The Mount Vernon City Council on Oct. 8 heard more than an hour of public testimony on the draft comprehensive plan “Envision Mount Vernon,” with speakers urging more time for review, a broader environmental study and clearer implementation steps. The council scheduled a follow‑up public hearing for Oct. 14 at 6 p.m.

Commissioner James Rouse, Department of Planning and Community Development, presented the draft and framed it as a multi‑year effort, saying the plan "is a beginning and not an end." He told the council the draft reflects about 2½ years of public outreach and that zoning will be rewritten as a later, separate step.

The draft plan and the public comments centered on housing, zoning and environmental review. Professional planner and resident Vince Ferrendino told the council he reviewed the draft and related environmental forms and called the council’s schedule “arbitrarily rushing” the process. "Arbitrarily rushing to approve it before years end will not accomplish that goal," Ferrendino said, urging a fuller vetting and written responses to public comments.

Michael Giustino, who identified himself as Zoning Board of Appeals chair, Fleetwood Neighborhood Association president and an advisory‑committee member, told the council the draft constitutes a Type 1 action under New York environmental review rules and said a General Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) is "absolutely required prior to adoption." He and several other speakers urged the council to complete and circulate environmental documentation and to synchronize any zoning changes with the plan’s adoption.

Multiple residents testified they feared the draft’s language would effectively remove single‑family zoning in broad swaths of the city by allowing duplexes, triplexes and accessory dwelling units (ADUs) by right. A written statement from Mayor Sean Patterson Howard, entered into the record, supported the plan’s vision but emphasized careful preservation of single‑family neighborhoods and limited, tightly controlled ADUs: "ADUs should be permitted only on owner‑occupied properties, not for speculative investments or absentee ownership." Several other commenters — including Mary Kingsley, David Reich and Michael Templeton — warned that infrastructure, parking and school capacity were not analyzed in sufficient detail to support broad increases in density.

Patrick Cleary of Cleary Consulting, who led the consultant team, described the plan’s structure and outreach: an inventory of conditions, neighborhood placemaking (15 neighborhoods were formally defined), core concepts across more than a dozen topic areas (housing, mobility, economic development, open space, resiliency), and an implementation section assigning responsibilities and relative costs. Cleary described the housing approach as expanding a “range of housing opportunities” and said the plan will inform a later zoning rewrite and an RFP to update the zoning code.

Speakers pressed several consistent requests: complete and signed long‑form environmental review documents, a GEIS (they used the term GEIS/GEIS requirements), more time to review the 475‑page draft (which speakers said included 36 goals and 419 objectives), and a clearer map showing which neighborhoods would retain single‑family zoning. Several advisory‑committee members and residents said the most controversial density language was introduced late and differed from recommendations given earlier in advisory meetings.

Council members and staff acknowledged the concerns and said the plan is intended to guide a follow‑up zoning process. After public testimony, the council voted to continue the public hearing to Oct. 14 at 6 p.m. The roll call recorded ayes from Councilmembers Boxhill, Gleason, Poteet, Thompson and Council President Brown.

The council did not take final action on the plan Oct. 8; the public hearing remains open and the planning staff and consultants said they will accept written comments and incorporate changes where appropriate. The planning department and the consultant team also said an RFP to rewrite the zoning ordinance will follow, and that block‑by‑block outreach will be part of that zoning process.

What’s next: The council will reconvene the second public hearing on Oct. 14 at 6 p.m. Residents who cannot attend were told they may submit written comments to the city clerk. Planning staff said they will work with consultants to assemble written responses to public input and to clarify implementation steps ahead of the next hearing.

Ending: The draft Envision Mount Vernon represents a multi‑year effort and a blueprint for potential changes in land use across the city. On Oct. 8 the council kept the public comment period open, and officials said they will continue to collect and respond to comments before any adoption vote is scheduled.