‘Monster Complex’ Sparks Outcry in Valhalla

By Mike Gold 

Furious Valhalla residents blasted the Mt. Pleasant Town Board on May 13 for rezoning 75 North Kensico Avenue to allow a 34-unit apartment building with underground parking—accusing officials of pushing the plan through with little notice and without community input.

The development would place a multi-story apartment building and a 43-space underground garage on a lot smaller than one acre. 

Residents speaking during the public comment portion of the May 13 town board meeting questioned how such a dense project could proceed with what they described as insufficient notice and transparency.

Earlier in the meeting, the board voted 5-0 to amend a new proposed law to notify residents within a radius of 500 feet of upcoming votes on town zoning changes.

Kurt Myers was the first speaker of the night to dispute the multi-family rezoning. He said he was given no notice of the move by the town.

Myers requested the board reopen the debate and vote on rezoning 75 North Kensico Avenue, as did several other residents who attended the meeting. 

Myers lives at 65 North Kensico Avenue, in a home which adjoins the site of the 34-unit building proposed for the 75 North Kensico property by developers Dan Amicucci, Sr. and Emilio DiMatteo. 

He showed the board a map on his cell phone of the rezoned area with his house and 61 North Kensico Avenue cut out by red lines.

Holding the map up, Myers said, “That doesn’t look to me like an extension. Why would the extension not cover the one house? If my house had been rezoned, would you have given me notice then? It (the rezoned area) surrounds me on three sides.” 

“Yes,” replied Mt. Pleasant Town Supervisor Carl Fulgenzi. 

Myers continued: 

“By leaving this little spot (un-rezoned), I didn’t get notice. Now, it’s surrounding me on three sides. Understandably, there was no law to give me notice. Now there is a law that would give me notice, but I do think I’ve raised enough questions here that maybe we want to revisit or reopen the March 11th rezoning” (which allows for the building of a multi-family apartment building at 75 North Kensico Avenue).

“I would have liked my property rezoned on the 11th (March 11), because I would have gotten notice.”

“You want your property rezoned?” asked Town Attorney Darius Chafizadeh.

“I’m not opposed to development. I’m opposed to not telling somebody that their house surrounded on three sides is being rezoned,” Myers responded.

“Would you like your property rezoned, to be included in the zoning (to the hamlet designation)?” Fulgenzi asked. 

“If we will reopen the rezoning meeting, absolutely,” Myers replied.

“That meeting is over,” Fulgenzi said. “If you feel there was an error there, that we will address with our planning consultant,” the town supervisor explained. 

“It seems awfully convenient that it wasn’t zoned (his property), so therefore I didn’t receive notice. But if it had been rezoned, I would have been given notice,” Myers said. 

“I don’t understand the reason it was cut out, but I will find out,” Fulgenzi replied. 

Planning Board Recommended Zoning Change to Multi-Family

Town officials defended the rezoning decision, saying it followed proper procedures and aligned with long-term planning efforts.

“This did go to the planning board, that recommended this zoning change,” Chafizadeh said, “and also was recommended by the town planner, and it is directly contiguous to the Valhalla hamlet zoning that was analyzed by the town for multiple years in the comp plan” (the town’s comprehensive plan). 

“It is also probably, I drove by there just now, 50 feet from the PRDT-7 zone, which allows multi-family housing and was built there back in the 90s,” Chafizadeh explained. 

The town attorney continued: “Now the size and scope will be analyzed by the planning board. They will do a traffic study. They will do studies next to this gentleman’s (Myers) house, to see how far the building should be and the density may significantly decrease. It may be smaller in size. We encourage everyone to look at the website for the planning board agendas to see when this will be on. We will post it on our website when it’s on.”

Residents Speak Out About Lack of Notice and Multi-Family Designation Of Property

But residents pushed back, saying the rezoning caught the neighborhood off guard and clashed with the area’s character.

“This is a single-family community,” said Steven Kutny, who lives on Prospect Avenue, near the proposed development. Most people didn’t know about this until it was quietly approved, by the folks on this town board.”

Kutny also cited the dangers of a large increase in traffic by, potentially, 60 additional vehicles from the proposed “monster complex,” as he called it, in terms of street parking, street congestion and pedestrian safety.

“From my perspective, living near the Lakeview soccer fields, I remain concerned that families with young children will be impacted by increased traffic flow from West Westlake Drive, North Kensico Avenue, Prospect Avenue, Elm Place, Cedar Street and Cleveland Street, adding to the safety concerns we already face with regular through traffic speeding,” Kutny said.

“We need to reevaluate the rezoning. The scale of this project negatively impacts the entire Valhalla community,” Kutny added. “This law should retroactively apply to the parcel at 75 Kensico.” 

Domenick Vita explained that a zoning map amendment “could change the nature of the whole community” and said that all Valhalla residents should have been notified of the March 11 meeting to rezone 75 North Kensico. 

Vita referenced past planning board meetings, in which he said the planning board in 2024 ultimately recommended including Myers’ property and the house at 61 Kensico Avenue in the rezoning of 75 Kensico for multi-family housing. 

“I agree with Mr. Myers. He should have had the opportunity to decide whether he should have been in that zone or not,” resident Kevin Sullivan. “This deeply affects my property and my neighbors. I was never notified. I haven’t heard any positive reasons for having this development, and I have tons of negative feelings about the situation.”

Other residents also said they only recently learned of the project and criticized the town for what they described as a lack of transparency. 

“We weren’t aware of this project previously,” remarked Russell Jonas. “There are some reasons that this project strikes me as objectionable. One is the inadequate public notice, where the approval process didn’t reach the public. 

“This would bring about an abrupt change in the character of the neighborhood from single families to multi families,” Jonas also said. 

