Zoning Board - Regular Meeting

a public hearing to consider an application for preliminary subdivision approval to convey five acres of land from 725 Coton Lake Road to Five Pines Bridge Road and another five acres of land to create a new lot to effectuate a future development of a new single-family home with related appurtenances. The owner's applicants are 20 Blutenthal, LLC, and Olga T. And I'm going to apologize and say I'm going to slaughter this place. And the addresses are 725 Groton Lake Road and 5 Plains Bridge Road, Bedford. Is there someone here to speak for the applicant?

Yes, John Anderson consulting. On behalf of 20, the board's familiar with the parcel. We had a single family home approved earlier this year on the 84 acres. We applied for a steep slopes permit or granted that. Ended up getting amended earlier this year. The parcels 725 Croton Lake Road consists of 84.8 acres of land and the application is a lot line change and subdivision whereby land is going to be conveyed to 5 Pinesburg Road and a new lot is going to be created on Croton Lake Road. So approximately five acres is being conveyed, proposed to be conveyed to Five Pines Bridge. That would bring that parcel, which is developed with a single family home, from 1.48 acres to 6.48 acres. And it'll make it a compliant lot. It has some setback and coverage issues now. Lot two will be a new lot. It's going to have frontage on Croton Lake Road. that's going to consist of just over six acres 6.04 acres and that would be a future building lot for a single family residence and then the balance which is lot one would be the um 725 with the single family residence that was previously uh approved and that parcel is going from 84.84 acres to 73.8 um we made an application for a lot line change and subdivision We also showed a conceptual, theoretical build-out of Lot 2. And I updated the plans a little bit today, and I just passed them out just for clarity, a little color coding so you can see on the first page the before and after where what's taking place here with the lot line change with Five Pines Bridge and the new lot being created on Croton Lake. And the new lot is really very similar to the adjacent lot in size and configuration. So it will mimic that development. And that's the application.

Okay, this is a public hearing, so I'd like to open by asking if there are any comments from members of the public or questions from members of the public. Yes, if you would come up and speak at the microphone and identify yourself, please.

Hi, my name is Lisa Weiss. I live at 9 Pines Bridge. I wanted to know if If the acreage that goes to 5 that's going to Olga, Tash Hoberbo, if that acreage is going to be 6.48, could that be built on or is that just to be remaining as land?

Can we answer that? I believe it's to build on.

It couldn't be further subdivided because it has very limited frontage. If anything, I guess it could be developed if the owner was to build an addition or a pool, that sort of thing. But we're not aware of any formal plans for the development of that lot.

Okay. And the other one that says you're going to create a new lot – A new single-family five-acre lot. Where is that? Can you show me that?

To the right of the property.

So this is Croton Lake Road here. This is Pines Bridge Road here. And this is the – This is lot two, yes. This is lot two. It's six acres.

This sits right here. And another five acres, the plan to create a new lot.

Well, that's the conveyance to Olga. This is five acres. No.

Because if I'm reading this, I'm reading like Olga. Yeah.

No, it's a lot line change with no development and then one house site here. And then this lot was previously approved for a single family home.

Okay, because on the Janelle website, which is the realtor that's selling this, it says, their exact words were that Janelle says additional splits possible.

Well, the balance is... It's an 80-acre lot, so it could potentially be subdividable, but that's not being proposed.

Oh, so that could be in the future?

Anybody in the future could do what they could.

Absolutely.

Yeah, but it's not being proposed by any means.

Okay, so it's still two new lots, not something.

It's actually the creation of one additional lot.

Okay.

Yeah, the five acres is the conveyance from Bountonville to Five Pines Bridge.

It literally says, approval to convey five acres to Five Pines and another five acres to create a new lot.

This is the new lot. I'm sorry, but that's the proposal.

And just... The other question was whether or not a house could be built on the five acres. If the person who purchased the lot with the small house on it decided they wanted to demolish that house and build a different house on the lot, there's nothing that we keep them from doing.

Correct, but because of the limited frontage, you would never see this lot be resubdivided.

Not resubsidized. I'm just saying it could be further developed, but not resubsidized.

Correct.

I just wanted to be clear about that.

You can see that the rear property line is very limiting. They already have a rear yard setback issue. So this will alleviate that.

Yes. And it's under the lot cover.

This is just for clarity. This is the one acre zone. This is a four acre zone.

Oh, okay. That is still in the one acre zone.

Okay.

But I guess my main point is people should be aware that at some point in the future, there could be a much larger house on that lot with because of the subdivision.

I don't think that's the plan right now. But yeah, anything's possible.

Any other questions or comments? Yes, if you would, please.

My name is Robert Saunders. I'm at 703 Croton Lake Road. My property is encompassed on three sides by 725 Croton Lake Road. And I have three things to note. One, the mailed notice that was sent out didn't appear to include a reference to the subdivision on Croton Lake Road, but only to the lot line change. along Pines Bridge Road, which makes one wonder as to the effectiveness of the public notice. Two, there are four properties along this stretch of road, including my own, on the National Register of Historic Places. So it's an area, I think, to be careful about. And three, I've had some preliminary discussions with David Griff, who is on the other side of the proposed subdivision, And he and I both know if there is an interest rather than a subdivision, we'd be willing to talk about doing a lot line change in which each of us would take about half of the proposed subdivision and try to preserve the tenor of the street. But I don't know what the other side thinks about that. I think David Griff has emailed to you his own comments on the proposed subdivision, and he had to be away tonight because of urgent personal reasons. So that's why he's not here.

Thank you for making us aware of that.

And that was all they had.

Is there anyone else who has comments? No. or questions. Is there anyone on the Zoom with comments or questions? Are we getting any? Shay, anybody on the Zoom asking to make comments? Okay, there isn't a whole lot that we can do on this tonight. This is just a preliminary introduction comments from members of the board.

I mean, I would like to just know the intent of the purpose of this.

We can provide additional information. The purpose of the lot line change between 725 and 5 Pines Bridge.

And the creation of the additional lot.

They're going to either build or sell the lot for a single family house.

What about the lot line change?

I can get additional information. I'm not aware of any plans by that owner, but I have requested to know if she has any plans, and I can provide that information at a later date.

Is it being conveyed, meaning sold, or is it being gifted?

It's a conveyance. Yes, it's a conveyance from Bountonville to 5 Pines Bridge. What her intent is with the land that she's acquiring, I couldn't say, but I could ask and get that information for you. Okay.

Other questions or comments from members of the board? I would really like to see us take a safe visit to this. This is one of the key historic areas in town that isn't covered by a historic district commission. It's one of the most scenic areas and I like, like us to get a sense of what the impact of development on that property on those properties would be on the, the ambience, the historic ambience of that, that area. Now I'm, Knowing how things often go here, I don't think that small house is going to be long for this world once it's on a six acre lot. I want to see what the impact of that is.

But that house, five times versus also way set back in the road.

Well, that's why I would like to take a site visit out there to get a sense of exactly those things.

We can start our consultation with Shippo. given the adjacent historic property.

Yes, I think that would be a good idea. And I don't know that there's anything else that we can do. I think I'd like to keep the public hearing open until we've had our site visit. So could I have a motion to adjourn the public hearing? So. Is there a second? Second. The motion is second to adjourn the public hearing. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Yes. Although we technically have adjourned the public hearing.

Okay. Lisa Weiss, 9 Pines Bridge. I don't understand. I'm not in real estate. What's the difference between selling a property and conveying? Is there a difference? I don't understand those terms.

As far as I know, there's not a difference.

Does that mean that Five Pines Bridge bought the property from Fountainville? Or does that mean they gave it to her? What does that mean? What is conveyance? How do they mean that word? He said conveyance.

It hasn't been conveyed yet, but is intended to be purchased by.

So convey means purchase. Yes. Okay. I wasn't sure if it was a real estate term. I didn't know. And then the other question I had was when I listened to the meeting from June, I noticed that you accidentally cut down 22 extra trees. And you said that you planted 25 trees to make up for that. But you said you planted two to three inch trees. And I couldn't quite see how that made up for that.

Well, that's the caliper of the tree. It was a 3-inch caliper tree or diameter tree. So it ends up being like a 15- or 20-foot tree. None of the trees have been planted yet.

They're not this big? No. Okay, thank you.

