Zoning Board of Appeals
Regular MeetingTroy, NY · May 1, 2018
Minutes
May 1, 2018 Zoning Board Meeting
ZB 2018-10 John and Monica Jorgensen seek a Use Variance, as well as Area Variances for
a front setback deficiency, a rear setback deficiency, and excessive density, related to a proposal
to construct a 2-unit modular house on a parcel on which a 1-unit modular house already exists,
at 589-597 First Avenue (ID 80.47-7-1) in a R-1 zone.
John Jorgensen described his project.
He wants to install a 1-story, prefabricated 2-unit modular residence on a solid concrete
foundation, which is 4 feet above ground and 3 feet below ground. Each unit will have 2
bedrooms and 1 bathroom, and be 30’ x 30’, for a total of 60’ x 30’. Units will be separated by a
firewall.
Conroy noted that although it is an R-1 district, many other properties in the immediate area have
2 or more units.
Hillary noted that most of them are older, and are probably “grandfathered”.
Jorgensen clarified that the existing residence already on the same lot is a mobile home, not a
modular home, as stated in the agenda.
Pavlic said that his father used to work in the construction industry, and said that modular homes
are constructed well, because they are built entirely in warehouses, and must meet factory
specifications before even leaving the factory, unlike buildings that are built on site, that don’t
have the same oversight.
Jorgensen passed out a NEW supplementary site plan, in addition to the one already submitted
with the application.
McLaren asked if the property ever flooded.
Jorgensen said that it did not, and anyway, the floor of the proposed new residence will be 2 feet
above the 100 year flood plain boundary.
Nobody spoke in favor of, or opposition to, the project.
A motion to declare this project an UNLISTED SEQR action, with no environmental
significance, advanced by McLaren, and seconded by Normile, carried by a 5-0 vote.
A motion was made by Normile, and seconded by McLaren, to APPROVE the USE
VARIANCE, based on the following findings of fact:
The land, property, structure, or building in question CANNOT yield a reasonable economic
return if used only for a purpose allowed in the zone;
The need for the variance WAS NOT caused by the applicant;
The use SHALL NOT alter the essential character of the neighborhood, nor depreciate aesthetic
or property values of the locality;
The plight of the owner IS due to unique circumstances instead of the general conditions in the
neighborhood, which may reflect the unreasonable uses of the zoning ordinance itself.
Conroy: YES McCann: YES McLaren: YES Normile: YES Pavlic: YES
Yeses 5 Nos 0
The APPROVAL (of the USE VARIANCE) CARRIED.
A motion was made by Normile, and seconded by Pavlic, to APPROVE the Area Variance for a
front setback deficiency, based on the following finding of fact:
The requested area variance IS NOT substantial.
Conroy: YES McCann: YES McLaren: YES Normile: YES Pavlic: YES
Yeses 5 Nos 0
The APPROVAL (of the Area Variance for a front setback deficiency) CARRIED.
A motion was made by Normile, and seconded by McLaren, to APPROVE the Area Variance for
a rear setback deficiency, based on the following finding of fact:
The proposed variance WILL NOT have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district.
Conroy: YES McCann: YES McLaren: YES Normile: YES Pavlic: YES
Yeses 5 Nos 0
The APPROVAL (of the Area Variance for a rear setback deficiency) CARRIED.
A motion was made by Normile, and seconded by McCann, to APPROVE the Area Variance for
excessive density, based on the following findings of fact:
The proposed variance WILL NOT have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district.
Conroy: YES McCann: YES McLaren: YES Normile: YES Pavlic: YES
Yeses 5 Nos 0
The APPROVAL (of the Area Variance for excessive density) CARRIED.
Therefore, the project is APPROVED by the Zoning Board in its entirety.
ZB 2018-11, ZB 2018-12 Yavuz Gulluk seeks Area Variances for minimum lot width
deficiency, maximum density, and parking deficiency, related to a proposal to convert two
adjoining vacant, dilapidated 2-apartment buildings into two 4-apartment buildings, for a total of
8 apartment units, at 3249-3251 Seventh Avenue (ID 90.55-8-5, 90.55-8-6) in a R-4 zone.
Yavuz Gulluk and his son came up and described the project.
Gulluk purchased these two parcels from the City during an auction of foreclosed properties, on
December 27, 2017, after a City Council vote to sell it to him on December 7, 2017. His
proposal, upon which was based the decision to choose him as the successful bidder to purchase
the properties, stated that he would rehabilitate the properties, but keep both buildings as 2-
apartment buildings, for a total of 4 apartments.
Conroy stated her hesitancy to grant a variance that would cause a nullification of the terms of
sale.
Pavlic and Conroy wanted to know the square footage per unit. (Each building structure is
46’10” x 22’4” = 1045.87 square feet x 2 floors = 2091.74, so since each building would contain
4 units apiece on each of its two floors, the units would average 522.9 square feet apiece.)
