LocalForesight LocalForesight
Join

95 Bradhurst Ave

Sign in to follow

95 Bradhurst Ave is a mixed-use proposed at 95 Bradhurst Ave, Valhalla, NY 10595, USA in Mount Pleasant, NY. The project is currently pending before local land-use boards. Blythedale Children's Hospital is listed as the developer on the public record. LocalForesight has tracked 2 public hearing appearances before Planning Board.

Project Overview

95 Bradhurst Ave

Blythedale Children's Hospital is proposing a mixed-use development at 95 Bradhurst Avenue in Valhalla, Mount Pleasant. The project involves redevelopment of the existing site to create mixed-use space. The developer is advancing the proposal through the local approval process, though current application status and specific project details such as building scale, density, zoning compliance, and any required variances are not yet documented.

Subscriber content

Upgrade for full access to project intelligence.

Upgrade

Property Stats

Status Pending
Type Mixed-Use
Address 95 Bradhurst Ave, Valhalla, NY 10595, USA
Developer Blythedale Children's Hospital

Map

Timeline

May 18, 2026
Planning Board
  • Vote: 3-2 in favor of negative declaration (JD, John, Eileen yes; Walter, Jane no; Chair opposed)
  • Board divided on parking structure scale and bulk; three board members expressed concerns about visual/aesthetic impact requiring DEIS review
  • Chair and two board members (Walter Hickey, Jane) voted for positive declaration citing CEQA §6.17.2 and §6.17.3 requirements to evaluate physical dimensions in neighborhood context
  • One board member (Speaker 7) opposed DEIS, argued parking structure is driving negativity and questioned whether alternatives (underground parking, valet) were adequately explored
  • Applicant Janet Carris argued record demonstrates no significant adverse impacts and negative declaration is legally required

Next steps

  • Negative declaration approved 3-2; project may proceed unless applicant chooses to prepare EIS
  • Applicant may consider addressing parking structure alternatives (underground parking, valet service) in future phases or design modifications
  • Screening improvements for parking deck to be detailed as project moves forward (per Board Member Speaker 2 comment)
May 7, 2026
Planning Board
  • Public hearing closed; CEQA determination deferred – Board will decide positive or negative declaration at next meeting after 10-day written comment period closes
  • Applicant (Blythedale Children's Hospital) seeks negative declaration; argues five traffic reviews, stormwater plan, and landscaping buffer adequately mitigate impacts
  • Substantial public opposition on traffic, pedestrian safety for disabled children, parking structure proximity (44 feet from property line), and cumulative environmental impacts
  • Board counsel and traffic consultant (Creighton Manning) confirmed project is unlisted action under SEQRA; counsel noted extensive record exists
  • Applicant's attorney disputed CAC recommendation for positive declaration, arguing CAC had not formally reviewed application and legal standard does not support positive declaration

Next steps

  • 10-day written public comment period open (closing ~May 17, 2026)
  • CEQA determination (positive or negative declaration) to be made at next Planning Board meeting
  • If positive declaration issued, applicant must prepare Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
  • Project still requires ZBA approval for variances before final Planning Board action; multiple phases of development deferred pending this hearing outcome

Subscriber content

Upgrade for full access to project intelligence.

Upgrade

Sentiment

5 /10

From Planning Board · May 18, 2026

  • Board deeply divided: Chair and two members (Hickey, Jane) concerned about parking structure's visual bulk and impact on suburban character; three members (JD, John, Eileen) supportive of institution's mission and sufficiency of review
  • Chair's position: Acknowledged hospital's critical work but struggled with physical scale and mass dominance, leaned toward positive declaration for deeper environmental review
  • Hickey's detailed technical critique: Identified multiple FEAF errors (excavation, air emissions, noise, odors, lighting impacts) and questioned whether applicant adequately addressed cumulative environmental effects
  • One member skeptical of DEIS necessity: Argued extensive information provided, project hasn't substantially changed despite public input, and parking structure concerns could be addressed via alternatives rather than full EIS

Subscriber content

Upgrade for full access to project intelligence.

Upgrade

Related Projects