Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 169 Route 214 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors and written commenters urge Shandaken ZBA to deny setback variances for 169 Route 214
Summary
At a June 17 public hearing, residents and written commenters told the Shandaken Zoning Board of Appeals that granting area variances to let 169 Route 214 convert from multifamily housing to a hotel would remove long‑term housing, allow signage and large events, and harm nearby residents; the board left the hearing open after the applicant failed to appear.
The Town of Shandaken Zoning Board of Appeals opened public testimony June 17 on an application by a 169 Route 214 applicant seeking three area variances to convert an existing multifamily dwelling on a 2.25‑acre parcel (tax map 13.12‑2‑39) into a motel or lodge. Staff read the application notice and two written objections submitted for the record.
A written submission from Vivian Welton argued the town's short‑term rental (STR) rules limit ownership and prohibit exterior advertising and gatherings of more than 20 people, and said changing the site's use to a hotel would allow signage, permit events, and effectively remove housing from the long‑term stock. The written comment stated, "If 169 Route 214 is granted a change to use to become a hotel, this would grant the owner or any subsequent owner permanent short‑term rental ability regardless of residency, thereby continuing the removal from the housing stock." That submission asked the board not to grant the setback variances.
Resident Maureen Millar, who said she lives in Mount Tremper, told the board she is not an immediate neighbor but regularly delivers Meals on Wheels to older residents nearby and urged restraint. "I care very much about when commercial property encroaches upon residential neighborhoods," she said, adding that the property lies in a floodway and recounting that a flood‑agency estimate gave "an 8 out of 10 chance of the building flooding in the next 30 years." Millar also said converting the site to a hotel could allow more intensive use than three STR units and reduce housing available to full‑time residents.
Board members noted the applicant, Mr. McGahn, was not present and discussed keeping the hearing open; the board decided to leave the public hearing open and reschedule so the applicant could attend. No decision on the variances was made at the June 17 meeting. The hearing remains open pending a future meeting where the applicant can respond to written comments and public testimony.
