Village Zoning Board rejects 7-9 Main St. variances

MILLERTON — The Millerton Zoning Board of Appeals rejected two variance requests for 7-9 Main Street with a unanimous vote on Tuesday, June 3.

The decision closes the book on a process that began more than two years ago when building plans were first submitted to the board seeking to increase the building’s allowable residential density and waive parking requirements.

The latest rejection followed a public hearing on May 6, during which architect Ray Nelson of Earthwise Architecture in Millerton presented revised 9-unit and 6-unit proposals — both scaled down from the original 12-unit plan. The applications were reviewed under village zoning code, which requires at least 5,000 square feet of lot area per unit and 1.5 parking spaces per unit — standards the updated plans still did not meet.

“I think this is a mistake,” said Nelson, who has represented the building’s owner, Gvkgne Realty Inc., in front of the zoning board since 2023. “The village wants more apartments.”

“We are constrained to the zoning laws as written,” board member Ed Stillman said, emphasizing that the board’s role is not to decide what’s best in theory, but to apply the law as it exists.

Nelson disagreed, arguing, “Your job, in my opinion, is to rectify an onerous zoning law. We know the zoning law needs to be changed.”

The Village of Millerton Zoning Board of Appeals met on Tuesday, June 3 to decide on a 7-9 Main Street case. Photo by Aly Morrissey

At the start of the meeting, the board entered an unplanned executive session to review new information, followed by a required State Environmental Quality Review. In a roll-call vote, the board determined the requested variances would not result in significant environmental harm.

The board then worked through its formal Record of Findings, applying five legal criteria meant to balance the applicant’s needs with potential impacts on the community. These included whether the project would change the character of the neighborhood or harm nearby properties, if alternative options were considered, the magnitude of the variances requested, potential environmental and community impacts, and whether the applicant’s difficulty was self-created.

While board members acknowledged that added density and new apartments could benefit the village, they concluded that the proposed variances were too substantial, the parking impact would be negative, and that the applicant failed to do proper due diligence regarding zoning laws before purchasing the property.

“Considering the factors in the Record of Findings, and weighing the benefit to the applicant versus the health, safety, and well-being of the neighbors in our community, we deny the applications for the two variances,” said Stillman.

As for next steps, he noted that there would be paperwork to complete but confirmed the “matter is closed.”
The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m.