You might reference the following DEIS ( Draft Environmental Impact Statement) numbers to your letter.

1.0 Introduction
Paragraph 6 –pg 1- states that” all access to the site will use the existing road. ” Pg 6-2.2.1-Access- states that” driveway access will be shifted approximately 80 feet to the south, widened and paved.” WHICH IS IT?

4.1.3.1.4 Air Quality Impact Assessment
DEIS states that ”The Nassau Quarry will not be of sufficient intensity to impact air quality.” If there is no impact to air quality, why is the operation limited to 2000 hours of operation? 6.1 tons allowable by DEC and up to 15 tons of particulate matter per year of 2.5 micron and smaller air particles doesn’t constitute air pollution? Pg 78

4.1.4.1 Removal of Habitat pg 78
DEIS states thar”No rare, threatened or endangered wildlife species, etc.” People are threatened by the removal (and/or remediation) of their habitat.

4.2.1.4 Transportation Mitigation Measures-Section 2.
Pg 82- States that ‘ The existing Nassau Quarry site access will be located 80 feet Southerly and will be used for all turns except left-turn out.” NO LEFT TURN OUT. How do trucks go to Rt 20 without turning left? Are they going up Pike’s Pond Road? Glass Lake Road? Which is it? Shall we have a citizen’s group to watch for left turning traffic, or do we wait until someone is killed there from illegally turning traffic?

4.2.1.4 Transportation Mitigation Measures
First para. states truck routes are only 43, 66 and 66 and 20 In appendix H- 1.1B—Truck Route Analysis- Secondary /Minor Roadways- doesn’t tell how trucks get to Rt. 20? HOW DO THEY DO THIS? There is no other information where trucks will turn around in order to head towards Rt. 20, points south and East?

4.2.2.4.2.2 Mitigation Measures for Excessive Overpressure
Pg 106 #5 and 6 DEIS states that “ A licensed blaster will lay out all shots in accordance with the blast design. Spacing between drill holes will be measured and monitored.” WHO MONITORS? THE INDUSTRY?

6.1.1.2 Mining the Eastern Part of the Site Within 25 feet of the Property Line property setback here is 69.5 feet----25 feet plus 1.25 times the face height of 50 feet. Pg 112 Does approving the DEIS mean that DEC is also approving the Alternative Excavation Area—Why is this here when Appendix C states that 2.5.5. Setbacks—“Quarry excavation will continue to the limits indicated on their enclosed Reclamation Plan Map, remaining a minimum of 200 feet distance from all property lines.”

Mitigation plans not at TS&G property boundaries
None of the mitigation plans for any of the harmfull effect of mining, noise, dust, blasting etc. are designed to mitigate the effects of mining at the TS&G property boundaries. Troy Sand & Gravel plans to use the property of surrounding landowners to mitigate the effect of mining from the closest residences. Migating at the nearest residences might be appropriate for a mine being established in a commercial/industrial zone where they had a "right of use", but it isn't appropriate for a new mine being established in a residential area by "special use permit". Hundreds of acres of surrounding land will nolonger be suitable for residential development if TS&G is allowed to mitigate at the nearest residences instead of their property boundaries.

Back to Top

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

Dear Nancy Adams, I am especially concerned about the potential impact to wells, which are the sole water supply to many homes in the neighborhood. (Appendix D, 4.1.3 of the DEIS.)
THERE IS A MAJOR AQUIFER IN THE AREA OF THE MINE. Its recharge area includes the mining site. The DEIS acknowledges that mining at the site will divert water from its normal course during recharge. The DEIS says this will not AFFECT our wells, but they provide no evidence to support this assertion.
It also totally ignores the likely contamination of this water by perchlorate from their explosives, and the resultant impact this might have on the Tachawasick creek, a trout stream that flows through the recharge area.
These omissions from the DEIS are more than disturbing. Our water is an essential resource and the risk to it is not acceptable. Please don’t let this happen.
Thank you for any consideration,