All units have 2 bedrooms and 1 bathroom apiece.
Gulluk said that the proposed case has been successfully reviewed for code compliance.
Normile asked Gulluk if he had considered making it less apartments.
Gulluk responded that he was willing to consider making it 6 apartments instead of 8.
Nobody spoke in favor of, or opposition to, the project.
A motion to declare this project an UNLISTED SEQR action, with no environmental
significance, advanced by McLaren, and seconded by Normile, carried by a 5-0 vote.
A motion was made by McLaren, and seconded by Normile, to DENY the Area Variance for a
lot width deficiency, based on the following findings of fact:
The requested area variance IS substantial.
(Minimum required lot width for an 8-unit project in an R-4 zone is 120 feet. The lot width for
this project would be 50 feet. McLaren felt that this was too large a difference.)
Conroy: YES McCann: YES McLaren: YES Normile: YES Pavlic: YES
Yeses 5 Nos 0
The DENIAL (of the Area Variance for excessive density) CARRIED.
Therefore, the project is DENIED by the Zoning Board in its entirety.
ZB 2018-19 Troy SRALP, L.P. seeks Area Variances for lot width deficiency (1 parcel), side
setback deficiency (2 parcels), and rear setback deficiency (1 parcel), related to a proposal to
subdivide a piece of property off of the rear of the Hudson Valley Plaza (shopping center), and
build storage units on it, at 75-81 Vandenburgh Avenue (ID 123.21-1-23.1), in a B-3 zone.
Eric Redding (engineer, of Bergmann Architects/Engineers/Planners) and Redmond Griffin
(attorney, of Pattison, Sampson, Ginsberg, and Griffin, P.C.) came up and described the project.
The applicant had already received a Use Variance to build storage units in the same area, on
June 6, 2017. However, that case involved no subdivision of land.
The applicant wished to procure a mortgage to finance the construction of the storage buildings,
but a mortgage already exists for the shopping center, and the applicant had difficulty finding a
lending institution willing to advance a second mortgage on the same property.
Therefore, the applicant wished to subdivide the storage area off from the shopping center to
create two separate properties, which could lead to a situation in which one mortgage would
accrue to each property.
The Use Variance, having been granted for the entire parcel (both the shopping center and the
storage area which is to be subdivided off of it), remains in force, even in the event of the
subdivision, and thus a new Use Variance is not necessary.
However, the subdivision changes the areas and lot configurations of both new parcels (the
shopping center parcel and the storage area parcel), causing both parcels to newly violate certain
lot characteristics requirements of the zoning code. Also, the proposed configuration of the
storage buildings has slightly changed from that of the original proposal submitted in June 2017.
Therefore, this case requires 4 Area Variances (2 for the shopping center parcel, and 2 for the
storage area parcel).
The June 6, 2017 Use Variance approval contained 5 stipulations:
1. Customer access to units shall be limited to the hours of 6 AM – 12 AM.
2. No items may be stored on the property outside of the storage units.
3. The business must be configured so that the gated entrance and exit is at the south end of the
property.
4. The applicant must submit a landscaping plan to be approved by the Troy Planning
Commission, which said plan would improve the screening on the north side of 75-81
Vandenburgh Avenue.
Griffin promised that the applicant will continue to abide by them.
Both parcels will be owned by the same developer (Troy SRALP, L.P, which is now Troy
SRALP, LLC).
McCann brought up some traffic concerns, which were addressed by Griffin.
Nobody spoke in favor of, or in opposition to, this project.
A motion to declare this project an UNLISTED SEQR action, with no environmental
significance, advanced by McLaren, and seconded by Normile, carried by a 5-0 vote.
A motion was made by McLaren, and seconded by Pavlic, to APPROVE the Area Variance for a
lot width deficiency (of the self-storage lot), based on the following finding of fact:
The alleged difficulty WAS NOT self-created (because of the Rite-Aid already being in
place).
Conroy: YES McCann: YES McLaren: YES Normile: YES Pavlic: YES
Yeses 5 Nos 0
The APPROVAL (of the Area Variance for a lot width deficiency (of the self-storage lot))
CARRIED.
A motion was made by McLaren, and seconded by McCann, to APPROVE the Area Variance
for a side setback deficiency (of the self-storage lot), based on the following findings of fact:
An undesirable change WILL NOT be produced in the character of the neighborhood, or
a detriment to nearby properties WILL NOT be created by the granting of the area
variance;
The requested area variance IS NOT substantial.
Conroy: YES McCann: YES McLaren: YES Normile: YES Pavlic: YES
Yeses 5 Nos 0
The APPROVAL (of the Area Variance for a side setback deficiency (of the self-storage lot)
CARRIED.
A motion was made by McLaren, and seconded by McCann, to APPROVE the Area Variance
for a rear setback deficiency (of the shopping center), based on the following findings of fact:
An undesirable change WILL NOT be produced in the character of the neighborhood;
The requested area variance IS NOT substantial (because it’s only 7 feet).
