Planning Board - Regular Meeting

I'd like to bring this meeting of the Bedford Planning Board to order. Uh the first item on our agenda is a public hearing uh to consider a waiver subdivision application to create two new lots where one currently exists pursuant to town code 107-37. The owner applicant is Colleen Canavan. Uh and the address is Ted Hickory Lane.

Hello. Hi, my name is Colleen Canavan. I am seeking an amendment to a previously approved subdivision between lot A, which is 293 Poundidge Road, and lot B, 10 Hickory Lane. These lots sit adjacent to each other. While attempting to fulfill the previous requirements stated by the town of planting shrubs or placement of fence in between the two lots, it became apparent that the cottage would be better served by an additional 3 and 1/2 ft. My engineer was able to accomplish this while meeting all previously approved setbacks and variances. All acreage remains the same.

Okay. And that's Can you outline on the map where the change is? 23.5 now. Yeah. Yeah. And that and that's the the whole change. Can I have you? Yeah. I mean that's it. That's the only change that that pretty much makes the definition of a very minor change,

right? It's Yeah. So just a slight variation from what we originally had. Mhm. Any questions, comments from members of the board? This is a public hearing. Um, are there any questions or comments from members of the audience either in the courtroom or on Zoom? Going once, going twice. Uh, there do not seem to be any comments. That's usually a good thing. Um, could I have a motion to close the public hearing? Some move. Second. All in favor?

I. All oppose. The public hearing's closed. Now, are there any comments or questions from members of the board? Seems pretty straightforward. It really does. Agreed. Agreed. No questions in terms of seeker. This is a type two or exempt action. Could I have a motion? So moved. Is there a second? Any further discussion? All in favor of deeming it a type two? I

I. All opposed. It is a type two. It does seem to me that there really is no reason for not taking action on this tonight. It's pretty straightforward. If anybody agrees with me like about that, uh, I might entertain a a motion to approve this. Do we need any conditions?

Well, I was going to say to to do this with conditions regarding filing with the um building office, getting the Westchester County Health Department approval, filing with the county the the with the standard conditions. So move with those conditions. Is there a motion? Second. Is there any further discussion? All in favor? I I. All opposed. You have it. Good luck.

Okay. Okay. The next item on our agenda is consider an application for a special use permit for a cottage pursuant to town code 125-79-1. Uh the cottage is located at 164 Old Post Road and the owner applicant is James Spencer and Katherine Cohen. Is there someone here to represent the applicant? Hi. Can you hear me? We can. We can't see you, but we can hear you.

Oh, okay. Um, let me see if I can turn my video on. Can you see me now? No, we can we can see your box and your name. It's Lauren, correct? Yes, I'm Lauren Marion. Sorry about that. Um, I'm a registered architect at Northworks Architects and I'm here as the um design professional representing Katherine Cohen and James Spencer at 164 Old Post Road. Okay. Would you like to take us through the application?

Yeah, of course. Let's see. I should be able to share my screen here. Now I understand that this is actually a renewal. Oh, expired in 2018.

Okay.

Um, so what you're looking at now is the existing survey of the property. So I can zoom in here. So the main house is located closer to Old Post Road and that is where um Catherine and James this will be their full-time residence and they are asking for a renewal of the special use permit for the existing cottage property. Um they are planning to do some exterior improvements to the cottage which include replacing windows, rebuilding um and um restructuring this porch on the western side and then rebuilding the roof over the existing garage.

But nothing that's going to change the footprint of the building. Correct. Nothing that is changing the footprint of the building. And there have been no other alterations in the building since the last time you had a permit. Correct. Uh when they purchased this property, there were uh no alterations to that.

Okay. This is a a public hearing. Are there any questions or comments from anyone in the courtroom? Any questions or comments from anyone uh on Zoom? Doesn't look like there's much in the way of questions or comments. Uh could I have a motion to adjourn the public hearing? So moved. No, sorry. To to close the public hearing. So moved. Second. All in favor?

I. All opposed. Uh, the public hearing is closed. Any questions or comments from members of the board? This has been approved before. It meets all the requirements. Nothing's changed. There was a lapse. That's a fairly frequent issue. It's being rectified. Um the building inspector has inspected it uh and found no special use permit issues. Um could I have a motion to approve this with the standard conditions from chapter 125.79.1?

Is there a second? Second. Is there any further discussion? By the way, this is a type two action under seeker. Yes. I I'm never quite sure whether we actually have to take a motion to say that it's a type two, but it um all in favor of it being a type two action under your I. All opposed. Back to the um original motion on the floor. Did it Did I have a motion? Second with the standard conditions. Yes. Any further discussion? All in favor? I. All opposed? You have it.

Thank you so much. Good luck. Uh the the next item on our agenda is uh subdivision and site plan to consider a subdivision application and corresponding site plan application for a new restaurant. uh pursuant to town code article 4107-27-28 the one and 125- 86 site plan respectively. Uh the owner applicant is DB21 LLC and the address is uh 793 Bedford Road, Bedford Hills. Good evening.

Good evening.

Um well, we'll just keep the ball rolling here. You're doing a nice job so far. Hopefully there's nobody in the audience who oppose us. Um, okay. So, this is Diamond Properties, uh, at 793. Technically, it's two properties. They're they're two separate lots. And we're seeking to do a reubdivision to claim a small portion of 333 North Bedford Road and combine the two lots that constitute 793 into one lot. um the reason for claiming part of 770 uh 333 as part of this and we'll go we I'll have we'll go through it on with Pete on the on the plans but is essentially to afford a larger area for septic. We're not proposing any new construction as far as a footprint is concerned. There will be improvements to the building itself and we hope to have it be a restaurant use. Um, and this is on the entrance to the 333 parcel, and it's currently a uh kind of I don't want to say dilapidated, but certainly needs some updating. It's an automotive use building

and we hope to convert that to a food use. Um, so Pete Katzone will go through the plans for you. Peter Katzone with Katzone Engineering. And uh just to point it out, you have the two uh lots 793 795 which are um these two lots here. And we'll be capturing this small piece of 333 and the new lot will be this shape here with uh this portion being um specified for septic. Now um there are

a lot of u moving pieces on this project. So, I just want to take you through where we are currently and where we hope to be and hopefully that aligns with where this board wants us to be. So, uh we we started uh probably two years ago with the health department uh before we went out with them. We uh we did some preliminary perks because we didn't want to go down this road and not know what the soils were. Uh so we did some preliminary perks, preliminary test pits. Uh at the end of 2025, we were able to dodge the weather a little bit and do the health department witness deep test pits. Uh and then the snow came. So now we're waiting to do the perk tests. Uh so part of the subdivision piece has to do with you know finalizing the design with the health department. Uh based on a preliminary perk testing we think this uh building and the soil conditions uh can support a a restaurant use of approximately 28 seats. It depends what type of restaurant. So, we took the most aggressive definition of that and uh

uh we think we can support 28 seats. So, uh the building state Can you zoom in a little bit? Just my vision's pretty bad. I don't know how well you can see. I can't see very well. So, better. I'm just closer.

Oh, maybe I went too far. Okay. See if I could center this a little bit better. So, the building stays. Uh, we showed the the seating again. There's 28. There's some internal seating. There's a patio. There's kind of a little patio there now. We're going to be expanding that. The patio is kind of uh in disarray. Um and we designated some you know kind of back of house uh some restrooms and uh there is a parking lot there. Now we will be utilizing the same uh entrance location although this will be curbed and uh landscaped. Um we will be paving the lot. We will have ADA spaces. we will have uh subsurface infiltration uh to offset the uh storm water increase in in storm water. Um and that's essentially the project uh kind of in a nutshell. We've prepared a full set of uh plans including drainage, grading, utilities. We've detailed the cultex. We actually are in the second round of comments with your uh engineer uh with respect to storm water. Um and then uh what else?

Have you started talking about landscaping or lighting?

Yes. Yes, we have started talking about landscaping and lighting and I think this board will be very pleased. Here's our phototric plan. Um, I think we had some initial comments from um, Jessica's office and uh, we've lowered the lights. Uh, we have to do a little bit of cleaning up like this patio a little bit better, but you could see uh, the fixtures and um, also that there's really no spillage onto the adjacent properties and particularly um, with respect to Bedford Road. And I know that um landscaping is an important and sensitive topic with this board and we appreciate that. Uh so the applicant has brought in kind of a another landscape architect to to look at all the properties. 333 is just to your right. This is the new connector road to it.

Uh I'm sorry, 777. Uh so uh just to take a look at all these properties in a more comprehensive makes sense. Yeah. Uh cohesive manner. So I think you'll be pleased with this uh landscape plan. There's a lot on it. They're all natives. Um I know 777 is not on the agenda tonight was hold off. uh but a it's not the exact same landscape plan, but there are key plantings that translate through uh to each property.

Um and I'm happy to go over any additional part of the plan with you or answer any questions. Well, first of all, this this is also a public hearing. So, let's ask if there are any questions or comments from uh members of the audience in the first in the courtroom and then up in um in I guess people aren't really up there, but in the Zoom. Any comments or questions? There must be a football game on tonight or something. Something's going on. Okay. Could I have a motion to close the public hearing? So moved.

Is there a second? Second. All in favor of closing the public hearing. I All oppose. The public hearing is closed. So what do we still need? The the biggest things are the drainage and um septic issues. I think my personal opinion is that the preliminary subdivision is is you know kind of the big piece because then we could move forward

uh with the health department on not only the design of the septic but also on preparing the plat. And the question is, do we have enough of those other things um to do seeker? Because we have to do seeker before we can do preliminary. And I'd like some input from I didn't see any trash or refuinite plan. Is that Did I overlook it? Um likewise, I didn't see any snow storage. Just go back to sorry Pete I can answer.

Okay. So this Jay Black with Diamond Properties. Um so when it comes to garbage refues etc. we've been discussing about potentially cording off a small area on the um adjacent 777 site where there's a little section off of the um uh off of the parking lot. Because the existing the the proposed parking area for this new facility is so small as it is. We felt that that would also visually be a much better place to uh to locate um waste with access etc than on this new proposed behind the concrete. Yes.

Yeah. So it'll be out of sight lately. And you mentioned 28 count for occupancy. That's only seven four tops. Does that include the outdoor seating? Um, yes, we uh let me walk you through that on uh one of the earlier plans because the parking lot would seem to kind of infer that there's takeout going on. Well, and there's only 20 seats inside on the right and there's there's eight outside. Okay.

