Planning Board - Regular Meeting

progress.

I would like to take this. Sorry, I would like to take this meeting of the plan a bit. Sorry. I would like to open this meeting of the Town of Bedford Planning Board. Before we start with the first public hearing, I'd like to take on items two and four under new applications. They are just renewals of existing permits, and we thought it would be better not to make somebody sit through all of the rest of the meeting just for something that's going to take two minutes. So the first one is Infinity Road LLC. You're here to present. You don't really need to present in order to do this, just if you'll make the request.

Evan Pendleton with Insight Engineering, Surveying Landscape Architecture. As you mentioned, we're just here for requests for extension of steep slopes for rent.

Do you think you'll expect to be able to get it done within the

Yeah, so right now the project's substantially completed. The area, there's a small isolated area of steep slopes disturbance, which they're stabilizing currently. So it should be, we should get final stabilization of that area this fall. There's other project areas outside that scope of steep slopes disturbance that are still gonna be ongoing, but all the steep slopes disturbance will be fully stabilized.

Okay, it seems reasonable to consider an extension in this case. Could I have a motion?

So moved. Is there a second? I move to extend with all the conditions that were previously applied.

And it's a six-month extension. Is there any further discussion? All in favor? Aye. Aye. All opposed? Your extension is granted. Thank you. Is there someone here from Homeland Towers?

Good evening. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the board. Robert Gordioso with the law firm of Snyder & Snyder on behalf of Homeland Towers. And we are just seeking an extension of the prior approval. We've done everything we can do. The town board, thankfully, have done everything they can do. They approved the necessary agreements. We're just waiting for the city to approve the easement and then we can file for the building permit.

And you do expect that the city is probably going to do that. We all hope it does.

We hope. We believe.

Could I have a motion?

Move to extend purposes six months as well?

This is, yes, a six-month extension.

With all the conditions? All the conditions. Yes.

Is there any further discussion? All in favor? Aye. All opposed?

Thank you very much, and thank you for the courtesy. Thank you.

I don't suppose anybody has come from Ivanhoe or Aspatong.

Okay.

In that case, the first item on our regular agenda tonight is the opening of a public hearing to consider an application for preliminary subdivision approval to create three lots where one currently exists. The owner is St. Mary's Roman Catholic Church. The applicant is the Helms Group LLP. It's located at 117-119 Valley Road in Katona. And I do want to make it clear at the outset that we're opening the public hearing tonight, particularly given the time of year. We will not be closing the public hearing tonight. It will be adjourned to... I'm not sure it will be our next meeting, but...

Yes.

Sorry, I don't see this here, but me and Jerome...

You will.

It's going to be put up on the screens. Yeah, it's a perfectly reasonable question.

Should be loading in a second.

Our technical person is having to do double duty tonight because...

It's a long load.

Okay, good evening. Madam chair members planning board, Stephen Helms architect with the Helms group. Father mark down in court here, St Mary's church of the assumption. Tonight we're presenting an application for a 3 lot subdivision. This property is located on Valley road. 117 and 119 Valley road as it sits today, it's a single 5.32 acre lot. It's unique, it fronts Valley Road and also the back end fronts Wildwood Road. So technically it has two frontages, one off Wildwood and one off Valley Road. We are not proposing any development. Simply, we'd like to take the single family house, which is located at 119 Valley Road, Take it off their books, put it on the tax roll. And so they don't have to maintain that house. There's no reason they don't need the house anymore. And it's a single family, I think a 2 bedroom house or 3 bedroom. This property is tied into the sewer district. It's got over 10,000 gallons permitted for the school and directory. So, again, it's a 3 lot subdivision. Our main objective is to peel off the house, which is 119. Doing that would require some seeking some variances, a front yard, a side yard, a left and a right a combined side yard does comply with rear yard. It complies with building coverage and it complies with impervious. By doing that, we're making the side yard for the rectory a little less than 50 feet. The side yards in this VA zone district is 50-50 on the sides, 50 in the front. So we would need to seek a side yard for the rectory to go through with the subdivision. Um, when I met with the planning director, we were advised that we, if we do try to create a 3 last subdivision, we have to make the back lot look, see if it's buildable. So we looked at it from 2 perspectives. 1 was to do a single family house with access off Wildwood road. Which I have a board and I can show you. And then the other approach is to do a multi family again with access off Wildwood road. And we came up with a scheme that could support 16 apartments. Uh. If if needed, but the church does not want to go into the developing. They just want to have the option of if they wanted to ever sell this parcel down the road. They wouldn't have to come back. That's why we're doing the 3 lots of subdivision. Part of this application is a utility easement from Valley road. To tie in with the sewer, um. but not a driveway access. It's just utility. There's gas, water, and electric utility.

When you say that they wouldn't have to come back, are you saying that you're applying for the multifamily or single-family?

We're not applying for any development now at this point.

So any development would have to come back?

Absolutely. This is just to create a three-lot subject. Okay, I just wanted to be clear about that. Yeah, that was... That was our, again, the main objective is to get the house off there. They don't need to maintain the house.

The only thing that wouldn't have to be done again is the subdivision.

Right. And that lot has its own quirks. It's got steep slopes, which is, let me see if I can illustrate that. The red on that drawing here illustrates the steep slopes. There's some wetlands. So whoever buys that lot, five years, ten years, three years, they would have to do their due diligence, go through the planning board, whole process. but since we had the survey all updated, we wanted to do the three lots, formalize that. That was our main objective here. Just to give you a little rundown, this is our first sheet. There's four boards that we presented. The survey on the bottom right is how it sits today. It's the rectory. It's got a fair amount of pavement and it's got the single family house, I guess it's to the west. Our next drawing is coated with three colors, green, yellow, and blue. The blue is St. Mary's Rectory that will stay. There's no plans to expand that structure. The house is illustrated in the yellow. The green is the vacant parcel to the north. This is a concept with a single-family home with access off Wildwood Road. Again, this is VA zone. A single-family home is a permitted use. Um, this would be the least amount of disruption and. What have you and then our final drawing is a. 2 buildings 2 stories in nature. And we could fit 16 apartments with off site wall street parking. We just wanted to demonstrate that and we came up with a water calculation and all of that. So. That was our objective, but the church does not want to play a developer. And not seek any of that at this time, it's just clearly. To remove that, just create that legal subdivision. Father mark, would you like to.

Yeah, I'd just like to say that we've listed the homes group property that we have. Thank you.

And it's very clear to us that if we don't subdivide the property, we really don't have a future as far as planning any type of development of it. At this time, we have not enlisted in our parish any deliberate plan to develop the property, although we do want the opportunity in the future. And so that's why today we've worked with the Helms Group to subdivide the house which is next to the rectory, 119 Valley Road, which right now is unoccupied. And then there is the property behind St. Mary's Rectory, which is the old athletic fields for the old St. Mary's School, which at this time is pretty much kind of uncultivated area. We found some wetlands. We have done our due diligence, but it is still possibly able to be developed later on down the road. But the church is not going forward with any definitive plan. But this is the first big step that should we want to do that. And so we've enlisted the Helms Group, and they've done a very good job to develop these plans for you tonight.

And I just hope that the Church does understand that because it is, as you say, the first big step onto something else, that we have to consider within reason what the environmental implications are down the road as well. That has to be part of our consideration. We can't ignore the fact that if we find that it is a developable lot, that means it may be developed.

Yeah, we're looking into that as a possibility. But this is for us right now, as Mr. Helms told you, kind of break off that house next to the rectory is the first big thing we'd like to do. And then, of course, in the back adjacent to Wildwood Road and the couple of acres that are right there behind the rectory, that's way down the road. We don't know where we're going to go with it, but we will follow the process wherever it leads.

Yeah. And what the town has to keep in mind is even if it's way down the road, the decision we make today will obligate the town down the road. So we have to make sure that we're making the right decision for down the road as well as for there.

Yeah. This would not be viable if it didn't have the connection with the sewer district. So that's a plus. But the main thing is to raise capital, get rid of the house off their books.

Yeah, I don't see a big environmental issue with getting rid of the house.

No, we have to seek variances from the zoning board for that to allow us.

But it would be a big help to the parish. I can tell you that. So it would be a big help for that parcel. And then as we said, when we looked at it, let's do three, which is the rectory contiguous with the school. And then the rest is 119, which is right next to our rectory. And then there's the bigger area in the back, which may or may not be in play. We don't know.

That's part of what we have to look at.

And it is a VA zone, which has the cottage terrace apartments, which are 12, and then Wildwood is a 21-unit development off Wildwood. Those are contiguous lots. But someone may very well in Katona want a single-family lot, oversized. Most of the neighborhood is quarter-acre zone. This would give them three acres, plenty of room for a future pool, tennis court if they wanted. It may have to come to your board, but... Without having a subdivision, you can't even know what the value of that land is now.

Well, we have to find out. We have to, as part of this process, try to figure out what the cost, other than money, is to the development, what the cost to the town is.

If there is a cost to this, obviously, a multi family is more, you know, for a developer to come in, they would probably go that route. However. There are people that may not want they want Katona walking distance, but it's to be determined. Again, no shovel in the ground. First time you're seeing this.

Yeah, and again, it's just for the future development of the parish. We would really look to see if this is a possible direction for us to raise revenue. Of course, always fund programs and develop our parish at St. Mary's, but immediately is the house contiguous to the rectory. And at the same time, this seemed to be the right direction for future decisions to be made about where we can develop the parish, whatever the options are.

Yeah, and again, I guess what I'm trying to say make sure everybody's aware of is that we have to look at the potential future. Sometimes when people want to develop their property, they'll say, well, I'm not going to do anything with this for five or ten years, so can't you consider this now? And the answer is, of course we can consider it now, but we have to consider all the implications of it now the way we would consider them Three years from now, say, if you said, well, you're not going to do any of this until you know what your development is going to be.

Yeah, right now we can't move forward, because it's all one piece. Is that correct?

Yeah, it's one piece, yeah.

We have no options for the future right now.

Yeah, so... I just want to make sure you understand we're exploring both the options and the concerns for the future. We can't just explore the options without reviewing the concerns. I totally appreciate that.

Completely appreciate that.

Do you have any more of a presentation? That's pretty much it. Okay. Well, this is a public hearing. This is the opening of a public hearing. So are there questions or comments from members of the public? Yes. Yes, if you'll come up to the stand and...

Elizabeth Plunkett, 12 Wildwood Road. It's the first I've heard of this, except when I got the letter, because I'm probably within 500 feet of what's proposed. Hearing it right now, my first thoughts would be, why not just subdivide, sell the house? You've got revenue from that. Why do we have to then have a potential, which we know is going to happen in the future? This is what I'm feeling. Obviously, there's thoughts of development. So therefore, do a three subdivision. I would rather just see the house sold and let's see what happens down the road because there are things that we have to consider, especially coming up Wildwood Road. Right now, there's tons of traffic on Wildwood Road, even though you don't think there would be. There's the paddle tennis courts at the top, the softball field, Razorfield. Lots of traffic there, lots of trouble parking. I know that we do have a little parking lot for Razorfield in the park, I'm assuming that we're talking about just past the condos. Is that where this? That's correct. Okay. Okay. I always thought that was lots of wetland back there.

