came here and making the adjustments that you did. It's not that we'll never be satisfied, but we do think that some work needs to be done, particularly as people are talking about the number of multifamily housings that would be allowed. And looking at this form that you've given us about what the concern was, it brings to mind why was that ever proposed in the first place. If you look at it, it seems a lot of the things just don't even make any sense, like changing my subdivision, a longstanding single-family subdivision to multifamily housing. Lots of the things as we look at here, why didn't everybody ever propose that in the first place? I'd like to talk about the process. As was also mentioned, I'm stunned that you're talking about it today. And from the page 28 of the proposal, it says, should the board of the packet for tonight's meeting. So, I assume you're planning on voting on it tonight. Supervisor VanLuven: No, we're not voting on this until December. Karen Bonventre: No, I don't mean that. I mean, you're giving your vote that we think it should go forward. Supervisor VanLuven: There's no vote scheduled tonight. Karen Bonventre: Then how, if you could explain, it says, should the board determine these changes are acceptable? Staff can prepare to schedule a public hearing for October 29th. How will they know that you think it's acceptable? Supervisor VanLuven: We have a conversation. Karen Bonventre: Tonight? Supervisor VanLuven: And over the next several months. Karen Bonventre: When will you decide to hold the public hearing? Supervisor VanLuven: We can talk about this after the meeting. Councilmember Cunningham: David, I think you need to explain to us, too, because there's confusion in the process, but at what point is it final? Because this makes it seems like we've voted on something and we haven't. And I think people want to know when is the last version of the plan that will be in the town board before the hearing. Supervisor VanLuven: It depends on where, what kind of comments we get from the town board. There's interest in presenting something to the town board at the end of this month for us to have a public hearing on. We'll see how the public hearing goes. If that, if it looks good, then we can move forward into a vote in December. If it doesn't look good, we can stretch this on for however long the board needs it to be stretched onto. Karen Bonventre: That doesn't answer my question. Supervisor VanLuven: So, I can answer your question after the meeting. Karen Bonventre: Okay. I'm going to, I'm going to say it again for the audience. I want to know at what point will you make it decide to have a public hearing? Because when you make that decision, you're saying we like it. We're not making a final decision, but we like it enough to want to have a public hearing. I want to know when that decision will be made. And according to the page 28 of the packet, should the board determine these changes are acceptable, somehow there has to be a determination, a public determination that the, these changes are acceptable. The staff can prepare to schedule a public hearing. So there's no really public hearing scheduled for October 28th until you decide this is acceptable. That's my, that's my concern. And it seems like it's a big rush. I mean, it's really, I think almost embarrassing that you released a document on September 4th and we're having this discussion today, five days later with a Labor Day weekend in between. I mean, people want to be able to talk to you before you make that determination. I know that's not the final determination, but there are many steps of the process. And this is, we want to talk to you before you decide the changes are acceptable. And then I know there's a public process, but let's know where that is. And this seems to be, it seems to not make any sense to have five days. We're kind of outraged by that. And the fact that, that according to the timeline I looked at, it may be possible that you will approve this before the traffic study is in, which doesn't seem to me to make, again, make any sense. Why would you make such a huge decision for the town before we know what's the impact, which seems to be almost one of the number one thing everybody in this room cares about is what's going to happen to Feura Bush road. So, let's at least get that information before, before you, you, you say that. And my question is what's the big rush. Okay. And where is this the only time the town is going to present these changes? You know, did you have to come tonight and wait till the end of the meeting to have some kind of explanation of what the changes are? I'm, I'm very grateful of the changes that have been made so far, but I do have, I do have some more questions and I'd like to say that I'm concerned about the, the multifamily and that one thing to think about it is that a good town plan means that everything that you will is allowed in the plan is built. And we can handle it, both our character and our infrastructure. You're making the plan. You're saying if all this happens, we're good. Okay. And it's not that we're going to fight in every individual conservation district that comes up. You're deciding. Now you're looking at the big picture to decide this is good. If all of this happens, we can live with it. I'm not sure we can. Supervisor VanLuven: We're at the five-minute mark, but because I interrupted you, I'm going to give you an extra minute. Karen Bonventre: Okay. I'm done. Thank you for listening. Supervisor VanLuven: Okay. Thank you. Next.
  • Eileen Gallagher — Eileen Gallagher, 51 Brightonwood Road. I've talked a number of times at these meetings. First. Thank you. I'm glad that some changes were made and some acknowledgement of everything we've been saying. So, I appreciate that very much, but I want to get this on the record. Okay. I feel like I'm living in 1984. We're speaking. That is just crazy. You said if we come to conservation, if we get a consensus, that's what you just said, then we will go forward, but it's not a vote. How do you get a consensus? Unless you poll the people and ask them their opinion and the majority consents. That's a vote. I have this thing here that says low density residential will not be moving forward. Thank you. But half the problem was the definition of low density. Why was that ever put on paper? We're going to have a low density residential, which actually increases the density. I mean, be clear to what we're talking about. We asked for a traffic study. Thank you. You've been asking that for a long time, but I'm hearing in the comments in the paper that we're going to do the traffic study, but it's not going to be directly impacting what's going forward with the study. What we do in the traffic study, because the people asked for it because they're concerned, but it's not going to be necessarily going to mean anything. It's double speak. Be clear, be honest. That's what we're asking. If we have honest, clear communication, we can respond, but that's not what we're getting. And I think that's the frustration of a lot of us. Thank you.
