Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Is it working? Yes.

Okay. I'd like to call this meeting of the Bedford Planning Board to order. The first item on our agenda tonight is to consider uh an amendment to a site plan application in connection with the issuance of a special use permit as granted by the town of Bedford zoning board of appeals for a church or other place of worship per town code number 125-83. The owner applicant is a body of Bedford. Um and I assume there is someone here to speak for the applicant. I got I can reset.

Uh, good evening, chair. My name is Rick Bolander, the project engineer with KCJ Consulting. Um, I don't know if you want me to get into the whole history of the project or we just kind of want to focus this on the the I think just on the part that we're amending tonight.

You got it. So, um, you know, a turf field was installed in the the back portion of the uh the yard area um where the children play. There was a problem just with growing grass and mud and whatnot. So, um the rabbi who I'm actually joined by tonight, Rabbi Wolf, um decided install the turf. um it was done without a permit. So now we're going through the whole process of rectifying that. Also as part of that playground equipment was installed um again without a permit. So this now we're going through the whole process of rectifying that. Um I have on the plan the area where the turf was installed uh along with the the playground equipment with pictures associated to just to give you you know a good idea of what was installed. Um

so now we're just going through that process of of getting that approved. So the uh the level of equipment in this playground is is not extensive. It it doesn't really seem to to me to look like much more with with the possible exception of the slide which looks rather fun. Uh the u the equipment is what you see in an awful lot of neighborhoods

in these type of Yeah, it's a you know a couple swing sets. um kind of like a a hut kind of made out of wood for the you know the kids to spend some time in and really kind of low impact. Um really not stuff we would consider impervious surfaces to um necessitate any storm water mitigation. Mhm. And I believe the town engineer has looked at the issues of uh whether the extra um the turf which is a pvious surface if I understand it correctly uh creates any problems and the answer is it does not. Uh, I've also been reminded um that the town's own wreck department has done the same same thing in at least one of the parks to avoid extra erosion and that kind of thing. Are there any questions from members of the board? We did have one letter from a concerned neighbor. Um the concerns were primarily with the fact that this was near the septic system and there had been issues with it. Um but it was my understanding with what I've read that the board of health has looked carefully at all of the issues. Do we have anything in writing from the board of health? I know I I believe as as part of um you know because we submitted zoning wetlands and uh planning um there was a plan that we put together uh under the guidance of the health department um we did additional soils testing um have that drawing approved and if if you don't have that on record I'll I'll send that over to Okay

from the department of health on on August 26th they issued that okay and they h there has been uh soils testing Yes, we did additional soils testing and they um determined that we would uh kind of designate additional area for the expansion area if if we are whatever to to use that. So, um we have a statement sign planned and they're they're on board there. They've okayed this. Yeah, I think that that makes sense. Alas, there was uh that actually the only time pesticides came up was uh and it was a good argument that that the um that they wanted to avoid using fertilizer and and pesticides. on what turf contributes to

but no I thought there okay I thought there was an issue with a soil test showing a legacy pesticide environmental engineer for the town um they were before wetlands there had been some disturbance of the buffer but wetlands has cleared them with a permit with extensive conditions which were in the packet

yeah and I think most of those conditions we would make conditions of our approval yes I would as Well, you know, um I'm satisfied with the health department issues. I understand why why people are concerned. Um the the technical overseeing of that is really out of our jurisdiction and in the health department's jurisdiction. Uh but I think it behooved us to make sure that they've done their job and I think we have. Any other comments, questions from members of the board? What is your pleasure? What is your pleasure tonight? I

could I take that as a a motion? Uh I I move that we uh approve the site plan application with the u conditions of the wetland board included. the the and I would also suggest recounting all of the conditions that had originally uh been part of the original approval because this is an amendment to the original approval. No objection those conditions as well. We are currently conducting a traffic study which I think is waiting for um correct

there are some signs that need to be put up. Um, there are a few conditions that were never met, but they're going for a final CO. So, yes, I think they should be restated as conditions. So, your your motion is approval with with all of those conditions. Are there any other conditions that should be added to it? I can't think of any others. Okay, I'll second. Okay, so we have an motion and a second. Uh because this is an amendment we don't seeker is taken care of. Um is there any further discussion? All in favor? I

I all opposed. Uh you have the site plan approval. Um and now I'd like to turn this meeting over to my esteemed colleague from the zoning board of appeals. We're having a bit of a joint meeting this this evening. Thanks, dear. Good evening. We um have the site plan approval or the site plan special permit for the operation of the abad. So, I'll leave it to you to start.

Um so, yes. So, the special per permit use will be for the uh the playground equipment that we described uh previously. you know, a couple swing sites, a slide, and kind of a call a a hut tepee um kind of structure um installed in the in the backyard play area um for the children. And there was also associated with that, you know, there was mulch put down just as a safety precaution to kind of soften the um the area for the kids. You also have

correct. Um, and uh, as of, you know, a couple days ago, uh, the rabbi expressed interest in in installing kind of a, and correct me if I'm misspeaking, a privacy fence um, kind of blocking off, um, the yard area just adjacent to where the the turf was installed. So, so back in the back of the property

in the front of the property to kind of to close it off from 172 privacy fence as a safety fence so that it's just going to be a slip rail. So, it's not giving any privacy just so that kids can't go out onto 172. So, we're just going to put a slip rail fence with a 4t tall with a mesh so that kids can't climb under and low impact. Four four feet high. Four feet high. Yeah, that you can do it. It was on the property, you know. Yes. Okay. We had all the materials delivered there today when you were there. Yeah. That that you can do without you can do you don't need a special per I mean you don't need a variance for that board.

Um any discussion on the uh addition of the play play equipment? I have no issue. In fact, the artificial turf we were talking about, it's pvious. So, they didn't add to any pie surface and their overall project is below both building coverage and imp surface. So, that was a very good achievement.

Correct. And I guess I'm just curious too we have we had five years permit and so when we look at the we had a bunch of traffic commissions there that were part of that and in particular there were uh requests for studies kind of post occupancy and utilization. We're kind of in this in between world where we're still at a temporary co instead of I think we're largely using the facilities. So, I guess part of the conversation with the board is when we look at how that was granted and we talk to the applicant about that, where are we with those traffic conditions and concerns and what do we anticipate timing? And then back to the board is how do we want to handle that when we talk about the TCO versus CCO uh with regard to the building and the special permit and the time running on it because they're amending it here and so it kind of renews that conversation a little bit around timing. So I'll let the applicant answer first

because uh it's uh out out of Rick's purview. Uh so the traffic study that the site the site plan and zoning conditions require from us. our uh traffic engineer conducted during the month of September uh with instruction from Kim Lee Horn which is the town of Bedford's traffic consultant and all the instructions of what exactly they wanted and all that has been done and taken and all that data is now being put together and will be submitted to the town I was told by the end over the next couple of weeks. Okay. But it's all all the counts have been done and all everything has been done.

Okay. There there is also the outstanding retiming of the light on 172 to contact DOT, but these were in the zoning board resolution and I would just recommend that you restate them prior to receiving final seats. And the signs that I know you mentioned, all the signs on 172 and the signs on S Street have all been put up. Uh they were approved by the town, the ones in town of Bay were approved back in 2022 and they're up on Sar Street when you drive there. The ones on 172 are up between our facility and Sar Street um by the DOT.

Well, from what I gather, we're here to that. So, we'll approve the um I'll make a motion that we approve as a special permit or to add to their I think it's a public hearing. So, we need to talk to the public hearing. It's an amendment to a special permit. So, this requires Got you. I'm with ing to see if there's any Is there anyone on the on the Zoom call or in the audience here that wanted to speak on the application of the uh playground?

Okay, hearing no one. Can I have a motion to close the public hearing? So, all those in favor? I public hearing is closed for zoning board purposes. Um, I will then go ahead and suggest that we um amend the special permit to include the uh playground equipment and area as uh shown in plan Z1 October 1st 2025 in addition in addition to the plan submitted the applicant iso is placing a fence around is solely around the turf area or will it No, no, it's actually on the uh

on the 172 side of the property just along the trees that we planted along 172. So, it's I guess that's the what what I would ask. Can you mark it on one of the set of the plans? It has been in the building application. So, we put we we filed a fence building application with the with the building department and marked it on there. if you'd like us to submit it to the your board as well so that you can have a visual of where that's going to be. Yes, I think we need that for the Absolutely. If you could if you could do that and turn that into Kim, that would be great. Yep.

Um [Applause] granting of the special um permit. The proposed use will serve a community need or convenience and will not adversely affect the public health, safety or general welfare. The location, size of the use and the nature and intensity of the operation involved in connection with the use, size of the site in relation to the use and the location of the site with respect to streets giving access to use or are such that the use will be in harmony with the appropriate and orderly development of the area in which is located. The location, nature and height of buildings. There are none of these. These are outdoor uh the outdoor equipment that exists there now. It's rather minor. These are the ones that we're talking about. Any additional kind of uh equipment that would be brought in would have you'd have to come back to us for approval.

Um operations in connection with the special use permit will not be more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibration, light, or other characteristics that might be the operation of any permitted use. Not requiring a special use permit. parking areas will be of adequate size and you have all the parking area already in place. Um we would also request that um well that's that especially let's leave it at that. Well, we need to include the amended special permit needs to include the clarification regard TCO and CO and uh the timeline now of the amended special permit running as well as kind of the submission on the traffic uh study and it's and there may need to be a followup depending on the outcome of the traffic study results just

the original resolution is a little bit vague. It says the special permit begins either at TCO or CO, but technically because the TCO expired and was reinstated by the town board, we now have two TCO possible dates and then a third eventual CO date. And we just want to be clear what the inception of the special use permit is so we know when the we can agree when the expiration occurs. Well, is it possible to you to here right now to amend the permit based on this? Yes.

And then ask once the uh planning board gets this information that I understand has been turned in has analyzed it and determine you know how it's how the operation has worked over the year or twoyear period and they will give us a result and a recommendation and and then we can base base on that we can base our approval on that. I don't I don't know if you want to make the issue of the final CO um approval contingent on the traffic study because that was supposed to occur after the final CO issued anyway.