And and there could be um we have some spots designated. We don't know the exact restaurant use right now. So designated two spots for mobile pickup and those spots are in this area here. So these will be potential uh mobile pickup.

It's a big bathroom for 28 seats. Does anybody have the part one EAF? I've got a part two EF, but not a part one. Part two. Well, part two is just blank, obviously. I

did Did you do a part one? It it's uh Yep. I have it. You have it.

Looks like page five or six of the packet. Okay. Sorry. Eight. Okay. Ear drop. We might be able to call it up on the screen. That would that would work. Well, you want to try and airdrop it to me? Do that.

While you're doing that, I just have a quick question for the applicant. Is the intention for your patrons to be seated and served from a a host or a mayor D or something like that? Or is the intention to more so have food sort of picked up and then taken away? Like what is the general thought? I know it's early in the process for you, but it's something that the planning board really needs to know. The intent is definitely to have a weightbased service. I mean whether or not it goes into the current technology where where you sit down and you bring up a QR code and place an order gets delivered to you. Uh that's the intent. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome.

I've got it. Oh, so so you sent the the whole file, I guess.

Yeah, I think it's uh begins page nine on the file that I sent. Page nine. I think I think that's right. Yes, I've got it. Okay, great. The wonders of modern technology. So, shall we go through part one? Yeah. Okay. Do you want to give it a give it? So, this is from the applicant. Uh, first, does the proposed action only involve the legislative adoption of a plan, local law, ordinance, administrative rule, or regulation? No. Uh, does the proposed action require permit or do you want me to go through each question or

Oh, you you're you're doing part two. I was going to f first have us at least go through part one to make sure that we don't have any problems with the answers. Uh, sure. I we haven't reviewed part one. I think this is their part one, but um yeah, I I uh Do you want to do a page by page? Yeah. Okay. This is meant to be your completed part one, correct? Excuse me? This is meant to be your completed part one. Yeah. I didn't see any issues on page one. Any issues on page two? Oops.

No. Where are you? Where are you getting the the water from? Are you do you have a well or you're doing Mountiscoco? It's in the town of Bford. Kiscoco water. Oh, it's Kisco water. Oh, yeah. But it's public water.

Yeah. But um it was just will the action um connect to an existing public private water supply and you clicked no. It sounds to me like the answer is yes. Yeah. So that needs to be corrected on the part one. Is there anything else on page two? Anybody saw?

No, no issues. Is the project site located in the 100red-year flood plane? Is it really in the 100redyear flood plane? You've you've checked? Yes. There's no way it could be. There's no way it could be. Although Well, that was kind of my reaction, but you checked. Yes. Yeah. Let me double check on that. I know there's a the stream, but I think we're pretty far away from it. elevation as well. That's on page. It's on page three.

You might want to look at all of your answers on 17 as well. You're saying that storm water discharges will flow to adjacent properties. the do you want to maybe take another look at this part one before we

I I I'll be happy to do that. The re the reason for that answer might be the fact that a a portion of the property is being taken from 333 and at the southern end of the property on the 40 acres uh to the south a portion of it is in the flood plane but it's at a totally different elevation different town and very far from the site. So our storm water discharges to uh an existing storm water facility here then flows across and then does continue across 333.

So So you ends up in the Kisco River branch bros onto an adjacent property but the same I think it's an important distinction. Qu well quick question. Like if this eventually gets subdivided down the line 50 years from now or whatever, is any of this an issue with like the trash being on a neighboring lot or this going through there? That's all stays the way it is. And if and if you want as part of our final subdivision approval, we can create an easement for it so that it's as of right. Okay. Okay. So the decision is that that it is indeed in the hundred-year flood plane.

I do not believe it is. You don't believe it? So one of two things has to happen. Either that has to get changed to no or if it is the more complicated explanation, you can check yes and put the the explanation. M madam chair. Yes.

If if I could just define for a second. I believe if the applicant did use the EAF mapper and you selected your parcel which as the project attorney did accurately describe as the pro as the parcel does extend further westbound towards Parkway likely the EF mapper picked up the entire um size of the parcel. Therefore it's triggering some of these answers that when we look at it from a little bit more of a a closed in perspective it doesn't make sense. But when you do zoom out a little bit to the full parcels extent, I think that's what the these triggers are coming back with either the yes or no answers. Yeah, that that makes sense to leave it or to change it. You can just add a note if you think but I think that that's why we're ending up at this discussion.

Yeah, it does it does seem it does seem that the project's in the like the the entirety of the site if viewed in its totality is in the flood plane just on this flood map here. So yeah, might might not need to be corrected. Yeah, I wouldn't mind seeing an explanation of that though because just just for the sake of people understanding what the document really is is talking about because just checking the no without all of the background information in a case like this. I think I it's it may seem very straightforward and it probably is, but I'd rather you knowbody the southwestern corner of the site isn't a flood plane. Okay.

Southwestern. So and a lot of drainage improvements were made over there. So it really doesn't flood anymore, but it is technically not. So then leave leave the answer as it as it is, but add a quick explanation. Okay. So I don't think there was anything else on that. All right. Now we can go to part two if you want to which is ours. You want to listen to do that or you want me to do it? Do you want me? I'm happy to. Okay. Why don't you Why don't you do it? Say okay.

So um part two, first question. Will the proposed action create a material conflict with an adopted land use um plan or zoning regulations? No. Um will the proposed action result in a change or in the use or intensity of um use of land? No. Or small or small. Yeah. Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of the existing community? No. No. Will the proposed action have an impact on the environmental characteristics that cause the establishment of a CA? No. No.

Will the proposed action result in an adverse change in existing level of traffic or affect existing in infrastructure for mass transit, biking or walkway? No. No. No. Or small. Will the proposed action cause an increase in the use of energy um and it fails to incorporate reasonably available energy conservation or renewable energy opportunities? No. No. Will the proposed action impact existing a public private water supplies? No. Or no or small. Or public private wastewater treatment utilities. No or small.

Or small. Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of an important historic, archaeologic, architectural, or aesthetic resources? No. No. Will the proposed action result in an adverse change to natural resources, eg wetlands, water bodies, groundwater, air quality, flora, and fauna? No. No. No. Will the proposed action result in an increase in the potential for erosion, flooding, or drainage problems? No. No. Will the proposed action create a hazard to environmental resources or health? No. No. Um okay. So um

on to part three. We did not check anything. We didn't check anything. So check this box if you've determined the base um and any supporting documents at the pres may result in potentially large or significant which is no. So check this box, the bottom box, if you have determined based on the information analysis above and any supporting documentmentation that the proposed action will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts. So do we have a mo well so we have to have a motion? Do we have a motion to find that there is no no impact? No significant impact. Is there a second?

Second. Is there any further discussion? All in favor of an egg deck? I I. All opposed. Okay, you've got the negative declaration. And I don't think Well, then we can go on to preliminary. Are we ready to go to preliminary? I think we are. Um, I would like to see more settled before we go to final on the uh the septic and septic. Yeah. Yeah. And and the landscaping.

I was going to say maybe a fuller discussion of the landscaping and and the connections with adjacent properties might might be easier for you to make. Yeah. Next time round. And uh do how much I'm a little concerned about I'm a little concerned about the um the parking when there's still something of a question about takeout and this this kind of thing that I think it's something that that we're going to need to talk about before final

and okay now unfortunat like we said unfortunately We actually do not have a tenant for the space yet, but we understand that that's been a continued express concern of your board. Yeah. Well, you might you might be able to present us with two alternatives, too. One that that assumes a takeout, one that assumes otherwise. Uh we're also going to want some idea of where you're going to be putting uh your vent system. then that's going to give you the same problem because the nature of the vent system you use is going to depend on the kind of um restaurant it is.

But some of the vent systems can be just fine and some of them can be the most god- aful ugly things you can imagine. So um we we'd like to have some idea about whether this is something that we have to hide desperately or do we not have to worry about it. So the nice part is it's kind of stuck behind a Sokco gas station. So that does help. Yeah. Okay. So I don't think there's anything else. Okay. Did we actually take No.

Yeah. We didn't do preliminary yet. So we would give preliminary with conditions that the issues I just talked about would be Is there anything else that we should add to it? Is the uh the business signage is going to be filed for by the tenant once you sort that out at at some point in the future? The signage? Yeah. Yes.

Great. Uh yes, the site plan shows uh some locations for monument signs uh in this need my glasses. Um but uh so we do have a location uh but we you know again that that is uh just for location purposes just to have something on the plan. But there is really uh that sign is not detailed in any way. We we didn't want it anywhere where it would be confusing coming in. So, we have it kind of after the U entrance here. Okay.

But what you're saying is you're Are you fairly sure of where the location is going to be? And there's one more there's one more sign. Just have to get my fingers on it. Sounds like it's just illustrative. Yeah.

Yeah. It's it's illustrative. So, I might be on the wrong man here, but in any event, we're Oh, here's the second sign. Um, so there's there's two two signs. We are a corner lot, so it's uh two approved. Okay. Thank you. Okay. I don't think there's anything else that we can do for you tonight. We We did just do preliminary.

I'm sorry. I didn't hear you. I said we did just do preliminary. Okay. So, I think that's it. Thank you. Okay, next item on our agenda is to consider a site plan and steep slope application for the creation of 15 multif family units uh three AFH units with on-site parking and landscaping. This is a a public hearing on the application. Uh the applicant is Steve Helms of the Helms Group LLP and the owner is 150 Bedford Road LLC who is the contract vendee.

You just have a minute to set this up.

And I think while while you're setting that up, I'd like to do a little bit of an introduction to this. This is a a public hearing. Um there has been a lot of interest in in this proposal. Uh and we did recently have a letter from the Kona Village Improvement Society about the application. um which we were very interested in in getting because KBIS is a very important organization within the town of Bedford and specifically within Katona and we take their uh opinions very seriously. Uh however uh the letter did speak in in rather broad general terms about developers who are increasingly advancing projects. That's a phrase from the letter. Um, and I'm sure this is inadvertent, but it it did tend to give the impression uh that there were actually quite a few applications out there and that this was an ongoing issue that was um increasing in severity. Um whereas what is really going on is that there are two applications, one of which has been approved and built. Um, and there is another nearby application. Um, that doesn't mean that they're not important. It's just there's a difference between having a a a situation where you have developers increasingly advancing projects and when you have two projects. Um there was also some other language in in the letter that I think might have been

misleading for someone who wasn't familiar with uh what the projects were. So I wanted to clarify some of the issues the letter spoke about in um also said that the that these proposals that were coming in uh often include only a token number of affordable units. Now I'm not sure exactly what often means in the context of two applications. Um, the only two applications we've had have 20% of the units set aside as affordable. That's three units for each of the two developments for six units. Um, I'm not sure that six units is um it's just a token number. point.