I'm sure that's a relief. So I think there's nothing else we can do tonight. Thank you. Next item on our agenda is a continuation of a public hearing on current town code chapter 125-133 review of the referral from the town board for a proposed zoning petition and conceptual site plan for a mixed use development and request for the planning board to conduct the required environmental review pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act. The owner of the property is Alchemy Bedford Tenant LLC and the address is 633-647 Old Post Road in Bedford Village. We have in fact been working on this for quite some time and we are currently at the point of working on the Part 3 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act but we still have kept the public hearing open so that people can comment on what we've been doing and the two items that major items that we have left that we haven't really discussed um for the part three are the traffic issues and um some of the issues of the historic district um Where do you want to start the traffic issues? We've had a chance to read the report. Does someone want to start with comments on the report or questions about the traffic report?

Is there any benefit in just seeing if there's any further flushing out of the design, just because it might be relevant to any of our conversations? They showed us a very simple sketch last time.

I don't.

Well, I think we separate from the. Traffic issues and I get to start with traffic, right?

Yeah, I don't believe that we've gotten anything else that's come in. Oh, yeah. So if there was anything else, it's not.

I didn't know if it was going to be relevant to the site lines or when we got into the architectural side, but that's fine.

Yeah. The thing is, we haven't gotten anything else.

So I just want to get friends. Yeah.

So with the. Traffic issues does anybody want to opine on the.

Well, I mean, I can just take a very. Big over the, the applicant did a traffic study and our town. Um, traffic expert consultant. John canning from California, then reviewed that and responded. He didn't find anything that would substantially worsen any of the traffic in the area. And I think. That's a good thing. The thing that makes me personally concerned from using it and I am in no way a traffic expert, but just. Concerned is the terms in and out of. The driveway adjacent to the front of the play, this building next year because while it doesn't, it may not slow things down. So it's just more complicated in a really complicated area. So when you're a driver watching kids moving, cars moving, and everything else, and then there's this new, another turn, it just makes it more complicated. But again, they are the traffic experts and they did not find that this would significantly add to time or seriousness of the traffic issues in time.

Yeah, I mean, you may need to do a no left out of the arcade building, for instance, and force the traffic to the right to avoid some.

Well, it's also left into there. The concerns we just when you're watching again from both directions, it's already hard to drive through the center of the green.

Yeah, there isn't much chance. I don't think in there putting a left hand turn lane. for that. That's part of the issue.

My take on it, so I think it said it would add 60 trips in the morning and 60 trips in the afternoon peak time or even peak time.

But at a variety of different intersections.

Correct.

A total of 64.

Correct. But I think part of The report also talks about and recognizes the fact that the whole thoroughfare through that center of town is already poor, and that's probably being generous. it's not going to make poor that much worse is what it's saying, but it's already pretty poor. And the fact that it already talks about if there are continued to be accidents and incidents, you know, then further drastic efforts needed. So we're not starting from a great area. I think we've already gone on record and talked a bit that a lot of the traffic is not people within the town causing it, but it is the amount of traffic coming through the town. So i mentioned before but it's relevant now that we're speaking about this as far as part three to look at what are we able to do to minimize the desirability of you know through town traffic for those that are using it as a route right you take example of cherry street just for a parallel the speed limit used to be what 45 miles an hour it was a big you know cut through then we brought it down to 30 or 35 then 30 put you know three different speed humps on it so We may need to look at, in conjunction with this, what other devices we might be able to do to try to limit Waze and Google Maps and things like that from routing people through there. Considering different one-way options to be able to bypass around there might also help with some of the turns. So, again, I just think that broadening the options beyond, you know, no left or a stop sign or restructuring some of the interchanges might be necessary in order to make the whole viability of traffic through that area more pleasant.

I do agree with what you're saying. I'm not sure that putting the weight of that on one project is

Is is merited mentioned something related to that. I believe unless I misread in the discussions they, and I wasn't entirely sure what they were talking about, but no left turns on the north side of the. Green or. Or on the south side, move them to the north side. You know, I think it was complicated.

There were a number of potential safety issues that were listed that I believe the applicant has agreed to put in place. Then there's been some discussion of longer term things as well, but those are clearly not something that's... an appropriate change. And some of them really aren't possible to do because of the historic nature of the area. What hit me about the report is very much what Jared said. Usually if you see intersections that are D or E or F. It's a red flag. That's the red flag you're looking for in a secret review. But these are D and F and the occasional E today. The problem is not the application. Getting rid of the application won't make a noticeable difference. If I'm reading the report correctly, the conclusion that our people have reached is that the traffic will not be noticeable one way or another, whether the project is built or not. There will be some mitigation of some of the issues if the things that are suggested are done. But they also acknowledge that these are the kind of short-term traffic issues, like Mr. Anton was referring to on Cherry Street in Katona. In Bedford Village, it's a little bit more complicated, we should keep in mind, because the roads involved are state roads. So we can't go in and put speed bumps on. We'd have to start lobbying. So it's difficult. It's not that they're saying traffic will be wonderful through Bedford Village if this project is built. They're just saying basically your traffic is going to continue to be absolutely awful and you won't notice a difference. This is not good news, but it is the reality. In order to fix this traffic, we'd have to figure out how to get rid of Connecticut. We've sometimes thought about that, but that's so far haven't identified a possibility of doing that. What I don't see is anything that leads me to believe that it would be legitimate for us to say that the impact of the traffic would be the impact of the traffic produced by this development would be would rise to the level of a serious environmental impact. We're talking about waiting three seconds longer at an intersection. We're talking about in any one intersection Most of them are three or four cars. We're talking 65 cars in an hour added to the sum of all the intersections. That's not a lot of cars. I think we all wish that by getting rid of that 65 cars an hour going through the community that we could make the traffic that much better. But that's not what's going to happen. So I'm inclined to say that the traffic does not Does not reflect a severe. Environmental impact.

I agree that that's what the traffic consultant. Came down very solidly saying it's already bad and this isn't making it.

Abundantly worse, right? It's not fixing it, but from an impact perspective, it's not necessarily materially degrading it further.

Right. A couple of seconds wait is what they're talking about.

The report's comment on the left turn in and out of the property is the one that I find. Again, I It does not rise to the level of a severe environmental impact, but I do have some concerns over that intersection because the general conclusion is not that it won't be very difficult, but that the people who will be inconvenienced by the difficulties will either be customers of the new application or people who are living in the new apartments. So I gather that the reasoning is it will go with the territory, that it's not going to be a severe environmental impact on anybody who's operating there today because there is no left turn there today. The people who have to deal with an intersection that probably will not work all that well at its inception.

That's exactly what they said. As I mentioned, they hands down said that and it just concerns me. I'm not entirely sure.

It goes both ways. I drive that every day at rush hour and no matter what, rush hour I believe is still longer of a time period than what's in the reports. Usually now particularly at schools in session, I add five minutes more to my trip because I'm waiting at the left-hand turn for the school where the crosswalk is. Well, no, people stack up there. I end up, I don't even take the left and go in front of Ojo and the church and stuff. I actually go down and go around the green to get across because that's just me.

I think they actually talk about that as an alternate route.

They talk about it as an alternate route. It's gotten so bad that people actually, when the oncoming lane, when you're doing that, when that's clear, they'll jump four cars in front of you and pull out and go down the oncoming traffic lane to get to that turn. What's worse, though, is at night. is when it's more dark. And, you know, you get cars stacking up because they're picking up pizzas. You get cars stacking up because they're trying to find parking spots and they'll double park to drop off people right where this place is going to be. And that's something that I've not heard anything about in the traffic study. And that's consistent. That is on a Friday and a Saturday night when I come home. And It's a problem because it's also not well-lit. So I'd like comment. That's something that could be attended to somehow. I don't know how. Maybe it's a dedicated drop-off point where people can drop people and the cars go move.

I don't know. Where do you stack that on the discussion of whether or not this constitutes an environmental impact?

I think it's leaning more towards an environmental impact than not. I still haven't crossed the bridge that it's a gross impact.

I'm not sure that gross impact is one of the choices.

Small impact versus large impact.

I've got to take it in the faith of our consultants that says, hey, it's making a minor impact. I just personally don't see it from daily perspective. use or daily interaction. And they don't comment on you know, I brought this up before when we talked about the traffic that I thought the hours were extended. And it's never been even commented that no, it's really, it's really these hours. It's never been bonded to the idea that the hours are the actual commuting time is extended. You go there at 8 o'clock in the morning, 8.15, that's when it starts to stack up. You go there at 7 o'clock in the morning, I know I can get through.

But that still begs the question that when we're talking about that, we're not talking about this application because this is what's happening right now.

No, I know. I understand that.

Even I'm... even if the wait times are longer now than they were before, I don't know how we move that, how we decide, does that mean that the wait times predicted for this application will be longer as well?