There is some.

Okay. So there is a lot of traffic on Wildwood Road because of the softball season. They have a lot of parking problems. We have the town camp that you do not go out of my driveway at 9 a.m. or 3 p.m. during the season because they're dropping their children off at the town camp. So that's another consideration. We don't have sewers on Wildwood Road, so I'm not sure why that backfield would be part of the sewer system.

I believe it has to do with when the When the city was originally trying to solve the septic problems in Katona, they proposed three sewage treatment plants that they were going to pay for. And then one of the deals the town made was that instead of spending the money on three treatment plants, they would put that money aside and give it to the town to help finance a sewer system if it went through. And one of those sewage treatment plants was at St. Mary's School. Right. So the sewer system had to take care of everything that the sewage treatment plants would have taken care of.

So that would allow 16 apartments to funnel into that treatment that's at St. Mary's School.

The treatment plant would have been designed to do the same thing.

Okay. So they could potentially build 16 apartments up there, and there's no problem. They wouldn't be on septic. They would be part of the sewer.

As I understand it, they would be on the sewer system, yes.

Okay. Okay.

We'll ascertain for sure whether that is true.

Okay. Yeah, we have water holes. No, we don't have water holes either. So where would the entrance, I'm trying to picture where the entrance would actually be. I go right past the, do the condos own the grass and the trees right across from Razorfield? And then there's a fence. Is that where it is?

There's no proposed entrance.

What's that?

Well, there is a... We have a proposal on destroying three. We just showed that it's possible. Yeah. We just... It's hard to see up there. There's that three lots subdivision. So if you went to this drawing, this is a single family house. There's the driveway. About middle of the property. Maybe 60%. That's wild. This is all steep slopes and that's all wetlands. So we'd have to migrate in there. With wetland approval, going to the town, Bedford's Wetlands Control Commission, tiny board for steep slopes. We're trying to stay out of those areas. And we had to prove that it is a buildable lot. And that's a single family home, which is the least amount of development.

And apropos the issue of... an entrance and whether it's appropriate for us to look at it. One of the things we do have to consider in any subdivision is whether we're cutting off important ways of, of getting into specific properties. When, when a planning board is not careful about that, when it does a subdivision, it can create a situation where a, A lot can only be accessed with a very damaging kind of entrance. But if it's because of the actions of the town being careless about it, the town is going to have to let the access go forward. So we do have to look at whether or not there is an access possibility. for a lot before we separate it from the rest of the lot. It's just one of the issues we have to consider.

Is that a sidewalk or is that more engineering joints with respect to gradient? Because again, we wanted to prove on paper and we have the slopes 8%, 3%, all of that with the contours.

My assumption is it would be primarily an engineering joint. just the way you have to be able to prove that you've got a working solution for septic, you have to be able to prove you can actually get onto the new lot you've created. Otherwise, it can't be a legitimate subdivision.

Can I ask one more question? Then I'll let someone else do. So if it's broken into three parts, lots right now the one lot that has well it's part of the whole thing right so if we if we sell off that little house on the side that's one lot um second lot would be up the athletic fields off the wildwood where the rectory is right now and the big parking lot to the school what's to prevent that from being developed into apartments

That would require a whole host of variances. That's impervious. That's already established. We have an easement coming in there. St. Mary's has no plans to expand that footprint.

I'm living there right now. I don't intend to move.

The other thing is that I shouldn't bring up people's nightmares, but let's say the church decided that was too big a house for you and you needed something much smaller somewhere else and decided that the rectory wasn't something they wanted to keep. There's nothing that would stop them from applying to do multifamily housing on it without a subdivision. Okay. it wouldn't be a separate law. That's one thing to remember is that it is a developable property. We don't know if it's a physically developable property, but it's a legally developable property as it is now.

Okay. I've asked my questions.

Thank you. Yes.

Good evening, my name's Tom Conrad. My wife and I have lived at 118 Valley Road for 36 years. And I've been friends with our neighbors, next door neighbor, Steven. As a matter of fact, knew the Servonis when they lived there for many, many years until Seal and Henry passed away and Marcus now moved out, I'm sure at the request of the church in order to present this proposal. I think we need to be honest that the whole point of subdividing is to develop. And I guess my main concern is that whatever development occurs abides by the town's own language in its comprehensive plan, if I can quote from that, to protect the overall scale and quality of Bedford's established residential areas. This is a very established residential area. The homes... at least ours is 100 years old and some of them are even older. And it's a very neighborly place where children are walking on sidewalks, riding their bikes. And I would want to ask, and I guess maybe this has to get pushed down to the building department or the zoning board of appeals if it gets to the development phase, which I have no doubt it eventually will. But it would concern me if the town did not abide by these things. And another part of the comprehensive plan says the introduction of residential use is significantly different than that established for the area should be avoided. So I don't know how I can trust that these policies would be followed. I sometimes am concerned when I see some of the development that's gone on. For instance, at the bottom of Hillside, road where it meets Congdon, which is very close to us. There's an enormous home going up that is in no way, shape, or form is abiding by the scale and quality of that established neighborhood. So who do I appeal to? When does that come into the process? And does the subdivision of this lay the groundwork for development that I and other neighbors who have bought these properties are going to have problem living with.

And that's a complicated question. I wish there was an easy answer. I'm glad you brought up the one you did because people tend to assume that it's the type of development that's likely to determine whether the neighbors are comfortable with it. But the home you mentioned is a single family home. And this board actually tried to get it made smaller. But the fact of the matter is that's what it's zoned for. That's what the land has been zoned for.

I know, and they didn't even need a variance for it.

And if they don't need a variance, that's all the more indication that it is in...

Keeping.

If not keeping, at least legally within the realm.

It totally counteracts the scale of the neighborhood. And I guess my question, Stephen, how big is the lot that the house is on? That's more than a quarter acre. Because clearly the house is going to be sold. Father, correct? I mean, if you get the subdivision, it's going to be sold. No, I understand. If you get the subdivision, your plan is to sell it. You don't want to maintain it. You've said that.

That would seem to me to be a positive from the town's point of view.

But I would abhor the situation where a redevelopment of that lot, and we're still looking at what the lot size is. I mean, this is a VA zone. It has to be a 50-foot setback from the front. It has to be 100 feet on the sides. Obviously, they're going to need a variance, and I just am concerned that the zoning board would allow them to build some monstrosity that doesn't match the neighborhood.

Are you talking about now the small?

The single-family home.

The single-family home that's there. I believe that home is a Tier 1 historic home. So that offers… that makes it very difficult for them to demolish it.

So that has some... Any new owner would have to renovate what's there as opposed to tear down and build a

I would assume it would be a very, they always have the option of asking.

Lots 2 is $10,575. So it's what quarter acres owns. But again, anybody buying that house, if they wanted to do an addition, they would have to go to the zoning board.

So that's where the next fight would be. Zoning board. All right. Well, I want to, you know, lodge my concerns and hopefully you'll take that into account as you make the decision. Thanks.

Yeah. I don't think the public hearing part of this is over yet, Steve.

No. Okay.

Hi, my name is Barbara Bright Modelson. My husband and I have lived at 31 Wildwood Road for 40 years. We've put two children through the John J. Katona Lewis Borough School system, and now we have grandchildren in the town of Bedford, over in Bedford Corners. We're very invested in this town. And so gentlemen over here, I'm meeting new people. Nice to meet you. I think he said it really well. There is a spirit and aura of Katona that makes it special. And Deidre, you know it better than anyone. You fought a lot to keep that spirit going. I am a numbers person, not financially, but more like, you know, units. And I was hearing different numbers thrown out. And it was very confusing to me of the Catholic church, We'll always have needs for money here. Maybe not in Rome, but here. So, I mean, Father, you know that. Sorry, but that's just the way it is. I heard 16 apartments, off-site street parking. Off-site street parking. What was that about?

Basically, it's on site parking. If we develop 16 apartments, we would have to make sure we can provide. Marking on this property to meet their bedroom counter. So, and that's what we pooped out of 1 that requires 1 and a half spaces of 2 bedroom unit requires 2 spaces.

Okay.

So we were to develop 16 apartments made up and make sure that there's no deficiency.

Okay, and 16 apartments would encompass all 3 lots, just the 1 empty, the 3 point something acres in the back.

What's what's.

Okay, so this area. Okay. So we're going for 3 lots. That's the, that's the dream here. So, potentially, there could be more development per lot.

Anybody can do anything with the record, but the church has no desire to expand the record.

I understand. I'm not asking about the church. I'm asking about the parameters. How can we frame this?

There's a zoning code. You've got setbacks, coverages, things like that that control development.

So those three lots, let's just say those three lots potentially could be 16 times three.

No. No. We covered that the one house that could be subdivided out as a tier one historic was protected by the historic standards and would require a whole slew of approvals to be able to do any modification there. You have the rectory. That the church has stated there is no interest in changing at this time. And then there's the vacant to be created potential lot three, which is where it is, what they're trying to prove in order to state that it can be a viable lot. They have to prove or demonstrate through the different manners in which it can be developed. So they have put forth. a 16-unit multifamily housing development, which is the densest it could be to the zoning code and what is buildable, as well as a potential single-family option. So we are reviewing what is possible.

All right. So which one of those lots is the one we're talking about?

Lot 3, the one that is off of the northern portion of the property.

You don't have to make it a lot. It's part of the record. I'm horrible at this stuff. Okay. All right. So, anyway. All right.

Let's try and let the person at the left turn be the smaller.

The other thing, the words I heard were gas, electric, and water were basically accessible for all of these.

Connet is in the street. Water is in the street. Valley Road. Okay.

Kind of not nice.

I said, yes, kind of gas.

Oh, okay.

Nice. Electric kind of gas. Sewers industry, but this part of this subdivision is a 25 foot wide utilities from Valley road to service that back. If it was. That's only makes it file. Okay, because of the weapons and the steep slopes, we couldn't do private septic.

All right. All right. And then just one other comment about numbers. I heard Wildwood, 21 apartments.

Yeah. It said 21 condos. My father actually signed it down in the corner of Wildwood. That's 21. Yeah.

There are existing condos.

Okay. I got it. Both lots are abutted by single family and by multifamily existing.

Okay. Condos terrace are 12 apartments. Yes. They're all 12.

