Fourth Street renovation paused after board seeks more detail on carriage‑house demolition, utilities and historic review

The Troy Planning Board voted unanimously to table action on the Fourth Street renovation and rear‑courtyard addition, PLPC2024005980, after members and staff identified outstanding technical and historic‑resource issues.

Applicant representatives described extensive structural work to an existing rear carriage house and said much of that rear structure would be rebuilt. “We are salvaging the alley exterior wall for historic purposes,” Kyle Angstrom of MU Studio Architects told the board, describing new foundations, floor plates and roofing that the team said would result from the scope of work.

Board members and staff repeatedly sought clarity on whether the rear building should be treated as an existing structure (subject to zoning limits on minimum unit sizes) or as effectively new construction exempt from those limits. The distinction matters because zoning rules cited by staff set minimum unit square footage for remodeled units; the applicant argues the work is de‑facto new construction and should not trigger the same limits.

Other topics the board asked the applicant to resolve before declaring the application complete included: - Historic‑district review: the applicant said the Historic Review Committee had asked the team to preserve a corbelled cornice and sample masonry; staff asked for documented HRC concurrence. - Adjacent‑owner notification: staff said adjoining property owners should have been notified if demolition exceeded thresholds; the applicant agreed to re‑notice the proposed deconstruction/demolition. - Fire and life‑safety: the fire chief had negotiated changes to the rear egress; the applicant said it had revised plans accordingly. - Utilities and municipal approvals: applicant representatives said they had retained engineers, completed flow calculations and planned to tap the street water and sewer; the city engineer and DPU staff asked for confirmation of permit status and flow approvals prior to site plan approval. - Hazardous materials: the applicant reported asbestos testing had been carried out with largely negative results, with one remaining element to test (an old walk‑in fridge).

Several board members and the city engineer said they want written confirmation from the building department that the carriage house demolition/reconstruction qualifies as new construction, or, alternately, documented ZBA relief if minimum‑unit‑size variances will be required. The building department staff said a written determination was forthcoming.

The board also directed staff to renotice adjacent owners if the deconstruction constitutes substantial demolition. That renotification was requested after staff said it had not been made for the scope now described by the applicant.

The applicant asked to proceed quickly and said financing is in place and that work on water/sewer taps is advanced. Still, the board concluded it lacked sufficient documentation to declare the application complete and scheduled the item to return after the applicant provides the requested materials and after staff re‑notices adjacent owners.

The motion to table was made and seconded; the motion carried unanimously. The applicant was asked to provide documentation of DPU/tap permits, a written building‑department position on “new construction” vs. “remodel,” HRC correspondence and the remaining asbestos test results prior to the next meeting.