Zoning Board - Regular Meeting

ladies and gentlemen, I'm Peter McCus, head of the zoning board. I'd like to call to order the zoning board of appeals for March 5th, 2026. On my left is Rosemary Lee and Howard Stern, and on my right is Roger Van Luburn and Meredith uh Black. Um we will be listening to your um applications tonight. Um they will be called and read read out loud at which point if you'd come to the uh podium here and present your what it is you'd like what you're asking for. Um this is a public hearing. Um I ask that whatever comments you have either on the Zoom call or here in person that you're making to us and not to the applicant. um you don't want to we're not having a dialogue between you and the applicant. It's between you and us and then at some point if it's possible I'll close the public hearing and um then we'll talk and discuss among ourselves. We still have we still may have questions for you in which case we'll ask you. Um and at that point we will try to reach a decision tonight if possible maybe not but we will try to uh tonight we have also um our attorney Lee Leawitz over here on my left and we have our building inspector along with Kim over on the right. Um with that uh let's begin with our first uh application. Michael Salem, pursuant to article 12, section 125-29C, is appealing the town of Beedford building inspector's determination rendered on 12325, which determined that Lon Hollow Farm located at 1055 Old Post Road, Beedford, designated section block and lot 74.9-1-7 on the town tax maps in the residential 4acre zoning district that maintenance of horses is an accessory use as of right pursuant to article 3 section 125-25

of the zoning ordinance in the residential 4acre zoning district. Good evening. Good evening. Thank you. Hi everyone. Good evening.

My name is Michael Salem. Thank you for your time tonight. Uh I live with my wife and three young daughters at 1075 Old Post Road. Uh we love Bedford. um know a lot of people here and are active members of the community and deeply involved in our schools and local organizations. I do not take the decision to bring this appeal lightly. I'm here because I believe the building department's determination misinterprets and fails to properly apply our zoning code, setting a precedent that could allow commercial businesses to operate without permit and without proper controls in residential neighborhoods throughout Bedford. This appeal concerns a narrow but important issue. Whether section 125-25B3 was properly interpreted and applied. Statute states on conforming lots in the R2A and R4A districts, the maintenance of horses is permitted as an accessory use subject to the conditions listed below. That sentence contains three independent requirements. First, the lot must be conforming. Second, the use must be accessory, meaning customarily incidental and subordinate to the residential use. Third, the use must comply with the listed conditions in subsection A through F. The key words here are customarily incidental. The language makes clear that accessory status is not just a label. It requires that the use remain secondary to and not displace the principal residential use. To help illustrate this structure, I prepared a simple visual aid depicting these three requirements. Could we share the screen, please?

I don't know if you guys can see that. I can I have a printed copy here. Thank you. Thank you. Under the plain language of the statute, the use must fall within the intersection of all three. My concern is that the deter that that the determination treats compliance with the listed conditions alone as sufficient effective effectively discarding the other two requirements. The determination does not independently an analyze whether the property satisfies the conforming lot requirement when in fact there are serious concerns that it does not. Nor does it analyze whether the activity remains subordinate and incidental to the residential use. Instead, it states that the maintenance of horses is permitted as of right, even if it offers countless paid lessons and operates as a bonafide commercial business, so long as the listed conditions are met. Respectfully, the interpretation collapses the accessory use limitation into dimensional conditions and ignores significant sections of the code specifically designed to regulate business activity in residential neighborhoods. If the town intended to permit horse operations as a primary or commercial use, it would have said so. Instead, it required that the use be permitted as an accessory use and only on conforming lots. Under basic principles of statutory construction, qualifying language must be given meaning. If compliance with subsections A throughF alone is sufficient, then both non-conforming lots and as an accessory use lose independent effect. Finally, while the determination relies heavily on compliance with said conditions, the record does not reflect

confirmation that those conditions are fully satisfied. To date, I have not been able to get a clear answer from the building department on whether the construction of the barn was properly permitted, has a CO, or meets the setback requirements in subsection B. If compliance with these conditions is a prerequisite, that analysis should be explicit rather than assumed. This appeal is not about opposing horses. It is about ensuring that accessory uses remain truly incidental and not commercial and that every qualifying phrase in the zoning code is given independent effect. For those reasons, I respectfully request that the board reverse the the determination or at a minimum clarify that all three statutory requirements must be independently satisfied and expressly analyzed. I hope you find this to be a reasonable request for business for a community like Bedford. Careful adherence to the structure of our zoning code is essential. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

No, that's perfect. Thank you. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair and board members. My name is Jason Krellinstein. I am Michael Salem's attorney. Um, I appreciate the opportunity to speak and I very much appreciate the courtesy and letting us both uh make a brief presentation. Uh, Michael's explained our position on the building inspector's determination and I I believe our memorandum of law makes these same points in some detail supported by what we think is appropriate precedent. So, I can keep my remarks uh brief. Um, to our thinking, the appeal poses three straightforward questions. Um, the first of these questions is does the code require the building inspector consider all of the criteria standards contained within the code under the relevant section? And that section is headed maintenance of animals under and it's a subsection under keeping of animals. These are not lightweight issues. Um maintenance of animals to my mind in plain language no more allows for riding lessons or leasing of horses or boarding of horses than maintenance of automobiles would allow those same services. So our fundamental question is can the board agree that the the words maintenance of animals cannot reasonably be expanded to provide for a forprofit business whose purpose is the selling I'm sorry the renting and leasing of horses on either an hourly or daily basis. There's no way to separate in practical terms paid riding instruction from the renting and leasing of horses. to our mind. Then the fundamental question is can we expand the phrase maintenance of animals to include a business that doesn't actually maintain animals but provides them for lease or sale on a daily or weekly or whatever

