ALTAMONT — Jeff Thomas’s mixed-use proposal for the village center hit a wall recently as the developer was told by Altamont’s Zoning Board of Appeals that multiple variances would be needed to make the project feasible. 

Located at 120 Park Street, work on the 1.86 acre parcel would include demolition of two existing buildings, the village post office and another on the site, to be replaced with: 

— A 6,000-square-foot post office building;

— A 4,200-square-foot, two-and-a-half-story mixed-use building with commercial space and six residential units;

— A two-story building with six residential units; and

—  A 1,200-square-foot community center.

Brought before the board in December, the project is a modified proposal of one Thomas first presented to the village seven years ago. In both instances, the project received pushback from board members. 

In 2018, Thomas was before the now-abolished planning board, whose duties have since been assumed by a reconfigured zoning board, with a problem-plagued project, seeking permission to build three stand-alone buildings containing 26 apartments at 120 Park Street, adjacent to the Altamont Free Library and behind the post office.

Board members at the time cited issues with traffic, water and sewer, and stormwater management, among others. The project went away soon after the meeting. 

This past December, board members reviewing the new proposal cited concerns over traffic, parking, and the environment, but likely chief among them was the project isn’t allowed where Thomas is proposing it be built, an issue he’s not unfamiliar with. In 2018, as is still the case, Thomas was told that village code didn’t allow for stand-alone multi-family housing in Altamont’s Central Business District. 

In 2018, the project attorney told board members that Thomas would not seek a variance for the housing. Instead, the village zoning officer would be asked to make a determination about the project’s compliance with existing zoning. 

Six years on, the song remains the same.

“The code officer had provided his written response,” zoning board attorney Hyde Clark said on Feb. 25, which was not favorable to Thomas. “And then the applicant sent a second letter to codes asking for reconsideration, and there’s been a second and final letter from the code officer.”

Clark told board members, “So at this point, in order to have an active matter before the board, we would either need a variance application or a request to review that code interpretation request,” and “given the time and the amount of communication” between the two sides, it was decided that Feb. 25 would be “discussion only,” with the hope of avoiding more “back and forth on the matter.” 

The letter from village code enforcement officer Gary Goss to Thomas outlined the project’s code-related issues:

— The proposed use is not allowed in the Central Business District.

Project attorney Mary Elizabeth Slevin told board members, although the Central Business District “does not allow multifamily housing, it does allow apartments within a business as an accessory use. Curiously, although apartments as an accessory use is defined in the code in the context of a residential complement,  it is not defined — although the term is used — apartment in a business use is not defined within the code.” 

The board emphasized that Thomas demonstrate how his proposed mixed-use design would align with the village comprehensive plan, a point made by Slevin in her presentation, and the intent of the Central Business District’s zoning. 

The board also recommended that he explore other interpretations of the existing zoning that could accommodate his proposed development, potentially through a more flexible definition of “apartment in a business use.” And the board recommended Thomas work with the village board on the necessary zoning law amendments;

— The project would be located in a  Flood Overlay District, requiring an area variance. 

For the proposal to move forward,  Slevin said to the board, “area variance will be required,” and “that’s the issue that we are looking for some context from the board in terms of what you see as important, items that need to be addressed in any application to you.”

The board recommended that Thomas undertake a comprehensive study of the floodplain, including an assessment of existing flood elevations, historical flood data, and potential future flood scenarios. And it was stressed to Thomas the necessity of developing a comprehensive flood mitigation plan to address potential flood risks associated with the project. And it was suggested that he explore potential design modifications that could reduce the project’s footprint within the floodplain and minimize the risk of flooding;

— The proposed development would be inside the village’s 100-foot buffer for the Bozenkill and Black Creek or their tributaries. 

“There certainly is substantial disturbance that's already occurred within the property,” Slevin told board members. “There would probably have to be additional disturbance for the project to go forward. So in the same context, again, we are asking the board, if you’re able to provide us with some comments to help us focus our attention on an appropriate response and an appropriate application for a variance.”

Chairman Danny Ramirez wanted to know, “What disturbance has occurred already? Those are your words.”

Slevin responded, “We’re going to have to quantify that. We have, we’re just starting to do that analysis in terms of what’s already done versus what’s proposed. So I don’t have those statistics for you, but we are working on evaluating that.” It was then clarified that the “substantial disturbance” had occurred on an adjacent property, and that there had been a lot of disturbance. 

As for its recommendations, the board advised Thomas to conduct a detailed survey of the existing buffer zone, including topographic mapping and an assessment of existing encroachments, and recommended he explore potential design modifications that could reduce the project’s impact on the buffer, such as relocating the building or incorporating green infrastructure elements; and

—  Parking as proposed would necessitate a variance. 

About the building inspector stating a parking variance would be needed because too few spots were included in the proposal, Slevin said, “And again, we disagree with that determination because we believe that, in fact there is excess parking, not insufficient parking that’s proposed with the project.”

The disagreement over parking came down to arithmetic. 

Slevin said Goss, in coming up with the number of spots needed for the mixed-use proposal, was rounding up the required 1.5 spaces per living unit to 2 spaces before completing the calculation, which resulted in a higher parking requirement. 

The board recommended Thomas undertake a comprehensive parking study analyzing the projected demand generated by the mixed-use development, and take into consideration factors like the number of residential units, the size and type of commercial spaces, and the anticipated peak parking demand during various times of the day and week.

With the information in hand, Thomas’s plan was to prepare a formal variance application incorporating board feedback.