Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Use Variance Dormitory topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Troy ZBA tables decision on 2119 Burdette dormitory proposal after neighborhood debate
Summary
The board tabled a requested use variance to convert 2119 Burdette from a former dental office into a dormitory limited to student housing, citing the need for a full board and further consideration of use-variance criteria.
The Troy Zoning Board of Appeals on Oct. 1 tabled a use-variance request for 2119 Burdette, a property formerly operated as a dental office, after an extended public discussion about whether converting it to a student dormitory fits the neighborhood.
Suzanne Collins, who spoke at the hearing, and Jordan White, the project proponent, said the proposal would create dormitory-style student housing and pointed to nearby campus-related housing and off-street parking the proposal would use. Collins argued the neighborhood has long contained student housing and that the dormitory would provide “a quiet residence for serious students” with lease controls and off-street parking behind 2117 and 2119 Burdette that includes 15 spaces.
Neighbors and other commenters raised concerns about precedent, long-term changes to neighborhood character, enforcement and oversight if an owner-occupant later moved away, and whether the use would become low-income or rooming-house style housing over time. A resident asked how the city would police potential unpermitted rooming-house conversions; staff and board members explained code-enforcement action is largely complaint-driven.
The board described the application as seeking a use variance and reviewed the four tests required for that relief: economic hardship/unreasonable rate of return, uniqueness of the property, whether granting would alter neighborhood character, and whether the hardship is self-created. Board members and staff said all four tests must be met for a use variance.
With one regular board member absent for religious observance, the applicant was offered the option to table the matter. The applicants and speakers declined to wait for a full complement of members; the board then voted to table the application to a future meeting to allow fuller consideration and potential legal counsel to appear with the applicant. Board staff explained that if the motion seeking the variance were to be defeated at this meeting, the applicant could not refile the identical request in the immediate next cycle.
The board advised the parties that any conditions (for example, requiring owner-occupancy of an adjacent parcel) would need legal review and that the planning board would later handle conversion details if the variance were granted.