Conroy: YES McCann: YES McLaren: YES Normile: YES Pavlic: YES
Yeses 5 Nos 0
The APPROVAL (of the Area Variance for a rear setback deficiency (of the shopping center))
CARRIED.
A motion was made by McLaren, and seconded by Pavlic, to APPROVE the Area Variance for a
side setback deficiency (of the shopping center), based on the following findings of fact:
An undesirable change WILL NOT be produced in the character of the neighborhood;
The requested area variance IS NOT substantial (because it’s only 23 feet).
Conroy: YES McCann: YES McLaren: YES Normile: YES Pavlic: YES
Yeses 5 Nos 0
The APPROVAL (of the Area Variance for a side setback deficiency (of the shopping center))
CARRIED.
Therefore, the project is APPROVED by the Zoning Board in its entirety.
ZB 2018-21 Keystone Novelties Distributors seeks a Use Variance and an Area Variance for
a parking deficiency, related to a proposal to sell fireworks for 2 weeks in a temporary tent on a
vacant lot at 308 Oakwood Avenue (ID 80.-3-6) in a R-1 zone.
Ed McMahon of Keystone Novelties Distributors, came up and described the project.
He clarified that the applicant is selling sparklers, not fireworks, and that they are legal.
The sparklers will only be sold, not deployed, on the parcel in question.
The project will consist of a 30’ x 45’ tent, a generator, and a port-a-john.
McMahon said that the company will not operate this project until it receives code approval, fire
marshal approval, and all other necessary permits.
Conroy referred to the fact that on March 21, 2007, the property owner received a Use Variance
to construct a gas station and bank on a vacant parcel of land at 310 Oakwood Avenue (ID 80.-3-
3.2 and 80.-3-6).
Discussion ensued about whether this use variance was applicable to the current situation, and
therefore nullified the necessity to secure a new Use Variance in order to operate this project.
308 Oakwood Avenue was subdivided from 310 Oakwood Avenue years ago.
Hillary: The variance was for 310 Oakwood Avenue, not 308 Oakwood Avenue.
Gonzalez: Although the 2007 approval only says “310 Oakwood Avenue”, it includes the tax
map ID number for both 310 Oakwood Avenue and 308 Oakwood Avenue.
Hillary: The variance was for a gas station and bank. Neither use was constructed on either of
the two parcels, although a Stewart’s gas station exists on 100 Northern Avenue, the parcel on
the other side of 310 Oakwood Avenue. Therefore, the variance, while still in effect, does not
apply to this case.
Conroy asked for and received clarification that this usage will only be in operation for 2 weeks.
Conroy asked what the hours would be, and was told: 9 AM – 10 PM on all of the days except
July 2-4 (the days expected to have most of their business), when it will be 9 AM – 11 PM.
(This conflicts slightly with the application, which says 9 AM - 9 PM from June 22 through July
2, 9 AM – 10 PM on July 3-4, and 9 AM – 9 PM on July 5.)
Normile asked where the parking was, and was told that it would be on the lot.
The driveway to Dunkin Donuts (on 310 Oakwood Avenue) is actually located on part of 308
Oakwood Avenue. Potential customers would drive on the driveway, and park on the remaining
portion of the lot (outside of the tent).
Nobody spoke in favor or opposition, excepting a letter sent by nearby neighbor Chris Wheland
in opposition.
Gonzalez noted that Use Variances, once put in effect for one applicant on a particular property,
remain in effect for all future such uses on that property, even for different entities who wish to
continue the same use. (The exception is if the use is discontinued for at least one year.)
Hillary countered that this particular Use Variance application specifically mandates a time limit
(2 weeks), unlike nearly all other such applications.
McCann and Gonzalez warned that if we approved this Use Variance, the zoning board would be
setting a precedent that could legally obligate it to approve similar projects in the future.
Gonzalez wondered what is the hardship that compels the applicant to use this parcel for this use,
as opposed to this use on another parcel, another use on this parcel, or no project at all?
Some questions ensued regarding whether the hardship must be demonstrated by the applicant or
the property owner (when the two are not the same).
Gonzalez noted that when the applicant for a case is not the owner of the property, the applicant
has to have a “sign-off” from the owner, in order to bring the case to the zoning board.
McMahon passed out to the zoning board a Use Variance request form and Area Variance
request form, both filled out by himself, which were different from the versions of those forms
previously filled out by owner Thomas Murley, given to Christine Hillary, and in turn e-mailed
to the zoning board before the meeting. There were some differences between the two versions.
A motion to declare this project an UNLISTED SEQR action, with no environmental
significance, advanced by McLaren, and seconded by Normile, carried by a 5-0 vote.