I am stunned by the determination of the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation who have determined that the proposed activity (carefully worded not to mention the proposed activity for what it is….a Commercial Hard rock mining and blasting operation with onsite retail ports) will have NO impact upon any registered archaeological or historic sites. I’d like to understand how it is guaranteed that there will be NO impact. Of course, homes standing for one or two centuries, but not registered, obviously were deemed not at risk. The sad fact is that OUR history, OUR lack of stewardship is being recorded today for the review of our children and grandchildren who will live with these decisions. I implore our legislators to thoroughly understand the magnitude of the impact of multiple mines within a rural residential area such as Nassau, West Sand Lake, Averill Park and beyond. Before scores more trucks are put onto roads such as Route 43, I challenge our leaders entrusted with the stewardship of our communities to review the impact of this additional truck traffic and then further challenge them to sign a document determining that there will be NO impact to the community, NO impact to the air quality, NO impact to the safety of our children being transported on school bus, NO impact to wells, No impact to surrounding wetlands that feed into the streams. Once destroyed, the environment will not return and surely this will make one very large impact upon us all. Respectfully,

Back to Top

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

By allowing this mine and the two successive proposed mines to blast, DEC would sanction the dissemination of the 46,000 tons of volatile chemicals stored in the Dewey Loeffel Chemical Dump. There needs to be a cumulative impact study done before any mines are allowed into this area. You can see on your map how closely all the mines are to Dewey Loeffel. “Dewey Loeffel is located approximately 14,750 feet (2.8 plus or minus) southwest of the closest location that blasting will occur at the Nassau Quarry.”(Pg 102, 4.2.2.4.1.1) Using a formula included in Appendix I of the DEIS, the ground vibration levels are calculated at 0.0068 inches per second,” a de minimis level, not even perceived by a human.” A ground vibration level of anything, perceived or not by humans is too much when applied to Dewey Loeffel. The chemical dump is already leaking in two different directions. It has been found in Nassau Lake, three miles away and in wells around the eastern boundaries. Any vibration in the chemicals will cause them to travel and migrate from the uneasy containment they are currently in. Do you (DEC) want to take a chance that these chemicals will not move? “Blasting at the NASSAU QUARRY WILL BE DONE AS MANY TIMES A YEAR AS IS NECESSARY TO MEET MARKET DEMAND. THIS WILL TYPICALLY BE UP TO TWICE PER WEEK DURING DEVELOPMENT AND ABOUT TWICE PER MONTH DURING TYPICAL PRODUCTION. (4.2.2.4.1.0, PG 102) Dewey Loeffel’s chemical cocktail is traveling by bedrock fissures that open and close in an ill understood and less scientifically known manner. Bedrock fissures do not follow any known direction or follow any known scientific principle. Blasting causes, according to the DEIS an opening and widening of bedrock fissures,” according to PG 28,29 of the Hydrogeologic Impact Assessment.
The “United States Bureau of Mines in 1980 sponsored a comprehensive study on blasting impacts to wells and groundwater supplies. A two part study was commissioned by USBM on impacts, etc.” Reports were prepared by Philip R. Berger and Assoc., Inc. (now GeoSonics.) “ “Berger’s studies concluded that there is no correlation between blasting and adverse impacts to water quality, quantity and well integrity. To the contrary, Berger’s studies conclude that blasting may indirectly improve well yields by increasing the number of fractures that transmit and store water.” DEIS ( Pg 28,29 Hydrogeolohic Assessment) We cannot trust that Troy Sand and Gravel will adhere to a blasting schedule or actually blast with the force they declare they will. Unfortunately, Troy Sand and Gravel has a less than stellar record with respect to blasting. According to Troy Sand and Gravel, in a Stipulation of Settlement and Consent Decree with New York State dated Nov. 8, 2000 “acknowledges and admits that it has violated the permit conditions in that BLASTING OCCURRED ON ELEVEN (11) SEPARATE DATES DURING THE PROHIBITED MONTHS OF DECEMBER, JANUARY AND FEBRUARY.”