Okay. All right. All right. So, I mean, it's a very significant change in the nature of that area of town. And in terms of advocacy for the children, which is always my primary thing, I have a background in this, but not with planning in terms of this type of thing. The town camp is robust. It's doing very nicely. It is a gem. It's saving families. because they can put their kids in decent camp at an affordable price during the summer. As Elizabeth referred to, and she is first person expert, as well as Peter, her husband, the traffic, I mean, if we had, and we had Bedford police here, they would attest also, the traffic flow on Wildwood is dangerous. And my husband's a personal injury lawyer. So I can tell you, he's said it many, many times. And if you know anything about Wildwood, it is a two, it's two narrow lanes and there is a blind hill and there is no ease. There's no what's word?

Shoulder.

No shoulder on either side at the crest of that hill. And in my 40 years living on the block, I remember vividly Easter Sunday many years ago. I had one little kid at that time. A car was going very, very fast, went up that hill, turned over on its roof. It was going so fast. And two men ran into the woods and the police went after them. But the point is, it's crazy. And it's just the way, the nature of that road. So that road would have to be significantly addressed in terms of safety and number one for the children. And there's no way anyone can say that we didn't know about it because we do know about it because that camp's been in place and functioning for many years. So I would say there's a huge issue with development on Wildwood just because of that and the impact of summer camp. So that's it. Father, I wish you luck. I am a parishioner. We'll see how for how much longer. And, you know, and the finances of the finances. The last thing I did here, I was just like, you know, I work with many, many religious groups when I was working for the state. Did you say you were paying taxes on the house behind them?

No.

Oh, I thought I heard.

It's all about the taxes.

It's off the tax rolls. So the whole issue for the cost to the church is what? Just the structure being there? Or you would like just to get some money?

Right now I have an abandoned house adjacent to the right. With that piece, that has to be addressed immediately. And the other aspect of future development was to look at the parcel that comes with it.

Understood. Okay. I think I've said enough, but thank you so much. And, you know, it's a great town, that's all. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other comments or questions from the audience?

Thank you. Some questions.

Dan Bigman, 6 Ashby Place, which is right down the street from this. Just a few simple questions. What is the area currently zoned for? Madam Chairman, what is the area currently zoned for? What's the largest allowable use in the existing space? Village apartments. Village apartments.

Yeah, it's already zoned for village apartments. So it's already zoned. This is not a rezoning.

So as of right, they could go right to multifamily if the subdivision was allowed.

It could go to multifamily today without the subdivision.

Correct. So you could basically, if you wanted to knock down the rectory with the existing site, you could go. And what would the density be there if they were to do that?

I can't tell you off the top of my head.

Yeah, building coverage and setbacks.

But it's 16. So as of right now, they could move without doing a subdivision if they decided to get rid of the rectory, get rid of the house, get through the historic district. They could move on all of this. But the access would be from Valley Road?

Yes. That would all depend on what the proposal was.

That would avoid a wetlands issue, though.

Yes.

Well, I'm just saying, you know, as the woman before said, what's possible?

Sure.

The park would be definitely an interesting option. What was the process for the multifamilies that were there right now? What was the thinking that went into... zoning that for the two multifamily areas that were there now and the village apartments. I have only been here 14 years, so I don't know what that was.

And since that zoning was in place more than the 40 years that I've been here, I can't tell you for sure. It wasn't rezoned for, as I understand it, for those

Condos? Condos.

I believe it was VA since 1926, which is when the zoning code was done. So those are where they are because it was already zoned for them.

How far down does that village apartment zoning run down Valley and Wildwood?

I think it ends at Valley. It doesn't include...

It ends at that corner, right?

Yeah, I think it ends with those two developments.

Okay, and the only other question I would have is just for you, and any idea about the school itself, that building, any other uses planned or thought of, or is it just...

Right now, the school is occupied. It is used. We have a pre-K program there. We have a very comprehensive religious education program. The gymnasium is really well attended, but CYO programs, youth leagues, other types of programs, uses, and it is... Very capable of being ramped up to be another school.

Again, zone for village apartments. That's the zoning that underlies that lot.

Hey, yeah, it's in that's on this.

Yeah. Okay. Thank you so much.

Okay. Any other comments or questions from members of the audience. If someone anyone on zoom that would like to. Oh, sorry.

I'm Susan Polos to Ashby Place, Katona. Lived here 40 years also. So my understanding is, are you able to approve subletting or changing the, you know, creating two Are they called sublet zones? What are they called?

It's two lots.

But can you not approve the three lots and approve two lots? I mean, so that they can sell the house, but otherwise they'd have to sell everything as opposed to giving them this extra lot when we know that they're going to develop it, which is scary for most of us. And we don't want that. I'm just wondering, is that something that you guys can do or not? Can you make a decision to only allow this to become two lots as opposed to three?

The only way I know of that we could consider something like that is if we found that there was something undevelopable about a large chunk of the space.

So otherwise, whatever is requested could happen.

Could happen, yes.

The application is for three lots, so it could be denied for three lots, and then the applicant would have to decide how they're going to proceed at that point. But the board would, you know, the applicant would have to change their application at that point.

Right. Well, I think that the neighborhood really hopes that happens.

Are there any other comments or questions from members of the audience in the courtroom before I go to the Zoom? Is it?

Yes. Show the two extremes, but a single family house or multifamily permitted uses in that zone. You know someone could come in and do their due diligence and say, OK, we only want 12. Maybe one townhouse study, but we had to prove on paper that it lends itself.

Yeah, I mean, let's all of us be aware. That whenever. change comes up, people want to know and have a right to know what the possible parameters of that change will be or could be. It's not unreasonable to have those questions and you can't expect people to ignore the potential for development if the potential for development is actually there. You can't pretend it's not. So the This points us in the direction, not of a particular conclusion, but of a particular set of things we have to look at and study carefully. We also have to accept the fact that whoever owns the property, whether it's a church or an individual or a business, has property rights, as we all do. Most of us would probably object if we wanted to add a bedroom to our house and our next-door neighbor said, I just don't like it. so you shouldn't be able to add the bedroom. Now, I know that's a very different thing, but it's sometimes easy to forget that when we're dealing with a larger piece of property or with an institutional owner that they still have rights, property rights that are the equivalent of what the rest of us have. And this board, no matter what our emotional feelings about one thing may be one way or another, has both a legal and a moral obligation to respect those rights. And it's not always It doesn't always mean that we end up approving things we're crazy about. Or sometimes it means we approve things that we think are right that other people think are wrong. We do the best we can. But what you have a right to demand of us is that we do it carefully, that we seriously consider your opinions and your rights, but that you remember that the applicant has the right to consider the same, to expect the same out of us, a respect for their rights. And we don't get to say, oh, these rights are more important than those rights, or this person's rights are more important than this person's rights. Are there any comments or questions from the Zoom? Who's monitoring this? Any?

hand or we got to know i don't see any there's no comments at this time on zoom so okay i have a question to formalize a subdivision is it another meeting is it a site walk is it drawings traffic studies all of those things where the church would have they don't want to play developer they but how would your board approve a subdivision again not tonight but uh hopefully in the near future, again, with the main emphasis to get the house off their ledger.

What the main emphasis is, is not the question. if the main emphasis is reflected in what the proposal is, then we can, then we can consider it. So if, if what you're saying is, could we give a subdivision for a two lot subdivision? Sure. We, I mean, sure. We still have to study it and approve it, but we, the fact that you did a three, you would want all that other stuff ironed out.

Yeah, so then we may have to market it, get a developer, a contract vendee, and let them do the whole rope, go through it.

That sounds a little bit like a threat.

No, I'm just saying the sequence. Because you can't sell anything if it's one lot. No. And it's value there.

Again, you... Any applicant, including the church, has to make up its mind about what it makes sense for it to try and do and what it's genuinely after. If the... Well, I'm not going to speculate.

We may come back and say it's a two-lot subdivision. Get it approved so they can sell the house off. But I have to talk to...

What we have to do is we can't say, oh, because this is six years in the future or 10 years in the future, we can do something now without considering all the ins and outs of it. Because it won't matter 10 years from now. It will matter 10 years from now. We're not talking, and I should make this clear, we're not talking about doing a full environmental study as if a multifamily residence has been proposed. So you're not talking about the level of engineering studies that that would have. But what we'd have to do is figure out what What are the things that are more likely to happen if it's subdivided than if not? Is there anything? I mean, in some ways, it might be less likely that there would be a massive development if we subsidized it, subdivided it. We're at the beginning of that process of trying to figure out what questions we have to ask. and how many questions we have to ask. And the applications of this sort in particular, where they have a huge impact on the future, but what the impact is is a bit foggy, are very, very difficult for us. But we will do our best to be fair in figuring out where to go with this. One more.

I just have a quick procedural question.

How does this generally go? Like, it's great.

You have up here. Wait. Okay. I'm sorry. You have to go.

If that's just a question, we can just repeat it. Okay.

A little itty-bitty question. So I don't know if I stand behind this thing, too. You want to share it with me? All right. So procedurally, can you just educate? Because I've never done this in a long time. I probably never will do it again. So how does this go, this type of dialogue between the developer, the potential seller? The committee, the public, who's here, and there are other people. I don't know. Do we have people on Zoom right now? I know some of our neighbors are on Zoom.

Well, if they want to speak, they need to raise their hands, but no one's raised hands yet.

I want you to ask them. I can't do that. People on Zoom, raise your hands. But how does it work, Deidre? What is this process?

In 25 words or less.

We'll make it simple. Deidre.

It sounds to some extent like a lot of talking back and forth because that's our part of it. The applicant at this point also has to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals. And one of the things we, the only thing we will do tonight is discuss the basic outline of the treatment of Seeker, the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and In this case, the applicant will probably next go to the Zoning Board of Appeals because of the kind of application it is. I'm going to suggest that we do an uncoordinated review, which means that... The planning board will review its part of it, and the zoning board will stick with its part because the zoning board's issues are all what we call type twos. They don't involve any real environmental investigation, so it doesn't make sense for them to be hooked in with the more complicated things that we'll deal with. At the very least, we're going to ask for discussions of the extent of wetlands and steep slopes, because that tells us how much of the lot is likely to be able to be developed. We'll want some studies of entryway and the traffic issues.

Traffic would not be studied as part of... Not because there's no potential action that's causing a traffic issue here.

It's the subdivision that's being considered. I think I'm misusing my terms, but you can correct me if I... Well, there's traffic and there's road safety. Right, road safety. And road safety is a different issue.

The access issue certainly would be studied, correct? Yeah. I apologize. That would be...

The numbers are not...

The traffic impacts from a potential 16-lot or 16-unit subdivision would not be studied as this because there's no potential action for that. I know it's a future one, but that would be studied. If somebody came back in and said, hey, if you have a 16-lot, that's all going to be a fair game for the public at that point in time.

This is actually a good example of the kinds of back and forth that you'll get. What would be studied that... from a lay person's point of view may seem like, like traffic is road safety, that there's got to be a safe entrance to it. Okay. All right.

