Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Affordable Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
ZBA hears heated appeal over whether proposed 62‑unit Search for Change project qualifies as 'dwelling units' under local code
Summary
Search for Change appealed a July 2025 building inspector determination that the organization's 62‑unit proposal is not a permitted 'dwelling' use; the ZBA limited issues to inspector authority and code definitions and asked the applicant for clarifications on lottery/eligibility, R5 lot use, staffing and flood mitigation.
The Zoning Board of Appeals spent protracted time Sept. 4 on an appeal by Search for Change challenging a July 1, 2025 building‑inspector determination that the organization’s proposed 62‑unit affordable/supportive housing project did not meet the Village Code definition of dwelling units.
Neil Alexander, counsel for the applicant, said the project had been processed through the planning board for more than a year on the basis of an earlier May 2024 building‑inspector determination that the use qualified as "fair and affordable" housing and that the July reversal — after substantial consultant reviews, a Part 3 EAF and public information sessions — unfairly prejudiced the project. Alexander urged the ZBA to vacate the July determination or rule that it was without authority after the long planning‑board process.
The board chair framed the ZBA's role narrowly: it must decide (1) whether the building inspector had the authority to issue the July 1 determination (a procedural/estoppel question) and (2) whether the inspector applied the Village Code definitions correctly (for example, whether each unit contains required cooking and sanitary facilities such that they qualify as dwelling units). The applicant maintains every unit has a kitchen and bathroom, and that half the units meet the village's 'deeply affordable' AMI thresholds and the remaining units meet the 'affordable' thresholds; the project also proposes E SHI‑funded supportive units and a 491‑sq‑ft shared amenity/support space.
Neighbors and dozens of residents spoke at length, citing frequent flooding in surrounding streets, increased traffic and pedestrian safety concerns, limited neighborhood parking, potential tree loss and worries about the project's scale in a primarily residential context. Several speakers said they support affordable housing goals but questioned the suitability of this specific site.
The ZBA asked Search for Change to provide additional materials by a board deadline (to be considered for the Sept. 30 agenda): clarified lottery/eligibility procedures for the two categories of units (village lottery or designated agent), documentation about the R5 portion of the property and its intended use, details on staff and supportive‑services programming (roles, hours and responsibilities), and engineering/stormwater documentation addressing adjacent flooding concerns. The board emphasized it would not substitute its land‑use policy judgment for the planning board's SEQR and site‑plan processes; its immediate determinations will be limited to code interpretation and the inspector’s procedural authority.
