[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",5986471,"mediaKeyId","5770989-c7264e6d81a31e246de049800383c87e","parentId",5770989,"title","Owner seeks site‑plan sign‑off after adding parking and loading to small industrial lot at 701 South Fulton Avenue","audioSeconds",888,"startMs",2899000,"endMs",3787000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5770989-c7264e6d81a31e246de049800383c87e&start=2899&end=3787","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5770989-c7264e6d81a31e246de049800383c87e/thumbnail_2899000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/5986471/Mount-Vernon/Westchester-County/New-York/Owner-seeks-siteplan-signoff-after-adding-parking-and-loading-to-small-industrial-lot-at-701-South-Fulton-Avenue","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5986471-fc3bc116023ed4e3f1b054e030bf14ff/orig.mp4?Expires=1773645753&Signature=dccxD1EeBUJpWlxYnipGYzGjv4grAjkXILzc7qfdCIEKPdaQqyiucOe9dqh7ncyMDm5iIg-YBXDLNcIwKY2ThXVccvVvKcqTo25oZu7uTe~1WQlhNYFpm-y4hv~fFEPd6FVuqVxtfbaDgCPngppK8VbmxAJOIzD~LEynfx8b8bfT5oGw~L717SXncNYx0pnWbDiti1Ta~g3FkrXpO~kux3zRPSyXoqx3eJ4585k0pCT1zsfPi6kN4plfJc82vOq3J8jZuG4mjoYdICW-yvmyoDLnw8P~6Eik-amxphYfb31MYmYiFJLgI26Eh8RFfYGvPKXYHmf2sqddLwY1vbp1hg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","CMVNY TV","date","2025-09-12T15:05:52Z","article","An application for site plan approval at 701 South Fulton Avenue was presented at the Sept. 9 Planning Board meeting. The owner, identified in the record as Charles Difolito of Future Healthcare Systems Inc., was represented by architect Thomas (Tom) Abalama and associate Esther Martinez. The application requests additional parking and loading facilities for an existing 5,000‑square‑foot industrial building on a 10,000‑square‑foot lot in the Industrial District.

The design team described the requested work as adding six (the applicant and architect used the number six and later seven in different places) parking spaces, including a handicap space, and two loading areas sized at 15 by 40 feet each. They explained the site has three frontages, existing gates and fencing, and drainage features (three points of stormwater collection) and noted they sized turning radiuses to accommodate box trucks and semi‑trailers. The transcript records a SECRA determination described by staff as a Type 2 action under the cited regulatory provision (recorded in the meeting as \"6 17.5 c 9\"), which the staff said supports classification as not requiring further environmental review.

No members of the public registered opposition during the hearing; two property owners submitted written consent forms (Joanne Dunn at 220 East Eighth Street and Richard Gordon at 700 South Fulton Avenue). City departments (Department of Public Works and Water Department) returned \"no comment\" responses, per staff. After the presentation and brief questions about site drainage, pavement, striping and lighting, the board closed the public hearing. The board then voted to ask City Council to draft a resolution so the Planning Board can vote on their site‑plan action at the next meeting.