basis. Um we think the plain language of the code requires that our appeal be granted. Um we're also realistic about this. We're not here to throw mud. It's tempting to frame our appeal in some other way as an anti-horse appeal. We're not here for that at all. We're not here for credibility determinations. This is an issue of law and it's an interesting issue, but it's not a particularly complex one. As Michael pointed out, I think with a very helpful ven diagram which he came up with. Um there are actually three criteria to this consideration. The first is is the lock conforming? The second is this this is this kind of use customarily an incident customarily incident and subordinate to home ownership. I don't think it is and I'll discuss that we've set forth in the brief. And then the third criteria is if we if we manage to clear those two hurdles does it meet those six criteria in 12525? And the answer there is it doesn't either. Let's go through some of those quickly. Okay. Um, one of the ironies before I get to that, one of the ironies here and I I want to make this point briefly is that there is an exit ramp for 1055 Old Post Road. The exit ramp is called commercial home occupation. There's a decision that was made. Um, 1055 Old Post Road has declined to follow that and that's okay. That's their prerogative. Not here to throw mud. But the important point here is those kinds of decisions can't unreasonably burden my client. They can't shift the burden to my client to, for example, count cars, count horses, measure spaces. That's not actually the purpose of the code. Nor is the purpose of the code to allow um ambiguities or cranulations to overcome or subsume the real real points that are being made here. So, it's okay to make a decision to decline to pursue this as a commercial home occupation. That's anybody's prerogative. The problem is is

that decision is immediately impactful and burdensome to my client. So when we combine the fact that there are actually three criteria to this analysis and only one was looked at plus the fact that there is actually an offramp here where 1055 old post road to elected. It's difficult to support the idea that this is an accessory use within the meaning of the code. It's not that. I want to make a third point here and I said there were three. It's not this board's burden or responsibility to assay the scope or level of 1055 old post roads business. Um I think this is a really slippery slope. The slippery slope is the discussion of whether something is a business or is not a business. That's that's a very slippery slope in this case. I think the discussion is whether it's a business of sufficient intensity to um still m be maintained as an accessory use. And I think that's a slippery slope as well. We shouldn't be considering really the intensity of the operations. We should be considering whether this is a business operation and I don't think there's any dispute that it is and whether business operations of this nature can really be shoehorned into maintenance of horses because that's the language in the code unlike other parts of the codes. I don't see any ambiguity there. I know what maintenance means and I know what horses are live in Texas. Um so I I don't I don't see this as a particularly naughty problem in this context. I I think that's an important point. I I don't want that overlooked. Next part of this is let's talk about the positive and the impacts here and and the detriments to my client. Okay. Although I think it's error to go down the road of intensity of the business,

whether this business is actually of such low intensity that it qualifies as an accessory use. I think that's error and I don't think that's what the code says. I want to point out the impacts to my client and they're very immediate. Okay, 1055 Old Post Road, as you know, is accessed by a single road. It's an easement across my client's driveway, and he's a big boy. He bought the property. He accepts that there's an easement there, and that's fair. But is it immediately impactful to my client when the neighbor sets up a business right next door? Of course it is. Of course it is. That's one impact. Okay. The business by its nature requires employees or compensated staff of some kind because it is providing riding lessons to people and I don't think there's any factual dispute about that either. They're present on the property. They drive across the property. They traverse my client's property. Immediately impactful. Um at its at its most elemental stripped of all the mayor culpas 1055 Oldpost Road is providing casual horseback riding services to the public. No dispute about that either. I don't think there's a reasonable factual dis dispute about that. And the public is going to come and go and unless they're bringing their own horses, they're effectively paying for that service. But we know that commercial livery stables are prohibited. And the definition of a commercial livery stable, which is prohibited, is the leasing or renting of horses for compensation. It's inseparable from the idea of providing riding lessons. The code is helpful in this regard. It says riding lessons are permitted. It doesn't say paid riding lessons are permitted. And that distinction is meaningful because the very next section under the code says commercial livery stables are prohibited. Gets a little circular, but if you look at the definition of commercial livery stables, it says any establishment, any establishment providing horses for compensation. That's what it says.

Flatly prohibited. It's difficult to reconcile these two concepts, but it actually is not that complicated here either because the code is clear here. It doesn't say paid riding lessons are allowed. It says riding lessons are allowed. And we know that there's a prohibition on paid lessons because we just look at the next paragraph. Commercial livery stables prohibited. Um, putting these naughty issues aside, I can sum it up pretty quickly. Um, we believe the property to be non-conforming, but we don't know. There's no analysis of that and that's an inescapable element of this part of the code. Second, we believe that running a commercial horse business is not customarily incidental and subordinate to home ownership. Even in Bedford, running a horse business is not a customary incident to home ownership. It's hard to it's hard to see any other rationale there, but there's no basis to assume that each home that's owned in Bedford as a customary incident has the right to run a horse business. Third, as I've said, I don't think that these six criteria are all satisfied. And the key one and the one that's most often cited is the riding lessons one. And that's one where I think the rule is most clear. So, for these reasons, and I don't I don't think any of these points are open to factual dispute. Um, for these reasons, I think our appeal should be granted. And as a last point, um, it is not our purpose to play gotcha. We're not we're not a law enforcement authority. As I said, my client doesn't want to spend his days counting cars or determining whether one lesson is allowed or four lessons are allowed or six people are waiting for a lesson, but they only ride one at a time. That's permitted. I think a binary rule is the safest one and a binary rule is what the code calls for here. The code does not permit equin commercial operations of any intensity. It's not the intent of the code. It's not the language of the code. And in fact, as I've said, to the

extent that there is a commercial home occupation opportunity here, 1055 could avail itself of that. It is elected not to do so, and that's its prerogative. But making that choice can't act to the detriment of my client. Thank you. Thank you. Question. Not at the moment. Is there anybody else that want to speak on this application? Please.