No, I I think that the question is so on the on wait on the on the special use permit the concern is the management of the traffic. That's why we were looking for the traffic study. That's why we were saying it was post occupancy and utilization to really understand the impact. The question is is where did that timeline start for it? And so you asked whether we could kind of modify that date based on the fact we were not anticipating they were going to bring an amended application to us. What I could say is that we could have the amended um special permit run from the time I guess the gap here that I'm trying to understand is we really need the traffic study to understand if there's something we need to look look to in closer time proximity or if the longer proximity works. So the five years was intended to make sure you were up and operational and get us into into that traffic time periods. Um,

part of what I'm I'm looking at, Eric, is if they know the traffic study is coming in is I I don't want to unnecessarily call them forward. Um, but at the same time, I don't want us to issue a 5year special permit today because that'll result that traffic permit. So, um, can I, um, just throw in a little planning issue here?

Yeah. Um, I think it may make sense to make the date the TCO date because the traffic study's been done. The idea of having it the the in the thing we were interested in was having things up and operational when the traffic study was done. Um, so you don't want to do it too early. But I think but if we think we needed to include Rasha Shana in as one of the days in the traffic study because we knew it was the heaviest traffic day of the year.

And and where I come at when I look when we look at when we look at a special use and the timing on the permit and we ask the applicant to renew, we use a shorter period if we have concerns about impacts that need to be monitored and retested. And I since I don't know the results of the initial traffic study, I don't know whether I need to say we need to revisit this in a two-year time period or if we're looking at five years. The original we had no sense of when we were going to be closing out the the construction and the TCO when we first issued the permit, right? And we didn't want to make it too tight that we wouldn't be in an occupied usable state when you were doing the traffic study. So uh beginning of the five years

correct from from those from which date is the question and the TCO that's was being asked is there are two TCOs and what I would posit is in in when they originally contemplated it we did not contemplate they would bring an amendment so soon that would also then trigger part of the conversation about the timing of the special use permit because essentially an amended special permit can have can have a new timing associated with it doesn't have to rely on the old clock. So what I'm asking the board is trying to assess where we could revert and say it was the first TCO that issues a run for five years. What I want to make sure that we're doing and that mind you when was the first TCO issue? 22

22. Okay. So it would put us in 27 which might be okay because then it has time to look at the traffic and study and it's tight. On the other hand if the traffic study was more than sufficient we would likely do it from a later date. But so I leave it to I put it to the board that way to think about. Okay. So, we're gonna we're gonna So, we agree on the original TCO day. Motion from the original TCO. That'll bring you back in 27. Presumably, the traffic study will uh show that everything's coping. If not, you will already be aware there will likely need to be modifications to address traffic when you come back in 27, right? or

earlier if there's an issue with traffic

on the on the special permit to to allow the playground. I'll make it. Those in favor? I call. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Mr. Stern, yes. Lee, yes. Mr. Van, yes. was black. Yes, Mr. Miguel. Yes. I just want to take a second to thank both the boards of coming together. I know that's an incredible luxury for us. So, thank you all very much for making this happen. Pleasure. Thank you. Thank you. So, we will leave it at the 20 for from the first TCO. So, 2027 will be the fiveyear per. Thanks.

Good. Thank you. None of us will age a bit. Before uh deer, before you start, I think we we need to call finalize our or just close our meeting. Okay. Go for it. All those in favor? We're set for our next meeting in November.

Okay. And I would like to reopen the planning board meeting at this at this time. Um the first item on our agenda for the second part of the meeting uh is a public hearing to consider an application for a special use permit for the conversion of a garage to a cottage is greater than 20 20 ft in height pursuant to town code article 3 uh paragraph 12 chapter 125-27D3 and 125-79.1 uh The owner applicant is Zachary and LC Halpern. Uh the property is located at 23 Trudy Lane.

Is there someone here to speak for the applicant? Good evening.

Uh I'm Louis Canadino, the architect. I'm here with project architect uh Deli Palencia and my clients are in the audience as well for any questions. Um as you've stated, we're here for the special use. Um uh I believe we comply with uh most of the requirements um regarding the square footage of the unit. We are uh within the parameters uh that you state uh we're greater than I believe 400 square ft less than 800 square ft. We are actually 680 square ft which represents uh 23 12% of the gross uh area of the existing uh dwelling. The height of the building was ready was actually predicated on the existing conditions uh of the house. Uh it's uh uh built in the mid70s. Uh it's a a shed roof configuration. The pitch is 4 and 12. And in order to sort of fit in and become a a a viable part of uh the existing structure um we've uh prepared uh this rendering. The height of the building is really determined

by the u the existing slope. Excuse me. is really determined by the pitch of the existing building which is 4 and 12. uh an 8ft plate on the first floor and then the four and 12 uh pitch uh which unfortunately gives us to the midpoint at the low point 22 ft and change at the at its worst case scenario we're at 29 and change and at midpoint 25. Um and that's why we're here in front of you. uh it from an architectural point of view when we designed the structure um this configuration here is actually the golden section. So I believe that's what gives it sort of the what I believe to be a handsome appearance of the structure. Um the entire structure itself is basically a square and then this uh centerpiece of glass is actually a square as well. So it's a square within a square and the projection which follows the theme of the existing uh uh house um is a golden section. So

okay. So now this is for the the part of the application that's the 20 ft. That's actually a special permit. I want to make it clear that's not a variance. Yes. Uh that's why it's before us and not before the zoning board. Um you did need a variance, didn't you? Yes. Which we obtained. And that was for the coverage. Oh, the coverage. Yes. The coverage of the the coverage of the building impervious as well as building coverage. Okay. Uh, so you didn't need one for the age of the building? No. No. Okay. No.

Uh, okay. The the reason the distinction between a variance and special permit is important is a special permit is still something you're allowed by right providing it fits in. Whereas a variance is a variance from the law. Special permit um is is not a variance. You just need to have a good reason for for doing it, which I think you've done something rather attractive there. So, thank you. I see it as a reasonable one. I will not speak for the other members of my board. So, the only thing you needed the variance for was the was the coverage. It wasn't something in relation to the

Well, what well my my clients unfortunately inherited the coverage calcul uh issue. Um there was a tennis court built back in the day uh and that threw everything out of whack.

Uh even half of the court out of whack the whole thing. And actually when we started uh adding on to the building so that we can have sort of the college cottage slash accessory structure. Anything that we added we can't delivered. So we didn't actually do any ground any additional groundwork. So, even though this is added on, um, the box that it rests on is the pre-existing foundation that's there today.

Okay. I'm a little bit confused by the the technicalities here because if you add it on, then the square footage that makes up the cottage Yes. did not exist prior to the right enactment of the code which requires a variance well a variance of coverage building coverage no or is a different a different variance I don't know well we submitted the documents to the construction I think is it 65 65

but you've added square footage to it or did you not add square footage to We've added square. We addedundred uh what's the number?

Well, actually I think it's here.

The cantal lever. We added 60 square ft of actual structure and we added 64 square ft of deck. So this portion that you see that projects beyond the foundation here. Yeah. The deck probably would not count for this is this is this is 58.17 square ft. It's what exactly was the question was the coverage variance

the coverage. So are you referencing the total floor area to be occupied by the cottage within the accessory building must have been in existence prior to the adoption of the chapter? That's that's what the chair is referencing. So if you've increased the floor area of the cottage, I think we're saying you need a variance for that for having increased the floor area of the cottage floor. Isn't isn't this the variance that we obtained several weeks ago? That coverage would be different from floor area. That's that's where I think we might have a well one is covering the amount of space that is taking up over the physical external land. The other right the other one I'd like to I don't know if we have a copy of what they granted or the second level existed. What he's doing is he's ripping the top off

but he's expanding the size of the upper level. I mean he said it's got he is going to from the canal lever but that is exterior and that shouldn't count. That's the right. Well, no. He said that part of it was the deck and 60 ft of it was in interior. It was the cantal lever. And I admit the deck shouldn't count. This is the present configuration. So, in order to obtain the space that we needed, we bumped this out 58.17 square ft. And then for bofilic principles, we added the uh outdoor deck area. Yeah, that's not a problem.

And so this is what I've added. Yeah. To the structure. And again, in keeping with the the theme of the building that has these project uh can delivered and what I'm what I'm wondering is whether it must have been the floor. It must have been of course you have the authority to reduce the coverage requirements in conjunction with actually by a third. That's right. We do. So with yeah I don't I don't want to send them back to the zoning board if they've already got the variance for I don't want to go either but

I think it could be conting you could contingent upon confirming that that variance was issued and if it's required to be issued then they'll have to go back but if it's been issued then we you know I think you're okay the problem is we don't know the uh whether it's been issued at this point so but I'd be comfortable with you granting it if you're do that subject to getting that variance for the for the floor area if it hasn't been granted already. So, how does that sound to I believe it was granted on October. I think I I'm almost sure it was, but I don't have it in front of me. I I thought I had read that there was the an age variance granted as well. That's right. It was definitely there and it it wouldn't make sense if it was a coverage. So,

okay. I I'm comfortable with making it a condition of the any other conditions that we

if we were to to do this. Are there any other conditions? I I don't think I see any. Oh, wait a minute. This is a public hearing. Um I'm we're we're definitely get a getting ahead of ourselves. Um are there any questions or comments from members of the audience or anyone on the Zoom? If you're if you're on the the Zoom and you don't know how to raise your your hand, you can just shout out that you want to say something. Doesn't seem don't seem to be any comments. Okay. Uh could I have a motion to close the public hearing? So moved. Second.

All in favor? I. All opposed? The public hearing is closed. Um no, don't don't go. We've just closed the public hearing. Um, if we were to grant this today, the the only condition I think would be that that um we need to confirm that the variance for the floor area has been granted, right? And otherwise, it will be granted before the approval is satisfied. Yeah. I'm not sure how that part works. Listen, what what was the last part? Well, if that I said that um the question is would they have to come back to us after

No, it would just be conditioned upon getting that variance if it hasn't been issued yet. Okay, that's that's all I was saying. But you said it more articulate. Okay. So moved. Is there a second? Second. There's a motion and a second. Uh is there Oh, wait a minute. This is a It's also a type two under secret. Uh so going to I move that we find it's a type two action. Is there a second? Second. There's a for there's a resolution and a second that it's a type two action under speaker. All in favor?

I. All opposed. Back to the original resolution on the floor. Is there any further discussion? All in favor? I. All opposed. Now you have it. Say thank you.

You can say thank you. Okay. Okay. The next item on our agenda is also to consider an application for a special use permit for the conversion of a garage to a cottage pursuant to town code article 8125-79.1. Uh the owner applicant is John Perk's Trust and the address is 161 Croin Lake Road in Ktona. My name is Doug McMillan. I'm the architect project. Hello.