  • William Sharpe — Good evening. My name is William Sharpe and I live at 163 Westchester drive. I want to thank the board for several changes in this latest version. You maintain the current housing densities in the new neighborhood residential district. While eliminating stacked incentive bonuses and capping them. So, thank you. The board still has homework to do. The board has an opportunity to make three key improvements before the public hearing. These three changes would not require reopening the entire zoning package. First, the board must fix the most serious flaw in the proposal. The excessively high densities in two proposed zoning districts, the commercial multi-use district allows 25 units per acre and the mixed density residential district allows 17 units per acre. These are extremely high base densities even before incentive bonuses are added. No planning studies explains how these high densities were selected. Building at this scale will generate heavy traffic on major roads where these districts are mapped, including Route 9W, Delaware and Cherry Avenues, New Scotland Road, Route 85 and Meades Lane. If the board is not willing to eliminate these districts entirely, it should at least reduce their densities by five dwelling units per acre. This would bring commercial multi-use to 20 units per acre and mixed density residential to 12 units per acre. These reduced densities would better protect Bethlehem's character. Second, eliminate the existing approval exemption provision on page 36 of your packet. If the town board has, I'm sorry, if the planning board has merely issued a negative declaration or accepted a draft environmental impact statement under seeker, this exemption lets developers completely skip site plan and subdivision reviews under New York law. Seeker declarations are preliminary environmental steps, not official land use approvals granting a right to build yet under this exemption, the 684 housing units currently in the town's pipeline could skip the site plan and subdivision reviews and approvals completely without ever receiving approval from the planning Board. Large housing developments receiving this waiver would not have to contribute to the town's park and recreation funds protect against flooding installs a storm drain, construct interior roads to town standards or be directed where to connect street ends to town highways. If the town accepts dedication of poorly built interior streets, maintenance and repair costs will come directly out of town funds. Developers in Bethlehem who have been waiting in line have taken a normal business risk. The town does not owe them a special exemption from its laws just because they submitted early applications. If this loophole is enacted, the town can expect a rush of housing developments all without planning board oversight. I urge the board to eliminate this extension, this exemption entirely. Supervisor VanLuven: 30 seconds. William Sharpe: I appreciate the new environmental review standards added to the site plan reviews, which give the planning board authority to require a traffic drainage and visual impact studies. I have two suggestions. First as written, it's limited to site plans only. It should also apply to subdivision reviews as well. And second, the law should expressly state that the applicant will pay for the studies that the planning board requests. Supervisor VanLuven: And we're at five minutes. William Sharpe: Uh, these simple changes would make the proposed zoning better, fairer and protective of our community. Thank you.
  • Phil Stevens — Good evening. Phil Stevens, 4 Holbrook Way. Um, structure needs to be in place before development. Our town in the past has grown roughly at a pace of 0.3%. Can you point alone in its current configuration? If done over two years, a two-year period will create 0.25% growth in each of those two years. So that's almost all of our growth. How are we planning to upgrade our structures for this increase? Two thirds of the two thirds of the proposed increase in development curves just south of Feura Bush quarter. We are spending $65,000 on a traffic study and not considering this data in our update. It was stated at the last town board meeting that if an intersection had a level of service grade of D E or F improvements would need to be recommended by the engineering firm. Level of service or L-O-S as it's called is an expression of mobility based on delay at an intersection measured in seconds per vehicle. In 2012, a traffic study for Wemple corners performed by Chasing Engineers observed that the intersection of Elsmere and Feura Bush road had a level of service rating of C during PM peak hours. This is in 2012. They also projected that in 2015 that would become an E-rated intersection in 2017. The reports are right here. You can download them. I can make you copies. In 2017 CHA Engineers provided an assessment. The U S Route 9W quarter that calculated the currently rated debt intersection, the same intersection at a level of D for level of service at peak PM hours. This supports the projection from Chasing Engineers that this intersection would become more congested over time. We're talking from 2012 to 2017 CHA also projected in 2026 that this intersection would have a level of service of E. If five current projects in the pipeline were passed, it should be noted that two of those projects were built. Both traffic studies included recommended improvements, which were not done after having this data. Why do we propose to increase the density of the Feura Bush quarter to