Well, I appreciate the fact that you took time to do that much explaining and I, we're all here. We hope our comments have been heard and everybody's speaking in good faith. I know many of these people I'm, And, you know, by virtue of the fact we've been here so long, we care very much about community, including St. Mary's. I mean, St. Mary's is a great neighbor.

The parish has been here for a while as well.

Yeah, yeah. But, you know, traffic, I would include the police department, if that's all I can say, because of the camp. All right. Thank you so much. Okay.

At this point, I think I'm going to ask to... Again, the key word, there's no development for this lot three. It's too many. There's a lot of veritables. Someone, like I said, single family house, they may want four apartments. Okay.

I think what I'm going to ask, first of all, is for a motion to adjourn the public hearing before... Second. Any further discussion? All in favor? Aye. All opposed? So the public hearing is adjourned. The next time this is on the agenda, it will be a reopening of the public hearing. This is a type two, sorry, this is an unlisted action. So this board does need to do the Seeker audit. One possibility would be for us to declare ourselves lead agency, but... I actually think it makes more sense for us to do this as an uncoordinated review. So that's the one decision I'd like to see us make tonight is whether to do the uncoordinated. So do I have a motion?

I move that we do this as an uncoordinated, as a coordinated review. No, uncoordinated.

I know it sounds like a bad thing to be uncoordinated, but that's the... Second. Is there any further discussion? Does anybody have any questions about that? Okay, all in favor of our doing this as an uncoordinated review? Aye. All opposed? So that leaves the zoning board to do its thing. The applicant does need some variances. I don't know if it makes sense for you to come back to us before you've investigated that with the zoning board.

Zoning board, we may be able to get on October. Deadline is the 3rd this month, September. Everybody will be notified, I assume, within 500 feet. So it's another 85 mailings. And then come to the zoning board meeting. And that's really for the side yard variances in the front yard. No building coverage. Nothing's being built for the house. So hopefully we'll get that variance.

Actually, I had a question for our town attorney on that one. With the... If they get the variances for the setbacks for the single-family house, those wouldn't apply if later... there was an application for a multifamily development. No, not at all. Those variances would not...

Completely different application. So they would not be... Yeah, I couldn't see how in a situation how they would apply because I'm assuming that house would be gone and new structures would be in place.

Now I'm just trying to avoid some surprises like a couple of the ones we've had where we found out we did something the town did something when they made a decision that they had no knowledge that they were doing.

And the zoning board would still need to, because it's an uncoordinated review, zoning board's still going to have to issue its own environmental determination regarding the proposed variances and the subdivision, actually. So they're going to have to look at similar issues that you guys are looking at, but they, you know, can do it in the context of the variance.

Although most of it, their variances are type two, so they don't.

Well, they're not only, but because the whole project is part of the subdivision with the variances, they do have to look at the environmental impacts from the proposed subdivision as well as part of their review. Just putting it out there.

I did not realize that.

They don't only look at the things that they're approving. So that's, you know. So I don't know if that impacts the board's determination. We could always discuss it if you don't think it's appropriate. I think we can discuss it if you don't think it's appropriate anymore. And Mr. Michaelis is here. We can discuss it with him, chair of the zoning board. And if we need to change that, we can change it.

Okay. I might be interested in having Mr. Michaelis' point of view on that. Yes, no, not right now. Talk about somebody looking like a deer caught in the headlights. Okay, I think that's all that we can talk about tonight on this.

So the level of engineering drawings are creating a subdivision. I can confirm with you, Jessica.

We can, but as the chair stated, it's not going to be a full engineering type of set. But your next step really is to make that application to the zoning board in order to move that forward. And I think it might be helpful if you do speak with your client just on some of the comments that the public made this evening as well as the planning board just with regards to the viability or the non-viability of a two-lot subdivision. I think that would be nice to have on the record as well just to close that door.

Okay. Okay. that if a two lot would streamline things quicker to get that house off the thing and five years.

Yeah, we did discuss that.

However, my client wish to do the three lot because of legal fees of recording it with the county and so forth.

But just be open to revisiting the idea of a two lot. Yeah.

All right. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. The next item on our agenda is to consider an application for a special use permit for a previously approved and existing cottage pursuant to 125-79.1. The owner-applicant is the Elizabeth Jellef Messenger Family Revocable Trust. The address is 189 Poundridge Road in Bedford. Is there someone here to speak for the applicant?

Someone on Zoom. She declined to be promoted to panelists, so just try again.

She's the homeowner. She needs to be promoted.

I mean, I had been told that there would be somebody here speaking for the homeowner, but I wasn't sure who.

There are people here who could speak for her, but she is on the ground.

Oh, Elizabeth, would you like to?

If you could just unmute yourself, I'm more happy to hear your comments.

Peter, can you unmute yourself?

She has to unmute herself. No one else can unmute her.

We can just ask that she does it.

Can you raise your hand, the little icon, hand icon, Elizabeth, to let us know that you're hearing what we're saying? She may not even be hearing us. Is there anybody that's in touch with her on?

Yes. Hi.

Hi. Okay. Are you?

She's actually abroad. She raised her hand and asked to be allowed to be a panelist.

She is currently a panelist.

She was promoted, yes.

She's just got a job.

Is she unable to?

She says she's been kicked out of the meeting and she's been trying to get in again.

Oh. Oh, dear. Okay. Unfortunately, Elizabeth is away. She's abroad. She's in Greece right now. My name is Caroline Shepard, and I am her real estate broker. We are currently marketing the home. And my understanding is that in 2015, Elizabeth legalized this ADU program. rental and also every five years it is up for inspection re-inspection which apparently has been done recently and past inspection yes it has it has in fact passed inspection is there anything else that is needed at this time

In terms of information, I think we have the information we need. I don't know if we have the legal right to go forward without...

Without speaking to the actual owner.

Yeah, I... It's a very straightforward application.

You have an application in front? Is there a public hearing required on this? No. No.

Well, wait a minute. Yes, there is.

She is presently legalized.

Yeah, there is a public hearing.

This is a public hearing, so you can move forward with the public hearing. Oh, it's open right now? No, we have it. You can move forward with the public hearing. And then it's your sort of choice. If you're going to deny the application, you probably would wait until you want to hear from the applicant. Or you could wait because the applicant's not here tonight.

I hate to do that. Let's try opening the public hearing and see where it goes.

If somebody here is willing to give a description of what it is, I think you have the applicant's real estate agent who can give you a description. If the planning board's comfortable moving forward with an approval, I wouldn't have a problem with that without hearing from the applicant. If it's a denial, I certainly would. Or if there's...

The applicant is seeking approval, so one would argue she wouldn't be...

If there's significant opposition, you may want to give the applicant an opportunity to respond to that.

So I'd like to open the... Could I have a motion to open the public hearing? Second. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? The public hearing is now open. Is there anyone who wants to speak? on behalf of the...

I'm Susan Polos. I live at 2 Ashby Place, Katona. I know Elizabeth, and I know she's trying very, very hard to be present. She's been present all the way through. She's in Athens, Greece. But this is very important to her. My understanding is that there was an approval for this and that she did not understand that she needed to go through the process... uh in a in the every other year perhaps i don't know i'm i'm just here to say that she's an incredibly wonderful resident she often has i believe she has uh this particular apartment she's often it's often been available to people who really need it and she's great and I think I hope if since there is no problem that I hope we can move forward without her having to be here because it would be so unfortunate since she's true I think it's the middle of the night or somewhere where she is and she's really been here throughout the entire meeting and she's trying to get in and It just must be technical difficulties.

I mean we have a fair amount of information and

Yes, because she did go through a great length. I believe it took her more than a year to get this original approval. And it was successfully inspected recently. And she will be moving to California within the next month. So it will be very important when she transfers the property, obviously, that this is completed. This is how we are marketing it as a legal ADU.

Let me ask again, are there any other comments or questions from members of the audience?

I'm Mary Ann Carr, and I have visited Elizabeth numerous times. She has always had tenants in the ADU unit. It has met approval, and she is expected to be moving from the area the middle of September. And so, again, she would probably not be available in person. It is on the market, and she would like to have this finalized tonight, if at all possible, because it hinges on the realtor being able to market the property.

The important thing right now for the public hearing is whether there are any problems with it. And so far, I'm not hearing any problems. Are there any other comments from...

Is it currently tenant occupied now?

Can you hear us?

It is currently unoccupied. Yes.

But just as of reset, it was occupied up until probably about a month ago.

Yeah. I'm trying to Elizabeth, can you hear us? Can you?

She is unmuted.

It would be helpful to this board to know whether or not there is anyone who has any objections to this. So if there's anyone who wants to... not the right way to go about this, but the public hearing should really be about the application itself, not about whether it's how important it is to the person to get it. Even though that's a perfectly valid thing for her neighbors and her friends to be concerned about and to let us know about. But are there any Questions apropos this application? Doesn't seem to be any objection to it.

Is there a chat option?

I think I'm going to ask to let the chair go where I'm going with this. Because I don't think you'll object to where I'm going. I just want to be up there. So I'm hearing no other comments from members of the audience or from the Zoom, correct? Correct. So there is no, nothing negative has been brought up. Are there questions or comments from members of the board?

No.

Could I have a motion to close the public hearing?

Second.

Any further discussion? All in favor of closing the public hearing? Aye. All opposed? The public hearing is closed. On the basis of what is before us, there doesn't seem to me to be any reason not to renew the special permit. It has been successfully examined. She's gone to the trouble of getting the renewal done. It's not unusual for this renewal to be late, and it doesn't imply anything. I would entertain a motion to... approve the special permit with the conditions that were appropriate to the original approval.

Do we have to do seeker?

No, because it says a type two. Okay. So is there a motion?

I move that we find it's a type two action.

Okay, all in favor of it being declared a type two action? All opposed? Could I have a motion to grant the special permit with the resolution? With the conditions? I have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? Is everyone, is staff comfortable with this approach?

Yes, and the valid approval stands until August 31st of 2031, in case anyone's curious future buyer is out there.

All in favor? Aye. All opposed? We have the extension of the application of the special use permit. I hope you heard that, Elizabeth, and I hope you approve of what we've just done. Okay. Next item on our agenda. is an easy one. For Town Code Chapter 125-133 to review a referral from the Town Board for a proposed zoning petition and conceptual site plan for 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. The owner is Alchemy Bedford Tenant, LLC. The applicant is LHP Old Post Road, LLC. The address is 633-647 Old Post Road. And we're getting to this rather later than I had hoped we would.

