1

Minutes of the TROY CITY COUNCIL PLANNING MEETING

April 27, 2021 6:00 P.M.

Due to the COVID-19 crisis, this meeting was held remotely via videoconference. The meeting was called to order at 6:02 p.m. by Committee Chair Cummings. Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call: The roll being called, the following answered to their names: Council Member Ashe-McPherson, Council Member Steele, and Council Member Cummings, Chair. Council Member Gulli, Council Member Zalewski, and Council Member McDermott were also present. In attendance were Mayor Patrick Madden, Corporation Counsel Richard T. Morrissey, and Commissioner of Planning & Economic Development Steven Strichman. Lindsay Zefting from Alta Planning gave a presentation on the Congress Street Study. 29. Resolution Declaring The Troy City Council “Lead Agency” For Rezone Request (Council Member Gulli) (At The Request Of The Administration) Council Member Gulli withdrew this resolution. Commissioner Strichman gave updates on other Planning Department projects. Public Forum: The following individuals spoke regarding Resolution 29: • Chel Miller • Jennifer Schulaner • Keith Hirokawa • Leo Matteo Bachinger • Sarah Pezdek • Adam Schultz • Kevin Vandenburgh The following individuals submitted written comments regarding Resolution 29, which are appended to these minutes: • Andrea Sandholt • Beverly Davis • Christian Grigoraskos • Chris Bassett • Elaine Broiles • Adam and Evangeline Alexander

2

• Frank Vroman • Randy Herrington • James Kruegler • Jennifer Baumstein • Jennifer Schulaner • Jessica Bennett • Jessica Ryle • John Raup • Joseph DiMaggio • Karin Krasevac-Lenz • Laura Hynes • Lee Ferrini • M Goodman • Michelle Polacinski • Patrick Kiley • Elizabeth Griffith • Richard C. Herrick • Sarah Pezdek • Sharon Wesley • Rebecca Martin • The Friends of the Mahicantuck Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m. A video recording of this meeting is on file at the City Clerk's office.

3

Dear Members of the City Council Planning Committee * Please enter this letter into the record and include it in the minutes of the upcoming Planning Committee Hearing (April 27, 2021) My name is Andrea Sandholt. I live in South Troy. I am writing to you in opposition to the requested zoning change for 1011 2nd Avenue (Tax Parcel 70.64-1-1) and in opposition to Resolution 29 declaring the City Council as "lead agency". The “Sacred Forest” at 1011 2nd Avenue is unique. It is part of our history. It is an important indigenous cultural and historical heritage site. It has a rare and important ecology, with protected species. It protects the city and contributes to public health. This forest deserves our protection! I ask the Planning Committee to: – Follow the Planning Commission's recommendation AGAINST rezoning – A vote on Resolution 29 is PREMATURE and would create a process that constitutes SEGMENTATION, prohibited by State Law. - You MUST NOT adopt Resolution 29 and INSTEAD demand the developer submit an application for his development plans so that development and rezoning can be considered together, as mandated in by law in the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act. The “Sacred Forest” at 1011 2nd Avenue is the city’s last untouched forest along the Hudson River as well as a nationally significant (National Register eligible) indigenous heritage site with artifacts dating back to 1500-3000 B.C. The indigenous peoples maintain ties to this land that grew over 5000 years. For them, this is sacred land. It is unique for its history and cultural heritage. It deserves the fullest consideration if any action would be taken on this land. A rezoning cannot be considered independent from known development plans. These plans are known to the council and administration. REZONING AND DEVELOPMENT PLANS MUST BE CONSIDERED TOGETHER. This would also SAVE THE CITY MONEY AND TIME, as it would streamline the review process and make it more efficient. By not adopting Resolution 29 you are simply asking the developer to follow the proper legal processes by submitting a formal application for his development plans, as per SEQRA. "When one tugs at a single thing in nature, he finds it attached to the rest of the world." -John Muir

4

Please preserve this land! Not only is it sacred to indigenous peoples, there are many species of wild animals and birds who call it their home and habitat. They all play vital roles in the local ecosystem. Thank you. Andrea Sandholt South Troy Seriously do we need another in Troy? There is only one grocery store in lansinsburgh. There is only one hospital in the city of troy. The schools have enough issues already without adding more children. The fire department has to have help from other cities when fighting fires. AND you have an overworked understaffed police department that does a great job with what they have. They certainly don’t need any more people in this city! I lived in lansingburgh for 26 years. We moved to pleasantdale 18 years ago. It’s not the traffic that will increase although that is also a factor but the main reasons are above that I request another apartment complex NOT be built there on sacred unspoiled land. Sincerely, Beverly Davis Troy NY 12182 Dear Members of the City Council Planning Committee, * Please enter this letter into the record and include it in the minutes of the upcoming Planning Committee Hearing (April 27, 2021) My name is Christian Grigoraskos, I reside [in] north Troy. I am writing to you in opposition to the requested zoning change for 1011 2nd Avenue (Tax Parcel 70.64-1-1) and in opposition to Resolution 29 declaring the City Council as "lead agency". We are in the midst of a climate and ecological crisis. Context is king! No more virgin land should be disturbed to build human settlement. The city should prioritize infill development on sites such as Leonard Hospital or Haskell School. Once all infill sites have been exhausted, only then should we look at untouched land. This forest deserves our protection! It currently serves innumerable ecological functions that will be destroyed by development. If you are looking at all the building that is going on across the river and are afraid that people will take their money over there instead, let me tell you that ALL those developments are abhorrent and unnecessary...future generations will be so disappointed that we lacked the foresight and ecological literacy to maintain a strong riparian buffer and allowed so much hardscape and pollution to be sited next to these sacred waters. PROGRESS CAN ONLY BE MEASURED ECOLOGICALLY and if you allow resolution 29 to pass you will be taking a huge step backwards.

5

Should you make the insane move and allow a project to move forward on this land I sincerely hope you will hold it to the highest sustainable standards meaning a NET-POSITIVE, NON-POLLUTING project that generates all of its own power and recycles all of its own waste and sets the bar for all future developments. These projects are entirely possible they just lack the political will and creative foresight to look at the long arc of time (beyond the next election cycle). I live in a 200 hundred year old structure that I put blood sweat and tears into, and I honor my small 60 x 120 parcel of land as sacred, because the original peoples of this land showed that we can live harmoniously with all species of plants and animals. When I see buildings like the Atrium and the Lansingburgh Fire Department go on the chopping block at less than 50 years old it gives me a strong feeling that we are absolutely failing as a human community and we have lost our way. Please consider the 200 hundred year plan...if you look at the long arc of time you will know the appropriate way to proceed. You MUST NOT adopt Resolution 29 and INSTEAD demand the developer submit an application for his development plans so that development and rezoning can be considered together, as mandated by law in the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act. Thank you. Christian Grigoraskos Troy, NY Dear Members of the City Council Planning Committee * Please enter this letter into the record and include it in the minutes of the upcoming Planning Committee Hearing (April 27, 2021) My name is Chris Bassett. I live in Troy's Osgood neighborhood. I am writing to you in opposition to the requested zoning change for 1011 2nd Avenue (Tax Parcel 70.64-1-1) and in opposition to Resolution 29 declaring the City Council as "lead agency". The “Sacred Forest” at 1011 2nd Avenue is unique. It is part of our history. It is an important indigenous cultural and historical heritage site. It has a rare and important ecology, with protected species. It protects the city and contributes to public health. This forest deserves our protection! I ask the Planning Committee to: – Follow the Planning Commission's recommendation AGAINST rezoning

6

– A vote on Resolution 29 is PREMATURE and would create a process that constitutes SEGMENTATION, prohibited by State Law. - You MUST NOT adopt Resolution 29 and INSTEAD demand the developer submit an application for his development plans so that development and rezoning can be considered together, as mandated by law in the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act. The “Sacred Forest” at 1011 2nd Avenue is the city’s last untouched forest along the Hudson River as well as a nationally significant (National Register eligible) indigenous heritage site with artifacts dating back to 1500-3000 B.C. The indigenous peoples maintain ties to this land that grew over 5000 years. For them, this is sacred land. It is unique for its history and cultural heritage. It deserves the fullest consideration if any action would be taken on this land. A rezoning cannot be considered independent from known development plans. These plans are known to the council and administration. REZONING AND DEVELOPMENT PLANS MUST BE CONSIDERED TOGETHER. This would also SAVE THE CITY MONEY AND TIME, as it would streamline the review process and make it more efficient. By not adopting Resolution 29 you are simply asking the developer to follow the proper legal processes by submitting a formal application for his development plans, as per SEQRA. Thank you. Chris Bassett Troy, NY Dear Members of the City Council Planning Committee * Please enter this letter into the record and include it in the minutes of the upcoming Planning Committee Hearing (April 27, 2021) My name is Elaine. I live in the Troy NY. I am writing to you in opposition to the requested zoning change for 1011 2nd Avenue (Tax Parcel 70.64-1-1) and in opposition to Resolution 29 declaring the City Council as "lead agency". The “Sacred Forest” at 1011 2nd Avenue is unique. It is part of our history. It is an important indigenous cultural and historical heritage site. It has a rare and important ecology, with protected species. It protects the city and contributes to public health. This forest deserves our protection!

7

I ask the Planning Committee to: – Follow the Planning Commission's recommendation AGAINST rezoning – A vote on Resolution 29 is PREMATURE and would create a process that constitutes SEGMENTATION, prohibited by State Law. - You MUST NOT adopt Resolution 29 and INSTEAD demand the developer submit an application for his development plans so that development and rezoning can be considered together, as mandated in by law in the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act. The “Sacred Forest” at 1011 2nd Avenue is the city’s last untouched forest along the Hudson River as well as a nationally significant (National Register eligible) indigenous heritage site with artifacts dating back to 1500-3000 B.C. The indigenous peoples maintain ties to this land that grew over 5000 years. For them, this is sacred land. It is unique for its history and cultural heritage. It deserves the fullest consideration if any action would be taken on this land. A rezoning cannot be considered independent from known development plans. These plans are known to the council and administration. REZONING AND DEVELOPMENT PLANS MUST BE CONSIDERED TOGETHER. This would also SAVE THE CITY MONEY AND TIME, as it would streamline the review process and make it more efficient. By not adopting Resolution 29 you are simply asking the developer to follow the proper legal processes by submitting a formal application for his development plans, as per SEQRA. Thank you. Elaine Broiles Troy, NY Dear Members of the City Council Planning Committee * Please enter this letter into the record and include it in the minutes of the upcoming Planning Committee Hearing (April 27, 2021) My name is [Evangeline Fisher]. I live in the City of Troy]. I am writing to you in opposition to the requested zoning change for 1011 2nd Avenue (Tax Parcel 70.64-1-1) and in opposition to Resolution 29 declaring the City Council as "lead agency".

8

The “Sacred Forest” at 1011 2nd Avenue is unique. It is part of our history. It is an important indigenous cultural and historical heritage site. It has a rare and important ecology, with protected species. It protects the city and contributes to public health. This forest deserves our protection! I ask the Planning Committee to: – Follow the Planning Commission's recommendation AGAINST rezoning – A vote on Resolution 29 is PREMATURE and would create a process that constitutes SEGMENTATION, prohibited by State Law. - You MUST NOT adopt Resolution 29 and INSTEAD demand the developer submit an application for his development plans so that development and rezoning can be considered together, as mandated in by law in the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act. The “Sacred Forest” at 1011 2nd Avenue is the city’s last untouched forest along the Hudson River as well as a nationally significant (National Register eligible) indigenous heritage site with artifacts dating back to 1500-3000 B.C. The indigenous peoples maintain ties to this land that grew over 5000 years. For them, this is sacred land. It is unique for its history and cultural heritage. It deserves the fullest consideration if any action would be taken on this land. A rezoning cannot be considered independent from known development plans. These plans are known to the council and administration. REZONING AND DEVELOPMENT PLANS MUST BE CONSIDERED TOGETHER. This would also SAVE THE CITY MONEY AND TIME, as it would streamline the review process and make it more efficient. By not adopting Resolution 29 you are simply asking the developer to follow the proper legal processes by submitting a formal application for his development plans, as per SEQRA. Our property borders where this development would go, taking away our privacy,decrease our noise quality and force the wild animals out of the area, not to mention giving us a view of buildings instead of sunrises and sunsets... we call our home” our ountry in the city” being we are the last house in the city of Troy bordering schagticoke and gives us the home we’ve paid taxes for since 1989, raised our children and now our grandchildren..... this project will cause excessive noise, cause our homes to shake, not to mention the possible damage to our foundations, being that most of these homes were summer camps originally and many being 100 plus years old, not to mention the extreme noise from jackhammlight and constant traffic in and out of our ear and sight at the same time we are getting ready to retire and enjoy what we’ve worked all these years for.... this is a quiet residential area.... would you like it developed in your back yard???? Please, consider the taxpayers.... not line the pockets of developers whom have no regard for quality of living for those of us whom have purchased our homes many years ago,care for our property, pay taxes with the dream of tranquility and peace.... the reason these zoning laws have been put in place.... someone has to stand up for the “ little, hardworking people whom pay your salaries and vote you in to do your job as representatives..... this is not just legalities but

9

is about doing your jobs and honoring the restrictions and laws that were put into place to protect the homeowners!!!!Please vote No and let us enjoy our homes!!! Thank you. Adam and Evangeline Alexander Troy, New York 12182 Dear Members of the City Council Planning Committee I would hate to see this sacred land taken from us. I believe Earth day just passed and this land is a perfect example of property that needs to be saved. This is a happy place for my family. The nature walks I would take with my kids and the beautiful sunsets and Time we have spent there, I would hate to be taken from them. We safely learned how to shoot a BB gun. We watched fireworks, enjoyed the wildlife that is present and made memories that I would hate to be taken from us. It’s a beautiful place of nature and wildlife and we deserve to have it left that way. Thank you, Frank Vroman a concerned member of our community * Please enter this letter into the record and include it in the minutes of the upcoming Planning Committee Hearing (April 27, 2021) My name is [INSERT NAME]. I live in the [INSERT CITY/TOWN/VILLAGE]. I am writing to you in opposition to the requested zoning change for 1011 2nd Avenue (Tax Parcel 70.64-1-1) and in opposition to Resolution 29 declaring the City Council as "lead agency". The “Sacred Forest” at 1011 2nd Avenue is unique. It is part of our history. It is an important indigenous cultural and historical heritage site. It has a rare and important ecology, with protected species. It protects the city and contributes to public health. This forest deserves our protection! I ask the Planning Committee to: – Follow the Planning Commission's recommendation AGAINST rezoning – A vote on Resolution 29 is PREMATURE and would create a process that constitutes SEGMENTATION, prohibited by State Law. - You MUST NOT adopt Resolution 29 and INSTEAD demand the developer submit an application for his development plans so that development and rezoning can be considered together, as mandated in by law in the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act. The “Sacred Forest” at 1011 2nd Avenue is the city’s last untouched forest along the Hudson River as well as a nationally significant (National Register eligible) indigenous heritage site with artifacts dating back to 1500-3000 B.C. The indigenous peoples maintain ties to this land that

10

grew over 5000 years. For them, this is sacred land. It is unique for its history and cultural heritage. It deserves the fullest consideration if any action would be taken on this land. A rezoning cannot be considered independent from known development plans. These plans are known to the council and administration. REZONING AND DEVELOPMENT PLANS MUST BE CONSIDERED TOGETHER. This would also SAVE THE CITY MONEY AND TIME, as it would streamline the review process and make it more efficient. By not adopting Resolution 29 you are simply asking the developer to follow the proper legal processes by submitting a formal application for his development plans, as per SEQRA. [ADD — OPTIONAL: Personal paragraph of your relationship to the land and why you think it is important that this land is protected] Thank you. [Name] [City/Town/Village] [Date] Frank Vroman Troy, NY 12182 Dear Members of the City Council Planning Committee * Please enter this letter into the record and include it in the minutes of the upcoming Planning Committee Hearing (April 27, 2021) My name is Randy Herrington. I live in Johnsonville New York. I am writing to you in opposition to the requested zoning change for 1011 2nd Avenue (Tax Parcel 70.64-1-1) and in opposition to Resolution 29 declaring the City Council as "lead agency". The “Sacred Forest” at 1011 2nd Avenue is unique. It is part of our history. It is an important indigenous cultural and historical heritage site. It has a rare and important ecology, with protected species. It protects the city and contributes to public health. This forest deserves our protection! I ask the Planning Committee to: – Follow the Planning Commission's recommendation AGAINST rezoning

11

– A vote on Resolution 29 is PREMATURE and would create a process that constitutes SEGMENTATION, prohibited by State Law. - You MUST NOT adopt Resolution 29 and INSTEAD demand the developer submit an application for his development plans so that development and rezoning can be considered together, as mandated in by law in the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act. The “Sacred Forest” at 1011 2nd Avenue is the city’s last untouched forest along the Hudson River as well as a nationally significant (National Register eligible) indigenous heritage site with artifacts dating back to 1500-3000 B.C. The indigenous peoples maintain ties to this land that grew over 5000 years. For them, this is sacred land. It is unique for its history and cultural heritage. It deserves the fullest consideration if any action would be taken on this land. A rezoning cannot be considered independent from known development plans. These plans are known to the council and administration. REZONING AND DEVELOPMENT PLANS MUST BE CONSIDERED TOGETHER. This would also SAVE THE CITY MONEY AND TIME, as it would streamline the review process and make it more efficient. By not adopting Resolution 29 you are simply asking the developer to follow the proper legal processes by submitting a formal application for his development plans, as per SEQRA. I have Native American hetitage, and our lands should be protected. Thank you. Randy Herrington Cty of pittstown Johnsonville New York. Dear Members of the City Council Planning Committee * Please enter this letter into the record and include it in the minutes of the upcoming Planning Committee Hearing (April 27, 2021) My name is James Kruegler, I live in Troy, and I am writing to you in opposition to the requested zoning change for 1011 2nd Avenue (Tax Parcel 70.64-1-1) and in opposition to Resolution 29 declaring the City Council as "lead agency". The “Sacred Forest” at 1011 2nd Avenue is unique. It is part of our history. It is an important indigenous cultural and historical heritage site. It has a rare and important ecology, with protected species. It protects the city and contributes to public health. This forest deserves our protection!

12

I ask the Planning Committee to: - Follow the Planning Commission's recommendation AGAINST rezoning; - Recognize that a vote on Resolution 29 is PREMATURE and would create a process that constitutes SEGMENTATION, contrary to the intent of SEQRA and prohibited by State Law; and - NOT adopt Resolution 29 and INSTEAD demand the developer submit an application for his development plans so that development and rezoning can be considered together, as mandated in by law in the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act. The “Sacred Forest” at 1011 2nd Avenue is the city’s last untouched forest along the Hudson River as well as a nationally significant (National Register eligible) indigenous heritage site with artifacts dating back to 1500-3000 B.C. The indigenous peoples maintain ties to this land that grew over 5000 years. For them, this is sacred land. It is unique for its history and cultural heritage. A few other reasons this proposed zone change, and likely development, would be an especially poor and wasteful use of this land: 1) Based on the most recent Comprehensive Housing Market Analysis by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, dated 2019, the tri-city region encompassing Albany-Schenectady-Troy has its housing demands already met with housing development projects that are in existence or under construction. 2) The development narrative document (attached to tonight's Planning Committee agenda) mentions that the segment of the land located in the Town of Schaghticoke “is proposed to be utilized for stormwater management only”. That parcel of land in Schaghticoke is almost 10% of the total land area being considered for development here. Put another way, 10% of this land would not even end up being used for the intended development because the development plan will need it dedicated to maintaining current stormwater runoff quantity and quality. I hope these points underscore for you that, if this zone change is recommended, then approved, then development moves forward, all we will be left with on this land is a bunch of apartments none of us want, and a site so poorly thought out that an embarrassingly large piece of the land has to be reworked only so it can provide the ecosystem services that this land was already providing in the first place! It deserves the fullest consideration if any action would be taken on this land. A rezoning cannot be considered independent from known development plans. These plans are known to the council and administration. REZONING AND DEVELOPMENT PLANS MUST BE CONSIDERED TOGETHER. This would also SAVE THE CITY MONEY AND TIME, as it would streamline the review process and make it more efficient. By not adopting Resolution 29 you are simply asking the developer to follow the proper legal processes by submitting a formal application for his development plans, as per SEQRA.

13

Thank you. James Kruegler Troy, NY Dear Members of the City Council Planning Committee * Please enter this letter into the record and include it in the minutes of the upcoming Planning Committee Hearing (April 27, 2021) My name is Jenn Baumstein. I live on the Easy Side of Troy. I am writing to you in opposition to the requested zoning change for 1011 2nd Avenue (Tax Parcel 70.64-1-1) and in opposition to Resolution 29 declaring the City Council as "lead agency". The “Sacred Forest” at 1011 2nd Avenue is unique. It is part of our history. It is an important indigenous cultural and historical heritage site. It has a rare and important ecology, with protected species. It protects the city and contributes to public health. This forest deserves our protection! I ask the Planning Committee to: – Follow the Planning Commission's recommendation AGAINST rezoning – A vote on Resolution 29 is PREMATURE and would create a process that constitutes SEGMENTATION, prohibited by State Law. - You MUST NOT adopt Resolution 29 and INSTEAD demand the developer submit an application for his development plans so that development and rezoning can be considered together, as mandated in by law in the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act. The “Sacred Forest” at 1011 2nd Avenue is the city’s last untouched forest along the Hudson River as well as a nationally significant (National Register eligible) indigenous heritage site with artifacts dating back to 1500-3000 B.C. The indigenous peoples maintain ties to this land that grew over 5000 years. For them, this is sacred land. It is unique for its history and cultural heritage. It deserves the fullest consideration if any action would be taken on this land. A rezoning cannot be considered independent from known development plans. These plans are known to the council and administration. REZONING AND DEVELOPMENT PLANS MUST BE CONSIDERED TOGETHER.

14

This would also SAVE THE CITY MONEY AND TIME, as it would streamline the review process and make it more efficient. By not adopting Resolution 29 you are simply asking the developer to follow the proper legal processes by submitting a formal application for his development plans, as per SEQRA. Thank you. Jennifer Baumstein Troy NY Dear Members of the City Council Planning Committee * Please enter this letter into the record and include it in the minutes of the upcoming Planning Committee Hearing (April 27, 2021) My name is Jennifer Schulaner. I live in the city of Troy, NY @ 2161 12th Street. I am writing to you in opposition to the requested zoning change for 1011 2nd Avenue (Tax Parcel 70.64-1-1) and in opposition to Resolution 29 declaring the City Council as "lead agency". The “Sacred Forest” at 1011 2nd Avenue is unique. It is part of our history. It is an important indigenous cultural and historical heritage site. It has a rare and important ecology, with protected species. It protects the city and contributes to public health. This forest deserves our protection! I ask the Planning Committee to: – Follow the Planning Commission's recommendation AGAINST rezoning – A vote on Resolution 29 is PREMATURE and would create a process that constitutes SEGMENTATION, prohibited by State Law. - You MUST NOT adopt Resolution 29 and INSTEAD demand the developer submit an application for his development plans so that development and rezoning can be considered together, as mandated in by law in the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act. The “Sacred Forest” at 1011 2nd Avenue is the city’s last untouched forest along the Hudson River as well as a nationally significant (National Register eligible) indigenous heritage site with artifacts dating back to 1500-3000 B.C. The indigenous peoples maintain ties to this land that grew over 5000 years. For them, this is sacred land. It is unique for its history and cultural heritage. It deserves the fullest consideration if any action would be taken on this land. A rezoning cannot be considered independent from known development plans. These plans are known to the council

15

and administration. REZONING AND DEVELOPMENT PLANS MUST BE CONSIDERED TOGETHER. This would also SAVE THE CITY MONEY AND TIME, as it would streamline the review process and make it more efficient. By not adopting Resolution 29 you are simply asking the developer to follow the proper legal processes by submitting a formal application for his development plans, as per SEQRA. We are at a pivotal point in history where we can collectively & collaboratively mitigate & reverse catastrophic effects of global warming ~ think globally ~ act locally ~ Thank you. Jennifer Schulaner Troy, NY Dear Members of the City Council Planning Committee * Please enter this letter into the record and include it in the minutes of the upcoming Planning Committee Hearing (April 27, 2021) My name is Jessica Bennett. I live at 1009 2nd Ave in the Lansingburgh Neighborhood. I am writing to you in opposition to the requested zoning change for 1011 2nd Avenue (Tax Parcel 70.64-1-1) and in opposition to Resolution 29 declaring the City Council as "lead agency". The “Sacred Forest” at 1011 2nd Avenue is unique. It is part of our history. It is an important indigenous cultural and historical heritage site. It has a rare and important ecology, with protected species. It protects the city and contributes to public health. This forest deserves our protection! I ask the Planning Committee to: – Follow the Planning Commission's recommendation AGAINST rezoning – A vote on Resolution 29 is PREMATURE and would create a process that constitutes SEGMENTATION, prohibited by State Law. - You MUST NOT adopt Resolution 29 and INSTEAD demand the developer submit an application for his development plans so that development and rezoning can be considered together, as mandated in by law in the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act.

16

The “Sacred Forest” at 1011 2nd Avenue is the city’s last untouched forest along the Hudson River as well as a nationally significant (National Register eligible) indigenous heritage site with artifacts dating back to 1500-3000 B.C. The indigenous peoples maintain ties to this land that grew over 5000 years. For them, this is sacred land. It is unique for its history and cultural heritage. It deserves the fullest consideration if any action would be taken on this land. A rezoning cannot be considered independent from known development plans. These plans are known to the council and administration. REZONING AND DEVELOPMENT PLANS MUST BE CONSIDERED TOGETHER. This would also SAVE THE CITY MONEY AND TIME, as it would streamline the review process and make it more efficient. By not adopting Resolution 29 you are simply asking the developer to follow the proper legal processes by submitting a formal application for his development plans, as per SEQRA. This land is and has been important to the city of Troy since there has been a city of Troy. This site is where General Knox crossed the Hudson in his campaign to Cambridge during the Revolutionary War and has been a recreational access point to the water for Trojans for over 200 years (then known as Lansing’s Grove.) As a well known archeological site, the geological features of 1011 2nd Ave have been utilized by indigenous people for over 5000 years and descendants of tribes originally forced off this land are advocating for its preservation. In this modern era where there is a movement to amplify to voices and concerns of the historically oppressed, let Troy not be stuck in the past, making the same mistakes over and over. The Planning Commission did it’s job and made a recommendation against rezoning; follow their recommendation and vote against Resolution 29. Thank you. Jessica Bennett Lansingburgh Dear Members of the City Council Planning Committee * Please enter this letter into the record and include it in the minutes of the upcoming Planning Committee Hearing (April 27, 2021) My name is Jesica. I currently live in the Glens Falls and have lived in Troy in the past. I am writing to you in opposition to the requested zoning change for 1011 2nd Avenue (Tax Parcel 70.64-1-1) and in opposition to Resolution 29 declaring the City Council as "lead agency". The “Sacred Forest” at 1011 2nd Avenue is unique. It is part of our history. It is an important indigenous cultural and historical heritage site. It has a rare and important ecology, with protected species. It protects the city and contributes to public health.

17

This forest deserves our protection! I ask the Planning Committee to: – Follow the Planning Commission's recommendation AGAINST rezoning – A vote on Resolution 29 is PREMATURE and would create a process that constitutes SEGMENTATION, prohibited by State Law. - You MUST NOT adopt Resolution 29 and INSTEAD demand the developer submit an application for his development plans so that development and rezoning can be considered together, as mandated in by law in the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act. The “Sacred Forest” at 1011 2nd Avenue is the city’s last untouched forest along the Hudson River as well as a nationally significant (National Register eligible) indigenous heritage site with artifacts dating back to 1500-3000 B.C. The indigenous peoples maintain ties to this land that grew over 5000 years. For them, this is sacred land. It is unique for its history and cultural heritage. It deserves the fullest consideration if any action would be taken on this land. A rezoning cannot be considered independent from known development plans. These plans are known to the council and administration. REZONING AND DEVELOPMENT PLANS MUST BE CONSIDERED TOGETHER. This would also SAVE THE CITY MONEY AND TIME, as it would streamline the review process and make it more efficient. By not adopting Resolution 29 you are simply asking the developer to follow the proper legal processes by submitting a formal application for his development plans, as per SEQRA. Thank you. Jessica Ryle Glens Falls Dear Members of the City Council Planning Committee * Please enter this letter into the record and include it in the minutes of the upcoming Planning Committee Hearing (April 27, 2021) My name is John Raup. I live in the town of Brunswick. I am writing to you in opposition to the requested zoning change for 1011 2nd Avenue (Tax Parcel 70.64-1-1) and in opposition to Resolution 29 declaring the City Council as "lead agency". The “Sacred Forest” at 1011 2nd Avenue is unique. It is part of our history. It is an important indigenous cultural and historical heritage site. It has a rare and important ecology, with protected species. It protects the city and contributes to public health.

18

This forest deserves our protection! I ask the Planning Committee to: – Follow the Planning Commission's recommendation AGAINST rezoning – A vote on Resolution 29 is PREMATURE and would create a process that constitutes SEGMENTATION, prohibited by State Law. - You MUST NOT adopt Resolution 29 and INSTEAD demand the developer submit an application for his development plans so that development and rezoning can be considered together, as mandated in by law in the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act. The “Sacred Forest” at 1011 2nd Avenue is the city’s last untouched forest along the Hudson River. Respectfully submitted, John Raup Troy, NY 12182 Dear Members of the City Council Planning Committee * Please enter this letter into the record and include it in the minutes of the upcoming Planning Committee Hearing (April 27, 2021) My name is Joseph DiMaggio. I live in Cascade, Maryland 21719. I am writing to you in opposition to the requested zoning change for 1011 2nd Avenue (Tax Parcel 70.64-1-1) and in opposition to Resolution 29 declaring the City Council as "lead agency". The “Sacred Forest” at 1011 2nd Avenue is unique. It is part of our history. It is an important indigenous cultural and historical heritage site. It has a rare and important ecology, with protected species. It protects the city and contributes to public health. This forest deserves our protection! I ask the Planning Committee to: – Follow the Planning Commission's recommendation AGAINST rezoning – A vote on Resolution 29 is PREMATURE and would create a process that constitutes SEGMENTATION, prohibited by State Law. - You MUST NOT adopt Resolution 29 and INSTEAD demand the developer submit an application for his development plans so that development and rezoning can be considered together, as mandated in by law in the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act. The “Sacred Forest” at 1011 2nd Avenue is the city’s last untouched forest along the Hudson River as well as a nationally significant (National Register eligible) indigenous heritage site with artifacts dating back to 1500-3000 B.C. The indigenous peoples maintain ties to this land that grew over 5000 years. For them, this is sacred land. It is unique for its history and cultural heritage.

19

It deserves the fullest consideration if any action would be taken on this land. A rezoning cannot be considered independent from known development plans. These plans are known to the council and administration. REZONING AND DEVELOPMENT PLANS MUST BE CONSIDERED TOGETHER. This would also SAVE THE CITY MONEY AND TIME, as it would streamline the review process and make it more efficient. By not adopting Resolution 29 you are simply asking the developer to follow the proper legal processes by submitting a formal application for his development plans, as per SEQRA. [ADD — OPTIONAL: Personal paragraph of your relationship to the land and why you think it is important that this land is protected] Thank you. Joseph DiMaggio Cascade,MD21719 Dear Members of the City Council Planning Committee: * I request that you please enter this letter into the offical record and include it in the minutes of the upcoming Planning Committee Hearing (April 27, 2021) My name is Karin Krasevac-Lenz. I live in the City of Troy. I write to you today to express my strong opposition to the requested zoning change for 1011 2nd Avenue (Tax Parcel 70.64-1-1) and in opposition to Resolution 29 declaring the City Council as "lead agency". The “Sacred Forest” at 1011 2nd Avenue is unique and most valuable to the Troy community in its current iteration. This rare tract is part of our history as an important indigenous cultural and historical heritage site. It has a singular and important ecology - home to protected species. This strategically located forest deserves our attention and vigilant protection! I respectfully implore the Planning Committee to represent a majority of Troy residents and the City's long-term City planning goals in light of information shared in this and similar letters. Note: – Follow the Planning Commission's recommendation AGAINST rezoning – A vote on Resolution 29 is PREMATURE and would create a process that constitutes SEGMENTATION which is prohibited by State Law.

20

- Do NOT adopt Resolution 29. INSTEAD demand the developer submit an application for his development plans so that development and rezoning can be considered together, as mandated by law in the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act. The “Sacred Forest” at 1011 2nd Avenue is the city’s last untouched forest along the Hudson River as well as a nationally significant (National Register eligible) indigenous heritage site with artifacts dating back to 1500-3000 B.C. The indigenous peoples maintain ties to this land that grew over 5000 years. For them, this is sacred land. It is unique for its history and cultural heritage. This rare gem deserves the fullest consideration if any action would be taken on this land. A rezoning cannot be considered independent from known development plans. These plans are known to the council and administration. REZONING AND DEVELOPMENT PLANS MUST BE CONSIDERED TOGETHER. This more prudent path would also SAVE THE CITY MONEY AND TIME, as it would streamline the review process and make it more efficient. To not adopt Resolution 29 is to simply ask the developer to follow the proper legal processes by submitting a formal application for his development plans, as per SEQRA. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration, Karin Krasevac-Lenz Troy, NY Dear Members of the City Council Planning Committee * Please enter this letter into the record and include it in the minutes of the upcoming Planning Committee Hearing (April 27, 2021) My name is Laura Hynes. I live on Washington Park in Troy. I am writing to you in opposition to the requested zoning change for 1011 2nd Avenue (Tax Parcel 70.64-1-1) and in opposition to Resolution 29 declaring the City Council as "lead agency". The “Sacred Forest” at 1011 2nd Avenue is unique. It is part of our history. It is an important indigenous cultural and historical heritage site. It has a rare and important ecology, with protected species. It protects the city and contributes to public health. This forest deserves our protection! I ask the Planning Committee to: – Follow the Planning Commission's recommendation AGAINST rezoning

21

– A vote on Resolution 29 is PREMATURE and would create a process that constitutes SEGMENTATION, prohibited by State Law. - You MUST NOT adopt Resolution 29 and INSTEAD demand the developer submit an application for his development plans so that development and rezoning can be considered together, as mandated in by law in the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act. The “Sacred Forest” at 1011 2nd Avenue is the city’s last untouched forest along the Hudson River as well as a nationally significant (National Register eligible) indigenous heritage site with artifacts dating back to 1500-3000 B.C. The indigenous peoples maintain ties to this land that grew over 5000 years. For them, this is sacred land. It is unique for its history and cultural heritage. It deserves the fullest consideration if any action would be taken on this land. A rezoning cannot be considered independent from known development plans. These plans are known to the council and administration. REZONING AND DEVELOPMENT PLANS MUST BE CONSIDERED TOGETHER. This would also SAVE THE CITY MONEY AND TIME, as it would streamline the review process and make it more efficient. By not adopting Resolution 29 you are simply asking the developer to follow the proper legal processes by submitting a formal application for his development plans, as per SEQRA. In a city filled with uninhabited, gorgeous buildings the last thing we need are new “luxury” developments that get rid of our precious green space. Thank you. Laura Hynes Troy Dear Members of the City Council Planning Committee * Please enter this letter into the record and include it in the minutes of the upcoming Planning Committee Hearing (April 27, 2021) My name is Lee Ferrini. I live in Troy, and have spent my whole life growing up in this area. I am writing to you in opposition to the requested zoning change for 1011 2nd Avenue (Tax Parcel 70.64-1-1) and in opposition to Resolution 29 declaring the City Council as "lead agency". The “Sacred Forest” at 1011 2nd Avenue is unique. It is part of our history. It is an important indigenous cultural and historical heritage site. It has a rare and important ecology, with protected species. It protects the city and contributes to public health.

22

This forest deserves our protection! I ask the Planning Committee to: – Follow the Planning Commission's recommendation AGAINST rezoning – A vote on Resolution 29 is PREMATURE and would create a process that constitutes SEGMENTATION, prohibited by State Law. - You MUST NOT adopt Resolution 29 and INSTEAD demand the developer submit an application for his development plans so that development and rezoning can be considered together, as mandated in by law in the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act. The “Sacred Forest” at 1011 2nd Avenue is the city’s last untouched forest along the Hudson River as well as a nationally significant (National Register eligible) indigenous heritage site with artifacts dating back to 1500-3000 B.C. The indigenous peoples maintain ties to this land that grew over 5000 years. For them, this is sacred land. It is unique for its history and cultural heritage. It deserves the fullest consideration if any action would be taken on this land. A rezoning cannot be considered independent from known development plans. These plans are known to the council and administration. REZONING AND DEVELOPMENT PLANS MUST BE CONSIDERED TOGETHER. This would also SAVE THE CITY MONEY AND TIME, as it would streamline the review process and make it more efficient. By not adopting Resolution 29 you are simply asking the developer to follow the proper legal processes by submitting a formal application for his development plans, as per SEQRA. On a personal note, the natural beauty of our state and region is an invaluable resource that has long been overlooked or neglected. The city of Troy has an opportunity to preserve this piece of land for future generations, so that they might enjoy a unique and beautiful part of our land and history. Also, since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, outdoor activities have become more and more popular. This sacred forest is not only historically, naturally, and culturally significant, but it has the potential to be a Troy gem, a peaceful place for the whole community to enjoy. Thank you. Lee Ferrini Troy Dear Members of the City Council Planning Committee

23

* Please enter this letter into the record and include it in the minutes of the upcoming Planning Committee Hearing (April 27, 2021) My name is M Goodman. I live in the city of Troy. I am writing to you in opposition to the requested zoning change for 1011 2nd Avenue (Tax Parcel 70.64-1-1) and in opposition to Resolution 29 declaring the City Council as "lead agency". The “Sacred Forest” at 1011 2nd Avenue is unique. It is part of our history. It is an important indigenous cultural and historical heritage site. It has a rare and important ecology, with protected species. It protects the city and contributes to public health. This forest deserves our protection! I ask the Planning Committee to: – Follow the Planning Commission's recommendation AGAINST rezoning – A vote on Resolution 29 is PREMATURE and would create a process that constitutes SEGMENTATION, prohibited by State Law. - You MUST NOT adopt Resolution 29 and INSTEAD demand the developer submit an application for his development plans so that development and rezoning can be considered together, as mandated in by law in the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act. The “Sacred Forest” at 1011 2nd Avenue is the city’s last untouched forest along the Hudson River as well as a nationally significant (National Register eligible) indigenous heritage site with artifacts dating back to 1500-3000 B.C. The indigenous peoples maintain ties to this land that grew over 5000 years. For them, this is sacred land. It is unique for its history and cultural heritage. It deserves the fullest consideration if any action would be taken on this land. A rezoning cannot be considered independent from known development plans. These plans are known to the council and administration. REZONING AND DEVELOPMENT PLANS MUST BE CONSIDERED TOGETHER. This would also SAVE THE CITY MONEY AND TIME, as it would streamline the review process and make it more efficient. By not adopting Resolution 29 you are simply asking the developer to follow the proper legal processes by submitting a formal application for his development plans, as per SEQRA. [ADD — OPTIONAL: Personal paragraph of your relationship to the land and why you think it is important that this land is protected] Thank you. M Goodman

24

Troy, NY Dear Members of the City Council Planning Committee, * Please enter this letter into the record and include it in the minutes of the upcoming Planning Committee Hearing (April 27, 2021) My name is Michelle Polacinski. I live in the city of Troy, NY in the 4th district. I am writing in opposition to the requested zoning change for 1011 2nd Avenue (Tax Parcel 70.64-1-1) and in opposition to Resolution 29 declaring the City Council as "lead agency." The forest at 1011 2nd Avenue is the only remaining waterfront forest along the Hudson in Troy, NY. It is an important cultural and historical Mohican heritage site. After speaking directly with Bonney Hartley of the Stockbridge-Munsee Mohican people, they are vehemently against destroying this land. It has a rare and important ecology, with protected species. It protects the city from flooding and contributes to public health. In a world where money takes power over destruction of natural resources, which has led to worldwide climate change, we need to protect what is left of our land at the local level and the City Council needs to take action in the favor of its residents, not wealthy developers. I have seen numerous ugly new "urban flats" pop up in this city, but I haven't noticed any new jobs to come with the expected increase in population. We don't even have a grocery store! We have very few public green spaces as it is. It would be tremendously sad to see this space go only to be replaced by unneeded apartments. There are about 5 or 6 apartments near me, right downtown, that have struggled to fill since the pandemic started as is. This space should be a park, not more ugly apartments (don't even get me started with "Starbuck Island"). I ask the Planning Committee to: – Follow the Planning Commission's recommendation AGAINST rezoning – A vote on Resolution 29 is PREMATURE and would create a process that constitutes SEGMENTATION, prohibited by State Law. - You MUST NOT adopt Resolution 29 and INSTEAD demand the developer submit an application for his development plans so that development and rezoning can be considered together, as mandated in by law in the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act. The “Sacred Forest” at 1011 2nd Avenue is the city’s last untouched forest along the Hudson River as well as a nationally significant (National Register eligible) indigenous heritage site with artifacts dating back to 1500-3000 B.C. It deserves the fullest consideration if any action would be taken on this land. A rezoning cannot be considered independent from known development plans. These plans are known to the council and administration.

25

This would also SAVE THE CITY MONEY AND TIME, as it would streamline the review process and make it more efficient. By not adopting Resolution 29 you are simply asking the developer to follow the proper legal processes by submitting a formal application for his development plans, as per SEQRA. Thank you for your time. Make the right decision. Sincerely, Michelle Polacinski Troy, NY (4th District) Dear Members of the City Council Planning Committee * Please enter this letter into the record and include it in the minutes of the upcoming Planning Committee Hearing (April 27, 2021) My name is Patrick Kiley. I live in the South Troy. I am writing to you in opposition to the requested zoning change for 1011 2nd Avenue (Tax Parcel 70.64-1-1) and in opposition to Resolution 29 declaring the City Council as "lead agency". The “Sacred Forest” at 1011 2nd Avenue is unique. It is part of our history. It is an important indigenous cultural and historical heritage site. It has a rare and important ecology, with protected species. It protects the city and contributes to public health. This forest deserves our protection! I ask the Planning Committee to: – Follow the Planning Commission's recommendation AGAINST rezoning – A vote on Resolution 29 is PREMATURE and would create a process that constitutes SEGMENTATION, prohibited by State Law. - You MUST NOT adopt Resolution 29 and INSTEAD demand the developer submit an application for his development plans so that development and rezoning can be considered together, as mandated in by law in the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act. The “Sacred Forest” at 1011 2nd Avenue is the city’s last untouched forest along the Hudson River as well as a nationally significant (National Register eligible) indigenous heritage site with artifacts dating back to 1500-3000 B.C. The indigenous peoples maintain ties to this land that

26

grew over 5000 years. For them, this is sacred land. It is unique for its history and cultural heritage. It deserves the fullest consideration if any action would be taken on this land. A rezoning cannot be considered independent from known development plans. These plans are known to the council and administration. REZONING AND DEVELOPMENT PLANS MUST BE CONSIDERED TOGETHER. This would also SAVE THE CITY MONEY AND TIME, as it would streamline the review process and make it more efficient. By not adopting Resolution 29 you are simply asking the developer to follow the proper legal processes by submitting a formal application for his development plans, as per SEQRA. Thank you. Patrick Kiley South Troy To whom it may concern: I strongly oppose the requested zoning change of 1011 2nd Avenue and Resolution 29. Others have eloquently explained the value of the site to the indigenous community, and indeed all residents of the city. Instead, I will explain what this decision means for you. Do you want to be known as the people who allowed this treasure to be destroyed? Do you want to be remembered as at best weak in the face of unethical corporations, and at worst actively in league with them? Or would you rather be known as the ones who stood firm, who stood for justice, and protected this rare and precious place? Sincerely, Elizabeth Griffith Greenville, SC Dear Members of the City Council, City Council Planning Committee and City Clerk Drogan. * Please enter this letter into the record and include it in the minutes of the upcoming Council Meeting (April 27, 2021) My name is Richard C. Herrick. I live in the City of Troy, NY. I am writing to you in opposition to the requested zoning change for 1011 2nd Avenue (Tax Parcel 70.64-1-1) and in opposition to Resolution 29 declaring the City Council as "lead agency".

27

The land at 1011 2nd Avenue is an important indigenous cultural and historical heritage site. It has a rare and important ecology, with protected species. It contributes to public health. This land deserves protection! I ask the City Council to: – Follow the Planning Commission's recommendation AGAINST rezoning and keep the property zoned in accord with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. – A vote on Resolution 29 is PREMATURE and would create a process that constitutes SEGMENTATION, prohibited by State Law. - You MUST NOT adopt Resolution 29 and INSTEAD advise the developer submit an application for his development plans so that development and rezoning can be considered together, as mandated in by law in the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act. The land at 1011 2nd Avenue also is a nationally significant (National Register eligible) indigenous heritage site with artifacts dating back to 1500-3000 B.C. The indigenous peoples maintain ties to this land that grew over 5000 years. For them, this is sacred land. It is unique for its history and cultural heritage. It deserves the fullest consideration if any action would be taken on this land. A rezoning cannot be considered independent from known development plans. These plans are known to the council and administration. REZONING AND DEVELOPMENT PLANS MUST BE CONSIDERED TOGETHER. By not adopting Resolution 29 you are simply asking the developer to follow the proper legal processes by submitting a formal application for his development plans, as per SEQRA. The developer also has a great opportunity to buy the former Leonard Hospital site from the City and build a development there benefitting the City as a whole. Thank you. Richard C. Herrick Troy, NY 12180 Dear Members of the Planning Committee, “What we are doing is to send it to planning where we have the architects, we have the engineers – there to make the decision, to look at the archeology, to see if this is a possibility – if it’s not – they are going to come back and say “NO”. I have confidence in the planning that they are going to do their due diligence and look through this property.” – Council Member Ashe McPherson “We will not have final say on what happens on that property, but WE do have final say on whether or not that property is worth rezoning as a planned development district for hundreds of units. No matter what work is done over the next couple months, I can’t imagine that work being

28

worth the effort, I can’t imagine why we would want to put that work on our already tasked planning department and planning commission to figure out that this is an inviable project……This is very much outside of the normal process to be considering this rezoning – I can’t support it” – Council Member Anasha Cummings “ I feel enough questions shave been raised, that I feel personally, that I don’t have the expertise to answer those zoning questions, so that is why we have a planning commission - they have the experience, they’ve done these sorts of things before. So, I feel it makes sense (to refer to Planning Commission) it doesn’t mean I am in favor of the project, I just want to hear their opinion on what’s best and what’s legal or what should be done” Council Member Sue Steele “I don’t want to try and develop every piece of green space in the city of Troy. I feel like as a city green space, especially historically significant green space we should be working very hard to preserve…… I fully understand the arguments to send this to the planning commission to see what they have to say about it.….The spot zoning issues – it’s going to come back to us at some point…..I feel like it’s really hard to make an argument that this is ultimately not going to end up being spot zoning. “ – Council Member Ken Zalewski “If this was city land – I we would be having a different conversation. In my opinion, this resolution is not set in stone, in terms of the proposal set in front of us. I foresee the developer having a super long haul should this pass” Council President Camella Montello On September 10, 2020 – members of the Troy City Council expressed their concerns for moving forward with the development proposal submitted by developer Kevin Vandenberg and Jaime Easton of MJ Engineering for the vacant parcel at 1011 2nd Ave. Amongst the concerns brought up by the council, was the lack of expertise of the Troy City Council members surrounding the viability of the project with relation to environmental, historical and community impacts. Given the expressed concerns, it was voted to move the proposal to the Troy Planning commission, given the high level of their qualifications regarding these types of projects and rezoning requests. The experts of the Troy Planning Commission, on January 28, 2021 recommended AGAINST the rezoning request, stating during the vote that it would be contrary to the wellbeing of the community. I bring these points and above quotes up for two reasons regarding Resolution 29 being proposed on April 27, 2021. First and foremost – on September 10th - the Troy City Council passed the resolution to send the proposal to the Troy Planning Commission for their expert opinion, with full confidence and trust, that they would fully research and make the best-informed decision for the City of Troy. This has been done, their decision has been made, their input has been given. Yet, members of the Troy City Council are continuing to move forward, despite the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Not only is Resolution 29 being presented despite the overwhelming wishes of the constituents of the City of Troy – it is also being presented despite the trusted recommendation of the experts of the Planning Commission. Second – Considering the significant historical and ecological significance of 1011 2nd Ave - I am deeply concerned with the level of qualification and expertise of the Troy City Council with regards to Resolution 29, to take the position of lead agency of the SEQRA process – especially given their comments made during the September 10th meeting. The SEQRA process is a long,

29

complicated and precise process which is set up to protect the city and community against adverse impacts associated with development projects such as this, and to identify and mitigate the significant environmental impacts of the activity it is proposing or permitting. Additionally, on January 28th. - the Troy Planning Commission stated during their decision meeting, that this proposal would be considered a Pos Dec (Positive Declaration) Type 1 SEQRA action – significantly extending the level of work that will be involved in properly and legally moving forward in this process. Given the complexity and time commitment of the SEQRA process – the lead agency should be with the high-level experts of either the Troy Planning Commission, the DEC, SHPO or other agency with high-level experts who have experience with this process. In conclusion, it is ultimately the public that is at risk and bears the brunt of mistakes, oversights, and inexperience should Resolution 29 and this development proposal move forward – and it has already been stated by the Troy Planning Commission that this proposal is contrary to the wellbeing of the public. Additionally, if the Troy City Council takes on the position of lead agency, they will have to remain impartial during the process and will no longer be able to stand up for their constituents during the SEQRA process – further putting the community at risk and potentially opening the city up to litigation possibilities, should public harm result. I do not support Resolution 29 or any further actions to proceed with the development of 1011 2nd Ave. Sincerely, Sarah Pezdek Friends of the Mahicantuck Round Lake, NY Dear Members of the Troy City Council Planning Committee * Please enter this letter into the record and include it in the minutes of the upcoming Planning Committee Hearing (April 27, 2021) My name is Sharon Wesley. I own property and live in Lansingburgh. I am writing to you in opposition to the requested zoning change for 1011 2nd Avenue (Tax Parcel 70.64-1-1) and in opposition to Resolution 29 declaring the City Council as "lead agency". The “Sacred Forest” at 1011 2nd Avenue is unique. It is part of our area history, an important indigenous cultural and historical heritage site. It has rare and important ecology, with protected species. It protects the city and contributes to public health. This forest deserves our protection! I ask the Planning Committee to: – Follow the Planning Commission's recommendation AGAINST rezoning

30

– A vote on Resolution 29 is PREMATURE and would create a process that constitutes SEGMENTATION, prohibited by State Law. - Do NOT adopt Resolution 29. INSTEAD demand the developer submit an application for his development plans so that development and rezoning can be considered together, as mandated by law in the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act. The “Sacred Forest” at 1011 2nd Avenue is the city’s last untouched forest along the Hudson River as well as a nationally significant (National Register-eligible) indigenous heritage site with artifacts dating back to 1500-3000 B.C. Our indigenous peoples maintain ties to this land. For them, it is sacred. It is unique for its history and cultural heritage. Can Troy obtain this land? Troy has some paved and developed riverfront the public can access, but could benefit from more natural riverfront locales. Public waterfront access is so valuable! Dont be like Cohoes. Any action that might be taken on this land deserves the full attention of the immediate and surrounding communities. Development will already occur above, on the former hospital grounds. And Troy has properties and areas that can provide housing if a focus is placed on their renovation and rejuvenation, for the benefit of all near them, rather than create stand-alone pockets of gentrification. A rezoning should not be considered, independent from known development plans. These plans are known to the council and administration. REZONING AND DEVELOPMENT PLANS MUST BE DOCUMENTED and CONSIDERED TOGETHER, to SAVE THE CITY MONEY AND TIME, streamline the review process and make it more efficient and just. By not adopting Resolution 29 you are simply asking the developer to follow the proper legal processes by submitting a formal application for his development plans, as required by SEQRA. And what does the NYS DEC have to say about Hudson River waterfront development ? I have friends in Pleasantdale, a peaceful older waterfront community immediately adjacent. Any development of 1011 2nd Avenue would likely impact their quality of life as well, and should not be undertaken willy-nilly without also consulting them and reviewing any and all potential impacts on them. Thank you. Sharon Wesley Lansingburgh NY Dear Councilwoman Ashe-McPherson, On behalf of Scenic Hudson and Riverkeeper, please see our comment letter dated 4/26/21 and attachments for your consideration and to forward to the members of the City of Troy Council Planning Committee. Unfortunately, we will not be able to attend tomorrow evening's meeting to provide additional public comment, but please don't hesitate to be in touch if we can be of further assistance.

31

Thank you. Rebecca Martin Director, Community Partnerships Program [Attachments on following pages.]

April 26, 2021

By email: kim.mcpherson@troyny.gov

Ms. Kim Ashe McPhersonAnd Members of the City of Troy Common Council Planning Committee

City of Troyc/o Common Council Planning Committee433 River StreetTroy, NY 12180

Re: Common Council Resolution Declaring The Troy City Council “Lead Agency” ForRezone Request (Council Member Gulli) (At The Request Of The Administration)

Dear Ms. Ashe McPherson and Members of the Common Council Planning Committee,

Riverkeeper and Scenic Hudson are writing to urge the Troy City Council to recommendagainst its intent to act as “lead agency” under 6 NYCRR Part 617 (SEQR) inconnection with the request for an ordinance amending Chapter 285 of the Code of theCity of Troy to change the zoning classification for Tax Parcel 70.64-1-1 from R-1 SingleFamily Residential to P Planned Development. The request was reviewed extensivelyby the City of Troy’s Planning Commission and on January 28, 2021, it was rejected bya 4-1 vote. If granted by the City Council, the rezoning from R-1 to P would not be inaccordance with the recently adopted Realize Troy Comprehensive Plan (2018), asrequired by N.Y. General City Law Section 28-a(12), a plan that was passedunanimously on May 3, 2018 which included many of the current council members (see:Minutes from Troy Common Council 05/03/18).

In our joint letter dated December 29, 2020, N.Y. General City Law requires that “All cityland use regulations must be in accordance with a comprehensive plan adopted

pursuant to this section.” Further, according to the New York State Department of State(NYSDOS) "New York’s zoning enabling statutes (the state statutes which give cities,towns and villages the power to enact local zoning laws) require that zoning laws beadopted in accordance with a comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan shouldprovide the backbone for the local zoning law." In fact, we believe that such a rezoningwould be inconsistent with several key goals of the Comprehensive Plan as they relateto both Lansingburgh and the project site.

Additionally, it is premature to consider rezoning until the developer has submitted anEAF that includes the whole action and the City has made a SEQR determination, asSEQR requires that the Lead Agency must evaluate the whole action that includesproposals or parts of proposals that are related to each other closely enough to be asingle course of action (see: NYSDOS on Segmentation in SEQR). The PlanningCommission has already identified that rezoning is a Type 1 Action under SEQRA,requiring a coordinated review by a designated lead agency. In this case, it is clear thatall three actions -- a Comprehensive Plan amendment, rezoning and the proposeddevelopment itself -- would result in adverse impacts. The project will require anEnvironmental Impact Statement.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey Anzevino, AICP Chris BellovaryDirector of Land Use Advocacy Staff AttorneyScenic Hudson Riverkeeper

AttachmentsJoint Letters: December 29, 2020 and January 28, 2021

December 29, 2020 By email: James.Rath@troyny.gov Ms. Deirdre Rudolph, P.E., Chair and Members of the City Planning Commission City of Troy c/o Planning Commission 433 River Street Troy, NY 12180 Re: Public Hearing on Planning Commission Recommendation to the City Council for Zone Change

(1011 Second Avenue) Kevin Vandenburgh is proposing a zone change from R-1 (Single-Family Residential Detached, §285-52) to PDD (Planned Development District, §285-57)

Dear Ms. Rudolph and Members of the Planning Commission: Riverkeeper and Scenic Hudson are writing to urge the Planning Commission to recommend against the above-referenced rezoning request. If granted by the City Council, the rezoning from R-1 to PDD would not be in accordance with the recently adopted Realize Troy Comprehensive Plan (2018), as required by N.Y. General City Law Section 28-a(12). Realize Troy—based on robust public input Urban Strategies, Inc., the planning firm hired by the City to draft Realize Troy, describes the Comprehensive Plan as a three-part community planning initiative developed with a “strong focus on public consultation, both in-person and using a variety of social media channels, and aimed to establish a clear vision and set of action strategies to address both the current and future needs of the City.” Urban Strategies’ website states that the Comprehensive Plan established “a clear community-based vision and action plan to guide the city’s overall development over the next 20 years” and Realize Troy identified “short and longer-term community needs, reinforced and confirmed a set of broadly supported community goals and created a blueprint for future government actions.”1 We bring this to your attention as a reminder that the Realize Troy was created in the context of a robust public engagement process that resulted in an explicit statement of the City’s vision for itself, including the land use future for the subject parcel and surrounding neighborhoods. Realize Troy

1 https://www.urbanstrategies.com/project/realize-troy/#:~:text=Realize%20Troy%20is%20a%20three,a%20city%2Dwide%20comprehensive%20plan.&text=It%20will%20establish%20a%20clear,over%20the%20next%2020%20years.

envisions the parcel as remaining in Low Rise Residential use and, in fact, identifies another nearby site as appropriate for the scope and scale of development that would be made possible by this rezoning. As a result, if granted, the requested rezoning would permit three, four-story buildings with between 230 and 250 multi-family units. This scale of development would directly conflict with Realize Troy’s recommendations and the community’s vision for low rise development at the site. Rezonings must be in accordance with Comprehensive Plans N.Y. General City Law requires that “All city land use regulations must be in accordance with a comprehensive plan adopted pursuant to this section.”2 Further, according to the New York State Department of State (NYSDOS) "New York’s zoning enabling statutes (the state statutes which give cities, towns and villages the power to enact local zoning laws) require that zoning laws be adopted in accordance with a comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan should provide the backbone for the local zoning law."3 Realize Troy’s vision for the subject parcel The Comprehensive Plan’s Map 14 identifies the subject tax parcel as “Low Rise Residential” (see Appendix A attached to this letter). The parcel is currently zoned R-1 (Single Family Residential—Detached), which permits up to 3.6 dwelling units per acre. Currently, the R-1 zoning would permit up to 36 single family homes on the site. The concept plan submitted in association with this rezoning request proposes approximately 240 multi-family units in three, four-story buildings, a density of 666% above permitted levels and with four-story building heights inconsistent with Low Rise Residential uses. Therefore, Riverkeeper and Scenic Hudson believe that a rezoning from Single Family Residential to Planned Development District in order to accommodate four-story buildings would not be in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan’s designation of Low Rise Residential and would therefore be inconsistent with N.Y. General City Law Section 28-a(12), as well as NYSDOS guidance. Other nearby sites are identified as Major Reinvestment Areas Realize Troy identifies “action strategies,” including the designation of seven “Major Reinvestment Areas,” defined as places envisioned by the community as priorities for renewal, neighborhood revitalization and large-scale development. According to Realize Troy:

“Major reinvestment areas are locations in the city in most need of renewal and which also have the potential to accommodate most of the population and employment growth planned for Troy. Strategic initiatives in these areas are intended to catalyze neighborhood revitalization, transform derelict portions of the waterfront and spark economic development. They include large-scale redevelopment opportunities that can result in distinct new employment and mixed-use areas, sites appropriate for significant park and other public realm improvements and areas for neighborhood growth and revitalization.”4

In fact, Realize Troy identifies two Major Reinvestment Areas in Lansingburgh, one of which includes the Hannaford’s parcel immediately to the south of the subject parcel. Realize Troy conceptually proposes redeveloping this site with a large building fronting 126th Street, parking behind the building, and mixed-use 1-4 story residential buildings with required ground floor retail fronting 2nd Avenue (see

2 NY City Law Section 28-a(12) 3 https://www.dos.ny.gov/lg/publications/Zoning_and_the_Comprehensive_Plan.pdf 4 Realize Troy, page 68

Revitalize Troy, page 71 and 72; also attached here as Appendices B-1 and B-2). Realize Troy does NOT propose extending this mixed-use development—nor any high-density development, including apartments as proposed in this rezoning, onto the undeveloped, wooded parcel to the north zoned R-1 and identified in Map 14 as appropriate to remain in Low Rise Residential land use. Environmental Justice Concerns The subject parcel is located in a New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)-designated “Potential Environmental Justice Area.”5 According to the NYSDEC’s website:

”Environmental Justice is the fair and meaningful treatment of all people, regardless of race, income, national origin or color, with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies. Environmental Justice allows for disproportionately impacted residents to access the tools to address environmental concerns across all of DEC's operations.”6

The NYSDEC’s definition of Environmental Justice includes the Indigenous Peoples (Native Americans) who lived here before the coming of the Europeans and who still live in New York today. It is our understanding that representatives of Indigenous Peoples have expressed historic ties to the subject site, which is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. In fact, the applicant’s Project Narrative indicates there are eight locations of archaeological artifact concentration on the site.7 Given this unique set of circumstances—the parcel’s well-documented archaeological sensitivity, Indigenous peoples’ concern for the site, and its location in a State-designated Potential Environmental Justice Area—Riverkeeper and Scenic Hudson urge the Planning Commission to take seriously comments and concerns expressed by representatives of Indigenous peoples with ties to the site. Conclusion During the development of the Realize Troy, undertaken with robust public involvement and adopted by the City Council just two years ago, it was not anticipated that the undeveloped, wooded parcel at 1011 2nd Avenue would be an appropriate place for intense development, in this case approximately 240 multi-family units—an increase in density of 666%. In fact, Realize Troy specifically includes this parcel in the “Low Rise Residential” land use category and the rezoning request would permit four-story buildings. In light of the above Riverkeeper and Scenic Hudson urge the Planning Commission to recommend against the application to rezone Tax Parcel Number 70.64-1-1 on 2nd Avenue from R-1 (Single Family Development) to PDD (Planned Development). Such rezoning would not be in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan as required by N.Y. General City Law Section 28-a(12). Finally, given the well-documented archaeological sensitivity of the site, concerns raised by representatives of Indigenous peoples, and the site’s location in a Potential Environmental Justice Area, we urge the Planning Commission to take seriously comments and concerns expressed by representatives of Indigenous peoples with ties to the site. Thank you.

5 https://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/permits_ej_operations_pdf/rensselaerej.pdf 6 https://www.dec.ny.gov/public/333.html 7 Project Narrative for Second Avenue; MJ Engineering & Land Surveying, PC; October 28, 2020; Exhibit 5-Archaeological Concentration Plan, C-2 on page 17

Sincerely,

Jeffrey Anzevino, AICP Christopher Bellovary Director of Land Use Advocacy Staff Attorney8 Scenic Hudson Riverkeeper Attachments Appendix A Appendix B-1 Appendix B-2

8 Christopher Bellovary is in the process of applying for licensure in the State of New York and currently licensed to

practice law within Washington State and Wisconsin (WSBA Member 37657, WisBar Member 1052534).

1

January 28, 2021 By email: James.Rath@troyny.gov Ms. Deirdre Rudolph, P.E., Chair and Members of the City Planning Commission City of Troy c/o Planning Commission 433 River Street Troy, NY 12180 Re: Planning Commission Review of requested Zone Change (1011 Second Avenue)

Kevin Vandenburgh is proposing a zone change from R-1 (Single-Family Residential Detached, §285-52) to PDD (Planned Development District, §285-57)

Dear Ms. Rudolph and Members of the Planning Commission: Scenic Hudson and Riverkeeper are in receipt of a document entitled Second Avenue Apartments Narrative Description Report (January 2021) which we believe contains serious errors of omission that should be brought to your attention. As you know the Applicant proposes to construct three, 4-story multi-family apartment buildings on an 11-acre property, most of which is in the City of Troy with a smaller portion in the Town of Schaghticoke. The property is in the R-1 zoning district which does not permit development of this scale, height or magnitude. Therefore, the Applicant has requested a rezoning to Planned Development District. Scenic Hudson and Riverkeeper write again to reiterate our request urging the Planning Commission to recommend to the City Council that the zoning request should be denied. The Narrative Description has omitted inconsistencies with key goals in the Realize Troy Comprehensive Plan (2018). In fact, we believe that such a rezoning would be inconsistent with several key goals of the Comprehensive Plan as they relate to both Lansingburgh and the project site. Why the Narrative Description Report’s Case Must Be Rejected The Narrative rationalizes the proposed 220-240-unit development’s relationship with Realize Troy by presenting the project along with some broad Citywide goals such as providing sidewalks, river access, new housing, etc. However, the narrative omits specific goals as they directly relate to Lansingburgh and the project site.

2

Inconsistent with Goal 6 The Narrative omits what Realize Troy says about how sites in Low Rise Residential areas should be developed. Goal 6.2 specifically states that “development in stable neighborhoods will respect and reinforce the existing neighborhood character and pattern of development.” Further, Goal 6.2.2 speaks specifically to Low Rise Residential Areas and limits development to “low density,” “ground-related,” “and three stories.” 1 In this case, the Applicant proposes a density increase of up to 666% over existing permitted R-1 density, and at four stories, is certainly by any definition not respectful or reinforcing of its single-family context. We urge the Planning Commission to consider the impact of allowing between 220 and 240 residential units in four-story buildings adjacent to a neighborhood of single-family homes. The Narrative contends that the apartment project would support “Compact Growth” because a trail would be established to the Hannaford’s. However, the narrative excludes any context about building a high-density apartment complex on a forested site in a single-family neighborhood at the edge of the City. Inconsistent with Goal 2—Promote Healthy, Safe and Green Neighborhoods Under Goal 2, Promote Healthy, Safe and Green Neighborhoods, the Comprehensive Plan describes Lansingburgh as “one of the oldest neighborhoods in Troy. It is an area with a distinct character, a deep history and strong community bonds.” The Plan says that “strategic reinvestments in this neighborhood can support the intentions of the Comprehensive Plan and can have a number of positive benefits towards the goals of greater neighborhood stability and continued reinvestment (emphasis added).” Responding to an application to rezone a parcel for development out of character with the surrounding single-family neighborhood would not be considered strategic, but rather opportunistic. Further, rezoning to permit between 220 and 240 multifamily units in four-story buildings a single-family residential neighborhood would not respect or reinforce the neighborhood character or pattern as required by Goal 6.2. Inconsistent with Goal 5—Invest in Sustainable Infrastructure and Sustainable Development The proposal is inconsistent with Goal 5 as it does not protect a key watercourse and would develop a large forested area along its shore with high density multi-family units. 2 Map 12 on page 59 indicates that much of the project site is in the Hudson River’s 100-year floodplain. The Hudson River is arguably Troy’s most important watercourse. Given that these areas are to be protected from major development, rezoning an R-1 parcel to accommodate up to a 666% increase in development would not protect this important watercourse, particularly when one considers this is a forested site. The proposal does not satisfy the Intent of the Planned Development District The Development Narrative describes the philosophy of the Planned Development District (P):

This District is designed to maximize choice in the types of environment, housing, densities, occupancy tenure, lot sizes, community facilities, usable open space and recreational areas

1 Realize Troy, page 62 2 Realize Troy, page 58

3

within a large parcel of land in which a planned mix of residential uses is proposed. The intent of this District is to foster a creative and efficient use of land resulting in small networks of utilities and streets, the preservation of existing natural resources, and a development pattern consistent with community needs and standards. 3

Our review of the proposed project finds a forested, archaeologically rich riverfront site cleared for a typical suburban apartment complex with freestanding four story buildings, roads and parking lots scattered throughout the parcel. While development would be set back from the river and a trail provided, very few natural resources would be protected, little creativity demonstrated in the site plan, and no mix of residential uses provided. In fact, the Applicant proposes one and two-bedroom units in similar multi-family buildings—no mix of building types. Based on the above, the proposal does not satisfy the philosophy pf the Planned Development District as it does not provide a mix of residential uses, foster creative or efficient land use, small networks of utilities and streets, or preservation of natural resources. Rezonings must be in accordance with Comprehensive Plans As we’ve stated in our December 29th letter, N.Y. General City Law requires that “All city land use regulations must be in accordance with a comprehensive plan adopted pursuant to this section.”4 Further, according to the New York State Department of State (NYSDOS) "New York’s zoning enabling statutes (the state statutes which give cities, towns and villages the power to enact local zoning laws) require that zoning laws be adopted in accordance with a comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan should provide the backbone for the local zoning law."5 Realize Troy’s vision for the subject parcel The Comprehensive Plan’s Map 14 identifies the subject tax parcel as “Low Rise Residential” (see Appendix A attached to this letter). The parcel is currently zoned R-1 (Single Family Residential—Detached), which permits up to 3.6 dwelling units per acre. Currently, the R-1 zoning would permit up to 36 single family homes on the site. The concept plan submitted in association with this rezoning request proposes between 220 and 240 multi-family units, a density of up to 666% above permitted levels, in four-story building heights, which is inconsistent with Realize Troy’s vision for Low Rise Residential areas. Therefore, Riverkeeper and Scenic Hudson believe that a rezoning from Single Family Residential to Planned Development District in order to accommodate four-story buildings would not be in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan’s designation of Low Rise Residential and would therefore be inconsistent with N.Y. General City Law Section 28-a(12), as well as NYSDOS guidance. Other nearby sites are identified as Major Reinvestment Areas Realize Troy identifies “action strategies,” including the designation of seven “Major Reinvestment Areas,” defined as places envisioned by the community as priorities for renewal, neighborhood revitalization and large-scale development. According to Realize Troy:

3 Second Avenue Apartments Narrative Description Report; January 2021, p. 15 4 NY City Law Section 28-a(12) 5 https://www.dos.ny.gov/lg/publications/Zoning_and_the_Comprehensive_Plan.pdf

4

“Major reinvestment areas are locations in the city in most need of renewal and which also have the potential to accommodate most of the population and employment growth planned for Troy. Strategic initiatives in these areas are intended to catalyze neighborhood revitalization, transform derelict portions of the waterfront and spark economic development. They include large-scale redevelopment opportunities that can result in distinct new employment and mixed-use areas, sites appropriate for significant park and other public realm improvements and areas for neighborhood growth and revitalization.”6

In fact, Realize Troy identifies two Major Reinvestment Areas in Lansingburgh, one of which includes the Hannaford’s parcel immediately to the south of the subject parcel. Realize Troy conceptually proposes redeveloping this site with a large building fronting 126th Street, parking behind the building, and mixed-use 1-4 story residential buildings with required ground floor retail fronting 2nd Avenue (see Revitalize Troy, page 71 and 72; also attached here as Appendices B-1 and B-2). Realize Troy does NOT propose extending this mixed-use development—nor any high-density development, including apartments as proposed in this rezoning, onto the undeveloped, wooded parcel to the north zoned R-1 and identified in Map 14 as appropriate to remain in Low Rise Residential land use. One would think that if the subject parcel was appropriate for four story, high—density multi-family buildings, Realize Troy would have extended this Major Reinvestment Area onto that parcel. But the parcel is identified as Low Rise Residential. Environmental Justice Concerns The subject parcel is located in a New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)-designated “Potential Environmental Justice Area.”7 According to the NYSDEC’s website:

“Environmental Justice is the fair and meaningful treatment of all people, regardless of race, income, national origin or color, with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies. Environmental Justice allows for disproportionately impacted residents to access the tools to address environmental concerns across all of DEC's operations.”8

The NYSDEC’s definition of Environmental Justice includes the Indigenous People (Native Americans) who lived here before the coming of the Europeans and who still live in New York today. It is our understanding that the Schaghicoke First Nations, as well Mahican, Lenape and other indigenous people, have expressed historic ties to the subject site. According to the Friends of the Mahcantuck, the land is suspected as a one of the potential sites for an indigenous village located in the area and is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.9 In fact, the applicant’s Project Narrative indicates there are eight locations of archaeological artifact concentration on the site.10 Given this unique set of circumstances—the parcel’s well-documented archaeological sensitivity, indigenous peoples’ concern for the site, and its location in a State-designated Potential Environmental Justice Area—Riverkeeper and Scenic Hudson urge the Planning Commission to take seriously comments

6 Realize Troy, page 68 7 https://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/permits_ej_operations_pdf/rensselaerej.pdf 8 https://www.dec.ny.gov/public/333.html 9 http://www.friendsofthemahicantuck.org/history/ 10 Project Narrative for Second Avenue; MJ Engineering & Land Surveying, PC; October 28, 2020; Exhibit 5-Archaeological Concentration Plan, C-2 on page 17

5

and concerns presented by representatives of the Schaghitcoke First Nations, Friends of the Mahicantuck, and other indigenous peoples expressing ties to the site. Conclusion During the development of Realize Troy, undertaken with robust public involvement and adopted by the City Council just two years ago, it was not anticipated that the undeveloped, wooded parcel at 1011 2nd Avenue would be an appropriate place for intense development, in this case approximately between 220 and 240 multi-family units—an increase in density of up to 666%. In fact, Realize Troy specifically includes this parcel in the “Low Rise Residential” land use category and the rezoning request would permit four-story buildings. As indicated above Realize Troy in Goals 6.2 and 6.22 anticipate that “Development in stable neighborhoods will respect and reinforce the existing neighborhood character and pattern of development” and “Low-Rise Residential areas shall contain low-density, ground-related housing that is no greater than three-stories in height” (emphasis added). We believe that the potential for 666% increase in density with four story buildings should not be consistent with these important goals. Given the well-documented archaeological sensitivity of the site, concerns raised by representatives of indigenous peoples, the site’s National-Register eligibility, and its location in a Potential Environmental Justice Area, we urge the Planning Commission to take seriously comments expressed by the Friends of the Mahicantuck as well as representatives of the Schaghitcoke First Nations, Stockbridge Munsee and other indigenous peoples with ties to the site. Finally, because the Applicant’s proposal and proposed rezoning are inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and in light of the above, as well as our December 29th letter, Scenic Hudson and Riverkeeper urge the Planning Commission to recommend against rezoning this site to Planned Development District (P). Such rezoning would not be in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan as required by N.Y. General City Law Section 28-a(12). Thank you. Sincerely,

Jeffrey Anzevino, AICP Christopher Bellovary Director of Land Use Advocacy Staff Attorney11 Scenic Hudson Riverkeeper Attachments Appendix A Appendix B-1 Appendix B-2

11 Christopher Bellovary is in the process of applying for licensure in the State of New York and currently licensed to

practice law within Washington State and Wisconsin (WSBA Member 37657, WisBar Member 1052534).

Note: Subject parcel is designated in area for Low-Rise Residential

Attachment A

Realize Troy, Map 14, Land Use

Attachment B-1

Realize Troy, Map 14, Land Use

Note: Subject parcel is NOT in Major Reinvestment Area and designated as for Low-Rise Residential

Note: Adjacent Hannafords site in MajprReinvestment Area and proposed for redevelopment with building fronting 126th Street, parking behind, and 1-4 story residential; buildings with ground floor retail

Attachment B-2

Realize Troy, Major Reinvestment Areas

Note: Subject parcel is NOT in Major Reinvestment Area and designated as for Low-Rise Residential

Note: Adjacent Hannafords site in MajprReinvestment Area and proposed for redevelopment with building fronting 126th Street, parking behind, and 1-4 story residential; buildings with ground floor retail

32

please enter into the record and include in the minutes this email as well as the attached documents: 1) A written statement regarding Res. 29 2) Documents provided in a google drive folder with evidence supporting the archaeological significance of the site warranting a “pos dec” once a lead agency has been established, available here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1xQCThTny5v2ONHBs4xofQfToq5iCzV_l?usp=sharing 3) A petition of residents of Troy, the Capital District and the country, with 5000 signatures, showing the overwhelming attention across the region and the country and the strong opposition to this proposal. Sincerely, The Friends of the Mahicantuck www.save1011.org FriendsOfTheMahicantuck@gmail.com [Attachments on following pages.]

Dear Members of the Planning Committee.

The Friends of the Mahicantuck are opposed to adopting Res. 29. It is our position that adoptingRes. 29 is inappropriate and premature at this point in the process for the following fourreasons.

1. Commissioner Strichman in his memo attached to the resolution indicates that the taskremains before the City Council to determine whether to consider the applicant’s requestfor a change in zoning ordinance. If this is the intent of the Committee, Res. 29 does notdo this.

2. According to SEQR, a lead agency must be declared up to 30 days after proposal of anaction and submission of an EAF1. The EAF attached to Res. 29 was received more than30 days ago (entered in the record on December 29, 2020). Is this EAF still applicable,as the 30 days period has expired?

3. The EAF contains several omissions and mistakes. This includes an incomplete list ofinvolved agencies. Should these omissions be rectified before considering action on thisEAF?

4. What is the action under review that the Council is declaring its intent to act as leadagency for through Res. 29?

5. When was the last time that the City Council was the lead agency in an EnvironmentalReview and does it have the capacities to act in this role or would another agency suchas the Planning Commission be more appropriate to serve in this role? Considering aprovision in CP-29, should the DEC coordinate the action?

Additionally our organization and the community expect a positive declaration (pos dec) oncea lead agency is established, as at least one significant negative impact is likely to result fromthis action, as provided to the record via the “Troy’s Sacred Forest” report2 added to the recordof this meeting.

Ad 1) Planning Commissioner Steven Strichman explains in his memo that the decision beforethe Planning Committee on April 27, 2021 is about whether to consider the applicant’s request.In reference to the Planning Commission’s recommendation, the Commissioner writes:

“The PC’s recommendation is advisory in nature. It remains within the discretion of the CityCouncil as to whether you will consider the applicant's request for a rezone to P District”.

However, Resolution 29 does also not constitute a decision as to “whether you will consider theapplicant’s request for a rezone to P district”, as the Commissioner’s memo would suggest inidentifying “next steps”. A declaration of lead agency is a specific action within SEQR to be

2 “Troy’s Sacred Forest”:http://www.friendsofthemahicantuck.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/final-jan2021-Report-SACRED-FOREST.pdf

1 SEQR FLOWCHART by DEC: https://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/permits_ej_operations_pdf/seqrflowchart.pdfSEQR HANDBOOK by DEC: https://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/permits_ej_operations_pdf/seqrhandbook.pdf

made at a specific point in time, it is not a judgment or decision by a City Council whether toconsider a rezoning.

Ad 2 and Ad 3) An action was not proposed and an EAF was not submitted within 30 days priorto the date that establishes a lead agency via this resolution the EAF attached to this resolutionwas submitted in December 2020. This raises two questions? Why was no lead agencydeclared within 30 days of the date this EAF was submitted? Is this EAF still valid, as it isoutside the 30 day time frame to declare a lead agency?

The EAF attached to Res. 29 additionally contains several omissions and mistakes that shouldbe corrected and resubmitted. Key omissions are provided in Appendix A of this letter, andinclude an incomplete list of involved agencies. You should ask yourself: Should you act on anEAF with significant omissions and mistakes, or should you insist on correction andre-submission of the EAF before acting on it?

We strongly urge you to not declare a lead agency until these questions have been addressed.We would recommend you to ask the developer to submit a complete and corrected “full EAF”and declare lead agency within the 30 day timeframe after submission of this revised “full EAF”.

Ad 4) Resolution 29 declares the intent to act as lead agency for a rezoning request for a singletax parcel within the City of Troy. Statements included in the previous record by members of thecity council, planning commission and by the Planning Commissioner establish SEQR reviewonly for the request for Tax Parcel 70.64-1-1.

Res. 29, as published in the Agenda for the Planning Committee meeting on April 27, 2021, alsoclearly states that this SEQR review is solely for the rezoning of Parcel 70.64-1-1:

This is also reaffirmed by the memo by Commissioner Steven Strichman. In hisrecommendation for next steps, he writes: “Next Step: To consider this request, the City shoulddeclare their intent to act as lead agency on this action for State Environmental Review. Sincethis is a type 1 action, staff will then mail a notice of intent to all involved and interestedagencies that will have 30 days to contest Lead Agency designation.”

In this statement, reference to “this action” is again exclusively to the proposed action of arequest for change in zoning ordinance.

However, attached to Res. 29 is an EAF that proposes an action of a development and rezoningfor two tax parcels, one in the City of Troy (the parcel included in Res. 29) and one in the Townof Schaghticoke (not included in Res. 29).

Additionally, the submitted plans attached to the resolution are marked as “draft”. It is thereforeunclear what the proposed development plans are and if there was an application for theseplans.

For these reasons, we urge you to clarify Resolution 29 for what the action under review is, thatlead agency is being declared for.

Ad 5) We are uncertain on whether the City Council is the ideal agency to take on the role andresponsibilities as lead agency. When was the last time the council acted as lead agency? Thelead agency has to be impartial. Is it possible for the city council to act impartially and notadvocate and act in the interest of the people they are supposed to represent? Is it in theinterest of the City Council and its members as elected representatives to take on an impartialrole? Is there a better suited involved agency to take on the role as lead agency? We think thatthe Planning Commission has the necessary resources and expertise to act as lead agency onthis proposed action.

Additionally, as this project is located in an environmental justice area, we want to draw yourattention to DEC CP-29 Section G:

“G. Coordinated Review. Where a potential environmental justice area is identified by thepreliminary screen, the action is classified in 6 NYCRR Part 617 as either Type I or Unlistedand the project involves more than one agency, the DEC shall coordinate the review of theaction with the other involved state and local agencies.”

An environmental justice area is identified, the action is classified as type I and it involvesmore than one agency. Therefore, “the DEC shall coordinate the review of the action withthe other involved state and local agencies”. This raises the question if the DEC is theappropriate lead agency?

Considering these concerns and questions, we suggest that Res 29 should NOT beadopted at this point, for two reasons:

a) If the intent of the Planning Commission is to decide “whether you will consider theapplicant’s request for a rezone to P District”, as suggested in the PlanningCommissioner’s memo, then Res. 29 does not constitute such a decision.

b) If the intent of the Planning Commission is to declare lead agency then significantquestions should be resolved before declaring lead agency.

i) The EAF attached to Res 29 was submitted more than 30 days ago (Dec, 2020).To our knowledge, no lead agency was declared within 30 days of submission.Why is that? Is this EAF still valid?

ii) The EAF has significant mistakes and omissions, including an incomplete list ofinvolved agencies. Should the EAF be corrected and resubmitted beforedeclaring a lead agency?

iii) The EAF identifies a rezoning + development on two tax parcels as action; Res.29 does not declare lead agency for the action identified in this EAF. It is unclearwhich action is under review that Res. 29 is declaring lead agency for.

RECOMMENDATION:A) We recommend that the city council determine what action it is declaring lead agency for

and should declared as such within the 30 day time window defined in SEQRA.B) We recommend that the developer is asked to re-submit a full EAF with necessary

corrections. This would also allow the lead agency to be declared for a clear andcomplete action as identified in such an full EAF and within 30 days after submission ofthe full EAF.

C) If the City Council Committee intends to make a decision on “whether you will considerthe applicant's request for a rezone to P District” as indicated as question to the councilin Commissioner Strichman’s memo, the council or committee should schedule ameeting to make this decision.

D) After a lead agency is established, that lead agency should make a “positive declaration”in consideration of the established record for this action and request and the anticipatednegative impacts anticipated for this action.

In Appendix A we provide a list of key omissions and mistakes in the EAF that is attached toRes. 29.

In Appendix B we provide a discussion of legal questions regarding spot zoning, segmentationand comprehensive plan inconsistencies.

Sincerely,

The Friends of the Mahicantuckwww.save1011.orgFriendsOfTheMahicantuck@gmail.com

APPENDIX A — OMISSIONS AND MISTAKES IN THE EAF

In the following, the most severe omissions and incorrect statements are identified. This list isnot necessarily complete:

● Whereas according to the EAF B. Government Approvals, Funding, orSponsorshipThis list is incomplete and does not list important involved agencies: Town ofSchaghticoke Village Board of Trustees, Town of Schaghticoke Planning Board orCommission.● Whereas according to the EAF B.i. Is Project Listed as a Designated InlandWaterway — ”NO”.This is incorrect. The Hudson River north of the Troy Federal Dam is a designated inlandwaterway according to DoS (reference added to the record).● Whereas according to EAF C.3.c. Is a zoning change requested as part of theproposed action? — if Yes, what is the proposed new zoning for the site? —“Planned Development”.The proposed new zoning for this site does not support the proposed density of units,number of units, and potentially building height and would require additional variances.The developer should identify and indicate an appropriate zoning that supports hisdevelopment plans.● Whereas according to the EAF D.2 a. Does Proposal include excavation — ”No”.It appears impossible to build the proposed development including underground garagesas detailed in the submitted Project Narrative without excavation.● Whereas according to the EAF D.2.d. Does the existing wastewater treatmentplant have capacity to serve the project — ”Yes”.However, according to the Project Narrative, this project will increase the amount ofsewage overflow into the Hudson River: “Any new connections or sewer flows to theCSO should be offset by removing CSO connections elsewhere in the system”. It isunclear how this can be provided.● Whereas according to the EAF D.2.f Does Proposal require a NY State AirRegistration, Air Facility Permit — ”No”.However, it is unclear how heating will be provided at this stage of planning. If fuelcombustion will be used for heating, a permit will be required.● Whereas according to EAF D.2.j Does Proposal substantially increase traffic —”No” While an traffic analysis provided to the record by the developer prior anticipates nosignificant traffic increase for the analyzed intersection with the Waterford bridge,significant traffic increase must be expected for the neighborhood itself, especially 2ndAvenue north of the intersection, and would constitute a significant impact to theneighborhood.The traffic analysis provided in the project narrative anticipates an increase of 111additional cars; compared with a traffic increase between 2015-2019 of only 35 cars. Atthe same time, the project location is not served by public transport, raising significantquestions about the validity of an increase by only 111 cars to serve 240 apartment units.

● Whereas according to EAF E.2.b. Are there bedrock outcroppings on the site —”No”.However, extensive bedrock outcroppings are present at this site, particularly along theHudson River waterfront. For additional information see discussion of ecological findingsprovided in the Friends of the Mahicantuck “Troy’s Sacred Forest” report of January 22,2021. An extensive geological survey by Hartgen is provided to the record of thismeeting, clearly stating that bedrock outcroppings dominate this specific site.● Whereas according to EAF E.1.c. Is the project site presently used by members ofthe community for public recreation — ”No”However, although this site is privately owned, it is not posted and public uses aretolerated by the owner. The site is well known as water access for the community andfrequently used by members of the public for recreational purposes including naturewalks and fishing.Additionally, this parcel extends into neighbor’s backyards, thereby using parts of thisland for recreational purposes, as is tolerated by the current owner (AdversePossession).● Whereas according to EAF E.2.p. Does the project site contain any species ofplant or animal that is listed by NYS as rare, or as a species of special concern? —”No”However, ecological surveys of December 2020 and January 2021 document thepresence of several county-rare species as well as of at least one state-rare species(Sharp Hornsnail) on the site. These findings have been submitted to and recorded bythe New York State Department for Environmental Conservation.

APPENDIX B — LEGAL AND PROCESS QUESTIONSFact Sheet on Res. 29

Vote in Planning CommitteeTuesday, April 27, 6pm

Res. 29 would declare the City Council as “lead agency” in the SEQRA review process. This isthe first step kicking off the Environmental Quality review as mandated by state law.

If the committee votes to adopt Res. 29 it moves to the City General Council for final vote,formalizing the declaration and begins the SEQRA review process, moving this developmentforward.

Adopting Resolution 29 would be an implicit decision to move forward with theconsideration of the rezoning request.

However:

1. The Planning Commission reviewed this application to determine whether the proposedrezone would be in the public’s best interests. The Planning Commission overwhelmingly deniedthe application, finding it contrary to the welfare of Troy residents. As such, the ONLY personserved by looking at this application would be the developer, Kevin Vandenburg. As noted inAndrew Brick’s letter regarding spot zoning, this application DOES constitute spot zoningbecause it is not in the public’s best interests: “The relevant inquiry is … whether it benefits thegeneral welfare of the community as a whole.” Letter of Andrew Brick, March 4, 2021, citingBaumgarten v Town of North Hampton, 35 A.D.3d 1081 (3d Dep’t 2006).

2. Due to the vast cultural resources and historical connections of this land to the StockbridgeMunsee Tribal Band, as well as Schaghticoke First Nations and other indigenous peoples, theCity must first consult with the affected tribal leaders under CP42 / Contact, Cooperation, andConsultation with Indian Nations to maintain Troy’s respect for First Nations Peoples and therich culture they add to Troy’s history.

3. Before voting, understand what you are voting on: The City Council has not formally decidedto proceed with review of Mr. Vandenburg’s rezone application. Before taking up lead agencystatus and taking on responsibility for an appropriate review of this application, seek clarificationon what the application requires the City Council to do. For instance, is Mr. Vandenbug askingfor a zoning amendment, but also asking you to ignore his development plans (one that he hasalready submitted)?

4. Because the developer has already provided his development plans, SEQRA review of thedevelopment proposal cannot be segmented from review of the rezone without violating theprohibition on segmentation under SEQRA. Similarly, a SEQRA review of only one of the twotax parcels identified by the developer in his EAF and project narrative would also constitute

segmentation. See Kirk-Astor Drive Neighborhood Ass’n v Town Board of Town of Pittsford, 106A.D 2d 868, 869, 483 N.Y.S. 2d 526, 528 (4th Dep’t 1984); Taxpayers Opposed to Floodmart,Ltd. v City of Hornell Industrial Development Agency, 212 A.D.2d 958, 624, N.Y.S.2d 698 (4thDep’t 1995).

You should not accept this responsibility as lead agency, as it would create a review processthat is contrary to New York State Law (see points above).

DOES THE CITY HAVE CONTROL OVER THE DEVELOPMENT IF THEREZONE IS APPROVED?

NO. The Planned Development District request by Kevin Vandenburg would give the developera “blank check” to build whatever he wants on this site — including cutting the entire forest tobuild something that is currently prohibited in this neighborhood. If approved, the developer willNOT BE BOUND to build according to his current promises. Instead, he will be able to buildanything allowed in the Planned District. As you know, the Planned District has very fewcontrols, which is the reason it is uncommon.

Which brings us to the second important point: Under current zoning, the proposeddevelopment is PROHIBITED because it is out of place with the neighborhood and contrary tothe interests of the City’s residents. Moving forward with this zoning change will undermine theexpectations and welfare of all Troy residents who have relied on the current zoning. MrVandenburg is seeking a windfall at everyone else’s expense.

Third, this proposed rezone is so incredibly contrary to the City’s Comprehensive Plan. TheCity’s Comprehensive Plan identifies the reasons the City this neighborhood in terms of history,waterfront, floodplain, and ecosystem services. The rezone shows a clear disrespect for all ofthe work that went into the Comprehensive Plan, and worse, this rezone (and the developmentproposed by Mr. Vanderburg) is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.

IS THERE A WAY FOR THE CITY TO MAKE SURE THATDEVELOPMENT PLANS AND REZONING ARE CONSIDERED

TOGETHER?

YES.

The Council Planning Committee should NOT adopt Res. 29, as it is premature. Instead, thedeveloper should formally submit an application for his development plans to the city. Such anapplication would include what is called an EAF (Environmental Assessment Form). On thisform, the developer would need to indicate a request for zoning change as one of the“discretionary actions”.

This would ensure that development plans and changes in zoning code are consideredTOGETHER during Environmental Quality review, while at the same time committing therezoning to concrete development plans.

IF RES 29 IS NOT PASSED, DOES THAT MEAN THE DEVELOPERCANNOT BUILD HIS DEVELOPMENT?

NO.

If the Committee does not vote on RES. 29 as PREMATURE, or votes against the resolution asPREMATURE, it could ask the developer to submit an application for the concrete developmentplans and project, as described above.

That has the advantage that the City of Troy can ensure that any change in zoning code isconsidered fully for its impacts on the community during SEQRA instead of giving the developera “blank check” to build any project allowed within a new zoning code.

COULD THE DEVELOPER JUST BUILD SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES IFTHE CITY DOESN’T APPROVE REZONING?

NO.

The construction of single-family houses as well as any subdivision would require its ownSEQRA review and permitting process, including city, state and federal permits.

- SEQRA: This land is located in a DEC designated Potential Environmental Justice Area.This means that any action (such as single-family housing development) would beautomatically a full type-1 SEQRA review.

- State and Federal Permits: The land is located along a federal waterway, at adesignated National Historical Register site, the land contains historically andarcheological sensitive areas, as well as several documented rare and protected species(including county and state rare and threatened species). This means that anysingle-family housing development would require local, state and federal permits that are— given the stated facts — unlikely to be granted.

- Economically Infeasible — A single family housing development of the site has beendeemed economically unsustainable during testimony, as shown in the record: Given taxcosts to income benefit rations in combination with the costs and associateduncertainties of any SEQRA and permitting requirements, cost of increased publicoutreach requirements per DEC designation, as well as difficult geology and sitepreparation costs, and other factors.

The Friends of the Mahicantuck   Recipient: Carmella Mantello, Anasha Cummings

Letter: Greetings,

We, the undersigned residents of the City of Troy, do hereby protest againstany change of the Zoning Code which would zone the property at 10112nd Avenue to any classification other than R1, residential single family,detached.The development of the property at 1011 2nd Avenue in Troy, NY, woulddisrupt the neighborhood, irrevocably change the character of theneighborhood, destroy the city’s last undeveloped forest along the HudsonRiver, and put an historically, archeologically and culturally significantindigenous site at jeopardy.We therefore urge the Troy City Council as well as the Planning Commissionto not grant any change in the zoning of 1011 2nd Avenue.

