Zoning Board of Appeals

Catherine Conroy THE CITY OF Steven Strichman Chairperson Planning Commissioner Phone (518) 279-7152 Phone (518) 279-7166 Fax (518) 268-1690 Fax (518) 268-1690 Zoning Board of Appeals NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Troy, New York will conduct a REGULAR PUBLIC HEARING at 6:00 P.M. on Tuesday, November 14, 2017 on the 5th Floor of 433 River Street, to act upon the following requests for approvals and appeals from decisions made by the Bureau of Code Enforcement of the City of Troy. ZB 2016-21 JHM, LLC requests an Appeal of prior determination by a city official that the November 1, 2016 Use Variance approval granted to 520 Fifth Avenue (ID 80.64-6-19) remains valid. ZB 2017-53 MET 2015, LLC. Requests a Special Use Permit for a restaurant with a maximum of 25 customers) and for an architectural office with 3 employees, as well as an Area Variance for a deficiency of 26 parking spaces, related to a proposal to renovate a vacant building and occupy it with a café, architectural office, and 2 apartments, at 6 Franklin Place (ID 101.69-10-10), in an R-4 zone. ZB 2017-54 Yankee Woodworks, LLC, requests an Area Variance for a side setback deficiency related to a proposal to install a 11’ x 22’ carport over a driveway alongside a detached single house at 214 Sherman Avenue (ID 112.80-3-6) in a R-1 zone. ZB 2017-55a David Ferris and Trudy Weldon request an Interpretation of whether a proposed 15’ W x 10’ L x 8.1’ H shed at 811 Second Avenue (ID 80.32-2-3), a parcel in a R-1 zone with no other structure, would constitute an accessory structure to 815 Second Avenue. ZB 2017-55b David Ferris and Trudy Weldon request a Use Variance and Area Variance for rear and side setback deficiencies related to a proposal to demolish a 9’ W x 7’ L shed and replace it with a new 15’ W x 10’ L x 8.1’ H shed, on a parcel with no other structure, at 811 Second Avenue (ID 80.32-2-3), in a R-1 zone. (Note: This case is contingent upon the preceding case.) ZB 2017-56 Richard J. Harte requests an Area Variance for minimum lot area deficiency and excessive density related to an expansion of a nonconforming 2-unit residence, at 801 Third Avenue (ID 80.32-3-5) in an R-2 Zone. ZB 2017-57 Troy Housing Authority seeks Area Variances for a parking deficiency, front setback deficiency, and lot width deficiency, related to a subdivision of the administrative office from the other buildings at the Martin Luther King Apartments at 1 Eddy’s Lane (ID 90.55-7- 1.2) in an R-2 zone. City Hall, 433 River Street, Troy, New York 12180 ZB 2017-58 Chris Ferraro requests a Use Variance and Area Variances for lot area deficiency and excessive density, related to a proposal to convert a 2-unit residence to a 3-unit residence, at 17 101st Street (ID 90.47-4-31) in an R-2 zone. ZB 2017-59 James Strope requests a Use Variance and Area Variances for front setback deficiency, rear setback deficiency, and side setback deficiency, related to a proposal to build a storage facility for materials for a concrete business on a currently vacant lot, at Smart Court (no street number) (ID 112.67-1-1.1), in an R-2 zone. ZB 2017-60 James Strope requests a Use Variance, related to a proposal to build a 30’ W x 50’ L x 25’ H garage and a 25’ x 25’ x 10’ garage on a currently vacant lot, at Smart Court (no street number) (ID 112.67-1-1.2), in an R-2 zone. Additional information regarding the above listed actions is available in the Department of Planning and Community Development located on the 5th floor of Troy City Hall, 433 River Street, Troy, New York 12180. Telephone: 279-7152. E-mail: christine.hillary@troyny.gov Office hours are from 8:30 A.M. to 4:30 P.M. on weekdays. As required by Americans with Disabilities Act, auxiliary aids and services are available upon request. Please give one-week advance notice for services needed. City of Troy Zoning Board of Appeals Catherine Conroy, Chairperson Christine C. Hillary, Executive Secretary City Hall, 433 River Street, Troy, New York 12180  THE CITY OF Catherine Conroy Andrew Petersen Zoning Board of Appeals Executive Secretary Chairperson Phone (518) 279-7168 Phone (518) 279-7168 Fax (518) 270-4642 Fax (518) 270-4609 November 7, 2016 Jack Cox 801 River Street Troy, NY 12180 ZB2016-021 Use Variance to allow for a nonconforming use related to a proposal to occupy a vacant parcel with a used car lot and detail shop at 520 5th Ave, a B-2 Zone, ID 80.64-6-19. Applicant is Jack Cox, 801 River Street, Troy, NY 12180. Approved At the REGULAR MEETING of the City of Troy Zoning Board of Appeals held November 1, 2016 the Zoning Board members reviewed the above referenced application. After due consideration of same with respect to the Zoning Board’s responsibility in this matter, it was voted to Approve the application for a USE VARIANCE (auto sales / detaling). Please contact the Bureau of Code Enforcement to complete the building permit application process at 518- 279-7180. Sincerely, Andrew Petersen Executive Secretary, Troy Zoning Board of Appeals Department of Planning & Economic Development Cc: City Clerk; Code Enforcement City Hall, 433 River Street, Suite 5001, Troy, New York 12180 Phone: 279-7168  4'-0" 71'-0" 11'-9" NEW PAINTED SIGNS ON BOARDS TO BE FASTENED TO ELECTRIC WALL. EACH SIGN APPROX. 