seven dwelling units per acre, which is a density increase of 133%? Why would two thirds of our town density, why would two thirds of our future projected growth of the town as a whole be targeted for the area of the Feura Bush quarter? If we knew this at ahead of time, which we did cause you all received the reports from the engineer. Oh, why did we not push to make the recommendations that the engineer gave us? How did, uh, trafficking, um, how did traffic not increase on this road, but somehow these intersections got worse. The new traffic study along with the analysis of the other basic services need to be removed for, we can provide updated zoning. I have spoken with many residents and the first question is, why was this sent out on Friday afternoon before a three-day Holiday weekend? There are over 400 pages of zoning code that need to be reviewed for revisions. This is possibly one of the biggest updates to town. We'll see in a quarter century and we only have two business days to review it and get back to you tonight for questions. The same week that our kids are going to school. Is this how the town is going to conduct business? Just ram it through. It's when you read or listen to the comments this spring, many residents voice services, pleasure that the meeting agenda comes out too late. You just did it again on a holiday weekend. Who on the board thought that was a good idea and thought that was fair for our residents? Moving forward. Should we just block off every Wednesday because we don't know what's coming out into Friday before every other Wednesday and just say, okay, town board meeting because we have so little time. We're not planning here. This is what's data stated on the town website. The town board will take a pause this summer as many residents is asked to take additional time to review key elements of the proposal and make recommendations for moving forward. This fall to respond to some of the themes we have heard. It's on your website. Supervisor VanLuven: 30 seconds. Phil Stevens: Again, fall is weeks away. Again, we're not blind. We see what's happening here. And again, let's look at the statement one more time, review key elements of the proposal and make recommendations moving forward this fall. So, some of the themes we heard, we were all here. What themes do we hear to spring traffic congestion? Supervisor VanLuven: 10 Seconds Phil Stevens: School overcrowding, flooding, emergency services, water quality and rate of growth. This update doesn't include any of them. Supervisor VanLuven: Thank you. Phil Stevens: You're welcome.
  • Adrienne Howe — Hi, my name is Adrienne Howe. I live in Delmar. As a fan of democracy, I think it's great that you have listened to people that you represent. I believe the ability to compromise is needed in a functional democracy. That being said, this feels like too much of a compromise, too much backsliding every day. We are bombarded with stories about how unaffordable life has become. There are so few problems today that have easy solutions, but this is one of those. The most direct way to lower housing costs is to increase the amount of diverse housing that is available. I believe everyone is diverse, is deserving of affordable housing. And I think most people in this room feel the same way, no matter what end of the zoning issue you stand on. The inconveniences that we might experience in the short term are outweighed by the long-term benefits that would come with zoning changes. The planning board has already spent two years working on this plan. Delaying longer won't solve problems. There will always be calls for more delays. I would like to end with a quote from an article by Chris Churchill that recently appeared in the Times Union. Hypocrisy is inherent to the argument, of course, since nearly all of us live in homes that erase nature, change the character of a neighborhood, and add it to congestion. Preventing new construction then means preventing the opportunity once granted to us. Selfish? How could it not be so? Thank you.
  • Bruce Bushart — Fortunately, most of the intellectual work has been done, I can pop up. I appreciate the dialogue that has happened with a number of the board members and the supervisor. I think, as a starter, I think you've heard there's a lot of very competent, bright information in the populace that we should continue to respect and take advantage of as we move forward with this. There's a number of issues that still need to be addressed, as has been mentioned. I would just add a couple and say something nice and be quiet. I think the pipeline issue, there's, what, 600 some units that are out there. I'd like to be clear on what they are, and I don't think that they should be exempt from the examination than any new applicant would be, so I would urge we do that. I think we've done some work on examining the various levels of incentive that have seemed to put our initial assessment as just a starting point, and you end up far down the road with the number of units or the heights or the road. So, I think that should continue to be examined and be sure every incentive that's in there warrants it. More housing isn't necessarily a reaction to doing something good on energy, for example. At any rate, I wanted to bring the newspaper up and thank you all for the work that you did on the Delmar assisted living facility. I think that, as you read more and more about it, it was an awful mess, and nobody should be in there, not our relatives, nobody else's. So, thank you for that work.