Signatures

Name Location Date

Leo Bachinger Catskill, NY 2020-08-22

KD McTeigue Albany, NY 2020-08-23

Emily Musial Philadelphia, PA 2020-08-23

Victoria Marcario Troy, NY 2020-08-23

Catherine Regitano Troy, NY 2020-08-23

Heather Kennish Castleton On Hudson, NY 2020-08-23

Madelyn Degler Troy, NY 2020-08-23

Molly Freiberg East Nassau, NY 2020-08-23

Annie Jacobs Troy, NY 2020-08-23

Zachary DeVilleneuve Troy, NY 2020-08-23

Donna Simms Troy, NY 2020-08-23

Christopher Bassett Troy, NY 2020-08-23

Rhea Drysdale Troy, NY 2020-08-23

Sarah Pezdek-Bachinger Ballston Spa, NY 2020-08-23

Jason Meyre Troy, NY 2020-08-23

Rags Ragliacci Troy, NY 2020-08-23

dan bolam Schenectady, NY 2020-08-24

Abigail Harris Wynantskill, NY 2020-08-24

Lauren Goewey Watervliet, NY 2020-08-24

Adam Retzlaff Mohawk, NY 2020-08-24

Name Location Date

Michelle Driscoll Pennellville, NY 2020-08-24

Michelle McCarthy Rensselaer, NY 2020-08-24

Kizzianne Casale Troy, NY 2020-08-24

Timothy Sarver Rensselaer, NY 2020-08-24

Eric Patton Troy, NY 2020-08-24

Beth Doris troy, NY 2020-08-24

Deirdre Matthews Sebastian, FL 2020-08-24

Jess Bennett Troy, NY 2020-08-24

Omar Williams Troy, NY 2020-08-24

Jay Deierlein East Greenbush, NY 2020-08-24

Jay Deierlein Troy, NY 2020-08-24

Celena Scherfner Liverpool, NY 2020-08-24

Ivy Hest Troy, NY 2020-08-24

richard herrick Troy, NY 2020-08-24

Shannon Contento Cohoes, NY 2020-08-24

Elizabeth Maloney Troy, NY 2020-08-24

Lauren Boardman Milton, NY 2020-08-24

Brendan Freiler River Vale, NJ 2020-08-24

Rachael Gardner Ravena, NY 2020-08-24

Patricia Jones Binghamton, NY 2020-08-24

Brandon Costelloe-Kuehn rensselaer, NY 2020-08-24

Paula Hebert Troy, NY 2020-08-24

Name Location Date

John Cruickshank Troy, NY 2020-08-24

Leander Fenton Troy, NY 2020-08-24

Stephanie Levay Albany, NY 2020-08-24

Dylan Keenan Cohoes, NY 2020-08-24

Ashleigh Ellis Troy, NY 2020-08-24

Zach Carhide Troy, NY 2020-08-24

Shawna Norton Troy, NY 2020-08-24

Louis Sanders jr Troy, NY 2020-08-24

Jan Hoffman Sebastian, FL 2020-08-24

LYNN JUDKINS TROY, NY 2020-08-24

Jean Debboli Greenville, NY 2020-08-24

steven shashok albany, NY 2020-08-24

Christine Powers Loudonville, NY 2020-08-24

Dia Osgood Slingerlands, NY 2020-08-24

Kristen Renee Rensselaer, NY 2020-08-24

Meagan Gallagher Albany, NY 2020-08-24

Elizabeth Ohler troy, NY 2020-08-24

Patricia Derocher Cohoes, NY 2020-08-24

Wendy Zeigler Troy, NY 2020-08-24

Laura Priscott Troy, NY 2020-08-24

Justin Tyrrell Troy, NY 2020-08-24

Maggie Noel Troy, NY 2020-08-24

Name Location Date

Melissa Ashdown Troy, NY 2020-08-24

Kathleen Miller Pleaseantdale, NY 2020-08-24

Jessica Bruce Troy, NY 2020-08-24

Cassandra Baker Endicott, NY 2020-08-24

Sara Culliton Troy, NY 2020-08-24

Kerri Dornicik New Paltz, NY 2020-08-24

Joshua Maxson Troy, NY 2020-08-24

Sharee Dunham Troy, NY 2020-08-24

Craig Craven pleasantdale, NY 2020-08-24

Mary D'Amico Wynantskill, NY 2020-08-24

Sharon Shaughnessy Albany, NY 2020-08-24

MICHAEL ZEHNER TROY, NY 2020-08-24

Jane Snay Troy, NY 2020-08-24

Makenzie Henault Albany, NY 2020-08-24

Meghan Menard Troy, NY 2020-08-24

Corrine Winnie-Obzud Troy, NY 2020-08-24

Bryana Campbell Troy, NY 2020-08-24

Manuel Perez Troy, NY 2020-08-24

Kyle Obzud Troy, NY 2020-08-24

rosemary clark TROY, NY 2020-08-24

Brittany Luke Troy, NY 2020-08-24

Anthony Powers Troy, NY 2020-08-24

Name Location Date

Taylor Elting Troy, NY 2020-08-24

Guillermo Chacon Albany, NY 2020-08-24

Ashley Delmonico Whitesboro, NY 2020-08-24

Brenda Ford Troy, NY 2020-08-24

Myra Johnson Albany, NY 2020-08-24

christine lucey Troy, NY 2020-08-24

Harold Previtali Troy, NY 2020-08-24

Christopher Caulfield Albany, NY 2020-08-24

Samantha Elting Waterford, NY 2020-08-24

Caroline ferris Troy, NY 2020-08-24

Renee Sambets Troy, NY 2020-08-24

Alex Helmar Troy, NY 2020-08-24

Jacob Osgood Cohoes, NY 2020-08-24

Laura ford Watervliet, NY 2020-08-24

Heather Moran Cohoes, NY 2020-08-24

Breanna Jordan Troy, NY 2020-08-24

Jessy Valentine Troy, NY 2020-08-24

michael lavigne Troy, NY 2020-08-24

Colleen Skiff Delmar, NY 2020-08-24

John Wolbeck Troy, NY 2020-08-24

Michael Nash Whitesbo, NY 2020-08-24

Araceli Herrera Queensbury, NY 2020-08-24

Name Location Date

Makayla Baldwin Delmar, NY 2020-08-24

Cait Denny Albany, NY 2020-08-24

Stephanie Weigelt Hudson, US 2020-08-24

Allison Conley Troy, NY 2020-08-24

Charleen Bushey Cohoes, NY 2020-08-24

Emily Clute Troy, NY 2020-08-24

James & Bonnie Devoe Troy, NY 2020-08-24

Crystal Riddell Troy, NY 2020-08-24

Joan Ciccarelli Troy, NY 2020-08-24

Rosella Riddell Troy, NY 2020-08-24

Karen Bellamy Clifton Park, NY 2020-08-24

Dana Williams Cohoes, NY 2020-08-24

wayne foy Troy, NY 2020-08-24

Linda Houle Troy, NY 2020-08-24

David Palmo Troy, NY 2020-08-24

Elaina Halse Troy, NY 2020-08-24

Samantha Johnson Albany, NY 2020-08-24

Treven Santicola Albany, NY 2020-08-24

John Baranowski North Las Vegas, NV 2020-08-24

Cassie Tran Wilmington, DE 2020-08-24

Stuart Ford Homestead, FL 2020-08-24

David Osgood Troy, NY 2020-08-24

Name Location Date

Carl Jourdanais Cohoes, NY 2020-08-24

Daniel Benoit Troy, NY 2020-08-24

Julie Prey Media, PA 2020-08-24

Debra Evans Troy, NY 2020-08-24

Meghan Keenan New York, NY 2020-08-25

Kristine Henneberry Kennebunk, ME 2020-08-25

Suzanne Ayer Schodack, NY 2020-08-25

Jo Medve Norfolk, NY 2020-08-25

Christina Galagarza Philadelphia, PA 2020-08-25

Kim Chabot Troy, NY 2020-08-25

Kelly Benoit Troy, NY 2020-08-25

Molly McDonnell Troy, NY 2020-08-25

Jacob Kuklick Philadelphia, PA 2020-08-25

Amy Sciortino Philadelphia, PA 2020-08-25

Grace Ashley Schenectady, NY 2020-08-25

Niah Tobarri Latham, NY 2020-08-25

John Connors Troy, NY 2020-08-25

Abby Swick Blue Springs, MO 2020-08-25

Kaylee Laflamme San Juan Capistrano, US 2020-08-25

alicia anaya Floresville, US 2020-08-25

Autumn Koen Sylvania, US 2020-08-25

AnnMarie Broussard Lafayette, US 2020-08-25

Name Location Date

celys tials US 2020-08-25

egrah audil Minneapolis, US 2020-08-25

Hope Ryan South San Francisco, US 2020-08-25

Elizabeth Salvador Lahaina, US 2020-08-25

Kelly Brown Reno, US 2020-08-25

Janice Hall Tampa, US 2020-08-25

Caiden Kemp Baton Rouge, US 2020-08-25

Jeremy Peel San Diego, CA 2020-08-25

Nicole Keb San Francisco, US 2020-08-25

Liana Snow US 2020-08-25

Parker Brown Chevy Chase, US 2020-08-25

unknown 1212 US 2020-08-25

Jae Long Las Vegas, US 2020-08-25

Yajaira Garcia Prescott, US 2020-08-25

Ella Rosenthal Port Washington, US 2020-08-25

Brooke Sorensen Redmond, US 2020-08-25

christa chan Seattle, US 2020-08-25

nikki whitehead dallas, US 2020-08-25

Nakara Johnson Montclair, US 2020-08-25

mireya flores Harlingen, US 2020-08-25

Lily Huerta Portland, US 2020-08-25

Anarely Santana Houston, US 2020-08-25

Name Location Date

Blake Cohen Washington, US 2020-08-25

Shiloh Jones Troy, NY 2020-08-25

Eduardo Barbero Redding, US 2020-08-25

Mike Flores Escondido, US 2020-08-25

Fatima N Phoenix, US 2020-08-25

Ellis Coleman Waxhaw, US 2020-08-25

Jaylen Chua Covina, US 2020-08-25

Iroshi Perera Reading, US 2020-08-25

denise asadorian Troy, NY 2020-08-25

Kate Lovering US 2020-08-25

andria Munroe Baerga Troy, NY 2020-08-25

Shannon S East Greenbush, NY 2020-08-25

Richard Freiberg Philadelphia, PA 2020-08-25

Jennifer Cardinal Troy, NY 2020-08-25

Rebekah Hogan Harrison, NJ 2020-08-25

Kelly Fellenzer Troy, NY 2020-08-25

Judy Anderson Kinderhook, NY 2020-08-25

Summer Myers Troy, NY 2020-08-25

Alyssa Rodriguez Wynantskill, NY 2020-08-25

Jessilyn Hartman Troy, NY 2020-08-25

Tara Simmons Troy, NY 2020-08-25

Austen Zeh Rensselaerville, NY 2020-08-25

Name Location Date

Patrick McLaughlin Troy, NY 2020-08-25

Paul D'Arcy New York, NY 2020-08-25

Justin Rogers Schenectady, NY 2020-08-25

Joan Gingeresky Troy, NY 2020-08-25

Mark Sarnacki Troy, NY 2020-08-25

Lynn Conway Troy, US 2020-08-25

Elizabeth Heller Troy, NY 2020-08-25

Sarah Thompson Stephentown, NY 2020-08-25

Jennifer Schulaner Troy, NY 2020-08-25

Stacey Civello Portland, OR 2020-08-25

Matheus Arnellas Santa Clara, CA 2020-08-25

kathy spillane Troy, NY 2020-08-25

Leonora Maroli Troy, NY 2020-08-25

Michele Valenti Troy, NY 2020-08-25

Kiersten McDermott Troy, NY 2020-08-25

Lila Denning San Diego, CA 2020-08-25

Kainat Faizi Albany, NY 2020-08-25

Aarom Morris Round Lake, NY 2020-08-26

Allison Fleck Waltham, MA 2020-08-26

Elizabeth Barker Troy, NY 2020-08-26

Dylan miller Troy, NY 2020-08-26

Rachel B irvington, NY 2020-08-26

Name Location Date

Christy Mercer Troy, NY 2020-08-26

SUZANNE BUTLER Troy, NY 2020-08-26

Jillian Naveh Troy, NY 2020-08-26

Adam Heggen Schenectady, NY 2020-08-26

Zan S Troy, NY 2020-08-26

Matthew Plummer Troy, NY 2020-08-26

margaret Davey Troy, NY 2020-08-26

Tracy Kennedy Troy, NY 2020-08-26

Geoffrey Raymond Troy, NY 2020-08-26

Laudelina martinez troy, NY 2020-08-26

Mark Shipley Troy, NY 2020-08-26

Danielle Sanzone Troy, NY 2020-08-26

Michele DeLair Troy, NY 2020-08-26

Jim Deseve Ny, NY 2020-08-26

Kimberly Connors Troy, NY 2020-08-26

Brendan Kennedy Troy, NY 2020-08-26

Kevin Lovelady Troy, NY 2020-08-26

Sara Emmert Troy, NY 2020-08-26

James Van Duyne Albany, NY 2020-08-26

Theresa Hovish Albany, NY 2020-08-26

Terri Metchick Troy, NY 2020-08-26

Christine Dowd Cohoes, NY 2020-08-26

Name Location Date

Michael Burgess Petersburg, NY 2020-08-26

D Rossbach Troy, NY 2020-08-26

Stephen Smith Troy, NY 2020-08-26

Katherine Snively Schenectady, NY 2020-08-26

Patty Stanford Delmar, NY 2020-08-26

Kathryn Adams Troy, NY 2020-08-26

Julie Summersquash Providence, RI 2020-08-27

Mary Otero Liverpool, NY 2020-08-27

T.J. Kennedy Troy, NY 2020-08-27

Raymond Essiembre Troy, NY 2020-08-27

Sambit Ghosh Troy, NY 2020-08-27

David Villagomez Troy, NY 2020-08-27

Haley Williams Troy, NY 2020-08-27

Maya Navabi Tucson, AZ 2020-08-27

Audrey Palma Troy, NY 2020-08-27

Richard Hichman Saratoga Springs, NY 2020-08-27

Kathryn Sheehan Troy, NY 2020-08-27

Trinity Paradis Troy, NY 2020-08-27

Crystal Buckley Cohoes, NY 2020-08-27

Steve Anderson Troy, NY 2020-08-27

Tim MacSweeney Woodbury, CT 2020-08-27

Marion Ross Troy, NY 2020-08-27

Name Location Date

Marina Capp Troy, NY 2020-08-27

Guy Schaffer Troy, NY 2020-08-27

Phoenix Oaks Portland, OR 2020-08-27

Annette Strope Troy, NY 2020-08-27

Michelle Ausman Cohoes, NY 2020-08-27

Carol Hyldelund Troy, NY 2020-08-27

Kierstan Ryan Troy, NY 2020-08-27

Grayce Brown Troy, NY 2020-08-27

Charlotte Bosworth Pembroke, MA 2020-08-27

Peg Aloi Albany, NY 2020-08-27

Bradley Matheus Troy, NY 2020-08-27

William Brown Troy, NY 2020-08-27

Wyatt Brown Troy, NY 2020-08-27

Gregory Baxter Stratford, CT 2020-08-27

Andy StGermain Troy, NY 2020-08-27

Sally St.Germain Troy, NY 2020-08-27

Makayla Wahaus Troy, NY 2020-08-28

Elizabeth press Troy, NY 2020-08-28

Mary Kahl Delmar, NY 2020-08-28

Pam Kniskern Johnsonville, NY 2020-08-28

Sheila Poole Albany, US 2020-08-28

Kathy Colman Cohoes, NY 2020-08-28

Name Location Date

Mark Oliver Rensselaer, NY 2020-08-28

Nolin Borrero Rensselaer, NY 2020-08-28

Donna Hays Saratoga Springs, NY 2020-08-28

Shane Senecal Kissimmee, FL 2020-08-28

Drew Demers Troy, NY 2020-08-28

Surya Padinjarekutt Troy, NY 2020-08-28

Indroneil Roy Troy, NY 2020-08-28

Vicki Griffin Gloversville, NY 2020-08-28

Sharon Bruce Troy, NY 2020-08-28

Lisa Covey Craryville, NY 2020-08-28

Margaret Callahan Cohoes, NY 2020-08-29

Michael Oatman Troy, NY 2020-08-29

Michael Lawes Chesapeake, VA 2020-08-29

Miahrose Ross new york, NY 2020-08-29

Brooke Degener Albany, NY 2020-08-29

Cathryn Dwyre Hudson, US 2020-08-29

Tara Ingersoll Albany, NY 2020-08-29

Anna Taranenko San Francisco, CA 2020-08-29

I S Troy, NY 2020-08-29

Lindsey miller Santa Cruz, CA 2020-08-29

yolonda landry troy, NY 2020-08-29

Jennifer Lepper US 2020-08-29

Name Location Date

Joseph Fell Buffalo, NY 2020-08-29

dante digiulio Buffalo, NY 2020-08-29

Jennifer Bartels Troy, NY 2020-08-29

Robert Hilts Troy, NY 2020-08-29

dorothy collins buffalo, NY 2020-08-29

Galaya Wong Pittsburg, US 2020-08-29

Lily Watne Orlando, US 2020-08-29

John Kramer Marshfield, US 2020-08-29

Abbygail Adriano Germantown, US 2020-08-29

Emily Frank East Hampton, US 2020-08-29

Jessica Stillman Upper Lake, US 2020-08-29

Matthew Harding Concord, US 2020-08-29

Angelina Alvarado Austin, US 2020-08-29

danna renteria Santa Teresa, US 2020-08-29

Emue G Cambridge, US 2020-08-29

Mariah Marquez Menifee, US 2020-08-29

chris farmer califofnia, US 2020-08-29

Guido Gabriel Troy, NY 2020-08-29

LILA STROMBERG TUXEDO, NY 2020-08-30

alyssa johnson Vacaville, CA 2020-08-30

Shannon Curran-Trzepacz Troy, NY 2020-08-30

Denise Losoya Las Vegas, NV 2020-08-30

Name Location Date

Randy Herrington Troy, NY 2020-08-30

Nicole Collen Troy, NY 2020-08-30

Lewis Snearly Albany, NY 2020-08-30

Carla Leitao Florida, NY 2020-08-30

olivia krewer Bronx, NY 2020-08-30

Cynthia Slavens Alameda, CA 2020-08-30

Mara Dicenta Buenos Aires, Argentina 2020-08-30

Christy Thomas Williamstown, MA 2020-08-31

Jillian Crandall Rensselaer, NY 2020-08-31

Pearl Higgins Troy, NY 2020-08-31

Margaret Corrigan Troy, NY 2020-09-01

Elaine Broiles Troy, NY 2020-09-01

Jacob Broadhead Troy, NY 2020-09-02

Karen Molinares Troy, NY 2020-09-02

Tammie Broadhead Troy, NY 2020-09-02

Victoria Ramos Troy, NY 2020-09-02

Marissa Peck Troy, NY 2020-09-02

Robin Donato Cortland, NY 2020-09-02

Katrina Belcher Troy, NY 2020-09-02

Aidan Bardos Washington, US 2020-09-02

Gary Nelson Hudson, NY 2020-09-03

Dale Nelson Hudson, NY 2020-09-03

Name Location Date

Sandra Hutchison Troy, NY 2020-09-03

Gail Terp Queensbury, NY 2020-09-03

INGRID Madelayne Troy, NY 2020-09-03

Rebecca Hein Albany, NY 2020-09-03

Shari Gibbs Wynantskill, NY 2020-09-03

Dan Phiffer Troy, NY 2020-09-03

Kevin Carpenter US 2020-09-03

Darlene Simpson Troy, NY 2020-09-03

Jac Cohn Troy, NY 2020-09-04

Angie morley Troy, NY 2020-09-04

Christopher Eastman Troy, NY 2020-09-04

Patricia Burke Troy, NY 2020-09-04

Zachary Metzger Brunswick, NY 2020-09-04

Beth Finkle Troy, NY 2020-09-05

geri de seve troy, NY 2020-09-05

Frank Visco Troy, NY 2020-09-05

Albert Marble Knoxville, TN 2020-09-05

michael esposito Troy, NY 2020-09-05

Spencer Schmitt Redondo Beach, US 2020-09-06

Victoria Ramirez El Paso, US 2020-09-06

lilli ramos US 2020-09-06

Elizabeth Green Enfield, US 2020-09-06

Name Location Date

Sarah Grahamer Frankfort, US 2020-09-06

emili-jade luna Norwich, US 2020-09-06

Amiyah Barber Harrisburg, US 2020-09-06

sandra olivos Jackson Heights, US 2020-09-06

Shauntea Black Lewistown, US 2020-09-06

Kyla Rhyann Brooklyn, US 2020-09-06

Giselle Ibarra Las Vegas, US 2020-09-06

kelly weldon suleski Springfield, US 2020-09-06

Christine Bernard Schenectady, US 2020-09-06

antonelle russell Atlanta, US 2020-09-06

Imtiaz Ahmed Ozone Park, US 2020-09-06

Rafal Wisniewski Brooklyn, US 2020-09-06

joanna morris Washington, US 2020-09-06

Mik I Little Neck, US 2020-09-06

Alicia Swanson West Fargo, US 2020-09-06

Fatima Aldava Pharr, US 2020-09-06

Tiara Howard East Lyme, US 2020-09-06

Sarah Vallejo Pinehurst, US 2020-09-06

Stefan Krueger Troy, NY 2020-09-06

Britney Gil Troy, NY 2020-09-06

Daniel Marble Mohawk, NY 2020-09-06

Kayla marble Troy, NY 2020-09-06

Name Location Date

Frank Porter Troy, NY 2020-09-06

Dennis McDermott Troy, NY 2020-09-06

rosella riddell Troy, NY 2020-09-06

Holly DeVoe Saratoga Springs, NY 2020-09-06

Sonya Farrell Troy, NY 2020-09-06

Daniel Morrissey Albany, NY 2020-09-06

Amanda Groves Lansingburgh, NY 2020-09-07

Adam Tinkle Saratoga Springs, NY 2020-09-07

Jennifer Smith Templeton, U.S. Outlying Islands 2020-09-07

Jesse Hancock Troy, NY 2020-09-07

Mary Pezdek Melrose, NY 2020-09-07

Victoria Lee Chicago, IL 2020-09-07

Jack O’Brien Mount Pleasant, MI 2020-09-07

Hunter Schuur Dowagiac, MI 2020-09-07

kerri munn troy, NY 2020-09-08

Rafael Varela Troy, NY 2020-09-08

David Klak Mount Pleasant, MI 2020-09-08

sierra dattilo Mount Pleasant, MI 2020-09-08

Michel Foucault Denver, CO 2020-09-08

Annelise Ellars Hartford, US 2020-09-08

Sonja Baiin Pittsburgh, PA 2020-09-08

Jennifer Reid Troy, NY 2020-09-08

Name Location Date

Ellie Irons Brooklyn, NY 2020-09-08

Mallory Hallstead Albany, NY 2020-09-08

Joyce Domingo Kitchener, Canada 2020-09-08

Rachel Hegeman Syracuse, NY 2020-09-08

Kiara Rivera Chicago, IL 2020-09-08

Tracy Frisch Greenwich, NY 2020-09-08

CHRISTOPHER SCULLY Troy, NY 2020-09-09

Kathryn Beisner Reston, VA 2020-09-09

Siegfried Isidro-Cloudas Troy, NY 2020-09-09

Anthony Olivares Troy, NY 2020-09-09

Andrea Williams Troy, NY 2020-09-09

Jennifer Baumstein Troy, NY 2020-09-09

Sean Mickey Dobbin Troy, NY 2020-09-09

Kimberley Preiksaitis Troy, NY 2020-09-09

Laura Hynes Troy, NY 2020-09-09

Nathalie Gibeau Troy, NY 2020-09-10

Laura Cullen Troy, NY 2020-09-10

John Raup Troy, NY 2020-09-10

Alex Simon Haverstraw, NY 2020-09-10

Leo Harben Ithaca, US 2020-09-10

piper bernstein New York, US 2020-09-10

Stephanie Zhang New York, US 2020-09-10

Name Location Date

Christopher Stimson Akron, US 2020-09-10

Emily Petrovic Miami, US 2020-09-10

Janet Chow Brooklyn, US 2020-09-10

Jesse Brown Stoughton, US 2020-09-10

Lucas Arias Long Beach, US 2020-09-10

Olivia Adkison Queens, US 2020-09-10

Kristine Heaton Skokie, US 2020-09-10

Slayton Thompson Eufaula, US 2020-09-10

Titus Jefferson Olive Branch, US 2020-09-10

Anaiza Cortez Foothill Ranch, US 2020-09-10

Edgar Hernandez Chicago, US 2020-09-10

Marilyn Spencer Tunkhannock, US 2020-09-10

Nexon(JamesBartholomewthe3rd)Chau

Greenwood Village, US 2020-09-10

Lauren Tait Roosevelt, US 2020-09-10

Matsui Yoko ohio, US 2020-09-10

Johanna Shinn Omaha, US 2020-09-10

Ray Gamble Knoxville, US 2020-09-10

Summer Ward US 2020-09-10

Debby Willette Greencastle, US 2020-09-10

Lance Kammerud US 2020-09-10

Dana Drozynski New York, US 2020-09-10

Name Location Date

Helen Parker Gaithersburg, US 2020-09-10

Crystal Sanderson Saint Louis, US 2020-09-10

Osmara Castaneda Fontana, US 2020-09-10

Angel Arias Long Beach, US 2020-09-10

Erin Sipos Cleveland, US 2020-09-10

Jordan Stiltoner Virginia Beach, US 2020-09-10

Andrew Murtha Guilford, US 2020-09-10

Bailyn Johnson Elgin, US 2020-09-10

Kayla Jackson Fayetteville, US 2020-09-10

Zachary Hayes Troy, NY 2020-09-10

Aileen Javier Halfmoon, NY 2020-09-10

Molly McCormick St. Petersburg, FL 2020-09-10

Richard Sleeper Troy, NY 2020-09-10

Mariam Samara Tinley Park, US 2020-09-10

Brittney Spaulding Shepherdsville, US 2020-09-10

Elizabeth E Lake City, US 2020-09-10

JJ Keitz Long Beach, US 2020-09-10

Jat Jimenez Miami, US 2020-09-10

Mia Galloway Pompano Beach, US 2020-09-10

Matthew Davis Seattle, US 2020-09-10

adriana betsuie Albuquerque, US 2020-09-10

ankitha chintala Jacksonville, US 2020-09-10

Name Location Date

Natalie :) San Antonio, US 2020-09-10

Kiara Pena Bronx, US 2020-09-10

Tillie Cohen Denver, US 2020-09-10

Samuel Kunowski Garden Grove, US 2020-09-10

Timothy Paich Loveladies, US 2020-09-10

Ashley Wefel Oak Park, US 2020-09-10

Cate Wise Beverly Hills, US 2020-09-10

ximena garcia US 2020-09-10

Peyton McCoy Dexter, US 2020-09-10

Aly Comer Tulsa, US 2020-09-10

Alyssa Barrios Whittier, US 2020-09-10

Amy Ochoa Charlotte, US 2020-09-10

Madison Delaney Price, US 2020-09-10

Tarah Holcombe Royston, US 2020-09-10

Jeshua Oviedo New York, US 2020-09-10

Jeremy Gomez Long Beach, US 2020-09-10

Geanie Barfield US 2020-09-10

Angel D Miller Place, US 2020-09-10

Kevin 0 Murrieta, US 2020-09-10

ethan t Pasadena, US 2020-09-10

Ernesto Castro Riverside, US 2020-09-10

Kamryn Kamryn US 2020-09-10

Name Location Date

Nathaly Bermejo Minneapolis, US 2020-09-10

Madison Inzunza Lorton, US 2020-09-10

Lauren Lima New Bedford, US 2020-09-10

Laa Laa Ocean City, US 2020-09-10

Skylah Marra Howell, US 2020-09-10

Marika Bjornsen Marion, US 2020-09-10

Abby Lusk Chattanooga, US 2020-09-10

Evelyn Buenrostro Irving, US 2020-09-10

Cole Purnell Ruskin, US 2020-09-10

aiden miller Lansdale, US 2020-09-10

Carla Yofzitdztud Bronx, US 2020-09-10

Christian Ayon Porterville, US 2020-09-10

Nicholas Petrovich New York, US 2020-09-10

Erik Ramos Columbia, US 2020-09-10

Tanya Veronica Phoenix, US 2020-09-10

Zoey Decker Carlisle, US 2020-09-10

Adriann Monahan-DaSilva Malden, US 2020-09-10

Holly Rankin West Des Moines, US 2020-09-10

Ricardo Carbajal Segura San Francisco, US 2020-09-10

Alex Barazotti Howell, US 2020-09-10

Gabriel Whitworth Phoenix, US 2020-09-10

reymond jimenez Bronx, US 2020-09-10

Name Location Date

Abby Anson Harrisburg, US 2020-09-10

oliver perez Anaheim, US 2020-09-10

Madison Smith Belleville, US 2020-09-10

natalia rodriguez St. Paul, US 2020-09-10

Emily Van Ness Lowell, US 2020-09-10

Ethan McGinty Houston, US 2020-09-10

Tagan Ortega Topeka, US 2020-09-10

tanner gorsuch Pittsburgh, US 2020-09-10

Chrissy Dav Rolling Meadows, US 2020-09-10

Ali F Chicago, US 2020-09-10

Luisa Isayev US 2020-09-10

Addison Gibson Greencastle, US 2020-09-10

Alicia Keaveney lincroft, US 2020-09-10

melissa truberg commack, US 2020-09-10

Hayley cloud Nixa, US 2020-09-10

Kathy Filkins Clifton Park, US 2020-09-10

Penny Oslin Celeste, US 2020-09-10

Noralee Santana Bronx, US 2020-09-10

Kimberly Luna Moreno Valley, US 2020-09-10

Madison Collins Erie, US 2020-09-10

J Stanley Morgan Hill, US 2020-09-10

Haibert Barfian Glendale, US 2020-09-10

Name Location Date

Sarah Herc Clarkston, US 2020-09-10

cheyenne tingen Richmond, US 2020-09-10

Ann Z Shirley, US 2020-09-10

Cassy King Lake Forest, US 2020-09-10

Amanda Richardson Hibbing, US 2020-09-10

D’Vante Yoshikawa Rohnert Park, US 2020-09-10

Kyla Booker Los Angeles, US 2020-09-10

Stefhan Luctamar Miami Gardens, US 2020-09-10

Dave Saint simon Costa Mesa, US 2020-09-10

Nick Champagne Atlanta, US 2020-09-10

Anindita Halder Valleystream, US 2020-09-10

Adriane Marcelle Miami, US 2020-09-10

Kathryn Tuttle New York 2020-09-10

Nestor Nieto Arlington, TX 2020-09-10

Nicolette Boyd Palm Harbor, US 2020-09-10

Simon Reynolds Pensacola, US 2020-09-10

Olivia Marquiis Boston, US 2020-09-10

Carlos Hernandez Santa Ana, US 2020-09-10

Geroge Ogle Atlanta, US 2020-09-10

Kike Velasco Foothill Ranch, US 2020-09-10

Noddy Maldinero Jersey City, US 2020-09-10

Sahana Prakash Concord, US 2020-09-10

Name Location Date

Kristiana Corona Chandler, US 2020-09-10

Elliot Velasquez Hollywood, US 2020-09-10

Adriel Casas Davenport, US 2020-09-10

Eva Chen Racine, US 2020-09-10

Dana Carbajal Long Beach, US 2020-09-10

Lisa Allarde Green Lane, US 2020-09-10

Linh Leonard Reno, US 2020-09-10

Jaedyn Gerhardt Fort Worth, US 2020-09-10

Meaghan Lockwood US 2020-09-10

Shannon Neville Mount Vernon, US 2020-09-10

donna kennedy flanders, US 2020-09-10

jennifer valentine Massapequa, US 2020-09-10

Samuel nashed Fontana, US 2020-09-10

Tatyana Mayberry Dyersburg, US 2020-09-10

Baba Booey Sparta, US 2020-09-10

Panchali Dipankar Bellevue, US 2020-09-10

Keven Gamez Burbank, US 2020-09-10

James lupu Hazleton, US 2020-09-10

Juliana Bianchi Harrisburg, US 2020-09-10

Julie Mceldowney Cayce, SC 2020-09-10

Anissa perez Portland, US 2020-09-10

Khuzaima Ahmed Falls Church, US 2020-09-10

Name Location Date

Chris V Oceanside, US 2020-09-10

Chloe Andrea Javier Long Beach, US 2020-09-10

Maddie Ulmer Alexandria, US 2020-09-10

None of your Business Jellyana Bronx, US 2020-09-10

Diana Toader Greenville, US 2020-09-10

Guillermo Ramirez Seattle, US 2020-09-10

Rachel Frascella Albany, NY 2020-09-10

Christian Archuletta Groton, US 2020-09-10

Margaret Alarcon Los Angeles, US 2020-09-10

Jayden Mann Charlotte, US 2020-09-10

Owen Dominguez Silver Spring, US 2020-09-10

suri ortega Miami, US 2020-09-10

Hannia Colon Paterson, US 2020-09-10

shemica johnson Worcester, US 2020-09-10

Dominica Singleton Las Vegas, US 2020-09-10

Dennis Strainge Saratoga Springs, NY 2020-09-10

Katherine Mules New York 2020-09-10

Denise Meyers Clifton Park, NY 2020-09-10

Robert Pezdek Troy, NY 2020-09-10

Danielle Charlestin Troy, NY 2020-09-10

Cliff Kalinowski New York, NY 2020-09-10

James Davey Troy, NY 2020-09-10

Name Location Date

Anderson B Charlotte, US 2020-09-10

Bianey Cuevas Anaheim, US 2020-09-10

samantha chavez Elmhurst, US 2020-09-10

Keverlynn Knight Seffner, US 2020-09-10

Shivani B Framingham, US 2020-09-10

.F. W. Knoxville, US 2020-09-10

Emma Stelly Round Rock, US 2020-09-10

Bryan Haedy New York, NY 2020-09-10

Sashs Dubodel Troy, NY 2020-09-10

Jan O'Malley Troy, NY 2020-09-10

Rachel Ruller Troy, NY 2020-09-11

Mike Preiksaitis Troy, NY 2020-09-11

Audrey Vallee Troy, NY 2020-09-11

Dara Silbermann Troy, NY 2020-09-11

Colleen Phoenix Troy, NY 2020-09-11

Michael Roll Troy, NY 2020-09-11

Katharine Corp Troy, NY 2020-09-11

Kelly Artis Albany, NY 2020-09-11

Fran ODonnell Troy, NY 2020-09-11

Mary Patterson Watervliet, NY 2020-09-11

Natalie Bowen Guilderland, NY 2020-09-12

Kathy Puffer Tillson, NY 2020-09-12

Name Location Date

JoAnne Ruddy Wynantskill, NY 2020-09-12

Wanda Johnson Troy, NY 2020-09-12

Cara Helfer Charlotte, NC 2020-09-12

Wendi s Ballston Spa, NY 2020-09-12

Michael Hart Troy, NY 2020-09-12

Desiree DiCristoforo Fort Lee, NJ 2020-09-12

Gwen Sislowski Troy, NY 2020-09-12

Don Sislowski Troy, NY 2020-09-12

Evan Couture Troy, NY 2020-09-12

Anna Moodgill Gloversville, NY 2020-09-13

Elanor zierhut Aliso Viejo, CA 2020-09-13

Jade Rodriguez Bronx, NY 2020-09-14

Amanda DeWald Delhi, NY 2020-09-21

Jeremy Barnes Valley Falls, NY 2020-09-21

Joshua Eason Troy, NY 2020-09-21

Miriam Cantor-Stone Troy, NY 2020-09-21

Francis Magai Troy, NY 2020-09-23

Armond Gray Troy, NY 2020-09-23

Margaret Pearce Sanford, ME 2020-09-30

Zach Schwartz-Weinstein Albany, NY 2020-10-02

C. Wesley Dingman Queensbury, NY 2020-10-09

Yoehan Oh Troy, NY 2020-10-13

Name Location Date

Ava Diener Muskego, US 2020-10-13

Ruzanna Babayan Flushing, US 2020-10-13

Victoria Emmitt Ontario, US 2020-10-13

Aracylis Rampersad South Ozone Park, US 2020-10-13

Triton McDonald Virginia Beach, VA 2020-10-13

Robert Rossi New York, NY 2020-10-14

Thomas Connor Fayetteville, NY 2020-10-19

erin altadonna hayward, US 2020-10-20

Naomi Hood Temecula, US 2020-10-20

Khambia Clarkson Marshalltown, US 2020-10-20

Rieana Ferreira Orlando, US 2020-10-21

Joseph A Papale Jr Troy, NY 2020-10-21

Faiyaj Khan Albany, NY 2020-10-30

Maggie McAuliffe Brockport, US 2020-10-30

Jamel Mosely Troy, NY 2020-11-02

James Barker Troy, NY 2020-11-02

Hannah Carr Troy, NY 2020-11-02

Scott Womer Troy, NY 2020-11-02

Hana van der Kolk Troy, NY 2020-11-02

Jared Williams Jamaica Plain, MA 2020-11-02

Julia Gladstone Waban, MA 2020-11-02

Liz N Brooklyn, NY 2020-11-02

Name Location Date

Shaina Cantino Athens, OH 2020-11-02

Joshua Potter Troy, NY 2020-11-02

Katie Centanni Troy, NY 2020-11-02

Kiara Marra Troy, NY 2020-11-02

Carolyn Bardos Troy, NY 2020-11-02

Mari Brennan Saratoga Springs, NY 2020-11-02

yasmine perez Ballston Spa, NY 2020-11-02

Jimmy Taylor Albany, NY 2020-11-02

Alex Elliott Albany, NY 2020-11-02

Mary Helen Collen Defreestville, NY 2020-11-02

Olivia Dunn Albany, NY 2020-11-02

Elizabeth FIGLIOMENI Troy, NY 2020-11-02

Brooke Murray Hudson, NY 2020-11-02

Daniel Coxson Olney, US 2020-11-02

julia champagne Troy, NY 2020-11-02

Brooke Bernstein Saint Louis, US 2020-11-02

Sachi Cappo East Chatham, US 2020-11-02

Avery Childreds Statesville, US 2020-11-02

Jordan Salas Paterson, US 2020-11-02

Tori Rodriguez Troy, NY 2020-11-02

Tiffany Marr Stafford, US 2020-11-02

Nessie Cuevas Paramus, US 2020-11-02

Name Location Date

Aniece Middleton Sumter, US 2020-11-02

Ryan Jay Bronx, US 2020-11-02

m h austin, US 2020-11-02

charlene parker Kingstree, US 2020-11-02

Avin Helseth denver, US 2020-11-02

Megan Hackett West Orange, US 2020-11-02

Karen Debiase Chester, VA 2020-11-02

Courtney Shepherd Mount Juliet, US 2020-11-02

elena nehring gahanna, US 2020-11-02

Kiwi Yuugi Winter Haven, US 2020-11-02

Ava Seilhamer Boonsboro, US 2020-11-02

Candice Brockman Stone Mountain, US 2020-11-02

Stephanie Rodas Jersey City, US 2020-11-02

Elaine Mitchell Vadito, US 2020-11-02

Steve jobs real Parkersburg, US 2020-11-02

Samuel Goodwin Chapel Hill, US 2020-11-02

Michael Davis Utica, US 2020-11-02

Jordan Smotzer Cincinnati, US 2020-11-02

McFadden McFadden Beaver Falls, US 2020-11-02

Trinity Rosas Connersville, US 2020-11-02

Darlene Reese Batavia, US 2020-11-02

theyeetgod 12 q Peoria, US 2020-11-02

Name Location Date

Swag Phia Lake Worth, US 2020-11-02

sherri thompson Little Rock, US 2020-11-02

Aliyah garcia Galveston, US 2020-11-02

Esbeydi Diaz Martinez Saint Paul, US 2020-11-02

Claudia Clerveaux Mattapan, US 2020-11-02

Jessica Mendoza Troy, NY 2020-11-02

Christina Wu Atlantic City, US 2020-11-02

Sean McCaughtry Montgomery, US 2020-11-02

Alisa Goldsman Pomona, US 2020-11-02

Ehva Corbin Lincoln, US 2020-11-02

coffee pro Los Angeles, US 2020-11-02

T Tuck Covington, US 2020-11-02

Tomas Ramirez San Antonio, US 2020-11-02

Katie Alsback Lebanon, US 2020-11-02

grace mulhall Brooklyn, US 2020-11-02

Rebecca Romano West Hartford, US 2020-11-02

Kendra Gernaey Orlando, US 2020-11-02

iyanna whipple Blacklick, US 2020-11-02

paige paige Los Angeles, US 2020-11-02

Jdjdjjdd Ndndndndjs Bronx, US 2020-11-02

Stephanie Collins Albany, NY 2020-11-02

Judith Romero Anaheim, US 2020-11-02

Name Location Date

Mercedes Roussos US 2020-11-02

Selena Hughes Bristol, US 2020-11-02

Myriam Stern Saint Louis, US 2020-11-02

Lauren Harte Lebanon, US 2020-11-02

Sydney Quick Rock Hill, SC 2020-11-02

Stan Piper Jacksonville Beach, US 2020-11-02

Brian Anderson Denver, US 2020-11-02

William Shotwell Smithville, US 2020-11-02

Carol Collins Dover, US 2020-11-02

madison scrivner Maryville, US 2020-11-02

Brianna M Ann Arbor, US 2020-11-02

Rachel Waldrip Tucson, US 2020-11-02

Marielle Quibilan Bergenfield, US 2020-11-02

Delynn Parker Sf, US 2020-11-02

Autumn Carron Wichita, US 2020-11-02

Connie Richters Singapore, US 2020-11-02

michelle b Kansas City, US 2020-11-02

Mia is Ibitoye Chicago, US 2020-11-02

Melissa Masters Newfane, VT 2020-11-02

Ashley Dorris Chicago, US 2020-11-02

nathaniel felix cardenas Phoenix, US 2020-11-02

Christian Joyce Reidsville, US 2020-11-02

Name Location Date

Katie Bunch Dallas, US 2020-11-02

Destiny Campos Hoboken, US 2020-11-02

Deidra Rivera Worcester, US 2020-11-02

Aliyah Arellano Laredo, US 2020-11-02

emily miras Detroit, US 2020-11-02

karlie kyelberg Wilmington, US 2020-11-02

Ingrid Benitez Burke, US 2020-11-02

Sofia Rhodes Cary, US 2020-11-02

Patricia AFERHOLT-EDDINGS Nashville, TN 2020-11-02

Mary Cox Virginia Beach, US 2020-11-02

Greta Bonvini Oregon House, US 2020-11-02

Timothy Stirling Manheim, US 2020-11-02

Darien Verdun Houma, US 2020-11-02

Emma Baumgartner Antigo, US 2020-11-02

Anna Marie Winder Philadelphia, US 2020-11-02

Morgaen Hansen Albany, NY 2020-11-02

Elizabeth Liranzo Larchmont, US 2020-11-02

Andrea Kehoe Putney, VT 2020-11-02

Jemma Kaczanowicz ballston spa, NY 2020-11-02

Ann Giguere Green Island, NY 2020-11-02

Christina Toppin Clifton Park, NY 2020-11-02

Grace Boyan Long Island City, NY 2020-11-02

Name Location Date

Sean Boyan Arlington, VA 2020-11-02

John Pjontek Albany, NY 2020-11-02

Andrew Sullivan Albany, NY 2020-11-02

Kaitlyn Mazza Newburgh, NY 2020-11-02

Heather Maranville Rensselaer, NY 2020-11-02

Megan Prokorym Albany, NY 2020-11-02

Paige Allen Albany, NY 2020-11-02

Stephen Rosia Ballston Spa, NY 2020-11-02

Allison Giguere Cohoes, NY 2020-11-02

Rachel Baxter Albany, NY 2020-11-02

Pamela Boyan Allentown, PA 2020-11-02

Hannah Boyan South Orange, NJ 2020-11-02

Kaitlin Resler Albany, NY 2020-11-02

Kelly Bromm Albany, NY 2020-11-02

michelle noonan Averill Park, NY 2020-11-02

Amanda Irle Trenton, NJ 2020-11-02

Dorothy Davila Rensselaer, NY 2020-11-02

Stephanie June Troy, NY 2020-11-02

Jacklynn Blanchard Littleton, CO 2020-11-02

Kerrie Vincent Albany, NY 2020-11-02

Amelia Allen Troy, NY 2020-11-02

Allison Greene Delmar, NY 2020-11-02

Name Location Date

Eden Loeffel Detroit, MI 2020-11-02

Luke Bateman Troy, NY 2020-11-02

Samira Iravani Astoria, NY 2020-11-02

Samantha Dobin Watervliet, NY 2020-11-02

Rebekah Desjardins Troy, NY 2020-11-02

Catherine McTague Troy, NY 2020-11-02

allison watson troy, NY 2020-11-02

Emilee Brunette Troy, NY 2020-11-02

Laura Harrison Saratoga Springs, NY 2020-11-02

Oliver HOLECEK Troy, NY 2020-11-02

leepa poulose Congers, NY 2020-11-02

Sarah Haze Chatham, NY 2020-11-02

Lila Flanagan Troy, NY 2020-11-02

Emily Cain Sarasota, FL 2020-11-02

Stephanie Leahy Centreville, VA 2020-11-02

Jayna Patel New Braunfels, TX 2020-11-02

Alex Divanyan Buffalo Grove, IL 2020-11-02

John Bowden Sandy, UT 2020-11-02

Marla Anson Woodbridge, VA 2020-11-02

Katie Walker Los Angeles, CA 2020-11-02

Brian Davenport Schenectady, NY 2020-11-02

Aisling Sive Troy, NY 2020-11-02

Name Location Date

Kristen Kiley East Lansing, MI 2020-11-02

Janna Rudler Endicott, NY 2020-11-02

Ethan Carmody Troy, NY 2020-11-02

Laura Hynes Wynantskill, NY 2020-11-02

Lydia Kelley Troy, NY 2020-11-02

Behnaz Haddadi Washington, DC 2020-11-02

Maria Vincent Troy, NY 2020-11-02

Emily Brooks Troy, NY 2020-11-02

Silv Dant Rockville Centre, NY 2020-11-02

Erin O’Keefe Slingerlands, NY 2020-11-02

Kathryn Secor Castleton On Hudson, US 2020-11-02

Lea Rutherford Latham, NY 2020-11-03

William Wesner Glens Falls, NY 2020-11-03

Steven Johnson Delmar, NY 2020-11-03

Erin Meaney Valley Stream, NY 2020-11-03

Sarah Goldman Nyack, NY 2020-11-03

Amelia Stickelmyer Troy, NY 2020-11-03

Ashley Christiano Brooklyn, NY 2020-11-03

Ingrid Staats Toronto, Ontario, Canada 2020-11-03

Bridget Gettys Selkirk, NY 2020-11-03

Tina Rodriguez Schenectady, NY 2020-11-03

niko šveikauskas Woodstock, NY 2020-11-03

Name Location Date

Mercy Weiss Brooklyn, NY 2020-11-03

Kendall Gardner Albany, NY 2020-11-03

Buzz Slutzky Brooklyn, NY 2020-11-03

Molly McCumber Troy, NY 2020-11-03

Emily Manning-Mingle Brighton, MA 2020-11-03

Kyra Siegel Nelson, New Zealand 2020-11-03

Stephanie cavoli Schenectady, NY 2020-11-03

Henry Cooley Troy, NY 2020-11-03

Robyn Eames Oneonta, NY 2020-11-03

Sophie Gell Brooklyn, NY 2020-11-03

Caroline Wexler Hartsdale, NY 2020-11-03

erica sparrow Averill Park, NY 2020-11-03

Hannah Musial Rosendale, NY 2020-11-03

Caroline Boyan Troy, NY 2020-11-04

Olivia Quillio Troy, NY 2020-11-04

Kelsey Sloane Troy, NY 2020-11-06

Ben Gorman Troy, NY 2020-11-06

Melanie LaBarge Waterford, NY 2020-11-07

Angela Bartlett Melrose, NY 2020-11-07

Zhenelle Fish Rensselaer, NY 2020-11-07

nora Gallardo Chicago, US 2020-11-07

Kavinda De Alwis Plano, US 2020-11-07

Name Location Date

Christina Bishop Waterford Township, US 2020-11-07

Serafina Coombe US 2020-11-07

willy nonable Plainfield, US 2020-11-07

Chloe Ruiz Oklahoma city, US 2020-11-07

Julia Cadieux Troy, NY 2020-11-07

Stephanie Loveless albany, NY 2020-11-07

Elizabeth Comitale Albany, NY 2020-11-07

colleen single Atlanta, GA 2020-11-07

Michael Valiquette Clifton Park, NY 2020-11-07

Becky Kendall Troy, NY 2020-11-07

Jacob Brady Albany, NY 2020-11-07

Sophia Vastek Troy, NY 2020-11-07

Kaela Knoth Guilderland, NY 2020-11-07

Jessica Ryle Queensbury, NY 2020-11-07

Rose Mitchell Albany, NY 2020-11-07

Kathy Gottsleben Rapid City, US 2020-11-07

Allyson Gamboa US 2020-11-07

Felix Sensley Houston, US 2020-11-07

Dylan Pruitt Laurens, US 2020-11-07

Jacob LaBouliere Doylestown, US 2020-11-07

Myra Loyd Shreveport, US 2020-11-07

Honey Nalu Honolulu, US 2020-11-07

Name Location Date

Sona Juharyan Bakersfield, US 2020-11-07

Judy Dunsford US 2020-11-07

Brayden Rock Duluth, US 2020-11-07

Gabrielle Kamaker Albany, NY 2020-11-07

Danielle Mallon miller place, NY 2020-11-07

Donna Baird Schaghticoke, NY 2020-11-07

Lorelei Wagner Troy, NY 2020-11-07

Greg Farley Hudson, NY 2020-11-07

Zhanna Akopyan Brooklyn, US 2020-11-07

Axel blackholder Lake Mary, US 2020-11-07

Its Moge Modesto, US 2020-11-07

Heather Pelz Hot Springs National Park, US 2020-11-07

Robert Johnson Fairmont, US 2020-11-07

Victoria Kereszi troy, NY 2020-11-08

Cordon Joseph US 2020-11-08

Samantha Moraitou Albany, NY 2020-11-08

Nina Moraitou-Politzi Albany, NY 2020-11-08

alicia stark Castleton, NY 2020-11-08

Julia Posin Oceanside, NY 2020-11-08

Grace Knight Topsfield, MA 2020-11-08

Brittany Phillips Cobleskill, NY 2020-11-08

Sam Torres Troy, NY 2020-11-08

Name Location Date

Sierra Hipwell Troy, NY 2020-11-08

Jessica Hayek Albany, NY 2020-11-08

Brandi Chenette Troy, NY 2020-11-08

Christina Vasil Troy, NY 2020-11-08

Duncan Gamble Burlington, VT 2020-11-08

Samantha Sonnier Troy, NY 2020-11-08

Holly Feit Hannacroix, NY 2020-11-08

Steven Hipwell II US 2020-11-08

Dawnn Antoon Lodi, CA 2020-11-08

Jessica Tanguay Slingerlands, NY 2020-11-09

Isabella Aspiotis Toronto, Canada 2020-11-09

Christy Douglas Menands, NY 2020-11-09

Vanessa Van Zandt Albany, NY 2020-11-09

Laura Pascuzzo Albany, NY 2020-11-09

Sarah Heikkinen Troy, NY 2020-11-09

Caiti Callaghan Troy, NY 2020-11-09

Tara Tucker Williamsburg, MA 2020-11-09

Alissa Roca Coral Gables, FL 2020-11-09

Sarah Schultz New York, NY 2020-11-09

Caleb Bradley Baltimore, MD 2020-11-09

Grave Ma Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada 2020-11-09

Vijay Gupta Pasadena, CA 2020-11-09

Name Location Date

Katja Vanfretti Troy, NY 2020-11-10

Jonah Moberg Troy, NY 2020-11-10

joshua marre scotia, NY 2020-11-10

Alex Noble-Brooks Troy, NY 2020-11-10

Julian Brezon Bronx, NY 2020-11-10

Elizabeth Young Troy, NY 2020-11-10

Katie Cusack New York, NY 2020-11-10

Alexander Hanse Albany, NY 2020-11-10

Brandon Cahrenger Troy, NY 2020-11-10

DeAnna Sutherland Saratoga Springs, NY 2020-11-10

Deirdre Young Troy, NY 2020-11-10

Patricia Cerniglia Troy, NY 2020-11-10

Margaret Young Troy, NY 2020-11-10

Raurri Jennings Troy, NY 2020-11-10

Molly Eadie Troy, NY 2020-11-10

Benjamin Jacques Albany, NY 2020-11-10

Nathan Cole Homer, NY 2020-11-10

Anna D Troy, NY 2020-11-10

Jonathan Cantiello Queensbury, NY 2020-11-10

Jennifer Skoog Monroe, CT 2020-11-10

Chris Hanse Coxsackie, NY 2020-11-10

Connor Riley Salisbury, CT 2020-11-10

Name Location Date

Caity Gallagher Albany, NY 2020-11-10

Mariah Smith Cohoes, NY 2020-11-10

Sharon Hanehan Troy, NY 2020-11-10

Erin Sullivan Troy, NY 2020-11-10

Sarah Morehouse Ballston Lake, NY 2020-11-10

Eliza Chappell Albany, NY 2020-11-10

Rudd Young Troy, NY 2020-11-10

Kelsie Costello Cornwall-on-Hudson, NY 2020-11-10

Erin Baright Bronx, NY 2020-11-10

Chris Rohlman Troy, NY 2020-11-10

Alicia McDonough Troy, NY 2020-11-11

Sarah Alaimo Albany, NY 2020-11-11

Annie Raksasa Hamden, CT 2020-11-11

Jeffery Dingler 02/25/1987 Roanoke, VA 2020-11-12

Kenneth Hummel US 2020-11-14

Elfaeya Phoenix Poestenkill, NY 2020-11-16

Cecelia Reilly Troy, NY 2020-11-17

Cecelia REILLY Troy, NY 2020-11-17

Christopher Jean-Louis Pompano Beach, FL 2020-11-17

George Quine Troy, NY 2020-11-17

Bridget O'Connor New York, NY 2020-11-18

Jessica Maxwell Delmar, NY 2020-11-20

Name Location Date

Adrianna Mathis Albany, NY 2020-11-20

Aashni Shah Albany, NY 2020-11-20

Tia Reis Troy, NY 2020-11-22

Kathryn Davis Troy, NY 2020-11-23

Michael Tario Troy, NY 2020-11-23

Judy cunningham New York, NY 2020-11-23

Rose Orourke Troy, NY 2020-11-23

Christine Marceline Troy, NY 2020-11-23

Ashley mysliwiec Troy, NY 2020-11-23

Dawn Phelps Troy, NY 2020-11-23

Rob Parker Schenectady, NY 2020-11-23

Nicole Manupella Rensselaer, NY 2020-11-23

Ken Mirocki JR Troy, NY 2020-11-23

Terri Craven Louisville, KY 2020-11-23

Tatiana Frolova Troy, NY 2020-11-23

damaris miller Troy, NY 2020-11-23

Debra Lashwa Troy, NY 2020-11-23

Lee Ann Welch Troy, NY 2020-11-23

Mary Peat Troy, NY 2020-11-23

George Mattey Troy, NY 2020-11-23

Shelby Spall Cohoes, NY 2020-11-24

Dia Beshara Troy, NY 2020-11-24

Name Location Date

Rebecca Orrison Albany, NY 2020-11-24

Lynn Hyde Rensselaer, NY 2020-11-24

Beverly Davis Troy, NY 2020-11-24

Irina Naumenkova Brooklyn, NY 2020-11-24

Olivia Vonfricken Cohoes, NY 2020-11-24

Kelsey Renko Troy, NY 2020-11-24

Tracy smith Troy, NY 2020-11-24

Madison LaVallee Schenectady, NY 2020-11-24

Jenny Kemp Troy, NY 2020-11-24

Sophie Heath Malta, NY 2020-11-24

Ian Mahoney-Hoover Troy, NY 2020-11-24

Jean Tschanz-Egger Troy, NY 2020-11-24

Sebastian Guerrero Fontana, US 2020-11-24

Skylar Godwin Middlesex, US 2020-11-24

Shakayla Thomas Compton, US 2020-11-24

kelyse rose Sacramento, US 2020-11-24

Sarah Narkum Everett, US 2020-11-24

Kara Jefts Schuylerville, NY 2020-11-24

Thinh Ngo Arlington, US 2020-11-24

Holly Rippon-Butler Schuylerville, NY 2020-11-25

Royah Marie Troy, NY 2020-11-25

Il-Young Son Troy, NY 2020-11-25

Name Location Date

William Studdiford Troy, NY 2020-11-27

Deborah Levensailor Troy, NY 2020-11-28

Lauri Cartwright Troy, NY 2020-11-29

Guy Pucci Cohoes, NY 2020-11-29

Carmen perrotti Perrotti Clifton Park, NY 2020-11-30

Judith Strong Goshen, US 2020-12-01

Shikara Rollf Goshen, US 2020-12-01

Eli Howard Vail, US 2020-12-03

Jose De la rosa Ligonier, US 2020-12-05

Giovanni Aguayo Goshen, US 2020-12-06

Matthew Leon Amsterdam, NY 2020-12-07

Katherine Wolfram Schenectady, NY 2020-12-07

Alex Brownstein Schenectady, NY 2020-12-07

Andrew Kulmatiski Schenectady, NY 2020-12-07

Margaret Brown Schenectady, NY 2020-12-08

Paula Shaw Schenectady, NY 2020-12-08

Peggy Grot Schenectady, NY 2020-12-08

Jacob Borth Albany, US 2020-12-08

Trish Lynn Taylor US 2020-12-08

Sheila Martin Hawthorne, US 2020-12-08

catie fay New york, US 2020-12-08

ArtByRinaBun . US 2020-12-08

Name Location Date

Penis Face Hastings, US 2020-12-08

angelina ruiz Wayne, US 2020-12-08

Micah Key Washington, US 2020-12-08

Katy Sonnier Austin, US 2020-12-08

Marisol Solano Lodi, US 2020-12-08

h S New Baltimore, US 2020-12-08

Izzie Bartlett Omaha, US 2020-12-08

Spencer Pearce Stillwater, US 2020-12-08

caitlin callahan Redondo Beach, US 2020-12-08

Michael Marts Warsaw, US 2020-12-08

Tessa Seidler Naples, US 2020-12-08

Tienna Edwards Englewood, US 2020-12-08

Judit Mendoza Othello, US 2020-12-08

Jasper Woodward San Diego, US 2020-12-08

praloy saha queens, US 2020-12-08

Katherine Fajardo Ridgewood, US 2020-12-08

natalie dietz Houston, US 2020-12-08

Brianna Nason Turner, US 2020-12-08

kyle gonzalez Algonquin, US 2020-12-08

Peter Fontaine West Warwick, US 2020-12-08

Genevieve Ireland Alexandria, US 2020-12-08

Zamya Bryant Bethlehem, US 2020-12-08

Name Location Date

Keisha Coakley Orlando, US 2020-12-08

William Seyse Scotia, NY 2020-12-08

Kenny Vaher Troy, NY 2020-12-10

Annie Finn Albany, NY 2020-12-10

Steven Janowski Troy, NY 2020-12-10

Isaac Silberman-Gorn Latham, NY 2020-12-12

Cheryl Gorn New York, NY 2020-12-12

Margaret Irwin Troy, NY 2020-12-12

Sara Ibrahim Philadelphia, US 2020-12-12

Ashante Paw Lood Carmel, US 2020-12-12

Anna Duraney New Waterford, US 2020-12-12

Kiori Johnson Buford, US 2020-12-12

emily santana Anaheim, US 2020-12-12

morrissa dunn Warwick, US 2020-12-12

chris edwards Chicago, US 2020-12-12

jax the axe Springfield, US 2020-12-12

Fernanda Tejeda Sacramento, US 2020-12-12

damion lester Las Vegas, US 2020-12-12

maddy dumas Portland, US 2020-12-12

Regina Reyes Salisbury, US 2020-12-12

Nikko Johnson Lexington, US 2020-12-12

kali lopez Swampscott, US 2020-12-12

Name Location Date

gracie glotfelty oakland, US 2020-12-12

Jacob Figueroa Fresno, US 2020-12-12

chelsea gonzalez South Gate, US 2020-12-12

Luis Ortiz San Diego, US 2020-12-12

Kayley Argerbright Berea, US 2020-12-12

Chasity Infante Houston, US 2020-12-12

Suzy Flower Evansville, US 2020-12-12

Marissa Hicks Aiken, US 2020-12-12

Mikayla Mclaurin New Orleans, US 2020-12-12

Najma Moalin Nashville, US 2020-12-12

Jonelis Ojeda Perez Philadelphia, US 2020-12-12

Nabayit Fassil Mission Hill, US 2020-12-12

Natalie epperson Modesto, US 2020-12-12

Stephanie Toscano Norwalk, US 2020-12-12

Alejandra Zaragoza Oxnard, US 2020-12-12

Jeymy Santos Glen Head, US 2020-12-12

Sammy Bravo Rolling Meadows, US 2020-12-12

Tessa Noelle US 2020-12-12

Jeida Barron Dubois, US 2020-12-12

lucy gellman Walnut Creek, US 2020-12-12

Edithe Starr Oglala, US 2020-12-12

mahidah shahzad Flushing, US 2020-12-12

Name Location Date

Zakiya White Valdosta, US 2020-12-12

Anastasia Lindquist River Falls, US 2020-12-12

valerie brenes Madera, US 2020-12-12

Ronnie Richards Payette, US 2020-12-12

Meghan Scotti Minneapolis, US 2020-12-12

Amelia Belle Omaha, US 2020-12-12

evelyn Annoys Elk Grove, US 2020-12-12

lilly swert Toledo, US 2020-12-12

Denise Michelle San Antonio, US 2020-12-12

Samara Green Las Vegas, US 2020-12-12

Makena Meyer Evanston, US 2020-12-12

Katherine Agreda Hialeah, US 2020-12-12

Rachel Cuzco Woodhaven, US 2020-12-12

Rose Manton Southfield, US 2020-12-12

Try Cheatham Washington, US 2020-12-12

Angie Ahmed Philadelphia, US 2020-12-12

Karen Illescas Los Angeles, US 2020-12-12

Kayden Hale Pompano Beach, US 2020-12-12

Adriana Miranda Albuquerque, US 2020-12-12

Kayla Johnson Freeland, US 2020-12-12

lily marshall Hollywood, US 2020-12-12

lori alcantara Fresno, US 2020-12-12

Name Location Date

Adriana Brazzell Pensacola, US 2020-12-12

Blake Abdalla Grand Rapids, US 2020-12-12

Makalia Jackson Coram, US 2020-12-12

Andrea Jackson Saint Paul, US 2020-12-12

Julia Miller Carlsbad, US 2020-12-12

Matthew Misho Niles, US 2020-12-12

bella carr Everett, US 2020-12-12

Eohd Owjdjw US 2020-12-12

Itzel Hernandez Elmhurst, US 2020-12-12

Rutaja Nadgauda Grand Rapids, US 2020-12-12

Alexia Martínez Cincinnati, US 2020-12-12

mehak s New York City, US 2020-12-12

Karla copard Dorchester, US 2020-12-12

Carissa Montes Valencia, US 2020-12-12

Gwynnie Kermorris San Diego, US 2020-12-12

Kimberly Hernandez San Jacinto, US 2020-12-12

Leonor Sandoval Lexington, US 2020-12-12

isabella hoffmann Clermont, US 2020-12-12

Simone Nied Virginia Beach, US 2020-12-12

Alondra Angel Salt Lake City, US 2020-12-12

airmauri davis York, US 2020-12-12

Keisha Sampson Darby, US 2020-12-12

Name Location Date

Gabrielle Arreglo Glendale, US 2020-12-12

Priscilla Adebambo Watertown, US 2020-12-12

Ana Vazquez Myrtle Beach, US 2020-12-12

Ray Rodriguez III Bronx, US 2020-12-12

Sahara Abdi Springfield, US 2020-12-12

Daniella Canjura Clovis, US 2020-12-12

Melanie Arango Tampa, US 2020-12-12

Jazmin Chavez Fresno, US 2020-12-12

Lizbeth Lopez Oceanside, US 2020-12-12

Brendan B Carbondale, US 2020-12-12

Kennedy Sweet Albany, US 2020-12-12

Riley Sar Forest Hills, US 2020-12-12

Avolon Santiago New York, US 2020-12-12

Melody Takahashi Antioch, US 2020-12-12

Sophia Bendix Monroe, US 2020-12-12

Shart f Cloverdale, US 2020-12-12

valerie Mulato Northridge, US 2020-12-12

Hawo Shoble Rochester, US 2020-12-12

Emmanuella Chirac Roxbury, US 2020-12-12

RJ Jackson Elmwood Park, US 2020-12-12

Anna DeOlindo Franklin, US 2020-12-12

Keren Rodríguez Tampa, US 2020-12-12

Name Location Date

elyse studer Austin, US 2020-12-12

Alyssa Jordan North Baltimore, US 2020-12-12

Zyd Coy Three Rivers, US 2020-12-12

Hola Comesta Valdosta, US 2020-12-12

Timur Ismagilov Longview, US 2020-12-12

Ixchell Diaz Patterson, US 2020-12-12

daisy ramirez Pawtucket, US 2020-12-12

Samira Pelegrine Denver, US 2020-12-12

Cactys Jack Los Angeles, US 2020-12-12

Hannah Milot New Milford, US 2020-12-12

ahona alam Houston, US 2020-12-12

Savannah Aguilar Los Angeles, US 2020-12-12

Alyvia Cornett Davison, US 2020-12-12

Travis B Winchester, US 2020-12-12

Fabian Huerta Porterville, US 2020-12-12

Janise Conley Detroit, US 2020-12-12

brooke davis Belleville, US 2020-12-12

Jihsu Ryu Edgewater, US 2020-12-12

emily will Blairsville, US 2020-12-12

brooke sexton Lansing, US 2020-12-12

Jasmine Balboa Crookston, US 2020-12-12

Jesika Mendoza San Antonio, US 2020-12-12

Name Location Date

Lillian Dahl Wichita, US 2020-12-12

Victoria Bazan Bessemer, US 2020-12-12

Violet Asenio Victorville, US 2020-12-12

devas roper Owensville, US 2020-12-12

Yelixa Hidrogo Middleton, US 2020-12-12

Zohra Hashimi Tucson, US 2020-12-12

Alaisha Williams Austin, US 2020-12-12

Ella Pankonin Louisville, US 2020-12-12

Hana Ahmed Fredericksburg, US 2020-12-12

Drew Lefebvre Concord, US 2020-12-12

Lola Linserly Fredonia, US 2020-12-12

Erika Rodriguez Acebedo Woodburn, US 2020-12-12

Maria Fuentes Orlando, US 2020-12-12

salma kwizera Manchester, US 2020-12-12

Juliana T Novi, US 2020-12-12

Bobby Ray Woods Bellflower, CA 2020-12-12

Serenity Russell Brooklyn, US 2020-12-12

Taylor Roddy Wichita, US 2020-12-12

Camreana Williams Chattanooga, US 2020-12-12

Sam Bustamante Minneapolis, US 2020-12-12

Allysha Lorraine Fairbanks, US 2020-12-12

Carly Sanchez Union City, US 2020-12-12

Name Location Date

Nora Dufresne Plano, US 2020-12-12

Anna Antilla Sherman, US 2020-12-12

jada martin Denham Springs, US 2020-12-12

Elyse McMillan Monticello, US 2020-12-12

Ellyana Pfeiffer Neosho, US 2020-12-12

Addison Nunes Olivehurst, US 2020-12-12

Ashley Hernandez Alhambra, US 2020-12-12

Mariela Mares Alameda, US 2020-12-12

Anahi Orozco Bakersfield, US 2020-12-12

Madison Dodson Brooklyn, US 2020-12-12

Lucy Drechsel Mankato, US 2020-12-12

Zoe Medina Minneapolis, US 2020-12-12

Isabel Colin Desert Hot Springs, US 2020-12-12

Angelica Puente Houston, US 2020-12-12

andrea Lopez Goodyear, US 2020-12-12

Marie Rose Sterling, US 2020-12-12

Dasan Shaw Boca Raton, US 2020-12-12

Adriana Hernandez Chicago, US 2020-12-12

Amia Simmons Baltimore, US 2020-12-12

Sarah Murphy Grovetown, US 2020-12-12

ta’lijah frazier sparta, US 2020-12-12

Natalia Bellido Hollywood, US 2020-12-12

Name Location Date

Angelina Gonzalez Turlock, US 2020-12-12

Brooklyn Koesters Indianapolis, US 2020-12-12

Neida Perales Laredo, US 2020-12-12

Julianne Cervantes Carson, US 2020-12-12

Giordyn R Fort Lauderdale, US 2020-12-12

brooklin phillips vinita, US 2020-12-12

EllaMai Queen Sapulpa, US 2020-12-12

Julianna Macias Santa Ana, US 2020-12-12

Carmen Torres Houston, US 2020-12-12

Madaline Lauener Joplin, US 2020-12-12

Toni Rossetti Poulsbo, WA 2020-12-12

Mira Tueller Garden City, US 2020-12-12

Courtney Robinson Anna, US 2020-12-12

Jillian Daire Riverview, US 2020-12-12

Safiya Rhea Arvada, US 2020-12-12

Jesminda Darmanie Brooklyn, US 2020-12-12

Destiny Castellanos El Paso, TX 2020-12-12

Mercedes Del Denver, US 2020-12-12

Trinity Nguyen Glastonbury, US 2020-12-12

April He Rosemead, US 2020-12-12

Molly LaBar Clifton Park, US 2020-12-12

Andrea Marin Las Vegas, US 2020-12-12

Name Location Date

Miana Jeancharles New York, US 2020-12-12

Innocence Johnson Atlanti, US 2020-12-12

alex osborne Harrisonville, US 2020-12-12

Kyla Pina Pawtucket, US 2020-12-12

Delaney Anderson Chicago, US 2020-12-12

Janelly Torres Rockville, US 2020-12-12

Raine Vent Mckees Rocks, US 2020-12-12

katie bartylla Duluth, MN 2020-12-12

Jasmine Candelaria Tehachapi, US 2020-12-12

Katlen Kren Los Angeles, US 2020-12-12

Alicia Gollas Las Vegas, US 2020-12-12

Matt Frederick Asbury Park, US 2020-12-12

Ximena Flores Corona, US 2020-12-12

Maleah Marcum Des Moines, US 2020-12-12

Darianna Weston Chicago, US 2020-12-12

Veronica Davis Bastrop, US 2020-12-12

kendall ramsey Bentonville, US 2020-12-12

kevin a North Bergen, US 2020-12-12

nyah obey Houston, US 2020-12-12

Galilea To a Denver, US 2020-12-12

Marlee Morgan Manchester, US 2020-12-12

Rosalyn Solorio Sylmar, US 2020-12-12

Name Location Date

Lorena Pacheco Dinuba, US 2020-12-12

Zakie Drame Rockville, US 2020-12-12

free gypsy Medford, US 2020-12-12

Colin Watson Glassboro, US 2020-12-12

Faythe Perez Manteca, US 2020-12-12

Brynna Bowen Indianapolis, US 2020-12-12

Emme Augustia Cedar Park, US 2020-12-12

Sandra Vizcaino Las Vegas, US 2020-12-12

Haidyn Brooks Greenwood, US 2020-12-12

Teagen Jensen Thief River Falls, US 2020-12-12

Maria Bennett indianapolis, US 2020-12-12

Corbin Leathers Las Vegas, US 2020-12-12

Juleivy Salgado Clarion, US 2020-12-12

Van Chhuaha West Des Moines, US 2020-12-12

tre’jour salters Elkridge, US 2020-12-12

Diamilatou Diallo New York, US 2020-12-12

Lilly Oli El Paso, US 2020-12-12

audrey mittrucker Wentzville, US 2020-12-12

Evalyn Vires Westland, US 2020-12-12

prisilah rose Danville, US 2020-12-12

Amora Valentine Fort Lauderdale, US 2020-12-12

Cassandra Kelley Old Forge, US 2020-12-12

Name Location Date

Eh Hser Omaha, US 2020-12-12

Mia Buenrostro Baldwin Park, US 2020-12-12

Paige Anatol Short Hills, US 2020-12-12

Brionne McFarlane Bronx, US 2020-12-12

Shamya Taylor Battle Creek, US 2020-12-12

Elizabeth Looez Salinas, US 2020-12-12

estela huddleston Rohnert Park, US 2020-12-12

Alexis Burns Pittsburgh, US 2020-12-12

Kadajah Johnson Louisville, US 2020-12-12

sheidy velez Spring, US 2020-12-12

Id Hassan Reynoldsburg, US 2020-12-12

Brandon Calobeer Cedar City, US 2020-12-12

Mia Bates DuPont, US 2020-12-12

Payton Young Imperial, US 2020-12-12

Clint Boggio US 2020-12-12

Skye Phung Sacramento, US 2020-12-12

Cali Scarpaci Vacaville, US 2020-12-12

Ethan Newitt Coatesville, US 2020-12-12

Violeta Lara New York, US 2020-12-12

zariah mcclure Santa Ana, US 2020-12-12

Cole Francis Buffalo, US 2020-12-12

Laila Romero Fresno, US 2020-12-12

Name Location Date

Michael Gutierrez Dallas, US 2020-12-12

Leilani Zuniga Bakersfield, US 2020-12-12

Karen Walker Kansas, US 2020-12-12

Neeve Walters New Hartford, US 2020-12-12

Felisity Padilla Albuquerque, US 2020-12-12

safrina henk Minneapolis, US 2020-12-12

Abby Frankfurth Westminster, US 2020-12-12

Camilla German Hollywood, US 2020-12-12

k c Las Vegas, US 2020-12-12

bella riepe Paducah, US 2020-12-12

Karis Jones Westlake, US 2020-12-12

Stella Bertoli Piermont, US 2020-12-12

Sarah Cantu Tyrone, US 2020-12-12

Riley Kelis San Antonio, US 2020-12-12

Mayukha Sirineni San Ramon, US 2020-12-12

Aderice Wheeler Texarkana, US 2020-12-12

Phyllisia Rosen Los Alamitos, US 2020-12-12

Deja Wilson Norcross, US 2020-12-12

Janilyn Toyng Fontana, US 2020-12-12

Denise Carrillo Avondale, US 2020-12-12

Audrey Cantor Delaware, US 2020-12-12

Arisha Rasid Los Angeles, US 2020-12-12

Name Location Date

Olivia Vega San Mateo, US 2020-12-12

Madelyn Taylor Surprise, US 2020-12-12

Alaska Morgan Zanesville, US 2020-12-12

Jay Nieves Plainville, US 2020-12-12

Camilla Gaeta Gilroy, US 2020-12-12

Leyah Jackson Cleveland, US 2020-12-12

James Pickett West Bloomfield, US 2020-12-12

Thomas Brewer Lexington Park, US 2020-12-12

Pamela Johnson Fitzgerald, US 2020-12-12

Daisy Favela Las Vegas, US 2020-12-12

leticia G Crowley, US 2020-12-12

Erica O’Donnell Erie, US 2020-12-12

Brooke Fults Mankato, US 2020-12-12

Tajahney Garland Zanesville, US 2020-12-12

l a buena park, US 2020-12-12

Serenity Phillips Saint Clair Shores, US 2020-12-12

Adiba Adrita Los Angeles, US 2020-12-12

Alyssa Rodriguez Miramar, US 2020-12-12

ceona lewis Houston, US 2020-12-12

Bella Sanchezz Phoenix, US 2020-12-12

Remmy Saepharn Rodeo, US 2020-12-12

Ash Bushby Myrtle Beach, US 2020-12-12

Name Location Date

Makenna Pickett Seattle, US 2020-12-12

Nayeli B E Napa, US 2020-12-12

Abbigail Benson Bartlett, US 2020-12-12

Rashiyah Cummings Lad Vegas, US 2020-12-12

Sophia Phillips-Dar Eureka, US 2020-12-12

Veronica Smith Dallas, US 2020-12-12

Sierra Dean Shreveport, US 2020-12-12

Darlynne Garza Edinburg, US 2020-12-12

Eva Araujo Rancho Cordova, US 2020-12-12

Sienna Solis Ventura, US 2020-12-12

Kami Wade Brighton, US 2020-12-12

Julia Pena San Antonio, US 2020-12-12

Deepali Gawade Dublin, US 2020-12-12

Qunoot Al-sultani Saint Louis, US 2020-12-12

Annabelle Quick Charlotte, US 2020-12-12

Emma Van Hall Ballston Spa, US 2020-12-12

Heshshajahfs Gehetehehege Bronx, US 2020-12-12

Nick O’Malley Westbrook, US 2020-12-12

Ike Chinye Hollywood, US 2020-12-12

Ke’Naya Jones Essex, US 2020-12-12

Julians Rivera North Dartmouth, US 2020-12-12

Emma Lang Salem, US 2020-12-12

Name Location Date

Katlyn Cornett Iowa Park, US 2020-12-12

krystal cota El Paso, US 2020-12-12

Allison Lucas Manning, US 2020-12-12

Brooklyn Williams Bainbridge Island, US 2020-12-12

Maya Green Philadelphia, US 2020-12-12

Neftis Prieto Inglewood, US 2020-12-12

ella tobias West Chester, US 2020-12-12

haylie hong Saint Louis, US 2020-12-12

Ella Dyal Orange Park, US 2020-12-12

nariya lang Utica, US 2020-12-12

Eliana Bautista Castro Valley, US 2020-12-12

Y S Arlington, US 2020-12-12

isabelle chaves Lakewood, US 2020-12-12

ezra peiter Ann Arbor, US 2020-12-12

Adrienne Rist Clifton Park, US 2020-12-12

Karen Hams Hines, US 2020-12-12

Karoline Larsen Mount Juliet, US 2020-12-12

Norah Minka Sherbrooke, US 2020-12-12

Fatou Sow Reynoldsburg, US 2020-12-12

Bailey Wong Moriguchi Hayward, US 2020-12-12

Ronald Carter jr Newark, US 2020-12-12

Mia Bjorn San Jose, US 2020-12-12

Name Location Date

Haleigh Mosser Decatur, US 2020-12-12

Eliceht Diaz West Babylon, US 2020-12-12

Nahomi Munoz Parachute, US 2020-12-12

Lili Hanley Colorado Springs, US 2020-12-12

ally ellis Council Bluffs, US 2020-12-12

Beatriz Rush none, US 2020-12-12

sammie santos Waterford, US 2020-12-12

Melw Skajs Spring, US 2020-12-12

Alana Mills Sacramento, US 2020-12-12

Salem Lowell Nashua, US 2020-12-12

tina bourgeois Bloomington, US 2020-12-12

Corinne F Metairie, US 2020-12-12

Erin Weikert Livonia, US 2020-12-12

Sophia Urias South Gate, US 2020-12-12

Allie Behnke Chicago, US 2020-12-12

Elon Dixon Charlotte, US 2020-12-12

Trinity Lewis Four Oaks, US 2020-12-12

chayse horning North Canton, US 2020-12-12

Jisselle King Coral Springs, US 2020-12-12

Brackzen Swips Greer, US 2020-12-12

Denni Simmons Independence, US 2020-12-12

Cassie Lanham Saint Peters, US 2020-12-12

Name Location Date

Lauren Smith Spartanburg, US 2020-12-12

harmony heys Puyallup, US 2020-12-12

Gianna McKinney Chicago, US 2020-12-12

Noelani Soares Kaneohe, US 2020-12-12

Haley Saythideth Providence, US 2020-12-12

Paige MacKenney Abingdon, US 2020-12-12

Sofia Espinosa Fort Lauderdale, US 2020-12-12

Carolina Lopez Fontana, US 2020-12-12

Jada Cook Murfreesboro, US 2020-12-12

Emma Ortlieb Susanville, US 2020-12-12

dylan singer Chesterland, US 2020-12-12

Tatyana Moore Buford, US 2020-12-12

Elisa Pain-Cook Hillsboro, US 2020-12-12

Joy Opare-Ameyaw Rancho Cucamonga, US 2020-12-12

Wangu Magua Silver Spring, US 2020-12-12

Lydia Carter Lubbock, US 2020-12-12

Natalie O Perkasie, US 2020-12-12

sarah is the nice one US 2020-12-12

change now US 2020-12-12

Jordy Jefferies Lincolnton, US 2020-12-12

K C Solvang, US 2020-12-12

Mya Beaver Westminster, US 2020-12-12

Name Location Date

Phoebe Mendiola Manteca, US 2020-12-12

Abby Ugochukwu Braintree, US 2020-12-12

monkichiii poop Stafford, US 2020-12-12

Morgan Spruill Lithonia, US 2020-12-12

Desiree Castro Philadelphia, US 2020-12-12

Katie Collins Baldwinsville, US 2020-12-12

Minah Wango’olo San Diego, US 2020-12-12

Maria Villar Nashville, US 2020-12-12

Alondra Dominguez US 2020-12-12

Amanda Mao US 2020-12-12

Joseph Wickham Schenectady, US 2020-12-12

Frances Chai Carlsbad, US 2020-12-12

Michaela Mlakar Albuquerque, US 2020-12-12

Emily Fasano Fort Lauderdale, US 2020-12-12

Harley Tribble Baltimore, US 2020-12-12

Janasia Haynes Portsmouth, US 2020-12-12

Alexa Herrera Tulsa, US 2020-12-12

Miranda Mendoza Columbus, US 2020-12-12

Gabriella Badon Browns Mills, US 2020-12-12

Carolina Duval Bend, US 2020-12-12

olivia smith Gate City, US 2020-12-12

taylor adams Georgetown, US 2020-12-12

Name Location Date

Dawn Christakis South Yarmouth, US 2020-12-12

jadalyn wardell Casper, US 2020-12-12

Miki Ashaye Meridian, US 2020-12-12

Alex Lindgren Fair haven, US 2020-12-12

ella childress Ballwin, US 2020-12-12

jessica taylor hudson, US 2020-12-12

julie webb Wheaton, US 2020-12-12

neya rajkumar Burlington, US 2020-12-12

Josh Kirore Madison, US 2020-12-12

Lauren reiann Richmond, US 2020-12-12

Mikaela Diana Palm Harbor, US 2020-12-12

Montrell Bragg Louisville, US 2020-12-12

Serena Santiago Hollister, US 2020-12-12

Terri Pickett Rosemead, US 2020-12-12

Dalycia Ortega Vineland, US 2020-12-12

Valeria Madrid Rifle, US 2020-12-12

Kalie Butler Northumberland, US 2020-12-12

Trey Mikell Deptford, US 2020-12-12

Melanie Abarca Chicago, US 2020-12-12

zaria brooks Paramus, US 2020-12-12

antoinette granados Sacramento, US 2020-12-12

Alida Sanders Minneapolis, US 2020-12-12

Name Location Date

Charlene Darwen Fresno, US 2020-12-12

Danielle Hernandez Rome, US 2020-12-12

Joselin Perez Sag harbor, US 2020-12-12

Geraldine Rodriguez Mayagüez, US 2020-12-12

Kamron Dunnah Tucker, US 2020-12-12

Mackenzie Dial Atlanta, US 2020-12-12

Younis Abdaljawad Chicago, US 2020-12-12

Viola Veliu Orlando, US 2020-12-12

Gianna Hi Malden, US 2020-12-12

Daryl H Penfield, US 2020-12-12

Gabi D Prosper, US 2020-12-12

Arianna Langstein Montgomery Village, US 2020-12-12

Danielle Fisher Aurora, US 2020-12-12

Janiqua Wright Bronx, US 2020-12-12

Skylar Anthony Clinton, US 2020-12-12

Camryn Mirenna Huntington Beach, US 2020-12-12

Arooj A Fairfax Station, US 2020-12-12

Karen Enciso Fresno, US 2020-12-12

Sarah Elconin Somers, US 2020-12-12

Janelle Tillman Chicago, US 2020-12-12

makiah kelley cape coral, US 2020-12-12

Leilani Operana Las Vegas, US 2020-12-12

Name Location Date

Sujana Kakarla Glen Mills, US 2020-12-12

Hannah Roberts Wilmette, US 2020-12-12

Tatyana Richardson Houston, US 2020-12-12

ralph a Roswell, US 2020-12-12

Yoon Bum Houston, US 2020-12-12

Rihanna Meddings Sewell, US 2020-12-12

Emily Irizarry Brooklyn, US 2020-12-12

Louise Peregrina Boise, US 2020-12-12

Allie Fortmayer Marrero, US 2020-12-12

Pao Terrazas Lincoln, US 2020-12-12

Tionna Means Atlanta, US 2020-12-12

Hailey Masengarb Davenport, US 2020-12-12

Kourtney Hawkins Greenville, US 2020-12-12

Savannah Bentley Sandwich, US 2020-12-12

Xyla Correa Montebello, US 2020-12-12

Addison Thompson Chesterfield, US 2020-12-12

Nadia Winbush Hampton, US 2020-12-12

Ruby Bustamanate Chicago, US 2020-12-12

Cadence Schultz Munising, US 2020-12-12

Laleh Youssefieh Mercer Island, US 2020-12-12

Evelyn Minjares Portland, US 2020-12-12

Jay Suero Bronx, US 2020-12-12

Name Location Date

Dana S. Sanford, US 2020-12-12

Aubrey Finley Pontotoc, US 2020-12-12

Grace Norris Venice, US 2020-12-12

Jonathan Golden Hammond, US 2020-12-12

Arianna Alvatorre Flushing, US 2020-12-12

Eseye Mebrat Brandon, US 2020-12-12

Akira Miller Dublin, US 2020-12-12

Ella Swank Lincoln, US 2020-12-12

Grayson Brown Taylorsville, US 2020-12-12

julia cami Barrington, US 2020-12-12

David Harrington Laurinburg, US 2020-12-12

Emily Davis Orangevale, US 2020-12-12

Stacey Pierre Bridgeport, US 2020-12-12

Serenyty Crus El Paso, US 2020-12-12

juliana s Frederick, US 2020-12-12

Aniyah Kassimu Charlotte, US 2020-12-12

Nayari Mcclymont Belchertown, US 2020-12-12

Daivik Escobar Mount Pleasant, US 2020-12-12

Kiara Day Brooklyn, US 2020-12-12

Morgan Young Linthicum, US 2020-12-12

Avery Jones Oak Park, US 2020-12-12

Mia Reichardt Queen Creek, US 2020-12-12

Name Location Date

Evelyn Malvestuto Chicago Heights, US 2020-12-12

Katherine Brandel Mankato, US 2020-12-12

Asia Chatman Milwaukee, US 2020-12-12

Alyssa D Pasadena, US 2020-12-12

Angelina Pedro Decatur, US 2020-12-12

Darrian :) Kenner, US 2020-12-12

Gracie Garza Euless, US 2020-12-12

Shawn Hernandez Grover Beach, US 2020-12-12

Valeria Valle Dallas, US 2020-12-12

Yasmin Furtado Wilmington, US 2020-12-12

Miya Brooks Ashland, US 2020-12-12

Adelaide Mckinney Clearwater, US 2020-12-12

Clara Stromberg Lincoln, US 2020-12-12

McKenna Osborne Minneapolis, US 2020-12-12

Melanie Rodriguez Lynwood, US 2020-12-12

Emma Davis Summerville, US 2020-12-12

Christian Farber Paiz Bosque Farms, US 2020-12-12

Grace Knoke Ogallala, US 2020-12-12

Jaliyah Johnson Oklahoma City, US 2020-12-12

Christy Maldonado Kansas City, US 2020-12-12

Kaitlyn Collins Cleveland, US 2020-12-12

cynthia lezama Foothill Ranch, US 2020-12-12

Name Location Date

Dafne Rivera Fairview, US 2020-12-12

Emma Almeida Justin, US 2020-12-12

Parishi Parekh Dallas, US 2020-12-12

Leanne Tibayan Brentwood, US 2020-12-12

Ariana Gutierrez Cincinnati, US 2020-12-12

sarah devine Phoenix, US 2020-12-12

Caileih Ledbetter Versailles, US 2020-12-12

Emma Randal Fishers, US 2020-12-12

George Lindsey Jr Providence, US 2020-12-12

Maizah Johnson US 2020-12-12

Audrey Pussy flap Orlando, US 2020-12-12

gabby . San Juan, US 2020-12-12

Isabella Alvarez Whittier, US 2020-12-12

Jade Hover Tallahassee, US 2020-12-12

Lydia Murphy Melrose, US 2020-12-12

Carrie Malone Shepherdsville, US 2020-12-12

Coach Ukai Burley, US 2020-12-12

Elliana Williams-Mwaro Los Angeles, US 2020-12-12

jackie valencia Tucson, US 2020-12-12

Hana Lauter Chicago, US 2020-12-12

Shanelle Allwood Harker Heights, US 2020-12-12

Alyna Kelley Indianapolis, IN 2020-12-12

Name Location Date

Mya Whitman Hughes es Philadelphia, US 2020-12-12

Destinee Jacob Cherry Hill, US 2020-12-12

Katherine Molina Weslaco, US 2020-12-12

Z W Denver, US 2020-12-12

Camila Pulex Indianapolis, US 2020-12-12

jillie tirado Merrillville, US 2020-12-12

Sanjay Nair US 2020-12-12

danika lloyd Renton, US 2020-12-12

Marlene Gill Newport, US 2020-12-12

Melody Chai Daly City, US 2020-12-12

Olivia Brenes Laguna Beach, US 2020-12-12

Rosalynn Heite Woodbridge, US 2020-12-12

diego guerrero Dallas, US 2020-12-12

Susanna Rivera Fresno, US 2020-12-12

Akua Swift Canby, US 2020-12-12

Braelyn Fennych Ramona, US 2020-12-12

De'Arieus Hughes Oakland, US 2020-12-12

niaya chisolm Maywood, US 2020-12-12

sam t roseville, US 2020-12-12

Zamyah Holmes Lansing, US 2020-12-12

Eve Ani Colorado Springs CO, US 2020-12-12

allie niesen Chaska, US 2020-12-12

Name Location Date

Ismayling Perez Feliz Paterson, US 2020-12-12

hailee cid Richmond, US 2020-12-12

Sha-Nia Perrin Mooresville, US 2020-12-12

Grace Moore Yorktown, US 2020-12-12

Haily Lepe Penaloza El Monte, US 2020-12-12

Neveah Schwartz Henderson, US 2020-12-12

Emily Farmer Elkhorn, US 2020-12-12

Maren Davis Bridgeville, US 2020-12-12

Lexi Shepherd Rockwall, US 2020-12-12

tahdmidf jairjzxjv Goodyear, US 2020-12-12

Saphora Joseph Miami, US 2020-12-12

Carina Leyva Wasco, US 2020-12-12

Victoria Willis Brooklyn, US 2020-12-12

Isabella Silva Chula Vista, US 2020-12-12

Estrella Romulo Laredo, US 2020-12-12

Kalie McLain East Syracuse, US 2020-12-12

Analeeze Quintanilla Grand Prairie, US 2020-12-12

Siyanni Horton High Point, US 2020-12-12

ivette jimenez Boca Raton, US 2020-12-12

Alice Talker Fremont, US 2020-12-12

Maya Chandurkar Sunnyvale, US 2020-12-12

Kermina Rateb Jersey City, US 2020-12-12

Name Location Date

caitlynn k westbury, US 2020-12-12

Lucy annis-bercier Saint Paul, US 2020-12-12

Marissa Ramirez san diego, US 2020-12-12

summer lowder Lexington, US 2020-12-12

Marwah Alami Hamilton, US 2020-12-12

Jacqueline Delgado Prado Palmdale, US 2020-12-12

