Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
ZBA tables use‑variance request to convert 253 6th Avenue from single‑family to two‑family; SEQR form missing
Summary
Applicant seeking a use variance to convert a single‑family house at 253 6th Avenue into a two‑family dwelling presented comparative financial analysis but did not submit the required SEQR short‑form. The Zoning Board declared lead agency and tabled the application until the environmental form is filed and reviewed.
The Troy Zoning Board of Appeals tabled a use‑variance application to convert 253 6th Avenue from a single‑family dwelling into a two‑family residence after staff and board members determined the Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF/SEQR short form) required for an unlisted action had not been submitted with the application.
Anne Bear, representing HDT Estates, told the board the property already contains a separate accessory living unit with separate utilities and that the conversion would require only a front entrance modification. "The conversion would not alter the neighborhood," Bear said, noting her client had already purchased nearby property and completed renovations elsewhere in the neighborhood.
Why it matters: A use variance allows a property owner to establish a use that is not permitted in the zoning district. The board emphasized that applicants seeking a use variance must substantiate claims that the property cannot yield a reasonable return under allowed uses; Bear provided a market analysis in the submission indicating the two‑family conversion would yield a reasonable return while retaining single‑family use would not.
Missing environmental paperwork and board action Staff and the board noted the application lacked the required SEQR short form for an unlisted action. Board members said they could not complete environmental review or reach a decision without the form and supporting documentation. The board declared itself lead agency for SEQR purposes so it could manage the environmental review once the form is filed, but tabled the application for the evening so the applicant could submit the short form and related materials.
Applicant materials and conditions Bear said the applicant provided a comparative market analysis and claimed a single‑family renovation would not produce a reasonable return while converting to two‑family would. The applicant also indicated that, if the variance were granted, a separate application or area variance would be sought to pave the rear lot for off‑street parking accessed from the alley. Board members and staff asked that the SEAF be submitted promptly and that supporting fiscal data be included so the board can assess the use‑variance criteria.
Ending: The board voted to table the application; the applicant may return after filing the SEQR short form and any additional requested documentation.