“There’s an additional strain on local infrastructure, like roads and schools and emergency services, potential negative impact on property values, apparently a lack of genuine engagement with the community, and setting a precedent for future over-development,” he continued. 

Jonas also mentioned that he was concerned about how the increase in the town’s population would affect the tax base and school funding, and the additional noise and light pollution that a 34-unit apartment building would bring. Jonas requested that the rezoning hearing be reopened. 

Frustration over the lack of direct notification was a recurring theme among residents who live near the site.

“It feels like this was done overnight without anyone really knowing,” said Michael Marvin. “No one knew about it. I live probably 100 yards up the hill from this. I had no notice. No one knew about it. A four-story apartment complex as proposed is not the answer.” 

‘The Monster’

“My property is going to be affected directly,” said Alexandra Glickman, who lives on Cleveland Street. “This is where this monster will go – it’s going to be right above my house. We here are very much concerned with how this project will affect us, who already live here.”  

The development “is not a good fit for our community,” said Donna Babak, of Prospect Avenue. “We don’t want this. Is it the developers you’re looking after, or the community that you’re looking after? Because it doesn’t feel like we’re being heard.” 

“How this change in zoning went was very weak,” Babak also said. She asked that the board reopen the zoning hearing and look at the development once again.  

Planning Board to Review and Modify Developer’s Proposal, Officials Say

Town officials emphasized that rezoning is only the first step in the process, with the planning board responsible for reviewing and approving the actual development plans.

“We’ve said it a dozen times today,” Fulgenzi said, explaining that the board approved the re-zoning, but not the development itself. “That’s what the planning board is for.” 

Referring to the 34-unit proposed plan, Fulgenzi explained, “That’s his (the developer’s) conceptual drawing.”

“That rendering is not final,” said board member Danielle Zaino. “When a builder goes in front of a planning board – I’ve been in construction 24 years – they go asking for everything that they want, right?  And then it gets knocked down.”

Zaino stressed that initial proposals are often revised multiple times during the planning board process, and the final project could look very different from what’s currently presented.

“Because they know you don’t ever go in front of a planning board once,” Zaino said. “You go, there has to be changes. You go, there has to be changes. So, yes, they’re going with a 34-unit proposal. It doesn’t mean it’s going to get approved. All of that gets worked out there at the planning board.”

“The planning process will have to play itself out,” said Chafizadeh, the town attorney. “There are certain requirements under the zoning codes,” he pointed out. “They (the developer) come in and say, ‘this is what I want to build.’ If they (the planning board) feel that this building is towering over another piece of property, inappropriately, it (a development plan) gets reduced all the time. 

Chafizadeh also explained that the planning board carefully evaluates all aspects of a proposal—such as size and impact—and often requires developers to scale back projects to fit community standards.

“There’ll still be a site plan application,” the town attorney said. “There’ll be a traffic study. There’ll be an analysis of light, there’ll be an analysis of air, there will be an analysis of school impacts, there’ll be an analysis of how big, how many units, density, stormwater runoff – all of that will be analyzed, all of it – in detail.”

Amelia Scordo, a longtime Valhalla resident, voiced her frustration after the meeting, questioning the process that led to the rezoning. She said the developer’s acquisition of a small parcel seemed to have swayed the board’s decision.

“It just doesn’t feel right,” said Scordo, a Valhalla resident for 55 years, after the meeting. “The sequence of events of how this was rezoned, the developer needed that little piece of land and that was approved by the board.” 

“The integrity of this process is broken,” Scordo also said. “We’ve lost the confidence of the board. Other people I’ve talked to in town feel the same way. Everyone who spoke (at the meeting) feels betrayed.” 

Fulgenzi to Review Exclusion of Myers’ Property from Rezoning

Of Myers’ issue with why his property wasn’t included in the rezoning by the planning board, Fulgenzi said, in a May 16 interview, “It’s a legitimate question. I’m reviewing that with the planning consultant. This was simply overlooked.”

Of residents who have complained about the rezoning, Fulgenzi said, “They’re making it sound like we’re rezoning all these properties all of a sudden.” 

“We did our due diligence to make everyone aware of this process. It’s on them, not on us,” Fulgenzi added. He explained that 75 North Kensico Avenue is “adjacent to a multi-family zone.” 

“Now they’re making it sound like we’re trying to sneak something in,” the supervisor said. “The property owner came to us and said why wasn’t our property included in the hamlet zone.” 

“It starts a process,” Fulgenzi also commented. “The size and scope will be discussed by the planning board.” 

Myers Sends Letter Questioning Why His Property Was Excluded From Rezoning

Myers and his wife sent a letter to the town board on May 16, requesting information on why his property was not included in the hamlet rezoning. 

Myers said he reviewed the planning board video of their November 7, 2024, meeting. The developer mentioned that he “was pitching this huge 34-unit building as the reason for the rezoning,” Myers’ letter stated. “In the video, the planning board also was questioning numerous times why 61 and 65 (North Kensico Avenue) were not included in this ‘rezoning extension.’”

Myers concluded that, “At the end of the discussion, the Planning board said they would make three recommendations to ‘you’ (town board) before considering the rezoning. One of their three recommendations was to ‘square off’ the rezoning, if it was an extension, to include 61 and 65 lots.”

Myers also requested that the March 11 rezoning vote be reopened, that all local residents receive formal notification of future hearings to ensure due process, and that the Planning Board’s recommendations be fully discussed with those affected.

The agenda planning board meeting scheduled for May 19 did not feature any items relating to 75 North Kensico. Planning board meetings are held on the first Thursday and third Monday of every month, with the exception of January and February, according to the town’s website.

Meetings begin at 7:30 p.m.