Ally Gallardo San Diego, US 2020-12-12

Octavia Allen Ballston Spa, US 2020-12-12

Jessica Brainerd Lincoln, US 2020-12-12

Jonathan Martinez Lenexa, US 2020-12-12

anon anon Las Vegas, US 2020-12-12

Christopher Crandall Lenoir City, US 2020-12-12

Robert Cervantes Arroyo Grande, US 2020-12-12

Celsea Buchheit Maryland heights, US 2020-12-12

Victoria Cremeans Orem, US 2020-12-12

Anna Johnston Evansville, US 2020-12-12

Narya Dulaney Atlanta, US 2020-12-12

Evelyn Tran Milpitas, US 2020-12-12

Kaley Fantini Wilmington, US 2020-12-12

Ava Cooper Rutledge, US 2020-12-12

M B New York, US 2020-12-12

Janice San Martín East Hartford, US 2020-12-12

Name Location Date

Shefara Jaman Dacula, US 2020-12-12

Alexandra Hoerle Osprey, US 2020-12-12

Ava Morretta Huntingtown, US 2020-12-12

a b Encinitas, US 2020-12-12

Beck Willis Chicago, US 2020-12-12

Kira Lee Honolulu, US 2020-12-12

K’yah Lanier Plainfield, US 2020-12-12

Allilyn Aberle Brick, US 2020-12-12

Rahi Patel Greensboro, US 2020-12-12

Cathrine May New York City, US 2020-12-12

Lizbeth Gutierrez Corona, US 2020-12-12

Marissa Smith Glendora, US 2020-12-12

Sabina Rossomano Smithtown, US 2020-12-12

Madeline McIntosh Colorado Springs, US 2020-12-12

Isabela Bodoso US 2020-12-12

Savannah Peterson Minneapolis, US 2020-12-12

Rebecca Gray Frankfort, US 2020-12-12

Stevi Groves Menifee, US 2020-12-12

Brigitte Cabrera Des Moines, US 2020-12-12

Sadie Fleming Bettendorf, US 2020-12-12

Naisha Momplaisir Miami, US 2020-12-12

Nia Kirina Silver Spring, US 2020-12-12

Name Location Date

Paulina Romero Basalt, US 2020-12-12

Maddie Biven crestwood, US 2020-12-12

Anthony Saucedo Ogden, US 2020-12-12

Lynne Keim Harrisburg, US 2020-12-12

Andre Freeman Providence, US 2020-12-12

Jennifer Louis Miami, US 2020-12-12

Julie Smith Portland, US 2020-12-12

Ari H Houston, US 2020-12-12

Austin Michaels Austin, US 2020-12-12

Can’t Say Las Vegas, US 2020-12-12

Brisa Lopez Oregon City, US 2020-12-12

Zamari Moore West Des Moines, US 2020-12-12

Pug Doggo Pittsburgh, US 2020-12-12

Amelia Gardner Grand Bay, US 2020-12-12

Jazmyn Stevens Port Orange, US 2020-12-12

Kimberly Mireles Chicago, US 2020-12-12

ella mae markowski downingtown, US 2020-12-12

Luis Hunlock Monroe, US 2020-12-12

Minra Random Last name Worcester, US 2020-12-12

Keyla Reyes Truckee, US 2020-12-12

Kelsey Geister Blanchard, US 2020-12-12

Cody Mitchell US 2020-12-12

Name Location Date

Chloe Lett Beltsville, US 2020-12-12

Maria Colmenares Tioga, US 2020-12-12

Willow Perry Statesboro, US 2020-12-12

Parker Sandoval Palm Springs, US 2020-12-12

Avery Cummings Flint, US 2020-12-12

Frank Vargas San Diego, US 2020-12-12

Lluvia Cervantes Mocksville, US 2020-12-12

Theodore Lee Buffalo, US 2020-12-12

Addison Becker Centennial, US 2020-12-12

Bella Izzy Gilroy, US 2020-12-12

Ben Dover New York, US 2020-12-12

Carter Barnhouse Indian Trail, US 2020-12-12

Anaya Jackson Anaheim, US 2020-12-12

Julliana Ibarra Fontana, US 2020-12-12

Rebecca Cai Saratoga, US 2020-12-12

Chaniah Gayten Oakland, US 2020-12-12

Desiree Lopez Reseda, US 2020-12-12

Victoria Head Irving, US 2020-12-12

Xiomarrah Sisco Dallas, US 2020-12-12

Ria Amin Forest Hills, US 2020-12-12

Mayrin Rosales Beaverton, US 2020-12-12

Mia Purdy Stone Mountain, US 2020-12-12

Name Location Date

Janez Perren Bethlehem, US 2020-12-12

Kaelyn Clown Lewisville, US 2020-12-12

Julianna Perez Belleview, US 2020-12-12

Chloe Stephens Queen Creek, US 2020-12-12

Sydney Ottman Everett, US 2020-12-12

Kaliyah Register Panama City, US 2020-12-12

Alexis Pierre Los Angeles, US 2020-12-12

Amya Riley Saint Paul, US 2020-12-12

Daphne Acosta Phoenix, US 2020-12-12

Bre Riser Arlington, US 2020-12-12

I don’t Wanna Hi, US 2020-12-12

cupcakeboom :3 US 2020-12-12

Ronnell Gilmore Toledo, US 2020-12-12

nicole primavera Bayport, US 2020-12-12

Everett Levine Iowa City, US 2020-12-12

aidyn caraballo Addison, US 2020-12-12

Jasmine Potenza Sterling, US 2020-12-12

Dana Deluca Doylestown, US 2020-12-12

Andrea Martinez Winchester, US 2020-12-12

Kendalyn Logsdon Kalamazoo, US 2020-12-12

Olivia Kurtz Cherry Hill, US 2020-12-12

Nathalie Rodriguez Houston, US 2020-12-12

Name Location Date

Trinity Troncoso Bronx, US 2020-12-12

Francesca Zodel Princeton Junction, US 2020-12-12

Lexi Kingrey West, US 2020-12-12

Emmi Pena Windsor, US 2020-12-12

haylie figueroa whittier, US 2020-12-12

Millie Gomez Los Angeles, US 2020-12-12

Alaysha Pulliam Prairie, US 2020-12-12

Ascheley Louidor Orlando, US 2020-12-12

vanessa ferrer Seattle, US 2020-12-12

Makayla Collier Bloomfield, US 2020-12-12

Annalize Cortes Charlotte, US 2020-12-12

Makayla Davis New Bern, US 2020-12-12

Brooka Robertson Vilonia, US 2020-12-12

Evie Webster Reading, US 2020-12-12

Adryan Aquino Carolina, US 2020-12-12

Maria Gomez Downey, US 2020-12-12

Nayelie Perez Cape Coral, US 2020-12-12

Chase Allen Englewood, US 2020-12-12

Tiffany Pereira Pompano Beach, US 2020-12-12

Arabella DeBow Tyngsboro, US 2020-12-12

Janae Wilson Rockville Centre, US 2020-12-12

Jayneera Hickerson Dayton, US 2020-12-12

Name Location Date

Raquel Royster Sterling, US 2020-12-12

Maya Juarez Framingham, US 2020-12-12

Arianna Alcaraz San Mateo, US 2020-12-12

Khia Wade Cambridge, US 2020-12-12

nicole menjivar Brooklyn, US 2020-12-12

Anya Iyer San Jose, US 2020-12-12

heathey sigy Laguna Beach, US 2020-12-12

Allison Martinez Apple valley, US 2020-12-12

Louisa Perryman Fort Smith, US 2020-12-12

Ana Fuster Carolina, US 2020-12-12

Gabrielle Bradley Carmel, US 2020-12-12

Kerijan Nattoo Orange Park, US 2020-12-12

Karina Corral-Rodriguez Altadena, US 2020-12-12

Salma Shuhayb Louisville, US 2020-12-12

Avery Vainoris San Clemente, US 2020-12-12

big DADDY Saint Louis, US 2020-12-12

Maggie Smith Orlando, US 2020-12-12

Sarah Zapisochnaya Lanham, US 2020-12-12

Emily Compo Salisbury, US 2020-12-12

Samantha Cross Marlow, US 2020-12-12

Zahylee Cox Keego Harbor, US 2020-12-12

Rachel Polimeni New York, NY, US 2020-12-12

Name Location Date

madison Stewart Titusville, US 2020-12-12

melissa field Portland, US 2020-12-12

Amy Magalhaes Niantic, US 2020-12-12

Donna L West Babylon, US 2020-12-12

Emma Lindroth Pico Rivera, US 2020-12-12

elle marshall Clover, US 2020-12-12

Rose Askren South Jordan, US 2020-12-12

Izzy Pierson North East, US 2020-12-12

Yeramis Subera New York, US 2020-12-12

Emma Malloy Shreveport, US 2020-12-12

aishi ghosh Shrewsbury, US 2020-12-12

Ayeeee Yooo Stockbridge, US 2020-12-12

Benjamin Tarkenton Charlotte, US 2020-12-12

Sara Geis Clover, US 2020-12-12

Reina Lee Queens, US 2020-12-12

gabriela echeverria Miami, US 2020-12-12

Taniya Dyson Houston, US 2020-12-12

Paris Jackson Anaheim, US 2020-12-12

Sofia Garza Pacifica, US 2020-12-12

Andrew Perez Dallas, US 2020-12-12

sophia mares Sanger, US 2020-12-12

Quinn M Austin, US 2020-12-12

Name Location Date

estela blanton Royal Oak, US 2020-12-12

Ella DeLaCruz Tacoma, US 2020-12-12

Leonardo Castello Gaithersburg, US 2020-12-12

Jasper Morris San Francisco, US 2020-12-12

Kennedi Johnson Lithonia, US 2020-12-12

Bill Miller Beverly Hills, US 2020-12-12

ivy tran Duluth, US 2020-12-12

Erica John Gainesville, US 2020-12-12

Josie Flanagan US 2020-12-12

Ayla Gomez Ventura, US 2020-12-12

Catherine Kulcavage Corning, US 2020-12-12

Nicole Dizon Virginia Beach, US 2020-12-12

brookelynn riser Arlington, US 2020-12-12

Toni Hamilton Detroit, US 2020-12-12

Cassidy Pesek Austin, US 2020-12-12

Gina Cordero Pittsburg, US 2020-12-12

carolina villaverde Lake Worth, US 2020-12-12

matthew ikini Roslindale, US 2020-12-12

James Timmons Topeka, US 2020-12-12

Raylynn Moralez Albuquerque, US 2020-12-12

Julie Gomez Dallas, US 2020-12-12

sophie stanford Cleveland, US 2020-12-12

Name Location Date

. .. Russellville, US 2020-12-12

Keirra Kyler Houston, US 2020-12-12

Laura Luis Houston, US 2020-12-12

Mya Reyes Watertown, US 2020-12-12

Nathaniel pichardo Newark, US 2020-12-12

April Ochoa Orange, US 2020-12-12

Carmen Taylor Fayetteville, US 2020-12-12

caroline gale Dallas, US 2020-12-12

alannah greig Ilion, US 2020-12-12

mariana a Selma, US 2020-12-12

Delilah Belmontes El Paso, US 2020-12-12

valeria quim Fountain Valley, US 2020-12-12

Destiny Fuller Eddyville, US 2020-12-12

Trisheena Harris Hammond, US 2020-12-12

Yulissa Galan Bronx, US 2020-12-12

daniela arce lynn, US 2020-12-12

Ji Owens New Hartford, US 2020-12-12

Leah Pham San Diego, US 2020-12-12

jesus jesus Bronx, US 2020-12-12

hailey hutchens Stevensville, US 2020-12-12

shawn warren Columbia, US 2020-12-12

kay will Avon, US 2020-12-12

Name Location Date

Stacy Lotinker Sparta, US 2020-12-12

Wenda McLaurin Kernersville, US 2020-12-12

maggie clifford Wayland, US 2020-12-12

Atika Timmmons Philadelphia, US 2020-12-12

Loli Lol Somewhere, US 2020-12-12

dakota brown Clementon, US 2020-12-12

Lauren Watterson Anderson, US 2020-12-12

Emily Ryan Quincy, US 2020-12-12

Amielyah Rahim Clermont, US 2020-12-12

Liana Guillen Pompano Beach, US 2020-12-12

Marissa McLellan Seattle, US 2020-12-12

Muslimo Farah Miami, US 2020-12-12

Paola Campos Merrick, US 2020-12-12

Sacha Chunn Atlanta, US 2020-12-12

zaina Naneesh San Francisco, US 2020-12-12

Ashlee Evans Merrillville, US 2020-12-12

ruby lainez Los Angeles, US 2020-12-12

Brenna Daugherty Clinton, US 2020-12-12

Andrew Lewis Atlanta, US 2020-12-12

Anthony Pierce Fond Du Lac, US 2020-12-12

Chico Faes Modesto, US 2020-12-12

Kimberly Patzer Stevensville, US 2020-12-12

Name Location Date

niko defeo fosterburg, US 2020-12-12

Crystal Brackett Worcester, US 2020-12-12

Pratima Neopaney Syracuse, US 2020-12-12

Christashia Thomas Houston, US 2020-12-12

London Hill Dallas, US 2020-12-12

Faith Blondin Westfield, US 2020-12-12

Cherie Fernandez Galveston, US 2020-12-12

Cindy Barlow Staunton, US 2020-12-12

daphne wang San Ramon, US 2020-12-12

Eli Campbell Bath, US 2020-12-12

Maggie McClinton Greensboro, US 2020-12-12

David Salas Hobbs, US 2020-12-12

Sam Mendez Pacoima, US 2020-12-12

Yuleni Luna Dallas, US 2020-12-12

Allwyn Henry Charlottesville, US 2020-12-12

Chi Allen Maple Heights, US 2020-12-12

Aaliyah newell West Des Moines, US 2020-12-12

alyssa arsenal Aiea, US 2020-12-12

Olivia Smith St. John's, US 2020-12-12

Ella Martinez Corpus Christi, US 2020-12-12

Enrique Ramos Bronx, US 2020-12-12

Yasmin Gay Pompano Beach, US 2020-12-12

Name Location Date

Adam Pearcy Fredericksburg, US 2020-12-12

Krislyn King Huntsville, US 2020-12-12

Isabella Paravate West Islip, US 2020-12-12

Kaia Elfarkh Mobile, US 2020-12-12

Leah Scofield Secaucus, US 2020-12-12

Desinya Brown Houston, US 2020-12-12

Nyla Campbell Hyattsville, US 2020-12-12

Leah Mills Seaside Heights, US 2020-12-12

Melannie Ochoa Chicago, US 2020-12-12

Madeline Arellanes Mabelvale, US 2020-12-12

Trinity Williams Mount Prospect, US 2020-12-12

maddy hopkins Stillwater, US 2020-12-12

Celeste Gonzalez Miami, US 2020-12-12

Luri Villatoro Oakland Park, US 2020-12-12

Jordan S Chesapeake, US 2020-12-12

Kylie Guerrero Haysville, US 2020-12-12

Lesly Alcantara Staten Island, US 2020-12-12

Adriana Blanco Trenton, US 2020-12-12

Bella Desquitado Las Vegas, US 2020-12-12

Marish Mills Oswego, US 2020-12-12

Sara Cordova Ibarra Federal Way, US 2020-12-12

delaney o’connor Phoenix, US 2020-12-12

Name Location Date

Mardic madison Steubenville, US 2020-12-12

Hannah Gustafson Coeur D'alene, US 2020-12-12

Emma Harrison new York city, US 2020-12-12

nevaeh todd Raeford, US 2020-12-12

Astrid Guerrero Boston, US 2020-12-12

Joseph Johnson Beaufort, US 2020-12-12

Kyla Stalker Centerville, US 2020-12-12

Maribel Marulanda New York, US 2020-12-12

shaylah brown Charles Town, US 2020-12-12

Felipe Rodas Potsdam, US 2020-12-12

Amaji Morales Rialto, US 2020-12-12

Kalynn Holt Washington, US 2020-12-12

poop bdhkaebq San Marcos, US 2020-12-12

Aeman Fatima Midlothian, US 2020-12-12

Arianny Matos Newark, US 2020-12-12

Kiki Lia Jamaica, US 2020-12-12

Amber Ward Franklin, US 2020-12-12

Chloe Riche Woodhaven, US 2020-12-12

Kenzie Haigler Charlotte, US 2020-12-12

Lia Terraza Granada Hills, US 2020-12-12

Nicolasa Cervantes Porterville, US 2020-12-12

Angel Ward-Johnson San Bernardino, US 2020-12-12

Name Location Date

Faith Faamitai Las Vegas, US 2020-12-12

Sanem Atik El Dorado Hills, US 2020-12-12

Cadence Cordova Albuquerque, US 2020-12-12

Tracy mclaren Wright City, US 2020-12-12

Asalah Ali Orlando, US 2020-12-12

Nastajia Hamilton Manning, US 2020-12-12

Caroline Curtin Macungie, US 2020-12-12

Cassie Marshall Chesterfield, US 2020-12-12

kalon sanchez Anaheim, US 2020-12-12

Cameryn Greenough Eugene, US 2020-12-12

Monalisa Singh Austin, US 2020-12-12

Lilliana Ramirez-Smith Snellville, US 2020-12-12

Mylee Fitch Erie, US 2020-12-12

Danielle Baker Houston, US 2020-12-12

Emma Halik Whiting, US 2020-12-12

Saige Franklin Vance, US 2020-12-12

Ashley L Houston, US 2020-12-12

Alexandra Tapia Loganville, US 2020-12-12

sara naveh mason, US 2020-12-12

ava tung Westford, US 2020-12-12

Elliotte Clemente Beverly Hills, US 2020-12-12

clarr c Redwood City, US 2020-12-12

Name Location Date

Ezekiel Dula High Point, US 2020-12-12

Anabel Moreland Seattle, US 2020-12-12

Jessica Pastor Linden, US 2020-12-12

Emily Huerta Whittier, US 2020-12-12

Alex Asztalos Boca Raton, US 2020-12-12

Alex Puente Mcallen, US 2020-12-12

Chloe NO Davenport, US 2020-12-12

Jimena Gonzalez Houston, US 2020-12-12

yo mama Unalaska, US 2020-12-12

Natalie Maldonado Yonkers, US 2020-12-12

Black lives Matter Berkeley, US 2020-12-12

Tre’sure Lott Detroit, US 2020-12-12

Cedar Garvin Myrtle Beach, US 2020-12-12

Lexi Garcia Stockton, US 2020-12-12

abbi royandoyan Union, US 2020-12-12

Lana Nguyen Gretna, US 2020-12-12

Soliana Mesfin Aurora, US 2020-12-12

Danielle Sheridan Elkridge, US 2020-12-12

Maddie Crum Barnesville, US 2020-12-12

Andrea Landeros Spring, US 2020-12-12

Chelsea Nunley Queen creek, US 2020-12-12

ginna thome Chicago, US 2020-12-12

Name Location Date

Sheyla Gonzalez Nuevo, US 2020-12-12

Khyila Mccall Philadelphia, US 2020-12-12

Kimberly Ruiz Fayetteville, US 2020-12-12

jaylin santos South Jordan, US 2020-12-12

Natiya Natal Bethlehem, US 2020-12-12

Bailey Foster Trimble, US 2020-12-12

Kendra Juarez Los Angeles, US 2020-12-12

harley smith carmel, US 2020-12-12

jada i- Point Pleasant Beach, US 2020-12-12

Kayla Samedy Fayetteville, US 2020-12-12

Brenda Guzman Navasota, US 2020-12-12

denise jaimes Atlanta, US 2020-12-12

Aden Omane Portland, US 2020-12-12

Lexi Davidson San Francisco, US 2020-12-12

Gabby Sobczak Scottsdale, US 2020-12-12

Bella Seraydarian Newtown, US 2020-12-12

Aaliyah George Bronx, US 2020-12-12

Adriana Brazzell Valparaiso, US 2020-12-12

Jocelyn Rojo Glendale, US 2020-12-12

Keke johnson Woodbridge, US 2020-12-12

ainsley martin noneofyourbusiness, US 2020-12-12

Kaylee Wills Trenton, US 2020-12-12

Name Location Date

Aria O’Sullivan Loganville, US 2020-12-12

Julianna Perez Omaha, US 2020-12-12

myron jasper bethesda, US 2020-12-12

Veronica Gabra Huntington Beach, US 2020-12-12

maggie s Winchester, US 2020-12-12

Catie Palus Mandeville, US 2020-12-12

Alexandra Nowak Brooklyn, US 2020-12-12

Autumn Diemert Sacramento, US 2020-12-12

Esmeralda González Springdale, US 2020-12-12

azzy O Greer, US 2020-12-12

Maddie H Vancouver, US 2020-12-12

Addyson Finley Arvada, US 2020-12-12

Cassidy Truesdale Silver Spring, US 2020-12-12

Leah Newlin Gainesville, US 2020-12-12

David Vanroekel Alexandria, US 2020-12-12

Brianna Bellamy Jersey City, US 2020-12-12

Danny Graham Goleta, US 2020-12-12

Hannah Osman Denver, US 2020-12-12

Jazmin Silva Walhalla, US 2020-12-12

olivia contreras Colorado Springs, US 2020-12-12

Will Malkie Bridgeport, US 2020-12-12

Bailey Linden Oakland, US 2020-12-12

Name Location Date

Ben Fisher Boulder, US 2020-12-12

Grace Diviny Nanuet, US 2020-12-12

Kylah Cooper New Kensington, US 2020-12-12

Mirka Sanchez Grand Rapids, MI 2020-12-12

Rosi Ortega Salinas, US 2020-12-12

Sydney Branch Matteson, US 2020-12-12

Jaiden Parrish Cary, US 2020-12-12

Dayanis Zenon Paterson, US 2020-12-12

lizzie green Lake Villa, US 2020-12-12

Nicky Diaconu Roanoke, US 2020-12-12

allison recinos Port Chester, US 2020-12-12

Kayla Davis Charlotte, US 2020-12-12

Sophie Creer Fayetteville, US 2020-12-12

Karely Aguilar-Torres Sparks, US 2020-12-12

anabelle novak Oceanside, US 2020-12-12

Mariann Rojas Bronx, US 2020-12-12

C T Clayton, US 2020-12-12

phyllis muse ar, US 2020-12-12

b d Delray Beach, US 2020-12-12

Rory McConnell Pittsburgh, US 2020-12-12

lesly velasquez Bay Shore, US 2020-12-12

lindsay mercado Las Vegas, US 2020-12-12

Name Location Date

alyssa bubaris Chicago, US 2020-12-12

Nariah Woods Danville, US 2020-12-12

Melanie Rose Brooklyn, US 2020-12-12

Melannie Ramírez Lynnwood, US 2020-12-12

Laura A Madison, US 2020-12-12

Jennifer Wallace Country Club Hills, US 2020-12-12

allie novy Chicago, US 2020-12-12

Daily Evans Moreno Valley, US 2020-12-12

Monserrat Peredo Renton, US 2020-12-12

Susana Ruiz Los Ángeles, US 2020-12-12

Jasmine Deabler Waldoboro, US 2020-12-12

Rihanna Orosco Brooklyn, US 2020-12-12

Hennessy Macias Surprise, US 2020-12-12

ciara no Brooklyn, US 2020-12-12

Tracy Cannon Buford, US 2020-12-12

j r dallas, US 2020-12-12

Payton Gorman Louisville, US 2020-12-12

Jahfari Francis Portland, US 2020-12-12

Kaitlyn Rainey Douglasville, US 2020-12-12

Gabby Margulies Wayne, US 2020-12-12

niyah husbands Los Angeles, US 2020-12-12

Leela Williams Nashville, US 2020-12-12

Name Location Date

Antonius Bogan Harker Heights, US 2020-12-12

Malachi Gumbs Brooklyn, US 2020-12-12

Nia Thomas Odenton, US 2020-12-12

Katie Cox Arlington, US 2020-12-12

Hayden Bedell Austin, US 2020-12-12

Sarah LaSalvia Belcamp, US 2020-12-12

Rosa Taylor Naples, US 2020-12-12

Lukas Petroski Newton, US 2020-12-12

liyah donkor Parrish, US 2020-12-12

Alexander Butcher Rochester, NY 2020-12-12

Jean Powell Lynchburg, US 2020-12-12

Lyn Smith Troy, NY 2020-12-14

Kathleen Brennan Green Island, NY 2020-12-14

Caroline Nagy Troy, NY 2020-12-14

Robert Forgett Queensbury, NY 2020-12-14

Brooklinn Britt Goodyear, US 2020-12-15

bry lack Circle Pines, US 2020-12-15

Harjap Badesha Carson, US 2020-12-15

Andrea Macias Houston, US 2020-12-15

Tamie Sheppard Albany, US 2020-12-15

Pamela Slater-Price Del Mar, US 2020-12-15

Rey Mar Negrete Laguna Hills, US 2020-12-15

Name Location Date

mya dooley Bridgeport, US 2020-12-15

Diana Grob Gresham, US 2020-12-15

Andrew Taubr Grants Pass, US 2020-12-15

Maybella Pelayo Houston, US 2020-12-15

laura roane Virginia Beach, US 2020-12-15

Talia Quady Sacramento, US 2020-12-15

Lydia Guajardo Boca Raton, US 2020-12-15

Cherina Kim Buena Park, US 2020-12-15

Austin Meinshausen US 2020-12-15

Brenda Juarez San Diego, US 2020-12-15

Nya Pine Austin, US 2020-12-15

Holly Herrera Albuquerque, US 2020-12-15

Ashley Rojas Sacramento, US 2020-12-15

Saige Scott Buckhannon, US 2020-12-15

Amelfis Zorrilla Peekskill, US 2020-12-15

Jennie Tea Long Beach, US 2020-12-15

Brittany Watler los angles, US 2020-12-15

Jessica Oreus Orlando, US 2020-12-15

alyssa munoz El paso, US 2020-12-15

Marissa G Harvey, US 2020-12-15

Destiny Capunay Elmont, US 2020-12-15

alexa Wohlwinder Alamogordo, US 2020-12-15

Name Location Date

Mickey Parker Stevensville, US 2020-12-15

Joseph Schmidt Southampton, US 2020-12-15

Kristin Green Los Angeles, US 2020-12-15

Destiny Silva Los Lunas, US 2020-12-15

Lucy Rae Berthoud, US 2020-12-15

Evelyn Alejo Redwood City, US 2020-12-15

Aditi Joshi Dublin, US 2020-12-15

Liana Kinder Fort Lauderdale, US 2020-12-15

Grace Gozal Warren, US 2020-12-15

Jenna Thompson Menifee, US 2020-12-15

Shawn McNeil Roanoke, US 2020-12-15

laura raforth rochester, US 2020-12-15

Faith Levasseur Hudson Falls, US 2020-12-15

Annabelle Hardy Cottage Grove, US 2020-12-15

David Thorpe Liverpool, US 2020-12-15

Celeste Williams Brandon, US 2020-12-15

Brianna Prieto Pacoima, US 2020-12-15

Kim Conolly Marietta, US 2020-12-15

Mary Belieu Santa Rosa, US 2020-12-15

Jacob Steinberg Petaluma, US 2020-12-15

get james Arlington, US 2020-12-15

icy girl San Pedro, US 2020-12-15

Name Location Date

Shaun Borges Sacramento, US 2020-12-15

Mat Bridgington Milford, US 2020-12-15

Samantha Cabrera Valencia, US 2020-12-15

Percival Rodriguez South Gate, US 2020-12-15

Logan McCarl Minneapolis, US 2020-12-15

valerie harmon Woonsocket, US 2020-12-15

Joshua Valdez Riverside, US 2020-12-15

Alejandta Melgoza Los Angeles, US 2020-12-15

Ryanne Cunningham Boise, US 2020-12-15

yulie torres Newport News, US 2020-12-15

patrick grace Torrance, US 2020-12-15

Kirsten Mills Fowlerville, US 2020-12-15

Samantha Nettles Hernando, US 2020-12-15

Faith shishkin US 2020-12-15

NOT TELLING Reston, US 2020-12-15

Sophia Jacobson South Orange, US 2020-12-15

Emily Compas Omaha, US 2020-12-15

Samantha Torres Red Oak, US 2020-12-15

Alyssa Jacobsen Buffalo, US 2020-12-15

Michelle Dalton Pikesville, US 2020-12-15

Ally Albarran Chicago, US 2020-12-15

Evan Vandenbossche Port Huron, US 2020-12-15

Name Location Date

Sara Miguel Clovis, US 2020-12-15

Ariana Hobbs Dearborn Heights, US 2020-12-15

Vanelyn Guzman Methuen, US 2020-12-15

Madyson Beaver Harrison, US 2020-12-15

Maeve Warme Waterville, US 2020-12-15

Christina Johnson Bakersfield, US 2020-12-15

Brooke Cortus Raymore, US 2020-12-15

Margaret Malejko Westampton, US 2020-12-15

Krystal delgado El Paso, US 2020-12-15

Jamie Roush Spring Hill, US 2020-12-15

hailey nguyen Santa Ana, US 2020-12-15

Olivia Bill Buffalo, US 2020-12-15

A. Carcellar Los Angeles, US 2020-12-15

Brady Daye Brentwood, US 2020-12-15

Lily Barton Post Falls, US 2020-12-15

Ruby Cervantez Burbank, US 2020-12-15

Nubia Garcia Los Angeles, US 2020-12-15

Kalei Kealoha Honolulu, US 2020-12-15

Keegan Patton Trenton, US 2020-12-15

Bridget Whalen Avon, US 2020-12-15

Monica Rodriguez Canyon Lake, US 2020-12-15

Kari Michaels Kingman, US 2020-12-15

Name Location Date

denisse chaires Fort Worth, US 2020-12-15

Ariana Heffington Edmond, US 2020-12-15

Erin Case La Center, US 2020-12-15

Aryanna Price Springfield, US 2020-12-15

sarahi villa san mateo, US 2020-12-15

isabella brodeur Temecula, US 2020-12-15

Maddie Lange Brenham, US 2020-12-15

Kylee Deavers Goshen, US 2020-12-15

Vivia n Honolulu, US 2020-12-15

america lister Amarillo, US 2020-12-15

Myla Dayanghirang Bakersfield, US 2020-12-15

Hwhw Hshshe Las Vegas, US 2020-12-15

Alysa Wooton Russell Springs, US 2020-12-15

Diane Espejel Santa Ana, US 2020-12-15

Courtney Sanco Santa Ana, US 2020-12-15

Devon Stanback Alpharetta, US 2020-12-15

Soffie Gabriel Tacoma, US 2020-12-15

Carla Perez Owings Mills, US 2020-12-15

Riley Plumley Coffeyville, US 2020-12-15

Rachel Loui Mountain View, US 2020-12-15

Jonathan Deikman San Carlos, US 2020-12-15

Jasmine Meyer Houston, US 2020-12-15

Name Location Date

Aaliyah Eguia Athens, US 2020-12-15

Megan Mahoney Denver, US 2020-12-15

Michaela Maier Anaheim, US 2020-12-15

Priscilla Sanchez Anaheim, US 2020-12-15

Alexandra Bouselli Alexandria, US 2020-12-15

Michelle Gutierrez Garland, US 2020-12-15

Kevin Lam El Monte, US 2020-12-15

Carla Villa North Las Vegas, US 2020-12-15

Ava Kiefel Walla Walla, US 2020-12-15

Abbie Mastromanno Phoenix, US 2020-12-15

Dina Kulybchuk Kent, US 2020-12-15

Amelia Francis Juneau, US 2020-12-15

Rowyn Phillips Culpeper, US 2020-12-15

Eric Barger Belleville, US 2020-12-15

Yukti Sharma Somerville, US 2020-12-15

Katherine Valdivieso Marysville, US 2020-12-15

Aniyah Blum Lehigh Acres, US 2020-12-15

Regan Clayton Buffalo, US 2020-12-15

Jamison Walstrum Baltimore, US 2020-12-15

Jackie Ms Oregon, US 2020-12-15

Reonna McCoy Beloit, US 2020-12-15

Laura Escudero El Paso, US 2020-12-15

Name Location Date

Mia Galvan San Jose, US 2020-12-15

Emma Goldman Troy, NY 2020-12-15

Jaydy Ramirez Norcross, US 2020-12-15

Alissa Conant Victoria, US 2020-12-15

Joseph DiMaggio Highfield-Cascade, MD 2020-12-15

Leatha Jimerson Delray Beach, FL 2020-12-15

William Denny Delray Beach, FL 2020-12-16

Sara DiLeo US 2020-12-16

Richard Murdock BALLSTON LAKE, NY 2020-12-16

Gracie Alms New Orleans, US 2020-12-16

river bolyard Fairmont, US 2020-12-16

Hollie Sisemore King George, US 2020-12-16

Emma Hickman South Point, US 2020-12-16

Kathryn Mueller Loveland, US 2020-12-16

Wade Potato La La Land, US 2020-12-16

Luna Hernandez Coachella, US 2020-12-16

Emilia Herrera New Caney, US 2020-12-16

kimora santos Sacramento, US 2020-12-16

Amy Brown California, US 2020-12-16

C S Malvern, US 2020-12-16

Kim jiwoo Kimjiwoo Los Ángeles, US 2020-12-16

Teresa Van Aernam Irving, NY 2020-12-16

Name Location Date

Erin Buxton Atlanta, GA 2020-12-16

Sabra Mullins Chapmanville, WV 2020-12-16

Deborah Matheson Troy, NY 2020-12-16

Brenda Haskell Malta, NY 2020-12-16

Tami Watt Salamanca, NY 2020-12-16

Laura Mullins Hartland, MI 2020-12-16

Heidi Brower Troy, NY 2020-12-17

Anya Lever Troy, NY 2020-12-17

Shawn Pollack Troy, NY 2020-12-18

Tasheca Medina Troy, NY 2020-12-19

Don Rittner Schenectady, NY 2020-12-20

Lambert Jimerson Versailles, NY 2020-12-21

Kay Hebert Schenectady, NY 2020-12-21

m f New York, NY 2020-12-22

Christianna Bennett Troy, NY 2020-12-22

katelyn del rosario Cypress, US 2020-12-22

Melissa Spiegel New York 2020-12-23

Jessica Jenkins Berkeley, CA 2020-12-23

Haley Morgan Greenfield, MA 2020-12-23

Jen Kutler Hudson, NY 2020-12-23

Sherie Ruppersberger Philadelphia, PA 2020-12-23

Brylee Schroder Albany, NY 2020-12-24

Name Location Date

Erin Sickler Troy, NY 2020-12-24

Emily Mendelsohn Brooklyn, NY 2020-12-24

lisa schonberg Troy, NY 2020-12-24

Allison Joseph Troy, NY 2020-12-24

Christina Gesualdi Philadelphia, PA 2020-12-24

Brian Gilchrist Rensselaer, NY 2020-12-24

Michelle Wenderlich Canandaigua, NY 2020-12-24

Julia Cavicchi Brattleboro, VT 2020-12-24

Tina Toma Troy, NY 2020-12-24

Melissa Morgan Westminster, US 2020-12-24

Rachelle Smith-Stallman Albany, NY 2020-12-24

Jay Zimmerman Wichita, US 2020-12-24

Mouse � Brooklyn, US 2020-12-24

Michelle Dail Hampton, US 2020-12-24

Leyna Wittl Shakopee, US 2020-12-24

Alysa Corbin Greenwood, US 2020-12-24

Justin Kaufman Fort Wayne, US 2020-12-24

Ayla Noller Phoenix, US 2020-12-24

Nicolle Singh Wentzville, US 2020-12-24

Steve Kennedy Smith Schenectady, NY 2020-12-24

Hamilton Craig Shushan, NY 2020-12-24

Emelia Martinez Brumbaugh fairhaven, MD 2020-12-24

Name Location Date

Dashiell Chrisner New York, NY 2020-12-27

Alex Briggs Queensbury, NY 2020-12-28

Kim Parker Albany, NY 2020-12-28

Jessica Holtz Albany, NY 2020-12-28

Ashley Saupp Troy, NY 2020-12-28

Gary Gosselin Troy, NY 2020-12-29

Richard Harwell Troy, NY 2020-12-29

Diane Yocum Hoosick Falls, NY 2020-12-29

John M Phelps Mechanicville, NY 2020-12-29

SARAH M Troy, NY 2020-12-30

Danielle Gagliardi Troy, NY 2020-12-30

Brandon Laranjo Troy, NY 2020-12-30

Jacob Shipley Bronx, NY 2020-12-30

Jason Rymanowski New York, NY 2020-12-30

Tara Quackenbush Troy, NY 2020-12-30

Robert Davis Troy, NY 2020-12-30

Kaleb Winters Troy, NY 2020-12-31

Jacqueline Citriniti Schenectady, NY 2021-01-01

Brenda Torres Cohoes, NY 2021-01-03

brianna clark Troy, NY 2021-01-03

Pat Ouderkirk Albany, NY 2021-01-05

kaily hackworth Bloomington, US 2021-01-10

Name Location Date

Emma Smith Albany, NY 2021-01-10

Nathan F Troy, NY 2021-01-10

Sharon Wesley Troy, NY 2021-01-11

Marian Beck-Edwards Grapevine, US 2021-01-11

Maureen Beardsley San Luis Obispo, US 2021-01-11

Albert Magana Littleton, US 2021-01-11

Debra Spotti MidwY, US 2021-01-11

Sarah Dyson Evansville, US 2021-01-11

Tim Grunwald Virginia Beach, US 2021-01-11

me D Chicago, US 2021-01-11

Mark Watson Saint Paul, US 2021-01-11

Corine Jones Charlotte, US 2021-01-11

Jala Craft Saint Paul, US 2021-01-11

Kalina Fischer Rockville, US 2021-01-11

cathy vollmann Hanover, US 2021-01-11

Bug Nichols East Chatham, NY 2021-01-11

John Stofko Allentown, US 2021-01-12

Harlee Tierney Beaverton, US 2021-01-12

anna kearse Queens, US 2021-01-12

Cameron Kelly Eagle, US 2021-01-12

Kayla Miller US 2021-01-12

Olivia Koffler Baker City, US 2021-01-12

Name Location Date

Santiago Valles Seguin, US 2021-01-12

Jaco Souza Worcester, US 2021-01-12

London Loza Moreno Valley, US 2021-01-12

Christina Blanton Los Angeles, US 2021-01-12

Laren Healy Montrose, US 2021-01-12

Bom Knjjnsnsn Brooklyn, US 2021-01-12

Alyssa Schultz Lompoc, US 2021-01-12

Faith Wooten Inverness, US 2021-01-12

Megan Monroe US 2021-01-12

Dan Covel Maplewood, NJ 2021-01-12

Nicole Tuminski Wallington, NJ 2021-01-12

brian buttacavoli springdale, PA 2021-01-12

Gonzalo Rubio Terrazas US 2021-01-12

Alice Thomas Kingsville, US 2021-01-12

Brooklyn Matta Las Vegas, US 2021-01-12

Andre Rich Columbus, US 2021-01-12

Brianna Cristi Sherman, US 2021-01-12

Dianira Oliva Des Moines, US 2021-01-12

Carmen Pasquesi Chicago, US 2021-01-12

Colleen Farrar Waterford, NY 2021-01-13

Eileen Bohen Albany, NY 2021-01-13

carol bessette Waterford, NY 2021-01-13

Name Location Date

Ellen Tanner Albany, NY 2021-01-14

canyon ryan Albany, NY 2021-01-14

Krista Robben Albany, NY 2021-01-14

Sierra dell Syracuse, NY 2021-01-14

Brett Stevenson Syracuse, NY 2021-01-14

Deborah Yule Waterford, NY 2021-01-14

Mackenzie Badgley Waterford, NY 2021-01-14

Kyle Kleege Albany, NY 2021-01-14

Pam Trudeau Advance, NC 2021-01-15

John d Troy, NY 2021-01-16

Deacon jeremy Wrobel Troy, NY 2021-01-16

John Meyer Troy, NY 2021-01-17

Frankie Martinez San Diego, CA 2021-01-21

Brian Trautman North Greenbush, NY 2021-01-21

Jenifer Monger Troy, NY 2021-01-22

Scott Nelson Goshen, US 2021-01-22

Carl Fiaschetti New York, NY 2021-01-25

Cynthia Richardson Chatham, NY 2021-01-25

Latanya Mcdaniel Upper Darby, PA 2021-01-25

Kimberlee Davis Tarpon Springs, US 2021-01-25

Joshua Goldberg Rego Park, US 2021-01-25

Leyan Xu Los Angeles, US 2021-01-25

Name Location Date

Susanna Purucker Miami Beach, US 2021-01-25

Hailey Wangler Warrenville, US 2021-01-25

Gail Fowler Spring City, US 2021-01-25

Jacob Shipley New york, NY 2021-01-27

Dakotah Toma Troy, NY 2021-01-28

Thomas Schermerhorn Troy, NY 2021-01-30

Ewelina Adamczak Kenosha, WI 2021-02-02

Dana Brady Albany, NY 2021-02-08

Zach Karpinski Albany, NY 2021-02-08

Kelsey Grunstra Providence, RI 2021-02-08

Andrew Craigie Albany, NY 2021-02-08

Stephanie Manzi Hudson, NY 2021-02-08

Heather Malec Schenectady, NY 2021-02-08

Josy Smith Albany, NY 2021-02-08

Alyssa McClenaghan Troy, NY 2021-02-08

Angela Kaufman Clifton Park, NY 2021-02-08

Margaret Butner Rensselaer, NY 2021-02-08

Violetta Rosa Albany, NY 2021-02-08

MacKenzie Holmes Cohoes, NY 2021-02-08

Sharon Kollar Albany, NY 2021-02-08

Seradin Engram Brooklyn, NY 2021-02-08

Jillian Ridler Troy, US 2021-02-09

Name Location Date

Rebecca Platel Rensselaervill, NY 2021-02-09

Steve Hammond Troy, NY 2021-02-09

Leon Potik Albany, NY 2021-02-09

Zackery Coonrad Columbus, OH 2021-02-09

Katherine Moss Albany, NY 2021-02-09

Diana Steenburg Albany, NY 2021-02-09

Maria Mendez Winston-salem, NC 2021-02-09

Kaelyn W Middleburgh, NY 2021-02-09

Betsy Worthington Averill Park, NY 2021-02-09

Sarah Macinski Albany, NY 2021-02-09

Jessica Cozza Hudson, NY 2021-02-09

David Cuatt Poestenkill, NY 2021-02-09

Darby Penney Albany, NY 2021-02-09

Teresa Skripek Tampa, US 2021-02-09

Lillian Kielty US 2021-02-09

Wanda Carnes Winnsboro, US 2021-02-09

Angelique Alvarez Bronx, US 2021-02-09

Erica Papalia Jamestown, US 2021-02-09

Brittany Martinez Hialeah, US 2021-02-09

Bea Atkinson Glen Ellyn, US 2021-02-09

Ilyana Meltzer Syracuse, NY 2021-02-09

Marketa Edwards Troy, NY 2021-02-09

Name Location Date

Jessica betterly US 2021-02-09

Laura C Troy, NY 2021-02-09

Krystal Hinckley Troy, NY 2021-02-09

Jonathan Neumann Davenport, US 2021-02-09

YVONNE SHOEBRIDGE Lydd, US 2021-02-09

Christian Resto-Diaz Virginia Beach, US 2021-02-09

valeria gracian Poughkeepsie, US 2021-02-09

Claudia Ulloa Mountain View, US 2021-02-09

Jada Page Detroit, US 2021-02-09

Lindsay Darcy Beacon, US 2021-02-09

Randall Collura Delmar, NY 2021-02-09

Mary Joseph Liverpool, NY 2021-02-09

Ashley Dolan Troy, NY 2021-02-09

David Herbert Clifton Park, NY 2021-02-09

Michelle Cross Nassau, NY 2021-02-09

Sugi Lucas Louisville, CO 2021-02-09

brooke patterson Vernon Hills, US 2021-02-09

Danilo Hernandez Oceanside, US 2021-02-09

C S Highland, CA 2021-02-09

kazu ono Tucson, AZ 2021-02-09

Sarah Tribhuwan India 2021-02-09

Katsi Cruz Richmond Hill, GA 2021-02-09

Name Location Date

patsy flores Uvalde, US 2021-02-09

Marco Solis Miami, US 2021-02-09

Aniyah Lockhart Louisville, US 2021-02-09

Denise Elizabeth Wilmington, US 2021-02-09

Damian Farris West Des Moines, US 2021-02-09

Will Hamilton Queensbury, US 2021-02-09

David López Pacheco Medellín, Colombia 2021-02-09

Wali Cooper New York, US 2021-02-09

Anna S Harvard, US 2021-02-09

Anjali Jayanty Edinburgh, UK 2021-02-09

kat h Troy, MO 2021-02-09

Julie Pucci Troy, NY 2021-02-09

morgan premo Tampa, US 2021-02-09

Suzan Rose Saugerties, NY 2021-02-09

Alexander Morales Brentwood, US 2021-02-09

kelsos gf US 2021-02-09

Hugo Orrantia Brooklyn, NY 2021-02-09

Katie Harrington San Antonio, US 2021-02-09

blaise schaffer Hopkins, US 2021-02-09

Patricia Evelyn Anderson Cathlamet, US 2021-02-09

Sophia Stine Caledonia, US 2021-02-09

Matthew Gregory Wantagh, US 2021-02-09

Name Location Date

Abrial Vinson Springfield, OR 2021-02-09

Deb S amherst, US 2021-02-09

Luisa Monroy Irapuato, Mexico 2021-02-09

Tiffany Karla US 2021-02-09

Marky Garabedian Glen Allen, US 2021-02-09

Karen Thomes Bangor, US 2021-02-09

Ava Alonzo Houston, US 2021-02-09

Chastity Means Columbus, US 2021-02-09

Samuel Shields Midlothian, VA 2021-02-09

Julie Clegg South Schodack, NY 2021-02-09

Katie Leclair Troy, NY 2021-02-09

Alina Wright Oklahoma City, OK 2021-02-09

Isabella Rothman Llandrindod Wells, UK 2021-02-09

Shannon Molloy Albany, NY 2021-02-09

EMILY HICKMOTT Santa Fe, NM 2021-02-09

Marisol Rodriguez Bronx, NY 2021-02-09

Victoria K. Charlotte, NC 2021-02-09

Courtney Martin Troy, NY 2021-02-09

Kendra Keheley Indian Land, SC 2021-02-09

HEATHER DUNN Troy, NY 2021-02-09

Coco W Pennington, NJ 2021-02-09

Shereen Ahmad Medina, OH 2021-02-09

Name Location Date

Nicholas Avram Springfield, VA 2021-02-09

Victoria Backaus Troy, NY 2021-02-09

Rashmi Pokhare Pune, India 2021-02-09

Helena Soriano Marietta, GA 2021-02-09

Kris Pikul Rochester, NY 2021-02-09

Sarah Bonesteel Wynantskill, NY 2021-02-09

Meaghan Levy Chesapeake, VA 2021-02-09

Luca Correnti Scituate, MA 2021-02-09

Miles Boyb Utica, NY 2021-02-09

A H Swansea, UK 2021-02-09

S K Irving, TX 2021-02-09

Skye Ingraham Binghamton, NY 2021-02-09

Izzy B. Hilliard, OH 2021-02-09

Stephanie Ipepet Ronse, Belgium 2021-02-09

Cade Van Horn Minneapolis, MN 2021-02-09

Green Gal Poway, CA 2021-02-09

Mario Nasta New York, NY 2021-02-09

Lizzie K. Portland, OR 2021-02-09

Emery MonCrieff Hermann, KS 2021-02-09

Ben Carrico Glover Portland, OR 2021-02-09

Anne Lynch Chicago, IL 2021-02-09

Lorraine Guyon East Greenbush, NY 2021-02-09

Name Location Date

Maria Vazquez Martinez Concord, NC 2021-02-09

Jeffrey Ackerman Staatsburg, NY 2021-02-09

Sarah Young Palm Coast, FL 2021-02-09

fejbjj cbbkkyf Santiago, Chile 2021-02-09

Alexandra Saravia Los Angeles, CA 2021-02-09

Sara Tack Troy, NY 2021-02-09

Jaime Milne Seattle, WA 2021-02-09

Sherry Bearup Troy, NY 2021-02-09

Charline Osborne Mississauga, Ontario, Canada 2021-02-09

joy kim San Francisco, CA 2021-02-09

Mariana Rosas Mexico 2021-02-09

Alex Weathersby Fredericksburg, VA 2021-02-09

Jessica Levy League City, TX 2021-02-09

Naghimi Chales Curitiba, Brazil 2021-02-09

Katelyn Geddes Chicago, IL 2021-02-09

Afreen Zameer Glendale Heights, IL 2021-02-09

Veronica Valenti Livermore, CA 2021-02-09

Sasha Holguin Bronx, NY 2021-02-09

mar p Kalamazoo, MI 2021-02-09

Paola Ayala Plainfield, NJ 2021-02-09

Natalie Seibold Germany 2021-02-09

Gianna Onofrio North Haven, CT 2021-02-09

Name Location Date

Zoe Selig Dover, NH 2021-02-09

Brenna Lancour Alexandria, VA 2021-02-09

Mia Gisel Long Beach, US 2021-02-09

Talia Schweiger Apex, NC 2021-02-09

Rebecca Marchan Queens, NY 2021-02-09

Valentina Betchakian Argentina 2021-02-09

Jane J Seattle, WA 2021-02-09

Jae Knopf Minneapolis, MN 2021-02-09

Esther Beiers Spokane, WA 2021-02-09

Sarah Woodring Fort Myer, US 2021-02-09

Melissa Donnini Gresham, OR 2021-02-09

Janelle D’Avignon Columbus, OH 2021-02-09

Charu Hossain Mississauga, Ontario, Canada 2021-02-09

Samantha Marquis Bakersfield, CA 2021-02-09

Anahi Barragan Yakima, US 2021-02-09

Samantha Granlund Atlanta, US 2021-02-09

Michael Bramson Troy, NY 2021-02-09

Camille Galleros Temecula, US 2021-02-09

eileen carpenter bozeman, US 2021-02-09

Kady Suquilanda Lema Minneapolis, US 2021-02-09

Grace Fasano Stockton, US 2021-02-09

Sarah Matthew Los Angeles, CA 2021-02-09

Name Location Date

Chris Pimentel Peabody, MA 2021-02-09

Osvaldo Herrera Incline Village, US 2021-02-09

Cynthia Wanser Milton, US 2021-02-09

Brianna Mulroy Farmington, MI 2021-02-09

Hannah Mason Madison, WI 2021-02-09

Elizabeth Floersch Goodlettsville, US 2021-02-09

Stephannie Valdobinos Merced, US 2021-02-09

nicole santiago miami, FL 2021-02-09

Josie Wenner West Hartford, CT 2021-02-09

Sydney Hodgson Hammond, LA 2021-02-09

Phoebe Miller Los Angeles, CA 2021-02-09

catherine yurasek Ft. Worth, US 2021-02-09

Isabella Botelho Bolton, Canada 2021-02-09

Louachi Lee Minneapolis, US 2021-02-09

Carolina Bastos Jacarei, Brazil 2021-02-09

Ruben Quiros Miami, US 2021-02-09

Hannah Abbott Shelby Township, US 2021-02-09

Kayla Clarke Washington, DC 2021-02-09

Shelley Yao Richmond Hill, Canada 2021-02-09

Filiz Dettmer Bielefeld, Germany 2021-02-09

Safiya Muhammad Inverness, FL 2021-02-09

Lester Wallace Ottawa, Canada 2021-02-09

Name Location Date

Tahmineh Tanbacosaz Dallas, US 2021-02-09

Onix Reyes New Britain, US 2021-02-09

ЈОВАН ЛАЗАРЕВИЋ Beograd, US 2021-02-09

molli perkins Queensbury, US 2021-02-09

Maya Bachu Richmond, US 2021-02-09

Molly Lasseter Nashville, US 2021-02-09

EVANGELENE LADE Plymouth, WI 2021-02-09

Roel Velasco Ventura, US 2021-02-09

Ivy Palmer De Pere, US 2021-02-09

MARK FODERA US 2021-02-09

Janette Ibarra Upland, US 2021-02-09

Erin McKay Greenwich, CT 2021-02-09

Shruthi Reddy Plantation, FL 2021-02-09

Laura Aguilera Keene, TX 2021-02-09

Jennifer Marquez Banning, US 2021-02-09

Emily Novosel Newark, DE 2021-02-09

Alexis Ketcham Baltic, SD 2021-02-09

Joe Moore Chicago, IL 2021-02-09

Karoline Emmerich Karlsruhe, Germany 2021-02-09

Terrie Williams Vidor, US 2021-02-09

Sarah Star Marion, US 2021-02-09

Maddie Metzmeier Walterboro, US 2021-02-09

Name Location Date

Pamela Panes Canoga Park, US 2021-02-09

Helen Redmond Ridgefield, CT 2021-02-09

Lisa Williams Warren, US 2021-02-09

Rae Liu McAllen, TX 2021-02-09

Aniya Jones Pittsburgh, US 2021-02-09

Willie Huerta Warsaw, US 2021-02-09

Shanessa Dones Calgary, Canada 2021-02-09

mikayla mcqueen Birmingham, US 2021-02-09

Kelly Rogers Gilroy, US 2021-02-09

Mallery Heidler Spring Hill, FL 2021-02-09

neegur arbys Chandler, US 2021-02-09

Rania Harid Alexandria, VA 2021-02-09

aliyah canuel Calgary, Alberta, Canada 2021-02-09

Teara Robinson Colonie, NY 2021-02-09

Harmionne Pedro Calgary, Alberta, Canada 2021-02-09

Alyx Bateman Los Angeles, US 2021-02-09

Joi Dawson Cuba, AL 2021-02-09

yohan remirez Calgary, Canada 2021-02-09

Cortez Johnson Stone Mountain, US 2021-02-09

Kelsey Rook Troy, NY 2021-02-09

Lily Bachofen Linden, US 2021-02-09

Vyshnavi Sistla Chantilly, VA 2021-02-09

Name Location Date

Giselle Barraza US 2021-02-09

what the hell Middleboro, US 2021-02-09

lena cisse Springfield, US 2021-02-09

Celestia Ludenburg Pensacola, US 2021-02-09

Max Nauer San Francisco, US 2021-02-09

Emily Glass Dayton, OH 2021-02-09

Alyssa Roblek O Fallon, US 2021-02-09

Maria Bickham Brazoria, US 2021-02-09

sherri hodges Phoenix, US 2021-02-09

Darryll Day Colleyville, US 2021-02-09

Maria Azevedo Natal, Brazil 2021-02-09

Sara B Denton, TX 2021-02-09

LeeAnn Trevino Pendleton, US 2021-02-09

Nehemiah Nesbitt Port Wentworth, US 2021-02-09

Kim Townsend Demopolis, US 2021-02-09

Kayla Henson Denton, US 2021-02-09

James Piano Phoenix, US 2021-02-09

Zoë Lopez US 2021-02-09

Rebecca Roush Dallas, TX 2021-02-09

Heather O'Leary Kennewick, WA 2021-02-09

Ava Kroeze Modesto, CA 2021-02-09

Tasnif Rahman Troy, NY 2021-02-09

Name Location Date

Layla Trujillo Fernley, NV 2021-02-09

Camilla Sulejmani Bordeaux, France 2021-02-09

Valentina Mixemis Argentina 2021-02-09

Jacqueline Tapia Zapata Buena Park, CA 2021-02-09

Stella Gowans London, UK 2021-02-09

Sara Werth Preston, CT 2021-02-09

Mel Brooke Finchley, UK 2021-02-09

Hanna Cooper Lynchburg, VA 2021-02-09

Aurora Gillin Lansdowne, PA 2021-02-09

Cypress Novick San Diego, CA 2021-02-09

Alexa Lozano San Jose, CA 2021-02-09

Sierra Tuplin Boston, MA 2021-02-09

Ola Carnahan Fairbanks, AK 2021-02-09

Cara Bartlett Troy, NY 2021-02-09

Sophia Esparraguera Hedge End, UK 2021-02-09

vincent torres Palmdale, CA 2021-02-09

Annabeth Chase Pittsburg, CA 2021-02-09

Loren Sosnick Chicago, IL 2021-02-09

Justice Mitchell Southfield, MI 2021-02-09

Caitlyn Shelton Kingsport, TN 2021-02-09

Aaliyah Keener Knightdale, US 2021-02-09

Anonymous Smith Red River, NM 2021-02-09

Name Location Date

Emily Morrison Louisville, KY 2021-02-09

Erin Swanepoel Cape Town, South Africa 2021-02-09

C P El Segundo, CA 2021-02-09

Paul Gaukel Vallejo, CA 2021-02-09

Meaghan R Whitmore Lake, MI 2021-02-09

Sarah Mountz Albany, NY 2021-02-09

Chloe Stanley Emporia, KS 2021-02-09

M Peck Whitefish Bay, WI 2021-02-09

Taylor Valladolid Hubert, NC 2021-02-09

Brandon Gorley NEW HUDSON, MI 2021-02-09

Jessica Smith Georgia 2021-02-09

Maggie Anthes Mahogany Ridge, US 2021-02-09

leyna nguyen Sugar Land, TX 2021-02-09

Leila Hussain US 2021-02-09

Natasha Lamont Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada 2021-02-09

Josephine Plutz Hortonville, WI 2021-02-09

Robbie Petrie Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada 2021-02-09

Elyssa Buettel Snyder, CO 2021-02-09

Vance Duche Parker, CO 2021-02-09

Tory Thompson new fields, NH 2021-02-09

Ana mo New Hyde Park, NY 2021-02-09

Andrea V. Mexico City, Mexico 2021-02-09

Name Location Date

Ultan Murray Craigavon, UK 2021-02-09

Alyssa R Ankeny, IA 2021-02-09

Finn Hills Lake Oswego, OR 2021-02-09

Isabele El Alam de Abreu Osasco, Brazil 2021-02-09

Sarah VanSwol Lowell, IN 2021-02-09

meadow z Dallas, TX 2021-02-09

Jennifer Hinson Lake City, FL 2021-02-09

Hannah Jordan Nothingsville, CA 2021-02-09

Lucia Gurmindo Buenos Aires, Argentina 2021-02-09

Paige Law Lawton, OK 2021-02-09

Annabel rainbird London, UK 2021-02-09

rioey hsjjssje Lincoln Park, MI 2021-02-09

Chris G Arlington, VA 2021-02-09

Loretto Crofton Chicago, IL 2021-02-09

Chloe Ramil Miami, FL 2021-02-09

Miranda Grause Hazard, KY 2021-02-09

Carmen Eastland Lincoln, CA 2021-02-09

Christy Birch Petaluma, CA 2021-02-09

Madeleine Leyton -, LA 2021-02-09

Karly Lazarus no thanks, CA 2021-02-09

Maeva Navarro Liège, Belgium 2021-02-09

Leah Creme Wood Green, UK 2021-02-09

Name Location Date

samantha gipson Caldwell, ID 2021-02-09

Oliver Stark Staunton, VA 2021-02-09

Alexa Finkelstein Levittown, NY 2021-02-09

Erin Heisey Manheim, PA 2021-02-09

winnie tran Toronto, Canada 2021-02-09

nora ich Austria 2021-02-09

Lara Mohr Hamburg, Germany 2021-02-09

Allison Miller Minneapolis, MN 2021-02-09

Lily Mannix Columbus, OH 2021-02-09

Alyssa Vega Buffalo Grove, IL 2021-02-09

yes no Marshfield, MA 2021-02-09

Janelle Dunham Boston, MA 2021-02-09

Amy Richards Liverpool, UK 2021-02-09

Emma Ens Regina, Canada 2021-02-09

Tegan Ward Brooklyn, NY 2021-02-09

gianna white California 2021-02-09

mia ram Miami, FL 2021-02-09

Giamanti Najar Port Arthur, TX 2021-02-09

Leah Hines Albany, NY 2021-02-09

Sara Lee Chino, CA 2021-02-09

Afnaan Chowdhury Austin, TX 2021-02-09

TIGUE MACKENZIE Cromarty, UK 2021-02-09

Name Location Date

Casey Ljuba Lorton, VA 2021-02-09

Laura Sanders Slingerlands, NY 2021-02-09

samantha eli Queens, NY 2021-02-09

Kyleen Croly Seattle, WA 2021-02-09

Samantha Jurado Mckinleyville, CA 2021-02-09

David Maye Albany, NY 2021-02-09

Ava Zdra Shelby, MI 2021-02-09

Tom Hedderman Elizabeth, NJ 2021-02-09

S W Son En Breugel, Netherlands 2021-02-09

Hailey Echols Peachtree City, GA 2021-02-09

Rocio Schwarzlander San Francisco, CA 2021-02-09

Ellicott Olson Columbia, MD 2021-02-09

Key Allard Detroit, MI 2021-02-09

N Dwyer Ann Arbor, MI 2021-02-09

Michelle Perry Cohoes, NY 2021-02-09

Momo Grey Greece 2021-02-09

atlas sullivan Myrtle Beach, US 2021-02-09

Andrew Meurant Fontenay-sous-bois, France 2021-02-09

Giana Mazzotta Troy, NY 2021-02-09

Bilan Mohamed Windsor, Canada 2021-02-09

Maryam Rashid Bethnal Green, UK 2021-02-09

em wil Cabot, AR 2021-02-09

Name Location Date

Leesi Poromon Rochester, NY 2021-02-09

owen howard Chicago, IL 2021-02-09

Monica Khamsy Newmarket, Ontario, Canada 2021-02-09

Rachel Burress Rocky Mount, NC 2021-02-09

Mia Pierce Rochester, NY 2021-02-09

Kelsey Williams Goodyear, AZ 2021-02-09

Jessica Peterson Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada 2021-02-09

Anne Pfeiffer Frankfurt Am Main, Germany 2021-02-09

Raspby Harper Garden City, MI 2021-02-09

Allison Menscher Los Angeles, CA 2021-02-09

Natalie Simon Urbana, IL 2021-02-09

Marina Alekseeva Velikiy Novgorod, Russia 2021-02-09

Jasmine Cooper Victoria, Canada 2021-02-09

Fawn Sterling West Palm Beach, FL 2021-02-09

Alec Bayoneto Plymouth, MI 2021-02-09

Wesley Brown Tennessee 2021-02-09

Jasmina Tang City, US 2021-02-09

Madeline Shaffer Mason City, IA 2021-02-09

Tam Nguyen Westminster, CA 2021-02-09

Grace Hopewell Kansas City, MO 2021-02-09

Brian Kehrer Schenectady, NY 2021-02-09

Abigail Shaver Mississauga, Canada 2021-02-09

Name Location Date

Charlotte Pollock Stoke-on-trent, UK 2021-02-09

Claire Stewart North Vancouver, Canada 2021-02-09

Asacia Hernandez Woodville, TX 2021-02-09

Arely Janzen Calgary, Canada 2021-02-09

Neci Schletz Saint Charles, IL 2021-02-09

Emil Nance Beaverton, OR 2021-02-09

maria c Los ángeles, CA 2021-02-09

Charlotte Koeber Luckau, Germany 2021-02-09

Caris Banks Norcross, GA 2021-02-09

E S Fair Lawn, NJ 2021-02-09

Bethany Mitchell Mill Creek, WA 2021-02-09

Jayde Ross Troy, NY 2021-02-09

Erica Tmej Mississauga, Canada 2021-02-09

pj m Tacoma, WA 2021-02-09

bea rms Portugal 2021-02-09

Josie Aspinwall Plumas Lake, CA 2021-02-09

Saph Bright Dublin, CA 2021-02-09

Ylva Hoheisel Berlin, Germany 2021-02-09

Denada Skera Vaughan, Ontario, Canada 2021-02-09

Emma Humbert Strasburg, PA 2021-02-09

Jaymie-lee Stewart Aberdeen, UK 2021-02-09

Eli Golode Gottingen, Germany 2021-02-09

Name Location Date

ducky hy Pearland, TX 2021-02-09

Tahira Catten Troy, NY 2021-02-09

Tuesday Torribio Portland, OR 2021-02-09

Megan Dorny Arvada, CO 2021-02-09

Raine Piercey Vancouver, Canada 2021-02-09

Trinity Leppert Placentia, CA 2021-02-09

Lucia Vazquez Miami, FL 2021-02-09

Kat Pruitt Millstadt, IL 2021-02-09

Naia Dalal Fremont, CA 2021-02-09

Keelin Burke Bowie, MD 2021-02-09

Sofia Nimmo Streamwood, IL 2021-02-09

Adrian Black Arcata, CA 2021-02-09

Audrey Finley Portland, OR 2021-02-09

Genesis Hinojosa Arleta, CA 2021-02-09

victoria wolff Columbus, OH 2021-02-09

Emma Dunn UK 2021-02-09

Pernille Hviid Copenhagen, Denmark 2021-02-09

Kaylei Nicholson Olive Branch, MS 2021-02-09

Aaliyah Griffin Charlotte, SC 2021-02-09

Rachel Levine Santa Rosa, CA 2021-02-09

Christina Stone Irvine, CA 2021-02-09

Katherine Benjamin Princeton Junction, NJ 2021-02-09

Name Location Date

Anisa Banks Aurora, CO 2021-02-09

Carly Briguglio Rensselaer, NY 2021-02-09

z r Dammam, Ḥā'il, Saudi Arabia 2021-02-09

Mikayla Meaney Casa Grande, AZ 2021-02-09

Michalina Szczepaniak Poznan, Poland 2021-02-09

Sandy Church Rensselaer, NY 2021-02-09

joshua swinx Reykjavík, Iceland 2021-02-09

Marie M toronto, Canada 2021-02-09

Patricia Grote Cincinnati, OH 2021-02-09

Atiya Steptore Duluth, GA 2021-02-09

Levi Rosen Portland, ME 2021-02-09

Gabriel Placeres Surprise, AZ 2021-02-09

shaneen u Dubuque, IA 2021-02-09

Lizzie Lark Flower Mound, TX 2021-02-09

Victor Surbrook Bloomfield, NJ 2021-02-09

June Linkson Bleh, CA 2021-02-09

Olivia Pellicer San Francisco, CA 2021-02-09

Samuel Ibertis Zarate, Argentina 2021-02-09

Sare King Nantucket, MA 2021-02-09

Sydney Porter Idaho Falls, ID 2021-02-09

Anne Pascucci Newport News, VA 2021-02-09

Elise Bouwknegt Castricum, Netherlands 2021-02-09

Name Location Date

Kei Oni garcia Klamath Falls, OR 2021-02-09

Roxanne J Bozeman, MT 2021-02-09

Penelope Phaup Tampa, FL 2021-02-09

Tess Wilson Mount Joy, PA 2021-02-09

katelyn gregg Gainesville, TX 2021-02-09

Sofie Benson Logan, UT 2021-02-09

Alyssa Williams Dallas, TX 2021-02-09

Rodrigo Guerra Portugal 2021-02-09

Zira Beeby Melbourne, Australia 2021-02-09

Eric Kerisimasi Independence, MO 2021-02-09

Emile Fields Norman, OK 2021-02-09

Leah Mui Quincy, MA 2021-02-09

Shay T Anchorage, AK 2021-02-09

Vriska Serket Burnaby, Canada 2021-02-09

Graham Gayle-Rowe Mount Vernon, NY 2021-02-09

Zayd Colbert Vidor, TX 2021-02-09

Isaac Thatcher Kilsyth South, Australia 2021-02-09

Jamie Lezcano San Francisco, CA 2021-02-09

Lael Gustavo Lima Joao Pessoa, Brazil 2021-02-09

Sean Driscoll Covina, CA 2021-02-09

Lana Lahiri Croatia 2021-02-09

Ariane Cuellar North Hills, CA 2021-02-09

Name Location Date

Loki Bischoff Richmond, VA 2021-02-09

miles aune Mobile, AL 2021-02-09

Sabrina Frost Kennesaw, GA 2021-02-09

Hannah Brogan Chatham Township, NJ 2021-02-09

Breck Matter Wesley Chapel, FL 2021-02-09

Corrin Jordan Bayonne, NJ 2021-02-09

Zainab Ramadan Bullhead City, AZ 2021-02-09

Jae Halverson Superior, WI 2021-02-09

Aron Marosvari Munster, Germany 2021-02-09

Johnathan T United States, US 2021-02-09

Riley Holmes US 2021-02-09

Jenna Remley Grass Valley, CA 2021-02-09

Lena Pruitt Indiana, PA 2021-02-09

riley mckee Seminole, FL 2021-02-09

morgan horne kirkcaldy, Scotland, UK 2021-02-09

Meg Grammar US 2021-02-09

Katya Vallianatos Pomona, CA 2021-02-09

Fatima Barrera Centreville, VA 2021-02-09

Beth Toderash Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada 2021-02-09

Lisa Ninde Alexandria, VA 2021-02-09

Jack S Farmington, US 2021-02-09

Autumn Wright Tampa, US 2021-02-09

Name Location Date

Daimier Wilson Beverly hills, CA 2021-02-09

Jillian Stineman Carpinteria, CA 2021-02-09

Aileen H Atlanta, GA 2021-02-09

Kiara M Newburgh, NY 2021-02-09

Avi Henriksen Marion, IA 2021-02-09

Nia Carter Jamaica, NY 2021-02-09

Lilac Gordon Silver Spring, MD 2021-02-09

Thania Garcia La Canada Flintridge, CA 2021-02-09

Olivia Mendoza Orange County, CA 2021-02-09

Jasmine Reyes Tampa, FL 2021-02-09

Sanai Davis Centreville, VA 2021-02-09

Gillian Hanna New York, NY 2021-02-09

Benedetta Alfonsi Cagliari, Italy 2021-02-09

Kevin Ceballos-rubio Charlotte, NC 2021-02-09

abeer hajir Jeddah, Saudi Arabia 2021-02-09

Sophia Asimos Mc Lean, VA 2021-02-09

yo man cork, Ireland 2021-02-09

Xander Ritter Peoria, IL 2021-02-09

Samantha Garcia El Paso, TX 2021-02-09

Anika Jahagirdar Calgary, Alberta, Canada 2021-02-09

Daryann Gonzalez Oranjestad, Aruba 2021-02-09

Holly Larmore Salisbury, MD 2021-02-09

Name Location Date

Diane Brinkman Wimberley, TX 2021-02-09

M. G. Seattle, WA 2021-02-09

Kristine Brown Painted Post, NY 2021-02-10

Kayla Johnson Chicago, IL 2021-02-10

Amanda Swaggerty Clarksville, TN 2021-02-10

Olivia Hill Morgantown, WV 2021-02-10

Jazmin Ramirez Victorville, CA 2021-02-10

Josha Fielding Longview, TX 2021-02-10

Rachel Stynes Elizabethtown, US 2021-02-10

Jonah Urie Long Beach, CA 2021-02-10

Kiera Baron Cohoes, NY 2021-02-10

Connor Tait Buffalo, US 2021-02-10

Ethan Romango Casper, WY 2021-02-10

Alice Cronshaw Cambridge, UK 2021-02-10

CJ White Laveen, AZ 2021-02-10

Amina Meckel-Sam Northampton, MA 2021-02-10

Nick MacKenzie Burlington, VT 2021-02-10

Justine Kanzler Sacramento, CA 2021-02-10

Nathaly Palacios Lima, Peru 2021-02-10

Blake Bolin US 2021-02-10

Paige Raimer Littlestown, PA 2021-02-10

Tristan Damiani Monrovia, CA 2021-02-10

Name Location Date

Harley Black Arcata, CA 2021-02-10

Alisyn Suess New Baltimore, MI 2021-02-10

Cheyanne Newman In a city, IL 2021-02-10

Adrianna Lesanko Sherwood Park, Canada 2021-02-10

kai tompkins New Jersey 2021-02-10

Briel Govan Chicago, IL 2021-02-10

simone jackson Arvada, CO 2021-02-10

Magdalena Jackson Troy, NY 2021-02-10

Ciara White McShane Pittsburgh, PA 2021-02-10

Violet Gonzalez Los Angeles, CA 2021-02-10

Freddie Kirby Seattle, WA 2021-02-10

sarah costa Fortaleza, Brazil 2021-02-10

Naomi Rostron Accrington, UK 2021-02-10

RALPH WERNTZ MCARTHUR, US 2021-02-10

Emma Ferdinand New Jersey 2021-02-10

Francis Jimenez Dacula, US 2021-02-10

Michelle Deneault Boise, US 2021-02-10

kylie nemec Plymouth, NH 2021-02-10

Amber Quick Bear Sioux falls, US 2021-02-10

Christopher Tom Pleasantville, US 2021-02-10

Jennifer Khuu Mississauga, Canada 2021-02-10

Marcine McBride West Babylon, NY 2021-02-10

Name Location Date

Camie Rodgers RADCLIFF, US 2021-02-10

kylie Hatten Springfield, MA 2021-02-10

Mckennah Talont Foley, US 2021-02-10

Saskia Lam Central District, Hong Kong 2021-02-10

kasandra sanchez El Monte, US 2021-02-10

Derald and Brenda Arthur Cleveland, OH 2021-02-10

Grace Lum Oviedo, FL 2021-02-10

catron higgins Abbotsford, Canada 2021-02-10

Joni Manson Westerville, US 2021-02-10

Jason Jersey Littleton, US 2021-02-10

Nessa v. H. Coquitlam, Canada 2021-02-10

Olivia K Montpelier, VT 2021-02-10

Jocelyn Espinoza Hebron, US 2021-02-10

Rini Sonata Winnipeg, Canada 2021-02-10

Jeicy Paucar Fall River, US 2021-02-10

Josh Jones Mount Vernon, US 2021-02-10

Sophia Balsamo Miamisburg, OH 2021-02-10

Maddie Kalanya Humble, US 2021-02-10

Gabriel Sobalvarro Harvard, MA 2021-02-10

Jaryn Jefferson Argyle, US 2021-02-10

Tamara A Woodland Hills, CA 2021-02-10

Fiona Wisehart Troy, NY 2021-02-10

Name Location Date

Cale Beeson Gilbert, US 2021-02-10

Emma Tonn Des Moines, IA 2021-02-10

Jessica Vue Atlanta, GA 2021-02-10

Rose R Anaheim, CA 2021-02-10

Maeve Daley Chicago, IL 2021-02-10

Kate Inskip Gainesville, FL 2021-02-10

Nur Irfan Windermere, FL 2021-02-10

thomas fleming Rogers, AR 2021-02-10

Seppie Lynn Edmonton, Canada 2021-02-10

Dominique Barry Apopka, FL 2021-02-10

vivien guenther Plattsburgh, NY 2021-02-10

Katie dick Gettysburg, PA 2021-02-10

Katlynn Brause Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada 2021-02-10

Bethanie Hysell London, OH 2021-02-10

Maddie Keene Falls Church, US 2021-02-10

Mackenzie McGowen Issaquah, WA 2021-02-10

Mikhail Borealis Moncton, Canada 2021-02-10

Peyton Adams Geneva, IL 2021-02-10

Hamza Elnaggar Centreville, VA 2021-02-10

Abena Dauphine Los Angeles, CA 2021-02-10

Tai P.-S. Atlanta, GA 2021-02-10

Caroline Padula Chicago, IL 2021-02-10

Name Location Date

Noor Aldaimalani San Juan capistrano, CA 2021-02-10

Anna Bickel Columbus, OH 2021-02-10

Sophia DeMaertelaere Huntley, IL 2021-02-10

Julia Pelkofsky Poughkeepsie, NY 2021-02-10

Alex Pakhchanyan Leeds, UK 2021-02-10

hannah cella Thunder Bay, Canada 2021-02-10

Brynadee Provost Happy Valley, OR 2021-02-10

Diana Mousetis Philadelphia, PA 2021-02-10

IDK WHAT TO NAME Canada 2021-02-10

Lorelei Leonard Orange, CA 2021-02-10

Makinzie Comstock Arvada, CO 2021-02-10

Sadie Scott-Hobson Seattle, US 2021-02-10

bungus mcchungus Auckland, New Zealand 2021-02-10

Abby Harrington Howell, MI 2021-02-10

Janey Stauffer Puyallup, WA 2021-02-10

Anna D Wayne, PA 2021-02-10

Christine Greco Toronto, Canada 2021-02-10

Yuri Klliberg Spain 2021-02-10

Annie Kuo New Taipei, Taiwan 2021-02-10

Sarah Park Montréal, Quebec, Canada 2021-02-10

Tesla Wiles Clarksburg, MD 2021-02-10

Alexander Flores Orlando, FL 2021-02-10

Name Location Date

Mayahuel Llorente Riverside, CA 2021-02-10

Shekiniah Martin Knightdale, NC 2021-02-10

zain shihabi Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada 2021-02-10

Lisbeth Valerio Bronx, NY 2021-02-10

Carolina Rico Braga, Bragança, Portugal 2021-02-10

Patty Hails Scarborough, Ontario, Canada 2021-02-10

Grace Cooke Centralia, WA 2021-02-10

Kid Davey Canada 2021-02-10

sam lae Toronto, Ontario, Canada 2021-02-10

Malia Makaea San Marcos, TX 2021-02-10

Tiana Fanniel Bronx, NY 2021-02-10

bruh big brain Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah PersekutuanKuala Lumpur, Malaysia

2021-02-10

Sydney Lewandowski Wilbraham, MA 2021-02-10

Analise Broadwater Jonesborough, TN 2021-02-10

Heidi Blanchard Hamden, CT 2021-02-10

Neemah Jones New York, NY 2021-02-10

Alexandra Carrillo Miami, FL 2021-02-10

Brittney E. Cincinnati, OH 2021-02-10

Gabriel Wiebelhaus Temple, TX 2021-02-10

Aleeze Qadir Chicago, IL 2021-02-10

Katherine Koch Lebanon, OH 2021-02-10

Name Location Date

Sabrina Smith Walled Lake, US 2021-02-10

Cris Sousa Elizabethport, NJ 2021-02-10

E E Toronto, Canada 2021-02-10

jennifer koelker Franklin, OH 2021-02-10

Rowena Lane Philadelphia, PA 2021-02-10

Issac Grem Palo Alto, CA 2021-02-10

Meg Alcantara Philippines 2021-02-10

Emily Estes Davison, MI 2021-02-10

Malena Malson Pilar, Argentina 2021-02-10

Cara Mikaelian Springfield, MO 2021-02-10

Zuleima Santiago Lebanon, PA 2021-02-10

Rei Lee Porter Ranch, CA 2021-02-10

m h Toronto, Ontario, Canada 2021-02-10

Ana Shaffi Purcellville, VA 2021-02-10

Maude Sorel Saint-jean-sur-richelieu, Canada 2021-02-10

Elizabeth Ingermann Lowell, MA 2021-02-10

abigail weber Hayden, AL 2021-02-10

Bryn Kummell Old Greenwich, CT 2021-02-10

Elisa Howe Marquette, MI 2021-02-10

Lee Huntington-Bradley Olympia, WA 2021-02-10

Alexandria L. London, KY 2021-02-10

Emily Arnold Garden Grove, CA 2021-02-10

Name Location Date

Shae Fig Trenton, NJ 2021-02-10

A Cree Aurora, CO 2021-02-10

Lizzie Rimmer Pacifica, CA 2021-02-10

Matt Wetus Reno, NV 2021-02-10

Niko Grams Glastonbury, CT 2021-02-10

David Feener-Jarrett San Leandro, CA 2021-02-10

Ea Harding Secaucus, NJ 2021-02-10

Sophia Uno Kaimuki, HI 2021-02-10

Jai Mohan Syracuse, NY 2021-02-10

Vladimir Enlow Nashville, TN 2021-02-10

Anna Veley Carleton Place, Canada 2021-02-10

Aidan James Alvin, TX 2021-02-10

Sofia Arora Edison, US 2021-02-10

Aster A Boulder, CO 2021-02-10

Maddy McFarland Denver, CO 2021-02-10

Myles Z Long Beach, CA 2021-02-10

Anna Ko Albany, NY 2021-02-10

Nicholas Bunting Canterbury, UK 2021-02-10

Astrid Rising Stockholm, Sweden 2021-02-10

Meredith Wonson No, MA 2021-02-10

Jade Knisley Wilmington, OH 2021-02-10

Sam Hulen Pheonix, AZ 2021-02-10

Name Location Date

Sarah Souser Annandale, VA 2021-02-10

Alia Feltes-DeYapp Lakewood, CO 2021-02-10

Lily Birkholz Oakland, US 2021-02-10

Phillip Johnson Fairfax, VA 2021-02-10

Jess C Mitcham, Australia 2021-02-10

Noelle Darquea Vallejo, CA 2021-02-10

Anne Neuendorf Germany 2021-02-10

Brooke Burke Perth, Australia 2021-02-10

John Harvey Phoenix, AZ 2021-02-10

Jaime Miller Monroe, OR 2021-02-10

Xandra Duncan US 2021-02-10

Kelsey Alexander Olive Branch, MS 2021-02-10

Caitlin Ryan Independence, US 2021-02-10

Elizabeth Terry Martinsville, VA 2021-02-10

Laura Jensen Modesto, CA 2021-02-10

Caroline Keller Toledo, OH 2021-02-10

Jeffery LaBau Hyde Park, UT 2021-02-10

April Thomsen Sandy, UT 2021-02-10

Stephanye Keene Prosper, TX 2021-02-10

Kathleen Houston Regina, Canada 2021-02-10

Emma Powers Dacula, GA 2021-02-10

Zoe Draney Little Elm, TX 2021-02-10

Name Location Date

laura wirtz Avon, OH 2021-02-10

Celeste Lau Markham, Canada 2021-02-10

Nathan Fears Bryan, TX 2021-02-10

jennifer Bardsley Rehoboth, MA 2021-02-10

Christian Smith dunlap, IL 2021-02-10

Jade Samuels Columbia, SC 2021-02-10

Kiden Mills Rapid City, SD 2021-02-10

Katarina Vidinich Chicago, IL 2021-02-10

Jeanna Brandon Ogden, UT 2021-02-10

Kyle Bryant Chesapeake, VA 2021-02-10

Jannie Frierson NAshville, TN 2021-02-10

Ingvill Byrknes Edmonton, Alberta, Canada 2021-02-10

Cassandra Yates Bountiful, UT 2021-02-10

Jacqueline Hoxit Cartersville, GA 2021-02-10

Samantha Hamidan New York, NY 2021-02-10

Alan Cooley Huntington Station, NY 2021-02-10

Sable Rosengaard Sydney, Australia 2021-02-10

Mairee MacInnes Albany, OR 2021-02-10

Edwin Pena La Puente, CA 2021-02-10

Tomi Fullick Sapulpa, OK 2021-02-10

Kylie Wagnon Norman, OK 2021-02-10

Hope Landers Richardson, TX 2021-02-10

Name Location Date

Ris Garceau Monson, US 2021-02-10

Kimi Birrer Ft Mitchell, KY 2021-02-10

Reese Tilbury London, Canada 2021-02-10

Shannon Dickenson Middletown, CT 2021-02-10

elena somethen lisle, IL 2021-02-10

Megan Dempsey La Porte, TX 2021-02-10

Ila Cassagne Brisbane, Australia 2021-02-10

Eliza Kissam Burlington, VT 2021-02-10

Breana Shirley Norman, OK 2021-02-10

Liza Marie Tajan Fairfield, CA 2021-02-10

Emma Phillips Salem, AR 2021-02-10

Chase Weynand Greeley, CO 2021-02-10

Megan Roselli New York, NY 2021-02-10

Patricia Denise Richards Bremerton, WA 2021-02-10

Haleigh Rice Columbia, MD 2021-02-10

Steph Myers Ashburn, VA 2021-02-10

Camden Crabb Anchorage, AK 2021-02-10

Sara burke Deer Park, TX 2021-02-10

Keegan Claassen Atchison, US 2021-02-10

Elizabeth Stambaugh Knoxville, TN 2021-02-10

angelique ibarra Oxnard, CA 2021-02-10

Cedar Thuotte Seattle, WA 2021-02-10

Name Location Date

Kai Sotelo Los Angeles, CA 2021-02-10

Nat Cot Santa Fe, NM 2021-02-10

Ahailya Keshane Kamsack, Saskatchewan, Canada 2021-02-10

Gabriella R Las Vegas, NV 2021-02-10

Shirley Thomas Seattle, WA 2021-02-10

Trevor LeLacheur Ruskin, FL 2021-02-10

Janae Miller Milton, FL 2021-02-10

Anton Berkbigler Lynnewood, WA 2021-02-10

Jordyn Gibson Tucson, AZ 2021-02-10

Claire Taylor Indianapolis, IN 2021-02-10

Lauren Jonas Saint Paul, MN 2021-02-10

Todd Howard Fallout, British Columbia, Canada 2021-02-10

C D Arlington, VA 2021-02-10

Fiona Forsythe Summerville, SC 2021-02-10

Sydney David Ramona, CA 2021-02-10

Mary Rankin Schenectady, NY 2021-02-10

Sudney Saleh Beaconsfield, Canada 2021-02-10

Dare Cowden Flower Mound, TX 2021-02-10

Kiana Martin North Vancouver, Canada 2021-02-10

Rebecca Sibinga Glen Mills, PA 2021-02-10

Kaden Russell Auckland, New Zealand 2021-02-10

Case Biagiotti Santa Ana, CA 2021-02-10

Name Location Date

Fullthrottle Axylotle Philippines 2021-02-10

Shay Johnson Moorpark, CA 2021-02-10

Madison Fisher Yakima, WA 2021-02-10

Katie Kurowski Alpena, US 2021-02-10

Pilar Garcia Murfreesboro, TN 2021-02-10

Marguerite Foley Philadelphia, US 2021-02-10

Griffin Runnels Costa Mesa, CA 2021-02-10

Malin Neis Germany 2021-02-10

Jesus Cervantes Wenatchee, US 2021-02-10

Morgan Geary Oklahoma City, OK 2021-02-10

Keith Spindle Chicago, IL 2021-02-10

Julie Semock Kent, OH 2021-02-10

Dallas Heaps Surrey, Canada 2021-02-10

Kat Sinclair Stirling, UK 2021-02-10

Adara Lix Placerville, CA 2021-02-10

Katherine Kluck Piscataway, NJ 2021-02-10

Tabitha Thayer Mishawaka, IN 2021-02-10

Blanca Hernandez Deming, US 2021-02-10

Richie Tozier Cape Town, South Africa 2021-02-10

Gussie Ruckdeschel Ellicott City, MD 2021-02-10

Kyle Franks Brea, US 2021-02-10

L Munoa Provo, UT 2021-02-10

Name Location Date

Michael Premore (Efargan) Los Angeles, US 2021-02-10

kit barrio Mexico City, Mexico 2021-02-10

Lynn Michalec Round Lake, US 2021-02-10

Human Rights New York, US 2021-02-10

Melanie O. Brooklyn, US 2021-02-10

Maria Schlaechter Cincinnati, OH 2021-02-10

Oretha Hancel Philadelphia, PA 2021-02-10

Heavyn Woods Newark, US 2021-02-10

Hayden Vickery Minneapolis, MN 2021-02-10

Mollyanne Neal Rapid City, SD 2021-02-10

Brandon Yacub Henderson, US 2021-02-10

Kade the Cat Hoover, AL 2021-02-10

Kenna Williams Gilbert, US 2021-02-10

Julie Cannon Roswell, US 2021-02-10

Safaa Mohamed Minneapolis, MN 2021-02-10

Caitlyn Cook Spokane, WA 2021-02-10

Gianna Robert Wakefield, US 2021-02-10

Gabe Diaz Lawrence, US 2021-02-10

Marian Krezanoski Fresno, US 2021-02-10

Dara Williamson Evanston, IL 2021-02-10

Jade Bolanos Fort Worth, US 2021-02-10

Aleigha Johnson Dover, US 2021-02-10

Name Location Date

Aleksei Sisco San Angelo, TX 2021-02-10

Avalon H Bloomington, IL 2021-02-10

Emma Michal Bayonne, NJ 2021-02-10

Delia Shaery Calgary, Canada 2021-02-10

karryn cooper Savannah, US 2021-02-10

Mario Machuca Las Vegas, NV 2021-02-10

Chloe Coombs Salt Lake City, UT 2021-02-10

Shelley Davis Denver, US 2021-02-10

Dinah Psittas Calistoga, US 2021-02-10

Nev Hess Wheeling, US 2021-02-10

Jaida Sieu Alameda, CA 2021-02-10

Ruby Gonzales New York, NY 2021-02-10

Cherokee DeLisle Modesto, CA 2021-02-10

Jessica Sanchez Las Vegas, US 2021-02-10

Luke Morgan Livonia, MI 2021-02-10

Isabella Breitenstein Fleetwood, US 2021-02-10

Grayce Hoskins Dallas, TX 2021-02-10

Megan Littell Grand Rapids, MI 2021-02-10

Mary Nunez Pico Rivera, CA 2021-02-10

Sierra King York, PA 2021-02-10

Ray Grande Lucena City, CALABARZON (Region IV-A),Philippines

2021-02-10

Name Location Date

Bri Garcia Visalia, CA 2021-02-10

Milka Hanhela Tampere, Finland 2021-02-10

ranbuu tan Las Vegas, NV 2021-02-10

Tom C. Mooresville, NC 2021-02-10

Keily Grimes Newport, OR 2021-02-10

Olivia W Richmond, US 2021-02-10

Brianna Carpenter Kennewick, WA 2021-02-10

Lukas Johnston Glasgow, UK 2021-02-10

Natalie Sterr Morenci, AZ 2021-02-10

Yeng Wong Singapore, Singapore 2021-02-10

R. Hill North Ridgeville, OH 2021-02-10

Aurora Atkins Baltimore, OH 2021-02-10

Simone Morgan Mississauga, Canada 2021-02-10

Marissa Oquendo Lakeland, FL 2021-02-10

azri marofawi Stillwater, OK 2021-02-10

Paris Smallwood Reno, NV 2021-02-10

Heather Jordan Chicago, IL 2021-02-10

Kristin James Vidor, TX 2021-02-10

Bea Alvarez Berkeley, CA 2021-02-10

Lask Watson Gladesville, Australia 2021-02-10

Mika James Kinloch, KS 2021-02-10

Hn Gun Trenton, NJ 2021-02-10

Name Location Date

amanda robbins anchorage, AK 2021-02-10

Valerie Kelner Brighton, MA 2021-02-10

Kelly-Ray Sparks Lawrence, KS 2021-02-10

Michelle Peralejo Los Angeles, CA 2021-02-10

Abbee Willig San Diego, CA 2021-02-10

Samira Saleh Alabama 2021-02-10

Michelle Ciceu Tel Aviv, Israel 2021-02-10

Zoe Wyatt Owasso, OK 2021-02-10

Arys Scott Auberry, CA 2021-02-10

BENNETT STRICKLER Portland, OR 2021-02-10

Kenna Brock Oregon 2021-02-10

Joanna Salvato Darien, IL 2021-02-10

Leah H Salina, KS 2021-02-10

Emily Mueggenberg Marion, IA 2021-02-10

Yuki Chen Richmond, Canada 2021-02-10

Joy Diaz Petersburg, VA 2021-02-10

Mikayla Vasquez-Salgado Albuquerque, NM 2021-02-10

natalie booth Ellicott City, MD 2021-02-10

Denisha Battle Valdosta, GA 2021-02-10

Kaylina Calzado Binghamton, NY 2021-02-10

Alan Cruz Laredo, TX 2021-02-10

Percy Patton Norman, OK 2021-02-10

Name Location Date

Devyn Couch Kirkland, WA 2021-02-10

Александра Марлова Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine 2021-02-10

