Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Good.

I'd like to call this meeting of the Bedford Planning Board to order. The first item on our agenda is actually an announcement from our Director of Planning, who's going to give us a brief summary overview of the newly adopted New York State Environmental Quality Review Act changes, which do in fact impact a number of applications before the town, including something that's on the agenda tonight.

yes thank you madam chair and good evening to the rest of the board members uh most recently the state did enact something called the ted part s which amends the state environmental quality quality review act there are a series of amendments that were made however i thought it would be pertinent to go over the ones that the planning board is going to be most affected by including as the chair mentioned some applications this evening on the agenda So there have been some definitions added that relate to a lot of these exemptions, but the first one is looking at qualified actions. So the state has come up with five new categories that you need to meet one or more of the criteria in order to be exempt from Seeker Review. The most important one that I think this board needs to be aware of is there's an exemption now for certain housing projects that are in municipalities that reside outside of New York City. um and one of the criteria that must be met within that exemption category is that the application has to be connected to an existing community or public water or in sewer system at the commencement of habitation as you know there are only two sewer districts in the town of bedford so downtown katona and downtown bedford hills Um, so some of the housing projects that are on your agenda tonight, as well as those likely in the future, um, it's important to mention that there would be impact to those properties and seeker would be exempt. However, we're talking very small areas considering about 1% of the entire town is sewered. Um, but that's something that you will, you will see, um, there are other qualifications that must be met within this category, such as being on a previously disturbed site. There is a restriction that up to 20% could be commercial in a mixed-use environment and not exceed 100 dwelling units. So that is one exemption category that you will find coming before you quite often. Another one that is important to mention is there's a new creation of a deadline for determining whether an application is actually going to qualify for this exemption. Um, so once an application is received and it's complete, there is a 120 day clock that runs that the agency must determine whether or not it is exempt from secret review. And the 3rd change that is important to mention for this evening is that. despite these exemptions that do exist for a variety of projects again housing projects are ones that we're likely going to be most impacted by this does not preclude the planning board from undertaking any of the other required actions so you are still looking at doing your site plan review there still may be steep slopes that are impacted this also does not preclude the zoning board from making any of their determinations nor a wetlands control commission So the existing applicable laws, rules, and regulations that exist outside of Seeker are still in effect. These are just other things to mention because it is not a blanketed exemption for project review. It is just from the Seeker component. So you are still charged to be here and complete the reviews that are before you. It's just we will be likely taking different directions for some of the Seeker review. I can also distribute a nice brief that our town attorney had provided, and we can make that posted online as well on the planning board's page. But those are the main points at this point in time that I did want to bring forward. The state will likely be making additional clarifications in the future. There are still a lot of questions out there, and the seeker law itself has not been amended, but this was the state bill that did pass that makes everything I just mentioned into effect and legal moving forward. So some of those applications are before you this evening. We'll bring those up when they occur. But for the most part, those are, I think, the items that I wanted to make sure the planning board was aware of, particularly for your meeting this evening.

Thank you. Does anybody on the board have any questions about that? Okay, the next item on our agenda is a continued public hearing to consider a special use permit application for the construction of an accessory structure, a barn, over 20 feet in height pursuant to Town Code 125-27D3. The owner applicant is Sean Rooney and the address is 245 Babbitt Road in Bedford Hills. Does someone want to speak for the applicant?

Hello.

Hi.

Good evening members of the board. I'm here tonight to discuss my property at 245 Babbitt Road, Beverly Hills, New York. I respectfully request a special use permit for the purpose of a pole barn garage due to the height of over 20 feet. I also formally outlining a plan addressing previously identified conditions on the site from your site visit back on April 24th. The proposed plan is to improve drainage, soil health, and ensure the proper alignment with the Town of Bedford Planning Board and their recommendations. In coordination with a New York State licensed engineer, I propose a comprehensive grading plan that includes the removal of gravel material from the affected area by following a careful, sorry, followed by a careful site prep using native plants and species to the local environment. The engineer's plan will incorporate erosion slope stabilization measures to ensure long-term site integrity. These measures will include regrading where necessary, installation of erosion control materials, strategic planting of deep-rooted native plants to stabilize the slope reducing runoff and preventing soil displacement all erosion control practices will be designed in accordance with best management practices and tailored to the specific site all work will be performed under the guidance of a new york state licensed engineer and the beffertown building department to ensure implication of a long-term and to end long-term sustainability we are committed committing this project in a timely and responsible way and are sensitive to the environment and our community thank you for your time and i would be happy to answer any questions for you thank you other questions from members of the board

I believe that when we were in the field that we talked about lighting,

Correct. In my email to you, I submitted a, it's actually called Steel Lighting Company. It's an American-made company that makes vintage barn lighting, which I found doing some Google searching. I'm putting downward-facing lights only over the entry doors like we discussed. Anything will be downward-facing or motion sensor, where if you walked up, that light would come on.

But we did say, even if you have a motion sensor, unless it's under the soffit.

Yes. Oh, yes. Under the soffit.

It's going to be under the soffit. Yes. If by any chance it's not under the soffit, it couldn't be any higher than eight feet.

OK. Yes. Yeah.

We wanted to worry about that.

Because I think we discussed it was eight. The soffit's at nine feet. Right. Yeah. OK. Trying to recall everything.

Not a problem. There were also I gather you you apply to the CBA for the correct?

I applied to the CBA. I got approval for the zoning as of last Wednesday. I increased the setbacks from six feet to 11 feet, which pleased them in all in all aspects. Um, I got approval on on Monday from the CPA to move forward. And that's why I was put on the agenda today.

Right. And you also made the building somewhat smaller, so you'll correct special permission.

This is why I came to this board originally with the shrunk, shrunken blueprint. Yes. Which it's a it's now sixty five by thirty five. It's under the twenty five hundred square feet is twenty five two thousand two hundred seventy five square feet. which is an 18.8% reduction. It went from six feet offset or variance off the property to 11, both the side and the rear, which is an 83.3% improvement. The height also was brought down because of the size of the building from 30 and a half feet to 28 feet, which is an 8.2% improvement. The main real reason is it's the pole barn design. It's the way the design of the roof is. That's as much as I can get that down at this point. I could theoretically put a peak roof on it, a regular A-frame roof, and be under or very close to that 20. But I don't think that would fit in very well. But if that's the case, then I will do that if that's the recommendation.

The size of the stand today is the same size as it came to us the first time, or is that strong again?

It has not shrunk again. It's the same size. I shrunk it after I was at the ZBA zoning board, and I shrunk it then, and that's when I presented it to you. Already shrunk, and they were happy with how much I shrunk it and moved forward and gave me approval on the zoning.

Good clarification. Thank you.

So what's ridge? Because your drawings are saying 30 feet, six and a half inches.

If you look at the top of the printout, I don't know why it's saying that, but if you look at it, it's... The top right corner says, like the front page, it says 35 by 65. I don't... This is a... I have the stamp drawings for the 80 by 40. I still need to completely get stamped engineer drawings for this one. So it will be, I mean, if it has to be 36 and I don't know why that is a inconsistency on that because it does say it right on the front of the, this is what's called a pack drawing from the manufacturer of the building.

For the supplier, we're going to end up giving you a special permit for a particular number tonight if we if we give you it is 20.

The height is 28 feet that that is the specific height of the building.

And that's where we'll be as bill for many sort of foundation or setting.

Correct. It's on a level flat area within six inches of grade, which will be level so it's gonna be

That dimensions from top of concrete slab, interior slab to reach 28 feet. I'm sorry, I didn't hear that. The dimension drawings show that any vertical dimension to top a ridge is from top of concrete slab interior. Okay. So that would be 28.

okay and then i believe the cba had uh two conditions the use of the structures to remain storage correct which was also something we had talked about correct we discussed that as well they had a stipulation on that they also had a stipulation in that 11 foot from my neighbor's property um that i plant five additional a minimum of five additional uh abervitis I believe they said three to five foot Abravides there to additional screening.

Yes. Okay. Anything else from members of the board? This is it. There is still an open public hearing. Are there any comments or questions from members of the audience? Yes. Please come up to...

again from our April 13th meeting we're the owners of the house next door 243 Vagabond Road just want to confirm that the board members all received my April 12th 2026 letter outlining all my concerns with this project and I thought at the last meeting on April 13th some of the members of the board had some concerns about the garage doors I still don't see the need for a house barn that's 28 feet high. I mean, this is a commercial property with, I think, 14 foot garage doors. There's, there's no car out there that requires that type of door. So, again, our concern is that. This property has been used in the past for commercial vehicle storage, contractor storage, and now it's going from an outdoor situation to an indoor situation. All you're doing is moving all those trucks and equipment, tree guys, chippers, everything else that they have is now going to be inside of the building instead of outside of the building. Structure that's in the back now that I don't know what material is, that plastic structure is being used as like a mechanic shop back there. You can hear the mechanics working in there. So now moving this inside and insulating this building is just gonna create the same situation. Now it's just gonna be more hidden from view for anybody. This building does not fit in the characteristics of the neighborhood. This is a residential neighborhood. Nobody has a garage. Anywhere's close to this. We're talking 2,375 square feet on the first floor, and you're allowing a full second floor of another 2,375 square feet. So now you're up to, what's that, 4,700 square feet. for a building that's literally over double the size of the existing house that's on the property. If this was a normal garage, a three-car garage with an A-frame roof, it wouldn't be that visible from our property. I don't think it would have that much of an effect on the neighborhood or the neighboring properties, the neighborhood views of the neighbors, especially our views. I still don't see the need of having a full second floor, 2375 square feet. What that's going to turn into is just going to turn into a storage facility for outsiders to come in and rent. Because the property's been used for rental all these years. I mean, you've had all these contractors parking back there with their trucks and equipment and everything else. They're not parking back there for free because I've had contractors approach us and ask if they could use our backyard to store all their equipment, trucks, machinery, and we wouldn't allow that. But there are guys out there that are looking to pay good money to store all their machinery and equipment. That's what's been happening next door by allowing this size building with these size garage doors. Just moving it from an outdoor situation to an indoor situation. I don't know if the special use permit if you guys are inclined to grant it. If you're going to set conditions on it. I have several conditions that we'd like to see put on this thing. 1st, we'd like to see. That prohibits any type of living quarters from inside of there. A 2,375 square foot second floor, that's bigger than a person's house. We could have multiple families living up in that size thing.

The zoning board already made that a condition. If we do it, it would be a condition of ours as well.

Okay. I'd also like to see a prohibition about operating a mechanic shop in there. Because there's nothing to stop that from being rented out as a mechanic shop. I mean, that thing is huge at 2400 square foot for those size bays. You can have lifts inside of there. Easily turned into a mechanic shop, which is already what's been going on there. We'd like to see a prohibition about storing commercial vehicles in there. That's been another problem because, as I mentioned last time. The driveway to that property goes from bad road to the house. There's a, there's already a garage in the house. Over the years, the driveway's been built along the side of the house that leads into the back. That's what's led all the contractors and commercial vehicles, industrial size vehicles to drive back there and park. So we'd like to see that as being a condition too, that you don't, there won't be any more commercial vehicles, industrial size vehicles coming up and down that driveway into the back, into the property. Because that's all we're seeing, trucks coming in and out of there. And that's not, there's not a commercial or industrial area. There's a residential neighborhood. Those things shouldn't be coming in and out of there. And that second floor, we don't want to see that turned into a storage facility either. Storage facility for others outside of the property that come there and rent. Because storage facilities are being built all over the place when you drive around in towns. People have a lot of need for storing. People are willing to pay rent to store their stuff in buildings. I just don't see how 2,400 square foot second floor storage is necessary for an individual family. And that's just monstrous. Again, those are our concerns. Our concerns are that we own the house next door. It's a residential neighborhood. I've never seen an industrial size garage put up on a small piece of property back there. This is the first I'm hearing about the zoning board hearing last week because I thought that the planning board hearing was coming first. I thought when I was at the first zoning board hearing, they told us you got to go to the planning board first and get permission, then come back to us, and then we'll address. Once they've given you permission to put up this size structure, then we'll address the side yard setbacks. So I'm a little taken back now that the zoning board went ahead last week, granted this 11 feet. Again, this size building, 11 feet off of our property line. without notifying us that the hearing was going before your hearing, because they told us last time the hearing was going to be after your. So I can't speak.

