Muyni
← Back to Troy

Zoning Board of Appeals

Regular Meeting

Troy, NY · November 13, 2018

AgendaMinutes

Minutes

November 13, 2018 – Zoning Board of Appeals – Meeting Minutes Board members: Normile: Present McLaren: Present McCann: Absent Pavlic: Absent Conroy: Present PLZB 2018-87 Sean Meagher seeks an Area Variances for 28-34 Humiston Ave (90.49-2-22) to subdivide the property, creating front and side setback deficiencies, and a road frontage deficiency. Sean Meagher: seeking to subdivide property where three houses exist- two single-family and one three-unit- creating front and side setback deficiency and a road frontage deficiency, but only on internal (proposed) properties. This will create the opportunity to sell the homes and create more owner-occupancy, fitting in with the surrounding neighborhood. Normile asked about the easement, allowing all parcels to access the road, and if it would remain when the properties were sold. Meagher assured the Board the easement would remain, regardless. Public Comments: No community members spoke The Board discussed their options, with only three members present, they could not vote to make a decision. It was suggested to table the case and vote at the next ZBA public meeting (whether in December or earlier), and that the applicant would not need to be present. Normile made a motion to table, with a stipulation that the applicant would not need to be present McLaren seconded. Normile: Yes McLaren: Yes McCann: (Absent) Pavlic: (Absent) Conroy: Yes PLZB 2018-86 Nigro Companies seeks an Area Variance for 75-81 Vandenburgh Ave (123.21-1-23.1), Rite Aid, for an additional sign on the south side of the building, exceeding the maximum area of signage allowed. Tom Wheeler with AG Signs was representing Rite Aid/Nigro Companies, who are looking to install an additional wall sign to create a directional aid for drivers looking for the Rite Aid heading north, so they do not accidentally pass Rite Aid and need to turn around. Public Comments: No community members spoke Conroy asked why the sign needed to be so big. Wheeler explained so drivers could see the sign without needing to take their eyes off the road for a long period of time McLaren asked if the sign would stay lit while the store is closed, citing the Rite Aid on Hoosick shuts off Wheeler was unsure, but said it would match the protocol the existing sign follows Normile made a motion to table, while excusing the applicant from being present McLaren seconded. Normile: Yes McLaren: Yes McCann: (Absent) Pavlic: (Absent) Conroy: Yes PLZB 2018-88 Adam Wilke seeks an Area Variance for 561-565 Congress St (101.80-2-44) to add a parking lot to the rear of the existing building, exceeding the maximum lot coverage by 21% (max is 60%). Adam Wilke representing A&M1 Properties LLC, explained they are looking to add a parking lot in the rear, since it is just grass space and there is a big problem with parking in the area. With other businesses on the street, parking is an issue. This would help reposition the property, and add the movement to improve Congress Street. There used to be on-street parking in front of the building, but it was taken for a right turn lane. The commercial space in the existing layout is currently vacant, since no one wants to rent it without parking. Wilke also owns and maintains 26 other buildings, which showcase his ability and merit. Conroy asked how many spots would be there? Wilke proposed six spaces. Conroy: Will you be able to turn around in the lot? Wilke yes, with an “opposite U-ie” Conroy asked how that was determined Wilke said with conventional knowledge Conroy asked about handicapped parking Wilke said it would be installed if there was a demand Wilke continued to say he would be addressing ongoing trash issues by attracting higher caliber tenants, and would have a small courtyard with a walkway McLaren asked if it a stipulation could be added to create handicap parking if it was needed Wilke agreed Public Comments: No community members spoke Conroy asked James Rath (City Planning) about a neighbor’s concern who could not attend Rath explained the neighbor’s concern about the rear property line, wanting to ensure the parking lot would not be encroaching upon their property Wilke explained he was using the title to determine property lines, and never had a survey done, but there is an existing fence that is quite old. He then agreed that it would be best to have a survey done before his case was decided on. McLaren made the motion to table, with the stipulation that handicap parking was provided if needed by either residents of the apartments, or patrons of the store. Normile seconded. Normile: Yes McLaren: Yes McCann: (Absent) Pavlic: (Absent) Conroy: Yes

Agenda

THE CITY OF Catherine Conroy Steven Strichman Chairperson Commissioner of Planning Phone (518) 279-7152 Phone (518) 279-7166 Fax (518) 268-1690 Zoning Board of Appeals Fax (518) 268-1690 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 13th, 2018 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. PLZB 2018-87 Sean Meagher seeks an Area Variances for 28-34 Humiston Ave (90.49-2-22) to subdivide the property, creating front and side setback deficiencies, and a road frontage deficiency. PLZB 2018-86 Nigro Companies seeks an Area Variance for 75-81 Vandenburgh Ave (123.21-1-23.1), Rite Aid, for an additional sign on the south side of the building, exceeding the maximum area of signage allowed. PLZB 2018-88 Adam Wilke seeks an Area Variance for 561-565 Congress St (101.80-2-44) to add a parking lot to the rear of the existing building, exceeding the maximum lot coverage by 21% (max is 60%). PL 2018-89 Dustin Mooney seeks a Use Variance for 37 115th St (80.56-11-2) to convert a two family residence into a boarding house for adults with disabilities. 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: 279-7169. E-mail: james.rath@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 James Rath, Executive Secretary City Hall, 433 River Street, Troy, New York 12180 STAFF REPORT ZB 2018-87 Address: 28-34 Humiston Ave (90.49-2-22) Zone: R1 Applicant: Sean Meagher Project description: Sean Meagher seeks an Area Variances for 28-34 Humiston Ave (90.49-2-22) to subdivide the property, creating front and side setback deficiencies, and a road frontage deficiency. Staff notes: While the applicant’s proposal requires large deficiencies, these setback deficiencies are unlikely to cause an unwanted impact on the neighborhood or harm neighboring property value. Each deficiency is for an internal setback, where the new property lines would be drawn between the applicant’s existing buildings. Approvals needed: 1) Area Variance for front setback deficiency on Lot 1:  14.3’ setback proposed (25 required per ZC Section § 285-52D(3)(a)) 2) Area Variance for rear setback deficiency on Lot 2:  16.5’ setback proposed (30 required per ZC Section § 285-52D(3)(b)) 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 STAFF REPORT ZB 2018-86 Address: 75-81 Vandenburgh Ave (123.21-1-23.1) Zone: B3 Applicant: Nigro Companies Project description: Nigro Companies seeks an Area Variance for 75-81 Vandenburgh Ave (123.21-1-23.1), Rite Aid, for an additional sign on the south side of the building, exceeding the maximum area of signage allowed. Approvals needed: 1. Area Variance for exceeding maximum signage area:  An additional 68.12 square feet of signage is proposed, where over 235 square feet of signage already exists. (100 square feet allowed Per Zoning Code Section § 285-102A) 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 STAFF REPORT ZB 2018-88 Address: 561-565 Congress St (101.80-2-44) Zone: B2 Applicant: Adam Wilke Project description: Adam Wilke seeks an Area Variance for 561-565 Congress St (101.80-2-44) to add a parking lot to the rear of the existing building, exceeding the maximum lot coverage by 21% (max is 60%). Staff Notes: Will drivers be able to turn around in the lot? There are no handicap-accessible spaces. Approvals needed: 1. Area Variance for exceeding maximum lot coverage  Applicant is proposing to cover an additional 21% of the lot, where 60% is already covered (60% maximum Per Zoning Code Section § 285-59D(4)) 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

Get email alerts for Troy

A daily email when new agendas and minutes are posted.

Report an issue with this meeting