[{"_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",5980415,"mediaKeyId","5770975-81c35aab8a5ffbe073b87b348a5eb65c","parentId",5770975,"title","Zoning board grants time extension for Millington Street two‑family project with safety and filing conditions","audioSeconds",2153,"startMs",760000,"endMs",2913000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5770975-81c35aab8a5ffbe073b87b348a5eb65c&start=760&end=2913","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5770975-81c35aab8a5ffbe073b87b348a5eb65c/thumbnail_760000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/5980415/Mount-Vernon/Westchester-County/New-York/Zoning-board-grants-time-extension-for-Millington-Street-twofamily-project-with-safety-and-filing-conditions","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5980415-d18c5994c1c510af59fa5d41a95db34a/orig.mp4?Expires=1771131818&Signature=ApN-JOqf-REvfJyidCKUcLc9lgQhIqnjHMt6Rdd1Ims-PTyNjXkHqTB2d-oyn75NrQCn-OUxukJefb~kAxdERo7QjCB-JN6NUyWlzE~fEI77LSWRjAlahhEa3W3ANQiYOOUGVMnRQSaCgXT6TUe7GxlNJu0eS6tJDkV6xIgISWC9xz21BdxqoY3s~mBfaCzuxSc3QG68O27K3K5XRZaVAGXy05Oej65GksHOfoG0PdG29FvOpaag6ukW7x90PUHFRRpwYozIqT-B1uByy~RMor0fRuKBjGk3eQQJ4FpZWAgKyNqgQBNp0e~hq30-TcNzMmt4y5~pc7pwN75J5zLppA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","CMVNY TV","date","2025-09-17T14:01:48Z","article","Millington Street — The Mount Vernon Zoning Board of Appeals on Sept. 16 approved a time extension for the area variance previously granted for construction of a two‑family dwelling at 28–38 Millington Street, subject to conditions intended to address neighborhood safety and city technical comments.

The applicant, Millington Project LLC, represented by Kevin Monene, had sought an extension because county map subdivision and assessor processing delayed lot splitting required to move the project forward. The board approved the extension unanimously and attached conditions intended to keep neighbors informed and to address Department of Public Works (DPW) concerns.

Why it matters: The project had previously received area‑variance approval for lot width and frontage (the required frontage is 50 feet; proposed frontage 37.5 feet, a 12.5‑foot/25% variance). The extension lets the developer proceed with foundation and framing work while the remaining administrative steps are completed, but the board required assurances to mitigate construction impacts on neighbors and the public.

Key facts and conditions: The applicant stated excavation and rock removal began in July under an issued foundation permit. The applicant said the houses are planned for sale to owner‑occupants and the contractor estimated completion in spring (the applicant said construction could be done by March). The board listed three conditions for the extension: submit a copy of the building permit for the record; comply with DPW's comments (including curb, apron and driveway detail clarifications); and post the construction manager's name and phone number on site so neighbors have a direct contact.

Neighbor concerns: Several neighbors addressed the board, citing early start times, absence of a construction fence during excavation, dust, potential utility interference (overhead wires), and an unclear site fence alignment that appeared to encroach on private property. Neighbors requested a secure safety fence on the west front of the site because a school (the Graham School) sits across the street. The applicant committed to erect a construction fence within approximately a week and to post project‑manager contact information on the site, naming the on‑site manager as Donovan Cousins and agreeing to provide a phone number.

Staff comments and follow‑up: DPW requested additional drawing details identifying work that affects public property (sidewalk, apron, curb, tree lawn and driveway) and construction sections for lowered curbs and aprons. The board made DPW compliance a condition of the extension. Staff also asked for a chronology in writing for the record explaining the cause of the delay and copies of permits and the LLC operating agreement; the applicant confirmed the records would be provided.