(Pg 128, 9.1- Record of Compliance.) This acknowledgement is negotiated down from the original DEC action against Troy Sand and Gravel in which the Dept. alleged that Troy Sand and Gravel” committed sixty-three (63) separate violations of Permit since 1997.” (Pg. 128, 9.1- Non Compliance.) At this point in the narrative we have a 46,000 ton chemical cocktail, 2.3 to 2.7 miles, by my calculations, from three proposed mines, with the mines allowed to blast as much as market conditions demand and with numerous non-compliance issues in the case of Troy Sand and Gravel. Troy Sand and Gravel states that Dewey Loeffel will not be affected (pg.69, 4.1.2.1.1.) There is another component to this problem of 46,000 tons of chemical becoming uncaged. Dewey Loeffel is contiguous to a fault line, is on the south side of a circular fault structure and two other fault lines run between it and the proposed mines. This is shown on Map 31B of NYS Museum Map and Chart Series of Brittle Structures. Fault lines contain fractured, brittle, broken rock with wide spaces between elements. The flow patterns and structures of these fault lines have not been studied.
Allan D. Randall, hydrologist emeritus, USGS has allowed me to quote him regarding this problem. 1. Dewey Loeffel appears to lie on or near fault lines on Map 31 B, which could be an avenue for transmission along the fault. 2. Force applied by human endeavors can cause movement or renewed fracturing along existing fault lines. 3.A seismologist should check out and appraise the distance from the proposed blasting at which the expected blast force could be expected to cause movement. Now we have a 46,000 ton chemical cocktail, 2.3 to 2.7 miles, from three proposed mines, with the mines allowed to blast as much as market conditions demand and with numerous non-compliance issues in the case of Troy Sand and Gravel. Troy Sand and Gravel states that Dewey Loeffel will not be affected (pg.69, 4.1.2.1.1.) This uneasy dump lies along and contiguous to fault lines. Troy Sand and Gravel states that it will not be affected. Is it safe to assume that fault lines are unsound, friable and conduits to spread whatever seeps along it? Is it safe to assume that bedrock fissures open and close for no discernible reasons and that one of the ways Dewey Loeffel is spreading is via bedrock fissures. Is it safe to assume that Troy Sand and Gravel has a lousy record of compliance in the past and that the chance of it continuing into the future is high? Is it safe to assume that Troy Sand and Gravel’s proposed mining operation will impact Dewey Loeffel? There is a saying that “ assume” means making an ass of you and me, but in this case I believe the answer to all of this questions is a resounding yes. Troy Sand and Gravel’s mine will impact Dewey Loeffel. Bedrock fissures opening and closing will disseminate the toluene, benzene, PCB’s and other volatile chemicals in that noxious pit through the fault lines and through the bedrock at the upper end of the dump. Troy Sand and Gravel’s has a record of compliance. Do you want a mining company next to a chemical dump with the ability to poison large tracts of land and a less than stellar record of compliance?
Respectfully,

Back to Top

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

Back to Top

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

By: CHRIS SIMONDS
February 23, 2000


NASSAU -- Mine? What Mine?

Joe Hankle says his firm bought the 215-acre Sklar property on Route 66 to harvest timber. I have absolutely no desire to get into the rock business” he told The Independent Tuesday. Talk around town had that Troy & Gravel of West Sand Lake buying the parcel, as a source of gray rock from the same vein that Lane Construction wants to mine in East Nassau. Lanes still-pending plan to blast and crush rock there evoked a storm of protest and led to the founding of the Village of East Nassau.But according to co-owner Jude Clemente, Troy & Gravel has no need of another gray rock source.

"We've got 50 years of reserves in the Town of Sand Lake that were taking out now,” he said Friday. Mr. Hankle blames the rumors on “three to five people speculating on my fathers project.” Walter Hankle, a lifelong town resident who has logged in this area since 1955, means to put up a planing mill at the Hankle Lumber Business site on Route 66. That requires cutting back a rock face, which Troy & Gravel is doing, under a DEC grading-not mining-permit.

