Zoning Board of Appeals

D R AF T City of Troy Agenda Zoning Board of Appeals May 3rd, 2023 New Business PLZBA 2023 0024 92 Euclid Ave (101.58-5-6 | 0.26 ac.|R-1 Single Family Residential | Neighborhood II Area Variance - SEQR Type II (per 617.5(c)(12)). The applicant and owner of 92 Euclid Ave, Jennifer Mahnaz, is proposing to install a wood pallet fence around her front yard, requiring a variance. • Applicant presentation. • Board member comments and questions to applicant. • Request for public comment. Public comments generally in opposition. ➢ In Support: o Melanie Omalley-455 Fulton St, Troy. Claim the pallet fence is a common fence type that can look nice when it is polished. o Emma LoGiudice-90Euclid Ave o Amanda Messineo-83 Euclid Ave. ➢ In opposition: o Anne Bair- 89 Euclid Ave. Claims the fence will create an undesirable change in T the neighborhood and a detriment to nearby properties. Ms Anne claims the benefit sought can be achieved by some other feasible method as neighbors AF offered to purchase a wooden fence that meets code standard, but applicant refused. Comments attached. o Scott Cahill- 79 Euclid Ave. o Jay Ryan -147 Euclid Ave. Claims that the notion that using heat-treated pallets is more environmentally friendly than using chemicals is not true. Full comments attached. R o Edie Miller – 99 Euclid Ave. o Dan Miller – 99 Euclid Ave. D o Karen Cahill- 79 Euclid Ave. o Jay Ryan- 147 Euclid Ave. o Cindy Petronio- 100 Wendell Ave. o Mark Walsh- 89 Euclid Ave. • Applicant response- Applicant responded to ZBA questions and also stated that, she was not asked to stop work by code enforcement before the completion of the fence. • Board members deliberation. • MK motioned to deny area variance approval JN seconded. Absent Yes No Abstain Recused Cathy Conroy X John Normile X Jack McCann X Yvie Dondes X Katie McLaren X • Motion to deny area variance approval passed 5-0. Written by Angie Apindem Executive Secretary. For additional information, visit: https://www.troyny.gov/government/boards- commissions/zoning-board-of-appeals/agenda-minutes/. As required by the Americans with Disabilities Act, auxiliary aids and services are available upon request. Please give one-week advance notice for services needed. Page 2 of 4 City of Troy Agenda Zoning Board of Appeals May 3rd, 2023 • ZBA denial was based on the following findings of facts. o The fence will create an undesirable change in the neighborhood character. o The variance is substantial since it covers the entire front yard of the building. o The alleged hardship was self-created. o The benefit sought can be achieved by using other code compliance fence. PLZBA 2023 0025 36 Pawling Ave (112.24-1-9| 0.31 ac. | R-2: Two Family Residential| Neighborhood II) Use Variance - SEQR (Unlisted). The applicant, Cindy Ward, is proposing to convert this former elderly home into 18 studio apartments, requiring a use variance. • Applicant presentation. • Board member comments and questions to applicant. • Request for public comment. Public comment generally in opposition. o Nora Duyer- 6 Balsam Ave- claims adding 18 more units will increase the problem of parking spaces for neighbors. T o Andy Clermont- 3 Balsam Ave. Claims the proposal will change the character of the neighborhood. Also, the hardship was self-created knowing the property was zoned R-2. AF o Adam Mello-32 Pawling Ave- claims the hardship was self-created since the applicant knew the property was zoned R-2. o Melisa Walkup-32 Pawling Ave. Comments attached. o John Kehn – 2 Balsam Ave, Troy 12180. Claims the proposal will change the R character of the neighborhood. • Applicant response- • D • Board members deliberation JN motioned to table proposal to June 7th for proof of financial hardship approval JM seconded. Absent Yes No Abstain Recused Cathy Conroy X John Normile X Jack McCann X Yvie Dondes X Katie McLaren X th Motion to table proposal to June 7 for proof of financial hardship passed 5-0. PLZBA 2023 0026 723 Burden Ave (111.68-3-7| 0.07 ac.| Mixed- Use 2 | Neighborhood III Area Variance - SEQR (Unlisted). Written by Angie Apindem Executive Secretary. For additional information, visit: https://www.troyny.gov/government/boards- commissions/zoning-board-of-appeals/agenda-minutes/. As required by the Americans with Disabilities Act, auxiliary aids and services are available upon request. Please give one-week advance notice for services needed. Page 3 of 4 City of Troy Agenda Zoning Board of Appeals May 3rd, 2023 The applicant, Richard Bonnet, is proposing to convert this two-family house into three dwelling units. The minimum gross floor area required is 700 sf per unit, the building is 1,520 sf, relief of 580 sf is requested. • Applicant presentation. • Board member comments and questions to applicant. o Cathy asked if the applicant wanted to create two units on one floor. ✓ Applicant response- Each floor will have a separate unit: basement, first floor and second floor. o Cathy asked about the condition of the house based on comments received from the public. ✓ The applicant responded he just bought the house and will need to gut renovate and bring it up to code. • Request for public comment. Public comments via email, generally in opposition. Comments attached. • Board members deliberation. • MK motioned for a Negative Declaration (SEQR) of this Unlisted action JN seconded. Cathy Conroy Absent Yes X No T Abstain Recused • John Normile Jack McCann Yvie Dondes Katie McLaren AFX X X X Motion for a Negative Declaration (SEQR) of this Unlisted action passed 5-0. • R JN motioned for the area variance approval. JM seconded. Absent Yes No Abstain Recused D Cathy Conroy John Normile Jack McCann Yvie Dondes X X X X Katie McLaren X • Motion for area variance approval passed 5-0. • JN motion to adjourn meeting at 7:30 PM, JM seconded. Absent Yes No Abstain Recused Cathy Conroy John Normile Jack McCann Yvie Dondes Katie McLaren • Motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:30 pm passed 5-0. Written by Angie Apindem Executive Secretary. For additional information, visit: https://www.troyny.gov/government/boards- commissions/zoning-board-of-appeals/agenda-minutes/. As required by the Americans with Disabilities Act, auxiliary aids and services are available upon request. Please give one-week advance notice for services needed. Page 4 of 4  City of Troy Zoning Board 4/29/2023 Please accept our letter objecting to recently installed pallets at 92 Euclid Ave., we thank the board in advance for reviewing this response and welcome an opportunity of further dialogue. 1) Application proposed states the applicant would like to construct a fence of pallets, the pallets are already in place without submitting the customary and required application for a permit to the City of Troy Code Enforcement Department. The application goes on to say the use of pallets for a fence is a common practice. In my 50 years’ experience in the construction business including 2 years in college working for Bruce Fence Company, I have never seen a fence erected from scrap pallets. The application states this is a common solution, I disagree. 