16"H X 60"W. "BOWLBY ONE" TREE FONT APPROX. 5" TO 6" H. F.A.I. HATCH TO BASEMENT ACCESS. UPLIGHTING FOR SIGNS GRANITE CURB SECURITY H2O CAMERA WATER 20'-0" NEON ADDRESS SIGN GAS GAS OFFICE CAFE EXST'G METAL MAX 25 PERSON TRASH BIN BOX HEADER SEATING REPAINTED RED TRASH OFFICE DOOR LED STRIP CAFE LIGHTS ALONG CAFE 2 TRAFFIC FULL HT. OF KITCHEN DOOR ENTRY DOOR TO APTS SIGN SIGN POSTS EXST'G GLASS STREET BLOCK, BOTH GATE SIDES SIGN DRAIN FLAGSTONES 5'-10" NEW FULL-LITE GLASS DOOR IN MORTAR CONCRETE STREET 11'-3" REPAIR SIDEWALK SIDEWALK, DRAIN TREE (SLOPE) TYP. W/ NEW BRICK OR NEW BIKE RACK CONCRETE PAVERS TREE HYDRANT CURB CUT SIGN CURB CUT NOTE: ALL NOTED SIDEWALK FEATURES ARE EXISTING 15'-0" UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON-STREET PARKING TRAFFIC FIRE HYDRANT (U.O.N.) SIGN POST NEW BIKE RACK NEW WOOD BENCHES FLANKING SITE PLAN/ 1ST FL PLAN ENTRY SKETCH EXPANDED TREE PIT, FIXED IN PLACE. 1 4 1/8" = 1'-0" 1/8" = 1'-0" BUILDING EXTERIOR TO BE PAINTED EXISTING SIGN OFF-WHITE (BEHR STRUCTURE 'SHOELACE') NEW 24"X48"X2" HANGING SIGN W/ LITTLE RICE NEW KITCH. BALL LOGO EXHAUST SEE ENLARGED 5'-0" MAX. NEW DOWNLIGHTS DRAWING OF +/- 12'-0" (9'-0" MIN.) CAFE ENTRY 10'-0" MIN. GATE TO OFFICE ENTRY NEW WINDOWS IN EXISTING OPENINGS CAFE KITCHEN DOOR TO APTS NEW WINDOWS IN EXISTING OPENINGS NEW WINDOWS IN EXST'G OPG'S DOOR EAST ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION 2 3 1/8" = 1'-0" 1/8" = 1'-0" N MET 2015, LLC (OWNER) PLANNING & ZONING REVIEW 6 FRANKLIN PLACE PZ- 02 THE LITTLE RICE BALL (TENANT) PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 10.25.2017 TROY, NY 12180 DATE: 10.05.17 ZONING HEARING 11.14.2017 PARCEL: 101.69-10-10 2 OF 3  NEW SIGNAGE FOR FACADE TO CAFE, SEE DWGS BE PAINTED NEW BIKE RACK WINDOWS & DOORS TO BE ENTRY TO OFFICE REPLACED AND METAL BARS EXST'G HATCH THRU GATE REMOVED TO BASEMENT VIEW FROM LIBERTY ST SIDEWALK LOOKING EAST VIEW FROM 4TH ST SIDEWALK LOOKING NORTH VIEW OF CORNER FROM LIBERTY & 4TH BRICK PAVER OPTION CONCRETE PAVER OPTION 4X4 OR 8X8 NEW WOOD BENCHES FLANKING EXPANDED NEW TREE PIT, FIXED IN BIKE RACK SIDEWALK TO BE REPAIRED W/ ENTRY TO OFFICE BRICK OR CONCRETE PAVERS PLACE. THRU GATE VIEW OF REAR FROM ACROSS 4TH ST 4TH ST SIDEWALK - AREA FOR REPAIRS N MET 2015, LLC (OWNER) PLANNING & ZONING REVIEW 6 FRANKLIN PLACE PZ- 03 THE LITTLE RICE BALL (TENANT) PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 10.25.2017 TROY, NY 12180 DATE: 10.05.17 ZONING HEARING 11.14.2017 PARCEL: 101.69-10-10 3 OF 3 STAFF REPORT ZB 2017-53 ADDRESS: 6 Franklin Place (ID 101.69-10-10) (R-4) APPLICANTS: a) MET 2015, LLC, 53 Third Street, Troy, NY 12180 b) The Little Rice Ball, LLC, 62 Houston Way, Averill Park, NY 12018 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ZB 2017-53 MET 2015, LLC requests a Special Use Permit for a restaurant with a maximum of 25 customers and for an architectural office with 3 employees, as well as an Area Variance for a deficiency of 26 parking spaces, related to a proposal to renovate a vacant building and occupy it with a café, architectural office, and 2 apartments, at 6 Franklin Place (ID 101.69-10- 10), in an R-4 zone. The applicant wants to rehabilitate a vacant former tavern with 2 upstairs apartments. The rehabilitation will not involve any expansions. Building uses will include: 1) A café on the first floor (“The Little Rice Ball”), with a maximum occupancy of 25 customers 2) An architecture office on the first floor, with 3 employees 3) 2 studio apartments on second floor (pre-existing) Per Section § 285-55.C.4 of the Zoning Ordinance: “Restaurants that can accommodate no more than 25 customers at one time” is a Special Permit Use in an R-4 zone. Per Sections § 285-55.C.1 and § 285-54.C.3 of the Zoning Ordinance: “Professional offices for no more than 4 professionals, conducting business collectively or individually and not employing more than 1.25 persons each” is a Special Permit Use in an R-4 zone. Per Section § 285-55.F.1.b of the Zoning Ordinance: Rehabilitated residential apartments require at least 1 parking space per unit, which equals 2 parking spaces for 2 units. Per Section § 285-91 of the Zoning Ordinance: Professional Offices require at least “5 (parking spaces) per professional plus 1 per employee”, which equals 11 parking spaces. Per Section § 285-91 of the Zoning Ordinance: Restaurants require at least “1 (parking space) per 2 seats plus 5 per takeout window”, which equals 13 parking spaces. Therefore, this project requires a total of 26 off-street parking spaces. It will have no off-street parking spaces. APPROVALS NEEDED: Special Use Permit, Area Variance  SPECIAL USE PERMIT I move to approve/deny the Special Use Permit based on the following findings of fact: 1. The proposed project will / will not cause substantial injury to the value of the surrounding property values, because ______________________________________________________. 