I if I just may be heard, sir. I I don't mean to cut you off. If my understanding this nice gentleman Breny is Mr. Patansky. Um I just want to put on the record, it's not clear to me what the standing here for Mr. Patansky would be. He's not, as I understand it, a fact witness. This is an appeal of a building inspector determination sought by my client who disagrees with it and has now appealed it. So I have no objection to Mr. Patansky speaking as a member of the public or or any way you you you choose to to characterize it. But I would make the point that I I don't think he's either a fact witness. He's not um he doesn't have standing because he's not a party to the appeal. If the context is as a member of the public, great. That's how he's speaking as member of the public.

Thank you, sir. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. My name is Keith Batensky. I'm the attorney for Megan Tong and Nick Johnson who reside at 1055 Old Post Road. Uh this is the property that's subject to this appeal. This appeal centers on the property that's owned by my clients. Um I'm speaking today um as their attorney. Um and uh they are uh also appearing as members of the public and this is a public hearing. Um I was only retained on Wednesday, so I'm still getting up to speed on this case. Um but I'll do my best to address some of the issues that were presented um in the appeal. Uh Mr. Salem shares a driveway with Megan and Nick. Um he claims that they're not allowed to operate their farm in this manner. Um the memorandum submitted by Mr. Salem's attorney um which I'll get into misstates the facts and misstates and misapplies the law. Regarding the facts, unfortunately Megan and Nick cannot be here tonight. Megan had to work and Nick is caring for their two young children. They couldn't get child care in such short notice. Um, as I'll get into later, we're asking that uh at the conclusion of tonight's hearing, the board adjourn the matter and hold the public hearing open so that they can appear on April 9th in person before this board to explain um the scope of their operations and answer any questions that the board might have about their um their operations. Um Megan and Nick have also prepared an affidavit um which um they'd like me to read this evening um which clarifies some of the facts that we believe were misstated um in the appeal. So, uh, I'm just going to read it, uh, verbatim. Unfortunately, you know, like I said, we were just retained and getting up to speed here. So, we we just emailed this, um, today. Uh, it says, "We reside at the property with our two children,

Rowan, um, who's 3 years old, and Fay, who's 10 months old. Uh, Megan works full-time as the head of engineering for money management at Block. Nick's profession is a teacher. Um, and he's currently acting uh, as a full-time caregiver for Rowan and Fay. Uh we purchased our home in 2020. One of the reasons we decided to purchase the property was to join Bedford's equestrian community. We both ride as a hobby and we're teaching our daughters to ride. While the property has been historically used as a horse farm, the property had been vacant for a period of time before we purchased it and we have invested a lot of time and a great deal of money fixing it up for our family. Our property consists of approximately 17.901 acres. The property has a single family home, a barn, and paddics. The single family home dates back to 1790, and based on the aerial photographs, the barn was constructed sometime before 1976, so it's over 50 years old. Our property and several of our neighbors property has a 15t rightway over Mr. Salem's property providing ingress and egress from Old Post Road. At the time we purchased our property was already developed as a horse farm with access to the Bedford Riding Lans Association's trail network. The farm is around the corner from Coker Farm, a 100 acre horse farm and near several other horse farms, all of which are connected via BRLA's trails. We have not added any new stalls, barns, or paddics to the property. Since we moved in, we've made every attempt to be good neighbors. As such, we strive to maintain an open dialogue with both the town and our neighbors so that if there is an issue, we can address it. It is our strong desire to maintain a positive relationship with our neighbors. A letter in support of one of our closest neighbors is attached um as exhibit A. Um photographs to our farm were attached as exhibit B. Um and uh we would like to

invite the members of the zoning board of appeals to visit our humble farm. Um I I feel compelled to to just quickly read the letter from the Atinson family who um abut the um the farm in question. Um uh dear Peter and members of the zoning board of appeals, we are writing uh regarding the appeal concerning the property located at 1055 Old Post Road. My husband Brad and I reside at 1037 Old Post Road and our property directly adjoins the property at issue. As immediate neighbors, we have direct visibility into the experience with the activities occurring on this property. From the observations as adjoining neighbors, the activity at the property appears consistent with the type of smallcale horsekeeping commonly associated with residential equestrian properties in Bedford. As a horse owner and member of the Bedford Riding Lanes Association, I'm familiar with the way equestrian properties operate in Bedford and play uh uh they play in maintaining the town's rural and equestrian character. From our perspective as adjoining property owners, the presence of horses and related activity at the property has not created any meaningful disturbance or negative impact on our property or our enjoyment of our home. On the rare occasions where a minor neighbor concerns arose, we addressed them directly with the property owners. They were consistently receptive and responsive and the matters were resolved promptly and amicably. These issues were minor in nature and have not resulted in any ongoing concerns. In our experience, the property has been responsibly maintained and managed. The presence of horses on this property is consistent with the rural and equestrian character commonly associated with Bedford and with the other types of residential uses that many residents value and expect in this community. As adjoining neighbors, we would be among the most directly affected by the