Uh good planning to some extent for for towns like Kona is often said to in involve incre in incremental growth in things like um affordable housing and that is a reasonable amount of incremental growth. Um the KVIS letter also asserted that again often with two applications the applicants uh seek to bypass long-standing zoning protections that were implemented precisely to ensure balanced intentional growth. Unless there are proposal out out there that I'm not aware of and if we are just talking about the uh application that's been approved and and the um the application that's before us now this is simply not true. Um there are minor variances that were granted to the one application and that are being requested by this application. But those minor variances are less than most of us who live in the historic district or the neighborhood around it have had to get ourselves from the zoning board if we wanted to add additions to our home. And I include myself in that I needed more variances than this um project needs. So, I'm not quite sure that we can talk about uh the applicant having asked for

um excessive changes to our um our zoning. These applications we have to understand do reflect the existing zoning code. This is not an application for a zoning change of any sort. Um, that doesn't mean that it automatically gets approved or anything like that, but there is a difference between a zoning change and something that meets the zoning code. Uh this area has had longstanding zoning protections as as KBIS points out and this application would seem to respect the that it has been the zoning go the zoning code is a plan. People have said there is no plan for this area. There's been an awful lot of talking about what should go in that area over the years that I'm familiar with. So, it's hard for me to accept the notion that the zoning that exists is not a plan. And the plan did consist primarily of this area not being automobile oriented any longer. That was the last major change in the zoning for this area. uh and favored either multif family housing or retail in this area. So that does seem to be something of a plan. These applications reflect that existing zoning code that which the area has long had.

And the type of smallcale multifamily residential development that this represents is in fact something that has been relatively common in Kona and Bedford in the past. There's been an implication that this is something that will change the very spirit of Ktona for be because it's something strangely new. But if we look at uh developments like the um corner of Wildwood and Valley Road where there are 20 units, 20 condo units backing up on 12 rental apartments for a total of 22 units. Um that's part of what has been part of Katona for quite some time. Um on Nottingham Road down just down Bedford Road from this development there are 41 units of multif family housing. At Lake Marie we built 59 units in a development. Fellowship Hall had 90 units. Um, the point is that at 15 and 13 units, I'm not saying this doesn't have an impact that has to be studied, but it is not an innovation. It is not something that Katona or Bedford has never dealt with and it's not something that we should necessarily see as a threat. KBIS has expressed concern that these two multif family buildings may introduce a level of quote density and intensity far beyond what our hamlet can

reasonably sustain. This board has no intention of allowing any such thing to happen. If in the in the course of studying this we find that it is proposing a density that the hamlet cannot sustain, we will not approve it. And KBIS is right to insist on a careful and transparent transparent examination of the issues. And that's what this board intends to give it. And we intend to give it that look with your help, which is why we're starting this off with a with a public hearing. There is a process that we have to follow in looking at this out of fairness to applicants and out of fairness to the community as a whole. Um, and I'd like to turn this over to our director of planning to uh give you some idea of what that process entails and what has gone into getting to where we are right now.

Sure.

Um, thank you, Madam Chair. I'd be happy to speak about the process a bit more. Um, particularly for those applications that you see within the sewer districts of the town. Um just something I want to mention really quickly is that neither the planning department nor your board um solicits applications from property owners. Property owners do bring them forward and as you aptly stated um it is our job to review them for consistency across a variety of uh of lenses. So in general there are several um large checks and kind of gates that applications have to go through. So, first anything that's submitted to the town, whether it's a new restaurant, it could be a daycare, it could be um a new business, it could be a housing project, everything is reviewed for zoning compliance um in terms of its use and its dimensional consistency for that zoning district. Um and the CB district um which is the zoning district that this application um before us this evening for 150 Bedford Road um it's actually been zoned for multif family and mixed use since 1983. So that has been on the books for quite a while. Um and if any of the standards are not met, then the applicant needs to seek a variance from the zoning board um for their ultimate review and determination. And then if it's permitted um in one of those uh in one of the zoning districts and also then in the sewer district, there's a second checkpoint that's hit and that's the town sewer law. So enacted back in 2021, there were various capacities that were set forth for both the Katona sewer district as well as the Bedford Hills sewer district and that sewer law defined a clear process for which applications need to be first vetted um in terms of their capacity in the wastewater flow by our commissioner of public works. So if an application um goes for a water conservation plan review by the commissioner that has to be approved first before it can actually come to your board. So again only after um the commissioner of public works has

said that there is proper capacity available for that proposed use again a daycare restaurant etc. Um then can that applicant go ahead and submit a site plan. They've got six months in which to do so whether it's submitting to your board or to the zoning board of appeals as there are certain special use permits that uh do go to them. Um and then from there we're going to jump into uh various ways that an application is uh continued to be reviewed. So um under our zoning law for different types of applications you have various regulatory standards that have to be met. So we're looking at a site plan tonight. You're looking at various topics like drainage and lighting. You're looking at how a site layout is supposed to minimize the impacts to surrounding properties. Um you'll look at safe vehicular transportation access things like that. Um and obviously its consideration to the natural environment. Um conformance with the town's comprehensive plan is also another uh gate that we go through. And on top of all that for projects that do trigger SRA, which is the state environmental quality review act, there's you if you want to say this way, there's another lens of scrutiny and review that's placed. In fact, it's required by law for the lead agency um when one is defined to to take that hard look. So you'll take a further step and you'll look at potential impacts to historic character to the properties. You'll look at uh general community character, uh flood planes, wetlands, things like that. Um and again, there's another checkbox of consistency with adopted community plans. So if the planning board, you know, as you said, uh, Madam Chair, there's additional scrutiny that we can place by hosting a public hearing, which we're doing tonight to try to arrive at, um, you know, deriving thoughtful public comment, you know, as we look to proceed. Um, and just I guess one of the last things I want to say is um, as mentioned earlier, consistency with adopted plans, community plans is a very important part of what your board is

charged to do with as well as what Seeker charges any agency to do. Um the town of Bedford adopted its updated comprehensive plan last April of of 2025. Um and there was a lot of discussion and um feedback that we received from the public that surrounded housing that surrounded looking at all types of housing. So there are specific recommendations in that in our comprehensive plan that look to have a greater variety of housing that can come in a lot of different uh formats to look at strategically doing infill development that does not seek to gain um a wide departure from the existing scale or or um kind of feel and density of that existing area. But again to really manage the fact that we are looking to provide housing of all types um and all af and all price ranges so that we can meet the greater community needs um that have been expressed over that time. So um you know when everything and all of what I've just said kind of sums up and and reviewed then you've hit enough number of checkpoints that have given you the opportunity to take that hard look to make sure that you're leaving no stone basically unturned. Um and again you're extending the public the opportunity to comment on a project that um does um you know change a little bit of the nature of the area. Um but again it's all being done under the existing zoning law and not seeking to dramatically change that or alter it. In fact, they're looking to work within uh the rules that have been on um the town's books for quite a while. Um, so if everything goes in that order, then the applicant then submits a building permit plan or series of plans and they're kind of off um in the permitting world in that regard. So if you have any questions, I'm I'm happy to to go over everything, but that's sort of the general, you know, transparent process that we do, but a little bit in a nutshell for you.

Okay. And I think I'll leave some time in the public hearing for people specifically to ask you questions about that process that um again I feel we needed to go over that because I think it needed to be clarified for for folks who may not be following the applications as as closely as many of us are. Um, again, as it as is often the the case, um, there are going to be disagreements about this application. Um, I think I like to think that we handle them rather well in Bedford and seek to end them by finding solutions that work for everybody if we possibly can. Um, this is generally not a system where it's either yes or no and nothing in between. in things in between are often uh the the solution and the result of our discussions and I think that's because we do handle things civily and because as um the KBIS letter pointed out the it we our hope is is that Katona's future will be determined by her residents and by people who care deeply about the the health of the community and we hope that the audience realizes that that covers the people who are sitting at this table who are all residents of Bedford and several residents of Katona. Um that we do think feel deeply about

what is best for the community as well. Um there may be disagreements about what that is. We'll work those out. Um, and this public hearing is a start for us finding out where the issues are and what can be done about them. So, with that, I'll turn it over to the

Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the planning board. Um, thank you for that introduction there. Um, uh, Steven Helms with the Helms Group Architects in Katona. I'm represented with one of the owners, Mark Pikuchi in the second row and I have Dan um uh Okconor from Ralph uh Master Monaco's office. Ralph is out of the country, but Dan will address any engineering questions uh that came up. This is a public meeting so like to just give a little brief review. Uh I met my client had worked with him in the past December 2024. So we've been working on this project for a while. We were before your board last February, I believe, as a preliminary presentation type thing here. Um, this lot is a rectangular lot. It's on the east side of Beford Road. It's a vacant lot. It's a little over a half acre. Um, it's south of Arowway, north of the new apartment building that just went in. Um, I had met with the planning director about sighting the building, if we should put it further back, if it's a different layout, but they they felt and the building inspector felt that it should be more like a streetscape. So, we push the building up front, but it is uh at the same line as the white building, I think, at 152. So, it doesn't protrude out. So, if you're driving north, it's flush with that building. And we broke the building up, so you're not going to get a long mass. It's 28 feet wide. is that section that comes out and then uh um then it sets back. This is a three-story building uh with a full basement. We have 15 apartments uh six twobedrooms uh and nine onebedrooms. There are going to be three units designated as affordable units, probably one on each level, probably the onebedroom for that. We do have most of our parking in the back, the rear, so you won't see that when you're driving by. There is some handicap ADA parking up front. We have a