2. The applicant does / does not meet the landscaping and screening criteria established for Special Use Permits, because __________________________________________________. 3. The Special Use Permit is / is not expected to impair the public health, safety, convenience, aesthetic quality, or environmental quality of the surrounding neighborhood, because ____________________________________________________________________. AREA VARIANCE I move to approve/deny the Area Variance based on the following findings of fact: 1. An undesirable change will / will not be produced in the character of the neighborhood, or a detriment to nearby properties will / will not be created by the granting of the area variance, because ___________________________________________________________________ 2. The benefit sought by the applicant can / cannot be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance, because __________________________________________________________________________ 3. The requested area variance is / is not substantial, because __________________________________________________________________________ 4. The proposed variance will / will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district, because ___________________________________________________________________________ 5. The alleged difficulty was / was not self-created, because ___________________________________________________________________________ (Consideration 5 shall be relevant to the decision of the Board of Appeals, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance.) SEQRA: Staff recommends that the Board find this proposal to be a TYPE II ACTION with sufficient information available upon which to make a determination that the project is not expected to cause significant environmental impact. STAFF REPORT ZB 2017-54 ADDRESS: 214 Sherman Avenue (ID 112.80-3-6) (R-1) APPLICANT: Yankee Woodworks, LLC, 17 Fiddlers Lane, Rensselaer, NY 12144 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ZB 2017-54 Yankee Woodworks, LLC, requests an Area Variance for a side setback deficiency related to a proposal to install a 11’ x 22’ carport over a driveway alongside a detached single house at 214 Sherman Avenue (ID 112.80-3-6) in a R-1 zone. There is currently 6’ of space on the east side and 14’ of space on the west side of this single detached house, which conforms to R-1 zoning requirements. The applicant wants to attach a 11’ W x 22’ L x 11’ H carport to the west side, covering a portion of the driveway and presumably one car. The 11’ W proposed carport will take up 11’ of the western 14’ feet, leaving only 3’ on the west side, and a total combined side setback of 9’. Per Section § 285-52.D.3.c of the Zoning Ordinance: The side setback requirements in a R-1 zone are either: a) a minimum of 10 feet on each side; or b) a minimum of 20 feet on one side, if zero lot line design. APPROVALS NEEDED: Area Variance AREA VARIANCE I move to approve/deny the Area Variance based on the following findings of fact: 1. An undesirable change will / will not be produced in the character of the neighborhood, or a detriment to nearby properties will / will not be created by the granting of the area variance, because ___________________________________________________________________ 2. The benefit sought by the applicant can / cannot be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance, because __________________________________________________________________________ 3. The requested area variance is / is not substantial, because __________________________________________________________________________ 4. The proposed variance will / will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district, because ___________________________________________________________________________ 5. The alleged difficulty was / was not self-created, because ___________________________________________________________________________ (Consideration 5 shall be relevant to the decision of the Board of Appeals, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance.) SEQRA: Staff recommends that the Board find this proposal to be a TYPE II ACTION with sufficient information available upon which to make a determination that the project is not expected to cause significant environmental impact. STAFF REPORT 2017-55 ADDRESS: 811 Second Avenue (ID 80.32-2-3) (R-1) APPLICANT: David J. Ferris and Trudy F. Weldon, 815 Second Avenue, Troy, NY 12182 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ZB 2017-55a David Ferris and Trudy Weldon request an Interpretation of whether a proposed 15’ W x 10’ L x 8.1’ H shed at 811 Second Avenue (ID 80.32-2-3), a parcel in a R-1 zone with no other structure, would constitute an accessory structure to 815 Second Avenue. 