Good evening, Madam Chairperson, members of the board, P. Daniel Hollis, Kettinger, Waldinger, Monteleone, Gashue, and Hollis, 118 North Bedford Road, Mount Kisco, New York, for the applicant. I'm here tonight with two of the members from the applicant, Clint Olson and Tom Kennedy, our architectural consultant, Kirtley Cameron's here with us as well. And on the Zoom is Celin Heather, the architect of record. I'm just going to be very brief and turn it over to Mr. Pather to take us through the recent submission that was made to the board. I think it's important to note for the record that our submission was responsive in no small part to the comments we received at the July 13th meeting from both the Bedford Village Historic District Review Commission and from this board. And I think that the materials submitted better reflect the compatibility of this project with a character scale material integrity of the bedford village historic district and that the scale siting massing material scale and the proportionality is something that mr pather will start to walk you through right now so with that ceilin would you take over yes thank you thank you um can you hear me yes thank you very much

Good evening, everybody. My name is Stephen Popham, the principal of Banfield Architecture. I'm joined by my associate, Max Odley. I think he's on. It's nice to be before you again. I'm going to share my screen just to make sure I can. One, two, three, four. Okay, I think you can see my screen now.

Yeah.

So again, it's very nice to be before you again. What I have to show you tonight is progress and more accurately how we will go about progressing the design. We have received valuable feedback from both the Planning Board and the Historic Commission and have both started to incorporate suggestions. and also define areas in which we will be incorporating suggestions as our work evolves. So based on this, we think it's appropriate that I read the response we created to the Historic Commissions Memorandum. They were careful and intentional in their memo, and we want to be careful and intentional in our response. This is a high-level response, though. We fully intend to get into great detail in the actual design as they did, but this is the start. So our response. I'm reading here, and we will submit this to you for the record. We appreciate the Bedford Village Historic Commission's careful preliminary review as described in its working memorandum. The document was clear and detailed, and it provides a roadmap for both the process and a building that will add value to the village. We have embraced the details of the memorandum, not only because it is an honest document with the village's interest at its core, but also because its primary goals are the goals that we share and have attempted to incorporate from the beginning of the design process when I met with you months ago. The following narrative is aspirational. It's important because it's earlier in design, in that we're firmly back at the drawing board now, informed by the feedback we have received from the village and the residents. We believe our initial concepts and designs have the same aspiration qualities as the feedback we have received. While we are still designing, we believe our underlying programming concepts are sound with regards to the retail, the parking, where it is, how you connect to it, and so on. But with that in mind, the following are edited extracts from the Historic Commission's memorandum where the design and development team believe our goals are aligned. So I'm quoting here. Bridge via invention with vernacular tradition. This is a quote from that memo. Read this as creating architecture that bridges between old and new. A particular reference that resonates with us as a design firm, and I'm quoting again, design a genuinely contemporary building whose bones come straight from the district's DNA, but whose detailing is clean and honest rather than applied antique. It should look like it belongs to the family and was built in our generation. So we are aligned on architectural vernacular with that first point. Second, and I'm quoting again, the commission still has aimed to retain the look of a small colonial town center. And Bedford is described as a walking village. Walkability and an active street edge run the grain here. But yes, active street edges, placemaking of the street, and the continuation of a curated sidewalk along our property are primary design considerations for us. They've always have been, and we are aligned on the pedestrian experience. Third point. Quoting again, painted wood, clapboard and shingle are the default vocabulary. Brick is a useful, deliberate opening for mixed-use commercial base. This is clear direction for our material choices going forward. We'll suggest that as the members have to show you a little later. And again, we are aligned. Let's keep reading. Yeah, areas where we still, we're still working to meet both the Commission's goals and the programming goals for development. There's an excerpt in the commission's memorandum that speaks to an underlying programming goal for this project, one that was important to both us and the development team. And it's actually their quote. Housing and vibrancy. Upper floor residences bring residents an evening out to the void centers, supporting the ground floor commercial uses and reinforcing the historic pattern of a village that was both a marketplace and a home. We found that compelling. So you'll see the mapping studies we present tonight. We're still studying creative ways to both achieve the program required for this building and the community we want to create around that building, as well as meeting stated goals of reducing the apparent mass of the building and creating a visible stepping down to matching as you can. I'll explain that better with images rather than words in a second. Finally, a significant component of our response to commission's memorandum will be a detailed site land visibility study. Memorandum refers to the ability to see the proposed building from the green in multiple excerpts. There's two separate excerpts including here. First, this is the single most important sentence for the project. The district's value is consistency of the whole and openness around the green. The second quote, Does reduce visibility from the green matter? Yes, probably more than any single fact, any other single fact. But it is a shield, not a magic wand. And we understand what that means. So for this, we will prepare detailed photographic analysis of visibility to the project from the green. And as it was detailed, our plan is detailed and memorable. For any future submissions, you'll see that analysis. So in conclusion, we thank Bedford Village Historic Commission for their attention to detail. We truly believe we are more aligned on concepts than we are apart and look forward to next steps. That's the memo that we will share with you. That was our response. And again, we thank them. If you've read it, it's a very detailed document. I'll go to what we've submitted to you now. So when I say we are filming back with the drawing board, I mean, we are incorporating the feedback that we've received, especially as it relates to the architectural vernacular, the massing, and the pedestrian experience. When I say that we believe the fundamental programming is sound, what I mean is that the parking belongs at the rear, the lower level. that we try to create a retail frontage along the street and that there's a primary connection from the upper roadway and sidewalk to the lower parking that is celebrated those are the fundamentals that we presented from day one those those still exist um so this particular i'm assuming please please forgive me for making anyone dizzy zooming in and out um but this this particular plan uh indicates that We have changed the indicates a change in the original concept from a U shape to a T shape. And the reason for this is that it creates a larger separation to the northern boundary, but 110 feet. There's this particular scheme shows two and a half stories continues along the post road. You'll see that in the 3D. It incorporates a pedestrian courtyard the front of the building that was a a common uh suggestion that we've heard a few times between the planning board and others about creating more meaningful experience along the pedestrian corridor and a recess here would help that and we've created that it's approximately 13 by 13 foot by 40 foot uh what's consistent with the previous penalty that you saw was that um but i potentially the last time i was in front of you was that we're celebrating the connection between the parking and the road and making that something hopefully that's beautiful and a pleasant trip to those with multiple steps and a planted border. So mapping study for that scheme shows a two and a half stories and there's rules for the definition of a half story in your zoning regulations that we will navigate. But what we're suggesting here is that Again, we chose the first floor entry to the main entry to the residences, but residential is the second floor. And to the extent that we can, we're building either lofts or units into the roof, which dormers will help bring the light into. So concept for massing that shows two and a half stories all the way across. You see here that we're starting to show that we have intent with creating a streetscape. And here's that walk down to the parking. In this scheme, we are trying to manage the idea of the units that we want to create with a scale, but now a revised scale that we're presenting. And one potential solution for moving the mass off the top of the building elsewhere is to move it to a lower floor that's below the line of street. and uh that gets it's perfectly fine because you'll get plenty of east light and the way that apartments work is only one exposure has the light so it'll still function as beautiful space but that was one consideration that we take the massing off the roof of this building and put it into a lower floor because there's a quite as you know quite a significant drop from the street to the parking below so there's place to program the building there So in this scheme, we explored the idea of a courtyard, a private courtyard. So this is a more private courtyard than the one we showed you previously. So there's a private courtyard for the tenants as opposed to one that's exposed to the north end. But the concepts of how we treat the street are the same. The pedestrian courtyard still remains in this one. But we want to keep our options open as we figure out the architecture. This particular scheme shows a three-story building that's below the scale of the adjacent building, the adjacent existing building, but still tries to meet the spirit of the feedback we got as it steps down. And we might even take the storm out as it steps down to the north. So that's that's an important takeaway. But control the mass, but also step step the mass down to the north. And it was still there on that. That's what this shows. That's how this is different from the one I just showed you. And that's a view from the north looking south. And you see the slide set back from the playhouse here. And that's going to be really important when we create those view studies from the town green as requested by the historic commission is that we believe that this massing is below the massing of the playhouse and behind the massing of the playhouse as viewed from the town green. then so that's those those diagrams really show our intent to bring down the scale of the building um that was important i think for everybody and then finally is how we treat it and in the spirit of what we're presenting today i know it takes a lot of belief for you to to imagine what this is going to look like hopefully it's going to great but we think it will but this is aspiration this idea that the ideas of building elements that were described uh in detail in the commission's report we present here an image form saying this is the aspirational quality of the buildings we want to create these are the materials we want to use these are the details that we will be obsessive about um and hopefully if we now that with the matching that we've shown uh remember that's something beautiful

Those of the fact that.

The questions on the question the questions or comments from members of the board. Well, I will chime in and say that this is a very different direction than we saw last time and one I'm much more comfortable with. I really do have a sense that it's going in the right direction. I will be very interested in hearing what the general feelings of the historic district commission are when they've got a chance to look at it as individuals. And I hope that perhaps at our next meeting, we could talk together a bit about it when people have time to look at it. But I'm particularly impressed with the extent to which there's been an attempt to listen to what's been said from this vantage point and from the vantage point of the historic district. Are there any?

Do we get to open the public hearing? We should reopen it.

Should we reopen it tonight? Yeah.

It's on the agenda as continued public hearing.

I wasn't sure that we were going to get into a public discussion tonight. That was why I'm wondering, are you saying that we're required to open the public hearing?

I mean, you adjourned it last night. Right. So it's your choice if you'd like to open it.

Well, I'm not sure.

Could I have a motion to open the public hearing? So moved. Second. A motion is second to open the public hearing. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? The public hearing is open.

But I would, I have to admit, I've... Should we limit it to what was just presented?

Well, I'd actually, yes, I'd like to do that, but I'd also like to point out that people have not had a lot of time to look at it in detail, so I don't know that this is a good time to get involved in a major event. Uh, discussion of the, the architectural part of it, perhaps you would like to.

I agree with that person. I think the only thing I would ask procedurally is that the comments of myself and Mr pay there be incorporated within the public hearing portion of tonight's discussion of this project. So that what was just presented by Mr be considered part of the public hearing.

Do I need to do a motion to do that?

No, it's in the record now. And technically, the hearing, if you've adjourned it, it's still open without doing a motion to reopen it, actually, each time. That's kind of what I thought. It's still open. You can just continue it. So it is part of the record.

Okay. So request granted. Any comments from trouble? So I do imagine we will have a bit more discussion on this at the September meeting when people have really the time to delve into it.

That makes sense. I think people are away. And I think by the September meeting, the historic district commission, as you said, will have looked at it. So it'll be more of a vibrant discussion.

At least their members will have had an opportunity.

So any comments in the courtroom?

Any comments right now from members of the public about this?

Questions during the public?

Well, my hope had been to get a bit further in talking about the part three that we've gotten so far.

Well, we can't before we should adjourn the public hearing for the first .

I'm not sure that we should adjourn the public hearing before we talk about the part three.

I'm debating about that.