  • Laura DiBetta — Good evening. Laura DiBetta, Mosher Road, and Delmar. First, I know the zoning update has been a challenging process, and I appreciate your willingness to listen to residents' concerns and try to come up with a proposal that addresses some of those concerns. That said, I was shocked by the latest proposal. There are some small positive changes, but it is far from the vision described in the comprehensive plan for a diversity of housing choices. Eliminating LDR completely and backsliding to Res A throughout the town is the antithesis of progress. Instead, this new proposal continues to promote an exclusionary suburban sprawl development pattern, pushing development out further and further with no gains for open space. It also fails to meet the needs of people at different stages of life to enable them to stay in Bethlehem by making single-family housing the only choice rather than one of several. I find single-family home ownership to be very stressful, and I look forward to the day when I can live maybe in an apartment with staff who take care of the grounds for me, for example. This new plan is not sustainable, and this path that we seem to be on is not sustainable. So, I strongly recommend that the board move forward with the previous iteration of the plan, which already included many changes in response to residents' concerns, but at least kept the town on a path forward using smart growth principles. The new proposal, unfortunately, in my opinion, represents a significant overcorrection and regression. In addition, further attempts to stall or halt the process, such as waiting for traffic studies to be completed or expanding the scope of those studies, would be costly and do not represent best practices in planning. So again, I urge you to move forward tonight on the prior iteration of the zoning amendments, which represent a more reasonable path forward towards a sustainable community for all. Thank you.
  • Name Not Given — I wasn't planning to say anything, but I guess I'm going to. First of all, I want to thank you for what you did with the assisted living facility on Rockefeller Road, and I also wanted to thank Mr. VanLuven for answering me with my emails today. Having said that, I guess there's an awful lot here that is troubling. It's troubling to just about everybody here, and I'm listening and saying to myself, all right, the people who are concerned about Feura Bush Corridor are concerned about multifamily. The people who want multifamily have good reasons for wanting multifamily. It seems to me that the question is where and where we put it. Not that we don't do it, but that we do it. Now, do I like the new zoning recommendation from the planning director? No, I don't. I'm confused, and part of what I would like to see maybe is a visual. I'm a visual learner, and I'm trying to envision what this would look like. I'm no planner. I'm no intellect. But I read what was proposed, and I said ten or more acres. Sounds to me like just about every piece of vacant land fall into this new recommendation. And part of the new recommendation, as I read it, is multifamily housing. So, does that mean in single-family areas, neighborhoods, that we're going to have apartment buildings like Kensington Court? I don't know. So, I guess what I'm saying is it might be helpful to have a visual presentation of what this new recommendation is, and it may also definitely be helpful to have more ongoing discussions so that there's consensus among people. I know it seems like there may not be, but one thing I've seen from this whole process is that a lot of people have become friendly with one another. You've actually brought together people in the community. I'm sure that wasn't the goal. But there are people here who did not know one another who now do, who talk to one another, and who really want to see the town of Bethlehem remain the wonderful place it is in which to live. So having said that, with no script, I'm hoping that the presentation tonight will clarify things so that we can all understand it a little better.
  • Karen Harmon — Hi. As usual, I'm Karen Harmon from 55 Brightonwood Road in Glenmont. We appreciate the town board's efforts so far to make a few adjustments in the proposed rezoning in response to the public outcry over how changes would exacerbate traffic congestion and overdevelopment throughout town. Late Friday night, Supervisor VanLuven emailed the revised zoning text to town residents after town hall had already closed for the weekend. Monday was a holiday, so town offices were closed again. Yesterday was the first day town hall was open for official business. That left residents with essentially two business days to review hundreds of pages of complex zoning code before tonight's board meeting. At a time when many town residents are already distracted by the normal chaos that ensues when schools open this week, there has not been enough time for town residents to respond meaningfully to this late submission. Last Friday's release is the perfect example of what is known as a Friday news dump. You may be familiar with that. Releasing a massive and complex document immediately before a long weekend, which creates a substantial disadvantage for members of the community. One of the biggest reactions I'm hearing, in fact, from fellow residents is how annoyed everybody is and disgusted by what seems like a less than subtle attempt to ram the new changes through following a holiday weekend and school distractions, while stifling impactful feedback as much as possible. A comprehensive zoning revision requires time to review its legal, planning, environmental, and practical implications. Residents also need time to consult with their neighbors, ask questions of town staff, and prepare meaningful public comments. I question whether any town board member here has had enough time to really thoroughly review the entire revised package before tonight's meeting. We're asking the board to give residents a fair opportunity to review these major revisions and provide meaningful public comment. I ask the board, on the record, to table any action on these zoning revisions and continue the public comment period and not schedule the public hearing in the near future. That would give residents a fair opportunity to participate in a decision that will shape Bethlehem for decades and will help us gain a little more trust in you guys again. Another thing I just want to point out, we should have more studies. The traffic study on Feura Bush is not enough. I don't know why anybody thought we would just want one in Feura Bush. 9W is a total mess. I mean, all of you should be driving through there all day and just check it out. I'm certain that town planners have done it. I mean, I don't get it. So, we should have a traffic study throughout the whole town. You've got problems in New Scotland, 32, Elsmere, so it should be a much more comprehensive traffic study. We also need comprehensive studies on housing needs, infrastructure, emergency response, and environmental. Lastly, I just wonder why must multi-units, up to six per unit, still be allowed, permitted in all neighborhood residential developments? When you leave it wide open like that, that seems pretty obvious that that's what's going to happen. There are designated mixed density residential locations for those multiunit. Thank you for your time.
