Flaherty seeks veterans made ill by camp’s water

By Melanie Lekocevic

Capital Region Independent Media

COEYMANS — The Long Energy project that would build a fuel storage facility on Route 101 appears to be at an impasse after the town’s planning/zoning board of appeals had a tied vote on the project’s special-use permit and site plan review.

The project has been dogged by controversy for months.

Planning/zoning board of appeals chairman Robert Nolan, who owns a competing business — Nolan Energy — had recused himself from the matter, along with board member Albert Collins. Planning/zoning board of appeals member Patricia Grogan served as acting chairwoman in Nolan’s place.

At the April 26 meeting the combined board debated the issue of traffic and fuel delivery times that would bring large tractor-trailers to the area, which is in close proximity to the RCS school campus.

“We had spoken way back at the beginning of this regarding delivery times,” board member Nathan Boomer said. “I don’t know what the rest of the board feels, but I feel like it would be due diligence to maybe set up a condition for the delivery times so we can try to reduce the truck traffic risk as much as possible.”

Grogan agreed truck traffic was a concern and the board came to the conclusion that delivery of fuel to the Route 101 facility would be prohibited during the weekday hours of 6-8 a.m. and 2-5 p.m. to keep large tractor-trailers out of the area during peak times, and particularly when school buses and parents are dropping off and picking up students.

The restriction would not apply to home deliveries of fuel to customers, which are made in smaller trucks.

Long Energy’s attorney, Charles Gottlieb, agreed to those terms from the audience.

“The semi-truck deliveries could be managed,” Gottlieb said. “Those are deliveries we would be willing to not have during those peak hours.”

Grogan moved to hold a vote on Long Energy’s application for a special-use permit with those conditions restricting hours when deliveries of fuel can be made to the facility.

With Nolan and Collins seated in the audience, the rest of the planning/zoning board of appeals members, including alternate Joseph Cinque — whose appointment to the board earlier this year in itself drew controversy and opposition — took a roll-call vote.

Grogan, Boomer and Melissa Stanton voted in favor of approving the special-use permit application, with members James Pietropaoli, Bernard Teriele and Cinque voting against it.

A second vote was taken on the applicant’s site plan application, which was also tied along the same lines.

Grogan asked the board’s attorney, William Kinery, if asking members to explain their vote was permitted.

Grogan explained her own “yes” vote on both motions.

“When I fall back to the code, the site plan section and the special-use section, if I went through that, they are in compliance with everything,” Grogan said. “There is no reason. This is a commercial property to be used for commercial use and our own town board even said that they could have it with a special-use permit. We even had a moratorium put on hold for this purpose.”

The board’s chairman, Robert Nolan — who was recused from the vote — spoke up from the audience.

“This is over,” Nolan said.

Grogan, as the acting chairwoman, pointed out that she was still running the meeting.

“Excuse me, Mr. Chair, I am still the chairwoman. I am the chairwoman and I have not turned this over to you, sir,” Grogan said.

Nolan, who previously had been seated in the audience, had stepped up to stand next to the speaker’s podium.

“What do we have to do to end this so we don’t have a fight here?” he asked.

Grogan said she would resume running the meeting.

Gottlieb, acting as the applicant’s attorney, said, “We have to object that Mr. Nolan is participating in the matter from Marebo LLC,” the company that owns Long Energy.

Grogan repeated that she was asking if any of the dissenting voters would be willing to explain their vote because she couldn’t understand their opposition to the project’s application.

Planning/zoning board of appeals member Bernard Teriele read what appeared to be a prepared statement explaining his vote.

“An adjoining nearby landowner such as LafargeHolcim and the school district superintendent have written letters of concern about this application, which in my opinion have not been adequately addressed and weigh heavily on my decision,” Teriele said. “There are several other sites within the town that are zoned industrial and in my opinion would be a better location for the placement of bulk storage fuel than the commercially zoned location proposed by the applicant.”

Grogan thanked him for his input.

“I respect you reading that and saying that,” she said. “This was not industrial, correct? This was commercial.”

Gottlieb responded that the project is a “permitted use of the property.”

The board’s two tie votes appear to leave the project in limbo, and it is unclear what the project’s next steps will be. The attorneys for the applicant and for the planning/zoning board of appeals contradicted each other on whether the tie vote is a rejection of the applications or a “no action” vote.