Zoning Board of Appeals

City of Troy Agenda Zoning Board of Appeals December 4th, 2024 Administrative Item Adoption of September 4th, October 2nd and November 6th meeting minutes. • LZ motioned to approve September 4thmeeting minutes, SM seconded. Absent Yes No Abstain Recused Lindsay Zefting Yes Stephen Miner Yes Yvie Dondes Yes Zachary Carhide X Tamara Demartino X • Motion to approve September meeting minutes passed, 3-2. • LZ motioned to approve October 2nd meeting minutes; SM seconded. Absent Yes No Abstain Recused Lindsay Zefting Yes Stephen Miner Yes Yvie Dondes X Zachary Carhide Yes Tamara Demartino Yes • nd Motion to approve October 2 meeting minutes passed, 4-1. o Yvie Dondes was absent for the October meeting. • LZ motioned to approve November 6th meeting minutes; SM seconded. Absent Yes No Abstain Recused Lindsay Zefting Yes Stephen Miner Yes Yvie Dondes X Zachary Carhide X Tamara Demartino Yes • Motion to approve November 6th meeting minutes passed, 3-2. o Yvie Dondes and Zachary Carhide were absent for the November meeting. New Business. PLZBA 2024 0055 353 Marshland Ct (101.26-1-5|0.22ac| SF| N-II Area Variance- SEQRA –Type II [§ 617.5(C)(12)] Zoning code requires lots with driveways, fences, walls, and hedges to be set back a minimum of five feet from the front lot line or driveway to improve visibility during egress. Colleen Grant, the owner of 353 Marshland Ct, is requesting to have her installed fence closer than five feet to the curb on the front of her property. 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 8 City of Troy Agenda Zoning Board of Appeals December 4th, 2024 • Applicant presentation: o Robert Grant presented his variance request to the ZBA, stating that installing the fence does not violate the intent of the zoning code, as there is no obstruction between a pedestrian on the sidewalk and a driver leaving 351 Marshland Ct. o Grant further asserts that the fence will offer them privacy from their neighbor's cameras monitoring their home. o The fence will also prevent their neighbor from driving on their lawn. • Board members deliberation and questions to applicant. o LZ clarified that the variance request applies only to the last panel of the fence and inquired about the applicant's hardship in removing the last panel. ✓ The applicant (Grant) stated that removing the last panel of the fence would cost him significant amount of money, as he invested over $7,000 in it. Grant stated that they followed due process by obtaining a permit to install the fence. o Rich asked if the applicant measured the distance from the end of the fence to the sidewalk. ✓ Applicant indicated it was 3 inches. o LZ explained that the measurement must be taken from where the fence ends to the front property line, which in this instance is zero. The relieve sough is five feet. ✓ Applicant agreed to the relieve sought. • Request for public comment: Public comments generally in favor. o 338,348,336,352,355,346 Marshland Ct in favor of the variance. All written comments will be attached to meeting minutes. o 351 Marshland Ct. opposed the variance request, claiming the fence creates a blind spot, making it difficult to see children on the street. • Findings of fact: 1. The variance requested is not substantial as its only one section of the fence on the sideline. 2. The variance is in character with the neighborhood. 3. The variance is not self-created as they went through code to obtain a permit for the fence. 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 8 City of Troy Agenda Zoning Board of Appeals December 4th, 2024 • LZ motioned to approve the area variance; TD seconded. Absent Yes No Abstain Recused Lindsay Zefting X Stephen Miner X Yvie Dondes X Zachary Carhide X Tamara Demartino X • Motion to approve area variance passed 5-0. PLZBA 2024 0054 6 107th Street (90.23-4-2|0.28ac|TF|N-III) Use Variance – (SEQRA) Unlisted. The applicant, Neil Pelone Architecture PLLC, on behalf of J&J Apartments LLC, is proposing to convert the existing Parti Banquet Hall to an indoor self-storage facility, requiring a use variance. • Applicant presentation: • Board members deliberation and questions to applicant. o Board members clarified that parking lot will not be expanded into more units. o SM requested to rephase the request to “inside storage units not to be expanded into the parking lot.” The applicant agreed to this request. • Applicant responded to board members questions. • Request for public comments: One public comment received from Allyson, had questions for the applicant. Questions were answered by applicant. • YD motioned for a Negative Declaration (SEQR) of this unlisted action, ZC seconded Absent Yes No Abstain Recused Lindsay Zefting X Stephen Miner X Yvie Dondes X Zachary Carhide X Tamara Demartino X • Motion for a Negative Declaration (SEQR) of this unlisted action passed 5-0. • Findings of fact: SM move to approve the variance for internal storage units with hours of operation from 7am to 8pm. o The requested use will provide a reasonable rate of return for the applicant rather than being vacant. o The proposed use is a suitable use for the building. o The character of the neighborhood will remain unchanged. o The requested variance is not a self-created hardship. 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 8 City of Troy Agenda Zoning Board of Appeals December 4th, 2024 • SM motioned to approve the use variance; YD seconded. Absent Yes No Abstain Recused Lindsay Zefting X Stephen Miner X Zachary Carhide X Tamara Demartino X Yvie Dondes X • Motion to approve the use variance passed 4-1. Old Business PLZBA 2024 0022 125 River St (100.68-1-1. /1|3.23ac| DMU| Downtown II) Area Variance -SEQRA (Type I). The applicant, Taylor II LLC, is proposing to construct two new mixed-use buildings consisting of 308 residential units and 2,135 sf of ground-floor retail space. Each building will consist of a six-story building built on top of a one-story parking structure. The following variances are requested for the project: o Front side setback required is 0 ft min. – 10 ft max, 11.5 ft and 13.2 ft are proposed for building 2 and 3 respectively. Seeking relief of 1.5 ft and 3.2 ft for building 2 and 3 respectively. o Side setback required is 0 ft min. – 10 ft max, 24.6 ft and 35 ft are proposed for building 2 and 3 respectively. Seeking relief of 14.6 ft and 25 ft for building 2 and 3 respectively. o The applicant is seeking relief from ‘freestanding parking structures and surface parking lots shall not be built adjacent to the river or any public pathway easement to provide parking adjacent to the Hudson River. ‘ o The applicant is seeking relief from ‘buildings with four or more floors shall have a step back of at least 10 feet on each floor above the third floor on the riverside to mitigate the visual impact of buildings from the river.’ o The required building frontage is 80% min-100% max, 44.8% is proposed for building 3, relief of 35.2% is requested. • Board members deliberation and questions to applicant. • The applicant has requested that the ZBA act on the first three variances while they work on the remaining two. On January 8, the applicant will present their revised site plan that incorporates the ZBA's new boundary lines for front and side setbacks. • Public comment- Public comment in opposition to the project. Comments will be added to the minutes. o Russ Brooks- in opposition-comments to be attached to meeting minutes. o Ruck-Sage College-in opposition 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 5 of 8 City of Troy Agenda Zoning Board of Appeals December 4th, 2024 • LZ motioned to defined property line of the proposal to include front property line will include Congress St and Division Street. Front sideline will include River St from the corners of Congress and Division St toward the bridge until the curvature of the property line starts. ZC seconded. • LZ motioned to define property lines, ZC seconded. Absent Yes No Abstain Recused Lindsay Zefting X Stephen Miner X Zachary Carhide X Tamara X Demartino Yvie Dondes X • Motion to define property lines passed 5-0. Variance I • The applicant is seeking relief from ‘freestanding parking structures and surface parking lots shall not be built adjacent to the river or any public pathway easement to provide parking. The Zoning Board of Appeals hereby grants the variance to allow a freestanding parking structure adjacent to the Hudson River or public pathway easement on the condition that the surface parking does not extend further beyond the front edge of the building as shown in the submitted site plan. This site is unique since the parking is separated from the Hudson River by Front Street. Further, the surface parking does not extend substantially past the building face along the River facing side. There is no environmental impact on the neighborhood and the request is not substantial. • LZ motioned to approve a freestanding parking variance; TD seconded. Absent Yes No Abstain Recused Lindsay Zefting X Stephen Miner X Zachary Carhide X Tamara Demartino X Yvie Dondes X • Motion to approve the freestanding parking variance 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 6 of 8 City of Troy Agenda Zoning Board of Appeals December 4th, 2024 Variance 2 • The required building frontage is 80% min-100% max, 44.8% is proposed for building 3, relief of 35.2% is requested. The Zoning Board of Appeals hereby grants the variance of a relief of 35.2% for the building frontage for building 3. The request is not self-created and is unique to this site as there is an existing utility easement that cannot be built upon. The variance is not substantial nor is there an adverse impact on the neighborhood. • LZ motioned to approve building frontage variance; TD seconded Absent Yes No Abstain Recused Lindsay Zefting X Stephen Miner X Zachary Carhide X Tamara Demartino X Yvie Dondes X • Motion to approve building frontage variance passed 5-0. Variance 3 • The applicant is seeking relief from ‘buildings with four or more floors shall have a step back of at least 10 feet on each floor above the third floor on the riverside to mitigate the visual impact of buildings from the river.’ The Zoning Board of Appeals hereby grants the variance for the building set back with four or more floors. The shape and location of the building is unique and the variance is not substantial given these conditions. Not approving this variance would have a negative impact on the project and overall look of the structure. Given the unique character of the site and the proposed structures, this variance will not have an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. • LZ motioned to approve building step back variance YD seconded. Absent Yes No Abstain Recused Lindsay Zefting X Stephen Miner X Zachary Carhide X Tamara Demartino X Yvie Dondes X • Motion to approve building set back variance passed 3-2. 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 7 of 8 City of Troy Agenda Zoning Board of Appeals December 4th, 2024 • SM motioned to adjourn meeting at 8 pm YD seconded. Absent Yes No Abstain Recused Lindsay Zefting X Stephen Miner X Yvie Dondes X Tamara X Demartino Zachary Carhide X • Motion to adjourn meeting at 8pm 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 8 of 8 Angelina.Apindem From: Jarred Teta <jteta10@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2024 7:30 PM To: zoningboard Subject: Support for Variance Request – PLZBA 2024 0055 353 Marshland Ct (101.26-1-5 / 0.22ac / SF/ N-II Area Variance- SEQRA – Type II [§ 617.5(C) (12)] To whom it may concern, We are writing to express our support for the variance request submitted by Colleen Grant for the property located at 353 Marshland Ct. We understand that Colleen Grant is requesting a variance to receive 4.9 feet of relief in order to keep her fence where it has been installed. We fully support this request because the picket style fence does not interfere with visibility between pedestrians and drivers exiting the driveway. The fence, as it stands in its current location, aligns perfectly with the character of the neighborhood and has minimal impact, if any, on surrounding properties. We believe that granting this variance will help maintain the beauty of the property and will not create any undue hardship or negative impact on the surrounding area. We have reviewed the details of the variance request and believe it is a reasonable request that will not interfere with the general welfare of the community or disrupt the goals of the zoning ordinances. Finally, we think it’s important to note that this property has been owned and maintained by Colleen and her