front and a rear entrance on the building. Um, we have a landscape plan, um, a lighting plan. Um, we've done, uh, there was a comment from Mr. Tierney on the, uh, renderings. We provided another rendering looking north as well as we revised the one looking south. Um, if you're going north, you're probably not going to see most of it. I tried to take in different pictures because the white building is right there. You almost have to be in front of the white building to get a glimpse of it. So, we have one of the renderings down there represents that. It's very hard to see the south elevation because the buildings are they're they're fairly close, but but it's a long building on the south side, but we broke up the front and the uh north elevation. Um, there's no further development on this specific lot. We've maxed out. We are under the building coverage which is permitted uh 20% is our maximum coverage. We're 19.8. So we designed the building to adhere to the zoning code. Also the impervious is 71 and change and we allowed 80%. So we were we we were under those thresholds. However, we do need to seek two variances. One is for off- streetet parking for two spaces and one is for the designated single use of 4,000 or 4600. To give you some context, the new apartment building has a footprint of about 6,300. This is 4600 and the white building between is about 2,200. Um, uh, the building is going to be a pitched roof gamble style, which there are many examples. I've worked on a few in Katona that have the gamble style. It does break up the facade and it keeps the scale down, but the renderings are clearly just to portray what the character of the building is. Um, we are going to introduce some stone, uh, probably a 7in shingle on the building, hardy shingle. Color, we're not sure yet, but it's not going to be white. Um,

double hung traditional type windows, an asphalt fiberglass roof. Um, so that's the exterior uh aesthetics of the building. Um, we also uh were before the zoning board. However, they could not vote on it because they need your board to sign off from a preliminary perspective before they can vote on it. I believe they were fairly comfortable with the project. Um, we did submit a uh um parking assessment uh uh a traffic assessment, I'm sorry, a traffic impact assessment memorandum that was submitted a couple of weeks ago. We also updated our architectural floor plans and elevations and rendering so they all coordinate. the fenistration is matches. Uh but that that was brought up to date. Um I believe uh um the engineers office responded to Jim Han's memo. There was 44 items. I don't know if how much detail you want to go into that tonight, but uh Dan is here tonight to answer any of those questions. Um let me see if I can add anything else to my presentation. Um I think uh we are eager to keep the project moving forward. Um and uh we want to go to the next step into construction drawings and uh again keep it moving forward but we need preliminary site plan approval. Um I think that's pretty much my presentation. Uh happy to answer any questions or thumb through the drawings if the public wants to see the layout. Um, there was some comments, questions with respect to the bike rack. I don't know if it's necessary to be up front. Yes, it's more convenient, but we have it in the back of the lot. I don't think it's prudent to have bunch of bikes hanging out in front by the entrance. So, I thought the back would be suitable. It's uh it's not open to the public. A little more privacy back there.

Um, I think that's maybe a level of detail that we can Yeah, there was a refuge. Uh there was a question came up on that there is a fence around the refues and a fence on top of the retaining wall. Mhm. Um on the drawings. Um I think what I'd like to do is open the the hearing to the the public uh with the understanding that that you would be ready to respond if people have questions for you. Um, so with that said, um, actually I' I've realized that nobody who's sitting in the courtroom was able to see these these pictures. I wish somebody had reminded me of that and I apologize.

I can come through. I have it on the screen here, too. I could have access to the screen. Okay. I've been staring at this happen here, but maybe we could face them. Oh, yeah. Um, and I'll ask you to come up to the microphone if you have uh something to say and please identify yourself. Um, I might ask you not to put them right so that we can't see. Put it on an angle. Yeah, maybe.

Oh, sure. So again, if you could identify yourself and whichever one is easiest for you.

Hi. Um, I'm Taran Kendall and I'm a resident of Katona. Um, I'm gonna speak as a private resident, but I just wanted to speak to your I'm also on KBIS, so I just wanted to explain when we talked about multiple um, proposals and projects. It was for the town of Bedford, not specific to Katona. So, that's the 27 units in Bedford Bu village that are being proposed. Mhm. the mark 150 and also I know 140 is coming down the pike because it's been mentioned in the past 140 Bedford Road. So I think that's where we started to feel like there was this momentum building. So just to explain we should have done a better job

maybe specifying that because it did focus on Katona

of course KBIS. So you're thinking Katona but yes that's just so I just wanted to explain that. Um, so I sent a letter to the board earlier, but I just wanted to highlight it here. Um, my concerns. You mentioned the comprehensive plan, and one of the things that stood out to me is in the comprehensive plan, it does talk about recommending and supporting small apartment buildings in the village and in the town of Bedford. But it actually specifies that those should be on large sites. And the example it gives is 10 acres or more. So that did kind of jump out to me that I hear you that the the area is zoned for multif family, but it's interesting to me that we've got this the comprehensive plan is saying one thing. Zoning obviously says something, but I do think that's where um that that just is something I thought I would note that it does seem to be um in opposition. Um similarly a lot of residents talk about how they do want more affordable housing for empty nesters, people who want to downsize seniors, all teachers, everyone, you know, the local um fire uh people in the fire department, police department. But I think it's important for residents to know that these affordable units in these builds are put out by a lottery over multiple counties.

So it's not that your neighbor who wants to sell their home and move into this building and get an affordable unit. It's really highly unlikely that that would be a reality. So it doesn't really address that need that was identified in the comprehensive plan. And then finally, I know that in the December 8th meeting when talking about 150 Bedford Road, um the applicant talked about how the client is also developing 140 Bedford Road. And to me, this just felt like an opportunity to rather than just individually approve these buildings, maybe we could actually have um I don't know, a more holistic approach to developing. It is a very small area of town that seems to be suddenly getting these cluster developments on it. And so, I don't know, just for me as someone, I just want it to be a beautiful gateway into town. And this seems like a great opportunity. So, it would be wonderful to maybe know what the plans are for 140 as well.

That's my Thanks. Good evening. Uh, my name is Frank Ve. Um, I live on 93 Mount Holly Road. I had an office until uh early 2025, a law office on Katona Avenue at 135 Katona Avenue. I practiced there for 30 years, primarily doing residential closings, almost 10,000 of them. I was a past president of the Katona Chamber of Commerce, so I think I have some experience with the commercial district of Katona. Um, I'm familiar with the chairperson, uh, unfamiliar with the other members, but I first want to ask a couple of questions. When I was here in December of 2025, I thought I heard that the applicant needed a variance for lot area coverage. Is that no longer uh an issue or their plans have changed?

If I could answer the building coverage. Okay. It's the use coverage for a single use in CB. It was it was that odd one that we developed over CVS when we were trying to control the large large larger scale businesses and we used the wrong word in the we usedes and what we meant was tenants. Okay. We were not trying to limit the footprint of

and without asking you to litigate or uh uh discuss in great detail what the uh two variances that currently exist uh that you're applying for. One of them was off- streetet parking. Yeah. And what was that what did that entail? Yeah. If I could absolutely street parking by code in the town of Befford for a twobedroom we need two spaces there's nine two bed uh six two bedrooms

for a onebedroom you need a space and a half that requires nine so we need 25.5 round up to 26 on-site parking all street parking but on-site parking we have we can provide 24 the likelihood of someone in a one-bedroom having a car two cars or a car and a half very unlikely so our argument is okay it's only too. It's not crazy. Um maybe they have a bike. They can tie it up in the back there, but uh motorcycle, what have you. We haven't even talked about compact parking. That's an option we have. Try to squeeze another space in in the back. We can go to I think 8 ft or right now the code is 9 and 1/2 ft by 20. So we can think about compact parking, but that's why the variance board is there. We need a little relief in off- streetet parking, but our building coverage does conform to the code. It's under 20%.

Okay. Well, I I I was candidly very surprised uh by the chairperson's uh description uh of quote unquote small scale of this application. Um, I'm very concerned and I would uh probably lean on that I am not in favor of the application due to its scale. I feel that uh it clear the fact that it needs variance variances from the zoning board clearly means that it is not small scale in my mind. Um, and in combination with what's there now, the the I think it's 152, the white building, uh, that's two uh, two,

not right next to it, but

156. I just I I I think that the scale of that area to me is is is not uh consistent with Katona Avenue and Bedford Road. what what I'm used to seeing uh when I travel in those areas and I think the scale of it will over time dramatically change the feel of Kona, the commercial area of Katona. In my travels, I've been to Bronxville. I've been to Rye. I've been to Scarsdale. All very nice places, but is much more hustlebustle than Katona. And it's what I like about Kona that I think this application will change. It may not be immediately, but over time it will. And I do not like that thought going forward. And I would object to uh this application on those grounds. If this was such a quote unquote smallcale application as voiced by the chairperson, there'd be no need for variances. it. In my mind, if this you were a judge and I an attorney arguing a case, it seems to me that at least the chairperson has made up her mind even though she's expressed that wanting to hear the

entire application. But when you come out and call it a small scale building, it seems to me that the decision has been made. Thank you for your listening to my thoughts. I think it's important to remind everyone that the variance again is not due to the size of the project. I'm sorry I couldn't hear. The variance is not due to the size of the project. It's due to a technicality. No, it's not due to the size of the project. I disagree. If they if the building were smaller, the off- streetet parking wouldn't be an issue. You'd have more space for parking. So, is that what we should apply across the board to the commercial district?

I'm not telling you how to do your job. I sat here and I was shocked when you said small scale. Well, I I apologize for shocking you. Um the and you also said done under the existing zoning law obvious excuse me uh I'm not sure you're the attorney for the planning board but director thank you if it was done in compliance or under the existing zoning law you don't need variances but almost everybody in

Listen I'm not I'm not I'm dealing with this applicant and only this applicant. Well, you're also dealing with with having accused me of having um Dearra, I was shocked when you came out and said that. Well, no, you know, that's that is fine. Uh but you can't tell me not to respond when you've made it personal. So, I am going

to respond, but I was shocked when you scale. it um compared to much of what we've we've done um at Lake Marie and places like that, I I think it is small scale. We are going to differ. Um I still respect your opinion and I still respect you. I'm not shocked by your position. I'm sorry you're shocked by mine. I've been an advocate for housing for most of the time. I've I've done work for the town and I'll I'm trying to figure out how to say this nicely. I don't feel that you can assume that those of us who sit here do not have opinions about issues. There are certain of the issues here that I have I I lean in in particular directions to and I would be lying and you would know I was lying if I said I have kept myself totally blank on on everything. I am willing to listen to arguments about why it is not smallcale, but the fact that you feel differently about it and I feel differently about it is not a good argument on either of our sides. Um, in the course of this attempt at at reaching some kind of answer about this, we may actually figure out how to define scale in a way that we both agree. That's what what I am willing to keep my mind open to. But I'm not going to pretend

to not have opinions about some of this kind of thing because the when in the letter KBIS described who should be making the decisions, the definition that you gave They've included every person on this board just as much as it included everybody who was out in the audience in the sense that we care deeply about this community and that's why we do the things we do. We don't have more of an opinion but we shouldn't be expected to have less of one. Let me first say if I may that I'm here I know my wife is uh president of KBIS. I have nothing to do with KBIS. I and so I'm speaking on behalf of my own personal opinion and I will also say there is a in my mind an appropriate time to voice your opinion on a board that is sitting in judgment of this application. There is an appropriate time. I didn't think at the public hearing is the appropriate time. That's all I'm saying.