I cannot speak for the zoning board. It's hard. In general, we take the position that we can't do a final decision on something that requires a variance without the variance having been given. Because if the variance isn't given, anything we do is moot.

it's unusual to do it yeah they told us differently last time they declined it that night and said go to the planning board first and get your approval then come back to us for the zoning board so we actually didn't have a chance now to address the zoning board about that 11 feet but again if this thing is going to be 11 feet off of our property line it's just it's much too tall did you not get a notice about the zoning board hearing no it was at the first zoning board hearing yes i said that night they told us Go to the planning board 1st, and once that's been resolved, and you've got to pull from any come back. So I was assuming that. Since this tonight was the planning board, the zoning board wouldn't be till after this and then I could address them with the setbacks. But now they've granted an 11 foot setback. which is basically nothing. That's basically from me to you and a 28-foot high building off my property. I'm going to be standing here on my property and looking at a 24-foot. I mean, that's just crazy.

It's not very close to where your house is on the property, though.

No, but I'm not sitting in my house all the time. We're sitting in the backyard. The backyard is there. It's a nice green lawn. Now this is what I've got to look at, a 28-foot building. If you put an A-frame on it and you keep it at 20 feet, That's reasonable to allow this 28 foot building like this. It's just, it's not reasonable for the neighborhood. It's not reasonable. That's all I have.

Okay. Thank you very much. Are there any other questions or comments? Did you want to respond to any.

Slightly, um, it seems to me that. a certain particular person i can't please no matter what i do um i can created this design i think it's very fitting for the area fitting for betford fitting for everything i think the design is a very nice design um no matter what i do certain individuals won't be pleased with it and i can't fix that so i'm just looking at you to stick to the facts of what is going on and you obviously saw the site and i appreciate your inputs and hopefully we can move forward on this thank you one last time is is there any comment from the audience or is there yes

My name is Tom Rudy. I'm Sean's dad. I would just like to clear up one thing that I think the board has already cleared up. This is not commercial property. It's not used as commercial property. He agreed to sign whatever you folks wanted him to say when he was there. The attic space is not a full attic space. It doesn't double the property. It's the center of this building. It's not for outsiders to store. My son has stuff, and this is for his stuff. It's not commercial. A lot of what was brought up tonight was brought up from in the past. My son is the third owner of this property, so he cannot be blamed for two past owners of this property. So I just wanted to say that he's done everything to please the board and the planning board to do what is required of him. right now with the exception of eight feet it's within the he wouldn't even need a variance for for this building because it's within the parameters so i just wanted to say that the word commercial should be taken out of this program period he's already agreed to put in writing that's not going to happen I was when you were at the house myself, and I know that was discussed. So everything that was discussed from commercial to what's going to be stored upstairs to lighting, it's all been addressed. Now, I don't want to be inappropriate with anything that I said, but I just had to say it. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further comments?

Yes, with all due respect when he keeps talking about the past and he mentions the past 3 owners. Past 2 owners were the original grandparents of the properties, wife's grandparents. And the daughter and her husband now it's the grand daughter live in there. There were never any commercial vehicles, never any commercial dumping. none of that existed before Mr. Mooney took over the property. So to keep saying that that was in the past and Mr. Mooney had nothing to do with commercial vehicles, commercial dumping is just an outright lie.

Thank you. Is there anybody on the Zoom that has a comment? In that case, is there a move to close the public hearing?

So, 2nd, all in favor all opposed the public hearing is closed.

What to feel about this comment about the height of the garage doors. is something that can be easily addressed if that's reasonable for us to do to make them the height of residential garage doors.

Could you? I can address the garage doors.

My thoughts on the garage doors. You're gonna need the microphone.

The height of the garage doors themselves is to accommodate my trailer. My trailer currently is about 12 feet high, 11 foot something. A 12 foot door would be the absolute minimum I probably could make these, which would be fine for me. I can drop these down to 12 feet. The thing with the three doors, I know it was addressed. Visually, I think it looks a lot better with the three doors. In addition to my trailer is going to be stored in this bay or it could be in any of the bays if I'm working on it. I can't open it in this bay because it has bump outs and it has an awning. So if I pull it into this bay, I need a 12 foot door to pull it in that bay so I can actually open it up, dry it out. If I go camping in the wet, you have to pack it up dry. Restricting me to and having different height doors doesn't visually look, I think, pleasing. And also it would restrict what I would like to do in the ability to put my trailer in any one of these locations and put my antique cars, my father's antique cars, and be able to maneuver them in and out without having to try to get it out of one door. And that's the main thing is my trailer and the height of the door for the height requirement for my trailer. That's why the height itself.

Thank you.

I have to say I There's been a lot alleged that this board really cannot take cognizance of, frankly. We're not an enforcement board. There are places in the town that you can go to ask for enforcement if you have a case, but we can't sit up here and be judge and jury and make our decisions on the basis of testimony. That's not the... It's not in the purview of this board. We can make it clear, as I think we will do if we grant this in our conditions, that all the things that you talked about in terms of commercial endeavors are not to occur on this property. So that would give some teeth to any complaint. We haven't really seen a basis for saying that there is an issue here that is provable within our capacity to prove it. As far as the height of the doors are concerned, the issue of the trailer does make sense to me. I have to admit, I agree that it's going to look silly to have different size doors, and I don't think you're going to be able to see the doors from the neighboring properties from what I saw on the site visit. So in the absence of an impact from the doors themselves, I can't see that we have reason to force you to lower the doors.

Thank you. From a visual appearance, the street slopes up, so you're not going to see it from the street. I will admit that the gentleman that spoke is the property that is most visually affected by it. If you're looking at the house, the neighbors to the left, their property line appears to end before this was cited. It doesn't have a clear line of sight. and the piece that is facing the fence doesn't have any windows that would be above the fence line and you would basically be almost at roof from that perspective.

I admit after our initial meeting, I was expecting to see something when I arrived for the site visit that implied a commercial look to it that made the neighborhood look commercial or that. I didn't see any such thing.

I take great pride in my property.

It seemed like a residential neighborhood in every aspect when I went to walk the property. So without seeing anything myself that confirmed the allegations that have been made, I really don't feel it's appropriate for us to take that into consideration, except in the sense that if we were to approve this tonight, I would want us to say that the use of the structure should remain private storage.

And I agreed to that with the zoning board also, and that the 2nd floor cannot be finished and I am most certain that nobody would want to live in the building with no windows on it. The entire roof line has no. uh i forget the word of what was it gables yes gables coming out of it and i'm sure i'm sure that somebody would voice their complaints to the building department and zoning and planning and code enforcement if i started putting gables on this so why do you have doors up on the upper level they're actually if you look at the drawings i gave you they're supposed to that's a bad representation they're supposed to be the barn style door with no windows If you look at the updated drawing, I don't know why I didn't catch that on my...

There's no windows on the solid door.

This section here is a solid door that looks like the barn style.

And no windows next to it.

There are two windows next to it just to get some natural light in there. But that's the only spot where I could put... And then it's just four through open.

I mean, it's a health, safety, and welfare issue, right? Because, yeah, operable doors with no guards.

Are the doors intended to be operable?

If the doors...

But it's a giant hole that has no guard.

I would have to talk to my engineer about it. If they don't have to be operable, they could just be visual, too. They could be secured. It's just to make the look of the barn to be honest with you. I believe there would be operable, but.

Michael, can you suggest should we.

Put a condition building departments if they're. If they're operable building apartments going to require regard. you don't think this is going to be something that's going to if the doors open in they're going to it's going to be applied on the on the outside if it's if the doors open out it's going to be applied on the inside that's really what it is but the building the building department will likely take that up then i haven't crossed that bridge yet so

okay so so the conditions would be what we said about the use of the structure for storage only personal storage only no living quarters additional screening between the barn the barn and the neighbor additionally to what the zoning required or okay i just want to clarify this is i'm just repeating the zoning boards uh as required by the zoning board resolution um the Caution about the lighting.

The height will be 28 feet.

The stabilization work that you described will be... There is a site drawing that actually did it also. so the stabilization work is described in yeah it was basically what i described in my uh presentation there okay did it did i hit them all i have the feeling there was one more out there i don't know if the board wanted to bring in a comment that was made during the public hearing about there would be no Commercial mechanic shop that that actually was the other 1, there'll be no commercial use.

Correct it is for personal use, personal storage and personal. Use period, and just to clarify, like, my father did say that 2nd floor is not a complete. mirror image of the downstairs it is a much smaller footprint of that upstairs because the way the roofs come in and how everything is designed so it's not and it's specifically uh brought up at the zoning that it can only be used for dry storage and it will remain that way it cannot be finished and inhabited is there plumbing in here there is no plumbing in here okay any other conditions that anyone would add to it if we were to do this

When, when we draft that condition on commercial use, could we make sure it's drafted so that that includes parking and commercial vehicles, which I guess from like a zoning. Technicality perspective could be slipped through the slip through the actually that's a very good point.

Yes, they're permitted. Yeah, they're permitted 1 per code.

Right?

Okay.

And I apologize. I wasn't at the April meeting. Perhaps this was discussed, but. We don't have a history of zoning violations or building code violations issued for this property.

Not that I'm aware of. Okay. Thanks. And that's a good point as well. Okay, in terms of secret, this is a type 2 action under secret. So there's no further. Actions to take under secret. Do I have a motion? to approve the special permit with those conditions or a motion to deny the special permit.

So moved.

So moved. Which one?

I make the motion to approve the special use permit with the conditions we described.

Okay. Is there a second?

Second.

Is there any further discussion? All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Thank you very much. Okay, the next item on the agenda is per town code chapter 125, 133 review of the referral from the town board for a proposed zoning petition and conceptual site plan for a mixed use development and request for the planning board to conduct the required environmental review pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act. And as was pointed out earlier in this case, this is not a project that's been impacted by the change in law um We have a kind of long agenda tonight, complicated agenda. And this is a project that's going to take quite a lot of talking about beyond what we can do in one night. So I'm just going to warn everybody up front that we're going to discuss this project until 845. But at 845, we're going to turn to the rest of our agenda. We're going to get as far as we can. up to that point. But if we try to do it to the end, I don't think we'd finish tonight anyway. And we'd be doing the rest of the agenda at midnight. Isn't healthy. So that said, what we're gonna do tonight is begin to look at the draft part three. So does everybody have that out? And you should have the copy of your part two as well. And forgive me, it's going to take me a minute to find this.

Do you want to call on police service please?

Does the applicant want to make an initial presentation tonight?

No, thank you. Okay.

I thought you'd give me a chance to find my papers. Okay, so I would suggest that we simply start at the beginning.

Just a technical, do we need to open the public hearing? I'm sorry, do we need to do anything in terms of opening the public hearing?

That's a good point. We have continued the public hearing on this. So we should probably I could I have a motion to continue the public hearing to continue the public hearing. Is there a second? Any further discussion? All in favor? All opposed? We are continuing the public hearing. And it is our intent to give people the opportunity to to comment on the Part 3s as we go through them. So the first Part 2 question was the impact on land. And the only moderate to large impact that we identified was that the proposed action may involve construction that continues for more than one year or in multiple phases. So to turn to our draft, part three. I just realized this is not well suited. Yeah, you keep the draft, and I'll keep the part two. Yeah. OK. The proposed action of this term is used throughout the document to designate the zoning petition request to rezone the subject parcel from a split zoning designation of neighborhood business and R2A residence two acres to a fully NB neighborhood business. as well as the construction of the proposed project as defined below. The proposed project, this term is used throughout this document to designate the proposed mixed-use building residential and retail commercial with on-site parking, a new wastewater treatment plant, and related landscaping and appurtenances. These two issues are combined. So impact on land, There's a number of issues where the response was no or small average. The small depth to water table exists. The proposed action may involve construction on slopes of 15% or better, our response. was that there are slopes of 15 or greater that cover approximately 8.3% of the project site. Additionally, 15.6% of the site has 10 to 15% slopes, and approximately 76.1% of the site has 0 to 10% slopes. However, no slopes exceed 25%, so no steep slopes permit is required under town code. And I think that would justify the no or small impact answer that we gave in section one. The proposed action may involve construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within five feet of existing ground surface. We also responded no in that case. There's a discussion of the onsite soils, none of which typically exhibit shallow bedrock conditions. and the current test to six feet didn't encounter any bedrock, so there's no bedrock removal anticipated. However, we would say that in the event the bedrock is encountered, the applicant will rip and or hammer the rock to the required depths as opposed to using blasting. proposed action may involve the excavation and removal of more than 1000 tons of natural material that's not going to happen, so it was a no. There will be approximately 140 cubic yards of removal at most. The proposed action may involve the construction that continues for more than one year or in multiple phases. This was the one thing that had a positive response as a moderate to large impact. The applicant estimates that construction will last approximately 12 to 18 months from initial groundbreaking to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. While the applicant will strive for a shorter construction period, the nature of the site improvements and building construction will likely result in the construction process lasting at least one year. The site and downgrading properties will be protected during all four seasons by conducting the ongoing construction inspections and adhering to the approved sediment and erosion control program. As a requirement of the project stormwater pollution erosion prevention plan, the applicant is required to prepare a sediment and erosion control plan, which addresses how slopes will be protected from soil erosion both during and after construction. silt fencing inlet protection slope stabilization measures such as jute netting and erosion control blankets etc will be introduced as necessary to the construction sequence to ensure the slopes proposed to be disturbed will be monitored throughout the construction process and soil erosion will be prevented to the maximum extent practicable there's a lot there I think I think that that isn't enough to satisfy me that the potential for a large impact can be mediated through the provision of the procedures that have been delineated there. Is there anything else that we should put in there in terms of mitigation? I don't see anything.

