Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Affordable Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board defers decision on large Mount Pleasant proposal after extended debate over multifamily classification and open‑space calculations
Summary
The board spent extensive time on an appeal and application for a multi‑story residential/supportive‑housing project. Members flagged three technical issues—whether the proposal constitutes 'multifamily' (use‑variance question), whether R‑5 open space may be counted toward C‑2 requirements, and whether recent code changes removed bonus density—then asked staff and counsel for calculations and legal references before ruling.
The board devoted its longest single block of time to a complex appeal related to a proposed multi‑unit residential development in the Mount Pleasant area. The application spans two zoning categories (C‑2 commercial and R‑5 residential) and requests height/density that depended on bonuses that the board noted have recently been altered in the village code.
Building‑department staff had issued an interpretation concluding that aspects of the proposal constituted a use (multifamily housing) that is not permitted in portions of the property and that additional variance relief is required; the applicant disputes that characterization. Board members isolated several discrete questions for decision: (1) whether the proposed occupancy, services and unit composition meet the municipal definition of multifamily dwelling (a use‑variance issue); (2) whether the R‑5 parcel can be counted to satisfy open‑space requirements for the C‑2 parcel (the split‑zone/open‑space question); and (3) whether the project qualifies for bonus density tied to affordable/supportive housing under code provisions that the board said have been changed in the interim.
Members repeatedly asked for clearer calculations and for documentation showing how the applicant arrived at open‑space, FAR and parking numbers; at least one board member noted the applicant's totals produce figures 'very close' to the code threshold and suggested an error or inconsistent inclusion of areas such as parking and non‑usable landscape.
Given the technical and legal complexity, board members directed staff and counsel to compile determinations, double‑check open‑space math, and supply citations on split‑zone rules; the board agreed to receive a draft resolution and supporting analysis in advance of the next meeting. The board emphasized the record must be clear about what counts (and what cannot be counted) toward required open space and whether the proposed use is categorically permitted or requires a use variance.