family for over 70 years. Colleen and her husband take great care of their property and regularly engage with all families on the block. They care deeply for the neighborhood and work hard to preserve its old school charm. Thank you for considering our perspective. We trust that the Zoning Board will take this support into account when reviewing the variance request, and we hope that a favorable decision will be made. Sincerely, Jarred and Bianca Teta 346 Marshland Ct 1 Angelina.Apindem From: Mike Maloney <bigmikemaloney@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2024 7:01 PM To: Randy Coburn; Eric.Ferraro; zoningboard; Angelina.Apindem Subject: Support for Variance Request – PLZBA 2024 0055 353 Marshland Ct (101.26-1-5 / 0.22ac / SF/ N-II Area Variance- SEQRA – Type II [§ 617.5(C) (12)] To whom it may concern, I am writing to express my support for the variance request submitted by Colleen Grant for the property located at 353 Marshland Ct. I understand that Colleen Grant is requesting a variance to receive 4.9 feet of relief in order to keep her fence where it has been installed. I fully support this request because the picket style fence does not interfere with visibility between pedestrians and drivers exiting the driveway. The fence, as it stands in its current location, aligns perfectly with the character of the neighborhood and has minimal impact, if any, on surrounding properties. I believe that granting this variance will help maintain the beauty of the property and will not create any undue hardship or negative impact on the surrounding area. I have reviewed the details of the variance request and believe it is a reasonable request that will not interfere with the general welfare of the community or disrupt the goals of the zoning ordinances. Finally, I’d like to share that I have lived on this street for 50 years. During my time here, Colleen’s family have always owned 353 Marshland Court and have taken great care of it. They have always been courteous neighbors who have maintained and or updated things on their property with the greater good of the neighborhood in mind. Thank you for considering my perspective. I trust that the Zoning Board will take this support into account when reviewing the variance request, and I hope that a favorable decision will be made. Sincerely, Carol Maloney 342 Marshland Court Troy, NY 12180 518-274-2233 Bigmikemaloney@gmail.com 1 Angelina.Apindem From: Jes Wasko <jessica.l.wasko@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 4, 2024 1:05 PM To: Angelina.Apindem Cc: Traci Griffin Subject: Comments regarding the variance request for 353 Marshland Ct Ms. Apindem, Good afternoon, I currently reside at 340 Marshland Court and have been a resident of this particular block for the last 14 years; but have also lived down the street in the 400 block of Marshland for a few years. As a long time resident of the street, Marshland Court has always been a very beautiful and family-oriented neighborhood and street. It is safe to walk about, the neighbors take care of their properties and there is a sense of community and pride amongst those who live on the street. With that said, I was surprised to learn about this fencing issue. Therefore, I am writing to express my support for the fencing variance request submitted by Colleen Grant for the property located at 353 Marshland Ct. I understand that Colleen Grant is requesting a variance to receive 4.9 feet of relief in order to keep her fence where it has been installed. We fully support this request because the picket style fence does not interfere with visibility between pedestrians and drivers exiting the driveway or oncoming traffic on the street. I walk my dogs every day using the sidewalk and have no obstructions to my view of cars in and out of driveways or oncoming traffic in the street. The fence, as it stands in its current location, is aesthetically pleasing to look at and fits perfectly with the character of the neighborhood. I feel that supporting and granting this variance will help maintain the beauty of the property that has been in Colleen’s family for generations and will not create any undue hardship or negative impact on the surrounding area. Thank you for considering our perspective. We trust that the Zoning Board will take this support into account when reviewing the variance request, and I hope that you provide a favorable decision in response to Colleen and Bob Grant's variance request. Sincerely, Jessica Wasko & Traci Griffin 340 Marshland Ct, Troy, NY 12180 1 Angelina.Apindem From: Casey Ryan <caseyannryan@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 2, 2024 9:05 AM To: Randy Coburn; Eric.Ferraro; Angelina.Apindem; Carmella.Mantello Subject: Support for Variance Request – PLZBA 2024 0055 353 Marshland Ct (101.26-1-5 / 0.22ac / SF/ N-II Area Variance- SEQRA – Type II [§ 617.5(C) (12)] To whom it may concern, We are writing to express our support for the variance request submitted by Colleen Grant for the property located at 353 Marshland Ct. We understand that Colleen Grant is requesting a variance to receive 4.9 feet of relief in order to keep her fence where it has been installed. We fully support this request because the picket style fence does not interfere with visibility between pedestrians and drivers exiting the driveway. The fence, as it stands in its current location, aligns perfectly with the character of the neighborhood and has minimal impact, if any, on surrounding properties. We believe that granting this variance will help maintain the beauty of the property and will not create any undue hardship or negative impact on the surrounding area. We have reviewed the details of the variance request and believe it is a reasonable request that will not interfere with the general welfare of the community or disrupt the goals of the zoning ordinances. Finally, we think it’s important to note that this property has been owned and maintained by Colleen and her family for over 70 years. Colleen and her husband take great care of their property and regularly engage with all families on the block. They care deeply for the neighborhood and work hard to preserve its old school charm. Thank you for considering our perspective. We trust that the Zoning Board will take this support into account when reviewing the variance request, and