  • Kate Rose Bobseine — Hi. My name is Kate Rose Bobseine, and I live on Paxwood Road in Delmar. And I did want to say, Mr. VanLuven, I heard it's your birthday today. Happy birthday. So, I want to start by sharing. I've been listening to a podcast about Dolly Parton in the wake of her passing, and I've really been inspired by her ability to say so much with her music, and also through her ongoing advocacy for women's and workers' rights, her support for Learn to Read programs, and interestingly enough, her efforts to build housing in her home state of Tennessee. I said all that because I've been really inspired by her, and also to give me an opportunity to share this quote from her with you all tonight. So, her quote is, "If your actions create a legacy that inspires others to dream more, learn more, do more, and become more, then you are an excellent leader." I had hoped, and I really still hope, that the board will be excellent leaders, and yes, listen to your constituents, but also embrace an opportunity to inspire the town to be better and do better for our collective futures. Eliminating low-density residential zoning is an overcorrection, a regression, and a reversal of many of the important updates proposed in previous iterations of the zoning plan. I think this is something we do agree on, everyone in the room, that really the process that you have used to arrive at for this new plan that was presented really has not been transparent. I don't fully understand how you arrived at the plan that was shared with residents on Friday. You can listen to residents' concerns without abandoning the zoning proposals that took years to plan, included community input, and aligned with the town comprehensive plan. Legitimate concerns have been raised, and they can be addressed through thoughtful adoption of refined and appropriate safeguards, but not through reverting to a single-family-only zoning approach that is inconsistent with the broader vision Bethlehem outlined in the comprehensive plan. Again, you have overcorrected, and as a result are losing an important opportunity to embrace smart growth principles and do better for the town. The board should move forward with the previous version of the plan, which already included many changes in response to concerns, and move forward to fully embrace Dolly's words of wisdom. Thank you.
  • Oscar Harmon — Hi. My name is Oscar Harmon. I know I've addressed you previously, and I probably shared with you that I have studied economics and I teach economics, and I just wanted to, I've been thinking about this, that we have a principle that we teach is called Pareto optimality, and basically you want to make moves that benefit everybody and doesn't hurt anyone. So, if you hurt somebody and you benefit somebody else, that's not Pareto optimal. But if you can move ahead and not hurt somebody, that's Pareto optimal. But of course, if you can benefit both people, so you get where I'm coming from. So, I know I live down where 9W is, and I know there's lots of vacant land over there, especially near the thruway. And so, what I see is that there are many people who want multifamily housing. Why don't we locate it in a place that doesn't take away from the amenities of people that live in single-family housing? So, on Saturday morning, I'm older obviously than most of you, but in any event, I was walking down Saturday morning and I saw a young mother with two kids on a bicycle, it must have been six or seven, and pushing a kid in a stroller. We can do that now, but when we get that multifamily housing, if you do that and there's feeder traffic coming through and people have to work on weekends also, we're going to have a problem, and we're going to take away from the amenities of people that live there. So, all I'm asking is if you can think about trying to benefit everybody, at least not harming anybody. And then I was a little inspired by the Pledge of Allegiance, inspired about 9-11, when we did get together and pull with the same oar. I appreciate your comments about that. And I just hope we can continue that as we move forward. Thank you for your time.
  • Chris Dempf — Chris Dempf, Glenmont. A lot of issues were raised tonight regarding the Feura Bush Road Corridor. I'd like to give a shout-out to the Glenmont Road Corridor and reiterate many of those concerns as a fact that stretch of the town also. Also, connectivity, I think that was an issue that was raised in the comprehensive plan. I think that we need to carefully take a look at that issue, incentives and that type of thing. I know Guilderland has some provisions that give incentives to builders and developers who have the entrance and exits to the project within the project, but not through neighborhoods that are already existing and might not like that traffic going through them. The other issue I want to raise is the issue with respect to notice. Who gets notice of any changes? And I don't think that that's been adequately addressed in your plan. 200 feet is not enough, 500 feet. And, again, you need to understand what are you really looking at. What is the change going to be? And I think the Albany Port situation is illustrative of some of the deficiencies in that type of analysis. Thank you.