Okay. And I felt the fact that the letter was frankly had nothing to do with the letter. Yeah. No. Sure. It's kind I I have two actually two things. One is we're not all going to agree all the time. And that's part of the reason why we're having this is to hear how everyone feels, respect how everyone feels, and come to an agreement. We're not all going to agree on everything. And part of the reason why this community is so lovely is because we do all listen to each other and we disagree, we come to an agreement of how best to make it work. So,

and I think the chair outlining in the beginning and and our director of planning how we're approaching this and why we're headed here and and there also constraints from the county and the state that we're trying to accommodate without something out of scale coming in

is important and it doesn't I can promise you from having worked with the chair for a decade or so now that that does not preclude her changing her mind if something is br or and and it's not just her, there's a whole board here. So, we're all listening. We also talk a lot about transparency in this town and I really believe in the transparency and I'm not going to pretend to be someone that I'm not. It's not worth it to me.

You've worked with her for 10 years. I've appeared before a lot longer than that. Uh, I have only the highest regard for the work she's done over the years for the for this board and for the town sector, but I was surprised with that that initial com. Fair enough. Can I ask one question about the or should I not do that? Let's hold on. Okay, so next.

Hi, my name is Karen Ferris. I live in Katona and I actually have um a couple of comments and uh two questions. Um, so since the town of Bedford does not have a formal architectural review process, how is the town evaluating whether or not these projects um like like this one and like the mark um actually were designed to keep the character uh of Katona um in mind that uh residents have consistently said is important to them. Um, specifically, what was the process that led to the approval of the building known as the Mark? And maybe you could uh talk to that. Um, many residents feel that its design is stark and out of character with the historic architecture uh that defines Kona. As you enter Katona from Bedford Road, this proposal um would eventually place three large buildings. That would be number that would be the 140. So, it's not just this one we're thinking about. We're looking at three separate buildings. Um, uh, essentially they're right next to each other. And I don't know, but it would seem to me that, um, if there's 15 apartments in the mark, 15 here, and then potentially another 15, we're talking about 45 apartments as your entry. So, I think that that, you know, needs to be made clear. And given that Katon is known for its historic character and architectural charm, what discussion has taken place that um ensures that this cluster of buildings will reflect the scale, the architecture and the character of Katona. Um, and I guess, you know, part as part of this comment, um, as the density

increases with these three buildings in very close proximity, I'd like to see, um, where the green space is because I I know we we have this very lovely rendering here that's surrounded by beautiful mature trees and no buildings. That's not really how it's going to look. I mean, they're right next to each other. So, I think it doesn't encourage um healthy community input when we have a picture that really doesn't accurately represent what is going to be built. And um my second question or comment is um according to the Katona forum and numerous community surveys, many residents are expressed interest in more restaurants, small shops, street light and gathering places. Um, I don't see where that is coming into play here in this second building. Um, and uh, you know, I just like to know how is the community feedback being incorporated into these projects.

So, there couple's uh, questions. The CB zone district has setbacks uh 10 feet in the front. Our building is 23 feet back from the road. Has zero lot line on either side, but because of the building code with 10 ft, 5t and 23 feet uh 25 ft on the left side on the north side, the right side were 10 feet and 5t and the back with 30 feet. So we the building is set back. Um I grew up in this town. My dad was an architect. We've done a lot of projects in town. We did the ambulance building 152. I did Gary Forbes insurance building. I did DPW building. The one across from the mobile station which I think was a flagship type building. I think that fit in Kona that was an old dilapidated building. Just recently finished a building at 35 Edgemont Road. We've done a lot of examples. Katona does have a lot of Gamrell style buildings. I'm sensitive. I live in this. I drive by here. I want something that's going to be I'm proud of. Uh again, this is a preliminary drawing. There's fine lines with tweaking details and things like that, but we wanted to give you the the character of the building. Um, and uh um again, just to give you a little insight on 140, we are working that is very very early. That's about a 17,000 square footprint. Some talk is to keep the footprint but beautify the building, get a restaurant, maybe a re four or five retail spaces, a maybe a dance uh studio, really break it up and get a mixeduse going there, not more apartments right off the bat. So, we are looking at that, but again, it's too preliminary. My client has an interest in that, but uh they would like to develop this lot. Coming north into Kona, you have the ambulance. You won't see this building. You'll see a glimp right when you're in front of the white

building. You may look at it. You'll never see the length of the south side of this building straight on. You'll see it on an angle. And we did break up the building facade on the north side. So when you're leaving town, it is broken up and it's got some dimension. It's not just a big box. Um, so that's uh my comment there. Um, yeah, I I appreciate the design comments. I I would just add, keep in mind, we talk about making sure the Kona is beautiful and in the keeping, but let's just remember what buildings were replaced. There was a dive bar and there is a, you know, rundown automotive shop. So for speaking that that's the beauty of Katona. I'm very sensitive to the architecture that we are replacing the buildings with. So I'm not diminishing that. I just want to remind everyone what the current condition is or was of these projects that are being replaced. Thank you. Mark, do

you have anything to add? We just like like to go back to what what what was the process when the decision was made that the mark was in keeping with the character of Katona? How did that just explain to me how did that conversation happen and how did you come to the conclusion that a building like that was in keeping? For the record, I was our office was not involved. I just want to clear the air on that one.

Yeah. So, it it would just it would just be helpful because it's it you know, it's concerning when when we saw that building go up. Um, you know, I think we all know that most people don't pay attention. They don't come to these meetings and um, you know, I I just for me personally, I I I'd like to understand how you came to that conclusion.

It's a very difficult one to answer because we don't have architectural review. So in essence if we can't we cannot force the details. We are very limited. We can make suggestions to the the architect, but because we don't have the authority to enforce architectural designs, we can't say do this, do that. We can we can say would you consider doing this? We It's far from a perfect system really to some extent for for exactly what you point out, but every time the town has tried to put in any kind of architectural review, um it's been pretty rejected by the um mostly by the commercial interests in town, but not exclusively, often by the uh residents as well. there simply hasn't been support for it except in our historic districts and of course in our historic districts those decisions are made. uh we tend to have architects on the his the district boards and historians and when we talk about what to do in that case it's it's a very different kind of conversation when I chair the the Katona Historic District Commission we could

talk about dates and how uh proportions were used historically in different uh in different styles, what was appropriate, what wasn't, but that's not a conversation that we have any authority behind. So, we talk about the things, but everybody knows if we don't get some sort of consensus, we're we're basically stuck. And madam chair, if you don't mind me just reminding um the board and the public that not that this hearing is actually on 156 Bedford Road um but the the board did do a very similar thing as this evening. You opted to have a public hearing on that application um in order to solicit feedback uh during the the the site plan process. Um you'd also requested that applicant um similar to the one before you this evening to prepare a rendering to try to understand what the building would look like as itself as well as in concert and in context um with the rest of Bedford Road um as you enter um Katona and the gateway. Um also the planning board um you spent several meetings speaking with the applicant about the design. In fact, there were several alternatives you looked at. There was a very lengthy discussion about shutter colors. So there was discussion that that you the board did have um in a very public forum. Um and I think lastly um the the architectural firm of that project did do a survey of the area to try to pull in various styles that were present um in Katona which I believe is also what this applicant has done as well. So I just want to remind the board and just in terms of practicality and process and just more technical kind of facts that's what um that applicant had done and that's what's being repeated here and um just to remind your board you did take that extra step and go beyond what's

actually required of you since we don't have an architectural re review board. Yeah, I just just I just finally I' I'd like to ask that um in in the future and and going forward if if we can show the community the mark this proposed building and then the third proposed building so people actually see the the um what the word is the density or the you know the the um uh just how close the buildings are to each other just so it's accurate because again I think a lot of people looked at that and thought, "Oh, you know, not so bad." But it's not not accurate.

I think we I I think we are going to ask for more on these two. The third one's a little bit difficult because there is no proposal before us on 140. Even though we're told one is coming at some point, but without even knowing what the building's going to be used for, I don't know how we can do that. But for the other two, um I will I will say that I'm not satisfied with the the views that we've seen. So

another that's just my argument that that's why our building was pushed back flush with with the white building. So again, driving north, it's not going to pop out at you. And I thought that was very important to sight it on the property that way still allow for parking. So and that's only 28 feet wide. So it's when you drive by it's not going to

Okay. Like to let the public continue to Hi, my name is Karen Fuches and I live at Sunrise Avenue in Katona, which is right across the street from this proposal. When you built the woods, that's a monstrosity. So then when we're looking at this, which is a nice looking building, I will say, and that's more fitting with Katona, but you've got a small lot and then you're going to build this other one. We go down, we you come in at Katona, and all you see is these massive buildings, and I'm concerned about parking. You know, most people there's two cars in a family. You can say one, but most people, even if it's a couple, they got two cars. So, off streetet parking, I don't know what you're going to do with that, but I don't want them down the street from me.

26. Yeah.

Number of cars. I mean, you can't you can't judge, I guess. But I mean, if it's one person living in an apartment, but if there's two people, there's two cars typically. Yeah. Yeah. Come on. And then I'm also I guess they're hooking into the sewers. This is only doable with the sewer and water. Yeah.

But yet residents can't hook into it, which that's a irky thing to me, I must say. You have new apartments coming in, but the residents who could have used it can't get into it. And then what was the third thing I was going to say? I even forget now. But I'm upset that it's all clustered there like that. When you drive in a Gona, okay, maybe the buildings weren't pretty before, but it still looked like a quaint town. Now it doesn't coming in that way. So these are my concerns.

Thank you. For the record, this building is designed where it's parallel with the building to the south and vertical. So it's when you look at it lined up, it's not skewed. 156 Yeah. Uh, could I could I suggest just to keep the line moving, if you're if you're going to talk, if you could come up a little bit early, but while the other person's talking and give your name to the secretary so we don't have to wait for each person to do that. Would move it along a bit. Sorry.