I don't see it as a significant impact. These are all reasonable mitigations that are routine for a standard construction process.

I would argue though, and this is probably covered somewhere else, that 1 of the biggest impacts of the construction is also the additional traffic that that's going to cause.

Yeah.

So, I think from a quality of life and a community piece, I'm not dismissing any of these mitigation efforts, but the biggest full and effective community at large, it's not residing proximity will be the.

That's sitting up the traffic during that period that when it's done during the winter, I think that will be even.

we can do about the truck siting.

Do we get to that later?

That's not under impact on the end, right? Well, I'm only bringing it up now because of the construction time period, which means that effect is going to be elongated as well.

Actually, now that you mentioned the impact, it's odd that the issue over construction for more than a year appears under primarily under the impact on land. I guess it's because it indicates that there's potentially a large impact on land because it's time consuming. But I think it might. makes sense in this in this paragraph to to make reference to what you raised with the comment that it will be further discussed in section because you make a very good point about it when we get to the traffic argument there's going to be a different mitigation during construction verse ongoing one two projects built that's fair yeah on those and we've and we've seen it before this board with with other construction issues where sometimes the worst impact on the neighborhood can be the construction itself when it goes on for years and years um the proposed action may result in increased erosion whether from physical disturbance or vegetation removal um and it the answer was no since the town of bedford regulates services to slopes of 25 or greater with a minimum area of 100 square feet goes on about the steep slopes ordinance i actually think some of what is in uh section e really belongs in section f where we're talking about erosion and erosion control the applicant is required to prepare well now but this isn't referring to steep slopes in fact we've we've said that there isn't a steep slopes um so I think we might want to consider putting part of the the part three the part that deals with erosion Makes more sense in the question that asks about erosion than it does in the question that asks about... We could shift from the starting point of describing the SWPPP.

We could shift that down one section.

Yeah, I think that makes sense. Okay. Then the proposed action may result in increased... Oh, sorry. No. Gee. Proposed action is or may be located within a coastal erosion hazard area. That's a fairly no one. It's not. i like simple answers they don't happen very often other impacts there will be a subdivision as part of the project proposed in order to accommodate a requirement of the land lease the applicant has had with the property owner which requires one lot per per building i.e the playhouse and the proposed project each parcel is required to adhere to all dimensional requirements of the town zoning code So that just references the fact that there is another proposed impact. And the conclusion for impact on land that is suggested in the draft is that the planning board finds that the proposed action will not have a significant adverse impact to the land. Right now, any um decisions we make about what to say in these passages are tentative until we've gone through the entire document they don't take finale so for example on something like this I would take a consensus of the board do we agree with that conclusion but that's not binding on us until we've gone through the entire document

Well, as we just got demonstrated up here.

Yeah, exactly. So. And again, many of these things are interrelated in all sorts of different ways. It's part of the beauty of the environmental review process that it highlights those interrelationships. Okay, but what is it the general consensus of the board that we agree with the conclusion in the draft?

Yes. No objection. Yes.

OK, impact on geological features. We basically said no, there are none, and I think I would stand by that. There are none on site, so it's hard to have an impact on them. Three, the impact on surface water. So we did say yes on that. The proposed action will create a new water body. That was a no. And again, that's simply a factual issue. The proposed action may result in an increase or decrease of over 10% or more, or more than a 10-acre increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water. Again, the response is no. Because it simply is not part of the proposal. The proposed action may involve dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from a wetland or body of water. Again, the response is no. There will be no dredging because there is no body of water to dredge. The proposed action may involve construction within or joining a freshwater or tidal wetland or in the bed or banks of any other water body. This one did have a response of moderate to large impact may occur. and the proposed Part III EAF is that the proposed action will involve some construction within locally regulated freshwater wetland buffer, which exists along the northeast, east, and north-southeastern property lines. This wetland was originally investigated and flagged in the field by Paul Janning in 2019, and wetland flags were surveyed at that time, see the site plan appendix. However, the amount of disturbance is approximately 100 linear feet and mitigation measures will be included as part of the project in accordance with state and local regulations fully described in the required SWPPP to be submitted to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. additional regulation pursuant to town code uh 122 wetlands requires the bedford wetlands control commission to review the project and provide additional mitigation members okay sorry i know As part of the current proposal, the applicant's consultant visited the site on November 21 and, based on a review of the vegetation and results of soil auger samples taken, concluded that the wetland body originally delineated by mr janig in 1019 actually depicts the current extent of the wetland it is important to note that the wetland and the 100 foot wetland buffer have already been disturbed by man-made activity including the removal of vegetation regrading of soils creation of a drainage channel east of the property installation of a sewage treatment plant, underground sand filtration system, and asphalt parking lots. Due to the already disturbed nature of the wetland and its 100-foot buffer, as well as the propagation of invasive species such as multiflora rose, wild grapevines, and Japanese stiltgrass, the regulated areas do not possess a high degree of functionality. Does that does everybody agree with that basic statement?

Yes. Yes.

Yes. Can I just 1? Yes. Minor qualification. I totally agree with it, but I. Don't when when it's because there's invasive species there. that can be remedied so it's because of the other work that's been done there in the pavement and the sand and all of that that I can buy this because there's multi-floor rows there no you remove the multi-floor rows that's all yeah I'm trying to that what you say makes a lot of sense and I I almost think we should um

maybe to not take it out of where it is and make it an afterthought.

Or make it a, you know, just put it to the side because that's something that'll get remedied.

Yeah, but that's something that should get remedied.

That's something fixable. That's not, oh, there's invasive species there, so forget that property.

Yeah, no, it's a very important point and one we've run into before.

But the overall assessment, I agree with.

And it wouldn't take much changing it because it is the last sentence.

Yeah, it would be pretty easy to fix that.

It should be noted that the project has the opportunity of taking care of the propagation of invasive species.

That also are present on this, in this area.

Right. Under existing conditions, the majority of the regulated area is already comprised of asphalt parking areas, a sand filter associated with the property's sewage treatment plant, and previously disturbed and regraded areas. The majority of the proposed disturbances to the wetland buffer will occur on previously disturbed lands. The town's wetlands control commission provided commentary in their response letter to the planning board dated 5-14-2026. The wetlands and buffer on the subject are in poor condition. Much of the area has been disturbed over the years. There is asphalt parking in a large area of the buffer and in certain areas, particularly the wetlands proper, a significant growth of invasive vegetation. I don't know, again, if you want to modify that at all no this is just a statement of what it's not and so we can okay so i think that's fine areas in the buffer have been regraded in the past and there is evidence that the fill contains debris and other foreign matter actually we can't change that anyway because that's the wetlands words comment wetlands yeah And then currently, there are no stormwater best management practices within the site to capture and treat the developer's development stormwater runoff. The stormwater sheet flows untreated from the asphalt parking lot directly into the wetland proper. In addition, the existing treated effluent discharge from the current sewage treatment plant flows directly to the wetland proper. It is noted that the existing sewage treatment plant does not comply with current New York State Department of Environmental Conservation or Westchester County Department of Health standards. The proposed action includes the construction of a new sewage treatment plant to update the 1970s built one, which will adhere to all current New York State DEC and Westchester County Department of Health design standards. The updated treatment plan will provide a much improved effluent discharge to the wetland as compared to the current substandard effluent discharge. In addition, a robust wetland mitigation program will be introduced, which will include native herbaceous, shrub, and tree plantings adjacent to and possibly within the wetland proper. In addition, the property will be evaluated for invasive plant species and an invasive species removal and management program will be implemented to remove and control any future propagation of these invasive species. The applicant is also considering implementing the previous the impervious pavement in certain areas which will reduce the volume of stormwater entering the adjacent wetland. And then there's another quote from the wetland buttons control commission, which I'm not going to read because my voice is getting tired. I think I may switch in a moment, but before we do, the one question I had, oops, sorry, what did I do? I just managed to jump ahead 15 pages where we jumped ahead quite a lot. We're only in section 3, I think. Just impact on groundwater.

The turbidity in a water body.

i'm going to pick it up well which is three we're up to three three three this is what this is yeah let's add some patient numbers to the next draft