  • Michelle Grossman — Hi. Michelle Grossman, Newell Place. And I wanted to make a few comments. I didn't really prepare too much. You know, not much time to prepare. But, you know, I wanted to echo some things and just share some different things. So, you know, obviously the communication was less than ideal. People saying Friday afternoon, that's even being generous. I think it was maybe around 5.30, 5.45 on Friday because I was refreshing. 5 p.m. I'm refreshing, nothing yet in terms of agenda packet. And it was around 6 o'clock that I sent a note to a group of people saying, oh, it's posted, it's posted. So, it's probably somewhere between 5.30 and 6, Labor Day weekend. Somebody mentioned, like, typical PR thing, right? Like you send out the thing you don't want anybody to see last minute. And you should want people to see what's being shared. And I'm not sure if it's you or the planning board or the planning director, but whoever the you is, right? Like you should be proud of it. Hey, we've got this thing. We worked really hard on it. We took your feedback. Because I do think a lot of feedback has been incorporated. And so that's great. People, whoever you is, should want people to see what the changes are. Also, a lot of people received a personal e-mail. Hi, Bob. Hi, Joe, from the supervisor. And a lot of people didn't. I didn't receive that e-mail. No one in my family received the e-mail. And we've all been extremely active in reaching out. So, if it wasn't for other people forwarding me the e-mail, I wouldn't have known to be refreshing at 6 p.m. on Labor Day week on the Friday before Labor Day weekend. So that felt super off as well. Why send personal e-mails if you're not going to send them to everyone? And that blast e-mail didn't come out until, I don't know, a few days ago. I'm not really sure. So, I wanted to mention all of that. It just doesn't help with the transparency and gaining trust of people. And I guess also timing wise, right? Second day of school, not ideal. This has been mentioned. This has been hammered. But I wanted to mention that as well. Something that nobody mentioned, which I was a little surprised about, is that I do feel like the chart is misleading. The chart of the, like, residential uses chart that lists out all the columns for RLL, CR, NR, et cetera. For NR, neighborhood residential, for multifamily dwelling, 3-4 units. And for the multifamily dwelling 5-plus units, for those rows, there's a dash and there's no footnote. And that dash leads someone to believe that there's nothing, zero, nothing allowed there for a neighborhood residential when it comes to 3-4 units or 5-plus units of multifamily dwelling. But it is allowed. It's allowed when it's required to be a cluster conservation subdivision that's 10 acres or more. And it's at the desire of the developer that they are allowed to build up to 33% multifamily homes that can be 6 units per building. So, I saw many people across social media, on Facebook, on Nextdoor, saying, like, no more multifamily in neighborhood residential. No, that's not accurate. But I could see how somebody would think that's accurate if they're not combing through all the information and data. So, I do think that chart needs to be updated. There shouldn't be anything to hide, right? If you're proud of the thing that's being presented, then why not clearly state it? And maybe it's a footnote because it is a little nuanced, but I think at least a footnote is needed there. I do just want to say that in terms of the 6 units per building in cluster conservation subdivisions, I'll just say that looking at the solution for the concern is that a new NR zoning district based on current development patterns will preserve the scale and character of existing neighborhoods. I just don't understand how that statement can be true. Because if I'm in a single-family neighborhood and then there's 6-unit buildings right next to me, that's not exactly the same character. It could be, but this states it as, like, it will preserve the scale and character of existing neighborhoods. And I just don't really think that is accurate. Yeah, and I'll just close out by, like, a cute little quip. Just, you know, so many of us have been so involved in this for so long, and its really kind of taken over our lives for good or bad. There are pros. We've met a lot of people, made new friends, and that's awesome. I know, 30 seconds. Thank you. So, let's not rush it here at the end. And my 7-year-old nephew, he was, I was working. He was like, can I sit on your lap when you work? And I was like, okay. And I was actually scrolling on this group that I'm in, and there were all these faces. And he was like, are those, and nothing to do with this at all. And he's like, are those people who are against the zoning? And I was like, no, no, no. And he said, oh, are they people for the zoning? Supervisor VanLuven: Ten seconds. Michelle Grossman: And it's just, like, this has really become part of our lives. So let's make sure that we're not rushing it at the end here. Thank you.
  • Mike Waldenmaier — Mike Waldemaier, Glenmont. You're going to be happy. I'm not really going to talk about zoning tonight. But I see we've got under number 8, priority corridor sidewalks. Well, you now, every year I come before this town board and ask, when are we going to get a sidewalk on Feura Bush? I mean, when we put that multi-trail on Cherry Avenue Extension, I actually even asked, where are our priorities? A safe way for the kids to get to the town park? Or a couple of people that are going to ride their bikes to Price Chopper? Well, every time I go over Cherry Avenue Extension, I actually watch to see. I've seen eight people so far in how many months that I've driven over Cherry Avenue Extension. But I've gone down Feura Bush Road in the section of the sidewalk between Murray and Elsmere that they haven't opened yet, and people aren't supposed to be on it. I've actually seen more people on that section of the sidewalk than I've seen on the Cherry Avenue Extension. So, I guess my question is, when are we going to make that a priority to get a safe way for kids to get to the town park on Feura Bush Road? And then the other thing is, I thought they were going to work on the sidewalk in South Bethlehem, which is really bad, and I haven't done anything with that yet. So that's my question. And one other thing, what is affordable housing in the town of Bethlehem? I'd really like to know. Thank you. Supervisor VanLuven: Mike, I can answer those questions after the meeting for you.
  • Leigh — Hi, good evening. Leigh, I'm a resident of Glenmont. Also, happy birthday. I'm sure this is exactly how you wanted to spend it. It's magical. I just wanted to say thank you for listening to us. I know we're loud and we're angry sometimes, so I appreciate that. I would also just urge you to do the traffic study and to definitely look at utilities, look at wastewater treatment, all of the infrastructure that would be needed to bring in, all of these additional residences, because I think that's going to be very important to the decision of what we put and where we put it, because what can we handle? What existing load do we need? How are we going to build it out? Because otherwise it's just going to be garbage in, garbage out, if we make all these decisions before we have that data. So, yeah, that's my soapbox.