activity on the property. We have not experienced any negative impact and have found that the property owners to be considerate and responsible members of the neighborhood. For these reasons, we support the building inspector's determination that the maintenance of the horses of the property constitutes an accessory use permitted within the residential for his uh zoning district. Um, okay, getting back to Megan and Nick's affidavit. Um, uh, we don't understand why our neighbor is picking on our family. We have been nothing but neighborly since we moved in. As best we can tell, he does not like the number of cars on the driveway. However, as noted above, he purchased his home subject to an unrestricted 15- foot rideaway that burdens his lot and benefits our neighbors and our property. In any event, we teach almost no lessons during the winter, and even in the spring and fall seasons, when there are lessons, there are no more than one at a time and no more than three on any given day. Contrary to the unsupported allegations in his appeal, we are not running the Kentucky Derby or hosting the America's Cup. We have three small ponies and three horses in a modest backyard barn on an oversized lot. Despite the neighbor's appeal, our attorney has assured us that we have done nothing wrong. The building inspector has also confirmed that after a thorough inspection of our property in the town's code that we are operating our farm as an accessory use in compliance with the town's code. The town uh of Bedford zoning code allows keeping of animals as an accessory use in all districts subject to section 125-25 of the zoning code. As the building inspector states and is wellreasoned five-page determination dated December 3rd, 2025, we meet all of the requirements set forth in section 125-25 of the zoning code. Um, for the zoning board of appeals convenience, here is a brief explanation of why our farm meets the requirements for keeping horses as set forth in section 125-25. One, because the property consists of nearly 18 acres, we

have far fewer horses than that which are permitted. We currently own five horses, one mini, two Welsh ponies, and two full-size horses. And we allow a friend of ours to board one horse at our property. The total number of horses at our property is six. We both ride horses and we're teaching our children to ride. Um, okay. According to the building inspector, we're in compliance with all the setbacks in section 125 of the code. We store feed uh in rodent uh we store feed in rodent proof containers. We do uh not have more than 10 horses. We offer riding instruction to no more than one pupil at a time. And we do not pay for any advertisements. Um we do not operate and we do not have any interest in operating a commercial livery stable. We have a single family home with a small backyard barn. Our neighbor seems to take issue with the fact that we um and our neighbors used the 15oot right ofway um for access to Old Post Road. We understand that our neighbor purchased this property subject to that right of way while our property may have been vacant before we purchased it. We intend to use the property um and the right of way that benefits our property and it is our legal right to do so. Our neighbor also seems to think um that we are operating a highly profitable equestrian business. As noted previously, this is not the case. We own five out of the six horses. The sixth horse belongs to a friend of ours. The riding lessons are limited to one pupil at a time. There are almost no lessons in the winter at all other times on days when there are riding lessons. There are no more than two or three lessons. Most days zero or one. We do not earn salaries from the boarding or lessons. The income is used to offset the cost of caring for the animals and maintaining the barn and paddics. The town of Bedford supports backyard barns. One of the things that attracted us to Bedford was its vibrant riding community. Since we moved in, the town of Bedford has reaffirmed its commitment to supporting farms like ours. The town

of Beford's board of trustees adopted the Bedford Together comprehensive plan on April 15th, 2025. As detailed herein, one of the short-term goals of the comprehensive plan is to support backyard barns like ours. The zoning board of appeals decision is required to conform to the town's comprehensive plan pursuant to New York State Town Law Section 272A. The town of Bedford has prioritized the preservation of backyard barns like ours. According to the town of Bedford's comprehensive plan adopted April 15th, 2025, quote, "Horses and agricultural um and agriculture share a fundamental importance in Bedford. They're both intertwined with its history and appreciated by many residents who are neither farmers nor horse owners. The town has one of the largest equestrian trail systems in the northeast with over 100 miles of interconnected walking and riding trails in uh the Bedford and Poundidge areas open to members of the Bedford Riding Lanes Association. 10 horses um uh barns and riders contribute to the um uh town's sense of place as well as local economy. The equestrian community not only supports horse related retail such as two tax stores and a feed store, but similarly bolsters local restaurants and general retail stores. That's on page 22 of the comprehensive plan. The recommendations in the comprehensive plan include the following on page 93. Quote, Bedford's questioning community is an important part of its heritage. The town should evaluate potential zoning changes to better support these uses. In particular, the restrictions on the number of horses and indoor riding rings in the R2A and R4A districts appear to be problematic among the equestrian community. Potential regulatory modifications for backyard barn uses on residential lots, such as the keeping of a limited number of livestock would be subject to controls like the minimum lot size, um required buffering, and size limits on accessory agricultural