Uh my name is Doug McMillan. I'm the architect for the project. Uh what we have is 161 Croin Lake Road. Um it's a large piece of property. It's 17 acres. Uh the existing house is here, existing tennis courts, and there's an existing cottage um that is over the square footage allowable. Uh it's 1,600 square feet, county garage, and everything. We have our variance for that. We conform to everything else as far as impervious coverage, building coverage, height, and everything else. We are not increasing, we're not asking for any increase, any exterior changes to the building. Uh essentially alls we want to do. This is the existing building is a stone and stucco building. Uh on the first floor there's a run of kitchen cabinets. We just want to put a range in there. Um renovate this bathroom. It's an existing bathroom with toilet, sink, and shower. We're just going to renovate it. upstairs. It's just one big open space and we're going to build a wall with a door that make it into two bedrooms. That's it.

Okay. Uh other than that, no physical change on the outside of the building. Um we just needed the variance for the square footage which we've obtained. Everything else we conform to and this is not this is Croin Lake Road here. You really you can't see this from the road. I don't think maybe this neighbor has a little bit of a view of it, but other than that, you know, because it is a large piece of property, you'd never know this is here. Now, when was this building built? Uh, 2018 19. 201819.

Um, did you get a variance also for the age of the building? Yes. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. I was very worried there. This this is a somewhat uh controversial part of of the code, but this is the way the code stands now is that if the if the building was built a after the passage of the ordinance ordinance understand you you can't do it. Yeah, but you got the variance. So, it's okay. We don't have to talk about that.

This is a public hearing. Are there any questions or comments from members of the audience? Any any for anybody on the Zoom? [Music] Sorry. Someone's dialing in. Yeah, I don't think so. I I really apologize. I'm trying to turn it off. [Music] Okay, somebody finally gave up. I really apologize for that. Very unprofessional.

Uh, so where were we? Um, oh, there there's nobody on the Zoom unless somebody was trying to call me on my phone, in which case that didn't work. Uh, could I have a motion to close the public hearing given the lack of Is there a second? Second. All in favor? I. All oppose. We've closed the public hearing. Um, any questions for members of the board? This very straightforward. No external changes. Purely internal.

Yeah. and variances from the from the only things that were issued have been granted. Um I don't can't think of any conditions that we need to provide for this one. Uh it it would be a type two action also under seeker. Could I have a motion? So moved. Second. Is there any further discussion? All in favor of it being a type two action under seeker. I. All opposed. Um again I don't think that we there are any conditions necessary. Could I have a motion regarding the application itself? Move to approve. Second.

Any further disc we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All in favor? I. All opposed. You now have it. Thank you.

Thank you. Good luck. The next item on our agenda is another public hearing to consider an application for a special use permit for the conversion of a barn to a cottage greater than 20 ft in height pursuant to town code article 3125-27D3 and 125-79.1. Uh the owner applicant is the Cave Trust and the address is 422 Mount Holly Road in Kona. And I believe there's someone here to represent the applicant.

Correct. Madam chairperson, P. Daniel Hollis, Gettinger, Waldinger, Montal Leone, Gashu, and Hollis, 118 North Bedford Road, Mount Kiscoco, New York, for Kavi Trust with Sarah O'Shea from my office is here as well as Matthew Geronda from Bibbo Associates, uh, project engineer, and Glenn Tyers, our landscape architect. Um we are here for special permit uh and a variance deviation from the standard of the height. The height of our building is 20 ft 2 and 5/8 in. So it's we're dimminimous to say the least. But my letter of September 9th set forth in detail our compliance with all the other conditions except from for some area variances which we do have to go to the zoning board for on November 6. the ratio of the square footage of the cottage to the main house, the size of the uh cottage once uh and by the way, it's in an existing structure. If you I'm sure you've all been there. Uh there's a main residence and the the uh barn or garage has been there since 1932. So, it's well before the passage of the or ordinance. So, there's no problem there. We have the parking spaces. We have a no objection letter from the Department of Health with regard to the septic for a six-bedroom facility. We're reducing the number of bedrooms in the main house from six to four and taking those two bedrooms that we're taking out of the main house, putting them into the cottage, which doesn't have any bedrooms. Uh, so all of the conditions we match up favorably except for the ones I mentioned about the area variances,

but we're so close to Mount Holly Road that they're front yard variances that we need for the a covered porch on the main residence, the cottage itself because it's so close to the road. uh and moving a generator which we already have a variance for the generator at a different location but so as to uh have the generator be a little more approximate to the cottage we're moving it uh to the north north we have the site plan if you'd like to take a look at that Glenn has uh some mitigation that we've done in the wetlands we had an we have an administrative permit with regard to the wetlands permit Okay. So, you don't need to to get a full permit from wetlands, just the administrative.

It's in place. Okay. But we do need any uh if we're to get a approval tonight would have to be subject to the area variances that I set forth. I can set them forth with specificity if you would like. I would like to hear what what the area variances are. So, we don't need a height variance from them because we're getting the height variance from you. It's not a variance. It's a special permit, right? I shouldn't instruct the lawyer.

And I believe the building inspector uh the building department has been out there uh as well. So, the the cottage cont will contain 2377 square ft as opposed to the 800 permitted, but the building's already there. Nothing's being changed to the uh that barn building at all. The variance, the gross floor area, the relationship of the cottage to the main house exceeds the 25%. So, we're there for that variance as well. It's already that way. So, we haven't added to the footprint of the cottage. Um the barn in the cottage is 40T from the front yard where 75 ft is required. As I mentioned, it's already it's been there since 1932 with no negative impact. Uh the height uh we talked about the front porch is 50.5 ft from Mount Holly Road instead of the same 75. Um and the the last is an amendment of an existing variance that was variance 11-243 to permit the relocation of a generator to a location which would be 50 ft from the uh front boundary line where 75 ft's required but it's tucked down behind Mount Holly Road's a little above the property there and the generator will be tucked down uh behind the stone wall in the elevation so they'll be further sound attenuation there by virtue of that.

Okay. So, how do we we we've got two things, one of which we can do tonight, the other which we really shouldn't. Um, we can certainly give the special permit for the 20 foot height, the over 20 foot height of the building. Uh, which is which can be a separate special permit. Um, that's a pretty substantial variance on the the size of the building. Though I'm a little bit concerned about tying the hands of the zoning board by g giving the apartment um conditionally on on the variance. We don't generally do that. We generally ask for for it to go the way it did with the previous two applications where they get the variance first and then we give the permit. How does the rest of the board feel about it?

I think we can legally probably do either, but our our habit has been to let the zoning board have free reign on on the size variances. I I would prefer to follow that route. I I agree. If they were to disapprove that variance would would any approval we give would be void. Right. Right. Right.

So it's it uh you can look at that two ways. one is that if therefore it doesn't m I don't mean that it doesn't make any difference but we we've harmed nothing by approving it but on the other hand I feel like we've put pressure on another board to make

a particular decision if it were a dimminimous kind of variance I wouldn't worry so much but this is a substantial one um I I at the consensus that we're kind of three or four to to one on the [Music] and no no no objection to me I think that the one if I might chime in a little bit the um the building's already there we're not adding to it this is not a a cottage that where we're adding any dimensional no that

aspect to it and the risk is all on us I mean if the zoning board turns it down because of whatever reason for any of the variances requested. You know, the risk is 100% on us. So, it would just be time and expense. Nove we're on the agenda for November 6th. Uh I don't know when your November planning board meeting is 17th. Pardon me. 17th.

Yeah. We'd have to come back here for the sole purpose of having a vote uh on something that you could make contingent on their getting. I don't think it's any undue pressure on them, but they can they can turn it down or or say you have to reduce it. I mean, I I I like my chances because the building's already there and it's a great building. Uh, you know, I think it's really preserves not the historic, but the uh I think it's a type two building at a tier two rather. I think we're preserving all of that uh by this plan. And I I think uh which is all a very good argument for that board, but this is the wrong board to be making the argument

and I think it's a lovely building. I don't think you'll have any problems in front of the ZBA, but I don't think it's an ownorous thing. We're concerned about the president. Oh, so with this, it'll it'll be it it looks like it will be smooth sailing, but we want the zoning board to be able to make that decision, and you're coming back to us right afterwards. It's not like you're waiting months. So, understood. That's fine. I just Yeah. So, could I have a motion uh about the 20 20 foot height. Motion to approve. Public hearing on that topic. Public hearing. Should we ask if there's anything on either? Close both.

Well, we only opened it as one public hearing. I'm not going to worry about that. Uh, could I have I thought we'd close the public hearing, but I guess not. Could I have a motion to close the public hearing? Did we Did we ask for We didn't ask for comments on this one. Oh, I don't know if we asked for comment for public comment on this. I don't think that's been done yet. No, I apologize. Oh, that's right. My phone went off. Um, are there any comments from members of the audience? Any comments from members uh on the Zoom? Could I have a motion to close the public hearing? So moved.

All any further discussion? All in favor? All opposed? The public hearing is closed. Um it is a type two action under seeker again I believe. Uh could I have a motion? So moved this type two. Any further discussion? All in favor?

I. All opposed. It is type two. Uh in regard to the 20 foot uh height, this building has been there for a long time. um before any of those rules were made. Uh and it is a very very common for a barn to be substantially taller than that. Uh it is a historic barn apparently. I see no reason to not grant the special permit. All in favor? Oh, could I have a motion? Motion to approve the hype chain.

Yeah. See, these people have told me to get through this meeting quickly tonight and then and I'm tripping over myself. Second. I have a motion in this second. Is there any further discussion? All in favor? I. All opposed. You've got that. I do not think that. Well, is do I have a motion in regard to the other item? I'm that's what I'm leaning towards diverting. I just want if there's anybody who disagrees and wants to give it a try. Okay. I think I think that we'll wait until so we'll be on on the 17th solely for a vote if all goes well at the zoning board.

Yes. Because we did close the public hearing. Have all the other professionals with me that night. Okay. No, that's fine. So Shay can cover perhaps. Give me a night off. Thank you. I understand. I appreciate the uh effort. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you for your understanding. Okay. The next item on our agenda is also a public hearing. Uh this is to consider an application for a two lot subdivision pursuant to town code uh 107. Uh the owner applicant is Michael Messenger and the address is 1620 Washington Avenue.