2) The application states this would not create an undesirable change to the neighborhood or be a detriment to nearby properties, it goes on to say it would do the opposite. I strongly disagree, the pallets are unsightly and out of T character to every other property on Euclid Ave. These unsightly pallets are devaluing property values of every homeowner on Euclid Ave. as well as adjacent cross streets. AF 3) Can the application be revised. Most certainly this application can be revised with many alternative solutions available at Lowes and Home Depot. Pine Picket Fences are readily available at $35.00 per 8-foot section. I also disagree that these pallets have caused no disturbance, many neighbors are very upset about with this R situation and voiced our concern to several city officials. 4) Explain why the Variance is not substantial. The applicant’s response stating the pallets are made of wood does not answer the question. It also does not justify D utilizing an industrial waste product for a residential fence in our neighborhood. RE: Chapter 285 Article V. Supplementary Regulations 285-76 Fences & Walls. Appearance. Fences shall be constructed of materials that are new or in good used condition and shall be maintained in a structurally sound and safe condition, in a plumb upright position, and free from excessive rust, peeling or faded coatings and damaged or deteriorated components. Materials or assemblies clearly not intended for use as fencing shall not be utilized. 5) Explain why the Pallets will not have an adverse effect on both Physical & Environmental condition of the neighborhood. We strongly disagree with the statement the pallets would have a positive effect on the neighborhood, contrarily they devalue our properties are unsightly and out of character. The statement using heat treated pallets is an environmentally friendly alternative to using chemical laden fencing materials is a misnomer. Typically Heat Treatment of wood pallets is achieved by treating the pallets with Methyl Bromide a toxic pesticide that has been linked to human health problems and ozone layer depletion.  Center for Disease Control. * Methyl Bromide may damage the kidneys and affect the liver. * Repeated Exposure may cause damage to the brain and nervous system including poor Vision, mental confusion, personality changes, hallucination, tremor, pain or Numbness of the arms and legs, problems with speech and coordination, loss of Balance. In conclusion it is our position this application should be denied for all the reasons we have previously stated in rebuttal of the applicant’s submission above. This unsightly waste material is unnecessary and is an encumbrance on our neighborhood. We all work very hard to maintain our properties and this unnecessary blight is a serious threat to the values of our properties. We respectfully request the board to deny a variance. . Best regards, Candace & J. V. Ryan 147 Euclid Ave. T AF R D From: Meagan Green To: zoningboard Date: Sunday, April 30, 2023 7:48:50 PM To whom it may concern I am writing to express support for the fence being built at 92 Euclid ave in Troy. Pallet fencing is environmentally responsible and I look forward to seeing how this conscientious project turns out. I also personally know the homeowners and know them to be wonderful Troy community members. I'd hate to see this fence not get built due to a handful of vocally negative neighbors. I hope you will grant them their variance so we can all see this creative and responsible solution come to life. Can't wait to see the finished product. Thank you, Megan T AF R D From: Paula McArdle To: zoningboard Subject: Variance for 92 Euclid Ave Date: Sunday, April 30, 2023 5:54:35 PM To whom it may concern, This property has already erected part of this abomination of a fence and is an eyesore to an otherwise nice neighborhood. They should not be allowed to ruin property values and distress their neighbors who maintain and take pride in their properties. Sincerely, Edward and Paula McArdle Sent from my iPad T AF R D From: Jillian Dion To: zoningboard Subject: In support of case PLZBA 2023 0024 Date: Sunday, April 30, 2023 8:42:19 AM Hello, It’s come to my attention that a friend of mine is being harassed by her neighbors. She is using repurposed pallet boards to build a fence to keep her children safe and her neighbors are not only posting pictures on Facebook and complaining, which is a violation of her privacy, but they’re also trying to bribe her into taking it down. This has got to stop. This is outrageous. She has every right to build a fence to keep her little ones safe and her neighbors are absolutely crossing the line from acceptable behavior into what could become a crime if they continue their harassment. Please see to it that you stop the harassment before it becomes more serious. Respectfully, Jillian M Dion, Troy resident. Sent from my iPhone T AF R D From: Kevin To: zoningboard Subject: Pallet Fence at 92 Euclid Avenue Date: Saturday, April 29, 2023 7:11:51 PM To the members of the Troy Zoning Board, I am writing this email to protest the Pallet Fence that has been constructed at 92 Euclid Avenue. I have lived in the Sycaway section of Troy for 30 years on Wendell Avenue. After seeing the Pallet Fence that was constructed on the front lawn of 92 Euclid Avenue, I was appalled. This type of make- shift unsightly fence does not belong in that neighborhood. The homes on Euclid and Wendell Avenue and surrounding streets are upscale homes in the $200,00 to $350,000 range. There are new homes currently being constructed that have even higher values. Many of these homes were constructed in the 1960's and 1970's and although they are older, they have always been very well- maintained. In fact many homes in the area have been passed down/sold to family members because it is such a sought after and highly regarded neighborhood in Troy. T I have attached photos of the fence below. The boards are all various colors and in AF disrepair. In addition to being unsightly, this pallet fence has structural issues. It has already been constructed and has evidence of splinters and cracked boards at baseline. Pallet wood is thin and is the lowest grade of wood so it is prone to cracking and warping. Pallet fences since they are NOT made of treated lumber, do not weather well in this climate, so this fence will likely deteriorate and rot quickly and R become more of an eyesore. As it becomes exposed to excessive moisture, it will develop mold and fungus. In addition wooden pallets attract termites and wood boring beetles, which could potentially spread to neighboring homes. Also pallet wood can D often be contaminated with toxic chemicals and harmful bacteria depending on where it came from and what it was used for before it was repurposed. For the above reasons , I request that the zoning regulations in regard to fencing requirements in Troy, NY "No fence or wall shall be constructed of used or discarded materials in disrepair, including, but not limited to, pallets," be upheld for 92 Euclid Avenue and the variance be denied. From: Scott Cahill To: zoningboard Subject: 79 Euclid Ave Resident Against Pallet Fence Date: Saturday, April 29, 2023 7:33:44 AM Dear Zoning Board members, My name is Scott Cahill and my wife Karen and I have been residents of Euclid Heights (neighborhood referenced on our deed) for over 30 years. We have raised three children over the years and have enjoyed living in our neighborhood, affording them a quality public education through the Troy Schools system as well. Besides being a lifetime resident of our City, I am also a third generation builder in a family business located in Troy that was established in 1933. Our company, Duncan and Cahill Incorporated, has performed work in the City and I am