The proposed action may create turbidity in a water body either from upland erosion runoff or by disturbing bottom sediments. So part two of the EAF response was no or small. Our response to this in Part 3 is during construction, there would be erosion control measures in place and mitigation measures installed to keep any upland erosion from causing any turbidity in any water bodies or disturbance to the bottom sediments. There are also no permanent actions post-construction, which will cause turbidity to a water body or disturb bottom sediments. The applicant is required to provide a full stormwater pollution prevention plan for ultimate approval by the town engineer and followed with New York City DEC to receive coverage of the New York State DEC SPDES general permit stormwater discharges from construction activity. A significant component of the SPDES stormwater general permit is the design and implementation of the sediment and erosion control plan. The SWPPP and sediment and erosion control plan outlines specific controls and maintenance inspection protocol to be adhered to during the entire period of construction. For 3F, proposed action may include construction of one or more intakes for a draw of water from the surface. Part 2 and 3 of the EIF are no, another of Deirdre's favorite simple responses. For G, the proposed action may include construction of one or more outfalls for the discharge of wastewater to surface waters. Part 2 of the EIF, this is one of the moderate to large impacts. Part 3, draft response. The proposed action includes the construction of a new sanitary sewer collection system and wastewater treatment facility. The proposed action will temporarily disturb an existing wetland buffer and construct a new outfall for discharge of wastewater to surface waters. However, the installation of the new treatment system will improve water quality by utilizing modern technology, and the highest treatment standards provide improvement over the current system, which does not meet regulatory standards. In conclusion, the effluent will be cleaner than the currently discharged surface water. For letter H, the proposed action may cause soil erosion or otherwise create a source of stormwater discharge that may lead to siltation or other degradation of receiving water bodies. Part two of the EAF also had a moderate to large impact and the draft part three response. During construction, there will be erosion controls in place and mitigation measures provided to keep any upland erosion from causing any turbidity in any water bodies or disturbance to bottom sediment. There are also no permanent actions post-construction, which will cause turbidity to a water body or to disturb bottom sediments. A full SWPPP will be prepared and endorsed by the town engineer and filed with the New York State DEC to receive coverage under the New York State DEC SPDES general permits or more distressed from construction activity. Oh, wow, we've read all that before. Sorry, moving forward. Letter I, the proposed action may affect the water quality of any water bodies within or downstream of the proposed action. Part two of the EAF said this was also a moderate to large impact. And part three, draft response, the proposed action may affect the water quality of water bodies within or downstream of the site of the proposed action and stormwater quality will be addressed in accordance with the guidelines set forth in New York State DEC SBDES General Permit. In addition to the mitigated measures proposed to protect the site from erosion during construction, the project stormwater management program will be designed to protect the water quality and provide flood control to protect downgrading properties. Additionally, it's important to note current sewage treatment plant that exists for the site is operating under outdated Westchester County Department of Health and New York State DEC standards. Currently the existing plant does not comply with the most updated technology and is discharged and is treated effluent directly into the adjacent town regulated wetland. The proposed project includes the construction of a new sewage treatment plant, which will be designed to the highest level of treatment currently available, including satisfying all Westchester County Department of Health and New York State DEC standards. The result will be a great improvement in the water quality discharging from the project site. proposed infiltration area will be sized to capture and treat the water quality volume generated from the project site the green infrastructure techniques and stormwater practices will be sized based on chapter 10 enhanced phosphorus removal supplement of the new york state stormwater design manual due to the fact that the green infrastructure techniques in the stormwater practices will be sized to meet the standards of chapter 10 the phosphorus goals will be met the proposed development will be designed to meet that both New York State DEC and TANA bed requirements, which include the capture and temporary storage of water quality volume. The water quality volume is designed as an estimated one year, 24 hour post-construction runoff volume. There are errors within the project limits that are currently developed. Chapter 9 of the New York State DEC stormwater design manual states that if a project includes both new development and redevelopment activities, treatment will be required for 25% of the existing impervious area and 100% treatment of the new impervious area. The weighted average for determining the total WQV is outlined in the SWPPP. The stormwater practice will be designed to capture the estimated runoff value resulting from the WQV calculations over the post-development watershed. Pretreatment will provide in the form of the deep sump catch basins and hydrodynamic treatment units installed upstream of the proposed infiltration system. The pretreatment facilities will be sized based on the water quality calculations and soil percolation test results. Channel protection volume CPV is required to protect stream channels from erosion. Channel protection volume is accomplished by providing 24-hour extended detection of the one and 24-hour storm events. Sorry, one year and 24-hour storm events. For enhanced phosphorus removal, the water quality volume is sized for the one year, 24-hour storm event. Therefore, the only additional requirement to meet the channel protection volume is to provide 24 hour extended detention of the water quality volume. The infiltration system will treat the one year storms. Therefore, the requirements for channel protection have been met. Overbank flood control QP is required to prevent an increase in the frequency and magnitude of out of bank flooding generated by urban development. Overbank flood controls require storage to attenuate the post-development 10-year 24-hour peak discharge rate below pre-development rates. The requirement of overbank flood control will be treated by infiltrating the 10-year 24-hour storm event within the proposed cold-tack recharger infiltration systems. The peak stormwater runoff discharge rates for proposed conditions will be reduced to a value below those of the corresponding existing conditions. Extreme flood control criteria require the prevention to the increased risk of flood damage from large storm events, maintain the boundaries of the 100 year floodplain and to protect the physical integrity of stormwater management practices. Extreme flood control requires storage to attenuate the post development 100 year 24 hour peak discharge rate to below pre development rates. The requirement of extreme flow control will be achieved by mitigating the 100-year 24-hour storm event within the proposed infiltration system. The peak stormwater runoff discharge rate for the proposed conditions will be reduced to a value below those of the corresponding existing conditions for all analyzed storm events. In the end, post-construction, there would be a better water quality than currently exists. for J, we'll finish section 3 and that'll bring us right to 845. I noticed. What? I noticed. I'll pace my reading. The proposed action may involve the application of pesticides or herbicides in or around any water body. Part 2 and 3 of the EEF said no, pesticides or herbicide applications are not permitted per a town of Bedford code 122-8B and we will comply with that code. For 3K, the proposed action may require The construction of new or expansion of existing waste for the treatment facilities part 2, the EF said moderate to large part 3 draft response says the proposed the proposed action will require the construction of a new expanded waste for the treatment facility. The new sewage treatment plant will replace the 1970s built 1, which will adhere to all current New York City, DC, and Western's kind of Department of health design standards. The facility will be based on moving bed bioreactor, MBBR technology, which is proven and simple to operate. The major advantages include compact, efficient design, which is less than half of conventional plants, low sludge generation, low visual impact with simple maintenance requirements while improving the quality of the water bodily throughout the quality effluent. The updated treatment plant will provide a much improved effluent discharge to the wetland as compared to the current substandard effluent discharge. In addition, a robust wetland mitigation program will be introduced, which will include native habeas, shrub, and tree plantings adjacent to and possibly within the wetland proper. In addition, the property will be evaluated for invasive plant species, and an invasive species removal and management program will be implemented to remove and control any future propagation of these invasive species. The applicant is also considering implementing pervious pavement in certain areas of the site, which will reduce the volume of stormwater entering the adjacent wetland. So in conclusion, the planning board finds, according to this, that the proposed action will not have a significant adverse impact to surface water.

Okay. So how does everyone feel about that? Is this, is what we've read and talked about sufficiently Believable that we accept that.

Yeah, there's no doubt that we're upgrading a substandard water treatment.

That's really has said as well.

No, nothing we've heard actually changes that. It is a couple of minutes before 845, and I did say, I think that this is as far as we'll get on the part three today. The impact on surface waters is an important part of this. But I did say that I would open it to members of the public if you have comments on the part of what we covered today or questions about any of what you heard. Is there any questions from members of the audience about this? Any questions from the Zoom? In that case, could I have a motion to adjourn the public hearing until our next? Will it be our next meeting?

Move to adjourn. Adjourned.

13th, I believe.

So second. I have a motion and a second. All in favor of adjourning the public hearing? Aye. All opposed? The public hearing is adjourned. We got as far as we could get. And we will see you again in July. We'll try and learn to talk faster.

You too.

Okay, the next time. The next item on our agenda is to consider a site plan and Steve slopes application for the creation of 15 multifamily units, three AA FFH units with on site parking and landscaping pursuant to section 125 dash 86 and 102 respectively. This is the owner is 150 Bedford Road, LLC. Contract Vendee. The applicant is Stephen Helms, the Helms Group, LLP. The address is 150 Bedford Road in Katona. And haven't we been adjourning a public hearing for this one as well? So can we still open it even though we didn't have a sit that way. Could I have a motion to reopen the public hearing? So moved.

Second.

Any further discussion? All in favor? Aye. All opposed? We are reopening the public hearing. This is as you heard at the beginning of the session today, this is one of the applications that is affected by the new state environmental review questions what we were going to do tonight was begin to go through part three or part two of the eaf there will be no part two of the eaf because the state has taken the position that this is going to be exempt from environmental review On a personal level, I'm not the least bit pleased about this. I don't think it's the right decision, but that's why I'm just on the planning board.

The government's left and built correct?

Yes.

Yes. And and and that. It's not saying anything negative about the project or where that environmental review would go. Exactly. It is simply about the policy.

Yeah. You know, I suspect that some folks out there are upset by this, and you should be. but there isn't anything that we can change about that. And we're lucky in that our zoning laws and our site plan review laws are specific enough that at this point, I don't think there's really anything that we would have covered under the part two that we won't cover anyway. So, What we are doing essentially is beginning the site plan review process. And I believe the applicant has made some changes that you might want to present. I've realized that this is still sort of a public hearing and we've got this. I know it wasn't listed, but we opened it anyway. If we could turn the posters around so the public can see.

I have it on a desk if the IT guy is here. That would be great.

I have a feeling people in the audience might want to be able to see the renderings.

We're soaking now.

Well, they're trying to get that up. Want me to flip this around? Yes. Well, they're trying to get this up. I think what we should do is take issue by issue. And because we have the new renderings, I think maybe we should start with one of the difficult issues and talk about scale tonight. nobody's ever accused me of taking the easy way out. But the issue of whether these buildings are out of scale has been come up in many of the responses we've gotten from from the public. And I think it's we owe it to ourselves into to the town into the applicant all to to get the issue out in the into the discussion and walk through.

Good evening Madam Chair, members of the planning board. Just give a brief introduction or a review if I could and I'll be happy to go into it. I see there's an audience and I don't want to take too much time. I'm here with Mark Picucci, one of the owners, and Dan O'Connor, engineer from Ralph Mastromonaco's office. This project came before your board about a year ago. We did go to zoning board, but they couldn't vote, so we went back to the planning board. It's a vacant lot. We designed a three-story building with a full basement for 15 apartments. There will be six two-bedroom apartments and nine one-bedroom apartments, full basement, laundry facilities, storage. mechanical rooms, sprinkler rooms. There's a front and a rear entrance. The building coverage for this CB zone district, this is a permitted use multifamily in the CB zone district. And we're allowed 20% building coverage. Our building was designed the footprint at 19.8. So we do comply with the code for CB's own district. Also, the impervious coverage is 80%, and we are 77.31. So both those components comply. We do need to seek two variances. One is for a deficiency for two spaces. The other one is for a use variance, which I think is going to be negated at some point. It was an old code that because of the footprint exceeds 4,000 square feet for a single use. I know your board has the flexibility to consider compact parking. We do have an opportunity on the South side of the lot. We have where we have 10 spaces. We could take 8 of those spaces and make them compact cars. And we would comply with our variance. We wouldn't need a variance. We need 26. we have 24. So we could pick up two spaces by just allowing compact cars. And the code says, well, you're allowed up to one third. So 24, one third, eight spaces. So we can, if your board would consider that, we can have one of those variances go away. But a two space deficiency on a project of this scale isn't too crazy. I've been involved with other projects and We needed quite a bit more, but that's that.

I think it's something we should consider, but it's a hard balance because cars have gotten bigger, not smaller and the compact car spaces. I'm not sure.

I'd want to get some input from February 13, 2025. we obtained approval from DPW for the sewage connection for this project. That was 1 of the 1st steps. Subsequent to that, we did reach out to the department and they saw our plans and felt comfortable and gave us an email. Uh, that they approved it as designed with the Eve height and the driveway access and all of that. I know there was a comment and the memo from Kimberly corner. Yeah, that was addressed. um traffic study was submitted there was an error on my part uh i made reference to 115 foot site distance it's actually 365 feet site distance in both ways so that's more than what's required so it's safe ingress and egress to the site the sidewalk will be extended to allow foot traffic on the east side of 117 or befford road um uh let's see

the size of the sidewalk what's that the size of the sidewalk five feet wide jessica is that like a comfortable sidewalk because the one normal sidewalk is five feet it's normal okay yeah parking is in located in the rear of the property behind the building

Um, fully sprinkler building, um. At our last board meeting, 1 of the members mentioned, can we see another angle from the airway shopping center? I do have that displayed here on the. Bottom left, and 1 of these, and you're all happy to come up and look at them. To give you that advantage perspective, um. There's a, but 140, which is a airway tractor building. That's a. separate ownership, but we'll focus on this project here. I have a building that I designed down across from the mobile station 77 Bedford Road. It just went through a painting and I have a picture of that and the actual elevation of that building. And this building is actually smaller in width than the gambrel on that building. I have an image there that's displayed to give you 3D. You could actually drive by, walk by and look at that building.

What's the square footage of that building?

Uh, that 1 on 77, I'd have to get back to you on that, but this building is 4600 square foot footprint. The white building at, uh. The white building, the 2 story white building on the right on the South of this is 2200 square foot building. And the apartment building that just went up at 60, almost 6400 square foot footprint. I think the building has been pushed back, so it aligns with the 152 building. So when you're driving north, it's not going to project out. And when you're coming out of sunrise, it's not a full facade. It's only 28 feet wide. And then it steps back 28 feet, and it goes over 30 feet.

So it's not like a 100-foot long building.

It was designed with a footprint that allows steps, you know, visual. So it breaks up the building mass. It does comply with the height. It's a gamble style building. We'll have some stone shingles.

As well fiberglass roof any chance of solar on the roof.

We have an opportunity to look at that. I know it's the solar ready in the town code. We have to implement that. We certainly look into that also. Electric type of hot water heaters will probably be put in the basement. Which is another requirement to keep the index down. So we'll address all that. But then you have anything you want to add to this? I know there was some comments that we're working through with Jim Hans office.

Um, and, uh, we received a review letter from the town engineer, and we're addressing that. We're updating this whip to address all the comments and making any minor last revisions on the on the site plans. And hopefully we'll have that to back to the board soon.

Thank you. Yeah.

We working on just getting the 1 getting imagery online, which I think is helpful to show the context again. It's not an architecture review board, but it will give you this character the building. So, that's looking South from arrow way and the building is again, gamble 3 stories. Tried to break it up and set it back. So it's not just a square building. You want to try to get light and ventilation in the apartments cross ventilation. That's why it was designed that way. The color we're not sure, but it's not going to be white as for sure. There's some comment about that. The accessing that I think is. unfortunately there's not a lot of opportunity to landscape between Arroway and this building because of the driveway of Arroway. However, that owner may do something with a planting strip and try to bring in some vegetation to break that up when you're driving south. You really won't see this building driving north unless you're right in front of it and looking at it. But again, an example would be the one down at 77 Bedford Road is a very similar scale. Um, building that you could walk by and look at. That's pretty much I said. I actually have a rendering of our building scale and I can superimpose it to the one down on Bedford road. Just if anybody wants to walk up and look at the scale, I'd be happy to overlay it.

Is there anyone in the public who's interested in. There is a problem. There's a little bit of a problem with the signs blocking my vision of smiling faces in the audience.

I'm not sure when the CB zone was enacted. Was it early 80s? Because this has been a CB zone.