The owner said the parking work is the final step needed to obtain a certificate of occupancy; building and fire inspections have been completed, and the applicant expects approval once the planning action is resolved. The board instructed the applicant to ensure required site lighting and signage will be installed and noted the owner’s statement that the parking and paving were largely built and awaiting final striping and signage.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Mount Vernon Planning Board Meeting | September 9, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","On Sept. 9 the Mount Vernon Planning Board heard a site‑plan application for 701 South Fulton Avenue, where the owner seeks approval for additional parking and two loading areas to complete a 5,000‑square‑foot industrial building on a 10,000‑square‑foot lot.","taxTitle","Mount Vernon, Westchester County, New York","taxId",12530,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},5986480,"Mount Vernon planning board backs City Council referrals to permit gyms in nonresidential zones, and to extend approval expiration to 30 months",1871,265000,2136000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5770989-c7264e6d81a31e246de049800383c87e&start=265&end=2136","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5770989-c7264e6d81a31e246de049800383c87e/thumbnail_265000.jpg","/articles/5986480/Mount-Vernon/Westchester-County/New-York/Mount-Vernon-planning-board-backs-City-Council-referrals-to-permit-gyms-in-nonresidential-zones-and-to-extend-approval-expiration-to-30-months","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5986480-73d37082cb15d8c955351ba5b10a23f1/orig.mp4?Expires=1773645753&Signature=Lq81Qd4rGZVhvSSeXOcH3E5r2YG~dawjwiD4qe~-ok9b22wvFdkt3bNXJZ4O6ZXOMnXGb8Fu9mQAMtMyop6MfpHs88cdDQvOVc~tkI032T56fVw4wYPBGQEiENLgfOoc~5mGU-8-fMqBDmTYqNPKVzhzXOKHZ~XGvfFxpweB-XhHINibokN0E3Y~ei0htaPMtrczUtColRbr2uXurcvKX7L0mJhRXDs01zodBGMZIY9n5uOuhJu~Awo4XuelWOEhYh~efGI8kNnFsNclhpYqq~23fg9csVGuiwWkTnZRIdOxVK~tTnPcSgLy2-xX5vfk7ICHPac-x5AkQUtom8Fw~Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At the Planning Board work session on Sept. 9, Associate Commissioner Lucas Herbert briefed members on two referrals sent by the City Council: one to add “health clubs/fitness centers” as a principal permitted use in the city’s nonresidential and mixed‑use zoning districts, and a second to extend the expiration period for land‑use approvals tied to building permits from 24 months to 30 months.

Herbert said the zoning text amendment for health clubs was intended to correct an apparent oversight: gyms are common in Mount Vernon but were not specified as a permitted use anywhere in the ordinance even though parking requirements for such uses were already in place. The proposed change would add health clubs and fitness centers as a principal permitted use in all nonresidential districts and applicable mixed‑use districts (the transcript lists districts as “MX 1, MDW‑H, MDW‑C, MDOBDBCV, VEI 7.5, LI‑15, I (Industrial), TOD‑1 and D T O Districts” as read aloud at the meeting).

On the second referral, Herbert explained that the department proposed extending the time allowed to complete construction after a building permit is issued from 24 months to 30 months (an extra six months) to reduce the number of short‑term extension requests developers have to file. Planning staff said the change anticipates a higher volume of land‑use applications when the city’s comprehensive plan and new zoning are in place.

The Planning Board indicated it was comfortable with both referrals and had no substantive comments; members had no objection to the City Council designating itself lead agency for the health‑club zoning change. Staff asked that any additional comments be submitted quickly because a Council hearing was scheduled the next day.

No regulatory language was adopted at the meeting; the board’s role was the advisory referral to City Council. The board’s support means the Council referral proceeds subject to Council hearings and any formal adoption procedures required by the city code.","At the Planning Board meeting Sept. 9, Mount Vernon planning staff presented two City Council referrals: to add gyms and health clubs as permitted uses in nonresidential/mixed‑use districts, and to extend land‑use approval expiration from 24 to 30 months.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},5986484,"Mount Vernon planning board presses for independent environmental review as neighbors oppose two‑lot subdivision at 55 Pondfield Parkway",6816,3936000,10752000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5770989-c7264e6d81a31e246de049800383c87e&start=3936&end=10752","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5770989-c7264e6d81a31e246de049800383c87e/thumbnail_3936000.jpg","/articles/5986484/Mount-Vernon/Westchester-County/New-York/Mount-Vernon-planning-board-presses-for-independent-environmental-review-as-neighbors-oppose-twolot-subdivision-at-55-Pondfield-Parkway","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5986484-037e08eaaad70893a416a8a609eb196e/orig.mp4?Expires=1773645753&Signature=E-WYM9YN0ml9vdagMLCmuygZF25wNFlssO900XQ1DkstXZBeXRAX9GtNs56NXNc4lpXFcxDo~e7uGGm10XdccoRvFIiPBvC4Y-EUJl-XiK96ymGnJBabDOJNemhtLQp46nzvMJSZJI1UjoYlDOOWE5UEZ9qt4-c0sthpuOE7VceXj~X2Clnr-co2pFp9zanOTI0N19oDvsSl76PtIFRNns0un35A8Hm9yO0CMEOIH05tXrH7een14z5AS4kCJhVbvPlb1OvGZS~PrFjeYxcpChW9uKbW03~w8l9krSKmMgTd6peK3vrwEgkUfTeRLqKSvaC2eyASGIukOMOt1prk7Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","On Sept. 9, 2025, the Mount Vernon Planning Board heard extended public comment and argument on an application by Mad Properties LLC to subdivide 55 Pondfield Parkway — a 20,000‑square‑foot lot — into two 10,000‑square‑foot parcels and later construct one single‑family home on each new lot. The board did not vote to approve the subdivision and instead instructed staff to pursue a limited independent environmental review and to gather related municipal records before taking a formal action.