Jillian Ford Valley Village, CA 2021-02-10

Björn Varinsson Helsinki, Finland 2021-02-10

Renee Boyett Eugene, OR 2021-02-10

Rayann P California 2021-02-10

Véve Moody Australia 2021-02-10

# # Turkey 2021-02-10

Blu Lee Everett, WA 2021-02-10

Leah Pfister Beaver Falls, PA 2021-02-10

Freja Højager Risskov, Denmark 2021-02-10

Savannah Wermund Algonquin, IL 2021-02-10

Volda Appia-Kusi Syracuse, US 2021-02-10

Toby Rane Canoga Park, CA 2021-02-10

Kat Woodmansee Redding, CA 2021-02-10

Brenna Leeds Carlisle, PA 2021-02-10

Emma S. Rotterdam, Netherlands 2021-02-10

Katie Johnston Seattle, WA 2021-02-10

Emily Sailors Rochester, MN 2021-02-10

Anti Eidolon Oxnard, CA 2021-02-10

Amalia Jungclaus Cottonwood, MN 2021-02-10

Sam Mah San Diego, CA 2021-02-10

Name Location Date

Nina Isaac Southampton, UK 2021-02-10

Jules Enriquez Ramsey, NJ 2021-02-10

Jade MacDannon Cedar City, UT 2021-02-10

Tamara Augustine Meadville, PA 2021-02-10

Liam Sitnik Brisbane, Australia 2021-02-10

Laci Hendrix South Bend, IN 2021-02-10

Lourdes Gilio Quilmes, Argentina 2021-02-10

Rowan Goss Forest Row, UK 2021-02-10

Ashley Keeley Moscow, ID 2021-02-10

jade kirk london, UK 2021-02-10

ayva samuelson Sydney, Australia 2021-02-10

Divine Agbeko McAllen, TX 2021-02-10

Noah Mason Louisville, KY 2021-02-10

Anysa Morris Mesa, AZ 2021-02-10

Alyssa Hunter Oakland, CA 2021-02-10

georgia tiegs Red Deer, Canada 2021-02-10

Everett Hall Sudbury, Canada 2021-02-10

Jeo Dorcely Oceanside, NY 2021-02-10

Peter Tkaczyk US 2021-02-10

Asher Bardes Beaverton, OR 2021-02-10

Jaden b Seattle, WA 2021-02-10

Rhianna Finch Ilford, UK 2021-02-10

Name Location Date

Rose Ariola Cerritos, CA 2021-02-10

Luisa Rosenberg Manchester, UK 2021-02-10

India Bowen Normal, IL 2021-02-10

Lillianna Neumann Larchmont, NY 2021-02-10

Saskia Yeah Austin, TX 2021-02-10

Georgia Reynolds Brisbane, Australia 2021-02-10

Tanja Babovic Novi Sad, Serbia 2021-02-10

Janais B Moorpark, CA 2021-02-10

Emma Feltrin Burwood, Australia 2021-02-10

Olivia Nugent Wakefield, RI 2021-02-10

Cecília Costa Porto Alegre, Brazil 2021-02-10

Perry Johnson London, UK 2021-02-10

Berry Muller São Paulo, Brazil 2021-02-10

Emily Yoxheimer Allendale, MI 2021-02-10

Högna Sól Iceland 2021-02-10

Makenzie Gilchrist Westlake, OH 2021-02-10

Brooke Rosekrans East Lansing, MI 2021-02-10

Kusari Burd broad brook, CT 2021-02-10

Katherine Cook La Crosse, WI 2021-02-10

Nimbid Ditavi Bogota, Colombia 2021-02-10

Fhaky Gauthier Lacroix saint ouen, France 2021-02-10

Vera Dalmasso Assago, Italy 2021-02-10

Name Location Date

Kit Perkins Carbondale, IL 2021-02-10

Melanie Cappoli Culver City, CA 2021-02-10

Claire Diaz Marikina, Philippines 2021-02-10

claire s eugene, OR 2021-02-10

Romi Mrazova Bratislava, Slovakia 2021-02-10

Maria Clara Ramos Brazil 2021-02-10

Diana Nur Singapore, Singapore 2021-02-10

Emma Garner Sheffield, UK 2021-02-10

An Ca Cuernavaca, Mexico 2021-02-10

John Gouthro Coventry, CT 2021-02-10

Sabrin El-Hussein Berlin, Germany 2021-02-10

Willow Q Portland, OR 2021-02-10

Sebastian Stevenson Nottingham, UK 2021-02-10

Anna Le Winnipeg, Canada 2021-02-10

Sandra Borges Parnamirim, Brazil 2021-02-10

Maria Bello Sanchez Tampa, FL 2021-02-10

Amber Vance Johannesburg, South Africa 2021-02-10

Madelyn Abatecola San Jose, CA 2021-02-10

Gracie Kruse Ayr, UK 2021-02-10

Caleb Campbell Warsaw, NY 2021-02-10

Nic Osinoff Hornell, NY 2021-02-10

Alex Teschlog Monroe, WA 2021-02-10

Name Location Date

Vanessa Rocha Snohomish, WA 2021-02-10

Gabrielle Moseley Burlington, NJ 2021-02-10

Sheridan Turner Iwade, UK 2021-02-10

Allison Lattin Albany, NY 2021-02-10

Kacey Ngo Mandaluyong City, Philippines 2021-02-10

Rose Mitchell Muncie, IN 2021-02-10

Lydia Samuelson Denton, TX 2021-02-10

Natalie Gordon Saint Louis, MO 2021-02-10

Jamie Verser Evanston, IL 2021-02-10

Ashley English Forest hill, MD 2021-02-10

adora nasser Santiago, Chile 2021-02-10

Jessica Pysz-Mutti Athol, MA 2021-02-10

Jordan Draschel Lexington, KY 2021-02-10

Arianna Skevington-Olivera Sarasota, FL 2021-02-10

Carly Klim Struthers, OH 2021-02-10

Christopher Holden Norwich, US 2021-02-10

Victoria vee San Diego, CA 2021-02-10

Kwame Daniels Henrico, VA 2021-02-10

Emily Hernandez Woodland Hills, CA 2021-02-10

A. Saito US 2021-02-10

Lenville Couch Georgetown, US 2021-02-10

Skyler Eyre WVC, UT 2021-02-10

Name Location Date

Fiona Sinclair Ceres, UK 2021-02-10

Sarah Nordin Skokie, IL 2021-02-10

Wilmer Canales Wheatley height, US 2021-02-10

Matilda P Slavonski Brod, Croatia 2021-02-10

Horgues Debat Christelle Metairie, US 2021-02-10

Liza Petruzzo Lakeville, MA 2021-02-10

randomissAnais xX14 Bulgaria 2021-02-10

Hannah Siegel Orlando, FL 2021-02-10

Zach Chandley Roswell, US 2021-02-10

Nicole Bruns Windsor, CA 2021-02-10

Alice Healy Dublin, Ireland 2021-02-10

Joshua Johnson Douglasville, GA 2021-02-10

Thomas Gardner New London, CT 2021-02-10

Mckenna Henley Pekin, IL 2021-02-10

T D East Hanover, US 2021-02-10

I Y Faversham, UK 2021-02-10

Sheila Porter Mansfield, MA 2021-02-10

Erica Sellers Branford, CT 2021-02-10

Emily Cook Seneca Falls, NY 2021-02-10

taylor stewart Brooklyn, NY 2021-02-10

Rebekah C. Orem, UT 2021-02-10

Emma H Ruther Glen, VA 2021-02-10

Name Location Date

Mary Claire Kodis Fallbrook, CA 2021-02-10

Teony Wind Alachua, FL 2021-02-10

Lauren Shay Volant, PA 2021-02-10

Ana Cabanas Vedra, Spain 2021-02-10

Tia Siddens San Diego, CA 2021-02-10

Emma Hodge Bradenton, FL 2021-02-10

Maura Elliott Newark, NJ 2021-02-10

Amanda Harris Troy, NY 2021-02-10

Hannah R Evanston, IL 2021-02-10

Diana Fitzovich Lexington, KY 2021-02-10

Ariana ST Central District, Hong Kong 2021-02-10

Janaína Rocha Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 2021-02-10

Evangeline Si Sunnyvale, US 2021-02-10

Maude Bédard Saint-lazare, Canada 2021-02-10

Nynke Klaver Amsterdam, Netherlands 2021-02-10

Tasia Wilson Virginia Beach, VA 2021-02-10

Sithish Jedi Rochdale, UK 2021-02-10

Rylee DuBose Purvis, MS 2021-02-10

Rain Cut Lethbridge, Canada 2021-02-10

Chelsey Judd Zephyrhills, FL 2021-02-10

Hiwon Kim Ridgefield, NJ 2021-02-10

Mary Enright Ridgewood, NJ 2021-02-10

Name Location Date

Vanessa Andrade dallas, TX 2021-02-10

Deniz Akkurt Philidelphia, PA 2021-02-10

Cecil J New York City, US 2021-02-10

Helen Walter Brunswick, ME 2021-02-10

mo been West Hartford, CT 2021-02-10

Annika Davenport Youngstown, OH 2021-02-10

sarah jeddy Toronto, Ontario, Canada 2021-02-10

Daniel Hernandez Burke, VA 2021-02-10

Sabrina Williams San Antonio, TX 2021-02-10

Marcela Amaral Campo Grande, Brazil 2021-02-10

Anna Dannecker Milwaukee, WI 2021-02-10

Sam G Oviedo, FL 2021-02-10

Samantha Torres Brooklyn, NY 2021-02-10

Meethana Singh Shitzville, DE 2021-02-10

Kayla Hewitt Coeur D'Alene, ID 2021-02-10

Liz Cueto New York, NY 2021-02-10

Erika Oppel Stanhope, NJ 2021-02-10

Jo Tellez Santiago, Chile 2021-02-10

Audrey E Hamden, CT 2021-02-10

Natalie Rubilar Forest, VA 2021-02-10

Emma Bijou Binghamton, NY 2021-02-10

Robert Ives Easthampton, MA 2021-02-10

Name Location Date

grace taylor Kitchener, Ontario, Canada 2021-02-10

Reed Glueckert Clermont, OH 2021-02-10

spicy pasta New Port Richey, ND 2021-02-10

Melanie Magana Saint Paul, MN 2021-02-10

Ren Kemp Atlanta, GA 2021-02-10

ERICKA Hodge American Canyon, CA 2021-02-10

Riley Deahl River Grove, IL 2021-02-10

Josephine Bowman Winston-Salem, NC 2021-02-10

Kate Cassidy Brighton, England, UK 2021-02-10

Kylie Pols Rockford, MI 2021-02-10

Laura Cola Australia 2021-02-10

Nikki Taylor US 2021-02-10

Shirley Méndez Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic 2021-02-10

bee rei Glasgow, UK 2021-02-10

Mes S. Toronto, Canada 2021-02-10

Sascha Janson Middelburg, Netherlands 2021-02-10

Ioana Nicolae Bucharest, Romania 2021-02-10

Kayleigh Hawkins Stevenage, UK 2021-02-10

Lindsey Heidal Minneapolis, MN 2021-02-10

Josephine Preuitt Warrensburg, MO 2021-02-10

Laura Lielbriedis Williamsburg, VA 2021-02-10

Abena Ayisi Ruston, LA 2021-02-10

Name Location Date

Katryna Petroff East Lansing, MI 2021-02-10

Dylan Green Gainesville, FL 2021-02-10

morgan Morgan Ville, US 2021-02-10

Hyacinth Wourms Montréal, Canada 2021-02-10

Makayla Wilson Palm Bay, FL 2021-02-10

Liam Cerone East Aurora, NY 2021-02-10

Annie Fowler ANNAPOLIS, MD 2021-02-10

finn c Umatilla, FL 2021-02-10

Megan Stephenson Chestnut Hill, MA 2021-02-10

Tahsin - Singapore, Singapore 2021-02-10

Cristian Maldonado El Paso, TX 2021-02-10

Manaar Yousef Orland Park, IL 2021-02-10

Emily Yang Toronto, Canada 2021-02-10

Evelyn Ruch Tower City, US 2021-02-10

Kendall Ol Austin, TX 2021-02-10

Orion Patten Pembroke, NC 2021-02-10

Jennifer Taylor Frisco, TX 2021-02-10

milo tadena Gainesville, VA 2021-02-10

Madhumanti Dey India 2021-02-10

Maksen Owen Independence, US 2021-02-10

Scott Young Huntsville, AL 2021-02-10

Lana Marina Kiel, Germany 2021-02-10

Name Location Date

carmen m gold coast, Australia 2021-02-10

Laura Hansen Copenhagen, Denmark 2021-02-10

Blaine Webb Hampshire, US 2021-02-10

Victoria Vickers Toronto, Canada 2021-02-10

Leo Xasib San Francisco, CA 2021-02-10

Hester Price Summersville, WV 2021-02-10

Victoria Snape Clinton, MA 2021-02-10

Olivia Traxler Omaha, NE 2021-02-10

Julia Bennett Austin, TX 2021-02-10

olivia winterrowd Manassas, VA 2021-02-10

Mia Amato Highland Lakes, NJ 2021-02-10

ALIZAY AWAIS Canada 2021-02-10

M Du Netherlands 2021-02-10

Jennifer Rodriguez Chicago, IL 2021-02-10

Emma Harris Lawrenceburg, KY 2021-02-10

Charlotte Ruggles Richmond, TX 2021-02-10

J L Toronto, Canada 2021-02-10

Chigozie Egbochue Snellville, GA 2021-02-10

Michael Fernandez Missouri City, TX 2021-02-10

Talia Atkinson Australia 2021-02-10

K. Murley Nepean, Canada 2021-02-10

Jessica Picard Winter Garden, FL 2021-02-10

Name Location Date

Breanne Crobok Troy, NY 2021-02-10

Gianna Oaldon Indianapolis, IN 2021-02-10

Cara Hodowanic Havertown, US 2021-02-10

chloe fitch Louisville, KY 2021-02-10

Abby John Philadelphia, PA 2021-02-10

Abby Doth Greenfield, IN 2021-02-10

Leah Hotchkiss Rockford, IL 2021-02-10

Chantilli Ball Binghamton, NY 2021-02-10

Linda McKenney Sarasota, FL 2021-02-10

Casey Coyle Madison, WI 2021-02-10

Madison Ehlers West Fargo, ND 2021-02-10

Angela Walsh Lincoln, NE 2021-02-10

Ash Mitcheson Exeter, UK 2021-02-10

Amelia Meyer Berlin, MD 2021-02-10

Lindsay clement lafayette, US 2021-02-10

Juliette Eckert Middletown, US 2021-02-10

Amy Lowe Mansfield, US 2021-02-10

Samantha Zimmerman Hayward, CA 2021-02-10

Isabella Rodrigues Mattapoisett, MA 2021-02-10

Isabelle Behning Jackson, TN 2021-02-10

al sonna Potomac, MD 2021-02-10

Rachael Mullen Durham, NC 2021-02-10

Name Location Date

Leo Joergensen West Winsor Township, NJ 2021-02-10

Erika Andrade Locust Grove, GA 2021-02-10

Catherine Choquette Davis, CA 2021-02-10

Rumi Lambert Brooklyn, NY 2021-02-10

Alyssa Gallotte Lafayette, CO 2021-02-10

adam Lastname Catford, UK 2021-02-10

Devin Reeves Columbus, OH 2021-02-10

Luca Rogoff Medford, MA 2021-02-10

Abby St.Don New Hartford, NY 2021-02-10

Sekela nzai Fort Worth, TX 2021-02-10

Grace DeZarn Cincinnati, OH 2021-02-10

Hillary Thornton Madison, NC 2021-02-10

Owen Myatt Hattiesburg, MS 2021-02-10

Soleil Townes Newark, NJ 2021-02-10

Allison Lee New orleans, US 2021-02-10

Jenna C city, MT 2021-02-10

Aoife Murphy Cork, Ireland 2021-02-10

William Ayres Dayton, OH 2021-02-10

Natasha Simpson Three Springs, PA 2021-02-10

daiana signo Buenos Aires, Argentina 2021-02-10

Raven Levy Brooklyn, NY 2021-02-10

Isabel Bester Johannesburg, South Africa 2021-02-10

Name Location Date

Emily Friedman Gl, IL 2021-02-10

sophia yee North Andover, MA 2021-02-10

Josette Cherry Portland, OR 2021-02-10

Alaina Pierce Hobart, IN 2021-02-10

Bethany Cable Scarborough, Canada 2021-02-10

Dani Gonzalez Pharr, TX 2021-02-10

Crys Water Säffle, Sweden 2021-02-10

Kiwi Rose Atlanta, GA 2021-02-10

Fiona Trussell Melissa, TX 2021-02-10

Austin Collier Campton, KY 2021-02-10

Lyndon Carrier Lake Charles, LA 2021-02-10

autumn flowers Union, NJ 2021-02-10

Sam Nieman Palatine, IL 2021-02-10

Nat B Sunnyvale, CA 2021-02-10

Elizabeth McLaughlin Alexandria, VA 2021-02-10

Allison Donovan New York, NY 2021-02-10

Louise Lundmark Malmö, Sweden 2021-02-10

Adrian Riojas Seattle, WA 2021-02-10

M Zeer Zagreb, Croatia 2021-02-10

loralie yeates pevensey, UK 2021-02-10

Jackie Kerner Bettendorf, IA 2021-02-10

Bettie Griffith Greenville, SC 2021-02-10

Name Location Date

david leo New York, NY 2021-02-10

Natalie Comer Midlothian, VA 2021-02-10

lena ali Doha, Qatar 2021-02-10

Shawna Feliciano Atlanta, GA 2021-02-10

ton no Albuquerque, NM 2021-02-10

Rebecca Nelson Naples, FL 2021-02-10

Jonas Ismail Burbank, CA 2021-02-10

Amara Anyanwu Sugar Land, TX 2021-02-10

suzanne cohen litchfield park, AZ 2021-02-10

Santana Big Bull Airdrie, Canada 2021-02-10

Ray McCready Edmonton, Canada 2021-02-10

lucy lm Pittsburgh, PA 2021-02-10

Rithika Nayar Allen, TX 2021-02-10

Sylvain Garon Edmonton, Canada 2021-02-10

Kaden Caraway Brewton, AL 2021-02-10

Belah Rat Highland Park, IL 2021-02-10

Reagan Smith Parry Sound, Canada 2021-02-10

Rainy Liu Buffalo, NY 2021-02-10

Rebecca Vance Alexandria, VA 2021-02-10

Sarah Mcneal Pleasanton, CA 2021-02-10

Lavada Koon Kokomo, US 2021-02-10

James Jumper US 2021-02-10

Name Location Date

Mary n Columbiana, OH 2021-02-10

Caraline Frost Columbus, OH 2021-02-10

Raelin G Tampa, FL 2021-02-10

mitchell brumfield Mooresville, US 2021-02-10

Catalina Aguirre Antofagasta, Chile 2021-02-10

Jaimie Sawyer Queen Creek, US 2021-02-10

Evelyn Mclear Springfield, PA 2021-02-10

Elizabeth Reyes Houston, US 2021-02-10

Adahi Gallardo Zapopan, Mexico 2021-02-10

Adahi Gallardo Zapopan, Mexico 2021-02-10

Carlye Moussette Granite city, IL 2021-02-10

Varya KM India 2021-02-10

Rory Marcks Hortonville, WI 2021-02-10

Emily Lesher Bernville, PA 2021-02-10

Shelby Kortz Murfreesboro, TN 2021-02-10

Sophia Holt Carlisle, PA 2021-02-10

Andre Kessel Rockville, MD 2021-02-10

Jason BovaHavers NEWCASTLE, WA 2021-02-10

Alexandra Chavarro Port Saint Lucie, US 2021-02-10

Zozo Monohaine Epsom, UK 2021-02-10

Caroline Zareba Chicago, IL 2021-02-10

Lucy Willis Florissant, US 2021-02-10

Name Location Date

Ashton Coon Carlisle, US 2021-02-10

Ramona Laschet Alpharetta, US 2021-02-10

Rhianna Mondesir Spring Valley, US 2021-02-10

Taylod DeTinne San Jose, US 2021-02-10

Jean Chagnon Montréal, US 2021-02-10

Eva Frank Neuwied, Germany 2021-02-10

bo no Lancaster, US 2021-02-10

Maria Cruz Varginha, Brazil 2021-02-10

Charlotte Meeley Louisville, KY 2021-02-10

Bryanna Bailey Renton, WA 2021-02-10

Lily Jones Shawnee, KS 2021-02-10

Carla Vecchio Roubaix, France 2021-02-10

Kaylise Owens Selden, US 2021-02-10

Brenna Polston Bowling Green, KY 2021-02-10

Ryan Ellison Carmichel, CA 2021-02-10

Dina Abdel-Aziz New York, KS 2021-02-10

August Pointer Mace Milwaukee, WI 2021-02-10

Madeline Lindquist Genoa, IL 2021-02-10

Ariel Richardson Pembroke, MA 2021-02-10

Irene vlastou Αθήνα, Greece 2021-02-10

Mona Herb Boughton Southampton, UK 2021-02-10

Luana Fellini Porto Alegre, Brazil 2021-02-10

Name Location Date

RayAnne Severe Tucson, AZ 2021-02-10

f n Secaucus, NJ 2021-02-10

Cameron Feiler Saint Petersburg, FL 2021-02-10

Phoenix P. Bridgewater, NJ 2021-02-10

Eliezer Gans-Crocker Wayne, PA 2021-02-10

Katelyn Larson Tallahassee, FL 2021-02-10

e squires Dunkirk, NY 2021-02-10

Al Riska US 2021-02-10

Ray Grabowski North East, MD 2021-02-10

Fiona Conn Kirkintilloch, UK 2021-02-10

katrina pehling San Francisco, CA 2021-02-10

Raydee Roque Honolulu, HI 2021-02-10

Samantha McConnell Bloomington, CA 2021-02-10

Rachael Judson Sharon, MA 2021-02-10

Ciaran Noort Minnedosa, Manitoba, Canada 2021-02-10

Anna Sallee Springfield, MO 2021-02-10

Vic Mazonas Canterbury, UK 2021-02-10

Sunny Romana Calgary, Canada 2021-02-10

May Tylers North Granby, CT 2021-02-10

Tessa K Marlborough, MA 2021-02-10

Kimoya Cameron Clinton, MD 2021-02-10

Alexis Arnason Alexandria, VA 2021-02-10

Name Location Date

Hannah Bauman Clare, MI 2021-02-10

Winder Thust New York, NY 2021-02-10

Darian Gomez Miami, FL 2021-02-10

Morgan Weatherly Corsicana, TX 2021-02-10

Emma Maki Thunder Bay, Canada 2021-02-10

Kasandra Zaldivar New York City, NY 2021-02-10

Kassandra Yeoumans Bonners Ferry, ID 2021-02-10

Rhianon Morris Elkhart, IN 2021-02-10

Julien Högfeldt Sweden 2021-02-10

Silvia Westbrooks Sacramento, CA 2021-02-10

ketaki nene Nagpur, India 2021-02-10

Sophia Wu Livingston, NJ 2021-02-10

Glenna Creer Orem, UT 2021-02-10

Janeel Oldroyd Manchester, UK 2021-02-10

Grace Roshka Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada 2021-02-10

Nat Corvoisier Clifton, NJ 2021-02-10

Nicholas MacMurtrie Austin, TX 2021-02-10

Nicole Morales Belmont, NC 2021-02-10

dory meyer Westminster, CA 2021-02-10

Jope Awomolo Snellville, GA 2021-02-10

Elizabeth Wright charlotte, NC 2021-02-10

Lauren Rogers Winchester, TN 2021-02-10

Name Location Date

Allison Jackson Brea, CA 2021-02-10

Abagail Kolk Akron, OH 2021-02-10

Bella shelton Richmond, TX 2021-02-10

Catt T Hempstead, NY 2021-02-10

Danie Flores Houston, TX 2021-02-10

A I Palomonte, Italy 2021-02-10

Annie Terault Alexandria, VA 2021-02-10

Avery Johns Henderson, NV 2021-02-10

Tabetha Jackson Wynantskill, NY 2021-02-10

brenna autery Canton, OH 2021-02-10

Imari B Louisville, KY 2021-02-10

Seshu Brahma Coppell, TX 2021-02-10

Erica Rose Lake Worth, FL 2021-02-10

Keira Knight Grande pointe, Canada 2021-02-10

Emily Amaro Canoga Park, CA 2021-02-10

Rev. Jeremiah Lennox Cohoes, NY 2021-02-10

Kate Laraway Fairhope, AL 2021-02-10

Cienna Santos San Diego, CA 2021-02-10

Allyson Thiessen Schenectady, NY 2021-02-10

Ashley Graf Sacramento, CA 2021-02-10

A Benesch Chicago, IL 2021-02-10

Carolina Flores San Antonio, TX 2021-02-10

Name Location Date

Adrian Cattell New York, NY 2021-02-10

Isabella Lamboy Princeton Junction, NJ 2021-02-10

Jackson Rodriguez Pittsfield, MA 2021-02-10

Jen Hebblewaite Westminster, MD 2021-02-10

Sarah Hartmann Bremen, Germany 2021-02-10

Maya Banno São Paulo, Brazil 2021-02-10

Peyton Flynn Bronxville, NY 2021-02-10

emily b North Richland Hills, TX 2021-02-10

Julia Gilbert Odenton, MD 2021-02-10

Rose Alfeeli Kuwait, Kuwait 2021-02-10

Riley Yard Mount Airy, NC 2021-02-10

Rebecca Barker St Charles, IL 2021-02-10

Green Green San Pedro, CA 2021-02-10

Isabelle Taylor Round Rock, TX 2021-02-10

Katherine Miller Austin, TX 2021-02-10

Percy Taylor Davenport, IA 2021-02-10

Christna Wong Richmond, TX 2021-02-10

Isabella Harrison Silver Spring, MD 2021-02-10

Quinn Levy Tampa, FL 2021-02-10

Guada Dopazo Isidro Casanova, Argentina 2021-02-10

Shelby Giesbrecht US 2021-02-10

Maile Sasaki Irvine, CA 2021-02-10

Name Location Date

Jason Prince Chicago, IL 2021-02-10

Ehud Kotegaro Tel Aviv, Israel 2021-02-10

Nadine Strobelt Nürnberg, Germany 2021-02-10

Ruby Malek Iowa City, IA 2021-02-10

Brooke Gipe Mckeesport, PA 2021-02-10

Amy Bowden Colchester, UK 2021-02-10

Alyssa Concepcion San Diego, CA 2021-02-10

Emily Hollwedel Ellicott City, MD 2021-02-10

Nicolas Quirke Newbury Park, CA 2021-02-10

Thomas Love Provost, Canada 2021-02-10

Michael Cramblet Muskegon, US 2021-02-10

Dominique Marichal Chicago, IL 2021-02-10

Lindsey Sparkman Boonsboro, MD 2021-02-10

Hannah Henschen Marine On Saint Croix, MN 2021-02-10

Emma Havens Evanston, IL 2021-02-10

S G Edmonton, Canada 2021-02-10

Fiona Rowat Mississauga, Canada 2021-02-10

Abi Danielson Cumberland, RI 2021-02-10

Angelique Duran San Jose, CA 2021-02-10

Mae Byrum Herndon, VA 2021-02-10

Michelle Gore Wynantskill, NY 2021-02-10

Lee Ennist Lakeland, FL 2021-02-10

Name Location Date

Nathaly Bayona West Palm Beach, FL 2021-02-10

Hush Herman Woodstock, IL 2021-02-10

Lance Bercan Laval, Canada 2021-02-10

kathy ran Ireland 2021-02-10

Elizabeth Norris Las Vegas, NV 2021-02-10

Helen Chavis Louisville, KY 2021-02-10

Lily Sand Cincinnati, OH 2021-02-10

Alex Schmit Monroe, NY 2021-02-10

Haven Berbel Mansfield, TX 2021-02-10

Laura Carina Beusse Germany 2021-02-10

Carly Cloward Bellingham, WA 2021-02-10

Elizabeth Barrow Sterling, VA 2021-02-10

Lorena Hinojosa La Grange, IL 2021-02-10

Elysia Curry Covington, KY 2021-02-10

Natalie O'Bannon Phoenix, AZ 2021-02-10

Ray Makowski Glen Ellyn, IL 2021-02-10

Madeline Paradise Navarre, FL 2021-02-10

Shaunte Gordon Twentynine Palms, CA 2021-02-10

Abby Bacalso Cupertino, CA 2021-02-10

esther alabi Powder Springs, GA 2021-02-10

Rynee Aviles Lubbock, TX 2021-02-10

Stefania Campos Nuevo Casas Grandes, Mexico 2021-02-10

Name Location Date

Ollie Baertschy Saint Louis, MO 2021-02-10

Clara Timphus Berlin, Germany 2021-02-10

Lianne K Los Angeles, CA 2021-02-10

Nyah Glass Tukwila, WA 2021-02-10

Corryn Thompson Peterborough, Ontario, Canada 2021-02-10

Holly Robson Bishop Auckland, UK 2021-02-10

Neve Dyle Chicago, US 2021-02-10

Felis MacLellan Montréal, Quebec, Canada 2021-02-10

Keely Tello Ciudad Hidalgo, Mexico 2021-02-10

Haley Vetter Seattle, WA 2021-02-10

Kailani Clarke Saint Michaels, US 2021-02-10

Sage Newcomer Westport, MA 2021-02-10

chantal rohlehr Ajax, Ontario, Canada 2021-02-10

Clara Fisher Keene, NH 2021-02-10

Oni Deimos Wheaton, IL 2021-02-10

Mila Ch Macedonia (FYROM) 2021-02-10

Atani Wilson Urbana, OH 2021-02-10

Grace Popp Royal Oak, MI 2021-02-10

leslie valdez Oklahoma City, OK 2021-02-10

Rebecca Schmit Greenbelt, MD 2021-02-10

Philip Snyder TURTLE CREEK, PA 2021-02-10

Lucius Noble Clovis, US 2021-02-10

Name Location Date

Molly GP Mystic, CT 2021-02-10

Katie Benson Manchester, UK 2021-02-10

William Scott Boise, ID 2021-02-10

H B Belfast, UK 2021-02-10

Carter Schrenker West Columbia, SC 2021-02-10

Robin Long Johnstown, NY 2021-02-10

Matthew Aguilera San Bruno, CA 2021-02-10

Katie Gruss Park Ridge, IL 2021-02-10

Shalee Moore Edmonds, WA 2021-02-10

Olivia Wilson London, UK 2021-02-10

Maria Therese Gainesville, GA 2021-02-10

Alicia Savercool Rochester, NY 2021-02-10

Alix Draper Atlanta, GA 2021-02-10

mars yos Riverside, CA 2021-02-10

Alexis Vallejo Spring Hill, FL 2021-02-10

Andi Blandford Lexington, KY 2021-02-10

Katie Liu Irvine, CA 2021-02-10

Meira Winchester Greece 2021-02-10

Rachel Partington Midlothian, VA 2021-02-10

Emma Burton Allentown, PA 2021-02-10

trixie moon Hollywood, FL 2021-02-10

Laura Ivy Brighton, MA 2021-02-10

Name Location Date

Elina Pussinen Helsinki, Finland 2021-02-10

Katelyn Stern Chatsworth, CA 2021-02-10

Hannah Sexton Oneida, TN 2021-02-10

Allison Lowe Channahon, IL 2021-02-10

Aria McDonald Chicago, IL 2021-02-10

nsd hj Chicago, IL 2021-02-10

Naliya Rubin Lacey, WA 2021-02-10

Alexa Tabora Yonkers, NY 2021-02-10

Saira Abraham Charlotte, NC 2021-02-10

KC Rowan Lewis Center, OH 2021-02-10

shea stidham Nicholasville, KY 2021-02-10

Cassidy Radtke Seatqc, WA 2021-02-10

Sam Burleigh Lake Stevens, WA 2021-02-10

Akio Shillings Rockwood, TN 2021-02-10

Barbara Stevenson North Bend, OR 2021-02-10

Katharyn Volz South Lebanon, OH 2021-02-10

Dumblekitty Meowsers Miami, FL 2021-02-10

Kathy Stoykova Minneapolis, US 2021-02-10

Salomé C Concepcion, Argentina 2021-02-10

shawn w Charleston, VA 2021-02-10

Rowan Neville Oak Park, IL 2021-02-10

Caro Taillefer Steinbach, Canada 2021-02-10

Name Location Date

Whitney Roach US 2021-02-10

Gabrielle Taber Arlington, TX 2021-02-10

Katherine Menendez Charlottesville, VA 2021-02-10

mary l Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada 2021-02-10

Winter Berry southend, UK 2021-02-10

Ashen Chase Eltham, Australia 2021-02-10

Olivia Perez Fort Collins, CO 2021-02-10

Ashlynn Mckenna Olympia, WA 2021-02-10

Gabe Labbe Port Coquitlam, Canada 2021-02-10

taylor hutchinson massapequa park, US 2021-02-10

Melissa Heithaus Mckinney, US 2021-02-10

Martha Rajewski Brooklyn, NY 2021-02-10

Hunt Abominable Philippines 2021-02-10

Natália França Maringa, Brazil 2021-02-10

Setareh Andersson Sweden 2021-02-10

El Harris Springfield, MO 2021-02-10

Nora Toor Hilliard, US 2021-02-10

A D Charlottesville, VA 2021-02-10

Chloe Rojas US 2021-02-10

Allyson Lee Ontario, US 2021-02-10

Alice Charvet Paris, France 2021-02-10

Grace Yang Lexington, MA 2021-02-10

Name Location Date

Ken Templeton Edmond, US 2021-02-10

Marceline Hunt Gainesville, FL 2021-02-10

Chichi Phiri Johannesburg, South Africa 2021-02-10

Parimala Narasimha Marietta, GA 2021-02-10

Jacy Conde Dakabin, Australia 2021-02-10

Lauren Minor Denver, CO 2021-02-10

Caroline Cohen Detroit, MI 2021-02-10

Katherine Krasinski Suffern, NY 2021-02-10

Katarina Nassif Earlwood, Australia 2021-02-10

Clay Taylor Baraboo, WI 2021-02-10

Geneviève F-K Toronto, Canada 2021-02-10

Kayla Peters Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada 2021-02-10

Kate Gonzales Georgetown, TX 2021-02-10

Teresa Manipadam Tampa, FL 2021-02-10

Bengi Asya Özdemir Ankara, Turkey 2021-02-10

Myah Smith Canton, GA 2021-02-10

Travis Covitz Ithaca, NY 2021-02-10

Aevi van der Stok Austin, TX 2021-02-10

Amelia Douglas Hersham, UK 2021-02-10

Hello People Somewhere, Australia 2021-02-10

Ben Buster Brookline, MA 2021-02-10

Amelia Schroeder Chicago, IL 2021-02-10

Name Location Date

Safa Khurshid Hamilton, NJ 2021-02-10

Glenda Milam Troy, NY 2021-02-10

Emily Smith Tempe, AZ 2021-02-10

Ginger Milam Albany, NY 2021-02-10

Shaina Milam Albany, NY 2021-02-10

Austen Milam Troy, NY 2021-02-10

Dan Mosher Albany, NY 2021-02-10

Ayden Flint Scranton, US 2021-02-10

Kristína Kóňová Nitra, Slovakia 2021-02-10

Maria Liovas Windsor, Canada 2021-02-10

Omar Cunningham Albany, NY 2021-02-10

Alex Moss Henderson, NC 2021-02-10

Multifandom Pam Slidell, LA 2021-02-10

Arturo Paz Sucre, Bolivia 2021-02-10

Andy OConnor Troy, NY 2021-02-10

Jackie Sullivan Milford, CT 2021-02-10

Ariella Jacobson Pompano Beach, US 2021-02-10

Adriana Lavan Miami, FL 2021-02-10

Alina Britschgi Nurmijärvi, Finland 2021-02-10

Spencer Romano Syaracuse, NY 2021-02-10

Jessica Barnes Raleigh, NC 2021-02-10

Abi Wibbens Ferndale, WA 2021-02-10

Name Location Date

Alana Taylor Brooklyn, NY 2021-02-10

C C California 2021-02-10

katherine heyman Nutley, NJ 2021-02-10

Casey R Poland, ME 2021-02-10

Joseph Breault Conway, SC 2021-02-10

Shael Endacott Garden City, ID 2021-02-10

Bryana Olmeda Fontana, CA 2021-02-10

Luis Velazquez Houston, US 2021-02-10

Daniel Brecken Ann Arbor, US 2021-02-10

lin ! ! US 2021-02-10

Len Langstaff Southaven, US 2021-02-10

Kristen Sullivan Billerica, MA 2021-02-10

Kiley W Jamaica Plain, MA 2021-02-10

Andrea Brito Berwyn, US 2021-02-10

sam i Warren, US 2021-02-10

Stephanie Liu New York, US 2021-02-10

Sharon Kay Tacoma, WA 2021-02-10

Sarina West Watertown, US 2021-02-10

Brigita Zufic Heilbronn, Germany 2021-02-10

Journie Jones Gulf shores, US 2021-02-10

Eurydice Sparks Topeka, KS 2021-02-10

Mars Balbirona Lake Stevens, WA 2021-02-10

Name Location Date

Ashton W Albany, OR 2021-02-10

Lesley Crutchfield Hopewell, US 2021-02-10

David Martinez Bellflower, US 2021-02-10

Linda INFANTE West Granby, US 2021-02-10

Ian Greiner Buffalo, US 2021-02-10

Trevor Strittmatter Deep River, US 2021-02-10

Mary Meyers Johns Island, US 2021-02-10

Soraia Fraser Taunton, US 2021-02-10

Chace Booth Salinas, US 2021-02-10

Alexandra Hamilton Seattle, WA 2021-02-10

Nicole Everling Eagan, MN 2021-02-10

Elyse Blank Saint Paul, MN 2021-02-10

Ava Turchan Scottsdale, AZ 2021-02-10

Abby baez Troy, NY 2021-02-10

Emily Kehn Albany, NY 2021-02-10

Adrian S Framingham, MA 2021-02-10

Elisha Pajares Lancaster new city, Philippines 2021-02-10

Caroline Luongo Wilmington, MA 2021-02-10

Laura Tague Bryn Mawr, PA 2021-02-10

Nyck Taylor Safford, AZ 2021-02-10

Sam Hoffman US 2021-02-10

Nicole Dalton Calgary, Canada 2021-02-10

Name Location Date

Elizabeth Osborne Halls Crossroads, TN 2021-02-10

Elizabeth Paul Mansfield, TX 2021-02-10

Destiny Pooler Waterville, ME 2021-02-10

Fernanda Rivera La Serena, Chile 2021-02-10

Isaiah Smith Philadelphia, PA 2021-02-10

Tea Elinska Skopje, Macedonia (FYROM) 2021-02-10

Aly Gillen Pomona, CA 2021-02-10

Mattison Dau Carrollton, GA 2021-02-10

Madeline Pitre Biloxi, MS 2021-02-10

Natalie Johnson Hot Springs Village, AR 2021-02-10

bailey hunt Accoville, WV 2021-02-10

Michelle Hernandez Garden Grove, CA 2021-02-10

Claire Villan Wylie, TX 2021-02-10

Emma Chowdhury Burlington, Ontario, Canada 2021-02-10

Ria Gupta Denton, TX 2021-02-10

Jade Lemmon Rolling Meadows, IL 2021-02-10

Alexzandria Balme South Lake Tahoe, CA 2021-02-10

Gabriela Mujica Orem, UT 2021-02-10

Pip B Perth, Australia 2021-02-10

Amirah Cooper Saginaw, MI 2021-02-10

Hannah Hinners Waterford, MI 2021-02-10

henry newman New York city, NY 2021-02-10

Name Location Date

Mara Shaw Portland, OR 2021-02-10

Ashton Self Azle, TX 2021-02-10

Bailey Bonham New Baltimore, MI 2021-02-10

Alexis M Las Vegas, NV 2021-02-10

Venika Bibra Laguna Hills, CA 2021-02-10

Shauna Herron Odenton, MD 2021-02-10

Daniel Walton Austin, TX 2021-02-10

Katherine Evers Medway, MA 2021-02-10

Madyson Fowlkes Oak Ridge, TN 2021-02-10

Bree Lynch Australia 2021-02-10

Brenda Ibarra Willcox, AZ 2021-02-10

Natalie Fleury Lithia springs, GA 2021-02-10

Dana Guy Philadelphia, PA 2021-02-10

Julie Lacey Austin, TX 2021-02-10

vincent bloodmarch Baie-comeau, Canada 2021-02-10

Lexi Aceves Grapevine, TX 2021-02-10

Maddi Zee Carmichael, CA 2021-02-10

Ally Feisel US 2021-02-10

Daphne Ortiz Anaheim, CA 2021-02-10

Sarah Grando France 2021-02-10

Syd Brannen Bear, DE 2021-02-10

Selin Abali Tenafly, NJ 2021-02-10

Name Location Date

hannah simental Oxnard, CA 2021-02-10

Adrielah Ramaila Portland, OR 2021-02-10

grace simental Oxnard, CA 2021-02-10

Keren Santamaria Montclair, CA 2021-02-10

Iza Frechette Woburn, MA 2021-02-10

Diego Mattos Araruama, Brazil 2021-02-10

Elżbieta Wojtkowska Rzeszow, Poland 2021-02-10

Leah Trunsky Bloomfield Hills, MI 2021-02-10

Misty Tabora Irvine, CA 2021-02-10

Brianna Casey Casper, WY 2021-02-10

Sam Callaghan Milton Keynes, UK 2021-02-10

Rita Smith Allison Park, PA 2021-02-10

Natalia Gutierrez Gilbert, AZ 2021-02-10

Nancy Little Washington, DC 2021-02-10

Freya Root Stephentown, NY 2021-02-10

Melissa Valenzuela Tucson, AZ 2021-02-10

brigid brickman Saint Cloud, FL 2021-02-10

Charles Ellinghaus MANHASSET, NY 2021-02-10

Angela Rojas Cleburne, TX 2021-02-10

Audrey McQuade Belmar, NJ 2021-02-10

Emmett Flaim US 2021-02-10

Quinn Barrett Corvallis, OR 2021-02-10

Name Location Date

Hannah Ritter Arlington, VA 2021-02-10

Rachel McBride Armoy, UK 2021-02-10

Olivia Timmons Redmond, WA 2021-02-10

Delia Severn Portland, OR 2021-02-10

Tammy Walsh Edmonton, Canada 2021-02-10

candelaria caeiro Argentina 2021-02-11

Zuleime Perez ENDICOTT, NY 2021-02-11

Victoria Cota Long Beach, CA 2021-02-11

Trinity falls Bend, OR 2021-02-11

Emilee Joyce Thornton, CO 2021-02-11

Halie Raby Apache Junction, AZ 2021-02-11

Laake dela garza League City, TX 2021-02-11

Harmony Simon Savona, British Columbia, Canada 2021-02-11

Sofia Staab-gulbenkian Los Angeles, CA 2021-02-11

Fuente Anónima Zapopan, Mexico 2021-02-11

Diesel Winchester Palm City, FL 2021-02-11

Edward Fascio-Burke Pittsburgh, PA 2021-02-11

cate macleod La Salle, IL 2021-02-11

Kit Rains Burlington, NC 2021-02-11

Brie Shanks Murfreesboro, TN 2021-02-11

vaishnave davendra Petaling Jaya, Malaysia 2021-02-11

gwenivere dumont concord, NH 2021-02-11

Name Location Date

Christine Hong Naaldwijk, Netherlands 2021-02-11

Maxine C. Van Nuys, CA 2021-02-11

Kate Tucci-Share Burbank, CA 2021-02-11

Iris Venhuis Zwolle, Netherlands 2021-02-11

Catherine Carter Westminster, MD 2021-02-11

Jax Lauberth Olathe, KS 2021-02-11

Miranda Oehler Saint Paul, MN 2021-02-11

Se D Hopkinton, MA 2021-02-11

Aisling Reilly Riverview, FL 2021-02-11

Alli Lim Markham, Canada 2021-02-11

Ellie Grushcow Toronto, Canada 2021-02-11

Caitlin West Schenectady, NY 2021-02-11

Lilly Poulton Lexington, SC 2021-02-11

Ella Mitchell Dayton, OH 2021-02-11

molleigh (pls) (jolie pls) long Rockford, IL 2021-02-11

Kamille Tracy Westwood, NJ 2021-02-11

Nicole Breithaupt Baton Rouge, LA 2021-02-11

Olivia Stevens San Antonio, TX 2021-02-11

Cameron Knight Painesville, OH 2021-02-11

Helen Kachur Westminster, MD 2021-02-11

Frankie Fay Edmonds, US 2021-02-11

Natalie Boskovic Mentor, OH 2021-02-11

Name Location Date

Ananda Letícia Carneiro Brazil 2021-02-11

Mary Masters Holland, MI 2021-02-11

I J Singapore, Singapore 2021-02-11

Haley Allen San Antonio, TX 2021-02-11

Emily Fust Marquette, MI 2021-02-11

Faith Tan Singapore, Singapore 2021-02-11

Joelle Tatter Chicago, IL 2021-02-11

Eszter Tamás Fishers, IN 2021-02-11

Marissa Bender Calgary, Canada 2021-02-11

Nimrat Dhaliwal Rockyview county, Alberta, Canada 2021-02-11

Natasha Langley Spokane, WA 2021-02-11

Janine Frost Cohoes, NY 2021-02-11

Daphne Imperial Naga City, Philippines 2021-02-11

rainy weekend Ellicott City, MD 2021-02-11

A Birb Central District, Hong Kong 2021-02-11

Morgan Pasquier Puyallup, WA 2021-02-11

Eulices Nunez Troy, NY 2021-02-11

Cynthia Thorin Los Angeles, US 2021-02-11

Gloria Kossou Hamden, US 2021-02-11

Paula Vekker Philadelphia, US 2021-02-11

Kenya Terr Greeley, US 2021-02-11

Kris Licht Lynnwood, WA 2021-02-11

Name Location Date

Kaia Kristjansson Chicago, US 2021-02-11

Alisha Foster Orlando, US 2021-02-11

Daniel O'Brien MILTON, US 2021-02-11

Morgan Smith Saint Louis, MO 2021-02-11

Elizabeth Trapani Waimanalo, US 2021-02-11

Dan De Yo Yorba Linda, US 2021-02-11

Steve Manhill Nowhere, US 2021-02-11

Abby Johnson Oneonta, US 2021-02-11

Samuel Mischio Madison, US 2021-02-11

Savannah Mork Fargo, US 2021-02-11

Jade Delacruz Austin, US 2021-02-11

Laurellyn Carson Florissant, MO 2021-02-11

Alyssia Beliveau Poughquag, US 2021-02-11

Zoe Mundy Bloomington, IL 2021-02-11

Trinity Williams Kissimmee, US 2021-02-11

Zenith Rodriguez Winter Springs, FL 2021-02-11

Anthony Scrimenti Guilderland, US 2021-02-11

Valarie Petter Spanaway, US 2021-02-11

Tiffany Schillereff Beaverton, US 2021-02-11

Angel Maria Slingerlands, NY 2021-02-11

Tatanisha blanks San Diego, US 2021-02-11

Sofia Hoag Traverse City, US 2021-02-11

Name Location Date

William Horrell Northridge, US 2021-02-11

Leon Jenkins Atlanta, US 2021-02-11

Getzemani Arroyo San Diego, CA 2021-02-11

Arika Struzinsky Cohoes, NY 2021-02-11

KellyRose Fluty Troy, NY 2021-02-11

Liam Noyle Leavenworth, WA 2021-02-11

Faith LeMay Rochester, US 2021-02-11

Tyler Petell East Greenbush, NY 2021-02-11

Jennifer Morrison Redford, MI 2021-02-11

E K Brattleboro, VT 2021-02-11

Hannah W Seattle, US 2021-02-11

Katie Yancey Little Rock, AR 2021-02-11

Michaella Difiore Wickliffe, OH 2021-02-11

Alexa Froehlich Summit, IL 2021-02-11

Ash Gyovai Oquawka, IL 2021-02-11

E. C. US 2021-02-11

Amara Matthews Liverpool, US 2021-02-11

britt w Zimmerman, MN 2021-02-11

Louise Reist New York, NY 2021-02-11

constanza bentancor mohegan lake, NY 2021-02-11

Emily Frost Cherry Valley, NY 2021-02-11

Miriam Feingold Golden Valley, MN 2021-02-11

Name Location Date

Zara Acosta Brooklyn, NY 2021-02-11

Marisa Brown Greensboro, NC 2021-02-11

Sydney Jones Flossmoor, IL 2021-02-11

Alana Walker Vallejo, CA 2021-02-11

Sariah Kinney Independence, MO 2021-02-11

Sara Massa Tiverton, US 2021-02-11

Siba Alzohaili Birmingham, MI 2021-02-11

Amanda Webster Tehachapi, US 2021-02-11

Sarah Kilsch Colorado 2021-02-11

Lou D Anaheim, CA 2021-02-11

Grace Thumser Bloomington, IN 2021-02-11

Alexa Gutin New York, NY 2021-02-11

Ereen Rafisura Highland Park, NJ 2021-02-11

Megan Celestine Angeles City, Philippines 2021-02-11

Victoria McSmith Salt Lake City, UT 2021-02-11

Hannah Boissier Eugene, OR 2021-02-11

Chandler Bryla Saint Petersburg, FL 2021-02-11

Carissa Skaarup Syracuse, NY 2021-02-11

Jess Thomas Fresno, CA 2021-02-11

Leah Stepanek Tully, NY 2021-02-11

Izzie Alunni Scranton, PA 2021-02-11

Casey Schnaible Medford, OR 2021-02-11

Name Location Date

Hazel Kasgur Philadelphia, PA 2021-02-11

Xhori Duncan San Antonio, TX 2021-02-11

Xochimilco Cortez Chicago, IL 2021-02-11

Suhani Pandey Delhi, India 2021-02-11

Klapollosimp101 Also lesbianlol

Kaunas, Lithuania 2021-02-11

reagan kausch Lumberton, NJ 2021-02-11

Alex Blackwell Coventry, UK 2021-02-11

Ayrdrie Peddle Brampton, Canada 2021-02-11

Dj K Murphysboro, IL 2021-02-11

Emma Lovelace Tobyhanna, PA 2021-02-11

Gabby Goodgame Los Angeles, CA 2021-02-11

Lauren Stockley Sheffield, UK 2021-02-11

Pàislig Greenlees Bellevue, OH 2021-02-11

Jeremy Teo Sydney, Australia 2021-02-11

Zainab Alshara Detroit, MI 2021-02-11

Viktorija Murane Riga, Latvia 2021-02-11

Emma Hodges Newberg, OR 2021-02-11

Gracie Eyers Milton Keynes, UK 2021-02-11

nod ggfw Twjyjsywj Skopje, Konče, Macedonia (FYROM) 2021-02-11

John Montgomery US 2021-02-11

N Schimensky Baltimore, MD 2021-02-11

Name Location Date

Grace Ellis Hull, UK 2021-02-11

Kaitlin Tea Olympia, WA 2021-02-11

Anna Treiblmayr Linz, Austria 2021-02-11

Jessica McNamara Bronxville, NY 2021-02-11

Merle Spiesen Hamburg, Germany 2021-02-11

Pablo LePuggo City, US 2021-02-11

Honey Devore Lancaster, CA 2021-02-11

kai newton Port Saint Lucie, FL 2021-02-11

Avalon Curnow Denver, CO 2021-02-11

Maryam Yussuf Ireland 2021-02-11

Tristan Åsvestad Trondheim, Norway 2021-02-11

Thais G. New York, NY 2021-02-11

Tammy Diaz Troy, NY 2021-02-11

Liz Blakely Santa Ana, CA 2021-02-11

Virginia DuBois US 2021-02-11

Amber Lowe West Fork, AR 2021-02-11

Leanea Edmundson San Diego, CA 2021-02-11

Iza Sraga Katowice, Poland 2021-02-11

Anyssa Montes Ripon, US 2021-02-11

Michaela Hackett Green Cove Springs, US 2021-02-11

Rebecca Hauk London, England, UK 2021-02-11

shane m Brooklyn, NY 2021-02-11

Name Location Date

Mark Davies Arlington, MA 2021-02-11

Egil Farro Columbus, OH 2021-02-11

Pearl Cyde Eshowe, South Africa 2021-02-11

Sawyer Al Curitiba, Brazil 2021-02-11

mel thompson sydney, Australia 2021-02-11

Dirt a Ohio 2021-02-11

Mounia Mayes Portland, OR 2021-02-11

Lucas Willis Silver Spring, MD 2021-02-11

Connor Cordwell Halethorpe, US 2021-02-11

Mimosa Jaskari Turku, Finland 2021-02-11

eli Friar Stockton-on-tees, UK 2021-02-11

Jana Risch Hamburg, Germany 2021-02-11

Char Rubinstein Dedham, MA 2021-02-11

Xiao Yumi Los Angeles, CA 2021-02-11

Goosby Gina Virginia Beach, VA 2021-02-11

Luisa Araujo São Paulo, Brazil 2021-02-11

Laura Ve amsterdam, Netherlands 2021-02-11

Mahailee Kemp Bloomington, IN 2021-02-11

Bob Forget Waterford, NY 2021-02-11

Aborah Badu Montréal, Canada 2021-02-11

gioia jung Munich, Germany 2021-02-11

Alyssa Benny Petaling Jaya, Sabah, Malaysia 2021-02-11

Name Location Date

LJ Mueller Alabama 2021-02-11

Felix Sousa Fort Worth, US 2021-02-11

Tallulah Henry Buffalo, NY 2021-02-11

Brianna Varanese Painesville, OH 2021-02-11

Grey Richardson Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK 2021-02-11

Azaree Jenkins Jacksonville, FL 2021-02-11

Gabriella Wolfe Virgie, KY 2021-02-11

Rex Evans Colorado Springs, CO 2021-02-11

Allisa James South Ozone Park, NY 2021-02-11

S Carter Cape Town, South Africa 2021-02-11

abby carlile Houston, TX 2021-02-11

kae d Pawtucket, RI 2021-02-11

Elena Stanciu Bucharest, Romania 2021-02-11

Basile Weyd Rethel, France 2021-02-11

airi hi Plainsboro, NJ 2021-02-11

Shy Brum New Orleans, LA 2021-02-11

Sarah Gorenflo Nampa, ID 2021-02-11

Michelle Miranda Miami, FL 2021-02-11

C B Pittsburgh, PA 2021-02-11

Jenesis Jiron Pueblo, CO 2021-02-11

Jane Pell Harrogate, UK 2021-02-11

Madeleine birke New Orleans, LA 2021-02-11

Name Location Date

Ashton Berst Arcadia, MI 2021-02-11

Kryssa Johnson Euclid, OH 2021-02-11

S M Bread Loaf, VT 2021-02-11

Mckenzie Martin Danville, CA 2021-02-11

V V.K Berlin, NH 2021-02-11

John Savaria Troy, NY 2021-02-11

Inês Vieira Vila Nova De Famalicão, Bragança,Portugal

2021-02-11

Zoe McDonald Salt Lake City, UT 2021-02-11

andy mejia Dallas, TX 2021-02-11

andy mejia Dallas, TX 2021-02-11

Debra Dizin Oakland, CA 2021-02-11

Alice Obada Romania 2021-02-11

Alisha Brown Bridgwater, UK 2021-02-11

emelia ammerson Philadelphia, PA 2021-02-11

Alora Hazel Newport, Canada 2021-02-11

Noah Gustavson Old Bridge, US 2021-02-11

Briana Brandenburg Cleveland, OH 2021-02-11

Klaus Voss Tampa, FL 2021-02-11

Elizabeth Scheel-Keita Brooklyn Park, MN 2021-02-11

Gemma Inkyboots Malton, UK 2021-02-11

Kara Headley East Lansing, MI 2021-02-11

Name Location Date

Janice Burns Mechanicville, NY 2021-02-11

Myrrh Sewell Cincinnati, OH 2021-02-11

eva wakil Toronto, Canada 2021-02-11

Theresa Murray Troy, NY 2021-02-11

Anshannay Griffin Millville, US 2021-02-11

ali vieira Fall River, MA 2021-02-11

ELISABETH BROWN Schenectady, NY 2021-02-11

kristie johnson Morrison, US 2021-02-11

Cat Tolbert Santa Rosa Beach, US 2021-02-11

Frank Peoples Estero, FL 2021-02-11

Richard Whaley Eureka, US 2021-02-11

penny lewis New York, NY 2021-02-11

Titus Lau Rosemead, US 2021-02-11

Juan Bar Owatonna, US 2021-02-11

Abner Vasquez Edcouch, US 2021-02-11

Ron White Philadelphia, US 2021-02-11

Jennifer Hu Royal Oak, MI 2021-02-11

Yvone Ortega Anaheim, US 2021-02-11

Amanda Edmonds Glen Head, NY 2021-02-11

Leticia Ortiz La Mirada, US 2021-02-11

Alex Jaramillo Bolingbrook, US 2021-02-11

Katherine Perrin Saint Louis, MO 2021-02-11

Name Location Date

Cyril Owusu Clarksville, US 2021-02-11

Emily Berard Melbourne, US 2021-02-11

Emily Zhao Gainesville, US 2021-02-11

Jacob Mason Pinellas Park, US 2021-02-11

Kimberly Domínguez Deming, US 2021-02-11

Alphonso Kenny Bronx, US 2021-02-11

Cristyn Magnus Albany, NY 2021-02-11

Austin Ward Corvallis, OR 2021-02-11

Emma alice Gadsden, AL 2021-02-11

tara paulson fremont, US 2021-02-11

Rochelle Bondieumaitre Miami, FL 2021-02-11

Moises Navarrette Payson, US 2021-02-11

Nova Finn Holyoke, US 2021-02-11

Kari Johnson Aiken, US 2021-02-11

Rochelle Douglas-Holt St. Louis, US 2021-02-11

Lael Newton Seattle, WA 2021-02-11

Blaire Moore Tallahassee, FL 2021-02-11

Jade Wilson Syracuse, NY 2021-02-11

Maria Ramirez Bronx, NY 2021-02-11

Roger Kulp Albuquerque, NM 2021-02-11

Kiana Limon Houston, TX 2021-02-11

Elise Mazzeo Nashville, TN 2021-02-11

Name Location Date

Marisa Paterson Kitchener, Canada 2021-02-11

Casey Fern Johannesburg, South Africa 2021-02-11

Lilly O Schenectady, NY 2021-02-11

Mal H Waxhaw, NC 2021-02-11

Shoshana Fendel Hawthorne, CA 2021-02-11

Erica Kuhlmann Olney, US 2021-02-11

Eden Lim Oakville, Ontario, Canada 2021-02-11

Sofia Mantovani Jaguariuna, Brazil 2021-02-11

Brooklynn Curry Douglasville, GA 2021-02-11

Chelsy Jo Shawano, WI 2021-02-11

emma fraser Toronto, Ontario, Canada 2021-02-11

Josie Hilton Olathe, KS 2021-02-11

Isabella Quintana La Mesa, CA 2021-02-11

lillian z Bellingham, WA 2021-02-11

Carly Medved San Diego, CA 2021-02-11

Maya Hefty Muncie, IN 2021-02-11

Lydia Rosenberg St. Paul, MN 2021-02-11

Meredith Weinstock Seattle, WA 2021-02-11

Malena Valdez Córdoba, Argentina 2021-02-11

Carson Poole Temecula, CA 2021-02-11

Daniel Zafer-Joyce San Jose, CA 2021-02-11

Madison Sturdevant Lebanon, US 2021-02-11

Name Location Date

Clara Meade Toronto, Ontario, Canada 2021-02-11

robyn j Mundelein, IL 2021-02-11

Amber Grear Canada 2021-02-11

Sarah Sutter Lancaster, PA 2021-02-11

Laurel Black Little Rock, AR 2021-02-11

Noah Hunt Saint Paul, MN 2021-02-11

anonymous . Assenovgrad, Bulgaria 2021-02-11

Aleesa Tasayco Farmingdale, NY 2021-02-11

Olivia Berry miami, FL 2021-02-11

Ricky Voogt-Amirault Toronto, Canada 2021-02-11

Ava Duckhorn Villanova, PA 2021-02-11

Claudia Van Winkle indianapolis, IN 2021-02-11

Ashlei Gosha Houston, TX 2021-02-11

F C Wisbech, UK 2021-02-11

Charlie Bond Camberley, UK 2021-02-11

Jennafer Fogarty Watertown, NY 2021-02-11

Melinda Amorosi Ambler, US 2021-02-11

Jillian Dinh Fountain Valley, CA 2021-02-11

Kaekanna Gintoli Daytona Beach, FL 2021-02-11

Avani G New Brunswick, NJ 2021-02-11

Sophie Johnson Penthalaz, Switzerland 2021-02-11

Green Anonymous Bari, Italy 2021-02-11

Name Location Date

Katie Gower Seattle, WA 2021-02-11

Ellie Tabb Chester, UK 2021-02-11

Theodor Rohan Carmel, IN 2021-02-11

Anna Laidler East Stroudsburg, US 2021-02-11

Jayna Elliott Griffithsville, US 2021-02-11

Jasen Meyers Kent, US 2021-02-11

Michael Randall Queens, US 2021-02-11

Lexie Oquendo Middletown, US 2021-02-11

Oronde Lowery Tucson, US 2021-02-11

Meghana Shrestha Vienna, US 2021-02-11

Tony Moore Chicago, US 2021-02-11

Chris Silva Concord, US 2021-02-11

Phil Meyer Philadelphia, US 2021-02-11

mia Laplante US 2021-02-11

Roxy Billups Linden, US 2021-02-11

Jamiir Hill Alexandria, US 2021-02-11

Charles Oliver Richmond, US 2021-02-11

isabella smith US 2021-02-11

Edwin Acevedo New York, US 2021-02-11

Yolanda Jean Atlantic City, US 2021-02-11

Sydney Mcbride Riverside, US 2021-02-11

Stephany García Stockton, US 2021-02-11

Name Location Date

Autumn Garcia Oak Harbor, US 2021-02-11

Rashawn Key Douglasville, US 2021-02-11

Raymond Rhoden New York, US 2021-02-11

Darnell Martin Bloomfield Hills, US 2021-02-11

Orlando Obregon Dallas, US 2021-02-11

lacey rice New York, US 2021-02-11

James Ray Windsor Mill, US 2021-02-11

Sofia Macdonald San Francisco, CA 2021-02-11

Damian Cooper Warren, US 2021-02-11

Jermond Green Jacksonville, US 2021-02-11

Aaron Reisman Dallas, US 2021-02-11

Justin Payne Bronx, US 2021-02-11

Marielena Perez Laredo, US 2021-02-11

julia goodwin Chevy Chase, MD 2021-02-11

Dominic Maua Stockton, US 2021-02-11

L Bush US 2021-02-11

Ronald Armstead Philadelphia, US 2021-02-11

Raymond mateo El Paso, TX 2021-02-11

Troy Willis Bronx, US 2021-02-11

Ronnie Chandler Detroit, US 2021-02-11

Jaquan Smith Louisville Kentucky, US 2021-02-11

Shamia Hammond Livonia, US 2021-02-11

Name Location Date

Latasha Bryant Indianapolis, US 2021-02-11

Xander Champagne US 2021-02-11

Christopher Bynum San Pedro, US 2021-02-11

Devon Strand Marion, US 2021-02-11

Charles Wilson New Orleans, US 2021-02-11

Angela Kraucak Jersey City, US 2021-02-11

Marquise Young Philadelphia, US 2021-02-11

Sheri Zane Charlotte, US 2021-02-11

Aleecia Starr Kansas City, US 2021-02-11

Brooklyn Dibbern Greenwood, US 2021-02-11

Elijah Corbin Philadelphia, US 2021-02-11

ur mom Lomita, US 2021-02-11

Ziriyah Rodriguez Reading, US 2021-02-11

Nate Lassic West Point, US 2021-02-11

Brandie Anderson Shelton, US 2021-02-11

Justyn Ricketts Charlotte, US 2021-02-11

Tom On Solon, US 2021-02-11

Vivian Williams Los Angeles, US 2021-02-11

Kylie Tenorio Honolulu, US 2021-02-11

Jocelyn Martinez Las Vegas, US 2021-02-11

Nareli Zetina Santa Paula, US 2021-02-11

Melina lloyd Calhoun, US 2021-02-11

Name Location Date

Alice Arigo Fresh Meadows, US 2021-02-11

Elizabeth Jagelski Denver, CO 2021-02-11

Javier Greene Raleigh, US 2021-02-11

Inês Rocha Lisbon, Portugal 2021-02-11

Keiryn McNiff Minneapolis, MN 2021-02-11

Caroline McClung Durango, CO 2021-02-11

Vageesha Pathak Troy, NY 2021-02-11

Michaela Miller Endicott, NY 2021-02-11

Lily Jane Shiels Penzance, UK 2021-02-11

Khalil O'Dell Cold Lake, Alberta, Canada 2021-02-11

Theo Myslichuk Regina, Canada 2021-02-11

Lois Griffin Providence, RI 2021-02-11

Vivika E Alhambra, CA 2021-02-11

Ren Corder Liverpool, UK 2021-02-11

natalie cieprisz New York, NY 2021-02-11

Cara Shannon Asbury, NJ 2021-02-11

Catherine Gilliam Philadelphia, PA 2021-02-11

Iris van woerkom Netherlands 2021-02-11

Nicole Escamilla Simi Valley, CA 2021-02-11

Frida Rørvik Sogndal, Norway 2021-02-11

Mary Prackett Jerusalem, Israel 2021-02-11

Ella S Brisbane, Australia 2021-02-11

Name Location Date

Rachel Zuraek Seattle, WA 2021-02-11

Isabella Leeman Los Angeles, CA 2021-02-11

Lindsey Z. Seattle, WA 2021-02-11

Olivia B Australia 2021-02-11

Lizeth Otero Mexico 2021-02-11

Kenneth Keenan Cohoes, NY 2021-02-11

Franziska Keller Munich, Germany 2021-02-11

Cynthia Stevens Spokane, WA 2021-02-11

Angel Acevedo New Braunfels, TX 2021-02-11

Kaila Franklin Fort Lauderdale, DC 2021-02-11

Lilly Davis Nogales, AZ 2021-02-11

Carina Haug Mo i Rana, Norway 2021-02-11

Scout W West Mifflin, PA 2021-02-11

Elinore McLain Falls Church, VA 2021-02-11

Ana Livia Fazenda Rio Grande, Brazil 2021-02-11

Loretta Pyles Delmar, NY 2021-02-11

Rowan Reist Wellsboro, PA 2021-02-11

Magda Duda Katowice, Poland 2021-02-11

Jay Caldwell Marquette, MI 2021-02-11

Linh Vuong Santa Barbara, CA 2021-02-11

Igor Amorim Campos Cuiaba, Brazil 2021-02-11

Mia Ramsey NotReal, CA 2021-02-11

Name Location Date

Laurel Murphy Indianapolis, IN 2021-02-11

Teddy Smith Indianapolis, IN 2021-02-11

Ismael Torrez West Allis, WI 2021-02-11

Luana Alves Itapecerica, Brazil 2021-02-11

John Stegemann Wynantskill, NY 2021-02-12

Caroline Gillespie West Hartford, CT 2021-02-12

Wendell Foda Dias Curitiba, Brazil 2021-02-12

Ginger Anders Collierville, TN 2021-02-12

Miranda Marx Pawnee, IL 2021-02-12

J Hue Port Washington, WI 2021-02-12

Meghan Sullivan Wynantskill, NY 2021-02-12

Cynthia Corl Los Angeles, CA 2021-02-12

Tanya Guzman Seattle, WA 2021-02-12

Joanna Ahlatis Saratoga Springs, NY 2021-02-12

Jade Madrid Gardendale, TX 2021-02-12

Kate Jacob Ellicott City, MD 2021-02-12

Quinn Eyster Columbus, NJ 2021-02-12

Zoe Carlson Minneapolis, MN 2021-02-12

Allyson Jones Mount Vernon, US 2021-02-12

Brittney Mickaliger Shirley, NY 2021-02-12

Anna Boekelheide Charlotte, NC 2021-02-12

Amanda Keith Austin, TX 2021-02-12

Name Location Date

Bella Hartmann Oakland, CA 2021-02-12

jordyn c wi, NY 2021-02-12

Jordan Davis Pelzer, SC 2021-02-12

mav rick Stockton, CA 2021-02-12

Natalie Roberts Columbia, MO 2021-02-12

Angela Wait Austin, TX 2021-02-12

Isabel Rodriguez Baltimore, OH 2021-02-12

Kat Joy Portland, OR 2021-02-12

Allen Sharpe US 2021-02-12

Kelsea O'Reilly Palmetto, FL 2021-02-12

Bajha Braddy Houston, TX 2021-02-12

Sarah Johnson Gatineau, Quebec, Canada 2021-02-12

sasha b Guarulhos, Brazil 2021-02-12

Anna Dumancic Port Moody, Canada 2021-02-12

Cleo Santos New Hyde Park, NY 2021-02-12

Rebekah Jakola Washington, DC 2021-02-12

RA Rhodus Excelsior Springs, MO 2021-02-12

Alexa Marines Orland Park, IL 2021-02-12

Robin Pegau Cordova, AK 2021-02-12

Amy G Exeter, England, UK 2021-02-12

Rebecca Strathman Leander, TX 2021-02-12

Devin Williams Columbus, GA 2021-02-12

Name Location Date

Daylen Kilgallon Norman, OK 2021-02-12

Logynn Bishop Auburn, IN 2021-02-12

Krishna Cousins Washington, DC 2021-02-12

Grace Smith Kalamazoo, US 2021-02-12

Rebecca DeAngelis Dobbs Ferry, NY 2021-02-12

Jordan Williams West Palm Beach, FL 2021-02-12

Asa Benjamin Minneapolis, MN 2021-02-12

Leren Hilde A. Oslk, Norway 2021-02-12

Elizabeth Everitt Madison, WI 2021-02-12

Katie Faustlittle Northampton, MA 2021-02-12

Jillian Hill Bakersfield, CA 2021-02-12

Madeleine McCullough auck, New Zealand 2021-02-12

Valerie Partenheimer Parker, CO 2021-02-12

Shruti Sharma Escondido, CA 2021-02-12

Seymour S US 2021-02-12

Emily MacLean Kingston, RI 2021-02-12

Ahmad Hijazi Clifton Park, NY 2021-02-12

Anjelica Mitlitsky Wayne, NJ 2021-02-12

Johanna Stone Charlotte, NC 2021-02-12

Josie Vaughn Cincinnati, OH 2021-02-12

Hannah Ceselski Pasadena, CA 2021-02-12

Sonia Makins Adelaide, Australia 2021-02-12

Name Location Date

Illyana Walz Vancouver, WA 2021-02-12

Jane Zegarra San Marcos, CA 2021-02-12

Emily Johnson Portland, OR 2021-02-12

Elizabeth Franklin Zephyrhills, US 2021-02-12

Courtney Barth New York, NY 2021-02-12

Paige Matos Charlotte, NC 2021-02-12

Hailey VanDemarr Vancouver, WA 2021-02-12

Ellie Egan Arlington, MA 2021-02-12

Ilham Mohamud Mississauga, Canada 2021-02-12

Serena Senko Pico Rivera, CA 2021-02-12

Suzanne Winchester Tampa, FL 2021-02-12

Jailah Lytch Monroe, NC 2021-02-12

Ari B Kista, Sweden 2021-02-12

Danny Canning Brooklyn, NY 2021-02-12

Nora Hagkull Valencia, US 2021-02-12

Amelia Schwarz Olathe, KS 2021-02-12

Kiara Lencz Australia 2021-02-12

Taliesin Voltania West Point, MS 2021-02-12

Danica Engen Winnipeg, Canada 2021-02-12

Kelly Sanabria Ardmore, US 2021-02-12

Julie loomis Yellowknife, Canada 2021-02-12

Kali Arreola Upland, CA 2021-02-12

Name Location Date

Zara Shaikh Karachi, Pakistan 2021-02-12

Imogen Flanagan Hobart, Australia 2021-02-12

Levia Roskopf Tacoma, US 2021-02-12

Lauren Fahrner Ballwin, MO 2021-02-12

Billie Parrett Independence, KY 2021-02-12

Isla Cameron Livingston, UK 2021-02-12

Oskar Lindholm Göteborg, Sweden 2021-02-12

Indy Charles California 2021-02-12

Chiara Roncato Italy 2021-02-12

Amber van der wielen Netherlands 2021-02-12

Vicky Lam Sydney, Australia 2021-02-12

Cheryl Parrish Columbus, GA 2021-02-12

Sofie B Lillehammer, Sogn og Fjordane, Norway 2021-02-12

Helen Kaiser Buchholz In Der Nordheide, Germany 2021-02-12

Sarah Cardenas Riverside, CA 2021-02-12

catherine leivonen Manassas, VA 2021-02-12

Vivi Cris Londrina, Brazil 2021-02-12

Ashita Yedida Surat, India 2021-02-12

N P Edgewater, MD 2021-02-12

Brendan Goetzke Annapolis, MD 2021-02-12

Grace DePanise Saint Michaels, MD 2021-02-12

Milagros Toledo Philadelphia, US 2021-02-12

Name Location Date

Shay Partin Mansfield, US 2021-02-12

Lauren Hedges Shinglehouse, US 2021-02-12

Amari Ingram Bronx, US 2021-02-12

Chris Raymond Roselle, US 2021-02-12

Anthony Scott Concord, US 2021-02-12

Lucy McCain Pelahatchie, MS 2021-02-12

Lorri Englese Laporte, US 2021-02-12

Stanley Brown Rocky Mount, US 2021-02-12

Joseph Daigle Annapolis, MD 2021-02-12

Grady Youngblood Fort Lauderdale, US 2021-02-12

lil koto Miami, US 2021-02-12

Yajaira Perez Florez Minneapolis, US 2021-02-12

Jermain Totten Charlotte, US 2021-02-12

Chloe Samuel Walton, US 2021-02-12

Rajeam Phillips Stroudsburg, US 2021-02-12

Angelina Amor Fair lawn, US 2021-02-12

Kayla Fortuna Ambridge, US 2021-02-12

Eden Black Jefferson, US 2021-02-12

sophie allen US 2021-02-12

Nathan Crispen Butler, US 2021-02-12

Zoey White Elgin, US 2021-02-12

Donna Daly Yonkers, US 2021-02-12

Name Location Date

Trevor Berger Northport, US 2021-02-12

Mili Jha West Lafayette, IN 2021-02-12

Briana Bryner Marinette, WI 2021-02-12

Sabrina Penn Annapolis, MD 2021-02-12

Tanya Kambou Rockville, MD 2021-02-12

Madison Chambers Windsor, Ontario, Canada 2021-02-12

Louisa Hoback Lincoln Park, MI 2021-02-12

Nikola Swaney US 2021-02-12

Grace M Waverly, US 2021-02-12

Natalie Cline Dublin, OH 2021-02-12

Sarah Arcis France 2021-02-12

Mira Gutoff San Francisco, CA 2021-02-12

Michel Foreman Xenia, IL 2021-02-12

Octavio Perez Latorre Godoy Cruz, Argentina 2021-02-12

Natassia Watson Santa Barbara, CA 2021-02-12

Nadia Allan Philadelphia, PA 2021-02-12

Mia Bridges Virginia 2021-02-12

Nina Erichson Fullerton, CA 2021-02-12

Edd Ma Cupertino, CA 2021-02-12

Sydney Stutsman Indianapolis, IN 2021-02-12

Isaac Wilson Gwynn Oak, US 2021-02-12

Zoe Outcalt Greenfield, US 2021-02-12

Name Location Date

Julia Clark Burlington, NJ 2021-02-12

Masha Novoselova Saratoga, CA 2021-02-12

Samod Smith Newark, US 2021-02-12

Julia Kelly Rio De Janeiro, Brazil 2021-02-12

Claire Fetgatter Midland, VA 2021-02-12

Gabriela Gusetelu Hamburg, US 2021-02-12

Charlotte Spencer US 2021-02-12

Emily Peterson San Diego, US 2021-02-12

Doris Springfield Indianapolis, US 2021-02-12

Damian Martin Homestead, US 2021-02-12

Sacha Perry-Fagant Summerland, Canada 2021-02-12

Eliana Griffin Dayton, US 2021-02-12

Kory Berg Longmont, US 2021-02-12

A Del Grosso US 2021-02-12

Lilly Banana Helena, US 2021-02-12

Olivia Peck Carlsbad, US 2021-02-12

Quan Jackson Accokeek, US 2021-02-12

Gabrielle Clark Memphis, US 2021-02-12

Rishon Young Minneapolis, US 2021-02-12

Reginald Butler Baltimore, US 2021-02-12

Jo Jo Bronx, US 2021-02-12

Olivia Deep Albany, NY 2021-02-12

Name Location Date

Matthew Calero Sulphur, LA 2021-02-12

Evelyn Reilly Rocky mount, VA 2021-02-12

hallie h Minneapolis, MN 2021-02-12

Jonathon weeks Weeks Seattle, WA 2021-02-12

Olivia Bullivant Baltimore, US 2021-02-12

Shannon Carroll Homer Glen, IL 2021-02-12

Maddie Cranston Toronto, Ontario, Canada 2021-02-12

Nicole Diem Simi Valley, CA 2021-02-12

Sarah Ennals Toronto, Canada 2021-02-12

Miguel Hernandez Philadelphia, US 2021-02-12

Peter Rolon Orlando, US 2021-02-12

Scott Robinson Cedar Springs, US 2021-02-12

Adia Ptacek Champaign, IL 2021-02-12

Rene Ruiz Bronx, US 2021-02-12

Shawn Dasilva Denver, US 2021-02-12

Rivera Jesus El Monte, US 2021-02-12

Ryan Floyd Catasauqua, US 2021-02-12

Kimana Thacker Rhome, TX 2021-02-12

Komron Mohseni Seattle, US 2021-02-12

Monabell Pastrana Hemet, CA 2021-02-12

Wendy Bowman Lacey, US 2021-02-12

Lesly Enriquez Houston, US 2021-02-12

Name Location Date

Henry Alvarez Boston, US 2021-02-12

Hannah Lehew Indian Head, US 2021-02-12

Eva Blankenship Nicholasville, US 2021-02-12

rosario muniz Huntington Park, US 2021-02-12

Jon Hagen Fort Myers, US 2021-02-12

ana wells East Northport, NY 2021-02-12

Kathie Barr Dyer, US 2021-02-12

Antonio Colletta Bakersfield, CA 2021-02-12

Hope L Providence, RI 2021-02-12

Emilie Radle Severna Park, MD 2021-02-12

Marvin Harris Brooklyn, NY 2021-02-12

Trevor Salmans Barrington, RI 2021-02-12

Kyle Johnson Mentor, OH 2021-02-12

Maria Filed Hialeah, FL 2021-02-12

Gabrielle Cilfone Torrington, CT 2021-02-12

Mariah Choiniere Burlington, VT 2021-02-12

Heather Gori Santa Rosa, CA 2021-02-12

Gwen Gay Collierville, TN 2021-02-12

Taylor Powell Elk Grove, CA 2021-02-12

Sofia Marquez Ottawa, Canada 2021-02-12

Cassie Williams San Gabriel, CA 2021-02-12

Megan Thompson Vandalia, IL 2021-02-12

Name Location Date

Katie Rose Dell Winter Garden, FL 2021-02-12

Marina Long East Longmeadow, MA 2021-02-12

Jay Wright Bensalem, PA 2021-02-12

addie kennedy Vermilion, OH 2021-02-12

Nathan Lee Cupertino, CA 2021-02-12

Tess Richardson Midland, US 2021-02-12

julianne neigel Larose, LA 2021-02-12

Kayla McCarthy Phoenix, AZ 2021-02-12

Jasper Hulme New Westminster, Canada 2021-02-12

Julia DeFoor Cincinnati, OH 2021-02-12

Nelson Rinaldi Springfield, NJ 2021-02-12

Rebecca Bai Oakville, Ontario, Canada 2021-02-12

Katherine Q Winona, MN 2021-02-12

Ali Sar Rosemead, CA 2021-02-12

Drew Scott Clarksburg, MD 2021-02-12

Amy Feilberg Frederiksværk, Denmark 2021-02-12

K Jhirad Burlington, Ontario, Canada 2021-02-12

Reese Powell New York, NY 2021-02-12

Jayanti Leslie-Iyer New York, NY 2021-02-12

Jasmine Masterson Colorado Springs, CO 2021-02-12

Grace Brockway Indianapolis, IN 2021-02-12

Karen Whitten Dallas, TX 2021-02-12

Name Location Date

Alina Aguirre Newport Beach, CA 2021-02-12

Nikki Heinert Lummen, Belgium 2021-02-12

Ash Morge Hounslow, UK 2021-02-12

Mary McKeon Ashburn, VA 2021-02-12

Jay B Porter Ranch, CA 2021-02-12

Anna Campas Delmar, NY 2021-02-12

Amina Khateeb Nesodden, US 2021-02-12

Patience Mugisha Nesodden, Norway 2021-02-12

Kimmie Piper Etobicoke, Canada 2021-02-12

Laura Friestad Iowa City, IA 2021-02-12

Jacob Marion Oshawa, Canada 2021-02-13

Steffi Carmel La Courneuve, France 2021-02-13

Madeline Roy Cornwall, Canada 2021-02-13

Karina Forshee Chicago, IL 2021-02-13

Cliodhna McTaggart Belfast, UK 2021-02-13

Liza Nadtochiy Naperville, IL 2021-02-13

Thallys Simao Peabody, MA 2021-02-13

Sadie Gomez Newport News, VA 2021-02-13

Sam Oliver London, UK 2021-02-13

Nancy Trinh Los Angeles, CA 2021-02-13

Emma Grant Vincentown, NJ 2021-02-13

Angelicia Leybas Del Valle, TX 2021-02-13

Name Location Date

Jazmin Gonzalez Phoenix, AZ 2021-02-13

Ariet Oman Calgary, Canada 2021-02-13

Lei Basich Woodbridge, VA 2021-02-13

Sophia B Chelsea, MI 2021-02-13

Estee Schlenner Okemos, MI 2021-02-13

Nicole Tupitza Edinboro, US 2021-02-13

Sally Alfaro Littleton, US 2021-02-13

Livia Douglas Aberdeen, US 2021-02-13

Carson Krumm Aberdeen, US 2021-02-13

Mya Sunderman Bakersfield, CA 2021-02-13

Gorety Ramírez Downey, US 2021-02-13

Brittany Festin Logan, UT 2021-02-13

Leslie Appiahene Lakeland, US 2021-02-13

Devi Pranavi Viswanadham Milpitas, US 2021-02-13

Sophie Baker Asheville, NC 2021-02-13

Anita Lucero Rapid city, US 2021-02-13

Dimitra K Athena, Greece 2021-02-13

Jalene Chase Rapid City, US 2021-02-13

gift Macauley crossriver, Nigeria 2021-02-13

Brandon Sprenger Rapid City, US 2021-02-13

Colleen Bur Plymouth, MN 2021-02-13

Patricija Kreislere Riga, Latvia 2021-02-13

Name Location Date

Emily Van Loan Joplin, MO 2021-02-13

Derek Solomon Albany, NY 2021-02-13

Zachary Renard Austin, TX 2021-02-13

Christine Swett Saco, ME 2021-02-13

Sophie Loring Pleasantville, NY 2021-02-13

Sara Woodward Wilmington, DE 2021-02-13

Jackson Wong Troy, NY 2021-02-13

Andreas Rebmann Haddonfield, NJ 2021-02-13

Sofie Henriksen Oslo, Norway 2021-02-13

Emilie Coutin Newcastle upon Tyne, UK 2021-02-13

Caelynn Hogarth Troy, NY 2021-02-13

Jay Yriberry Brooklyn, NY 2021-02-13

Giselle Matos Mississauga, Canada 2021-02-13

lane power Pittston, PA 2021-02-13

Ryder Shallbetter Gunnison, CO 2021-02-13

Caroline Undorf Stockholm, Sweden 2021-02-13

Brenna Harshman Apopka, FL 2021-02-13

kileigh gibson Harrodsburg, KY 2021-02-13

Megana Uppalapati San Jose, CA 2021-02-13

Serafina Taylor San Jose, CA 2021-02-13

Mi Nam Craddock Seattle, WA 2021-02-13

Aileen Lomeli Van Nuys, CA 2021-02-13

Name Location Date

Imber Cozy Aurora, IL 2021-02-13

Ariel Kogan Brooklyn, NY 2021-02-13

Judy Gutierrez Spring, TX 2021-02-13

ale merquinn Romania 2021-02-13

Sam North Bern, Switzerland 2021-02-13

Lily Brown Huntington, NY 2021-02-13

Carly Thompson Hermiston, OR 2021-02-13

Morgan Warrick Montgomery, AL 2021-02-13

Nicholas Lee North Providence, RI 2021-02-14

Stella Miller US 2021-02-14

Allison Bartlett Portugal Cove, Newfoundland andLabrador, Canada

2021-02-14

Emma Åkerström Stockholm, Sweden 2021-02-14

Sadie Scott-Hobson Seattle, WA 2021-02-14

Emma M Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada 2021-02-14

Mar Yamamoto Redwood City, CA 2021-02-14

Ava Ross Dekalb, IL 2021-02-14

Kathleen Hales Turlock, CA 2021-02-14

meghaleena Mukherjee Bengaluru, India 2021-02-14

Petra Pitkäkoski Oitti, Finland 2021-02-14

Emilia Undorf Farsta, Sweden 2021-02-14

Raine Paul Sydney, Australia 2021-02-14

Name Location Date

Sonali k Delhi, India 2021-02-14

Emily Firmston Calgary, Canada 2021-02-14

Rowan Warner Campbellsville, KY 2021-02-14

j. alexander gaspar Chicago, IL 2021-02-15

L R Braunton, UK 2021-02-15

Alex Macleod Glasgow, UK 2021-02-15

Jo Quimson Pacifica, CA 2021-02-15

Lee Beary Great Mills, MD 2021-02-15

Diego Canalejas Huesca, Spain 2021-02-15

Olivia Grego LaGrange, GA 2021-02-16

Fae McMann Reading, PA 2021-02-16

grace herrington Mendenhall, MS 2021-02-16

Dana Eichler San Francisco, CA 2021-02-16

Skyler Randolph Silverton, OR 2021-02-16

Sharae Hill Dedham, MA 2021-02-16

Tommie Jones Fresno, CA 2021-02-16

Tamiko Park Lakewood, CA 2021-02-16

Finley Vigliotti West Haven, CT 2021-02-16

Alexandra Gutierrez Laredo, TX 2021-02-16

El McDonald Baltimore, MD 2021-02-16

Macy Gorman New York, NY 2021-02-16

Karina Maciel Kailua, HI 2021-02-16

Name Location Date

Lauren Pearlman Dallas, GA 2021-02-16

Kova Laguna Charlotte, NC 2021-02-16

Laura Denison Oxford, UK 2021-02-16

Monica Griffiths Crewe, UK 2021-02-16

Anna Ayala El Cajon, CA 2021-02-16

Sydney Meixner Miami, FL 2021-02-16

Katanah Dalaize Pantin, France 2021-02-17

London Cummings Ogden, UT 2021-02-17

Bonnie Stears Green Island, NY 2021-02-17

Sarah Walsh Altamont, NY 2021-02-17

Christina Buback Brighton, US 2021-02-17

Tyrone Johnson Nashville, US 2021-02-17

Jamie Bultemeier Southampton, US 2021-02-17

Amarilis Corchado Hialeah, US 2021-02-17

Joseph Barone Lake George, US 2021-02-17

Daniel Leroy Folsom, US 2021-02-17

Thalia Brito Taunton, US 2021-02-17

Jolie Long Boiling Springs, US 2021-02-17

William Taylor Concord, US 2021-02-17

Kacie Orozco Chicago, US 2021-02-17

Gelsa Spilfogel Pompano Beach, US 2021-02-17

susan jones Worley, US 2021-02-17

Name Location Date

viola pietraszek clark, US 2021-02-17

Steven Morris Sharps Chapel, US 2021-02-17

Al Levandoski Dahlonega, US 2021-02-17

Alex Love Morgantown, US 2021-02-17

alexis a Pompano Beach, US 2021-02-17

Jenny Mowery anaheim, US 2021-02-17

Jeffrey Whitlatch Cape Coral, US 2021-02-17

Audrey Keplinger Geneva, US 2021-02-17

Squirrel Child Bozeman, US 2021-02-17

Katelyn Miller Dunedin, US 2021-02-17

Lauren Zahrn Champaign, US 2021-02-17

Liliana Montoya Phoenix, US 2021-02-17

Katherine Smith Gaithersburg, US 2021-02-17

guis Kougianos Bronx, US 2021-02-17

Terry Hoskins Indianapolis, US 2021-02-17

Nicole Price Ohio, US 2021-02-17

Ainsley Kindred Aliquippa, US 2021-02-17

Stacu Mirabile Ocala, US 2021-02-17

Grahm Dodge Merrill, US 2021-02-17

Karolina Jaronis Orlando, US 2021-02-17

Isabel Mitchko Raleigh, US 2021-02-17

Virginia McArtor Canton, US 2021-02-17

Name Location Date

Katie Dixon Lithia, US 2021-02-17

Tarhonda Staton Camden, US 2021-02-17

Joshua Standiford Lake Zurich, US 2021-02-17

Melanie Miele Franklin, US 2021-02-17

sophia arias Palm Beach Gardens, US 2021-02-17

Tashina Bross San Clemente, US 2021-02-17

Eleanor Reid Hanover, NH 2021-02-17

Saige Stiner Louisville, KY 2021-02-17

April sagan Troy, NY 2021-02-17

Amy Kence Mesa, AZ 2021-02-17

Ishani McGuire Wandsworth, UK 2021-02-17

Jeriah Bankson Troy, NY 2021-02-17

Kaeli Smith Clinton, MA 2021-02-18

Zeenah Iskander Los Angeles, CA 2021-02-18

Chris Schian Wien, Austria 2021-02-18

Lucius McCall US 2021-02-18

Vickie Whimple Troy, NY 2021-02-19

Celia Kutz Averill Park, NY 2021-02-19

Emma Bjerk Superior, WI 2021-02-19

caden amare Edmonton, Alberta, Canada 2021-02-19

Ethan Supina Edmonton, Alberta, Canada 2021-02-19

Ada Kling Espoo, Finland 2021-02-19

Name Location Date

Kiera Supina Devon, Alberta, Canada 2021-02-19

Kechel Hutchings Beaumont, TX 2021-02-20

Savannah Bowen Chaska, MN 2021-02-20

Collin Mims Wimberley, TX 2021-02-20

michaela bonsu Worcester, MA 2021-02-21

Alyssa Kim Englewood, NJ 2021-02-22

Blonde Blonde Cushing, OK 2021-02-22

Devin Johnson Mountlake Terrace, WA 2021-02-22

Jeremy Cherson Kingston, NY 2021-02-22

Ashleigh Andersen Springville, UT 2021-02-22

Anna Matutina Charleston, SC 2021-02-22

james b Traralgon, Australia 2021-02-22

jen wang detroit, MI 2021-02-23

Alyssa Hayes Darwin, Australia 2021-02-23

avery fryer Alexandria, UK 2021-02-23

Priscilla Lujan Phoenix, US 2021-02-23

Chelsea Schuler Palm Harbor, FL 2021-02-24

Linda Dutt Tacoma, WA 2021-02-24

Benny Freeman Freeville, NY 2021-02-24

Vidya Anbalagan Kosciusko, MS 2021-02-24

Erwin Hopmans San Nicolas, Aruba 2021-02-24

M C New Jersey 2021-02-24

Name Location Date

Kathryn Antares Kalamazoo, MI 2021-02-24

Patricia Bristow-Johnson Burlington, VT 2021-02-25

Elise Brown Brandan, Canada 2021-02-25

Chelsea Daus New York, NY 2021-02-25

Freya Reilly Epsom, UK 2021-02-25

Mary Russell Harrogate, TN 2021-02-26

Cassidy Smith Pittsburgh, PA 2021-02-26

Trashy Moonstar Tracy, CA 2021-02-26

Fizzy Cola Albuquerque, NM 2021-02-27

Arayah Neste Whitehall, MI 2021-02-27

Catherine Merrill Boise, ID 2021-02-27

Gracie Turner Bullhead City, AZ 2021-02-27

Devon Milner Portland, OR 2021-02-27

Annika Norris Orlando, FL 2021-02-27

Edward Hoover Lacey, WA 2021-02-27

Hazel Lory Sparks, NV 2021-02-27

Rocio Lopez Whittier, US 2021-02-27

Petle Dennis Fort Worth, TX 2021-02-27

Mordecai Jenkins Citrus Heights, CA 2021-02-28

Angel Maung Avon, CT 2021-02-28

Briana Tavares Philadelphia, PA 2021-03-02

Emma Ramos Vega Baja, US 2021-03-03

Name Location Date

Bridget Sampson Lebanon, IL 2021-03-05

Mia Markham Cheshire, UK 2021-03-06

Rishona Altenberg Toronto, Ontario, Canada 2021-03-06

Joanne Lam Dublin, Ireland 2021-03-07

Sally Tobin Dublin, Ireland 2021-03-07

Claire Tyne Sun City, AZ 2021-03-08

Jordan Nelson Milaca, MN 2021-03-08

Lindsey Bernier Fairfax, VA 2021-03-08

Isabelle Costanzo Toronto, Ontario, Canada 2021-03-08

Megan Scott Place, CA 2021-03-08

Kate Myers Towson, MD 2021-03-08

Jay Harris Andover, MA 2021-03-14

Joseph Boardman San Diego, CA 2021-03-14

maria hgg Bad Axe, India 2021-03-14

Paris Wong Houston, TX 2021-03-15

Alexandra Brame Las Vegas, NV 2021-03-24

Loyiso Ngebulana Johannesburg, South Africa 2021-03-25

Cassandra Davis Albany, NY 2021-03-25

Jo-Anne Wilson Rochester, NY 2021-03-25

Kate Hart Jones Concoed, NH 2021-03-26

Thomas Dwyer Saint Petersburg, NY 2021-03-26

Ronda Kennedy Mechanicville, NY 2021-04-02

Name Location Date

Sandra Sickles Ravena, NY 2021-04-03

Maria Grecu Jesenice, Czech Republic 2021-04-04

Corinne Wingrove Troy, NY 2021-04-07

Lillian pappalardo US 2021-04-16

Jennifer Reed Castro Ithaca, US 2021-04-16

Kathlene Meppen Melrose, NY 2021-04-20

Ahnalese Pearson Schenectady, NY 2021-04-21

Craig Wilson East Greenbush, NY 2021-04-22

Elliot Vega Costa Mesa, CA 2021-04-22

Francesca Romano Rensselaer, NY 2021-04-23

BILL MCLOUGHLAN Troy, NY 2021-04-24

33

Dear City Council Planning Committee Chair Anasha Cummings, please find attached relevant documents previously submitted to the record that are critical to the considerations at the Committee hearing on April 27, 2021 regarding Res 29. These submissions are hereby entered into the records, and we request them to be added to the minutes, including this email. These submissions were previously submitted to various decision making bodies of the City of Troy: - to the Planning Committee hearing of August 27, 2021 - the City Council General regular meeting of September 10, 2020 - the Planning Commission meeting of November 19, 2020 - the Planning Commission meeting of December 29, 2020 - the Planning Commission meeting of January 28, 2021 The documents provide critical information on a scope of issues that all speak to the following aspects: 1) potential, anticipated and assessed negative impacts arising from a rezoning from R-1 to P. 2) potential, anticipated and assessed negative impacts arising from a development as proposed by Kevin Vandenburgh of the tax parcel located at 1011 2nd Avenue in Troy, NY. 3) potential, anticipated and assessed negative impacts arising from the rezoning and development as considered in their conjunction. 4) Issues and legal aspects regarding spot zoning, segmentation, and/or inconsistencies with the 2018 “Realize Troy” comprehensive plan provided by Riverkeeper, Scenic Hudson and/or Phillip Oswald Esq. 5) Process flaws regarding the residency requirements at the City Council Regular meeting on September 10, 2020 6) Stormwater runoff impacts simulations and combined sewage overflow impacts (Kruegler) 7) Ecological surveys identifying and documenting 3 state rare species and 24 county rare species on the parcel - “Troy’s Sacred Forest” by Friends of the Mahicantuck - Letters by Phillip Oswald Esq on legal issues and conflicts - Letters by Scenci Hudson and/or Riverkeeper on Comprehensive Plan inconsistencies and implications - EPA list of federal waterways, showing misstatements in the EAF regarding waterways in addition to omissions of state and county rare species - Kruegler Stormwater Runoff Simulation - Friends of the Mahicantuck submissions (FotM) - DOS opinion on residency requirement - Ecological Surveys Dec 2020 and Jan 2021 Sincerely, The Friends of the Mahicantuck [Attachments on following pages.]

From: Oneill, Kristin (DOS) Kristin.ONeill@dos.ny.govSubject: RE: Residents-Only restriction for public meeting at public meetings at the City of Troy

Date: September 9, 2020 at 3:11 PMTo: [redacted: email address]

Good Afternoon [REDACTED: NAME],

Thank you for contacting the Committee on Open Government. The Open Meetings Law provides a right to attend to the "general public." (Open Meetings Law Section 103(a)). A resident Schenectady, Albany, or even Buffalo or New York City would have the same right to attend a meeting of the Troy City Council as a resident of the City. That being so, I do not believe that a public body could validly require that those who attend or seek to attend identify themselves by name, residence or interest. In short, it is my view that any member of the public has an equal opportunity to partake in an open meeting, and that an effort to distinguish among attendees by residence or any other qualifier would be inconsistent with the Open Meetings Law and, therefore, unreasonable. Moreover, people other than residents, particularly those who own property or operate businesses in a community, may have a substantial interest in attending and expressing their views at meetings of City Councils and other public bodies. Prohibiting those people from speaking, even though they may have a significant interest in the topics being discussed, while permitting residents to do so, would, in my view, be unjustifiable.

In addition, I note that Section 110(1) of the Open Meetings Law states “Any provision of a charter, administrative code, local law, ordinance, or rule or regulation affecting a public body which is more restrictive with respect to public access than this article shall be deemed superseded hereby to the extent that such provision is more restrictive than this article.” In other words, any aspect of the City Code that is more restrictive with respect to public access (i.e., a residency requirement), is superseded by the Open Meetings Law.

I hope this information proves useful.

Sincerely,

Kristin O’NeillAssistant Director, Committee on Open Government

New York State Department of StateOne Commerce Plaza, Albany, NY 12231(518) 474-2518http://www.dos.ny.gov/coog/

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on linksfrom unknown senders or unexpected emails.

Appendix 1Ecological Survey December 2020

TO: Troy City Planning Board. FROM: David Hunt, Ecological Intuition & Medicine Rensselaer County Biodiversity Greenprint Project RE: Golub Parcel. Proposed Apartment Complex Development. Pleasantdale Bluffs, City of Troy. DATE: December 22, 2020 Planning Board Members, As part of my effort of over 20 years to map and provide information to landowners and conservation organizations about regionally-important ecological/biodiversity sites throughout Rensselaer County, I would like to bring to your attention information on two important sites connected to the 9.93-acre Golub parcel (Tax Parcel 70.64-1-1) in the City of Troy, on which an apartment complex is reportedly being proposed: "Pleasantdale Bluffs" a county-important rocky summit/slope ecosystem complex

containing knolls and cliffs along the Hudson River spanning the Troy/Schaghticoke municipal boundary with associated county-exemplary occurrences of Pitch Pine-Oak-Heath Rocky Summit plus Shale Cliff & Talus Community, as well as 24 known regionally rare plants.

"Hudson River Schaghticoke" a county-important riparian ecosystem complex containing the

Hudson River, shoreline communities, and an associated floodplain, stretching from the Washington County line downstream to the Federal Dam in Troy with associated county-exemplary occurrences of Unconfined River plus Riverside Sand/Gravel Bar, as well as many known regionally-rare plants.

These sites were documented and mapped as part of my contributions to the 2017 Rensselaer County Conservation Plan, coordinated by the Rensselaer Land Trust, focusing on 10 ecological features ranging from relatively small scale (e.g., rare plant concentration areas) to relatively large scale (e.g., regionally-important aquatic networks, forest landscapes, and large-scale conservation sites). Maps have reportedly been accessible on-line since that time for all municipalities and citizens of the county to consult. I provide an attached packet of summary information about these two sites and their biodiversity components with special focus on the Golub parcel, which explains the basic information available online. More detailed information is available upon request. Each site

56

Appendix 1: Ecological Surveys (Dec 2020)

represents multiple overlapping county-important ecological features, 6 at Pleasantdale Bluffs, 8 at Hudson River Schaghticoke. Because both these ecological sites are somewhat large, much of the prior information was based on field surveys and historical records off the Golub parcel. Both sites were mapped remotely from air photo plus associated datalayers on land cover, hydrology, topography, geology, and soils. A recent survey of the Golub parcel (December 20, 2020), conducted under 2 feet of snow in conjunction with a group of concerned local neighbors, confirmed the presence of multiple features of both regionally important sites including multiple characteristic natural communities and county-rare plants. Because herbaceous and graminoid plants are often not detectable under these conditions, I strongly recommend the parcel be studied by a qualified ecologist during the growing season (May to September) to better evaluate the suspected/potential presence of several additional regionally-rare species including 1) the state-rare moth inland barrens buckmoth, known to feed on scrub oak, which was just found on the parcel, and 2) the state-rare plants pleated-leaved knotweed plus bristly rose, both known just to the north in Schaghticoke. Hopefully, any decision about potential land use changes of the Golub Parcel should consider the regional importance and rarity of multiple ecological features here (especially the Shale Cliff & Talus Community, riverside habitat, and rare plant species like scrub oak). Whether or not the parcel is further evaluated for rare plants and animals, if any structures are to be built on the parcel, I strongly recommend that they are placed as close as possible to Second Avenue, farthest away from the ecologically-important features of the site, and that any impacts to the high knolls, steep W-facing slopes bordering the Hudson River, and the river shoreline are minimized. Sincerely in Biodiversity Conservation, David Hunt. Ph.D. Ecologist. Grafton, NY. Rensselaer County Biodiversity Greenprint Project (Designing an Ark for the Native Species of Rensselaer County) 348 Jay Hakes Road; Cropseyville, NY 12052; (518) 279-4124

57

Site 1. Pleasantdale Bluffs. (See Maps 1-4). A. County-important Restricted Ecosystem Complex. (Map 1) Complex type: Rocky summit/slope complex, circumneutral, bluff/gorge,

Hudson River Valley regional variant, large river escarpment bluff type.

Size: 336 acres. County Importance: Importance Tier 1 of 3 (most important). Extent on Golub Parcel: 40% of tract (N half). Contribution of Golub Parcel: 5% of Complex (S edge). Characteristic Community Types: include Pitch Pine-Oak-Heath Rocky Summit, Shale Cliff & Talus

Community. (see Exemplary Natural Communities). Associated Rare Species: numerous county-rare plants (see Rare Plant Concentration

Area). Description: substrate includes exposed bedrock. contains characteristic

open rocky summit/slope community types with associated rare plant species. The known core of this complex, "Pleasantdale Bluffs" in a more strict sense, is represented by knolls/bluffs at the N end of a patch directly along the Hudson River just W of the W end of River Bend Road. More of the site is mapped along gorges to the NE, between Haughney and Brickyard Roads, mostly unexplored to date.

B. Constituent Exemplary Natural Communities. (Map 2) Shale Cliff & Talus Community (SCTC4) Regional Conservation Importance: County Priority 3 of 4 (near-exemplary). likely "county

significant" but not "state significant". Size: 6.3 acres. Location: corrected 2020 from 2017 mapping to bluffs just W of W end

of River Bend Road in Schaghticoke plus bluffs along SW edge of Golub tract.

Extent on Golub Parcel: 5% of tract (SW edge). presence confirmed during December 2020

field survey. Contribution of Golub Parcel: 40% of community (S patch). Description: steep slope with exposed shale bedrock. open canopy habitat

dominated by low shrubs, scattered herbs, graminoids, mosses, and lichens.

58

Appendix 1: Ecological Surveys (Dec 2020)

Site 1. Pleasantdale Bluffs. p. 2. Pitch Pine-Oak-Heath Rocky Summit. Regional Conservation Importance: County Priority 2 of 4 (co-exemplary). likely "county

significant" but not "state significant". Size: 2.7 acres. Location: corrected 2020 from 2017 mapping to knoll just W of W end

of River Bend Road in Schaghticoke. Extent on Golub Parcel: not mapped on tract, but both highest knoll and upper crest

of cliff resemble this community type based on December 2020 field survey.

C. Rare Plant Concentration Area. (Map 3) County Importance: concentration priority 3 of 7 (highly concentrated). 28th most

important rare plant site in county as of 2017; 5th town priority for Schaghticoke as of 2017.

Size: 29 acres. originally mapped at 129 acres but in incorrect

location. corrected to patch of Pleasantdale Bluffs ecosystem complex bordering Hudson River.

Species Composition: with 17 county rare species/1 state rare species (1 state watch

list, 7 county active list, 10 county watch list) documented for 2017 county conservation plan; recently expanded to 24 county rare species/3 state rare species (1 state active list, 2 state watch list, 10 county active list, 14 county watch list). Information on individual species shown in Table 1. Several additional rare plant species are expected, associated with historical specimens at the NY State Museum labelled "Lansings Grove", reportedly the local name for this site, that have not yet been attached to this site.

Extent on Golub Parcel: 40% of tract (N half); as ecosystem complex. presence confirmed

during December 2020 field survey. Contribution of Golub Parcel: 15% of concentration area (S edge).

Location: corrected 2020 from 2017 mapping to match corresponding

patch of rocky summit/slope ecosystem complex along Hudson River.

59

Site 1. Pleasantdale Bluffs. p. 3. D. Rare Animals.

No rare animals have yet been identified from Pleasantdale Bluffs, most of the field surveys being focused on natural community types and vascular plant species. The observed presence of several individuals of scrub oak on the rocky summit and cliff community types suggests the potential for the state-rare moth "inland barrens buckmoth", which is known to feed primarily on that shrub. Similarly, no surveys for Karner blue butterfly, a globally rare moth characteristic of pitch pine barrens, are known to date from the site.

E. County-Important Roadless Blocks see Hudson River Northern Rensselaer County Block below, under

Site 2 (Hudson River Schaghticoke). F. County-Priority Conservation Site North Troy Hills & Bluffs. (Map 4) Site type: Level-2 site (mostly moderate-scale local ecosystems). Description: large aggregate of rocky summit/slope complexes.

County-Importance: Tier 2 of 4 site (moderate county priority).