structures. Page 128 of the comprehensive plan states as follows. Agricultural and equestrian uses are important to Bedford's heritage ongoing uh economy and need to be supported. A short-term goal is to have the town board, planning and building departments, planning and zoning boards um and equestrian advocacy groups quote foster a horsefriendly image with strategic zoning changes that better support existing and potential equestrian facilities and preserve and support active farms in Bedford. A petition supporting the community was signed by over 400 residents and presented to the town board in December of 2017. This petition stated in relevant part, "Some of the Bedford zoning laws are overly restrictive with respect to equestrian property owners legitimate lead needs such as having necessary facilities and bathrooms and was stalls and barns. We are concerned that Bedford is losing equestrian properties to adjoining municipalities which are more horsefriendly and uh as that happens we are losing an important part of the historic character of the town. Many young professionals and families are drawn to um uh towns that enable them to have horses on their property and also commute to New York City for work. And we are concerned that many of the potential residents are choosing nearby communities that are more supportive of the needs of equestrian property owners. That's on page 214 of the comprehensive plan. Um, and the neighbor's appeal should be um denied. Um, thank you for allowing me to read that affidavit. Again, they would have preferred to be here in person to communicate that to the board, but um, such is life. Um, turning quickly to the memorandum of law. Um, uh, the 14-page memorandum of law in support of Mr. Salem's appeal fails to acknowledge that the town of Bedford's code, unlike other codes, expressly allows the keeping of horses as an accessory use to a single

family dwelling in the residential 4acre district. Indeed, this is part of what makes Bedford unique um and what attracted Megan and Nick to Bedford. The town um uh of Bedford's schedule of permitted uses permits single family dwellings in the 4acre district. in the town of Bedford scheduled permitted uses for accessory uses permits barns and keeping animals um in the 4acre district. And I already went through the section 125-25 requirements and explain why they meet those criteria. So I don't need to do that again. That's really the crux of this appeal and that's why the appeal should be denied. It's really that simple. Um we don't need to go beyond that into I agree. We don't need to go beyond that into the intensity of the use. It it's really plain and simple. the the the town code is cut and dry, the comprehensive plan is cut and dry. Um there's just no case here for for an appeal and it should be denied. Uh nevertheless, I I I feel that um since a memorandum of law was submitted and we didn't get a chance to respond, it's important to just point out a few things about the um the cases that that the petitioner cited to. Um uh and we will submit a a memorandum in opposition um if if given more time to lay out what we believe the law to to be um so that we can um uh advise the board on that. Um uh Mr. Salem's memorandum of law cites to many cases. Um I read those cases. None of those cases apply to this case. Um in those cases the accessory use which included um things like travel agencies, an event venue for multi-day concerts, um a helellipad um on on top of a retail store and an automobile rental agency. Um those were not expressly permitted as accessory uses in those code uh in those codes. So the Bedford code is distinguished from those codes. Those cases don't apply here. Um

even the agricultural cases cited to in um the memorandum of law support are not applicable here. Um if you look at the Lewis family farm case, the owner in that case constructed three family homes for farm workers on an 1100 acre organic farm in agricultural district within the Aderondac Park in Essex County. um the complex statutory scheme that applied to agricultural properties like that um did allow certain accessory uses but not that one. So it's unlike the Bedford code which specifically allows the keeping of horses. So um so that um case the uh uh Lewis family farm case does not apply. Turning to Old Westbury versus all J farms, that case is also inapplicable because in that case um it dealt with a non-conforming use and and the issue was whether or not that non-conforming use had been impermissibly expanded. Here I don't think there's any question that the use itself is permitted in this district um as an accessory use. To summarize, neither the facts nor the law and the memorandum in support are persuasive and the appeal should be denied. Um, it's also important to address the 15 foot rightway that's referenced in the appeal. Suffice it to say that Mr. Salem's home butts New York State Route 121 and shares a driveway with other properties. Uh, the zoning board of appeals did not have jurisdiction over Mr. Salem's complaint relating to the use of the 15t rightway. This is a private property uh/title issue that doesn't belong before this board. Mr. Salem's attempt to address this right-of-way grievance before the zoning board simply improper. In any event, um, Mr. Salem maybe confusing the traffic on New York State Route 121 with the vehicles on the shared driveway. Um there's virtually no traffic on the shared driveway. Again, I would invite all the zoning board members to go see the property and I think you'll witness the fact that there's virtually no traffic on that driveway. It's possible that Mr. Sam's mistakenly attributing vehicles going to other homes on that

shared driveway or Amazon package deliveries or um uh other such uh vehicle use. Um, as noted in Megan and Nick's affidavit, there's minimal traffic generated by their farm. Um, okay. Similarly, the zoning board does not have the ability to amend the code to prohibit the maintenance of horses, which uh this appeal seems to indirectly seek to achieve. Um, the code is abundantly clear. As I said before, keeping horses is a permitted accessory use. Uh, in fact, the Bedford um comprehensive plan adopted in 2025 um specifically encourages that use as I mentioned previously. Um, if if the board were to grant Mr. Salem's appeal respectfully, the board would visiate the zoning code and the comprehensive plan and place many backyard barns in jeopardy in in Bedford. Clearly, that is not the result that the town board intended when it expressly included keeping horses as an accessory use in the code. uh and the town um does not want that result as evidenced by um the recommendation set forth in the comprehensive plan that was just adopted in 2025 which seeks to encourage not discourage these types of backyard barns. Um due to the import of this matter, Megan and Nick respectfully request the matter be adjourned and the public hearing held open so that it can appear at the April 9th hearing. We want to thank the board for its time and consideration and the ability to speak uh in opposition to this appeal and we respectfully request that the appeal be denied. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anybody else in the audience that want to speak on this application or on the Zoom call? Anybody on the Zoom call? I'm sorry. We have somebody on Zoom. Yeah. Are you there? Lley Salem.

