In its first incarnation, the multiple-family housing development proposed for Rt. 32 in Glasco consisted of townhouse units to be occupied by the owners. Developers then proposed rent-subsidized apartments, and the project was called Dickinson’s Keep. Large protests from those opposed to affordable housing, along with a lack of state funding, doomed that project.
On Tuesday, March 17, the project reappeared in a third incarnation called Farmhouse Commons. This time, the units will be priced at full market rates. The proposal is for 80 apartment units, totaling 128 bedrooms, said engineer Bruce Utter. The location is Rt. 32, south of Glasco Tpke. Much of the environmental review performed for previous projects should still be valid, said Utter.
The buildings would be a mix of one- and two-bedroom units on approximately 13.6 acres, Utter said. The project has a new owner, Utter said. The owner is listed as Farmhouse Commons LLC, and the contact listed is Paul Page of Kingston.
The revised project is at an early phase. Utter said the project is being offered as a preview. “Obviously, we have a lot more plans to prepare before we can take the next step, but I wanted to get some input first.”
Board member Carole Furman wanted to know whether the apartments would be laid out with one apartment on the first floor and another on the second. Utter said that is the planned arrangement.
Planning consultant Dan Shuster reviewed the history of approvals for the project. There had been a State Environmental Quality Review [SEQR] determination on the Crowne Management proposal in 2007. This was updated for the revised Dickinson’s Keep project. While that project was not ultimately approved, much of the environmental review was completed, and the applicant will have the responsibility to demonstrate that none of the changes to the project since 2012 have changed the impacts. “I think it’s safe to say that the on-site impacts are pretty much the same as they were, because the area of disturbance is the same,” he said. “It’s really the off-site impacts that need to be confirmed as not being significantly different from 2012.”
Board member Dan Weeks said he does not agree that the environmental impacts of the one- and two-bedroom apartment complex are the same as the same number of bedrooms placed in three-bedroom townhouses.
Weeks said he believes that the project should be studied for environmental impacts as a new application, given that the property has a new owner and the type of housing proposed is different.
Shuster acknowledged that greater number of units result in increased traffic, and this impact would have to be evaluated.
The board voted to begin the process of coordinating agencies and stated it seeks lead agency status. The process will include much further discussion and a public hearing, Shuster said.