The Troy Zoning Board of Appeals on Wednesday agreed to table a use-variance request from owner Waldo (Wally) Evora to convert 3004 6th Avenue into a seven-family building, giving the applicant time to produce a cost-benefit analysis and coordinate proposed neighborhood fixes.

Attorney Daniel Hershberg and architect Danny Sanders appeared for the applicant. Evora said he purchased the fire-damaged property in early 2024 and has invested "over $300,000" in rehabilitation to date, including sprinkler installation; he said the project as proposed requires a use variance because the property is in a two-family zone under Troy’s April 2023 zoning ordinance update.

Evora told the board he relied on advice from the building department before purchasing the property and that the city had issued a permit that allowed work to begin. "I submitted my permits. I submitted my insurance. I submitted all my plannings," Evora said. He asked the board to consider his financial hardship because the project, as designed, will not be financially viable unless converted to seven units.

Board members pressed Evora on unit sizes and regulations. One member cited the zoning standard that average minimum gross floor area per dwelling is 700 square feet and observed that Evora’s current layout averages about 584 square feet per unit, roughly 116 square feet short of that metric. The board’s legal adviser restated the four tests for a use variance, including the requirement that the applicant show the property cannot yield a reasonable return without the variance.

Contractors and neighbors provided testimony: Seth from Matthew Sprinkler said sprinkler heads are in place but not yet tied into the main; framer Mark Anthony warned that reducing units at this stage would require tearing out completed framing and substantially increase cost; several neighbors and neighborhood association leaders raised concerns about parking availability, alley/gangway access, a backyard tree and the concentration of new units being added to the block.

Board members said the missing piece is a clear, itemized cost-benefit or return-on-equity analysis comparing 3-, 4-, 5-, 6- and 7-unit options and quantifying the additional cost to alter work already completed. They also asked Evora to provide documentation addressing parking (for example an easement or deed restriction for off-street spaces), evidence of neighborhood outreach and an inspection report if tree removal is proposed.

The board moved to table the application to the next monthly meeting (first Wednesday) to allow the applicant to return with the analysis and supplemental information. Evora agreed to provide the requested materials and return to the board.