Vote and outcome: Commissioner Penock moved to grant the extension with the conditions; the motion was seconded and carried unanimously. The board recorded the vote as unanimous and placed the conditions in the file.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Mount Vernon Zoning Board Meeting September 16th","oneSentenceSummary","Millington Street — The Mount Vernon Zoning Board of Appeals on Sept. 16 approved a time extension for the area variance previously granted for construction of a two‑family dwelling at 28–38 Millington Street, subject to conditions addressing safety and technical comments.","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},5980420,"Zoning board adjourns decision on 127 South Terrace cannabis dispensary after parking, safety and permit questions",4790,6072000,10862000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5770975-81c35aab8a5ffbe073b87b348a5eb65c&start=6072&end=10862","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5770975-81c35aab8a5ffbe073b87b348a5eb65c/thumbnail_6072000.jpg","/articles/5980420/Mount-Vernon/Westchester-County/New-York/Zoning-board-adjourns-decision-on-127-South-Terrace-cannabis-dispensary-after-parking-safety-and-permit-questions","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5980420-6ed81f133ebb78b4e6994de11667abf0/orig.mp4?Expires=1771131818&Signature=lazFIHu4VgZdfuIRYy7JnnZCp3Wwq3ykwdFUaxyu-1NXKldRNZt4yq4ixWLvBEz4CxjGON8Zc3wAnYN-tdLFbLJcM0diFCDad2zagqQsdZGYVmlzrQqzZeiK4qL~cN1ioHKAWHm8-xQO1iCd6Kq-S~769vAWL7tt8YSyiUKeJHiMLvSD1TrD~UWrlKWmkltO3gxTYSR9Q8H8jAKsuOJCF1GZk796rhoO29mPoCTEseWYfXpGIIggFIjFpo8mK9xI64okX8BI216FdHCGZEZbNTCfE9agqhi1TPbWY5S~3IyPRECovDru-TDqjx~xZu~AowzYVk7Ps24JZrtzu~9LSw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","127 South Terrace Avenue — The Mount Vernon Zoning Board of Appeals on Sept. 16 did not decide whether to grant area variances for a proposed cannabis retail operation at 127 South Terrace Avenue, instead adjourning the item after extended public comment and requests for additional documentation. The board said it will resume the matter at a later meeting and asked the applicant to appear.

The board heard testimony from owner John Ruggiero and representatives including architect Joseph Fernandez and consultant Kevin Monene, and took extended public comment, including from resident and planning consultant Vincent Ferrendino, who urged the board to deny the request on legal and public‑safety grounds.

Why it matters: The application seeks to convert an existing commercial building into a cannabis retail dispensary and requests multiple variances — most prominently for parking and for reduced distances from a house of worship and a playground — in a case that touches on public safety, neighborhood character and the city's enforcement of local licensing and inspection requirements.

The application, as presented, requests variances for proximity to a house of worship (proposed 445 feet; requirement more than 500 feet — a 55‑foot shortfall, described in the file as an 11% variance), proximity of signage to a playground (proposed 270 feet; requirement more than 500 feet — a 230‑foot shortfall), and parking (the applicant presented nine on‑site spaces vs. staff analyses that used the city's retail parking chart and additional city review). The application packet and staff statements also show a shifting set of parking calculations: earlier analyses discussed larger parking totals (one draft cited 30 required spaces), while the city's plan examiner applied Mount Vernon’s retail parking table and counted 8–10 spaces depending on how the Second Floor is treated.

Board and public concerns focused on three categories: parking and curb access; safety/permits and inspections; and the accuracy of application materials. Resident and expert testimony emphasized that the retail cannabis use creates short, frequent visits that can affect curbside demand and that events or prolonged queuing outside the store could spill into neighborhood streets and playground areas. Longtime resident and planning consultant Vince Ferrendino told the board the dispensary had operated for almost two years with temporary or expired occupancy approvals and warned that fire‑safety and sprinkler issues remained open in city records. Ferrendino asked the board to see any pending state license renewal documentation before acting.

The applicant said the Second Floor is being used for storage, not active office use, and that the store has operated without documented parking complaints during two years of operation. Owner John Ruggiero told the board he believed the business had been allowed to open before local cannabis regulations were complete and that the operation has generated tax revenue for the city. Architect Joseph Fernandez and representative Kevin Monene said they will address technical comments, including Department of Public Works requests about curb cuts and construction details.

Staff reports and evidence: The public file includes a mix of building‑department inspection records and planning memos. Board staff noted a temporary certificate of occupancy had been issued previously and that building inspections had progressed while fire‑department items remained open in the permitting workflow. The record includes references to state and local regulatory materials: the board discussed the city’s recent cannabis zoning law (referred to in the file as \"local law number 1‑2024\" and amendments to chapter 267 of the city code) and SECRA citations that accompany the revised local rules.