Hello, I'm Tim Murphy. I'm a resident of Katona. actually live right across the street from where this project is to be built. And um I think we all have that same consideration as to the character of this town, what you're developing as to what this town has always been. It's opposite. It's not apartment buildings, clusters, 45 units. It's I believe it's totally opposite of what the people of Katona have lived with and want. Other considerations is the traffic situation. I live on Sunrise Avenue since they built is it 140 where Jimmy's was

156

whatever where that it's almost impossible to get out of that street at this point between the traffic coming up from Bedford and out of Kona. Um another thing that I find you say there's no architectural board. I attended all the meetings that you guys had bored here. We're all different, but you were there. The rendition they gave us of the building, which is like these pictures here, was absolutely not even close to what they built. There was no notification from you folks to me who lives across the street saying, "Okay, we're going to change this building." the position of the building, the height of the building, the the architectural design of the building wasn't even close. Give me an idea. I've been in the car business all all my life. If you came in and bought a Cadillac and you showed up to pick the car up and it was a pinto, would you have a problem with that?

Excuse me. I think you would. And that's what you sold us when you built that building there. You showed us a picture of what it was going to be and what went up was absolutely not anywhere's near what it was and nobody was notified of the changes. I think you're talking about a particular change in the building. More than a particular change to where it was positioned. The position didn't change. Yes, it did. It was positioned originally where Jimmy's bar was. Now it was moved over to the left and almost touches the building that's next to it. Yeah. Also, it the architectural design of it was not even close to what you proposed in the pictures. Well, it changed over the

It was changed, but why wasn't anybody notified? No, no, no. Everybody was notified initially. There's more. No, Tim, it changed over time as it went through the process and then it was finalized all in open meetings. But there was one particular thing that the chair was referring to that was not I was never notified of chang and I live across the street from him. I guess do you better it's the changes were all done in public meetings. That's um except for those two

except for two changes that we were not not the final meeting that you guys showed and proposed and there was no notification of any change at that meeting. I left it was the last I ever heard anything and then the building went up. I'll go back and look at the pictures. H I said I'll go back and look at the pictures and see if I agree with you.

Okay. All right. Other comments? Are there any comments from people in the uh on the Zoom? Anyone who has a comment to make? No more. No other comments in in the courtroom. I am going to suggest that we adjourn the public hearing. Uh well, first first of all, the the board is going to have an opportunity to to talk about things. Um but when that is done, I will suggest that we adjourn, not end the public hearing. There was a bit of a mixup. We don't know exactly how it happened, but for a brief period of time this evening, this disappeared off of the town website. So given the possibility that somebody may have thought that this public hearing was cancelled during that period, I would like to continue the public hearing to to our next meeting just just so that nobody gets uh done out of their opportunity to to to speak. Um so but then we'll talk a bit before that. I have a question which maybe I didn't pick it up well enough from the drawings or it's not there yet but it addresses part of this issue of keeping the character of Katona as we build out there. One of the things in the plan and that the I know we as a board have

really cared about is making it more walkable, making it more vegetated so that it becomes it is commercial business district so they can put these in but to have a field that's more like the neighborhood business district um that brings people out and about. And do we have any more information on how the sidewalks, street, and plantings are going to go for those three properties? I think that's something that that we have to be working on.

Yeah, we the sidewalk will continue out front u running north south and there is quite a bit of land. We're going to have several trees up front. No vegetation, trees, benches. Want to make it thorough, but a good size sidewalk so people can walk or 5t wide, you know. And native plants. Yes.

Okay. Are there any other questions uh or comments from members of the board for next steps of what we'd like to see? I I guess I just want to make sure on this comment about vegetation and walkability and of the street. The concern was raised uh by the public that this uh rendering isn't accurate. I I guess is that something that the other members of the board feel? I I was looking at the rendering against the site plan and I I I looks it looks perfectly accurate to me in terms of distances from the frontage where the trees are proposed to be located, distances and adjacency to the neighboring buildings. Um so I I just you know if this is not accurate that is a concern but as far as I can tell it is accurate and I wanted to see if other members of the board felt that way.

Yeah. Yeah, I mean I I've noticed they made the few corrections we discussed that were inaccurate in terms of the window placements on the north side on the third floor. Um having the gradient to show the parking lot sloping from the street to the back. So it is correct provided you understand how to read the architectural drawings into a three-dimensional rendering. Yeah. I had thought that we were going to be getting uh views that took photographs and then There. I have two. Yeah, the the second one in the packet does that nicely, but they're not really hard to take a South. I mean, you've got the photographs, but but and the snowbank covers the building. But

yeah, I was the building. That's what it looks like, though. That's the problem. The heights of that building is correct. white building 152 between the mark and this building that building is detected in our rendering. Yeah. Again, this is to show the character of the building. It's not a flat roof. It's a that's the scale of it. I think the use of the different material breaks it up. It is set back. Um it's parallel with the other building. It's not just shoehorned in there. Gave that a lot of thought. We also wanted to let this address 140 when that gets developed.

Yeah. if it gets developed depending what that goes to. But thinking right now is possibly a restaurant and retail stores four or five and then two larger spaces in the back. So a nice mix. I'd like commit to apartments but I don't right now towards the retail. Yeah. working with

what I would like to see um particularly for the view going south is whether there's any way of putting in any greenery or plantings between what will be 140 what what is 140 and the new building. Um because because you're putting the the handicap spaces in in the front, which is the right thing to do, you're Yeah. Part of the part of the curiosity too of the renderings and thank you for doing it because I know I was the one that asked them

for them. I think the view should have been turned a little bit more, but the first thing when I questioned was why am I looking at a sea of concrete in front of this building? That's what I was after. Which, you know, it's not telling the story that you really, I think, want to tell, right? You want you want to soften this so that it is representative of what it's actually going to be. Now, if that's what you're expecting that there's going to be a sea of concrete in front of it, that's a whole another discussion. You have like this area. No, this Oh, yeah. property. That's I that's a that's a that's a condition of the other side. Right.

Right. But I don't but now that I hear it's somewhat in play. I was trying to think my property so I can't but but it's your applicant's property. But it's the applicant's property and you've talked about wanting to f a rendering further back with the row of trees. And that's why I would have turned the rendering so that way take that angle. I would have turned the rendering just a touch so you actually captured because you're missing one building in this view, right? You're missing the ambulance. I could uh so look at that. I really like the idea of the second rendering though. Same thing. I would have shown 15 uh 156 the mark

the mark. Um, and if you could get to the ambulance core, that would be great because that would show, I think, some of the commentary that people have said the massing as you're coming in. Someone referred to it as the gateway of Katona. More of this. Yeah. Gate and more of this looking that way. And whether you I think it's sort of nice that each one is a little different as you would see in residential.

Yeah. you know, rather than a large multif family, you would see that in a um many of the residential areas in Katona. So, while this is re, you know, multif family, it it sort of reflects that though in a nice way and there is no mention of a sign. So, I guess are you guys going to put a sign up for for this building? His name's Mark the Mark too. So, we should probably think we should probably get that even if it's a placeholder on there so that everybody sees all of the

elements that are going on. I do question there's a pitch a lot more of a pitch to this piece of property than I think you're implying. The back is being retained up. Yeah. I think it's 5% for the So, you're saying you're reducing the pitch? Yeah, there's a lot of infill coming in here and there's also going to be a railing guard that rings the entire elevated. So, that being said, where are you going to plow snow to

and then out of the park? And I want to get it on record only because zoning needs to hear it. the variance with regards to parking. You have a guest issue because there's going to be people coming to visit these people this off this building and during a snow event, storm water event, where are you going to plow to and that's going to occupy some spots? We we all saw the 30 in of snow that we just recently had, right? So that's a so either and with the uh parking count and going for are we going to identify each unit's space? Are they going to be

or is it going to be free free range until a car gets 35? I don't know. It can be done. It can be done. It's a tough thing. I know it. I know it's going to be tough. someone may have right three cards, but we we need some sort of narrative or concept of how this building's going to operate with that in turn, right? I still am not happy about in between this building and what is it 152? Yeah, you have an egress scare coming out there. Basement.

Basement's there. But you're going to have you were talking about fitness down there. You're talking about laundry. So, it's got to be, but it's still you're gonna still have a second means of egress, which I presume that door is going to satisfy. They're walking right out into a driveway that has water coming at it or snow being plowed to it. Has there been any discussion with the neighbor who maintains the property next door as to protocols of how they're going to maintain with an elevated wall? We're 10 ft. Oh, we're 10 ft from the property line. Five feet at the closest middle section. But the retaining wall retaining wall

is right on edge on the property. It's off the property line on both sides pretty much right on the property. Couple couple ditches obviously a security fence. No, no. I I understand that. I just want to know if they know what's coming because that's going to impact their lock cleaning. The owner of the building has been in her office. Okay. Okay. Anything going in that direction will be reduced from what we do. You know, we're going to keep as much as of the water on the site as possible where as of right now, it just runs straight to their property.

Right. And by the way, we had asked for some sort of commentary on drawings last time about that where we got a verbal over the on No, it was four. It was a eight eight n page response letter that Ralph sent back the planning director and but I don't I didn't unless I missed it. I didn't see that commentary. Yeah, it was a pretty inepth with respect to that thing. I didn't I don't agree with his comment that it lighting is within intent of the town code because you still have spillage over the lot line. Yeah. And that's something that you got to take care of.

I did a uh I wanted I did a parking analysis. My client said forget the multif family and let's put a restaurant there. Let's put it off is it would require a lot more parking spaces. Um for instance, a restaurant uh would require conventional restaurant and office require 83 spaces. Um office and business or professional use 56 spaces. Retail or service 46 spaces. So the multif family is actually the least amount of parking. But we're strapped into the lot size. So we have to work things backwards units, the parking and so forth. So that's why we opted for the multif family. Um the code we need 20% affordable. My client is trying to maximize his investment. He paid X for the property. Three stories, keep it tight building, elevator, four stops. We can get the density. Um to lose an apartment I think would be a, you know, did a proformer on it and it just it works out. But we'll take your comments and update our rendering. Just curious, how far out is the would it be another public meeting or is just adjourned?