proud to say we have helped contribute to the beautification our City. Perhaps the work we have performed over the years under the oversight of our past code inspectors such as Sam Napoli, Harold Littlejohn, Jim Cashel and Lance Rogers have made our past projects well built and according to code. Just one quick funny story and one I am very proud of...Sam came on a job one day to inspect T some rebar for a concrete pour we had scheduled. He asked me if I minded if he took a picture of our work. I asked him why and he replied the next time he inspected foundation reinforcing AF by other contractors he would show them the picture and say this is the correct way to tie rebar. Was he kidding I don't know but I still think of that day and how it made me proud to be a qualified builder. So all this reflection leads me to why I am writing to you regarding a possible variance that one of our neighbors has applied for, allowing wood pallets as a fence in their front yard. I R don't know how the current code reads but it seems to me that fencing should be made from materials specific to a fence i.e. chain link, wood picket or the latest white vinyl all having curb appeal. D My concern moving forward is the devaluing of property if specific fencing codes are not followed. If a variance is approved, would it open the door for other residents of our City to do the same. Could a future resident of any neighborhood in the City applying for a wood pallet fence permit swing by our neighbor's yard and take a picture and say to the City building department this is how it's done? Lastly, I would like to thank the City officials who recently approved paving our neighborhood streets this past fall and this spring. Thank you for investing and beautifying Euclid Heights! Respectfully submitted, Scott and Karen Cahill Get Outlook for iOS D R AF T D R AF T D R AF T D R AF T D R AF T D R AF T D R AF T D R AF T D R AF T From: Donald Miller To: zoningboard; Steven.Strichman Subject: 112 Euclid Ave Resident Against Pallet Fence Date: Monday, May 1, 2023 7:48:15 PM Dear Zoning Board Members, My name is Donald Miller and I have been a resident of Euclid Avenue for all 32 years of my life. I am writing this letter not just for me, but for my wife, my two small children, my parents, and the rest of my family that also happen to be life-long residents of Euclid Avenue. I write this letter with the hope that you will seriously consider your decision when reviewing the requested variance for a homemade wood pallet fence at 92 Euclid Avenue. I hope that you understand the impact that approving this illegal front yard concoction will have on our Euclid Avenue community. We are a closeknit community and take pride in our neighborhood. As neighbors, we all do our best to keep our properties in tip-top shape and looking beautiful. We all witnessed the current residents of 92 Euclid fill their front yard up with corn stalks, giant wooden boxes, PVC pipes and other debris, while we were out there mowing our lawns, watering our grass and sweeping off our driveways. We are now being put in a position where we are expected to stand by and watch someone downgrade the integrity of our neighborhood by assembling random wooden pallets in a row and call it a ‘fence.’ Friends and family that come down our street all have the same opinion of this wooden creation; they think it is ridiculous. T The current residents are requesting a variance for the City to allow them to keep this structure intact. They are essentially asking the City to allow them to build an illegal structure, right in the front of their home, to showcase it to the entire neighborhood. Approving this will most certainly bring down the value of all our properties, which we AF work so diligently to keep up. In this variance they mention that inflation and financial realities after the Pandemic are the driving factors behind needing a homemade wood pallet ‘fence,’ as opposed to a real fence. As a neighborhood, the rest of our community agreed to contribute money from each household so the residents could purchase a new fence of their liking, one of which is actually suitable for a neighborhood. When presented with this offer, the residents were quick to decline and became more insistent that they would get their wood pallet ‘fence.’ R My great grandparents happened to own 92 Euclid Avenue for many years. Nanny spent the days of Spring and Summer picking the weeds out of the garden and Papa was always sweeping the front walkway making sure the neighbors who stopped to visit didn’t track any dirt or grass clippings into the home. My late grandfather, a lifelong Troy businessman and restaurateur, built his home right down the street from his parents at 97 Euclid Avenue. My D mother and father built their home right next door to them, at 99 Euclid Avenue. I happened to buy my first house at 90 Euclid Avenue, where I spent eight years of my life building my family. Two years ago, I sold my home and moved just seven doors down the road to 112 Euclid, where I currently reside. As the former owner of 90 Euclid, which is right next door to the property requesting this variance, I am both grateful I was able to sell my home when I did, but at the same time, I feel sorry for the lovely folks that purchased the home from me. It is not fair that an entire community of 50+ people must stand by and watch the neighborhood that they love so much, be tarnished by a bunch of scrap wood. In order to be granted a variance, you must demonstrate that existing zoning restrictions have caused “unnecessary hardship.” I cannot see how the City of Troy telling the residents not to construct an illegal fence made of scrap wood, would create an unnecessary hardship. The unnecessary hardship is actually placed on the folks of Euclid Avenue who have to stand by and watch their property values decrease because such a structure is being built. Please take this message into consideration and think about what this fence means to our City. Approving this fence would set a horrible precedent for the City of Troy. Imagine driving through other Troy neighborhoods such as Emerald Greens and seeing house after house lined with wooden pallets in their front yards. Approving this illegal fence sends a message to the Troy residents that they do not actually have to adhere to the restrictions established by Code, and they are free to do as they please. Thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully Yours,     Donald and Shannen Miller (112 Euclid Avenue) Donald and Edith Miller (99 Euclid Avenue) James, Frederick and Eileen Case (97 Euclid Avenue) T AF R D From: Emma LoGiudice To: zoningboard Subject: PLZBA 2023 0024 - Support for Fence Construction Date: Tuesday, May 2, 2023 4:02:44 PM Good afternoon Troy Zoning Board, Thank you very much for reaching out for public comment, I know it's probably required but I appreciate you soliciting input! I'm Jennifer Mahnaz next door neighbor at 90 Euclid Avenue, and I support her request to install a wood pallet fence around her front yard. Last summer many of her plants and flowers were eaten by deer, same with ours as well. So I totally understand and completely support her desire to construct a pallet fence to keep the deer out of her front yard at 92 Euclid Avenue. I'm hoping to attend the meeting tomorrow to support her as well, I may attend virtually. Thank you, Emma T -- Emma LoGiudice AF R D From: County Legislator Ken Zalewski To: Cathy Conroy; John Normile; Jack McCann; Katie McClaren; Yvie Dondes Cc: Angelina.Apindem; zoningboard Subject: Comments on 3 applications Date: Wednesday, May 3, 2023 1:02:03 PM Member of the Troy Zoning Board of Appeals: I would like to offer brief feedback on all three applications that you will consider this evening. 