A motion was made by Pavlic, and seconded by Normile, to DENY the USE VARIANCE, due
to a desire not to set a precedent that could lead to future legal challenges to Zoning Board
denials of similar projects, and based on the following finding of fact:
It was not proven that the land in question cannot yield a reasonable economic return if
used only for a purpose allowed in the zone.
Conroy: YES McCann: YES McLaren: YES Normile: YES Pavlic: YES
Yeses 5 Nos 0
The DENIAL (of the Use Variance) CARRIED.
Therefore, the project is DENIED by the Zoning Board in its entirety.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:46 P.M.
Agenda
Catherine Conroy THE CITY OF Steven Strichman
Chairperson Commissioner of Planning
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, May 1, 2018 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 2018-10 John and Monica Jorgensen seek a Use Variance, as well as Area Variances for a front
setback deficiency, a rear setback deficiency, and excessive density, related to a proposal to construct a
2-unit modular house on a parcel on which a 1-unit modular house already exists, at 589-597 First
Avenue (ID 80.47-7-1) in a R-1 zone.
ZB 2018-11, ZB 2018-12 Yavuz Gulluk seeks Area Variances for minimum lot width deficiency,
maximum density, and parking deficiency, related to a proposal to convert two adjoining vacant,
dilapidated 2-apartment buildings into two 4-apartment buildings, for a total of 8 apartment units, at
3249-3251 Seventh Avenue (ID 90.55-8-5, 90.55-8-6) in a R-4 zone.
ZB 2018-19 Troy SRALP, L.P. seeks Area Variances for lot width deficiency (1 parcel), side setback
deficiency (2 parcels), and rear setback deficiency (1 parcel), related to a proposal to subdivide a piece
of property off of the rear of the Hudson Valley Plaza (shopping center), and build storage units on it, at
75-81 Vandenburgh Avenue (ID 123.21-1-23.1), in a B-3 zone.
ZB 2018-21 Keystone Novelties Distributors seeks a Use Variance and an Area Variance for a
parking deficiency, related to a proposal to sell fireworks for 2 weeks in a temporary tent on a vacant lot
at 308 Oakwood Avenue (ID 80.-3-6 311) in a R-1 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
STAFF REPORT ZB 2018-10
ADDRESS: 589-597 First Avenue (ID 80.47-7-1) (R-1)
APPLICANT: John and Monica Jorgensen, 100 Bedell Road, Poughkeepsie, NY 12603
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ZB 2018-10 John and Monica Jorgensen seek a Use Variance, as well as Area Variances for
a front setback deficiency, a rear setback deficiency, and excessive density, related to a proposal
to construct a 2-unit modular house on a parcel on which a 1-unit modular house already exists,
at 589-597 First Avenue (ID 80.47-7-1) in a R-1 zone.
APPROVALS NEEDED:
1) Use Variance:
Per Sections § 285-52.B and § 285-52.C of the Zoning Ordinance: A 2-unit residence is
neither an Allowed Use nor a Special Permit Use.
2) Area Variance for a front setback deficiency:
Per Section § 285-52.D.3.a. of the Zoning Ordinance: The minimum required front
setback in a R-1 zone is 25 feet.
The proposed front setback is 5 feet. (Technically, the setback is somewhat larger, but it
must be measured from an existing utility pole.)
The project will need a 10 foot front setback variance.
3) Area Variance for a rear setback deficiency:
Per Section § 285-52.D.3.b. of the Zoning Ordinance: The minimum required rear
setback in a R-1 zone is 30 feet.
The proposed rear setback, according to the site plan, is 32.5 feet. However, the property
line is in the Hudson River.
The proposed rear distance to the shoreline is about 15 feet.
Due to the risk of flooding, the distance between the structure(s) and the shoreline is
arguably more important than the distance between the structure(s) and the property line.
The project will need a rear setback variance of 15 feet.
4) Area Variance for excessive density:
Per Section § 285-52.D.5 of the of the Zoning Ordinance: The maximum allowable
density in a R-1 zone is 5.5 units per acre.
This property will have 3 units on 0.23 acres, which equates to 13.04 units per acre.
The project will need a density variance of a factor of 2.37.
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.