We would adjourn it. So you wouldn't have to to do a public notice do a public notice again, but it would be a continuation of the the existing public hearing. Thank you. Yeah, I think the we also have the I just wanted to ask a question. Sorry. Did we do an environmental study on the property? This is the this is the beginning of that is that's the beginning of it. Okay. That's why that's why we're doing I'm thinking a lot of pollution in that ground there. It was a car dealer for ever and ever and a tractor place. And

we had a whole soil investigation done. Phase two done. It's got a clean bill that was done. Yeah, we probably will want to see that actually. We have to actually uh formally adjourn. We we will. Yeah. Um there are there are other issues that I think need to bring bring up that I'd like to hold off till the next one just because it's it's getting late. We do need to talk about traffic. We've got a a response from our traffic and I think we've got the

Would the board like would the board like to request that? We don't have it as at at this public hearing. Would you like to request it for the next? Yeah, I'd like to request it for the last one for the town's traffic consultant to review so that we'll have have the response to it. And so could I have a motion to adjurnn? So moved. Second. Just are we adjourning to next week or we to the following week? adjouring to the April meeting. Yeah. Second. Um any discussion? All in favor? I.

All opposed. Okay. So, the public hearing is adjourned uh till April. Just ask the conversation to take it outside.

Yeah. If we could if if we could ask that that if you're going to talk that you do so outside. Okay. The next item on our agenda is on the other side of this page to consider the application for a two lot subdivision pursuant to town code uh 107. Uh the owner applicant is Michael Messenger. The address is 16-20 Washington Avenue. Uh, is there someone here to speak to me? Michael Messinger. Welcome.

I'm here for a final site plan approval for uh subdivision. As you said, I've been here before a couple of times. I have a final plat now, which is what is uh here for you to uh to review. Okay. And nothing is nothing has changed in the Nothing has changed since since we since you've done preliminary,

right? Can we any comments, questions from members of the board? I have to get my Give us just a second. Did we do seeker on this?

I believe we did, right? Yeah, we've we've done it's an unlisted. I don't remember either. That's we did preliminary. How did we do preliminary if we didn't do seeker? I thought we did it. You did do. We did. Yeah. Okay. I was pretty sure we did that. Couldn't find in my notes if we haven't. I have no concerns with doing final approval. Agreed. I have no concerns either. What conditions would we put on it other than the standard? Are there I don't remember any other significant issues. Yeah, Department of Health.

Yeah, Department of Health and then chapter 107 land subdivision standards. Is that a motion? So moved. Sorry. Just give me one second. Second. Is there a second? Second.

Any further discussion? All in favor? I. All opposed. You have your final. Thank you very much. Good night.

Next item on the agenda. to consider a site plan application to convert an existing vacant space to a new restaurant pursuing to town code 125-86. Uh the owner applicant is PRM Bedford Hills LLC. The address is 17-9 Babbot Road, Bedford Hills. else.

Good evening again for the record. Stephen Helms, Helms Group Architects representing PRM. My client is out of the country and could not be here tonight. He might be here on Zoom. Um, we were before your board, I don't know, last month. I believe we also went to the zoning board on this application. Uh, we were deficient on all street parking. Uh, it is a small bar grill type setup here. And if I could just read my narrative, this says I set the table, no pun intended, on this bar and grill. Um, the proposed establishment will be a classic small neighborhood bar and grill style restaurant. Layout will include traditional table seating, high-top drink tables, and bar seating. In addition, dining service, the restaurant will offer takeout service to the public. The restaurant will operate 7 days per week. Lunch and dinner service will be provided along with full service bar. Hours of operation 11:00 a.m. catch that early lunch crowd to 12:00 a.m. That could fluctuate depending on uh seasonal based on demand and business conditions. No outdoor seating is proposed with this application. Deliveries will be scheduled during the early morning hours will occur off Babbot Road and off Griffin Avenue to minimize any disruption. The pro the proposed restaurant is located within established commercial area of Bever Hills where on street parking serves as the primary parking resource for multiple surrounding businesses. Due to the site constraints, there's no additional on-site parking is proposed. We do have three for the the building that we're renovating. Uh there will be no outdoor amplified music. Any background music will be limited to the interior of the establishment. Um we did go for a variance. I believe we got our variance from the zoning board with the uh

deficiency in parking. We did update the drawings. We showed the AC is existing on top of the roof. That may be upgraded, but it's there on our renderings. Um signage, the tenant of the restaurant will come to your board. The signage application with a sign company will probably be involved. The barber shop is running now. That's existing. There's no change proposed there. maybe an upgrade in the signage so it correlates with our new sign for the bar grill. Believe the building's going to stay red. There is some improvements that the town is promoting that he might capitalize on with painting and upgrades. Um uh that's basically it. Uh the trash pickup is he owns the building next door uh to the west and there's a we did show a dumpster behind the building. The other day when I drove by the garbage truck was coming out of Griffin. So sometimes he comes in the alleyway and off Griffin. So there's two means of egress into this property. It's a tight lot. Um he does own the building. We did show the dumpster. There are three parking in the south of the lot for the apartment that he that they rents out currently. Um it's a small restaurant. It's existing one-story building slab on grade. We know we have to go to the health department for approval. We have to get our kitchen plan. We did show an exhaust system that's on top. There is a parapit in the front of the building that will conceal that from the street.

That was how how high is the parapit? The parapit's three feet. Um, and you know, to we have an opportunity to raise it, but uh it got to get my elevation. How tall is the ventilation system? I mean, I'm I'm familiar with one that you Well, not the one that I was not invol the one that's on the north end of T town that would again presented to your board as a cafe and my client stretched the envelope there and put in a real uh if I knew that I would have put a widow's walk on the top of the building and concealed that monstrosity that he has there. But I'm not in like I mean

I don't like the look of that. Uh and uh you know he should have camouflaged it now after the fact with some roof screening or something to to because that's unsightly and I know you live near around the corner and uh yeah that's and uh the neighbor that I did work on Cameron Reigns they expressed they they are the people who are really hurt by it actually. Well that's a building department uh issue that they can maybe enforce them to do something there to help screen that. But uh getting back to this building, we did show it. And you think the parapit will larely hide? Not if we have to raise it a little bit um from the eye from the perspective at the street. It's important to not have another is the roof a mono pitch all the way back.

Yeah. She flows to the back. Yeah. So you're going to you're going to gain some height because the roof Yeah. where the kitchen is is down lower than up by the parapit. Okay. So yeah. Um, I mean, if it's a burger place, your mushroom cap's going to be somewhere in the neighborhood of four and a half, five feet. That's yeah, typical blow. We could go out the back walls. Another option, but I people walking by unsightly to see it. I think it's it can be serviced and uh it's on top again set back on the building. It's hard to really see that. You'd have to be across the street on a second story to

on an in wall with respect to an apartment building being back there. Wouldn't want to blow out a wall. I'd rather blow up. That's a good point. Good point. That's just how I would approach it. I'm not telling you what to do. So anything we if if we were to give you preliminary today, we would talk about the ventilation system in general terms.

Yeah, we showed it diagrammatically and we'll get shop drawings and that will be submitted with the building department. But we did uh show that on the drawing. But I think for the for the sake of our relationship with the building department, uh that we we should have some fairly specific um parameters for the ventilation system that Oh, I would be happy to show a cross-section through the building, show the parapit, show the roof slope, show the actual height, get the spec on it, show the dimensions, and submit that with our building department. Yeah, I think that so so so it's understood that

the design will change depending on the on the ventilation system you get, but the end product will reflect the same aesthetics. It will be drawn to scale on a file plan for a permit. Yeah. And if it has to be more obvious than we were led to believe it was going to be, it'll come back to us to see. And hopefully that won't happen. But uh but I I've always thought that was what should have happened with the other one. So I agree. And that's not just the roof on the other one. No, the entire side, the building and the roof. Yeah.

Yeah. It goes up goes up the three stories. Yeah. It's wonderful. Uh, you far enough away from the the windows that are on the adjacent building to put a makeup air unit next to looks like there are double hung units on the second story of the apartment building. Yeah, the the white building to the what would that be? West. Yeah, there are several windows on the second floor. So, they're like spread. So, your everything your makeup makeup air and mushroom We'll have to be away from those windows by going it's going to be to the furthest ride the right hand side of the building if you're looking at the back

and there's no windows on the red building then that overlook that. Well, it depends how far forward they are, right? How what is separation? Actually, it looks like there's a door on the second level. It does without anything to No, on the red one in the back. There's a door on the back. Yeah. Into the building.

That's the paint box. So the entrance stays the same in the front and the entrance stays the same in the back. So um because we're under the occupancy, we don't need two means of rest. Again, this was a building when we first came in, we were going to put apartments on the second and third floor, but the building footprint didn't make economical sense and uh we would need an elevator and it just took too much real estate up, so he forgave that. But I think the use is a good use in that location.

I think people can walk around Beford Hills. I think it help. So, I would suggest that that we consider preliminary approval um memorialize some of the things we've talked about to tonight in that uh and consider fi final next time round with maybe a few more details. Yeah. Could I have a motion to that effect? So moved. Second.

By the way, this is a type two action under speaker. So we have a motion in a second. Uh is there any further discussion with and this is with the things we've talked about as conditions or preliminary? Any people? Look, I'm getting puzzled looks here. Okay. Okay. Uh, just making sure. So, um, we have a motion and a and a second. Any further discussion? No. All in favor of granting preliminary approval? I.

All opposed. You have preliminary approval. You're done. Goodbye. Okay. Next item on our agenda is Oh, the next item on our agenda h has been um adjourned. journed.

That's the um it's another special use permit for the conversion of a garage to a cottage has been adjourned. Uh so item number four on this list is consider an application for site plan amendment for the installation of a gate. Uh this is the address is 519 North Bedford Road, Bedford Hills. The owner applicant is DP72 LLC. And this is a a gate to uh basically keep car delivery trucks from trying to deliver cars where they're not supposed to. Do we have an app is online?

Oh, online. Oh, Mr. Good evening, Jay Black with Diamond Properties. Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Can't see you, but we can hear you. No problem. So, if you recall, uh, we had, uh, bear with me. I'm just trying to

I'm sorry. Can you hear me? Yes, I

I apologize. My computers did something that shifted things around. I apologize. Um, so if you recall, we had presented to you at the uh last board meeting for proposing a gate to be at the entrance of 519 North Bedford Road. Um Tesla, which currently utilizes the uh exterior space of the site, is looking to um prohibit uh delivery trucks from showing up after hours uh to deliver. So uh the gate in essence was to um encourage people to go to an alternate location um over at 333 North Bedford Road. And uh where we left off was uh we had taken the drawings implemented additional information including um the uh some of the comments that uh had come from the board specifically uh pertaining to the color of the gate which we've now indicated is white um included reflectors as well as we've incorporated the commentary from the fire marshall.