1. PIZZA 2023 0024 - 92 Euclid Ave I am opposed to the construction of a fence from wood pallets. I certainly support Jennifer's desire to enclose her yard with a fence, but the fence must be in compliance with code and the neighborhood aesthetic. The proposed fence does not meet that criteria. Hopefully, the neighborhoods can help her find an appropriate fence, if funding is an issue. 2. PIZZA 2023 0025 - 36 Pawling Ave I am opposed to this project, as are all neighbors whom I have corresponded with about this T proposal. One of my goals as a city councilor was to implement policies that would ban "mini-dorms". I drafted and passed the "mini-dorm moratorium" in response to several AF attempts from housing companies to buy up properties around RPI and cram as many units/students into these properties as possible. Residents fought back forcefully, as would be expected. Ultimately, we implemented changes to our zoning code to prohibit this type of use. 3. PLZBA 2023 0026 - 723 Burden Ave R I am opposed to this project, as it once again adds too many units to a property. This proposal is not as egregious as 36 Pawling Ave, but it still stresses the neighborhood by creating something analogous to a mini-dorm. D Thank you for your consideration. -- Ken Zalewski Rensselaer County Legislator District 1 - City of Troy From: Mike Mainello To: zoningboard Cc: Angelina.Apindem Subject: 92 Euclid Ave Pallet Fence Variance Date: Wednesday, May 3, 2023 1:38:15 PM Hi I would like to send an email on behalf of the address listed above and the subject of the pallet fence they already erected in the front of the residence. I live on wendell ave in back of 92 euclid, I am concerned about this variance if granted for the property for a few reasons. The main concern I have for the variance is if granted and the city allows the fence to stay erected in the front then shortly, I believe the residences will attempt to do a similar fashioned fence in the back. I believe the fence to be a eye sore and reflects poorly on the street and the aesthetics of the neighborhood my mother and I grew up in. I understand that fencing materials are expensive but the look when driving past the house currently is very un- appealing and I feel bad for the house across the street and surrounding neighbors. The last thing I would want to do is to have to drive by the fence multiple times a day. I understand the T owner of the house is concerned that a standard fence is very costly and this is true but if you could afford to buy a house for $190,000 you should be able to build a fence out of something AF other than garbage recycled pallets from Walmart, homedepot or lowes. If the owner wins the case for the variance and tried to construct a similar fashion fence off of my backyard, I would be very disappointed, I intend to plant trees as an alternative to having to erect a fence for privacy and a green alternative to plastics or wood. If a pallet fence was built on the backside of the property as well, I would have no choice but to install a larger fence out of plastic or R wood hiding the eye sore of a pallet fence . I hope the city takes the negative curb appeal and displeasure the neighbors are feeling into account and can stop this fence from staying up. D The last thing I would want to do is put my neighbors in a similar scenario and would never attempt something like that on my street. Regards, Resident Wendell Ave From: Maira Della Pia To: zoningboard Subject: PLZBA 2023 0024 - Support for Neighbors Pallet Fence Date: Wednesday, May 3, 2023 1:50:00 PM Hello, I am writing to express my support for my neighbor, Jennifer Mahnaz, in her request for a variance to construct a pallet fence around the front yard of 92 Euclid Avenue. The Mahnazes have three young children who they involve in their gardening - planting and taking care of their plants as they grow. Their backyard is on a hill and is fully shaded, so gardening there is untenable; their front yard is their only option that gets sun. Last year, after they had planted several fruit and vegetable plants in their front yard, deer came and ate much of their crop, to the dismay of their children. This year, they've set out a few more raised beds, again with the help and participation of their children. This fence is an attempt to prevent deer from entering their yard and eating their crops. When completed, it would be painted and match the decor of their house. T To reiterate: I fully support the Mahnazes in building a fence in their front yard and recommend that a variance be approved. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, AF Maira Della Pia mdellapia@gmail.com (607) 972-6007 (cell) R D From: Kizzi Casale To: zoningboard Subject: Comment on appeal PLZBA-2023-0025 Date: Monday, May 1, 2023 1:29:22 PM To the members of the Troy Zoning Board, I am writing in regard to zoning appeal PLZBA-2023-0025 for 36 Pawling Avenue, formerly the senior home Canterbury House.   I have lived at 30 Pawling Avenue for the past 5 years, and have gotten to know my neighbors and my neighborhood well. Most of us on this block are long-term residents, including families with young children and retirees, living in single or two-family homes. We enjoy living close to downtown but in a quieter and more spacious area.   We are able to have a more suburban home setting with beautiful green spaces around us. Our neighborhood is important to us and the quality of life we enjoy is important as well. The 18 studio apartments planned by the applicant would absolutely disrupt the neighborhood.   To begin with, even if every square foot of space in the building (9,480 per online realty listings) was used for private living space, the size of each apartment would be well below the studios in similar buildings such as the Hudson Pointe apartments (668 sf) or the Schuyler Place apartments (608 sf). This building would be overcrowded and noisy, a big disruption to our quiet and family-friendly community. Furthermore, although the applicant states several T times that these apartments will be marketed to young professionals with no cars, there is no way to prevent people with cars from renting or buying a car at a later time. Almost every AF home in our area has a driveway, and still parking is often difficult. We only have parking on one side with Mount Ida Cemetery on the opposite side.    If even half of the minimum 18 residents have cars that would be a huge problem on our street. Lastly, the applicant mentions a push for urbanism several times. This is not what people who move to Troy’s Eastside are looking for—they are looking for quieter open spaces than the R more urban Downtown setting provides. I’m not a contractor or an architect so I can’t really speak to the rehab challenges detailed in D the application, and I can vouch for the fact that the building sat empty with a “sale pending” sign for quite some time. However, at least the top floor has already been gutted to the studs so it seems to me that there may be more options than the proposal.   