Planning, Economic Development and Land Use Committee
Regular MeetingAlbany, NY · March 25, 2025
Minutes
ALBANY COMMON COUNCIL
PLANNING, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND LAND USE COMMITTEE MINUTES
Alfredo Balarin, Chair
Meeting called by: Alfredo Balarin, Chair | Date: March 25, 2025 | Time: 5:27 pm
Committee Members Present: Balarin, Chair ☒ | Adams ☒ | Zamer ☒ | Hoey ☒ | Clarke ☒
Council Members Present: Anane, Conti, Flynn, Keegan
City Personnel Present: Shaniqua Jackson (City Clerk), Bryan Jimenez (Legislative Director), Jake
Eisland (Research Counsel), Alyssa Kamara (Junior Policy Analyst); Faye
Andrews (Commissioner of Neighborhood and Community Services), Joseph
Coffey (Commissioner of Water & Water Supply), Avi Epstein (Principal
Planner), Bradley Glass (Planning Director), Joseph Gregory (Chief of Fire &
Emergency Services), Richard LaJoy (Director of Buildings & Regulatory
Compliance), Trey Kingston (Commissioner of Assessment), Robert Magee
(Corporation Counsel), Jason Thomas (Assistant Corporation Counsel)
Minutes
Agenda Item(s):
ORDINANCE 68.121.24
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 375 (UNIFIED SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE)
OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF ALBANY IN RELATION TO PERMITTING ACCESSORY DWELLING
UNITS
UPDATE FROM THE SPONSOR: ORDINANCE 17.53.24
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PART 3 (CABARETS) OF CHAPTER 111 (AMUSEMENTS), PART 35
(BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS) OF CHAPTER 42 (DEPARTMENTS AND COMMISSIONS), AND
CHAPTER 375 (UNIFIED SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE) OF THE CODE OF THE CITY
OF ALBANY IN RELATION TO REVISING REQUIREMENTS FOR CABARET AND ACCESSORY
ENTERTAINMENT
Public Comment:
Bruce Mastrorovich, 152 Washington Avenue, Albany NY—Ordinance 68.121.24
Discussion:
Council Member Alfredo Balarin moved public comment to a later point in the meeting.
Council Member Alfredo Balarin asked invited city personnel to join the Committee and other Council Members
in discussing Ordinance 68.121.24.
o Commissioner of Assessment Trey Kingston discussed existing Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) within
the City of Albany.
Commissioner Kingston shared concerns regarding the enforceability and verification of the
requirements outlined in Section A(ii) of the legislation.
Commissioner Kingston noted his concerns regarding using “gross area” under subsections 6 and
7 of Section 2 of the ordinance; he suggested that the legislation may want to include an extra
10% in addition to 800 square feet of gross area outlined to properly account for living area.
Commissioner Kingston discussed difficulties in measuring the percentages of land use in a
specific area, suggesting a clearer definition for a “rear” in subsection 7.
Council Member Thomas Hoey asked Commissioner Kingston about the impact an ADU may
have on an assessment. Noting possible Albany County tax exemptions, he additionally asked
Commissioner Kingston for a rough estimation of the difference between a City and County tax.
Commissioner Kingston explained that due to the Office of Assessment’s group appraisal
process, a discussion on the impacts on the surrounding properties’ assessments may be
more relevant. He proceeded to explain that the construction of an ADU may result in a
small percentage increase in the overall tax bill for the surrounding properties.
Commissioner Kingston also discussed his understanding of the County’s work on
finalizing a tax exemption for ADUs in specific scenarios.
Council Member Hoey asked about how homeowners with an ADU could contest their
assessment to which Commissioner Kingston explained possible evaluation processes that could
be undertaken by the Department of Assessment.
Council Member Richard Conti asked for clarification on if in-law apartments must be attached to
the main structure to which Commissioner Kingston explained that it is not a codified
requirement according to New York State Real Property Tax Law but assessment-related property
classes imply in-law apartments are attached.
Council Member Conti asked if a detached ADU would classify as a two-family house to
which Commissioner Kingston noted that the distinction between a two family house and
an in-law apartment would be discretionary.