Size: 1168 acres. Ecosystem Complex Composition: includes complexes associated with Bald Mountain Brunswick,

Oakwood Cemetery Troy, Pleasantdale Bluffs, and River Road Schaghticoke.

Extent on Golub Parcel: 40% of parcel. Contribution of Golub Parcel: 2% of conservation site.

60

Appendix 1: Ecological Surveys (Dec 2020)

Site 2. Hudson River Schaghticoke (See Maps 5-8). A. County-important Restricted Ecosystem Complex. (Map 1) Complex type: Riparian complex. non-tidal, confined river, large river type

(main channel) in calcareous flats. Size: 1191 acres. County Importance: Importance Tier 1 of 3 (most important). Extent on Golub Parcel: <1% of tract (borders entire W edge of tract, tract influences

local quality of site). Contribution of Golub Parcel: <<1% of the complex (inland edge) Characteristic Community Types: include Unconfined River and Riverside Sand/Gravel Bar (see

Exemplary Natural Communities). Associated Rare Species: several county-rare plants (see Rare Plants). Description: includes river, shoreline communities and associated

floodplain. Location: Stretches along the entire non-tidal portion of the Hudson

River from the Washington County line downstream to the Federal Dam in Troy. Only the Rensselaer County part of this complex has been mapped to date. The complete site extends N into Washington County and W into Saratoga County.

B. Constituent Exemplary Natural Communities. (Map 5) Unconfined River Regional Conservation Importance: County Priority 2 of 4 (co-exemplary). likely "state

significant". Size: 949 acres. Location: representing entire non-tidal portion of Hudson River from

Washington County line downstream to Federal Dam in Troy; only the Rensselaer County part of this community has been mapped; it extends N into Washington County and W into Saratoga County.

Extent on Golub Parcel: <<1% of tract (borders entire W edge of tract; tract influences

local quality of large community example). Contribution of Golub Parcel: <<1% of community border. Description:

wide, slow flowing, moderately deep river dominated by run and pool microhabitats, relatively confined within shale

61

Site 2. Hudson River Schaghticoke. p. 2. stream terraces in a moderately wide valley. Riverside Sand/Gravel Bar A 37-acre county co-exemplary site for this community type has

been mapped along the Hudson River 1.8 miles to the north of the Golub parcel in Schaghticoke. One patch of this community is believed to be present on the Golub tract (but was under snow during the December 20, 2020 field survey). If intervening patches are present upstream within 1.0 miles, the Golub patch would be lumped into this exemplary occurrence. The community was mapped using air photos; field surveys allow a much more precise mapping of this community, which typically occurs as narrow, linear bands that are difficult to detect on air photos.

C. Rare Plants.

Although no rare plant concentration area has been mapped yet to this aquatic-based site, pending sufficient surveys of its shoreline and nearshore areas, at least one county-rare plant was observed on the Golub tract within this site: cocklebur. Several individuals of this county watch list plant were observed on a shoreline community of the Hudson River, probably Riverside Sand/Gravel Bar (but buried under deep snow during the December 2020 field survey). Other county-rare shoreline plants are suspected from this site and would be most detectable during the growing season.

D. Important Animal Habitats

County Importance: Conservation priority 4 of 7 ("concentrated").

Size: 949 acres. (corresponding to Unconfined River) Animal Concentration Area Composition: 1 known probable animal concentration area (odonates).

Other potential concentration areas are likely (large river fish, shorebirds, riparian birds), but information is not yet available for analysis. Additional areas would raise the importance level of this site, if confirmed.

Rare Species Composition: 3 known state & county-rare animal taxa (odonates), all

documented with NY Natural Heritage Program. Location: Boundary follows that for exemplary Unconfined River

community. Extent on Golub Parcel: <<1% of tract (borders entire W edge of tract; tract influences

62

Appendix 1: Ecological Surveys (Dec 2020)

Site 2. Hudson River Schaghticoke. p. 3. local quality of large site). Contribution of Golub Parcel: <<1% of habitat. E. County-Important Aquatic Network Hudson River Main Channel (Network AN62) (Map 6) Network type: main channel, non-tidal network. Size: 4002 acres/14.5 stream miles. County Importance: Priority Tier 1 of 4 (most important). Extent on Golub Parcel:

NW 70% of tract (as coarsely modelled with assistance from RLT).

Contribution of Golub Parcel: <<1% of network. Network Composition (on Golub parcel): forested "riparian strips" coarsely mapped based on regional

land cover database; a more precise local mapping using air photos and field evaluation would probably extend the forested buffer boundary eastward to cover 80% to 90% of the tract.

F. County-Important Roadless Blocks (Map 7) Although the Golub parcel is not situated within a Level-4

(strictest level) regionally important forest matrix block, it is mapped within a large "aquatic matrix block", the Hudson River Northern Rensselaer County block.

Hudson River Northern Rensselaer County Block. Location: This block includes the Hudson River from the Washington

County line south to the Federal Dam in Troy, plus lands eastward to the first public road, constituting a narrow buffer inward of the river. While the concept should ideally include similar land N of the county line in Washington County and W of the river in Saratoga and Albany Counties, only the Rensselaer County "subsite" was precisely mapped.

Size: 11089 acres. County-Importance: Priority Tier 1 of 4. Extent on Golub Parcel: 100% of tract. Contribution of Golub Parcel: <<1% of block. G. County-Important Forest Corridors. Although the parcel is not within a mapped regionally important

forest corridor, being situated in the general urban setting of Troy, it is contained within an important "aquatic corridor" (see information on county-important aquatic networks and

63

Site 2. Hudson River Schaghticoke. p. 4. roadless blocks). H. County-Priority Conservation Site Hudson River Corridor. (Map 8) Site type: Level-1 site (large regional landscapes). Description: large important aquatic corridor. County-Importance: Tier 1 site (highest county priority). Size: 13662 acres. Site Composition: includes river plus adjacent areas, especially with natural

cover, deemed important to maintain the high water quality and native biota of the river. includes a strip throughout the W edge of Troy.

Extent on Golub Parcel: 100% of parcel. Contribution of Golub Parcel: <<1% of conservation site.

64

Appendix 1: Ecological Surveys (Dec 2020)

Feature Concepts and Definitions. County-Important Restricted Ecosystem Complexes the largest, most intact, and most ecologically-important examples of

ecosystem complex types with restricted distribution and total size in Rensselaer County, thought to be the best set of sites necessary to conserve the complete diversity of natural community types and native biota of those complexes in the county. Restricted types include rocky summit/slopes, wetlands, lakes, and riparian areas. Habitats typically delineated based on air photo interpretation of natural community types, hydrology, topography, geology, and soils.

County-Important Natural Communities the largest, most intact, and most ecologically important ("exemplary")

examples of every natural community type in Rensselaer County, representing the "benchmark" for its biodiversity composition, condition/quality, and landscape setting relative to all other examples of the community type within the county. Types follows standard state classification of ecological community types (New York Natural Heritage Program).

Rare Plant Concentration Areas the largest concentrations of "rare" plant taxa in Rensselaer County,

those that are rare at least at a county level, with sites prioritized by rarity level and abundance of rare species, giving highest priority to global and state rare plants. includes all groups of vascular plants and limited groups of non-vascular plants. Rare plants at 3 levels (global, state, and county) are divided into "active list" species (actively tracked as "very rare" and the highest priority for conservation) plus "watch list" species (others that are "moderately rare" and monitored over time to assess their trends in status, either decreasing, stable, or increasing). Species concepts follow the 2017 New York state flora. Global and state rarity assessments are derived and maintained by the New York Natural Heritage Program. County rarity assessments are derived and maintained by the Rensselaer County Biodiversity Greenprint Project, following standard methods of the natural heritage network.

County-Important Animal Habitats the most ecologically important habitats in Rensselaer County for sets

of animals and/or animal behavior types with restricted distribution in the county. Includes rare animal populations, dense animal concentration areas, and important animal behavioral features such as dens and breeding areas.

County-Important Aquatic Networks the largest, most intact, and most ecologically important aquatic

landscapes in Rensselaer County, thought to be the best set of sites necessary to conserve the complete diversity of natural aquatic community types (especially river types) and native aquatic biota of the county. Sites include the central waterway of the network ("stream system") plus two key surrounding land features that

65

contribute most to the high water quality and native biota composition of the stream system: 1) riparian corridors [buffer strips] directly along the stream system, typically its mainstem, and 2) wider intact subcatchment areas, typically in headwater positions.

Feature Concepts and Definitions. p. 2 County-Important Roadless Blocks the largest, most intact, and most ecologically-important "blocks" in

Rensselaer County, thought to be the best set of sites that 1) contain a matrix of natural communities characteristic of the local physiographic area and 2) are necessary to conserve the complete diversity of native biota of the county (especially large forest mammals and species vulnerable to disturbances associated with disturbance corridors such as roads). Roadless blocks, like "city blocks", are bounded by public roads and have no internal public road "bisections". "Aquatic blocks" are bisected by dams rather than roads, specifically those with high bridges over water that do not impede water flow and movement of aquatic biota.

County-Important Forest Corridors. the widest, most intact, and most ecologically important forest

("wildlife") corridors in Rensselaer County, connecting a related set of county-important forest landscapes to form one connected "forest network".

County-Priority Conservation Sites the most important ("priority") large to moderate-scale biodiversity

conservation sites in Rensselaer County, the complete set of which is designed to represent a group with the least amount of sites needed to conserve all native/natural biodiversity and ecological features of the county.

66

Appendix 1: Ecological Surveys (Dec 2020)

Table 1. Rare Species of Pleasantdale Bluffs Ecosystem Complex site. Species Name Subsite Presence (# individuals) Scientific Common Schaghticoke Golub Parcel 1. State Rare (3) Juglans cinerea Butternut 1 not yet found Polygonum tenue Pleated-Leaved Knotweed 8 not evaluated Rosa acicularis Bristly Rose 50 not evaluated 2. County Active List (8) Carex umbellata Parasol Sedge present not evaluated Crocanthemum canadense Frostweed 10 not evaluated Cyperus lupulinus Eastern Flat Sedge 50 not evaluated Galium pilosum Hairy Bedstraw 40 present Quercus prinoides Dwarf Chinquapin Oak present not yet found Selaginella rupestris Rock Spikemoss present not evaluated Solidago squarrosa Stout Goldenrod 5 probably found Symphyotrichum patens Late Purple Aster present not evaluated 3. County Watch List (13) Abietinella abietinum Wiry Fern Moss present not evaluated Amelanchier sanguinea Round-Leaved Shadbush present probably found Andropogon gerardi Big Bluestem present not evaluated Arabidopsis lyrata Lyre-Leaf Cress 100 not evaluated Asplenium trichomanes Maidenhair Spleenwort 50 not evaluated Borodinia canadensis Sicklepod present not evaluated Drymocallis arguta Tall Cinquefoil not yet found ~10 Houstonia longifolia Long-Leaved Bluets present not evaluated Lechea intermedia Large-Podded Pinweed 5 not evaluated Lespedeza violacea Wand-Like Bush Clover 5 not evaluated Polygonatum biflorum (commutatum) Large Solomon's-Seal present not evaluated Quercus ilicifolia Scrub Oak present ~5 Woodsia ilvensis Rusty Woodsia 20 not evaluated

67

Ecological Survey Updates Jan 2021FROM: David Hunt, Ecological Intuition & Medicine

Rensselaer County Biodiversity Greenprint Project

RE: Pleasantdale Bluffs, City of Troy. (Golub Parcel).

Supplemental Biodiversity Information

DATE: January 14, 2021

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for requesting more of my help to provide information on the ecological

importance of the Golub parcel in North Troy, part of the larger "Pleasantdale

Bluffs" important ecosystem complex. As promised, I now provide more detailed

biodiversity information, updated from our January 12, 2021 field visit, with

improved abilities to make field observations due to melting of the prior snow

cover. As mentioned, field observations that contribute any further detailed

important information, such as rare species, would likely need to be made

during the growing season (May to September), after plants have emerged to a

more easily identifiable state. The only further improvements I can think of

at this time of year would be to acquire any animal sampling information from

state agencies (NYS DEC and the NY State Museum), especially for fish and

macroinvertebrates associated with the adjacent reach of the Hudson River.

As part of the expanded information, I focused on 3 smaller-scale ecological

features: ecological communities, rare species, and important animal habitat

components. Accordingly, I provide 1) a summary of key findings from our last

visit, 2) revised excerpts from my prior summary text, 2) detailed information

tables, and 3) maps of specific parcel locations for these features. For

excerpts, I expanded, updated, or revised relevant portions of the summaries

provided for the recent public hearing.

With more time, I could consolidate this into one updated summary document,

like before. Next, I provide 4 tables, two for ecological communities, one

for rare species, one for important animal habitats. One community table

focuses on all community types observed onsite and includes their size and

estimated importance at various geographic levels. The second community table

focuses on the 3 natural communities observed onsite that have county to state

importance, documenting my analyses to back up claims of any "regional

importance".

The rare species table, updated from my prior version, now includes animals

(expanding the prior table from only plants), species from the Golub parcel that are

new to the larger complex noted on our January visit, additional species to

the Golub parcel noted on our January visit but already known elsewhere in the

larger complex, and an estimate of identity certainty, based, in part, on my

recent examination of specimens using multiple technical identification

references. The important animal habitat table is new, based on much improved

field observations from our January visit. It presents several types of animal

habitats that may be present onsite, an estimate of their certainty, and any

features observed to date to support those certainties. Lastly, I provide 2

new detailed maps, one for ecological communities, one for rare species. The

community map is comprehensive for the entire parcel, based on our 2 field

visits, coupled with air photo interpretation plus topographic contours. The

rare species map, which includes both plants and animals, attempts to

68

Appendix 1: Ecological Surveys (Jan Update)

delineate areas where I have observed rare species to date, relying heavily on

the community map plus also air photo interpretation and topographic contours.

No map of specific important animal concentration areas has yet been created,

due to the high uncertainty of both the identity and any associated boundary

of many types. However, the observed beaver lodge was added to the rare

species map (Code=BL*). All of these areas fall within the larger "Hudson River

Schaghticoke" important animal habitat site.

Sincerely in Biodiversity Conservation,

David Hunt, Ph.D. Ecologist. Grafton, NY.

Rensselaer County Biodiversity Greenprint Project

(Designing an Ark for the Native Species of Rensselaer County)

348 Jay Hakes Road; Cropseyville, NY 12052; (518) 279-4124

69

Pleasantdale Bluffs: Significance of Ecological

FeaturesKey Ecological Findings from the Golub Parcel, January 12, 2021 Survey

January 14, 2021

Key updated findings from observations of small-scale ecological features

during the January 12, 2021 field survey are summarized below.

1. Ecological Communities (Map 1, Tables 1-2). More precise and detailed

information on the 3 natural communities observed onsite that have county to

state importance (Shale Cliff & Talus Community, Riverside Sand/Gravel Bar, and Pitch Pine-

Oak-Heath Rocky Summit) include precise maps and analyses to confirm their

regional importance. The Riverside Sand/Gravel Bar probably meets the

criteria for "state significance", although not yet documented in the

databases of NY Natural Heritage Program (of NYS DEC). All 3 community

types are "county rare" and the cliff community is also "state rare". The

example of latter community onsite comes close to meeting criteria for

"state significance". Although the patches of Pitch Pine-Oak-Heath Rocky

Summit onsite are very small and narrow, especially compared to those to the

north within the Pleasantdale Bluffs complex, sufficient observations have

now been made to map this community on the Golub parcel.

2. Rare Species (Map 2, Table 3). Several updates to the rare species table

for the larger Pleasantdale Bluffs complex were made, including 5 additional

species not previously known from the Golub parcel, most being covered by

snow during the December 2020 field survey. A total of 3 species were found

that are new to the Golub parcel but known from the main patch of the

ecosystem complex in Schaghticoke, the most interesting being rock spikemoss

(Selaginella rupestris), the others being lyre-leaf cress (Arabidopsis

lyrata) and rusty woodsia (Woodsia ilvensis). Two species were found on the

Golub parcel that are new to the entire complex, one plant on the shale

cliffs, rock sandwort (Sabulina michauxii), and one animal, identified as

state rare, sharp hornsnail (Pleurocera acuta), the elongate snail shell

found along the Hudson River shore. The rare species population map for the

parcel best reveals the most ecologically-sensitive part of site, from a

practical perspective. I still have several specimens of potentially rare

mosses to evaluate, relying on a close colleague to expedite any

identifications. I expect 1 to 5 county rare species among the collections,

possibly 1 state rare species.

3. Important Animal Habitats (Table 4). Animal habitats are more flexibly

defined than other features and harder to determine. Key observations often

depend on specific times of the year or day (e.g., nocturnal) and specific

microhabitats (e.g., the bottom substrate of the Hudson River). Confirmation of

"important habitat" is also complicated by the need for a minimal number of

different species and number of individuals, which can be seasonally and

annually highly variable. As Table 4 shows, to date the most certain

important habitat is a "bald eagle feeding territory", backed up not just by

the one local report/observation but probably also by mapping of the entire

habitat by the NY Natural Heritage Program. Similarly, although no onsite

observations of odonates (dragonflies and damselflies) have been made, mapping of

the entire nearby Hudson River habitat by the NY Natural Heritage Program of

3 state-rare odonates suggests the presence of an "odonate concentration

area" in the river along the Golub parcel. Based on my observations of

70

Appendix 1: Ecological Surveys (Jan Update)

abundant spent shells, I suspect a "riverine mollusk concentration area" in

the river next to the site, however, confirmation would need to involve

shallow underwater observations, best made between May and September.

Although the beaver lodge was mapped and it could be a component of an

"aquatic mammal concentration area", observations of other species would be

needed for this designation. Many pieces of information needed for

confirmation of important animal habitat require patience and the presence

of someone onsite for extended periods of time or the perfect time for

observations.

71

Pleasantdale Bluffs: Significance of Ecological Features

Revisions and Additions to December 2020 Summary.

January 14, 2021

Revisions and additions to the December 2020 summary submitted to the Troy

City Council are made to excerpts from that document and noted below by the

symbol "***".

Site 1. Pleasantdale Bluffs.

B. Constituent Exemplary Natural Communities. (see Map 1)

Shale Cliff & Talus Community (SCTC4)Size: 6.3 acres. ***corrected to 1.6 acres.

Location:

(Dec 2020) corrected 2020 from 2017 mapping to bluffs just W of W end

of River Bend Road in Schaghticoke plus bluffs along SW edge of

Golub tract.

***Jan 2021: additional small patch added at NW corner of Golub tract

in town of Schaghticoke. patch along SW edge of Golub tract slightly

expanded based on more precise air photo interpretation coupled with

ground truthing.

Extent on Golub Parcel:

***5% of tract (SW edge and NW corner). presence confirmed during

December 2020 and January 2021 field surveys.

Contribution of Golub Parcel:

***60% of community (S and middle patches).

Pitch Pine-Oak-Heath Rocky Summit. Size: 2.7 acres. ***corrected to 1.0 acres.

Location:

(Dec 2020) corrected 2020 from 2017 mapping to knoll just W of W end of

River Bend Road in Schaghticoke.

***Jan 2021: two additional small patches added: one at NW corner of

Golub tract in the Town of Schaghticoke, one at the crest of the

cliff along SW edge of Golub tract, both with narrow width and

transitional in nature; mapped based on more precise air photo

interpretation coupled with ground truthing.

Extent on Golub Parcel:

***newly mapped on tract, on upper crest of cliff patches based on

December 2020 and especially January 2021 field surveys.

transitional in nature between cliff and forest communities, but

areas with canopy naturally open enough in both patches, the NW

corner patch due to exposed shale surface, the SW edge patch due, in

part, to beaver cuttings. An additional area on the highest knoll

of the tract is deemed to have probably undergone succession to

Appalachian Oak-Pine Forest but was likely this community type in

the past, now with species like scrub oak as a suspected remnant of

this former community type.

Contribution of Golub Parcel:

***20% of community (S and middle patches).

72

Appendix 1: Ecological Surveys (Jan Update)

Site 1. Pleasantdale Bluffs. p. 2.

C. Rare Plant Concentration Area. (see Map 2)

Species Composition:

(Dec 2020) with 17 county rare species/1 state rare species (1 state watch

list, 7 county active list, 10 county watch list) documented for 2017 county

conservation plan; expanded in December 2020 to 24 county rare

species/3 state rare species (1 state active list, 2 state watch list, 10

county active list, 14 county watch list).

***January 2021 update (see Table 3): 5 of these taxa were found on the

Golub tract during a December 2020 survey (1 county active list, 4 county

watch list); 4 additional rare plant species were found on the tract

during the January 2021 survey (2 county active list, 2 county watch list).

One plant species new to the entire ecosystem complex was found on

the parcel: rock sandwort (Sabulina michauxii), located on the Shale

Cliff & Talus Community. cumulative tally for the complex expanded

in January 2021 to 25 county rare species/3 state rare species (1

state active list, 2 state watch list, 10 county active list, 15 county watch list).

Information on individual species, updated from the January 2021

survey, are shown in Table 3, along with the newly added certainty

of their identifications.

(Dec 2020) Several additional rare plant species are expected,

associated with historical specimens at the NY State Museum labelled

"Lansings Grove", reportedly the local name for this site, that have

not yet been attached to this site.

Extent on Golub Parcel:

(Dec 2020) 40% of tract (N half); as ecosystem complex. presence

confirmed during December 2020 field survey.

***presence on parcel strengthened January 2021 with additional species

of concentration area also found onsite.

Location:

(Dec 2020) corrected 2020 from 2017 mapping to match corresponding

patch of rocky summit/slope ecosystem complex along Hudson River.

***minor changes in the site boundary to match the known extent of rare

species populations are pending.

D. Rare Animals.

(Dec 2020) No rare animals have yet been identified from Pleasantdale

Bluffs, most of the field surveys being focused on natural community

types and vascular plant species. The observed presence of several

individuals of scrub oak on the rocky summit and cliff community types

suggests the potential for the state-rare moth "inland barrens

buckmoth", which is known to feed primarily on that shrub. Similarly,

no surveys for Karner blue butterfly, a globally-rare moth

characteristic of pitch pine barrens, are known to date from the site.

***January 2021 update: See Site 2 for the relevance of any observations

of animals onsite.

73

Site 2. Hudson River Schaghticoke

B. Constituent Exemplary Natural Communities. (see Map 1)

Riverside Sand/Gravel Bar (Dec 2020) A 37-acre county co-exemplary site for this community type

has been mapped along the Hudson River 1.8 miles to the north of the

Golub parcel in Schaghticoke. One patch of this community is

believed to be present on the Golub tract (but was under snow during

the December 20, 2020 field survey). If intervening patches are

present upstream within 1.0 miles, the Golub patch would be lumped

into this exemplary occurrence. The community was mapped using air

photos; field surveys allow a much more precise mapping of this

community, which typically occurs as narrow, linear bands that are

difficult to detect on air photos.

***January 2021 update: Two narrow, linear patches of this community,

previously under deep snow cover, were confirmed on the Golub tract

during a January 12, 2021 field survey, in a shoreline mosaic with

smaller patches of Cobble Shore and Shoreline Outcrop. If small

intervening patches are present upstream within 1.0 miles, as

expected, the Golub patch would be lumped into this exemplary

occurrence, representing the southern extent of that long

occurrence. Patches on the Golub tract were newly mapped using air

photo interpretation coupled with ground truthing from the field

survey. The community occurrence was originally mapped in 2017

using only air photos, pending field surveys which are necessary to

allow a much more precise mapping of this community type, which

typically occurs as narrow, linear bands that are difficult to

detect on air photos (such as any aforementioned intervening patches).

C. Rare Plants. (See Map 2)

(Dec 2020) Although no rare plant concentration area has been mapped yet

to this aquatic-based site, pending sufficient surveys of its shoreline

and nearshore areas, at least one county-rare plant was observed on the

Golub tract within this site: cocklebur. Several individuals of this

county watch list plant were observed on a shoreline community of the

Hudson River, probably Riverside Sand/Gravel Bar (but buried under deep snow

during the December 2020 field survey). Other county-rare shoreline plants are

suspected from this site and would be most detectable during the

growing season.

***The January 2021 field survey revealed cocklebur in a mosaic of

Riverside Sand/Gravel Bar, Riverside Mudflats, and/or Shallow Emergent

Marsh. Other shoreline plants were not detected but potential habitat

exists for numerous rare species, all known from riverside communities

in the larger site not far to the north in Schaghticoke such as the 3

state-rare plants northern shore quillwort (Isoetes septentrionalis), red-

rooted flatsedge (Cyperus erythrorhizos), and Davis's sedge (Carex davisii) plus

the 13 county-rare plants sandbar lovegrass (Eragrostis frankii), red-topped

panic grass (Coleataenia rigidula), shining flatsedge (Cyperus bipartitus),

intermediate spikerush (Eleocharis intermedia), three-square bulrush

(Schoenoplectus pungens), golden hedge hyssop (Gratiola aurea), false pimpernel

(Lindernia dubia), germander (Teucrium canadense), northern wild senna (Senna

hebecarpa), common silverweed (Potentilla anserina), thin-leaved sunflower

(Helianthus decapetalus), green-headed coneflower (Rudbeckia laciniata), and

sandbar willow (Salix interior). Many of these species may be difficult to

74

Appendix 1: Ecological Surveys (Jan Update)

detect in winter condition. Several additional state- to county-rare

aquatic plants have strong potential to be present in the adjacent

Hudson River waters and would ideally require searches between May and

September.

75

Site 2. Hudson River Schaghticoke. p. 2.

D. Important Animal Habitats

Animal Concentration Area Composition:

(Dec 2020) 1 known probable animal concentration area (odonates). Other

potential concentration areas are likely (large river fish,

shorebirds, riparian birds), but information is not yet available

for analysis. Additional areas would raise the importance level of

this site, if confirmed.

***January 2021 additions: observations and reports of multiple

characteristic animals may suggest the potential for additional

"animal concentration areas" within this mapped site, but more

information is needed on any additional species or concentration

abundances. The following need further evaluation.

1. Aquatic mammal concentration area. a beaver lodge, suspected to be currently active, was noted at the base of the Intermittent Stream on the Golub

parcel. Coupled with evidence of numerous beaver-cut trees along most of the

western edge of the tract and first-hand observations of beaver along the shore of

the tract, it is certain there has been an active resident beaver on the tract in

recent times. Presence of another aquatic mammal, usually otter and/or muskrat, is

usually necessary to designate an "aquatic mammal concentration area".

Observations of a muskrat to the north at Pleasantdale Bluffs proper during a

September 2020 field survey further suggests the presence of such an area.

2. Riverine mollusk concentration area. numerous spent shells of two molluskspecies were found along the shoreline of the river on the Golub parcel: pea (or

pill or fingernail) clam (Sphaerium sp.) and sharp hornsnail (Pleurocera acuta),

suggesting that these two species are abundant in the bed of the adjacent river and

the presence of a nearby mollusk concentration area. Confirmation of such an area

would be strengthened by further evidence that the shells are derived from living

individuals in adjacent or nearby upstream areas of riverbed plus observations of

additional mollusk species, with common elliptio (Elliptio complanata) most

expected. Such records of mollusks might be kept in files of the NYS DEC water

quality unit or NY State Museum, if any nearby sites have been historically

sampled. Inferences might be made, for example, from the reference "Freshwater

Snails of New York State", which has statewide dot maps for all freshwater snail

species.

3. Shorebird concentration area. the call and tracks of spotted sandpiper werenoted during the January 2021 field survey, suggesting potential for a shorebird

concentration area. Further evidence would be needed to determine if such an area

exists onsite, especially during ideal times of the year, thought to be between

April and September. Key evidence would include any abundance of shorebird

individuals and the diversity of shorebird species, especially distinguishing

shorebirds from waterfowl and riparian bird species, treated as separate

concentration area types.

4. Bald eagle habitats. one report of a bald eagle feeding on a fish in the river offshore of the tract has been made. To date, only nesting sites have been

designated as county important for bald eagle, and they are also state important.

Although feeding territory for bald eagle was not designated an important animal

habitat in the county conservation plan, such areas have some county importance,

often correlated with other county-important ecological features, especially

aquatic-based ones. However, the specific feeding territory in the adjacent Hudson

River is apparently mapped as "state-important animal habitat" at NYS DEC and

probably follows a "feeding territory" concept, especially for nesting individuals.

A nesting site is known about 1.5 miles to the north of the Golub parcel and has

76

Appendix 1: Ecological Surveys (Jan Update)

been field confirmed by multiple experts. Those nesting individuals are suspected

to be using a long stretch of the river for feeding territory. I am less sure of

any "roosting territory" which could include large trees along the river that could

serve as a vantage point to scout fish for food, such as the several large trees,

especially red oak, observed along the shore of the Golub tract. No nests have

been observed on the Golub parcel to date.

An additional odonate concentration area is apparently inferred from

the adjacent Hudson River based on important animal habitat mapped

by the NY Natural Heritage Program (of NYS DEC). Onsite assessment

of odonate presence and abundance are ideally made from about June

to August.

Site 2. Hudson River Schaghticoke. p. 3.

D. Important Animal Habitats (continued)

Rare Species Composition (see Map 2):

(Dec 2020) 3 known state & county-rare animal taxa (odonates), all

documented with NY Natural Heritage Program.

***January 2021 additions: Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is a state

rare animal. Its feeding territory, although not explicitly mapped

as a county-important animal habitat, as noted above, has apparently

been mapped as a state-important animal habitat by NYS DEC. The

sharp hornsnail (Pleurocera acuta), mentioned under a potential riverine

mollusk concentration area above, is also state rare. It is tracked

by the NY Natural Heritage Program of NYS DEC as a "state watch

list" species (i.e., a "moderately state rare" species), with a rarity rank

of "S3", thus it would also be designated as "county rare".

Although I used two technical keys for its identity, I am less

skilled with animal identifications than with plants, but I am

relatively certain of this species and I intend to forward a

specimen to a statewide mollusk expert for confirmation/evaluation.

The technical reference book I used, the prime taxonomic reference

for NY freshwater snails (Jokinen 1992: The Freshwater Snails of New

York State), cites historical observations of this snail from the

adjacent reach of the Hudson River in North Troy during the 1980s,

so it makes sense that it could still be here 40 years later.

G. County-Important Forest Corridors.

(Dec 2020) Although the parcel is not within a mapped regionally-important

forest corridor, being situated in the general urban setting of Troy,

it is contained within an important "aquatic corridor" (see information

on county-important aquatic networks and roadless blocks).

***January 2021 additions: Observations of multiple dens and abundant

tracks of what was suspected to be a red fox were noted along the

soiled clay banks of the river on the Golub parcel during a December

20, 2020 field survey, suggesting the presence of a potentially viable

forest corridor associated with the aquatic network (Feature 2-E) and

aquatic matrix block (Feature 2-F).

***January 2021 additions: Observations of one pileated woodpecker, a

characteristic forest-interior bird, on the Golub parcel during a

January 12, 2021 field survey also suggest the presence of a

potentially viable forest corridor associated with the aquatic network

(Feature 2-E) and aquatic matrix block (Feature 2-F).

77

AOP

cult

AOH

AOP

SCTC

cult

RSGB

AOH

IS

RSGB

PORS

SCTC

PORS

Troy

SchaghticokeMap 1. Ecological Communities

78

Appendix 1: Ecological Surveys (Jan Update)

QiSs

Qc

Al

Pa

Ss

Qi

Qc

Ss

Qi

Xs

BL*

AlSm Wi

GbLi

WiSrSm

Al

Troy

Schaghticoke

Map 2. Rare Species Populations

79

Table 1. Ecological Communities of the Parcels. Composition & Importance.

Community Name (Parcel Map Code)Community Type Acres Est.Rank Est.Max.Importance

Appalachian Oak-Hickory Forest (AOH) Natural/Upland Forest 2.1/~10 C

local (Troy riverfront)

Appalachian Oak-Pine Forest (AOP) Natural/Upland Forest 6.0/~50 CD

local (Troy riverfront)

(includes Successional Southern Hardwoods)

Intermittent Stream (IS) Natural/River 0.09/0.09D local (Troy riverfront)

Pitch Pine-Oak-Heath Rocky Summit (PORS) Natural/Upland Barrens 0.2/1.0 C

county (co-exemplary)

Riverside Sand/Gravel Bar (RSGB)Natural/Upland Open Canopy 0.7/38.0 Bcounty (co-exemplary)

/state significant

(includes Shoreline Outcrop and Cobble Shore)

Shale Cliff and Talus Community (SCTC) Natural/Upland Open Canopy 0.9/1.6 C

county (near-exemplary)

cultural (cult) Cultural 1.9/- NA none

(includes younger successional areas) Natural/Upland successional

Notes: Acres = on parcel/entire occurrence; Rank estimated for entire occurrence.

---------------------------------------

Table 2. Natural Community Regional Importance Analyses

Complete Occurrence..............................................

Community......

Rank Estimates......................... Significance......

Rarity.........

Community Name Acres Size Condition Landscape Occurrence County

State County State

Pitch Pine-Oak-Heath Rocky Summit 1.0 D BC BC C Y** N Y

N~

Riverside Sand/Gravel Bar 38.0 AB BC BC B Y** Y Y N~

Shale Cliff and Talus Community 1.6 D B BC C(BC) Y* N? Y Y

Notes: * = also county near-exemplary; ** = also county co-exemplary.

---------------------------------------

80

Appendix 1: Ecological Surveys (Jan Update)

Table 3. Rare Species of Pleasantdale Bluffs Ecosystem Complex site.

Species Name Subsite Presence (# individuals)

Scientific (Parcel Map Code) Common Schaghticoke Golub Parcel/ID

certainty

1. State Rare (4)

Plants (3)

Juglans cinerea Butternut 1 not yet found

Polygonum tenue Pleated-Leaved Knotweed 8 not yet found

Rosa acicularis Bristly Rose 50 not yet found

Animals (1)

Pleurocera acuta (Pa) Sharp Hornsnail not yet found ~100 confirmed Jan 2021 (80%

certainty)

2. County Active List Plants (8)

Carex umbellata Parasol Sedge present possibly observed Jan 2021 (20%

certainty)

Crocanthemum canadense Frostweed 10 not yet found

Cyperus lupulinus Eastern Flat Sedge 50 not yet found

Quercus prinoides Dwarf Chinquapin Oak present probably not present

Sabulina michauxii (Sm) Rock Sandwort not yet found ~30 confirmed

Jan 2021 (80% certainty)

Selaginella rupestris (Sr) Rock Spikemoss present

3 confirmed Jan 2021 (100% certainty)

Solidago squarrosa (Ss) Stout Goldenrod 5

~200 confirmed Jan 2021 (90% certainty)

Symphyotrichum patens Late Purple Aster present not yet found

3. County Watch List Plants (14)

Vascular Plants (13)

Amelanchier sanguinea Round-Leaved Shadbush present

not yet found

Andropogon gerardi Big Bluestem present

probably not present

Arabidopsis lyrata (Al) Lyre-Leaf Cress 100 ~50

confirmed Jan 2021 (100% certainty)

Asplenium trichomanes Maidenhair Spleenwort 50

not yet found

Borodinia canadensis Sicklepod present

not yet found

Drymocallis arguta (Da) Tall Cinquefoilnot yet found ~10 confirmed

Dec 2020 (90% certainty)

Galium boreale (Gb) Northern Bedstraw 40 ~20 confirmed Jan

2021 (95% certainty)

Houstonia longifolia Long-Leaved Bluets present

not yet found

Lechea intermedia (Li) Large-Podded Pinweed 5 ~5 confirmed Dec 2020

(95% certainty)

Lespedeza violacea Wand-Like Bush Clover 5

not yet found

Polygonatum biflorum

var. commutatum Large Solomon's-Seal present

not yet found

Quercus ilicifolia (Qi) Scrub Oak present ~30

confirmed Jan 2021 (100% certainty)

Woodsia ilvensis (Wi) Rusty Woodsia 20 ~50 confirmed Jan

2021 (70% certainty)

81

Non-Vascular Plants (1)

Abietinella abietinum Wiry Fern Moss present

not yet found

Notes:

1. Any state to county rare mosses, among several ones potentially found onsite, are pending

examination and evaluation of specimens from the foremost county bryophyte expert, Tom

Phillips, DVM.

2. Any additional expansion of the list of taxa known from the Golub Parcel would likely require

observations of the site during the growing season (May to September).

---------------------------------------

Table 4. Important Animal Habitats on and near the Golub Parcels.

Animal Group Habitat Type CertaintyEcosystem Known Component Features

Bald eagle feeding territory 90% riverfeeding on fish/state-mapped important habitat

Odonates concentration area 80% river,shore,banksinferred from multiple nearby state-

documented populations of 3 state-

rare odonate taxa/state-mapped

important habitat

Riverine mollusks concentration area 70% river abundant spent

shells of 2 taxa

Large river fish concentration area 30% river suspected from

nearby observations of river

Aquatic mammals concentration area 20% river,shore,banksbeaver

lodge/abundant cut trees/swimming

individual; nearby muskrat

Shorebirds concentration area 5% rivershore, river tracks and call of spotted

sandpiper

Large mammals denning concentration <5% riverbanks, forestmultiple

holes under large tree roots thought

to be potential dens of red fox

Bald eagle nesting territory <5% riverbankslarge potential nesting trees but without

observed nests

Forest birds breeding concentration <1% forest pileated woodpecker fly-

through, suggesting potential small

forest-interior area

Notes: certainty = certainty of habitat type on and/or adjacent to the parcel (e.g., a

"concentration" area)

82

Revised July 2012

Environmental Protection FundLocal Waterfront Revitalization Program

List of Coastal Waterbodies and Designated Inland Waterways

COASTAL WATERBODIES

Arthur KillAtlantic OceanEast RiverHarlem RiverHudson River (south of federal dam at Troy)Kill van Kull

Lake OntarioLake ErieLong Island SoundNiagara RiverSt. Lawrence River

DESIGNATED INLAND WATERWAYS

Allegheny River Ausable RiverBig Tupper LakeBlack LakeBlack RiverBoquet RiverBuffalo RiverBush KillCanadarago LakeCanandaigua LakeCanisteo RiverCattaraugus CreekCayuga LakeChaumont River (including Chaumont Bay)Chautauqua LakeChemung RiverCincinatti CreekCohocton RiverConesus LakeCranberry LakeDelaware RiverDeer RiverEast KillEsopus Creek (Upper and Lower Branches)Fish Creek (East and West Branches)Fulton Chain of LakesGenesee RiverGooseberry CreekGrasse RiverGreat Sacandaga LakeHoneoye LakeHudson River (north of federal dam at Troy)Indian LakeIndian RiverKeuka LakeLake ChamplainLake GeorgeLake PlacidLake Ronkonkoma

Little River (in the Adirondack Park)Little Salmon (North and South Branches)Little Sandy CreekLong LakeMad RiverMettowee RiverMirror LakeMohawk RiverMoose River (North and Middle Branches)Oatka CreekOneida LakeOnondaga CreekOnondaga LakeOswegatchie RiverOtisco LakeOtsego LakeOwasco LakeRaquette LakeRaquette RiverSacandaga LakeSacandaga RiverSalmon RiverSandy CreekSaranac RiverSaratoga LakeSchoharie CreekSchroon LakeSeneca LakeSilver Lake (in Wyoming County)Skaneateles LakeSouth Sandy CreekState Barge Canal SystemSusquehanna RiverTioga RiverTioughnioga RiverTonawanda CreekUpper Saranac LakeWallkill RiverWest Kill

NOTE: Coastal waterbodies and designated inland waterways are defined in Executive Law, Article 42, Section 911. Coastalwaterbodies also include embayments and tributaries that are within New York State's Coastal area.

TROY’s SACRED FORESTIts culture, ecology, history, archaeology, and signifi cance to the community.

SPECIAL THANKS TO THEMEMBERS OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, AND CONTRIBUTORS

Leo Matteo Bachinger, PhD (Environment, Climate, Community Development)

Jessica Bennett (Neighbor, Friends of the Mahicantuck)

Dr. Brandon Costelloe-Kuehn (Science, Technology and Society, Sustainable Design)

Dr. David Hunt (Ecology)

James Kruegler (Water Resources)

Sarah Pezdek (Friends of the Mahicantuck)

Hined Rafeh, MS (Public Health & Policy)

Prof. Don Rittner (Archaeology)

Bethany Yarrow (Waterfall Unity Alliance)

TROY’s SACRED FOREST

Its culture, ecology, history, archaeology, and significance to

the community.

compiled and published by

The Friends of the Mahicantuckwww.save1011.org

FriendsOfTheMahicantuck@gmail.com

and submitted for consideration to

Mayor of the City of Troy, Patrick MaddenPresident of the City Council of Troy, Carmella Mantello

Planning Commissioner of the City of Troy, Steven StrichmanThe Members of the Troy City Council

The Members of the Planning Commission

January 22, 2021Troy, NY

COVER LETTER

Dear Mayor Patrick Madden,City Council President Carmella Mantello,Members of the City Council,Planning Commissioner Steven Strichman, and Members of the Planning Commission,

With this report, the Friends of the Mahicantuck provide comprehensive analysis of the signifi cance of the “Sacred Forest” located at 1011 2nd Avenue. We provide an assessment of adverse impacts associated with the potential change in zoning code as well as potential development of the site.

The fi ndings underscore the unique importance of the “Sacred Forest” and highlight its economic, cultural, ecological, archaeological and historical, and social value. In its signifi cance, this site is unique to the entire region.

This report shows the site’s benefi ts to human health; its natural setting; social, cultural, historic, archaeological and recreational values; and inherent ecological sensitivity. The site at 1011 2nd Avenue thereby warrants designation as Critical Environmental Area (CEA), exceeding the designation criteria established in CRR-NY 617.14(g) — which we request the City of Troy to pursue as soon as possible.

The report provides an ecosystem service analysis, detailing the signifi cant benefi ts to health and wellbeing for the resi-dents of Troy, Pleasantdale as well as downstream communi-ties. The site is an important indigenous heritage and cultural site of national signifi cance (National Register eligible) and is an important green-space within the designated “Potential Environmental Justice area” that it is located in.

Ecological surveys, conducted in December 2020 and January 2021 and included in this report, document several county-rare as well as one state-rare species at the site. The survey also documents the site as potentially sensitive habitat for several species, including as feeding habitat of the Bald Eagle.

An economic cost-benefi t analysis shows disproportionate direct as well as indirect costs resulting from the rezoning and associated development of the site. This includes a negative revenue assessment for the school district as well as for the City of Troy.

“Lost opportunity costs” must be expected particularly regarding the development of the city’s vacant housing stock. Allowing for high density development on this undeveloped site would signifi cantly impact Troy’s capacities to develop its vacant housing stock due to insuffi cient demand. This is con-fi rmed through the most recent forecast issued by US HUD for the region.

Therefore, a rezoning would undermine the strategic development goals established in the 2018 “Realize Troy” Comprehensive Plan, particularly regarding the development of existing housing stock, smart growth, and priority invest-ment areas.

While this site certainly deserves preservation, this report raises signifi cant concerns over process fl aws and inconsistencies with the law, requiring urgent correction, should a change in zoning code be approved. Signifi cant discrepancies with SEQRA as well as inconsistencies with the 2018 “Realize Troy” Comprehensive Plan strike us as particular-ly important.

Based on the fi ndings of this report, we recommend: • Making the preservation and protection of the “Sacred Forest” at 1011 2nd Avenue the city’s highest priority;

• Elected offi cials take the necessary steps to ensure that proper procedural steps are followed and inconsistencies with the law are remedied;

• The Planning Commission recommend against the rezoning for a) the signifi cance of the site; b) anticipated adverse environmental impacts of a change in zoning code, as well as of a potential development; and as c) a positive recommendation would be premature until SEQRA review is completed; and

• Designating the site as Critical Environmental Area (CEA) to ensure the adequate consideration of its environmental signifi cance for any future actions on this land.

Over 2300 signatures to our petition, more than eight hours of testimony against the rezoning at three public hearings, as well as countless written submissions show that your constituents are united across party-lines in opposition to the proposed rezoning and subsequent development of the Sacred Forest at 1011 2nd Avenue in Lansingburgh.

What is more, the public also shows clear and unbroken support for our vision to protect and preserve this land. We continuously advocate for a win-win solution that would create a long-term preservation for the public good at 1011 2nd Avenue, while supporting the City of Troy and the developer in identifying an appropriate site to realize Kevin Vandenburgh’s vision on one of Troy’s many vacant sites.

In this letter and attached supporting material, testimony and evidence, we bring the most critical aspects of our case to your consideration.

The land at 1011 2nd Avenue is sacred. The land is indigenous land. It is the city’s last untouched waterfront forest. It is a valuable natural space with rare ecologies. Especially during this pandemic, the land is a critical green-space for the community in a DEC designated Potential Environmental Justice Area.

This forest has always protected us, provided us with reprieve, clean air and water. It is now on us to protect the Sacred Forest.

Thank you, The Friends of the Mahicnatuck

January 22, 2022 Troy, NY

4 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 8INTRODUCTION 14Chapter One

PROCESS AND LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

16

Chapter Two

ARCHAEOLOGICALSIGNIFICANCE

22

Chapter Three

ECOLOGICALSIGNIFICANCE

26

Chapter Four

ECOSYSTEM SERVICESAND CLIMATE CHANGE

30

Chapter Five

NEIGHBORHOOD ANDCULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE

40

Chapter Six

ECONOMIC COSTSAND BENEFITS

44

REFERENCES 54

Approx. ApproximatelyB.C. / B.C.E. Before Common /Before Common EraC.E. Common EraCEA Critical Environmental AreaDEC CP DEC Commissioner Policy(DEC) PEJA Potential Environmental Justice AreaEAF Environmental Assessment Forme.g. exempli gratia, “for example”etc. et ceteraNHPA National Historic Preservation ActNY New YorkNYSDEC/DEC Department for Environmental Conservation

NYS DoS New York State Department of StateNYSERDA New York State Energy Research and Development AuthorityP Planned Development District PEJA Potential Environmental Justice AreaR-1 Residential, Single Family Housing Res. ResolutionSEQRA State Environmental Quality Review ActSHPO State Historic Preservation Offi ceUS EPA United States Environmental Protection AgencyUS HUD United States Department of Housing and Urban Development

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

CONCLUSIONS 52

APPENDIX 56

7

The Sacred Forest is located at 1011 2nd Avenue in Troy, NY, with one acre of the parcel located in the Town of Schaghticoke. The entire site is located within a DEC designated “Potential Environmental Justice Area” (PEJA).

This parcel constitutes the majority (about 85-90%) of the last untouched forest along the Mahicantuck (Hudson River) in Troy (with the remaining percent located at the parcel directly to the south; and with the other wooded areas being brown-fi eld locations in South Troy). It is of high historical, archaeological and cultural signifi cance and is sacred to indig-enous peoples. It is National Register eligible for its archaeo-logical artifacts dating back to 1500-3000 B.C.E. The property is also an important green-space for the local community, including low-income and minority communities.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A.1 Comprehensive Plan InconsistenciesThe rezoning from R1-Single Family, Detached to P — Planned Development is inconsistent with the 2018 “Realize Troy” Comprehensive Plan. A rezoning has to be consistent with the comprehensive planning document. A rezoning of this parcel would require a zoning plan amendment.

A.2 Rezoning: Negative Impacts and Capacity LimitsDue to the signifi cance of this land, a rezoning to P-Planned Development and associated permission of high-density development would constitute substantive negative impacts and exceed the development capacities of this land.

A.3 SEQRA and SegmentationAny consideration of a rezoning as separate from the known development plans (as if they were separate actions) is a clear case of “segmentation,” according to SEQRA (and reaffi rmed in case law). Currently, the City of Troy is considering rezoning and development as separate actions. However, on Novem-ber 19, 2020, the Planning Commission discussed during a workshop with the developer Kevin Vandenburgh clear site plans for a future development associated with the rezoning. Additionally, at a Planning Commission public hearing on December 27, 2020, the developer made reference to his development plans without providing specifi cs and the members of the commission were able to understand and

respond to the comments regarding development plans without additional clarifi cation. In Kirk-Astor Drive Neighborhood Ass’n v Town Board of Town of Pittsford, 106 A.D 2d 868, 869, 483 N.Y.S.2d 526, 528 (4th Dep’t 1984), “SEQRA review of a rezoning proposal also had to consider the offi ce park that was planned for the land. Similarly, in Taxpayers Opposed to Floodmart, Ltd., v City of Hornell Industrial Development Agency, 212 A.D.2d 958, 624, N.Y.S.2d 689 (4th Dep’t 1995), “environmental review of a proposed annexation also had to consider a Wal-Mart proposed for the land”.

Therefore, under SEQRA, the city cannot separate rezoning and development as if the two were independent actions. This would constitute a clear case of “segmentation” and make the city vulnerable to proceedings under Article 78. Furthermore, NYS law explicitly states that SEQRA should begin at the earliest possible time. While the planning commission’s recommendation is non-binding, it is fundamentally informing the decision of the City Council and therefore part of the approval process.

A.4 SEQRA and RezoningShould the commission or council consider a positive recommendation / approval of the request for rezoning, no further action should be taken until the developer has submitted an EAF and SEQRA has been initiated. SEQRA has to consider development as well as rezoning. Rezoning (as well as zoning plan amendment) need to be indicated as “discre-tionary actions” on the full EAF as part of the SEQRA review. This reports details for each of the aspects of signifi cance clear reasons for why a rezoning itself would hold signifi cant potential for negative environmental impacts.

A.5 DEC Potential Environmental Justice AreaThe land is located within a DEC designated “Potential Environmental Justice Area”. As part of DEC CP 29, applicants for state permits (including SEQRA) are required to conduct extended public participation and outreach measures, including a written public participation plan, and are encouraged to do so prior to application (cp CP 29 section D). According to section E of the same DEC policy, a full EAF is required where projects are located within a Potential Environmental Justice Area (cp. Cp 29 section E).

1) The Planning Commission must recommend against the change in zoning code. At the very least it should recommend against the rezoning as premature until SEQRA is completed.

2) The City Council must vote against the request for rezoning as premature until the developer has submitted an EAF and rezoning has been incorporated as part of SEQRA for the development as a “discretionary action” along with the zoning plan amendment.

3) The Planning Commission should further recommend the designation of the site as Critical Environmental Area (CEA). This would ensure that the high signifi cance of this site is appropriately considered in the current and any further reviews of any actions on this property, as is the purpose of such designation. This report shows that the site at 1011 2nd Avenue does far exceed the requirement and signifi cance criteria for such a designation, as detailed in 6 CRR-NY 617.14 (g) and warrants such a designation.

LEGAL PARAMETERS AND PROCESS REQUIREMENTSA

CONCLUSIONS ANDRECOMMENDATIONS B

SITE SIGNIFICANCE ANDASSESSED IMPACTSC

C.1 Archaeological Signifi canceThis land is well known for its archaeological signifi cance. Artifacts date back to at least 1500-3000 B.C.E. and the site is National Register eligible. It is part of a larger complex of archaeologically signifi cant sites along the Hudson, including across the river. Most, if not all sites, have been destroyed by development in the past further increasing the signifi cance of this site in particular.

C.2 Historical Signifi canceThe land encompassing 1011 2nd Avenue was part of the original Stone Arabia Patent, granted in 1670 by the governor of the province of New York, Francis Lovelace. The land was then deeded to Abraham Jacob Lansing on July 13, 1769 by the Patroon Stephen Van Rensselaer. 1011 2nd Avenue has been locally known as “Lansing’s Grove” for 200 years and used as a recreational escape for city inhabitants and community access to the Hudson River for fi shing, swimming, camping and picnics. The community activities at the site are

mentioned extensively in historic periodical archives and it remains to this day a place used by Lansingburgh and Pleasantdale residents to enhance their quality of life.

C.3 Cultural Signifi canceAs such, this site is of high cultural signifi cance to a number of indigenous peoples including the Stockbridge Munsee, Lenape, and Schaghticoke First Nations. These ties, grown over thousands of years, are still well alive and indigenous leaders held ceremony on this site as recently as December 2020. The cultural signifi cance also extends to the present local community, particularly BIPOC youth and local residents of the Lansingburgh Neighborhood. The forest is an essential part of the neighborhood’s character.

C.4 Ecological Signifi canceThis forest is an important ecological site within the City of Troy. In a recent preliminary survey in December 2020, led by Dr. David Hunt, several county-rare species have been identifi ed, one of which — the scrub oak — is an important habitat indicator for globally rare species such as the buck moth. A state-rare species was likely identifi ed as well. Detailed surveys are provided in the Appendix. Findings indicate that more extensive ecological surveys during the growth season (May-September) are required before a positive decision regarding rezoning would be possible. Initial fi ndings however already show a high ecological signifi cance due to the presence of several rare species on the site.

C.5 Ecosystem ServicesDue to its ecological composition, location and character, the land located at 1011 2nd Avenue provides critical ecosystem services to the local community, the City of Troy overall, and downstream and adjacent communities — the loss to which all these communities would be harmed and im-pacted parties. Some of the most critical ecosystem services, which would be lost as a consequence of high-density devel-opment on this site, include: stormwater runoff protection, urban heat mitigation, clean air, carbon sequestration, fl ood protection, nature and wildlife habitats including species that themselves provide important ecosystem services.

This aspect is of increased signifi cance, also legally, as the primarily harmed community is located in a DEC Potential Environmental Justice Area, causing disproportionate cost for a minority, low-income and/or marginalized community.

8 9

C.6 Signifi cance for Climate ResilienceThe Sacred Forest acts as a critical buff er to a range of climate risks and plays an important role in the City of Troy’s climate resilience. Due to its geographic location upstream of the entire city this waterfront forest provides critical resilience to fl ooding and storm-water impacts. It also acts as a buff er to storm-water runoff . Additionally, the forest is an important carbon sink while also providing mitigative eff ects to the Urban Heat Island and heat waves. It’s destruction would therefore signifi cantly adversely impact the city’s overall climate resilience and would signifi cantly increase fl ood risks to downstream locations in particular.

C.7 Community and Public HealthThe forest provides critical ecosystem services benefi cial to human physical and mental health. This report outlines the signifi cant contribution to overall community wellbeing by providing clean water and clean air and due to its benefi ts to mental health. These services to public health are particularly critically important during the current pandemic and associated impacts on mental and physical health. In turn, an increase in density, associated with the proposed zoning change would to a signifi cant degree adversely impact public health in this PEJA. Particularly increased particulate pollution as well as noise pollution associated with increased traffi c would threaten the physical and mental wellbeing of the local community in a characteristically quiet neighborhood.

C.8 Economic ImpactsThis report fi nds signifi cant negative economic impacts through rezoning and/or development of the site at 1011 2nd Avenue due to a) costs associated with the loss of ecosystem services, b) costs of public services, resulted in an annual loss in revenue of at least $890,000.00 / year, and c) lost opportunity costs, in particular regarding the limited housing demand and the resulting negative eff ects on capacities to redevelop vacant sites should this undeveloped green-space be opened to high-density development.

C.9 Housing Demand & Smart Growth GoalsThe most recent Comprehensive Housing Market Analysis by the US Department for Housing and Urban Development (US HUD) for Albany-Schenectady-Troy explicitly states that housing demand is nearly at or already at capacity (cp. US HUD 2019, p. 1). This is particularly signifi cant in context of a

high number of vacant, abandoned and neglected sites across Troy that are explicitly designated as investment priority areas in the 2018 “Realize Troy” Comprehensive plan.

In this context, rezoning to encourage high density develop-ment at this undeveloped site appears contrary to the devel-opment priorities established in the Comprehensive Plan. The existence of an old housing stock in need for development in combination with limited housing demand establishes clear development needs. Developing the site at 1011 2nd Avenue would undermine addressing these development needs and is contrary to the development strategy established in the Comprehensive Plan.

DESIGNATION AS CRITICALENVIRONMENTAL AREAD

One measure at disposal to the City of Troy and recommend-ed by this report is the designation of the Sacred Forest at 1011 2nd Avenue as “Critical Environmental Area” — see 6 CRR-NY 617.14: “A local agency may designate a specifi c geographic area within its boundaries as a critical environmental area (CEA).”

This report shows that this site qualifi es for designation as CEA, exceeding the criteria defi ned in 6 CRR-NY 617.14(g): (i) benefi t to human health (see chapter x); (ii) natural setting (see chapters x and x), (iii) social, cultural, historic, archaeological, and recreational values (chapter x), and (iv) inherent ecological sensitivity (chapter x).

CONSIDERATION OF IN-RIGHT DEVELOPMENTE

The developer “alternative site proposal” of approx. 38 apart-ment units would also be subject to SEQRA approval and would constitute a type I action per 6 NYCRR Part 617.4(6)(i).

A recommendation against rezoning is not only the only action consistent with NYS law and the process requirements established in SEQRA; it also means that a negative recommendation by the commission (and subsequent denial of the request for rezoning by the City Council) would not automatically mean that 38 family houses will be constructed on the site: This will require SEQRA approval, would

constitute in all likelihood constitute a type I SEQRA action (along with various required local, state and federal permits). The listed concerns and signifi cant environmental impacts would remain valid and relevant in any future SEQRA associated with the potential 38 single family houses development option. The designation as Critical Environ-mental Area, warranted based on the fi ndings of this report, would constitute additional protections for the site in review processes.

A 38 family housing development should be subject to considerations only if an application for such a proposal is received. This further underscores that a recommendation should insist on the submission of an application and the initiation of SEQRA, so the commission can make an informed determination about what it is reviewing and provide an informed recommendation on a concrete development proposal that is already known to be associated with the request for change in zoning code.

10 11

“The Great Spirit is in all things. He is in the air we

breathe. The Great Spirit is our Father, but the Earth is

our Mother. She nourishes us. That which we put into the ground she returns to us.”

—Big Thunder (Bedagi) Wabanaki, Algonquin

INTRODUCTIONOVERVIEW

This report provides a comprehensive overview of key issues regarding the signifi cance of the “Sacred Forest” located at 1011 2nd Avenue in the Lansingburgh neighborhood of Troy, NY.

This land, sacred to indigenous peoples and valued by the local community as important green-space and natural recreational space, is currently threatened by a development project.

The development sees construction of approx. 240 “high end” apartment units in three four-story buildings. For the purpose of such a development, a change in zoning code (from R-1 to P) is required and has been requested by developer Kevin Vandenburgh. The land is owned by the Golub family with the developer holding an option for purchase.

This report is intended to provide law-makers and decision makers as well as the general public with in-depth information regarding the signifi cance and value of the forest at 1011 2nd Avenue as well as regarding impacts associated with a change in zoning code and subsequent development of the site.

METHODSThis report was written, drawing on input and analyses provided by experts, the latest state of the art of academic literature as well as testimonies on the development and site provided by experts to the City of Troy during public hearings.

For the purpose of this report, several analyses and assessments were commissioned with independent experts, including ecosystem assessments, ecological survey, general archaeological evaluation (not survey), and legal analysis. Additionally, the report was shared with an advisory committee for review and feedback.

The results are compiled here for overview and review and are preliminary results of a larger eff ort to provide decision-makers and the public with the best possible information as it becomes available. As such, the results presented here are highlights, as data collection, assessments and research continues.

HOW TO READ THIS REPORT This report is structured so decision-makers and the public can read fi rst those sections that are most relevant to them.

An Executive Summary highlights the most important fi ndings and conclusions as they pertain to current considerations of a change in zoning code for 1011 2nd Avenue.

Additionally, each section begins with an overview and provides a convenient info-box with the most important highlights of each section — allowing the reader to quickly assess the most critical information provided in each section.

The report closes with a conclusions section, providing the reader with a broad-stroke review of the highlights for each individual section.

STRUCTURE This report opens in CHAPTER 1 with a detailed review of past actions regarding development of 1011 2nd Avenue and gives an assessment of the current status of this process. It also highlights critical process fl aws and legal concerns.

Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 provide a review of the most important fi ndings regarding the land’s archaeological and ecological signifi cance. This includes the national signifi cance of the site’s archaeology as well as the documentation of county- and state-rare species.

Chapter 4 takes a look at the ecosystem services provided by the forested land, in particular regarding public health, fl ooding and stormwater, and climate and environmental resilience.

Chapter 5 discusses the cultural signifi cance of the land and situates it’s role for the character of the neighborhood.

Chapter 6 provides an economic analysis of costs and benefi ts of a) remaining the site in its undeveloped state, b) ecosystem services and c) rezoning and development,

The report ends with the conclusion section with an overview of the highlights for each of the preceding sections.

The Appendix provides additional resources, including the recent ecological surveys from December 2020 and January 2021, an analysis of the Comprehensive Plan by Scenic Hudson and Riverkeeper, a NYS Department of State opinion, a stormwater runoff analysis and a written statement by economist Dr. Gowdy.

14 15

CHAPTER ONE

PROCESS AND LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

This chapter provides a general outline of the process history, current status and next steps in the review of the proposed development at 1011 2nd Avenue and associated/discretionary actions (such as rezoning and zoning code amendment).

It discusses discrepancies with the process as well as remedies and recommendations.

1.1 PROCESS HISTORYMay 2020 — Planning CommissionThe public was fi rst introduced to a potential development of the “Sacred Forest’’ site at 1011 2nd Avenue in May at an information sharing workshop during a City of Troy Planning Commission hearing. Conceived as an informal information workshop session, the developer introduced the commission and public to plans for developing the site at 1011 2nd Avenue by constructing six apartment buildings accommodating approximately 240 “high end apartment units’’. The public already at this early meeting provided extensive feedback to the commission and developer, including an indigenous leader — and articulated strong concern and opposition to potentially disrupting this archaeologically and culturally signifi cant site.

August 27, 2020 — City Council Planning Committee MeetingAt a hearing of the City Council Planning Committee, a request for rezoning associated with the development was introduced for a vote as Resolution Res. 91 “Resolution Referring Lansingburgh Zoning Change Request To Planning Commission For Review and Recommendation (Council President Mantello) (At The Request Of The Administration)”.

At the public forum, ten experts from various fi elds provided testimony to the members of the committee, arguing for the preservation and protection of the site and urged to vote against Res. 91 given the high cultural, archaeological, ecological and community signifi cance of the site. Additional to the spoken testimony, several written statements were

entered into the record alongside petitions with signatures of 24 neighbors of the property, 42 Troy residents and 248 signatures on an online petition. A preliminary report was submitted to the record.

Members of the Planning Committee voted 1-2 to pass Res. 91.

September 10, 2020 — City Council General MeetingAt a general meeting of the Troy City Council, the request for rezoning was taken up again in form of Res. 91. At the public form, a large number of members of the public gave testimony alongside experts and representatives from organizations such as Scenic Hudson, Schaghticoke First Nations, Stockbridge Munsee, Friends of the Mahicantuck, a legal representative of Rupp, Baase, Pfalzgraf, Cunningham LLC and others. As was the case for the August 27 hearing, in over three hours of testimony not a single statement was in support of the development and/or proposed rezoning.

Additionally, a written opinion by New York State Department of State was submitted to the City of Troy assessing the residency requirement to speak during the forum asinconsistent with New York State Open Meetings Law. This requirement was however maintained by the City of Troy despite protest by advocacy groups and despite being made aware that this inconsistency results in the exclusion of indigenous leaders to speak at the hearing, including representatives of the Stockbridge Munsee and Schaghticoke First Nations.

The City Council passed Resolution 91 with a 3-4 vote.

November 19, 2020 — Planning Commission Workshop with Developer (No Opportunity For Public Comment)With the referral to the Planning Commission, the matter of rezoning was taken up by the Planning Commission on November 19, 2020 in a workshop with the developer. The workshop was excluded from public comments.

The agenda included a “Project Narrative” for the development provided by the developer, which detailed site plans for development of 240 apartment units in three four-story buildings. This plan also included the location of archeo-sensitive areas (which is against best practice of archaeological preservation and conservation). During this workshop, the members of the Planning Commission discussed the development plans as part of the rezoning.

December 29, 2020 — Planning Commission Public ForumThe Planning Commission held a public hearing to hear public comment on: “Planning Commission Recommendation to the City Council for Zone Change: Kevin Vandenburgh is proposing a zone change from R-1 (Single-Family Residential Detached, §285-52) to P (Planned Development, §285-57). Pursuant to §285-27 of the City Code a public hearing is re-quired. The applicant is represented b Jamie Easton, P.E. of M.J. Engineering”.

During this hearing the public attempted to raise concerns regarding the potential segmentation of rezoning and development as separate actions, as well as concerns regarding the untimely initiation of SEQRA. Additionally the public as well as representatives of organizations, experts,

and representatives of indigenous groups, raised a range of environmental, archaeological, cultural, neighborhood character and other concerns.

At this meeting, several members of the public were cut off from completing their statements, including an indigenous leader. (Some members of the planning commission stepped in to allow some members of the public to complete their statements). Additionally, the scope of the public forum was limited by restricting matters of conversations regarding is-sues of segmentation and SEQRA, and by explaining that the public forum would be exclusively about the rezoning and not about development site plans.

1.2 CURRENT PROCESS STATUSWe fi nd signifi cant discrepancies between the current process and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and fi nd in part signifi cant process irregularities.

The City of Troy is currently reviewing a request for change in zoning code for 1011 2nd Avenue. This process is outlined in the City Code, which requires a public hearing (§285-27). This hearing was held on December 29, 2020 (see above).

This is reaffi rmed in recurrent statements that the commission is currently tasked with a review and recommendation exclusively regarding the request for rezoning itself (and not about any development at the site).

Chapter One: Process and Legal Considerations

HIGHLIGHTS

• Treating the rezoning as if it were an independent action under SEQRA constitutes “segmentation”

• According to SEQRA, review should start without delay and at the earliest possible time

• The site is located in an PEJA, requiring a full EAF for any action on the land. A written outreach plan is also required for actions within PEJAs per DEC CP 29.

• Rezoning to P (Planned Development) would be inconsistent with Troy’s Comprehensive Plan and therefore would require a Comprehensive Plan amendment.

• Residency requirement to speak at public forums were inconsistent with NYS Open Meetings Law

• Public disclosure of archeo-sensitive locations could be a violation of NHPA Section 304

16 17

1.3 INCONSISTENCIES WITH SEQRA1.3.1. SEGMENTATION

The City of Troy explicitly stated that it is currently exclusively reviewing a request for rezoning as complete action and held a public hearing as part of this process pursuant to §285-27 of Troy City Code. Currently the City of Troy is considering rezoning and development as separate actions, although the rezoning request is explicitly pursuant a known development proposal.

However, this process applies only to such cases, where the rezoning itself is indeed the complete and independent action. For the case of rezoning 1011 2nd Avenue, however, the case cannot be made that the rezoning constitutes a complete action.

Development plans are known, have been extensively discussed as part of the current review process, and were repeatedly referred to by members of the Planning Commission. A rezoning is not the complete action and is requested by Kevin Vandenburgh pursuant a known development project. Rezoning has to be a discretionary action of what should be the review of the known development project.

Concrete development plans were subject of extensive discussion during the November workshop as well as during the public forum in December. The development plans are explicitly part of and informing the Planning Commission’s considerations and decision. It is also known from statements made by the developer to the Planning Commission that the rezoning is pursuant to his development plans. This includes during a workshop entirely dedicated to specifi c development plans on November 19, 2020, as well as conversations and discussions between developer, members of the Planning Commission, staff of the commission and legal council during a hearing on December 29th, 2020.

Therefore, the current process of review is inconsistent with the intent and outlined process requirements established in SEQRA (State Environmental Quality Review Act). In fact, any consideration of a rezoning as separate from the known development plans (as if they were separate actions), such as is the case for the review process as currently conducted by the City of Troy, constitutes a clear case of “segmentation”, according to SEQRA.

The NYS Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) generally prohibits “segmentation”, which is defi ned as “the division of the environmental review of an action such that various activities or stages are addressed under this Part as though they were independent, unrelated activities, needing individual determinations of signifi cance”.

This applies also for cases where a rezoning is treated as if it were an independent, unrelated activity. That this is the case was also reaffi rmed by the courts. In Kirk-Astor Drive Neigh-borhood Ass’n v Town Board of Town of Pittsford, 106 A.D 2d 868, 869, 483 N.Y.S.2d 526, 528 (4th Dep’t 1984), “SEQRA review of a rezoning proposal also had to consider the offi ce park that was planned for the land. Similarly, in Taxpayers Opposed to Floodmart, Ltd., v City of Hornell Industrial Development Agency, 212 A.D.2d 958, 624, N.Y.S.2d 689 (4th Dep’t 1995), “environmental review of a proposed annexation also had to consider a Wal-Mart proposed for the land”.

Therefore, the current review process is contrary to the intent of SEQRA and constitutes a clear case of “segmentation”, making the city vulnerable to proceedings under Article 78.

1.3.2. TIMING OF SEQRA

While the planning commission’s recommendation is non-binding, it is fundamentally informing the decision of the City Council and therefore part of the approval process. Additionally, New York’s SEQRA explicitly states that the process of environmental review pursuant to SEQRA should begin at the earliest possible time and without delay.

The intent for the law is to avoid cases such as the one currently unfolding for the rezoning review for 1011 2nd Avenue: This becomes explicit when one considers the next steps in approving the request for rezoning within the process currently pursued by the City of Troy. After a recommendation by the planning commission, the matter would return to the Troy City Council for further consideration. Before approval through the City Council, a SEQRA review will become necessary. Statements made during the November workshop already made clear that the Planning Commission would likely be the lead agency in this SEQRA review — returning the matter to the commission for review once again. Ideally, SEQRA would have been initiated

with the initial referral to the Planning Commission per City Council resolution 91 in September 2020.

This would have ensured that the required full EAF is submitted, that the planning commission can make its recommendation based on a full review of all material facts including SEQRA review, and that the requirement to initiate SEQRA review at the earliest time possible is met.

1.3.3. CONCLUSIONS

Ultimately, the current process (upon request by the City Council) is one where the Planning Commission ended up in a paradoxical situation: One where it, per offi cial statements of commission staff , is reviewing and making recommendations on the rezoning alone as a complete action, while simultaneously also considering and reviewing development plans as part of this review and recommendation process.

Additional confusion about the process emerges, as the recommendation is non-binding and regards the rezoning request in some capacity — at the same time as the SEQRA review is still outstanding but will likely be conducted by the Planning Commission as lead agency. According to statements made during the workshop in November, the City Council would like to designate the Planning Commission as lead agency for the SEQRA review for the rezoning (as well as the SEQRA for the development at a later point, which is considered by the City as a separate action).

This makes the purpose of the recommendation diffi cult to bring in consistency with key provisions of SEQRA regarding timing and issues of segmentation.

1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AREAS

The matter becomes further complicated, as the site in question (1011 2nd Avenue) is located within a DEC designated “Potential Environmental Justice Area” (DEC CP 29).

The designation “Potential Environmental Justice Area” means “a minority or low-income community that may bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental

Chapter One: Process and Legal Considerations

consequences resulting from industrial, municipal, and com-mercial operations or the execution of federal, state, local, and tribal programs and policies.”

As part of the DEC policy CP 29, applicants for state permits (including SEQRA) are required to conduct extended public participation and outreach measures, including a written public participation plan, and are encouraged to do so prior to application (cp. CP 29 section D). According to section E of the DEC policy, a full EAF is required where projects are located within a Potential Environmental Justice Area (cp. Cp 29 section E).

This again relates back to inconsistencies with SEQRA, both in terms of segmentation issues as well as timing of initiation. At the time of application, but ideally before that, the devel-oper is required to submit a full EAF as well as a written public outreach plan. None of these requirements have been fulfi lled to this date. Importantly, the current discrepancies between the city’s review process and process requirements constitut-ed in SEQRA directly lead to delays in compliance with DEC CP 29 regarding outreach obligations and the submission a full EAF. Additionally concerning is in this context a statement by the developer’s representative that he would merely provide the Planning Commission with a standard EAF instead of the EAF.

The Planning Commission should insist on the full EAF (as well as the initiation of SEQRA) prior to any recommendation, as a full EAF will become necessary once a SEQRA application is submitted (per DEC CP 29).

1.5 DISCREPANCIES WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

Yet another potential — and potentially signifi cant — process fl aw relates to inconsistencies of the requested rezoning with the Comprehensive Plan (see Appendix 2).

Extensive analyses were submitted to the record regarding the inconsistencies of a change of zoning code to P (Planned Development) with the 2018 “Realize Troy” Comprehensive Plan. These inconsistencies were only partly addressed in the

18 19

current review process. The analyses clearly show a range of inconsistencies with the Comprehensive Plan. This constitutes potential for process fl aws, should the rezoning be approved by the City Council — and must therefore be refl ected in any recommendation by the Planning Commission.

New York’s zoning enabling statutes (General City Law §20(25), Town Law §263, Village Law §7-704) require “that zoning laws be adopted in accordance with a comprehensive plan” (NYS DOS 2015, p.1). Additionally, the zoning enabling acts continue to require that zoning be undertaken “in accord with a well considered plan” or “in accordance with a comprehensive plan”.

Additionally, a rezoning of a parcel of land “to a use category diff erent from the surrounding area, usually to benefi t a single owner or a single development interest”, constitutes illegal spot zoning (cp. NYS DOS 2015, p. 5). Explicitly, “size of the parcel is relevant, but not determinative. Illegal spot zoning occurs whenever ‘the change is other than part of a well-considered and comprehensive plan calculated to serve the general welfare of the community” (Ibid.).

These provisions have at least three direct implications for the request for rezoning.

First, it can be argued that the rezoning benefi ts solely “a single development interest” as well “a single owner”, constituting spot zoning. While size is relevant, it is not determinative. Given that the rezoning is for the benefi t of a single development interest of housing stock, the size of the land is less relevant.

This is especially the case, as signifi cant concerns regarding negative economic, ecological, archaeological as well as development impacts have been raised and referred to — including concerns over housing demand as a limited resource and eff ects on the development of abandoned and neglected sites that are located within the Comprehensive Plan’s investment priorities areas.

Second, inconsistencies with the comprehensive plan would in this context also require a Comprehensive Plan amend-ment.

Third, any recommendation made by the Planning Commis-sion needs to take these concerns into account. Given the

legal implications described above, a recommendation must be made against a rezoning unless concerns of spot zoning are eliminated and the comprehensive plan is amended.

1.8. ADDITIONAL IRREGULARITIESFinally, we would like to draw attention to a number of additional, at times signifi cant, irregularities & process fl aws.

1.8.1. RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT TO SPEAK DURING PUBLIC FORUM AND ITS DISCRIMINATORY EFFECTS

Residency requirements to speak at public meetings imposed unfair restrictions. This was the case for public hearings held by the City Council Planning Committee (August 27, 2020) and by the City Council (September 10, 2020). While the residency requirement was not enforced at the August 27 hearing, it was enforced for the general meeting on September 10.

A NYS DOS Opinion (Appendix 3) was provided to the City Council and Council President Mantello ahead of the September 10, 2020, meeting. President Mantello responded by exempting one representative of the Friends of the Ma-hicantuck from the residency requirement. According to the opinion, applying diff erent rules for participation to diff erent segments of the public (including based on residency) is inconsistent with NYS Open Meetings law.

The residency requirement had in its consequence discriminatory eff ects. Indigenous leaders with ties to the land have signifi cant stake and are directly aff ected by any de-cisions about the land at 1011 2nd Avenue. This is particularly striking in the context of a the history of forced removal from this land and the entire region. Indigenous leaders could not meet the residency requirement and were unfairly excluded from speaking, due to this rule. The City Council President was made aware of this eff ect.

1.8.2. PUBLICATION OF LOCATIONS OF ARCHEO-SENSITIVE AREAS

The developer as well as the City of Troy violated best practices regarding the disclosure of archeo-sensitive areas at 1011 2nd Avenue. It is the standard practice, also followed

by NYS SHPO, to not disclose the location of archeo-sensitive areas. The City of Troy disclosed the locations of these sites publicly by providing a map as part of the public agendas for November 19, 2020, as well as for December 29, 2020. The developer disclosed the same locations during his presentations at the workshop on November 19, 2020.

This jeopardized National Register eligible archeo-sensitive sites. It could also be a violation of law: Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) protects certain sensitive information about historic properties from disclosure to the public when such disclosure could result in, for example, a signifi cant damage to the historic property.

1.8.3. LIMITING THE PUBLIC’S ABILITY TO PARTICIPATE IN DEMOCRATIC PROCESSES

Several instances occurred that are of concern in principles of democratic participation and open governance. NYS Open Meetings Law provides relatively large autonomy to communities regarding the conduct of public forums, their announcement, the publication of agendas, and their structure and content.

Yet, the purpose of law is not to provide best practice, but rather to ensure that minimum legal standards are met. This is also the case for the conduct of public forums and the shaping of public participation in decision-making processes. Government should not strive to meet minimum legal requirements when it comes to democratic processes,-such as the participation of the public in governance. Rather, it should strive to adhere to the best practices possible.

Several fl aws undermined the public’s participation throughout a processes that started in May 2020, including:

• refusing to allow the public to fi nish their statements within reason (Hearing on December 29); • refusing the public to read statements into the record that were previously submitted as written (Hearing on December 29) • Excluding non-residence from speaking, including indigenous leaders (September 10) • A priori restrictions and exclusions of specifi c topics that were within the scope of the agenda during a public forum, where public forum should be an opportunity for

the public to raise its concerns freely • Urging the public to not repeat itself, where the repetition of the same statement can itself be an important act and signify public consensus on a matter • Instances where the ability of the public to prepare for public hearings was limited or prevented, including (in part signifi cant) delays in responses to FOIL requests; the response to FOIL request after the date of scheduled public hearings; and limited or no response by public offi cials or members of the staff to sincere and important questions submitted in writing by representatives of advocacy groups.

1.7. CONCLUSIONSThis chapter outlined several signifi cant issues with the cur-rent process that, some of which potentially amount to signifi cant inconsistencies with the law, including SEQRA, NYS Open Meetings Law, New York’s zoning enabling statutes, and NHPA. Some of these issues include segmentation, spot zoning, inconsistencies with the 2018 “Realize Troy” Comprehensive Plan, delays in complying with DEC CP 29, and the disclosing of archeo-sensitive locations for a National Register eligible site.

Others are less explicitly in confl ict with the law and instead represent a failure in fostering participation in democratic processes.

We therefore recommend: 1) the Planning Commission should recommend against the rezoning; at least as premature. 2) The City Council should take the necessary steps to remedy inconsistencies with NYS Open Meetings law. 3) The City Council and Mayor should take the necessary steps to ensure that participation in democratic processes do not only meet the requirements of the law, but follow the best standards available, as to encourage, welcome and foster public participation in democratic processes such as public forums. 4) The Planning Commission should recommend to designate the Sacred Forest at 1011 2nd Avenue as Critical Environmental Area (CEA).

Chapter One: Process and Legal Considerations

20 21

CHAPTER TWO

ARCHAEOLOGICALSIGNIFICANCE

The archaeological, historical and cultural signifi cance of the land located at 1011 2nd Avenue is well documented. Its signifi cance constitutes eligibility for the National Register.

High density development zoning would increase foot traffi c on the site, threatening the destruction of archeo-sensitive sites. Development would lead to an irrevocable loss of one of Troy’s most signifi cant historical and archaeological locations with a history of over 5,000 years of human habitation and use.

Chapter Two: Archaeological Signifi cance

HIGHLIGHTS

• The site at 1011 2nd Avenue is of high archaeological, historical and cultural significance.

• Studies found artifacts dating back to 1500-3000 B.C.E.

• Due to its archaeological-historical-cultural significance the site would qualify for CEA designation.

• Surrounding archaeological sites indicate a high likelihood for additional significant finds on this site.

• Considering the significance of the site, “In-Right” development would face SEQRA challenges

• Due to the significance of the site, SEQRA should be initiated without further delay

• Due to the significance of the site, the City of Troy should designate the site as CEA, and the Planning

Commission should recommend to do so.

The archaeological signifi cance of the site, combined with the increased risk for disturbance through foot traffi c associated with a change to high density zoning, should constitute enough ground for the Planning Commission to recommend against the rezoning. However, if a change in zoning code remains under consideration, no recommen-dation should be made until SEQRA review has completed. Similarly, SEQRA review should be initiated as soon as possi-ble and without any further delay given the signifi cance of the site.

2.1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE

A consistent academic consensus exists regarding the historical, archaeological and cultural signifi cance of this site, particularly regarding the Mahican peoples, but also prehistoric communities that utilized this site as early as 1600-3000 B.C. (Brumbach, 1987).

Several archaeological studies have been conducted on this land, with one of the fi rst signifi cant studies dating back to the 1980ies (Brumbach, 1987; Lothorp et al, 2018). The existing reports, studies and academic publications all consistently conclude that the land in question is of high historical and archaeological signifi cance, and that the found artifacts justify the registration of this land in the National Registry. This has also been confi rmed in personal correspondence with a lead archaeologist involved in the recent 2020 survey. The report was not yet made available to the public.

According to these studies, the sites contain signifi cant amounts of prehistoric and historic archaeological artifacts. The scientifi c consensus agrees that this site is of high historic, archaeological and cultural signifi cance.

Amongst the artifacts are countless signifi cant ones of members of the Mahican peoples, but also important fi nds

ranging back to prehistoric times. The site was used by the Mahican people as a quarry and tool making site. The site was also identifi ed as the potential location of semi-permanent and potentially permanent settlements. Some of the studies also mention strong indications for burial sites (US EPA, 2002).

The EPA cultural resource survey associated with the 2002 Re-cord of Decision relating the Hudson River remediation (Ibid.) also emphasizes the historical-cultural and archaeological signifi cance of this site and notes the need for further study of this site for the future — which has not been independently conducted to this date. This report also states the high likelihood of yet to be recovered resources.

Finally, two reports associated with the site as well as a second in immediate proximity — both referred together as the Pleasantdale Quarry — explicitly identify the sites as historically and archaeologically critical and positively review the archaeological record associated with these sites as eligible for the National Register (Brumbach, 1993).

One of these reports, referenced and submitted to the record for the Troy City Council hearing on September 10, 20202 was authored by Hetty Jo Brumbach, Paula Zitzler, the Public Archeology Facility and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and discusses the “potential eligibility for nomination to the Na-tional Registry of Historic Places” (Brumbach, 1993, p 1).

On page 81, the authors explicitly state that: “Stage II survey recovered adequate data to determine that the prehistoric site … appears to meet the criteria for eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places. [...] disturbance to the site has been minimal. Very little arti-fact collection has taken place and few of the residents are aware of the presence of the prehistoric material. Thus, unlike some quarry locations of the Hudson Valley, the site has not been depleted by collectors”

And continue:“The site also has the potential for providing unique infor-mation pertaining to regional prehistory since it is one of the few professionally reported and investigated archaeo-logical sites in Rensselaer County. Thus, the site is capable of yielding information important in prehistory.”

Based on these reports, the site’s unique importance becomes explicit and preservation critical.

It also makes clear that its development would lastingly destroy this site and rob the city and its people of a major aspect of its history. Similarly, a rezoning of the site would cause increased foot-traffi c on the site, increasing disturbance risks to the archeo-sensitive locations.

2.2 SURROUNDING SITES1

The proposed development in Lansingburgh/Speigletown at 1011 2nd Avenue is an area of high archaeological potential

considering it is near the confl uence of two major river valleys, the Hudson and Mohawk. Lansingburgh has been long known to have been settled by Algonquian speaking people (Mohican) and various names for parts of the Burgh have been recorded by early settlers and historians.

This territory was recorded as early as 1614 as found on the Adriaen Block map of New Netherland and Cornelius Hendrickson map of 1616, two early Dutch traders of the Hudson Valley and who were responsible for the founding of nearby Albany.

Panhoosicklay north of Troy near the Piscawen Kill (Middleburgh St). Part of the name is retained in the area (Hoosick).

Potquassick was an early name for Lansingburgh and might mean “round stones.” One historian applied the name to a woodland east of the river and “near a small island commonly known as whale fi shing island.” Whale Island was in the Hudson directly across from Herman Melville’s home, now the Lansingburgh Historical Society at 2 114thStreet. The name of a whale is from pootau, “he blows strongly.” The place name seems to be from petuhqui “it is round” and quassik, means “Stone.” Whale Island is now buried under the raised level of the Hudson River. Whale Island was inspiration for Melville’s writing.

Sheepschack was on the site of Lansingburgh according to a 19thcentury historian. It may be derived from seip, “a river.” Taescameasick is also placed on the site of Lansingburgh and

22 23

suggests a ford. Nachtenac was used to describe Waterford and the mouth of the Mohawk River. It means “Excellent land.” Quahemiscos is Mohican for Van Schaick Island. Tiosaronda is Mohawk for the junction of the Mohawk and Hudson Rivers and means “mingling of two streams,” or “place where streams empty themselves.”

In addition, over the last century and a half, many Native sites have been found in the Burgh.

Just yards from this proposed development site is a well known fl int mine, now on the property of the Hannaford shopping market. Flint, or Chert, is a sedimentary cryptocrystalline form of Quartz and is found in rocks such as limestone and chalks and was used extensively for tool making and hunting implements from the fi rst arrivals of indigenous people in the area some 10,000 years ago.

The famous Flint Mine Hill in Coxsacki for example is on the National Register of Historic Places. West Athens Hill, south of us, is a well-known Paleoindian work site that dates back to about 13,000 years ago. These deposits of fl int were well known to indigenous peoples of the area and they often lived close by.

Over the last two centuries and particularly in the 19thand early 20thcentury, amateur archaeologists combed the banks of the Hudson River in the Capital District discovering Native sites of various ages. In 1897 a Native cemetery was uncovered near the intersection of River and Second Avenues; a neighboring camp site was also located. There was an early camping spot of three acres with signs of two occupations on nearby Green Island.

The famous Menomine’s Castle (village) was located on Peebles Island and can be seen on the Van Rensselaer Map of 1631. Chief Menomine was killed in the Mohican war with the Mohawks between 1624-1626.

So is Unawats Castle in South Troy. It is an Algonquin word and may be derived from oosoowneat, meaning “To swim” as a place favorable for bathing, or a customary way of crossing.In 1922 Arthur C. Parker reported the discovery of “chipped red slate” projectile points at the southeast end of Peebles island. A collector named Albert C. Hurd of Troy found several sites in Troy, the Burgh, and surrounding area and also found sites at the northeast end and on either side of the railroad tracks on the island.

On nearby Van Schaick Island, a burial of a Native woman and her child was uncovered on the golf course and in 1926 Homer Folger of the Burgh, a carpenter at the Matton Shipyard, dis-covered a Native burial and artifacts near the shipyard, north of the yard.

Folger in 1933 found another well preserved Indian burial and in April 1938 he found two burials that had been exposed by the high water of the river at the north tip of Van Schaick Island. The bodies were buried in a fetal position and a projectile point was embedded in the skull of one of the burials.

Indian burials were found during WW II when a new frame building was constructed at Matton. North of Peebles Island other Native burials have been found. In 1981 Native bones were uncovered while a sewer connector was being dug at 43 Hudson River Road, about a mile north of Broad Street in Waterford. North of Peebles Island just across the Mohawk River Channel three burials were uncovered in 1995 in Waterford all in fetal position. There were radiocarbon dates to ca. 995 AD. A third burial was dated 1435 AD.

Many other artifacts were found on the Matton Shipyard over the years north of the yards including eight Owasco Indian Burials with large pit features with fragments of Late Woodland Iroquois pots.

Menomine’s village moved around and some believe it once was located on the east bank of the Hudson not far from this proposed development site near a stream. Also, on a 1639 map it shows this possible village on the north side of the Mohawk below the Cohoes Falls and is labeledVastichuyt-meaning stronghold. In 1640 a Dutch visitor of the falls recorded there “are many Indians here, whom they call Maquas[Mohawks].” The Mohawks had driven the Mohicans from the land earlier.

A village site north of the Waterford Bridge along the Hudson was recorded in 1920. The site was extensive and yielded an abundance of stone artifacts. This would have been directly across from the development site and it is highly likely that a settlement was here on the east side of the river and close to the fl int mine.

When the Freihofer’s Bakery was being built, several Native skeletons were recovered from it.

At the foot of Glen Avenue in the “Batestown” section of the Burgh, workmen grading the Laureate Athletic grounds in 1890 found two well preserved Native skulls about four feet from the surface. There was more as published in the Troy Daily Times:

An Indian Burial-Ground—Workmen Make an Interesting Discovery.The workmen grading the Laureate athletic grounds, at the foot of Glen avenue, were surprised yesterday at the discovery of human bones. Two well-preserved skulls were exhumed, about four feet below the surface, on the bank of the river. The men were digging up the loam which is being placed on the baseball diamond. Other bones were uncovered, and this morning another skull was found. The lower jaw was in place and most of the teeth were found. The contractor said this morning that the bones of about a dozen persons had been found. From the location it is believed that a burial-place of the old Mohawk Indians was uncovered. Twenty years ago, when the Waters boat-factory was built several feet north, the bones of several persons were found, and with them arrowheads and other Indian relics were discovered.

Troy Daily Times. June 3, 1890: 3 col 6.

As late as 2012, artifacts attributed to Mohican occupation were found in the South Troy industrial park on the east bank.

As you can see prehistoric occupation of the Troy-Lansing-burgh area is well documented and considering that many sites have been found near the proposed development, it is imperative that a well-funded archaeological study must be conducted before any decision is made. I feel quite confi dent that there might be evidence of Native occupation on the proposed development site.

Footnotes: 1 Author of this Section 2.2: Dr. Don Rittner, Professor of Archaeology

2.3 CONCLUSIONSThe archaeological signifi cance of the site is well documented and acknowledged by the developer. Based on the presented evidence, this site qualifi es for the designation as Critical Environmental Area (CEA), fulfi lling criteria (iii) of CRR-NY 617.14(g).

The archaeological signifi cance is uncontested, underscoring the importance of commencing the SEQRA processes as soon as possible.

Subsequently, the Planning Commission should refrain from any positive recommendation for change in zoning code without having the best information possible at its disposal. A complete SEQRA review is an elementary part of this information gathering.

A change in zoning code to P would allow for signifi cant increase in density, therefore increase foot-traffi c on the site. This constitutes a signifi cant environmental impact on this archeo-sensitive site and therefore would require a “pos dec” (positive declaration) as part of the SEQRA processes. This is also the case, if SEQRA is only conducted for the rezoning itself as independent from the development (which would constitute “segmentation” anyways).

Finally, an “alternative site proposal”, which foresees the construction of approx. 38 singe family houses on the site, is 1) not subject of consideration, would require 2) the submission of a full EAF according to DEC CP 29, and 3) would require its own SEQRA review.

The alternative site proposal should therefore not deter-mine the outcome of the commission’s considerations. However, even if it were considered, mitigation standards of archeo-sensitive sites require the documentation and mitiga-tion of impact regardless of project, leading to the conclusion that the permitting 38 single family houses would face serious challenges within its own SEQRA process.

Given these issues, and in particular the archaeological signif-icance and adverse impacts of a high density development on the site, the Planning Commission should recommend against the requested change in zoning code.

Chapter Two: Archaeological Signifi cance

24 25

CHAPTER THREE

ECOLOGICALSIGNIFICANCE

The ecology of the forested land at 1011 2nd Avenue, com-monly referred to as “Sacred Forest”, is of high signifi cance. Two consecutive ecological surveys were conducted on the site by Dr. David Hunt on December 20, 2020 and January 14, 2021. The detailed reports are provided in Appendix 1 and are summarized in this chapter.

These preliminary surveys already identifi ed several coun-ty-rare and potentially one state-rare species and found signifi cant indicators for the presence of protected species.

Chapter Three: Ecological Signifi cance

HIGHLIGHTS

• Several county-rare species and likely one state-rare species were documented in recent surveys.

• Additional ecological surveys during the growth season (May - September) are needed.

• Due to its ecological significance the site would qualify for CEA designation.

• The ecological sensitivity and significance of the site warrants a recommendation against rezoning.Due to these fi ndings, we recommend that no action is taken on the land until suffi cient ecological study and documentation during the grow season (May-September) was completed.

Given the high probability of adverse impacts, and given that in-right development would be subject to its ownSEQRA review per DEC CP 29, the Planning Commission should recommend against the rezoning due the ecological signifi cance of the site.

3.1 SUMMARY OFKEY FINDINGS

The forested land contains two signifi cant ecological features:

• “Pleasentdale Bluff s”: A county-important rocky summit/ slope ecosystem complex that contains knolls and cliff s along the Hudson River spanning the Troy/Schaghticoke municipal boundary with associated county-exemplary occurrences of Pitch-Pinke-Oak-Heath Rocky Summit plus Shale Cliff & Talus Community, as well as 24 known region ally rare plants.

• “Hudson River Schaghticoke”: A county-important riparian ecosystem complex containing the Hudson River, shoreline communities, and an associated fl ood plain, stretching form the Washington County line downstream to the Federal Dam in Troy with associated county-exemplary occurrences of Unconfi ned River plus Riverside Sand/ Gravel Bar, as well as many regionally-rare plants.

Recent surveys of the parcel at 1011 2nd Avenue on December 20, 2020, and January 14, 2021, confi rmed the presence of multiple features of both regionally important sites (“Pleasentdale Bluff s” and “Hudson River Schaghticoke”) including multiple characteristic natural communities and county-rare plants.

Because herbaceous and graminoid plants are often not detectable under current survey conditions, Dr. Hunt strongly recommends the parcel be studies by a qualifi ed ecologist during the growing season (May to September) to better evaluate the suspected/potential presence of several addi-tional regionally-rare species including

• The state-rare moth inland barrens buckmoth, known to feed on scrub oak (identifi ed during both surveys in December 2020 and January 2021) • The state-rare plants pleated-leaved knotweed plus bristly rose, both known just to the north in Schaghticoke.

Any decision about potential land use changes should consider the regional importance and rarity of multiple ecological features here (especially the Shale Cliff and Talus Community, riverside habitat, and rare plant species like scrub oak).

If any structures are to be built on the parcel, Dr. Hunt strong-ly recommends that they are placed as close as possible to Second Avenue, farthest away from the ecologically import-ant features of the site, and that any impacts to the high knolls, stepp W-facing slopes bordering the Hudson River, and the river shoreline are minimized.

Ecological Communities (Appendix 1 - Map 1, Tables 1-2). Three natural communities observed onsite that have county to state importance (Shale Cliff & Talus Community, Riverside Sand/Gravel Bar, and Pitch Pine-Oak-Heath Rocky Summit).

The Riverside Sand/Gravel Bar probably meets the criteria for “state signifi cance”, although not yet documented in the databases of NY Natural Heritage Program (of NYS DEC). All 3 community types are “county rare” and the cliff community is also “state rare”. The example of the latter community onsite comes close to meeting criteria for “state signifi cance”.

Although the patches of Pitch Pine-Oak-Heath Rocky Sum-mit onsite are very small and narrow, especially compared to

those to the north within the Pleasantdale Bluff s complex, suffi cient observations have now been made to map this community on the 1011 2nd Avenue parcel.

Rare Species (Appendix 1 - Map 2, Table 3).Several rare species (table 3) for the larger Pleasantdale Bluff s complex were identifi ed. The rare species population map for the parcel best reveals the most ecologically-sensitive part of the site (map 2), from a practical perspective.

Dr. Hunt still has several specimens of potentially rare mosses to evaluate, relying on a close colleague to expedite any iden-tifi cations. He expects 1 to 5 county rare species among the collections, possibly 1 state rare species.

26 27

Chapter Three: Ecological Signifi canceImportant Animal Habitats (Appendix 1 - Table 4). Animal habitats are more fl exibly defi ned than other features and harder to determine. Key observations often depend on specifi c times of the year or day (e.g., nocturnal) and specifi c microhabitats (e.g., the bottom substrate of the Hud-son River).

Confi rmation of “important habitat” is also complicated by the need for a minimal number of diff erent species and number of individuals, which can be seasonally and annually highly variable. As Table 4 shows, to date the most certain im-portant habitat is a “bald eagle feeding territory”, backed up not just by the one local report/observation but probably also by mapping of the entire habitat by the NY Natural Heritage Program.

