Albany City zoning board tables decision on Hamilton Street conversion after questions about tiny units, parking and preservation

The Albany City Board of Zoning Appeals on July 8 heard a proposal to convert six mixed‑use buildings on Hamilton Street from office space back to residential use and then voted to table the applications so the applicant can supply more information.

The applications, filed for parcels including 295–307 Hamilton Street, request area variances that would let the owner average dwelling gross floor area across each building rather than meet a 750‑square‑foot per‑unit minimum in the MUNE (mixed‑use neighborhood edge) district. Dan Wilson, partner at Taylor Riley Wilson, the architect on the project, told the board the plan would yield about 21 rental units — roughly nine studios and 12 one‑bedrooms — with studios in some locations as small as about 350 square feet. "We're trying to go back to the original townhouse, row house look," Wilson said, and added the project is being pursued as a historic tax‑credit rehabilitation, which constrains certain interior changes.

Staff framed the issue around the city's interpretation of the code. "The requested variances apply to the average square footage," a staff member told the board, noting that the city's calculations average floor area across a building rather than evaluating each unit individually. Staff also flagged three addresses in the staff report (295, 297 and 299 Hamilton) as candidates for denial based on the percent variance and its assessment of substantiality.

Public comment underscored a split in neighborhood priorities. Felton McLaughlin, a city resident and the listing agent for the portfolio, urged approval and argued smaller studios fill a market need. "We desperately need more housing," McLaughlin said, adding that his own small studios rent for $900 to $1,300 a month and that small units help make the project financially viable. By contrast, local residents raised concerns about parking, traffic safety and loss of small ground‑floor businesses. Jen Bullington, a condo owner on Hudson Avenue, said the shared rear parking area has a single driveway that is "already kinda dangerous" and warned adding 21 units could worsen congestion.

Board members pressed the applicant for additional documentation about alternatives considered, neighborhood character examples and whether measures to limit future subdivision of units are legally enforceable. Members asked the applicant to consult neighborhood associations and, for operational concerns, to consider contacting the city traffic engineer. The board also discussed whether a condition could be added to approvals to prohibit creating units smaller than those now proposed; staff advised the board that area variances typically "run with the land," and that enforcing future size limits raises legal and practical questions.

Given those outstanding policy and legal issues, a board member moved to table the applications to allow the applicant to provide more detailed alternatives analysis, unit‑by‑unit area breakdowns and neighborhood outreach. The motion passed on a voice vote; board members did not provide a roll‑call tally on the record. Staff said it will communicate specific requests and a timeline for resubmission.

Next steps: the applicant is expected to submit the additional materials requested by staff and the board; staff will then place the items back on a future Board of Zoning Appeals agenda. The public record remains open for additional written comment submitted according to the city's noticing rules.