Council Member Conti reiterated the previous discussion regarding the impacts of ADU
construction on surrounding properties’ tax bills to which Commissioner Kingston clarified that
his evaluation was based on the assumption that parcels with ADUs will have a premium price.
Council Member Sergio Adams asked Commissioner Kingston about how soon surrounding
properties may see tax increases considering an assumedly slow uptake of construction of ADUs.
Council Member Adams proceeded to ask about the impact of a tax increase on neighbors.
Commissioner Kingston explained that with one ADU, regardless of incredible premiums
being paid, the increase would likely be less than $100. He proceeded to explain that due
to the group appraisal process, if there are few unique properties in an overall
homogeneous neighborhood, they may be more severely impacted if they are assessed
against a property with an ADU that sold recently. Commissioner Kingston noted that
Council Member Hoey’s ward (15) would likely not be impacted by numerous high-
premium ADUs due to the ward’s property composition.
Council Member Deborah Zamer asked Commissioner Kingston about how other substantive
improvements to homes, such as additions, may impact the appraisal process.
Commissioner Kingston explained how changes in square footage will impact the
property owner but not the surrounding properties.
Council Member Zamer sought clarification regarding other scenarios that could impact
appraisals the same way as Commissioner Kingston previously hypothesized ADUs
could; Commissioner Kingston explained how in-law apartments may be a similar
scenario, but the Office of Assessment is impacted by barriers to data. He clarified that
similar scenarios would be additions that may be accompanied by an extra revenue
stream.
Council Member Zamer inquired about the permissibility of the existing ADUs within the
City to which Commissioner Kingston stated he was not sure.
Council Member Conti asked about the enforceability of requiring ADUs to be homeowner
occupied and how that provision may impact the sale of a property with an ADU.
Commissioner Kingston shared his research into the homeowner occupancy requirement,
sharing his uncertainty regarding it’s enforceability despite municipalities legislating
similar requirements.
Council Member Conti requested further research into enforcement regarding the
homeowner to be the primary occupant of one of the structures after being sold the
property.
Council Member Hoey asked Commissioner Kingston about the application of federal
discrimination laws for those with two or more units to which Commissioner Kingston explained
that the criteria is two or less units in New York State and the Federal standards outline four or
less units. Commissioner Kingston clarified that regardless, landlords cannot discriminate against
tenants.
Council Member Hoey requested additional legal research on this subject.
Council Member Owusu Anane asked Commissioner Kingston to share any positive impacts the
legislation may have on the City of Albany to which Commissioner Kingston noted that the
purpose of his discussion was to clarify the legislation to prevent unexpected issues.
Commissioner Kingston proceeded to discuss how ADUs would allow for more intergenerational
housing and additional economic/business opportunity for new homeowners within the City of
Albany.
Council Member Zamer inquired if an ADU would undergo the same requirements as other
properties, such as receiving a certificate of occupancy. She additionally asked if the
requirements would differ for family members or tenant occupants.
Commissioner of Buildings and Regulatory Compliance Richard LaJoy noted that if a
family member was occupying the ADU, they would not be required to get a Residential
Occupancy Permit to which Council Member Zamer noted that the legislation may need
to account for this.
o Council Member Alfredo Balarin invited Planning Director Brad Glass and Principal Planner Avi Epstein
to present on Ordinance 68.121.24 and discuss with present Council Members and other City Personnel.
Council Member Hoey asked Principal Planner Avi Epstein about the population change to which
Planning Director Glass noted that despite a stagnating population growth, the average household
size is going down, indicating a demand for units.
Council Member Hoey asked about the Department of Planning’s consideration of the
City’s emergency services’ capacity to respond to the needs of a city with a growing
population size. Principal Planner Epstein explained that the population growth has not
affected capacity beyond the city’s ability to accommodate.
Council Member Hoey disagreed, noting that AirBNB rentals impeding parking in the
15th ward indicates a need to address growth in the city. He then expressed his concerns
about ADUs being similarly rented, further impacting traffic.
o Principal Planner Epstein responded, noting that ADUs are a great way to add
contextual housing options without increasing the amount of parking because
they are among the lowest generators of additional parking. He also shared that
due to the 800 square foot size limit, the amount of occupants of the space are
also limited; smaller households typically have less dependence on vehicles.