It's been a CB zone for a long time. It was modified. CB zones modified in the 90s, but...

I thought 83, but not in ways that again, this is a permitted use. We looked at the property to develop offices, retail restaurant, and it just wasn't the parking wouldn't work. And I don't think it was suitable for that location.

Can we I think we're going to ask you to move the posters over to to the side so that we can see. You can still keep them pointed at the audience because it's in some ways more.

That's a great picture to capture.

Was there someone who did want to look at that overlay?

Yes. Anybody want to?

I think someone wanted to make a public comment. Okay.

All right. Right. Are you saying your building's less in height?

The new building's less in height.

The new building's a little smaller. This is a picture of it.

It's a little smaller.

Yeah. Interesting. I wondered about that one. I think that the scale is a reasonable thing for us to start with because it's one of the major issues that's been raised by the public. And it is a part of the site plan analysis is how things fit in. So I'd like to start by asking my fellow board members if they've got anything they'd like to say about the scale. How are you leaning in terms of how it fits in?

I mean, I'll say it's better than an empty parking lot.

No, I appreciate the scale. The fact that it's been broken down and scaled the relief and the movement and the elevations, even as you turn around the corner and go down.

The drive that's well done. It's not. Block like something else.

This is the footprint of the 3 buildings, just to give you some context and that site image there is really captures from a bird's eye view. The whole development. Yeah, I think it's coming and it's, it's bookend. Yeah, it's a long elongated. It was designed with the length of the lot. So.

I have to admit that I do not think that this building is out of scale with Katona, and I know people are going to disagree about this, but I almost felt during some of the discussions that we were all walking through different Katonas. I've lived here for more than 40 years and walked Katona Avenue once or twice. I live right on Bedford Road in the middle of town. and the descriptions of of katona that would put this building way out of scale just didn't match my my feeling about the community nor did i think that this building or the earlier one that was built was going to be the ruination of katona or turn it into southern westchester where you're mostly dealing with 1920s, 1930s architecture. We've chosen to protect the bulk of our Victorian architecture, and that's made a huge difference, and there's nothing in the zoning that's going to change that. so i decided i i needed to have something a little bit more solid than my own opinion about scale that scale really is a data-driven aspect of the the issue so i did ask the director of planning to look up a couple of buildings in in Katona for me, just to buildings that seemed on the large size to me to see how they compared with the applicants building, which is 1300 1300 800 square feet, and is that building large enough to be a threat the town of village improvement societies said although i don't know where they got this from that it was the largest building that the town had ever built on a lot that small as i'll mention later on that's actually not true i'm not sure it makes a difference either because the size of the building visually doesn't really It's not visually impacted by the size of the lot itself. You can't tell on the ground what the lot size is unless it's completely fenced in. In terms of its immediate surroundings on the southern outskirts of Katona, the obvious first comparison to make with 150 is 156, which has just been built.

That is larger than this building.

It's 15,669 square square feet. the 150 is 1869 square feet smaller than that one that however 156 may not be the best comparison because that isn't a new building and what some people have been predicting is that we're setting a precedent for bigger buildings and so using that as the precedent for this building i can see my go in the wrong direction. However, I would like to point out that 156 is not a precedent for this because it's not an unprecedented building itself. Next door is the building at 140, which although it is only one story high, is 74,000 square feet. which is a little bit larger than these, like almost twice as much. And it's not exactly a gem of Victorian architecture as far as I can tell. I'm not sure that the 1950s car dealership look is going to be damaged by the rather attractive building that Mr. Helms has designed for the lot next to it. But let's go a little further down the street to what else is here. And lo and behold, there is the medical building. The medical building has been there for quite some time. People have actually said that the 150 building will destroy Katona. It's so large that it will completely kill the ambience of our small community. But then why didn't the medical building at 23,000 square feet kill Katona? We seem to survive the medical building quite well. It's also not a particularly, it's not a building that particularly nods to Katona's architectural

background and history I apologize because I believe him is your father's building yeah that was designed as a two-story building and then they added the third floor it's um it's also built into a mountain so you don't really I would say it's a difficult building to ignore it is significantly larger than anything that's proposed here

but what people objected to primarily theoretically was that it was out of scale with what's on Katona Avenue but it's not out of scale with Katona Avenue either um I call to mind the building that the Katona restaurant was, it's the J. Sturdy Cafe now is in. It's one of the oldest buildings, one of the original buildings in New Katona, historically very significant. And that building is in fact just 800 square feet, sorry, 600 some square feet smaller than the building that we are looking at tonight. It's Let's see. It's 13,152 square feet, whereas the one we're looking at tonight is 13,800. that's not a significant difference but more than that the building at that's only 600 some odd square feet smaller is on a lot that is less than half the size of the lot that this building is is built on so from the very earliest days of katana buildings of this size were not common but not um unknown either and in fact this was one of the first buildings built in in katona

And that has kept up to this day.

Are we all familiar with the brick building that's across the street from Taza? I think people should recognize that one, which I believe was also your father's building. That one is 18,254 square feet, significantly larger than the building.

Remember what was there? The oil tanks.

Yes, there were the park tanks and they were even bigger, I guess. And it is built on a lot that is, let's see, I lost my place here, a lot that is 21,680 square feet, which is smaller than the lot that 150 is built on. So where KVIS got the idea that the town had never built anything that big on that small lot, I'm not sure because I don't know if this is the only one, but this is the building that was built some time ago that is larger. than the current building. So the point I'm making here is that how do we say that this is way out of scale when so many buildings that are familiar to us, some of which the the building at the corner of Parkway and Katona Avenue being one of them, some of them which we would scream bloody murder if somebody tried to tear it down because it's historically important. When there are buildings that size that are part of Katona, it becomes difficult to say that this one is enormously out of scale. And it is, in fact, scaled to the zone it's in. It is in the ZB zone. Bedford for a long time has argued, not all towns do, but we have argued that multifamily housing fits in commercial districts. And we have always, as far as I'm aware, since we've had zoning, actually wanted to encourage the mixed use of multifamily housing and retail. This building is in scale in part because it has the same needs that a retail structure has. The retail and office buildings tend to be somewhat larger than residential buildings, single family homes. They tend to need formal parking lots. They tend to need more elaborate site plans. They have to be able to maneuver for large-scale deliveries and garbage pickup. It all aims towards a particular kind of site planning, and it's a site planning that multifamily buildings match much the way office buildings do. It's one of the reasons why office buildings are easy to convert to multifamily buildings and vice versa. because their general layouts are similar. And that's my answer to the question that KVIS proposed when they complained that this proposal put on a posted stamp-sized area at the Gateway of Katona two rental projects, and that somehow this was automatically out of scale. Would it be out of scale if we put two restaurants there? If we put two retail stores there? We have a liquor store and a grocery store in the shopping center. Is that too many retail stores? Why is a multifamily residence, what is it that makes a multifamily residence inherently different from a retail establishment? Not the architecture, not the size. The parking requirement for the residential structure is usually lower. The traffic impacts of the residential structures are usually lower. I can't figure out what the objection to having two apartments in this area is when there is no objection to having two restaurants or two retail establishments. What is the extra impact in having people living in a home across the way? If this were an attempt to put this kind of a building in the middle of a single family residential neighborhood, I'd be there arguing against it myself. That's the purpose of zoning, is to put things that have life needs together. And a multifamily apartment of 15 units would still need a parking lot and be a larger size and need the special site plan issues, whether it was located in the CB zone or residential zone, but in the residential zone, it would be out of character. And I think maybe what people were unknowingly thinking to themselves as they talked about how this wouldn't fit in the ambience of Katona is that they were thinking of the residential district, the historic district and the homes around it. And I'd agree with you, you're right, that wouldn't belong in the middle of that. That's why it's not zoned for that. It's not something we encourage in that part of the world. So that's a somewhat, I apologize, long winded discussion of why I don't think that it's legitimate to say the scale of this building is a problem where Katonis involved. I think that the fact that we need housing demands that we do something. I think the building is attractively designed. I think that We also need to take advantage of the opportunities we have in infill areas to put in housing, because quite frankly, what Albany wants is more of it. What Albany asked for over a year ago was the entire center of town being rezoned to 25 units per acre, which you could only accomplish by tearing down much of our historic architecture. If we turn down the opportunities for well-designed multifamily housing on empty lots that are within the coverage and within the zoning, we're going to find ourselves forced to do things that we don't want to do in the future.

this is on sewer and right and water distribution can i have one more wonderful summary which i thought was great i think it will enhance the character of katona i think it will if if the landscaping and the sidewalk are done well it will sort of extend the neighborhood business zone feeling out rather than the commercial feeling in. And I think the other two projects that are there, the recent multifamily and the building between that and this sort of start to do that. They're not like the medical center. They are much more on the scale of walking and and if there are enough trees and shrubs and people from there are walking, it will extend that feeling, which I think is a really lovely thing compared to what was bringing you at the end, especially with the development future development next door.

If it's a 1 story development, just do facade facelift. That's a dealership. It's kind of tired. That's a big hunk of real estate there, so that's got to be done really nice to. complement the gateway to come into Katona from the south end.

I would like to see us from this point on be able to be discussing the details of how we make this the best building it can be. It's well on its way, I think. But in terms of looking at landscaping and possibilities, I've got a question about lighting, which I'll save for later. But I'd like us to really take a serious look at site plan issues.

Those are all things that we'll address.

Yeah. OK.

That's all part of the community center. They just added a pretty good piece of real estate that they're building the size.

Yeah. The pine on the car.

That's a good idea.

I was just reading that that piece of the zoning and I'm kind of confused how that would get us anywhere. You would still have to reserve the land. For the normal sized parking spaces require them to be installed because the compact parking is not working out. So I just, I can't imagine how we would lay that out in a way that would.

Resolved the parking deficiency, but I mean, if you have variance, I have no problem seeking a variance from zoning board. I feel comfortable that they would grant it for that relief.

I'd point out, by the way, that the main reason, I don't know whether you can get on their agenda or not, or whether you want to at this point, but the major reason that you couldn't go, they couldn't do anything before was because we had to do Seeker first, and that's no longer an issue.

Yeah, their deadline was June 4th for the July meeting. They don't have a meeting in August.

Correct.

So the meeting is in September.

The variance, I think it's worth the conversation for you to have with the. So, I think it's worth the conversation just to speak with the zoning department to see how that agenda is looking. Yeah. Given exactly what the chair just said, the hold up there was because of seeker and none of that's no longer an issue for you. It's worth to bring up the discussion for your client.

Would they possibly do in August or is that off the table?

I'm not sure. But that's not historically their practice.

Okay.

So I don't know. This is an open

And it still is an open hearing. And I think I've at least got to grant the opportunity for anyone in the audience who wants to discuss the issue of specifically the issue of scale to make a comment.

Is there anyone who has any? Yes. Yes, please.

Hi, my name is Lloyd Truffleman. I've lived in Katona for 30 years, either fortunately or unfortunately. This is the first time I've been in a planning board meeting. The reason I'm here is I was just reading, it was a couple of weeks ago in the Katona Lewisboro Times about this project and what seemed to be just a really strident opposition to it. So I just thought I'd come here and remind everybody that, you know, Katona really needs new housing. Our available housing stock is very limited and it's out of reach for younger people and new families and older residents looking to downsize, first responders, municipal employees, and others on a tight budget. And I know this isn't going to be quote unquote, affordable housing, but it's going to be a lot cheaper than your typical single family home in Katona. It's going through a very active review and I'm sure some tweaks are necessary and will happen. It's on a commercial strip next to an out-of-business lawn mower store. It will allow new people to move into the community, provide more customers for local stores, increase town tax revenues. I believe it helps to meet the housing goals outlined in Bedford's comprehensive plan. And it looks great. And obviously, the Helms Group has been active in the community for years. So it's not as if some outside developers coming in and wanting to bulldoze the historic district and put up a bunch of 40-story towers. And also with this thing about save Katona, as everyone knows, Katona can't be overdeveloped. The land use restrictions around the reservoirs pretty much ensure that. So, you know, let's just keep to the community spirit that Katona and Bedford has. And let's try and avoid nimbyism and, you know, welcome new people who can come into town and go to our stores and go to our schools and find some place to live that's affordable. So, again, I'm not an expert in any of this, but I hope that... camera realize that this isn't you know co-op City being built in the in the in the middle of a small rural community and it's a nice little building for what it's worth and hopefully it'll get built and hopefully we'll have more people happily living here so I just wanted to say thanks thank you is there anyone else who would like to make a comment anyone on the zoom who would

want to make a comment.