I mean, we have to take the faith of our consultants. In my head, I don't know if I can agree with what the consultants say.

So I think we have to, between now and finalizing the comments, we've got to come up I think I need to know what the consensus is. I will say that mine is that in Part 3, we acknowledge the existence of severe problems in this area. We insist that the items that the applicant has listed be done. They will be... They will make some small, and they have the potential for making some small safety issues. And I'm talking about the list of ones the applicant is offered to do. They are not usually expensive things. They're signs they have to do with changing something. some of the term restrictions. So I think we acknowledge that as mitigation. So that's my stance.

Well, I think that's, I have no, as I said before, I have no expertise in this and clearly the Kim Lee Horne came down as this would be a very small change and not significant. But I have certain reservations, just common sense from seeing it, that may not actually be real. So is there anything, if something pans out to be a problem afterwards, is there any recourse to fix it?

It depends on if it's a business.

If the turns in and out are a problem, what do we do?

Probably there's nothing we can do at that point.

The left turns in and out of the driveway that will be.

Well, can we force a no left turn out or force the traffic to go out the back onto Port Road?

When you do that, my only concern there is what's court road. It's an elementary school. I'm not sure that that's. That we want to funnel extra traffic that way again. I have no zero zero expertise.

Our hands are a little tight because Jessica said there are 3 state rules. Right? Right? Yeah. It's not even like, we can say, okay, you know, we're making this a 1 way friends. It's like, there's no ability to try. The only thing that we can do is the village green screen. Right? Um. You know, you could say no left turn on the go with green up to 172, for instance, just as an example, not that that's in the software piece here, but otherwise our hands are sort of tied other than being able to document the ingress and egress out of the new. Project is that a fair characterization?

Any suggestions.

I was just going to echo what Jared was saying, if you didn't bring it up about they are state roads. So even though the applicant has proposed to implement a series of mitigation measures, in a sense, everything's predicated on whether or not the DOT goes along with it. And there's a big step between having an idea, submitting a permit, and having that permit actually approved by DOT. So there is a little bit of faith, but then again, we're also mixing it with the science of what Kimlinghorn has put together. So obviously, if any of the impacts do go negate the seeker findings that eventually could be had by this board, then that would have to be addressed. But we're not going to have a perfect crystal ball, unfortunately, tonight. So we're going to have to use the best information possible right now to be able to derive a decision.

And the flashing crosswalks that they mentioned repeatedly, In the report, the suggestion for flashers when someone is crossing, is that a large obstacle or is that pretty easy to do where there's already crosswalks?

Um, I know the installation of 1 is, you know, permanent 30, and well, that's the purchase of that. But but I do know that there have been conversations in the past when flashing beacons or signage is proposed in certain areas of town also, including our historic districts. And so it raises a bit more discussion. So it might not be as simple as.

you know checking off a box on a report they also don't really work i mean having walked from the train to you know cherry street and the one on 117 no one stops that's that's a terrible you have to push a button to activate it but it doesn't stop like if the things in the road actually lit up you might have a chance but with them on the side you do not see anyone in the road

Oh, interesting.

Yeah, because it's only, you have to push a button to activate it, and then you need the driver to actually respond to it. No, I know.

I forget where I was just recently where it was incredibly effective.

No, it's not. They're not here. They're not here. There's one now at the commuter lot in Katona on Bedford Road. That one kind of works, but then the one up right near here, it's given pedestrians a false sense of security that I've never seen. We almost hit somebody about a week ago because she was coming along. The light started flashing. I think somebody else must have been crossing. She wasn't at the crosswalk yet, but it was clear she wasn't even going to stop. And if I hadn't seen that and warned my husband, he would not have seen her. And she was oblivious. She did not look at where the cars were coming. She just was on a mission to get across that street while the light was flashing. And that's left me thinking that we may have to start talking about stoplights with walk buttons. And to be absolutely honest, if we're... Once we're putting in those ugly flashing crossing things, I frankly think a stoplight would be more attractive. At least drivers stop for red lights most of the time. Some of the crosswalks are really terrifying. Anyway, yeah, I mean, it sounds like. You would say for the part 3, I would.

It's already a bad situation. Is it making address the worst? No, but I think this is an opportunity time. Again, not necessarily for the applicant to address all of this, but potentially for the town to look at again. What is. Potential within our wheelhouse or what opportunities might be able to get done. I think we should look at the ingress and egress from the site because that's what's in the applicants control to be able to do that. And we also haven't paid any attention to the fact that that area will be an utter disaster during the period of construction too, and where you're gonna site all of the different construction material that is necessary in the trucks. Obviously, most of it should be able to be sited in the rear of the property, but you still have to get to the rear of the property. So there is an extra, although temporary, painful time for traffic. You'll need to wait 15 minutes for that.

Okay, so it sounds like you and I are two consensus votes for it's a terrible situation. But not because of the price. Yeah. Is that good?

No, I think that's the only thing that's sensible given to my non-report.

And Michael? We don't have to be final about it today.

I still think there's a bigger issue.

Okay. I've got to take Kimberly Horne out.

There are consultants. I'm not a traffic person. Unfortunately, I know more about traffic than I care to know.

I do know it well.

I still question the actual hours and times. So that 65 count might actually get more stretched out or it might get more condensed. I like the idea of eliminating left-hand turns in traffic. From both directions where it left turns out in both directions, whichever way you want to approach it. I don't think you want to get everything on the court street. Yeah, that's a big mistake.

That being said, I would.

I think some sort of commentary to evaluate the conditions after the fact should be put in place. in some sort of resolution, if there needs to be some sort of mitigation. I don't think this flashing signs and stuff will work because I haven't experienced a flashing sign that works and I'm probably the one that's gonna be the most guilty of not complying with the flashing sign. God, I just said that on the recording. I agree that it probably, as an F situation or D situation, WHAT'S BEEN PROPOSED BY THE CONSULTANTS DOESN'T MAKE IT A GRAND. IMPACT. IT IS A MINOR IMPACT TO AN ALREADY BAD SITUATION. I'D JUST LIKE THE HOURS REVIEWED FURTHER. BUT I'LL TEND TO LEAN TOWARDS CURRENTLY AS IT'S NOT GOING TO BE A GROSS SORT OF EFFECT. Okay.

We'll have to try and work on the language for that. But it seems to me that the consensus of this board is a frustrated The traffic in Bedford Village is awful, but this is...

Frustrated not that the app was the issue.

And I think, again, not for this project, but I think while we're talking about it, it might be worthwhile to see, again, back to the town or larger engagement with the traffic study is if that village green pathway in front of Ojo was made hypothetically a one-way, And it became like a traffic circle, a traffic triangle, right? Again, I don't know how much that backs up in the other lights or the other spots, but I think it might be worth to some of what Michael's saying in terms of the stack in the back of that became two ways in one direction with the parking. It might create some more relief if it created this sort of circular, triangular sort of flow of traffic.

Because that triangle includes 172. So that entails crossing 172 traffic to get, if you're going left and left.

But there's lights there, so it's just a matter of how... Only one place.

No, there's two. There's two? Yes, two. Are there two? And they stack up at both locations, and the majority of the time, the 172 light stacks up, and people don't pay attention, so they cross. They block the actual turn from 22, so you end up sitting there twice as long. I mean, it's the gamble you take when you go that route. Usually it's quicker, but not all the time.

Okay. Do we have enough to work on a draft for October? We'd be recognizing the terrible condition of the road. We'd recognize the minor aspects of the impact that there will be. I think I like the idea of including a discussion of the town continuing to investigate other remedies, both in the course of the approval process for this project going forward and Frankly, even if this project isn't built, because things are going to continue to get worse anyway. And I think that's the best we can do on it. So do I have a consensus that that's the direction we're going to try to take in writing this up? Yes. Okay. I don't think we need a motion. That's why I'm calling it a consensus because we're working on a draft. This is the direction the draft is going to take. This is one of the reasons I've kept the public hearing open is that I wanted to be able to hear how people react if they are to where we're leaning on our part three. So if there's anybody who has a question or a suggestion about traffic, This would be the time to mention it, and particularly anything that you think we should be considering, including part three. Is there anyone? Anybody on the Zoom that? Yes, there's a hand up.

Mr. Mendez, can you hear me? Mr. Mendez. Or is that the hand went down. Can we is. Do you have a comment.

Is that Mr. Mendez? His hand is up. I can't tell. Mr. Mendez, if you can hear me, please make your comment or ask your question.