Director Glass shared his support for Council Member Hoey’s advocacy for sidewalks on
Russell Road.
Council Member Hyde Clarke asked if the analysis undertaken by planning investigated how
many properties could actually support a detached ADU. He noted his concerns about existing
setback requirements limiting the amount of properties eligible.
Principal Planner Epstein noted that the department lacked the data to conduct such an
analysis, however previous research supported his conclusion that there are likely more
applicable properties that may convert an existing structure. He noted that the impending
amount of ADU construction may be overstated as Colonie has constructed
approximately fifty.
Council Member Clarke noted his concerns about the legislation’s drafting and it’s
cohesion with the comprehensive plan. He also expressed confusion regarding the
ordinance’s general allowance of ADUs. Council Member Clarke additionally asked if
there are other sections of the Unified Sustainable Development Ordinance (USDO) that
need to be amended to allow ADUs.
o Director Glass shared that ADUs were proposed to be included in the USDO in
2017 and Albany is becoming an outlier amongst other municipalities in not
allowing them, noting that Colonie passed legislation permitting ADUs in 2018.
He proceeded to explain that the ordinance is consistent with the comprehensive
plan.
o Council Member Clarke reiterated his confusion regarding the legislation’s
drafting and emphasized his concerns about consistency across the entire USDO
to which Principal Planner Epstein explained how the legislation coincided with
existing standards. He noted that provisions could be adjusted if desired.
o Council Meghan Keegan responded to Council Member Clarke, to contextualize
the legislation, noting the historical resistance to altering R1 districts within
Albany.
o Council Member Conti and Director Glass supported Council Member Keegan’s
claims; Council Member Conti noted that the proposition of ADUs were not
rejected in 2017, the Council just was concerned about the Council’s capacity to
address the issue at that time.
Council Member Conti inquired about the definition of a “detached dwelling” and if a particular
type of construction could be considered an ADU to which Principal Planner Epstein explained.
Council Member Hoey asked about how ADUs were implemented in Colonie to which Principal
Planner Epstein shared that he believed that they were generally allowed in all districts besides
heavily industrial or commercial areas. He noted that Troy has not seen a rush of applications for
ADU constructions.
Principal Planner Epstein verified Committee Chair Balarin’s statement that only one ADU
would be allowed on a on a multi-unit property. Additionally, Council Member Balarin asked
about the minimum size requirement for an ADU to which Principal Planner Epstien explained
that although there is no minimum, the space would have to be habitable under Codes’ standards.
Director LaJoy explained what qualified as habitable.
o Fire Chief Joseph Gregory noted a list of concerns and recommendations from the Fire Department,
regarding access with firefighting equipment, limited separation between the primary residence and ADU,
and clearly identifying occupant locations during an emergency.
Council Member Conti asked Chief Gregory about the difference in responding to fires in areas
with different densities and building structures to which Chief Gregory discussed the importance
of clearly identifiable dwellings during a fire.
Council Member Hoey asked about how ADUs will be provided addresses, citing concerns about
emergency response accessibility. Chief Gregory shared that the ADU would become
incorporated in their dispatch system. Director LaJoy noted that Codes requires separate living
units to be clearly identifiable and numerated. Principal Planner Epstein noted that the Planning
department sometimes works with the County’s 911 dispatch for addressing units.
o Director LaJoy noted that his primary concerns pertained to verifying who lives in the dwelling and when
it is being rented to ensure they are following standards outlined by the department if they will not require
ROPs. He also expressed concerns about the enforcement of the homeowner occupied requirement.
Council Member Keegan asked for clarification on if waiving ROP requirements for family
members was part of local or state code to which Director LaJoy stated he believed it was part of
the Unified Sustainable Development Ordinance. Council Member Keegan proceeded to discuss
the body’s ability to structure language that would remove ROP exemptions, requiring updated
occupancy certificates for ADU rentals.
Council Member Keegan noted that requiring ROPs could resolve the presented concerns to
which Director LaJoy shared his support for this provision.
Council Member Balarin shared his concerns about requiring inspections for family-occupied
ADUs due to perceived government overstepping.