Good evening. My name is Michael Messenger. I own 16-20 Washington Avenue. Um, brief history of this uh parcel. It was uh part of a subdivision that was done in 1925 which includes Lincoln and Washington avenues as well as the south side of Greenwich Road. Uh, this was done before the current section block and lot numbers were established. They were established sometime after 1964. the uh the person I bought the property from bought it in ' 64 as it's actually four separate lots as one parcel on the original survey. Um sometime after 1964 the section block lot numbers were changed and it was uh it was named lots 33 and 34 and at some point 33 and 34 were merged into 33. Um, I had checked with Harold Girdle Girdlestone. He had looked at some records and found that he could confirm that it was administratively merged, but he could not con there's no uh there's no letter from a prior owner. There's no written record other than in the tax roles, it looks like it was merged. And sure enough, in the tax roles, the the current numbers go from 33 to 35. So, what I would like to do is reestablish lot 34 as part of this as uh as this application. Are there questions? Well, this is a public hearing lest I forget again. Are the there any questions for members of the audience? Any questions from anyone on the Zoom? Do you have a a picture of the the lot?

I did. Well, I submitted it. Yes, I do have I have it. Could we look at it as part of the public meeting? Of course. Uh, how do I do that? Do I show it to the camera? [Applause]

Oh. Oh, if you have an elect. Okay. Just making sure that we're human.

Oh. Are you trying to pick out how many tires are on the

Yeah. Is it come off on the house? Okay, there we go. My apologies. So, existing lot on the left. There is a twotory house on it. Um subdivision is on the right. Uh the Well, that's pretty much it. It's a rectangle.

Now, what are the the um the lines? Is is that a wetland marking? There's a there is the town map shows a wetland here that Oh, thank you. The the town map shows a wetland that's down here that's really in the park that the property backs up to Bedford Village Town Park. Um in the the part with with the woods on it that's kind of behind the soccer field. Um the town map is like well over 40 years old and I think it probably needs an update because it's not really wet back there. Some years ago, they did a field drainage uh project on the plane fields, and that actually did change the the water table a bit. So, it's not I mean, it says it and it's there. Um

but right now then that puts the house completely in the wetland buffer. Am I right? Uh yes. Yeah. So, have you talked to wetlands at all about Well, this is a preliminary hearing. I did it preliminarily. So, I figured Okay, that Yeah, this is not a final. So, yes, that would put the house. So, so that would be a next step then. Okay, fair enough. So, they I would go there next and then they would review it. Well, at least, you know, it's possible that there might be an an administrative that they

that there might be an administrative approach. I don't think so for something like this, but it's possible. But you should consult with Fair enough. Um, anything else? This isn't is this is an area that's um in our aquifer protection zone? Correct. So, uh, have you looked into the the septic requirements?

I have I have verbal approval from the county health department. We did all the tests. uh they will not issue a final until I issue a final plat plan which is part of the final um submiss submission to this board. So I'm doing it in steps. Now have you spoken to the town about the town special requirements for the aquafer protection zone?

Not specifically. No, just uh I started with the health department. Okay, that's um the aqua protection zone is the one zone in in which the town's requirements are somewhat more stringent than the health departments. Um we don't do that many of these anymore because most of them were in Katona and that and were covered by the area that's been sewered, but it still is an issue in in Bedford Village. So funny thing about Lincoln and Washington is that we have there's the farms water system and there's the village water system and this is a little island of nothing

um for for whatever reason that is. But I years ago there was contamination in my well and the county uh tested it over the years and apparently they think it's no longer contaminated. But um that that's a it may be just fine. I'm just saying you should as the next step you should also consult with the with the town engineer just to to clarify that I had I have talked to Kevin Win once or twice in the past but not specifically for this. So

okay I don't think there's anything else that I would recommended next be before us for preliminary. Okay. Okay. So, I'll come back. I'll get I'll talk to wetlands. Hopefully, they'll administratively approve it and then I'll come back and at what are the next steps that the board would want to see? You'll come back for preliminary. We might entertain doing preliminary and final at the same time depending on what the answers are to those questions. Okay. Uh and you need the PLA the PLA plan is very expensive to do and that's why I've been pushing it put putting it off until I know exactly what I need to do. So, do I I need to have the PLA plan

to get final? You need to have So, if if everything's very positive and and there isn't likely to be anything carried over after you come for preliminary, we would consider the possibility of giving you preliminary and final get together. But I would advise if if there's any question about the septic or something something like that after you talk to them, you might want to wait. Okay.

Although there are it's not as if any of the things I've talked about would mean that you wouldn't be able to get a subdivision. It's just that it might be a more expensive proposition. Understood. it it's it's been an open qu I'm trying to answer the question is this possible and so that all that all helps me uh find the answer to that question okay so I think we have closed the public hearing we have not actually we shouldn't close the public yes we can nobody Can I have a motion to close the public comment I did ask for comments you did ask for comments so motion oppos.

Is there a second? Second. Any further discussion? All in favor? I I All opposed. The uh public hearing is closed. Uh we'll see you. We'll get you on an agenda as soon as we can once you've talked to to both Wetlands and and Kevin W and settle those issues. Great. Good luck with it from there. Great. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Okay. All right. Next item on our agenda. I lost it on my computer. Yes. We're done with public hearings.

The next one. Actually, we're not technically done with public hearings. Um, we have another technical public hearing to consider an application for reubdivision of land and site plan pursuant to town code article 4 section 107-27 and 107-28. Is that Did we pull that off? I thought we pulled that off. That's not on the print. Yeah, that's not on my Oh. Which one? This is the This is the agenda we were sent. 793 Bedford. Did we pull that off the agenda? No. Uh

is it regular? Oh, originally. Yeah. But I So that's this was the this was the agenda that that came in my mail. Got it. So we're doing 777 D. Okay, let me let me see. And then 793.

Okay, so this is just a new application and it is for 777 Bedford Road to consider a site plan application for the demolition of a bank and creation of a drive-thru facility. It is uh the owner applicant is DP21 LLC and the property is located at 777 Bedford Road in Bedford Hills. So is there someone good evening uh Whitney Singleton, Jay Black, and Pete Katzone on behalf of the applicant. I wish you would flip-flop the applications. I could get out of here more quickly, but that's okay.

I tried, but they wouldn't let me. Um, this is all meat and potatoes as far as the engineering. So, I'm just going to let Pete go right into it. There's no reason for me to blather on. Hi, Peter Katzone with Katzone Engineering. Um, so I have two computers here, so the presentation will be twice as long. We could take one of them away from you.

Uh so we're here to talk about the uh 777 uh project. Uh it's the um the coal site. The project is approximately 8.8 8 acres in size and that includes a 90,000 square ft Kohl's building and Vision World uh combined that's 90,000 square ft and the uh a former bank building which is approximately 625 square ft in size. Uh so what we plan to do is um demo the bank building and which is in this location and replace that with a um Starbucks facility. Um so let me just back up one one slide just for access. This is Norm Avenue here on the north side. There is access to the site from Norm Avenue. Uh there is access uh to the site from 333 Bedford Road on the south side. Currently there is a driveway which is um an exit only um and that is does not appear to be uh restricted turning movements uh to my best of my recollection. So, what we're proposing to do is um convert the existing exit only to a limited uh movement driveway. Cars could come in uh from Bedford Road, make a right in. Um

there's a queuing lane which is approximately 270 ft long from this location to that location. and that is um can accommodate approximately 14 cars. In addition to that, there's this dry value which we're calling overflow stacking which could accommodate an add an additional eight cars. Um the ordering is here. There's a a pre-men and then the actual ordering menu. Uh so the uh customers would place their order at this location. drive around to the pickup window. They could pick up here and they could exit either through 333 through Norm or make a right turn out onto Bedford Road. Um, this does require uh a few variances. For one, the building coverage maximum permitted is 20%. The existing is 23.9% and with the Starbucks building it's going to go up to 24.3%. The next is development coverage which there's a slight improvement. The permitted is 80%. The existing is 85.8%. And because of the additional green space along Bedford Road and and throughout that number will be reduced to 84.6. 6%. Um, also the rear yard and I have to this is historical but um in this corner here the rear yard requirement is 30 and that dimension again this is a building we're not doing

anything to. That dimension is 25.6 six, but just for the sake of transparency and um thorough overview of the existing conditions, uh that's where we are. So, um that's the project in a nutshell. Is it designed to be only a drive-thru premise? No. No. Okay. Um there are uh multiple parking spaces um in this area in this small lot here. Uh there are ADA spaces here. The front entrance will be somewhere along this wall. So they'll be That's what I couldn't make out from these plants. Okay. Excuse me.

I couldn't make that out from the Okay. Okay. Yep. Um,

now it does look like there'll be lot quite a lot of pedestrian crossings of the the parking lot in the parking area. And there's the there there are two issues I I see with this. One of one of them is in is the parking across the front of the building. It is a a bit um shielded with with some green space, but the master the the town master plan and I believe the new town master plan concurs in this is fairly absolute about trying to put the parking behind the stores whenever possible on on 117. The idea was to try to break down that that feeling that the whole of 117 is one giant parking lot. Um, we have insisted on it in in other cases. And when you combine the fact that the parking is right in in front with the fact that it going right in front means that almost every pedestrian who uses the facility has to cross in front of cars, some of which are in a in a parking area that's looks like the kind of parking area you might be able to put build up some steam in. Um, I'm not sure it's I'm not sure the pedestrian safety is is taken is as clearly evident as it could be.