To some of us, this proposal seems like an attempt to cash in on the currently high apartment prices in Troy without much concern for the impact. I ask that you reject this proposal in favor of a more modest plan that will have less impact on the block. Thank you, Kizzianne Casale 30 Pawling Avenue kizzianne@gmail.com From: Becca Mello To: zoningboard Subject: Please reject Use Variance for 36 Pawling Ave Date: Tuesday, May 2, 2023 3:25:40 PM Troy Zoning Board Members, I am writing to share my strong disagreement with the Use Variance request for 36 Pawling Ave, in converting it into 18 studio apartments.   I live directly beside 36 Pawling Ave, at 32 Pawling Ave, and the proposed changes would negatively affect my family, and my property, as well as the rest of the neighborhood. My husband and I bought 32 Pawling Ave from the foreclosure list almost 5 years ago. It sat empty and abandoned for several years, and we spent 6 months renovating and restoring it before we were able to move in. In the time we have lived here, we have gotten to know our neighbors, most of whom have also lived here for 5+ years, and our children (9 months, 4 years, and 7 years) play with other neighborhood kids. We are committed to building relationships with our neighbors and seeing our neighborhood grow and flourish. While we do not want to see 36 Pawling Ave empty, converting it into an 18 unit studio apartment building will hurt our community severely. Having 18 residents come and go each T year, who do not care about the neighborhood or community, will harm the atmosphere and quality of the neighborhood that we currently have. In fact, several neighbors, other AF homeowners here, have expressed a desire to move, if this proposal is passed.   However, the daily and most frustrating impact will be on the parking. Most of the buildings on Pawling Ave and Balsam Ave are 2-family houses. As 2 family properties, most have 4-5 cars that require parking. Even with driveways, that leaves 2-3 cars to park on the street per house. We are already at capacity with street parking. R Cindy Ward states that her building will target young professionals who do not have cars, and want to live in a "walkable" community. Even if only 1/3 of the future residents own or lease D a car, adding 6 cars to the already full street parking would displace and affect the long-term residents on a daily basis.   However, this community is not a walkable community. The only thing we can walk to is the cemetery across the street and the Stewart's on Congress and Pawling. While my family loves to take these walks, it does not make the area walkable for regular needs such as work and shopping. In my experience, young professionals who can afford the monthly expense of a furnished studio apartment with "modern amenities" can also afford a car, and will not want to take a bus. My husband would fall into the category of young professional, which I will define as those in their 20s and 30s working white collar jobs. In his career, he has yet to meet any other young professional who does not have or want a car. Cindy is requesting a Special Use Variance under Troy Code 285-33 B. Troy Code 285-33 B for Special Use Variance states that: Special use permit. (1) Because of their unique characteristics, some uses must be considered on an individual basis. Such special uses may be permitted only upon authorization by the Zoning Board of Appeals, subject to certain conditions and safeguards. Such special uses shall comply with the provisions of this section. Under no circumstances may the Zoning Board of Appeals authorize a special use permit if any of the following conditions can be expected to result from the special permit authorization: (a) Substantial injury to the value of adjacent and nearby properties. (b) Landscaping and screening requirements of this chapter are not met on the site plan. (c) The special use is expected to impair the public health, or safety, or convenience, or welfare, or property values, or aesthetic values, or environmental quality of adjacent and nearby properties. T AF I believe that converting 36 Pawling Ave into an 18 unit studio apartment will affect most of those items negatively. R (a) Adding an 18 unit studio apartment would certainly depreciate the value of my house, as well as the other nearby houses on Balsam and Pawling. Families who purchase houses on the Eastside D want a neighborhood feel, as opposed to an urban environment. (c) As the owner of a 2-family house who relies on the rental income to make ends meet for my family of 5, it will be harder to find tenants for our house if parking is not easily accessible. This will affect convenience of parking and welfare from lower rent and harder time finding tenants. As a neighbor to 36 Pawling Ave, I care about what will happen to the building! As people have been renovating the building for the last year, I have talked to as many people as I can to try to meet the new owner and learn about the future of our neighborhood. I have never met Cindy or heard anyone mention her name. It seems as if she has no care for the neighborhood or her neighbors, and is trying to squeeze every dollar she can out of the building, by converting it into 18 tiny studio apartments. There are many other beneficial uses for 36 Pawling Ave, which would be far better for the neighborhood and also economically sustainable for her investment. Thank you for your consideration. Please vote againsy the proposed Use Variance for 36 Pawling Ave. Sincerely, Becca Mello 32 Pawling Ave T AF R D From: Adam M To: zoningboard Subject: Please reject Special Use Permit for 36 Pawling Ave Date: Tuesday, May 2, 2023 9:41:30 PM Dear Zoning Board Members, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the use variance request for 18 apartments at 36 Pawling Ave in the small residential neighborhood in Troy, NY. As a resident of this neighborhood, I am deeply concerned about the negative impacts this proposed development would have on our community. First and foremost, multiple aspects of the city code have not been followed by the purchaser. Chapter 285-47 Public posting: There have been no notices posted anywhere in the area surrounding 36 Pawling in regards to this zoning request. They are required to post notice in at least two places several days before but this hasn’t been done. Additionally in their proposal they describe almost by definition a self T created hardship which the code references as a reason to not allow a zone adjustment. Purchasing this building without a clear direction of what it would be used AF for and ending up taking a long time to close and losing money is a problem created by the purchaser and is not a hardship that the community should have to pay for. For a special use permit there should be no circumstances that a special use is authorized if several negative impacts could be expected. I would argue that most R listed negative impacts would occur without a doubt such as injury to property value and negative impacts to safety, convenience and environmental quality. D The addition of many apartments would dramatically increase traffic congestion in our already crowded streets. Parking especially is already scarce and because we are not close to most shops/stores this area is not very walkable. This would make it more difficult for residents to navigate the area safely, and could even create hazards for children and pedestrians. Moreover, the proposed development would also have a significant impact on the character and quality of life in our