Planning commission denies 148‑unit Westbrook efficiency development over transition and density concerns

The City of Troy Planning Commission on March 24 denied preliminary site plan approval for the Westbrook multifamily development, a proposed 148‑unit efficiency complex west of Crooks Road north of Wattles Road.

Planning staff had reviewed JPLN‑2023‑0029 and said the two‑parcel site totals about 5.72 acres and would be developed as six two‑story buildings containing 148 efficiency units with 180 parking spaces (the ordinance requires 148). Staff noted the application was originally submitted in August 2023 and that a later master plan amendment and pending zoning ordinance changes do not apply to this application because the submission predates the amendments; a court order required staff to process the application and place it on the commission’s March agenda.

During a multi‑hour presentation and commission Q&A, staff (referred to at the meeting as Carlisle) flagged three primary areas for the commission to evaluate: whether the use and site design ensure compatibility and transition to adjacent single‑family neighborhoods (Section 5.06, transitional features); whether the buildings and materials meet site plan design standards (Section 8.06); and whether conditions such as a fence detail along the northern property line, relocating required parking‑lot trees into the lot, and lowering selected light poles to 16 feet would sufficiently mitigate impacts.

The applicant, represented by Cindy Routt Victor and principals, said the project had been redesigned since prior reviews to reduce height and avoid the drain area, that efficiency units were chosen to limit people per unit compared with conventional apartments, and that the additional 32 parking spaces (180 total) were intended to prevent spillover parking into nearby streets and to serve guests and delivery vehicles. The applicant also described on‑site stormwater, internal sidewalks, and amenity areas.

Neighborhood residents who spoke at the meeting told commissioners they had not been adequately notified, said the project’s roughly 25.9 units per acre is far denser than nearby single‑family tracts and earlier proposals, and predicted the development would increase vehicle circulation, strain local infrastructure and reduce adjacent home values. Several residents asked the city to require wildlife surveys and to enforce tree‑protection plans after reports of tree removals during site work. A smaller number of commenters supported the development as addressing an unmet need for smaller, more-affordable rental units.

Commission deliberations focused on intensity, massing and the plan’s conformity with the neighborhood node intent in the master plan. Commissioners questioned whether an all‑efficiency project is appropriate at this node — staff and applicants agreed efficiencies more tightly constrain household size but noted the site lacks the walkable services typical of efficiency developments. Staff also identified deviations the applicant requested, including excess parking and the location of parking‑lot trees outside the parking field.

Commissioner Lambert moved a resolution recommending denial on the grounds that the proposal failed to comply with Section 5.06 (transitional features, specifically subsections a and b) and Section 8.06 (site plan design standards, subsections a and b). After discussion and a roll‑call vote, the commission voted to deny the preliminary site plan. The motion carried with six votes in favor of denial; one commissioner had recused earlier because of prior participation in a zoning‑interpretation decision.

The commission’s denial is advisory to the applicant; it does not prohibit resubmittal. Staff and the applicant discussed pathways for addressing the commission’s concerns, including adding parking‑lot trees into the parking field, refining the northern fence/detail, reducing perceived massing or unit count, and submitting additional narrative on compatibility and market considerations. The applicant requested a continuance to revise the proposal but the commission proceeded to vote on the denial motion that was on the floor.

Next steps: the applicant may revise and resubmit or seek other procedural options per the city’s zoning ordinance and applicable rules governing resubmittal after denial.