BY JIMMY LAWTONNorth Country This Week

OGDENSBURG – A legal dispute over a proposed mental health housing project in Ogdensburg is headed to court following delayed approval of Step by Step’s site plan for 100 Ford Street.

The non-profit organization says the city's planning board missed a deadline to act on its site plan application, effectively granting approval by default. The city disputes the claim.

St. Lawrence County Supreme Court Judge Mary Farley has issued an order to show cause in the matter and scheduled a virtual hearing for June 9.

Delayed approval?

Step By Step, filed an Article 78 proceeding seeking a court declaration that its application to redevelop the former 100 Ford St. property was approved by operation of law after the Planning Board allegedly failed to issue a decision within 45 days. 

Step By Step is proposing a project that would replace a vacant commercial building at 100 Ford St. with two residential facilities intended to serve individuals with mental illness.

According to the petition, one building would contain 20 studio apartments and operate as a care facility licensed by the New York State Office of Mental Health.

 The second building would contain 14 bedrooms and function as a short-term care facility. The organization says the project would provide supportive housing and respite or hospital-diversion services.

Funding for the development is backed through the state Office of Mental Health and the State Dormitory Authority, which is poised to provide another investment of more than $10 million to push forward Gov. Kathy Hochul’s plan to invest in mental health support in rural communities.

The project appears to have been the catalyst for a resolution that would have placed a moratorium on multi-resident developments in the city, but ultimately failed in a split-vote.

The moratorium drew much public comment both in support of and against the moratorium and much of the discussion centered on the 100 Ford Street project which has been stalled in the planning process since April.

The petition filed by Step By Step seeks a judgment declaring that the organization's application for site development plan approval was automatically approved after the planning board allegedly failed to act within the timeframe required under city code.

Court filings state that Step By Step submitted its site development plan application on Feb. 9. The application was prepared by Tisdel Associates Consulting Engineers and later reviewed by the St. Lawrence County Planning Board, which reportedly determined the project did not have countywide or intermunicipal significance and returned it for local action.

The petition states the project was presented to the city planning board for preliminary feedback on March 3. Revised materials addressing comments from city and county officials were submitted March 20.

According to the filing, the planning board considered the application during an April 7 meeting, but did not approve or deny it..

Step By Step says  the board referred the proposal to the Zoning Board of Appeals and tabled further site plan review.

The nonprofit says  that the referral was improper and that the project qualifies as a permitted nonprofit service organization use within the property's Residential/Business Mixed Use zoning district.

Step By Step Executive Director David Bayne said it’s unfortunate that he’s had to ask the court to intervene and that he’s been advised by attorneys not to comment until the court has ruled on the matter.

City’s disputes 

Documents show the city sought to move the project from the planning board to the Zoning Board of Appeals due to concerns without approval from the planning board.  In an April 16  letter to Step by Step’s engineers the city said the project is an “institutional use and should be classified as a non-profit service organization under section 221-17 (c)(5)." 

“In consultation with the city attorney and the city code enforcement office, city staff does not agree with your interpretation of Section 221-17 (c)(5) that Step by Step, Inc. is a service. organization. A service organization commonly refers to such organizations as the Boys and Girls Club, Moose Lodge, VFW,etc. and not a psychiatric care service provider as in this case.”

It then referred Step by Step to the ZBA for approval.

Step by Step’s petition challenges the city’s interpretation issued by City Manager and Director of Planning and Development Fonda Chronis. According to court documents, city staff declined to recognize Step By Step as a nonprofit service organization under the applicable section of city code.

Step By Step alleges the planning board failed to render a decision on the application within the 45-day period required by city code. The organization argues that the review period expired May 22 and that approval was therefore granted by default.

Among other relief, the petition asks the court to declare the application approved by operation of law, direct the city clerk to issue a certificate of approval, invalidate the planning board's referral to the Zoning Board of Appeals and annul the city's interpretation of the zoning code.

City Manager Fonda Chronis  said “Step by Step is within its legal rights to file an order to show cause.  The city disagrees with Step by Step's interpretation of the facts and will be offering a rigorous rebuttal to their claims.  We welcome the court's findings and believe the city will be exonerated.”

ZBA and Step By Step

Of note regarding the decision to move the project to the ZBA is that three members of the ZBA raised concerns about Step By Step’s plans  to purchase property and build care facilities publicly.

In January, Christina Thornhill  spoke  at a public hearing raising concerns about Step By Step's alleged interest in purchasing the former St. Marguerite D’Youville Academy, which appears to have been a potential location for the project now slated for 100 Ford Street.  She raised concerns about non-profits buying property that could be put on the tax rolls, noting that her own business Thornhill Medical, fit that bill.

Kristin Hazen also raised concerns  and was quoted in a news story regarding the matter. 

 Christopher Lalone said he believed it would be a “detriment” in a social media post, which was included as an exhibit in the court filing.