Residents press Community Board 11 for answers about clinic proposed at 1609 Colden Avenue

Several residents at the April 24 meeting of Bronx Community Board 11 said they are alarmed by advertising for what they described as an opioid-treatment clinic at 1609 Colden Avenue and pressed the board and staff for information and safety assurances.

Ronnie Colangelo, a resident who raised the topic during the public‑hearing portion of the meeting, said: “Seems that there's a opioid clinic opening next door to Rogers House.” He and other speakers said they feared an uptick in local disorder if the facility opens and asked what authority the board or city had to prevent it.

The board’s district manager, Jeremy (district manager), responded that the owner had told the district office the location was only advertising and not yet operating. “They do have a permit with the state,” Jeremy said. He also said the buildings department had been asked to inspect the property and that a member of the public had filed 311 complaints; the district office had recorded a sign‑violation previously and was following up on other alleged violations.

Resident Roger Castro asked directly whether a clinic at “16 o 9 Colton Avenue” was legal; Jeremy confirmed his office had been told the business holds a state permit but had not yet opened, and that the district office had asked the owner to provide written confirmation by email. Jeremy said he would follow up and, if necessary, contact the buildings department for inspection and enforcement.

Several later speakers reiterated neighborhood concerns and asked what residents could do. Board members and staff advised residents to file 311 complaints to keep investigations active and to circulate petitions and letters to elected officials if they wanted stronger, collective action. Jeremy said he would continue to pursue documentation from the owner and the buildings department and asked residents to forward any 311 complaint numbers they received.

Why it matters: speakers framed this as both a land‑use/operations question — whether the business may lawfully operate at the listed address — and a community‑safety question about what services and clientele would be associated with such a clinic. The board does not make licensing or state‑permit decisions; those are handled by state regulatory authorities and city enforcement agencies such as the Department of Buildings.

What the board and staff said they would do next: district staff said they would follow up with the owner for written confirmation of operating status, press the buildings department to inspect the property if warranted, and log and track 311 complaints reported by residents. Residents were advised to send petitions and to contact their elected officials’ offices, which were present at the meeting.

The board did not take formal action or vote on the matter at the April 24 meeting. The issue was raised multiple times during the gallery session and the district manager's report; the district office recorded that an initial sign violation had been issued and that the owner claimed the site was only advertising but not open for services.