Council Member Conti asked for clarification on the family member rental ROP exception to
which Director LaJoy explained that if one signs an affidavit stating their familial relation, Codes
will not charge or require the ROP inspection.
Council Member Balarin shared that ROPs are a requirement for tenant evictions which would
incentivize landlords to go through the ROP process.
Council Member Hoey asked about the enforcement of the “Grouper Law” to which Director
LaJoy explained that upon legal advice, his department does not ask about familial relation but
can approach overcrowding in other ways.
Council Member Hoey shared his concerns about ADUs being used as short-term rentals and how
they will be regulated to which Director LaJoy shared that the primary way to verify short-term
rental use is through owner confirmation.
Council Member Hoey asked about insurance requirements for rentals to which Director LaJoy
expressed that there was no way to enforce rental insurance.
Council Member Balarin inquired about the possibility of a provision that requires that only one
of two dwellings on a lot with an ADU can be rented as to ensure the homeowner occupied unit
would not be subject to an ROP inspection to which Director LaJoy confirmed said requirements
already exist.
Council Member Balarin asked about the ability to limit the amount of ROPs to which
Director LaJoy stated he was unsure.
Council Member Keegan inquired if the legislation already effects Council Member
Balarin’s request to which Director LaJoy verified but expressed concerns about
enforceability of the homeowner-occupied requirement after a property changes
ownership.
Council Member Conti reemphasized Council Member Keegan’s point, illustrating that
records indicating an existing ROP would preclude the issuance of another for a property
after an ownership transfer and strengthen the enforceability of the provision.
Council Member Balarin asked if the legislation needed to clarify this point to which
Council Member Zamer clarified that the issue with enforceability is in regards to those
who do not comply with ROP requirements.
Council Member Hoey asked if the homeowner-occupied requirement would be included
on the deed of a property to which Director Glass noted that mortgage companies
typically check zoning compliance certificates to identify how a property can be used.
o Commissioner of Water and Water Supply Joseph Coffey noted that the department has no stance on the
ordinance but would like to sell more water; he expressed the need to clarify the requirement for a
detached ADU to require a separate meter water connection and sanitary sewer connection.
Council Member Hoey asked about the responsibility of replacing lead service lines to which
Commissioner Coffey explained that the department would typically not be involved in the
addition of a new structure, that all lead lines will need to be replaced, and reemphasized the need
for separate connections.
Director LaJoy advocated for ADUs to have their own power sources.
Public comment was heard.
Council Member Sergio Adams provided an update on progress made on editing Ordinance 17.53.24.
o Council Member Conti expressed his disappointment regarding the version of Ordinance 17.53.24 put
forth by Council Members Flynn and Adams.
Adjourn:
Council Member Hoey moved to adjourn, duly seconded by Council Member Adams. The Chair declared the meeting
adjourned at 7:29 PM.
Respectfully Submitted,
Alyssa Kamara
Junior Policy Analyst
Agenda
COMMON COUNCIL MEETING
PLANNING, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND LAND USE
Alfredo Balarin, Chair
DATE: TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 2025
TIME: 5:30PM
LOCATION: Council Chambers-2nd Floor, City Hall
LIVESTREAM: YouTube— https://www.youtube.com/@albanycommoncouncil
Facebook— https://www.facebook.com/albany.commoncouncil
TOPICS OF DISCUSSION:
Update from the Sponsor: Ordinance 17.53.24
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PART 3 (CABARETS) OF CHAPTER 111
(AMUSEMENTS), PART 35 (BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS) OF CHAPTER 42
(DEPARTMENTS AND COMMISSIONS), AND CHAPTER 375 (UNIFIED
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE) OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF
ALBANY IN RELATION TO REVISING REQUIREMENTS FOR CABARET AND
ACCESSORY ENTERTAINMENT
Ordinance 68.121.24
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 375 (UNIFIED SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE) OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF ALBANY IN
RELATION TO PERMITTING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: YES
Matters in strikethrough to be deleted. Matter underlined is new material
Council Members Flynn and Adams introduced the following:
ORDINANCE 17.53.24
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PART 3 (CABARETS) OF CHAPTER 111
(AMUSEMENTS), PART 35 (BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS) OF CHAPTER 42
(DEPARTMENTS AND COMMISSIONS), AND CHAPTER 375 (UNIFIED
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE) OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF
ALBANY IN RELATION TO REVISING REQUIREMENTS FOR CABARET AND
ACCESSORY ENTERTAINMENT
The City of Albany, in Common Council convened, does hereby ordain and enact:
Section 1. Paragraph C of Section 360 of Article XLVI (General Provisions) of Part 35
(Board of Zoning Appeals) of Chapter 42 (Departments and Commissions) of Part I
(Administrative Legislation) is hereby amended as follows:
§ 42-360. Powers and duties.