  • Michael Braunlin — Evening. My name is Michael Braunlin. I live on Feura Bush Road. I am here as an avid runner and an avid motorcyclist. I've lived in the town for about 11 years, and over those 11 years I've lived in Delmar for six and now Glenmont for five, and I've run most of the roads through Delmar and Glenmont, a good portion of Slingerlands, and as an avid motorcyclist I've ridden much of the rest. I do want to echo some of the concerns about traffic, and specifically in the last three weeks I've had my mailbox knocked off. I had an accident right in front of my house. Fortunately, it wasn't a severe accident in terms of no one needed to be taken away in an ambulance. There were minor injuries. It took several minutes for first responders to get there, who did a great job once they got there, but it took them a concerning amount of time. On a daily basis I work from home. I'm fortunate to do that. I see a significant amount of commercial traffic on my road, which is prohibited. There's no commercial traffic allowed on Feura Bush Road unless it's local deliveries, of which very few Hewitt’s get some, which we love Hewitt’s, but it doesn't explain much of the rest of the traffic that comes down our road. On the weekends I love to run, and I have an almost six-year-old who likes to ride her bike, and she's my good pacer. It's dangerous crossing crosswalks pretty much anywhere in Glenmont, or a good portion of Delmar for that matter. She now goes to Hamagrael, and we like to run and bike up towards that way. But it's dangerous. Traffic often does not respect folks waiting at crosswalks. We have the orange flags. Some places throughout town we have the flashing signals. I think more traffic calming needs to be done. I think town wide traffic study is a good way to go. I'd like to see more crosswalks. I think we need increased signage. On some roads we've added the flashing signs. They're solar powered. They remind folks what the speed limit is and what their speed is that they're going. I think we need a lot more of that. And I think that in some cases the police may need to get more involved. We need some targeted enforcement in some places. I know they've put the trailer up in some places to remind folks of their speed, but they're not putting it in places that are really going to catch that. For instance, when they put it on Feura Bush Road, they put it close to the traffic signal. It's not the best place. It's not where most of the speeding is taking place. It's further down or further up. And I would echo that we need more sidewalks. The sidewalks that have been put in are fantastic, and I think it does make our town more walkable, which is what I think we all want. We need a lot more of it. So, I'd like to see more of that as well. So, thank you.
  • Katelyn Primono — My name is Katelyn Primomo, and I live at 14 Seabrook Drive in Glenmont, New York. Hello, everyone. And we've come to so many of these at this point. Vivian feels the need that she has to speak at every meeting. We live in Glenmont. We echo all of the concerns that we have heard thus far. We appreciate the changes. However, we are looking for more changes. As the previous runner just stated, I have three little girls, and attempting to walk anywhere in Glenmont is treacherous. I stood at the crosswalk this weekend with an orange flag and watched 15 cars go by. I see my daughter's friends who are in sixth grade riding bikes, and it's terrifying. It's really scary. I appreciate the traffic study. I hope we wait until the completion of the traffic study. The concern of the infrastructure, if you've ever talked to any of the individuals who work on any of the water line breaks, they tell you that they can't redo any of the water lines because there isn't enough time to keep up with all the ones that are breaking. So, if we are going to continue to add to infrastructure, are we going to be able to keep with all of the failing infrastructure? In Delmar, my parents are without water regularly due to water main breaks. And would you like to say something? My name's Ellie. And as a Glenmont family that was relocated to Hamegrael because of the zoning changes, we now are attempting to make the commute from Delmar to Glenmont on a regular basis, and it is very difficult. Yes, go ahead. We appreciate it and hope that you continue to move and include all of your constituents and their concerns in your process. Thank you.
  • Judy Coyne — Hi. My name is Judy Coyne. I'm also a Bethlehem Democratic Committee member, and I found out just a few minutes ago that this meeting was going on, which I find disturbing. I find it upsetting that I didn't get the information ahead of time. I find it upsetting that there wasn't a large public notice that went out so that residents of Glenmont and surrounding communities could come out and speak and hear. I have no idea whether it's good or bad, but having a discussion prior to the meeting about what's going to happen during the meeting doesn't make sense to me. So, I'm here to say that as soon as I saw this notice that was kind of hidden in my messages, we just took off. We came over here. I don't like that feeling, especially in my community, with my people from fellow members of the Democratic Committee here. I'm not appreciating the way that this was done, and I want it to be heard. Thank you.
  • Kat Fitzpatrick — Hi, I'm Kat Fitzpatrick from Adams Station, and happy birthday, David. I just want to say I'm very new to this process, and as I'm sitting kind of as an observer almost, I just want to recognize, while there's lots of emotions, a lot of people really upset, and a lot of different factors, I was just sitting here contemplating that it is really amazing, and I think everybody needs to be commended that we can sit here as people with different ideas, and there's nobody crowding the microphone, there's not a big line. I just wanted to recognize that this is democracy at work, and you guys sitting here and listening, people talking, I just feel kind of actually privileged to be part of it. Thank you, Kat.

