Troy board discusses 73‑unit senior affordable project at Fifth Avenue; tables multiple variance requests pending further technical and planning review

Developers seeking to build a 73‑unit senior affordable apartment building on Fifth Avenue presented the project Jan. 8, and the Troy Zoning Board tabled the application for further coordination with planning staff, the lead agency on environmental review, and for additional technical materials.

Five Corners Development, with partner Home Leasing, described a project on a 0.83‑acre site that is heavily constrained by topography, shallow bedrock, steep slopes and historic industrial contamination. Project consultant Kelsey Carr (Abella Associates) said roughly half the parcel is effectively unbuildable because of slopes and bedrock outcroppings; the developer proposes raised ground‑floor parking and to cantilever portions of the structure over exposed bedrock to maximize buildable footprint.

The applicant requested multiple variances under the neighborhood 3 zoning rules: increasing allowed stories from three to five (proposed height about 58.5 feet), reduction of the 25‑foot parking‑zone front setback to allow seven parking spaces on the frontage, exceptions to ground‑floor transparency, a front‑door orientation variance (entrance on a side façade adjacent to the new sidewalk and parking), and roof‑form exceptions. The project team said the height request is driven by limited buildable area, contamination remediation and the economics of producing affordable senior housing; they plan to pursue brownfield cleanup funding and expect substantial remediation costs.

Board members and staff raised multiple technical and policy questions: (1) whether the Planning Board’s coordinated SEQR review would issue a negative declaration (Planning was the lead agency and had not completed its review); (2) whether the marquee encroachment and signage concerns raised earlier applied here (not relevant to this project); (3) exact elevation and sight‑line differences between Mount Olympus and the proposed roofline; and (4) details about the proposed streetscape, the distance between parked cars and the new sidewalk, and the pedestrian/ADA access arrangement.

Public comment included one online speaker who urged sensitivity to the local historic landscape and warned the site is a visible gateway to downtown; residents also raised concerns about the building’s prominence on a high ridge above River Street. Board members asked for additional engineering drawings showing sections and elevations, clearer statements on remediation plans (contaminants identified in prior site work include heavy metals and petroleum compounds), and an evaluation of design changes that might reduce the height variance requested.

Because the Planning Board had not finalized its SEQR determination and because several technical questions — including exact marquee/right‑of‑way encroachment (for other items) and bedrock/clearance drawings — remained unresolved, the board voted to table the application and asked the applicant to return with the requested materials and with confirmation of Planning Board actions. Board members also requested that staff and the applicant consider alternatives such as different parking configurations and options to avoid or reduce front‑setback relief.