Some neighbors say the project is just a mine in disguise, and that the Hankles are being paid for the rock. Gardner hill resident Dean Collamer says it has been two years “and they're still blasting, still taking rock out.” The Hankles deny they are selling the rock. Joe Hankle says the project should be finished in another six months.

In another speculation-building connection, the attorney for the Sklar sale was Linda Mandel Clemente, wife of Jude Clemente –to which Mr. Hankle says, in essence,       So?

“She's a friend, she's a good lawyer. If your wife was a lawyer, and I had her do work for me, does that mean I'm telling you what to write for the paper?”

Sale price, according to Nassau Assessor Harold Fletcher, was $500,000 --- well in excess of the $184,000 assessed value. Mr. Hankle said he and his father own several timber parcels in town, and have contracts with landowners from Schodack to North Hoosick to manage and harvest their woodlands. He estimates the familys timber resources at about a thousand acres. Hankle lumber sells 2 million board feet per year, he said. “Thats a very big dragon I have to feed.”

The Sklar property wont be clear-cut, he added. “We do timber management.”
Meanwhile, Troy & Gravel is embroiled in a dispute with environmentalists over its plan to replace an asphalt plant on Route 43 with what Mr. Clemente says will be a cleaner operation. A Departmental of Environmental Conservation public comment period on the application ends tomorrow. The company holds a public information meeting on the project Tuesday, February 29, 2000 at 7PM at the West Sand Lake Fire Hall.

The Independent © 2000 Used with permission.

Back to Top

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

By: BOB GARDINIER
November 11, 2000


Sand Lake Troy Sand and Gravel agrees to fund blasting studies amid residents' complaints


WEST SAND LAKE -- Troy Sand and Gravel, which runs a mining and concrete operation on Route 43, has admitted to violations of its state mining permit and has agreed to fund studies to see if the company's blasting is harming neighboring homes and water wells.

In court action Wednesday, the state Department of Environmental Conservation also fined the 43-year-old company $75,000, but $43,500 of that will be suspended if the company successfully completes blasting studies. The company is also to monitor dust and noise levels and test water wells in the residential areas around its 154-acre operation, according to Paul Larrabee, spokesman for state Attorney General Eliot Spitzer.

Residents contend that the intensity of the blasts, which were expanded to shale deposits in 1996, has shattered windows, cracked foundations and blanketed the area in dust.

A restraining order was issued Oct. 25 prohibiting the company from blasting after residents threatened to file a citizen lawsuit over violations of a 1995 permit that limited blasts to 10 per year and barred blasting during the winter.

The DEC claimed the company had 63 violations of their mining permit since December 1997. During a court hearing before state Supreme Court Justice George B. Ceresia, the company admitted to 11 of the violations concerning blasting since December 1997, said the company's lawyer Andrew W. Gilchrist.

According to the agreement, called a stipulation of settlement and consent decree, the company agreed to do four test blasts, with monitoring equipment near homes.

The company also agreed to do the other environmental tests and to turn over all findings to the DEC, which then must determine whether further changes are needed or if the company's operations are not the cause of residents' problems, as Gilchrist has alleged.


Albany Times Union © 2000 Used with permission.

Back to Top

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

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Division of Environmental Permits, Region 4
1150 North Westcott Road, Schenectady, New York, 12306-2014 Phone: (518) 357-2069 . FAX: (518) 357-2460 Website: www.dec.state.nv.us

December 26, 2003

Jude Clemente
Troy & Gravel, Inc. PO Box 171
Watervliet, NY 12189-017


Erin M:Crotty Commissioner

RE: Notice of Incomplete ,Application
DEC #4-3830-00099/00001
MLF #407-3-31-0820
Proposed Nassau Quarry
Nassau (T), Rensselaer County

Dear Mr. Clemente:

This above-referenced application has been reviewed and deemed incomplete, pending receipt of the
following.