• 2026-09-15 — Planning Board

  Planning Board

  Minutes: NOT_YET_EXPECTED

  comments: none yet

• 2026-09-16 — Zoning Board of Appeals

  Zoning Board of Appeals

  Minutes: NOT_YET_EXPECTED

  comments: none yet

• 2026-09-17 — Development Planning Committee

  Development Planning Committee

  Minutes: NOT_YET_EXPECTED

  comments: none yet

• 2026-09-23 — Town Board

  Town Board

  Minutes: NOT_YET_EXPECTED

  • Michael Carey — Civil-rights / disability-rights advocate (Jonathan Carey Foundation framing elsewhere). Said he has come before the board ~40 times. Focused on NYS Justice Center HQ at 161 Delaware Avenue (across from Delaware Plaza): statewide abuse / assault / death reports under that system “come into Delmar and disappear.” Said town officials and Bethlehem PD (ex-Chief Corsi; Chief Cocchiara — ASR “Courchiera”) are fully aware. Asked the board for an official letter requesting a DOJ criminal and civil-rights investigation of the state abuse hotline, and to fire Chief Cocchiara . Mixed in gospel / repentance language and a Boston Globe clergy-abuse analogy. See deep dive below.
  • George Harder — Euclid Ave (ASR: Delmar; Sep 9 minutes had Elsmere). Repeated ask (~36th time on tape) to shut the valve at the Clapper Road water plant that he says allows carcinogens (trihalomethanes / PFAS family / PCBs — ASR wording varies) into residential drinking water. Called for restricting that plant to commercial/industrial use and routing Alcove Reservoir water to residents instead of Cogen. Tied Beacon Island clear-cutting / fly ash to well contamination. Asked board members to resign.
  • Matthew LaRacella (ASR spelling) — Frustrated with the zoning debate and with how “workforce” families were characterized at a prior meeting. Said his family was forced out when a rented duplex’s new owner raised rent ~$400 and later rented ~$1,000 higher; could not find an affordable Bethlehem option. Argued cost of living and zoning matter for working families who already live here.
  • Tom Dillon — East Bayberry / Colonial Acres area (ASR mangled street). Walked the town’s published zoning “concerns / solutions” list: skeptical that dropping LDR and creating Neighborhood Residential truly preserves character; worried about Feura Bush corridor impacts and related infrastructure.
  • William Sharpe — Westchester Drive, Delmar. Preview only: studying proposed conservation-subdivision amendments; expects to comment in ~two weeks.
  • Matt Landy — West Bayberry / Colonial Acres, Glenmont resident since ~1999. Described long path into the neighborhood and fear of property-value / character loss if denser zoning lands there.
  • Bruce Grossman — Glenmont. Conservation / cluster subdivision framing (2024 NYS subdivision review language). Discussed Kimmey Point-style conservation cluster, density bonuses, and where multi-family belongs relative to transit / services (consistent with his longer Sep 9 NR-district comments).
  • Jim Cree — Boilsen Drive. Pointed to town newsletter sinkhole coverage; argued wetlands / basement collapse risk and that building on wetlands fails over time. Asked how the town accounts for such damage near residents.
  • Kristina Manetti — Wellington Road. Asked for clear town / school communication on enrolling veterans under Chapter 77 of the Laws of 2026 (RPTL §458-a(11) veteran exemption changes). Stressed veterans often will not self-advocate.
  • Nancy Neff (ASR: Dunbar — likely Delmar) — Criticized consultant-driven urbanization of a suburban/rural town; said citizens should set the future vision. Raised conservation-subdivision / multi-use residential concerns and landowner vs. townwide character tension.
  • Kathleen Econan (ASR spelling) — ~39-year Elsmere resident. Worried conservation-subdivision rules allow multi-family of six on vacant parcels >10 acres — i.e., most vacant land. Not opposed to multi-family in principle; opposed to apartment-scale buildings in residential neighborhoods. Asked board not to let the community lose what it has.
  • Karen Harmon — Brighton Wood Road, Glenmont. Traffic-study gaps: why isn’t Elsmere Ave between Feura Bush and the bypass counted / studied? Hard to reach Supervisor / Planning by phone for basic study-method questions.
  • Colleen Scott — Jefferson Road. Rejected Times Union / Churchill framing that opponents of the zoning package are unwelcoming; said core concerns are identity, traffic, water, sewer, flooding, wetlands. Read a prepared letter into the record on process / public-comment adequacy and asked the board to slow down.
  • Erin Landy — Glenmont native. Concerned Glenmont has absorbed disproportionate residential/commercial growth; wants growth shared more evenly. Environmental / clean-energy career; open-space protection as a parallel priority to housing need.
  • Phil Stevens — Holbrook Way. Also missing a counter at Feura Bush & Elsmere; cited older Wemple Corners / 9W study LOS near failing. Flagged 2013 comprehensive-plan assessment committee language for the record.

Gaps

• technology_unobserved — No technology was observed. The badge stays “tech unknown”.
• pipeline_stage_unavailable — pipeline_stage is null on this desk export.
• resources_consumed_unavailable — resources_consumed is null. Not tracked.
• resources_forecast_unavailable — resources_forecast is null. Not tracked.
• official_registry_urls_not_in_export — This desk export does not include official registry URL strings.
• cf_urls_not_listed — cf_enabled_url_count is only a count. URL strings are not in this export.