Hi, how are you? Can you hear me? Now we can hear you, yes. Sorry about that. Headphones were interfering with it. I wanted to say I appreciate hearing the commentary from everyone on the committee. It's a very thoughtful discussion, also very candid. Overall, I'm uh uh against this project i think for a variety of reasons um the multiple variances that are being requested from the wetlands um i think the rezoning uh um in general um i don't think this is the project that is that is the right project for the location uh in bedford um and you know kind of development will happen um i can't say i'm against development but i think it is important to have the right development at the right time in a spot as important as that is for our town i think it has to be done with great consideration not that you're not providing that but i think it has to be that can't be taken lightly um specifically on the topic of traffic um i read the traffic report i've heard the commentary um uh you know and and i think the report very much understates the situation i think you guys touched on it which is sort of the kind of severity of the situation so we're basically taking a broken situation adding a more complex potential solution to it that is out of our hands due to the kind of state parties involved. We've seen another kind of state roadways, how slow they are to act. I mean, I think we can all point to some roads that need some help and have not gotten the attention they need. I don't think I have any faith that their solutions are going to be forthcoming and if they're not going to be definitely on the timelines that we need. But taking a step back and looking at this from maybe even a smaller perspective, you kind of touched on it. You're adding people, you're adding cars, and now we're basically inviting a disaster. You're inviting some pedestrian to be hit crossing Green Lane. It's basically in front of the Village Green. That's what we're inviting. It's already challenging enough, right? And just because we have a horrific situation to begin with now, adding incrementally more you know, complicated solution to the future, I don't think should be underweight. Meaning I think that the answer here should be this situation is untenable until the town has a better handle on its traffic. and adding another project, regardless of whether we think the traffic consultant is, you know, concludes that it's minor, which I disagree with, right? Because you try to walk across that street in the middle of a rush hour, try to go from, you know, kind of the playhouse to get a copy of Jimmy Brown, and you put your life in your hands, right? And I think multiple people on the committee have mentioned that as well. So I think it's clear what my position is, and I appreciate you giving us the opportunity to speak. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Mendez. I agree with a lot of what Mr. Mendez says, but it's still come down in the same place that what the issues he's discussing, which are the same issues we've been discussing, exist today. If we take the position that anything is that we'll add to it has to be rejected what we are saying and i don't know that we're ready to say this is that nothing goes into bedford village anymore because there isn't anything that isn't going to add to the agreed and i think that So I don't think that's a tenable position either.

Well, not only not tenable legally, I just, I don't think it's a good plan.

No, I mean, not tenable from a planning perspective to simply say, we've got to freeze life at this moment in time. When, when I suggest that, including Jared's comments about continuing to look for changes and that kind of thing. It isn't with any naivete saying that I think the state is going to jump over hoops to try to help us with this because they haven't in the past. But we have to keep trying to push for that. And again, that's whether or not we end up involved with this project or not. So I just still think that that's something that we should add to it. Is there anybody else who wants to make a comment? Mr. Mendez, if you could take your hand down just so it doesn't confuse the issue, I'd appreciate it. Thank you. Any other comments from members of the public about the trapping? Okay, the other thing that we have been struggling with is the issue about the historic district. And we've had a new set of suggested... I've lost my words here. We've had a new set of drawings that are not, that are much more schematic than what we had before. And I wondered if we could put them up.

Yeah, I think we need to wait for, that's where I was going, to the bathroom.

Well, I don't, has the historic district commission? Not yet.

That's, I don't know.

You're going to have to give me a few minutes.

Where it stands now is that We looked at some plans the last time at our last meeting. I think this board was favorably impressed with the direction the architectural plans were going in, but we were... really wanting the input of the historic district commission. And at this point, they haven't really had the time to look through them as thoroughly as they, I think, want to. I don't know if they're prepared to say anything today at this meeting or not.

Mr. Members will speak again.

Hey there, Clayton Rose, Chair of Bedford Village Historic. We really, as Madam Chair said, have had limited time with some long holiday weekends to be able to give this the attention that it deserves. I do want to thank the applicant for submitting the new designs. I very much appreciate the effort to, I think, More closely aligned with where the commission was after the 1st of drawings, but we are working as quickly as we can to have a reasoned and deliberate review and we'll be back with you for the October meeting.

Thank you. In the interim, there's one thing that had concerned, I know not just me, but it was one of my concerns about, it was the not wanting to end up in a situation where we've done this rezoning and end up with something that we didn't intend. We've got to keep in mind that the process we're involved with here is a little different than what we're usually doing. We're not deciding on an application, a particular application and the Historic District Commission does not have an application before it at the moment. What we're writing an environmental review for is for rezoning. So what it amounts to is what we are doing by rezoning or by what we're looking at in reviewing this rezoning is what the situation would be if an application of this sort could be made to this area. That's really all. If this part of the process goes through, if we recommend the rezoning, if the town board decides to do the rezoning, the result of that is not a project. The result of that is permission for somebody to put forth a full application for a project of this size. And I'm not sure that that's been stated clearly enough. And I think it's important to keep that in mind. because it makes it difficult for us to talk about specifics of a project. I think it's made it difficult for the Bedford Village Historic District to talk about it. In this environmental review, I believe I'm correct about this, the Bedford Village Historic District Commission isn't even an involved agency. It's strictly advisory. And yet for this project... there will be no body as far as I can see as important as the Bedford Village or as authoritative as the Bedford Village Historic District in reviewing an actual application. So that affects how we talk about the historic parts of it. And what I find myself wanting to protect is the status of the Bedford Village Historic District Commission, the fact that when an application does come before them for this property. If that ever happens, they are not hemmed in by anything that we've done that would force them to make a decision that's not the decision they would want to do. And I've spoken to the town attorney asking him for some language that might work to do that. And he has come up with something which I've just seen for the first time early this afternoon. So my fellow board members haven't seen it either. I will read it and we'll put it up on the website and talk about it. But In answer to E3E, does the project site contain or is it substantially contiguous to a building, archaeological site, or district listed on the state or national register of historic places? I'm not going to read all of the background language. And the other one is whether it's near archaeological sites. And the language that that the town attorney suggested basically repeats the first part of the discussion saying that proposed action is substantially contiguous to a building archaeological site. And the rest. And then goes on to say However, the applicant has provided proposed preliminary design plans that limit the scope, density, and scale of the proposed development and minimize the potential impact on the Bedford Village Historic District and any building archaeological site or district which is listed on the State or National Register of Historic Places continuous to the site of the proposed action. What we're... There's a lot more, so I'm not stopping there. The danger that I'm hoping we can avoid is the possibility It was actually something that was raised by a member of the historic district commission at a previous meeting when he reminded us that even though there is no project that we're judging at the moment, we're just judging the rezoning. Once we do the rezoning, we have substantially increased the density of what can go on that property. And that's a permanent change in the, And the fear is that because we're not approving a particular application at the moment, even though we may be liking what we're seeing, if something happens and that application goes away, the right to do something denser is still there. So to what extent can the historic districts authority supersede any claims that somebody has to a right to a certain kind of density? And I think that what, what the town attorney has provided may help us with that. So it says specifically the proposed design plans limit the number of residential units to 24 to 28, establish the maximum square footage of commercial space to be developed at about 4,140 square feet and limit the height of the proposed development to 35 feet. The applicant has also provided sample exterior architectural samples that are consistent with the style and features of the Bedford Village Historic District and have represented that they intend to incorporate such architectural features in the final design of the proposed action as a result subject to the restrictions set forth below and based on the submitted proposed design plans and stated intention to model the exterior of the proposed building in a style that is consistent with other buildings and structures within the bedford village historic district The planning board determines that there will not be a significant adverse impact on any building, archaeological site, or district which is listed on the state or national register of historic places. Let me finish going through it. To the extent the requested change in zoning allows development that would result in a greater number of residential units or an increase in the density of the requested development, such an increase in the scale or density of the proposed designs shall require a revised environmental determination by the planning board. What that section is essentially saying is that if somebody were to walk in and want something denser than what's been talked about here or radically different from what's been talked about here, not only would the historic district have rights over it, it in fact would involve a new environmental review by the planning board.

Does he overtly say that? That's... I didn't...