1. A Lead Agency Coordination Letter was forwarded to the Town of Nassau on December 5, 2003, requesting that our Department assume lead agency status. We are currently awaiting lead agency designation prior to making a determination of significance. Additional requests for information will be forwarded to you after lead agency has been established.

The following information and/or revisions are requested to the Mined Land Use Plan and application.

2. Mining Permit Application - Line 19 & 20 of the application form state that Hankle Realty Association, LLC c/o Richard Rowlands is the owner in fee and mineral right owner for the property. Line 21 must be signed by the land owner not by a representative of Troy & Gravel Inc. If a member of the corporation is also an official at Troy & Gravel, please clarify.

3. Mining & Reclamation Narrative

A. The mining narrative discusses the water table elevation to range from a 965' elevation at the on-property well, to a 990' elevation at the swamp. The EAF also states that the water table is 15 feet below the surface. Since the proposed mine floor elevation is at 980', there appears to be a chance of interception of the water table. In order to more accurately determine the high mean water table throughout the site, additional monitor wells should be drilled along the southeast and northeast perimeters of the mine. If the water table will be encountered by mining operations and the applicant intends to lower the water table through pumping during mining operations, a pump test will be required to be conducted to determine the aquifer parameters and the radius of influence from the lowering of the water table during mining operations.

B. The proposed storm water retention basin is currently located outside the northwest corner of the life of mine. This will be affected by the mining operation and must be included in the affected acreage of the life of mine. Please provide detailed designs of the basin and whether it will remain or be removed when the site is reclaimed? The Drainage and Water Control portion of the narrative also states that storm water will discharge from this feature. Therefore a SPDES permit will be needed unless all water from the site is maintained on-site. The project must also comply with the new Storm water Phase II requirements.

C. Provide the current average depth of topsoil over the entire site. What will happen to the temporary topsoil stockpiles as mining activities expand into future phases? In order to control excessive noise at the site, discuss the possibility of placing overburden and topsoil in permanent berms along the perimeter of the life of mine. Also justify the need for the early start time for the hours of operation (6:00 a.m.) or discuss the possibility of limiting operations before 7:00 a.m.. (Standard hours of operation are 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays). Provide the distance to any surrounding residential receptors.

D. Provide blasting information including but not limited to the following; 1) How often will blasts occur?
2) What will be the average borehole size and number of holes per blast? 3) What will be the average total weight of burden per blast? 4) What type of ignition will be used?
5) How many pounds of explosives per delay will be used?
6) What will be the anticipated peak particle velocity (PPV) be in inches per second? 7) Do any local ordinances governing blasting apply?
8) What is the direction and distance to any surrounding off-site receptors?
9) What steps will be taken to prevent fly-rock and limit the effects of air blasts and ground vibrations?
10) Actual use of and proposed placement of seismographs during blasts? 11) How will the production of dust and gas be reduced during each blast?
12) How will surrounding residences receive prior notification as to an upcoming blast? 13) Will pre-blast surveys be conducted of surrounding residences?

E. Provide detailed calculations and any information pertaining to how this project will affect surface drainage, flow patterns and possible groundwater recharge areas? Provide the location of the unnamed intermittent stream referenced in the EAF and how mining will affect this drainage feature.

F. Develop an effective dust control plan to prevent any specific or nonspecific point source dust problems from processing equipment, haul roads, stockpiles, movement of material, blasting, drilling operations prior to blasts and any other sources of dust during general operations of the site. Will any of the access road be paved as a method to limit dust and tracking of mud on to NYS Rte 66?

G. Since fuel will be stored on-site, provide the location in which any tanks will be stored and a detailed spill containment and counter measures plan for any possible spills. Provide details as to any maintenance shops or any other equipment maintenance to be conducted on-site. Information should be included in a Spill Prevention Plan.

H. Describe all processing equipment to be used on site and estimate maximum processing rates, to determine the need for air permits and/or registrations. Will any screening or washing occur on-site? If so, provide information as to the water use requirements for this equipment, and where water will be obtained.