We have one other very large issue out there, which is the traffic report, which we have now gotten the response from our traffic consultant. We could delve into that, or we could look at the... There are also a number of... fairly uncomplicated issues in the part three that maybe we should do. It's late. We've been doing things. It may not be the right time to get into a deep discussion of the traffic report. But if we could get some of the lesser items out of the way, the things about light pollution and that kind of thing, where I think there's... not a lot of issues. I think it would be worth our while to take maybe 15 minutes or so of the meeting and, and do that if, if everybody's agreeable to make a little bit more progress on moving it forward. Does that make sense? Okay. So then does everybody have the, the, um, draft part three that we've been working with?

I do. It's the last place we dropped off the impact on groundwater.

I thought we got a little further than that.

I think we made it further than that.

That's what I thought.

I believe we stopped at number five. Nice. Or concluded with number nine. Just start with number 10.

Start with 10?

But it sounds like we want to skip that and move forward to 11. Possibly?

I've got to get to number 10.

10 is the impact on historic and archaeological resources.

Yeah, so we want to skip that at the moment.

11 is impact on open space and recreation.

I think that might be a... A simple one. I'm sorry, I'm... It takes me a long time to... 14.

Got it. Yeah. Well, I think this is the most recent.

You say 11. Eleven is impact on open space and recreation, but our EAF response was no, so there really isn't a lot to talk about there. So the comment is the proposed action will not result in a loss of recreational opportunities or a reduction of an open space resource as designated in the adopted municipal open space plan, as the town of Bedford does not have an adopted open space plan. Mm-hmm. So is everybody comfortable with that comment?

Yes.

As drafted. The next is 12, the impact on the critical environmental area. And here we did respond, yes, there was a potential impact. The proposed action may result in a reduction in the quantity of the resource or characteristic, which was the basis for the designation of the CEA. The basis of the CEA is the aquifer in this case. The draft suggests that the proposed action is located within a critical environmental area within the town of Bedford, designated as the aquifer protection zone. The CEA was proposed to protect should be protect drinking water. In the intervening time, the town has installed a series of water wells in order to service properties located with the farm's water district. Regular monitoring and evaluation take place to ensure protection of this resource and that sufficient quantity is provided to district users. Although located within the CEA, the proposed action is wholly purposed to remove negative impacts to the ground source drinking water through the introduction of modern infrastructure technology. The proposed action will reduce illicit spills and discharges and better handle contaminants from encountering drinking water sources. Further, the applicant has received a letter to service for water from the town. So the argument, which makes perfect sense to me, is that although this proposal does still impact the CEA, lessens the impact on the CEA for what is going on in present. So it is, in fact, an improvement. And essentially, we should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good here.

And it makes sense.

Yes.

Okay, so we are accepting that. And the proposed action may result in a reduction in the quality of the resource air characteristic, which was the basis for the designation of the CEA. Our response was no or small impact because the action is, as we said, the CEA is based on the aqua protection zone. I'm not quite sure. Oh, I'm sorry. I misread B. I read air where it was ore. And I was trying to figure out what the CEA had to do with air. As I said earlier, it is getting late. Maybe we shouldn't get too deeply into the technicalities at this time. But essentially the same argument applies that applied in the previous discussion, that this is going to improve the situation. So even though it doesn't perfectly eliminate an impact, it lessens an existing impact. And that impact will not be lessened if the project is not done. Does that make sense to everyone?

Yes, agreed.

And then there are no other impacts of that sort. And the conclusion, therefore, is the planning board finds that the proposed action will not have a significant adverse impact to the CEA, which, given what I've just said, makes perfect sense, I think.

Agreed.

OK. Impact on transportation. That's the traffic impact. I'd like to say we'll go past that for tonight. I would hope to. Is that agreeable to the applicant? OK. Yeah. The proposed action will require new or an upgrade to an existing substation. No. So there's no impact there. The proposed action will require the creation or extension of an energy transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two-family residences or to serve a commercial or industrial use. No, the proposed action does not include housing of more than 50 units. The proposed action may utilize more than 2,500 milliwatt hours per year of electricity. Part 3 EAF response is, no, the proposed action is not expected to require more than 2,500 milliwatt hours of electricity per year, but rather... 400,000 kilowatt hours. I think I'm getting my initials right on that. The proposed action may involve heating and or cooling of more than 100,000 square feet of building area when completed. No, the proposed action does not involve more than 100,000 square feet. The proposed building is approximately 13,000 square feet.

Why did the EAF have a yes if all these were known?

The EAF didn't have a yes. That's what we determined in terms of... Since we're writing a part three anyway. Oh.

I think there's like a...

I think this was a double negative in the response, I think. And that's a point we may want to, in the draft, make it clear because it is confusing. It says that the response is yes, and then every item under it says no. And the reason the response was yes is there was this crazy double negative about it.

I mean, you're the part two will be attached, regardless as part of the full record.

So they make a clarification.

Yeah, I sometimes think it's worth 13,000 is multiple levels. It's 39,000.

And maybe less than 13,000, possibly two with maybe the redesign. I'm not sure if the square foot exchange, but that would be something I would ask for clarification from the applicant on if you could be a slightly revised figure if it's necessary.

Yeah, what the maximum be, I guess. So you want it to be wrong, but it's only 30,000 feet in total.

Just to ask a logistical question, you got rid of the parking under the building because you reduced the mass and more of the mass in the basement. Is that part of it?

No, there is still parking under the building. What we're doing is stepping it down. So they're still beyond that final. If you remember on the previous one,

Now we also made the decision to include a lot of where we said no, just to make it clear why we said no. Impact on noise, odor and light. We said yes, that it might produce sound above noise levels established by local regulation, but the response is noted small. The proposed action may produce sound above noise levels only on a temporary basis during construction while using standard construction equipment machinery methods. No blasting or extended construction noise is expected. And then construction is anticipated to be completed within 18 months. And the noise levels will return to ambient decibel levels after construction is complete. So I think that handles the issue. The proposed action may result in blasting within 15,000 feet of any residence, hospital, school, licensed daycare center, or nursing home. The response is no to small because the applicant does not anticipate blasting. Any rock that could potentially be encountered would be hammered on site. If blasting were to be necessary, the applicant would be required to follow the town's blasting permit. The proposed action may result in multiple odors for more than one hour per day. The response is no to small. No odors will be routinely admitted for more than one hour per day. The proposed wastewater treatment facility will use an aerobic process which does not produce any unusual odors. The air leaving the tank will be treated with a granular activated filter. And then the proposed action may result in light shining onto adjoining properties. The EIF answers again a moderate to large impact here. As the site is currently vacant, any new light will be impacted to adjoining properties. The proposed project will include lighting specifications for the mixed-use building, parking lot, and wastewater treatment building during any future site. site plan process. However, all proposed lighting will be downlit and dark sky compliant pursuant to the town lighting standards enumerated in the town code to reduce light pollution. There will not be allowed any direct unshielded light admins onto adjoining properties.

I'm not sure that I don't know. What does everybody think about that? Are we satisfied?

On the question of light glow?

Yeah.

Or sky glow? I mean, if it's complaining.

I'm not quite sure. I guess.

In practicality, it's going to be lighter than that.

I suppose it is. I might have said that any new light will be, does not need to be impactful to adjoining properties. It's the first sentence. As the site is currently vacant, any new light will be impactful to adjoining properties.

I think there's already lighting in the back of the parking lot.

Oh, you think it was supposed to be?

Yeah, that's... Do we agree that that's the case? That seems more like the reality to me. I was puzzled by it.

Given the second half of the paragraph.

So we're going to change this to, will not be impactful to adjoining properties.

Good change.

I'm also surprised that we put that the response would be moderate to large on that, but I guess we did when we were doing part two.

You're being cautious. And dealing with the different scale of the building. There is that.

The proposed action may result in lighting creating sky glow brighter than existing conditions. And this time it says response no to small. The proposed project will not include any lighting facilities that would create a brighter than existing sky glow. Further, the town's code regulates lighting activity to prohibit unnecessary light admittance. I think that's fine. 16, impact on human health. No, there is none. 17, consistency with community plans. And the EAF response was yes. Yes, which means no in this case, just so that everybody's clear on that. The proposed action's land use components may be different from or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns. The proposed project will include a mix of residential and commercial uses which would not be dissimilar to existing land uses in the vicinity of the Hamlet Center. There are currently more than 20 multifamily apartments in the Bedford Playhouse located directly east of the project site. The town's adopted 2025 comprehensive plan supported and encourages local business growth and development. The comprehensive plan also provides supportive language for increasing housing stock as well as prevailing or various price points, as well as providing various price points. The proposed project will include 27 units, which will yield five income restricted affordable units pursuant to Town Code 125-29.6. The remaining units will be market rate.

Is 27 still the rough proposal given or you don't know?

I think it's already taxed down again. Okay.

Okay, the proposed action will cause the permanent population of the city, town, or village in which the project is located to grow by more than 3%. I don't think so. We said no, there will not be growth projected by more than 5% of the current population. The proposed action is inconsistent with land use plans or zoning regulations. This one is a bit longer because it includes a rezoning. So by definition, it's not compatible with the existing zoning. And I don't think I need to read this whole section, but it explains clearly what the zoning change is.

Is it worth saying that while it's inconsistent with that, it's consistent with our plan?

Well, I think that's what I'm...

Well, I think the last vote is probably one worth reading into the record if you want me to. Yeah, why don't you? It's the applicant's intent to create a mixed-use building that would complement the existing land use pattern and business environment of the Bedford Village Hamlet Center.

Yeah, and that's basically the conclusion to what was said above. The proposed action is inconsistent with any county plans or other regional land use plans. The EAF response was no to small. The proposed project is not inconsistent with any county plans or any regional land use plans. The county's comprehensive plan, Westchester 2025, supports additional housing, pedestrian facilities, and mixed uses and commercial centers. The proposed action may cause a change in the density of development that is not supported by existing infrastructure. Nowhere small, the proposed wastewater treatment system is designed to support the proposed density and would not be distant from connecting infrastructure. The new treatment plant will continue to serve the effluent of the Bedford Playhouse and also serve the proposed project. and will incorporate the new project flow for the proposed mixed use development. The proposed action is located in an area characterized by low density development and will require new or expanded public infrastructure. No, anything proposed on site will be private infrastructure, which is what it currently is. The proposed action may induce secondary development impacts. The EAF response was no or small. No additional development is anticipated as an induced secondary impact. Consistency with community character. It seems to me that that's part and parcel of the discussion that we're more likely to have next. Next time around. So we'll table number 18.

Madam Chair, is it the board's intent that for number 17, consistency with community plans, you'd like to draw the conclusion that you find that there are no significant adverse environmental impacts for the reasons stated above?

Yes, that.

Okay. So, so we're sleeping to, to, oh, and that's, that is it. So it's just automatically.

So we've gotten through.

You would adjourn the public, you would just adjourn the public hearing to the next to the next meeting.

I just want to make sure we've done everything we're going to do. So just hold on for two seconds. I know we're anxious. But I think we've covered everything except the traffic and

But three chapters remain undiscussed. Right. Yeah. Number 13, which is impact on transportation. You have going backwards number... archaeological and historic resources. And then we just skipped over number 18, which is consistency with community character.

