Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Urban Design topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Troy zoning board tables Taylor River Street variance request after extended debate on stepbacks and DOT easements
Summary
The zoning board tabled a variance request for the Taylor 2/3 River Street development after hearing that strict waterfront stepback rules could eliminate dozens of units and after asking the applicant for river‑level renderings, floor‑plan impact analysis, and a code interpretation of which building 'face' the rule applies to.
The Troy Zoning Board voted to table a variance request from Taylor 2 LLC for the River Street Taylor 2/3 development after an extended discussion about waterfront stepback requirements, DOT easements and how future city/DOT roadway work may interact with the proposed buildings.
Applicant representatives presented a plan for two curved, multi‑story buildings and said strict application of the waterfront stepback rule would require large vertical stepbacks above the third floor. The development team provided an estimate that strict compliance as they read the code could reduce the project by roughly 59 units (about 65,000 square feet) across the sites and would require additional structural work that could render upper floors unmarketable. "We can't build that building," the applicant said, describing the construction and marketability challenges posed by full stepbacks.
Board members repeatedly asked whether the code's stepback applies to the entire curved façade within 200 feet of the waterfront or only to faces perpendicular to the river. Planning staff noted the planning board had recommended approval of the project and issued a negative environmental declaration, but that the zoning board must still interpret the code as written. Members requested clearer visuals — river‑level renderings and internal floor‑plan diagrams showing unusable space under strict compliance — and asked the applicant to return with a targeted interpretation and supporting illustrations.
The board also discussed how a permanent DOT easement and an ongoing city design for the adjacent intersection affect the project's setbacks and sidewalk elevations. Applicant representatives said the design is intended to work whether or not DOT's reconfiguration proceeds but acknowledged many site constraints originate in easements and off‑site improvements.
After discussion, a board member moved to table the application to the next meeting so the applicant could supply renderings, elevation details and a code interpretation; the motion passed by voice vote. The applicant said it was seeking approvals to keep financing and construction timetables on track but agreed to return with the requested materials.