Okay, well, my own inclination at this point, because we still do have other items on the agenda, is to ask the applicant to continue to work on Um, the details of landscaping and the rest and not have this.

Sorry, I have a small question, but there's someone on the zoom.

Oh, there's someone on the Zoom.

Yes. Yeah. I just have two questions. I mean, one of my questions is, what are we saying that this impact is going to have on the schools? in Katona, mostly KES, because I've heard, I mean, I'm a new resident here and I've heard a lot about the need for more housing. But, you know, with more housing and more families moving in, right, that I mean, great for local businesses sometimes, but that also has an impact on our local schools and crowding and the amount of children in classrooms. And so I was just wanting to think, what are some of those trickle down effects or what are we giving? Is there thought going into those kind of issues as well?

Yes, there has been thought into those issues to date over the last 10 years or so. The problem for Katona and Lewis Rose schools has been declining enrollment almost every year. If I were still a parent, I'd be more worried about schools closing for lack of enrollment. Then being it's simply not the direction things things are going in and by a long shot, they're not going there right now. The demographic studies with the school district did not support the idea that additional housing is going to. Create overcrowding problems keep in mind.

These are also mostly 1 bedroom, 9, 1 bedroom, then 62 bedroom. So. Right there more than half the building is not geared towards half the people attending this point. But the declining enrollment is very true that we are moving as a. Town and school district into a less crowded, not more crowded situation.

We closed 1 school just a few years ago.

But the issues nowadays are that, I mean, from what I've been hearing and from my experience with the schools, the class sizes are larger than the class sizes that I had in my New York City schools. And that a lot of people are in agreement that Lewisboro should have never been closed because what's happening is that more families are moving into the area and that enrollments are going up. But another.

Up until that last comment, I would have agreed with you, but if the people who are moving in have children, they're not sending them to the schools because the enrollment is not going up, it's going down. I believe it went down this year, more than they had predicted it was going to. I could be wrong about that.

I mean, I know even at increase Miller, they would, they built the extra classrooms. Those classrooms are not even fitting the amount of kids because there are more kids. So I, I, I mean, I'm not trying to, I think there's, I'm not totally convinced in this, um, in the declining enrollment, because I see that, you know, I think from just looking at the kindergarteners, but I'm, I'm glad to hear that the apartment, that the proposal is that there won't be this huge influx of children.

No, they certainly won't be. You said you had two questions?

Oh, no, that one's okay. Thank you.

Are there any other questions?

I had a small question if the public is done.

Yeah. Go for it.

So you mentioned the hybrid water heaters and I just Figured I'd clarify that this is not going to be an all electric building. You're planning to hook up to gas and no, it might be electric.

Okay. Most likely, but we'll run the numbers on that. We do have gas there, right?

Mark.

Yeah, yeah, but certainly the solar hybrid.

Yeah, that'd be great. And just encourage that to the extent I can. I know it's not a site planning issues, but we have to follow the hers and all that. Sure.

If you're allowed to do the gas. Gas in a new building, but so many places have stopped that.

Yeah, I think for this. Building type in this particular place, if you already have the gas in the, in the ground, yeah, the, the code, the building codes, not currently. The electric electric buildings act was temporarily suspended.

So, okay. Thank you.

Yeah.

Okay, any other questions comments. Is there anything in particular you would want us to do?

Just so my client understands that the planning board is behind the project because we're going to go to the next level then to address the balance of the engineer's comments. Yeah.

I would hope that you would get the vague idea that I was somewhat in favor of it at this point. I wasn't trying to be subtle. okay thank you no um i mean i know some people are going to feel that we had our minds made up from the beginning and that isn't really true i was concerned about the size of the building until i started looking at what was around it um i think i went into it wishing it could be smaller and i'm at the point now where i would object to it being made smaller frankly

But I think it's the right size, 20% controls that. I mean, that's 20% will add 19.8. so we followed the laws very strict on that.

And that's what's supposed to happen with.

Yeah, we were 30%. I could see that the pushback, but it's designed to be today's your code.

So, so is could I have a motion to adjourn the public hearing? Second. All in favor all opposed public hearings is adjourned until we can go to the zoning board next step.

I would recommend you make your case and put that request in tomorrow morning.

Okay. Okay, thank you. Thank you all.

All right. And if you could work a little bit on landscaping, also, there was a comment on the lighting.

I should mention this quickly where you said, well, it meant that the spirit of the lighting, because you couldn't see the source. There are two different issues. Not being able to see the source is one, but the excess lighting is the other. Because though you might want your building or your yard brightly lit, your neighbor, whoever that may be, may not want it.

I might be putting a shield on it, Dan. I don't know.

So we do expect that part of the code to be fixed. Shields will do it. There are different ways of doing it. You get to light your property, not everybody else's. Yes. They were going to make it dark skies compliant.

Just saying in addition to what you're saying.

Okay. Next item on our agenda is a continued application for to consider consider a steep slopes application for the construction of a new single-family home with on-site septic landscaping and related appurtenances pursuant to town code 102 um the owner applicant is edmondo simone uh the property is on nottingham road 7 nottingham road in bedford hills No.

Good evening, my name is Peter Scott. I'm an architect and engineer representing the applicant tonight. We went to the ZBA and also we did a lot of work with the town engineer from Mahan. And a couple things took place on this project. They wanted me to mitigate the extent of the walls proposed to work with the contours on the property. And we took that time to basically mitigate a lot of visual issues with this proposal, which is depicted on the plan I have in front of you. Again, the property's on a half-acre lot. We're complying with half of the coverage, half of the impervious. We are compliant with the side yard setbacks. We're complying with the front yard setback except for a four-foot variance for a front porch overhang. And we need variances in the rear because our property looks like a – it's not straight in the rear yard, so we have to get a variance for a rear yard setback. You see it bowing in the back. It's long and narrow. So our tasks were to basically, again, reduce the visual impacts of this wall. We did appear before the zoning board. The architect on the board, on the ZBA, liked the plan and thought we were successful with that. But what we did is we did a backup area. We tucked it into the hillside. You can't see it from the street. We have a big planter area in front of this wall to mitigate the height. We are attempting to basically lower the wall if we have exposed rock in the future, but we're designing it to support overburden if it's present. We are putting extensive tree planting in the rear where we need a variance. There's a mixed species of evergreens. In the front, we have another variety of more decorative trees in the front of the property. Again, the building meets the front yard setback except that overhang roof, which is depicted in our elevation. It's similar to what other houses have in the neighborhood. There's three types of houses, one of them which has a overhang as shown. Three bedroom house. We pushed the house in lower than our garage area. And our garage area has a little deck above it. But we compressed everything into the ground to reduce the visual impact of our house. And it's a standard house of the same size of everyone else in the neighborhood, same footprint, except we have an attached garage because we can't get underneath the garage with the proposal. A big portion of design that we had is we centralized the driveway versus putting it on the side of the property. Again, we're trying to do whatever we can to mitigate disturbances with the neighborhood. Another issue we changed is we did rearrange some trees around as we depicted on my 3D model. And beyond that, walking through our pile here, Again, we have steep slopes in the center of the property. Again, we have to disturb them because they're centrally located in the property itself. The cut and fill that we're proposing changed a little bit. This highlighted plan shows you the extent of cut and fill. As you can see, we are isolating our cut and fill to the driveway and to where the house is, and around it pretty much we have a fill pad on the east side, a fill pad on the west side, and the blue means grading between zero and three feet. So literally we're strategically locating the house. in the lot itself while keeping some elements in the front so that we're not denuding tree scapes on the property. We're providing more trees and we're removing with all these trees I proposed before you. And Will from Han's office has two items left to address. He wanted me to make a We don't need stormwater mitigation with the project because we're insignificant to the 20-acre watershed which drains to a catch basin right here on the property. We've completed that. We expanded our analysis to include a little more outlier property. We're still not even close to the capacity of the piping due to stormwater and we have all the calculations for that. Our increases are, even for a 100-year storm event, we're only increasing the stormwater by 0.4 CFS, which is insignificant. And again, the revised plan we put together reduces slightly the cut and fill required for the project. But there still is a required cut and fill, about 50% overburden, 50% potentially rock. It's degraded rock, as we already did testing on the roadway with digging deep test holes. But there is a removal of material required. We did provide you a narrative at the beginning of this project of a trip counts and the movement of the material out of the property. We have a direct line to access 117 and exit the property to the north. We have a place to put the material when it takes place. And uh again we still have we have a western county department of health permit on the project as well and we started with that so uh i think we did it's a great improvement to the property we're not overburdening it as i said we're fifty percent of coverage uh and uh similar fifty percent of the impervious allowed for the property it's just that to meet all the criteria, to increase our buffers on the property, to make all this work with the neighborhood. By centrally locating the house on the property and leaving these big buffers on the side, we ended up with this design. and it's fully engineered and ready to go in terms of proposals. There's one item we mentioned to one of the neighbors is they were concerned about us putting the primary system here, and we're willing to make this the primary down here and make the reserve here. They're both at equivalent capacity. So what we're proposing to do is just not touch this septic area at all. We have a house right here. We leave this all trees and make our primary system on this location. And it's fully approved by the health department. So for the next 30 or 40 years, the trees would remain. I've been in business for 40 years. I've never repaired one of my septic systems yet. And I've been doing them since the early 80s. So basically this... Very simple mitigation plan is eliminating this area and making a smaller area in this location. It doesn't need fill. It's a lot better percolation rate. So it's a much more dense septic system than over here. And it's one way to reduce the initial disturbance of the property. So we're doing everything we can. Again, my client owns a lot. He'd like to build a house on it. We've been at it for a while with the health departments and every other agency. And when I went to the ZBA meeting, they were concerned about two items. One item was the stormwater, and we've proven to Han's office that this project does not impact the stormwater. In fact, this catch basin right next to our property basically has a nine-foot drop, it's a drop catch basin, and we could never overtax it with a minor amount of water per two-spare site. And to put it all in perspective, the central watershed for this property only totals about 4,000 square feet. Our scale is very small with this. It's just that we have to account for everything on the project, which we've done. And that's pretty much where we're at on the project. So I have very minor items to address with Han's office. One item he did ask for, which I thought was a good idea. is he wants us to dedicate an outline for your board and the ZBA, the hours of hammering and rock crushing should take place on the property. We agree with that wholeheartedly. weekdays, we're going to limit it to eight to five, Saturdays, eight to two Sundays prohibited. And we're offering that on a plan that I'm going to give to Jim's Hans office on Monday.

How long do you anticipate the rock ripping would take?

We did a study in our narrative, and we think we can do it in about six weeks. and not overtaxing the project either. The material is, again, most is just dirt digging. It's all sand and gravel with degraded rock below it. One more item, there's a road that exists on the property. We're gonna drive up to the top of this hill and hammer down from the top down. It's called peeling, peels the rock away. Very, very efficient and very easy to do with the site. We don't remove any trees whatsoever. We just drive up here and just take out this core.

right here and this is where all the work all the all the work is right here any chance that you can give people a late saturday morning as well

I mean, if need be, if we want to restrict the hours on Saturday, we could do that. I'm just proposing something at this point in time. Typically on Saturdays, it's mainly repairing machines which take place. We could limit the hammering if you want on a Saturday.

I said, if you could even limit it to something like that, just give people a little bit more of a break. Sure.

I have no problem with that. We could eliminate, we could prohibit any work on Saturdays, including hammering and rock crushing.

Okay.

And we can't do anything tonight because we don't have a sign off from the town engineer.

Yes, I know.

I would add though that your rendering here is a bit deceiving.

Pardon me?

I believe your render is a bit deceiving in terms of the depth because the site is not as deep as it's given credit for.

It's because it's in 3D.

It's going to be in 3D. My point, though, is the wall is going to feel a lot more on top of the road than the house. Is so well, it may be the same footprint, but I will point out that the house is going to be a substantially larger mass. Than the other houses and fairly close to the road of that closer to the road. And pretty much any house in that neighborhood, so that's going to feel a lot more dramatic than these images. Actually, we're if we talk about scale.

Yeah, I can show you scale. Hold it.

Yeah, actually, that's a perfectly accurate 3D model.

It's just because of the view angle from the street. Let me show you something here, if I could. Just help you out with that. Bear with me here.

Sometimes I have too much paper.

Here we go. This is it, maybe.

How far back from the road is the house?