Similarly, although no onsite observations of odonates (dragonfl ies and damselfl ies) have been made, mapping of the

entire nearby Hudson River habitat by the NY Natural Heri-tage Program of 3 state-rare odonates suggests the presence of an “odonate concentration area” in the river along the parcel.

Based on observations of abundant spent shells, Dr. Hunt suspects a “riverine mollusk concentration area” in the river next to the site, however, confi rmation would need to involve shallow underwater observations, best made between May and September.

Although the beaver lodge was mapped and it could be a component of an “aquatic mammal concentration area”, observations of other species would be needed for this designation. Many pieces of information needed for confi rmation of important animal habitat require patience and the presence of someone onsite for extended periods of time or the perfect time for observations.

3.1 CONCLUSIONSThe ecological signifi cance of the site is documented in sur-veys provided in Appendix 1. These preliminary surveys already identifi ed a signifi cant presence of several county-rare and one potentially state-rare species.

The fi ndings establish that this site qualifi es for the designa-tion as a Critical Environmental Area (CEA) by fulfi lling CRR-NY 617.14(g) criteria (iv) and therefore the Planning Commis-sion should recommend such designation.

Given these fi ndings, the surveying ecologist recommends that no action is taken on the land until suffi cient additional surveys are completed during the grow season (May-September) and include adequate survey of wildlife (including nocturnal species).

Given these issues, in particular the presence of sensitive ecol-ogies and the potential presence of protected species, adverse impacts of a high density development on the site are clear, and the Planning Commission should recommend against the requested change in zoning code.

28 29

CHAPTER FOUR

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND CLIMATE CHANGE

Besides the intrinsic value of intact ecosystems as a public good, the ecology at 1011 2nd Avenue also provides critical ecosystem services that enhance the public benefi t and should make its maintenance a high-priority objective for the City of Troy.

Chapter Four: Ecosystem Services and Climate Change

HIGHLIGHTS

• The forested land at 1011 2nd Avenue provides a range of critical ecosystem services.

• These ecosystem services are particularly critical given the “Potential Environmental Justice Area”

• Several ecosystem services are critical to public health, establishing the harm to public health associated

with development and rezoning

• Developing the land would negatively impact the city’s resilience to climate and environmental risks.

This section provides a brief overview of essential ecosystem services provided by the “Sacred Forest” at 1011 2nd Avenue (4.2) and discusses (4.3) the most critical environmental impacts associated with the loss of the natural state of this site. In section 4.4., critical aspects of this land’s contribution to protections against climate change and to community resilience are elaborated, before providing conclusions in section 4.5.

4.1 ECOSYSTEM SERVICESThe urban landscape exacerbates many environmental challenges, such as “stormwater runoff and fl ood risk, chem-ical and particulate pollution of urban air, soil and water, the urban heat island, and summer heat waves” (Livesley, MCPherson, Calfapietra, 2016). It is well documented that urban forests play an important role in mitigating these eff ects and thereby provide important ecosystem services.

Ecosystem services can be defi ned as the benefi ts that people derive from nature. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA, 2005) and the UK National Ecosystem Assessment (UK NEA, 2011) categorize these as:

• provisioning services (providing benefi ts such as food and timber);• regulating services (providing benefi ts such as carbon sequestration and fl ood protection);• cultural services (providing benefi ts such as public amenity and opportunities for recreation),• supporting services (providing benefi ts such as soil formation and biodiversity/habitats for wildlife).

Due to the forested character, natural state, and geographic location along the Hudson River and at the most northern, upstream part of the City of Troy, this land provides

signifi cant ecosystem services to the benefi t of the entire City, downstream communities, but in particular the residence of the local community of a DEC designated “Potential Environmental Justice Area” (PEJA).

This means that the loss of this forest would constitute signifi cant adverse impacts that would disproportionately impact the residents of this PEJA.

The forest at 1011 2nd Avenue must be classifi ed as “urban woodland” due to its size (Forestry Commission, 2011), making this site unique as they “tend to be able to provide provisioning and regulating services to a greater degree than sparsely planted areas” (Davies et al, 2017).

Davies et al (2017) provide a comprehensive review of ecosystem services delivered by urban forests in general, detailed in the table below. Woodland type urban forested areas, such as the forest at 1011 2nd Avenue provide a signifi cant amount of ecosystem services, and include2:

REGULATING SERVICES: Carbon sequestration, temperature regulation, stormwater regulation, air purifi cation, and noise mitigation.CULTURAL SERVICES: Health, nature and landscape connections, social development and connections, education and learning, cultural signifi cance.

Due to the location of the forest at 1011 2nd Avenue, the provision of regulating services must be deemed as signifi cantly higher than average urban woodlands. The location along the Hudson River combined with its exclusive status as waterfront forest within the City of Troy increase the value of stormwater regulation and fl ood protection services provided by the forest.

Its location in an Environmental Justice Area further increases the signifi cance of provided regulating and cultural

services, including the provision of clean air, noise mitigation, and the mental and physical health benefi ts associated with the access to natural green spaces and woodlands in particular. For data on detailed aspects of individual ecosystem services, see Davies et al. (2017).

Footnotes: 2 Additional services can be generated by proper cultivation, particu-

larly food provision.

30 31

4.2 ECOSYSTEM SERVICESAND PUBLIC HEALTH

The forested land at 1011 2nd Avenue provides critical ecosystem services that are benefi cial to public health. Similarly, a high density development of this undeveloped land and forest would result in potentially signifi cant adverse public health impacts.

Forested areas and waterfronts in natural state provide a wide range of critical ecosystem services that directly and indirectly contribute positively to public health. These contributions are well-known and scientifi cally established and will be only summarized in this section. Instead, this section focused on site specifi c aspects; especially in context of the site’s location in a DEC designated Potential Environmental Justice Area (PEJA).

Increasingly, planners and local governments recognize the important value of natural or “green infrastructure” spaces, which comprises an “interconnected network of natural areas and other open spaces that conserves natural ecosystem values and functions, sustains clean ear and water and provides a wide array of benefi ts to people and wildlife” (Benedict and McMahon, 2006). Today, it is well established that urban forests mitigate the impacts of the urban landscape while providing multiple benefi ts for environmental quality and community wellbeing. The importance of forested areas for physical and mental health, especially in urban areas, has become further explicit in con-text of the COVID-19 pandemic — particularly in Environmen-tal Justice Areas.

4.2.1. FORESTED AREAS AND PUBLIC HEALTHAccording to Boyd (2017), forested areas provide many important benefi ts for “human physical health [...] including provision of clean drinking water, fostering increased physical activity, promoting faster healing in hospitals, reduction of heat-related mortality, reduced incidence of cardiovascular-related mortality, improved air quality and related reductions in respiratory-related mortality, reduced incidence of childhood asthma, and improved birth outcomes” (cp. also Benedict and McMahon, 2006; Cotrone, 2015; Akabri, Pomer-antz and Taha, 2001; Beattie, Kollin and Moll, 2000; Nowak, 2002; Lovasi et al., 2008; Wolf, 2008; Mitchell and Popham, 2008; Donovan et al., 2013).

Trees also help prevent asthma, “either by encouraging outdoor play or through an eff ect on local air quality” (Lovasi et al. 2008).

Importantly, clean water and drinking water quality are perhaps one of the most signifi cant benefi ts of natural open spaces, especially forested areas, as pollutants that are carried by rainwater into surface waters such as streams, rivers and lakes are absorbed by forested areas. The Hudson River is an important drinking water source for many communities downstream. Additionally, the Hudson River is an important fi shing source for the communities in Troy. The forested land at 1011 2nd Avenue provides critical water fi ltration services that ensure that pollutants do not reach the sensitive ecology of the river.

4.2.2. FORESTED AREAS AND MENTAL HEALTHTrees and forested areas have been also linked to important mental health benefi ts that become particularly important during the current pandemic and associated mental health impacts, particularly in PEJAs. This includes reduced stress and mental fatigue, reduced aggression, and enhanced mental, emotional and cognitive development (cp. e.g. Benedict and McMahon, 2006; Wolch, Byrne and Newell, 2014; Kuo and Sullivan, 2001).

Van den Berg et al. (2010) show that “the relationships of stressful life events with number of health complaints and perceived general health were signifi cantly moderated by the amount of green space in 3-km radius”. This would highlight an important role for trees and other natural features as stress buff ers.

This becomes particularly important during the current pandemic, where limited social interactions, increased unemployment and economic concerns, and other stressors lead to an accelerating mental and physical health crisis. These impacts are disproportionately felt by communities in Environmental Justice Areas.

The forest at 1011 2nd Avenue is therefore not only an important community resource, but an investment in the community’s physical and mental health; critical ecosystem services which would become costly losses if destroyed.

6.2.3. FORESTED AREAS & ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICEThe forest at 1011 2nd Avenue is located in a DEC designated Environmental Justice Area, and therefore provides critical

ecosystem services in an area that has historically worse access to green spaces and other green infrastructures that are critical to physical and mental health. This means that the destruction of this forested area will further exacerbate critical injustices.

It is well established that signifi cant gaps exist in the spatial distribution of the urban forests and waterfronts across socioeconomic variables; including income, race and ethnicity, housing tenure, and/or population density.

This is also the case for Troy, NY and this neighborhood in particular. Located in an Potential Environmental Justice Area, the forest is a well known community resource used by local BIPOC youth and community members of all ages as an easily-accessible natural retreat from the pressures of urban life, particularly during the pandemic. This means that the loss of provided ecosystem service benefi ts for public health would disproportionately impact members of this PEJA community.

4.2 CLIMATE CHANGE AND RESILIENCE

Natural, forested spaces are a critical asset to the city’s environmental and climate resilience. This area, upstream of the entire city, signifi cantly protects the city from fl ooding directly (as a buff er fl ood zone for fl ooding) and indirectly by preventing runoff and maintaining the integrity of the river bank. The development of the site in the proposed form would signifi cantly interfere with the ability of this land to absorb runoff and protect the city from river pollution and fl ooding.

Studies well-establish that developments, such as the proposed, and the associated displacement of natural waterfront and channelization signifi cantly increase river fl ood risks downstream. The direct eff ects of sedimentary fl ow and associated environmental degradation of the Hudson River additionally exacerbate the increase of fl ood risks downstream at other areas across the City of Troy and other communities along the Hudson River.

This is also acknowledged in the 2018 “Realize Troy” Compre-hensive Plan, which states:

Chapter Four: Ecosystem Services and Climate Change“The majority of the Hudson River shoreline south of the Collar City Bridge has been channelized, which has inter-rupted or removed natural ecosystems. Due to this activi-ty, sediment from the Hudson River is no longer deposited on the banks, and limited habitat is available for fi sh and wildlife species” (p. 16)

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), estimates that by 2080 the City of Troy could face over 3 feet of sea-level rise on the tidal Hudson River due to global climate change.

Rainfall events are also expected to become less predictable, more extreme, and occur in the form of heavy downpours or extended droughts. The elevation of the 100-year fl oodplain and the city’s history of extreme fl ooding suggest that the threat of damage to and loss of property is heightened due to anticipated climate change.

4.2.1. STORMWATER AND FLOODINGNatural waterfront green-spaces play a signifi cant role in preventing stormwater runoff related fl ooding as well as the contamination through pollutions carried by stormwater runoff .

The forest at 1011 2nd Avenue plays a critical role for the City of Troy in preventing runoff contamination and as for the city’s fl ood resiliency —particularly in context of growing fl ood risks associated with climate change.

The important positive eff ects of green-spaces on stormwater runoff , water fi ltration and fl ood protection have been discussed already in this report. An extended runoff simulation and analysis is forthcoming and will be provided at a later point.

32 33

4.3 NEGATIVE IMPACTSThe rezoning and development (combined and individually) have therefore signifi cant potential for negative environmental impacts, including on public health, and include potentially signifi cant public service costs resulting from these negative impacts and the loss of ecosystem services.

There are several environmental impacts that constitute direct and indirect public harm as well as economic costs associated with the proposed rezoning of Parcel 70.64-1-1 as well as the proposed development of the site. These will also have signifi cant consequences for costs due to lost ecosystem services, the negative impacts on the city’s climate and extreme weather resilience, and subsequently the city’s revenue (see box on the right).

Increases in impervious surfaces as a result of deforestation and high-density development have been linked to a number of negative impacts, including decreases in air and water quality and increases in the magnitude of urban heat islands, which have been linked to heat-related mortality and the production of noxious ground-level ozone.

These consequences and impacts stand in direct confl ict with the 2018 Comprehensive Plan, undermining valuable eff orts taken by the city, including its participation in the Climate Smart Communities Program. Additionally, the development does not adhere to critical provisions for waterfront protection and renaturalization established in existing code as well as in the additional zoning logics established in the comprehensive plan (which a change in zoning code must adhere to).

4.3.1. PUBLIC HEALTHAn individual’s health is determined by many factors includ-ing genetics, healthcare, socioeconomic circumstances, environmental exposures, and behavioral patterns.

Socioeconomic circumstances, environmental exposures, and behavioral patterns are classifi ed as Social Determinants of Health (SDOH), or “non-medical factors that determine health outcomes.” 3 Researchers in public health have determined that SDOH contribute more towards an individual or community’s health outcomes than traditional health factors like genetic predisposition or healthcare. With this information, Governor Cuomo issued Executive Order No. 190

This development and the associated change in zoning code will, amongst others, have the following adverse impacts due to ecosystem service loss and ecosystem impacts:

- High density zoning and traffi c increase will lead to increased illness related to air pollution, noise pollution and water contamination, and increase risks of traffi c accidents. - Increased pavement and loss of natural runoff buff ers will increase run-off pressures on the Hudson River, leading to adverse health impacts on downstream communities.- Increase pressures on the already strained combined sewage infrastructures is linked to an increase in fi nes for combined sewage overfl ow and will lead to negative impacts on downstream communities.- Further channelization of the Hudson, already leading to increased fl ood risks, will be further increased with this development — leading to increased fl ood hazards for downstream properties across the city. The location of this property in particular will severely increase fl ood risks for the entire city.- Signifi cant loss of forest and natural waterfront will increase other critical hazards, including urban heat, runoff pollution, air pollution and their severe impacts on public health.- Eff ects will disproportionately impact communities living in a DEC PEJA.

in 2018, a Health Across All Policies (HAAP) initiative that calls for integrating health considerations into all policy and decision making across all sectors and all levels of government in New York State 4.

4.3.2. TRAFFIC, EMISSIONS, ROAD SAFETYA higher density zoning will inevitably increase traffi c at the site. The developer, for example, proposes a 240 unit apartment. An average of 1-2 vehicles per apartment unit must be assumed, leading to an increase of vehicles using the 2nd Avenue road by 240-480 vehicles. This means that the rezoning to a higher density will inevitably lead to an signifi cant increase in vehicle related emissions and an increased risk of traffi c accidents on this two-lane and bend-ing section of the road.

4.3.3. SEWAGE OVERFLOWThe city’s sewage and water management infrastructure is

already at capacity. In the last few years, Troy was in violation of state reporting laws in association with massive sewage overfl ows5 leading to signifi cant cost for the community. In fact, Troy is the region’s worst polluter regarding overfl ows.

The city itself acknowledged that “Unfortunately, sewer overfl ow events are fairly routine for shoreline communities like Troy.”6

It is in this context that the proposed development and its impacts on the loss of this land will signifi cantly escalate this already urgent emergency. The location of the site at the very north of the city, combined with its size and its impact on the city’s sewer system will lead to signifi cant environmental and monetary costs for the city and all its residents.

4.3.4. WATER QUALITYNatural, forested spaces are a critical asset to the city’s environmental and climate resilience 7. This area, upstream of the entire city, signifi cantly protects the city from fl ooding directly (as a buff er fl ood zone for fl ooding) and indirectly by preventing runoff and maintaining the integrity of the river bank. The development of the site in the proposed form would signifi cantly interfere with the ability of this land to absorb runoff and protect the city from river pollution and fl ooding.

The property is directly adjacent to the Hudson. This means development impacts on this land will signifi cantly aff ect the fl ood resilience of Troy, particularly due to its location upstream of the entire city (last property before the city line); The undeveloped higher elevation provides additional pro-tection against runoff and to the integrity of the areas of the land that comprise a fl ood zone. Studies show the importance of such natural assets in runoff protection.8

Development, particularly high-density development, will signifi cantly increase runoff pollution9 through the loss of water absorbing forest and forest soils and the use of impervious material as well as the associated increased traffi c and pollution. This only constitutes10 an increased threat of environmental harm on surrounding communities, downstream communities and the Hudson river itself.

4.3.5. URBAN HEAT ISLAND AND HEAT MORTALITYForested areas serve as “natural air conditioning” for the surrounding communities in urban centers and provide a natural refuge and relief from oppressive summer heat; a

climate risk that is anticipated to signifi cantly increase for the city of Troy and already constitutes a major public health threat today. Development, even if major parts of the forest would not be destroyed, would signifi cantly impact the accessibility and functioning of this critical asset.11

A recent article published in the New York Times (August 24, 2020) discusses the direct relationship between health, income and racial disparities in relationship to exposures to extreme heat in the urban context.

4.3.6. AIR QUALITY AND RELATED ILLNESSAir Quality will be negatively impacted, both directly and indirectly. The increased traffi c associated with the development will diametrically impact the air quality of this neighborhood. Additionally, the loss of tree and natural space will further exacerbate air quality loss.12 This is directly linked to a range of illnesses.

Rensselaer County had the highest rate of asthma hospitalizations for all ages and for ages 0-17 years in the Capital Region. Troy/Lansingburgh had 2.5 times the asthma emergency department visit rate and 1.8 times the asthma hospitalization rate as New York State excluding NYC.

Additionally, asthma hospitalization rates per 10,000 residents in Rensselaer County were signifi cantly higher for black (32.4) and Hispanic (33.3) residents when compared with white non-Hispanic (7.9) residents in Rensselaer County.13

Negative impacts to air pollution associated with the proposed change in zoning will exacerbate existing disproportionate impacts of poor air quality for PEJA community residents.

4.3.7. NOISE POLLUTIONCurrently zoned as R1, the rezoning will signifi cantly increase noise levels due to increased population density, increased traffi c and the loss of green space as natural noise shield; this will signifi cantly disrupt the character, but also public health of the otherwise characteristically quiet neighborhood.

4.3.9. FLOODINGStudies well-establish that developments, such as the pro-posed, and the associated displacement of natural waterfront and channelization signifi cantly increase river fl ood risks downstream (cp. Chen, 2016). The direct eff ects of sedimentary fl ow and associated environmental degradation of the Hudson River additionally exacerbate the increase of

Chapter Four: Ecosystem Services and Climate Change

34 35

fl ood risks downstream at other areas across the City of Troy and other communities along the Hudson River.

This is also acknowledged in the comparative plan which states

This risk is exacerbated when one considers the climate projections by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). Rainfall events are also expected to become less predictable, more extreme, and occur in the form of heavy downpours or extended droughts. The elevation of the 100-year fl oodplain and the city’s history of extreme fl ooding suggest that the threat of damage to and loss of property is heightened due to anticipated climate change.

Flooding in particular would be gravely exacerbated by opening this parcel up to high-density development, as Liz Moran explained in a submission to the record for the public hearing on September 10, 2020, quoted in the following from the minutes:

“This project would threaten the City with more fl ooding. Natural buff ers and forests are key for fl ood prevention, and this area of Troy has already suff ered from signifi cant fl ooding. As the climate continues to warm, more frequent severe storms will also impact the area. According the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), 100-year storms are projected to become 20-50% more likely by the 2020s, and 70-190% by the 2050s. This translates to 15.3-16.8 feet fl ood heights along the Hudson River.

Additionally, climate change is leading to more frequent precipitation east of the Hudson River. By the 2050s, precipitation may increase 12% from baseline 1971-2000 levels. Additionally, as the climate continues to warm, the Hudson River will continue to rise, causing more fl ooding over time. High estimate projections for sea level rise indicate the Hudson River may rise by 27-30” by the 2050s.

To reduce the risk of severe fl ooding, DEC recommends that communities “use natural vegetated buff ers to protect assets

“The majority of the Hudson River shoreline south of the Collar City Bridge has been channelized, which has inter-rupted or removed natural ecosystems. Due to this activi-ty, sediment from the Hudson River is no longer deposited on the banks, and limited habitat is available for fi sh and wildlife species” (p. 16)

from fl ood risk,” and “identify and conserve natural areas contributing to stormwater management.” Natural resources, like trees and other green spaces, absorb water from running off into waterways, and also absorb excess rain and fl ood waters.

The developer claims because this area is above the 100-year fl ood zone, it would not negatively impact fl ooding. This is false, because removing green-space means fewer natural resources to absorb excess rain and snow melt, causing more runoff to the Hudson River and surrounding area.”

4.4 CONCLUSIONSThis has important implications for the considerations of a current request for rezoning for 1011 2nd Avenue.

• Ecosystem Services. The forest at 1011 2nd Avenue provides critical ecosystem services to the local community, the entire City of Troy as well as downstream communities — with direct and indirect benefi ts for public health. • Disproportionate Harm for Community in Environmental Justice Area. The forest is located in a DEC designated Environmental Justice Area. This means that the loss of ecosystem services would place unfair harm disproportionately on the communities in this area. • Rezoning and development are coupled. The proposed rezoning is connected to a known development project. These development plans are well-known and statements by the developer during meetings on August 27, September 10, November 17 and December 29 all reaffi rm that the rezoning is sought for the purpose of specifi c development plans. A consideration of the rezoning alone would be inconsistent with the intent of SEQRA and constitute “segmentation”. This is particularly problematic considering the loss of ecosystem services provided by the forest and the disproportionate harm infl icted on the community living in the PEJA. • Negative Impacts of Rezoning: There are clear negative environmental impacts on public health associated with a change in zoning code to allow for high density development, as would be the case for a change in zoning. - Higher density would lead to increased traffi c. A change in zoning code to allow for higher density would lead to an increase in traffi c and associated public health impacts (noise, air pollution, runoff ,

impacts on water quality, impacts on traffi c safety). Under a density allowed with P, an increase of at least around 240 vehicles must be expected, but a much higher number of vehicles is more realistic given allowed density parameters in the zoning as well as vehicle owner statistics.

- Higher density would lead to increased noise pollution associated with the increase in population.

Noise pollution and increased urbanization is well established for its link to psychological and physical health impacts.

- Higher density would lead to increased pressures on public infrastructure. Particularly a change in

density on this parcel upstream of the entire city would lead to signifi cant increases in pressures on

the aging combined-sewer infrastructure, which already is at capacity. A higher density rezoning therefore would lead to increased overfl ow pollution with direct public health impacts on local and downstream communities along the Hudson river. • Negative Impacts of Development. These negative public health impacts would be exacerbated by the development proposed by Kevin Vandenburgh. Impacts detailed above become particularly explicit with this development and the associated canopy loss, increased traffi c, disturbance, runoff through pavement of parking lots and construction, noise and shading impacts, increased sewage use, increase air and water pollution and the loss of critical ecosystem services associated with the development.

Chapter Four: Ecosystem Services and Climate Change

36 37

Given these impacts, the following conclusions become necessary:

Development and rezoning are (individually and in combination) linked to have highly significant adverse impacts on the public health of the local community of this DEC designated “Potential Environmental Justice Area” as well as on the broader public of Troy. While a development of the site is permissible in R-1, the public health impacts associated with a high density zoning far exceed the impacts of develop-ment within the current zoning.

This alone should provide enough grounds for the Planning Commission to recommend against the rezoning.

This underscores the importance of initiating a SEQRA at the earliest possible moment, as is also recommended in the law itself. Furthermore, it underscores the importance for avoiding segmentation — that is: the Planning Commission should insist in its recommendation that the proper process as outlined in the law should be followed. A rezoning independent from the known development is not permissible, and the exacerbated risk for harm to public health makes this even more significant.

The request for rezoning of the site in question should therefore be NOT APPROVED by the City Council, and the Planning Commission should recommend AGAINST A REZON-ING.

Additionally, given these findings, the site qualifies for the designation as a Critical Environmental Area (CEA) by fulfilling CRR-NY 617.14(g) criteria (i) and therefore the Planning Commission should recommend such designation.

Footnotes: 3 https://www.who.int/health-topics/social-determi-

nants-of-health#tab=tab_14 https://www.health.ny.gov/prevention/prevention_agenda/

health_across_all_policies/docs/roadmap_report.pdf5 Times Union (July 7, 2017) “Massive Albany Troy Sewage Spills in

Hudson https://www.timesunion.com/7dayarchive/article/Massive-

Albany-Troy-sewage-spills-in-Hudson-11273421.php 6 Statement of City of Troy: “Understanding Tory’s Combined Sewer

Infrastructure System” July 10, 2017

http://www.troyny.gov/understanding-troy-combined-sewer-infra-

structure-system/7 USDA Urban Forests and Climate Change https://www.fs.usda.gov/

ccrc/topics/urban-forests-and-climate-change8 Conservation Tools: Working With Nature to Manage Stormwater

https://conservationtools.org/guides/166-working-with-nature-to-

manage-stormwater9 DOS: Impacts of Urban Runoff https://www.des.nh.gov/organiza-

tion/divisions/water/wmb/tmdl/documents/stormwater_chapt1.pdf10 https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wri014071 11 EPA: Reduce Urban Heat Island Effect https://www.epa.gov/

green-infrastructure/reduce-urban-heat-island-effect12 Benefits of Urban Trees: (https://www.nature.org/content/dam/

tnc/nature/en/documents/Public_Health_Benefits_Urban_Trees_FI-

NAL.pdf)13 http://www.hcdiny.org/content/sites/hcdi/2019_CHNA/2019_HC-

DI-Community-Health-Needs-Assessment.pdf

38

CHAPTER FIVE

NEIGHBORHOOD ANDCULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE

The land at 1011 2nd Avenue contributes importantly to the current neighborhood character of Lansingburgh in benefi cial ways and holds high cultural and social signifi cance to diverse communities within Troy, the neighboring Town of Schaghticoke, as well as to indigenous communities across the state.

In terms of ecosystem services, this means that the land provides critical cultural services to the local community, the residence of the City of Troy as well as the Town of

Chapter Five: Neighborhood and Cultural Signifi cance

HIGHLIGHTS

• The forest is of high cultural relevance to the original custodians of this land.

• Indigenous history was systematically erased. Destroying this site would contribute to that loss.

• The land significantly contributes to the neighborhood character of the neighborhood.

• A change in zoning code would significantly alter the character of this neighborhood.Schaghticoke, as well as the diff erent indigenous tribes and nations with historically grown cultural and spiritual ties to this land.

The value of these cultural services cannot be under-emphasized, especially considering its location within a PEJA.

The signifi cant cultural value for a wide range of — often marginalized — communities should underscore the importance of a recommendation against the rezoning.

5.1 CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCETO INDIGENOUS PEOPLES

This land is of critical signifi cance to indigenous peoples, as it represents a direct connection to their historical homelands — a connection that today is still well alive and maintained. As such, the cultural signifi cance far exceeds the already extensive archaeological importance of this land. It is tied to a history that was purposefully and violently erased through colonialism. Connecting past and present, it is as such tied

to indigenous identity. The destruction of this archaeological and cultural space would further perpetuate this erasure.

This land provides a lifeline, a direct connection to the ances-tral homelands from which the indigenous people were forci-bly removed. It’s destruction would constitute a repetition of past violence and crime.

Perhaps, consider the statement by Kanerahitiio Roger Jock, spoken at the public hearing on December 29th, 2020, and submitted in writing to the record, from where it is quoted:

My name is Kanerahtiio Roger Jock. I am Kanien’kehá:ka (Mohawk) Bear Clan from Akwesasne. My great-grandmother is from the Schoharie region of the Mohawk Valley. This is where my DNA comes from, and my ancestors have a long history of relations with the Mahican People that continues to this day.

I am also the project director of the Waterfall Unity Alliance based in West Fulton, NY -- where we are building a traditional longhouse as an initial point of return to our ancestral soils. The mission of the Waterfall Unity Alliance is to protect the Mohawk Watershed

and all Earth; and create solutions to the existential challenges of our time.

It’s no longer just the native people of this land who know that we need to respect the Earth, live in reciprocity, and stop destructive development in the name of so-called progress. Our economy should not be based on destroying the Earth. The native trees have a right to be here. Our grandchildren have the right to be able to come and visit this forest, sit by the river, gather medicines. This is a rare place of peace that is senseless to destroy.

Now that it is threatened, the people who con-tinue to love and honor the land are here to say STOP! NO! NO MORE! No more development that destroys the last forests. No more paving over ancestral land. No more short-term gain for long-term destruction.

We join our voice to theirs and say no more to this old story that is leading us to extinction.

We need to walk together in a new way. We respect the history of the Mahicans on this land. The land is sacred. The river is sacred. The trees and the breathing life on the riverside are

sacred. It is time to protect what is sacred and protect what we love.

We need to stand together and make our old agreements new again. As long as the water fl ows and the grasses grow, we will respect each other and walk together under the Great Law of Peace, protecting the Earth and all creation.

5.2 CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCETO THE LOCAL PUBLIC

This connection extends to the present local communities that live alongside, on, and with this forest. It is well known locally as a sanctuary amongst the urban landscape. It is an important access point to the river for fi shing, provides shel-ter and renewal of energy, and is one of the rare access points to natural spaces for local BIPOC youth in this Environmental Justice Area.

As such, this land is integral to the fabric of social and cultur-al identity in the Lansingburgh neighborhood and beyond. Public testimony, documented in the zoom recordings as well as minutes, speaks to this importance repeatedly:

I have lived in Troy all my life. I have walked this area and shared this area with my son. We enjoy the ability to go down, enjoy nature and play at the river like any normal child would love to do. We have too many houses and not enough parks or nature. If you build more overpriced lofts you are proving your greed. This doesn’t help our community. If you allow this you are not only destroying and removing trees and land. Your destroying and removing the people that already live here. – Andrea M.B.

5.3. CHANGE IN NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER

The impact of allowing high-density development at this site cannot be understated — and extends to the neighborhood character. This is a quiet neighborhood of single-family housing, and the forest at 1011 2nd Avenue importantly contributes to the character of this neighborhood as “in the city, but not quite in the city”: It provides a connection to nature and places the neighborhood in it.

Placing high density zoning squarely in the hart of this neighborhood therefore would irrevocably alter the character of the neighborhood — substantially increasing traffi c through this neighborhood, changing the noise and view scape, and disruption the “sense” the residents ascribe to living in “the Burgh”, and particularly to this area of Lansingburgh.

It is for these reasons that a development of this land would irrevocably destroy the cultural signifi cance of this land, and high density zoning would signifi cantly alter the neighborhood character of this area. High density. The Planning Commission should therefore recommend against the change in zoning code from R-1 to P.

Additionally, the site qualifi es for the designation as a Critical Environmental Area (CEA) by fulfi lling CRR-NY 617.14(g) criteria (iii) and therefore the Planning Commission should recom-mend such designation.

42

CHAPTER SIX

ECONOMIC COSTSAND BENEFITS

The unique character of the site at 1011 2nd Avenue provides considerable direct and indirect economic benefi ts that would be potentially lost with rezoning and subsequent development of the site. Additionally, the rezoning and development itself would generate economic benefi ts — that however would be off set by additional direct and indirect incurred economic costs associated with rezoning and development.

Chapter Six: Economic Costs and Benefi ts

HIGHLIGHTS

• Significant costs are associated with the loss of ecosystem services.

• Additional costs associated with increased public service expenses are expected.

• 240 apartment units on undeveloped land will increase public safety cost by approx. $36,000 / year.

•They also will increase net-costs for the school district by approx. $495,000 / year.Finally, there is also a lost opportunity cost to the city and the public, associated with benefi ts of the potential long-term protection and preservation of the site. This chapter explores the three dimensions in a general cost-benefi t analysis (a detailed analysis of each dimension will be provided at a later time).

6.1 ECONOMIC BENEFITS OFTHE CURRENT STATE OF THE SITE

The site provides several critical ecosystem services (cp. Chapters 3 and 4) to the communities. The economic benefi t of these ecosystem services are diffi cult to quantify. However an approximation of the economic benefi ts provided by the ecosystem can be roughly approximated in combining anticipated cost calculations for lost services as a consequence of the site’s disruption and/or destruction combined with approximation of dollar values for provided services.

It is important to note that ecosystem services are not always easy to assign dollar values, nor should they be, as intrinsic values are lost to such calculations. However, it is useful to apply these economic valuing methods in this context, as even the most generalized undervaluation of ecosystem services still makes explicit the economic losses incurred by their destruction through, for example, development (cp. DEFRA, 2007).

This general analysis is qualitative in scope and does not provide monetary quantifi cations of the services provided. However, the qualitative analysis already shows signifi cant economic benefi ts that warrant further analysis at a later point.

6.1.1. QUALITATIVE ECOSYST. SERVICE ANALYSISOf the common evaluation techniques, three critical values are used: direct use market value, indirect use value, and option value.

This section does not provide a complete ecosystem valuation. Rather it provides a generalized valuation, based on highly conservative estimates, for selected ecosystem ser-vices provided by this land. See table to the right for analysis.

6.1.2. QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS: BASELINEFour options are chosen for the analysis: Do nothing would leave the site in the current zoning but would not develop it. Option 2 is the in-right development of the site through the construction of approx. 35 single family housing units. Option 3 is the change in zoning code and subsequent high-density development of the site.

In its current state, the site provides critical ecological services, but also suff ers from a lack of conservation and stewardship activities that mitigate littering and other forms of pollution of the site, while also preventing the further support of for example additional recreational opportunities with positive health and public wellbeing outcomes.

Recreation: The site is currently used for recreational purposes by the local community and serves as important green-space, which has direct public health benefi ts. While recreational tourism is virtually nonexistent for this site, and no revenue is generated, recreational uses for the local communities have

potentially signifi cant benefi cial outcomes, particularly for mental health.

Biodiversity: Currently, ecological surveys (chapter 3) show a high degree of biodiversity at the site. This includes several rare species as well as a generally healthy and fl ourishing habitat. The high biodiversity enhances quality of life and public health, but is also tied strongly to the recreational capacities of the land. As a healthy, diverse ecosystem, this parcel in particular provides also important ecosystem services far beyond its boundaries, e.g. through pollinators, water quality impacts and air quality impacts.

Visual Quality of the Landscape: The visual quality of natural lands is well-documented in the academic literature and its eff ects have been extensively studies. Natural features rank thereby particularly high, while development structures need to take surrounding land uses and visual consistency into account, as well as shading impacts and loss of visibility of natural features.

Carbon Sequestration: In average, a mature tree sequesters about 48 pounds CO2 per year. A single street tree returns over $90,000 of direct benefi ts (not including aesthetic, social and natural) in the lifetime of the tree, for a marginal planting

44 45

cost. An acre of trees would sequester about 1 metric ton of carbon per acre and year.

Clean Air: Forested areas play a critical role in providing clean air through their production of oxygen. At the same time, diff erent degrees of development are net-carbon producers — often to signifi cant amounts. This does not include the emissions associated with construction and development itself. A 240 unit apartment, for example, would increase traffi c related emissions of greenhouse gases and noxious air pollutants by at least 240-480 additional vehicles — with signifi cant public health costs.

Clean Water: Similarly, forests absorb runoff water and fi lter rain waters before releasing them again into their environment. This is particularly important in context of runoff pollution and associated fi nes and costs produced by a new development burdening the existing sewage infrastructure of the city.

Risks and Hazards: Forested waterfronts in particular play a signifi cant role in mitigating fl ooding hazards for downstream communities. Channelization, as associated with developments of waterfront properties, additionally increase fl ood hazards and risks, as does increased runoff . The economic costs associated with these hazards are already signifi cant and are likely to rise signifi cantly with the development of this site.

Real Estate Costs and Benefi ts: The presence of forested areas and/or mature trees has moderate to strong impact on the resale value of homes listed for under $150,000, and signifi cantly strong infl uence on homes listed for over $250,000. Additionally, a number of studies have shown that real estate agents and home buyers assign between 10-23% of the value of a residence of the trees on the property. At the same time, density changes adversely impact property and resale values in traditionally quiet neighborhoods. Tax Benefi ts: Tax benefi ts include a combination of revenue sources for a holistic assessment:

direct tax revenue from the diff erent options + eff ects on tax revenue from surrounding properties

+ negative impacts (costs) incurred from direct and indirect public service costs

6.1.3. QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS: RESULTS** The results here (Overall economic benefi ts/cost) assess only the economic costs/benefi ts in relation to provided ecosystem services. An overall interpretation of how the results relate to tax revenue associated with the options is provided in the description.

DO NOTHING (Economic Cost/Benefi t: [+])

This option would leave the land as-is. This option is the easiest to achieve and would maintain several benefi cial ecosystem services with direct and indirect economic benefi t to the city as well as provide additional economic benefi ts for other services. Recreation and tax benefi ts are the lowest of the benefi ts in this option, are however a net-positive when one considers public health benefi ts, as well as the tax revenue generated through the site. Additionally, positive eff ects must be noted on surrounding properties (valuation/appraisal as well as resale value).

Overall moderate economic benefi ts for the city

IN RIGHT DEVELOPMENT / SINGLE FAM HOUSING(Economic Cost/Benefi t [-] )

This option is unlikely, considering the economic cost of development (necessary blasting for construction on the shale formation; infrastructure creation, topography). This option has some low economic benefi ts for the city, as it would generate additional tax revenue for the newly created development.

It would result in a net-loss compared to the do-nothing-option due to incurred public service costs and lost ecosystem services. This analysis assumes a large-scale disturbance of the ecosystem through development. However, compared to the rezoning+development option, the costs are relatively low, as pollution eff ects remain limited.

Overall low economic costs for the city

REZONING+DEVELOPMENT / HIGH DENSITY(Economic Cost/Benefi t: [- -])

This is the most costly option for the city, due to a combination of factors (see section 4.3.) This includes increased public services costs, the loss of ecosystem services (same as for in-right development) plus additional costs associated with signifi cant increase in pollution and associated public health and cleanup/mitigation costs. Those include costs for combined sewage overfl ow, increased public health costs due to traffi c and air pollution, and other eff ects that have direct consequences for the city revenue and overall budget.

Overall moderate-high economic costs for the city

CONVERSATION AND PRESERVATION(Economic Cost/Benefi t: + +)

This option sees the long-term preservation of the land through a trust and the additional creation of cultural-ed-ucational programming and the maintenance of paths for recreational purposes. This option would enhance the ecosys-tem services through stewardship and conservation measures as well as the recreational capacities through promotion and soft-green tourism options. The direct public benefi ts are expected to be high, associated with cultural and educational programming, while generating direct and indirect tax reve-nue through these economic activities. The costs for the city are marginal, as the procurement, preservation and long-term stewardship is planned to be achieved with private equity.

Overall moderate-high economic benefi t for the city

Chapter Six: Economic Costs and Benefi ts

47

6.2 COST/BENEFIT OF REZONING/DEVELOPMENT

There are several critical economic impacts that constitute direct and indirect cost to the tax base and the tax paying residents of the City of Troy, associated with the proposed rezoning of Parcel 70.64-1-1 and the proposed development of the site.

Based on the attached and here briefl y reviewed studies, it is clear that the proposed development will negatively impact the tax revenue of the city of Troy.

Charles Mahron (2018) writes that:“Despite the obfuscation of modern accounting practices, the math equation for a local government is fairly straightforward: a public infrastructure investment must generate enough private wealth to pay for the ongoing replacement and repair of that infrastructure or, if it is to be sustained, it must be subsidized by a more fi nancially productive part of the system.”

The established rule of thumb is that a ratio of 40:1 ($40 private wealth to $1 public investment) is required for a development project to generate and maintain a positive tax revenue (Ibid.).

While developers often pay for the initial development and construction cost, the City of Troy will be responsible for critical maintenance and public service costs. This includesIncreased road maintenance and traffi c management costsIncreased resource strain for the public school system with the infl ux of large amounts of new residents in short timeIncreased costs for other public services, including the fi re department, garbage collection, public safety, etc.

As Mahron (2018) writes on the case of development costs, a municipality of similar size and structure:

Rapid growth “[...] provided the local government with the immediate revenues that come from new growth — permit fees, utility fees, property tax increases, sales tax — and, in exchange the city takes on the long term responsibility of servicing and maintaining all the new infrastructure. The money comes in handy in the present while the future obligation is, well … a long time in the future.”

And concludes:

“This thinking is how you end up with two dollars of public infrastructure for every one dollar of private investment. This is how you spend yourself into bankruptcy”.

When the full extent of costs are taken into consideration, including maintenance, public infrastructure and public service costs, the proposed development will in fact negatively impact the tax revenue in the city.

Instead, leading economists and development experts rec-ommend prioritizing development of existing infrastructure, property and sites, especially vacant sites in economically disadvantaged communities. This has the benefi t of minimizing public investment needs and strengthening tax revenue in short- as well as long-term. (cp. Appendix 5: writ-ten testimony by Prof. John Gowdy).

This is also made explicit in the 2018 Troy Comprehensive Plan, which identifi es the need to develop vacancies in Major Investment Areas (Comprehensive Plan Map 2 Investment Areas), whereas the parcel in question lies outside the Lansingburgh Investment Area as well as outside the slow development area and is clearly identifi ed as R-1. Consider this quote from the Comprehensive Plan:

“Troy’s high vacancy rates are also contributing to neighborhood destabilization. There are approximately 23,100 housing units in Troy and approximately 2,100 of these units, or 9%, are vacant and unused. Prospective residents are deterred from purchasing homes in neighborhoods with high vacancy rates as they are perceived as areas with higher crime, and where continued disinvestment may occur. These conditions have resulted in a weak housing market and low housing values compared to the region.” (p.11)

And the plan establishes sites in direct proximity to the parcel for which the rezoning is requested as development focus areas in the spirit of avoiding associated revenue burdens associated with spot zoning developments such as the development proposed for this parcel (see Appendix 2).

The anticipated short-term economic revenue is anticipated to be outweighed by both, short- and long-term economic costs, based on the expert testimony by economist John

Gowdy attached in the appendix (Appendix 5). The anticipated short-term economic revenue associated with this development proposal is anticipated to be outweighed by both, short- and long-term economic costs.

What is more, studies explicitly and repeatedly show that because of market competition and resource constraint associated with a development of land routinely and structurally prevent the development of other, vacant but already developed sites (Ordway, 2018).

In the immediate proximity of the development site proposed by Kevin Vandenburgh are several vacant properties, including several that have been identifi ed in the Comprehensive Plan as development priority/focus areas.

6.2.1. COST OF PUBLIC SERVICE CALCULATIONIncreased public spending for services outweighs the antici-pated revenue.

Based on comparative data of similar developments in similar locations in Troy we off er an (generously calculated) anticipated tax revenue for the city around $300,000.00

The anticipated tax revenue for the school district is assessed (similarly generously) with $400.000,00.(Based on approximated unit value calculations).

(A) Increase in Spending for Public Schools (TROY SCHOOL DISTRICT)

At the same time, in the state of New York, an average of annually $22,366 are spent per pupil on the public education system14. In Troy this number is closer to $28,000, but we will use the more conservative average.

A conservative estimate would be 40 new pupils entering the Troy School System — an estimate that is very conservative for 240 apartment units.

This leads to an increase in spending of $894,640.

Increase Revenue .............................................…… approx. $400,000Increase Spending ..............................................… approx. $894,640

NET-LOSS OF APPROX. $494,640

(B) Increase in Costs For City of Troy On the Example of Public Safety

Estimates for cost increases for Public Safety Services are hard to estimate. One way to estimate this is the per capita spend-ing for safety services.

According to the 2020 proposed Budget, a total of $40,329,791 will be expended for safety services. This excludes overtime, extraordinary expenditures and other expenditures not listed in the general budget itemization.

The population of Troy lies at 49,826 for 2017.

This results in a per capita spending of (rounded) $800. With 240 units, and an conservatively estimated 1.75 persons living in each unit, this leads to a increase in cost of:

240x800x1.75 = $336,000.00

Tax Revenue (240 units).........................................approx. $300,000Cost Increase: safety services………....................approx. $336,000

NET-LOSS (Public Safety) .......................................$36,000/year.

This does not incorporate other increased public service costs, such as road maintenance, etc.

6.2.2. LOSS IN PROPERTY VALUE, RESALE VALUE AND RENTAL INCREASESBesides the cost associated with strains on the local infrastructure, this development will also lead to additional direct and indirect costs for the local residents and the overall neighborhood.

The development will lead to signifi cant loss of property value and resale value due to the loss of green-space and waterfront, which also negatively impacts the city budgetThe tax savings of industrial development may measure a few hundred dollars a year per taxpayer, but the loss in property values measures in the thousands. Typically it takes decades of tax savings to make up for the loss in property value.Property value will decline with the loss of a signifi cant green-space and undeveloped waterfront forest property

Rental increases in surrounding housing are expected to increase due to the amenities at the property, clearly designed for the use of renters at the property.

Chapter Six: Economic Costs and Benefi ts

48 49

6.3 COST OF LOST OPPORTUNITY /HOUSING DEMAND

Housing demand is a limited resource. The most recent Comprehensive Housing Market Analysis by the US Department for Housing and Urban Development (US HUD) for Albany-Schenectady-Troy (forecast period: September 1 2018 - September 1 2021) explicitly states that housing demand is nearly at or already at capacity (US HUD 2019, p. 1):

The current rental housing market is slightly soft. The overall rental vacancy rate is estimated at 8.0 percent, up from 7.1 percent in April 2010. The market for apartments is balanced, with a vacancy rate of 4.7 percent during the second quarter of 2018, up from 2.4 percent a year earlier (Reis, Inc.). The average asking rent in August 2018 was $1,187, a 7-percent increase from a year earlier. During the forecast period, demand is estimated for 1,975 new market-rate rental units (Table 1). The 1,600 units currently under construction will meet most of that demand.

Since that forecast, extensive numbers of new apartment units saw their construction in Troy, NY, further contributing to the satisfaction of limited housing demand. Whereas this demand can be anticipated to have slightly increased over the forecast period, this increase must be assumed to be mostly compensated by extensive new construction projects within Troy, NY over the same time.

This is particularly significant in context of a high number of vacant, abandoned and neglected sites across Troy that are explicitly designated as investment priority areas in the 2018 “Realize Troy” Comprehensive plan. There are priority development areas in the direct vicinity of this property. A vacant price chopper as well as several vacant locations across the local Lansingburgh neighborhood are identified as priority and development nodes in the comprehensive plan.

As the plan states (p.11):

“Troy’s high vacancy rates are also contributing to neigh-borhood destabilization. There are approximately 23,100 housing units in Troy and approximately 2,100 of these units, or 9%, are vacant and unused. Prospective residents are deterred from purchasing homes in neighborhoods with high vacancy rates as they are perceived as areas with higher crime, and where continued disinvestment may occur. These conditions have resulted in a weak housing market and low housing values compared to the region”.

A rezoning discourages the development of already developed vacant areas with existing infrastructure and public services in place. The development of this property, and the associated rezoning, stand in conflict with these development needs and undermine soft and smart growth and development.

Accordingly, the rezoning would stand in direct conflict with the provisions and priorities laid out in the Comprehensive Plan, the smart growth development principles established in the Comprehensive Plan, and the New York State Smart Growth Criteria.

In this context, development of a greenfield site — an undeveloped site — appears counter-productive and undermining smart growth and sustainable development priorities outlined in the same Comprehensive Plan. The existence of an old housing stock in need for development in combination with limited housing demand therefore constitutes an urgent need for strategic development, recognized in the Comprehensive Plan, as well. Developing the site at 1011 2nd Avenue would therefore undermine the development of these priority investment areas and potentially prevent development of neglected sites and old housing stock in need of development.

This is associated with direct and indirect costs of lost opportunity to the City of Troy. As detailed above, direct and indirect costs of public services arise from developing undeveloped urban green-spaces in particular. At the same time, undeveloped vacant properties decrease surrounding property values, deter prospective residents, and accelerate continued disinvestment of affected areas, according to Troy’s own Comprehensive Plan (p. 11).

Given limited housing demand, direct and indirect costs associated with the development of an undeveloped site, and the additional costs (direct and indirect) arising from lost opportunities to develop vacant site, the anticipated costs for the City of Troy are significant, considering the already shown high revenue loss in section 6.3.2. of this report.

A rezoning would therefore be harmful to the economic interests of the City of Troy and the Planning Commission should recommend against the rezoning.

Footnotes: 14 https://www.governing.com/archive/state-educa-tion-spending-per-pupil-data.html

50 51

CHAPTER ONE — PROCESS AND LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

• Treating the rezoning as if it were an independent action under SEQRA constitutes “segmentation”

• According to SEQRA, review should start without delay and at the earliest possible time

• The site is located in an PEJA, requiring a full EAF for any action on the land. A written outreach plan is also required for actions within PEJAs per DEC CP 29.

• Rezoning to P (Planned Development) would be inconsistent with Troy’s Comprehensive Plan and therefore would require a Comprehensive Plan amendment.

• Residency requirement to speak at public forums were inconsistent with NYS Open Meetings Law

• Public disclosure of archeo-sensitive locations could be a violation of NHPA Section 304

CHAPTER TWO —ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE

• The site at 1011 2nd Avenue is of high archaeological, historical and cultural significance.

• Studies found artifacts dating back to 1500-3000 B.C.E.

• Due to its archaeological-historical-cultural significance the site would qualify for CEA designation.

• Surrounding archaeological sites indicate a high likelihood for additional significant finds on this site.

• Considering the significance of the site, “In-Right” development would face SEQRA challenges

• Due to the significance of the site, SEQRA should be initiated without further delay

• Due to the significance of the site, the City of Troy should designate the site as CEA, and the Planning

Commission should recommend to do so.

CHAPTER THREE —ECOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE• Several county-rare species and likely one state-rare species were documented in recent surveys.

• Additional ecological surveys during the growth season (May - September) are needed.

• Due to its ecological significance the site would qualify for CEA designation.

• The ecological sensitivity and significance of the site warrants a recommendation against rezoning.

CHAPTER FOUR — ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND CLIMATE CHANGE

• The forested land at 1011 2nd Avenue provides a range of critical ecosystem services.

• These ecosystem services are particularly critical given the “Potential Environmental Justice Area”

• Several ecosystem services are critical to public health, establishing the harm to public health associated

with development and rezoning

• Developing the land would negatively impact the city’s resilience to climate and environmental risks.

CHAPTER FIVE — NEIGHBORHOOD AND CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE

• The forest is of high cultural relevance to the original custodians of this land.

• Indigenous history was systematically erased. Destroying this site would contribute to that loss.

• The land significantly contributes to the neighborhood character of the neighborhood.

• A change in zoning code would significantly alter the character of this neighborhood.

CHAPTER SIX — ECONOMIC COSTS/BENEFITS

• Significant costs are associated with the loss of ecosystem services.

• Additional costs associated with increased public service expenses are expected.

• 240 apartment units on undeveloped land will increase public safety cost by approx. $36,000 / year,

• And will increase net-costs for the school district by approx. $495,000 / year

1) The Planning Commission must recommend against the change in zoning code. At the very least it should recommend against the rezoning as premature until SEQRA is completed.

2) The City Council must vote against the request for rezoning as premature until the developer has submitted an EAF and SEQRA review has been completed. Within the EAF rezoning as well as zoning plan amendment must be listed as discretionary actions

RECOMMENDATIONS

3) The Planning Commission should further recommend the designation of the site as Critical Environmental Area (CEA). This would ensure that the high signifi cance of this site is appropriately considered in the current and any further reviews of any actions on this property, as is the purpose of such designation. This report shows that the site at 1011 2nd Avenue does far exceed the requirement and signifi cance criteria for such a designation, as detailed in 6 CRR-NY 617.14 (g) and warrants such a designation.

CONCLUSIONS

52 53

REFERENCESAkbari, H., M. Pomerantz, and H. Taha (2001). “Cool Surfaces and Shade Trees to Reduce Energy Use and Improve Air Quality in Urban Areas.” Solar Energy 70 (3): 295–310.

Beattie, Jeff , Cheryl Kollin, and Gary Moll (2000). “Trees Tackle Clean Water Regs.” American Forests.

Benedict, Mark A., and Edward T. McMahon (2006). Green Infrastructure: Linking Landscapes and Communities. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Boyd, Nicholas P. (2017). The Urban Forest and Environmental Justice. A Review of the Literature.

Brumbach, H.J. (1987) “A Quarry/Workshop And Processing Station On The Hudson River In Pleasantdale, New York”. Archeology of Eastern North America, 15(1987), 59-83.

Brumbach, Hetty Jo, Zitzler, Paula (1993) Stage II Archeological Investigation Of the Turnpike/River Bend Road Area. Pleasantdale Wastewater Facility Plan. Town Of Schaghticoke, Rensselaer County, New York (C-36-1270-01). Public Archaeology Facility, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.

Cotrone, Vincent (2015). “The Role of Trees & Forests in Healthy Watersheds: Managing Stormwater,Reducing Flooding, and Improving Water Quality.” University Park, PA: Penn State Extension.

Chen, X., D. Wang, F. Tian, and M. Sivapalan (2016), From channelization to restoration: Sociohydrologic modeling with changing community preferences in the Kissimmee River Basin, Florida,Water Resour. Res., 52, doi:10.1002/ 2015WR018194.

DEFRA (2007). An Introductory Guide to Valuing Ecosystem Services. Defra Publications: London.

Donovan, Geoff rey H., David T. Butry, Yvonne L. Michael, Jeff rey P. Prestemon, Andrew M. Liebhold,Demetrios Gatziolis, and Megan Y. Mao (2013). “The Relationship Between Trees and Human Health: Evidence from the Spread of the Emerald Ash Borer.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine44 (2): 139–45.

Forestry Commission (2011). National Forest Inventory outputs. [Internet] Forestry Commission, Edinburgh [www.forestry.gov.uk]. Accessed 12 January 2016.

Kuo, Frances E., and William C. Sullivan (2001). “Aggression and Violence in the Inner City: Eff ects of Environment via Mental Fatigue.” Environment and Behavior 33 (4): 543–71.

Lothrop, J. C., Burke, A. L., Winchell-Sweeney, S., and G. Gauthier (2018). Coupling Lithic Sourcing with Least Cost Path Analysis to Model Paleoindian Pathways in Northeastern North America. American Antiquity, 83(3), 462-484.

Lovasi, G.S., J.W. Quinn, K.M. Neckerman, M.S. Perzanowski, and A. Rundle (2008). “Short Report: Children Living in Areas with More Street Trees Have Lower Prevalence of Asthma.” Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 62: 647–49.

Marhon Jr., Charles (2018) “Building Resilient Communities” ICMA, August 2018. https://icma.org/articles/pm-magazine/pm-article-building-resilient-communities

Marhon Jr., Charles (2017) “The Real Reason Your City Has No Money”. Strongtowns. https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/9/the-real-reason-your-city-has-no-money

Mitchell, Richard, and Frank Popham (2008). “Eff ect of Exposure to Natural Environment on HealthInequalities: An Observational Population Study.” The Lancet 372: 1655–60.

Nowak, David J (2002). “The Eff ects of Urban Trees on Air Quality.” General Technical Report. Syracuse,NY: USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station.

NYS DOS (2015) “Zoning and the Comprehensive Plan”. NYS Department of State: Albany.

US EPA (2002). Responsiveness Summary Hudson River PCBs Site Record of Decision. Appendix C Stage 1A Cultur-al Resource Survey.

van den Berg, Agnes E., Jolanda Maas, and Robert A. Verheij (2010). “Green Space as a Buff er between Stressful Life Events and Health.” Social Science & Medicine 70: 1203–10.

Wolch, Jennifer R., Jason Byrne, and Joshua P. Newell (2014). “Urban Green Space, Public Health, and Environmen-tal Justice: The Challenge of Making Cities ‘Just Green Enough.’” Landscape and Urban Planning 125: 234–44.

Wolf, Kathleen L. (2008). “City Trees, Nature and Physical Activity: A Research Review.” Arborist News.

54 55

Appendix 1Ecological Survey December 2020

TO: Troy City Planning Board. FROM: David Hunt, Ecological Intuition & Medicine Rensselaer County Biodiversity Greenprint Project RE: Golub Parcel. Proposed Apartment Complex Development. Pleasantdale Bluffs, City of Troy. DATE: December 22, 2020 Planning Board Members, As part of my effort of over 20 years to map and provide information to landowners and conservation organizations about regionally-important ecological/biodiversity sites throughout Rensselaer County, I would like to bring to your attention information on two important sites connected to the 9.93-acre Golub parcel (Tax Parcel 70.64-1-1) in the City of Troy, on which an apartment complex is reportedly being proposed: "Pleasantdale Bluffs" a county-important rocky summit/slope ecosystem complex

containing knolls and cliffs along the Hudson River spanning the Troy/Schaghticoke municipal boundary with associated county-exemplary occurrences of Pitch Pine-Oak-Heath Rocky Summit plus Shale Cliff & Talus Community, as well as 24 known regionally rare plants.

"Hudson River Schaghticoke" a county-important riparian ecosystem complex containing the

Hudson River, shoreline communities, and an associated floodplain, stretching from the Washington County line downstream to the Federal Dam in Troy with associated county-exemplary occurrences of Unconfined River plus Riverside Sand/Gravel Bar, as well as many known regionally-rare plants.

These sites were documented and mapped as part of my contributions to the 2017 Rensselaer County Conservation Plan, coordinated by the Rensselaer Land Trust, focusing on 10 ecological features ranging from relatively small scale (e.g., rare plant concentration areas) to relatively large scale (e.g., regionally-important aquatic networks, forest landscapes, and large-scale conservation sites). Maps have reportedly been accessible on-line since that time for all municipalities and citizens of the county to consult. I provide an attached packet of summary information about these two sites and their biodiversity components with special focus on the Golub parcel, which explains the basic information available online. More detailed information is available upon request. Each site

Appendix 1: Ecological Surveys (Dec 2020)

represents multiple overlapping county-important ecological features, 6 at Pleasantdale Bluffs, 8 at Hudson River Schaghticoke. Because both these ecological sites are somewhat large, much of the prior information was based on field surveys and historical records off the Golub parcel. Both sites were mapped remotely from air photo plus associated datalayers on land cover, hydrology, topography, geology, and soils. A recent survey of the Golub parcel (December 20, 2020), conducted under 2 feet of snow in conjunction with a group of concerned local neighbors, confirmed the presence of multiple features of both regionally important sites including multiple characteristic natural communities and county-rare plants. Because herbaceous and graminoid plants are often not detectable under these conditions, I strongly recommend the parcel be studied by a qualified ecologist during the growing season (May to September) to better evaluate the suspected/potential presence of several additional regionally-rare species including 1) the state-rare moth inland barrens buckmoth, known to feed on scrub oak, which was just found on the parcel, and 2) the state-rare plants pleated-leaved knotweed plus bristly rose, both known just to the north in Schaghticoke. Hopefully, any decision about potential land use changes of the Golub Parcel should consider the regional importance and rarity of multiple ecological features here (especially the Shale Cliff & Talus Community, riverside habitat, and rare plant species like scrub oak). Whether or not the parcel is further evaluated for rare plants and animals, if any structures are to be built on the parcel, I strongly recommend that they are placed as close as possible to Second Avenue, farthest away from the ecologically-important features of the site, and that any impacts to the high knolls, steep W-facing slopes bordering the Hudson River, and the river shoreline are minimized. Sincerely in Biodiversity Conservation, David Hunt. Ph.D. Ecologist. Grafton, NY. Rensselaer County Biodiversity Greenprint Project (Designing an Ark for the Native Species of Rensselaer County) 348 Jay Hakes Road; Cropseyville, NY 12052; (518) 279-4124

56 57

Site 1. Pleasantdale Bluffs. (See Maps 1-4). A. County-important Restricted Ecosystem Complex. (Map 1) Complex type: Rocky summit/slope complex, circumneutral, bluff/gorge,

Hudson River Valley regional variant, large river escarpment bluff type.

Size: 336 acres. County Importance: Importance Tier 1 of 3 (most important). Extent on Golub Parcel: 40% of tract (N half). Contribution of Golub Parcel: 5% of Complex (S edge). Characteristic Community Types: include Pitch Pine-Oak-Heath Rocky Summit, Shale Cliff & Talus

Community. (see Exemplary Natural Communities). Associated Rare Species: numerous county-rare plants (see Rare Plant Concentration

Area). Description: substrate includes exposed bedrock. contains characteristic

open rocky summit/slope community types with associated rare plant species. The known core of this complex, "Pleasantdale Bluffs" in a more strict sense, is represented by knolls/bluffs at the N end of a patch directly along the Hudson River just W of the W end of River Bend Road. More of the site is mapped along gorges to the NE, between Haughney and Brickyard Roads, mostly unexplored to date.

B. Constituent Exemplary Natural Communities. (Map 2) Shale Cliff & Talus Community (SCTC4) Regional Conservation Importance: County Priority 3 of 4 (near-exemplary). likely "county

significant" but not "state significant". Size: 6.3 acres. Location: corrected 2020 from 2017 mapping to bluffs just W of W end

of River Bend Road in Schaghticoke plus bluffs along SW edge of Golub tract.

Extent on Golub Parcel: 5% of tract (SW edge). presence confirmed during December 2020

field survey. Contribution of Golub Parcel: 40% of community (S patch). Description: steep slope with exposed shale bedrock. open canopy habitat

dominated by low shrubs, scattered herbs, graminoids, mosses, and lichens.

Appendix 1: Ecological Surveys (Dec 2020)

Site 1. Pleasantdale Bluffs. p. 2. Pitch Pine-Oak-Heath Rocky Summit. Regional Conservation Importance: County Priority 2 of 4 (co-exemplary). likely "county

significant" but not "state significant". Size: 2.7 acres. Location: corrected 2020 from 2017 mapping to knoll just W of W end

of River Bend Road in Schaghticoke. Extent on Golub Parcel: not mapped on tract, but both highest knoll and upper crest

of cliff resemble this community type based on December 2020 field survey.

C. Rare Plant Concentration Area. (Map 3) County Importance: concentration priority 3 of 7 (highly concentrated). 28th most

important rare plant site in county as of 2017; 5th town priority for Schaghticoke as of 2017.

Size: 29 acres. originally mapped at 129 acres but in incorrect

location. corrected to patch of Pleasantdale Bluffs ecosystem complex bordering Hudson River.

Species Composition: with 17 county rare species/1 state rare species (1 state watch

list, 7 county active list, 10 county watch list) documented for 2017 county conservation plan; recently expanded to 24 county rare species/3 state rare species (1 state active list, 2 state watch list, 10 county active list, 14 county watch list). Information on individual species shown in Table 1. Several additional rare plant species are expected, associated with historical specimens at the NY State Museum labelled "Lansings Grove", reportedly the local name for this site, that have not yet been attached to this site.

Extent on Golub Parcel: 40% of tract (N half); as ecosystem complex. presence confirmed

during December 2020 field survey. Contribution of Golub Parcel: 15% of concentration area (S edge).

Location: corrected 2020 from 2017 mapping to match corresponding

patch of rocky summit/slope ecosystem complex along Hudson River.

58 59

Site 1. Pleasantdale Bluffs. p. 3. D. Rare Animals.

No rare animals have yet been identified from Pleasantdale Bluffs, most of the field surveys being focused on natural community types and vascular plant species. The observed presence of several individuals of scrub oak on the rocky summit and cliff community types suggests the potential for the state-rare moth "inland barrens buckmoth", which is known to feed primarily on that shrub. Similarly, no surveys for Karner blue butterfly, a globally rare moth characteristic of pitch pine barrens, are known to date from the site.

E. County-Important Roadless Blocks see Hudson River Northern Rensselaer County Block below, under

Site 2 (Hudson River Schaghticoke). F. County-Priority Conservation Site North Troy Hills & Bluffs. (Map 4) Site type: Level-2 site (mostly moderate-scale local ecosystems). Description: large aggregate of rocky summit/slope complexes.

County-Importance: Tier 2 of 4 site (moderate county priority).

Size: 1168 acres. Ecosystem Complex Composition: includes complexes associated with Bald Mountain Brunswick,

Oakwood Cemetery Troy, Pleasantdale Bluffs, and River Road Schaghticoke.

Extent on Golub Parcel: 40% of parcel. Contribution of Golub Parcel: 2% of conservation site.

Appendix 1: Ecological Surveys (Dec 2020)

Site 2. Hudson River Schaghticoke (See Maps 5-8). A. County-important Restricted Ecosystem Complex. (Map 1) Complex type: Riparian complex. non-tidal, confined river, large river type

(main channel) in calcareous flats. Size: 1191 acres. County Importance: Importance Tier 1 of 3 (most important). Extent on Golub Parcel: <1% of tract (borders entire W edge of tract, tract influences

local quality of site). Contribution of Golub Parcel: <<1% of the complex (inland edge) Characteristic Community Types: include Unconfined River and Riverside Sand/Gravel Bar (see

Exemplary Natural Communities). Associated Rare Species: several county-rare plants (see Rare Plants). Description: includes river, shoreline communities and associated

floodplain. Location: Stretches along the entire non-tidal portion of the Hudson

River from the Washington County line downstream to the Federal Dam in Troy. Only the Rensselaer County part of this complex has been mapped to date. The complete site extends N into Washington County and W into Saratoga County.

B. Constituent Exemplary Natural Communities. (Map 5) Unconfined River Regional Conservation Importance: County Priority 2 of 4 (co-exemplary). likely "state

significant". Size: 949 acres. Location: representing entire non-tidal portion of Hudson River from

Washington County line downstream to Federal Dam in Troy; only the Rensselaer County part of this community has been mapped; it extends N into Washington County and W into Saratoga County.

Extent on Golub Parcel: <<1% of tract (borders entire W edge of tract; tract influences

local quality of large community example). Contribution of Golub Parcel: <<1% of community border. Description:

wide, slow flowing, moderately deep river dominated by run and pool microhabitats, relatively confined within shale

60 61

Site 2. Hudson River Schaghticoke. p. 2. stream terraces in a moderately wide valley. Riverside Sand/Gravel Bar A 37-acre county co-exemplary site for this community type has

been mapped along the Hudson River 1.8 miles to the north of the Golub parcel in Schaghticoke. One patch of this community is believed to be present on the Golub tract (but was under snow during the December 20, 2020 field survey). If intervening patches are present upstream within 1.0 miles, the Golub patch would be lumped into this exemplary occurrence. The community was mapped using air photos; field surveys allow a much more precise mapping of this community, which typically occurs as narrow, linear bands that are difficult to detect on air photos.

C. Rare Plants.

Although no rare plant concentration area has been mapped yet to this aquatic-based site, pending sufficient surveys of its shoreline and nearshore areas, at least one county-rare plant was observed on the Golub tract within this site: cocklebur. Several individuals of this county watch list plant were observed on a shoreline community of the Hudson River, probably Riverside Sand/Gravel Bar (but buried under deep snow during the December 2020 field survey). Other county-rare shoreline plants are suspected from this site and would be most detectable during the growing season.

D. Important Animal Habitats

County Importance: Conservation priority 4 of 7 ("concentrated").

Size: 949 acres. (corresponding to Unconfined River) Animal Concentration Area Composition: 1 known probable animal concentration area (odonates).

Other potential concentration areas are likely (large river fish, shorebirds, riparian birds), but information is not yet available for analysis. Additional areas would raise the importance level of this site, if confirmed.

Rare Species Composition: 3 known state & county-rare animal taxa (odonates), all

documented with NY Natural Heritage Program. Location: Boundary follows that for exemplary Unconfined River

community. Extent on Golub Parcel: <<1% of tract (borders entire W edge of tract; tract influences

Appendix 1: Ecological Surveys (Dec 2020)

Site 2. Hudson River Schaghticoke. p. 3. local quality of large site). Contribution of Golub Parcel: <<1% of habitat. E. County-Important Aquatic Network Hudson River Main Channel (Network AN62) (Map 6) Network type: main channel, non-tidal network. Size: 4002 acres/14.5 stream miles. County Importance: Priority Tier 1 of 4 (most important). Extent on Golub Parcel:

NW 70% of tract (as coarsely modelled with assistance from RLT).

Contribution of Golub Parcel: <<1% of network. Network Composition (on Golub parcel): forested "riparian strips" coarsely mapped based on regional

land cover database; a more precise local mapping using air photos and field evaluation would probably extend the forested buffer boundary eastward to cover 80% to 90% of the tract.

F. County-Important Roadless Blocks (Map 7) Although the Golub parcel is not situated within a Level-4

(strictest level) regionally important forest matrix block, it is mapped within a large "aquatic matrix block", the Hudson River Northern Rensselaer County block.

Hudson River Northern Rensselaer County Block. Location: This block includes the Hudson River from the Washington

County line south to the Federal Dam in Troy, plus lands eastward to the first public road, constituting a narrow buffer inward of the river. While the concept should ideally include similar land N of the county line in Washington County and W of the river in Saratoga and Albany Counties, only the Rensselaer County "subsite" was precisely mapped.

Size: 11089 acres. County-Importance: Priority Tier 1 of 4. Extent on Golub Parcel: 100% of tract. Contribution of Golub Parcel: <<1% of block. G. County-Important Forest Corridors. Although the parcel is not within a mapped regionally important

forest corridor, being situated in the general urban setting of Troy, it is contained within an important "aquatic corridor" (see information on county-important aquatic networks and

62 63

Site 2. Hudson River Schaghticoke. p. 4. roadless blocks). H. County-Priority Conservation Site Hudson River Corridor. (Map 8) Site type: Level-1 site (large regional landscapes). Description: large important aquatic corridor. County-Importance: Tier 1 site (highest county priority). Size: 13662 acres. Site Composition: includes river plus adjacent areas, especially with natural

cover, deemed important to maintain the high water quality and native biota of the river. includes a strip throughout the W edge of Troy.

Extent on Golub Parcel: 100% of parcel. Contribution of Golub Parcel: <<1% of conservation site.

Appendix 1: Ecological Surveys (Dec 2020)

Feature Concepts and Definitions. County-Important Restricted Ecosystem Complexes the largest, most intact, and most ecologically-important examples of

ecosystem complex types with restricted distribution and total size in Rensselaer County, thought to be the best set of sites necessary to conserve the complete diversity of natural community types and native biota of those complexes in the county. Restricted types include rocky summit/slopes, wetlands, lakes, and riparian areas. Habitats typically delineated based on air photo interpretation of natural community types, hydrology, topography, geology, and soils.

County-Important Natural Communities the largest, most intact, and most ecologically important ("exemplary")

examples of every natural community type in Rensselaer County, representing the "benchmark" for its biodiversity composition, condition/quality, and landscape setting relative to all other examples of the community type within the county. Types follows standard state classification of ecological community types (New York Natural Heritage Program).

Rare Plant Concentration Areas the largest concentrations of "rare" plant taxa in Rensselaer County,

those that are rare at least at a county level, with sites prioritized by rarity level and abundance of rare species, giving highest priority to global and state rare plants. includes all groups of vascular plants and limited groups of non-vascular plants. Rare plants at 3 levels (global, state, and county) are divided into "active list" species (actively tracked as "very rare" and the highest priority for conservation) plus "watch list" species (others that are "moderately rare" and monitored over time to assess their trends in status, either decreasing, stable, or increasing). Species concepts follow the 2017 New York state flora. Global and state rarity assessments are derived and maintained by the New York Natural Heritage Program. County rarity assessments are derived and maintained by the Rensselaer County Biodiversity Greenprint Project, following standard methods of the natural heritage network.

County-Important Animal Habitats the most ecologically important habitats in Rensselaer County for sets

of animals and/or animal behavior types with restricted distribution in the county. Includes rare animal populations, dense animal concentration areas, and important animal behavioral features such as dens and breeding areas.

County-Important Aquatic Networks the largest, most intact, and most ecologically important aquatic

landscapes in Rensselaer County, thought to be the best set of sites necessary to conserve the complete diversity of natural aquatic community types (especially river types) and native aquatic biota of the county. Sites include the central waterway of the network ("stream system") plus two key surrounding land features that

64 65

contribute most to the high water quality and native biota composition of the stream system: 1) riparian corridors [buffer strips] directly along the stream system, typically its mainstem, and 2) wider intact subcatchment areas, typically in headwater positions.

Feature Concepts and Definitions. p. 2 County-Important Roadless Blocks the largest, most intact, and most ecologically-important "blocks" in

Rensselaer County, thought to be the best set of sites that 1) contain a matrix of natural communities characteristic of the local physiographic area and 2) are necessary to conserve the complete diversity of native biota of the county (especially large forest mammals and species vulnerable to disturbances associated with disturbance corridors such as roads). Roadless blocks, like "city blocks", are bounded by public roads and have no internal public road "bisections". "Aquatic blocks" are bisected by dams rather than roads, specifically those with high bridges over water that do not impede water flow and movement of aquatic biota.

County-Important Forest Corridors. the widest, most intact, and most ecologically important forest

("wildlife") corridors in Rensselaer County, connecting a related set of county-important forest landscapes to form one connected "forest network".

County-Priority Conservation Sites the most important ("priority") large to moderate-scale biodiversity

conservation sites in Rensselaer County, the complete set of which is designed to represent a group with the least amount of sites needed to conserve all native/natural biodiversity and ecological features of the county.

Appendix 1: Ecological Surveys (Dec 2020)

Table 1. Rare Species of Pleasantdale Bluffs Ecosystem Complex site. Species Name Subsite Presence (# individuals) Scientific Common Schaghticoke Golub Parcel 1. State Rare (3) Juglans cinerea Butternut 1 not yet found Polygonum tenue Pleated-Leaved Knotweed 8 not evaluated Rosa acicularis Bristly Rose 50 not evaluated 2. County Active List (8) Carex umbellata Parasol Sedge present not evaluated Crocanthemum canadense Frostweed 10 not evaluated Cyperus lupulinus Eastern Flat Sedge 50 not evaluated Galium pilosum Hairy Bedstraw 40 present Quercus prinoides Dwarf Chinquapin Oak present not yet found Selaginella rupestris Rock Spikemoss present not evaluated Solidago squarrosa Stout Goldenrod 5 probably found Symphyotrichum patens Late Purple Aster present not evaluated 3. County Watch List (13) Abietinella abietinum Wiry Fern Moss present not evaluated Amelanchier sanguinea Round-Leaved Shadbush present probably found Andropogon gerardi Big Bluestem present not evaluated Arabidopsis lyrata Lyre-Leaf Cress 100 not evaluated Asplenium trichomanes Maidenhair Spleenwort 50 not evaluated Borodinia canadensis Sicklepod present not evaluated Drymocallis arguta Tall Cinquefoil not yet found ~10 Houstonia longifolia Long-Leaved Bluets present not evaluated Lechea intermedia Large-Podded Pinweed 5 not evaluated Lespedeza violacea Wand-Like Bush Clover 5 not evaluated Polygonatum biflorum (commutatum) Large Solomon's-Seal present not evaluated Quercus ilicifolia Scrub Oak present ~5 Woodsia ilvensis Rusty Woodsia 20 not evaluated

66 67

Ecological Survey Updates Jan 2021FROM: David Hunt, Ecological Intuition & Medicine

Rensselaer County Biodiversity Greenprint Project

RE: Pleasantdale Bluffs, City of Troy. (Golub Parcel).

Supplemental Biodiversity Information

DATE: January 14, 2021

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for requesting more of my help to provide information on the ecological

importance of the Golub parcel in North Troy, part of the larger "Pleasantdale

Bluffs" important ecosystem complex. As promised, I now provide more detailed

biodiversity information, updated from our January 12, 2021 field visit, with

improved abilities to make field observations due to melting of the prior snow

cover. As mentioned, field observations that contribute any further detailed

important information, such as rare species, would likely need to be made

during the growing season (May to September), after plants have emerged to a

more easily identifiable state. The only further improvements I can think of

at this time of year would be to acquire any animal sampling information from

state agencies (NYS DEC and the NY State Museum), especially for fish and

macroinvertebrates associated with the adjacent reach of the Hudson River.

As part of the expanded information, I focused on 3 smaller-scale ecological

features: ecological communities, rare species, and important animal habitat

components. Accordingly, I provide 1) a summary of key findings from our last

visit, 2) revised excerpts from my prior summary text, 2) detailed information

tables, and 3) maps of specific parcel locations for these features. For

excerpts, I expanded, updated, or revised relevant portions of the summaries

provided for the recent public hearing.

With more time, I could consolidate this into one updated summary document,

like before. Next, I provide 4 tables, two for ecological communities, one

for rare species, one for important animal habitats. One community table

focuses on all community types observed onsite and includes their size and

estimated importance at various geographic levels. The second community table

focuses on the 3 natural communities observed onsite that have county to state

importance, documenting my analyses to back up claims of any "regional

importance".

The rare species table, updated from my prior version, now includes animals

(expanding the prior table from only plants), species from the Golub parcel that are

new to the larger complex noted on our January visit, additional species to

the Golub parcel noted on our January visit but already known elsewhere in the

larger complex, and an estimate of identity certainty, based, in part, on my

recent examination of specimens using multiple technical identification

references. The important animal habitat table is new, based on much improved

field observations from our January visit. It presents several types of animal

habitats that may be present onsite, an estimate of their certainty, and any

features observed to date to support those certainties. Lastly, I provide 2

new detailed maps, one for ecological communities, one for rare species. The

community map is comprehensive for the entire parcel, based on our 2 field

visits, coupled with air photo interpretation plus topographic contours. The

rare species map, which includes both plants and animals, attempts to

Appendix 1: Ecological Surveys (Jan Update)

delineate areas where I have observed rare species to date, relying heavily on

the community map plus also air photo interpretation and topographic contours.

No map of specific important animal concentration areas has yet been created,

due to the high uncertainty of both the identity and any associated boundary

of many types. However, the observed beaver lodge was added to the rare

species map (Code=BL*). All of these areas fall within the larger "Hudson River

Schaghticoke" important animal habitat site.

Sincerely in Biodiversity Conservation,

David Hunt, Ph.D. Ecologist. Grafton, NY.

Rensselaer County Biodiversity Greenprint Project

(Designing an Ark for the Native Species of Rensselaer County)

348 Jay Hakes Road; Cropseyville, NY 12052; (518) 279-4124

68 69

Pleasantdale Bluffs: Significance of Ecological

FeaturesKey Ecological Findings from the Golub Parcel, January 12, 2021 Survey

January 14, 2021

Key updated findings from observations of small-scale ecological features

during the January 12, 2021 field survey are summarized below.

1. Ecological Communities (Map 1, Tables 1-2). More precise and detailed

information on the 3 natural communities observed onsite that have county to

state importance (Shale Cliff & Talus Community, Riverside Sand/Gravel Bar, and Pitch Pine-

Oak-Heath Rocky Summit) include precise maps and analyses to confirm their

regional importance. The Riverside Sand/Gravel Bar probably meets the

criteria for "state significance", although not yet documented in the

databases of NY Natural Heritage Program (of NYS DEC). All 3 community

types are "county rare" and the cliff community is also "state rare". The

example of latter community onsite comes close to meeting criteria for

"state significance". Although the patches of Pitch Pine-Oak-Heath Rocky

Summit onsite are very small and narrow, especially compared to those to the

north within the Pleasantdale Bluffs complex, sufficient observations have

now been made to map this community on the Golub parcel.

2. Rare Species (Map 2, Table 3). Several updates to the rare species table

for the larger Pleasantdale Bluffs complex were made, including 5 additional

species not previously known from the Golub parcel, most being covered by

snow during the December 2020 field survey. A total of 3 species were found

that are new to the Golub parcel but known from the main patch of the

ecosystem complex in Schaghticoke, the most interesting being rock spikemoss

(Selaginella rupestris), the others being lyre-leaf cress (Arabidopsis

lyrata) and rusty woodsia (Woodsia ilvensis). Two species were found on the

Golub parcel that are new to the entire complex, one plant on the shale

cliffs, rock sandwort (Sabulina michauxii), and one animal, identified as

state rare, sharp hornsnail (Pleurocera acuta), the elongate snail shell

found along the Hudson River shore. The rare species population map for the

parcel best reveals the most ecologically-sensitive part of site, from a

practical perspective. I still have several specimens of potentially rare

mosses to evaluate, relying on a close colleague to expedite any

identifications. I expect 1 to 5 county rare species among the collections,

possibly 1 state rare species.

3. Important Animal Habitats (Table 4). Animal habitats are more flexibly

defined than other features and harder to determine. Key observations often

depend on specific times of the year or day (e.g., nocturnal) and specific

microhabitats (e.g., the bottom substrate of the Hudson River). Confirmation of

"important habitat" is also complicated by the need for a minimal number of

different species and number of individuals, which can be seasonally and

annually highly variable. As Table 4 shows, to date the most certain

important habitat is a "bald eagle feeding territory", backed up not just by

the one local report/observation but probably also by mapping of the entire

habitat by the NY Natural Heritage Program. Similarly, although no onsite

observations of odonates (dragonflies and damselflies) have been made, mapping of

the entire nearby Hudson River habitat by the NY Natural Heritage Program of

3 state-rare odonates suggests the presence of an "odonate concentration

area" in the river along the Golub parcel. Based on my observations of

Appendix 1: Ecological Surveys (Jan Update)

abundant spent shells, I suspect a "riverine mollusk concentration area" in

the river next to the site, however, confirmation would need to involve

shallow underwater observations, best made between May and September.

Although the beaver lodge was mapped and it could be a component of an

"aquatic mammal concentration area", observations of other species would be

needed for this designation. Many pieces of information needed for

confirmation of important animal habitat require patience and the presence

of someone onsite for extended periods of time or the perfect time for

observations.

70 71

Pleasantdale Bluffs: Significance of Ecological Features

Revisions and Additions to December 2020 Summary.

January 14, 2021

Revisions and additions to the December 2020 summary submitted to the Troy

City Council are made to excerpts from that document and noted below by the

symbol "***".

Site 1. Pleasantdale Bluffs.

B. Constituent Exemplary Natural Communities. (see Map 1)

Shale Cliff & Talus Community (SCTC4)Size: 6.3 acres. ***corrected to 1.6 acres.

Location:

(Dec 2020) corrected 2020 from 2017 mapping to bluffs just W of W end

of River Bend Road in Schaghticoke plus bluffs along SW edge of

Golub tract.

***Jan 2021: additional small patch added at NW corner of Golub tract

in town of Schaghticoke. patch along SW edge of Golub tract slightly

expanded based on more precise air photo interpretation coupled with

ground truthing.

Extent on Golub Parcel:

***5% of tract (SW edge and NW corner). presence confirmed during

December 2020 and January 2021 field surveys.

Contribution of Golub Parcel:

***60% of community (S and middle patches).

Pitch Pine-Oak-Heath Rocky Summit. Size: 2.7 acres. ***corrected to 1.0 acres.

Location:

(Dec 2020) corrected 2020 from 2017 mapping to knoll just W of W end of

River Bend Road in Schaghticoke.

***Jan 2021: two additional small patches added: one at NW corner of

Golub tract in the Town of Schaghticoke, one at the crest of the

cliff along SW edge of Golub tract, both with narrow width and

transitional in nature; mapped based on more precise air photo

interpretation coupled with ground truthing.

Extent on Golub Parcel:

***newly mapped on tract, on upper crest of cliff patches based on

December 2020 and especially January 2021 field surveys.

transitional in nature between cliff and forest communities, but

areas with canopy naturally open enough in both patches, the NW

corner patch due to exposed shale surface, the SW edge patch due, in

part, to beaver cuttings. An additional area on the highest knoll

of the tract is deemed to have probably undergone succession to

Appalachian Oak-Pine Forest but was likely this community type in

the past, now with species like scrub oak as a suspected remnant of

this former community type.

Contribution of Golub Parcel:

***20% of community (S and middle patches).

Appendix 1: Ecological Surveys (Jan Update)

Site 1. Pleasantdale Bluffs. p. 2.

C. Rare Plant Concentration Area. (see Map 2)

Species Composition:

(Dec 2020) with 17 county rare species/1 state rare species (1 state watch

list, 7 county active list, 10 county watch list) documented for 2017 county

conservation plan; expanded in December 2020 to 24 county rare

species/3 state rare species (1 state active list, 2 state watch list, 10

county active list, 14 county watch list).

***January 2021 update (see Table 3): 5 of these taxa were found on the

Golub tract during a December 2020 survey (1 county active list, 4 county

watch list); 4 additional rare plant species were found on the tract

during the January 2021 survey (2 county active list, 2 county watch list).

One plant species new to the entire ecosystem complex was found on

the parcel: rock sandwort (Sabulina michauxii), located on the Shale

Cliff & Talus Community. cumulative tally for the complex expanded

in January 2021 to 25 county rare species/3 state rare species (1

state active list, 2 state watch list, 10 county active list, 15 county watch list).

Information on individual species, updated from the January 2021

survey, are shown in Table 3, along with the newly added certainty

of their identifications.

(Dec 2020) Several additional rare plant species are expected,

associated with historical specimens at the NY State Museum labelled

"Lansings Grove", reportedly the local name for this site, that have

not yet been attached to this site.

Extent on Golub Parcel:

(Dec 2020) 40% of tract (N half); as ecosystem complex. presence

confirmed during December 2020 field survey.

***presence on parcel strengthened January 2021 with additional species

of concentration area also found onsite.

Location:

(Dec 2020) corrected 2020 from 2017 mapping to match corresponding

patch of rocky summit/slope ecosystem complex along Hudson River.

***minor changes in the site boundary to match the known extent of rare

species populations are pending.

D. Rare Animals.

(Dec 2020) No rare animals have yet been identified from Pleasantdale

Bluffs, most of the field surveys being focused on natural community

types and vascular plant species. The observed presence of several

individuals of scrub oak on the rocky summit and cliff community types

suggests the potential for the state-rare moth "inland barrens

buckmoth", which is known to feed primarily on that shrub. Similarly,

no surveys for Karner blue butterfly, a globally-rare moth

characteristic of pitch pine barrens, are known to date from the site.

***January 2021 update: See Site 2 for the relevance of any observations

of animals onsite.

72 73

Site 2. Hudson River Schaghticoke

B. Constituent Exemplary Natural Communities. (see Map 1)

Riverside Sand/Gravel Bar (Dec 2020) A 37-acre county co-exemplary site for this community type

has been mapped along the Hudson River 1.8 miles to the north of the

Golub parcel in Schaghticoke. One patch of this community is

believed to be present on the Golub tract (but was under snow during

the December 20, 2020 field survey). If intervening patches are

present upstream within 1.0 miles, the Golub patch would be lumped

into this exemplary occurrence. The community was mapped using air

photos; field surveys allow a much more precise mapping of this

community, which typically occurs as narrow, linear bands that are

difficult to detect on air photos.

***January 2021 update: Two narrow, linear patches of this community,

previously under deep snow cover, were confirmed on the Golub tract

during a January 12, 2021 field survey, in a shoreline mosaic with

smaller patches of Cobble Shore and Shoreline Outcrop. If small

intervening patches are present upstream within 1.0 miles, as

expected, the Golub patch would be lumped into this exemplary

occurrence, representing the southern extent of that long

occurrence. Patches on the Golub tract were newly mapped using air

photo interpretation coupled with ground truthing from the field

survey. The community occurrence was originally mapped in 2017

using only air photos, pending field surveys which are necessary to

allow a much more precise mapping of this community type, which

typically occurs as narrow, linear bands that are difficult to

detect on air photos (such as any aforementioned intervening patches).

C. Rare Plants. (See Map 2)

(Dec 2020) Although no rare plant concentration area has been mapped yet

to this aquatic-based site, pending sufficient surveys of its shoreline

and nearshore areas, at least one county-rare plant was observed on the

Golub tract within this site: cocklebur. Several individuals of this

county watch list plant were observed on a shoreline community of the

Hudson River, probably Riverside Sand/Gravel Bar (but buried under deep snow

during the December 2020 field survey). Other county-rare shoreline plants are

suspected from this site and would be most detectable during the

growing season.

***The January 2021 field survey revealed cocklebur in a mosaic of

Riverside Sand/Gravel Bar, Riverside Mudflats, and/or Shallow Emergent

Marsh. Other shoreline plants were not detected but potential habitat

exists for numerous rare species, all known from riverside communities

in the larger site not far to the north in Schaghticoke such as the 3

state-rare plants northern shore quillwort (Isoetes septentrionalis), red-

rooted flatsedge (Cyperus erythrorhizos), and Davis's sedge (Carex davisii) plus

the 13 county-rare plants sandbar lovegrass (Eragrostis frankii), red-topped

panic grass (Coleataenia rigidula), shining flatsedge (Cyperus bipartitus),

intermediate spikerush (Eleocharis intermedia), three-square bulrush

(Schoenoplectus pungens), golden hedge hyssop (Gratiola aurea), false pimpernel

(Lindernia dubia), germander (Teucrium canadense), northern wild senna (Senna

hebecarpa), common silverweed (Potentilla anserina), thin-leaved sunflower

(Helianthus decapetalus), green-headed coneflower (Rudbeckia laciniata), and

sandbar willow (Salix interior). Many of these species may be difficult to

Appendix 1: Ecological Surveys (Jan Update)

detect in winter condition. Several additional state- to county-rare

aquatic plants have strong potential to be present in the adjacent

Hudson River waters and would ideally require searches between May and

September.

74 75

Site 2. Hudson River Schaghticoke. p. 2.

D. Important Animal Habitats

Animal Concentration Area Composition:

(Dec 2020) 1 known probable animal concentration area (odonates). Other

potential concentration areas are likely (large river fish,

shorebirds, riparian birds), but information is not yet available

for analysis. Additional areas would raise the importance level of

this site, if confirmed.

***January 2021 additions: observations and reports of multiple

characteristic animals may suggest the potential for additional

"animal concentration areas" within this mapped site, but more

information is needed on any additional species or concentration

abundances. The following need further evaluation.

1. Aquatic mammal concentration area. a beaver lodge, suspected to be currently active, was noted at the base of the Intermittent Stream on the Golub

parcel. Coupled with evidence of numerous beaver-cut trees along most of the

western edge of the tract and first-hand observations of beaver along the shore of

the tract, it is certain there has been an active resident beaver on the tract in

recent times. Presence of another aquatic mammal, usually otter and/or muskrat, is

usually necessary to designate an "aquatic mammal concentration area".

Observations of a muskrat to the north at Pleasantdale Bluffs proper during a

September 2020 field survey further suggests the presence of such an area.

2. Riverine mollusk concentration area. numerous spent shells of two molluskspecies were found along the shoreline of the river on the Golub parcel: pea (or

pill or fingernail) clam (Sphaerium sp.) and sharp hornsnail (Pleurocera acuta),

suggesting that these two species are abundant in the bed of the adjacent river and

the presence of a nearby mollusk concentration area. Confirmation of such an area

would be strengthened by further evidence that the shells are derived from living

individuals in adjacent or nearby upstream areas of riverbed plus observations of

additional mollusk species, with common elliptio (Elliptio complanata) most

expected. Such records of mollusks might be kept in files of the NYS DEC water

quality unit or NY State Museum, if any nearby sites have been historically

sampled. Inferences might be made, for example, from the reference "Freshwater

Snails of New York State", which has statewide dot maps for all freshwater snail

species.

3. Shorebird concentration area. the call and tracks of spotted sandpiper werenoted during the January 2021 field survey, suggesting potential for a shorebird

concentration area. Further evidence would be needed to determine if such an area

exists onsite, especially during ideal times of the year, thought to be between

April and September. Key evidence would include any abundance of shorebird

individuals and the diversity of shorebird species, especially distinguishing

shorebirds from waterfowl and riparian bird species, treated as separate

concentration area types.

4. Bald eagle habitats. one report of a bald eagle feeding on a fish in the river offshore of the tract has been made. To date, only nesting sites have been

designated as county important for bald eagle, and they are also state important.

Although feeding territory for bald eagle was not designated an important animal

habitat in the county conservation plan, such areas have some county importance,

often correlated with other county-important ecological features, especially

aquatic-based ones. However, the specific feeding territory in the adjacent Hudson

River is apparently mapped as "state-important animal habitat" at NYS DEC and

probably follows a "feeding territory" concept, especially for nesting individuals.

A nesting site is known about 1.5 miles to the north of the Golub parcel and has

Appendix 1: Ecological Surveys (Jan Update)

been field confirmed by multiple experts. Those nesting individuals are suspected

to be using a long stretch of the river for feeding territory. I am less sure of

any "roosting territory" which could include large trees along the river that could

serve as a vantage point to scout fish for food, such as the several large trees,

especially red oak, observed along the shore of the Golub tract. No nests have

been observed on the Golub parcel to date.

An additional odonate concentration area is apparently inferred from

the adjacent Hudson River based on important animal habitat mapped

by the NY Natural Heritage Program (of NYS DEC). Onsite assessment

of odonate presence and abundance are ideally made from about June

to August.

Site 2. Hudson River Schaghticoke. p. 3.

D. Important Animal Habitats (continued)

Rare Species Composition (see Map 2):

(Dec 2020) 3 known state & county-rare animal taxa (odonates), all

documented with NY Natural Heritage Program.

***January 2021 additions: Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is a state

rare animal. Its feeding territory, although not explicitly mapped

as a county-important animal habitat, as noted above, has apparently

been mapped as a state-important animal habitat by NYS DEC. The

sharp hornsnail (Pleurocera acuta), mentioned under a potential riverine

mollusk concentration area above, is also state rare. It is tracked

by the NY Natural Heritage Program of NYS DEC as a "state watch

list" species (i.e., a "moderately state rare" species), with a rarity rank

of "S3", thus it would also be designated as "county rare".

Although I used two technical keys for its identity, I am less

skilled with animal identifications than with plants, but I am

relatively certain of this species and I intend to forward a

specimen to a statewide mollusk expert for confirmation/evaluation.

The technical reference book I used, the prime taxonomic reference

for NY freshwater snails (Jokinen 1992: The Freshwater Snails of New

York State), cites historical observations of this snail from the

adjacent reach of the Hudson River in North Troy during the 1980s,

so it makes sense that it could still be here 40 years later.

G. County-Important Forest Corridors.

(Dec 2020) Although the parcel is not within a mapped regionally-important

forest corridor, being situated in the general urban setting of Troy,

it is contained within an important "aquatic corridor" (see information

on county-important aquatic networks and roadless blocks).

***January 2021 additions: Observations of multiple dens and abundant

tracks of what was suspected to be a red fox were noted along the

soiled clay banks of the river on the Golub parcel during a December

20, 2020 field survey, suggesting the presence of a potentially viable

forest corridor associated with the aquatic network (Feature 2-E) and

aquatic matrix block (Feature 2-F).

***January 2021 additions: Observations of one pileated woodpecker, a

characteristic forest-interior bird, on the Golub parcel during a

January 12, 2021 field survey also suggest the presence of a

potentially viable forest corridor associated with the aquatic network

(Feature 2-E) and aquatic matrix block (Feature 2-F).

76 77

AOP

cult

AOH

AOP

SCTC

cult

RSGB

AOH

IS

RSGB

PORS

SCTC

PORS

Troy

Schaghticoke

Map 1. Ecological Communities

Appendix 1: Ecological Surveys (Jan Update)

QiSs

Qc

Al

Pa

Ss

Qi

Qc

Ss

Qi

Xs

BL*

AlSm Wi

GbLi

WiSrSm

Al

Troy

Schaghticoke

Map 2. Rare Species Populations

78 79

Table 1. Ecological Communities of the Parcels. Composition & Importance.

Community Name (Parcel Map Code)Community Type Acres Est.Rank Est.Max.Importance

Appalachian Oak-Hickory Forest (AOH) Natural/Upland Forest 2.1/~10 C

local (Troy riverfront)

Appalachian Oak-Pine Forest (AOP) Natural/Upland Forest 6.0/~50 CD

local (Troy riverfront)

(includes Successional Southern Hardwoods)

Intermittent Stream (IS) Natural/River 0.09/0.09D local (Troy riverfront)

Pitch Pine-Oak-Heath Rocky Summit (PORS) Natural/Upland Barrens 0.2/1.0 C

county (co-exemplary)

Riverside Sand/Gravel Bar (RSGB)Natural/Upland Open Canopy 0.7/38.0 Bcounty (co-exemplary)

/state significant

(includes Shoreline Outcrop and Cobble Shore)

Shale Cliff and Talus Community (SCTC) Natural/Upland Open Canopy 0.9/1.6 C

county (near-exemplary)

cultural (cult) Cultural 1.9/- NA none

(includes younger successional areas) Natural/Upland successional

Notes: Acres = on parcel/entire occurrence; Rank estimated for entire occurrence.

