Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Affordable topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mount Pleasant affordable‑housing application paused pending building‑inspector review; applicant outlines parking tradeoffs
Summary
The Planning Board accepted an update on a 63‑unit affordable housing proposal at 338–352 Mount Pleasant but will not advance the application until the village building inspector completes a zoning‑determination review; the applicant described design revisions that reduced amenities to protect tree roots and said the project still requires a parking variance.
The Village of Mamaroneck Planning Board received an update April 15 on a proposed 63‑unit affordable housing project at 338–352 Mount Pleasant but decided to hold action until the village building inspector’s review of a prior zoning determination is complete.
Applicant counsel Neil Alexander of Cuddy & Feder told the board the team has submitted a new, expanded Part 3 EAF and other materials and has worked with village consultants on a number of technical issues. “We’ve now been able to get back to 28 parking spaces, including our … two handicap spaces that are required,” Alexander said, describing recent iterations in which the applicant reduced unit sizes and tenant amenities to preserve tree root zones.
Alexander said the development remains 100% affordable under the applicant’s proposed program, with about 10% meeting deeper affordability thresholds; he also said roughly half of the residents would meet disability criteria under the ADA’s definitions. The project team calculated that, after the latest unit‑mix changes, the development would need about 50 parking spaces for the residential component while showing 28 on the current plan, leaving a variance need of roughly 22 spaces.
Ashley Brody, CEO of Search for Change and the property owner, said the sites include several vacant, deteriorated properties and that new construction would permanently improve current conditions. “We have worked and want to continue to work with you and the other authorities in ensuring that all those concerns are addressed,” Brody said.
The applicant also offered to coordinate with the village to remove four metered spaces in front of the property and to request those spaces be converted into a combined pickup/drop‑off zone and a fire lane if the board and village trustees support that change.
Because the building inspector’s review was posted to the record April 14, the board’s chair said the board was not in a position to progress the application at this meeting. The applicant was allowed to make a presentation and answer questions; the board will await the inspector’s determination and then schedule next steps, with the applicant expressing hope for a negative declaration in May and a public hearing in June.
Next steps: the board will hold the application in abeyance until the building inspector’s zoning review is resolved and asked that updated consultant memos and the full submission remain available for the file.