Here it is. This is a plan we prepared earlier which shows how the development of our project is similar to what's happening on the street. In fact, the property to the west might even be closer than what we have on our property. It's a pre-existing lot. But this shows you the roadway, and this shows you the house sites. This one's set a little bit farther back. I think it's like 50 feet. We are at 35 feet to the main building, except for the porch overhang. We're compliant with the ordinance. And then the neighboring property, It might be like 38 or 39 feet. I don't have the exact number, but this shows you how we're working with the project. And their houses, their projects work because their properties are deeper. You can see front to back. This is deeper front to back. Ours is really wide, but narrow. And that's how we have it set up.

It wasn't developed or initial.

Correct. Yes. Yes. So we basically, we set that line at the setback and we just kept that going through our property. Again, ignore this part because we're not going to build that. That's reserved now. And we'll be working in this one, this portion of the property with the driveway. And what I did is on that plan, this picture I gave you, I showed you an exact top view of this plan to show you how it's accuracy. But when I put a camera here using the Revit software, It's at eye height, at five feet height. So unfortunately, it does look like it's being distorted because it's at five feet in the air. But I show it exactly looking from the top as well. It's a perfect model. We made it.

I'm not debating the model. I'm just putting for the public record that the house is going to feel a lot more imposing on the top of the road than that image on the top left or right. That's all.

Okay.

Can you suggest any way in which a more accurate depiction of the house could be produced?

Well, I could give you a view. If I pull the view upward, it eliminates the distortion of the driveway because your eye level isn't... Why don't you take that and put it on a Google Earth view? Sure.

Ah. overlay it on a Google Earth. Yeah, I can do that. Because then you'll see the surrounding neighbors with respect to where you're putting it.

Yeah, I can do that. I can drop this one right here.

I can drop right on it. So I'm just trying to understand, too, from the proposal out of the house, it looks like the retaining wall is going right through or right up to the first door. So is the entire first door in the back not have any windows and the second store is basically a parade in the back?

Yeah, I can show you that. What's happening on this project is... Hold on a second. So what we have, this is a garage, and there's no windows in the back of the garage. Correct. And there's a deck on top of it. And that garage wall continues straight and forms the basis of the planter.

Right, but that wall also hits the main floor of the house, so... Is the rear of the main floor of the house also below grade?

No, the grades drop off in this one side of the property on the grading plan, and I'll show you that as best I can. So what happens is the house, this grade drops off. What happens is the property climbs up. These are 10 increments, 10, 20 feet. The high point is on adjacent property and it drops down again. So you have a dome sort of shape of climbing terrain. And so right here, we have a walkout in the rear of the house right here. and then we move on the main floor the main floor yes you can walk out there and then as you move uh in this direction we're cutting out a prow which is starting and this is a high point and we're cutting that hillside to make this work just in this one little area. And as I move this way, we start following grade again. So the issue is only in this core area do I have a mound in the site. The rest of it drops off in both directions, both east and west. And so that's why my little map here of the cut, is one grade here, one grade here, and just this one center area is where we're mitigating that topo forming on adjacent property. This high point drains off to the north and all these properties drain in this direction down to the roadway. So we worked really carefully with our 3D models to make it the least amount of impact in this one little area. And that's about, in perspective, this area right here is about 2,500 square feet. And it drops off as you go up to the left or right.

I don't think there's anything more that we can do tonight. Does your questions get answered? You've raised some important issues, I think.

Right. So I will be submitting to Will at Han's office to address the minor items we have. It's like two items. He asked for a couple things as well. He wanted me to go to the DPW. I think it was too early for that. I'd rather get my Buchanan with you. I just want to get my permits in order before I go there.

What was he wanting you to go?

Pardon me?

What was he?

Confirmation capacity in that catch basin.

He's doing the catch basin. It's a water supply and road improvements.

They were also talking about inverts and stuff.

He's going to want that.

About the catch basin.

He's going to want that ahead.

We addressed all that. Before we were trying to hit this catch basin here, we're going across the street.

My advice to you is to give Will whatever he wants.

Yes. Yeah, we're doing that.

We tend to listen to our town engineer. He's very good.

Yes, I've worked with him for many years. So, yeah, it's a very minor list. We'll take care of it right away.

Okay. I think we need to move on to the next item on our agenda. Yes, I appreciate that.

Thank you.

The next item on our agenda is uh to consider an amendment to a previously granted steep slopes permit for the additional removal of trees um i think yes there's uh no this one was not a public hearing was it are you did you have questions about the okay well It's not a public hearing, but on the other hand, these people have sat through this entire meeting. If you could stay for a moment, and if you could. I am sorry to hold everybody up, but you have to sit patiently here for this. And if you could keep your comments to things that we might be able to do something about one way or another.

We'll be back again.

because we will be back and maybe we'll be back with a public hearing next time um but anyway uh who would who has a comment to make if they could be substantive comments yes the things that you want us to look at are most helpful

My name is Anna Ribeiro. My husband and daughter were here earlier, but went home to watch the Knicks. We live on 12 Robin Hood Road, Bedford Hills, which is downstream from Nottingham. We have lived there for 20 years. My neighbors here can attest to The terrible water problems that we've had, I think all of our basements have flooded. We've all submitted letters about the water dynamics of the neighborhood and how it is incapable of absorbing more water. The proposed property is right on the edge of where the water streamed from, and it's a large boulder that exists on their property. And we're concerned that diverting more water towards the Robin Hood cul-de-sac will just disturb the wetlands that are already there. My neighbor will speak of the wetlands that exist there. It's an open culvert. It goes from there to the back of Robin Hood and then goes to 117 and the Sawmill River. So we have a lot of environmental concerns. We have concerns also for the historical nature of the property, which includes the easement to the cemetery. the Buckabee Cemetery. We have concerns about the excavating and disruption of the rock that's going to occur that might disturb the gravesite. And we also have concern about the character of the neighborhood. I think a lot of you picked up on the fact that it does not fit with the neighborhood. The entire neighborhood was developed by the previous engineering company, the Helms. back in the 1960s. All of the houses had to conform to three separate pre-built, not pre-built, but pre-established shapes and forms and sizes. This is nothing like what is existent in the properties, and as you rightly pointed out, we're standing on Nottingham. The house is at least at the molding up there, and then still two more levels after that. It's really high up. It's out of character with all of the other houses in the neighborhood, and that's part of what Our objection has been to it. It has been an unbuildable lot for 60 plus years since our houses were built in 1968, and that's not by chance. It's that it does not conform to the lot size, shape, and specifications that a house in this code would accommodate. And that's why we went, most of us, to the zoning board. because they're seeking variances that are too close to the boundaries and also because it changes all of the character of the neighborhood and potentially impacts our livelihood, our water balance and all of our houses. I think you can ask, we've had to put multiple curtain drains, French drains around our houses because it really does have an issue. I thank you for your time.

Thank you. We'll make sure that the town engineer is looking very carefully at that. I have every reason to believe he is.

I submitted a letter with a lot more points to the zoning board, but I forwarded an email to Kim to bring it to this committee, but she's out of the office until the 9th. So I hope that when she comes back, she'll submit additional letters that were not present on for your review.

Thank you.

Let me just say one more thing.

I don't want anybody to think that this is personal. We have nothing against people coming into our neighborhood, but this lot has never been a possibility to develop. And it was like that. We didn't make the lot. The lot has these structural problems.

It's a very difficult lot.

It's very, very difficult. And I'm sorry for the builders that want to be there, but you cannot... PUSH YOURSELF INTO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IF IT'S GOING TO BE AT A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT TO THE NEIGHBORS.

NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. It's just for reference. Anyway, I want to show you this map, which is a topographic map showing that there are woodlands within the area. I'll read it to you. On the document of a strong water pollution prevention plan. 4.4 existing wetlands. It reads on here that there are no wetlands 200 feet of the property perimeter, and wetlands are closer than 200 feet from the property perimeter. They are closer to the property perimeter. If you take a look at that map, there's a scale there, and you put a ruler to it, you can see that it is closer than 20 feet.

Do we know if wetlands- 200 feet. Let's take a look at this.

It was not flagged when the project 1st came in. So we can take a look again, but I don't think our town map showed it.

Yeah, but sometimes sometimes it is worth a look at our town maps. Don't have everything on it.

And also this map here shows my house. I'm sorry I can show it to my house here and the braving of the property where they are and the strong trade that. John was talking about that will collect all that water will actually go down here. These are the 2 houses that will be mostly affected affected by it, but it goes under his property. Great opening area of open right here with that storm. When we have a light storm. That train gets filtered to the brim if you have the added water of. And all that driving everything going right across to his property and his property. These two houses here you're going to have a lot of work coming down onto my property, which has an elevation here elevation here and elevation here in my back house. So, I just want to make you aware and sensitive to the fact that I'm very conscious that the person was about. And if you do the holes to hold the water in severe snow. I'm going to be flooded.

So I don't know if that's going to help to... Can we hold on to this?

Or do you... Can I become a copy? Why don't you get us a copy?

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Hi, everyone, thank you for entertaining our comments. I'm Jim Venner. I live across the street. I'm a professional engineer, environmental engineer with my specialty in water and waste management. So my comments are mainly focused in that particular area. I'll be brief and happy to elaborate. My comments are mainly about the SWPPP and the septic systems. We heard talk about there are two. The one in the west is around 20-foot up gradient of an unaligned storm drain, and these weren't noted in the stormwater pollution prevention plan. It was noted that there were any water courses anywhere nearby and this is a concern if, uh, because the, the, the storm drain is online and it's parallel to the property boundary and the septic system was was according to drawings around 10 feet, 15 feet to the East and upgrading the property battery. So, if you switch to the East, that's fine. But I just want to flag that for you guys. Um, it mentions no wetlands within 200 feet of the property boundary. Uh, the storm drain discharges to 1 to a 117 to bed for road. Uh, I talked to Kevin when and he said discharges to folks backyards. The slip says it discharges to Nottingham road, which to charge the swimming river. Not the case according to Kevin. Um, and. Uh, yeah, and there's a septic system to the East, which is also potentially up gradients to, uh, 60, uh, 60 Nottingham road. Uh, also very close within, like, 2020, 30 feet potentially upgrading. So I wanted to flag there for you guys. Um, obviously the family burial ground. I think at the board of the, we talked about the sense of nature of the area and the risks of controlled blasting and explosives and I was, we were assured that would be taken care of and addressed. So I just hope it is 1 of the letters my neighbor and it wasn't included as a great letter. It wasn't included as 1 of the attachments for this meeting. I think it should be added. And lastly, regarding character of the neighborhood, there are a few bits, like during the ZBA, we kind of envisioned this kind of like as a giant castle. It's big. It's monolithic and a bit grandiose in scale. And a couple of just specifics. It has three fenced-in balconies on the second level. There are none other like that on Nottingham Road. The showing looks like stucco, but it's not clear. All the other houses in the neighborhood are shingles or clapboard. We talked about ZBA also that it's around six to seven feet above grade of the street, if I remember correctly. So it's big and it'll be looming. So if it wasn't so close to the street face, it might be different, but it's pretty in our face. And the two pillars, there are a lot of pillars on the street, maybe like five houses, but they go at most like one and a half stories. The bottom is kind of a garden level. This one is a full two stories. So it's big and it's going to be above the house. And I'll just finish by saying that there's an 18 foot retaining wall, which is quite large. And it looks infinitely better than the first draft, but it's still huge. And I haven't picked up what you were noting about how it seems closer in the rendering, but I kind of just trust your thoughts on that. And I'll just wrap up by saying that I work at home, so it's a pain in the butt. Six weeks is a lot better than I thought. But still, it's a concern. It's a walking community, a lot of retired folks, a lot of people who work at home. In the evenings, people will be walking through. And right now, there's a lovely, very dense forest and a beautiful hilltop. So we want to make sure that the house, if there is construction, it's done right and it's done well and tastefully and in line with the character of the neighborhoods. That's it. Thanks for your time.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Bill McIntosh, and I am a 40-year resident immediately to the west of this parcel. I will be more brief than the others. There's a letter that I think you all received, but it was only today. It was written today by a neighbor who I don't even know. Only you, I believe, is his last name, Andrew. And he wrote a wonderful letter, which I hope you all will read. And he refers... REPEATEDLY TO THE ENGINEER CONSULTANT FOR THE TOWN, AND LISTENING TO THE PRESENTATION TONIGHT, I WOULD THINK THAT HE'S BEEN IN CLOSE CONSULTATION WITH THE ENGINEER, AND THE ENGINEER AND HE ARE VERY CLOSE ON MAYBE ONE OR TWO ISSUES. ON THE 4TH OF JUNE, WHICH IS THE DAY AFTER THE ZBA MEETING THAT I ATTENDED LAST WEEK, the the town engineer reviewed the plans and did not recommend this project and he listed 18 items that had to be spoken to the most egregious one to me was the building of this two two-story retaining wall which will serve to direct water over the, I understand that they're now planning to use the alternate septic fields, but the septic fields that were about 20 feet from an open stream on my property, that it gets heavy surface water most of the year. And this septic fields would be 20 feet from this open water source that would feed into the storm drain, down into the cul-de-sac and out to 117. The fact, you know, I'm hearing that they got a couple of small issues. There are far from a couple of small issues to deal with in this project. And I hope you will take it all into consideration and read those letters. It's very important to all of us, and I think you can hear the passion in everybody that's come and talked to you. That's all I got to say.