Hi. Hello. Um, I am obviously Michael Salem's wife. Um, I have my video working. Um, but I just want to um chime in to mention that we are in no way against having a horse farm in this in the town of Bedford or as our neighbors. Um, we are not only super involved members of our community, but we're supportive members of the local horse community. We're members of the BRLA. I myself am extremely involved in Endeavor Therapeutic Horsemanship. Recently co-chared a huge fundraiser that raised a lot of money for horses. Um, but I would encourage any member of the board um to visit our the shared driveway, the easement that goes through our property. It in no way can support any sort of commercial activity. Um, contrary to um, our neighbors uh, lawyers comments, there's no way that we're confusing the traffic that comes up and down with traffic on 121. My husband and I both work from home. We have three young children. We have two dogs, our immediate neighbors who are also um, shared immediate neighbors of our of um, Nick and Megan Johnson. Um, also of a young child and a dog. And I also just want to note that 1055 Old Post Road has four neighbors, one of whom um wrote in apparently supporting their equin activity and two of whom chose not to. So um unfortunately that's where we are right now. But we are not against horses whatsoever. We love horses. We love Bedford. We just don't want strangers coming up and down our driveway. And um and that's sort of the issue at hand here.

Got you. Thank you. That's it. Did you want to do you mind? No, go ahead. That that was kind of very long-winded, but I just want to kind of address a couple of things. Excuse me.

I just want to reiterate what what Lonely said. We have no issue with the keeping of horses. Okay. The keeping of horses, we have no issue with that. I didn't hear anything that he mentioned around running a commercial horse farm. Um he just said keeping of horses and we have no issue with that. Um you know 1055 Old Post Road um just for some background the way this kind of all got started was they moved in. They got a horse. We loved it. We could hear it nang. It was great. Then all of a sudden the activity commercial, you know, the activity started picking up picking up. All of a sudden, I type into Google Lon Hollow Farm, and here's a full-blown website that has camps, group lessons, leasing horses, boarding horses, Reddit reviews. Okay. Um, they can call themselves a backyard barn, but if you do a quick Google search, you've got Lon Hollow Farm is a boutique equestrian stable located in beautiful Bedford, New York, just an hour from NYC's Grand Central Station by train. I mean, that that's their words, not mine. Um, we have an eclectic program that reflects love for all traditions of good horsemanship, etc., etc. um the offered services, riding lessons, riding clinics, has a riding arena, right? That is not keeping horses. That is running a commercial horse business. Um so I think that's very important distinction. And then to say that I'm picking on them, um they haven't listened to us. I've tried multiple times to reach out and say, "Let's sit down. Let's talk about this." I would be very supportive of a special use permit, you know, something which would be reasonable. Um, our kids are

playing there. We've had situations where there's literally a Range Rover tailing my kids up the driveway within 5T probably because they're late for a lesson or something like that. I mean, it's it's it's total gaslighting to think that we shouldn't have a problem with someone running a commercial business in our small neighborhood. That's all I got. Thank you. Um, Mr. Chairman, just for the record, I know uh Mr. Salem and Ly Salem personally. I've done I've worked for them on their property in the past. Um, so I just wanted to bring that to your attention.

Okay. Thank you. Um,

oh, I just forgot one more thing. I'll let you go in a second, please. Um, the only thing that I just did I just didn't get like in um there seems to be some kind of assertion that the the conditions a A through F are met. Um but if you read um the determination um it says in 125-25B B3B barns and manure storage yada yada yada. The answer to that question doesn't actually answer the question. It just says the barns and paddics were all built when we moved in. So it's just an odd answer to the question. And that's why I was just curious because if you look at a map, the barn is right on the property line. So, I'm not sure why they answered the question that way. And then the other one thing that I wanted to kind of mention because this was important even after I pointed out to the building department about the website and all the non-permitted activity that was blatantly being marketed this se and they sign they said they signed an affidavit that said they don't do group lessons. This September on the first day of school, I'm waiting with my wife, my other neighbor. It happened. There was a whole mess with the school bus, so everyone was late. We're get there at 3. We watch three cars with kids pull up, drive past us. Then the three parents leave. We're still there an hour later because there was a problem with the bus. And then an hour later, we watch those same three parents drive up and leave. So, this is clearly a group lesson that happened after they signed an affidavit saying that they're not going to give group lessons. So, that was when I kind of got scared, you know, because that's a serious thing to sign an affidavit and

then blatantly disregard it. I'm not a lawyer, but I think that's perjury. So, that scared me to be honest with you. So, I think I need to address that. So, first of all, I I think it's really important that the board members go out and see the property. I was there um yesterday. Bring boots. It's muddy. The snow's melting. Um it's rained. Um I if you're standing at Mr. Salem's property, um he's down by Old uh Post Road. That that shared driveway goes up. The topography slopes upward to the farm. He can't see the farm. So, I don't know which kids he's referring to, but Megan and Nick have two children. Um, so it could be that those children that were going to the property were going for something totally unrelated to the horses. Um, and they'll speak to that when when they're here. Um, but I just need to also address the writing instruction. So, um, there was a lot of talk about, you know, the the commercial the quote unquote commercial aspect. If you read the code um in section 125-25, I think it's B3 sub E as an elephant. It says riding instruction is permitted provided that no paid advertising is used to announce such use and provided that instruction is limited to a single pupil at a time. If you look at the date stamp on the website that was attached to the memorandum in supports from 2024, that website's been taken down. Like I said, Megan and Nick have no interest in making a problem for their neighbors. They have no interest in making problem with the town. They're a nice young family that's just looking to protect their property rights. Um they're doing everything right here. They're not paying for any advertising. They do have social media. Um it's not paid for advertising and and that's expressly you know uh the writing instructions

expressly permitted in the code. Thank you. We're here. Um, I just I just have one very quick thing because I mean he mentioned something and I don't know if they were asserting it, but I probably should have mentioned, but I'm glad that you mentioned that about the how do I know. One of our friends was one of the three people that drove up and we texted them and said, "Was that a group lesson?" And they said, "Yes." So, I would love for her say, "I'll show you the text."