Yeah. Okay. So those are the ones we still need to table until next time. Could I now have a motion to adjourn the public hearing? Some of. Is there a second? Second. Any further discussion? All in favor? Aye. All opposed? The public hearing is adjourned, and we are on to the next item on our agenda, which is to consider a preliminary site plan application for the demolition of a bank and erection of a drive-thru coffee facility with online landscaping, signage, parking, and related pedestrian facilities. It's located at 777 Bedford Road, Bedford Hills. The owner-applicant is DP21 LLC. And is there someone here to speak for the applicant?

I can't see that.

Good evening. Whitney Singleton for the applicant, along with Pete Catasone, Catasone Engineering. Great. Um, yeah, the last time we were here, your board, I believe, adopted a negative declaration for this application. We were sent to the zoning board of appeals. We required 3 variances. Even though we were reducing the degree of impervious surface and. Technically, we're still not in compliance, but we got that variance and we got the variance for the sign. And for the building coverage as well, all of which went down. from existing conditions. The only change that has been made since we were last before you, and it's all visual and aesthetics, is a reorientation of the building. And I'll let Pete, I know you've had a long night, so I'll just let Pete get right to it.

Thank you. I'LL TAKE THIS ONE HERE. HELLO, MY NAME IS PETER CATTAZONE WITH CATTAZONE ENGINEERING. AND I THINK THE LAST TIME WE WERE BEFORE YOU GUYS WAS FEBRUARY 9TH. AND IN MARCH WE WENT TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. WE WERE GRANTED THE THREE VARIANCES FOR Building coverage and development coverage, and as well as the variance for the pylon sign. So we'd like to start with telling you what we've done since. so once we got the variance we started conversations with starbucks and we had originally uh played around with different configurations with the short side facing uh bedford road which is their standard but at the time that building was a little bit bigger and now with this new cafe building which is a little smaller we are able to rotate it and fit in on the site in accordance with the Starbucks standards. So we prepared kind of a sketch of the existing building, the building as it is today. And in blue, you'll see the original configuration. So rotating the building is again, more in terms of the company Starbucks standards. Where the mermaid symbol will face Bedford road. What it also did is it reduced the lot, the development coverage by about 67. 158 square feet, so the variance that we got is actually. You know, an improvement to that, so it's less impact. We have also, as mentioned in February. Diamond properties brought in a landscape consultant. So originally we were talking about supplementing the landscape along Bedford. Road, and some of those plants were not native and there was some commentary. From this board, and then the, the landscape architect is looking at this more as a campus with 333 and the other properties there. So their view was, let's take it all out and start fresh. With native plants and. you know something uh we could do a lot better than what's there now uh we've also received and responded to comments by creighton mannings with respect to traffic the traffic issues uh have been resolved based on the most current uh memo uh we did receive there's no storm order on this project but we did receive 30 stormwater comments So we'll be addressing those. A lot of them are minor and clarification on drainage and things like that. So we'll be addressing those. And then I guess most importantly, we've been working with Mount Kisco with their consulting engineer and with the building inspector to resolve the water supply issue for the site. So we've been at that for some time. Just in summary, we discovered that the water feed to Coles is actually a six-inch combined service for fire and domestic. The Coles building was designed for approximately 9,000 gallons a day. Just above that, it currently operates along with Vision World together. They're doing... less than 400 gallons a day. So they're doing about a three-bedroom home worth of flows for that 90,000-square-foot building.

That's because nobody knows where the bathrooms are. Right. No one knows.

It's a secret. Don't give it away, Whitney. So we're talking about different ways of using the existing service. There's still some technical geeky things that we're working out, but we had just last week on Friday a very, I guess, meaningful and productive conversation with the village regarding... will serve. So what I agreed to say is that we're currently working with the village. We're not at that point yet. So that's where we are with the project. If there's any questions, if you want to see any of the slides or have me take you through them, happy to do that.

You want to show them what the building will look like now?

Yeah, so it's kind of hard to see the blue lines there uh can you just go to the site plan and uh just that layout plan maybe next page yeah right here so this is a clean site plan And what I'll take you through is, um, the drive, the right in, right out stays the same. We push the drive through back towards coal a little bit. This allows this, uh, service entrance from the kitchen. And, uh, we, they're able to take trash out, uh, directly through that to this new trash enclosure area. We did include a crosswalk for that. But again, the building's rotated. And what that does is a couple things. One is it faces it the way Starbucks wants it to face. But more importantly, it creates a better connection to this outside seating area. With the building rotated, it was a little bit awkward. So now you have kind of this Connectivity from the inside space to this very nice, more spacious, outdoor seating area. And the next step, I guess, is. You know, once we resolve with now, we'll be making a submittal to the health department for. both the water connection and for the modification to the... It's not really modification, but for the connection to the... on-site disposal system. So near Coles, there is a triplex pump system that operates on a certain amount of gallonage. I think it's 470 gallons or something of that nature. And that operates, assuming Coles was doing 9,000 gallons a day, that would activate eight times a day and the pumps are alternated. There's three pumps. So on the first dose, kind of your first row of infiltrators will be dosed. On your second time, it'd be the second one on the third time. So it basically alternates the dosing of those dry wells so that they don't get saturated rather than hitting them all at once so what we need to do is incorporate uh we need a pump for starbucks even though it's higher there's a dip in the parking lot so we have to go downhill and uphill which is not great for gravity so we're um We're proposing a pump station for Starbucks that basically pumps into that existing triplex system. And it doesn't result in any changes in the design. So it'll store the 400 and whatever gallons it is, and then run through its triplex operational system there. That's it. We have a septic tank for Starbucks specifically. We also have an oil-water separator for Starbucks. And then what we're doing is if the pump fails, we're providing the 24 hour required storage in a remote tank. So we don't want that gallonage to be stored and then kind of mess up the dosing pattern when the power comes back on from the coal system. So if the power fails and there is flow, From Starbucks, that would go to a holding tank, and they would get an alarm notice that the tank needs to be pumped out.

Is there a generator?

There's not a generator. There's not a generator for here, or I don't think there's a generator for Kohl's either. So one of the problems is if you're storing a whole day of Starbucks- Yeah, okay. That's it in a nutshell. Like I said, I'll be happy.

The engineer had provided a memo last Friday that did have a series of comments related to stormwater. Right. There were really no substantial ones per se aside from kind of that topic, really. Okay. But the memo did say that the request was to have responses provided by the applicant back to the town engineer, you know, just to kind of end up closing that loop. But it didn't sound like there was too much friction for you guys to go ahead and carry through that.

No, not at all.

So this could be something that would be a condition of preliminary approval. Yeah, I would feel comfortable with that. I'm a little bit curious just on the landscaping and what's facing Bedford Road. Are you anticipating a sidewalk along there?

There's a sidewalk along Bedford Road already.

So the existing. But you're not going to have any

Three trees.

They look more like shrubs.

No, there's three. There's this. Oh, I can't see this. I'm sorry. I hate these three trees here. One, two, three.

Like a cross sign or a plus sign.

Oh, wait a minute. They're circled around and the shrubs are under them. So they're right there.

I missed the big circles.

Yeah, the big circles. We are taking down, are we removing a tree on norm? We are. There's basically, right now, there's a tree that would block the... the view to the new pylon sign. So we're taking that down. It's kind of in this area. I could go to the existing conditions. But we are proposing these three trees here. We have another two trees there and

Wow, I can barely see those.

I don't feel too bad about missing them. Yeah, let's enlarge it.

What kind of trees are they? I can't read the very fine print.

Quercus rubra, these three on the bottom.

There is a legend at the top right. Northern red oak.

Northern Red Oak. Thank you.

Diane, I'll get those common names. No, no, Patricia's here.

know i i think you said fairly sure it was northern red oak just google it yeah yeah northern red oak northern red oak which is the foundational tree for this area right so that's it so in other words a good choice yes okay yeah they weren't and i i don't i don't think this board disagreed but they weren't really fond of the hues and things

that are there now, and, you know, it's nice to, like, supplement, but just at some point, they just wanted to start fresh with more appropriate plants.

Yeah, no, I think this is better.

And we do, I mean, one of the things...

I do apologize for not seeing that the trees were so big that they...

I feel your pain. The thing that I like about this plan is it creates this green space here. So just not only do you have the landscaping, but you're not looking at a sea of asphalt when you're on Bedford Road. So I think that this rotation kind of you know, makes bigger green spaces rather than, yeah, it was more segmented before. But, you know, I, you know, it's hard to redesign it in terms of we had so much time into it, but I do think it's a better orientation, a better design.

I think it'll be more likely to entice people to stay and linger. Yeah.

Okay, the applicant wouldn't mind having preliminary site plan approval today, I suspect.

We wouldn't object at all.

And it does seem to me that this is right for it. This is a Type 2 action under Seeker, I believe. Agreed. But I have a motion. Motion that it's Type 2.

Second. You already voted on that January 12th.

Did I? Okay. Thank you. It doesn't hurt to vote again. We're still in agreement. We still agree that it's done. The conditions, we still meet the engineers.

Actually, I hate to interrupt.

Good evening. Nicholas Gabry from Bibbo Associates, project engineer for Linewalk Manor. Is the plan in a good spot here to kind of run through just the site and we can kind of talk about the minimal steep slopes disturbance that they have and then the changes to the property? There's kind of a little bit of a history here, but I'll walk you through it. So this is 44 West Patton Road. West Patton Road is here. We're on the east side of the road with a main house residence. A large estate lot comprises the property. It's 13.3 total acres. The house itself sits on top of a ridge line, so it falls off towards West Patton Road and also towards the east. And the steep slope area we're here to discuss tonight is on the east side of the residence, which sort of connects the existing vegetable garden to the main parking lot area. And traversing that slope is something that the owners are working on now. So What I'd like to do is flip over to our plan that we have. And essentially what happened, the history is that we received a steep slope permit originally in 2024 to rebuild the walkway that connected the garden to the main house. The project was then renewed in the spring. And then without our notification and without the town's notification, the contractor started doing the work and changing a little bit of the staircase in the area of the steep slopes. So once we came and did our routine inspections, we saw that was slightly different. We stopped everybody and said, we have to get this on a plan and get this in front of Hans Engineering to get their blessing on a field change. After the town engineer visited the site, they determined that the best course of action was to remove the existing steep slope permit and then present the new application for the changes that are here today. So that's what's been submitted as part of this application. So we apologize that the contractor was a little overzealous in clearing some of the steep slope that was on the original application, but we'd like to now get that approved with you. The project is very similar to what was originally proposed. The original approval that you had granted and extended was a switchback staircase that connected to the garden, slightly more stairs, but less steep. They've determined now to kind of straighten that and create a gravel path that's separated by stone steps. And it actually results in a reduction in impervious compared to the existing stone steps that were there pre-development. there's really no drainage treatment as part of the project, but the existing drainage that came off the roof and the parking lot area had kind of spilled off into the slope and into a swale, and it created sort of an erosion issue that was ongoing. So what we'd like to do is pipe that drainage to the flatter lawn area below the steep slope and outlet it to a daylight point at that spot. And that's essentially the project. I'd like to answer any questions you may have or

You were supposed to do some tree replacement?