A. The Board of Zoning Appeals shall have the power and duty to hear and decide appeals from
any orders, requirements, decisions or determinations made by a City administrative official
interpreting or implementing the provisions of Chapter 375, or as otherwise provided by law.
B. The Board may interpret the provisions of Chapter 375, grant or deny variances as therein
provided.
C. The Board shall hear and decide appeals from the decision or determination of the City Clerk
relative to the issuance of a cabaret license pursuant to Part 3 of Chapter 111 of the Code of
the City of Albany and as called upon by any other chapters in the Albany City Code.
Section 2. Part 3 (Cabarets) of Chapter 111 (Amusements) of Part II (General Legislation)
is hereby repealed in its entirety and replaced as follows:
Part 3 Accessory Entertainment
Article VIII Accessory Entertainment
§ 111-64. Standard for Sound.
The operation of Accessory Entertainment shall be unlawful when the level of sound is deemed
unreasonably loud by a reasonable person of normal sensitivity. In determining reasonableness of
the sound, the following factors shall be considered:
A. Level or intensity of the noise. Whether the noise produced is at a level or volume
that exceeds the level or intensity normally expected for the operation of the Accessory
Entertainment.
Matters in strikethrough to be deleted. Matter underlined is new material
B. Duration of the noise. Whether the noise is constantly at an unreasonable volume or
whether the noise occasionally reaches an unreasonable volume, including but not
limited to such factors as permanence, continuance, intermittence, and temporariness.
C. The ambient noise. Whether the operation of Accessory Entertainment significantly
impacts the ambient noise level or whether the accessory entertainment is not
substantially louder than the ambient noise at that location.
D. Time of day. Whether the noise occurs at a time that loud noises are considered
common or expected.
E. Mitigation strategies employed to lessen noise. Whether the operators of the
Accessory Entertainment employ reasonable mitigation strategies to lessen the impacts
of excess noise.
§ 111-65. Enforcement.
A. The Albany Police Department shall issue warnings to owners and operators of
Accessory Entertainment in violation of §111-64. After receipt of a warning, owners
or operators shall be provided a reasonable time to reduce the level of sound to comply
with the standard set by §111-64. Upon expiration of this time, the Albany Police
Department shall coordinate with the Department of Buildings and Regulatory
Compliance to issue a Cease and Desist for violations of the rules regarding the
operation of Accessory Entertainment.
1. Cease and Desists issued under this section shall be in effect for 12 hours and
require a sworn statement by an officer of the Albany Police Department witnessing
the violation.
2. Warnings shall be provided once per day to each establishment in violation prior to
the issuance of a Cease and Desist for Accessory Entertainment.
B. The recipient of a Cease and Desist related to the operation of Accessory
Entertainment shall have the right to a hearing before the Board of Zoning Appeals
regarding such order. The Board of Zoning Appeals shall be empowered to reduce a
Cease and Desist related to the operation of Accessory Entertainment to a warning
retroactively. The absence of testimony in support of upholding a Cease and Desist at
such hearing shall automatically reduce the Cease and Desist to a warning
retroactively. Cease and Desists reduced in accordance with this subsection shall not
be considered an accrued Cease and Desist for the purposes outlined in § 375-
303(6)(c).
C. The Department of Neighborhood and Community Services shall provide a manner
by which the public may submit complaints on the operation of Accessory
Entertainment.
