Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Housing topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board defers decision on 84 Madison Avenue attic-conversion permit after staff cites code deficiencies

5965927 · October 8, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The board deferred action on a conditional-use permit to convert attic space at 84 Madison Avenue into a third dwelling unit after staff said the attic does not meet local and building-code standards; the applicant asked for more time to supply measurements and engineering reports.

The Albany City Planning Board on Oct. 7 voted to defer a conditional use permit application for 84 Madison Avenue after staff reported the proposed third dwelling unit in attic space did not meet local code and International Building Code requirements as submitted.

Planning staff told the board the attic proposed as a third unit measures 598 square feet and comprises roughly 46% of the top story’s floor area. Under the Unified Development Code, a dwelling unit must occupy a minimum of 80% of a building story or must have 1,000 square feet of gross floor area; the attic as submitted did not satisfy either measure, and the Department of Building and Regulatory Compliance indicated the space failed minimum ceiling-height standards for habitable rooms.

The applicant, identified at the hearing as Wesley Babcock, said the team has engaged an architecture firm and electricians and that a more precise measured survey and full building scan are forthcoming. Babcock told the board he could not confirm whether the attic would meet the 80% rule or reach 1,000 square feet until the architects deliver updated measurements.

Planning staff said they had recommended denial based on the earlier materials but offered the option to defer to allow the applicant to submit the new engineering and architectural documentation. Board members asked about timing and whether the matter could remain open; the city counsel advised that if the hearing closes without decision the board would have 62 days to act, but leaving the hearing open for new information would allow flexibility.

After discussion, a board member moved and another seconded to defer the item. The motion passed by voice vote with all members saying “aye.”