we hope that a favorable decision will be made. Sincerely, Casey and Frank Castiglione 60 Woodrow Court Troy, NY 12180 518-376-0406 1 Angelina.Apindem From: Kelly Zanylo <kenyonzanylo@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2024 10:47 PM To: zoningboard; Randy Coburn; Eric.Ferraro; Angelina.Apindem Subject: Support for Variance Request PLZBA 2024 0055, 353 Marshland Ct Hello Troy Zoning Board of Appeals, We would like to express our support for the variance request that has been submitted by Colleen Grant at 353 Marshland Ct. and is being reviewed at your 12/4/24 meeting. We understand the intent of the zoning ordinance is to improve visibility for both drivers and pedestrians at the exit of a driveway. However, the fencing that Colleen installed in her front yard is low, and we feel that it does not significantly reduce visibility. Additionally, our end of Marshland Court is a dead-end street and thus does not encounter much traffic. Many families live on the street and it is common to see kids out playing basketball, practicing a softball pitch, etc. or couples out walking a dog or pushing a stroller. All of the residents on the street are very good about reducing speeds and being alert for pedestrians as they drive on our street. Likewise pedestrians are very mindful of potential cars. We have, and will continue to exercise caution in this regard with or without fencing. One of the things that makes Marshland Ct. a great place to live is that neighbors take good care of their homes and properties and several, including Colleen and Bob, have made upgrades that enhance the curb appeal of their property, which in turn increases the character and community of the neighborhood. It is great to see folks investing in Troy, signaling that it is a place they care about and making it more desirable for others to live here as well. It is also worth noting that the Grants obtained a building permit before installing the fence. Unfortunately they were not made aware of the zoning ordinance at that time. Now that the fence is installed, without the requested 4.9 ft of relief, the Grants would need to expend additional effort to rework it. We feel this is a waste of time and resources for a fence that was installed without ill intent, in a professional and quality manner, and that will have minimal effects on the people in the neighborhood. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Evan & Kelly Kenyon 350 Marshland Ct. Troy, NY 12180 1 Angelina.Apindem From: Dan Basile <dbasile04@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 4, 2024 7:30 AM To: zoningboard Cc: Randy Coburn; Eric.Ferraro; Angelina.Apindem Subject: Support for Variance Request – PLZBA 2024 0055 353 Marshland Ct (101.26-1-5 / 0.22ac / SF/ N-II Area Variance- SEQRA – Type II [§ 617.5(C) (12)] To whom it may concern, I'm writing to express support for the variance request submitted by Colleen Grant for the property located at 353 Marshland Ct. I understand that Colleen Grant is requesting a variance to receive 4.9 feet of relief in order to keep her fence where it has been installed. I fully support this request because the picket style fence does not interfere with visibility between pedestrians and drivers exiting the driveway. The fence, as it stands in its current location, aligns perfectly with the character of the neighborhood and has minimal impact, if any, on surrounding properties. I believe that granting this variance will help maintain the beauty of the property and will not create any undue hardship or negative impact on the surrounding area. I have reviewed the details of the variance request and believe it is a reasonable request that will not interfere with the general welfare of the community or disrupt the goals of the zoning ordinances. Finally, it’s important to note that this property has been owned and maintained by Colleen and her family for over 70 years. Colleen and her husband take great care of their property and regularly engage with all families on the block. They care deeply for the neighborhood and work hard to preserve its old school charm. Thank you for considering this perspective. I trust that the Zoning Board will take this support into account when reviewing the variance request, and hope that a favorable decision will be made. Sincerely, Dan Basile 444 Marshland Ct. Troy, NY 12180 1 Angelina.Apindem From: Brian Sano <troybsano@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, November 29, 2024 4:57 PM To: zoningboard; Randy Coburn; Eric.Ferraro; Angelina.Apindem Subject: Support for Variance Request – PLZBA 2024 0055 353 Marshland Ct (101.26-1-5 / 0.22ac / SF/ N-II Area Variance- SEQRA – Type II [§ 617.5(C) (12)] To whom it may concern, We are writing to express our support for the variance request submitted by Colleen Grant for the property located at 353 Marshland Ct. We understand that Colleen Grant is requesting a variance to receive 4.9 feet of relief in order to keep her fence where it has been installed. We fully support this request because the picket style fence does not interfere with visibility between pedestrians and drivers exiting the driveway. The fence, as it stands in its current location, aligns perfectly with the character of the neighborhood and has minimal impact, if any, on surrounding properties. We believe that granting this variance will help maintain the beauty of the property and will not create any undue hardship or negative impact on the surrounding area. We have reviewed the details of the variance request and believe it is a reasonable request that will not interfere with the general welfare of the community or disrupt the goals of the zoning ordinances. Finally, we think it’s important to note that this property has been owned and maintained by Colleen and her family for over 70 years. Colleen and her husband take great care of their property and regularly engage with all families on the block. They care deeply for the neighborhood and work hard to preserve its old school charm. Thank you for considering our perspective. We trust that the Zoning Board will take this support into account when reviewing the variance request, and we hope that a favorable decision will be made. Sincerely, Brian & Stacey Sano 349 Marshland Court Troy, NY 12180 518-542-5950 troybsano@gmail.com 1 Angelina.Apindem