The Bethlehem Central School District is suing the town Zoning Board of Appeals over a decision that halted the sale of its 90 Adams Place property to daycare provider School’s Out, Inc.
The ZBA denied a use variance in April. The former district administration offices sits in a residential neighborhood, which proved to be a major hurdle under the town’s zoning.
The district is disputing a determination by the town’s building inspector to not first issue a building permit for the project, as the town’s zoning law allows for “day care centers” and “educational institutions” within residential zoned areas. If the building inspector’s determination is upheld, the district is also seeking an interpretation of the town’s zoning law and the issuance of use variance permits.
The district argues, in part, that the board based its decision on unfounded opinions of neighbors rather than hard data.
The district file paperwork with the Albany County Clerk on Friday, May 17, just under the 30-day time limit to challenge the ruling.
“The Board of Education voted to go forward, as we had been advised by counsel,” said Bethlehem Central Superintendent Tom Douglas. “We’re looking for a better determination at the next level to ensure the community we represent that we can live up to their expectation when they approved for us to sell off the property.”
In December, the BC Board of Education accepted an offer from School’s Out to buy 90 Adams Place for $475,000. The 6,850-square-foot property had been on the market for nearly a year with a $650,000 asking price, but the price was dropped to $575,000 after little interest was shown in the building.
It is stated in the lawsuit eight other potential buyers had looked at the site, but determined renovation costs and soft costs to be “economically infeasible.” Research by the district also found it would be too expensive to turn the property into a residence.
School’s Out had been looking to move into a larger space than what is available at their current location at a storefront on Delaware Avenue. The daycare provider is not named as a plaintiff in the lawsuit. A call to the business was not returned.
The district’s request for an adaptive reuse interpretation failed by a 4-1 vote in April. The board also unanimously voted against the district’s request for a use variance.
To obtain a use variance, the district had to prove a lack of return on investment, that the hardship to the property was unique, that the use variance would not alter the character of the neighborhood and the alleged hardship was not self created.
Most board members agreed the hardship was unique and the school district did not create the problem, but said the sale would change the neighborhood’s character, mostly due to traffic. Neighbors argued increased traffic due to buses and parents dropping off students at School’s Out would lead to an unsafe environment. They also said quality of life would diminish for residents and the move would destroy the unique character of the old Delmar neighborhood.
The district’s lawsuit challenges the Zoning Board’s determination that the building’s purchase by School’s Out would change the character of the neighborhood.
“It was a difficult decision, as I indicated at the time,” said Zoning Board of Appeals Chairman Dan Coffey. “I do feel it would affect change to the character the neighborhood and we had overwhelming testimonials to that fact.”
The district’s lawsuit calls the Zoning Board’s determination “arbitrary, illegal or unsupported by substantial evidence in the administrative record” and also said “the Zoning Board cannot base its determination on local public pressure or determination opposition,” citing in-house and independent traffic studies that claimed “arrivals and departures are not excessive and should safely negotiate the travel patterns of 90 Adams.”
“The ZBA’s determination was primarily, if not completely, influenced by community opposition and public pressure, as opposed to the evidence before it,” reads the lawsuit.
“I feel confident we made the right determination based on the record we had,” Coffey said. “I think we looked at the facts and all the evidence including the traffic studies that were done. Really, who better to comment on the characteristics of the neighborhood than the people who live in the neighborhood? I think that’s the most important part to look at.”
The district also claims the Zoning Board failed to consider the property’s size and how the district first received the building from the library in 1931, before existing zoning regulations were adopted.
Coffey said the board understands the situation the district is in and hopes they will find another buyer in the future that will be more acceptable to the neighborhood.
“Our emphasis is that the board is trying to do what’s in the best interest to the educational community and follow through with our fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers,” said Douglas.
The town is preparing a response to the lawsuit.