Well, that's why I asked you to let me finish. I've got another paragraph. It's a lot of material, and I don't know if my reading it out like this is the best way to... read it into the record. Furthermore, notwithstanding this determination with respect to the impact on any contiguous historical sites and buildings, the Planning Board recognizes and acknowledges that the Bedford Village Historic District Review Commission has the sole authority to determine if a certification of approval should be issued with respect to whether or not the development being proposed is appropriate for the preservation of the Bedford Historical District pursuant to Town Code Chapter 71 It's been cut off here. The proposed project, the Bedford Village Historic District Review Commission shall consider, in addition to any other pertinent factors, the historical A line got cut off on this. In reviewing the proposed project, the Bedford Village Historic District Review Commission shall consider, in addition to any other pertinent factors, the historical and architectural value and significance, architectural style, general design, arrangement, texture, material, and color of the exterior of architectural feature and related landscaping involved in the relationship thereof to the exterior architectural features of other structures in the immediate neighborhood. Nothing set forth in this environmental determination limits or otherwise restricts the authority of the Bedford Village Historic District Commission to require modification of the proposed design to satisfy these factors when considering whether to issue a certificate of approval. Now, I don't know if that says enough, and I haven't had enough time to really think it through. I don't have to read it.

It didn't seem to say to me exactly what you said, which was very articulate about a subsequent other project, if it came through, would require a separate seeker and a separate approval.

Oh, the separate seeker part was only if a I read certain square footage things, numbers that are from the, well, let's say somebody came in with a significantly higher square footage, but one that would still be allowed under that zoning. because we made our decision of no significance on that smaller number, that smaller number, that determination of significance would Need to be reviewed, not as a matter of course, but because that's what we said in the, that's the mitigation. So it's, it's not that it would normally be that way, but this applicant is also agreeing.

To mitigate the increased. Waste issues by not only. Putting in an adequate septic for them, but improving the septic for the playhouse as well.

But that's also a mitigation that's listed. So if that mitigation goes away. Okay. I think, I mean, that's a good question. This is a... a document for discussion. And I think that we need to sit and have the conversation with Eric here. He wasn't able to be here for this meeting. But I think we need to have something of this sort in the document if we're going to protect the authority of the Historic District Commission. And so one of the things I want to hear from is whether the Historic District Commission feels that this...

Adequately, yeah. I mean, that part, I think you did a good job of saying that they supersede everybody in decision-making. Yeah, that's what I want. Or any subsequent. It's just there was a big emphasis on Harold And I agree, it's not disagreeing that this applicant is making an effort to have appropriate style, you know, blah, blah, blah, blah. Yeah, but that's not the important thing is at the start, just in case this applicant goes away.

But it's important in terms of defending the document legally, as I understand it, that we've said... in writing that this is the basis of our decision. So that if that ends up not being the case, the town can at least make the argument that this doesn't meet the requirements of the secret review. So, Between now and October, the October meeting, I think I'd like everybody to read this and talk about it. I'm interested in hearing from members of the public. Probably I will open the floor to anyone who wants to comment on it, although I would suggest that given that I rambled a bit and all the rest, it might make a lot more sense, um, for the town to post this on the, on the website and, and ask people to read it and, um, comment on whether you think it's an effective and legal approach to it, whether it solves part of the problems. Any questions from anybody about it?

Is that...

Mr. Mendez, are you wanting to make another comment? Thank you.

I think we've discussed all we can discuss tonight.

Could I have a motion to adjourn the public hearing until our next meeting in October?

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Okay. Next item on our agenda.

Oh, October 22nd. It's a Thursday.

Okay, next item on our agenda is to consider a preliminary site plan application and steep slopes permit for the development of a No, sorry, I got out of order. To consider a final site plan application to convert an existing vacant space to a new restaurant pursuing Town Code 125-86. The owner-applicant is PRM Bedford Hills, LLC, and the address is 17-19 Bedford Road, Bedford Hills. Is there someone to speak to the applicant?

Yes, good evening. Victor Solarik, VKS Architects. The owner of the building is here tonight as well as the tenant of the future restaurant. I think the preliminary site plan approval that was granted in 2025 or actually It's Resolution 2605. Sorry. That was a preliminary site plan approval. And the condition of the final approval was presenting a building section and showing the kitchen exhaust as it projects out of the building. So... One, two, three.

Okay.

Babbitt Road is here at the top of the page. This is a subject property and the proposed exhaust fan from the kitchen is gonna be all the way in the back of the property. It's a single story building about 15 feet high at the top of the front wall. It's a flat roof sloping gently back for drainage. There's nowhere on Babbitt Road or even Griffin Avenue to see the back of the building. There's a section that shows the profile of the building. And over here, this is Babbitt Road. This is the front facade with a small parapet. The roof is flat roof sloping back towards the back of the building. This is the back parking lot area. The building is about 10 and a half feet high at that point. And the exhaust fan is going to be all the way at the back, which is going to be about maximum four feet high from the roof. So it really has a minimum impact.

That's lower than the front elevation, correct? I'm trying to get your slope on there.

Yeah, the building is lower.

The height of the exhaust is still lower than the height of the roof in the front that's facing the street, correct?

I think it may be about a foot higher. Okay.

But from an elevation of viewpoint, you don't see it.

I actually have a picture from across the street. If you stand across the street from the building, you will never be able to see that because even if you're seven feet tall, you're not going to have an angle enough to see the back of the building. I have the pictures that I actually took this afternoon. I'm happy to share them with you.

I think that certainly answers the questions that we were asking about it. There have been a couple in town of the ventilating systems that have been something of an unfortunate surprise to us when they appeared on the buildings. Is everybody satisfied?

I'm happy to share the picture. This is an hour ago.

from the building or actually a little bit of the side right and the adjacent property will block the view anyway for coming down that but from being uphill you still won't see it you just can't you don't see the back of the building any other comments any other questions or comments about the application members of the board

The only thing I couldn't remember was refuses on the lot next door. Did we actually say something about that in the last approval?

I don't think we did. Are we comfortable with that?

I think there's a dumpster right in the back of the building. Big.

That would be the important issue, so long as it can be.

The refuse is shown on the site plan right next to the back door.

And where, if at some point in the future you could no longer use that lieutenant or something like that came in, where would you put it?

there's access to the back door of the kitchen area. It would have to go, somewhere here or maybe here, but this is sort of in the middle. This is all kind of continuous area.

So you could reach areas in the middle. The important thing is you have to have a place where you can keep the trash. So if you have a fight with your neighbor, they won't let you keep it there anymore. You need to have an alternative. I know, Michael, do you think that?

As long as there's an agreement in place and there's a possibility for...

If it helps, sorry, I'm the owner, but if it helps, all these buildings are under trust and they're all owned by the same entity and they're not going anywhere anytime soon.

Okay, that does help.

That does help, yes.

I think it's kind of an efficient use of space to not... Just to share the...

I just didn't know if we had talked about it. Yeah, no. That's the only reason I brought it up.

That's a very good reason to bring it up. But I think I'm satisfied with it.

Yeah, same.

Okay. Thank you for the clarification. Could I have a motion we've given preliminary approval? They've met the one requirement we had. This is final site plan approval. Motion for final site plan approval.

Can I ask some conditions?

I was going to ask about conditions. What conditions?

I would recommend that the board include that any outside agency permits, including those from Westchester County Department of Health obviously need to be obtained that any building permits, which must be applied for done and also received and that the applicant just continues to apply with the zoning variance that was previously granted. Um, for the Austria loading, and I believe we would want to keep in check the condition from the site plan about any exterior changes to the building at all would come back to this board for review and further approval if necessary.

Yeah, we don't want any field changes without the approval of this board. Could I have a motion with those conditions with those conditions? Is there a 2nd 2nd. Emotion in a 2nd, is there any further discussion. All in favor aye aye all opposed. You have it very much. Okay, next item on our agenda is to consider a preliminary site plan application and CPSOS permit for the development of a new 10 unit including two AA FFH units, apartment building with onsite parking and landscaping pursuant to Town Code 125-86 and 102 respectively. The owner applicant is 190 Realty Corporation and the address is 6185 Adams Street, Bedford Hills.

Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the Planning Board. For the record, Stephen Helms, the Homeschool Architect, representing 190 Realty Corp. I have tonight Jan Johansen from KSCJ Consulting Engineers, and Jonathan Nisman, second row here, the owner. I'll just give a quick presentation. We were before your board in this past May and to present the 2 story apartment building, 10 units. Taking down 2 existing buildings, which are indicated in orange below there. And there was some comments that were raised and. They were addressed and John would walk you through those comments. We did seek and we had to go to the zoning board and we were successful in getting our 4 variances for the project. So we did get that last July. and we also had met with the Bedford Hills Fire Department on the project as well and got their sort of sign off.

Could you tell us quickly what the variances were?