From: royah <royah@goodship.net> Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2024 11:17 PM To: zoningboard Subject: Support for Variance Request – PLZBA 2024 0055 353 Marshland Ct (101.26-1-5 / 0.22ac / SF/ N-II Area Variance- SEQRA – Type II [§ 617.5(C) (12)] To whom it may concern, My family is writing to express our support for the variance request submitted by Colleen Grant for the property located at 353 Marshland Ct. We understand that Colleen Grant is requesting a variance to receive 4.9 feet of relief in order to keep her fence where it has been installed. We live 3 doors down from Colleen, on the same block. We fully support her request because the picket style fence does not interfere with visibility between pedestrians and drivers exiting the driveway. Our family includes 3 children, ages 3 to 11 years old. They run down the sidewalks of our block on an almost daily basis to play with the other children who live here. Please trust us when we say that we would not be writing in support of this variance if we were at all concerned about the safety of our children or our neighbors children, in terms of pedestrian/driver visibility. The fence, as it stands in its current location, aligns perfectly with the character of the neighborhood and has minimal impact, if any, on surrounding properties. We believe that granting this variance will help maintain the beauty of the property and will not create any undue hardship or negative impact on the surrounding area. We have reviewed the details of the variance request and believe it is a reasonable request that will not interfere with the general welfare of the community or disrupt the goals of the zoning ordinances. Finally, we think it’s important to note that this property has been owned and maintained by Colleen and her family for over 70 years. Colleen and her husband take great care of their property and regularly engage with all families on the block. They care deeply for the neighborhood and work hard to preserve its old school charm. Thank you for considering our perspective. We trust that the Zoning Board will take this support into account when reviewing the variance request, and we hope that a favorable decision will be made. Sincerely, Royah Ansari and Kevin Luddy 359 Marshland Court 1 Angelina.Apindem From: Cardinal, Jennifer <cardij3@rpi.edu> Sent: Monday, December 2, 2024 10:54 AM To: zoningboard Cc: Randy Coburn; Eric.Ferraro; Angelina.Apindem Subject: ZBA APPLICATION NUMBER: PLZBA 2024-0055 Good morning Randy, Eric, Angelina, and the Zoning Board of Appeals, My husband, daughter, and I live on Marshland Ct. It is a fantastic block in a really amazing neighborhood, and we are lucky to count Colleen and Bob Grant as some incredible neighbors. We are writing to express our support for the variance request submitted by Colleen Grant for the property located at 353 Marshland Ct. We understand that Colleen Grant is requesting a variance to receive 4.9 feet of relief in order to keep her fence where it has been installed. We fully support this request because the picket style fence does not interfere with visibility between pedestrians and drivers exiting the driveway. The fence, as it stands in its current location, aligns perfectly with the character of the neighborhood and has minimal impact, if any, on surrounding properties. We believe that granting this variance will help maintain the beauty of the property and will not create any undue hardship or negative impact on the surrounding area. We have reviewed the details of the variance request and believe it is a reasonable request that will not interfere with the general welfare of the community or disrupt the goals of the zoning ordinances. Finally, we think it’s important to note that this property has been owned and maintained by Colleen and her family for over 70 years. Colleen and her husband take great care of their property and regularly engage with all families on the block. They are exceptionally kind and considerate, and they care deeply for the neighborhood. Thank you for considering our perspective. We trust that the Zoning Board will take this support into account when reviewing the variance request, and we hope that a favorable decision will be made. Sincerely, Jennifer Cardinal and Steve Hammond 357 Marshland Ct. Troy, NY 12180 Jennifer Cardinal, PhD Lecturer, Sustainability Studies Department of Science and Technology Studies Director of the Vasudha Living and Learning Community Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute pronouns: she/her/hers 1 Support for Variance Request – PLZBA 2024 0055 353 Marshland Ct (101.26-1-5 / 0.22ac / SF/ N-II Area Variance- SEQRA – Type II [§ 617.5(C) (12)] To Whom It May Concern, We are writing to express our support for the variance request submitted by Colleen Grant for the property located at 353 Marshland Ct. We understand that Colleen Grant is requesting a variance to receive 4.9 feet of relief in order to keep her fence where it has been installed. We fully support this request because the picket style fence does not interfere with visibility between pedestrians and drivers exiting the driveway. The fence, as it stands in its current location, aligns perfectly with the character of the neighborhood and has minimal impact, if any, on surrounding properties. We believe that granting this variance will help maintain the beauty of the property and will not create any undue hardship or negative impact on the surrounding area. We have reviewed the details of the variance request and believe it is a reasonable request that will not interfere with the general welfare of the community or disrupt the goals of the zoning ordinances. Finally, we think it’s important to note that this property has been owned and maintained by Colleen and her family for over 70 years. Colleen and her husband take great care of their property and regularly engage with all families on the block. They care deeply for the neighborhood and work hard to preserve its old school charm. Thank you for considering our perspective. We trust that the Zoning Board will take this support into account when reviewing the variance request, and we hope that a favorable decision will be made. Sincerely, John Allison and Michelle Cerone 336 Marshland Ct Angelina.Apindem From: Allyson <allysonjean320@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2024 5:08 PM To: Angelina.Apindem Subject: Questions about agenda for 107th street proposal for storage 1) Will the existing building be knocked down 2) Will the entire parking lot be filled with units 3) Will this storage building be fenced in 4) What will the hours of operation be 5) Will the area have security cameras 6) How high is this building going to be 7) Will the entry to this be on 2nd Ave or 3rd Ave 8) Will renters of these units be able to congregate, have a BBQ have Band practice etc. (seen it done before) 9) I noticed this was proposed by someone representing J&J apartments LLC is there ANY chance they will change and make apartments in there at anytime Thank You Sent from Mail for Windows 1 Angelina.Apindem From: Jes Wasko <jessica.l.wasko@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 4, 2024 1:09 PM To: Randy Coburn; zoningboard Cc: Traci Griffin Subject: Comments regarding the variance request for 353 Marshland Ct Mr. Coburn and the rest of the Zoning Board Committee, Good afternoon, I am hoping to make the meeting tonight; but just in case I wanted to pass along some comments. I currently reside at 340 Marshland Court and have been a resident of this particular block for the last 14 years; but have also lived down the street in the 400 block of Marshland for a few years. As a long time resident of the street, Marshland Court has always been a very beautiful and family-oriented neighborhood and street. It is safe to walk about, the neighbors take care of their properties and there is a sense of community and pride amongst those who live on the street. With that said, I was surprised to learn about this fencing issue. Therefore, I am writing to express my support for the fencing variance request submitted by Colleen Grant for the property located at 353 Marshland Ct. I understand that Colleen Grant is requesting a variance to receive 4.9 feet of relief in order to keep her fence where it has been installed. We fully support this request because the picket style fence does not interfere with visibility between pedestrians and drivers exiting the driveway or oncoming traffic on the street. I walk my dogs every day using the sidewalk and have no obstructions to my view of cars in and out of driveways or oncoming traffic in the street. The fence, as it stands in its current location, is aesthetically pleasing to look at and fits perfectly with the character of the neighborhood. I feel that supporting and granting this variance will help maintain the beauty of the property that has been in Colleen’s family for generations and will not create any undue hardship or negative impact on the surrounding area. Thank you for considering our perspective. We trust that the Zoning Board will take this support into account when reviewing the variance request, and I hope that you provide a favorable decision in response to Colleen and Bob Grant's variance request. Sincerely, Jessica Wasko & Traci Griffin 340 Marshland Ct, Troy, NY 12180 1 Angelina.Apindem From: Douglas Lenz <douglashlenz@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 4, 2024 11:39 AM To: zoningboard Subject: Taylor Phase 2 Project Dear Zoning Board Members Upon review, we oppose the changes to the project at this time for the following reasons: 1) Does not take into account the community agreed upon long-term plan for River St. & changes to the Congress/Ferry St Bridge; 2) Is too large for the space with vastly insufficient parking provided compared to the approved design; 3) Is being rushed for apparently primarily financial gain reasons and would set a bad precedent for all future riverfront development projects that are be so critical for the improvement & vibrant growth of Troy. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Sincerely, Douglas Lenz Karin Krasevac-Lenz 130 2nd St, Troy, NY 12180 1 Angelina.Apindem From: Pete Gernert-Dott <pk71391@earthlink.net> Sent: Wednesday, December 4, 2024 11:46 AM To: zoningboard@troynmy.gov Cc: Angelina.Apindem Subject: Taylor Phase 2 Project Comments for 12/4 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Zoning Board Members, I am sorry I cannot attend today's meeting in person but wanted to send along some comments and questions about the proposed variances for your consideration. In reviewing the Old Business agenda for today (PLZBA 2024 0022 125 River St (100.68-1-1. /1|3.23ac| DMU| Downtown II) Area Variance -SEQRA) and the notes from the 11/6/24 meeting I have concerns about several of the variance requests and the overall impact of the large Taylor Phase 2 proposal. One specific concern is the request for relief from the zoning requirement that ‘buildings with four or more floors shall have a step-back of at least 10 feet on each floor above the third floor on the riverside to mitigate the visual impact of buildings from the river.’ We have seen the impact of tall buildings built along the waterfront that essentially create the visual impact of a 'wall' blocking the city from the river visually and functionally. We know how this closes off light and sight lines from the city side but the impact from the river is also clear from the renderings. The massive buildings proposed in Phase 2 extend that visual wall down River Street. One can imagine these variance exemptions setting a precedent as riverfront development continues southward. We have one chance here to maintain the zoning requirements as they were initially conceived to avoid the mistakes of our past by setting the expectation for visually appealing, appropriately sized, and functionally accessible buildings along the Hudson, arguably Troy's most valuable asset. I also have concerns about the overall size of the Phase 2 proposal and the need for 308 market-rate apartments in this specific area. It seems clear from the variance request ('relief from freestanding parking structures and surface parking lots shall not be built adjacent to the river or any public pathway') that there will not be enough parking without again directly impacting the waterfront or adjacent street parking. Given the lack of walkable food, pharmacy, etc offerings from this site, it would be logical to assume that most residents in market-rate apartments would have cars. Is the answer to build more parking structures on the river or to consider reducing the number of units to match the demands of the existing space? The latter option meets both the accessibility needs of the residents but also reduces the above-mentioned negative visual and functional impact of adding massive apartment buildings along the riverfront. 