J. What will be the maximum and average truck trips/hour at the site and how will truck traffic generated by the mining project affect local traffic patterns? Since the haul road exits onto a State highway, our office will consult with NYS DOT regarding impacts to traffic and level of service. Information relative to these issues must be included so that a determination can be made by DOT.

K. Discuss the use of existing vegetation and possible tree plantings as a vegetative buffer or the use of perimeter berms in order to provide visual screening of the site. A visual analysis must be prepared.

L. To what depth will overburden and topsoil be replaced over the benches and mine floor?

M. Provide the approximate number and locations of trees to be planted on-site during reclamation.

4. Other.

A. The project appears to be located in the general vicinity of potential archaeological sites. Although the life of mine area appears to be located outside the archaeological area on our resource maps, a copy of your application has been forwarded to the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation for a determination.

B. There are no State-regulated wetlands on-site. However, there are potential US Army Corps of Engineers (COE) wetlands in the area; and therefore, a determination must be made by the COE as to whether they have jurisdiction relative to these wetlands, and therefore, whether a Water Quality Certification may be required from our Department.

As noted above, additional information will be requested once lead agency has been established, however, this preliminary review is being forwarded to you at this time. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or concerns.


Sincerely,

Nancy Adams.
Environmental Analyst 2
Division of Environmental Permits
Region 4

CC: Supervisor, Town of Nassau
C.McKelvey, MLR - Region 4
Paul Griggs, Griggs-Lang Consulting Geologists, 679 Plank Road, Clifton Park, NY 12065
File

Back to Top

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

Letter To Nassau Town Board From Ken Dufty

December 18, 2003

Honorable Carol Sanford
Supervisor, Town of Nassau
Town of Nassau
Town Hall Nassau, New York

Dear Supervisor Sanford,

Thank you for contacting me and asking me to perform consulting work for the Town of Nassau on the pending mining application recently submitted to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ("NYSDEC") by Troy & Gravel ("TS&G").

Although I am honored that you would consider me for such an important task, I am afraid that, at this time, my personal and professional commitments and responsibilities leave little, if any, time for other pursuits.

However, I appreciate this opportunity to share with you some of my initial thoughts and suggestions on this matter.

As you probably know, a local government's jurisdiction in the decision-making and review process of a mining application is significantly limited by the Mined Land Reclamation Law, as codified in NYS Environmental Conservation Law Title 23. While a locality can make recommendations to the NYSDEC on the proposed mine's setbacks, manmade or natural berms (for screening and sound barrier purposes), dust control, hours of operation, and whether mining is prohibited on the proposed site [ECL 23-2703.3], the review and approval of the mining proposal is primarily performed by the NYSDEC.

That said, however, given the long-term nature and import of any proposal to mine natural resources from a primarily rural town, it is important for the local government and its citizens to become an active and indeed aggressive intervenor in the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) permitting process. As was the case in Dailey Mine in Hoosick, the Lane Quarry in Nassau, Inter-Power of New York proposed for Halfmoon, and American Ref-Fuel Incinerator proposed for Green Island, municipal and citizen input can be pivotal in the final outcome of any final decision on a project proposing a significant environmental impact and can and usually does shape and protect the future of a community.

Hard rock mining can impact a community and its surroundings in many different ways. Therefore it is important to look at the proposal's potential to affect the communities air quality, noise levels, traffic patterns and density, aesthetics, surface and groundwater resources, rural qualities, and overall safety. Once the applicant files an Environmental Impact Statement with the NYSDEC, the first task for the town and its citizens is usually to identify which of the above impacts pose the largest threat to the communities resources and character. The major tool underlying this identification is the scoping process as outlined in NYCRR Part 617.6(b)(2)(ii). Once identified, experts must be hired to investigate the proposed mitigation for these impacts, if any, and to determine if the impacts can be mitigated to the satisfaction of the town and its residents. If, after mitigation is maximized, there still remains a significant dispute between the permitting agency, the locality, the applicant, and\or citizen intervenors, then the issue should rise to the level of adjudication before a state Administrative Law Judge. This adjudication is costly and time consuming, but it is the only way in which a locality can sway the decision-making process in the final review of a mining application.