Yes, and we do have our landscape architects on the Zoom call, I believe, Nancy King from 70 Acres. We've submitted as part of this a tree replacement plan. Essentially, over the course of The last four years, some of the trees were taken down from storms, some were taken down from just being impacted by vines or invasive species. So there was some clearing that was done before this redevelopment, but they've now proposed 20 new trees along the slope And I have some pictures of those trees if you want. And I have the landscape architect, like we said, to discuss further if you have any questions about the actual plantings.

Our Chan engineer pointed out that the you had lost 20 large trees by which he meant not necessarily 20 inches in diameter, but trees that someday will be large or were things like maples and oaks and that sort of thing. What you're replacing them with are what he refers to as small trees like dogwoods and flowering cherries and that kind of thing. So he's not talking about planting trees that are small to begin with. He's talking about something that would be a significantly different look. And I was wondering if we could talk about a bit more of a mix, not necessarily saying that because everything that went was a, shade tree kind of thing, that it should all be shade trees, but that there should be at least some trees that someday will be significant trees.

Sure, I can let Nancy answer some of those questions. I know that specifically the, and these are some examples of the trees that were proposed as part of this project. I know the owners are interested in keeping sort of a view shed to the neighboring pond. So sort of, we don't want to replant some really tall trees that would block that view in this specific zone. There are some very significant, the remaining portion of that slope that runs to the back of the property. There's some very large oaks and maples in this remaining section of the steep slope area, and those are to remain and not to be disturbed as part of this project. We're really only working in just this little strip here.

I suspect that part of the engineer's concern about it is what comes up is that People often do remove trees for a view when they've been asked not to, or when they haven't admitted to the town that that's what they want to do in the course of doing a project of this sort. So somehow it seems like...

So maybe we could have Nancy chime in on just the plantings that were proposed, and then maybe if we can incorporate some of those larger specimen trees.

Yeah. Let's hear. Yes. Hello, everyone. Hi. Thank you. I do want to say that when I did look at the mix of native trees, I have about 11 trees that will grow to between 25 and 70 feet in height, and that would include the – We have heritage river birch. We have forest pansy, the eastern redbud. And even the flowering dogwoods can mature at, you know, probably in the 25 to 35-foot range. So when they say small trees, yes, they're smaller than the oaks and maples, but they're still, you know, reasonably substantial size. The ones that are the smallest would be the – so I have – 11 trees that peak out between, say, 25 and 70 feet, and 10 trees that would max out at about 20 foot in height. The client, like Nick said, they're interested in the viewshed, but they would totally comply with whatever size mix, if there's some additional replacements of maybe some maples and oaks that we could locate in an area that won't restrict their view. They're certainly amenable to doing that in order to approve and keep the project moving forward.

I think if you could think in terms of using a few shade trees which can frame a view, it might.

Would something of that sort work?

I think that that would be fine. I guess that the client would probably want to know, like, is there a percentage that you'd be looking for? Is there a minimum quantity? Something that we know we can comfortably submit and know that everyone would be happy with that.

What about something along the lines of just five or six of the larger trees? I think that would be reasonable.

And there should be a replacement commitment. A replacement commitment for the Amelanchiers and the Dogwoods are notoriously... Likely to have issues around here. So just a replacement commitment. They're wonderful trees. They're great to have. It's not a negative comment, but you need to find ones that will work. I think the red, but. Whether they're white or red actually.

Or a little heartier, but didn't we the last time we did a tree replacement program thing actually. Didn't we actually require a replacement program for all the trees?

Yes, particularly if they failed. Yeah. And I think it was maybe two years or one year, but I think two years.

I think I would think, say, for those, for these sorts of trees, I would say at least two years.

I'm sorry, what is that two years? Okay.

to ensure that these trees are maintained and healthy and growing and otherwise replaced.

So if something happens to them within the two-year period, they'll be replaced. Got it.

And then I would say since it sounds like the amelanchiers and the The cornice, maybe those are the ones that we actually replace and do oaks and maples of some type. Well, they're gorgeous trees.

I in no way am suggesting that you shouldn't have amelanchiers and cornice. I'm just, so you choose which ones you want. I just, you know, as you know, the cornice can have anthracnosis around here. They have real problems with it. And the amelanchiers are fussy around here. Yeah. So you need to make that choice, not us.

And I know the property owners have a very carefully maintained property and very manicured, so I'm sure that any replacement trees will be better, too, and they will make sure that those go in.

Right. It's just replace rather than go, whoops, and it's gone. You can maintain the property nicely that way, too. So that's the point of having the replacement. I assume that they're going to make a real effort to make it look lovely. Yep.

So we'd say five of the shared trees and the other would be six.

I think that's reasonable. And I'll work with the landscape architect and the owners to come up with proper locations for that and get them on the maps. I know that Hans Engineering had one or a comment about the landscape plan about the septic system and maybe some conflicts there. We've already talked about that. We're already going to have those removed from the septic area. So we've already started addressing those comments from the engineer.

Okay, did anybody else have any comments or questions?

No.

This is a type two action. Oh, no, wait a minute. This is unlisted. It is late. That's why I have a part one and part two. So I think that's our next step. Would somebody like to read the part one? Sure.

Does going down to number 1, does the proposed action only involve the legislative adoption of a plan local law ordinance administrative rule or regulation? No. Does the proposed action require a permit approval or funding from any other government agency? Yes, and I stack it is New York state is what's stated here. Total acreage of the site is 13.33 total acreage should be disturbed. 0.15. And check all land uses that occur on your or adjoining the proposed action. Residential suburban 1, proposed action a, a permanent use under the zoning regulations. Yes, consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan. Yes. 6 is the proposed action consistent with the predominant character of the existing built or natural landscape. Yes. 7 is the proposed action located in or adjacent to a no. 8 will the proposed action result in a substantial increase in traffic above present levels? No, or public transportation services available? No. And or pedestrian accommodations or bicycle routes available? No. 9 does the proposed action meter exceed state energy code requirements? Yes. Well, the proposed action connect to an existing public or private water supply. No. Will the proposed action connect to existing wastewater? No. Does the proposed action contain or substantially continues to an archeologic site? And the answer is no, is the project site or any portion of that located in an area designated as sensitive for archeologic sites by ship. Oh, no. Does any portion of the site of the proposed action or lands adjoining the proposed action contain wetlands or other water bodies regulated by federal state or local agency? Yes. With the proposed action physically altering approach into any existing wetland or water body. No. And is that the end of my here we go 14 identified the type of physical habitat types that occur on, or are likely to be found on the project site. It lists suburban. Are there wetland areas on the site?

Not on the property itself. It's offsite to the east.

Does 15, does the site of the proposed action contain any species of animal or associated habitats listed as threatened or endangered? No. 16, is the project in a 100-year floodplain? No. No. Will the proposed action create stormwater discharge either from point or nonpoint sources? Yes. Will the water discharges flow to adjacent properties? No. Will the discharges be directed to an established conveyance system? No. Does the proposed action include construction or other activities that would result in the impoundment of water? No. Has the site of the proposed action or joining property been the location of an active or closed solid waste management facility? No. Has the site or proposed action? I'm joining property been subject of remediation for hazardous waste now. And that's it.

Okay, just a technicality. So. This is a recent mission, the same part 1 from the business application, I'm assuming based on the data 313 2024, and it makes sense of it. This gets resubmitted with the same answers that we just reviewed with that. Current date.

I thought there was a revised one.

Yeah. Maybe we got the wrong one out of the room.

Okay.

Okay. Just want to make sure. I believe all the answers are the same, though, in both documents.

I would hope so. Correct. So we need to do the part two. Somebody want to volunteer to do it?

Part two, will the proposed action create a material conflict with an adopted land use plan or zoning regulations?

No.

Will the proposed action result in a change in the use or intensity of use of land? No or small. Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of the existing community? No. Will the proposed action have an impact on the environmental characteristics that cause the establishment of this critical environmental area? No. Will the proposed action result in an adverse change in the existing level of traffic or affect existing infrastructure for mass transit, biking or walkway? No. Will the proposed action cause an increase in the use of energy and fail to incorporate reasonably available energy conservation or renewable energy opportunities? No. Will the proposed action impact existing public private water supplies or wastewater treatment facilities? No. Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of important historic, archaeological, architectural, or aesthetic resources? No. Will the proposed action result in adverse change to natural resources, wetlands, water bodies, groundwater, air quality, flora, or fauna? No. Will the proposed action result in an increase in the potential for erosion, flooding, or drainage problems? No. Will the proposed action create a hazard to environmental resources or human health? No. Is the potentially affected disadvantaged community identified as having comparatively higher burdens or vulnerabilities by the disadvantaged community assessment tool? No. Will the proposed action cause or increase a pollution burden within a disadvantaged community? No. So based on the foregoing, I propose that we find that there will be no significant adverse impacts due to this application.

Is that a motion?

I make a motion that we find that there will be no significant adverse impacts. Second.

Is there any further discussion? All in favor? Aye. Aye. All opposed? We have done Seeker. I think we have a motion on the table for...

Submissions to. You wanted to reset.

I believe that was what the 10 engineer suggested.

Right.

Does we have to approve the rescind and then it'll be a whole new. So we're voting on the new approval or the rescission. Okay. Okay. One thing. Okay.

So much is to. the previous application, supplant it with this application, and then approve this application.

Sounds like a motion.

With the conditions as discussed earlier.

Yes, including the planting conditions and any conditions from the earlier approval.

From the town memo and the planting ones that we discussed.

And was there a bond issue on this one?

I believe Hans, the engineer, has recommended increasing the bond to meet the new disturbance level. So I believe a new bond will be posted prior to starting construction.

So that would also be part of the conditions. So we have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? All in favor? Aye. All opposed? You have it. Thank you for your time. Have a good evening. Thank you. Take care. Thank you. Ivan Hill, I know, Lance Batong considered the request for a six-month extension of a previously approved steep slopes permit. It's straightforward. There was nothing odd about it. Could I have a motion, too?

Yes. Are there any positions?

We didn't do the third one because there wasn't any.

Because we thought someone might be coming for us. Are there any conditions on this?

There's no one on Zoom, right?

No. Approving with the conditions as they were initially, right? Yeah. Just extending the time by six months.

Right. So you've made a motion? Yep.

Second.

Any further discussion? All in favor? Aye. All opposed? No. I was about to say you have it. And could I have a motion to close the meeting? Yes. Any further? Oh, we don't discuss closing the meeting. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? You're out of