Board action and next steps: The board voted to adjourn the hearing on this case rather than act. Chair Justino said the hearing should be continued with the applicant and his primary representative present and with certain documents supplied in advance. The board requested staff and the applicant provide: (1) a clear copy of the LLC operating/ownership documents that match the applicant name on the application; (2) a clear explanation and backup showing how prior parking estimates (including the 30‑space figure discussed earlier in the process) were calculated and how they differ from the city's current interpretation; (3) updated building and fire‑safety inspection records showing outstanding items and remedies (including strobe/notification equipment and sprinkler status); and (4) the applicant’s state licensing/renewal filing for the Office of Cannabis Management, if filed. The board set the matter to return at a future meeting and voted to adjourn the item unanimously.

Community comments and enforcement questions: Multiple residents and commenters raised operational concerns — early deliveries, dust and fencing during excavation, and unpermitted signs or fencing on the property. The board repeatedly told residents that code‑enforcement complaints belong with the building department, and staff provided a constituent‑services contact number for follow‑up. Several residents asked that the board consider the 500‑foot separation in a strict way; a planning consultant for neighbors argued the straight‑line measurement places the dispensary well within the 500‑foot threshold for at least one place of worship and the Grove Street playground.

The board’s decision to adjourn leaves the application open. The board asked the applicant to return with the requested documents and for staff to circulate the materials in advance of the resumed hearing.","The Mount Vernon Zoning Board of Appeals postponed action on a request by a cannabis dispensary at 127 South Terrace Avenue after members and public commenters raised questions about parking calculations, proximity to a church and playground, outstanding fire-safety items and inconsistent application paperwork.",{"_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},5980406,"Board accepts conversion to two‑family at 154 Stevens Avenue; parking variance discussed and approved",1014,4767000,5781000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5770975-81c35aab8a5ffbe073b87b348a5eb65c&start=4767&end=5781","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5770975-81c35aab8a5ffbe073b87b348a5eb65c/thumbnail_4767000.jpg","/articles/5980406/Mount-Vernon/Westchester-County/New-York/Board-accepts-conversion-to-twofamily-at-154-Stevens-Avenue-parking-variance-discussed-and-approved","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5980406-1b06930765bebafa644073314ffc240a/orig.mp4?Expires=1771131818&Signature=BAW~mkoolVYVNUVBpC--bTU1b9mWCWR8nY3cJbqfi1GPdXOeVvrqGvt-s9segJF0pgWMcUrx5pMsGvCu253W8PUZqWqU~7gAU4PkiHH3xYE~cAHlRYuF8wDp2TMkPoblBnaObYGZVzeIKwBZc-ekx4oDyUZGPaMJsrXPxhTxcsNQc1g-mooYUzqeqR6cD74KoH1KkcQ7SBs31Cuua6kAEOIdroyKKInYKn8~bfLcRNdOOVSzm14YvfaPlP1US7UtqO4BgpIk0q~oj1kSo8QtQAttBRcwqatzOJjAIVymeiQ21qPvpkSvLP1QBb91lmCdBYhlAZ7oBcPRMfPkRanQug__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Stevens Avenue — The Mount Vernon Zoning Board of Appeals on Sept. 16 accepted an application to convert a mixed‑use building at 154 Stevens Avenue to a two‑family residence and approved an area‑variance request for parking that allows two outdoor spaces rather than enclosed garage spaces.

Applicant presentation: The property owner is listed as H.W.B. Homes LLC; architect Joseph Fernandez presented the application. Fernandez told the board the building previously housed medical office uses and that the conversion would create one additional dwelling unit in the building. The applicant said there is existing paved parking in the rear that can accommodate two cars, though the driveway is narrow and maneuvering is tight between a rear stair and a Metro‑North fence.

Why it matters: The city’s R2‑4.5 standards call for one off‑street parking space per dwelling unit, normally located in a garage; the applicant requested two outdoor spaces not located in a garage. The site has no existing garage and limited maneuvering room, which the architect said makes construction of a conforming garage impractical.

Staff, public and board review: Board members visited the site or reviewed plans and discussion focused on maneuvering, street impact and precedent. Staff noted there were no public commenters at the hearing and that DPW and other agencies had returned standard referral comments (water/dept notes and backflow approval pending). The architect said the rear paved area had been used for parking historically and that the two spaces will be dedicated — not tandem — serving each unit. The board discussed turning movements and how drivers would back out onto a busy street but concluded the on‑site pavement reduced potential spillover onto the street compared with no on‑site spaces.