We can provide some type of uh traffic calming uh whether it's definitely a crosswalk uh but also maybe an ele that crosswalk might be elevated um slightly. But also, I just want to point out the existing parking is is right up against the property line here. We're talking about this corner. So, even if we did move that parking to the other side, and I'll go through some constraints that we had about why we placed it uh in this configuration. You still have this large amount of parking that's still in the front yard. against 117. So, you know, we are pulling this parking forward. So, we are trying to uh comply with the spirit of the master plan. Um there are a few constraints. These dotted circles are the uh the project is on septic. These dotted circles are really the u uh the leeching fields. Uh so you know we have our building right against that. Flipping the building um would mean that right now you make this right end and let's say you make a right out there's no conflicting traffic. If you flipped it you would have the two lefts uh conflict you know uh you'd have to drive by the exit to get through the the lane. So, we think this is a smoother circulation. Um, also this just lined up with if we could go back to this plan, if we're considering the entire site plan, we

wanted to keep this this existing lane clear. So, if someone pulled in and decided, hey, I I don't want to go to Starbucks after all, the line is too long, they could exit out this way without even entering the drive-through lane, which is has its own escape uh lane on it. Um, so, you know, again, I think we are making this better. We can again add a crosswalk. Uh, we could add some landscaping there. Um, but we feel that, you know, this is a a pretty efficient layout. And lastly, I just want to point out that there's a tremendous grade difference from uh Bedford Road to this drive aisle. If if anyone is familiar with the site, this looks like curbing. It's really like a foot and a half high retaining wall. So the further you move it down the hill, the more challenging it becomes to kind of get a a level parking area there without cutting. And again, the problem with cutting is that there's a uh this is just one row of the um seepage pits. There's several rows here. So the problem with cutting is that we would be exposing those existing septic uh structures. So you know we we hear your concern and happy to keep looking at it but um

well how about trying to do something with landscaping something significant with landscaping and see what can what you can do there. uh possibly provide a bit more space cuz it doesn't look like that's really all that much of a buffer there. But if you could provide something more. Again, it's it's it's a difficult task to some extent that we've set for ourselves to to try to make the area more attractive. Um I think we'd all be open to different ways of of accomplishing the same goal. Uh but we'd really like to get away from the sea of cars because it's mo most efficient approach to design on 117.

Yeah, we can definitely look at doing something more substantial as far as landscaping and and maybe some islands that break it up a bit. You know, if you can lessen the park, even lessen the the parking more. It's it goes across the whole stretch of the of the lot. Yeah. Yeah. Would help, I think. Yeah. And again, native plants. And what we're thinking of trees by the roads. Native trees. Yeah. By the road. I mean, one of the hopes

in addition to native plants, so it's not just tree and grass, but some native plants, but some trees to have a treelined road down eventually. That was another reason for wanting the parking removed from the front of the building.

I just want to point out in addition to the topography of the site and the retaining wall and the traffic circulation making sense and the uh the septic on the site and trying to undo cow doors from 80 years ago or whatever it was with there was nothing but parking lot all the way down to the site. Um the other and to satisfy your board with regard to the greenscape in addition to that there's one other master that we're serving here. Uh we are trying to provide you with everything that we can but it's almost as though Starbucks has its own zoning as well. They have their they have their corporate packaging. and they have their their certific with with Honda and and the car dealers as well and

we tend to be really quite stubborn about it because this isn't their town, it's our town and they're welcome here on 117. Understood. But but we're going to do everything that we can but we're we're trying to, you know, satisfy a lot of different parties here. I know. I've read of things where they've really accommodated other towns that have insisted on certain things. And there's some beautiful Starbucks throughout the country. That's what I'm saying. They they And this one's quite attractive. Can do, you know, much more than they might otherwise. Yeah. Okay.

This one may or may not be quite attractive, but they're buried in the middle of a parking lot, so most people won't see it. So, it's a terrible waste. Okay. I mean, we're we're we've had this discussion about trying to maximize everything we can do for the town, but at the same time deal with the engineering, septic, topography, and Starbucks. So, to to some extent, we're more likely to be sympathetic to the engineering and the topography than the to the it's a choice between whether we please Starbucks or we please. Yeah,

there were concerns about the entrance coming in on 117, the left turn if you're coming north about whether because there is a second curb cut on Norm Avenue that appears to have been there from when Chase Bank was implemented and whether in fact that's better way to enter for traffic because people are going to make that left turn whether we tell them not or not into Starbucks and what what kind of congestion that's going Yeah, that is something else we need to look at.

Um, we will, again, this is our first meeting before this board, although we've had many conversations. Um, uh, to this point, I think we could give you a a frontage here with some native trees and as as well as some native shrubs and, you know, um, uh, kind of a layered effect where we have different colors during different times of of year and and, uh,

that might be helpful. That would be great. And the other places that you have pictured green, if those are also landscaped in a similar, the look will be will really break it up, especially if there are few islands. It won't be just Yeah, we have a lot of green space in this area as well. So, we can really if there if there are things there that that have impact towards the front, it'll help. And then maybe if you can fit in an island or something in front. Yeah, I think we we can do that. and think in terms of of pedestrian safety as well

because they seem to be anticipating given the amount of parking there that there will be a substantial pedestrian um usage. I would there's enough walkers on that road on that sidewalk too that the sidewalk should be somehow tied into the site. That's that's actually a good point that it's becoming what what used to be exclusively the the home of the automobile is actually becoming something different and we'd like to encourage that. It's almost like we pilot.

No, keep the secret. So, we we hear you on on the landscaping. we'll we'll come back with something uh meaningful on that. Uh the other thing that's not in this application and it it may come after. But um the discussion I've had with the client is um upgrading the signage that's there. There's a a small coal sign there now and um sort of um a uniform look with 333 their sign. Uh so we're pretty early in the discussions, but that's another thing that we um discussed. Uh right now the sign is in kind of this um area and it probably makes sense to move that sign to the corner of norm. Uh but again, you know, we're we're still working on on that aspect of it.

But again, it would be great if the sign had a Bedford look instead of a strip mall look. The existing sign's not No, I know that. But we're moving forward. So, thank you for putting that so kindly. It's really not attractive at all for the discussions really for making sure that you have proper circulation and wayfinding on the site because a lot of the stuff you don't see the sign until you've passed the site. Yep. That's right.

I presume you're also thinking about lighting for the for the area. Yes, we'll have some lighting. We could uh we could provide a phototric plan. Everything will be to the greatest extent we could could accomplish everything pointing in inward uh but inward and downward inward and downward. So they'll be dark sky compliant fixtures and you know shielded. So we'll provide a phototric plan for that. And is there any thought to solar panels on any of the roofs? Oh, good for us. complex. I'll get back to you on that. Yeah, they I I know I think the building code

property does a good job. Yeah, they our client is very heavily into solar. So, um there may be tradeoffs for additional solar if you can't put the cars behind things. Maybe you can put solar panels on top of them. The other possibility is um solar over parking lots. that will take away from the look of having it be landscaped. It's not a bad thing. There are certain things I'd be willing to give it up for.

8,000 panels.

Yeah. No, it's it is this is one of the more cooperative property owners in town. We realize that. But we're always greedy. We can ask for a little bit more when it's when it's greedy for solar power. I think it's legitimate. I don't think there's anything else to do tonight. Um, I suspect you may not be ready to sit down though because we also have the next item on the agenda, which is

is there anything application uh with respect to seeker like intent for lead agency circulation? Were you going to do u coordinated review for this for the Starbucks? Yeah. Is Starbucks the only two uh involved agencies? That's why I was wondering if if it's really necessary to do a lead agency. I would imagine something more. I suppose we could declare ourselves lead agency. Very often on on things like this, we would simply do it.

See a point to do it? It depends on how you want to do it. I mean it's uh and then both boards would have to evaluate all the environmental impacts from the overall development. But on something like this, that's often what we do. That's really up to you. Up to you how you would normally proceed. So we would if if we wanted to do coordinated review, we'd have to do the 30-day. Yeah. You'd have to say that you I wish we had asked Peter what he but I know he will be interested. So So the variances that we will be seeking from the zoning board of appeals are most likely I don't want to you know guarantee you this. We have to confirm some things but for the signage

Mhm. for the building coverage which is slightly increasing a percent you know well it's decreasing from the current condition but the development the development coverage building coverage is increasing the building coverage is increasing less than 1%. So I don't know that the zoning board is going to Are you changing the building at all? Yes, we're taking it down. Are you taking down building a new bokeh? Uh well it doesn't hurt I suppose it doesn't how large is the building?

So the existing building is about just let me go back to my notes. The existing building is 625 square ft. The Starbucks will be 2245 square ft. So if it's a if there is an there is a type two construction or expansion of a primary or accessory pertinent non-residential structure facility involving less than 4,000 square ft of gross floor area not involving a change in zoning or a use variance and consistent with all land use controls. So I think it would fit with it's actually a type two. So it's a type two if it's if it's under 4,000 square feet. I think we could fit it as a type two.

That that makes a lot more sense to me frankly. Okay. Uh could I have a motion? Move that. It's a type two second. Uh on the basis of the building involving under 4,000 square ft. Is there any further discussion? No. All in favor? All opposed? It is a type two action. So, I think this Did you have anything else for us? No, it's actually a good segue to the next application.

And the next application is I've got too many pieces of paper now. 7 793. Uh, and

Oh, Lord. Did I have your copy of the It's to consider an application for the resubdivision of land and site plan pursuant to town code article 4 uh chapter 107-27 and 107-28. Uh the owner applicant is DP21 LLC and the address in this case is 792 road. Oh.

Yeah. Let me go on this side. So this this is much less impactful than the last application. We're proposing no new building construction. We're simply uh trying to uh realign lots in such a fashion that because of a zoning change that the village uh that the town made uh a while back, everything is in now in the same zoning district. It's all RB. And what we're proposing to do is to slightly decrease the Bedford portion of the 333 site and slightly increase. What is it? 790.

Yeah, let me just go through the the lots. Uh yeah, 793. Can you can you zoom in on that so they can see it better? I think I can. Uh let's see. This is Adobe, which I don't Okay, here we go. There you go. There you go. Should I start refreshing?

Yeah, let me show it on on this one. I didn't bring a point around. It's okay. Okay. Um

I was here. So, there's there's two lots here. This bottom lot is known as 793. Um this other lot here is known as 795 Bedford Road. And in this portion here which we'll be taking from 333 and incorporating it into this um into this lot which we're going to combine. So 793 795 will be combined and then the subdivision involves taking let me give you some square footages here. Um, we're going to be taking about 16,78 square ft from 333 and adding it to the 793 lot. And just for perspective, um, existing two lots combined is.9 acres and it'll be 1.29 29 with the subdivision

and the reason you're doing it. Good question. It's almost like it's a good answer, too. It's almost like we don't have to do this presentation. The board just asks all the right questions. So, this existing building

will be uh repurposed for like a taco some kind of food business. And uh the septic for this building is currently uh very small. Um we lost a part of this due to this realignment. So the purpose is so that we could have an expanded septic and reserve area to support um the uh the the new use. We did preliminary soils testing probably a year ago and we have an application into the health department um to do official soils testing. So we're pretty sure what the soils are and what the per rates we're going to get, but now we just have to do it for real this time with the health department and with D.