Matters in strikethrough to be deleted. Matter underlined is new material
D. The Department of Neighborhood and Community Services shall post online and
provide notice of the prohibition of Accessory Entertainment to the:
1. Prohibited owners or operators whom such notice relates
2. Department of Planning and Development
3. Albany Police Department
4. Albany Fire Department
5. Law Department
6. City Clerk
7. Common Council member representing the ward within which such prohibition is
in effect
8. Business Improvement District within which such prohibition is in effect, should
such exist
9. Neighborhood Association, whose boundaries, such as are catalogued by the
Department of Neighborhood and Community Services, contain the prohibition
therein
§ 111-66 through § 111-83. (Reserved)
Section 3. Subparagraph c (Cabaret) of Paragraph 6 (Accessory uses) of Section 303 (Use-
specific standards) of Article III (Use Regulations) of Chapter 375 (Unified Sustainable
Development Ordinance) of Part II (General Legislation) is hereby amended as follows:
(c) Cabaret. Accessory Entertainment.
(i) Dancing and/or the use of a disc jockey (DJ), karaoke machine, or live music
entertainment that is amplified and/or performed by three or more people is
permitted only where an establishment has sought and obtained a cabaret
license from the City Clerk as set forth in Chapter 111 of the City Code.
(i) General Requirements
(A) No owner or operator who has accumulated four or more Cease and
Desists at a particular premise within the preceding two years regarding the
operation of Accessory Entertainment shall be allowed to operate
Accessory Entertainment at that particular premise.
(B) Operation of Accessory Entertainment shall be unlawful when its
operation violates the standards of § 111-64.
Matters in strikethrough to be deleted. Matter underlined is new material
(ii) Outdoor Accessory Entertainment Limitations
(A) Operation of Accessory Entertainment outside of a building shall be
permitted in residential/mixed-use districts from 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.
(B) Operation of Accessory Entertainment outside of a building shall be
lawful in nonresidential zoning districts from 8:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m.
Section 4. Paragraph “Cabaret” of Section 602 (Definitions) of Article III (Use
Regulations) of Chapter 375 (Unified Sustainable Development Ordinance) of Part II (General
Legislation) is hereby amended as follows:
CABARET ACCESSORY ENTERTAINMENT
Any room, place or space in the City in which any musical entertainment, singing, dancing
or other form of entertainment is permitted in connection with a catering establishment, tavern or
restaurant business or an establishment directly or indirectly selling to the public food or drink,
except eating or drinking places that provide incidental musical entertainment performed by fewer
than three people with no amplification, or through a central audio system, including the use of a
jukebox. Cabaret shall also include: Any room, place or space in the City in which any
entertainment is provided by a commercial establishment where such entertainment is not the
primary purpose of the property. Accessory Entertainment shall also include:
(1) A membership corporation, club, association or society that permits musical
entertainment, singing, dancing or other form of entertainment in premises wherein food
or drink is directly or indirectly sold to its members, or their guests, or to the public;
(2) A premises owned or occupied by a religious or educational institution that permits
musical entertainment, singing, dancing or other forms of entertainment in said premises
that do not coincide with a religious or educational service or do not arise directly from the
eleemosynary charitable purposes of such institution; or
(3) A ship, boat or barge moored or tied to a dock, pier or shore and that contains a cabaret
Accessory Entertainment in use while so moored or tied.
Section 6. Paragraph “Cabaret” of Section 302 (Permitted Use Table) of Article III (Use
Regulations) of Chapter 375 (Unified Sustainable Development Ordinance) of Part II (General
Legislation) is hereby amended as follows:
Matters in strikethrough to be deleted. Matter underlined is new material
Table 375.302.1
Permitted Use Table
P=Permitted Use | C=Conditional Use | A=Accessory Use | T=Temporary Use
Use-Specific
Special
Residential Mixed-Use Standard in Article
Purpose
III
Zoning District
MU-CI
R-1L R-1M MU-NE MU-NC MU-CU MU-CH MU-DT MU-FC MU-FS MU-FM
R-2
R-V
I-2
R-T I-1 LC
MU-FW
R-M
LAND USE CATEGORY
ACCESSORY USES
Accessory dwelling § 375-303(6)(a)
unit
Alternative energy A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A § 375-303(6)(b)
generation equipment
Cabaret Accessory A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A § 375-303(6)(c)
Entertainment
Composting of A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A § 375-303(6)(d)
household waste
Customary accessory A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A § 375-303(6)(e)
uses and related
structures
Day-care home A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A § 375-303(6)(f)
Delivery service A A A A A A A A A A A A § 375-303(6)(g)
Drive-in or drive- C A A A A § 375-303(6)(h)
through facility
Electric vehicle A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A § 375-303(6)(i)
charging station
Home occupation A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A § 375-303(6)(j)
Section 7. Subsection iii of Subparagraph m (Sidewalk or outdoor cafe) of Paragraph 6
(Accessory Uses) of Section 303 (Use-specific standards) of Article III (Use Regulations) of
Chapter 375 (Unified Sustainable Development Ordinance) of Part II (General Legislation) is
hereby amended as follows:
(iii) Sidewalk or outdoor cafes shall not use music or noise amplification devices, and no
music or entertainment of any type is permitted outdoors at volumes above an ambient level.