There are many individuals and experts available to assist the town in its review of this application. Several of them currently serve on the Rensselaer County Environmental Management Council, a volunteer organization that advises the Rensselaer County Legislature on issues regarding natural resources. You may want to contact the current Executive Director Jason Kippen for assistance in this matter.

In closing, if I were able to undertake this consultant job at this time, I would want to explore, among other things, the necessity for another mine in Rennselaer County at this time. There are currently 63 active mines in Rensselaer County with 1,446 acres actively being mined, and another 781 acres under permit to be affected. Note that although the NYS Mined Land Reclamation Law requires land that has been mined to be reclaimed for future use, only 25 acres in Rensselaer County has enjoyed that reclamation. On this point, "need" for a proposal is a consideration in the review of any major project, and it is my view that this issue should be explored fully.

Again, thank you for your consideration, and I am looking forward to working with you and the town on other issues when I have more time to dedicate to these important issues.

Thank you,

Ken Dufty

cc: members of the Town Council

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

Source: NYS DEC

Back to Top

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

Town of Nassau

Supervisor Ray Seney
PO Box 587, 29 Church
Nassau, NY 12123
Voice: (518) 766-3559
Fax: (518) 766-4422

Council Member Barbara Fausner
PO Box 587, 29 Church
Nassau, NY 12123
Voice: (518) 766-3559
Fax: (518) 766-4422

Council Member Michael Roland
PO Box 587, 29 Church
Nassau, NY 12123
Voice: (518) 766-3559
Fax: (518) 766-4422

Council Member Donald Carpentier
PO Box 587, 29 Church
Nassau, NY 12123
Voice: (518) 766-3559
Fax: (518) 766-4422

Council Member Ian Hart
PO Box 587, 29 Church
Nassau, NY 12123
Voice: (518) 766-3559
Fax: (518) 766-4422

Planning Board Chairman Melissa Toni
PO Box 587, 29 Church
Nassau, NY 12123
Voice: (518) 766-3559
Fax: (518) 766-4422

Zoning Board Chairman Kieth St.John
PO Box 587, 29 Church
Nassau, NY 12123
Voice: (518) 766-3559
Fax: (518) 766-4422

Rensselaer County

County Executive Kathleen M Jimino
Rensselaer County Office Building
1600 Seventh Avenue Troy, New York 12180
Voice: (518) 270-2900
Fax: (518) 270-2961
Email: kjimino@rensco.com

County Legislature

Laura Bauer
(Republican)
1600 Seventh Avenue
Troy, New York 12180
Phone (518) 270-2880
Fax (518) 270-2983
E-mail - lbauer@rensco.com
District One - City of Troy

James J. Brearton
(Republican)
1600 Seventh Avenue
Troy, New York 12180
Phone (518) 270-2880
Fax (518) 270-2983
E-mail - jbrearton@rensco.com
District One - City of Troy

Stan Brownell
(Republican)
1600 Seventh Avenue
Troy, New York 12180
Phone - (518) 270-2880
Fax - (518) 270-2983
E-mail - sbrownell@rensco.com
District Five - Towns of Hoosick, Berlin, Grafton, Stephentown and Petersburgh

Flora Fasoldt
(Democrat, Working Families)
1600 Seventh Avenue
Troy, New York 12180
Phone (518) 270-2890
Fax (518) 270-2975
E-mail - ffasoldt@rensco.com
District Four - Towns of Schodack, Sand Lake and Nassau

Lester Goodermote
(Republican)
1600 Seventh Avenue
Troy, New York 12180
Phone - (518) 270-2880
Fax - (518) 270-2983
E-mail - lgoodermote@rensco.com
District Five - Towns of Hoosick, Berlin, Grafton, Stephentown and Petersburgh

