Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Group Homes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors press Peekskill planners over group home at 1474 Elm Street
Summary
Residents urged the Planning Commission to address traffic, notification and staffing concerns after Special Citizens Futures Unlimited notified Peekskill under the Padavan law to open a five‑person group home at 1474 Elm Street; the commission closed the hearing but left legal jurisdiction unresolved.
The City of Peekskill Planning Commission heard more than a dozen residents raise concerns about a proposed five‑person community residence at 1474 Elm Street during an Oct. 9 public hearing. Applicants said the property was purchased last October and that the home will be licensed by the Office for People With Developmental Disabilities and certified for five residents with 24/7 supervision.
Jody Cross, attorney for Special Citizens Futures Unlimited, told the commission that the organization had given notice under the state Mental Hygiene Law (section 41.34), often called the Padavan law, and argued the municipality’s site‑plan authority is limited in such cases. "Under the Padavan Law, community residential facilities are required to be treated as any other single family house for purposes of zoning and other local laws and ordinances," Cross said. Alex DeMaio, the organization's CEO, added: "There will be no exterior alarms to the house. We're not allowed to have such restrictions like that. This house has to operate like a regular home."
Neighbors raised a range of operational and process concerns. Griselda Reyes, who lives across the street, asked that occupancy be limited to five residents and two staff and criticized late notice to the neighborhood, saying Special Citizens Futures Unlimited sent a letter to the mayor on 10/02/2024. "Early communication ... would have given us the chance to understand the plans," Reyes said. Other speakers cited narrow streets, parking congestion, garbage‑truck and snow‑plow access and potential impacts on property values; John Veshi Jr. described the neighborhood reaction as anger at the perceived lack of transparency. Frederick Plouffe, who said he lives directly across the street, said he welcomes the residents but asked for written commitments on van parking, staffing stability and direct contact numbers for management.
The commission closed the public hearing after the exchange but noted a legal question remains about whether site‑plan review is required for the property under state law. Chair members said if the issue returns to the commission it will be re‑noticed and the mailing list confirmed so residents receive official notice. No formal land‑use decision was made at the meeting.