So the so the short answer to your question is we're not developing that. We're simply adding on to it for septic capacity. That's it. We're taking the area from the former no hilly site. That's all dirt, hard dirt, making that a parking area, which I presume might lead us to the question of landscaping along North Bedford Road. It might just But other than that, we're not propo we're not proposing any building. Um we are proposing I think there's actually an existing access system.

There's a curb cut there now. Um so access will be from the exa existing curb cut. Uh I I think just looking at this we'd like to maybe put some kind of triangular island. So it's right turn in right turn out. Yeah. It's hard with the traffic circle. It's so it everyone is directed to the traffic circle. And then that attractive building that's there now would be completely repurposed and actually look attract. Um, and maybe there'll be some trees in the parking lot

or the be some trees in the parking lot. Native. Thank you. Um, that's really the the the full breadth of this application. It's not too complicated, but it is necessary to be able to realistically utilize that that building and uh it it does it does not trigger any variances at all. It's just fully compliant. Don't say anything.

Okay. Um, there is one component of this building that's pre-existing non-conforming that we can't change because we don't have control of it. There's a small portion of this building back here that does not need current setback from the gas station in front of it, but we're not expanding that. And uh there will be no increase in degree of nonconformity, but but that is non-conforming in that one small location. you can actually see the dotted line where the setback should. So yeah. So that's that's the only thing with regard to that. And um

I think the only thing I wanted to add is we do have uh let's see just close this and open um my flash drive. There it is. We do have an application for a subdivision before the village of Mount Kiskco. Uh the purpose of that subdivision is you had it up before. Yeah, it was I'm not sure why it did. Oh, is this the other small piece? Yeah, it's a it's a similar lance between two two parcels.

And is this part of the same application? No, we had some discussions early on in this process as to I you'll recall when there was an an application for 333 there was a fight over lead agency which was awarded to Mount Kisca.

Yes. Rather than go through that again, it was discussed with your planner and Mount Kisca's planner and confirmed by at least as far as recommendations of those of of those uh officials that it given the nature of what's going on. Now, Kiscoco's application is to swap this piece for this piece and Bedford's was to have this. We thought it would be more appropriate that each town be its own lead agency. And I think there was concurrence on that, but we did set forth to both towns that anything well we have to by virtue of its proximity to a town line, but what whatever goes on in Mount Kiscoco will be copied to your board. Whatever goes on in Bedford will be copied to the Mountiscoco planning board. But essentially for for purposes of just walking through it, this area right here is currently um owned is currently owned by the owner of this property 383. And there's an eastment to go across this parcel of land. What did you do?

Sorry. This parcel of land right here is currently owned by Sorry. You think I'd be doing that on purpose? It's currently owned by 333, but can't you use this access for 333 because the topographical that's where the safe light is and where the That's where Presto is, right? Yeah. Well, Presto is down. This is the mattress store right here. This is the automotive in the back, right? And this is retail shopping center.

So the the idea was to put this alleyway and parking uh which is already built out in ownership with this the rear lot. Oh no the front lot. Uh, no. It just takes the landlock easement becomes part of this back lot and this triangle which is already accessed for the 333 site becomes under the ownership of the 333 site. There's no proposed activity in either one of those areas. It's all the same owner just different uh no automotive that's okay. These two lots here is different ownership.

Okay. Um, so in terms of seeker, we'd each do our own. We were not going to do a whole lead agency. Well, we did we did discuss with Mount Kiscoco. Um, I did discuss with their land use attorney that there would be separate two separate lead agencies for both applications since I just to confirm I think all the properties involving this application are within the town of Bedford and all the ones correct the Mount Kiscoco are within Mount Kiscoco. You still may need to do lead agency here because I think you have um Westchester County Department of Health that you're you would you need are you going to need approvals from Westchester County Department of Health on this? Yes. For the uh Yes. For for the for the res the res but just for now for the

just for the septic. I know. But that may qualify, you know, that may be an involved agency for that. Then they may be considered an involved agency. Couldn't we do uncoordinated review and they could do their own review? Mount Cisco is totally separate, right? They're totally separate. But you would I think you'd need to do lead agency for this. I mean, if we want to look into it further, but um I think we have since we have another agency that they require an approval from. You'd need to do lead agency on it. Typically, Westchester County doesn't do its own secret review on these projects. So,

well, in that case, that's one piece of work we can do that tonight. You could do the CL lead agency tonight unless unless you have an alternative theory as to why it's a type why there's no other agencies involved. So, you know, no, I understand that. But wouldn't it be an administrative action by the board of health and not a discretionary board? That I don't know. I don't know if Westchester County is considering building the building inspector is not an involved agency. He's an involved official, right? Even a historic preservation committee. Even a historic preservation commission isn't a an involved agency. I I I've just never heard of the board of health being a Yeah, I agree. I think

if that's okay with you, but either either way, there's there's a process here and if you want to declare approve pending board of health approval. Well, that that we always do, but that's not a secret. So, if you don't typic for typically for subdivision, you don't count the Westchester County Department of Health as a as a involved agency. Well, I mean, when we fill out part one, yeah, we we usually put it down as an involved agency, but we but we also put the the Betwood Village Historic District Commission down and and they're definitely not Well, I would count them as a as an involved agency that needs to get lead that needs lead, but they but they're not they're an administrative.

They're they're discretionary. We don't we can we can talk about that another time, but that that's the question. I don't know actually I don't know if the top head of Westchester County Department of Health is considered a discretionary I don't know about that one uh or administrative you could look you could you could decide not to declare lead agency and if they feel it's necessary to do a full review Westchester County Department of Health could do review at that point so and is this a type two or this No this is subdivision is unlisted but this is but I can't think of anything to be honest small that we've ever done a declare lead agency.

I mean, I'd be okay and then it's up to the county to do to do its review. Yeah. At that point, I think we do. Well, yeah. Nevertheless, because of its proximity of the municipal line, there's going to have to be referral to the Westchester County Planning Agency, right? Yeah. But that and we're going to have to make an environmental determination. Yes. Yeah. Now, I wasn't thinking we weren't going to make an environmental determination, but just that we do uncoordinated review. The only question is whether you need to do lead agency circulation because of the department because there's another involved agency here. Why don't why don't we defer on that and get an answer for your board before you make a decision? Well, I just don't want to hold you off.

No, I understand. But you but sometimes making a decision on on something like this might be unnecessary and ultimately foul foul things up. We're going to have to do we're going to have to do uh the notices and we're going to have to notify Mount Kiscoco of this application, right? Just like Mount Kusco is going to notify you of its application and we're going to have to go to the Westchester County referral. Um, so I mean I don't mind doing if if the easiest thing is to do the the the the 30-day notice no notice, maybe we should just do it. Okay, that's that's fine.

Yeah. I mean, I don't think you have anything to lose from that. And then we'll we'll we'll we'll circulate it to Mount Kiscoll and to uh just as an interested agency and Westchester County Department of Health, okay, can circulate it to just out of an abundance of caution. So could I have a motion that we uh circulate the statement that that we intend to be lead agency? So move. Is there a second? Second. Any further discussion? All in favor? I. All oppose. We will. Okay. Circulated.

I I know you've had a long meeting tonight. Just not to belabor, but are you going to be looking for landscaping along here? Because this is a travel lane and I'm just trying to figure out what or we're going to try to figure out what your board's desire is. We're obviously not going to want to have hedges, you know, creeping into the to the peel off lane. If if you could figure out a way to put even one tree, one street tree and might be the most efficient. Okay. Some low perennials. I mean and some low perennials just so it's not more pavement that's all but they're native perennials that take zero care. Yeah.

I think I think that's it. Okay. I know it's a lot of land but I I I don't think it's a huge project. No. All right. Okay. Are we I think we've done everything we can do on this application. Yep. Thank you. The next item on our agenda is uh to consider an extension request for a previously approved two lot subdivision. Uh the owner applicant is Glenn Arbor Golf Club LLC and the address is 234 Bedford Center Road. Uh is there anyone here to speak for the applicant?

Good evening. For the record, Steven Rabel from Makala Goldberger and Stout on behalf of Glen Arbor Golf Club. Uh, as you stated, Madam Chair, we're here for a 90-day extension of our final plat approval. We're trying to work through some final issues pertaining to the well permit with Department of Health. Think you'll be able to do them in in think get it settled in 90 days? I hope so. We're, as you know, DO can be a little slow to respond, but they have our materials and we're waiting for them to process. My understanding from our engineer is that they won't sign the plat until the well is installed and brought online.

Okay. Uh well, you are entitled to another 90-day extension. Uh it is a 90-day extension you want. Correct. A 90-day extension. Correct. Could I have a motion? So move second. Is there any further discussion? All in favor? I. All oppose. You have a 90-day extension. Thank you very much. Have a nice night.

Next item on our agenda uh is uh per town code 125133 review of the a referral from the town board for a proposed zoning petition and conceptual site plan for a mixeduse development and request for the planning board to assume lead agency for the purposes of conducting environmental review pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act. the applicant. It just your thing just went out. Can you hear now? I can hear.

Um the applicant is uh L LH Post Road LLC. The owner Alchemy Bedford Ten Tenant Company, I think. Yeah. And um is there someone here to speak for the applicant?

Yes, madam chairperson Pete. Daniel Hollis, Gettinger Waldinger, modeling own Kuwan Hollis, 118 North Bedford Road, Mount Kiscoco for the applicant with Sarah O'Shea, one of our attorneys who's uh helping get her shoulder workout in tonight. Um, I'm going to make a contribution as an aside to an easel that will be for all of us that come here because if you forget your easel, you you you uh you have to do this. We're here tonight on behalf of LHP Old Boats Road LLC, the sublesc on a 199year lease as a result of a referral to your board from the town board on our petition to clear up some uncertainty in some circles as to what the zoning is for the 3.14 acre parcel that our client wishes to develop along the lines of the concept plan, which I might add is is faithful to the recently adopted master plan. Um the confusion uh exists as a result of a um 1994 map that does not include uh all of the 3.14 acre in the NB zoning district and two maps, one in uh 2009 and another in 2023 that do include the pro the entirety of the 3.14 acre parcel in the NB district. So, we've asked the town board to uh clear up that confusion by either ratifying or confirming not either the 2009 or the 2023 uh zoning map apply uh or if they think the 2009 applies, which I can't imagine they would, but if they did, uh then we would have to have an amendment of the tax map to include the entirety of this parcel. Um, this parcel's north and easterly boundaries are the same boundaries for the Bedford

Village Water District. So, it makes sense that the the the zoning track the water district because of the fact that we're going to have a, you know, sewage treatment facility on this property. Uh we're going to have parking. There already is parking on this property. And we're going to update the uh the sewage treatment facility so as to be able to handle the the uh sewage from the Bedford Central uh school, the elementary school, Bedford Village Elementary School. So, we're here tonight. Hopefully we've with the help of your staff and yourself um put together a pretty uh complete uh EAF and uh hopefully you'll be in a position tonight to uh circulate a motion that be made to circulate that notice of intent to be lead agency and we can be on your December 8th agenda to start going through that EAF in a thorough fashion. Mhm. That sounds like what we were intending to do tonight. Um, have you had a chance to go through the part one that

No, I what I what I thought we'd do tonight is just quickly go through the part one that's been been given because we would circulate that with with the intent to declare a lead agency. And oh, by the way, David Sessions from K uh S CJ Consulting is on uh if any questions come up uh on the part one. Okay, let me get up my copy of the part one. Does everybody have theirs?