We certainly will take it seriously.

Hello and good evening. And thank you for taking our comments. My name is Stephanie Brandenburg. I am a resident owner in Bedford Terrace condos where the condos are at the foot of Nottingham and 117. I'm also on the board of managers. So in many ways I will speak for myself first, just to comment on the aesthetics, dittoing what has already been said. As far as my role as board of managers, Um, for 76 units, we representing about 160 people, the issue of the rock removal and the, I don't know what I came here tonight to learn more. So I just found out about this about a day ago and I read the correspondence. So just speaking for the impact, if there's any kind of blasting, uh, which buildings raw, I don't know what that means in terms of the impact.

on houses, certainly those who- We have a blasting protocol that's very closely followed if in fact there is blasting. There are photos taken of everybody's houses beforehand so that if there are any problems of damage, there's a clear evidence of what things look like. It's a system that works pretty well. Okay. Although my understanding is that they're talking primarily about rock ripping,

the noise is likely to be the major issue well i was going to and that was my next point you're just talking about the noise and environmental disturbance of any kind of air quality and things like that so i just wanted to learn more about that and just have those comments on record okay and thank you i couldn't respond very quickly okay but i really don't know

Can you just use the microphone so folks online can hear? Hold on. Can you please use the microphone?

I do remember these are highly technical questions, so really responding at 10 a.m. No, it's very simple.

Very simple. The piping that comes down the hillside from Nottingham is about 20.3 acres in size. And that's the volume of water that's flowing through this catch basin system, which has been in place since the 50s. And we're connecting in a disturbance of about 4,000 square feet. So the scale of what we're proposing here is not monumental. In fact, we did all the math, and I have spoken to Will many times over what to do with some of these issues and how to address them with him. And I have my response letter ready to go right with me. It was very simple to do. So the stormwater stormwater is not an issue with the project. There's plenty of capacity in the piping. We collect all the stormwater from our property where we're serving it. That's a house, the driveways, most of the impervious areas, all the impervious areas, and we're draining over to this catch basin across the street.

We're not going to remember the details. Okay.

Well, anyway, I think we can address everything on the list, and we'll take care of it right away.

Yeah. Okay. Will will tell us what is addressed and what isn't addressed.

Okay. Very good.

Thank you. The next item on our agenda is to consider an amendment to a previously granted steep slopes permit for the removal of trees. owner applicant is 20 boutonsville llc the address is 725 proton lake road bedford good evening uh jan johannesson kscj consulting on behalf of 20 boutonville llc um

We were previously before the board, we received the steep slopes permit back in July of 25, the construction of a single family house driveway, septic related improvements. Since then we've received health department approval, DEP SWPPP approval, and we're closing in on finalizing all of Will's comments. During the fall of 25, the owner got a tree permit from the code enforcement officer, Angel, for the removal of some trees. We were not involved in that permit. I can't tell you how many trees they discussed being removed, but there was a site visit between Angel and the owner, and they discussed a handful of trees that were to be removed. And it went, Well, beyond that, and the contractor cut down a significant number of trees. 265 trees were previously proposed to be removed this part of our project. That's what you saw back in July and they removed 183 trees in the fall. Um, 22 of which were on, um, steep slopes. Um, so again, we were not not involved in that process, didn't know of the work taking place until the violations were issued and. The owner contacted us to assist. Um, so we're here with an amended permit. We, we have submitted. The sweat, which now addresses the additional free removals to. Both the DP and to Hans office, we're proposing to replace the 22. Trees that were cut down on steep slopes with 50 trees. Of similar species of those that were taken down. And we've revised revised the plans to include those removals. We expanded the limits of disturbance to include those removals. Um. We did visit the site post tree removal. A lot of the area was chipped with wood chips from the removal. So there's not an erosion issue per se. The site is stabilized, but those trees were removed. So now we're back to, unfortunately, here before you to try to amend that permit.

Is the house built? in the construction process?

Well, yeah, we didn't receive all approvals. We received your approval for steep slopes.

So just a tree removal that was done in preparation for the driveway.

Yeah, we did. They did. We did receive a driveway permit from the highway department and they did construct the entry walls. So that was all done with full approvals from from the town. So what? What's at the site today are stone entry walls, a couple of plantings by the entry walls, and then it's the removal of those trees. There was no grading that took place. They, they just got in there and did more work than they were supposed to on the true removal and just to be clear in the drawing set submitted.

It's it's the blue.

Trees that we're talking about the blue trees are the trees that well, they didn't have permission to remove the majority of those streets. Sure. Right? Sure. But the blue trees are the trees that were removed though. Yeah, right. Okay. Thanks. okay um i do have a comment memo from from han's office and he does recommend approval it doesn't recommend approval he did recommend increasing the bond amount to 90 000 which we have no problem with um our biggest problem frankly is that we have to do seeker for for all of this at 10 30 at night what is a single family house it's a type 2 action steve slopes isn't steep slopes is unlisted could say it's related to a single family house.

It's the steep slopes governance, I think. So we're bringing it up as quickly as possible. It's an amendment.

The crux of the application, the the only the disturbance change is It's from 0.5 acres to 0.54 acres. The increase is 1,870 square feet. So it's a pretty de minimis disturbance area change.

It's the best argument I've heard. It is an amendment.

We're not amending. Yeah. Okay.

Yeah.

I'm sorry.

Yeah, I just wanted to confirm. We previously approved it. Yeah.

Um, I can stay. Okay.

I think there was originally as a type 2. right? Yeah, because we've never done slopes without being homeless. Correct.

But I, I don't know that we've when we've been, we haven't often had to amend 1. I don't know that. I remember doing steep slopes doing a full seeker. For an amendment, Steve slopes. Particularly since this is an after the fact, I mean, hasn't it already been done?

Yeah, next acquisition. I can't even imagine what would change in the from what was originally.

But the route is the work has already been done. So the word it's, it's our, if we don't take any action, it's the worst condition that if we took an action. So 1 would render that to mean that you have no choice.

Yeah, if you feel like being from it's insignificant.

classified as a type two picture what's what is the what is the overall cutoff again remind me there's no specific type two exempt action no no i i know that i mean there's an there's a point at which if your steep slopes disturbance is under a certain amount you don't need this just 100 square feet so the amendment is for more than 100 square feet and there was yeah

And there was no ground disturbance that took place from the removal of the trees. They didn't stump the trees. They removed the trees. The stumps are still in place.

And the stumps are going to stay in place?

Until we get fully approved and they get the SWPPP approved and they can get a building permit and complete the project.

Because we just had one just a little while ago where they were told to keep the stumps because it's because it's really stable.

i mean if you want for the uh the blue trees for the trees that were cut outside of the approved limits of disturbance those stumps could potentially stay but the the stumps within the limits of disturbance there's going to be grading activities there for the construction of the for the driveway those stumps are certainly going to be removed but uh for the trees that were outside but those trees would have been removed anyway then presumably those where are the trees that On the tree removal plan?

That should not have been removed.

The ones marked in blue.

So the trees that were removed were not on the steep slopes?

Somewhere. Somewhere. Only 20 were on the steep slopes.

Okay.

And we're replacing those with 50.

Okay. Okay.

I think I'm going to say I think that this is an amendment to an existing steep slopes plan, that the work's already been done, that the planting of new trees is a positive.

And this is covered by the Seeker Determination that we made in the original case.

I'm not going to say anything about what I think about the steep slopes analyses for Seeker anyway. Anything we do tonight is not going to be a genuine hard look at anything, frankly. And more because of the nature of the process than anything else. So that's probably the wrong reason for saying it, but I'm going to ask for a consensus that No, actually, I'm going to ask for a vote, but I have a motion that this is a continuation of the. Secret review secret approval already given that we don't need to see her again to amendment of the previously done.

for this amendment.

Well put. Is there a second?

Are we seeing this as a type two action there for this amendment? No. This decision to amend?

No, we're saying.

We're still unlisted, but we're just, the amendment doesn't trigger a necessity to redo it.

The amendment is not significant enough change.

so do i have a second if i don't have a second second any further discussion all in favor aye aye all opposed okay we're not going to do redo seeker uh what what conditions would we put on this amendment anything that was on the town engineers conditions that the certainly the improved bond issue the 90 000 the replacement of the taken trees with it with the 50 replacements the two to one ratio is acceptable I think two to one is acceptable. It's better than we did on the last one. It's over two to one.

And size and maintenance of those?

There should be a, is there a maintenance agreement? If there isn't a maintenance agreement, there should be.

The size of the deciduous are two and a half to three inch. The evergreens, seven to eight feet tall.

Okay. Is there a maintenance agreement?

A maintenance agreement, not other than the approval. We would in the bond, there's a bond in place.

We would want to put a maintenance agreement. I think the way it was worded in the last 1 we did was. The life of the tree for 2 years and.

For 2 years after replacement. Yeah.

So, 2 years, initially, and then additional 2 years of trees that need to be replaced. Sure. Is the condition does that amend the.

Well, we just did the secret that's right. We didn't do. So, so we've got.

Is there a set any further?

Do we have to specify a permit timeline?

The, um, the other permit is still. And play, yeah, so we're still satisfying those conditions. So I think we're still under that.

Although the planning boards looking to give you an amended 1, which would give you another 2 years. So, it's probably in your best interest to go with another 2 years. So.

so we've um amended your resolution to to change the timeline is there any further discussion no all in favor aye aye all opposed thank you i know it's late thanks for sticking with me appreciate it it was the last minute public hearing they got yes

There's a comment. Oh, in regard to this property, I'm sorry.

What would you Yes, you may speak to the board. Thank you for letting me speak. This is. We've been actually, I think you are our property many years ago. About when they divided the property, I think it's quite possible and 17 Pines bridge road and. It was the water flow that was in contest at that point. but one of the things that we've noticed in the last several years since the property has been sold is that we're having a tremendous amount of incursion of black bears, bobcats, different animals that have lived on this property for at least 20 years. and that that wildlife environment is now under under stress and i don't i don't know if there's any way that we can adjust with that but um it's concerning us for i i didn't know until tonight it was just a single single family home so that that on a property that size probably there's still a lot of space for i was wondering whether In the future, they would ever split the property with the go into.

More property more individuals splits or I couldn't say without looking at it in the future. I don't think there's anything that we can do about that kind of an issue at this at this point that would be relevant to this application. However, you might want to speak to the conservation board. what what's just a land trust or what's just a land trust but you you if there's any solution or mitigation out there it's something that needs to be done early on not at the end of the process so the time the time to ask for help is now for anything i'm sorry the time to ask for help is now rather than

The time to ask for help is now.

For anything that might be done in the future. What I'm saying is this is a permit that's already partially completed, so there isn't really anything we can begin to look into at this point for as complicated an issue as you're bringing up, which is a very good issue to bring up, the change in habitat and what you do to maintain that.

You're saying that this is not the location. This is not the board to talk to about it.

Not at this point. No.

So, is there someplace where there is so I would talk to the conservation board. Conservation board and the land trust.

The other thing that I would suggest once you meet your neighbor. The new neighbor may be amenable. To some sort of conservation.

Yes, it's. Um, sure, I think that was talking to the neighbor. Well, I, this is. I must say that I think we didn't know much was happening until because we haven't it's not our. we haven't been on top of it because i i walked the property one time before they put up they shut down the gates and i i couldn't quite understand where what was happening now i've seen the housing the driveway and the house and different things but i still can't understand how close it is to us but i'll i'll try to look at those plans further

but i'm sorry i just don't think that we're the board that can do anything for you right now okay well it's thanks for listening and then we'll see if we can you know it's uh life changes let's see what we can do thank you i mentioned that the conservation board because they are interested in um in wildlife corridors and that kind of thing so it they they may have some suggestions for you

Okay, thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Could I have a motion to close the meetings all in favor? All opposed the meeting is closed.