Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Supportive Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Proposed 62‑unit Mount Pleasant supportive/affordable project draws heated board and public scrutiny
Summary
Search for Change and counsel presented a plan for 62 apartments (mixed affordable and state‑subsidized supportive units) at 338–352 Mount Pleasant Ave. The Nov. 6 ZBA hearing focused on whether state referral placement (SPOA/ISHA) bypasses a village lottery, whether the use qualifies as 'dwelling units' under the zoning code, and on flood, traffic and public‑safety concerns. The hearing was continued for documentary evidence.
The Zoning Board of Appeals heard an extended, contested public hearing Nov. 6 on a proposed 62‑unit development at 338–352 Mount Pleasant Avenue by nonprofit Search for Change.
Counsel Neil Alexander and Search for Change CEO Ashley Brody described the proposal as a mixed affordable and supportive housing project: approximately half the units would be reserved as deeply affordable under a state supportive‑housing program (ISHA/ESHI) paired with onsite care management (non‑medical) and the other half set at local affordable AMI tiers. Brody said residents would have conventional leases and that supportive housing in her agency's experience provides care management rather than 24‑hour medical care; she described long tenant tenures in existing scattered‑site programs.
Opponents and their counsel disputed that description and raised three core concerns: (1) placement mechanism — whether ISHA/ESHI placements will bypass the village affordable‑housing lottery and be assigned via county single point of access (SPOA) or other referral pathways; (2) use classification — whether the concentration of supportive services and on‑site staffing make the development more like an institutional facility (and thus not a permitted multi‑family dwelling under the zoning definition); and (3) local impacts — traffic, parking, emergency calls and floodplain/grade effects. Several residents also raised a potential conflict of interest and asked the board to demand documentary proof of county placement procedures; one commenter reported that the county SPOA supervisor is the spouse of a project official and urged disclosure.
Applicants and counsel said programmatic placement rules are set by state/county agencies and that the project will follow those procedures; Brody said many supportive housing placements are made by county SPOA teams and that supportive tenants commonly receive subsidies and care management, not institutional medical care. Opponents submitted legal briefs and referenced New York State supportive‑housing guidance, argued that the ESHI program and county referral rules mean the deeply affordable slots will not be subject to a village lottery, and urged the ZBA to request specific documentary evidence from county agencies and Search for Change before acting.
The board did not decide the appeal; it asked for documentary evidence of county placement procedures, the ISHA/ESHI program requirements and other records, and continued the hearing so that municipal consultants can review the materials. The public hearing remains open.