1 Lastly, based on my understanding of the Congress Street Bridge and road/pedestrian redesign, it seems like there may well be complications in approving variances now for Phase 2 that may impact the Congress Street project. While the variance requests are being made to address some of this, it seems that more study on the potential impacts (or synergies) of these projects should take place. I appreciated the City's engagement with the public for the initial Taylor Apartment project planning and more recently for the Congress Street redesign. With a change in Taylor Phase 2 of this magnitude, it seems like further study and discussion of alternate solutions would be prudent before making final decisions. Thank you in advance for your consideration and careful deliberation. Peter Gernert-Dott 167 1st Street Troy, NY 12180 Work Phone: 312-833-2664 Email: pk71391@earthlink.net 2 PLZBA 2024 0022 – 125 River St Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals Please do not approve the area variances requested by Pennrose Development. The project is:  Too large o Taylor 3 & 4 that will be torn down, have 125 units. There is no need to build 308 units on this small site. o Look at the site plan and renderings on Pages 105 -109 of their applica on.  Too close to the river o Most of the buildings along Front St north of the project site are significantly further from the river than the proposed Taylor Phase 2. o The proposed loca on blocks views of the river and detracts from the City’s Riverfront Comprehensive Plan.  Does not have adequate parking o The developer’s transporta on study indicates 167 – 259 parking spaces are required yet they only plan to have 83 for the 308 apartments and some of those are between the building and the river which is not permi ed by code. Respec ully submi ed, Keith and Sugi Pickard 43 1st Street Troy, NY Zoning Board of Appeals 433 River St., Ste. 5001 Troy, NY 12180 Public Mee ng - Wednesday, December 4, 2024 PLZBA 2024 0022 125 River St (100.68-1-1. /1|3.23ac| DMU| Downtown II) Area Variance -SEQRA (Type 1). Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals Please do not approve the area variances for Taylor Phase 2 requested by Pennrose Development. The project is:  Too large o Taylor 3 & 4 that will be demolished to make space for this project, have 125 units. There is no need to build 308 units on this small site. o Look at the site plan and renderings on Pages 105 -109 of their applica on.  Too close to the river o With the exceptions of the State Street parking garage, which was a terrible development mistake that blocks o the riverwalk, only two of the original warehouses behind 217 and 223 River St are close to the river.  Most of the buildings along Front St, north of the project site are more than 100’ from the river. (See the a ached Google Map showing the current Taylor 3 building and those north of it on the riverfront.)  The proposed Taylor Phase 2 is about 50’ from the river. o The proposed loca on blocks views of the river and detracts from the City’s Riverfront Comprehensive Plan. (See the a ached page from the Comprehensive Plan showing this sec on of the riverfront.)  Lacks adequate parking o The TDMP, done by LaBella, indicates 167 – 259 parking spaces are required yet they only plan to have 83 for the 308 apartments. Some of the proposed spaces are surface lot spaces between the building and the river which is not permi ed by code. The following comments are the same as those submi ed for the November 6th mee ng with addi ons in red. Taylor Phase 2 and the Congress/Ferry Street Intersec on Improvement Project At the Zoning Board of Appeals mee ng of October 2nd Pennrose explained in detail that the ramps from the Congress Street Bridge were not being removed and that they had to design around them. On October 9th at the Congress/Ferry Street Intersec on Improvement Project mee ng, the presenters, Creighton Manning Engineers and The City of Troy showed maps and explained that the ramps are being removed. (See the a ached page from the October 9th presenta on showing the proposed intersec ons of River, Ferry and Congress Streets, the removal of the ramps and the loca ons of the new retaining walls.) During Q&A, I asked how long the ramp removal had been part of the project and the City representa ve said that it was always the plan to remove the ramps. I men oned that at the October ZBA mee ng, Pennrose was adamant that the ramps were staying. I then asked the City if Pennrose was aware that the ramps were going to be removed as part of the Congress/Ferry Street Intersec on Improvement Project. The City responded that Pennrose is aware that the ramps are going to be removed but the City is a slow moving ship and Pennrose does not want to wait for the ramps to be removed. I also asked if the ramps removal and construc on of new embankment/retaining walls parallel to River, Congress and Ferry Streets were included in the $10 million dollar budget for the Congress/Ferry Street Intersec on Improvement Project. The City responded that the ramp removal and new retaining wall construc on are included in the budget. I would also like to add that at the October 2nd ZBA mee ng, Noah Freiburg of Pennrose stated that the Taylor 1 and 2 buildings were vacant and boarded up from 2005 un l they were demolished last year and that might end up being the fate of Taylor 3 & 4. I heard this as a threat that if their Zoning variances were not approved then they would not pursue the project. Brief Background of the Pennrose Taylor Apartments Reconstruc on Planning A er the 2019 and 2020 community mee ngs and the ini al submission of their proposed plans for all phases of the Taylor Apartments replacement, Pennrose showed up to the Planning Commission in December of 2021 with a completely different proposal for Phase 1. For a look at all the many community and resident mee ngs that took place in the development of the ini al proposal for the redevelopment of the Taylor Apartments please follow the link below and scroll to the