Peter D. Grimm
(Democrat, Working Families)
1600 Seventh Avenue
Troy, New York 12180
Phone (518) 270-2890
Fax (518) 270-2975
E-mail - pgrimm@rensco.com
District One - City of Troy

Keith A. Hammond
(Conservative)
1600 Seventh Avenue
Troy, New York 12180
Phone (518) 270-2890
Fax (518) 270-2975
E-mail - khammond@rensco.com
District Two - Towns of East Greenbush, North Greenbush, Poestenkill>/p>

Kevin Harrington
(Democrat)
1600 Seventh Avenue
Troy, New York 12180
Phone (518) 270-2890
Fax (518) 270-2975
E-mail - kharrington@rensco.com
District Two - Towns of East Greenbush, North Greenbush, Poestenkill

Kenneth H. Herrington
(Republican)
1600 Seventh Avenue
Troy, New York 12180
Phone (518) 270-2880
Fax (518) 270-2983
E-mail - kherrington@rensco.com
District Three - Towns of Brunswick, Pittstown and Schaghticoke

Nancy McHugh
(Republican)
1600 Seventh Avenue
Troy, New York 12180
Phone - (518) 270-2880
Fax - (518) 270-2983
E-mail - nmchugh@rensco.com
District One - City of Troy

Majority Leader
Robert Mirch
(Conservative)
1600 Seventh Avenue
Troy, New York 12180
Phone (518) 270-2880
Fax (518) 270-2983
E-mail - rmirch@rensco.com
District One - City of Troy

Minority Leader
Virginia O'Brien
(Democrat)
1600 Seventh Avenue
Troy, New York 12180
Phone (518) 270-2890
Fax (518) 270-2975
E-mail - gobrien@rensco.com
District Two - Towns of East Greenbush, North Greenbush, Poestenkill

Martin T. Reid
(Republican)
1600 Seventh Avenue
Troy, New York 12180
Phone (518) 270-2880
Fax (518) 270-2983
E-mail - mreid@rensco.com

Richard Salisbury
(Republican)
1600 Seventh Avenue
Troy, New York 12180
Phone (518)
Fax (518) 270-2983
E-mail - rsalisbury@rensco.com
District Three - Towns of Brunswick, Schaghticoke and Pittstown

Michael Stammel
(Republican)
1600 Seventh Avenue
Troy, New York 12180
Phone (518) 270-2880
Fax (518) 270-2983
E-mail - mstammel@rensco.com
District Six - City of Rensselaer

Edward R. Swartz
(Republican)
1600 Seventh Avenue
Troy, New York 12180
Phone (518) 270-2880
Fax (518) 270-2983
E-mail - eswartz@rensco.com

Thomas M. Walsh, Sr.
(Republican)
1600 Seventh Avenue
Troy, New York 12180
Phone (518) 270-2880
Fax (518) 270-2983
E-mail - twalsh@rensco.com
District Three - Towns of Brunswick, Schaghticoke and Pittstown

Brian S. Zweig
(Democrat)
1600 Seventh Avenue
Troy, New York 12180
Phone (518) 270-2890
Fax (518) 270-2975
E-mail - bzweig@rensco.com
District Two - Towns of East Greenbush, North Greenbush, Poestenkill

State Of New York

Governor Eliot Spitzer
State Capitol Albany, NY 12224
Voice: (518) 474-8390
Web: http://www.state.ny.us/governor

Lieutenant Governor David Paterson
State Capitol Albany, NY 12224

Senator Joseph L Bruno - District 43 909
Legislative Office Building Albany, New York 12247
Voice: (518) 455-3191
Web: http://204.168.97.3/Docs/members/Bruno.html

Assemblyman Tim Gordon - District 108 722
Legislative Office Building Albany, New York 12247
Voice: (518) 455-5777

Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo
Office of the Attorney General State Capitol Albany, NY 12204