811 Second Avenue used to have a house and a 9’ W x 7’ L accessory shed. The house was damaged in an unsolved January 2015 arson, and was removed. The owner/applicant would like to eventually build a new house on this parcel, but does not currently have the money to do so, and is not sure whether this plan will come to fruition. Recently, the shed had to be removed due to rain damage. The owner/applicant wants to replace it with a 15’ W x 10’ L x 8.1’ H shed. Since the house no longer exists on this lot, the shed will not be an accessory structure but rather a primary structure. As a primary structure (though not as an accessory structure), it would need a Use Variance for an R1 zone, as well as Area Variances for rear and side setbacks. As an accessory structure, it would conform to all applicable zoning requirements, and therefore need no variances or special use permits. The owner/applicant also owns 815 Second Avenue, which is two parcels north of this parcel. The applicant requests that the new proposed shed at 811 Second Avenue be considered an accessory structure to the primary structure (house) at 815 Second Avenue, until a new primary structure is built on 811 Second Avenue, in which case the shed will revert to being an accessory structure to the primary structure on 811 Second Avenue. Per Section § 176.14.E of the City Code (Housing and Property Maintenance: Word usage and terms defined): Unless otherwise expressly stated, the following terms shall, for the purpose of this chapter, have the meanings indicated in this section: ACCESSORY STRUCTURE: A structure, the use of which is incidental to that of a residential building and which is located on the same premises. Per Section § 285-12.B of the Zoning Ordinance (Zoning: Definitions of terms): For the purposes of this chapter, certain words and terms used herein are hereby defined as follows: ACCESSORY STRUCTURE OR BUILDING: A structure or building that is used incidentally to the principal use of a building or lot. Swimming pools,  garages, carports, tool sheds, carriage houses, and pool houses are deemed accessory structures or buildings restricted to residential use. ACCESSORY USE: A use incidental to the principal use of a building or lot. In buildings restricted to residential use, the office of a professional, customary family occupations or workshops not conducted for compensation shall be deemed accessory uses. I judge that 811 Second Avenue _______________ (CAN / CANNOT) be considered an accessory structure to the primary structure (house) at 815 Second Avenue, until a new primary structure is built on 811 Second Avenue, because ____________________________________________________________________________ ZB 2017-55b: (Note: This case is contingent upon the outcome of the preceding case.) David Ferris and Trudy Weldon request a Use Variance and Area Variance for rear and side setback deficiencies related to a proposal to demolish a 9’ W x 7’ L shed and replace it with a new 15’ W x 10’ L x 8.1’ H shed, on a parcel with no other structure, at 811 Second Avenue (ID 80.32-2-3), in a R-1 zone. Per Sections § 285-52.B (Zoning Ordinance: R-1 Zone: Allowed Uses) and § 285-52.C (Zoning Ordinance: R-1 Zone: Special Permit Uses) of the Zoning Ordinance, a storage shed is neither an allowed use nor a special permit use in an R-1 zone. Per Section § 285-52.D.3 (Zoning Ordinance: R-1 Zone: Lot Characteristics: Minimum Setbacks) of the Zoning Ordinance: The minimum allowed rear setback for a primary structure on a parcel is 30’, and the minimum allowed side setbacks for a primary structure on a parcel is either: a) 10’ on each side; or b) 20’ on one side, if zero lot line design. The proposed shed will have a 5’ rear setback, and a 5’ setback on each side. APPROVALS NEEDED: Use Variance, Area Variance USE VARIANCE I move to approve/deny the Use Variance based on the following findings of fact: 1. The land, property, structure, or building in question can/cannot yield a reasonable economic return if used only for a purpose allowed in the zone, because _________________________________________________________________ 2. The need for the variance was / was not caused by the applicant, because ____________________________________________________________________________ 3. The use shall / shall not alter the essential character of the neighborhood, nor depreciate aesthetic or property values of the locality, because ____________________________________________________________________________ 4. The plight of the owner is / is not due to unique circumstances instead of the general conditions in the neighborhood, which may reflect the unreasonable uses of the zoning ordinance itself, because ______________________________________________________________________ AREA VARIANCE I move to approve/deny the Area Variance based on the following findings of fact: 1. An undesirable change will / will not be produced in the character of the neighborhood, or a detriment to nearby properties will / will not be created by the granting of the area variance, because ___________________________________________________________________ 2. The benefit sought by the applicant can / cannot be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance, because __________________________________________________________________________ 3. The requested area variance is / is not substantial, because __________________________________________________________________________ 4. The proposed variance will / will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district, because ___________________________________________________________________________ 5. The alleged difficulty was / was not self-created, because ___________________________________________________________________________ (Consideration 5 shall be relevant to the decision of the Board of Appeals, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance.) SEQRA: Staff recommends that the Board find this proposal to be a TYPE II ACTION with sufficient information available upon which to make a determination that the project is not expected to cause significant environmental impact. STAFF REPORT ZB 2017-56 ADDRESS: 801 Third Avenue (ID 80.32-3-5) (R-2) APPLICANT: Richard J. Harte, 801 Third Avenue, Troy, NY 12182-2111 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ZB 2017-56 Richard J. Harte requests an Area Variance for minimum lot area deficiency and excessive density related to an expansion of a nonconforming 2-unit residence, at 801 Third Avenue (ID 80.32-3-5) in an R-2 Zone. The applicant wants to add a kitchen and porch to the first floor, and a kitchen to the second floor. This addition does not violate any zoning requirements. However, during the application process for a Building Permit, we discovered that this property is actually a 2-unit residence, rather than a 1-unit residence, which is its current property class categorization. The parcel, even with the proposed expansion, would conform to all R-2 zone lot characteristics requirements as a 1-unit residence, but it violates two of these requirements as a 2-unit residence. Since the proposed project involves an expansion, approval of the project may not “grandfather” these existing violations, but must instead seek Zoning Board allowances of these variances. Per Section § 285-53.D.1.b of the Zoning Ordinance: Minimum required lot area in an R-2 zone is 5800 square feet for a single-family detached residence, and 3500 square feet per unit for a two-family residence. This parcel is 6000 square feet, which equates to 3000 square feet per unit. Per Section § 285-53.D.5.b of the Zoning Ordinance: Maximum required density in an R-2 zone is 7.5 units per acre for a single-family detached residence, and 12 units per acre for a two-family residence. : This parcel contains 2 units on 0.14 acres, which equates to 14.3 units per acre. APPROVALS NEEDED: Area Variance AREA VARIANCE I move to approve/deny the Area Variance based on the following findings of fact: 1. An undesirable change will / will not be produced in the character of the neighborhood, or a detriment to nearby properties will / will not be created by the granting of the area variance, because ___________________________________________________________________ 2. The benefit sought by the applicant can / cannot be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance, because __________________________________________________________________________ 3. The requested area variance is / is not substantial, because __________________________________________________________________________ 4. The proposed variance will / will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district, because ___________________________________________________________________________ 5. The alleged difficulty was / was not self-created, because ___________________________________________________________________________ (Consideration 5 shall be relevant to the decision of the Board of Appeals, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance.) SEQRA: Staff recommends that the Board find this proposal to be a TYPE II ACTION with sufficient information available upon which to make a determination that the project is not expected to cause significant environmental impact.  City of Troy Application for Use Variance of Chapter 285; Zoning Code TO THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS: I, ________________________________________ the owner of the property located at, __________________________, Tax map number, Sec. ______ Block_____ Lot _____, Hereby petition the Board of Zoning Appeals of the City of Troy to grant a variation of the Zoning Code Section(s)_________________________________________, to allow the following as described below or shown on the accompanying drawings which have been denied by the Building Inspector, as specified on the attached Notice of Noncompliance (attach additional sheets as necessary to address any of the following sections). 