Neighbors urged the board to require independent studies and more review because of concerns about bedrock removal, stormwater and sanitary infrastructure, demolition‑stage hazardous materials and proximity to Hunt’s Woods and Laurel Brook. The applicant’s attorney, Mark Blanchard, told the board the proposal is for two zoning‑compliant single‑family lots and argued many issues would be regulated through building‑permit reviews. Community counsel and several residents countered that the application’s supporting materials were incomplete and that independent analysis was needed.

The board’s discussion focused on what specialist work La Bella — the firm the city council previously authorized — should perform. Planning staff and board members agreed to ask La Bella to complete the flora and fauna review and a targeted water‑quality/stormwater assessment for Laurel Brook; the board also asked staff to obtain the building‑department demolition/hazardous‑materials file (demo permit DML24‑4 was cited in the meeting) and to request engineering and Department of Public Works comments on water/wastewater and stormwater management. No final approval or denial of the subdivision was taken at the meeting; the board’s next procedural step was to request those studies and related municipal records and to schedule the matter for a future hearing once the information is available.

Applicant’s case: Attorney Mark Blanchard told the board the project would create two zoning‑compliant single‑family lots and that the demolition contractor submitted a hazardous‑materials report when applying for demolition permits; he said the building department issued a demolition permit and that typical building‑permit conditions and inspections would address hazardous materials, stormwater retention and bedrock‑removal methodology. Blanchard urged the board to focus on the application materials and noted that, under the city’s prior determinations, subdivision review is an “unlisted action” under SECRA, not a Type 2 action. He asked the board to treat the matter as a standard unlisted SECRA review and not to delay the project further.

Community case: Neighbors and their counsel pressed for independent study. The community attorney cited the need for an impartial third‑party review because they said earlier materials were inconsistent or superficial (the transcript records disagreements about the accuracy of previous environmental filings and photographs). Residents described prior flooding, ongoing stormwater concerns tied in public conversation to a federal consent decree and to recent regional water‑quality problems. Neighbors also raised possible impacts from excavation and rock removal on nearby foundations and the wooded area behind the parcel.

Scope and next steps: At the meeting the transcript records a La Bella contract figure of $23,750 with line items discussed in public (example line‑item amounts mentioned in the meeting: depth to bedrock $4,500; impacts to habitat, flora and fauna $3,500; hazardous materials related to demolition $8,500; wastewater/water usage $5,000; Laurel Brook water quality $2,250). Planning staff and the applicant agreed to coordinate to remove from La Bella’s scope those items already documented to the satisfaction of the building department and other city reviewers (for example, the hazardous‑materials/demolition paperwork the applicant says is already in the building‑department file under demo permit DML24‑4). The board asked staff to work with La Bella to complete the flora/fauna and Laurel Brook water‑quality pieces on an expedited schedule and to request engineering and DPW comments on stormwater and sanitary service. Planning staff said they would attempt to have La Bella’s work and the requested municipal responses available for the board’s October meeting.

