Developers seek multiunit variances for two Albany infill sites; neighbors press for smaller scale and firmer financial evidence

Developers seeking to redevelop two long-vacant lots in Albany’s historic neighborhoods presented designs and financial projections Tuesday but left the zoning board unconvinced that the variances requested were the "minimum necessary" under the city’s use-variance rules.

At an initial presentation for 41 Tenbrook Street, the applicant team outlined plans for a four-story, nine-unit building that would preserve a historic brick front while building new apartments above and behind it. The proposal, the development team said, responds to structural constraints (an existing steel frame tied to a long-standing brick wall), difficult site grades and what the applicants called high construction and remediation costs.

"We take s--- and we shine it," one presenter said, describing the group’s approach to rehabilitating difficult properties. The project’s architect, Keith Kramer, described steep slopes, an unusual concrete slab and a steel frame the team said limited options for different building footprints.

Neighbors and the neighborhood association asked the board to require more granular financial information and to consider a smaller number of units. "We did not see, upon reading any of the submission materials, any proof of return or any smaller level of units," Alicia Demery, president of the Tenbrook Triangle Neighborhood Association, said during public comment, urging the board to reject or reduce the scale of the variance.

Developer representatives said pro formas and outside-contractor reviews (the team cited Turner Construction) indicate the project is not bankable at lower unit counts and that conventional lenders require large loan-to-cost levels. "You have to be bankable," a presenter said, adding that construction costs for the package of projects under discussion run into the millions.

Board members repeatedly pressed the applicants for comparative scenarios showing whether a 3-, 4-, 5- or 7-unit scheme would be feasible and for third-party verification of pro forma assumptions. The board’s chair emphasized that use-variance standards require proving an unnecessary hardship and that any relief granted should be the least amount required to remedy that hardship.

A second similar infill project, described by the applicants as Madison Place, drew comparable scrutiny. Supporters — including Sam Fine, who identified himself as the city’s chief auditor — urged the board to consider the broader housing and fiscal benefits of redeveloping vacant lots. "We need to build housing," Fine said, noting that the vacant lot’s present assessment produced little tax revenue compared with developed neighboring parcels.

After extended public comment from both opponents worried about neighborhood character and supporters focused on housing supply and transit access, a board member moved to table both applications so the applicants could provide more detailed financial evidence, block-by-block density comparisons, and documented outreach to the neighborhood association. The motions carried; staff said the items will return when the requested materials are submitted and the board is fully staffed.

What’s next: The applicants were asked to supply pro forma scenarios for lower unit counts, third‑party financial validation and clearer documentation of sewer/utility plans and parking/trash arrangements. The board indicated it wants neighborhood engagement and more detailed evidence that all permitted uses have been considered before it will grant the requested use variances.