1. Describe your application as proposed: The proposed project consists of a two (2) lot subdivision of lands owned by the Troy Housing Authority (R2: Two-Family Zoning District). The existing lot consists of 8.809± acres and includes the existing Troy Housing Authority office building (Eddy Mansion) and a portion of the Martin Luther King Apartments. A 0.935± acre parcel is proposed to be subdivided from the 8.809± acre parcel to create a new lot for the existing Troy Housing Authority office building to allow for the future improvement of the Martin Luther King apartments. Attached to this application is a list of all variances being requested from the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Troy, New York. 2. Demonstrate to the Board of Zoning Appeals that for every use permitted by the Zoning Code under the regulations for that district in which the property is located that the property cannot yield a reasonable return, and provide financial evidence to prove this conclusion. The existing uses are the Troy Housing Authority office building and a portion of the Martin Luther King apartments. These uses will remain unchanged as a result of this project and this is an existing non-conforming use. Therefore, this condition does not apply. Page 1 of 2  City of Troy Application for Area Variance of Chapter 285; Zoning Code TO THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS: I, ________________________________________ the owner of the property located at, __________________________, Tax map number, Sec. ______ Block_____ Lot _____, hereby petition the Zoning Board of the City of Troy to grant a variation of the Zoning Code Section(s)_________________________________________, to allow the following as described below or shown on the accompanying drawings which have been denied by the Building Inspector, as specified on the attached Notice of Noncompliance (attach additional sheets as necessary to address any of the following sections). 1. Describe your application as proposed: The proposed project consists of a two (2) lot subdivision of lands owned by the Troy Housing Authority (R2: Two-Family Zoning District). The existing lot consists of 8.809± acres and includes the existing Troy Housing Authority office building (Eddy Mansion) and a portion of the Martin Luther King Apartments. A 0.935± acre parcel is proposed to be subdivided from the 8.809± acre parcel to create a new lot for the existing Troy Housing Authority office building to allow for the future improvement of the Martin Luther King apartments. Attached to this application is a list of all variances being requested from the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Troy, New York. 2. Explain why you believe that your variance request will not create an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or be a detriment to nearby properties if it is granted: The granting of these area variances will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or cause a detriment to nearby properties. The current uses of the property are the existing Troy Housing Authority office building and a portion of the Martin Luther King apartments. These uses will remain unchanged as a result of this project. Therefore, there will be no change in the character of the neighborhood. 3. Can the benefit you seek by virtue of this variance application be achieved by revising your proposal? If not, explain why there are no other alternatives. There are no other means feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than the granting of these area variances. The existing layout of the Martin Luther King Apartments and unique shape of the property results in no other feasible way to create a separate parcel for the Troy Housing Authority office building. The proposed lot lines were placed to fit in with the surrounding features as well as the existing property line. Form 20060814 Page 1 of 2 STAFF REPORT 2017-57 ADDRESS: 1 Eddy’s Lane (ID 90.55-7-1.2) (R-2) APPLICANT: Troy Housing Authority, 1 Eddy’s Lane, Troy, NY 12180 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ZB 2017-57 Troy Housing Authority seeks Area Variances for a parking deficiency, front setback deficiency, and lot width deficiency, related to a subdivision of the administrative office from the other buildings at the Martin Luther King Apartments at 1 Eddy’s Lane (ID 90.55-7- 1.2) in an R-2 zone. The applicant wants to subdivide the administrative office of the Martin Luther King public housing complex into a separate parcel from the rest of the complex. The subdivided administrative office parcel will be 0.935 acres, which is 40,740.8 square feet. It will have a rather odd shape that can roughly be described as triangular, but actually has 8 “sides” of varying lengths. The parcel shape does not well conform to the building shape. These facts make a perfect interpretation of the lot characteristics somewhat difficult. Consultation among the applicant and city staff resulted in the following conclusions: a) The parcel will be considered triangular, with a “front” (west-southwest) and two “sides” (north and east). It has no rear side. b) The front setback at its narrowest point is 9’1”. c) The side setbacks at their narrowest points are 7’8” (north) and 100’9” (east). d) The parcel does not about a “City Right-of-Way” at any point. e) The total floor area is 11,800 square feet (2 floors x 5900 square feet per floor) Per Section § 285-53.D.3.a of the Zoning Ordinance: The minimum required front setback in an R-2 zone is 20’. The front setback is deficient by about 11’. Per Section § 285-53.D.2 of the Zoning Ordinance: The minimum required lot width at the front building line is 50 feet. Per Section § 285-53.12.B of the Zoning Ordinance: “LOT WIDTH” is defined as “The average horizontal distance between the side lot lines, measured parallel to the front lot line”. Per Section § 285-53.12.B of the Zoning Ordinance: “LOT LINE, FRONT” is defined as “In the case of a lot abutting only one street, (it is) the line separating the lot from the City right-of-way; in the case of any other lot, the owner shall, for the purpose of this chapter, have the privilege of electing any street lot lines as the front lot line”. Therefore, the “lot width at the front building line” is considered to be 0’, and is deficient by 50’. Per Section § 285-91 of the Zoning Ordinance: “General offices” require a minimum of 3 parking spaces per 1000 square feet floor area. This would translate to 35.4 (rounded up to 36) parking spaces for 11,800 square feet. The proposed plan includes 13 parking spaces for each. So it will have a deficiency of 23 parking spaces. APPROVALS NEEDED: Area Variances AREA VARIANCE I move to approve/deny the Area Variance based on the following findings of fact: 1. An undesirable change will / will not be produced in the character of the neighborhood, or a detriment to nearby properties will / will not be created by the granting of the area variance, because ___________________________________________________________________ 2. The benefit sought by the applicant can / cannot be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance, because __________________________________________________________________________ 3. The requested area variance is / is not substantial, because __________________________________________________________________________ 4. The proposed variance will / will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district, because ___________________________________________________________________________ 5. The alleged difficulty was / was not self-created, because ___________________________________________________________________________ (Consideration 5 shall be relevant to the decision of the Board of Appeals, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance.) SEQRA: Staff recommends that the Board find this proposal to be a TYPE II ACTION with sufficient information available upon which to make a determination that the project is not expected to cause significant environmental impact. STAFF REPORT ZB 2017-60 ADDRESS: (Smart Court) (no number) (ID 112.67-1-1.2) (R-2) APPLICANT: James Strope, 19 Central Avenue, Troy, NY 12180 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ZB 2017-60 James Strope requests a Use Variance, related to a proposal to build a 30’ W x 50’ L x 25’ H garage and a 25’ x 25’ x 10’ garage on a currently vacant lot, at Smart Court (no street number) (ID 112.67-1-1.2), in an R-2 zone. The parcel (which has no street number) is currently a vacant parcel in a small private cul-de-sac, across the street from the parcel involved in case ZB 2017-59. The applicant wants to clear all vegetation from the parcel, grade the parcel, build a 30’ W x 50’ L x 25’ H garage on it in the near future, and eventually build an additional 25’ W x 25’ L x 10’ H garage on it in the more distant future. The garages will contain supplies for a concrete business. The rest of the lot will consist of crushed stone, which can accommodate enough vehicles to meet the combined parking requirements (5 spaces during peak season) of both this parcel and the neighboring parcel involved in case ZB 2017-59 which will be used by the same applicant. Per Sections § 285-53.B and § 285-53.C of the Zoning Ordinance: Construction industry facilities, and for that matter, all uses which primarily pertain to businesses instead of residences, are neither an Allowed Use nor a Special Permit Use in an R-2 zone. APPROVALS NEEDED: Use Variance USE VARIANCE I move to approve/deny the Use Variance based on the following findings of fact: 1. The land, property, structure, or building in question can/cannot yield a reasonable economic return if used only for a purpose allowed in the zone, because _________________________________________________________________ 2. The need for the variance was / was not caused by the applicant, because ____________________________________________________________________________ 3. The use shall / shall not alter the essential character of the neighborhood, nor depreciate aesthetic or property