end. h ps://troyhousing.org/taylor-apartments-redevelopment/ At the Planning Commission mee ng Steve Strichman stated that Pennrose was not able to get the alloca on of 9% LIHTCs that they applied for and would be looking to a different program for government assistance. This new program requires that Phase 1 have 141 apartments (equal in number to those being demolished for the new Phase 1 building) He went on to explain that this would sa sfy the affordable housing requirements for the project and that Phase 2 would be market rate housing. Phase 1 is to be rented to tenants from the current Taylor 3 & 4 buildings. Phase 2 is now proposed as a mix of affordable and “workforce housing”. Please consider the following as they pertain to the five Variances requested:  The project is too large for the site especially given the Applicant is trying to design around the ramps to the Congress Street bridge. The 1st, 2nd & 5th items dealing with frontage and setbacks are a result of trying to fit the project between the ramps.  The project needs to slow down and go back to a design based upon the one developed through many community and planning mee ngs. This plan was presented to the Planning Commission in October 2020. A rendering from that applica on is a ached for reference.  I have heard three reasons that the Applicant must design with the ramps remaining. All are ques onable: o The ramps are structural and can’t be removed.  Only a por on of the ramps are structural. The structural por on of the ramps ends at the pylon where the structural steel ends. This needs to be confirmed as part of the Congress Street Bridge Project. A Google Maps photo of the site showing this is a ached. o It is too costly to remove the ramps.   This can be incorporated into the Congress Street Bridge Project, which now has funding and is going to final design. I assume that this is what was planned in the October 2020 applica on. o NYS DOT has a permanent easement on the ramps.  While this may be true, you can request the NYS DOT to declare the ramp land surplus to their needs. This also can be done as part of the Congress Street Bridge Project.  The Applicant is reques ng five variances. Gran ng any of these variances sets an extremely bad precedent given the fact that the salt pile is finally being moved and extensive development of the riverfront south of this site is in planning.  I request that the Zoning Board of Appeals recommend to the Applicant that they slow down, and design based on the projected Congress Street Bridge Project.  With the ramps removed, the added land may allow the Project to be redesigned to be in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.  I do feel that the Project will s ll have too many units and will be difficult to meet the Zoning/Parking requirements. Building Step Back  The 4th Variance Request is for elimina on of the step back requirement for buildings on the river of 4 or more stories in height.  This should not be granted as it sets a bad precedent for future development on the river.  In a prior presenta on to the Planning Commission, they were asked why the needed this variance and their reply was that they required the 308 apartments to make the numbers work. This is a self-imposed hardship and not a valid reason for a variance. Surface Parking Lots  The 3rd Variance Request is for relief from the requirement that surface parking lots can not be built adjacent to the river or any public pathway easement  This should not be granted as it sets a bad precedent for future development on the river. Parking Since this larger Taylor Phase 1 building le inadequate parking for Phase 1, Pennrose promised to construct 40 parking spaces in Phase 2 for Phase 1 residents. Phase 2 as now proposed has 308 apartments with 123 paved parking spaces and 27 banked parking spaces (green space that will be paved if parking is required for the commercial spaces on the first floor) Of these 123 parking spaces, 40 are reserved for the Taylor Phase 1 building currently under construc on. The remaining 83 spaces will be for the Phase 2 apartments. The Labella TDMP (Transporta on Demand Management Plan) recommends 167 - 259 parking spaces for Taylor Phase 2. Parking recap:  Taylor Phase 1: o 141 apartments (244 bedrooms) o 38 parking spaces plus 40 more when Taylor 2 is complete  .55 parking spaces per apt (.32 parking spaces per bedroom)  Taylor Phase 2 (proposed) o 308 apartments (554 bedrooms) o 83 parking spaces  .27 parking spaces per apartment (.15 parking spaces per bedroom)  Taylor 3 & 4 (current buildings to be demolished for Taylor Phase 2) o 125 apartments o 88 parking spaces  .70 parking spaces per apartment Workforce housing tenants, 183 of the proposed apartments in Taylor Phase 2, will mostly have cars, so how can you jus fy only .27 parking spots per apartment? In addi on, THA vehicles have not been considered in the Labella TDMP. o At most mes there are between 6 and 8 THA cars and trucks parked in the exis ng Taylor 4 lot. In Conclusion  Why must Taylor Phase 2 be so big? o It is proposed as 308 apartments replacing 125 apartments.  What is the rush to finalize a design when a major project going through the middle of their site is about to be finalized?  Why should Troy let Pennrose propose a project and then a er receiving community and planning buy-in, change the project dras cally to make more money?  If the reason is that there are financing deadlines to meet or that they do not want to wait un l the Congress/Ferry Street Intersec on Improvement Project is complete, then these are self-imposed hardships and not a valid reason for gran ng a zoning variance. Respec ully submi ed Russell Brooks 37 1st Street Troy, NY 12180 (518) 421-8194 rbrooks5147@gmail.com  DRAFT - FOR REVIEW Transformation Area Boundary Private Green Space Streetscape Improvement 3-5 Stories Residential Building New Open Space Improved Trail 6-8 Stories Residential Building New Street Required Commercial 10+ Stories Key Density Node Ferry Street Bridge Intersection Improvements Permitted Commercial New Employment Structured Parking Waterfront Lobbies PART C : MAJOR REINVESTMENT AREAS 98 DRAFT Proposed Retaining Wall Proposed Retaining Wall PHASE II – SCHEMATIC RENDERING Taylor Apartments Phase II 21 PHASE II – SCHEMATIC RENDERING Taylor Apartments Phase II 22