(518) 598 6198
COPYRIGHT PROTECTED: THIS WORK IS PROTECTED UNDER THE 1990 ARCHITECTURAL WORKS COPYRIGHT PROTECTION ACT AND ANY REVISIONS THEREOF
DRAWING SET INDEX SCOPE OF WORK
NO. SHEET NAME
Tony Trimarchi
1. RENOVATE (2) 2 FAMILY APARTMENT BUILDINGS INTO (2) 4 FAMILY APARTMENTS
T1.0 COVER SHEET AND NOTES Drawn by:
Designer atrimar1@gmail.com
A1.0 EXISTING BASEMENT PLAN
Melek Kilinc
A1.1 EXISTING FIRST FLOOR PLAN
A1.2 EXISTING SECOND FLOOR PLAN
253 1442 CELL
A1.3 PROPOSED BASEMENT PLAN
CAPITAL ARCHITECTURE
A1.4 PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLAN SYMBOL LEGEND
X/X
A1.5 PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLAN ROOMNAME
13 HAMILTON STREET
ROOM REFERENCE EL: +X'-X" ELEVATION REFERENCE
XX
capitalarchitecture@yahoo.com
NEW CONSTRUCTION NOTE /
ID X WINDOW REFERENCE
WALL TYPE REFERENCE
COHOES, NY 12047
X
# REVISION NUMBER DOOR REFERENCE
X
ALIGN
ALIGN FINISHES X KEY NOTE
APARTMENT RENOVATION
3249/ 3251 7TH AVENUE
PHONE JACK PERMANENTLY WIRED
SCM SMOKE DETECTOR/
DATA JACK CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTOR
COVER
TROY, NY
MATERIAL INDICATORS
1 APRIL 2018 T1.0
POURED CONCRETE INSULATION
C.M.U. CONCRETE STEEL (OMIT INDIC-
BLOCK ATION IN THIN MATERIAL)
WOOD FRAMING
PLYWOOD
THROUGH MEMBER
S H E E T #:
GLAZING WOOD, FINISH
DATE:
ACOUSTIC TILE CEILING
BOARD OR PANEL
3249 3251
22'-4" 22'-4"
1 2 3 4 4 3 2 1
EXISTING EXTERIOR
MASONRY WALLS
SHOWN ANGLED
EXISTING COMMON MASONRY
HATCHED
WALL SHOWN CROSS HATCHED, 49'-2 5/16"
CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY NO
PENETRATIONS IN MASONRY MASONRY LOAD BEARING PIER
EXISTING LOAD BEARING
FRAMED WALL
SHOWN DOUBLE ANGLE HATCH
HATCHED SOLID
DATE: 1 APRIL 2018 Tony Trimarchi
APARTMENT RENOVATION Designer
SCALE: : 3 (518) 598 6198
16"=1'-0"
3249/ 3251 7TH AVENUE CAPITAL ARCHITECTURE atrimar1@gmail.com
DATE: . 13 HAMILTON STREET
TROY, NY COHOES, NY 12047
S H E E T #: 253 1442 CELL Drawn by:
A1.0 EXISTING BASEMENT PLAN capitalarchitecture@yahoo.com Melek Kilinc
COPYRIGHT PROTECTED: THIS WORK IS PROTECTED UNDER THE 1990 ARCHITECTURAL WORKS COPYRIGHT PROTECTION ACT AND ANY REVISIONS THEREOF
3249 3251
1
2
3 4 4 3 2 1
7
7
4 5 6
6 5 3 2 1 1 2 3 4
1 HOUR
RATED WALL
MASONRY LOAD
BEARING PIER
SHOWN DOUBLE
EXISTING COMMON MASONRY ANGLE HATCH
WALL SHOWN CROSS HATCHED,
EXISTING LOAD 8
8 CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY NO
7
7
6
6 BEARING FRAMED 5
5
4
4
3
3 WALL HATCHED
PENETRATIONS IN MASONRY
2
2
1
1
SOLID
FIRST FLOOR /EXISTING PLAN
DATE: 1 APRIL 2018 Tony Trimarchi
APARTMENT RENOVATION Designer
SCALE: : 3 (518) 598 6198
16"=1'-0"
3249/ 3251 7TH AVENUE CAPITAL ARCHITECTURE atrimar1@gmail.com
DATE: . 13 HAMILTON STREET
TROY, NY COHOES, NY 12047
S H E E T #: 253 1442 CELL Drawn by:
A1.1 EXISTING FIRST FLOOR PLAN capitalarchitecture@yahoo.com Melek Kilinc
