Mt. Pleasant Project Faces Significant Zoning Hurdles

by Meg Yergin -

A surprise revised zoning determination for the multi-residential project proposed by Search for Change was vehemently criticized by the organization’s attorney, Neil Alexander, at the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) meeting on September 4, 2025.  Alexander told the board that the proposed six-story, 62-unit apartment building to be built on Mt. Pleasant Avenue would provide deeply affordable housing for individuals with severe mental illness as well as others who meet the qualifications for affordable housing.  

Established in the 1970’s, Search for Change, Inc. is a not-for-profit whose mission is dedicated to improving the quality of life and increasing the self–sufficiency of individuals with emotional, social, and economic barriers.  See Previous Article HERE.

New Building Inspector’s Action

The Village’s current building inspector, Scott Ransom, issued a Letter of Determination on July 1, 2025 revising the former BI’s May 1, 2024 determination for the project.  See HERE. The new determination finds that the intended use of the building as “supportive housing” does not align with the Code’s definition of multifamily dwelling and as a result is not permitted in the C2 district without a use variance from the ZBA.  Ransom also found that because an agency other than the Village will determine the affordable eligibility for the units, the project does not meet the Village’s requirements for fair and affordable housing and is not eligible for the bonus sixth floor.

Obtaining a use variance, which is permission to use a property for a purpose otherwise prohibited in that location by the Code, is a significant hurdle.  It means that the applicant must prove that the request is not self-created, meets certain unique circumstances, and will not negatively impact the neighborhood’s character or the public welfare.  See HERE.

In addition to the use variance, the project also requires an area variance as it does not meet the required number of parking spaces under the Code.  Both of these variances are granted by the ZBA.

Search for Change Appeal

Search for Change submitted its request for an interpretation of the BI’s July determination by the ZBA on August 14, 2025.  See HERE. Alexander called it “egregious” that the project should now be in front of the ZBA when it was “on the cusp” of having its site plan approved by the Planning Board (PB) after 15 months of review.

At the ZBA meeting, Alexander stated that every unit in the project would be a separate dwelling unit with its own bathroom and kitchen and that it met the Code’s definition of a multifamily dwelling.  He also explained that all of the apartments would meet the Code’s standard for deeply affordable housing, and 50% would also qualify for NYS Empire State Supportive Housing Initiative (ESSHI) which serves people who have unmet housing needs and who have one or more disabling conditions.  See HERE.

Alexander asked several times what predicated the new zoning determination and suggested that the reason had to do with the people who would be using the space and not zoning issues.  He quoted from several public comments that had been sent to the ZBA complaining that the Village should not be housing drug users and criminals. 

Questions from the ZBA

The project is planned to span across three existing lots – two in the C2 zone and one in the R5 zone – located not far from the US Post Office.  Multifamily dwelling units are permitted in the C2 zone but not in the R5 zone.  ZBA Chair Robin Kramer asked what the R5 lot would be used for and Alexander replied landscaping and recreational purposes.

Kramer also asked how potential residents could meet both ESSHI standards and participate in an affordable housing lottery as required in the Code.  Alexander responded that the Code gives the Village the power to select the designated agent to manage the lottery, and that the Village could possibly select an ESSHI designated agency to run the lottery.

ZBA member Dave Neufeld asked if there would be supportive services on site for residents.  Alexander said not in the units but that there was a common “flex” area that could be used by social workers to meet with residents.  When pressed by Neufeld as to whether there would be rehabilitation services provided, Alexander re-iterated that the project would meet ESSHI standards which require supportive services.  ZBA member Gretta Heaney asked Alexander to provide the Board with information regarding the personnel that would be working at the project.

Public Comments

Dozens of people in attendance at the meeting remained in the audience past 11:30 pm.  Many of them made impassioned comments opposing the project.

Numerous individuals expressed their impatience with being labelled as someone who was not empathetic to individuals with mental health disabilities or who opposed affordable housing.  One resident spoke about growing up with a schizophrenic parent; another was a special education teacher.   Several were angry that Alexander “cherry picked” letters that complained about the type of individuals that would be living in the development while ignoring the majority of comments that raised zoning and infrastructure issues.

The neighbors that spoke at the meeting expressed significant concerns about the increased flood risk that would result from the development.  They described the flooding they endured during Hurricane Ida and the fact that flooding increased when other apartment buildings were built in the area.  Neighbors also described the traffic, parking, pedestrian safety and infrastructure issues which would be exacerbated by the project.

Several complained that the developer was not clear in describing exactly who would be living in the units and that they have frequently changed their narrative about the project to suit their audience.

Next Steps

Alexander was asked by the Board for additional information regarding the use of the R5 lot and exactly how the affordable housing lottery would work, and to clarify the type of supportive services to be provided on site.  Depending on when Alexander provides this information, the hearing will continue.  The next meeting of the ZBA is scheduled for September 30, 2025.  NOTE:  The July 1, 2025 BI Letter of Determination states that there will be “No Planning Board review until use variance or zone change granted” for either the site plan or subdivision.  See HERE.

Under state law, the ZBA has appellate jurisdiction to review decisions made by local zoning code enforcement officials.   The ZBA is now required to review all of the facts which formed the basis of the BI’s decision and decide the case as though it were the enforcement officer.  See HERE.