---------------------------------------

Table 2. Natural Community Regional Importance Analyses

Complete Occurrence..............................................

Community......

Rank Estimates......................... Significance......

Rarity.........

Community Name Acres Size Condition Landscape Occurrence County

State County State

Pitch Pine-Oak-Heath Rocky Summit 1.0 D BC BC C Y** N Y

N~

Riverside Sand/Gravel Bar 38.0 AB BC BC B Y** Y Y N~

Shale Cliff and Talus Community 1.6 D B BC C(BC) Y* N? Y Y

Notes: * = also county near-exemplary; ** = also county co-exemplary.

---------------------------------------

Appendix 1: Ecological Surveys (Jan Update)

Table 3. Rare Species of Pleasantdale Bluffs Ecosystem Complex site.

Species Name Subsite Presence (# individuals)

Scientific (Parcel Map Code) Common Schaghticoke Golub Parcel/ID

certainty

1. State Rare (4)

Plants (3)

Juglans cinerea Butternut 1 not yet found

Polygonum tenue Pleated-Leaved Knotweed 8 not yet found

Rosa acicularis Bristly Rose 50 not yet found

Animals (1)

Pleurocera acuta (Pa) Sharp Hornsnail not yet found ~100 confirmed Jan 2021 (80%

certainty)

2. County Active List Plants (8)

Carex umbellata Parasol Sedge present possibly observed Jan 2021 (20%

certainty)

Crocanthemum canadense Frostweed 10 not yet found

Cyperus lupulinus Eastern Flat Sedge 50 not yet found

Quercus prinoides Dwarf Chinquapin Oak present probably not present

Sabulina michauxii (Sm) Rock Sandwort not yet found ~30 confirmed

Jan 2021 (80% certainty)

Selaginella rupestris (Sr) Rock Spikemoss present

3 confirmed Jan 2021 (100% certainty)

Solidago squarrosa (Ss) Stout Goldenrod 5

~200 confirmed Jan 2021 (90% certainty)

Symphyotrichum patens Late Purple Aster present not yet found

3. County Watch List Plants (14)

Vascular Plants (13)

Amelanchier sanguinea Round-Leaved Shadbush present

not yet found

Andropogon gerardi Big Bluestem present

probably not present

Arabidopsis lyrata (Al) Lyre-Leaf Cress 100 ~50

confirmed Jan 2021 (100% certainty)

Asplenium trichomanes Maidenhair Spleenwort 50

not yet found

Borodinia canadensis Sicklepod present

not yet found

Drymocallis arguta (Da) Tall Cinquefoilnot yet found ~10 confirmed

Dec 2020 (90% certainty)

Galium boreale (Gb) Northern Bedstraw 40 ~20 confirmed Jan

2021 (95% certainty)

Houstonia longifolia Long-Leaved Bluets present

not yet found

Lechea intermedia (Li) Large-Podded Pinweed 5 ~5 confirmed Dec 2020

(95% certainty)

Lespedeza violacea Wand-Like Bush Clover 5

not yet found

Polygonatum biflorum

var. commutatum Large Solomon's-Seal present

not yet found

Quercus ilicifolia (Qi) Scrub Oak present ~30

confirmed Jan 2021 (100% certainty)

Woodsia ilvensis (Wi) Rusty Woodsia 20 ~50 confirmed Jan

2021 (70% certainty)

80 81

Non-Vascular Plants (1)

Abietinella abietinum Wiry Fern Moss present

not yet found

Notes:

1. Any state to county rare mosses, among several ones potentially found onsite, are pending

examination and evaluation of specimens from the foremost county bryophyte expert, Tom

Phillips, DVM.

2. Any additional expansion of the list of taxa known from the Golub Parcel would likely require

observations of the site during the growing season (May to September).

---------------------------------------

Table 4. Important Animal Habitats on and near the Golub Parcels.

Animal Group Habitat Type CertaintyEcosystem Known Component Features

Bald eagle feeding territory 90% riverfeeding on fish/state-mapped important habitat

Odonates concentration area 80% river,shore,banksinferred from multiple nearby state-

documented populations of 3 state-

rare odonate taxa/state-mapped

important habitat

Riverine mollusks concentration area 70% river abundant spent

shells of 2 taxa

Large river fish concentration area 30% river suspected from

nearby observations of river

Aquatic mammals concentration area 20% river,shore,banksbeaver

lodge/abundant cut trees/swimming

individual; nearby muskrat

Shorebirds concentration area 5% rivershore, river tracks and call of spotted

sandpiper

Large mammals denning concentration <5% riverbanks, forestmultiple

holes under large tree roots thought

to be potential dens of red fox

Bald eagle nesting territory <5% riverbankslarge potential nesting trees but without

observed nests

Forest birds breeding concentration <1% forest pileated woodpecker fly-

through, suggesting potential small

forest-interior area

Notes: certainty = certainty of habitat type on and/or adjacent to the parcel (e.g., a

"concentration" area)

82 83

Appendix 2COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS

Quoted from public record, as submitted by Scenic Hudson

1

September 9, 2020 By email: citycouncil@troyny.gov Ms. Carmella Mantello, President and Members of the City Council City of Troy 433 River Street, Suite 5001 Troy, NY 12180 Subject: Ordinance Authorizing Amendment Of City Of Troy Zoning Map Established By Troy Code

Section 285-49 (A) To Rezone Tax Map Parcel Number 70.64-1-1 On 2nd Avenue In North Troy From R-1 Single Family Residential Detached To P Planned Development

Dear Ms. Mantello and Members of the City Council: Scenic Hudson is writing to urge the Troy City Council to deny the rezoning request referenced above on 2nd Avenue from R-1 (Single Family Development--Detached) to P (Planned Development). Such a rezoning would not be in accordance with the recently adopted Realize Troy Comprehensive Plan (2018) as required by N.Y. General City Law Section 28-a(12). Realize Troy Comprehensive Plan—its purpose and how it was created Urban Strategies, Inc., the planning firm hired by the City to craft Realize Troy, describes the Comprehensive Plan as a three-part community planning initiative: an economic strategy, a waterfront master plan, and a city-wide comprehensive plan. According to Urban Strategies, the planning process was based on a “strong focus on public consultation, both in-person and using a variety of social media channels, and aimed to establish a clear vision and set of action strategies to address both the current and future needs of the City” (emphasis added). Further, Urban Strategies’ website states that the Comprehensive Plan established “a clear community-based vision and action plan to guide the city’s overall development over the next 20 years” (emphasis added) and Realize Troy identified “short and longer-term community needs, reinforced and confirmed a set of broadly supported community goals and created a blueprint for future government actions” (emphasis added). SOURCE: https://www.urbanstrategies.com/project/realize-troy/#:~:text=Realize%20Troy%20is%20a%20three,a%20city%2Dwide%20comprehensive%20plan.&text=It%20will%20establish%20a%20clear,over%20the%20next%2020%20years. Scenic Hudson’s recommendations are prefaced with the City’s Planning consultant’s description of the Comprehensive Plan’s purpose, as well as and the robust public participation on which the plan, its vision for the City, and its land use recommendations are based.

Appendix 2: Comprehensive Plan

2

Rezonings must be in accordance with Comprehensive Plans The requested rezoning would directly conflict with Realize Troy’s recommendations—and, therefore, the community’s vision—for the subject parcel. If it were to be in the best interest of the City of Troy and its residents to commit this undeveloped, wooded parcel to high density development, in this case 240 apartments, one would think that Realize Troy would have recommended this parcel for higher density uses as a Major Reinvestment Area. However, Realize Troy envisions just the opposite. N.Y. General City Law Section 28-a(12) requires that “All city land use regulations must be in accordance with a comprehensive plan adopted pursuant to this section.” Scenic Hudson believes that a rezoning from Single Family Residential to Planned Development would not be in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan’s designation of Low Rise Residential and would therefore violate N.Y. General City Law Section 28-a(12). Further, according to the New York State Department of State "New York’s zoning enabling statutes (the state statutes which give cities, towns and villages the power to enact local zoning laws) require that zoning laws be adopted in accordance with a comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan should provide the backbone for the local zoning law." https://www.dos.ny.gov/lg/publications/Zoning_and_the_Comprehensive_Plan.pdf Realize Troy’s vision for the subject parcel First and foremost, the Comprehensive Plan (Map 14) identifies the subject tax parcel as "low rise residential" (see Appendix A attached to this letter). The parcel is currently zoned R-1 (Single Family Residential—Detached) which would permit approximately 10 single family homes on the site. The concept plan submitted in association with this rezoning requests proposes 240 multi-family units, a land use with density wholly inconsistent with low rise residential and would therefore not be in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan as required by N.Y. General City Law Section 28-a(12). Further, one of the “action strategies” proposed in Realize Troy Comprehensive Plan is the establishment of seven “Major Reinvestment Areas.” According to Realize Troy:

“Major reinvestment areas are locations in the city in most need of renewal and which also have the potential to accommodate most of the population and employment growth planned for Troy. Strategic initiatives in these areas are intended to catalyze neighborhood revitalization, transform derelict portions of the waterfront and spark economic development. They include large-scale redevelopment opportunities that can result in distinct new employment and mixed-use areas, sites appropriate for significant park and other public realm improvements and areas for neighborhood growth and revitalization.”

Realize Troy, page 68 These Major Reinvestment Areas are the places envisioned by the community as priorities for renewal, neighborhood revitalization and large-scale development.

84 85

3

The Plan identifies two Major Reinvestment Areas in Lansingburgh. One area includes the Hannaford’s parcel immediately to the south of the subject parcel. Realize Troy conceptually proposes redeveloping the Hannaford’s site with a large building fronting 126th Street, parking behind the building, and mixed-use 1-4 story residential buildings with required ground floor retail fronting 2nd Avenue (see Revitalize Troy, page 71 and 72; also attached here as Appendices B-1 and B-2). Realize Troy does NOT propose extending this mixed-use development—nor any high-density development, including apartments as proposed in this rezoning—onto the undeveloped, wooded parcel to the north. Conclusion During the development of the Realize Troy, undertaken with robust public involvement and adopted by the City Council just two years ago, it was not anticipated that the undeveloped, wooded subject parcel (Tax Map Parcel Number 70.64-1-1), zoned R-1 and identified in the Comprehensive Plan as Low Rise Residential, would be an appropriate place for intense development. If so, the adjacent Major Reinvestment Area would have been extended to include this parcel. Further, Realize Troy specifically includes this parcel in the “Low Rise Residential” land use category. Therefore, the requested rezoning would not be in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. In light of the above Scenic Hudson urges the Troy City Council to deny the application to rezone Tax Parcel Number 70.64-1-1 on 2nd Avenue from R-1 (Single Family Development) to P (Planned Development). Such rezoning would not be in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan as required by N.Y. General City Law Section 28-a(12). Thank you. Sincerely,

Jeffrey Anzevino, AICP Director of Land Use Advocacy Attachments

Appendix A Appendix B-1 Appendix B-2

Appendix 2: Comprehensive Plan

Note: Subject parcel is designated in area for Low-Rise Residential

Attachment A

Realize Troy, Map 14, Land Use

86 87

Attachment B-1

Realize Troy, Map 14, Land Use

Note: Subject parcel is NOT in Major Reinvestment Area and designated as for Low-Rise Residential

Note: Adjacent Hannafords site in MajprReinvestment Area and proposed for redevelopment with building fronting 126th Street, parking behind, and 1-4 story residential; buildings with ground floor retail

Appendix 2: Comprehensive Plan

Attachment B-2

Realize Troy, Major Reinvestment Areas

Note: Subject parcel is NOT in Major Reinvestment Area and designated as for Low-Rise Residential

Note: Adjacent Hannafords site in MajprReinvestment Area and proposed for redevelopment with building fronting 126th Street, parking behind, and 1-4 story residential; buildings with ground floor retail

88 89

Appendix 3Department Of State Opinion

From: Oneill, Kristin (DOS) Kristin.ONeill@dos.ny.govSubject: RE: Residents-Only restriction for public meeting at public meetings at the City of Troy

Date: September 9, 2020 at 3:11 PMTo: [redacted: email address]

Good Afternoon [REDACTED: NAME],

Thank you for contacting the Committee on Open Government. The Open Meetings Lawprovides a right to attend to the "general public." (Open Meetings Law Section 103(a)). Aresident Schenectady, Albany, or even Buffalo or New York City would have the same rightto attend a meeting of the Troy City Council as a resident of the City. That being so, I donot believe that a public body could validly require that those who attend or seek to attendidentify themselves by name, residence or interest. In short, it is my view that any memberof the public has an equal opportunity to partake in an open meeting, and that an effort todistinguish among attendees by residence or any other qualifier would be inconsistent withthe Open Meetings Law and, therefore, unreasonable. Moreover, people other thanresidents, particularly those who own property or operate businesses in a community, mayhave a substantial interest in attending and expressing their views at meetings of CityCouncils and other public bodies. Prohibiting those people from speaking, even thoughthey may have a significant interest in the topics being discussed, while permittingresidents to do so, would, in my view, be unjustifiable.

In addition, I note that Section 110(1) of the Open Meetings Law states “Any provision of acharter, administrative code, local law, ordinance, or rule or regulation affecting a publicbody which is more restrictive with respect to public access than this article shall bedeemed superseded hereby to the extent that such provision is more restrictive than thisarticle.” In other words, any aspect of the City Code that is more restrictive with respect topublic access (i.e., a residency requirement), is superseded by the Open Meetings Law.

I hope this information proves useful.

Sincerely,

Kristin O’NeillAssistant Director, Committee on Open Government

New York State Department of StateOne Commerce Plaza, Albany, NY 12231(518) 474-2518http://www.dos.ny.gov/coog/

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on linksfrom unknown senders or unexpected emails.

Appendix 4STORMWATER AND ECOSYSTEMS

 

90 91

Appendix 5WRITTEN OPINION BY Dr. JOHN GOWDY

The economics of development favor the sort-run over the long-run

Economic theory, and the market economy it describes, looks at the world through the eyes of a single person making decisions from the point of view of the immediate present. In economic jargon this is called “discounted present value.” The question is “How much is it worth to me now to get something in the future?” The discount rate indicates how quickly something losses value the further into the future we receive it. For example, at a 5% discount rate, something worth $100 million if I get it today is worth $78 if delivered five years from now, and only $61 million if received 10 years from now.

Consider the benefits of developing a natural, forested area, compared to the benefits of preserving it. The economic benefits of development are received almost immediately—construction jobs, tax revenue, more customers for local businesses. The benefits of development are relatively large, but generally last only a few years. The benefits of preservation are relatively small, but they last indefinitely. With even a relatively low discount rate (the lower the rate the less something loses value through time) the benefits of development will overwhelm the benefits of preservation in a purely economic cost-benefit study.

But should short-term economic benefits be the only criterion for making a choice between development and preservation? Another way is to consider a development project from the point of view of someone living in the future, say 25 years from now. Using the example above, preserving something worth $100 million now will be worth only $29 million in 25 years. But from the point of view of a person living 25 years from now, its value would be $100 million. The question is “What kind of world do we want to leave for the future?” Imagine your daughter or granddaughter living in Troy 25 years from now. Would her life be better with an apartment complex or a natural wooded area?

Certainly, the economic benefits of a new apartment complex should be considered, but so should the non-monetary benefits of preserving natural areas. Studies of the benefits of even short walks in wooded areas have produced some remarkable results. For example, researcher found that people who live in cities with fewer trees have greater death rates from lower respiratory tract and cardiovascular illness. (https://www.asla.org/ContentDetail.aspx?id=39564)

Appendix 1: Ecological Surveys (Jan Update)

Life is becoming more sedentary, and wooded areas in and near cities are becoming more scarce. Undeveloped open space will be even more important in the future to human well- being. The question is, what kind of city do we want to leave our children and grandchildren?

A discount rate calculator can be found at: https://www.aqua-calc.com/page/discounted-present-value-calculator

• Donovan, G. et al. 2013. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 44(2),139-145. DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2012.09.066

John Gowdy, Professor of Economics, Emeritus, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

92 93

To: The Members of the Planning Commission Regarding: Planning Commission Review of request for zone change from R-1 to P; 1011

2nd Avenue in Troy, NY; Written statement for Planning Commision hearing on January 28, 2021

January 28, 2021 Dear Members of the Planning Commission, The Friends of the Mahicantuck submit this statement, as well as attached material, for the consideration of the Planning Commission in their review of a proposed rezoning of 1011 2nd Avenue. We urge you to recommend against the rezoning. In this letter, we identify significant inconsistencies with the law and process flaws in the current reviewing the request in zone change. On substance, we bring to your attention significant reasons for a recommendation against the rezoning. Based on these significant inconsistencies with the law, process flaws, and substance arguments we strongly urge you to recommend against the rezoning.

1. ON MATTERS OF PROCESS AND LAW The developer has submitted a full EAF as well as a “Project Narrative”. Additionally, the City of Troy is already acting on a request for change in zoning code (Res. 91). It must therefore be assumed that an application to approve an action, in this case at least a request for change in zoning code, was formally submitted to the city. We draw your attention to significant process flaws and inconsistencies with the law.

1.a. SEQRA AND TIMING SEQR should have already started: SEQR should be started “as soon as an agency receives an application to fund or approve an action”, in this case at least a request for change in zoning code. (However, as the change in zone code, per the developer’s own statements, is pursuant to a concrete development plan, considering rezoning as independent action would constitute “segmentation” in SEQRA; see 1.b.) According to statements during the Planning Commission hearing on December 29, 2020, SEQRA did not yet start. As SEQR should start with an application, review should have started even as the Planning Commission is currently only providing recommendation to the Council. 1.b. SEQRA AND SEGMENTATION The developer submitted an EAF with significant omissions. This EAF addresses only the rezoning and does not appropriately include the development plans itself. However, the developer explicitly stated at the Planning Commission special meeting on December 29, 2020, that the rezoning is pursuant to a specific development and submitted extensive site plans and project narratives. A SEQRA review must review the development and include the requested rezoning as one of the “discretionary actions” (alongside amongst others the Comprehensive Plan amendment). Completing separate SERQA reviews for the rezoning and development, as if rezoning were an independent and complete action, would constitute segmentation. The courts agree with such an assessment, as case law reaffirms — for example: Kirk-Astor Drive Neighborhood Ass’n v Town Board of Town of Pittsford, 106 A.D 2d 868, 869, 483 N.Y.S. 2d 526, 528 (4th Dep’t 1984). However, per statements of city officials at public hearings on September 10, 2020, November 19, 2020 and December 29, 2020, the city intends to review the rezoning as independent action, which is contrary to the intent of the State Environmental Quality Review Act. The Planning Commission should insist that Troy follow the laws, and recommend against the rezoning as premature until SEQR for the development (with rezoning as a discretionary action) is completed. 1.c. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM

The developer submitted an Environmental Assessment Form, which was made available to the public via the agenda of the upcoming meeting. A detailed analysis of this form was not possible in time due its recent publication. However, several concerning omissions and discrepancies have already been identified that we want to bring to your attention. This is provided in detail in the appendix to this letter. The Planning Commission should insist on reviewing all facts before making a recommendation. The incomplete and inconsistent statements in the EAF are concerning in that regard, particularly given the in our opinion substantial omissions and mis-statements. 1.d. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AREA The project site is located within a DEC designated “Potential Environmental Justice Area” (DEC CP 29). As part of the DEC Commissioner Policy 29, applicants for state permits including SEQRA are required to conduct extended public participation and outreach measures, including a written public participation plan to be submitted with an application. We have asked for disclosure of the written participation plan, yet there was no disclosure and so we assume there is none. By all indication an application was submitted, yet a public participation plan was not disclosed — constituting a concerning inconsistency with requirements established in DEC CP 29. This is not the time to be flouting environmental justice (EJ) concerns. The DEC designation as “Potential Environmental Justice Area” includes indigenous rights and impacts on indigenous communities. We are certain that Troy is taking such justice matters seriously. However, by flouting issues of environmental justice, the city is sending the opposite message. We think environmental justice matters in Troy. However, the current inconsistency with legal requirements for public outreach and written outreach plans associated with the DEC Commissioner Policy on Potential Environmental Justice Areas speaks a different language.

2. ON MATTERS OF SUBSTANCE 2.a. REZONING NOW IS A “BLANK CHECK” — FOLLOW THE CORRECT PROCESS! Should a rezoning be approved independent of site plans, the developer receives a “blank check” for any development plans permitted under the new zoning code (in this case P — Planned Development). Approving the rezoning independent from concrete development plans would not only be inconsistent with SEQRA. It is reckless.

Any questions regarding appropriate land use for this site become immaterial once a rezoning is approved as independent from development plans. This would open the door for a much higher-density development project on the site than currently proposed. It would allow the developer to pursue a project that seeks to maximize density on the site, or sell the site to another developer with new plans. The developer has provided significant site plans and development plans and stated explicitly that the request for rezoning is pursuant of concrete development plans. The Planning Commission should therefore recommend against the rezoning as premature until an EAF for development was submitted and SEQR for the development (with rezoning as one of the discretionary actions) was completed. This would ensure that a rezoning is conditional to specific development plans. This not only restores consistency with SEQRA (see 1.b.), but furthermore ensures that any rezoning does not open the door to a much higher density development project than the developer is currently presenting. 2.b. THERE IS LIMITED HOUSING DEMAND! DEVELOP STRATEGICALLY AND SMART! The most recent Comprehensive Housing Market Analysis by US HUD (2019) explicitly states for Albany-Schenectady-Troy that housing demand is already met with housing development projects that are in existence or under construction. This is particularly relevant, considering the high number of vacant, abandoned and neglected sites across Troy that are identified as development priorities also in the 2018 “Realize Troy” Comprehensive Plan. Rezoning would encourage high density development at a natural site, and appears in this context as contrary to development priorities and redevelopment needs. The existence of an old housing stock and vacant sites in need of redevelopment, in combination with limited housing demand, establishes the rezoning as contrary to the City’s development needs. This is reaffirmed in the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission should therefore recommend against the rezoning. 2.c. REZONING IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Whereas the developer’s “Project Narrative” addresses some — general — aspects of the 2018 “Realize Troy'' Comprehensive Plan, the “Project Narrative” commits substantial

inconsistencies with the Comprehensive Plan. For example, the “Project Narrative” does not address the fact that this area is explicitly zoned as R-1 in the Comprehensive Plan. A detailed analysis of inconsistencies and their implications was provided in the Appendix of the 2021 “Troy’s Sacred Forest” (FotM, 2021) report submitted to the record by the Friends of the Mahicantuck on January 22, 20201. Additionally, Scenic Hudson and Riverkeeper provided in-depth analysis and discussion of Comprehensive Plan inconsistencies. We would like to additionally bring to your attention significant inconsistencies with the strategic development goals detailed in the Comprehensive Plan, as they relate to 2.b.. The Comprehensive Plan outlines strategic development goals that are aligned with the NYS smart growth criteria. The Comprehensive Plan explicitly designates priority (re-)investment areas to ensure soft and strategic development and prioritizes the (re-)development of existing vacant and abandoned housing stock as well as vacant formerly developed sites. The Comprehensive Plan also makes note of limited housing demand and its impacts on the city’s ability to develop such sites. It also is in this context, that Priority Reinvestement Areas are defined in the Comprehensive Plan. The most recent Comprehensive Housing Market Analysis by US HUD (2019) explicitly states for Albany-Schenectady-Troy that housing demand is already met with housing development projects that are in existence or under construction. In this context, a rezoning to allow for high-density development on an undeveloped, natural area at 1011 2nd Avenue would be contrary to the development priorities established in the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission should recommend against the rezoning, as allowing high density development at this undeveloped, natural site would be contrary to the strategic development goals established in the Comprehensive Plan. 2.d. HIGH-DENSITY ZONING EXCEEDS THE CAPACITY OF THE PROJECT SITE Previously submitted documents detail a range of anticipated negative impacts associated with a change in zoning code to allow for high density development on the one hand, a subsequent development of the site on the other. This includes high archaeological significance of the site, cultural importance, the presence of county-rare and state-rare species on the site, as well as critical ecosystem services provided by this land and at risk of loss through rezoning and/or development. Refer to our report, “Troy’s Sacred Forest”, submitted on January 22, 2021. The requested change in zoning code would result in a significant increase in traffic on the site, as it would allow for high density development. This is significantly different in terms of impacts on the sites sensitive ecology and archaeology from permitting low-density development. For

example, the permitted development characteristics under P would inevitably result in more extensive and deeper ground disturbance than developments permitted under R-1. This also the case regarding impacts from stormwater runoff, additional combined sewer overflows and other direct and indirect impacts on the Hudson River and other water resources connected with this site. The Planning Commission should recommend against the rezoning as exceeding the capacity of this site. 2.d. EVEN WITH A REZONING, THE DEVELOPER SAYS VARIANCES WILL BE NEEDED! The current development plans provided in the most recent “Project Narrative” would still require zoning variances, even with a code change to P - Planned Development (see. “Project Narrative”, p. 18). According to the report, variances would be required for: Maximum Density, Building Height, and Off-Street Parking. Additionally, section §285-57 defines the City’s Philosophy for the justification to change to the P Zone, and specifically requires a planned mix of residential uses. Such a mix of residential uses is not provided in the current form of the project outline and site plans. One-bedroom and two-bedroom apartment units do not qualify as a mix of residential uses. It would be unreasonable for the Planning Commission to recommend a change in zoning code pursuant of a known development project, when the developer already stated the necessity of additional variances, suggesting this development would be appropriate for a site that does not require changes in zoning code, comprehensive plan amendments, and subsequent zoning variances. The Planning Commission should therefore recommend against the rezoning.

3. CONCLUSIONS In review of these critical issues, we hope that the Planning Commission recognizes the significance of the land at 1011 2nd Avenue. The public certainly agrees with the concerns raised here. 2500 signatures to our petitions and over 8 hours of testimony against rezoning and development during three public hearings show that the public is unified in its opposition and supports a vision of preserving and protecting the Sacred Forest at 1011 2nd Avenue. We strongly urge the Planning Commission to recommend against the rezoning. Consider the significance of this forest, the dramatic negative impacts associated with high-density zoning

and development, significant process flaws and inconsistencies with the law, inconsistencies with the comprehensive plan. The city should not give the developer a blank check. A rezoning independent from development would allow the developer to reconsider his plans and seek to maximize density on this site. Instead, the rezoning should be reviewed as “discretionary action” within the SEQR of a specific development application. Do not give developers a blank check for maximum density at this site. Recommend against the rezoning. Thank you for your consideration, The Friends of the Mahicantuck www.FriendsOfTheMahicantuck.org FriendsOfTheMahicantuck@gmail.com APPENDIX I — PRELIMINARY LIST OF OMISSIONS AND DISCREPANCIES IN THE EAF

● Whereas according to the EAF Bi. Is Project Listed as a Designated Inland Waterway — ”NO”. This is incorrect. The Hudson River north of the Troy Federal Dam is a designated inland waterway according to DoS.

● Whereas according to the EAF D.2 a. Does Proposal include excavation — ”No”. It appears impossible to build the proposed development as detailed in the submitted Project Narrative without excavation.

● Whereas according to the EAF D.2.d. Does the existing wastewater treatment plant have capacity to serve the project — ”Yes”. However, according to the Project Narrative, this project will increase the amount of sewage overflow into the Hudson River: “Any new connections or sewer flows to the CSO should be offset by removing CSO connections elsewhere in the system”. It is unclear how this can be provided.

● Whereas according to the EAF D.2.f Does Proposal require a NY State Air Registration, Air Facility Permit — ”No”. However, it is unclear how heating will be provided at this stage of planning. If fuel combustion will be used for heating, a permit will be required.

● Whereas according to EAF D.2.j Does Proposal substantially increase traffic — ”No” While the traffic analysis anticipates no significant traffic increase for the analyzed intersection with the Waterford bridge, significant traffic increase must be expected for the neighborhood itself and would constitute a significant impact to the neighborhood.

The traffic analysis provided in the project narrative anticipates an increase of 111 additional cars; compared with a traffic increase between 2015-2019 of only 35 cars. At the same time, the project location is not served by public transport, raising significant questions about the validity of an increase by only 111 cars to serve 240 apartment units.

● Whereas according to EAF E.2.b. Are there bedrock outcroppings on the site — ”No”. However, extensive bedrock outcroppings are present at this site, particularly along the Hudson River waterfront. For additional information see discussion of ecological findings provided in the Friends of the Mahicantuck “Troy’s Sacred Forest” report of January 22, 2021.

● Whereas according to EAF E.1.c. Is the project site presently used by members of the community for public recreation — ”No” However, although this site is privately owned, it is not posted and public uses are tolerated by the owner. The site is well known as water access for the community and frequently used by members of the public for recreational purposes including nature walks and fishing.

● Whereas according to EAF E.2.p. Does the project site contain any species of plant or animal that is listed by NYS as rare, or as a species of special concern? — ”No” However, ecological surveys of December 2020 and January 2021 document the presence of several county-rare species as well as of at least one state-rare species (Sharp Hornsnail) on the site.

SUBMISSION OF SUPPLEMENTARY EVIDENCE REGARDING PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF TAX PARCEL 70.64-1-1 AT 1011 2ND AVE

AND THE ASSOCIATED REQUEST FOR CHANGE OF ZONING CODE

TO: The Members of the Troy City Council Planning Committee, The Troy Planning Commissioner The Members of the Troy City Council at large.

This letter is submitted in the name of: The Friends of the Mahicantuck

The Center for Climate Communities The Schaghticoke First Nations

REGARDING: RES91 - Resolution Referring Lansingburgh Zoning Change Request to Planning Commission

for Review and Recommendation — SUBMISSION OF SUPPLEMENTARY EVIDENCE Dear Members of the Troy City Council Planning Committee, Dear Planning Commissioner and members of the Planning Commission Dear Members of the Troy City Council at large. In this letter we lay out for your consideration critical evidence that clearly shows that a change in zoning code from R-1 to P for Tax Parcel 70.64-1-1 is not compatible with the law, regulations, city code, comprehensive plan, as well as the responsibilities of the council in considering a change in zoning code. As you are aware, any consideration of a change in zoning code must incorporate that such a change has to be:

● consistent with the comprehensive plan, which it is inot ● in the interest of the current residents of the city, and not the developer or imagined future

residents ● consistent with the surrounding use and zoning

The attached evidence, discussed in this letter, shows explicitly how a change in rezoning is inadmissible on six critical grounds, and therefore a change in zoning code is incompatible with the law. Therefore we strongly urge you to VOTE AGAINST the unnecessary referral of this matter to the Planning Commission and stop this development now. With best wishes The Friends of Mahicantuck on behalf of a broad coalition of concerned residents The Schaghticoke First Nations The Center for Climate Communities

1

TABLE OF CONTENT AND OVERVIEW OF SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE, ORGANIZED IN SIX SECTIONS

This letter provides an overview of supplemental evidence submitted along with this letter in the name of the above mentioned organizations. It provides the Troy City Council Planning Committee, the Planning Commissioner and the members of the Troy City Council at large with supplemental evidence for consideration of RES91, for consideration of the request for change in zoning code for Tax Parcel 70.64-1-1 from R-1 to P, and for consideration regarding the development on this parcel, as proposed by Kevin Vandenburgh. This letter, and the supplemental evidence included with this letter, are organized in SIX (6) major sections, each constituting a respective grounds for denying the request for zoning. The collection of this evidence makes explicit that the rezoning request must not be granted, and therefore a referral to the Planning Commission becomes obsolete.

Overview Of Sections ……………………………………………………………….... p. 3 1. Historical and Archeological Grounds ………………………………………………. p. 5 2. Environmental and Public Health Grounds ……………………………………….... p. 7 3. Inconsistency with Troy 2018 Comprehensive Plan ..……………………………... p. 11 4. Economic Grounds ………………………………………………………………….... p. 14 5. Community Impacts, Public Service Impacts, Infrastructure Impacts …….......... P. 17 6. Legal Grounds ………………………………………………………………………... p. 20 7. Summary Alternative Use Proposal ……………………………………………….. p. 22

Appendix: List of Supplemental Evidence …………………………………………. P. 23 This letter discusses the supplemental evidence for each section, providing specific supplemental evidence for consideration regarding RES91 and the requested change in zoning code for Tax Parcel 70.64-1-1 from R-1 to P. The letter and the presented evidence — individually and in conjunction — clearly show that:

- There are significant and exhaustive grounds to DENY changing the zoning code for Tax Parcel 70.64-1-1 from R-1 to P;

- That therefore there is NO JUSTIFICATION AND NO NECESSITY to refer the request for zone change to the Troy Planning Commission

- And that therefore RES91 should NOT BE PASSED.

2

OVERVIEW OF MAJOR GROUNDS FOR DENYING THE REQUEST FOR CHANGE IN ZONING CODE, FOR EACH OF THE SIX SECTIONS

SECTION 01: Historical and Archeological Grounds This letter and supplementary evidence discusses the historical and archeological grounds for denying the change in zoning code for Tax Parcel 70.64-1-1. It highlights the historical-cultural and archeological significance of the property in question.

- It provides supplemental evidence that shows insufficient due diligence regarding the assessment of the cultural relevance of the site,

- It highlights the currently undergoing review of the site for its eligibility to be included in the National Register

- It shows the necessity of a DEC SPEDES permit as well as the requirement for additional archeological surveys

- And it highlights the risk for loss of an important historical site to the community of Troy. Based on the provided evidence, a change in zoning code must be denied due to the negative impact on the historical and archeological heritage of the City of Troy. SECTION 02: Environmental and Public Health Grounds This letter and supplementary evidence discusses the environmental and public health grounds for denying the change in zoning code for Tax Parcel 70.64-1-1. It highlights the environmental and public health impacts associated with a rezoning and the proposed development of the site in question.

- It shows significant environmental and ecological harm associated with the destruction of the last riverfront forest in Troy, NY.

- It clearly identifies inconsistencies regarding environmental preservation and waterfront development priorities laid out in the Comprehensive Plan

- It highlights the public health risks associated with runoff-pollution, impacts on the Hudson River, and the loss of the forest as a natural resilience asset.

Based on the provided evidence, a change in zoning code must be denied due to adverse impact on public and environment as well as due to inconsistencies with the Comprehensive Plan. SECTION 03: Inconsistency with Comprehensive Plan This letter and supplementary evidence discusses critical inconsistencies with the 2018 comprehensive plan, constituting critical grounds for denying the change in zoning code for Tax Parcel 70.64-1-1. It also points to critical legal decisions underscoring the requirement for any change in zoning code to be consistent with the comprehensive plan. It discusses the issue of spot zoning as a major legal grounds for denying a rezoning that directly relates to inconsistencies with the comprehensive plan. Based on the provided evidence in this letter, a change in zoning code must be denied due to explicit inconsistencies with the 2018 comprehensive plan.

3

SECTION 04: Economic Grounds This letter and supplementary evidence discusses the negative economic impacts of the proposal as grounds for denying the change in zoning code for Tax Parcel 70.64-1-1. It highlights the direct and indirect as well as short- and long-term economic costs associated with the proposed development. It explicitly shows that the proposed development will NOT provide the promised increase in tax revenue and instead significantly increase the economic costs for the City of Troy and its tax paying residents. In particular, costs associated with increased pressures on the public school system, road maintenance, emergency services, garbage collection and the already dramatically strained sewage system, will increase the costs for the city far above the expected short-term revenue associated with the development of this site. We calculate that this development will lead to an increased combined REVENUE LOSS for the city and school district of AT LEAST $500,000 ANNUALLY Based on the provided evidence in this letter, a change in zoning code must be denied, as 1) the Economic Viability and Burden Criteria is not met, as 3) the development will negatively impact local property values, and as 2) there is no clear economic benefit to the current residents of the City of Troy. SECTION 05: Community Impacts, Public Service Impacts and Infrastructure Impacts According to NYS law, a change in zoning code must be in the interest of the public: the CURRENT (and not imagined future) residents. A change in zoning must not be solely for the benefit of the developer. Finally, according to NYS law, a change in zoning code must also be consistent with the comprehensive plan and consistent with current use and character of the neighborhood. This is also explicitly stated as such in Troy’s comprehensive plan. This section explains how this development and the proposed change in zoning code is violation of all the above mentioned criteria. The section shows how it will NEGATIVELY impact the local neighborhood and community, how it will increase costs and negatively affect public services and infrastructure and how it will be against the interest of the residents of Troy. SECTION 06: Legal Grounds This letter and supplementary evidence discusses the legal grounds for denying the change in zoning code for Tax Parcel 70.64-1-1. It summarizes the legal implications of the evidence provided in the letters number 02 to 07 and foregrounds the legal grounds that make the proposed change in zoning code inconsistent with existing federal, state and city law. This includes: Spot Zoning, Economic Burden Criteria, Public Interest Criteria, Inconsistency with the 2018 Comprehensive Plan, Lack of Evident Need for Zoning Change, Inconsistency with Existing Zoning and Surrounding Uses, Inconsistency with the Orderly Development of Public Service and Infrastructure Based on the provided evidence in this letter, a change in zoning code must be denied as it is incompatible with existing federal, state and municipal legal regulations, statutes and codes.

4

SECTION 1: HISTORICAL AND ARCHEOLOGICAL GROUNDS

SECTION 1 — A: Historical Significance of Parcel 70.64-1-1 The historical and archeological analysis provided in the submitted evidence (see Section 1-C) reveals a consistent academic consensus about the historical, archeological and cultural significance of this site, particularly regarding the Mahican peoples but also pre-historic communities that utilized this site as early as 1600-3000 B.C. [S1-4] Several archeological studies have been conducted on this land, with one of the first most significant studies dating back to the 1980ies [S1-1] [S1-2]. The existing reports, studies and academic publications all consistently conclude that the land in question is of high historical and archeological significance, and that the found artifacts justify the registration of this land in the national registry. This has also been confirmed in personal correspondence with a lead archeologist involved in the recent 2020 survey provided as part of the SEQRA analysis. The report was not yet made available to the public. According to these studies, the sites contain significant amounts of prehistoric and historic archeological artifacts. The scientific consensus agrees that this site is of high historic, archeological and cultural significance. Amongst the artifacts are countless significant ones of members of the Mahican peoples, but also important finds ranging back to prehistoric times. The site was used by the Mahican people as a quarry and tool making site. The site was also identified as the location of semi-permanent and potentially permanent settlements. Some of the studies also mention strong indications for burial sites [S1-3]. The EPA cultural resource survey associated with the 2002 Record of Decision relating the Hudson River remediation [S1-3] also emphasizes the historical-cultural and archeological significance of this site and notes the need for further study of this site for the future — which has not been independently conducted to this date. This report also states the high likelihood of unrecovered extensive archeological resources on this site. Finally, two previously unrecovered reports associated with the site as well as a second in immediate proximity — both referred together as the Pleasantdale Quarry — explicitly identify the sites as historically and archeologically critical and positively review the archeological record associated with these sites as eligible for the National Register [S1-4]. One of these reports, referenced and thereby submitted as evidence in the record [S1-4] was authored by Hetty Jo Brumbach, Paula Zitzler, the Public Archeology Facility and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and discusses the “potential eligibility for nomination to the National Registry of Historic Places” ([S1-4], p 1). On S1-4, page 81, the authors explicitly state that:

“Stage II survey recovered adequate data to determine that the prehistoric site … appears to meet the criteria for eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places. [...] disturbance to the site has been minimal. Very little artifact collection has taken place and few of the residents are aware of the

5

presence of the prehistoric material. Thus, unlike some quarry locations of the Hudson Valley, the site has not been depleted by collectors”

And continue:

“The site also has the potential for providing unique information pertaining to regional prehistory since it is one of the few professionally reported and investigated archaeological sites in Rensselaer County. Thus, the site is capable of yielding information important in prehistory.”

Based on these reports, the site's unique importance becomes explicit and it becomes clear that the preservation of this site is critical. It also makes clear that its development would lastingly destroy this site and rob the city and its people of a major aspect of its history. An application for review regarding the eligibility of this site for the National Register is currently in the beginning steps, with first evidence filed on August 24, 2020 with NYS SHPO . Additional supplemental evidence is being sent to SHPO over the course of the next weeks. SECTION 1-B: Legal Implications According to state and federal law, a DEC SPEDES permit is necessary associated with the ground disturbance of this project exceeding one acre. Other state and federal agency permits or funding may also trigger SHPO involvement. A coordinator of the SHPO Archeology Unit Program confirms this, stating in official correspondence from August 12, 2020 regarding the site:

“Given the archaeological sensitivity of 1011 2nd Street, the SHPO will likely request an archeological survey to document archaeological sites that are located within this project area, if a survey has not already been undertaken.”

The requirement of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act [S1-5] and Section 14.09 of the State Historic Act [S1-6] is that project impacts to National Register eligible or listed sites are avoided, reduced or mitigated. Mitigation may involve additional archaeological surveys.

SECTION 1 — C: List of Supplemental Evidence for Section 1:

● [S1-1] Brumbach, H.J. (1987) “A Quarry/Workshop And Processing Station On The Hudson River In Pleasantdale, New York”. Archeology of Eastern North America, 15(1987), 59-83.

● [S1-2] Lothrop, J. C., Burke, A. L., Winchell-Sweeney, S., and G. Gauthier (2018). Coupling Lithic Sourcing with Least Cost Path Analysis to Model Paleoindian Pathways in Northeastern North America. American Antiquity, 83(3), 462-484.

● [S1-3] US EPA (2002). Responsiveness Summary Hudson River PCBs Site Record of Decision. Appendix C Stage 1A Cultural Resource Survey.

● [S1-4] Brumbach, Hetty Jo, Zitzler, Paula (1993) Stage II Archeological Investigation Of the Turnpike/River Bend Road Area. Pleasantdale Wastewater Facility Plan. Town Of Schaghticoke, Rensselaer County, New York (C-36-1270-01). Public Archaeology Facility, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. [Hard Copy Available].

● [S1-5] National Historic Preservation Act ● [S1-6] State Historic Act

6

SECTION 2: ENVIRONMENTAL AND PUBLIC HEALTH GROUNDS

There are several environmental impacts that constitute direct and indirect public harm associated with the proposed rezoning of Parcel 70.64-1-1 — and the proposed development of the site. These will also have significant consequences for public health, the city’s climate and extreme weather resilience, and the city’s revenue. Critically, this development and the associated change in zoning code will:

- lead to increased floor sealment with concrete and hence increased run-off pressures - increase pressures on the already strained sewage system - lead to further channelization of the Hudson, already leading to increased flood risks, will be

further increased with this development — leading to increased flood hazards for downstream properties across the city. The location of this property in particular will severely increase flood risks for the entire city.

- cause significant loss of forest and natural waterfront will increase other critical hazards, including urban heat, runoff pollution, air pollution and their severe impacts on public health

These consequences and impacts stand in direct conflict with the 2018 Comprehensive Plan [A], with critical efforts underway through the city’s participation in the Climate Smart Communities Program, and with legal provisions constituted in state and city law and code. Additionally, the development does not adhere to critical provisions for waterfront protection and renaturalization established in existing code as well as in the additional zoning logics established in the comprehensive plan (which a change in zoning code must adhere to). Particularly, this regards setback and new waterfront shoreline provisions associated with the comprehensive plan. SECTION 2 — A: Environmental Impacts of Change of Code for Parcel 70.64-1-1

1) SEWAGE OVERFLOW The city’s sewage and water management infrastructure is already at capacity. In the last years, Troy was in violation of state reporting laws in association with massive sewage overflows [S2-1] leading to significant cost for the community. In fact, Troy is the worst polluter in regards to overflows in the region. The city itself acknowledged that “Unfortunately, sewer overflow events are fairly routine for shoreline communities like Troy.” [S2-2] It is in this context that the proposed development and its impacts on the loss of this land will significantly escalate this already urgent emergency. The location of the site at the very north of the city, combined with its size and its impact on the city’s sewer system will lead to significant environmental and monetary costs for the city and all its residents.

2) SOIL EROSION, RUNOFF AND FLOOD RISKS The property is directly adjacent to the Hudson; This means development impacts on this land will significantly affect the flood resilience of Troy, particularly due to its location upstream of the entire city (last property before the city line); The undeveloped higher elevation provide additional protection against runoff and to the integrity of the areas of the land that comprise a flood zone. Studies show the importance of such natural assets in runoff protection [S2-3]

7

The development will significantly increase runoff pollution [S2-4] through the loss of water absorbing forest and forest soils and the use of impervious material as well as the associated increased traffic and pollution. This only constitutes [S2-5] an increased threat of environmental harm on surrounding communities, downstream communities and the Hudson river itself.

3) CHANNELIZATION, RESILIENCY, FLOODING AND RUNOFF Natural, forested spaces are a critical asset to the city’s environmental and climate resilience [S2-6] [S2-7]. This area, upstream of the entire city, significantly protects the city from flooding directly (as a buffer flood zone for flooding) and indirectly by preventing runoff and maintaining the integrity of the river bank [A, p. 16]. The development of the site in the proposed form would significantly interfere with the ability of this land to absorb runoff and protect the city from river pollution and flooding. Studies well-establish that developments, such as the proposed, and the associated displacement of natural waterfront and channelization significantly increase river flood risks downstream [S2-8; S2-9; S2-10]. The direct effects of sedimentary flow and associated environmental degradation of the Hudson River additionally exacerbate the increase of flood risks downstream at other areas across the City of Troy and other communities along the Hudson River. This is also acknowledged in the comparative plan [A], which states

“The majority of the Hudson River shoreline south of the Collar City Bridge has been channelized, which has interrupted or removed natural ecosystems. Due to this activity, sediment from the Hudson River is no longer deposited on the banks, and limited habitat is available for fish and wildlife species” (p. 16)

According to [A] the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) estimates that by 2080 the City of Troy could face over 3 feet of sea-level rise on the tidal Hudson River due to global climate change . Rainfall events are also expected to become less predictable, more extreme, and occur in the form of heavy downpours or extended droughts. The elevation of the 100-year floodplain and the city’s history of extreme flooding suggest that the threat of damage to and loss of property is heightened due to anticipated climate change .

4) ECOSYSTEM IMPACTS Biodiversity and Ecological Loss: This is one of the last undeveloped natural waterfronts in Troy. It serves as a major biodiversity refuge in the otherwise urban area; Disturbance or complete destruction would mean the irrevocable loss of the last such space in the City of Troy. Increased traffic, disturbance and pollution: Development of the land will increase the traffic, both to and on the land; Even if the development includes public access to untouched parts of the land, the 200 units alone will significantly increase the use of the land, leading to the disturbance of the ecosystem, increased pollution of the land, as well as the Hudson River;

5) PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACTS Associated with the above mentioned environmental impacts are major impacts on public health associated with the proposed development and the proposed change in zoning code.

8

Urban Heat Island Forested areas serve as “natural air conditioning” for the surrounding communities in urban centers and provide a natural refuge and relief from oppressive summer heat; a climate risk that is anticipated to significantly increase for the city of Troy and already constitutes a major public health threat today.. Development, even if major parts of the forest would not be destroyed, would significantly impact the accessibility and functioning of this critical asset [S2-11]. A recent article published in the New York Times (August 24, 2020) [S2-12] discusses the direct relationship between health, income and racial disparities in relationship to exposures to extreme heat in the urban context. Air Quality will be negatively impacted, both directly and indirectly. The increased traffic associated with the development will diametrically impact the air quality of this neighborhood. Additionally, the loss of tree and natural space will further exacerbate air quality loss [S2-13]. Noise Pollution — as a R1 zone, the rezoning will significantly increase noise levels due to increased population density, increased traffic and the loss of green space as natural noise shield; this will significantly disrupt the character, but also the health of the otherwise characteristically quiet neighborhood. SECTION 2 — C: Legal Implications A rezoning of this parcel would allow for a large scale development of the site that ultimately would destroy the environmental and ecological resource of the last undeveloped forest along the Hudson in the entire city of Troy. In the current zoning as R-1 single family residential, detached, the environmental impact of potential development — while still extraordinarily adverse — would be significantly limited in comparison to the full-scale development that a rezoning to P Planned Development would make possible. In the lack of a better protection of the parcel and a lasting environmental and historic preservation, maintaining the current code R-1 is the best bet to avoid negative impacts on this critical ecological and environmental asset and its interactions with the Hudson River. For these reasons, the proposed rezoning and development stand in direct conflict with legal grounds for a rezoning, including cost-benefit analysis of harm to the public/public benefit. Additionally, it constitutes explicit inconsistency with the 2018 Comprehensive Plan [A] as well as the participation of the City of Troy in the Climate Smart Communities Program and the associated “pledge” passed as resolution by the City of Troy [S2-15]. Inconsistency with Comprehensive Plan and Spot Zoning There are major inconsistencies with the Troy Comprehensive Plan of 2018, rendering the rezoning inconsistent with law. This is particularly in reference to the NYS legal requirement to maintain consistency with the Comprehensive Plan for any proposed change in zoning code. The comprehensive plan calls explicitly for the renaturalization of the waterfront, the preservation and expansion of the tree canopy, and the protection of natural and open spaces in the city (cp. Section 3).

9

The assessment provided by the developer regarding wetlands and flood zone are incomplete and at times omit critical facts. Map 12 [S2-15] of the Troy Comprehensive plan clearly shows that about 40% of the proposed development area are within 100 year and 500 year flood zones, respectively. It is important to note that these maps date from 1980 and therefore do not take into consideration the requirements to incorporate climate changes into planning, constituted in NYS law as well as the Climate Smart Communities program participation. Additionally, the Comprehensive Plan designates the development area as a new coastal boundary, which is associated with additional SEQRA requirements, and is to be classified as a Type I action. Harm to the Public and the Environment Associated with the Proposed Development The attached supplemental evidence clearly shows negative impacts on the environment and public health. This is significant grounds to NOT grant the sought change of the zoning code. Additionally, the environmental impacts — particularly in the context of sewage overflow and increased flood risks — will significantly negatively impact the city revenue. SECTION 2 — D: List of Supplemental Evidence for Section 2:

● [S2-1] Times Union (July 7, 2017) “Massive Albany Troy Sewage Spills in Hudson https://www.timesunion.com/7dayarchive/article/Massive-Albany-Troy-sewage-spills-in-Hudson-11273421.php

● [S2-2] Statement of City of Troy: “Understanding Tory’s Combined Sewer Infrastructure System” July 10, 2017 http://www.troyny.gov/understanding-troy-combined-sewer-infrastructure-system/

● [S2-3] Conservation Tools: Working With Nature to Manage Stormwater https://conservationtools.org/guides/166-working-with-nature-to-manage-stormwater

● [S2-4] DOS: Impacts of Urban Runoff https://www.des.nh.gov/organization/divisions/water/wmb/tmdl/documents/stormwater_chapt1.pdf

● [S2-5] https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wri014071 ● [S2-6] Urban Forests and Climate Change

https://climate-woodlands.extension.org/urban-forests-and-climate-change/#:~:text=Urban%20forests%20can%20be%20useful,to%20heat%20and%20cool%20buildings.

● [S2-7] USDA Urban Forests and Climate Change https://www.fs.usda.gov/ccrc/topics/urban-forests-and-climate-change

● [S2-8] National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Hydromodification https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/chapter_3_channelization_web.pdf

● [S2-9] Problems Facing Urban Streams http://www.msdlouky.org/insidemsd/wqurban.htm

● [S2-10] From Channelization To Restoration http://scholar.google.com/scholar_url?url=http://www.academia.edu/download/43058958/Chen_et_al-2016-Water_Resources_Research.pdf&hl=en&sa=X&scisig=AAGBfm3QW_VCYsUVIg_vciKWvVRiz7HOaQ&nossl=1&oi=scholarr

● [S2-11] EPA: Reduce Urban Heat Island Effect https://www.epa.gov/green-infrastructure/reduce-urban-heat-island-effect

10

● [S2-12] NYT: How Decades Of Racist Housing Policy Left Neighborhoods Sweltering https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/08/24/climate/racism-redlining-cities-global-warming.html

● [S2-13] Benefits of Urban Trees https://www.nature.org/content/dam/tnc/nature/en/documents/Public_Health_Benefits_Urban_Trees_FINAL.pdf

● [S2-14] CSC Certification Troy http://csc-site-persistent-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/fileadmin/cicbase/documents/2017/11/10/15103445909908.pdf

● [S2-15] Comprehensive Plan Map 12

SECTION 3: INCONSISTENCIES WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

SECTION 3 — A: Major Inconsistencies with Comprehensive Plan The proposed development as well as the change in zoning code are inconsistent with Realize Troy 2018 Comprehensive Plan [A]. This is relevant for the consideration of the request for change in zoning code, as such a change cannot occur if it is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. New York’s zoning enabling statutes require that zoning laws be adopted in accordance with the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan should provide the backbone for the zoning law [S3-1]. Furthermore, the change in zoning code is incompatible with New York State City Code Section 28.a.12 [S3-2]: Effect of Adoption of the City Comprehensive Plan: (a) “All city land use regulations must be in accordance with a comprehensive plan adopted pursuant to this section.” Developing the land is in explicit inconsistency with the 2018 Troy Comprehensive Plan AND THEREFORE CANNOT QUALIFY FOR REZONING Listed are only some of the most striking conflicts with major sections and goals of the comprehensive plan:

1) Requirement to protect green spaces and environmental assets The Comprehensive Plan explicitly states that green spaces and environmental assets have been impacted by industrial and urban development — and need better protection.

“Troy is endowed with a spectacular natural environment– from magnificent gorges, an expansive riverfront, to a wide array of mature open spaces. In recent years, these areas have been impacted by industrial and urban development and need to be better protected to sustain the environmental health of the city.” ([A], p. 16)

With the REALIZE TROY 2018 Comprehensive Plan, the City of Troy has explicitly designated specific goals to preserve greenspaces, parks, open spaces and natural habitats. These rules were explicitly designed to protect spaces such as the property in question from development. So does the

11

Comprehensive Plan explicitly set out to protect critical natural features of Troy’s waterfront, including this property.

2) Inconsistency with Goal 5 of the Comprehensive Plan

A change in zoning code is inconsistent with GOAL 5 of the Comprehensive plan. The Comprehensive Plan explains: “Existing ecological resources including wetlands and shoreline habitat shall be protected, preserved and enhanced”. However, this development would do the opposite and destroy the last remaining undeveloped natural shoreline of the city.

In this context, the comprehensive plan defines specific requirements, objectives and underlying strategic goals in zoning and developing the City of Troy, its greenspaces, natural habitats and the waterfront. The proposed development and the request for change in zoning code stand in explicit contradiction and therefore are inconsistent with the comprehensive pan.

The plan states that the City of Troy will require implementation of flood protection standards for new buildings within the flood zones that are consistent with the guidelines established by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

A large section of the property lies in flood zones (see Section 2): About 50% of the land is within the waterway and flood area, as displayed in Map 13 of the Comprehensive plan [S3-3]; the plan prohibits major development in that area. Additionally, the land is — with exception of approx. 2 acres — inside the new Landward Coastal Boundary, established in the 2018 Comprehensive plan. Accordingly:

● All development will be set back a minimum of 100 feet from watercourses and wetlands identified on Map 13 in Comprehensive Plan (page 60), to help prevent adverse impacts on these natural assets.

● Only 2 acres can be developed outside this 100ft zone, this only regards R-1 houses. ● The rest of this property is within 100 feet of watercourses and wetlands and is classified

as a Type I action pursuant to the StateEnvironmental Quality Review (SEQR) process, increasing the level of environmental review necessary to protect their integrity.

○ The entirety of the land is in the waterfront area (map 13). Any new development in that area that is 500 square feet or greater requires the submission of a construction management plan that demonstrates that the development will not compromise the Hudson riverbank.

The plan also calls for the shoreline to be naturalized to provide greater resiliency during significant flood events — the proposed change in zoning code will result in channelization of the Hudson River and therefore stands in direct conflict with the comprehensive plan.

According to the plan the city’s urban tree canopy will be grown and maintained by expanding tree planting initiatives and incorporating tree planting as part of sidewalk and other streetscape improvements. However, this development would reduce the tree canopy and a unique waterfront habitat that cannot be compensated by re-planting

● Existing mature trees are to be protected during building construction or any alterations to streets or buildings. Tree inventories and management plans are required for all major capital projects and developments.

12

3) Inconsistency with Goal 4 of the Comprehensive Plan

A rezoning is additionally inconsistent with GOAL 4 of the Comprehensive Plan for the historic, archeological and cultural significance of the land for several indigenous peoples and groups (cp. Section 1). The plan demands

○ The preservation of the cultural and historical heritage of the City of Troy ○ A cultural resource investigation will be required for new development planned for archaeological

sites or sites within areas identified as archaeologically sensitive by the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP).

○ The preservation of the cultural and historical heritage of the City of Troy

4) Inconsistency with Goal 4 of the Comprehensive Plan

A rezoning is additionally inconsistent with GOAL 6, specifically, 6.2 of the Comprehensive Plan, which states: “Development in stable neighborhoods will respect and reinforce the existing neighborhood character and pattern of development”

Our coalition in opposition to the development can and will provide testimony that this neighborhood is a stable neighborhood, and will oppose any suggestions for this being otherwise. A selection of this testimony is provided with supplemental evidence no [S3-4]. SECTION 3 — B: Legal Implications The proposed development as well as the change in zoning code are inconsistent with Realize Troy 2018 Comprehensive Plan. This is relevant for the consideration of the request for change in zoning code, as such a change cannot occur if it is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. New York’s zoning enabling statutes require that zoning laws be adopted in accordance with the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan should provide the backbone for the zoning law [S3-1]. Furthermore, the change in zoning code is incompatible with New York State City Code Section 28.a.12: Effect of Adoption of the City Comprehensive Plan: (a) “All city land use regulations must be in accordance with a comprehensive plan adopted pursuant to this section.” Developing the land is in explicit inconsistency with the 2018 Troy Comprehensive Plan AND THEREFORE CANNOT QUALIFY FOR REZONING SECTION 3 — C: List of Supplemental Evidence for Section 3:

● [S3-1] NYS Division Of Local Government Services: Zoning and the Comprehensive Plan https://www.dos.ny.gov/lg/publications/Zoning_and_the_Comprehensive_Plan.pdf

● [S3-2] New York State City Code Section 28.a.12 ● [S3-3] Comprehensive Plan MAP 13 ● [S3-4] TESTIMONIES OF RESIDENTS

13

SECTION 4: ECONOMIC GROUNDS

SECTION 4 — A: Negative Economic Impacts of Proposed Development and Code Change for Parcel 70.64-1-1 There are several critical economic impacts that constitute direct and indirect cost to the tax base and the tax paying residents of the city of Troy associated with the proposed rezoning of Parcel 70.64-1-1 and the proposed development of the site. Based on the attached and here briefly reviewed studies, it is clear that the proposed development will negatively impact the tax revenue of the city of Troy. Charles Mahron [S4-1] writes that:

“Despite the obfuscation of modern accounting practices, the math equation for a local government is fairly straightforward: a public infrastructure investment must generate enough private wealth to pay for the ongoing replacement and repair of that infrastructure or, if it is to be sustained, it must be subsidized by a more financially productive part of the system.”

The established rule of thumb is that a ratio of 40:1 ($40 private wealth to $1 public investment) is required for a development project to generate and maintain a positive tax revenue [S4-1]. While developers often pay for the initial development and construction cost, the City of Troy will be responsible for critical maintenance and public service costs. This includes

- Increased road maintenance and traffic management costs - Increased resource strain for the public school system with the influx of large amounts of new

residents in short time - Increased costs for other public services, including the fire department, garbage collection, public

safety, etc. As Mahron [S4-2] writes on the case of development costs, a municipality of similar size and structure: Rapid growth “[...] provided the local government with the immediate revenues that come from new growth — permit fees, utility fees, property tax increases, sales tax — and, in exchange the city takes on the long term responsibility of servicing and maintaining all the new infrastructure. The money comes in handy in the present while the future obligation is, well … a long time in the future.” And concludes:

“This thinking is how you end up with two dollars of public infrastructure for every one dollar of private investment. This is how you spend yourself into bankruptcy”. When the full extent of costs are taken into consideration, including maintenance, public infrastructure and public service costs, the proposed development will in fact negatively impact the tax revenue in the city.

14

Instead, leading economists and development experts recommend prioritizing development of existing infrastructure, property and sites, especially vacant sites in economically disadvantaged communities. This has the benefit of minimizing public investment needs and strengthening tax revenue in short- as well as long-term. [S4-3]. This is also made explicit in the 2018 Troy Comprehensive Plan [A], which identifies the need to develop vacancies in Major Investment Areas [S4-4], whereas the parcel in question lies outside the Lansingburgh Investment Area [S4-5] as well as outside the slow development area and is clearly identified as R-1 [S4-6]:

“Troy’s high vacancy rates are also contributing to neighborhood destabilization. There are approximately 23,100 housing units in Troy and approximately 2,100 of these units, or 9%, are vacant and unused. Prospective residents are deterred from purchasing homes in neighborhoods with high vacancy rates as they are perceived as areas with higher crime, and where continued disinvestment may occur. These conditions have resulted in a weak housing market and low housing values compared to the region.” ([A], p.11)

And the plan establishes sites in direct proximity to the parcel for which the rezoning is requested as development focus areas [S4-5 and S4-6] in the spirit of avoiding associated revenue burdens associated with spot zoning developments such as the development proposed for this parcel. The anticipated short-term economic revenue is anticipated to be outweighed by both, short- and long-term economic costs, based on the expert testimony by economist John Gowdy attached in the evidence [S4-3] and read into the record at the hearing. The anticipated short-term economic revenue associated with this development proposal is anticipated to be outweighed by both, short- and long-term economic costs. What is more, studies explicitly and repeatedly show that because of market competition and resource constraint associated with a development of land routinely and structurally prevent the development of other, vacant but already developed sites [S4-7]. In the immediate proximity of the development site proposed by Kevin Vandenburgh there are several vacant properties, including several that have been identified in the Comprehensive Plan as development priority/focus areas. This means that the proposed development, and the associated rezoning, is incompatible with the responsibilities and legal requirement that must guide the city council committee and planning commission in their decision — and the requested rezoning can only be denied on economic and legal grounds (see below). SECTION 4 — B: ECONOMIC BASELINE CALCULATION — Public Service Cost Increased public spending for services outweighs the anticipated revenue.

15

Based on comparative data of similar developments in similar locations in Troy we offer an (generously calculated) anticipated tax revenue for the city around $300,000.00 The anticipated tax revenue for the school district we assess (similarly generously) with $400.000,00. (Based on approximated unit value calculations). Increase in Cost Spending for Public Schools (TROY SCHOOL DISTRICT): At the same time, in the state of New York, an average of annually $22,366 are spent per pupil on the public education system [S4-8]. In Troy this number is closer to $28,000, but we will use the more conservative average. A conservative estimate would be 40 new pupils entering the Troy School System — an estimate that is very conservative for 240 apartment units. This leads to an increased cost spending of $894,640. Anticipated Revenue Increase for Troy School District …………. Approx. 400,000 Approximate Cost Increase: Public Service — School ………….. Approx. $894,640 COST TO DISTRICT AS DIRECT RESULT FROM DEVELOPMENT: APPROX. $498,640 This leads to a shortfall of $494,000.00 Increase in Costs For City of Troy On the Example of Public Safety Alone: Public Safety: Estimates for cost increases for the Fire and Police Services are hard to estimate. One way to estimate this is the per capita spending for police services. According to the 2020 proposed Budget, a total of $40,329,791 will be expended for safety services [S4-9]. This excludes overtime, extraordinary expenditures and other expenditures not listed in the general budget itemization. The population of Troy lies at 49,826 for 2017. This results in a per capita spending of (rounded) $800. With 240 units, and an conservatively estimated 1.75 persons living in each unit, this leads to a total increase of cost of: 240x800x1.75 = $336,000.00 Approximate Revenue for City …………………………………….. Approx. $300,000 Approximate Cost Increase: Public Service — Safety ………….. Approx. $336,000 This leads to an conservatively anticipated increase in cost associated with the development of for public safety alone of $36,000/year. This does not incorporate other increased public service costs, such as road maintenance, etc. SECTION 4 — B: Legal Implications Explicitly, the availability of several other vacant but already infrastructurally developed properties creates an incompatibility with anti-spot-zoning requirements constituted in state law. Additionally, the above listed reasons create a direct inconsistency with the 2018 Comprehensive Plan and therefore an incompatibility with state law, particularly regarding inconsistencies with soft development, the preservation of the character of the neighborhood, and the requirement of sustainable development.

16

The proposed rezoning and development are also incompatible with New York State Smart Growth Goals. Finally, the city council is legally required to act in the interest of its current constituents, and not potential future taxpayers — and the shown economic long-term negative impacts stand in direct conflict with this obligation, as they clearly cause economic harm to the city as well as its residents. SECTION 4 — C: List of Supplemental Evidence for Section 4:

● [S4-1] Charles Marhon Jr. (August 2018) “Building Resilient Communities” https://icma.org/articles/pm-magazine/pm-article-building-resilient-communities

● [S4-2] Charles Marhon Jr. (2017) “The Real Reason Your City Has No Money” https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/9/the-real-reason-your-city-has-no-money

● [S4-3] Written Expert Testimony of Dr. of Economy John Gowdy ● [S4-4] Comprehensive Plan Map 2 Investment Areas ● [S4-5] Comprehensive Plan Investment Area Lansingburgh ● [S4-6] Map 14 Land Use ● [S4-7] Resources on Research about Abandoned Properties and Buildings

https://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/municipal/abandoned-buildings-revitalization/ ● [S4-8] Annual education spending per state

https://www.governing.com/gov-data/education-data/state-education-spending-per-pupil-data.html

● [S4-9] Proposed 2020 Budget for Troy NY ● [S4-10] Population Data for Troy NY

https://datausa.io/profile/geo/troy-ny

17

SECTION 5: COMMUNITY IMPACTS, PUBLIC SERVICE IMPACTS AND INFRASTRUCTURE IMPACTS

SECTION 5 — A: Neighborhood Impacts of Development and Proposed Code Change for Parcel 70.64-1-1 According to NYS law, a change in zoning code must be in the interest of the public: the CURRENT (and not imagined future) residents. A change in zoning must not be solely for the benefit of the developer. Finally, according to NYS law, a change in zoning code must also be consistent with the comprehensive plan and consistent with current use and character of the neighborhood. This is also explicitly stated as such in Troy’s comprehensive plan [A]. This section explains how this development and the proposed change in zoning code is in direct violation of all above mentioned criteria. The section shows how proposed development and change in zone code will NEGATIVELY impact the local neighborhood and community, will increase costs, and will negatively affect public services and infrastructure, and will be against the interest of the residents of Troy. Explicitly, a change in zoning code needs to be

- consistent with the comprehensive plan - In the interest of the current residents of the City of Troy, not in the interest of the developer or

imagined future residents - consistent with surrounding use and zoning

This development and the associated change in zoning code does not meet these criteria. It will impact the neighborhood and the city overall negatively, inconsistently with the comp plan and inconsistently with the surrounding zoning. This is evidenced in the negative impacts of the proposed development and code change (see Section 5-A), the inconsistencies with the comparative plan implied by these negative impacts (see Section 5-B), and constituted in the increased cost and further strain of public services of the neighborhood (see Section 4). Additional negative impacts for community and city overall, as provided in the entirety of this document, also are the case for the local neighborhood. LOSS OF FOREST AND WATER ACCESS, AND LOSS OF IMPORTANT NATURAL SPACE The development will destroy the current access to the Hudson River provided with this land. An alternative use proposal, that the current owner is interested in pursuing should the option of sale expire has been submitted in Section 07 of this letter. In contrast, the proposed development by Kevin Vandenburgh claims to incorporate the public interested in access to the waterfront and natural spaces along the river. However, this statement is clearly misleading. The developer is creating a dead-end trail and does not create any incentive or attractive park or other features that would invite the public. Additionally, the proposed boat dock is a use-specific water access.

18

The developer is clearly creating amenities for his renters, not for the public and will additionally serve as justification for higher rental prices for departments — with negative effects for surrounding homeowners and renters. Overall, the proposed development discourages in its design the use of this property, as it is not designed as public use space.

This is inconsistent with the development priorities the city itself has laid out for waterfront properties in its comprehensive plan, which emphasizes public access to water via parks and public space. It also is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan calling for an increase in tree canopy and renaturalization of the waterfront. This speaks to the requirement that a rezoning needs to be for the benefit for the entire public and not for an individual developer. HEIGHTENED INFRASTRUCTURE AND PUBLIC SERVICE COSTS The residents of 240 newly built apartments will significantly increase pressures on public services and infrastructure. The proposed development will significantly increase the infrastructure and public service costs, particularly in this R1-zoned residential area. It will in particular negatively impact the local community in terms of infrastructure and public service availability. Several studies have consistently shown the associated increased costs of and strain on critical services associated with developments such as the one proposed here (see evidence for Section 4). Abrupt development growth that does not follow smart and soft growth guidelines and do not utilize existing infrastructure and e.g. vacant properties or buildings, significantly strains services through rapid influx, including amongst others:

a) Increased pressure on already strained school services b) Increased pressure on already strained garbage collection c) Increased pressure on already strained emergency services d) Increased need for road maintenance e) Increased pressure on already over-capacity sewage system

LOSS IN PROPERTY VALUE, RESALE VALUE AND RENTAL INCREASES [S5-1] Besides the cost associated with strains on the local infrastructure, this development will also lead to additional direct and indirect costs for the local residents and the overall neighborhood. The development will lead to significant loss of property value and resale value due to the loss of greenspace and waterfront, which also negatively impacts the city budget

f) The tax savings of industrial development may measure a few hundred dollars a year per taxpayer, but the loss in property values measures in the thousands. Typically it takes decades of tax savings to make up for the loss in property value.

g) Property value will decline with the loss of a significant greenspace and undeveloped waterfront forest property

Rental increases in surrounding housing are expected to increase due to the amenities at the property, clearly designed for the use of renters at the property. VACANT PROPERTIES AND LACK OF DEVELOPMENT IN LANSINGBURGH

19

There are priority development areas in the direct vicinity of this property. A vacant price chopper as well as several vacant locations across the local Lansingburgh neighborhood are identified as priority and development nodes in the comprehensive plan. As the plan states:

“Troy’s high vacancy rates are also contributing to neighborhood destabilization. There are approximately 23,100 housing units in Troy and approximately 2,100 of these units, or 9%, are vacant and unused. Prospective residents are deterred from purchasing homes in neighborhoods with high vacancy rates as they are perceived as areas with higher crime, and where continued disinvestment may occur. These conditions have resulted in a weak housing market and low housing values compared to the region”. ([A], pg.11)

A rezoning discourages and actively prevents the development of already developed vacant areas with existing infrastructure and public services in place. The development of this property, and the associated rezoning, stand in conflict with these development needs and undermine soft and smart growth and development. Accordingly, the rezoning would stand in direct conflict with the provisions and priorities laid out in the Comprehensive Plan, the smart growth development principles established in the Comprehensive Plan, and the New York State Smart Growth Criteria. . SECTION 5 — B: Legal Implications The development of this property, and the associated rezoning, stand in conflict with these development needs and undermine soft and smart growth and development. Accordingly, the rezoning would stand in direct conflict with the provisions and priorities laid out in the Comprehensive Plan, the smart growth development principles established in the Comprehensive Plan, and the New York State Smart Growth Criteria. SECTION 5 — C: List of Supplemental Evidence for Section 5:

● [S4-8] The Impact of Apartment Complexes on Property Value of Single Family Dwellings https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2150&context=studentwork&fbclid=IwAR2lCgQJHlRSBKXF68TGCWDoyvmxRbNG0eXIDMzbITX7polbkTClfeul1Iw

20

SECTION 6: LEGAL GROUNDS

SECTION 5 — A: Legal Grounds for Denying Request for Code Change for Parcel 70.64-1-1 This final section highlights some major incompatibilities with existing law, rules and codes.

1) Inconsistency with Comprehensive Plan and Spot Zoning The proposed development as well as the change in zoning code are inconsistent with Realize Troy 2018 Comprehensive Plan (cp. Section 3). New York’s zoning enabling statutes require that zoning laws be adopted in accordance with the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan should provide the backbone for the zoning law]. Furthermore, the change in zoning code is incompatible with New York State City Code Section 28.a.12: Effect of Adoption of the City Comprehensive Plan: (a) “All city land use regulations must be in accordance with a comprehensive plan adopted pursuant to this section.”

2) Inconsistent with surrounding uses and zoning and orderly growth and development The law demands the (NYS City Code Section 28.a.12 - o) consistency “with the orderly growth and development of the city. Furthermore, code changes need to be consistent with the surrounding uses and zoning (“SPOT ZONING”). The comprehensive plan identifies in Map 14 the surrounding area as “low density residential”. However the parcel in question is NOT located in a major reinvestment area and the surrounding area is R-1 for 10 single family homes. 240 multi-family units do not fit with the character of surrounding land uses. The site is also not located in a Major Reinvestment Area.

3) Spot Zoning According to the NYS Division of Local Government Services, “Spot zoning refers to the rezoning of a parcel of land to a use category different from the surrounding area, usually to benefit a single owner or a single development interest. Size of the parcel is relevant, but not determinative. Illegal spot zoning occurs whenever “the change is other than part of a well-considered and comprehensive plan calculated to serve the general welfare of the community” [S6-1] and [S6-2] Spot zoning is, in fact, often thought of as the very antithesis of plan zoning. When considering spot zoning, courts will generally determine whether the zoning relates to the compatibility of the zoning of surrounding uses. Other factors may include; the characteristics of the land, the size of the parcel, and the degree of the “public benefit.” Perhaps the most important criteria in determining spot zoning is the extent to which the disputed zoning is consistent with the municipality’s comprehensive plan. This proposed change in zoning meets the definition of spot zoning on several grounds:

● It is inconsistent with the surrounding zoning (R-1) ● It is inconsistent with the planned zoning detailed in the comprehensive plan ● It constitutes an unreasonably unequal treatment with comparably situated land

21

4) No Evident Need For The Zone Change According to NYS DOS, requests for zone change must show a need for the zone change. This is strictly defined. Specifically, any change must be made for the benefit of the community as a whole, not for an individual property owner or developer [S6-3]. The need for zone change for the benefit of the community as a whole cannot be shown for the parcel in question:

● Economic Viability/Burden Criteria is not met. The property can be maintained profitable with a single family home that can be rented out; Incurred exploration and evaluation costs cannot be included in calculations for economic viability of the property

● Additionally a rezoning will negatively impact the property value and quality of life for neighboring residents and the overall neighborhood’s character

● There was no change in circumstances or mistake made when the original zoning occurred; The developer cannot show the need for change or occurrence of a mistake in the original zoning.

● Additionally, there are sufficient vacant plots elsewhere and in the immediate vicinity that have been identified in the Comprehensive Plan as Major Reinvestment Area and/or Development Priority Areas.

● The code change would be inconsistent with surrounding uses. The zone change is inconsistent with the orderly development of public services and infrastructure.

A rezoning cannot be granted as it necessitates increased infrastructure and public service that can be provided at another vacant lot in immediate proximity (former PriceChopper) that is additionally locate in one of the “node” zones detailed in the Comprehensive Plan, and was identified by the city council and city council president as development priority. Due to this area being R-1 and inadequate traffic and parking infrastructure, a rezoning and the associated development would create increased infrastructure needs. These infrastructure needs can already be provided at the abandoned and empty, recently closed Price Chopper property in direct vicinity to this property; Additionally, multiple vacant buildings in the neighborhood, including across the street from the land in question, are also available for redevelopment without the increased infrastructure and public service burden; including several in development priority zones identified in the comprehensive plan. Hence, part of town already has the services and can support the same type of development the proposed zone change will allow in the direct vicinity of this property; A rezoning cannot legally be granted for this reason. SECTION 6 — C: List of Supplemental Evidence for Section 6:

● [S6-1] DOS: Zoning and the Comprehensive Plan https://www.dos.ny.gov/lg/publications/Zoning_and_the_Comprehensive_Plan.pdf

● [S6-2] Gernatt Asphalt Products, Inc. v. Town of Sardinia, supra at 685, citing Udell v. Haas, supra at 472 ● [S6-3] Partnership for the Public Good: Land Use and Zoning Law

(https://ppgbuffalo.org/files/documents/environment/land_use/environment-_land_use_and_zoning_law_a_citizens_guide.pdf

22

Section 7: Alternative Land Use Proposal SUMMARY For the Purpose of Protecting the Land as Historically and Culturally Significant Site

And for the Purpose of Creating a Community Food Forest and Cultural Center

A preliminary proposal was shared with representatives of the current owner of this land, and they indicated their openness to this alternative use proposal. This section provides a brief summary of this proposal. We suggest an alternative land-use plan, centered on and in-tune with community needs and with the goal of preserving the property for the community. We suggest the preservation of this important land and its development as a natural recreational space, food resource in the low-access neighborhood, an ecological buffer zone, and a natural protection against flooding. The Friends of the Mahicantuck commit to collaborating with the community and partner organizations to

- protect the lands for its historical, cultural and ecological significance indefinitely - create of a sustainable community food forest (which would be one of the largest of its kind in the

nation) - Create educational and cultural outreach programs, and make these accessible to the local

school around the corner from the property as well as the local community A collaboration between nonprofit partners and the local community, already in formation, will create a community food forest, or edible forest garden as well as a preservation of the natural space and historical site. Food forests are an indigenous food production strategy that strengthens the living ecosystem, by focusing on a harmonious natural relationship. This process increases biodiversity and can strengthen food security in sustainable and regenerative ways. The creation of a Community Food Forest will provide the local communities in Troy with a critical food source and address food injustices prevalent in the local communities surrounding this land. We see every challenge as an opportunity and are working with our partners towards revealing the history that has been hidden and to exemplify how people can be living a sustainable lifestyle that works hard towards mitigating the human impact on the changing climate. Community Benefits

● The creation of a trail system for better access to the land and the Hudson River ● The creation of a food forest to improve access to food for the local communities of Troy ● The preservation of the land as an important natural recreation space ● The preservation of the site for its historical significance, and the designation as such ● The preservation of one of the last remaining biodiversity niches within Troy

● The preservation of a natural buffer zone against flood risks in a changing climate

23

APPENDIX: LIST OF SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE SUBMITTED WITH THIS LETTER

Evidence not associated with a direct link is provided online for download via this link: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1M410j_8CVzDyjIQzzaz_VcNJOLViByH5?usp=sharing Evidence can be submitted in hard copy upon request.

LIST OF EVIDENCE

● 2018 Comprehensive Plan [A] List of Supplemental Evidence for Section 1:

● [S1-1] Brumbach, H.J. (1987) “A Quarry/Workshop And Processing Station On The Hudson River In Pleasentdale, New York”. Archeology of Eastern North America, 15(1987), 59-83.

● [S1-2] Lothrop, J. C., Burke, A. L., Winchell-Sweeney, S., and G. Gauthier (2018). Coupling Lithic Sourcing with Least Cost Path Analysis to Model Paleoindian Pathways in Northeastern North America. American Antiquity, 83(3), 462-484.

● [S1-3] US EPA (2002). Responsiveness Summary Hudson River PCBs Site Record of Decision. Appendix C Stage 1A Cultural Resource Survey.

● [S1-4] Brumbach, Hetty Jo, Zitzler, Paula (1993) Stage II Archeological Investigation Of the Turnpike/River Bend Road Area. Peasentdale Wastewater Facility Plan. Town Of Schaghticoke, Rensselaer County, New York (C-36-1270-01). Public Arecheology Facility, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. [Hard Copy Available].

● [S1-5] National Historic Preservation Act — https://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/nhpa1966.htm ● [S1-6] State Historic Act —

https://parks.ny.gov/shpo/environmental-review/preservation-legislation.aspx List of Supplemental Evidence for Section 2:

● [S2-1] Times Union (July 7, 2017) “Massive Albany Troy Sewage Spills in Hudson https://www.timesunion.com/7dayarchive/article/Massive-Albany-Troy-sewage-spills-in-Hudson-11273421.php

● [S2-2] Statement of City of Troy: “Understanding Tory’s Combined Sewer Infrastructure System” July 10, 2017 http://www.troyny.gov/understanding-troy-combined-sewer-infrastructure-system/

● [S2-3] Conservation Tools: Working With Nature to Manage Stormwater https://conservationtools.org/guides/166-working-with-nature-to-manage-stormwater

● [S2-4] DOS: Impacts of Urban Runoff https://www.des.nh.gov/organization/divisions/water/wmb/tmdl/documents/stormwater_chapt1.pdf

● [S2-5] https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wri014071 ● [S2-6] Urban Forests and Climate Change

https://climate-woodlands.extension.org/urban-forests-and-climate-change/#:~:text=Urban%20forests%20can%20be%20useful,to%20heat%20and%20cool%20buildings.

● [S2-7] USDA Urban Forests and Climate Change

24

https://www.fs.usda.gov/ccrc/topics/urban-forests-and-climate-change ● [S2-8] National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from

Hydromodification https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/chapter_3_channelization_web.pdf

● [S2-9] Problems Facing Urban Streams http://www.msdlouky.org/insidemsd/wqurban.htm

● [S2-10] From Channelization To Restoration http://scholar.google.com/scholar_url?url=http://www.academia.edu/download/43058958/Chen_et_al-2016-Water_Resources_Research.pdf&hl=en&sa=X&scisig=AAGBfm3QW_VCYsUVIg_vciKWvVRiz7HOaQ&nossl=1&oi=scholarr

● [S2-11] EPA: Reduce Urban Heat Island Effect https://www.epa.gov/green-infrastructure/reduce-urban-heat-island-effect

● [S2-12] NYT: How Decades Of Racist Housing Policy Left Neighborhoods Sweltering https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/08/24/climate/racism-redlining-cities-global-warming.html

● [S2-13] Benefits of Urban Trees https://www.nature.org/content/dam/tnc/nature/en/documents/Public_Health_Benefits_Urban_Trees_FINAL.pdf

● [S2-14] CSC Certification Troy http://csc-site-persistent-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/fileadmin/cicbase/documents/2017/11/10/15103445909908.pdf

● [S2-15] Comprehensive Plan Map 12 List of Supplemental Evidence for Section 3:

● [S3-1] NYS Division Of Local Government Services: Zoning and the Comprehensive Plan https://www.dos.ny.gov/lg/publications/Zoning_and_the_Comprehensive_Plan.pdf

● [S3-2] New York State City Code Section 28.a.12 ● [S3-3] Comprehensive Plan MAP 13 ● [S3-4] TESTIMONIES OF RESIDENTS

List of Supplemental Evidence for Section 4:

● [S4-1] Charles Marhon Jr. (August 2018) “Building Resilient Communities” https://icma.org/articles/pm-magazine/pm-article-building-resilient-communities

● [S4-2] Charles Marhon Jr. (2017) “The Real Reason Your City Has No Money” https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/9/the-real-reason-your-city-has-no-money

● [S4-3] Written Expert Testimony of Dr. of Economy John Gowdy ● [S4-4] Comprehensive Plan Map 2 Investment Areas ● [S4-5] Comprehensive Plan Investment Area Lansingburgh ● [S4-6] Map 14 Land Use ● [S4-7] Resources on Research about Abandoned Properties and Buildings

https://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/municipal/abandoned-buildings-revitalization/ ● [S4-8] Annual education spending per state

https://www.governing.com/gov-data/education-data/state-education-spending-per-pupil-data.html

● [S4-9] Proposed 2020 Budget for Troy NY ● [S4-10] Population Data for Troy NY

https://datausa.io/profile/geo/troy-ny

25

List of Supplemental Evidence for Section 5:

● [S4-8] The Impact of Apartment Complexes on Property Value of Single Family Dwellings https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2150&context=studentwork&fbclid=IwAR2lCgQJHlRSBKXF68TGCWDoyvmxRbNG0eXIDMzbITX7polbkTClfeul1Iw

List of Supplemental Evidence for Section 6:

● [S6-1] DOS: Zoning and the Comprehensive Plan https://www.dos.ny.gov/lg/publications/Zoning_and_the_Comprehensive_Plan.pdf

● [S6-2] Gernatt Asphalt Products, Inc. v. Town of Sardinia, supra at 685, citing Udell v. Haas, supra at 472 ● [S6-3] Partnership for the Public Good: Land Use and Zoning Law

(https://ppgbuffalo.org/files/documents/environment/land_use/environment-_land_use_and_zoning_law_a_citizens_guide.pdf

26

TO: The Members of the Troy City Council The Troy Planning Commissioner

This letter is submitted in the name of: The Friends of the Mahicantuck

The Schaghticoke First Nations The Center for Climate Communities

REGARDING:

RES91 - Resolution Referring Lansingburgh Zoning Change Request to Planning Commission for Review and Recommendation

We are submitting the following statement regarding Resolution 091 and the Development at 1011 2nd Ave in Troy NY. As you are aware, any consideration of a change in zoning code must incorporate that such a change has to be:

● consistent with the comprehensive plan ● in the interest of the current residents of the city, and not the developer or imagined future

residents ● consistent with the surrounding use and zoning

While the planning commission does important work and is a critical institution of the city, it is your responsibility, as stated in city code, to determine whether a change in zoning code is in the interest of the community and the city or not. At the Planning Committee Meeting on August 27th, extensive evidence was provided by expert and fact witnesses that clearly show the negative impacts for the community that the proposed change in zoning code and the proposed development pose. We clearly provided extensive record and proof that none of the three criteria mentioned above are met for this development and the proposed change in zoning code. You have an extensive record of evidence, expert testimony, public comments and petitions at your hand to make an informed decision about the appropriateness of the rezoning, and the record shows clearly that the change in zoning code should not — and legally must not — be granted. We provide a summary of this evidence in the Appendix to this letter. The clear and exhaustive record in writing and in spoken testimony shows that this request for rezoning and the proposed development are not in the interest of the city and its residents. Additionally, we want to address two central reasons and critical issues that additionally underscore why we urge the Council to stop this process before wasting any further time, resources and tax money.

- We highlight again critical evidence regarding spot zoning and point to additional evidence to address questions raised by members of the council on August 27 that remained insufficiently addressed so far

- We highlight violations of NYS Open Meetings Law that raise alarm regarding the public’s rights for participation, should the council choose to move this process further ahead.

1

ON SPOT ZONING Legal testimony submitted at the Planning Commission meeting on August 27 as well as for this general meeting of the Council on September 10, clearly shows that the rezoning is a text-book case for spot zoning. What is additionally striking is that questions raised during the August 27 meeting at the Planning Commission remain unaddressed and insufficiently clarified. We approached our legal council to remedy this gap and ourselves address the raised questions to provide the City Council with this critical information. The expert testimony by our legal council, supported also in statements by other expert testimony, will be submitted separately. It clearly addresses why this rezoning request would constitute stop zoning, and it also points out that city code must comply with state law; and that arguments that city code would allow for spot zoning are immaterial when state law clearly determines the development as such. EXCLUSION OF INIDGENOUS LEADERS, VIOLATION OF OPEN MEETINGS LAWS Additionally, indigenous leaders were excluded from participating in the City Council’s fact finding, prevented from speaking at the general meeting on Thursday, September 10. We made the City Council and City Council President Carmella Mantello aware of this fact, and also made the members of the council and the president of the council aware that the restriction to allow only residents to speak is inconsistent with NYS Open Meetings Law. We asked to remedy this situation and ensure all future meetings are compliant with NYS law by removing this restriction. However, this was not addressed appropriately and the inconsistency with NYS law remains. We are also submitting a written opinion by the NYS Department Of State Open Government Commission reaffirming our position that excluding members of the public is incompatible with state law. The city failed, despite our urging, to ensure a democratic process, failed to be compliant with state law, and violated the rights of the public and in particular the indigneous leaders. Given this situation, how can we trust that the rights of the public, the indigenous community and their leaders will be honored and treated lawfully moving forward? We also ask the city council to restore compliance with state law and honor the public’s right to speak constituted in state law — and to do so for all future public meetings and by changing the city code to be compliant with state law FOR THESE REASONS We ask you to stop this process now, work with the developer on an alternative site that is consistent with the comprehensive plan, and appropriately protect this land.

2

Finally we want to remind you that both on the August 27 meeting as well as at the September 10 meeting, the public is united in clear opposition across partisan lines. On August 27 you heard not one member of the public speak in favor of the development. Petitions with over 500 signatures clearly underscore this united opposition. There is no need to destroy this forest and indigenous cultural site. We have not heard one single argument — not by the developer, not by the planning commission, not by the council, not by the public — for why this development must be on this specific site. We heard not one argument why this development can’t be realized on one of the many alternative sites. We did not hear one good reason, because there are none. Stop this now.

APPENDIX — Summary of key testimony from August 27 The submitted evidence presented at the August 27th meeting was resubmitted by the Friends of the Mahicantuck on September 8 on behalf of the local Troy residents, the expert witnesses that worked on compiling this evidence, and our indigneous partners. Additional, new evidence complements the material and testimony submitted for the August 27 meeting and was provided by the expert witnesses in separate testimonies submitted in writing ahead of September 10 and read into the record during the general meeting on September 10. Highlights from the August 27 meeting and the provided evidence and expert testimony include:

1. Historical and Archeological Significance You have been made extensively aware of the historical and cultural significance of this site. Artifacts at this location date to 1500-3000 B.C. and the representative of the archeological survey firm Hartgen associated with the development and working with the developer himself stated at the August 27th meeting that this site is National Register eligible. Not to mention the extensive testimony in writing and in spoken form by indigenous leaders who can best attest to the significance, historically and culturally, of this land and the åncesteral ties that are maintained and well alive today — although their voices have been excluded from today’s meeting by the city’s resident requirement. This development clearly contradicts the responsibility of this council. It is not the question, whether this development can legally proceed, which is doubtful without extensive environmental and archeological review and survey. But the council must determine if the rezoning will harm the city. Destroying it’s history, and the history of Indigenous Peoples reaching back thousands of years, is clearly NOT in the interest of the city and its residents. Based on the provided evidence, a change in zoning code must be denied due to the negative impact on the historical and archeological heritage of the City of Troy.

2. Inconsistency with Realize Troy 2018 Comprehensive Plan

3

Multiple fact witnesses pointed to the perhaps gravest legal concerns associated with the development, including inconsistencies with the comprehensive plan as well as issues regarding spot zoning. Submitted written evidence and expert testimonies further expanded on these legal issues. A statement by a lawyer, read into the record today and submitted in writing, clearly shows that this rezoning is a textbook case for spot zoning, and it is striking that the city council was unable to secure a clear legal clarification from their own council or an external council. It was suggested during the 27th meeting that spot zoning would not be the case because of city code provisions as well as the size of the area. We submitted, and read into the record, additional evidence that clearly explains that this is not the case, and that the size of the area does not matter, and that despite these arguments, this development and rezoning constitute a textbook case of spot zoning. Additionally, there are striking discrepancies between the priorities of the comprehensive plan and the proposed rezoning, and statements by the attorney as well as written expert testimonies clearly highlight these inconsistencies. A lot of time, effort and taxpayer money went into drawing the comprehensive plan. And city code itself maintains that any zoning code must be consistent with the comprehensive plan. Based on the provided evidence in this letter, a change in zoning code must be denied due to explicit inconsistencies with the 2018 comprehensive plan.

3. Economic Grounds At the meeting on the 27th, as well as in written expert testimony submitted for today’s meeting, experts, including renowned economist John Gowdy in a written submission, made clearly explicit the negative economic impacts of the proposal as grounds for denying the change in zoning code for Tax Parcel 70.64-1-1. We highlighted the direct and indirect as well as short- and long-term economic costs associated with the proposed development. In collaboration with the experts quoted in the written submission of supplementary evidence and individual written letters, we explicitly shows that the proposed development will NOT provide the promised increase in tax revenue and instead significantly increase the economic costs for the City of Troy and its tax paying residents. In particular, costs associated with increased pressures on the public school system, road maintenance, emergency services, and the already dramatically strained sewage system, will increase the costs for the city far above the expected short-term revenue associated with the development of this site. With the input of experienced economists, we calculate that this development will lead to an increased combined REVENUE LOSS for the city and school district of AT LEAST $500,000 ANNUALLY A change in zoning code must be denied, as 1) the Economic Viability and Burden Criteria is not met, as 3) the development will negatively impact local property values, and as 2) there is no clear economic benefit to the current residents of the City of Troy.

4

4. Environmental and Public Health Impacts Expert testimony during the Committee meeting 27th pointed to significant negative environmental and public health impacts, and associated significant costs for the city. This included amongst others increased urban heat island effects, runoff pollution, further stress on the combined sewage system that is already under stress. This development and rezoning constitute harm to our environment and the health of local residents. It highlights the environmental and public health impacts associated with a rezoning and the proposed development of the site in question.

- It shows significant environmental and ecological harm associated with the destruction of the last riverfront forest in Troy, NY.

- It clearly identifies inconsistencies regarding environmental preservation and waterfront development priorities laid out in the Comprehensive Plan

- It highlights the public health risks associated with runoff-pollution, impacts on the Hudson River, and the loss of the forest as a natural resilience asset.

Based on the provided evidence, a change in zoning code must be denied due to adverse impact on public and environment as well as due to inconsistencies with the Comprehensive Plan.

5

Stormwater Quantity and Quality Analysis of 1011 Second Avenue, Troy, NY

Prepared by James Kruegler, water resources specialist

Executive Summary Possible development scenarios[1] for the land at 1011 Second Avenue, Troy, NY were analyzed in terms of changes in land cover that would accompany each development scenario. The effects of these changes in land cover on surface runoff and surface water pollution were simulated and compared using the i-Tree Hydro hydrology model[2]. The current scenario was simulated with the “Current” land cover in place, and the two development scenarios were simulated respectively with the “Development 1” and “Development 2” land cover in place. Relative to the Current scenario, the Development 1 land cover produced 19.3% more surface runoff and the Development 2 land cover produced 19.2% more surface runoff (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Surface runoff for each modeled scenario, classified by the land cover types where the surface runoff was generated. Based on the above changes in surface runoff, both Development scenarios also generated more pollution, ranging from 142% to 164% increases for each of the pollutants assessed (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Surface water pollution for each modeled scenario, tracking the common surface water pollutants phosphorus (total phosphorus), nitrogen (total nitrogen), and sediment (total suspended solids). Note the y-axis uses a logarithmic scale. The Development 1 and Development 2 land cover scenarios both produced greater surface runoff and surface water pollution than Current land cover. Assuming the land cover changes involved in the proposed development are reasonable representatives for what would happen in any similar development on this land, it is unlikely that development and the prerequisite zone change could maintain surface runoff and surface water pollution levels comparable to Current land cover. The accuracy of absolute values reported in this analysis could not be evaluated, and instead it is recommended the relative (%) change values are emphasized within the context of a qualitative rather than quantitative assessment. Given certain characteristics of the land at 1011 Second Avenue, the feasibility of the proposed development (with respect to maintaining state-mandated surface water quantity and quality) is uncertain and cannot be quantitatively evaluated with the present level of detail available.

Background & Objectives This analysis was designed to calculate the surface runoff and pollutant loading of two tax parcels (hereafter referred to as the “Project Area”) located along the Hudson River waterfront and on either side of the border between the City of Troy and the Town of Schaghticoke (Figure 3). The Project Area was analyzed within the context of possible future zone change and development scenarios presently being considered by parties within the City of Troy. These possible future development scenarios, detailed in a document hereafter referred to as the “Development Plan”[1], were analyzed in terms of the changes in land cover distributions that would accompany each development scenario. The effects of these changes in land cover on surface runoff and pollutant loading were simulated and compared using the i-Tree Hydro hydrology model[2].