Section 8. This ordinance shall take effect 60 days from final passage.
APPROVED AS TO FORM
DATE
________________________________
Corporation Counsel
Matters in strikethrough to be deleted. Matter underlined is new material
To: Shaniqua Jackson, City Clerk
From: Bryan Jimenez, Legislative Director
Re: Common Council Legislation
Supporting Memorandum
Date: May 9, 2024
Updated: November 19, 2024
Sponsor: Council Members Flynn and Adams
ORDINANCE 17.53.24
TITLE
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PART 3 (CABARETS) OF CHAPTER 111 (AMUSEMENTS),
PART 35 (BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS) OF CHAPTER 42 (DEPARTMENTS AND
COMMISSIONS), AND CHAPTER 375 (UNIFIED SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
ORDINANCE) OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF ALBANY IN RELATION TO REVISING
REQUIREMENTS FOR CABARET AND ACCESSORY ENTERTAINMENT
GENERAL PURPOSE OF LEGISLATION
To repeal the cabaret licensing system, rename cabarets to "Accessory Entertainment," clarify the
applicability for consistency and fairness, and establish regulations governing the operation of
Accessory Entertainment.
NECESSITY FOR LEGISLATION AND CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
This ordinance repeals a licensing system established in 2012 that:
Established an unclear definition of "cabaret" that captures standard operations for a
substantial number of businesses, from sports bars to comedy clubs;
Delegated nontransparent rulemaking authorities to 5 City officials and duplicated existing
regulatory reviews;
Required yearly renewals with no guarantee or timeline for decision-making;
Burdened the City Clerk's office with a public hearing and noticing process;
Prohibited the transference of a license, limiting the ability of owners to sell their
businesses; and
Restricted convicted felons from operating an establishment with this type of accessory
entertainment, regardless of time served.
The zoning code is then amended to:
Rename "cabaret" to "Accessory Entertainment;"
Clarify the scope of Accessory Entertainment by expanding it to cover all forms of
entertainment provided by an establishment where it is not the primary purpose of the
establishment;
Utilize the regulatory powers of the Department of Buildings and Regulatory Compliance
to establish a system that automatically prohibits establishments that frequently flout the
Matters in strikethrough to be deleted. Matter underlined is new material
noise ordinance from further operation of the accessory entertainment for a period of two
years from the first of the fourth most recently received cease and desists, and automatically
lifts the prohibition upon the expiration of two years;
Provide an opportunity for establishments to appeal cease and desists related to the
operation of Accessory Entertainment to the Board of Zoning Appeals which may decide
to reduce the order to a warning retroactively;
Provide that warnings be issued to establishments prior to the issuance of cease and desists
related to the operation of accessory entertainment;
Establish prohibited hours of operations for outdoor accessory entertainment in-line with
the sidewalk or outdoor café regulations; and
Permit the provision of music by an establishment at their sidewalk or outdoor cafes at
levels at or below an ambient level.
The transition from a licensing system to allowing operation of accessory entertainment by right
reduces barriers for businesses to provide entertainment to their guests and customers without
FISCAL IMPACT(S)
Cabaret licenses have certain fees associated with their issuance. The City would no longer collect
such fees if cabaret licenses are no longer issued, but the full fiscal impact of this legislation has
yet to be determined.