Absolutely. Well, in any case, we're we're here to because um since this time, our building inspectors gone out um to take a look at the situation there. I should have mentioned at the beginning that we all have an opportunity to go look at the houses. I went and looked at the house. In fact, I ran into Mr. Salem on my way leaving. I know Rosemary was at the house. I experienced I drove up the road. So, we've been out there and you're right level. Definitely muddy. I thought I was going to get stuck. But thank God for four-wheel drive.

I have no objection uh going again because I would like to get into the property and uh more snow than I could uh pass over. Anyway, again in in any instance we so our our building inspector went out and looked at it and um came back to the conclusion that there was not a problem based on the uh code as um written in um 125-25 number three which all talks about horses. Um and so that's what we're really primarily concerned with and u staying on. Um, I think a lot of things I I'm not sure. I mean, I'd only be guessing um if I was to say that uh you know what happened before he went out and before all this came to a head has changed. I do know that in his letter that I read um he did ask them or tell let them know that they could not have a website a paid website and that was taken down. We were told um social media again I I I I did see what you had written about you know you can pay you can pay for certain words and all of that. I don't know if that's the case um and all of that but to me social media is not paid advertising. Uh but that's just my own personal opinion. Um

yeah I I I have a difference with that because that is the new form of of advertising. uh social media is is structured in such a way that that you don't take out an ad or you don't hang a piece of paper in the post office with taking take a number but there is clearly a a an intended structure of promoting uh and and and advertising one's existence. So, I think, you know, because it's come up a couple of times now, and I know uh council has for the board has made that determination in the past, but I disagree with that. I think we need to revisit that and and because we're in a new era, and a new world um with social media,

right? But I think here the instruction was we don't believe you should have it available and the instruction was to remove that to the point it wasn't it wasn't case it's all over it's all over the internet. Yeah, but understand that our code doesn't didn't provide and doesn't determine that that's an update to the code that needs to happen. Yeah. When we look at I know that's why that's why I'm bringing it up. But the the point is the applicant was asked to remove it and they took the steps that they thought they could remove it. But that rather the um they removed the website.

They removed the website. Right. So, but the underlying question that is being brought up is when we look at the use here, whether the building inspector correctly interpreted the code as it looks to the 125 uh provisions as it deals with basically recreational um keeping of horses access as accessory used versus the interpretation of commercial commercial livery. And when you look at the definition, I think for the accessory use. First, there's a couple things that contextually feed into this, I do think the comprehensive plan and the way that's looked at the horse community within Bedford is unique. I do think that that feeds into how you define how the use is interpreted and looked at. I think the gap that probably exists in the code and where the grayer is coming in for for the applicant here is that when it talks about riding lessons, it's not clear that it's a paid riding lesson versus the horse. Because I'll tell you when I take when I took riding lessons, okay, the charge was for the lesson, not for the horse. Yeah. Versus the owner actually would pay, we had people stable and you'd pay for leasing a horse there on a daily uh rate and that could be spread or you could have a full-time lease or a part-time lease of the horse itself. That's so the way the code reads right now, it's suggesting more of the leasing of the actual horse itself is the commercial delivery operation and that the riding lessons is more of the accessory use. But the gray area here is that the paid for riding lessons have the potential of creating an opportunity for a business. And I don't think it's clear in the code whether that is clearly permitted where it's a paid lesson because it's not clearly prohibited the way the code reads. If you look at the way the riding lessons are structured, that usually structured around you're paying for the instructor's time on the horse and they own the horse and they pay for the horse and you're paying for their skill as an

instructor. So, I can pay for a child's lesson. I can pay for an adult's lesson. I can also pay for a more experienced trainer to come in that gives me customized lesson and my charge is more expensive then versus a a regular trainer. And or I could rent the horse. I could lease the horse. it stays there, but I then pay for the horse's shared expenses on that horse and I have then the opportunity to ride that horse as part of my lessons and also outside of the private lessons. I think our code has a gap when it defines how paid riding lessons are covered because it talks about riding lessons within the context of an accessory use which we all agree within the community. We accept there is an accessory use of forces uh within the certain acreage if you present pursuiting of certain acreage and mind you your interpretation of a conforming lot when I read the code and look at it my first breath of that is actually whether the co the uh lot size is appropriate to the horses. The secondary question then is when you look at the horse use itself and how many horses you have on the site whether they are being administered properly through the structures. But the conforming lot question is whether your overall lot allows for the count of horses that you have on the site. And I that's I think typically how we traditionally interpret it. And then the second thing that comes in with the horse farms is whether the structures on site conform with code and the setback requirements and the like. But there are two different questions at hand. So when I look at the lot conforming within this provision, it's dealing to the acreage question. The secondary question will then be the the buildings and structures are they in conformance with code and setback and otherwise or are they pre-existing non-conforming and that's that's a distinct other question and we have had situations where we have a conforming lot but then the structures don't meet the setback requirements for one reason or another and we require the applicant not to remove the horses. We require them to move the structures uh to a different location if it's not a pre-existing non-conforming or they get

