Troy planning board tables proposal for 12 townhouses at former Cathay field amid density, parking and trash concerns

The Troy Planning Board on April 12 tabled consideration of a subdivision and variance package from Redburn Development Partners that would convert the former Cathay football field on Seventh Avenue into 14 lots intended to support 12 new townhouses, after members raised concerns about density, trash pickup and long-term precedent.

Redburn’s presenter, Elizabeth Young Jojo, president of Redburn Development Partners, told the board the team had substantially reduced the number of variances since an earlier meeting. “We took some feedback from the last meeting, and obviously, we’ve dropped our variance request significantly down. I believe it was 41 requests last time. We’re down to 14,” she said. She described the proposal as a standalone subdivision creating 12 townhouse lots, plus separate lots for the gym and the majority of the playing field.

The board’s questions focused on the intensity of development on the site, how residents would handle parking and trash, and whether allowing the proposal could encourage the developer or others to replicate similar infill parcels. “The concern I still have that remains with the proposal is the density of the units and the clear ability to just replicate this at least three times over,” a board member said, urging limits or assurances about future phases.

Jojo said the development team moved the project north on the site to gain more space between buildings and eliminated several previously requested variances; she said several lots now meet the 40-foot spacing requirement. She also said the project will rely on allowed street parking rather than private driveways after removing the driveways from the plan. “We’ve opted, unfortunately, to just go for street parking, which is allowed,” Jojo said.

On unit design and pricing, Jojo said the townhouses are planned as roughly 1,600 square feet with a 3-bedroom, 2-bath layout and that the team was “trying to keep it below $250,000.” She said the developer was organizing the units in blocks of four to reduce construction costs: “Building in blocks of 4 is one of the reasons why this project could move forward financially, and be at that affordable price point.” She added the units will not include basements and that mechanical equipment would be internal to the homes.

Board members and an online commenter raised practical questions about trash pickup and access. A board member cited the city code (section 28566) addressing location of dumpsters and refuse receptacles and noted that existing alley or service access behind the site differs from typical rowhouse blocks in Troy that have rear alleys for collection. The transcript includes a reading of the code: “All dumpsters, garbage cans, or other containers for refuge associated with nonresidential uses or multifamily dwellings of 4 or more dwelling units shall be located in a side or rear yard enclosed by walls or opaque fencing when feasible,” a board member read aloud during the discussion.

Redburn responded that trash pickup for the gym and school buildings on the property is handled by tenants walking to centralized dumpsters and that the developer could consider allowing townhouse residents to use those dumpsters but preferred to keep uses separate. The applicant also suggested design solutions like front-enclosed receptacles or small sheds to screen containers for the middle units.

Board members asked whether the project required site plan review in addition to subdivision approval; staff and the applicant said the subdivision had been to the planning board but that final building-permit reviews and code-enforcement checks would address compliance during permitting. Several board members asked staff to research whether trash-storage sheds would be allowed in front yards and to confirm the applicable code provisions for garbage location and site-plan triggers.

After discussion, a board member moved to table the application so staff could research code requirements and potential conditions; another board member seconded the motion. The roll call vote was recorded as all in favor and the matter was tabled to a future meeting for additional information.

The applicant, Jojo, said the proposal was intended as a single, stand‑alone project and not explicitly Phase 1 of a larger buildout, but that she could not promise the developer would never return with a different proposal for remaining field acreage if market demand justified it.