Matters in strikethrough to be deleted. Matter underlined is new material
Council Members Anane, Adams, Johnson, Keegan, Love, and Robinson introduced the
following:
ORDINANCE 68.121.24
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 375 (UNIFIED SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE) OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF ALBANY IN
RELATION TO PERMITTING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
The City of Albany, in Common Council convened, does hereby ordain and enact:
Section 1. Section 375-302 (Permitted Use Table) of Chapter 375 of the Code of the City of Albany
is amended to read as follows:
Table 375.302.1
Permitted Use Table
P=Permitted Use | C=Conditional Use | A=Accessory Use | T=Temporary Use
Use-Specific
Special
Residential Mixed-Use Standard in Article
Purpose
III
Zoning District
R-1L R-1M MU-NE MU-NC MU-CU MU-CH MU-DT MU-CI MU-FW MU-FC MU-FS MU-FM
R-2
R-V
I-2
R-T I-1 LC
R-M
LAND USE CATEGORY
ACCESSORY USES
Accessory
A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A § 375-303(6)(a)
dwelling unit
Section 2. Paragraph (a) (Accessory Dwelling Unit) of Subsection (6) (Accessory Uses) of
Section 375-303 (Use-specific standards) of Chapter 375 of the Code of the City of Albany is
amended as follows:
(a) Accessory dwelling unit. No accessory dwelling unit shall be allowed until stated otherwise.
(i) This use shall be accessory to a single-unit detached dwelling or shall be a caretaker
unit for a nonresidential use.
(ii) The property owner shall occupy either the primary or the accessory dwelling unit as
their primary residence.
(iii) On lots containing an accessory dwelling unit, neither the primary nor accessory
dwelling unit may be made available for rent by guests for less than thirty consecutive
days where the unit is offered for tourist or transient use.
Matters in strikethrough to be deleted. Matter underlined is new material
(iv) No more than two dwelling structures, including structures containing an accessory
dwelling unit, may be permitted on a single lot.
(v) For the purpose of providing adequate fire protection access, the distance from the
nearest street frontage to the center of the rear wall of the accessory dwelling unit
shall not exceed 150 feet of travel distance.
(vi) An accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed 800 square feet of gross floor area.
(vii) A detached accessory dwelling unit shall not occupy more than 30 percent of the rear
yard.
(viii) A detached accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed the height of the principal
dwelling structure or 24 feet, whichever is less.
(ix) An attached accessory dwelling unit shall be subject to the same setback, height and
impervious lot coverage regulations as the primary structure.
(x) A detached accessory dwelling unit shall be subject to the same setback regulations as
accessory structures.
(xi) An accessory dwelling unit, whether detached or attached to a primary dwelling
structure, may be directly accessed from an alley, but shall not be accessed via a
driveway separate from that serving the primary dwelling structure.
(xii) When an accessory dwelling unit is attached to a principal dwelling structure, only
one entrance structure may face the front lot line.
(xiii) An existing accessory structure whose height, setbacks, or impervious lot coverage do
not meet the requirements of a dwelling in its zoning district, may be converted into
an accessory dwelling unit, but the structure may not be altered in any way that
increases the noncompliance.
(xiv) Mobile homes, trailers, or other wheeled and transportable structures may not be used
as an accessory dwelling unit.
Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect immediately.
APPROVED AS TO FORM THIS
22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
________________________________
Corporation Counsel
Matters in strikethrough to be deleted. Matter underlined is new material
To: Shaniqua Jackson, City Clerk
From: Jake Eisland, Research Counsel
Re: Common Council Legislation
Supporting Memorandum
Date: November 21, 2024
Sponsor: Council Member Anane
ORDINANCE 68.121.24
TITLE
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 375 (UNIFIED SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
ORDINANCE) OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF ALBANY IN RELATION TO PERMITTING
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
GENERAL PURPOSE OF LEGISLATION
This ordinance seeks to increase permit Accessory Dwelling Units in Zoning Districts
NECESSITY FOR LEGISLATION AND CHANGE TO EXISITING LAW
In order to effect a change to the USDO, an ordinance would be required alongside all requisite
reviews and public hearings.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
Get email alerts for Albany
A daily email when new agendas and minutes are posted.