I had it all lined up at the beginning of this meeting. I think I've got it. I've got it on my own. Got it. Okay. Um I I'm not going to I I don't think we if we've all looked at it, we don't need to go through it line by line. I'll just ask you if you have any comments or questions on each page. Does that make sense to everybody? Yeah. Yeah.

Uh okay. Any questions? Uh comments on page one. Everything seemed fine to me. Anything on page two? There's some discussion of the treatment of the comprehensive plan for this area. on page three. If staff has any comments to make as we go along, please feel please do feel free to to uh chime in. That goes for the town attorney as well. Page four. Again, this uh is a proposal that will involve both residential and commercial uses. Uh so there will be about 30 units of housing. There will be the wastewater treatment facility to go along with the school the schools. will be an upgrade of that facility. Yes.

Page five. Page six. Am I going too fast? Sorry. You know, I'm sorry. No, go ahead. No, no. I just like describe how the proposed action will affect the water body, wetland excavation, fill placement, structure, but we don't have any final. We don't know how it's going to be affected.

Yeah, I think that's part of what we're going to have to try to uncover in the course of the environmental review. But how can we even review this if we don't know what's going to be built? We're reviewing the concept of something being built but not and all we have is a you know footprint. Well, I think that becomes incumbent on us to ask for more though which I think is legitimate. But this builds a little bit of carpet for the horse. Yeah, it does. It I feel really especially with this project in that place.

I mean there's numbers there's numbers in here that are quantifiable numbers but we don't know what they're quantifiable to attach to. It makes me feel comfortable based upon pardon me square footage and estimated um utilization of the site. But as we progress along this path, we will have a more concrete because our goal is obviously to not just clarify the zoning map question but also uh dual track a site plan for uh if in fact the entirety of the property is in the NB district that a site plan that would be uh faithful to that district would be reviewed by your board for uh consideration.

Right. we we need to start the process and then as as it develops we could recirculate for lead agency at some we could recirculate once the plan becomes more defined if that's the case but we need to start the process somewhere and because there's a subdivision application um and there's a proposed site plan that this is this is the beginning of the process but I'm confused because wouldn't it make sense to first clarify irrespective of any proposed plan or not the zoning and then if the zoning is clarified and it is allowable for such to be built then a proposed project can come

right the pro the issue is in order to do that evaluation we have to also evaluate the proposed underlying project as well under secret we can't we can't separate them at this point um that's so we need to do some evaluation of the underlying proposed project at this point that's the kind that's the kind we can't separate the two at this at this time was there a point where they could have been separated before you could have separated them before a project was presented or

if there was no potential project that here we have enough of a defined project. I mean unless we're going to do purposeful segmentation of the project that would not be you know that's something you know that the applicant doesn't want to proceed with at this point we've discussed it. So to get to the point where we can actually evaluate the subdivision application we have to evaluate the the potential underlying development of the property. That that's what requires. So,

and then look, if it if once we get to a point where we're doing a more defined, you know, if there's a um a determination on the um underlying zoning that leads to further changes in the underlying project that can be recirculated at that point, we can make amendments to our secret determination. But we have to go through this process.

Yeah, we we have to start the process. I there There there is there has been a question out there about the um about the zoning, but as far as I I can tell from what what I've heard, there really is no concrete evidence in either direction. Okay. Um and the general rule of thumb is is to apply the more restrictive zoning

is apply the more restrictive zoning. So given the the two options, the one to look into clarifying the zoning, I'm not all sure it needs to be clarified. I think frankly from what I've seen of of the information, I I think it is clear that it the lot was not originally zoned that way, but that's just one person's view. I think it makes more sense for us to to take the other alternative that the applicant has has offered which is to to consider whether a petition to reszone that area is appropriate. But in order to do that given the existence of the um of the proposal out there I think we have to

work you can't segment the two parts of the project that that's that's the problem with secret is you can't segment the the under the underlying zone change from the underlying development. That's that's the issue. So we've so what we had proposed with the applicant is to propose a uh concept site plan which they've done and we'll have to evaluate the the impacts from that propo the uh the proposed site plan that we have in place and again if that site plan changes we're going to have to re-evaluate under secret and potentially do an amended secret determination at that point but

the only way it's going to change I'm sorry the only way it's going to change during that process is is that it will become more definitive right uh that that it's not going to be, you know, the same all the way through the process. We're going to have more uh fine-tuning of the concept plan into an actual site plan as this process goes on. Yeah. And I'm not so sure that it is less developed than much of what what we do start out with with larger projects, right? Um, it's not at all unusual for for a project to end up being very different at the end of the seeker process than it ever was very much so

at the beginning. So I don't find I don't find myself quite as challenged by I think we have enough to make approximate guesses aren't the right word, but but approximations of traffic. If we're talking about x number of units of of housing that leads to a certain number of of vehicle trips, regardless of where you exactly where on the property you put those units

exactly and and how many units of retail or restaurant there would be. and we can do the septic numbers or the sewage numbers on that uh and and throw in um the fact that it's also uh going to be solving a problem uh at the Bedford Central School District's elementary school down on Court Road uh with this upgraded system. So all of this uh I think to get the ball rolling uh I think we really need to have the notice of intent for lead agency um circulated and u

and I don't really know how we what what is it we're looking at if we're not going to look at at this at the at this conceptual site plan. what is it that we are looking at? Right? You'd have to look at the concept of what the maximum development under that zoning would be, right? Which would require you to to sort of do a concept, you know, almost a generic EIS at that point for this property, which here we have a specific site plan that that at least takes you down a certain path. if they decide to expand beyond what they're proposing with this, again, you know, we would do

we would have to do further um secret review and potentially an amended secret determination at that point. So,

yeah, I I don't think the the mass of the building, the improvements is going to change dramatically. I don't think the mix between retail and uh residential is going to change the commercial and and residential is going to change marketly but the fine-tuning of that is is where we to get more precise numbers but I think we can as we go through this process provide uh certain uh information that will be helpful to you informing your decisions with regard to uh positive or negative declaration. Right. And and just to clarify that the environmental review we would be doing now is is serving um as our review of the action of the zoning referral, but if there were other subsequent actions necessary to facilitate the development.

No, it's more I I don't think that is what we're saying. I think we're saying that we can't look at just the zoning because we're aware of the Yeah. Yeah. But that it after that comes to pass if there are further if there's further review on our part necessary to facilitate the actual development like a site plan approval that would have its own environmental review. Right. There may be additional you may make an environmental determination and then issue your right

um deter and then issue your recommendation to the town board on the zoning. The zone zoning board I mean to to the town board. the town board could then act on the zoning petition and it may come back to you to do further site plan review at that point or would I imagine it would come back to do further site plan

that if it went that way that's the way that would have to go right I mean we don't want to this is a you know critical spot I mean one of the master plans u goals is to have expanded development and housing in the hamlet areas and and this is you know pointing in that direction and uh you know we we want to be responsive been faithful to that plan. Uh and we'll we're at a stage where we have to do something to get the ball rolling and that's what I'm trying to

but at the same time we we want to be be because the issues are so important to the town and uh and so controversial in their own way. We want to to be thorough from the very beginning in the way we look at it. And I think I' I'd be worried of backing into a resoning when I didn't really know what direction that resoning was going to take us. I'm much more comfortable with there being a specific uh even if it's a somewhat generic proposal that's riding on this.

Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. I was just making that observation that from the perspective of it reassuring us, you know, as to any concerns we have about the level of detail in front of us right now that we can we can do as much more detail at that in a subsequent review. Yeah, I think maybe you and I were actually saying the same thing and I was misreading what you were saying. Okay. So, I apologize. Not at all. Pardon me. Um, are you any more comfortable? I I I don't I don't feel a consensus yet about what direction go. So what is our goal at the end of this environmental review tonight?

Tonight all all we would be doing is declaring our decision to lead agency. Um, and we've and we really and we come back to everything in this and review it to as we start getting information. Right. Okay. That I'm comfortable to Oh, okay.

Yeah. Hi, it's Dave Sessions if if you if you don't mind. I just wanted to chime in. Yeah. This tonight is is specifically just to circulate hopefully to circulate the the EAF obviously for your intent to be lead agency. the the EAF can be modified during the process. Um obviously there there are a lot of involved agencies here. There's health department there there's wetland control commission and during the entire process there there is there are probably going to be changes to the site plan uh additions deletions so on and so forth. So this is really just a mechanism to as everybody said to get the ball rolling and we I'm sure we will be revisiting the details of the EAF

uh at subsequent meetings. Yeah, to declare our leave agency. It's the agencies. It's the residents that that care so deeply about which don't want this property not developed. That's not what I'm saying. But they want very much to be aware and have input. And I don't think that as many people as would be interested or aware of what's going on. Well, the way the only way they can become aware of what's going on is for us to start the process. doing today is starting this and declare and all we're doing that is declaring ourselves le's agency and we can go back over everything else that I'm very comfortable with.