COPYRIGHT PROTECTED: THIS WORK IS PROTECTED UNDER THE 1990 ARCHITECTURAL WORKS COPYRIGHT PROTECTION ACT AND ANY REVISIONS THEREOF
FIRST FLOOR /EXISTING PLAN
3249 3251
4
5
6 3 2 1 1 2 3 6
5
4
7 7
8 8
1 HOUR
RATED WALL
EXISTING EXTERIOR MASONRY LOAD
MASONRY WALLS BEARING PIER
SHOWN DOUBLE
SHOWN ANGLED
EXISTING COMMON MASONRY ANGLE HATCH
HATCHED
13 14 15 16 16 15 14 13
12 12
WALL SHOWN CROSS HATCHED,
11 11
10 10
CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY NO EXISTING LOAD
BEARING FRAMED
PENETRATIONS IN MASONRY WALL HATCHED
SOLID
SECOND FLOOR /EXISTING PLAN
DATE: 1 APRIL 2018 Tony Trimarchi
APARTMENT RENOVATION Designer
SCALE: : 3 (518) 598 6198
16"=1'-0"
3249/ 3251 7TH AVENUE CAPITAL ARCHITECTURE atrimar1@gmail.com
DATE: . 13 HAMILTON STREET
TROY, NY COHOES, NY 12047
S H E E T #: 253 1442 CELL Drawn by:
A1.2 EXISTING SECOND FLOOR PLAN capitalarchitecture@yahoo.com Melek Kilinc
COPYRIGHT PROTECTED: THIS WORK IS PROTECTED UNDER THE 1990 ARCHITECTURAL WORKS COPYRIGHT PROTECTION ACT AND ANY REVISIONS THEREOF
1 2 3 4 4 3 2 1
SCM SCM
EXISTING BASEMENT EXISTING BASEMENT
PROVIDE 1 HOUR FIRE RATED CEILING PROVIDE 1 HOUR FIRE RATED CEILING
MINIMUM 58" TYPE "X" SHEETROCK OVER MINIMUM 58" TYPE "X" SHEETROCK OVER
ENTIRE CEILING. FIRE CAULK ANY ENTIRE CEILING. FIRE CAULK ANY
PENETRATIONS PENETRATIONS
DATE: 1 APRIL 2018 Tony Trimarchi
APARTMENT RENOVATION Designer
SCALE: : 3 (518) 598 6198
16"=1'-0"
3249/ 3251 7TH AVENUE CAPITAL ARCHITECTURE atrimar1@gmail.com
DATE: . 13 HAMILTON STREET
TROY, NY COHOES, NY 12047
S H E E T #: 253 1442 CELL Drawn by:
A1.3 PROPOSED BASEMENT PLAN capitalarchitecture@yahoo.com Melek Kilinc
COPYRIGHT PROTECTED: THIS WORK IS PROTECTED UNDER THE 1990 ARCHITECTURAL WORKS COPYRIGHT PROTECTION ACT AND ANY REVISIONS THEREOF
(518) 598 6198
COPYRIGHT PROTECTED: THIS WORK IS PROTECTED UNDER THE 1990 ARCHITECTURAL WORKS COPYRIGHT PROTECTION ACT AND ANY REVISIONS THEREOF
NOTE:
Tony Trimarchi
NEW 1 HOUR RATED CEILING 46'-10"
PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLAN capitalarchitecture@yahoo.com Melek Kilinc
PROVIDE 1 HOUR FIRE RATED CEILING
Drawn by:
MINIMUM 58" TYPE "X" SHEETROCK OVER ENTIRE
atrimar1@gmail.com
3"
7'-216
CEILING. FIRE CAULK ANY PENETRATIONS
Designer
BEDROOM BATH
8'
D1
12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
FAN
5'-0" ENTRANCE
52"
D3
CAPITAL ARCHITECTURE
80"
BEDROOM
8'
D1 D1
28" 36"
80" 80"
8'-11" 11" ENTRANCE
13 HAMILTON STREET
3'-016 SM
SM
253 1442 CELL
28" 28"
7 6 80" 80" D2
SCM 28"
D1
80"
5 BEDROOM
COHOES, NY 12047
28"
4 SCM 80"
1 3
2
2 3" KITCHEN SM
3 15'-416
1
4
D1
12'-3" NEW 1 HOUR
RATED WALL
FAN 11'
36"
APARTMENT RENOVATION
80"
D2
5 1"
8'-92
8" SHEETROCK
3249/ 3251 7TH AVENUE
2x6 STUD WALL
BATH
5'-7" 12'-4" 5"
11'-516
5' 8'
44'-8" 44'-8"
TROY, NY
BATHROOM
80"
36" D2
KITCHEN FAN
D1
4 1
1 2
2 3 SM
3 4
5
SCM 80"
28"
80" BEDROOM
A1.4
D1 .
