Mixed Results for Mt. Pleasant Housing Project Appeal

by Meg Yergin -

A controversial proposal to construct a six-story housing development on Mt. Pleasant Avenue cleared a major hurdle last week — while running headlong into several others.

The not-for-profit organization Search for Change is seeking approval to build a six-story, multi-residential building on Mt. Pleasant Avenue.  The proposed building would include 62 affordable housing units, half of which would be reserved for individuals living with severe mental illness for whom managed care services would be provided.  See HERE.

The proposed project has generated intense debate within the Village, with neighbors and residents raising concerns about its impact on neighborhood density, traffic and pedestrian safety, and the nature of the supporting housing component.  See HERE.

The Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) ruled last week on two Village actions that had created significant challenges for the project in response to an appeal by Search for Change.

Building Inspector’s Determination

The first obstacle to the project arose from Building Inspector Scott Ransom’s July 1, 2025 Code compliance determination that the project is an unpermitted use.  This determination contradicts the original July 2024 letter of determination made by a former building inspector.  

In his revised determination, Ransom states that the project resembles a nursing or convalescent home, a use not permitted in the C2 zoning district, dealing a blow to the developer’s plans.  See HERE.

Search for Change appealed Ransom’s determination to the ZBA, arguing that it was unlawful, inconsistent with prior Village determinations, and constituted unequal treatment.  See HERE.

After nine months of hearings and deliberations, ZBA members unanimously concluded that the Building Inspector had the authority to correct prior determination errors.  However, members differed on whether Ransom's revised determination was correct.

By a 3–2 vote, a majority of the ZBA concluded the proposed development does not constitute a nursing or convalescent home and is therefore permitted in the C2 district.  Those members who found the use to be permitted emphasized that there was no evidence that the future residents would not be capable of independent living; the level of support services to be provided were not specified by the applicant; and the eligibility standards are comparable to age restrictions used in senior housing developments.

The two dissenting members saw the project differently.

They pointed out that half of the residents would be required to meet NY Empire State Supportive Housing Initiative (ESSHI) eligibility standards.  Under ESSHI guidelines, qualifying individuals must have a disabling condition or other significant life challenge in addition to being homeless.  For the dissenters, those standards plus the fact that managed care services are required to be provided means this will be supportive housing - fundamentally different from conventional multi-dwelling housing and more akin to a convalescent home which is not permitted in the district.

The debate between ZBA members repeatedly returned to one unresolved issue: exactly what services would be provided onsite.  During months of public hearings, ZBA members repeatedly requested detailed information about the nature and scope of managed care services planned to be provided but no formal description of those services have been provided by Search for Change.

Zoning Code Change

The second impediment stems from a zoning law adopted by the Board of Trustees (BOT) in late 2025.  The law eliminated the development bonuses for affordable housing that the BOT had enacted in 2024. Village officials reportedly changed the 2024 law because it had not been properly reviewed under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA).  See HERE.  

Search for Change relied heavily on the bonuses in the 2024 law to maximize the size of the building and number of floors, and to reduce the number of off-street parking spaces, when designing the project.

ZBA members unanimously concluded that those bonuses are now moot.  This means that the proposed building cannot exceed 40,000 square feet or four stories without variances.  The developer must now significantly reduce the size of the building or obtain variance approvals from the ZBA for the current plans.

Open Space Requirements

The ZBA also examined another disputed aspect of the project involving usable open space requirements.   

The plan for the project utilizes three contiguous lots: two located in the C2 commercial district and one adjacent lot in a residential district.  Since multi-residential buildings are permitted in commercial but not residential districts, Search for Change plans to construct the building on the C2 lots and use the undeveloped residential lot to satisfy the “usable open space” requirement. See HERE.

ZBA members came to the unanimous conclusion that the residential lot cannot be used to satisfy the open space requirement without a variance because the lot would effectively function as an accessory use benefitting adjacent commercial property - a use that’s not permitted under the Code.  

ZBA members were split 3–2, however, on whether the residential lot could nevertheless be used as passive outdoor recreation space for building residents.  The majority concluded that it cannot, finding that outdoor recreation is not listed as a permitted primary use in a residential district, and that the residential parcel cannot be utilized as an accessory use for the commercial lots.

Potential Legal Action

The ZBA voted on all appeal items at last week’s meeting and agreed to confirm the language of the final resolution at the ZBA’s next meeting scheduled for June 4, 2026.

Once the resolution is finalized, Search for Change will have 60 days to file an Article 78 proceeding seeking the NYS Supreme Court to overturn the ZBA’s decisions. 

Land Use Board Approvals Required

Whether or not Search for Change chooses to attempt to overturn the ZBA’s decision in court, there are several significant steps the applicant must complete for this project to move forward.

These include obtaining a Special Use Permit and site plan approval from the Planning Board; LWRP Consistency Review from the Harbor Coastal Zone Management Commission; approval from the Board of Architectural Review; and area variances from the ZBA for parking, building dimensions and usable open space requirement.