Okay. And I don't think there is anything else that we have asked of the applicant that hasn't been done. This is a type two under secret. Could I have a motion? So move. Second. We have a motion. Second. Is there there any discussion? All in favor of it being a type two. I I All opposed. is a type two. Um I heard people mo mumbling about a motion and it sounded like a good idea. Move to approve. Move to approve with um standard conditions.

Standard conditions and the uh color of the the gate will be white. Uh the hour sign will there will be an hour sign clear for delivery vehicles. I don't think there's anything else. Could I have a motion with those conditions? So moved. Is there a second? Second. Any further discussion? No. All in favor? I I All opposed. You have it. Great. Thank you. Have a nice evening.

You too. Okay. Okay, the next item on the agenda is uh adjourned again. That's 77 Bedford Road. So, the final item on our agenda tonight is consideration of a Steve Sopes permit for the construction of a new single family home and related appertinances pursuant to town code 102. The applicant is uh Veto Dateo and the owner is Joseph Rizzo. And I apologize to both of you who've been very patient.

It happens. How's everyone tonight? Um I'm Nicholas Sharia with Hudson Engineering Consulting. Um appearing on behalf of Mr. D. Mateo, the applicant uh for 20 Upland Road. Um I'll just like to go over the project. Um brief summary of what uh the project entails. on why we need the uh steep slope permit. Um so the property is a 5.12 acre undeveloped lot located south side of Upland Road approximately 300 uh ft southwest intersection of Upland and Pinebrook. Um the action the proposed uh project is construction of a 5-bedroom single family residence approximately 3,300 square ft uh within driveway uh new utilities and a storm water system um to uh treat all the new and previous uh areas that we're proposing. Um the site disturbance is approximately 1.6 acres of disturbance. Um the project will uh require the removal of approximately 41 trees total. Um all these trees are within the path of construction or immediately adjacent to it. Uh we're not really we're not removing anything that is uh we deem unnecessary. Um, I'll just I just real quick um so if you uh look at my existing conditions sheet here see one um the area in question for the steep slope permit is smack dab in the middle of the property. um our access to the rear of the lot where the house will be located um runs through this area. So, uh the this area here will be um a section of the new driveway.

Um so, the total disturbance in this area is approximately 5,000 square ft. Um, we're going to try to limit that disturbance as much as we can. Again, it's just to accommodate that driveway. Uh, the rest of the, uh, disturbance on the lot is relatively steep, slope free. Um, as you can see, the, uh, the the house will be located at the back of the property as well as all the other disturbance. Um, our storm water system um is sized for the 100-year storm. U, we're also doing water quality per New York State city guideline. sorry, New York State DC guidelines. Um, our septic field and weld will be located in the back of the property as well. Um, we have done testing on the site to make sure all this works. So, um, county has witness testing. Um, the town's, um, consultant engineers has witness testing for the stormwater system. So, we're all clear there. Um, again, we had some minor comments, um, from Han, but I believe they were relatively on board with what we're proposing to do. Any questions or comments? We do have a a letter from Han Engineering with with some some work that that needs to be done, but also with the statement we need that they have no objection to are approving it and making their comments conditional. So we sorry

oh sorry yes just one thing too um the application is also before the wetlands control commission um they are un undergoing their own um uncoordinated secret review as well. So, if you do find yourself in a position for approval tonight, um just note that any conditions from WCC would need to be incorporated um at that time, but we should include that into a resolution of approval again if the board's looking to move in that direction. Are we in any way tying the hands of the wetlands commission by giving the Steve Sopes approval at this point?

I'm always hesitant to do that. No, they're they've received the same application and in fact the town engineer has been um speaking with the chair of the wellness control commission as well. So everyone is fully engaged but the applicant can feel free to elaborate. Yes. So uh we have been in front of the wetlands commission board at our last meeting in January. They actually recommended that we apply for a steep slopes permit cuz they were at the point where they're ready to make a decision. So okay, they had asked us to come before you. Okay. Um, and and you you said it's an uncoordinated review, so we would we would have to do our own seeker. Correct. Yes.

Yeah. And we we have a short form EAF and the U short form number two, which is what we usually use for steep slopes anyway. Right. So, um I would suggest that we go forward with the um ste with the secret review first of all with an eye towards giving the the permit tonight. Does that make sense? Yes.

Okay. So, let's go through the part one. Uh, anybody have any you want me to read or you got it? Uh, why don't you read it? Pardon me? Why don't you read it? My glasses aren't great right now. Okay. So, proposed single family dwelling um at 20 Upland Road. Um get down to number one is does a proposed action only involve the legislative adoption of a plan, local law, ordinance, administrative rule or regulation? No.

No. Does the proposed action require a permit, approval or funding from any other government agency?

Um yes, from from us and from the wetlands control commission. Total acreage of the proposed action 5.11 acres. Total acreage to be physically disturbed 1.63 acres. Total acreage project site and any contiguous properties owned or controlled by the applicant or sponsor 5.11 acres. So only this site. Check all land uses that occur on or adjoining or near the proposed action. Um only thing checked here is um residential

suburban. Um is the proposed action a permitted under zoning regulations? Yes. Um is the proposed action consistent with the predominant character? Well, they skipped 5B. Yeah. Oh, sorry. They left it blank, but is it consistent? It should be. Is it consistent with the Thank you, Chair. um with the adopted comprehensive plan should be yes. Should be yes. Is the proposed action consistent with the predominant character of the existing built or natural landscape? Yes.

Is the proposed action located in or does it adjoin a state CA? No. No. Will the proposed action result in a substantial increase in traffic above the present levels? No. No. Are public transportation services available at or near the site of the proposed action? No. Are any pedestrian accommodations or bicycle routes available on or near the site of the proposed action? No. Does the proposed action meet or exceed state energy code requirements? If the proposed action will exceed requirements, describe the design features and technologies. Yes. is checked but

well it's either meet or okay meet me or okay so it just meets there yep will propo um the proposed action connect um to an existing public or private water supply a private well is proposed to serve the property so it's not connecting to anything that's already there um will the proposed action connect to existing wastewater water utilities. Um, an on-site wastewater treatment system, a new one is proposed. So, the answer here would be no as well. Correct.

Yeah. Um, does the proposed site contain or is substantially contiguous to a building, archaeological site, or district which is listed on the National or State Register of Historic Places or that has been determined by the Commissioner of New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation to be eligible for listing on the state register of historic places? No.

No. Is the project site or any portion of it located in an adj or adjacent to an area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites in New York? Um, ship, thank you. Um, does any portion of the site of the proposed action or lands adjoining the proposed action contain wetlands or other water bodies regulated by a federal, state or local agency? Yes. Um, would the proposed action physically alter or encroach into an existing wetland or water body? U, the answer is no. A crossing over an on-site stream creek is proposed. A disturbance of less than 200 square ft is proposed to facilitate the crossing.

Yeah, the answer. So, the answer needs to be yes. Yeah, I'm sorry. And it is yes. I misread that. is going back to 12B the project site is located in or adjacent to an area designated sensitive. Do we know what it's Yeah. So there's um it's not a joint or property but there's some kind of um building that um triggered the ship. Was that what we talking about? Yeah. There's um a property that contains a building

um I think uh southeast of our property that triggered it. I'm not sure what the building was. Can't recall off the top of my head. I'm sorry. But your your project doesn't have any impact on No. Okay. Sorry. That's okay. No. So, does that need a note that there's no impact or we just leave it the way it is? I think we leave it the way it is.

Okay. Um, so we're up to 14, which is identify the typical habitat types that occur on or likely to be found on the project site. Check all that apply. They checked suburban. Shouldn't white be checked as well? Mhm.

Does the site um of the proposed action contain any species of animal or associated habitats listed by the state or federal governments as threatened or endangered? No.

No. Is the project site located in a 100redyear flood plane? Will the proposed action create storm water discharge either from point or non-point sources? Yes. Will the storm water discharges flow to adjacent properties? No. Will the storm water discharges be directed to an established conveyance system runoff and storm drains? If yes, briefly describe. And they they've answered no. Um runoff will be collected and conveyed via comprehensive drainage system to subsurface infiltration chambers. 18. Does the proposed action include construction or other activities that would result in the empoundment of water or other liquids i.e. a um retention pond, waste, lagoon or dam and the answer was no. Has the site of the proposed action on an um or an adjoining property been the location of an active or closed solid waste management facility? Answered no. Has the site of the proposed action or adjoining property been the subject of remediation ongoing or completed for hazardous waste? And they've answered no. And that is our Okay. So, on to part two.

Is somebody willing to read part two? Go for it. Will the proposed action create a material conflict with an adopted land use plan or zoning regulations? No. No. Will the proposed action result in a change in the use or intensity of use of land? No. Or small. Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of the existing community? No. No. Will the proposed action have an impact on the environmental characteristics that cause the establishment of a critical environmental area? No. No. Will the proposed action result in an adverse change in the existing level of traffic or affect existing infrastructure for mass transit, biking or walkway? No. Or small.

Will the proposed action cause an increase in the use of energy and fail to incorporate reasonably available conservation or renewable energy opportunities? No. No. Will the proposed action impact existing public private water supplies? No. And andor public private water wastewater treatment facilities? No.

Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of important historic, archaeological, architectural ores aesthetic resources? No. Will the proposed action result in an adverse change to natural resources such as wetlands, water bodies, groundwater, air quality, floor, or fauna? No. Will the proposed action result in an increase for the in the potential for erosion, flooding, or drainage problems? No. And will the proposed action create a hazard to environmental resources or human health? No. Therefore, I I move that we find that this action will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts. Second. All in favor? I.

All oppose. We have the we've taken care of seeker. Um, if we were to approve the steep slopes permit tonight, uh, it would be the standard conditions plus the conditions of the Jim Jim Hans memo and any conditions that the wetlands commission might um, propose. Could I have a motion? So moved.

Is there a second? Second. Any further discussion? Now, it doesn't have to come back to us unless something drastic changes. Any further discussion? All in favor? I. All opposed? You have it. Thank you for your time. Thank you so much. Have a good night. And I would entertain a motion to close the meeting. So move. Second. All in favor? I. All oppose. The meeting is a