values of the locality, because ____________________________________________________________________________ 4. The plight of the owner is / is not due to unique circumstances instead of the general conditions in the neighborhood, which may reflect the unreasonable uses of the zoning ordinance itself, because ______________________________________________________________________ SEQRA: Staff recommends that the Board find this proposal to be an UNLISTED ACTION, with sufficient information available upon which to make a determination that the project is not expected to cause significant environmental impact. STAFF REPORT ZB 2017-59 ADDRESS: (Smart Court) (no number) (ID 112.67-1-1.1) (R-2) APPLICANT: James Strope, 19 Central Avenue, Troy, NY 12180 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ZB 2017-59 James Strope requests a Use Variance and Area Variances for front setback deficiency, rear setback deficiency, and side setback deficiency, related to a proposal to build a storage facility for materials for a concrete business on a currently vacant lot, at Smart Court (no street number) (ID 112.67-1-1.1), in an R-2 zone. The parcel (which has no street number) is currently a vacant parcel in a small private cul-de-sac, across the street from the parcel involved in case ZB 2017-60. It has 6 sides, but 3 of those sides are long, and the other 3 sides are much shorter, so it could be considered a triangular parcel. The north line is the front, the east line is the only “side”, and the southwest line is the rear. The applicant wants to clear some of the vegetation, and add a structure containing 6 storage bays for materials for a concrete business. The parcel will have no parking area. However, the neighboring parcel involved in case ZB 2017-59, which will be used by the same applicant, can accommodate enough vehicles to meet the combined parking requirements (5 spaces during peak season) of both of these parcels. Per Sections § 285-53.B and § 285-53.C of the Zoning Ordinance: Construction industry facilities, and for that matter, all uses which primarily pertain to businesses instead of residences, are neither an Allowed Use nor a Special Permit Use in an R-2 zone. Per Section § 285-53.D.3, parcels in an R-2 zone must have a minimum front setback of 20’, a minimum rear setback of 30’, and minimum side setbacks of either: a) 5’ on each side, or b) 10’ on one side, if zero lot line design. The front setback of the proposed project is 0’ at its narrowest point, the rear setback is about 8’ at its narrowest point, and the side setback for its only side is about 2’ at its narrowest point. APPROVALS NEEDED: Use Variance, Area Variances  USE VARIANCE I move to approve/deny the Use Variance based on the following findings of fact: 1. The land, property, structure, or building in question can/cannot yield a reasonable economic return if used only for a purpose allowed in the zone, because _________________________________________________________________ 2. The need for the variance was / was not caused by the applicant, because ___________________________________________________________________________ 3. The use shall / shall not alter the essential character of the neighborhood, nor depreciate aesthetic or property values of the locality, because ___________________________________________________________________________ 4. The plight of the owner is / is not due to unique circumstances instead of the general conditions in the neighborhood, which may reflect the unreasonable uses of the zoning ordinance itself, because ______________________________________________________________________ AREA VARIANCE I move to approve/deny the Area Variance based on the following findings of fact: 1. An undesirable change will / will not be produced in the character of the neighborhood, or a detriment to nearby properties will / will not be created by the granting of the area variance, because ___________________________________________________________________ 2. The benefit sought by the applicant can / cannot be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance, because __________________________________________________________________________ 3. The requested area variance is / is not substantial, because __________________________________________________________________________ 4. The proposed variance will / will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district, because ___________________________________________________________________________ 5. The alleged difficulty was / was not self-created, because ___________________________________________________________________________ (Consideration 5 shall be relevant to the decision of the Board of Appeals, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance.) SEQRA: Staff recommends that the Board find this proposal to be an UNLISTED ACTION with sufficient information available upon which to make a determination that the project is not expected to cause significant environmental impact.