3
1 APRIL 2018
28"
16"=1'-0"
7 6 80"
28"
80"
28" SCM D2
BEDROOM
SM ENTRANCE
D1
80"
28"
SM D1
80"
36"
80"
S H E E T #:
D3 52"
FAN
D1 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 ENTRANCE
DATE: SCALE: : DATE:
BEDROOM BATH
6 4
5 3 2 1 1 2 3 6
5
4
7 7 8'
8 8
BEDROOM BEDROOM
8'-11"
SM SM
28"
D1 80" D1
80"
28"
SCM 3"
9'-116
SCM
28"
D1 80" D1
80"
13'-1"
28"
5"
7'-78 4'-37
8" SM
BEDROOM BEDROOM
SM 1"
9'-22
80" 28"
28" D1 BATH D1 80"
BATH
5'-0"
FAN FAN 8'
FAN D1
D1 FAN
1"
5'-0" NEW 1 HOUR 12'-816
BATH BATH RATED WALL
LIVING AREA LIVING AREA
5
80" 28"
28" 80"
8" SHEETROCK
15"
7'-616
2x6 STUD WALL
14 15 16 36"
16 15 14
80"
9"
36" 9'-516
13 13
SCM SCM
D2
ENTRANCE ENTRANCE
D2
80" 28" 28"
80"
28" 80" 80"
80"
28"
SM SM
SM D1 D1 SM D1 D1
8' 8'
BEDROOM
BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM
11'
7'-0"
DATE: 1 APRIL 2018 Tony Trimarchi
APARTMENT RENOVATION Designer
SCALE: : 3 (518) 598 6198
16"=1'-0"
3249/ 3251 7TH AVENUE CAPITAL ARCHITECTURE atrimar1@gmail.com
DATE: . 13 HAMILTON STREET
TROY, NY COHOES, NY 12047
S H E E T #: 253 1442 CELL Drawn by:
A1.5 PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLAN capitalarchitecture@yahoo.com Melek Kilinc
COPYRIGHT PROTECTED: THIS WORK IS PROTECTED UNDER THE 1990 ARCHITECTURAL WORKS COPYRIGHT PROTECTION ACT AND ANY REVISIONS THEREOF
STAFF REPORT ZB 2018-11, ZB 2018-12
ADDRESS: 3249-3251 Seventh Avenue (ID 90.55-8-5, 90.55-8-6) (R-4)
APPLICANT: Yavuz Gulluk, 2333 Sixteenth Street, Troy, NY 12180
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ZB 2018-11, ZB 2018-12 Yavuz Gulluk seeks Area Variances for minimum lot width
deficiency, maximum density, and parking deficiency, related to a proposal to convert two
adjoining vacant, dilapidated 2-apartment buildings into two 4-apartment buildings, for a total of
8 apartment units, at 3249-3251 Seventh Avenue (ID 90.55-8-5, 90.55-8-6) in a R-4 zone.
Area Variance 1 lot width deficiency
§ 285-55.D.2.a. 120’ lot width required where 50’ exists (15’ per unit required)
Area Variance for maximum density
§ 285-55.D.5 66.7 units per acre needed where 40 units per acre is allowed
Each property is 0.06 acres, with 4 units
Area Variance for parking deficiency
§ 285-55.F.1.b 8 parking spaces required where only 4 exist
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 2 ACTION which requires no
further environmental review.
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 2 action with
sufficient information available upon which to make a determination that the project is not
expected to cause significant environmental impact)
List of all variances being requested from the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Troy, New York:
Zoning District: B-3 Shopping Center Commercial
Proposed Self-Storage Lot
1. Area Variance for relief of minimum lot width along front property line from 150’ min. to 102.69’.
Section 285-60D.(2)
2. Area Variance for relief of minimum lot width at front building line from 150’ min. to 39.9’.
Section 285-60D.(2)
3. Area Variance for relief of minimum side yard setback from 50’ min. to 11.7’. Section 285-
60D.(3)(c)
Hudson Valley Plaza Commercial Retail Plaza Lot
1. Area Variance for relief of minimum side yard setback from 50’ min. to 26.9’. Section 285-
60D.(3)(c)
2. Area Variance for relief of minimum rear yard setback from 50’ min. to 43.0’. Section 285-
60D.(3)(b)
10B Madison Ave Extension TEL: 518.862.0325
Albany, NY 12203 www.bergmannpc.com
SITE DATA CHART AVE VE
LAN
PROPOSED
DE OD E SELF-STORAGE UNI
A
WIL WO D EN DEVELOPMENT
EST H AD 75 VANDENBURGH AVE.
CR TROY, NY
HADDEN LANE
VICINITY MAP TROY SRALP, L.P.
SCALE: 1"=600'
20 Corporate Woods Blvd
Albany NY, 12211
PARCEL #2 Bergmann Associates, Architects, Engineers,
Landscape Architects & Surveyors, D.P.C.
10-B Madison Ave. Extension
Albany, NY 12203
office: 518.862.0325
fax: 518.862.0326
www.bergmannpc.com
REVISIONS
NO. DATE DESCRIPTION REV. CK'D
1 4/5/2018 REV. SITE LAYOUT PER WD SH
GEOTECH RECOMMENDATION
2 4/13/2018 REV. VARIANCE REQUESTS WD SH
FOR ZBA SUBMISSION
VANDENBURG
HA
(NYS ROUTE 4VENUE
\\vrcaerus\projects\Projects\Acre BH Enterprises\012167.00 ACRE BH ENTERPRISES - HVP SELF-STORAGE\4.0 Dwgs\4.1 Civil\Sheets\C100.dwg
)
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
Copyright © Bergmann Associates, Architects, Engineers,
Landscape Architects & Surveyors, D.P.C
Note:
Unauthorized alteration or addition to this drawing is a violation of
the New York State Education Law Article 145, Section 7209.