Figure 3. Location of the Project Area (red) relative to the City of Troy (blue) and the Town of Schaghticoke (pink). Yellow box in image (a) corresponds to the full outline of image (b). Imagery from Google Earth, originally dated circa 2018.

Data and Methods Hourly weather data for the period of 1/1/2010 – 12/30/2010 were derived from a local weather station at Albany International Airport (USAF-WBAN: 725180-14735). This calendar year was selected as a representative sample of annual precipitation for the Project Area, having recorded the median total annual precipitation at this weather station for the years 2001-2019. The current land cover in the Project Area (Table 1, “Current scenario” column) was calculated using the i-Tree Canopy tool[3], which has users photo-interpret Google Earth imagery (image date circa 2020) to classify points within an area of interest. Within this Project Area, 200 randomly-located points had their land cover classified to bring standard error below 2%. The land cover of possible development scenarios (Table 1, columns 3-4) were estimated based on information provided in Table 2-1 and Exhibit 4 of the Development Plan[1]. Table 1. Percent land cover estimates for all modeled scenarios. Due to rounding, estimates may not add up to exactly 100%.

Land cover Current scenario Development 1 scenario

Development 2 scenario

Trees over pervious 91.5% 22.5% 18.0% Trees over impervious 1.0% 0.25% 0.20%

Grass/herbaceous 3.5% 41.2% 46.5% Impervious, no trees 1.0% 36.1% 35.3%

Bare soil 3.0% 0% 0% The i-Tree Hydro model used the above data inputs, along with digital elevation model (DEM) data, to simulate flow and water quality in the Project Area for the period of 1/1/2010 – 12/30/2010. The current scenario was simulated with the “Current” land cover in place, and the two development scenarios were simulated respectively with the “Development 1” and “Development 2” land cover in place. In terms of model output, the total flow Hydro simulates is made up of runoff from pervious

surfaces, runoff from impervious surfaces, and baseflow (water traveling underground). For this analysis, surface runoff was defined as the sum of pervious surface flow and impervious surface flow components. Because the Project Area was not a watershed (i.e., there is more than one point from which all the Project Area’s water leaves that area), Hydro model output could not be calibrated to streamflow observations. This means the accuracy of the absolute values of surface runoff and pollutant loading could not be known. Instead, the relative changes in these values between scenarios were used to describe surface runoff and pollutant loading from the Project Area. Event mean concentration (EMC) data were multiplied by surface runoff volumes to estimate pollutant loading for total phosphorus (TP), total nitrogen (TN), and total suspended solids (TSS). The EMC values used were based on HUC-8 basin specific pollution export coefficients[4]. The Project Area is located within the HUC-8 basin 02020003, so this was used as the representative basin for extracting pollution coefficients. These data were then used to compute the localized EMCs based on distributions of National Land Cover Database (NLCD) land cover classes[5]. The distributions of NLCD land cover for development scenarios were estimated based on information provided in Section 1.3 and Exhibit 4 of the Development Plan[1]. The Current and Development scenarios each had unique NLCD land cover (Figure 4), and correspondingly a unique set of EMCs was calculated for each scenario (Table 2; median values used for pollutant loading calculations in bold).

Figure 4. Distributions of NLCD land cover classes within the Project Area for all scenarios. All maps are oriented with north at the top. Table 2. Distributions of localized event mean concentrations (EMCs, oz/ft3) based on White et al. (2015)[1] and Stephan et al. (2017)[6]. Median values used for pollutant loading calculations in bold.

Scenario Pollutant Minimum (oz/ft3)

Low (oz/ft3)

Median (oz/ft3)

High (oz/ft3)

Maximum (oz/ft3)

Current

TP 2.85E-05 5.94E-05 2.32E-04 5.59E-04 8.39E-04 TN 1.17E-03 1.67E-03 3.51E-03 6.49E-03 9.44E-03 TSS 0.0309 0.0520 0.178 0.707 1.31

Development

1

TP 7.45E-05 1.11E-04 5.00E-04 1.29E-03 1.79E-03 TN 2.81E-03 3.70E-03 7.64E-03 0.0142 0.0191 TSS 0.0909 0.132 0.361 1.72 3.33

Development 2

TP 7.61E-05 1.13E-04 5.10E-04 1.31E-03 1.83E-03 TN 2.86E-03 3.76E-03 7.78E-03 0.0145 0.0194 TSS 0.0929 0.135 0.369 1.76 3.40

Results Relative to the Current scenario, the Development 1 land cover produced 19.3% more surface runoff and the Development 2 land cover produced 19.2% more surface runoff (Table 3; surface runoff column in bold). In Development 1, about 36% of this extra surface runoff was generated over pervious surfaces and 64% was generated over impervious surfaces. In Development 2, about 40% of this extra surface runoff was generated over pervious surfaces and 60% was generated over impervious surfaces. In both Development scenarios, the increase in impervious cover (Table 1) from the Current scenario meant that a much higher fraction of that impervious cover was considered directly connected to the Project Area’s outlets. This in turn made it more likely that precipitation falling onto impervious surfaces would have been carried to an outlet exclusively along impervious surfaces, rather than that impervious runoff encountering pervious surfaces to infiltrate or become pervious runoff. Table 3. Surface runoff (bold) and its components for the Current and Development scenarios, in millions of cubic feet and percent change from Current land cover.

Scenario Pervious runoff Impervious runoff Surface runoff Current (mil. ft3) 0.836 3.21E-05 0.836

Development 1 (mil. ft3) 0.894 0.103 0.997 Change from Current 6.98% 3.22E+05% 19.3%

Development 2 (mil. ft3) 0.899 0.0970 0.996 Change From Current 7.59% 3.02E+05% 19.2%

Based on the above changes in surface runoff, both Development scenarios also generated more pollution for each of the pollutants assessed (Table 4). In both cases, total nitrogen experienced the greatest relative (%) increase in pollution and total suspended solids had the greatest absolute (tons) increase in pollution. The percent changes in pollutant loading are different for each pollutant because the distribution of NLCD land cover classes shifted between each scenario, which changed the EMC calculation as described in the “Data and Methods” section. As each of the NLCD classes is associated with its own range of EMC values for each pollutant constituent, a change in the amount of any one NLCD class can affect the loading of each pollutant differently by affecting both pollutant concentrations and runoff volume.

Table 4. Estimated pollutant loading of total phosphorus, total nitrogen, and total suspended solids for all modeled scenarios, in tons (2,000 lbs) and percent change from Current.

Scenario TP (tons) TN (tons) TSS (tons) Current 0.00606 0.0917 4.65

Development 1 0.0156 0.238 11.3

Change from Current 157% 160% 142%

Development 2 0.0159 0.242 11.5

Change from Current 162% 164% 147%

Discussion & Conclusions The Development 1&2 land cover scenarios both produced greater surface runoff and surface water pollution than Current land cover. The distributions of land cover types between the two Development scenarios were similar, and in turn these scenarios resulted in similar changes in water quantity and quality for the modeled Project Area. Amounts of tree and impervious cover both influence what fraction of rainfall Hydro will partition into surface runoff. Removing tree canopy and expanding impervious surfaces are two separate but interrelated changes that increased surface runoff and surface water pollution in the Development scenarios. Assuming the land cover changes proposed in the Development Plan are reasonable representatives for what would happen in any similar development of the Project Area, it is unlikely that development and the prerequisite zone change could maintain surface runoff and surface water pollution levels comparable to Current land cover. The accuracy of absolute values reported in this analysis could not be evaluated, and instead it is recommended the relative (%) change values are emphasized within the context of a qualitative rather than quantitative assessment. The fact that the Hydro model could not be calibrated contributed some uncertainty to the analysis, but a lack of necessary details in the Development Plan made it impossible to perform a more quantitative assessment, let alone to rigorously evaluate such an assessment. For example, the Development Plan states (pages 4-5[1]) that stormwater management mechanisms such as “bioretention basins” and “stormwater ponds” would be incorporated into the Project Area, and that proposed development “would be designed so that the total site runoff of stormwater will be less than or equal to existing conditions and in conformance with NYSDEC storm water permit 15-00-002”. This is the full extent of details offered in the Development Plan regarding stormwater management infrastructure, however. At no point is any of this infrastructure described in terms of the specific performance criteria required by the latest iteration of the aforementioned NYSDEC stormwater permit[7] and the New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual[8]. These performance criteria would provide the information necessary to quantitatively evaluate if the proposed development in the Development Plan is feasible and practical for the Project Area. Given certain characteristics of the Project Area (steep and highly variable grade[1], low/no depth to bedrock[9]), the feasibility of the Development Plan with respect to maintaining state-mandated surface water quantity and quality is uncertain with the present level of detail available.

References 1. M.J. Engineering & Land Surveying, P.C.. Project Narrative for SECOND AVENUE: City of Troy & Town

of Schaghticoke Rensselaer County, New York. Prepared for Kevin Vandenburgh, October 28, 2020.

2. Wang, J., Endreny, T.A. and Nowak, D.J. (2008), Mechanistic Simulation of Tree Effects in an Urban Water Balance Model1. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 44: 75-85. doi:10.1111/j.1752-1688.2007.00139.x

3. i-Tree. 2011. I-Tree Canopy technical notes. I-Tree Methods and Files Archives. https://canopy.itreetools.org/resources/iTree_Canopy_Methodology.pdf

4. White, M., D. Harmel, H. Yen, J. Arnold, M. Gambone, and R. Haney. 2015. Development of sediment and nutrient export coefficients for U.S. ecoregions. Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) 51(3): 758-775.

5. Homer, C. G., Dewitz, J. A., Yang, L., Jin, S., Danielson, P., Xian, G., Coulston, J., Herold, N. D., Wickham, J. D., and K. Megown. 2015. Completion of the 2011 National Land Cover Database for the conterminous United States—Representing a decade of land cover change information: Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 81(5): 345–354.

6. Stephan, E.A., Coville, R.C., White, M., Endreny, T.A., and D.J. Nowak. 2017. Estimating pollutant coefficients for sediment, total N, and total P specific to NLCD classes within HUC-8s nationwide. (Research in progress.) SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, NY.

7. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2020. SPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges. Effective date January 29, 2020, available online at https://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/water_pdf/constgp020001.pdf.

8. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2015. New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual. Updated by NYSDEC January 2015, available online at https://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/29072.html.

9. Friends of the Mahicantuck. 2021. TROY’S SACRED FOREST: Its culture, ecology, history, archaeology, and significance to the community. Compiled and published January 22, 2021, available online at http://www.friendsofthemahicantuck.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/final-jan2021-Report-SACRED-FOREST.pdf.

25 Walton Street, Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 P 518.886.1902 www.ruppbaase.com

Buffalo |Rochester |Williamsville |Ellicottville | Jamestown

ruppbaase.com

PHILLIP A. OSWALD OSWALD@RUPPBAASE.COM

August 27, 2020

Via Electronic Mail

Troy City Council Planning Committee 433 River Street Troy, NY 12180 mara.drogan@troyny.gov aaron.vera@troyny.gov

Dear Hon. Sirs/Madams,

Re: August 27, 2020 Hearing Ordinance Authorizing Amendment – Parcel No. 70.64-1-1 Our File No.: 7754.19332

I represent the Friends of the Mahicantuck and the Schaghticoke First Nations. I am respectfully requesting that this letter be added to the meeting minutes and be considered in opposition to the Ordinance Authorizing Amendment of the City of Troy Zoning Map Established by the Troy Code Section 285-49 (A) to Rezone Tax Map Parcel Number 70.64-1-1 on 2nd Avenue in North Troy (the “proposed rezoning”) that is being heard before the Committee on August 27, 2020. For the reasons discussed below, it is respectfully submitted that the proposed rezoning would constitute unlawful spot zoning. Particularly, the proposed rezoning and the development project being proposed for parcel number 70.64-1-1 (the “property”) is highly inconsistent with and would actually violate several key provisions of the Realize Troy Comprehensive Plan (May 2018) (the “Comprehensive Plan” or the “Plan”).

I. SPOT ZONING UNDER NEW YORK LAW.

Under New York law, the “classic” definition of spot zoning was provided by the N.Y. Court of Appeals in its 1951 decision in Rodgers v. Village of Tarrytown, 302 N.Y. 115, 96 N.E.2d 731 (1951). In that case, the Court of Appeals defined spot zoning as follows:

[T]he process of singling out a small parcel of land for a useclassification totally different from that of the surrounding area, forthe benefit of the owner of such property and to the detriment ofother owners . . . “spot zoning” is the very antithesis of plannedzoning.

RUPP BAASE PFALZGRAF CUNNINGHAM LLC

Troy City Council Planning Committee August 27, 2020 Page 2

Id. at 123-24. This definition since has been followed and repeated by several courts that have analyzed whether proposed rezoning constitutes impermissible spot zoning. E.g., Matter of Yellow Lantern Kampground v. Cortlandville, 279 A.D.2d 6, 9, 716 N.Y.S.2d 786, 789 (3d Dept. 2000).

Since the Rodgers decision, New York courts have applied the definition of spot zoning through an analysis of several factors. Specifically, the following factors are applied to determine whether impermissible spot zoning has occurred: (1) whether the proposed use is compatible with surrounding uses; (2) whether the rezoning is consistent with a comprehensive land use plan; (3) any likelihood of harm to surrounding properties; (4) recommendations of professional planning staff; and (5) availability and suitability of other parcels. E.g., Matter of Yellow Lantern Kampground, 279 A.D.2d at 9-10 (quoting Matter of Save Our Forest Coalition v. City of Kingston, 246 A.D.2d 217, 221, 675 N.Y.S.2d 451 (3d Dept. 1998). It is important toremember, however, that “[n]o single factor is dispositive,” and “the ultimate test is ‘whether thechange is other than part of a well-considered and comprehensive plan calculated to serve thegeneral welfare of the community.’”1 Matter of Yellow Lantern Kampground, 279 A.D.2d at 9-10 (quoting Matter of Save Our Forest Coalition, 246 A.D.2d at 221).

II. APPLICATION OF THE SPOT ZONING FACTORS TO THE PROPOSEDREZONING AND THE PROPOSED USE OF THE PROPERTY.

When applying the factors that have been articulated by New York courts to determine whether spot zoning has occurred, each factor supports that the proposed rezoning constitutes spot zoning. Subpoint A below addresses the first factor, Subpoint B below addresses the second through fourth factors, and Subpoint C below addresses the fifth factor.

A. Whether the Proposed Rezoning is Compatible With Surrounding Uses.

Here, the clear majority of the surrounding properties are used as single-familyresidences — i.e., an “R1” zoning designation — while the proposed rezoning would permit for the property to be used for an “apartment complex with six (6) 3-story buildings sitting atop covered parking spaces — resulting in a Planned Development or “P” zoning classification for the property (Official Zoning Map, City of Troy (Dec. 19, 2016) (“Zoning Map”); Resolution Referring Lansingburgh Zoning Change Request to Planning Commission for Review and Recommendation (undated) (“Proposed Resolution”); see also Project Narrative for Second Avenue at 1 (Aug. 19, 2020) (“Project Narrative”) (“six multi-family buildings, associated parking, stormwater management, site amenities and utilities”).

1 Indeed, by statute in New York, “[a]ll city land use regulations must be in accordance with a comprehensive plan adopted pursuant to this section.” N.Y. Gen. City Law § 28-a(12) (McKinney’s 2020).

RUPP BAASE PFALZGRAF CUNNINGHAM LLC

Troy City Council Planning Committee August 27, 2020 Page 3

While the existing use of surrounding properties and the proposed use of the property are both residential, several material differences exist between these two distinct types of residential uses. Undoubtedly, single-family residences — even a neighborhood of them — are categorically different than several large multi-family structures containing hundreds of units.2 First, the population density in the given geographical areas is substantially greater for large multi-family, residential structures, such as what is being proposed. Second, the structures themselves change the character of the area, as they are different in almost all respects from single-family houses. Third, the utility and other ancillary services that are necessary for such an increased density inherently differ from those associated with a single-family neighborhood. Therefore, even though both uses are residential, it would be illogical, arbitrary, and superficial to conclude that both are compatible on this ground because it would overlook the actual differences between the two uses.

Lastly, again, it should be noted that the proposed rezoning would classify the property as a planned development area — i.e., an “P” zoning designation (Proposed Resolution). However, in the context of the geographical boundaries of the City, no other planned development area is in close proximity to the property, which also means that the proposed rezoning is inconsistent with uses on surrounding areas (see Zoning Map). The closest area classified as planned development is separated from the property by several city blocks and several differently zoned areas. Accordingly, the proposed rezoning would not be compatible with uses of surrounding properties, especially considering the majority of those properties are used as single-family residences and the proposed use for the property would entail several large, densely packed apartment buildings. Thus, the first factor in the spot zoning analysis supports that the proposed rezoning is spot zoning.

B. Whether the Rezoning is Consistent With a Comprehensive Land Use Plan,Likelihood of Harm to Surrounding Properties, and Recommendations ofProfessional Planning Staff.

Turning to the second through fourth factors of the spot zoning analysis, thesefactors will be discussed collectively in this section because they are each related when assessing the proposed rezoning here. To explain, the Comprehensive Plan obviously controls the second factor — i.e., whether the rezoning is consistent with a comprehensive land use plan. However, it also controls the third and fourth factors, as the Plan presumably was put in place to avoid

2 In fact, courts have held that increasing the density of residents in an area can be a basis for a finding that rezoning constituted spot zoning, even if the surrounding area also is residential. See Matter of Cannon v. Murphy, 196 A.D.2d 498, 498, 600 N.Y.S.2d 965, 966 (2d Dept. 1993) (rezoning that allowed one residence per every 0.26 acres constituted spot zoning when the surrounding area allowed one residence per every 2 acres).

RUPP BAASE PFALZGRAF CUNNINGHAM LLC

Troy City Council Planning Committee August 27, 2020 Page 4

harm to surrounding properties3 and was based on the recommendations of professional planning staff. Accordingly, here, consistency with the Comprehensive Plan can be used to analyze the proposed rezoning in the context of the second through fourth factors. For several reasons, the proposed rezoning is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.

1. The Proposed Rezoning is Inconsistent With Goal 1 and Goal 6.

Goal 1 and Goal 6 of the Comprehensive Plan make clear that high density, multi-family residential use should not occur on the property. Specifically, the property is located in a “Low-Rise Residential Area” that should only entail “low-density” residential uses (Comprehensive Plan at 62, 64). High to mid-density residential use should occur closer to the City Center, even if not within its boundaries (see id. at 61-62, 64). Indeed, the Plan explicitly provides:

The City of Troy is largely built out. Opportunities for change, development, growth and community revitalization will need to occur within developed areas, through intensification or infill development. Infill can support improvements to public transit as well as walking and cycling infrastructure. It can also revitalize neighborhoods and areas of the city that contain brownfield and greyfield sites. Infill development makes use of existing structures and infrastructure and is therefore considered a more sustainable city-building approach compared to continued outward expansion which has occurred in the counties of the Capital District.

(id. at 61). Furthermore, Goal 1 clearly provides that residential use should be directed toward the City Center, which is specifically identified as a “key area for residential growth” (id. at 29 (emphasis added)). Certainly, doing so would mitigate the “high vacancy rates [that] are also contributing to neighborhood destabilization,” which is an important objective emphasized throughout the Plan (id. at 11).

Therefore, the proposed rezoning would further contribute to the “built out” residential model that the Plan emphatically seeks to avoid, as the property, in fact, is located on the very peripheral of the City’s boundaries (see Zoning Map). In other words, the proposed rezoning would be the antithesis of the “compact growth” that is prioritized in the Plan, including directing residential development away from “key” areas. Thus, the proposed rezoning is inconsistent with these two goals of the Comprehensive Plan.

3 N.Y. Gen. City Law § 28-a(12) (McKinney’s 2020) (“[a]mong the most important powers and duties granted by the legislature to a city government is the authority and responsibility to undertake city comprehensive planning and to regulate land use for the purpose of protecting the public health, safety and general welfare of its citizens”).

RUPP BAASE PFALZGRAF CUNNINGHAM LLC

Troy City Council Planning Committee August 27, 2020 Page 5

2. The Proposed Rezoning is Inconsistent With Goal 4 and Goal 5.

The proposed rezoning is inconsistent with Goal 4 and Goal 5 of the Comprehensive Plan in the following three crucial ways: (1) it decreases access to important open spaces and nature-based recreational resources, including the Hudson River and its shoreline; (2) it is detrimental to the environmental and ecological health of the area; and (3) it would not only threaten, but would completely eviscerate an irreplaceable historical andcultural site.

First, increased access to open space and nature-based recreation is a critical goal and theme weaved throughout the Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, it is highlighted by, inter alia, the following provisions:

Ø Troy’s 7.5 miles of waterfront along the Hudson River also represents a significant openspace and recreational asset. However, much of the waterfront is currently inaccessibleto the public. (Comprehensive Plan at 15) (emphasis added).

Ø With very few exceptions, notably at Riverfront Park, Troy’s waterfront is not visible,and the city turns its back to the river. North of the downtown, much of the waterfront isoccupied by private residential uses and there are few opportunities to experience thewaterfront. (Id. at 18) (emphasis added).

Ø Transforming the river’s edge into a series of unique waterfront places each with adistinct role to play in the future of Troy’s economy is a tremendous opportunity tobolster the city as a whole. (Id. at 18) (emphasis added).

Ø A city’s open space network and the variety of its recreational and cultural offeringscontribute significantly to a community’s quality of life, overall health and competitiveadvantage within the region. (Id. at 51) (emphasis added).

Ø Public streets that end at the water’s edge will be transformed into waterfront lobbies forimproved enjoyment and access to the waterfront. (Id. at 52).

Accordingly, increasing and protecting — rather than forfeiting — open spaces and nature-based recreational spaces is a clear and resounding priority and goal under the Plan, including, in particular, increasing access to the Hudson River. Indeed, one explicit goal is to “[r]econnect Lansingburgh visually and physically to the Hudson River shoreline” (id. at 36) (emphasis added). The proposed rezoning, however, would completely contravene these clear goals and priorities under the Plan by leading to more “waterfront [being] occupied by private residential uses” and thereby further limiting “opportunities to experience the waterfront.” Even more importantly, aside from being inconsistent with the Plan, the proposed rezoning would be a deliberate step towards decreasing the “quality of life” and “overall health” of the community.

RUPP BAASE PFALZGRAF CUNNINGHAM LLC

Troy City Council Planning Committee August 27, 2020 Page 6

Second, with respect to environmental and ecological integrity, the Plan yet again includes unambiguous language that prioritizes this as a goal. Indeed, Goal 4 is titled “Preserve and Showcase the City’s Parks, Open Spaces and Cultural Assets” (Comprehensive Plan at 51). Additionally, the Plan includes, inter alia, the following passages:

Ø The majority of the Hudson River shoreline south of the Collar City Bridge has beenchannelized, which has interrupted or removed natural ecosystems. Due to this activity,sediment from the Hudson River is no longer deposited on the banks, and limited habitatis available for fish and wildlife species. (Comprehensive Plan at 16) (emphasis added).

Ø Existing ecological resources including wetlands and shoreline habitat shall be protected,preserved and enhanced. (Id. at 58) (emphasis added).

Ø For new development with frontage on the waterfront that is 500 square feet or greater,the City of Troy will require the submission of a construction management plan thatdemonstrates that the development will not compromise the Hudson riverbank. (Id.)(emphasis added).

Therefore, in no uncertain terms, the Plan makes clear that protecting, preserving, and enhancing “[e]xisting ecological resources including wetlands and shoreline habitat” is a requirement — they “shall be protected, preserved and enhanced.” In fact, the property here is located in a “New Proposed Coastal Boundary” (id. at 60) (emphasis added). Again, however, the proposed rezoning would literally destroy what is likely the last remaining forested tract along the Hudson River. As a result, the proposed rezoning not only would contravene the Plan, but it would be a blatant, undisputable violation of it.4

Lastly, but certainly equally as important, the Plan also prioritizes and emphasizes protecting cultural assets, which, again, is reflected in the very title of Goal 4 (Comprehensive Plan at 51). Moreover, the Plan unambiguously provides that “the City must invest in its . . . heritage assets” (id. at 9) (emphasis added). Rightfully so, the Plan highlights Native American heritage as the very genesis of the City itself; specifically, on page 5, the Plan provides the following:

The City of Troy’s first occupants were Native Americans who were drawn to the islands situated at the confluence of the Mohawk and Hudson Rivers due to the fertile farmlands and safe, defensive position this location offered at the intersection of these two waterways.

4 At the very least, a review in compliance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) is necessary for the proposed rezoning. To the extent that one has not been performed, the proposed rezoning should be rejected in its entirety. See Matter of Cannon v. Murphy, 196 A.D.2d 498, 501, 600 N.Y.S.2d 965, 968 (2d Dept. 1993).

RUPP BAASE PFALZGRAF CUNNINGHAM LLC

Troy City Council Planning Committee August 27, 2020 Page 7

In this respect, one concrete objective under the Plan is to secure a UNESCO World Heritage Site Designation for the “historic downtown and its broader environment,” which is noted “would elevate Troy nationally as a world class heritage destination with the power to significantly strengthen the city’s tourism-related economies” (id. at 51) (emphasis added). Here, the cultural and historical significance of the property is detailed at length in the record by those who have direct, in-depth, first-hand knowledge. Given the testimony and record materials from these rightfully concerned citizens, the proposed rezoning would eviscerate one of the most — if not the most — culturally and historically significant sites in the City. Thus, the proposed rezoning would constitute a clear contravention of the Plan in this respect as well. In sum, the proposed zoning would be in direct contravention of Goal 4 and Goal 5 of the Comprehensive Plan in three critical ways — to wit, foregoing open space and nature-based recreational opportunities, compromising the environmental and ecological integrity of the City’s natural resources, and failing to preserve cultural heritage assets. Thus, the proposed rezoning also is inconsistent with these two goals of the Comprehensive Plan.

3. Conclusion.

In sum, the proposed rezoning is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which courts have referred to as the “ultimate test” when assessing whether a proposed rezoning is spot zoning. In fact, not only is it inconsistent, but the proposed rezoning actually violates the Plan in several respects. Moreover, since the Plan is intended to serve the general welfare of the community, the proposed rezoning also creates a likelihood of harm to surrounding properties because it is inconsistent with the Plan. Likewise, since the Plan most certainly was drafted by planning professionals, the proposed rezoning also goes against the recommendations of those professionals in the Plan. Therefore, the second through fourth factors in the spot zoning analysis support that the proposed rezoning is spot zoning.

C. Availability and Suitability of Other Parcels.

Several other parcels are designated for planned development, and there is no legitimate reason why they are not equally available and suitable for the high-density, multi-family uses being proposed (see Zoning Map). In fact, those parcels appear to be more suitable according to the Comprehensive Plan because they are “located along corridors” and/or “are close to a high concentration of services, transit and amenities,” thereby rendering them “Mid-Rise” or “High-Rise” residential areas (Comprehensive Plan at 62, 64; Zoning Map). It appears that the only person to whom the property would be more suitable is the option-holder5 who is requesting the proposed rezoning, which obviously is not a legitimate consideration when

5 It is important to note that as an option holder, the party requesting the proposed rezoning would not lose value or use of property actually owned by him.

RUPP BAASE PFALZGRAF CUNNINGHAM LLC

Troy City Council Planning Committee August 27, 2020 Page 8

determining whether to rezone the property and indeed is highly indicative of spot zoning.6 Accordingly, the fifth factor in the spot zoning analysis supports that the proposed rezoning is spot zoning.

III. CONCLUSION.

In closing, based on the relevant analysis under New York law, it is respectfully submitted that the proposed rezoning would constitute spot zoning. Most importantly, this conclusion is undisputable given the several instances of how the proposed rezoning would directly contravene and even violate the Comprehensive Plan. Accordingly, it is respectfully requested that the proposed rezoning be rejected in its entirety. Thank you for your courtesy and your consideration of this submission.

Sincerely,

Phillip A. Oswald

cc: Mr. Steven Strichman {via electronic mail – steven.strichman@troyny.gov} Commissioner of Planning & Economic Development City of Troy, Planning Department

Ms. Carmella Mantello {via electronic mail – carmella.mantello@troyny.gov} President Troy City Council

6 See, e.g., Boyles v. Town Board of Town of Bethlehem, 278 A.D.2d 688, 690, 718 N.Y.S.2d 430, 432 (3d Dept. 2000).

ADDENDUM A

25 Walton Street, Saratoga Springs, New York 12866

P 518.886.1902 www.ruppbaase.com

Buffalo |Rochester |Williamsville |Ellicottville | Jamestown

ruppbaase.com

PHILLIP A. OSWALD

OSWALD@RUPPBAASE.COM

August 27, 2020 Via Electronic Mail Troy City Council Planning Committee 433 River Street Troy, NY 12180 mara.drogan@troyny.gov aaron.vera@troyny.gov Dear Hon. Sirs/Madams, Re: August 27, 2020 Hearing Ordinance Authorizing Amendment – Parcel No. 70.64-1-1 Our File No.: 7754.19332 I represent the Friends of the Mahicantuck and the Schaghticoke First Nations. I am respectfully requesting that this letter be added to the meeting minutes and be considered in opposition to the Ordinance Authorizing Amendment of the City of Troy Zoning Map Established by the Troy Code Section 285-49 (A) to Rezone Tax Map Parcel Number 70.64-1-1 on 2nd Avenue in North Troy (the “proposed rezoning”) that is being heard before the Committee on August 27, 2020. For the reasons discussed below, it is respectfully submitted that the proposed rezoning would constitute unlawful spot zoning. Particularly, the proposed rezoning and the development project being proposed for parcel number 70.64-1-1 (the “property”) is highly inconsistent with and would actually violate several key provisions of the Realize Troy Comprehensive Plan (May 2018) (the “Comprehensive Plan” or the “Plan”).

I. SPOT ZONING UNDER NEW YORK LAW.

Under New York law, the “classic” definition of spot zoning was provided by the N.Y. Court of Appeals in its 1951 decision in Rodgers v. Village of Tarrytown, 302 N.Y. 115, 96 N.E.2d 731 (1951). In that case, the Court of Appeals defined spot zoning as follows:

[T]he process of singling out a small parcel of land for a use classification totally different from that of the surrounding area, for the benefit of the owner of such property and to the detriment of other owners . . . “spot zoning” is the very antithesis of planned zoning.

RUPP BAASE PFALZGRAF CUNNINGHAM LLC

Troy City Council Planning Committee August 27, 2020 Page 2

Id. at 123-24. This definition since has been followed and repeated by several courts that have analyzed whether proposed rezoning constitutes impermissible spot zoning. E.g., Matter of Yellow Lantern Kampground v. Cortlandville, 279 A.D.2d 6, 9, 716 N.Y.S.2d 786, 789 (3d Dept. 2000). Since the Rodgers decision, New York courts have applied the definition of spot zoning through an analysis of several factors. Specifically, the following factors are applied to determine whether impermissible spot zoning has occurred: (1) whether the proposed use is compatible with surrounding uses; (2) whether the rezoning is consistent with a comprehensive land use plan; (3) any likelihood of harm to surrounding properties; (4) recommendations of professional planning staff; and (5) availability and suitability of other parcels. E.g., Matter of Yellow Lantern Kampground, 279 A.D.2d at 9-10 (quoting Matter of Save Our Forest Coalition v. City of Kingston, 246 A.D.2d 217, 221, 675 N.Y.S.2d 451 (3d Dept. 1998). It is important to remember, however, that “[n]o single factor is dispositive,” and “the ultimate test is ‘whether the change is other than part of a well-considered and comprehensive plan calculated to serve the general welfare of the community.’”1 Matter of Yellow Lantern Kampground, 279 A.D.2d at 9-10 (quoting Matter of Save Our Forest Coalition, 246 A.D.2d at 221).

II. APPLICATION OF THE SPOT ZONING FACTORS TO THE PROPOSED REZONING AND THE PROPOSED USE OF THE PROPERTY.

When applying the factors that have been articulated by New York courts to determine whether spot zoning has occurred, each factor supports that the proposed rezoning constitutes spot zoning. Subpoint A below addresses the first factor, Subpoint B below addresses the second through fourth factors, and Subpoint C below addresses the fifth factor.

A. Whether the Proposed Rezoning is Compatible With Surrounding Uses.

Here, the clear majority of the surrounding properties are used as single-family residences — i.e., an “R1” zoning designation — while the proposed rezoning would permit for the property to be used for an “apartment complex with six (6) 3-story buildings sitting atop covered parking spaces — resulting in a Planned Development or “P” zoning classification for the property (Official Zoning Map, City of Troy (Dec. 19, 2016) (“Zoning Map”); Resolution Referring Lansingburgh Zoning Change Request to Planning Commission for Review and Recommendation (undated) (“Proposed Resolution”); see also Project Narrative for Second Avenue at 1 (Aug. 19, 2020) (“Project Narrative”) (“six multi-family buildings, associated parking, stormwater management, site amenities and utilities”). 1 Indeed, by statute in New York, “[a]ll city land use regulations must be in accordance with a comprehensive plan adopted pursuant to this section.” N.Y. Gen. City Law § 28-a(12) (McKinney’s 2020).

RUPP BAASE PFALZGRAF CUNNINGHAM LLC

Troy City Council Planning Committee August 27, 2020 Page 3

While the existing use of surrounding properties and the proposed use of the property are both residential, several material differences exist between these two distinct types of residential uses. Undoubtedly, single-family residences — even a neighborhood of them — are categorically different than several large multi-family structures containing hundreds of units.2 First, the population density in the given geographical areas is substantially greater for large multi-family, residential structures, such as what is being proposed. Second, the structures themselves change the character of the area, as they are different in almost all respects from single-family houses. Third, the utility and other ancillary services that are necessary for such an increased density inherently differ from those associated with a single-family neighborhood. Therefore, even though both uses are residential, it would be illogical, arbitrary, and superficial to conclude that both are compatible on this ground because it would overlook the actual differences between the two uses. Lastly, again, it should be noted that the proposed rezoning would classify the property as a planned development area — i.e., an “P” zoning designation (Proposed Resolution). However, in the context of the geographical boundaries of the City, no other planned development area is in close proximity to the property, which also means that the proposed rezoning is inconsistent with uses on surrounding areas (see Zoning Map). The closest area classified as planned development is separated from the property by several city blocks and several differently zoned areas. Accordingly, the proposed rezoning would not be compatible with uses of surrounding properties, especially considering the majority of those properties are used as single-family residences and the proposed use for the property would entail several large, densely packed apartment buildings. Thus, the first factor in the spot zoning analysis supports that the proposed rezoning is spot zoning.

B. Whether the Rezoning is Consistent With a Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Likelihood of Harm to Surrounding Properties, and Recommendations of Professional Planning Staff.

Turning to the second through fourth factors of the spot zoning analysis, these factors will be discussed collectively in this section because they are each related when assessing the proposed rezoning here. To explain, the Comprehensive Plan obviously controls the second factor — i.e., whether the rezoning is consistent with a comprehensive land use plan. However, it also controls the third and fourth factors, as the Plan presumably was put in place to avoid

2 In fact, courts have held that increasing the density of residents in an area can be a basis for a finding that rezoning constituted spot zoning, even if the surrounding area also is residential. See Matter of Cannon v. Murphy, 196 A.D.2d 498, 498, 600 N.Y.S.2d 965, 966 (2d Dept. 1993) (rezoning that allowed one residence per every 0.26 acres constituted spot zoning when the surrounding area allowed one residence per every 2 acres).

RUPP BAASE PFALZGRAF CUNNINGHAM LLC

Troy City Council Planning Committee August 27, 2020 Page 4

harm to surrounding properties3 and was based on the recommendations of professional planning staff. Accordingly, here, consistency with the Comprehensive Plan can be used to analyze the proposed rezoning in the context of the second through fourth factors. For several reasons, the proposed rezoning is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.

1. The Proposed Rezoning is Inconsistent With Goal 1 and Goal 6.

Goal 1 and Goal 6 of the Comprehensive Plan make clear that high density, multi-family residential use should not occur on the property. Specifically, the property is located in a “Low-Rise Residential Area” that should only entail “low-density” residential uses (Comprehensive Plan at 62, 64). High to mid-density residential use should occur closer to the City Center, even if not within its boundaries (see id. at 61-62, 64). Indeed, the Plan explicitly provides:

The City of Troy is largely built out. Opportunities for change, development, growth and community revitalization will need to occur within developed areas, through intensification or infill development. Infill can support improvements to public transit as well as walking and cycling infrastructure. It can also revitalize neighborhoods and areas of the city that contain brownfield and greyfield sites. Infill development makes use of existing structures and infrastructure and is therefore considered a more sustainable city-building approach compared to continued outward expansion which has occurred in the counties of the Capital District.

(id. at 61). Furthermore, Goal 1 clearly provides that residential use should be directed toward the City Center, which is specifically identified as a “key area for residential growth” (id. at 29 (emphasis added)). Certainly, doing so would mitigate the “high vacancy rates [that] are also contributing to neighborhood destabilization,” which is an important objective emphasized throughout the Plan (id. at 11). Therefore, the proposed rezoning would further contribute to the “built out” residential model that the Plan emphatically seeks to avoid, as the property, in fact, is located on the very peripheral of the City’s boundaries (see Zoning Map). In other words, the proposed rezoning would be the antithesis of the “compact growth” that is prioritized in the Plan, including directing residential development away from “key” areas. Thus, the proposed rezoning is inconsistent with these two goals of the Comprehensive Plan.

3 N.Y. Gen. City Law § 28-a(12) (McKinney’s 2020) (“[a]mong the most important powers and duties granted by the legislature to a city government is the authority and responsibility to undertake city comprehensive planning and to regulate land use for the purpose of protecting the public health, safety and general welfare of its citizens”).

RUPP BAASE PFALZGRAF CUNNINGHAM LLC

Troy City Council Planning Committee August 27, 2020 Page 5

2. The Proposed Rezoning is Inconsistent With Goal 4 and Goal 5.

The proposed rezoning is inconsistent with Goal 4 and Goal 5 of the Comprehensive Plan in the following three crucial ways: (1) it decreases access to important open spaces and nature-based recreational resources, including the Hudson River and its shoreline; (2) it is detrimental to the environmental and ecological health of the area; and (3) it would not only threaten, but would completely eviscerate an irreplaceable historical and cultural site. First, increased access to open space and nature-based recreation is a critical goal and theme weaved throughout the Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, it is highlighted by, inter alia, the following provisions:

Ø Troy’s 7.5 miles of waterfront along the Hudson River also represents a significant open space and recreational asset. However, much of the waterfront is currently inaccessible to the public. (Comprehensive Plan at 15) (emphasis added).

Ø With very few exceptions, notably at Riverfront Park, Troy’s waterfront is not visible, and the city turns its back to the river. North of the downtown, much of the waterfront is occupied by private residential uses and there are few opportunities to experience the waterfront. (Id. at 18) (emphasis added).

Ø Transforming the river’s edge into a series of unique waterfront places each with a distinct role to play in the future of Troy’s economy is a tremendous opportunity to bolster the city as a whole. (Id. at 18) (emphasis added).

Ø A city’s open space network and the variety of its recreational and cultural offerings contribute significantly to a community’s quality of life, overall health and competitive advantage within the region. (Id. at 51) (emphasis added).

Ø Public streets that end at the water’s edge will be transformed into waterfront lobbies for improved enjoyment and access to the waterfront. (Id. at 52).

Accordingly, increasing and protecting — rather than forfeiting — open spaces and nature-based recreational spaces is a clear and resounding priority and goal under the Plan, including, in particular, increasing access to the Hudson River. Indeed, one explicit goal is to “[r]econnect Lansingburgh visually and physically to the Hudson River shoreline” (id. at 36) (emphasis added). The proposed rezoning, however, would completely contravene these clear goals and priorities under the Plan by leading to more “waterfront [being] occupied by private residential uses” and thereby further limiting “opportunities to experience the waterfront.” Even more importantly, aside from being inconsistent with the Plan, the proposed rezoning would be a deliberate step towards decreasing the “quality of life” and “overall health” of the community.

RUPP BAASE PFALZGRAF CUNNINGHAM LLC

Troy City Council Planning Committee August 27, 2020 Page 6

Second, with respect to environmental and ecological integrity, the Plan yet again includes unambiguous language that prioritizes this as a goal. Indeed, Goal 4 is titled “Preserve and Showcase the City’s Parks, Open Spaces and Cultural Assets” (Comprehensive Plan at 51). Additionally, the Plan includes, inter alia, the following passages:

Ø The majority of the Hudson River shoreline south of the Collar City Bridge has been channelized, which has interrupted or removed natural ecosystems. Due to this activity, sediment from the Hudson River is no longer deposited on the banks, and limited habitat is available for fish and wildlife species. (Comprehensive Plan at 16) (emphasis added).

Ø Existing ecological resources including wetlands and shoreline habitat shall be protected, preserved and enhanced. (Id. at 58) (emphasis added).

Ø For new development with frontage on the waterfront that is 500 square feet or greater, the City of Troy will require the submission of a construction management plan that demonstrates that the development will not compromise the Hudson riverbank. (Id.) (emphasis added).

Therefore, in no uncertain terms, the Plan makes clear that protecting, preserving, and enhancing “[e]xisting ecological resources including wetlands and shoreline habitat” is a requirement — they “shall be protected, preserved and enhanced.” In fact, the property here is located in a “New Proposed Coastal Boundary” (id. at 60) (emphasis added). Again, however, the proposed rezoning would literally destroy what is likely the last remaining forested tract along the Hudson River. As a result, the proposed rezoning not only would contravene the Plan, but it would be a blatant, undisputable violation of it.4 Lastly, but certainly equally as important, the Plan also prioritizes and emphasizes protecting cultural assets, which, again, is reflected in the very title of Goal 4 (Comprehensive Plan at 51). Moreover, the Plan unambiguously provides that “the City must invest in its . . . heritage assets” (id. at 9) (emphasis added). Rightfully so, the Plan highlights Native American heritage as the very genesis of the City itself; specifically, on page 5, the Plan provides the following:

The City of Troy’s first occupants were Native Americans who were drawn to the islands situated at the confluence of the Mohawk and Hudson Rivers due to the fertile farmlands and safe, defensive position this location offered at the intersection of these two waterways.

4 At the very least, a review in compliance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) is necessary for the proposed rezoning. To the extent that one has not been performed, the proposed rezoning should be rejected in its entirety. See Matter of Cannon v. Murphy, 196 A.D.2d 498, 501, 600 N.Y.S.2d 965, 968 (2d Dept. 1993).

RUPP BAASE PFALZGRAF CUNNINGHAM LLC

Troy City Council Planning Committee August 27, 2020 Page 7

In this respect, one concrete objective under the Plan is to secure a UNESCO World Heritage Site Designation for the “historic downtown and its broader environment,” which is noted “would elevate Troy nationally as a world class heritage destination with the power to significantly strengthen the city’s tourism-related economies” (id. at 51) (emphasis added). Here, the cultural and historical significance of the property is detailed at length in the record by those who have direct, in-depth, first-hand knowledge. Given the testimony and record materials from these rightfully concerned citizens, the proposed rezoning would eviscerate one of the most — if not the most — culturally and historically significant sites in the City. Thus, the proposed rezoning would constitute a clear contravention of the Plan in this respect as well. In sum, the proposed zoning would be in direct contravention of Goal 4 and Goal 5 of the Comprehensive Plan in three critical ways — to wit, foregoing open space and nature-based recreational opportunities, compromising the environmental and ecological integrity of the City’s natural resources, and failing to preserve cultural heritage assets. Thus, the proposed rezoning also is inconsistent with these two goals of the Comprehensive Plan.

3. Conclusion.

In sum, the proposed rezoning is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which courts have referred to as the “ultimate test” when assessing whether a proposed rezoning is spot zoning. In fact, not only is it inconsistent, but the proposed rezoning actually violates the Plan in several respects. Moreover, since the Plan is intended to serve the general welfare of the community, the proposed rezoning also creates a likelihood of harm to surrounding properties because it is inconsistent with the Plan. Likewise, since the Plan most certainly was drafted by planning professionals, the proposed rezoning also goes against the recommendations of those professionals in the Plan. Therefore, the second through fourth factors in the spot zoning analysis support that the proposed rezoning is spot zoning.

C. Availability and Suitability of Other Parcels.

Several other parcels are designated for planned development, and there is no legitimate reason why they are not equally available and suitable for the high-density, multi-family uses being proposed (see Zoning Map). In fact, those parcels appear to be more suitable according to the Comprehensive Plan because they are “located along corridors” and/or “are close to a high concentration of services, transit and amenities,” thereby rendering them “Mid-Rise” or “High-Rise” residential areas (Comprehensive Plan at 62, 64; Zoning Map). It appears that the only person to whom the property would be more suitable is the option-holder5 who is requesting the proposed rezoning, which obviously is not a legitimate consideration when

5 It is important to note that as an option holder, the party requesting the proposed rezoning would not lose value or use of property actually owned by him.

RUPP BAASE PFALZGRAF CUNNINGHAM LLC

Troy City Council Planning Committee August 27, 2020 Page 8

determining whether to rezone the property and indeed is highly indicative of spot zoning.6 Accordingly, the fifth factor in the spot zoning analysis supports that the proposed rezoning is spot zoning.

III. CONCLUSION.

In closing, based on the relevant analysis under New York law, it is respectfully submitted that the proposed rezoning would constitute spot zoning. Most importantly, this conclusion is undisputable given the several instances of how the proposed rezoning would directly contravene and even violate the Comprehensive Plan. Accordingly, it is respectfully requested that the proposed rezoning be rejected in its entirety. Thank you for your courtesy and your consideration of this submission. Sincerely,

Phillip A. Oswald cc: Mr. Steven Strichman {via electronic mail – steven.strichman@troyny.gov} Commissioner of Planning & Economic Development City of Troy, Planning Department Ms. Carmella Mantello {via electronic mail – carmella.mantello@troyny.gov} President Troy City Council

6 See, e.g., Boyles v. Town Board of Town of Bethlehem, 278 A.D.2d 688, 690, 718 N.Y.S.2d 430, 432 (3d Dept. 2000).

Note: Subject parcel is designated in area for Low-Rise Residential

Attachment A

Realize Troy, Map 14, Land Use

Attachment B-1

Realize Troy, Map 14, Land Use

Note: Subject parcel is NOT in Major Reinvestment Area and designated as for Low-Rise Residential

Note: Adjacent Hannafords site in MajprReinvestment Area and proposed for redevelopment with building fronting 126th Street, parking behind, and 1-4 story residential; buildings with ground floor retail

Attachment B-2

Realize Troy, Major Reinvestment Areas

Note: Subject parcel is NOT in Major Reinvestment Area and designated as for Low-Rise Residential

Note: Adjacent Hannafords site in MajprReinvestment Area and proposed for redevelopment with building fronting 126th Street, parking behind, and 1-4 story residential; buildings with ground floor retail

25 Walton Street, Saratoga Springs, New York 12866

P 518.886.1902 www.ruppbaase.com

Buffalo |Rochester |Williamsville |Ellicottville | Jamestown

ruppbaase.com

PHILLIP A. OSWALD

OSWALD@RUPPBAASE.COM

September 9, 2020 Via Electronic Mail Troy City Council 433 River Street Troy, NY 12180 mara.drogan@troyny.gov citycouncil@troyny.gov Dear Hon. Sirs/Madams, Re: September 10, 2020 Hearing Ordinance Authorizing Amendment – Parcel No. 70.64-1-1 Spot Zoning Our File No.: 7754.19332 I represent the Friends of the Mahicantuck and the Schaghticoke First Nations. I am writing to respectfully request that this letter — as well as a prior letter that my office submitted on behalf of my clients to the Planning Committee — be added to the meeting minutes and be considered in consideration for the Resolution Referring Lansingburgh Zoning Change Request To Planning Commission for Review and Recommendation that is being heard before the Council on September 10, 2020. The prior letter referenced above is attached hereto as Addendum A. Ultimately, this letter and Addendum A are being submitted in opposition to the Ordinance Authorizing Amendment of the City of Troy Zoning Map Established by the Troy Code Section 285-49 (A) to Rezone Tax Map Parcel Number 70.64-1-1 on 2nd Avenue in North Troy (the “proposed rezoning”). This letter is being submitted in addition to and to supplement Addendum A. In particular, this letter addresses comments from the City’s Commissioner of Planning & Economic Development, Mr. Strichman, at the Planning Commission‘s hearing on August 27, 2020. As discussed in Addendum A, the rule prohibiting spot zoning is well established under New York common law. E.g., Matter of Yellow Lantern Kampground v. Cortlandville, 279 A.D.2d 6, 9, 716 N.Y.S.2d 786, 789 (3d Dept. 2000). With respect to section 81-f of the N.Y. General City Law, that statute neither specifically addresses spot zoning nor does it authorize the designation of an area as a planned development area in a manner that violates the rule against spot zoning. N.Y. Gen. City Law § 81-f (McKinney’s 2020). Instead, that statute

RUPP BAASE PFALZGRAF CUNNINGHAM LLC

Troy City Council September 9, 2020 Page 2

authorizes such a designation only if it is consistent with a city’s comprehensive plan, which actually is consistent with the rule prohibiting spot zoning. Id.1 Furthermore, statutes — such as section 81-f — will only be applied to supersede or abrogate common-law rules — such as the rule prohibiting spot zoning — when the statutory language is specific that the legislature intends to abrogate the common-law rule. Hechter v. New York Life Ins. Co., 46 N.Y.2d 34, 39, 412 N.Y.S.2d 812, 815 (1978) (“it is a general rule of statutory construction that a clear and specific legislative intent is required to override the common law”); People v. King, 61 N.Y.2d 550, 555, 475 N.Y.S.2d 260, 262 (1984) (“if the terms of a statute are subject to two interpretations, that which most comports with the common law should be adopted”). In other words, if section 81-f is to be interpreted to overrule the rule against spot zoning with respect to planned development designations, the statutory language needs to specifically and unambiguously state so. See id. However, section 81-f includes no such language, but, instead, actually further reinforces and applies the rule against spot zoning to planned development designations by requiring that any such designation be consistent with the comprehensive plan. N.Y. Gen. City Law § 81-f.2 Therefore, since section 81-f does not specifically address spot zoning and does not provide any indication that it was intended to abrogate or in any way effect the long-standing common law prohibition against spot zoning, that statute does not protect the proposed ordinance from being invalidated on the basis of spot zoning. Moreover, even assuming, arguendo, that section 81-f did somehow abrogate the common-law rule against spot zoning, that statue still requires that any designation of an area as a planned development area be consistent with the Realize Troy Comprehensive Plan (May 2018) (the “Comprehensive Plan” or the “Plan”). Indeed, for the reasons discussed at length in Addendum A and as supported by the overwhelming wealth of evidence that presently is in the record on this matter, the proposed

1 From a more practical perspective, since section 81-f requires that any re-designation be consistent with the applicable comprehensive plan and since a determinative factor for spot zoning likewise is consistency with the comprehensive plan, any argument that section 81-f abrogates or even impedes the rule against spot zoning is circular and meaningless at best. N.Y. Gen. City Law § 81-f; Matter of Yellow Lantern Kampground, 279 A.D.2d at 9-10 (quoting Matter of Save Our Forest Coalition v. City of Kingston, 246 A.D.2d 217, 221, 675 N.Y.S.2d 451 (3d Dept. 1998)). 2 During the Planning Committee’s public hearing on August 27, 2020, Mr. Strichman stated that there were several cases supporting that section 81-f made the rule against spot zoning inapplicable to planned development re-designations. However, based on citation research for section 81-f through Westlaw’s “KeyCite,” not a single reported case in New York has ever cited or analyzed that statute. I would welcome Mr. Strichman to provide this office with copies of the cases that he was referencing or citations to the same, as well as welcoming any opinion letter from the City’s legal counsel. Indeed, a free and open debate on the legality of the proposed rezoning would be healthy and beneficial.

RUPP BAASE PFALZGRAF CUNNINGHAM LLC

Troy City Council September 9, 2020 Page 3

rezoning would constitute impermissible spot zoning and would violate section 81-f because it, in fact, is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Furthermore, in addition to being highly inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the proposed rezoning also is inconsistent with the City’s own local law for “P Planned Development” districts. See Code of the City of Troy, New York, Art. IV, § 285-57 (available at https://ecode360.com/11133910) (last visited Sept. 8, 2020) (the “City Code”). Specifically, the proposed rezoning is inconsistent with the City Code in the following respects: ¾ Residential density is “[n]ot to exceed eight units per acre” under § 285-57(D) of the City

Code, but the proposed project would consist of approximately 25 units per acre — more than three times what is permitted under the City Code (Project Narrative for Second Avenue at 2 (Aug. 19, 2020) (“Project Narrative”)).

¾ The “[m]aximum building height” allowed under § 285-57(E)(3)(f) of the City Code is 40 feet, but the proposed project would entail several structures of approximately 60 feet in height (Project Narrative at 2).

¾ “To the extent feasible, at least 10% of the total number of dwellings within this District should be in single-family detached structures” under § 285-57(H)(1) of the City Code, but the proposed project would not entail any single-family structures (see Project Narrative at 2).

¾ “Building height, size and design shall be appropriate to the location within the district where proposed” under § 285-57(H)(2) of the City Code, but the proposed project would entail large, three-to-four story, 60-foot-high, multi-family structures in a location that is currently undeveloped open space that is surrounded by single-family residences (Project Narrative at 2).

¾ “Landscaped open spaces or open areas left in their natural state should be provided at a ratio of not less than 1,000 square feet of open space for every dwelling unit” under § 285-57(H)(4) of the City Code, but it is highly unlikely that a 240-unit project with all of the attendant amenities, utilities, et cetera would be able to achieve this required ratio (see Troy Second Ave. Concept Plan C-2 (Aug. 2020) (“Concept Plan”)).

¾ “Where feasible, natural features such as streams, rocks, outcrops, topsoil, trees and shrubs shall be preserved and incorporated in the landscape of the development” under § 285-57(H)(6) of the City Code, but the proposed project would unnecessarily eviscerate many of these features (compare Troy Second Ave. Existing Conditions C-1 (Aug. 2020) (“Existing Conditions Map”) with Concept Plan).

Even more concerning, however, is that the Project Narrative utterly fails to address these obvious concerns, and, in fact, it highlights them. While the developer most likely is unwilling to incur the costs of addressing these concerns without a rezoning first, catering to a developer’s interests in such a manner, at best, is highly irresponsible. A change in local law should not even be considered without thoroughly addressing the consequences of the change, especially here

RUPP BAASE PFALZGRAF CUNNINGHAM LLC

Troy City Council September 9, 2020 Page 4

given the environmental and cultural significance of the property at issue. Put simply, the Council’s approach to legislation should not be “legislate first, ask questions later,” regardless of how inconvenient it is to developers. For the reasons discussed above and those discussed at length in Addendum A, it is respectfully submitted that the proposed rezoning would constitute spot zoning. Section 81-f of the General City Law has absolutely no effect on whether the proposed rezoning would be impermissible spot zoning. Indeed, section 81-f requires any re-designation to be consistent with a comprehensive plan, which is a key factor in the spot-zoning analysis. Again, the proposed rezoning is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and there has been no meaningful, non-superficial submission or argument to the contrary. Thank you in advance for your courteous consideration of this submission. Sincerely,

Phillip A. Oswald cc: Mr. Steven Strichman {via electronic mail – steven.strichman@troyny.gov} Commissioner of Planning & Economic Development City of Troy, Planning Department Ms. Carmella Mantello {via electronic mail – carmella.mantello@troyny.gov} President Troy City Council

1

Statement of Jeffrey Anzevino, AICP

Director of Land Use Advocacy

Troy City Council Planning Committee

Public Hearing

Ordinance Authorizing Amendment Of City Of Troy Zoning Map Established By Troy Code Section 285-49 (A) To Rezone Tax Map Parcel Number 70.64-1-1 On 2nd Avenue In North Troy

From R-1 Single Family Residential Detached To P Planned Development

August 27, 2020

My name is Jeffrey Anzevino, Director of Land Use Advocacy for Scenic Hudson. Scenic Hudson's mission is to ensure that tomorrow’s Hudson River Valley—from Manhattan to the foothills of the Adirondacks—is environmentally and economically sustainable and that its capacity to awe and inspire residents and visitors is preserved forever.

Scenic Hudson urges the Troy City Council Planning Committee to recommend against rezoning Tax Parcel Number 70.64-1-1 on 2nd Avenue from R-1 (Single Family Development) to P (Planned Development).

Scenic Hudson’s recommendation is based on the fact that a rezoning to Planned Development would be inconsistent with the recently adopted Realize Troy Comprehensive Plan (2018). According to Map 14 in the Comprehensive Plan, this area is anticipated as "low density residential." The subject parcel is currently zoned R-1 which would allow approximately 10 single family homes. A concept plan for the site proposes 240 multi-family units, a land use that does not fit with the character of surrounding land uses and would be inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan.

Further, the Realize Troy Comprehensive Plan identifies seven “Major Reinvestment Areas” in the City of Troy, including two in Lansingburgh, none of which include the subject parcel proposed for the rezoning to Planned Development.

According to the New York State Department of State "New York’s zoning enabling statutes (the state statutes which give cities, towns and villages the power to enact local zoning laws) require that zoning laws be adopted in accordance with a comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan should provide the backbone for the local zoning law." https://www.dos.ny.gov/lg/publications/Zoning_and_the_Comprehensive_Plan.pdf

2

N.Y. General City Law Section 28-a(12) requires that “All city land use regulations must be in accordance with a comprehensive plan adopted pursuant to this section.” Scenic Hudson believes that a rezoning from Single Family Development to Planned Development would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s designation of Low Density Residential and would therefore violate N.Y. General City Law Section 28-a(12).

Conclusion In conclusion, because the proposed rezoning would not be consistent with the Realize Troy Comprehensive Plan, Scenic Hudson urges the Troy City Council Planning Committee to recommend against rezoning Tax Parcel Number 70.64-1-1 on 2nd Avenue from R-1 (Single Family Development) to P (Planned Development).

Thank you.

December 29, 2020 By email: James.Rath@troyny.gov Ms. Deirdre Rudolph, P.E., Chair and Members of the City Planning Commission City of Troy c/o Planning Commission 433 River Street Troy, NY 12180 Re: Public Hearing on Planning Commission Recommendation to the City Council for Zone Change

(1011 Second Avenue) Kevin Vandenburgh is proposing a zone change from R-1 (Single-Family Residential Detached, §285-52) to PDD (Planned Development District, §285-57)

Dear Ms. Rudolph and Members of the Planning Commission: Riverkeeper and Scenic Hudson are writing to urge the Planning Commission to recommend against the above-referenced rezoning request. If granted by the City Council, the rezoning from R-1 to PDD would not be in accordance with the recently adopted Realize Troy Comprehensive Plan (2018), as required by N.Y. General City Law Section 28-a(12). Realize Troy—based on robust public input Urban Strategies, Inc., the planning firm hired by the City to draft Realize Troy, describes the Comprehensive Plan as a three-part community planning initiative developed with a “strong focus on public consultation, both in-person and using a variety of social media channels, and aimed to establish a clear vision and set of action strategies to address both the current and future needs of the City.” Urban Strategies’ website states that the Comprehensive Plan established “a clear community-based vision and action plan to guide the city’s overall development over the next 20 years” and Realize Troy identified “short and longer-term community needs, reinforced and confirmed a set of broadly supported community goals and created a blueprint for future government actions.”1 We bring this to your attention as a reminder that the Realize Troy was created in the context of a robust public engagement process that resulted in an explicit statement of the City’s vision for itself, including the land use future for the subject parcel and surrounding neighborhoods. Realize Troy

1 https://www.urbanstrategies.com/project/realize-troy/#:~:text=Realize%20Troy%20is%20a%20three,a%20city%2Dwide%20comprehensive%20plan.&text=It%20will%20establish%20a%20clear,over%20the%20next%2020%20years.

envisions the parcel as remaining in Low Rise Residential use and, in fact, identifies another nearby site as appropriate for the scope and scale of development that would be made possible by this rezoning. As a result, if granted, the requested rezoning would permit three, four-story buildings with between 230 and 250 multi-family units. This scale of development would directly conflict with Realize Troy’s recommendations and the community’s vision for low rise development at the site. Rezonings must be in accordance with Comprehensive Plans N.Y. General City Law requires that “All city land use regulations must be in accordance with a comprehensive plan adopted pursuant to this section.”2 Further, according to the New York State Department of State (NYSDOS) "New York’s zoning enabling statutes (the state statutes which give cities, towns and villages the power to enact local zoning laws) require that zoning laws be adopted in accordance with a comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan should provide the backbone for the local zoning law."3 Realize Troy’s vision for the subject parcel The Comprehensive Plan’s Map 14 identifies the subject tax parcel as “Low Rise Residential” (see Appendix A attached to this letter). The parcel is currently zoned R-1 (Single Family Residential—Detached), which permits up to 3.6 dwelling units per acre. Currently, the R-1 zoning would permit up to 36 single family homes on the site. The concept plan submitted in association with this rezoning request proposes approximately 240 multi-family units in three, four-story buildings, a density of 666% above permitted levels and with four-story building heights inconsistent with Low Rise Residential uses. Therefore, Riverkeeper and Scenic Hudson believe that a rezoning from Single Family Residential to Planned Development District in order to accommodate four-story buildings would not be in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan’s designation of Low Rise Residential and would therefore be inconsistent with N.Y. General City Law Section 28-a(12), as well as NYSDOS guidance. Other nearby sites are identified as Major Reinvestment Areas Realize Troy identifies “action strategies,” including the designation of seven “Major Reinvestment Areas,” defined as places envisioned by the community as priorities for renewal, neighborhood revitalization and large-scale development. According to Realize Troy:

“Major reinvestment areas are locations in the city in most need of renewal and which also have the potential to accommodate most of the population and employment growth planned for Troy. Strategic initiatives in these areas are intended to catalyze neighborhood revitalization, transform derelict portions of the waterfront and spark economic development. They include large-scale redevelopment opportunities that can result in distinct new employment and mixed-use areas, sites appropriate for significant park and other public realm improvements and areas for neighborhood growth and revitalization.”4

In fact, Realize Troy identifies two Major Reinvestment Areas in Lansingburgh, one of which includes the Hannaford’s parcel immediately to the south of the subject parcel. Realize Troy conceptually proposes redeveloping this site with a large building fronting 126th Street, parking behind the building, and mixed-use 1-4 story residential buildings with required ground floor retail fronting 2nd Avenue (see

2 NY City Law Section 28-a(12) 3 https://www.dos.ny.gov/lg/publications/Zoning_and_the_Comprehensive_Plan.pdf 4 Realize Troy, page 68

Revitalize Troy, page 71 and 72; also attached here as Appendices B-1 and B-2). Realize Troy does NOT propose extending this mixed-use development—nor any high-density development, including apartments as proposed in this rezoning, onto the undeveloped, wooded parcel to the north zoned R-1 and identified in Map 14 as appropriate to remain in Low Rise Residential land use. Environmental Justice Concerns The subject parcel is located in a New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)-designated “Potential Environmental Justice Area.”5 According to the NYSDEC’s website:

”Environmental Justice is the fair and meaningful treatment of all people, regardless of race, income, national origin or color, with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies. Environmental Justice allows for disproportionately impacted residents to access the tools to address environmental concerns across all of DEC's operations.”6

The NYSDEC’s definition of Environmental Justice includes the Indigenous Peoples (Native Americans) who lived here before the coming of the Europeans and who still live in New York today. It is our understanding that representatives of Indigenous Peoples have expressed historic ties to the subject site, which is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. In fact, the applicant’s Project Narrative indicates there are eight locations of archaeological artifact concentration on the site.7 Given this unique set of circumstances—the parcel’s well-documented archaeological sensitivity, Indigenous peoples’ concern for the site, and its location in a State-designated Potential Environmental Justice Area—Riverkeeper and Scenic Hudson urge the Planning Commission to take seriously comments and concerns expressed by representatives of Indigenous peoples with ties to the site. Conclusion During the development of the Realize Troy, undertaken with robust public involvement and adopted by the City Council just two years ago, it was not anticipated that the undeveloped, wooded parcel at 1011 2nd Avenue would be an appropriate place for intense development, in this case approximately 240 multi-family units—an increase in density of 666%. In fact, Realize Troy specifically includes this parcel in the “Low Rise Residential” land use category and the rezoning request would permit four-story buildings. In light of the above Riverkeeper and Scenic Hudson urge the Planning Commission to recommend against the application to rezone Tax Parcel Number 70.64-1-1 on 2nd Avenue from R-1 (Single Family Development) to PDD (Planned Development). Such rezoning would not be in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan as required by N.Y. General City Law Section 28-a(12). Finally, given the well-documented archaeological sensitivity of the site, concerns raised by representatives of Indigenous peoples, and the site’s location in a Potential Environmental Justice Area, we urge the Planning Commission to take seriously comments and concerns expressed by representatives of Indigenous peoples with ties to the site. Thank you.

5 https://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/permits_ej_operations_pdf/rensselaerej.pdf 6 https://www.dec.ny.gov/public/333.html 7 Project Narrative for Second Avenue; MJ Engineering & Land Surveying, PC; October 28, 2020; Exhibit 5-Archaeological Concentration Plan, C-2 on page 17

Sincerely,

Jeffrey Anzevino, AICP Christopher Bellovary Director of Land Use Advocacy Staff Attorney8 Scenic Hudson Riverkeeper Attachments Appendix A Appendix B-1 Appendix B-2

8 Christopher Bellovary is in the process of applying for licensure in the State of New York and currently licensed to

practice law within Washington State and Wisconsin (WSBA Member 37657, WisBar Member 1052534).

Note: Subject parcel is designated in area for Low-Rise Residential

Attachment A

Realize Troy, Map 14, Land Use

Attachment B-1

Realize Troy, Major Reinvestment Areas

Note: Subject parcel is NOT in Major Reinvestment Area and designated as Low-Rise Residential

Note: Adjacent Hannafords site in Major Reinvestment Area and proposed for redevelopment with building fronting 126th Street, parking behind, and 1-4 story mixed use buildings with ground floor retail and residential above

Attachment B-2

Realize Troy, Major Reinvestment Areas

Note: Subject parcel is NOT in Major Reinvestment Area and designated as Low-Rise Residential

Note: Adjacent Hannafords site in Major Reinvestment Area and proposed for redevelopment with building fronting 126th Street, parking behind, and 1-4 story mixed use buildings with ground floor retail and residential above

1

January 28, 2021 By email: James.Rath@troyny.gov Ms. Deirdre Rudolph, P.E., Chair and Members of the City Planning Commission City of Troy c/o Planning Commission 433 River Street Troy, NY 12180 Re: Planning Commission Review of requested Zone Change (1011 Second Avenue)

Kevin Vandenburgh is proposing a zone change from R-1 (Single-Family Residential Detached, §285-52) to PDD (Planned Development District, §285-57)

Dear Ms. Rudolph and Members of the Planning Commission: Scenic Hudson and Riverkeeper are in receipt of a document entitled Second Avenue Apartments Narrative Description Report (January 2021) which we believe contains serious errors of omission that should be brought to your attention. As you know the Applicant proposes to construct three, 4-story multi-family apartment buildings on an 11-acre property, most of which is in the City of Troy with a smaller portion in the Town of Schaghticoke. The property is in the R-1 zoning district which does not permit development of this scale, height or magnitude. Therefore, the Applicant has requested a rezoning to Planned Development District. Scenic Hudson and Riverkeeper write again to reiterate our request urging the Planning Commission to recommend to the City Council that the zoning request should be denied. The Narrative Description has omitted inconsistencies with key goals in the Realize Troy Comprehensive Plan (2018). In fact, we believe that such a rezoning would be inconsistent with several key goals of the Comprehensive Plan as they relate to both Lansingburgh and the project site. Why the Narrative Description Report’s Case Must Be Rejected The Narrative rationalizes the proposed 220-240-unit development’s relationship with Realize Troy by presenting the project along with some broad Citywide goals such as providing sidewalks, river access, new housing, etc. However, the narrative omits specific goals as they directly relate to Lansingburgh and the project site.

2

Inconsistent with Goal 6 The Narrative omits what Realize Troy says about how sites in Low Rise Residential areas should be developed. Goal 6.2 specifically states that “development in stable neighborhoods will respect and reinforce the existing neighborhood character and pattern of development.” Further, Goal 6.2.2 speaks specifically to Low Rise Residential Areas and limits development to “low density,” “ground-related,” “and three stories.” 1 In this case, the Applicant proposes a density increase of up to 666% over existing permitted R-1 density, and at four stories, is certainly by any definition not respectful or reinforcing of its single-family context. We urge the Planning Commission to consider the impact of allowing between 220 and 240 residential units in four-story buildings adjacent to a neighborhood of single-family homes. The Narrative contends that the apartment project would support “Compact Growth” because a trail would be established to the Hannaford’s. However, the narrative excludes any context about building a high-density apartment complex on a forested site in a single-family neighborhood at the edge of the City. Inconsistent with Goal 2—Promote Healthy, Safe and Green Neighborhoods Under Goal 2, Promote Healthy, Safe and Green Neighborhoods, the Comprehensive Plan describes Lansingburgh as “one of the oldest neighborhoods in Troy. It is an area with a distinct character, a deep history and strong community bonds.” The Plan says that “strategic reinvestments in this neighborhood can support the intentions of the Comprehensive Plan and can have a number of positive benefits towards the goals of greater neighborhood stability and continued reinvestment (emphasis added).” Responding to an application to rezone a parcel for development out of character with the surrounding single-family neighborhood would not be considered strategic, but rather opportunistic. Further, rezoning to permit between 220 and 240 multifamily units in four-story buildings a single-family residential neighborhood would not respect or reinforce the neighborhood character or pattern as required by Goal 6.2. Inconsistent with Goal 5—Invest in Sustainable Infrastructure and Sustainable Development The proposal is inconsistent with Goal 5 as it does not protect a key watercourse and would develop a large forested area along its shore with high density multi-family units. 2 Map 12 on page 59 indicates that much of the project site is in the Hudson River’s 100-year floodplain. The Hudson River is arguably Troy’s most important watercourse. Given that these areas are to be protected from major development, rezoning an R-1 parcel to accommodate up to a 666% increase in development would not protect this important watercourse, particularly when one considers this is a forested site. The proposal does not satisfy the Intent of the Planned Development District The Development Narrative describes the philosophy of the Planned Development District (P):

This District is designed to maximize choice in the types of environment, housing, densities, occupancy tenure, lot sizes, community facilities, usable open space and recreational areas

1 Realize Troy, page 62 2 Realize Troy, page 58

3

within a large parcel of land in which a planned mix of residential uses is proposed. The intent of this District is to foster a creative and efficient use of land resulting in small networks of utilities and streets, the preservation of existing natural resources, and a development pattern consistent with community needs and standards. 3

Our review of the proposed project finds a forested, archaeologically rich riverfront site cleared for a typical suburban apartment complex with freestanding four story buildings, roads and parking lots scattered throughout the parcel. While development would be set back from the river and a trail provided, very few natural resources would be protected, little creativity demonstrated in the site plan, and no mix of residential uses provided. In fact, the Applicant proposes one and two-bedroom units in similar multi-family buildings—no mix of building types. Based on the above, the proposal does not satisfy the philosophy pf the Planned Development District as it does not provide a mix of residential uses, foster creative or efficient land use, small networks of utilities and streets, or preservation of natural resources. Rezonings must be in accordance with Comprehensive Plans As we’ve stated in our December 29th letter, N.Y. General City Law requires that “All city land use regulations must be in accordance with a comprehensive plan adopted pursuant to this section.”4 Further, according to the New York State Department of State (NYSDOS) "New York’s zoning enabling statutes (the state statutes which give cities, towns and villages the power to enact local zoning laws) require that zoning laws be adopted in accordance with a comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan should provide the backbone for the local zoning law."5 Realize Troy’s vision for the subject parcel The Comprehensive Plan’s Map 14 identifies the subject tax parcel as “Low Rise Residential” (see Appendix A attached to this letter). The parcel is currently zoned R-1 (Single Family Residential—Detached), which permits up to 3.6 dwelling units per acre. Currently, the R-1 zoning would permit up to 36 single family homes on the site. The concept plan submitted in association with this rezoning request proposes between 220 and 240 multi-family units, a density of up to 666% above permitted levels, in four-story building heights, which is inconsistent with Realize Troy’s vision for Low Rise Residential areas. Therefore, Riverkeeper and Scenic Hudson believe that a rezoning from Single Family Residential to Planned Development District in order to accommodate four-story buildings would not be in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan’s designation of Low Rise Residential and would therefore be inconsistent with N.Y. General City Law Section 28-a(12), as well as NYSDOS guidance. Other nearby sites are identified as Major Reinvestment Areas Realize Troy identifies “action strategies,” including the designation of seven “Major Reinvestment Areas,” defined as places envisioned by the community as priorities for renewal, neighborhood revitalization and large-scale development. According to Realize Troy:

3 Second Avenue Apartments Narrative Description Report; January 2021, p. 15 4 NY City Law Section 28-a(12) 5 https://www.dos.ny.gov/lg/publications/Zoning_and_the_Comprehensive_Plan.pdf

4

“Major reinvestment areas are locations in the city in most need of renewal and which also have the potential to accommodate most of the population and employment growth planned for Troy. Strategic initiatives in these areas are intended to catalyze neighborhood revitalization, transform derelict portions of the waterfront and spark economic development. They include large-scale redevelopment opportunities that can result in distinct new employment and mixed-use areas, sites appropriate for significant park and other public realm improvements and areas for neighborhood growth and revitalization.”6

In fact, Realize Troy identifies two Major Reinvestment Areas in Lansingburgh, one of which includes the Hannaford’s parcel immediately to the south of the subject parcel. Realize Troy conceptually proposes redeveloping this site with a large building fronting 126th Street, parking behind the building, and mixed-use 1-4 story residential buildings with required ground floor retail fronting 2nd Avenue (see Revitalize Troy, page 71 and 72; also attached here as Appendices B-1 and B-2). Realize Troy does NOT propose extending this mixed-use development—nor any high-density development, including apartments as proposed in this rezoning, onto the undeveloped, wooded parcel to the north zoned R-1 and identified in Map 14 as appropriate to remain in Low Rise Residential land use. One would think that if the subject parcel was appropriate for four story, high—density multi-family buildings, Realize Troy would have extended this Major Reinvestment Area onto that parcel. But the parcel is identified as Low Rise Residential. Environmental Justice Concerns The subject parcel is located in a New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)-designated “Potential Environmental Justice Area.”7 According to the NYSDEC’s website:

“Environmental Justice is the fair and meaningful treatment of all people, regardless of race, income, national origin or color, with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies. Environmental Justice allows for disproportionately impacted residents to access the tools to address environmental concerns across all of DEC's operations.”8

The NYSDEC’s definition of Environmental Justice includes the Indigenous People (Native Americans) who lived here before the coming of the Europeans and who still live in New York today. It is our understanding that the Schaghicoke First Nations, as well Mahican, Lenape and other indigenous people, have expressed historic ties to the subject site. According to the Friends of the Mahcantuck, the land is suspected as a one of the potential sites for an indigenous village located in the area and is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.9 In fact, the applicant’s Project Narrative indicates there are eight locations of archaeological artifact concentration on the site.10 Given this unique set of circumstances—the parcel’s well-documented archaeological sensitivity, indigenous peoples’ concern for the site, and its location in a State-designated Potential Environmental Justice Area—Riverkeeper and Scenic Hudson urge the Planning Commission to take seriously comments

6 Realize Troy, page 68 7 https://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/permits_ej_operations_pdf/rensselaerej.pdf 8 https://www.dec.ny.gov/public/333.html 9 http://www.friendsofthemahicantuck.org/history/ 10 Project Narrative for Second Avenue; MJ Engineering & Land Surveying, PC; October 28, 2020; Exhibit 5-Archaeological Concentration Plan, C-2 on page 17

5

and concerns presented by representatives of the Schaghitcoke First Nations, Friends of the Mahicantuck, and other indigenous peoples expressing ties to the site. Conclusion During the development of Realize Troy, undertaken with robust public involvement and adopted by the City Council just two years ago, it was not anticipated that the undeveloped, wooded parcel at 1011 2nd Avenue would be an appropriate place for intense development, in this case approximately between 220 and 240 multi-family units—an increase in density of up to 666%. In fact, Realize Troy specifically includes this parcel in the “Low Rise Residential” land use category and the rezoning request would permit four-story buildings. As indicated above Realize Troy in Goals 6.2 and 6.22 anticipate that “Development in stable neighborhoods will respect and reinforce the existing neighborhood character and pattern of development” and “Low-Rise Residential areas shall contain low-density, ground-related housing that is no greater than three-stories in height” (emphasis added). We believe that the potential for 666% increase in density with four story buildings should not be consistent with these important goals. Given the well-documented archaeological sensitivity of the site, concerns raised by representatives of indigenous peoples, the site’s National-Register eligibility, and its location in a Potential Environmental Justice Area, we urge the Planning Commission to take seriously comments expressed by the Friends of the Mahicantuck as well as representatives of the Schaghitcoke First Nations, Stockbridge Munsee and other indigenous peoples with ties to the site. Finally, because the Applicant’s proposal and proposed rezoning are inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and in light of the above, as well as our December 29th letter, Scenic Hudson and Riverkeeper urge the Planning Commission to recommend against rezoning this site to Planned Development District (P). Such rezoning would not be in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan as required by N.Y. General City Law Section 28-a(12). Thank you. Sincerely,

Jeffrey Anzevino, AICP Christopher Bellovary Director of Land Use Advocacy Staff Attorney11 Scenic Hudson Riverkeeper Attachments Appendix A Appendix B-1 Appendix B-2

11 Christopher Bellovary is in the process of applying for licensure in the State of New York and currently licensed to

practice law within Washington State and Wisconsin (WSBA Member 37657, WisBar Member 1052534).

Note: Subject parcel is designated in area for Low-Rise Residential

Attachment A

Realize Troy, Map 14, Land Use

Attachment B-1

Realize Troy, Map 14, Land Use

Note: Subject parcel is NOT in Major Reinvestment Area and designated as for Low-Rise Residential

Note: Adjacent Hannafords site in MajprReinvestment Area and proposed for redevelopment with building fronting 126th Street, parking behind, and 1-4 story residential; buildings with ground floor retail

Attachment B-2

Realize Troy, Major Reinvestment Areas

Note: Subject parcel is NOT in Major Reinvestment Area and designated as for Low-Rise Residential

Note: Adjacent Hannafords site in MajprReinvestment Area and proposed for redevelopment with building fronting 126th Street, parking behind, and 1-4 story residential; buildings with ground floor retail

1

January 27, 2021 By email: James.Rath@troyny.gov Ms. Deirdre Rudolph, P.E., Chair and Members of the City Planning Commission City of Troy c/o Planning Commission 433 River Street Troy, NY 12180 Re: Planning Commission Review of requested Zone Change (1011 Second Avenue)

Kevin Vandenburgh is proposing a zone change from R-1 (Single-Family Residential Detached, §285-52) to PDD (Planned Development District, §285-57)

Dear Ms. Rudolph and Members of the Planning Commission: Scenic Hudson and Riverkeeper are in receipt of a document entitled Second Avenue Apartments Narrative Description Report (January 2021) which we believe contains serious errors of omission that should be brought to your attention. As you know the Applicant proposes to construct three, 4-story multi-family apartment buildings on an 11-acre property, most of which is in the City of Troy with a smaller portion in the Town of Schaghticoke. The property is in the R-1 zoning district which does not permit development of this scale, height or magnitude. Therefore, the Applicant has requested a rezoning to Planned Development District. Scenic Hudson and Riverkeeper write again to reiterate our request urging the Planning Commission to recommend to the City Council that the zoning request should be denied. The Narrative Description has omitted inconsistencies with key goals in the Realize Troy Comprehensive Plan (2018). In fact, we believe that such a rezoning would be inconsistent with several key goals of the Comprehensive Plan as they relate to both Lansingburgh and the project site. Why the Narrative Description Report’s Case Must Be Rejected The Narrative rationalizes the proposed 220-240-unit development’s relationship with Realize Troy by presenting the project along with some broad Citywide goals such as providing sidewalks, river access, new housing, etc. However, the narrative omits specific goals as they directly relate to Lansingburgh and the project site.

2

Inconsistent with Goal 6 The Narrative omits what Realize Troy says about how sites in Low Rise Residential areas should be developed. Goal 6.2 specifically states that “development in stable neighborhoods will respect and reinforce the existing neighborhood character and pattern of development.” Further, Goal 6.2.2 speaks specifically to Low Rise Residential Areas and limits development to “low density,” “ground-related,” “and three stories.” 1 In this case, the Applicant proposes a density increase of up to 666% over existing permitted R-1 density, and at four stories, is certainly by any definition not respectful or reinforcing of its single-family context. We urge the Planning Commission to consider the impact of allowing between 220 and 240 residential units in four-story buildings adjacent to a neighborhood of single-family homes. The Narrative contends that the apartment project would support “Compact Growth” because a trail would be established to the Hannaford’s. However, the narrative excludes any context about building a high-density apartment complex on a forested site in a single-family neighborhood at the edge of the City. Inconsistent with Goal 2—Promote Healthy, Safe and Green Neighborhoods Under Goal 2, Promote Healthy, Safe and Green Neighborhoods, the Comprehensive Plan describes Lansingburgh as “one of the oldest neighborhoods in Troy. It is an area with a distinct character, a deep history and strong community bonds.” The Plan says that “strategic reinvestments in this neighborhood can support the intentions of the Comprehensive Plan and can have a number of positive benefits towards the goals of greater neighborhood stability and continued reinvestment (emphasis added).” Responding to an application to rezone a parcel for development out of character with the surrounding single-family neighborhood would not be considered strategic, but rather opportunistic. Further, rezoning to permit between 220 and 240 multifamily units in four-story buildings a single-family residential neighborhood would not respect or reinforce the neighborhood character or pattern as required by Goal 6.2. Inconsistent with Goal 5—Invest in Sustainable Infrastructure and Sustainable Development The proposal is inconsistent with Goal 5 as it does not protect a key watercourse and would develop a large forested area along its shore with high density multi-family units. 2 Map 12 on page 59 indicates that much of the project site is in the Hudson River’s 100-year floodplain. The Hudson River is arguably Troy’s most important watercourse. Given that these areas are to be protected from major development, rezoning an R-1 parcel to accommodate up to a 666% increase in development would not protect this important watercourse, particularly when one considers this is a forested site. The proposal does not satisfy the Intent of the PDD The Development Narrative describes the philosophy of the Planned Development District (P):

This District is designed to maximize choice in the types of environment, housing, densities, occupancy tenure, lot sizes, community facilities, usable open space and recreational areas

1 Realize Troy, page 62 2 Realize Troy, page 58

3

within a large parcel of land in which a planned mix of residential uses is proposed. The intent of this District is to foster a creative and efficient use of land resulting in small networks of utilities and streets, the preservation of existing natural resources, and a development pattern consistent with community needs and standards. 3

Our review of the proposed project finds a forested, archaeologically rich riverfront site cleared for a rather typical suburban apartment complex with buildings, roads and parking lots scattered throughout the parcel. While development would be set back from the river and a trail provided, very few natural resources would be protected, little creativity demonstrated in the site plan, and no mix of residential uses provided. In fact, the Applicant proposed one and two-bedroom units in similar multi-family buildings—no mix of building types. Further, the development pattern—freestanding, four-story multi-family buildings—is, as outlined in Realize Troy and expressed by residents in several meetings, inconsistent with the needs of the neighborhood. Rezonings must be in accordance with Comprehensive Plans As we’ve stated in our December 29th letter, N.Y. General City Law requires that “All city land use regulations must be in accordance with a comprehensive plan adopted pursuant to this section.”4 Further, according to the New York State Department of State (NYSDOS) "New York’s zoning enabling statutes (the state statutes which give cities, towns and villages the power to enact local zoning laws) require that zoning laws be adopted in accordance with a comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan should provide the backbone for the local zoning law."5 Realize Troy’s vision for the subject parcel The Comprehensive Plan’s Map 14 identifies the subject tax parcel as “Low Rise Residential” (see Appendix A attached to this letter). The parcel is currently zoned R-1 (Single Family Residential—Detached), which permits up to 3.6 dwelling units per acre. Currently, the R-1 zoning would permit up to 36 single family homes on the site. The concept plan submitted in association with this rezoning request proposes between 220 and 240 multi-family units, a density of up to 666% above permitted levels, in four-story building heights, which is inconsistent with Realize Troy’s vision for Low Rise Residential areas. Therefore, Riverkeeper and Scenic Hudson believe that a rezoning from Single Family Residential to Planned Development District in order to accommodate four-story buildings would not be in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan’s designation of Low Rise Residential and would therefore be inconsistent with N.Y. General City Law Section 28-a(12), as well as NYSDOS guidance. Other nearby sites are identified as Major Reinvestment Areas Realize Troy identifies “action strategies,” including the designation of seven “Major Reinvestment Areas,” defined as places envisioned by the community as priorities for renewal, neighborhood revitalization and large-scale development. According to Realize Troy:

“Major reinvestment areas are locations in the city in most need of renewal and which also have the potential to accommodate most of the population and employment growth planned for Troy. Strategic initiatives in these areas are intended to catalyze neighborhood revitalization,

3 Second Avenue Apartments Narrative Description Report; January 2021, p. 15 4 NY City Law Section 28-a(12) 5 https://www.dos.ny.gov/lg/publications/Zoning_and_the_Comprehensive_Plan.pdf

4

transform derelict portions of the waterfront and spark economic development. They include large-scale redevelopment opportunities that can result in distinct new employment and mixed-use areas, sites appropriate for significant park and other public realm improvements and areas for neighborhood growth and revitalization.”6

In fact, Realize Troy identifies two Major Reinvestment Areas in Lansingburgh, one of which includes the Hannaford’s parcel immediately to the south of the subject parcel. Realize Troy conceptually proposes redeveloping this site with a large building fronting 126th Street, parking behind the building, and mixed-use 1-4 story residential buildings with required ground floor retail fronting 2nd Avenue (see Revitalize Troy, page 71 and 72; also attached here as Appendices B-1 and B-2). Realize Troy does NOT propose extending this mixed-use development—nor any high-density development, including apartments as proposed in this rezoning, onto the undeveloped, wooded parcel to the north zoned R-1 and identified in Map 14 as appropriate to remain in Low Rise Residential land use. One would think that if the subject parcel was appropriate for four story, high—density multi-family buildings, Realize Troy would have extended this Major Reinvestment Area onto that parcel. But the parcel is identified as Low Rise Residential. Environmental Justice Concerns The subject parcel is located in a New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)-designated “Potential Environmental Justice Area.”7 According to the NYSDEC’s website:

“Environmental Justice is the fair and meaningful treatment of all people, regardless of race, income, national origin or color, with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies. Environmental Justice allows for disproportionately impacted residents to access the tools to address environmental concerns across all of DEC's operations.”8

The NYSDEC’s definition of Environmental Justice includes the Indigenous People (Native Americans) who lived here before the coming of the Europeans and who still live in New York today. It is our understanding that the Schaghicoke First Nations, as well Mahican, Lenape and other indigenous people, have expressed historic ties to the subject site. According to the Friends of the Mahcantuck, the land is suspected as a one of the potential sites for an indigenous village located in the area and is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.9 In fact, the applicant’s Project Narrative indicates there are eight locations of archaeological artifact concentration on the site.10 Given this unique set of circumstances—the parcel’s well-documented archaeological sensitivity, indigenous peoples’ concern for the site, and its location in a State-designated Potential Environmental Justice Area—Riverkeeper and Scenic Hudson urge the Planning Commission to take seriously comments and concerns presented by representatives of the Schaghitcoke First Nations, Friends of the Mahicantuck, and other indigenous peoples expressing ties to the site.

6 Realize Troy, page 68 7 https://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/permits_ej_operations_pdf/rensselaerej.pdf 8 https://www.dec.ny.gov/public/333.html 9 http://www.friendsofthemahicantuck.org/history/ 10 Project Narrative for Second Avenue; MJ Engineering & Land Surveying, PC; October 28, 2020; Exhibit 5-Archaeological Concentration Plan, C-2 on page 17

5

Conclusion During the development of Realize Troy, undertaken with robust public involvement and adopted by the City Council just two years ago, it was not anticipated that the undeveloped, wooded parcel at 1011 2nd Avenue would be an appropriate place for intense development, in this case approximately between 220 and 240 multi-family units—an increase in density of up to 666%. In fact, Realize Troy specifically includes this parcel in the “Low Rise Residential” land use category and the rezoning request would permit four-story buildings. As indicated above Realize Troy in Goals 6.2 and 6.22 anticipate that “Development in stable neighborhoods will respect and reinforce the existing neighborhood character and pattern of development” and “Low-Rise Residential areas shall contain low-density, ground-related housing that is no greater than three-stories in height” (emphasis added). We believe that the potential for 666% increase in density with four story buildings should not be consistent with these important goals. Given the well-documented archaeological sensitivity of the site, concerns raised by representatives of indigenous peoples, the site’s National-Register eligibility, and its location in a Potential Environmental Justice Area, we urge the Planning Commission to take seriously comments expressed by the Friends of the Mahicantuck as well as representatives of the Schaghitcoke First Nations, Stockbridge Munsee and other indigenous peoples with ties to the site. Finally, because the Applicant’s proposal and proposed rezoning are inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and in light of the above, as well as our December 29th letter, Scenic Hudson and Riverkeeper urge the Planning Commission to recommend against rezoning this site to Planned Development District (P). Such rezoning would not be in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan as required by N.Y. General City Law Section 28-a(12). Thank you. Sincerely,

Jeffrey Anzevino, AICP Christopher Bellovary Director of Land Use Advocacy Staff Attorney11 Scenic Hudson Riverkeeper Attachments Appendix A Appendix B-1 Appendix B-2

11 Christopher Bellovary is in the process of applying for licensure in the State of New York and currently licensed to

practice law within Washington State and Wisconsin (WSBA Member 37657, WisBar Member 1052534).

1

September 9, 2020 By email: citycouncil@troyny.gov Ms. Carmella Mantello, President and Members of the City Council City of Troy 433 River Street, Suite 5001 Troy, NY 12180 Subject: Ordinance Authorizing Amendment Of City Of Troy Zoning Map Established By Troy Code

Section 285-49 (A) To Rezone Tax Map Parcel Number 70.64-1-1 On 2nd Avenue In North Troy From R-1 Single Family Residential Detached To P Planned Development

Dear Ms. Mantello and Members of the City Council: Scenic Hudson is writing to urge the Troy City Council to deny the rezoning request referenced above on 2nd Avenue from R-1 (Single Family Development--Detached) to P (Planned Development). Such a rezoning would not be in accordance with the recently adopted Realize Troy Comprehensive Plan (2018) as required by N.Y. General City Law Section 28-a(12). Realize Troy Comprehensive Plan—its purpose and how it was created Urban Strategies, Inc., the planning firm hired by the City to craft Realize Troy, describes the Comprehensive Plan as a three-part community planning initiative: an economic strategy, a waterfront master plan, and a city-wide comprehensive plan. According to Urban Strategies, the planning process was based on a “strong focus on public consultation, both in-person and using a variety of social media channels, and aimed to establish a clear vision and set of action strategies to address both the current and future needs of the City” (emphasis added). Further, Urban Strategies’ website states that the Comprehensive Plan established “a clear community-based vision and action plan to guide the city’s overall development over the next 20 years” (emphasis added) and Realize Troy identified “short and longer-term community needs, reinforced and confirmed a set of broadly supported community goals and created a blueprint for future government actions” (emphasis added). SOURCE: https://www.urbanstrategies.com/project/realize-troy/#:~:text=Realize%20Troy%20is%20a%20three,a%20city%2Dwide%20comprehensive%20plan.&text=It%20will%20establish%20a%20clear,over%20the%20next%2020%20years. Scenic Hudson’s recommendations are prefaced with the City’s Planning consultant’s description of the Comprehensive Plan’s purpose, as well as and the robust public participation on which the plan, its vision for the City, and its land use recommendations are based.

2

Rezonings must be in accordance with Comprehensive Plans The requested rezoning would directly conflict with Realize Troy’s recommendations—and, therefore, the community’s vision—for the subject parcel. If it were to be in the best interest of the City of Troy and its residents to commit this undeveloped, wooded parcel to high density development, in this case 240 apartments, one would think that Realize Troy would have recommended this parcel for higher density uses as a Major Reinvestment Area. However, Realize Troy envisions just the opposite. N.Y. General City Law Section 28-a(12) requires that “All city land use regulations must be in accordance with a comprehensive plan adopted pursuant to this section.” Scenic Hudson believes that a rezoning from Single Family Residential to Planned Development would not be in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan’s designation of Low Rise Residential and would therefore violate N.Y. General City Law Section 28-a(12). Further, according to the New York State Department of State "New York’s zoning enabling statutes (the state statutes which give cities, towns and villages the power to enact local zoning laws) require that zoning laws be adopted in accordance with a comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan should provide the backbone for the local zoning law." https://www.dos.ny.gov/lg/publications/Zoning_and_the_Comprehensive_Plan.pdf Realize Troy’s vision for the subject parcel First and foremost, the Comprehensive Plan (Map 14) identifies the subject tax parcel as "low rise residential" (see Appendix A attached to this letter). The parcel is currently zoned R-1 (Single Family Residential—Detached) which would permit approximately 10 single family homes on the site. The concept plan submitted in association with this rezoning requests proposes 240 multi-family units, a land use with density wholly inconsistent with low rise residential and would therefore not be in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan as required by N.Y. General City Law Section 28-a(12). Further, one of the “action strategies” proposed in Realize Troy Comprehensive Plan is the establishment of seven “Major Reinvestment Areas.” According to Realize Troy:

“Major reinvestment areas are locations in the city in most need of renewal and which also have the potential to accommodate most of the population and employment growth planned for Troy. Strategic initiatives in these areas are intended to catalyze neighborhood revitalization, transform derelict portions of the waterfront and spark economic development. They include large-scale redevelopment opportunities that can result in distinct new employment and mixed-use areas, sites appropriate for significant park and other public realm improvements and areas for neighborhood growth and revitalization.”

Realize Troy, page 68 These Major Reinvestment Areas are the places envisioned by the community as priorities for renewal, neighborhood revitalization and large-scale development.

3

The Plan identifies two Major Reinvestment Areas in Lansingburgh. One area includes the Hannaford’s parcel immediately to the south of the subject parcel. Realize Troy conceptually proposes redeveloping the Hannaford’s site with a large building fronting 126th Street, parking behind the building, and mixed-use 1-4 story residential buildings with required ground floor retail fronting 2nd Avenue (see Revitalize Troy, page 71 and 72; also attached here as Appendices B-1 and B-2). Realize Troy does NOT propose extending this mixed-use development—nor any high-density development, including apartments as proposed in this rezoning—onto the undeveloped, wooded parcel to the north. Conclusion During the development of the Realize Troy, undertaken with robust public involvement and adopted by the City Council just two years ago, it was not anticipated that the undeveloped, wooded subject parcel (Tax Map Parcel Number 70.64-1-1), zoned R-1 and identified in the Comprehensive Plan as Low Rise Residential, would be an appropriate place for intense development. If so, the adjacent Major Reinvestment Area would have been extended to include this parcel. Further, Realize Troy specifically includes this parcel in the “Low Rise Residential” land use category. Therefore, the requested rezoning would not be in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. In light of the above Scenic Hudson urges the Troy City Council to deny the application to rezone Tax Parcel Number 70.64-1-1 on 2nd Avenue from R-1 (Single Family Development) to P (Planned Development). Such rezoning would not be in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan as required by N.Y. General City Law Section 28-a(12). Thank you. Sincerely,

Jeffrey Anzevino, AICP Director of Land Use Advocacy Attachments

Appendix A Appendix B-1 Appendix B-2