neighborhood. This is a close-knit community, and the addition of so many new residents would disrupt the sense of community that we have worked so hard to cultivate. Finally, the proposed development would likely have a negative impact on property values in the area. Many residents have invested heavily in their homes, and the addition of a large apartment structure would detract from the value of our properties and our overall quality of life. For these reasons, I urge you to reject the use variance or special use request for 18 studio apartments in our small residential neighborhood. While I understand the need for new housing in the area, this development is simply not appropriate for our community. I hope you will take these concerns into consideration as you make your decision. Thank you for your attention to this matter! Sincerely, Adam Mello T AF R D From: Andrew J. Clermont To: zoningboard Cc: Carmella Mantello External; aaron.vera@troyny.gov; Chip.MacLasco Subject: Re: PLZBA 2023 0025 36 Pawling Avenue Date: Wednesday, May 3, 2023 6:58:26 AM Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals,     I am the owner of 3 Balsam Avenue which I bought in 1982. In 2001 I moved to the Town of Colonie but have kept the house, rent it and come by the property weekly to keep an eye on it. I treat my tenants well, keep the house and property in good condition. The City of Troy has not done the same for the residents of Balsam Avenue.    In 2012 the City change the parking situation on Balsam Avenue by changing it to one side parking. At the same time they changed the parking in the city street that extends south from Sampson Avenue to reduce parking as well. The street has many multi family houses with no driveways. This reduced the number of parking spaces on the street by half. When residents complained they were told it was temporary and that the street would be widened and the T parking restore. That has not happened. It has made it very difficult to keep the units on the street occupied and decreased the rent putting stress on the home owners . This has resulted AF in 5 Balsam Avenue being taken by the City for non payment of taxes and 7 Balsam Avenue changing hands several times as no owner can make a go of it! It is for sale again now. They are both on the side of Balsam Avenue with no parking.    Now there is a proposal to put 18 studio apartments in the former elder care home at the R corner of Pawling and Balsam Avenues. It has no off street parking. The elder care home was one of the nice parts of Balsam Avenue. It was quiet, none of the residents had a car and D visitors were few, so it worked. If a use variance is granted on this property it shouldn’t be to the detriment of the neighborhood. The new owner who chose to buy this property knew the restrictions. They should have to show hardship to be granted a variance. They should also have to provide parking for the expected 18 vehicles that could go with the units if this is approved. If anything is approved fewer units and an age restriction, 55 and older, should be considered. Maybe a different plan should be considered?    Surprisingly, work has already begun on this unapproved project. Not only demolition but the framing of the 18 units! I don’t understand how a work permit has been issued before this matter has been settled. That doesn’t give me much confidence in the handling of this matter by the City or the new owner. I am very invested in improving Balsam Avenue and look forward hearing the plan for this property and to your decision. Sincerely, Andrew Clermont From: Nora Dwyer To: zoningboard Subject: 36 Pawling Ave Date: Wednesday, May 3, 2023 10:55:53 AM Good morning, I am writing this email regarding the proposal to convert 36 Pawling Ave into 18 apartments. This is such a bad idea for many reasons. I live at 6 Balsam Ave, and I can tell you "on street" parking is not always available. Not many of the houses on Balsam have driveways and therefore the homeowners and their tenants have no choice but to park on the street, and in the winter, it's even worse. Many years ago, then councilman, Ken Zalewski, City engineer ( Russ Reeves, I believe) and I spearheaded a project to change Balsam Ave from parking on both sides, to 1 side. We did this because when cars were parked on both sides, emergency vehicles, garbage truck and plows were NOT able to come up Balsam, on several occasions, they had to either come down around Westover or up Sampson Ave. The south side of Balsam was designated as a "FIRE T LANE" because we had driveways on our side of the street. AF So, the proposal as I understand it is for Ms. Ward to convert The Canterbury House into 18 studio apartments. So, if everyone has a car, where does she think they will park? Not all of the homeowners/tenants on Pawling Ave have a driveway and they park on the street. I can tell you if these people think they will take parking spots from the elderly or handicapped R neighbors, there will be issues. As it stands now, there are people who are parking illegally just to have a spot by their residence. We already have parking issues, and this proposal will only add to this burden. D Ms. Ward obviously didn't do her homework, because if she did, she'd know this. She along with our Troy City Council rep did not have the courtesy to contact the residents to schedule a neighborhood meeting to discuss this and to try find a solution. The trucks of the company doing the work block the view of oncoming traffic on Pawling Ave. This is an accident waiting to happen. I am asking you as a resident of 6 Balsam Ave, that you do not approve this because this will have a negative impact on us and our neighborhood. Thank you for your time reading this Nora Dwyer From: Melissa Walkup To: zoningboard Subject: Use variance request for 36 Pawling Avenue Date: Wednesday, May 3, 2023 11:57:42 AM Troy Zoning Board Members, I am writing to share my strong disagreement with the Use Variance request for 36 Pawling Ave, in converting it into 18 studio apartments.   My roommates and I live directly beside 36 Pawling Ave, at 32 Pawling Ave, Floor 1 and the proposed changes would negatively affect my roommates, and our landlords, as well as the rest of the neighborhood. My roommates and I moved into 32 Pawling Ave, Fl 1 this past July because of the homey feel of the Pawling Avenue neighborhood. While we have only lived here a short while, we have grown accustomed to the quiet aspect of a rural neighborhood. Some of our neighbors have small children- this is where they’ve grown up. I do not think that 18 studio apartments would be a positive addition to our neighborhood. We do not want to see 36 Pawling Ave empty but renovating it into 18 studio apartments will change our community, we believe for the worse. Having 18 renters come T and go each year, who are not invested in our neighborhood or community, will harm the atmosphere and quality of the neighborhood that we currently have. Some of our neighbors have expressed interest in selling their homes if this is passed. As renters, we would strongly AF consider ending our lease, which would cause an undue financial hardship to our landlords, who who’ve grown to love living below, getting to know them well, as well as their children. My biggest and main concern is the impact on parking. Most of the buildings on Pawling Ave and Balsam Ave are 2-family houses. As 2 family properties, most have 4-5 cars R that require parking. Even with our driveway, there is a need for three spaces for cars for 32 Pawling Ave, Fl 1 alone. This doesn’t account for the hospitable nature of my home and my neighbors, where we would like space for guests to park when they visit. To have a home that D cannot be opened to others just because of parking would be another reason to consider leaving the Pawling Ave neighborhood, and creating a financial hardship for our landlords, as addressed above.      