Project Manager: Checked By:
Lease Line
G. URSPRUNG, PE S. HARRISON
Lease Line
Designed By: Drawn By:
W. DARBOUZE, EIT W. DARBOUZE, EIT
Date Issued: Scale:
SEPTEMBER 10, 2017 1" = 60'
Project Number:
PARCEL #1 12167.00
OVERALL SITE PLAN
4/13/2018 12:43 PM
Drawing Number:
C100 5 of 18
STAFF REPORT ZB 2018-19
ADDRESS: 75-81 Vandenburgh Avenue (ID 123.21-1-23.1) (B-3)
APPLICANT: Troy SRALP, L.P., 20 Corporate Woods Boulevard, Albany, NY 12211
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ZB 2018-19 Troy SRALP, L.P. seeks a Use Variance, as well as Area Variances for lot
width deficiency (1 parcel), side setback deficiency (2 parcels), and rear setback deficiency (1
parcel), related to a proposal to subdivide a piece of property off of the rear of the Hudson Valley
Plaza (shopping center), and build storage units on it, at 75-81 Vandenburgh Avenue (ID
123.21-1-23.1), in a B-3 zone.
APPROVALS NEEDED:
A) Self-Storage business lot:
1) Area Variance for a lot width deficiency:
Per Section 285-60.D.2 of the Zoning Ordinance: The minimum required lot width
along a front property line, and a front building line, in a B-3 zone, is 150’.
The proposed lot width along the front property line is 102.69’ at the narrowest
distance.
The proposed lot width along the front building line is 39.9’ at the narrowest distance.
The lot needs a lot width deficiency variance of 110.1’.
2) Area Variance for a side setback deficiency:
Per Section 285-60.D.3.c of the Zoning Ordinance: The minimum required side
setback in a B-3 zone is 50’.
The proposed side setback is 11.7’ at the narrowest distance.
The lot needs a side setback deficiency variance of 38.3’.
B) Hudson Valley Plaza commercial retail plaza lot:
1) Area Variance for a rear setback deficiency:
Per Section 285-60.D.3.b of the Zoning Ordinance: The minimum required side
setback in a B-3 zone is 50’.
The proposed rear setback is 43’ at the narrowest distance.
The lot needs a side setback deficiency variance of 7’.
2) Area Variance for a side setback deficiency:
Per Section 285-60D.3.c of the Zoning Ordinance: The minimum required side
setback in a B-3 zone is 50’.
The proposed side setback is 26.9’ at the narrowest distance.
The lot needs a side setback deficiency variance of 23.1’.
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)
TENT LOCATION PLOT PLAN LAST SAVED SEPTEMBER 26, 2017
LOCATION NAME: TROY NY MURLEY
LOCATION ADDRESS: 308 OAKWOOD AVE. TROY, NY 12182
NOTES: 30’X45’
LEGEND:
STORAGE UNIT OR ABF TRAILER
GENERATOR
PORT-A-JON
STAFF REPORT ZB 2018-21
ADDRESS: 308 Oakwood Avenue (ID 80.-3-6) (R-1)
APPLICANT: Keystone Novelties Distributors, LLC, 201 Seymour Street, Lancaster, PA
17603
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ZB 2018-21 Keystone Novelties Distributors seeks a Use Variance and an Area Variance for
a parking deficiency, related to a proposal to sell fireworks for 2 weeks in a temporary tent on a
vacant lot at 308 Oakwood Avenue (ID 80.-3-6) in a R-1 zone.
The applicant wants to sell fireworks for about 2 weeks (prior to July 4) in a 45’ W x 30’ L x 13’
H temporary tent on a vacant lot.
The northern ¼ of this parcel (which is the driveway to the adjacent Dunkin Donuts parcel) is in
a B-1 zone, and the southern ¾ is in an R-1 zone.
APPROVALS NEEDED:
1) Use Variance
Fireworks distribution is neither explicitly allowed nor explicitly forbidden anywhere in
Troy. Therefore, by default it is a forbidden use,
Per Sections § 285-52.B and § 285-52.C of the Zoning Ordinance, commercial uses in
general are not allowed in an R-1 zone.
2) Area Variance for a parking deficiency
The proposed tent will be 45’ W x 30’ L = 1350 square feet.
The closest uses to the proposed use (fireworks sales) listed in the Zoning Ordinance are:
o Community commercial retail business (1.25 required off-street parking spaces per
300 square feet of floor area)
o Gift shop (1.25 required off-street parking spaces per
300 square feet of floor area)
o Neighborhood commercial outlet (1 required off-street parking space per 200
square feet of floor area)
o Variety store (1.25 required off-street parking spaces per
300 square feet of floor area)
1350 square feet / 300 = 4.5 x 1.25 = 5.625, rounded up to 6 parking spaces
1350 square feet / 200 = 6.75 x 1 = 6.75, rounded up to 7 parking spaces
So a minimum of 6 or 7 parking spaces are required, depending on one’s interpretation.
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.
Get email alerts for Troy
A daily email when new agendas and minutes are posted.