Neighbors press Planning Board over scale, traffic and flooding for Mount Pleasant supportive‑housing proposal

Dozens of residents spoke at the Village of Mamaroneck Planning Board’s Nov. 13 meeting to oppose a proposed supportive‑housing development at 338–352 Mount Pleasant Avenue, raising concerns about parking, traffic, flooding and the project’s size relative to the neighborhood.

The planning board opened a public comment period limited to three minutes per speaker as part of its SEQRA (environmental review) process. Adelina Clark read remarks prepared by B. Serasoli, who told the board that village zoning contains no specific standards for supportive housing and urged that the zoning and the Zoning Board of Appeals address those gaps before the environmental review proceeds.

Several health‑care professionals and social‑service workers spoke against the proposal’s scale. ‘‘Small groups such as 8 or 10 patients can be integrated into communities,’’ said Kirby Cohen, a licensed clinical social worker at the Larchmont/Mariner Community Counseling Center. ‘‘However, the current proposal is a very bad idea,’’ Cohen added, warning that large numbers of residents with severe psychiatric conditions could overwhelm local supports.

Residents cited traffic and pedestrian safety near Mamaroneck Avenue School and other routes. ‘‘We cannot walk in our area’’ without worry, said Kim Shimelecki, a Maple Avenue resident, who recounted a near‑fatal traffic collision involving her son and described persistent double parking near the site. Several speakers noted that mount Pleasant is a primary route to the high school and said deliveries, trash collection and ride‑hail vehicles for residents could cause sustained curbside double parking.

Flooding and mature‑tree removal were raised repeatedly. David Gessel, an engineer for a different project earlier in the meeting, had noted setbacks from tidal wetlands on a nearby parcel; residents said the Mount Pleasant proposal would require removing dozens of mature trees that currently absorb stormwater. ‘‘Removal of these trees would result in thousands of gallons of water flowing into our homes and storm drains,’’ one neighbor said, summarizing local flood experience.

Other speakers questioned whether the development fits the village’s zoning for affordable or supportive housing, noting counsel they had consulted who advised that the application ‘‘does not fit our codes.’’ Mitch Montgomery, who organized petitions, said residents submitted hundreds of signatures opposing the project’s current scope and asked the board to scrutinize requested variances, including parking and height.

Search for Change’s CEO, Ashley Bridal, responded near the end of the comment period, describing the proposal as an apartment building designed to house people in recovery or households that qualify by income. Bridal said the organization does not intend to operate the site as a correctional‑style intake facility and emphasized a commitment to ‘‘being good neighbors’’ while acknowledging the review process will require detailed studies and revisions.

The planning board thanked speakers and said staff and the applicant will address the comments in forthcoming submissions, including a Part 3 EAF and any requested technical reports. The board did not take a formal vote on the Mount Pleasant application at the meeting; next procedural steps will depend on materials the applicant files and on staff determinations about code interpretation and necessary variances.

The board asked staff to ensure materials and any engineering or SEQRA supplements are posted on the village website; several speakers requested outreach in Spanish to ensure non‑English speakers are aware of the proposal and comment opportunities.

What happens next: the applicant has said it will prepare responses and additional studies; the board said it will continue the SEQRA process and consider any necessary referrals or hearings as the record develops.