Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Waste Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Troy board denies Unity House request to store project garbage across street; applicants urged to use on-site or secured access
Summary
Unity House sought an area variance (PLZBA 20250024) to use existing dumpster enclosures across Earl Street for a proposed teaching kitchen at 185 Earl St. The board denied the variance 4–1, citing feasible alternatives including using an adjacent parcel, establishing safe access or placing an on-site container.
The Planning/Zoning Board denied an area-variance request from Unity House that would have allowed garbage for a proposed teaching-kitchen conversion at 185 Earl Street to be stored in existing dumpsters on an adjacent parcel across the street (PLZBA 20250024). The motion failed 4–1.
Unity House representatives told the board that the project site is tightly built, leaving insufficient room for on-site refuse storage after adding an accessibility ramp and egress. They proposed to use dumpsters at Unity House’s headquarters on the opposite side of Earl Street; Unity House said it would increase collection frequency if necessary and that the dumpsters are enclosed and lit.
Board members and staff posed alternatives. Several suggested the applicant could rely on an existing gangway, easement, lot-line adjustment, or place a secured container on the adjacent parcel it also owns rather than crossing a public right-of-way for routine refuse storage. Concerns included pedestrian safety where trash would be carried across Earl Street, the security and lighting of the dumpster location at night, and the risk that future changes of ownership or site configuration could cut off access.
The board moved that the variance not be granted because the applicant had not demonstrated that the requested use of off-site dumpster storage was the only feasible option; members cited feasible alternatives on or adjacent to the applicant’s property. The motion passed 4–1 to deny; the dissenting vote argued the campus-wide ownership and existing enclosure mitigated the concerns.
Next steps: The applicant may pursue alternatives cited by the board — providing an on-site secure container, establishing a permanent easement or lot-line adjustment to formalize access, or demonstrating a safe crosswalk and lighting plan to planning staff — and return with a revised proposal.