Yeah, there was four variances. One was for a front yard setback to allow us to do the covered front porches. Second variance was a rear yard variance. Third variance was a building coverage slightly exceeding the 20% building coverage, 21%. And the fourth one was a deficiency in off-street parking. The project requires 16 off-street parking spaces. We provide 11. So we did get the variance for that. And the questions, Jan, you may want to address the engineering things, the sidewalk and so forth.

Since our last appearance before the board, we've provided a full engineering design. We've designed the stormwater mitigation system. We're mitigating the 100-year storm event. Presently, there's no stormwater controls on the property. The roof leaders discharge. to the sloped embankment above Adams Street onto the road. We're taking that and putting it into a system underneath the proposed parking lot. We've provided a landscaping plan. We had a conceptual plan our last session. We've progressed that. We provided a lighting plan. We have some bollards along the front walkway and two lights on a pole in the back of the parking lot that illuminate the parking lot. The walkway through this ramp here is going to have some down lighting within the wall.

Have you done an illumination study of the impact of the lights on the pole that are going to light the whole

Yeah. There's a photometric plan with foot candles. I don't have that tonight, but by the time it gets out to the property line, it dissipates. So we don't have any lights spill over.

I'm trying to figure out how you're not going to be glaring lights out. To people walking on the sidewalk, if you go light the whole parking lot.

They're downward lit lights.

How downward can they be if they're lighting the entire parking lot?

Because the LED lights are actually within, underneath the luminaire are actually projecting out. So you don't see, you'll see the light, but you won't see the glare from, you won't see the lens itself.

Even standing out on the sidewalk? Yeah. Oh, the lights were there.

Are you worried about being below them that you're going to be with?

Yeah. If it's going to, if the light is going to reach all the way to the parking lot.

It was submitted, yeah. I have an 8.5 by 11. I'm not sure if I'll

Plus a street is a post office, right?

Just, no, it's the parking lot that's lost five, I think. There is a street.

Yeah, there's the one pole in the back is a 20-foot tall pole with two downward-facing LED lights. By the time it hits the street, it's .6-foot candles. Not even at the street. That's at the driveway apron. So it dissipates completely by the time it hits the street. Could you be on the sidewalk and look up and see the light? Yeah, possibly, but you're not going to feel the glare.

We have it here, photometric plane. If we can get it up on the screen.

We were trying to reduce the number of poles. At one time, we had two poles in the back, two poles in the front. But it just seemed like overkill. There's a lot of ambient lighting and we're able to meet the minimum requirements with the two poles.

This is more and more frequently in the Hamlet centers. I'm seeing these spotlights.

Yeah, they're not spotlights. They're downward facing.

The downward LEDs. I've just never seen one lighting that great a distance that hasn't been very bright. You need a very bright bulb for it, and you can't hide the source of it because of the distance, I don't think.

Thank you. I provided the specs as well.

We could.

That was submitted to the town engineer, the consultant.

Okay. I wonder if we could make a condition that the impact of the light will be investigated once it's installed.

Like a post-implementation study?

Yeah.

I'll also mention that we specced on these bollards along the walkway. The backside facing the street are going to have anti-glare shields. There's no light spillover from these poles because we put anti-glare shields on the backside. They only illuminate towards the building. The lights going down the walkway will be within the wall itself, downward facing, so you won't see those. So I think it's just that guy there. And we did provide some specs on that, but we could take a closer look. And we were trying to eliminate the number of pole lights there.

Well, what about making a condition that we'll approve this pending the light source not – that there's no creation of layer and that the light source is not visible? We could also look at – With the understanding that if – It turns out that it doesn't work the way you had hoped it would work. The applicant will agree to installing some new lights that do work.

We could also expect them to be dimmable. So if they, you know, we could reduce the output if it becomes an issue.

That would be... Basically, what I'm looking for is a commitment to make sure that ultimately the lights do what you say they're going to do.

When you're going to see the street light.

Yeah, about the sidewalk was extended 60 feedback aware of that. That was that's fine.

It's it's just the presence we're sitting with the lighting are. The problem is, you don't even know where the lights going to be seen from the hours of the lighting.

We can discuss that. I don't think we have any limitations. It would certainly be evening. I would imagine it would be dawn to dusk. Timer, yeah. We can potentially reduce it at the late hours or reduce it to security lighting.

Some porch lighting, which is recessed, that you will not see the source.

Would you prefer that the parking lot not be illuminated all night?

That would help if you're

Well, you want safety.

Yeah, but we could reduce it down to 50% or something.

I don't know. I'm just asking.

Motion, I don't know.

A lot of times we... Yeah. I'm inclined to think that you want it lit and that's another reason why you want it

lit in a as minimal a way as is practicable yeah i think too we either have the light that's proposed or we reduce those lumens and we end up needing additional pole lights towards the front of the property so i think it's a trade-off there yeah it's um

And I would say that the better trade-off is the less glare and more pulse, frankly. The places that I'm aware of where you've got a spotlight don't just illuminate the property.

It's not a spotlight, though. The technology and the LEDs, those bulbs are each individually broadcast.

So if we're really sure this works that well... Why is my asking for an assurance that if it doesn't work well, it will be changed a problem?

Oh, it's not a problem. But I think we could spec a dimmable light so that we're not.

If that happens.

So if there's a problem and it's objectionable, we could tone it down.

That would be fine.

Is the Kelvin bulb on it? I was looking for it. I would imagine we would typically have 3,500, 3,000 to 3,500. You can also drop the bulb.

You can get the bulb down to threes.

Yeah, we could do threes.

It would be a softer yellow light.

Yeah. I'm convinced there are things that could change it. And it might even work the way they say it is. It's just that there have been too many of them that haven't worked the way people said.

Well, this is something we can provide additional information between preliminary and final.

That's actually, this is just preliminary. You can do this as a condition of preliminary, so you can look into other alternatives.

Yeah, we have a lighting consultant, so we could definitely provide options. We looked at several options, and we came down to less poles is better, but everybody has a different opinion.

I might agree with you when I see it.

Town board, I think Jessica needs to look at the improvements on town property, right? Yeah. The attachment that was submitted.

So we've got, if we give you preliminaries day one, one condition is the working with the town board for the construction work that needs to occur on town property. Another is to look into the issue of possible alternatives on the parking lot to minimize the possibility of glare from the lights. Any other conditions?

Is there a memo?

Odds memo, yes.

And then I'm sure I also asked the applicant to be very specific and actually select whether you're going to highlight or circle in all of the spec sheets for the lighting, which exact one they're doing with which color, which Kelvin bowl, et cetera, just so we have it very clearly. And then there's no mishap to me. And if we will proceed with building from it. Very, very simple.

Understood.

Thank you.

Okay.

Is there any further discussion of any other questions we have for the applicant? I think this is the applicants have been very cooperative with us. This is a good development. It's It fits the community. The variances that were needed were very minor. I would like to see a resolution to give preliminary approval with the conditions that we've listed. We have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? All in favor of giving preliminary approval? Aye. All opposed? You have it.

Thank you.

Next item on our agenda is to consider an application for steep slopes permit to effectuate the construction of a new single-family residence. The address is 85 Indian Hill Road. The owner-applicant is the 77 Indian Hill Trust. Is there someone to speak for the applicant?

Good evening. I'm Evan Pendleton with Insight Engineering, Surveying Landscape Architecture. Um, so the project sites, roughly 5 acres on the South side of Indian Hill road. It's currently constructed as a single family residents. There's a. A former dwellings that was recently demolished and then there's also a, um. A guest house or cottage on the residents that currently is in place. Um. The project proposes to improve the existing gravel drive along the length of it. They're going to be adding a pull off along the driveway and widening it and regrading it up to the location where the previous house was constructed. And they also proposed to construct a new 5 bedroom residence in the same general location as the previous house. Um, other site improvements include instruction of a new subject system for the new house. On site somewhere management just consisting of a small collection system and subsurface penetration practice. The project proposes 1.7 acres of disturbance of which 6,925 square feet are on steep slopes. Most of that is already in previously disturbed areas, lawn areas on site. There's some minor disturbance in areas that are wooded, mostly as part of the construction of the new septic system. That's kind of about it. We received comments from Hans office. Most of them were pretty straightforward and just adding additional details to the plan and the summer report. I do have plans. I was hoping to use the screen.

You start to open it. So good.

Again, existing driveway. We're following the same alignment as the existing driveway, just making improvements along the way. Adding the pull off here, the new septic system here on the site. This is the existing gravel driveway to the existing cottage. Up here is where the former residence was that we're constructing the new five bedroom drawing. I guess we'll just, so again, this is the former residence here. There was a pool all previously demolished. The gravel driveway is still in place. And we're just regrading, widening, improving it.