No vote or binding action on the subdivision was taken; the board separated factual review (requested studies and municipal records) from discretionary approval. The board instructed staff and counsel to return the item to the agenda after the independent studies and the building‑department and engineering responses are on the record.

A number of residents said they wanted all documents and consultant reports posted on the city’s project portal so the public could review them in advance. The board asked the applicant and staff to ensure required documents appear in the portal and to notify interested parties when the new materials are available.","On Sept. 9, 2025, the Mount Vernon Planning Board heard extended public comment and argument on an application by Mad Properties LLC to subdivide 55 Pondfield Parkway — a 20,000‑square‑foot lot — into two 10,000‑square‑foot parcels and later construct one single‑family home on each new lot.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},5986474,"Planning board to consider resolution in October after Wartburg requests another year for 55 Bradley Avenue project",648,2230000,2878000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5770989-c7264e6d81a31e246de049800383c87e&start=2230&end=2878","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5770989-c7264e6d81a31e246de049800383c87e/thumbnail_2230000.jpg","/articles/5986474/Mount-Vernon/Westchester-County/New-York/Planning-board-to-consider-resolution-in-October-after-Wartburg-requests-another-year-for-55-Bradley-Avenue-project","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5986474-d25e5e2e60c4183f5c0b8f9d286efc55/orig.mp4?Expires=1773645753&Signature=Gdt1U2WBe4OZEbWnjrOI9FRf6QS8aiOY3l8AxlJNIH~tmQVthT9dMDUbVrlZVxv2nMG9KP6MJnEY1aDCZuu8EnGbeIY1sFyuvpmy9ctfZosGWlFRxFVUaJCcUFXYQH0VmVD-E5S6L5~fpc3xTFheIIB5JkQTa5NQeJ90f4c4OesKt5TlQZi~PwB8AjTQHQtxyXwPbGtiL6~Bhs4XhCk7lPUfDJHfcmS9UCCwRLLRDmybtF~sWHtthiHikjo~OECw3k7aPMZoJo5YcCFTm6lqD0Tr78MAS7BOXNqbq3tsowEpZUpM5mp-Gt0n4QYHpCIpPUqRrPX3kwcU0ciQIkloIA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At the Sept. 9 meeting the Planning Board took up case PB‑23‑105 (55 Bradley Avenue), an amended site‑plan approval for an independent living facility on the Wartburg campus. The applicant asked for a further one‑year extension of the site‑plan approval. Wartburg representative David Gettner told the board the organization had reprioritized work over the last year to fast‑track an affordable housing conversion elsewhere on the campus but remained committed to the Bradley Avenue project and requested another year to complete financing and start construction.

Gettner described parallel activity on the campus: Wartburg closed on a project converting an old nursing home into 102 affordable housing units for seniors (30 of those targeted to households at or below 30% AMI, he said) and said the organization had an inducement resolution from the county’s LDC setting bonds aside in 2023. For the Bradley Avenue project he said the design team and financing bankers were engaged and he was confident the team could obtain required permits and start work if given the requested extension. In the meeting record he characterized the Bradley Avenue plan as “same plan, 225 units, 84 parking spaces,” and said the team expects to complete the required design and permitting work.

The board heard no public opposition at the hearing. After discussion the board closed the public hearing and voted unanimously to ask the city council to draft the resolution so the board can vote on the requested extension at its October meeting. The board asked the applicant to provide a chronological list of project events since the last extension to include in the draft resolution.","Wartburg representatives asked the Planning Board for a one‑year extension for an amended site plan approval at 55 Bradley Avenue; the board closed the public hearing and asked the city council to draft a resolution for a vote at the October meeting.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Owner seeks site‑plan sign‑off after adding parking and loading to small industrial lot at 701 South Fulton Avenue

Mount Vernon planning board backs City Council referrals to permit gyms in nonresidential zones, and to extend approval expiration to 30 months

Mount Vernon planning board presses for independent environmental review as neighbors oppose two‑lot subdivision at 55 Pondfield Parkway

Planning board to consider resolution in October after Wartburg requests another year for 55 Bradley Avenue project