Another issue noted with parking is the street cleaning that occurs weekly. As it is now, it is difficult to find a spot on the side streets from the hours of 9am-12pm on Wednesdays due to street cleaning. If 18 more cars were there, this would be nearly impossible. While I understand that some cars would be gone during those hours, myself as a night shift nurse would have even more difficulty trying to find a spot for my car, while also trying to maintain adequate sleep during the day to safely care for my patients. Another neighbor is a paramedic who also works night shift. He would also have difficulty finding parking on those days. Cindy Ward states that her intentions are to renovate the existing building at 36 Pawling Ave to create furnished apartments with “modern amenities” and the “walkability that this particular location offers.” Unfortunately, this community is not a walkable community. The closest grocery stores would be anywhere from a 45-55 minute walk. The only things realistically in walking distance are the cemetery across the street and the Stewart's Shops at 2 Brunswick Road. It is nice to have two places to walk when the weather is nice, this area is not one that someone without a car would likely choose to live. My roommates and I would consider ourselves “young professionals” and all three of us have vehicles to get around and would not have chosen to live at 32 Pawling Ave, Fl 1 if we did not have adequate transportation. Further, in my experience looking for places to rent, those who can afford the monthly expense of a furnished studio apartment with "modern amenities" likely will have a vehicle and are unwilling to take a bus. Lastly, in the last few months, building work has been done at 36 Pawling Avenue between the hours of 12am and 4am, disrupting the sleep of those at 32 Pawling Avenue. The police were called at one point for the workers violating the noise ordinance in Troy. Cindy is requesting a Special Use Variance under Troy Code 285-33 B. Troy Code 285-33 B for Special Use Variance states that: Special use permit. (1) Because of their unique characteristics, some uses must be considered on an individual basis. Such special uses may be permitted only upon authorization by the Zoning Board of Appeals, subject to certain conditions and safeguards. Such special uses shall comply with the provisions of this section. Under no circumstances may the Zoning Board of Appeals authorize a special use permit if any of the following conditions can be expected to result from the special permit authorization: (a) T AF Substantial injury to the value of adjacent and nearby properties. (b) Landscaping and screening requirements of this chapter are not met on the site plan. (c) R The special use is expected to impair the public health, or safety, or convenience, or welfare, or property values, or aesthetic values, or environmental quality of adjacent and nearby properties. D I believe that converting 36 Pawling Ave into an 18 unit studio apartment will affect most of those items negatively. (a) Adding an 18 unit studio apartment would certainly depreciate the value of the house we live in, affecting our landlords in a negative way (c) Our landlords rely on the rental income to make ends meet for their family of 5. We have already discussed the potential for leaving if this is passed. This would cause an undue hardship to our landlords, needing to find other tenants, who likely would have the same concerns as us Thank you for your consideration. Please vote against the proposed Use Variance for 36 Pawling Ave. Sincerely, Melisa Walkup Summer Jennings Natalie Scecchitano T AF R D From: John Kehn To: zoningboard Subject: 23 Pawling Ave Date: Wednesday, May 3, 2023 12:08:19 PM I live adjacent to the property in question, a single family at 2 Balsam ave.. I have the following concerns converting the property into 18 studio apartments: 1.The devaluation of my home 2. The issue of parking, currently there is no available parking space either on Pawling ave or Balsam Ave. Regards, John Kehn T AF R D From: County Legislator Ken Zalewski To: Cathy Conroy; John Normile; Jack McCann; Katie McClaren; Yvie Dondes Cc: Angelina.Apindem; zoningboard Subject: Comments on 3 applications Date: Wednesday, May 3, 2023 1:02:03 PM Member of the Troy Zoning Board of Appeals: I would like to offer brief feedback on all three applications that you will consider this evening. 1. PIZZA 2023 0024 - 92 Euclid Ave I am opposed to the construction of a fence from wood pallets. I certainly support Jennifer's desire to enclose her yard with a fence, but the fence must be in compliance with code and the neighborhood aesthetic. The proposed fence does not meet that criteria. Hopefully, the neighborhoods can help her find an appropriate fence, if funding is an issue. 2. PIZZA 2023 0025 - 36 Pawling Ave I am opposed to this project, as are all neighbors whom I have corresponded with about this T proposal. One of my goals as a city councilor was to implement policies that would ban "mini-dorms". I drafted and passed the "mini-dorm moratorium" in response to several AF attempts from housing companies to buy up properties around RPI and cram as many units/students into these properties as possible. Residents fought back forcefully, as would be expected. Ultimately, we implemented changes to our zoning code to prohibit this type of use. 3. PLZBA 2023 0026 - 723 Burden Ave R I am opposed to this project, as it once again adds too many units to a property. This proposal is not as egregious as 36 Pawling Ave, but it still stresses the neighborhood by creating something analogous to a mini-dorm. D Thank you for your consideration. -- Ken Zalewski Rensselaer County Legislator District 1 - City of Troy From: County Legislator Ken Zalewski To: Cathy Conroy; John Normile; Jack McCann; Katie McClaren; Yvie Dondes Cc: Angelina.Apindem; zoningboard Subject: Comments on 3 applications Date: Wednesday, May 3, 2023 1:02:03 PM Member of the Troy Zoning Board of Appeals: I would like to offer brief feedback on all three applications that you will consider this evening. 1. PIZZA 2023 0024 - 92 Euclid Ave I am opposed to the construction of a fence from wood pallets. I certainly support Jennifer's desire to enclose her yard with a fence, but the fence must be in compliance with code and the neighborhood aesthetic. The proposed fence does not meet that criteria. Hopefully, the neighborhoods can help her find an appropriate fence, if funding is an issue. 