So that's the presentation. Very straightforward. We can't go any further with it tonight because we have to have the review of the town engineer and his sign off on it.

Okay. Just to confirm, what is, you're replacing quasi-light time, but from a coverage overage, what is the proposal compared to what was existing?

As far as the dwelling?

Disturbance of the steep slopes, size of impervious surfaces.

The house is going to be bigger. Again, there is an increase in impervious and that's why we have the stormwater management on site, both for the redeveloped areas and the new impervious areas. Again, there is just under 7,000 square feet of steep slopes disturbance. I don't have the number of how much of that is within previously disturbed areas and how much is in the wooded areas.

As I said, I don't think there is anything else that we can do tonight, but we wish you luck with it, and we hope to see you back here soon when you finish meeting with the engineer. Next item on our agenda is to consider a preliminary site plan and steep slopes application for the construction of 12 multifamily units to AAFFH units with on-site parking and landscaping pursuant to Town Code 125-86 and 102 respectively. The address is 59 Adams Street in Bedford Hills and the owner applicant is Bedford South Adams LLC.

Good evening. Good evening to the board members, to the village staff. My name is Mark Blanchard. I'm land use attorney to the project with the applicant. I'm joined by the architecture design team and also principal of the owner is with us here as well this evening. We're here to do a preliminary presentation, although it seems a little odd to call it preliminary because this application has been in the works for quite a while. And it has been revised since it was initially brought forward into the auspices of this building. For example, we were originally at an 18-unit building. We're now down to a 12-unit building. We have dropped the height of the building. We're only about a half-story now above what your code allows. We do have two affordable units that are part of this building as per your code requirements. We need a few variances. We have already applied to the village zoning board will be on their October 1st agenda. So we will be coming back to you. But we're grateful tonight to come here to make this presentation. Like I said, we are a 12-unit rental building. An exciting part of this project is we are within walking distance to your Metro North train stop. In reviewing your Bedford Today comprehensive plan that was adopted in April of last year, we check... All the boxes for what that transportation connectivity theme was within your comp plan. We're a walkable, transit-oriented development project in your downtown, right near the train station. The existing condition is a single-story, one-story, abandoned, former tile store, former commercial use. So we'll be, of course, beautifying that location with Mr. Abalama's renderings that have been submitted to the board. We can talk about that in a moment. You can see how it's a beautiful building proposed on the site to replace what's now a vacant former commercial structure. We are working. We did have about 10 months of internal workings with the village fire department. On June 4th of this year, we received a letter from the fire department stating that they now have no objection to the property, that they appreciated that we lowered the height. They feel that they have fire suppression and fire emergency first access to the entirety of the building. We did originally have approval for sewer and water from your DPW on an 18-unit building. That's now been revised down. As I mentioned, we now have sewer and water approval from the DPW for our 12-unit building. The one thing we do not have yet is the comments from Hahn Engineering. We have submitted our drawings. technical data to the engineer and we don't have their responses yet but since we are going to the zoning board and we'll be back in front of you we'll let those comments catch up to us so in looking at this and looking at the new iteration of the plan as it has evolved we have definitely lessened the impact which was originally presented to you we are we are absolutely ticking off many of the issues within your adopted comp plan and like i said we are going to the zoning board for a few variances and we'll be back here but we're glad to be here this evening the architect is here and we're Happy to answer any questions that the board might have. One thing we are looking for is input from the board, right? We understand that this project is originally the board had many questions of it. We're hoping that the latest iteration is more palatable to the board. And we're interested in coming back to you once we do have our time in front of the ZBA. So as much as you're hearing from us, we would also love to hear from you as well.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Good evening. Esther Martinez from part of the team, design team of Avilama's office. As Mark was mentioning, the $16 billion here you can see is, you know, an old... Sorry. And all the structure that is abandoned right now, we're going to be reusing the space, right, to build a brand new, I would say, mixed-use building because we're going to have a cafe part of the first floor to make the connectivity between the, you know, sidewalk people walking around the town because we have the Metro North Station right in front of the property. The first floor also will accommodate parking spaces. We have 19 spaces proposed. We are looking for a variance for a couple of them that we are required to have. We also have a handicap accessibility space required, and we are proposing some of the parking spaces to be reduced on site, like compact cars, so we can fit more parking spaces. Here we have some vegetation proposed for the property so we can type of breathing for the space around on the back of the property where we are proposing a retaining wall because this application is also part of the steepest slope application because of the site conditions. So we are proposing, as I say, a retaining wall in the back and then surrounded by some type of trees and at the front and on the side as well. So the trees are according to the landscape code. In this, we are presenting the circulation plan of, you know, turning radius required.

Hold on that first. So is it entering exit from the one entrance right on Adams Street?

Yes, Adam String.

There's no other side entrance because there's a driveway adjacent, but are you encroaching on that driveway?

No, we are not. This is not our property.

I couldn't tell from the renderings. It looked like that driveway was gone and you were butting much closer.

This is our entrance and exit in.

Okay.

Yeah. So we're also proposing on the ground floor, which is the first floor, our refuse area for residential garbage and also snow accumulation because the building is elevated. So here is the photometric plan. So we comply with the minimum and maximum requirement for the lighting. and the lumens. On this one here, we are showing some of the details required on the site, basic details at this point, one of them being signage, the other one being the section of the retaining wall, which is a really high retaining wall, and then also details of the pergola that we are proposing next to the cafe. This is a six in condition, which is one story. Here we have the basement floor plan where we are proposing just partial basement for services, electrical and water meter room. Here we are proposing diagrams for compliance with the minimum and maximum pervious surface, also height of the walls, of the retaining walls, and fire walls along the exterior walls. Here is a co-section, which is, you know, required. And this is our first floor apartment unit plans, which is actually the second floor plan. So in this plan, we have six dwelling units. We have a chart here proposing, you know, which one per floor, so we have in total Three one-bedroom units, eight two-bedroom units, one three-bedroom units. In total, we have 12 apartments. Two of them will be affordable. On the third floor, we have five dwelling units. One of the apartments from the floor below will be converted into three-bedroom units, so we have a mix of units. On the top floor, which is going to be our fourth floor, we have the penthouse with some exterior area for that apartment. And then as well, we have all this area like a gym, we have the recreation room, and we also have the mechanical spaces on the top floor, which is the four floor plan.

The gym and the rec room on the top floor are amenities for every resident within the building.

Yeah. Thank you, Mark.

Because that grass area is connected to the penthouse, but the other is an open area, and those other amenities are for all residents.

But the only outdoor space is for the penthouse.

No, there's an outdoor space for the penthouse and then another outdoor space for the remainder of the residence. Where was the other one?

Here is the area for the penthouse, and then here is the area for the residential. So we have two exterior areas and access to the fire passageway as well. This is our roof, which has solar panels. So we are proposing solar panels on the roof plan and on the mechanical elevator room. On this one, we have the four size elevations of the building. So we would like to show right in here the size, which is the highest point of the building is 45 feet and 60 feet to the top of the elevator mechanical room. In here, we're showing the side of the building, which is going to have the retaining wall, and we have the silhouette of the retaining wall because of the 16-side steep slope condition. And that's pretty much it.

So, as mentioned, we have, as you can see, some of the variances are obvious through the presentation. We are bringing forth some diverse housing stock that is close to your train station that is fully in line with your comprehensive plan. Once we have your comments, like I said, we're presenting to the ZBA on October 1st.

So objectively, there's no doubt that it's a material improvement compared to what's there. I would just point out, if you look at your own drawings, you're neglecting the fact that there's any driveway relief with the neighbors. So I would just make sure that that is accounted for. Because both of these, it looks like it directly abuts without any space for the existing driveway. And to me, I would want to see potentially some screening along the parking lot so that it's not so exactly open. I understand the current conditions are you know, a building, but in the sidewalk and then a parking lot, potentially being able to screen it with some facade work separate from the entrance and exit provided that that doesn't block obviously the views. I think that would be more in keeping with the you know desirability of the walkability there um i do appreciate the variety of the unit sizes these are actually larger i would argue than many of the other projects that we've reviewed and i believe that this is the only project that we've reviewed or approved in the last few years that actually have had a three bedroom uh unit in it so i think that's uh unique as well um There's only one, so there's not a shock to your school system. And so, I mean, objectively speaking, I think it would be a positive addition to that part of town. I would add to make sure that the elevator bulkhead does not magically get larger.

That seems to be a... That actually brings up why aren't they using an MRL elevator, which doesn't have an elevator, right? Yeah. that's a big thing that you can actually do that substantially lower this building.

