NEW SCOTLAND — A 72-unit apartment project was proposed to and then tabled by the New Scotland Zoning Board of Appeals at its meeting on Tuesday as the developer decides how to move forward procedurally with his plans. 

Richard Long is proposing six two-story buildings on property he owns at 2080 New Scotland Road, approximately a quarter-mile from Town Hall.

The half-dozen buildings would each have 12 apartments with a mix of one- and-two bedroom units, with enough parking to accommodate 149 vehicles.

“Many tenants would be retired or above the age of 50,” according to the narrative included with the May filing to the board.

During the June 22 meeting, zoning board Chairman Jeffrey Baker’s first observation was that it was a “bit of a problematic application.”

The property at 2080 New Scotland Road, Baker explained, had hamlet zoning, which was “created with specific purposes and goals,” and the section of code from which Long was seeking a variance required single-acre-sized home lots, but elsewhere in the same area of the code, “in the density and bulk standards,” Baker noted, it said that multi-family housing required “only a minimum [density] of 3,000 square feet.”

If the minimum density were being applied, he said, the application would be in compliance with zoning requirements.

 But Building Inspector Jeremy Cramer made the determination that the one-acre zoning applied, Baker said. 

“Applying the standard criteria for granting an area variance would take us so far beyond the sort of one acre that seems to apply,” Baker said, “that I’m not sure I’m comfortable that that works in the way of me getting an area variance.”

Baker then said, rather than ask the board for a variance, Long could seek an interpretation, or “alternatively, you go to the town board and ask them to clarify it and change the law.”

Long’s engineer, Dan Hershberg, said the variance request was actually set up “so it looks more like an interpretation — the distinguishment between one [unit] per 3,000 square feet and one [unit] per acre.” If the board were willing to treat the application as an interpretation, Hershberg said, “we’d certainly be willing to reapply for that.”

Baker said that, if Long were to pursue and be granted an interpretation, “All that would mean is that [he] would still need a special-use permit from the planning board.”

The planning board would be the lead agency in this scenario and would undertake the State Environmental Quality Review Act, Baker said, in addition to the “traditional planning analysis.”

Baker told Hershberg the board would not take any action on the application, and instead would “wait for word from you how you want to proceed.”