2. PIZZA 2023 0025 - 36 Pawling Ave I am opposed to this project, as are all neighbors whom I have corresponded with about this T proposal. One of my goals as a city councilor was to implement policies that would ban "mini-dorms". I drafted and passed the "mini-dorm moratorium" in response to several AF attempts from housing companies to buy up properties around RPI and cram as many units/students into these properties as possible. Residents fought back forcefully, as would be expected. Ultimately, we implemented changes to our zoning code to prohibit this type of use. 3. PLZBA 2023 0026 - 723 Burden Ave R I am opposed to this project, as it once again adds too many units to a property. This proposal is not as egregious as 36 Pawling Ave, but it still stresses the neighborhood by creating something analogous to a mini-dorm. D Thank you for your consideration. -- Ken Zalewski Rensselaer County Legislator District 1 - City of Troy From: Tershia Ellis To: zoningboard Subject: Zoning proposal for 723 Burden Ave Date: Wednesday, April 26, 2023 1:39:41 PM To whom it concerns, My name is Tershia Ellis and I am writing in as a concerned resident of Burden Ave. There is a zoning proposal on the table for 723 Burden Ave to be turned into a multi unit rental. I am opposed to this. This building is zoned as a single family and currently is falling apart. It has been a home for wildlife, squatters, and trash for the past 8 years. The city has been called on it numerous times because of this. I myself have done community clean ups, tried to barricade the space, and called in several wildlife groups to trap cats, woodchucks and other animals throughout the years. Additionally there is no parking on Burden Ave, and alternate parking mornings there are many cars towed or ticketed due to this. The creation of three units would take the almost non existent parking away from the current residents, and the home owners of the Fox hollow project (such as myself), who already have many issues with living on Burden Ave. I have had numerous items stolen from my property, and have had to install security from every angle of my home due to the negligence of Troy PD, and being unseen when calling for assistance. Currently the guard rail is down in front of the unit due to a car crashing into several parked cars and the rail. The city still has yet to fix it. T The proposal placed for 723 would be adding to more poor quality and high priced units in AF Troy. The space is too small for three proper units to be put in place, the foundation of the house is almost destroyed, and the proposal does not fit the needs of the building. This is a community where many children live and play, with a bus stop for the public school children in front of it. There needs to be a fence installed by Richard Bonnet as the children of Fox Hollow have a pass through from Burden to Cross that they use daily for the bus, and play. They should not R lose their autonomy due to this project. The city of Troy needs to do a better job asking themselves if they want to make a safe clean city for the current homeowners, or if everything is up for grabs to the highest bidder. D They need to reevaluate their hand In gentrification, and really focus on keeping the current people in neighborhoods, instead of pushing them out due to lack of parking, substandard housing practices etc. I am opposed to this proposal for all of these reasons. Homeowner on Burden Ave for the past 9 years, and concerned resident. -Tershia -- -Tershia Ellis From: Gabriel Santiago To: zoningboard Subject: Burden 723 Date: Wednesday, April 26, 2023 3:47:37 PM To whom it concerns, My name is Gabriel Santiago and I am writing in as a concerned resident of the city of Troy. There is a zoning proposal on the table for 723 Burden Ave to be turned into a multi unit rental. I am opposed to this. This building is zoned as a single family and currently is falling apart. It has been a home for wildlife, squatters, and trash for the past 8 years. The city has been called on it numerous times because of this. Additionally there is no parking on Burden Ave, and alternate parking mornings there are many cars towed or ticketed due to this. The creation of three units would take the almost non existent parking away from the current residents, and the home owners of the Fox hollow project, who already have many issues with living on Burden Ave. Currently the guard rail is down in front of the unit due to a car crashing into several parked cars and the rail. The city still has yet to fix it. The proposal placed for 723 would be adding to more poor quality and high priced units in Troy. The space is too small for three proper units to be put in place, the foundation of the house is almost destroyed, and the proposal does not fit the needs of the building. This is a community where many children live and play, with a bus stop for the public school children in front of it. T With the proposed housing there is no telling who will live in the units putting the community at risk. AF There needs to be a fence installed by Richard Bonnet as the children of Fox Hollow have a pass through from Burden to Cross that they use daily for the bus, and play. They should not lose their autonomy due to this project. The city of Troy needs to do a better job asking themselves if they want to make a safe clean city for the current homeowners, or if everything is up for grabs to the highest bidder. R They need to reevaluate their hand In gentrification, and really focus on keeping the current people in neighborhoods, instead of pushing them out due to lack of parking, substandard housing practices etc. D I am opposed to this proposal for all of these reasons. Sincerely a concerned individual. From: Dorian Johnson To: zoningboard Subject: 723 Burden Ave Date: Wednesday, April 26, 2023 3:48:28 PM To whom it concerns, My name is Dorian Johnson and I am writing in as a concerned resident of the city of Troy. There is a zoning proposal on the table for 723 Burden Ave to be turned into a multi unit rental. I am opposed to this. This building is zoned as a single family and currently is falling apart. It has been a home for wildlife, squatters, and trash for the past 8 years. The city has been called on it numerous times because of this. Additionally there is no parking on Burden Ave, and alternate parking mornings there are many cars towed or ticketed due to this. The creation of three units would take the almost non existent parking away from the current residents, and the home owners of the Fox hollow project, who already have many issues with living on Burden Ave. Currently the guard rail is down in front of the unit due to a car crashing into several parked cars and the rail. The city still has yet to fix it. The proposal placed for 723 would be adding to more poor quality and high priced units in Troy. The space is too small for three proper units to be put in place, the foundation of the house is almost destroyed, and the proposal does not fit the needs of the building. This is a community where many children live and play, with a bus stop for the public school children in front of it. T With the proposed housing there is no telling who will live in the units putting the community at risk. AF There needs to be a fence installed by Richard Bonnet as the children of Fox Hollow have a pass through from Burden to Cross that they use daily for the bus, and play. They should not lose their autonomy due to this project. The city of Troy needs to do a better job asking themselves if they want to make a safe clean city for the current homeowners, or if everything is up for grabs to the highest bidder. R They need to reevaluate their hand in gentrification, and really focus on keeping the current people in neighborhoods, instead of pushing them out due to lack of parking, substandard housing practices etc. D I am opposed to this proposal for all of these reasons. Sincerely a concerned individual.