And change the look of it in a positive way.

I have to say, I find the drawing a little bit misleading. For one thing, the relationship of the building to the building next to it is off. One of those is wrong. I think it underestimates the appearance in terms of the size and height of the building. This is going to be way different than anything in Bedford Hills, with the exception of the big brick building. It's right here, which is not one of the prizes in Bedford Hills either.

It's going to also appear coming into town as it's five stories because of the overrun. Yeah.

And I will tell you that one of the things that there was no particular enthusiasm for in the development of the master plan was increasing the allowable height of of buildings. And the variances that are needed are really significant. There are some people in town who've argued that we shouldn't give any variances at all for housing. And I don't agree with them. But there are limits. And the variances here are variances specifically related to the size of the building. It's 68% building coverage where 20 is allowed. This is a much bigger building than is allowed by the zoning. This isn't a matter of just a few feet.

we understand that when we see that we see that that that is that is a substantial increase but again when we're in front of the zoning board we have our information as it relates to the size of the lot itself as it relates to the economic feasibility as it relates to the comprehensive plan and bringing in those housing units as it relates to having a commuter transit oriented type of project so we get your concern and we're we're you know we are prepared to bring that forward But I appreciate you raising it. I mean, I don't think it's insignificant.

Yeah, I mean, even the issue of the size of the units. I do think it's great to have at least one three-bedroom, but the square footage of the units is quite high. Usually when we talk about the need for housing, we're talking about the need for either affordable or middle-income housing. These manifestly are not going to be middle-income or

I mean, it's 970 square feet for one of the one bedrooms. I mean, it's large. I get that it's just because of the depth of the building.

But these are substantially larger than the units in the other ones we've. voted for recently and those are going in the 5,000 a month range so this is not really servicing the middle income or affordable desires. Not that every project has to.

Right. When I'm saying that we're creating a diverse housing stock, this is getting off of the single-family home on a larger lot into a transit-oriented multifamily housing. And I forgot to mention earlier, we are in that CB district. That was the idea.

Yeah, but usually when we're talking about diversified housing, I mean, this is more diversified housing. But the people who can afford to live in this apartment are the people who otherwise could afford to live out in that four acres of land, which we have quite a lot of. There has been, in our discussions of housing, at least a subliminal, and I think a good deal more than subliminal, desire for economic diversity. Mm-hmm.

Keep in mind, if you were within the coverage, right, having the spacious properties or spacious units would be quite nice. But I would argue that there's also a diminishing return. Again, I am a real estate by trade, so there's a diminishing return. return to the amount that you can build, meaning that there's only so much that someone's going to pay for 975 square foot, one bedroom, right? If that was a two bedroom, it would be worth more per month, you know, for the same square footage for argument's sake. So you could theoretically shrink the footprint of the building to not need as much of a current coverage overage without sacrificing that much of your income potential to because they are still generously proportioned units. I mean, some of these bedrooms are 16 by 24 or 12 by 16 for the second. I mean, they are huge rooms, right? We're talking about loft size property.

These are the McMansions of apartment housing.

And again, I'm not saying that it's a bad thing because it is certainly diverse. You check that box for sure. But in order to get it to be able to fit more precisely within the coverage allotment on the space, I think you can still deliver the quantity of units within appropriate proportion without tremendously sacrificing the ROI on the project.

Look, it's a point well taken and something that we'll take back to our team and review. And look at the other elevator type. Could you repeat that? What was the acronym for that elevator type? MRL. MRL? MRL. I'm not a builder. But we will look into that. Thank you for that suggestion as well. The overhead overrun is smaller. Interesting. Thank you.

Michael, you have a better eye for this than I do. Do you think that these are misleading depictions of the building?

Well, I would like a streetscape at least going up three or four properties. I think there's an issue because... I drive that way to work. You're going to see it as soon as you hit the bridge. You're going to see it from the sawmill. You're going to see it from everywhere in the winter. You're going to see it from everywhere in the winter. You're going to see it from here. This is a bigger impact than what 156, the other mark was, is. And it's substantially taller than that. And it's not in its own. At least there, there's breathing room around this 1 doesn't have anything for breathing and it has diminutive buildings next to it. Correct.

It's going to dwarf everything.

It's going to work for the entire. And my concern is actually, what's going to be looking down upon it to. Yeah. The uphill part is – Well, it might not actually be looking down so much. No, they might be looking – Correct. That's a concern.

Well, we can address those with additional drawings and additional schematics when we come back to the board.

I think that we would very much appreciate that.

Did fire department comment on anything about EV cars being stored underneath the –

I didn't see that in the report. You're talking about like if there is an EV fire like we see in garages, things like that.

And actually charger fires. That's a bigger thing now. I'm having to comply with a lot of that now, even in port co-shares. We're putting in dry suppression systems.

Well, when the fire department came back to us on June 4th, and I think it's in the file that was submitted to you, they simply, they didn't respond to that item specifically, but they did note that overall they had no objection to the project.

Were the charging stations that you're showing in the plan now there?

Yes, the fire department reviewed that plan that shows the charging stations.

And how are you going to work this? I mean, you already are needing variants for parking. Technically, you're not supposed to be parking a car. I guess in a private lot, maybe you're allowed to park a car that isn't charging in an uncharging station. But how are you going to make sure that those charging stations don't become don't eat up parking places that you're already short on.

Well, that's just something we'd have to figure out internally, either through leasing or through signage or through a lot of times for charging.

I think that's also something that this board and the zoning board need to know. The parking requirement isn't just for the convenience of your tenants, although it's for the convenience of the town.

I understand.

So we need to understand how how that's going to work we can come back with more information for you anything any other comments jessica do you have anything I think this has a long way to go. And we've been hearing a lot from people about what they do and don't want in terms of housing. And by and large, this board has been very much in favor of increasing the housing diversity and the rest. But this is the kind of thing that people have been worried would be the ultimate result of our pushing for more housing. This one just doesn't It's producing very expensive housing with wonderful amenities. And so I sound like a snob saying, you know, it's too rich for our blood or whatever. But it isn't really what our master plan is about. It's taking up an enormous amount of space. It's going to be a monument seen from afar, I just don't understand how the zoning board is going to look at this and see it as a good idea. But that will be their business.

I understand what you're saying in terms of the unit size and how that is supporting your position that the McMansion of the apartment is I think you've mentioned something along those lines a few minutes ago. I do respectfully have to push back and disagree with that it is not in line with the comprehensive plan. Perhaps the massing is something we can revisit, but in terms of the concept, the housing, the transit-oriented housing, where this is located, I think all of those things very clearly line up with the comprehensive plan. But I guess that's neither here nor there for this evening. I hear what you're saying. I appreciate that feedback regarding the size of the unit. I think you make very cogent points. I also hear what you're saying related to the massing and the surrounding buildings. We'll come back with that information you requested related to the streetscape and show the relationship to our neighbors. But I think preliminarily, we've come a long way. You're right. We have been at this for a while. And it certainly is a reflection of the board's comments so far and other village officials and things of that nature. So we are excited to keep going. And we have our work cut out for us. I understand what you're saying. But our next stop would be in front of the Zoning Board of Appeals. And then hopefully we find our way back here.

Okay.

We are having continued correspondence with staff and engineers and such. So any continued comments, we would very much appreciate.

Okay. And in the meantime, you also do have a steep slopes permit you have to pursue.

Yes.

So you might want to look into that with our town engineer.

Yes. Yes. That's part of what the comments that are out to him that we're waiting to receive back.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

I have a question. So you were pointing the fact of the compact car charging stations being you as a town be interested in open that up for the town instead of just for the building? That's what you were saying?

No, no, that's not what I was saying.

Just for the residents, because this is our point. So we are just provided for the residents.

Yeah, no, that's... If they can't be used as parking spaces for the residents when they're not charging, then you've got more of a deficiency in parking than you've applied for.

All right. Theoretically, that charging spot would be it. And someone else who needed a spot couldn't use it. But I think that comment is, I was a little confused by that as well. You're not suggesting that it's like shared parking with the downtown. Not the internal private residents are utilizing that space.

And if there's not sufficient parking, that that is an impact on everyone in the town. That was all.

So if those are five spaces that can't be counted as parking spaces, then you need a much bigger variance on parking than you've asked for.

We'll make sure that we're right on our math and we'll correct it if necessary.

Yeah.

Thank you so much. Okay. Good night.

Thank you.

That, I believe, is the last item on our agenda. Could I have a motion to close the meeting? So moved.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Aye. All opposed? The meeting is adjourned.

Recording stopped.