Decision: After deliberation, the board voted to accept the application and grant the parking variance, concluding the practical constraints of the lot and adjacent Metro‑North embankment made a conforming garage infeasible. The vote was unanimous.","The Zoning Board accepted an application to convert a mixed‑use building at 154 Stevens Avenue to a two‑family residence, approving an off‑street parking variance that allows two outdoor spaces rather than enclosed garage spaces after staff and members concluded the request was reasonable under site constraints.",{"_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},5980410,"Board approves rear‑setback variance for screened‑in patio at Oak Ledge Road",1650,3057000,4707000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5770975-81c35aab8a5ffbe073b87b348a5eb65c&start=3057&end=4707","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5770975-81c35aab8a5ffbe073b87b348a5eb65c/thumbnail_3057000.jpg","/articles/5980410/Mount-Vernon/Westchester-County/New-York/Board-approves-rearsetback-variance-for-screenedin-patio-at-Oak-Ledge-Road","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5980410-5085e5f21dd6b3571ceea409c8aaa832/orig.mp4?Expires=1771131818&Signature=R7xmJDlehmRRpZakHodoMwXdjOnVQGx2VZDAW-8cBRovstMsEzRr3D4N~xz~m4dgfbdyhZ99dEhHVQDuwzFJoOwLbu8XdS2QSwhQPIr~7n8HDjk8vQdHAxhzt~vZA9EtRg0K5R0dm9PMJRF2SG8-bdr~K0OGW7SLQwWiYCFx4R5CfN1Mj2Cvzth20h7FF6oHsFgESNEElIlvnqKbOG61GD9lAaPC1UMyGWvoq43u~UfL1fk2RW96g2C0Z0ONm1MiwL3FY4gg4UHBkota5DeGOlqIfaISsTmp0YT6aMQtpfKp0OMeKkK9ccyOSrznA2CYJ-3r7L0gzcqsgyIkinJjFw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Oak Ledge Road — The Mount Vernon Zoning Board of Appeals on Sept. 16 approved an area‑variance request and time extension to enclose an existing semicircular patio as a screened three‑season room at a single‑family home on Oak Ledge Road. The board approved the application unanimously.

Applicant and design: Paul Spai is the property owner; architect George Restivo presented the project to convert an existing 293‑square‑foot flagstone patio to a screened, roofed three‑season room using the patio’s existing footprint. Restivo told the board the enclosure would add no plumbing or heating and would be used primarily for family and grandchildren’s safety along a rear grade drop.

Why it matters: The proposed enclosure requires a rear‑yard setback area variance because the measured distance from the house to the rear property line was reported in the file as less than the 20‑foot requirement (the application reported a 2.8‑foot encroachment into the required rear yard). The board reviewed the application, heard a neighbor’s comment and found the other technical agencies either had no comments or provided consent.

Staff review and public comment: DPW reported no comments on the proposed work, observing that no work appears to occur beyond the property line. The board noted a consent letter from an adjacent property owner at 9 Sturgis Road (Corey Gish). Neighbor Mark Hershey, whose property backs onto the lot, asked the board to consider alternatives such as a taller fence; Mr. Spai and his architect said the screened room is proposed primarily to prevent an accidental fall from a backyard grade and to make the patio usable for grandchildren.

Board findings and vote: The board weighed the five variance factors, noting that the enclosed patio replaces an existing patio and that the enclosure is screened (no permanent increase in plumbing or heating). Members concluded the enclosure would not cause a change in neighborhood character, that alternatives (higher fence) were discussed but that the screened enclosure met the owner’s safety objectives, and that DPW had no objections. The board unanimously approved the variance and advised the applicant to apply for all required building permits and inspections.","The Zoning Board granted an area‑variance extension to enclose an existing semicircular patio at a single‑family home on Oak Ledge Road, after confirming the structure is the same footprint as the existing patio and that DPW had no substantive comments.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Zoning board grants time extension for Millington Street two‑family project with safety and filing conditions

Zoning board adjourns decision on 127 South Terrace cannabis dispensary after parking, safety and permit questions

Board accepts conversion to two‑family at 154 Stevens Avenue; parking variance discussed and approved

Board approves rear‑setback variance for screened‑in patio at Oak Ledge Road