Yeah. But I don't think it makes sense putting hairs over the exact numbers or anything on the document because it's not real. We don't have a facade. We don't have Yeah. We don't have real numbers. We don't know a traffic. That's all. So So we can rubber stamp to start the thing. I think before you go before before you go through the part two, you'll have to have a little numbers, right? But one of the reasons for going through part one and making sure is just you have to make sure all the questions are answered. It's fine as long as we can revisit them all. Yeah, that is

but we need to send it out with the others because the involved agencies also need that same opportunity to go through the part one. So, our job isn't just clarify what we're doing tonight. I just want to

make sure because I would like us to finish looking at the part one to make sure there isn't anything that we think is missing. Anything obvious? So, we were on page five when we stopped doing this. Anything on page six? Anything on page seven? Page eight. Page nine. Page 10. Page 11. Page 12. and page 13.

Okay. Again, this is the So, we're at the end of the document. This is not our document. This is the applicant's document. When we when we eventually do part two, it will be our document. And that is one will no doubt spend a good deal of time on and probably additional time on the part one as on the way to to doing part two. So is there enough information in part one to convince us that we are the proper lead agency? That's what I would look look for in this. Uh and it seems to me on the basis of this that that it is clear that we are the best equipped to be the lead agency for this this process. uh and the best equipped to get the answers that would need to be gotten in order to make a proper review of a project of this magnitude. So I would like

I move that we declare ourselves the agency and notify the circulate is to all involved agencies. Is there a second? Second. Is there any further discussion? All in favor? I. All opposed. We will be declaring ourselves lead agency and um in 30 days time we'll know where that comes. If if no one objects we probably will be on December's agenda December 8th. I think that's the date in December. I think that's the first date after the 30 days would yes elapse.

So I hope that people become aware that the project is out there. Um and that it will most probably be discussed again at a meeting of the planning board in December. Thank you. Anything else that we can do for you tonight? No, that's all you can do for me tonight. I appreciate everyone's attention and look forward to working with the board on this project. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay, next item on our agenda is uh to consideration or a site plan amendment to a previously approved project. Uh the owner applicant is Proven KP LLC. The address is 3-5 Edgemont Road in Katona.

Good evening chair members of the board. Steven Helms with the Helms Group Architects representing Jamie Provenzano who could not be here tonight. Uh Proven KP LLC. This property is located at 35 Edgemont Road. Um I have photos here of the existing and the proposed or the asbuilt building as it sits today. Um this was a long project about three years ago we started this. We were before the zoning board. We were before your your board several times and um uh it took about three years getting our permits and construction. It went a little longer than anticipated. The first and second floors of the building was needed major structural repairs. It was a mixeduse building consisting of the Katona publishing on the first and second floor and a two-bedroom apartment on the third floor. Um we went and uh converted the first and second floor into apartments. We have two ADA apartments on the first floor with a handicap ramp uh for accessibility and the second floor was created two apartments. We kept the third floor as a two-bedroom apartment, which it remains today. Um, we did present this with designating one of the apartments as affordable. Um, my client quite frankly would like to see if there's a way he can get out of that having that designated. We had a TCO issued back in March. The building was finished February. The town gave a TCO. The only apartment that's not rented is the second floor. I believe it's apartment D. That was the one that was designated and uh that expired October 14th. We did get that renewed prior to the expiration date. So, we have a valid TCO for another 6 months. Um uh and uh with the cost that he incurred and the time and so forth, he just would prefer not to have the restriction on this building. We did there's some language in the code under the

affordable creation of affordable units where five or more. We did add four. The one was always there. So, our interpretation I reached out to the supervisor subsequent to the town attorney Eric Gordon and uh you know there is some language in the town code that again uh 20% rule. Uh so we did create four not five. Um I just realized or I guess subsequent to all of this I think there was 12 apartments that came online. the affordable on Valley Road and Cottage Terrace I believe went to affordable. Um so that's I'm just using that as an example. There has been quite a bit of apartments being developed. Three more at 15 uh Befford Road or 156 I don't know the exact address. I'm working on a project now at 150 that we're going to create three. Um but this is uh this building here the owner uh these aren't it's not a huge apartment about 550 square ft and he just doesn't want the restriction on this project on this property

and before your board we were told or advised to come back to your board to see where if we can have that waved on this application. It seems very strange to to go through an extended process um without ever mentioning a complete reinterpretation reinterpretation of the the town code in this regard. Um and then to to come up with it at the very end seems um convenient.

Sorry. It seems convenient to to to some extent it feels a little bit like has used the promise of affordable housing to ease the um approval the approval process. Well, and then at the end when when you have everything you want, you turn around and and say we're going to reinterpret it the in a way that it's never been interpreted before. Yeah. five or more units. Town attorney, is there any uh validity to that? Throughout the entire process, the assumption and the discussion in our notes throughout the entire process was that one of the units would be affordable. Yeah.

Yeah. So, and the the you know, when we when we do a two lot subdivision, we call it a two lot subdivision. We don't call it a one lot subdivision with something else hanging out there. But there's always one lot when you start a two lot subdivision. When you divide it in half, it becomes two lots. The this was, you know, I w I watched the this building being built. This was an interior gut job on the building and it was beautifully done and but

yeah. In only the vaguest way possible, could you say that that apartment that was there in the is is the same apartment that it was before? Oh, it's right. It's the same except it's got new electricity, new walls, new plumbing. Yeah, it's not a new building. It's an existing building. Um it he feels he, you know, with the money he incurred, he sub to have him subsidized. me,

you know, I I appreciate that that he he he feels he's had to pay for it. That's what every developer ends up having to do. Why Why is it harder for him to do that than for the the developer with the three units further down on Bedford Road? Or or you said in number 50, you're probably going to be new. That's a brand new building. The elevatoring on a commitment. This was a firm commitment that you're trying to reneg on. That that this discussion wasn't before.

Well, I I presented the project. I presented it and we were going with a one of the units would be designated as a for now. The attempt is to reneg on that because it makes me very uncomfortable. I mean that makes me uncomfortable and even more so it's the precedent that sets that to we we automatically are it w it was I believe the intent of the town when it passed the law and it was actually I think this was part of the county housing law

to um require if in cases where you have five or more units one of them is going to be affordable. Is there a fee and loo mechanism that the town has built into their building code that allows him to pay a fee to compensate the board? I believe that's written in the town code. The the whole point of the new I I don't know what's happening. The the whole point of the new town town code which was imposed by the county to some extent because of the federal lawsuit that was out there was to do away with the fee in Lou.

Okay. So no there isn't a fee. So that's not in your code anymore. That was strike for this type of only for residential single residential if it was in permitted use in this single family. There is But even that it came Yeah. And even there it came it came late to the party. Is it not? So that's not like just a hard and fast requirement. I'm Is are we are we even empowered to I don't think so requirement.

I don't think we'd have a legal right to do it. Frankly, I think we could be sued, but I'm not an attorney, so I shouldn't say that. I mean, if if it's not actually the wording of the law and that it's not a requirement, I I guess that's intriguing and we could explore that, but my understanding up until now had been that this was just a hard and fast requirement and that's the end of the story. And that was my I would agree with that. That's what I had always assumed. A five-unit building is a five-unit building. It wasn't a five-unit building before. It is now. and we agreed on it at the outset that the approvals were given

with the understanding that that would be the case, right? And and the the provision of the code that I think is applicable is um I'm just making sure here. So under 125-125-29.6, Six. If you look at D 2A, right, it talks about AFH units in multif family zoning districts. This is a multif family zoning district.

And it says at least 20% of these units in any multif family residential development in any multif family residential zoning district shall be established as a AFH units, which is where we get if you have five, you need one. So the the the concept of the um within all residential developments of five or more units that only really that only applies in single family zoning districts which was what I thought I had advised the attorney who I was talking to or yeah um so our interpretation has always been and my understanding is the 20% is if you have five one of them has to be affordable that's 20%. and and I this board doesn't have the right to wave that is our is our and and in multif family zones you don't have a fee in loo

why only in single family zones is there a fee and lube um provision so that's that's where we had come out so all right so I mean I I what I'm gathering is I understand your board uh is he can either appeal it or he makes the unit affordable as he planned to and then go with that the messenger I just uh you asked me to present to your board to see if he can get it exempt and it sounds like your board's pretty stern and it was presented that way. So, well, and and we really I I think maybe we should have been clearer at the the outset even if we wanted to. I don't think that we'd have the the legal right to I don't see that here either.

Yeah. I don't think he meant to do it or we had promoted to get it all the approvals. I mean, this was a pretty straightforward project. It was we weren't uh asking for anything crazy on it, but uh it was presented with one and uh I'll bring it to his attention. I just want to refer you to the initial conditions because you're on you're on your final TCO. If you were beyond that, you'd have to go to the town board. So what you what needs to happen next is the restrictive covenant needs to be duly executed and filed as the deed restriction and then for the one unit for the one unit and then a member of the housing authority needs to come and set the rent. Okay.

And is that Blue Mountain or is that uh what uh it's Blue Mountain? It's Blue Mountaintown Housing Council. They're one and the same. identical, but they are separate entities and we have a form of covenant that we we we've prepared for this situation. The marketing and the unit we're still debating right now. So or how how that gets how it gets determined who gets to rent it is still being debated right now. Throw a curveball at is there even an option if he was developing some other property in the town to add another one instead of Unfortunately, it says it has to be on the site of the multif family development. If you were dealing with single family, it would be different. But it's very strict with respect to multif family developments.

No, I'm saying if he had a a new project I'm working on, he's required by three. If he adds four to compensate for this loss, that be again, I I think the answer is that it has to be within this development. The the specific say these AAF units must be provided on the site of the proposed Oh, wait. Or in an approved or an approved offsite location. So I guess you could get an amendment to allow it an additional one somewhere else if there was a viable location if this board was willing to consider that. That's is there a time limit on the affordable unit?

I think the same problem is this board considered the application with the affordable unit and and they they made they developed their approval based on that. It really needed to be done at the beginning of the process not the end of the process. That's I think what I'm hearing. Right. Yeah. That's the key point and part of the intent just as a side piece because that is the key point is that the affordable units are supposed to be interspersed not grouped so that it doesn't change the tone of the housing and and so that this one needs to be there and the others need to be

elsewhere is consistent with what we're trying to do planning wise. Okay. So, I think you're getting a sense from the board what their position. Yeah, I hear it loud and clear. Uh, my client asked me, I said, "I'm not a lawyer. I present it." Uh, and uh, I don't know what to tell them. So, uh, Christine will, um, I may chime in with you later this week to get some more specifics on that. We're documenting that. Yep. All righty. Thank you very much. Take care. Thank you. Anything else to come before the meeting? Close the meeting. Second.

All in favor? I. All opposed. Next.