Zoning board hears heated exchange over Search for Change Mount Pleasant supportive-housing proposal

Counsel for the applicant, identifying himself in the record as Veil Alexander of Cuddy and Fader, asked the Zoning Board of Appeals to reverse a July 2025 building-inspector determination and confirm that the Mount Pleasant Avenue proposal is a multifamily dwelling eligible for fair and deeply affordable units under the village code.

Alexander said the applicant had relied on a May 2024 determination that allowed the project to proceed and that a later July 2025 determination should not have superseded that decision while the project was in active review. He submitted FOIL materials, an architect affidavit (Dattner), and a November letter from the county deputy commissioner describing how the single point of access (SPOA) referral process works. Alexander argued the SPOA process does not preempt the village’s occupancy and lottery rules, and that the project remains eligible for the zoning bonuses (FAR, height and parking-related credits) that were discussed in 2024. He also said parking would require a variance in any event.

Search for Change executive director (identified in the transcript as Ashley Bridal) said eligible applicants are referred through the county process into the village’s initial lottery and that the county’s prioritization does not supplant village eligibility certifications. She and counsel described the project as having approximately half the units meeting fair-and-deeply affordable definitions and the other half qualifying as fair and affordable, with some units potentially receiving ISHA (state supportive-housing) financing.

Multiple residents spoke in opposition. One speaker, B. Sarah Soli of the Florence Park neighborhood, asserted the project had repeatedly changed its public representations about supportive housing, alleged the application understates the number of studio units, and warned about safety risks based on a local anecdote. Another commenter, Daniela Bierman of Harbor Heights, defended the new building inspector’s right to review previously filed applications and criticized what she described as applicants’ evasions of required documentation; Bierman also raised concerns about selection procedures and about portions of the applicant’s paperwork that describe supportive services.

Board members and staff peppered counsel with detailed legal and procedural questions: whether the applicant sought only an interpretation, whether the July 2025 determination exceeded the inspector’s authority, the interplay of local law Q (a recently adopted local law referenced in the hearing), when bonuses and parking standards apply, and whether certain plan-based conditions attached to prior variances remained operative. Counsel asked the board to interpret the code and to permit the applicant to return to the planning board to resume coordinated review if the board ruled in its favor. Several board members asked clarifying questions about the county SPOA priority and how the lottery and wait-list procedures would operate in practice.

At the close of public comment the applicant asked the board to close the hearing and issue a decision within the timeframe allowed by law; the chair and members closed the public hearing by motion. The board indicated it would consider the written record and make a decision (members discussed using the full statutory period available to render an opinion).