MONTICELLO – The Village Board of Monticello heard an initial request to rezone a four-acre parcel off Nelshore Drive during its recent meeting, as Amber Swinden, an attorney representing the property owner, outlined a potential residential subdivision plan and asked whether the board would be open to a zoning change.

Swinden, an Associate Attorney with Kalter, Kaplan, Zieger & Foreman, appeared on behalf of Joel Kohn, who represents the homeowner. Swinden explained that the property is currently zoned in a special district, which allows for commercial use, but the owner is seeking to have it rezoned to R-2 residential. 

“The goal is to subdivide this four-acre parcel of property into 12 blocks and put two-family homes on each of the lots,” Swinden explained.

According to her, the owner believes residential development would be more appropriate given the surrounding neighborhood, noting that an adjacent parcel behind the property is already zoned R-1. She said the owner does not currently have detailed building plans but wanted to gauge the board’s openness to rezoning before moving forward. 

“Right now, they’re just looking to see if this could be rezoned to R-2,” stated Swinden.

Village Attorney Michael Sussman raised concerns about whether the property could be used under its existing zoning. He asked whether any effort had been made to utilize the site for commercial purposes, noting that this question is central to a rezoning request.

 “If [the current zoning] is perfectly feasible and there’s just a preference for another use, that frankly generally doesn’t support a rezone,” Sussman said.

Environmental impacts were also raised as a significant concern. Sussman also noted that the proposal would effectively allow for up to 24 residential units, which could have implications for traffic, water, sewer and neighborhood character.

“That may have externalities that need to be reviewed,” Sussman stressed, noting that at minimum some level of environmental review would be required before the board could consider a zoning change.

Questions were also raised about access to the property, which appears to be landlocked except for an entrance from Nelshore Drive. Deputy Mayor John Barbarite and Trustee Theodore Hutchins discussed roadway width requirements and whether access could support additional development. Swinden acknowledged that access and infrastructure would need to be addressed and said the owner would work with the planning board and village engineer to resolve those issues.

She also noted that the proposed subdivision would exceed minimum lot size requirements for an R-2 district.

“The minimal required lot area for R-2 districts is 7,500 square feet,” stated Swinden. “The proposal here is to have… 10,000 square feet each.” 

Swinden confirmed that the intent is to build two-family homes on each lot, though Hutchins inquired whether single-family homes had been considered as an alternative to “keep it in the R1 district.” Swindon said the owner’s goal was to pursue R-2 zoning to “increase housing,” but acknowledged that further discussion could take place.

The board declined to refer the matter to the planning board at this time, instead asking Swinden to return with more complete information. Board members requested clarification on prior zoning history, feasibility of commercial use, access issues and potential environmental impacts. 

Vegliante talks zoning changes to Lower East Broadway

Still on the foundation of zoning, attorney Steven Vegliante also stood before the board to discuss planned talks around the Apollo Plaza and potential developments.

Vegliante, representing the owner Sullivan Property Acquisitions I, LLC, discussed his previous talks with Village Manager James Snowden and representatives of the village. He explained that, with the restrictions of the Plaza being in a special zoning district, all a developer could do is retail redevelopment in that area.

He further explained that difficulties arise in the business sector and the Plaza being on a parcel of such size, there “just isn’t that much retail demand.”

“What we proposed to the village was some rezoning proposal where we could maybe do heavier residential mixed with some retail,” said Vegliante. “If that’s something the village would be amenable to, exactly what Mr. Sussman suggested to the previous applicant [Swinden], we’d be happy to put together that type of application, but we were just looking for some feedback first before we entertain it.”

Vegliante also raised the issue of development challenges in the county, emphasizing the lack of housing as a major obstacle. 

“The thing holding back a lot of projects right now is there is no place for people to live,” stated Vegliante, noting that what is needed is “attainable housing.” He explained that residential development is often what makes retail and commercial projects viable by providing a population base to support them.

Any proposal moving forward would include demolition of the dilapidated Apollo building at the rear of the site. Vegliante said that if zoning changes were supported, the applicant could return quickly with a conceptual plan and estimated that a more fleshed-out proposal could potentially follow within a few months.

Sussman responded by encouraging the applicant to return with a concept they believe represents “effective use of the property.”

“There may be a mix that’s been discussed by the board, residential-retail, some kind of commercial mix,” stated Sussman. “We would have to accommodate that. So I think this Board has an interest in seeing progressive development. As you say, affordable housing is on top of that.”

Thanking the board, Vegliante assured that they’ll “be back in January.”