Residents press trustees on Mount Pleasant development and Hunter Lot process; board notes planning board jurisdiction

Public comment at the June 10 Board of Trustees meeting was dominated by concerns about two related development matters: a proposed project on Mount Pleasant Avenue and competing proposals for the Hunter Lot (Hunter Tier).

"I come before you with my concerns about the variance request on the Mount Pleasant Avenue development site," Anne Good (S11) told trustees, citing heavy traffic impacts for school routes, insufficient parking for a 24‑hour staffed facility, and a design that appears to prevent delivery and service vehicles from safely accessing the rear of the building. She asked the trustees to support denial of the variance "to the extent you can, within the planning board." Chair S1 corrected that the Board of Trustees will not vote on the variance; the planning and zoning boards would make that decision.

Victoria Fata (S12) said the proposal looks like a medical/support facility with 24‑hour care, not conventional affordable housing, and called the application "a lie" if it is being presented solely as affordable housing. She raised fire egress, parking and public‑safety concerns and asked how the village will sustain services and enforcement with more residents who may not pay property taxes.

Neighbor Vinny Zapier (S13) and others described unmaintained properties on and near the site, reporting overgrown grass, garbage, rodents and squatters. Several commenters — including Laura Body (S15), who identified herself as a traffic commission member — said drug use and prostitution near Columbus Park are already preventing residents and children from safely using public spaces and urged stronger enforcement.

On the Hunter Lot/RFP process, one resident (S9) and others said they felt misled by earlier board actions and questioned whether the RFP and zoning changes favored particular developers; the resident said revisions to proposals were barred and that the comprehensive plan language was used in ways the public did not expect. At the meeting trustees said they had engaged a consultant (NHB) to evaluate competing proposals for the Hunter Tier site and that consultant work will take roughly three months.

"We added to the consultant's task demographic information to see if we could have some preferences for village residents that would comply with Fair Housing requirements," a trustee said (S8). Maria DeRose (S18) thanked the board for hiring the consultant and urged careful vetting of developers; trustees emphasized that selecting a preferred proposer is not a final commitment and that SEQRA/SEQR (environmental review) and negotiations would follow before any binding approvals.

Other public commenters raised potential conflicts of interest: a resident (S12) alleged that an attorney who had advocated for a zoning change was also representing a board member in court, calling it appearance‑wise problematic. The board said it would review minutes and procedural records to ensure proper notice and process for prior local laws and public hearings.

What happens next: the planning and zoning boards will handle any variance requests; the board will receive the NHB consultant report and demographic analysis in coming months before making any selection or recommendation for the Hunter Lot site.