The Zoning Board of Appeals in Mount Vernon heard public testimony and applicant presentations July 15 on an application to convert 22 North Third Avenue into an 11‑story, mixed‑use building with 50 apartments and ground‑floor commercial space, then adjourned the case to the board’s September meeting after finding discrepancies in the plans, outstanding financial information and questions about parking and taxes.

The board’s review focused on a requested use variance for the property’s CB (Commercial Business) portion and three area variances: height (plans submitted show 86 feet/11 stories versus the CB maximum of roughly 30 feet/two stories), impervious surface (application lists 100% proposed versus an 80% maximum), and parking (the application lists 42 spaces to be provided against a cited requirement of 64 spaces). Chair Justino told the applicant the use‑variance standard was the first and highest hurdle: “The applicant cannot realize a reasonable return as shown by competent financial evidence,” she read, and said the board must see evidence addressing every required factor for a use variance.

Why it matters: The proposal would place a tall, dense building adjacent to an area the applicant and board identified as a historic district and municipal parking garage. The board said the application could alter the character of the block and raised questions about whether a lower building height could be feasible. Because the application requests a change in allowed use and large area variances, the board said it needs accurate and consistent documentation before making any determination.

Applicant presentation and plan discrepancies
Tom Abalama, identified at the hearing as the project’s architect of record, and Esther Martinez, a project representative, presented plans for a mixed‑use tower with two levels of below‑grade parking, one commercial space on the first floor and 50 residential units above (6 units per typical floor, two penthouse duplexes on the top floors). Abalama and Martinez described roughly 3,562 square feet of commercial space, building amenities and mechanical areas and said the two below‑grade levels would provide 42 parking spaces (21 per level).

Board members and staff flagged multiple inconsistencies in submitted materials. A city plan‑exam report in the file referenced an earlier, seven‑story set of plans; board members said the plan‑exam report must be updated before variances are considered. The board also noted that the application had at various points been described as 7, 11 and—by the applicants at the hearing—potentially 14 or 15 stories, and instructed the applicants to return with a single, final set of plans.

Parking, downtown plan and referrals
Staff and the applicant discussed whether downtown draft planning work and proximity to municipal parking could affect the parking requirement. The applicant argued the site lies next to a municipal parking garage and within an area proposed in the city’s draft downtown plan for higher density, and said some code sections allow reduced parking ratios for properties within a set distance of public parking. Board members and staff replied that the downtown plan under discussion is a draft and not adopted zoning; they said the ZBA must evaluate the proposal under current zoning and building‑department standards and that any potential reductions or special‑permit routes would require additional approvals and updated reports.

Financial justification and owner comments
Owner Peter Andolino, who identified himself as owner of 22 North Third Realty Corp. and operator of A & M Bronx Bakery, told the board he was trying to keep the property in productive use and said he had performed financial analysis showing the project’s viability at greater height and unit counts. Andolino told the board he had been unable to find developers willing to invest on terms he described; he said, "I just wanna leave something positive in Mount Vernon," and urged the board to consider market‑rate development to attract investment. Board members replied that the ZBA requires a financial pro forma and other competent financial evidence showing the project cannot realize a reasonable return under permitted uses or lesser heights.

Public comment and tax arrears
A member of the public, Sal Mirra, identified himself as a nearby property owner and said he generally supported repurposing the building but asked for more detailed plans before taking a position on height, parking and construction impacts. The board also announced a public, on‑record issue: the file includes a notation—stated at the hearing by the chair—that the applicant owes more than $300,000 in unpaid taxes, penalties and interest; the board said that is public information that must be addressed by the applicant before the matter proceeds.

Board action and next steps
The Zoning Board did not vote on any variances. Board members moved and voted to adjourn the application to the board’s next meeting cycle; the chair instructed the applicant to return in September with a corrected, consistent set of plans, an updated plan‑exam report from the building department, a parking clarification (documenting whether off‑site municipal parking or alternate ratios would be used), and a financial pro forma showing why lower height or other options would not produce a reasonable return. The board also recommended the applicant obtain legal counsel for the hearings and to resolve outstanding tax arrears before resubmission.

The board approved routine minutes and adjourned the meeting; the substantive hearing on ZB25‑322 was continued to the ZBA meeting on Sept. 16, 2025.