Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
ZBA approves two variances for Taylor’s 23 redevelopment at 125 River Street with conditions
Summary
The Troy Zoning Board of Appeals approved variances to front‑side and side setback requirements for the Taylor’s 23 redevelopment at 125 River Street, citing unique site topography and a NYSDOT easement.
The Troy Zoning Board of Appeals approved setback variances for the Taylor’s 23 redevelopment at 125 River Street, granting relief the applicant said is necessary because of the site’s topography and a New York State Department of Transportation easement near the bridge and drainage infrastructure.
Roger Keating of LaBella Associates, presenting for the applicant, told the board the application clarified which segments of the curved property line count as the front side setback and which portions are the side setback. Keating said the revisions simply clarified measurement points rather than changing the project’s design.
The board approved two variances with conditions on the front‑side setback. The conditions limit maximum relief to 25 percent or less of the specified front sideline and require that the remainder of the front sideline receive a smaller relief amount described in the site plan. The board cited the site’s constrained topography, the presence of the DOT easement and the need to preserve bridge‑related infrastructure as reasons the relief is warranted and not a self‑created hardship.
Why it matters: The variances enable the developer to construct buildings where the site’s curved property lines and adjacent state infrastructure would otherwise make strict code compliance impractical. Granting relief with conditions preserves pedestrian/utility space while allowing the project to proceed.
Board findings and conditions The board found the applicant demonstrated practical difficulties arising from the land’s configuration and from required DOT easements. For the front‑side setback, the board recorded maximum relief amounts and added three conditions: limit the maximum relief to 25 percent or less of the front sideline; grant a specified smaller relief for the remainder of the frontage per the submitted site plan; and require the applicant to maintain as much building frontage on River Street as possible.
For the side setback relief the board granted the requested measurements without additional conditions after finding the same site constraints justified relief.
Ending: The board adopted a written decision documenting the votes and reasoning and directed staff to prepare a formal decision letter with the conditions. The applicant thanked the board and will follow up on the formal paperwork delivery.