a variance for those particular things. So, um I I understand though also where the applicant has concerns and and brought this forward because of the growing use of the driveway by third parties. And uh admittedly, when you have a horse farm and if you have people that are working full-time and this is their recreation, they probably are hiring other persons to come and go from the site to care for the horses because the amount of training that they need. So that that already intensifies the use of a of a driveway. But then certainly um adding on that uh small business which is not clearly articulated again I think in the code which is where the gray area is um it it further intensifies that use of an easement and certainly can be challenging. So I can understand where the concern comes in. Uh my first question and it's not part of the appeal would have been uh what is my easement allowing me to do and whether what the the access that's going over is conforming with that private right. Uh but I appreciate the applicant's interest in understanding where the code lies. Uh I don't think I I kind of agree with the building inspector here in that I don't think the code prohibits the paid riding lessons provided that it's meeting the parameters. The town though we regularly talk to the town board about changes to town code and issues that need to be evaluated and I think this is fairly question that should be asked because we did have not a horse issue. We had another question about a ancillary uh use of an accessory structure and the categorization of what at what breath uh does it rise to commercialization of a use. And so that may be something that needs some definition in the zoning code to lend clarity to everyone um operationally whether it's not just um a stable situation in horses but other home I'm going to say occupations not necessarily businesses but occupations

where they shift from being recreational to then being a business construct and where that breach occurs uh in that transition. So Meredith, would you would you include boarding as an acceptable use for this for this situation? It's the commercial uh it depends on the breadth of the boarding. So I think probably the the customary or incidental is not may not be uncommon to have one or two but where you're suddenly driving really an income significant income stream from it and you would shift over to something where you would qualify under the New York State agricultural code as a business for horse operations then I think that shift occurs and then it becomes into it's not just ancillary to to the

but in this case there's I I don't think that one is offensive. I I don't think that that constitutes a business in and of itself.

Well, my observations are, you know, for anyone including a small uh operation uh home that, you know, uh in accordance with what we're talking about, any uh individuals having horses one or two or more are going to have certain amount of care responsibilities which will cause people to be coming to the property and that is whether you have one horse or five or or more. There would be food deliveries. I think you you mentioned you know manure removal, blacksmithing, vets. So that's all part and parcel I think of having a horse operation whether it be small or big. So those things are kind of embedded, you know, in what we're talking about. The other observation I have is that neither you or the uh family want a commercial operation. And the and the last observation is that you have a sa you're concerned about a safety problem on your your road. because of the traffic and you know where that's stemming from we really don't know but but in in accordance with having any horses there's a certain amount of traffic that's going to come naturally but I do think the safety issue on your road is of concern and where that comes from we don't really really know you know we don't have any count um my question was also that you know in the winter months at least of what we witnessed uh it didn't seem possible that you would have any writing for lessons. I mean, because everything is completely covered in in snow. So, I didn't I don't think that's a practice unless you can access the horses and bring the cars in to be able to give lessons in in the in the winter in terms of the seasonal access. So, I would expect I'm I'm guessing that winter months would have fewer riders uh or you know months when it's inaccessible. So there's maybe a part of the year where the there'll be more intense traffic in the summer and the fall perhaps like that, but I think it's seasonal and I don't think we really

able to get accounting for the traffic other than that what's required for the care of the horses and the and the residents. But I don't think the traffic flows into the code interpretation. No, like they're two different that's that's a different aspect of of use and a question of an overuse of an easement and whether it's in conformance. Well, it's just a concern. The concern and the concern is unique, but it does it goes to the question of whether there's a commercialization of operations or not. Yes. And I'm trying to include the normal care of horses in as part of the traffic pattern. Yeah. But that's the point is that's not your point is that's not commercialization. That would be the normal normal state of of fair. But again, traffic doesn't play into the code interpretation.

Okay. Sorry. I I I I would think that we'd need to see the easement itself to see if there are restrictions or general approval to give us an idea as to what the parties intended as well. And my other question which is really not relevant but relevant for me is do the riding lanes go through either or both of the properties?

Yes. And if so, that gives a whole another level of intent of the parties when they w- with regard to the property. And last but not least, by way of an analogy, just for discussion purposes, if 1055 decided they wanted to do the same thing that therapeutic riding does, which is give lessons to assist people, and I can speak on it because I was a volunteer there, that would increase the number of people coming in and out of the driveway. There would be no monetary benefit unless therapeutic gets paid for the services from the state or the federal government. But that would certainly increase the number of people going up and down and would the number of people going up and down have an effect on the easement.

So the subject though is not the easements. This is not a dispute over um whether the the uh fundamentally um the it's not the use of the property is an overuse question or an over access question or a permitting question. It's interpretation of a code provision in how you look at it. So you you don't pull the easement into an interpretation of the code. The coast is based on the verbiage and the building inspector's interpretation of that. And if you look at the verbiage, you have a the debate is whether this rises to a commercial livery. So the first question that was asked whether the use is a permitted accessory use in this particular for the in the zone and then within the lot. I think everyone can agree zoning allows for it in this zone and I think when you look at the lot itself uh it has the acreage and it is properly zoned to support horses as an accepted accessory use. So that's kind of the first hurdle we get past. and the applicant was challenged and that saying that it's not a proper accessory use and it's not incidental in a way to the residential use and so that that is why it precludes that horse use. So that's the the first hurdle. Then the second thing was whether you have all the conditions set forth as a permitted accessory use then for horses come to light. I think the applicant raised a fair question about the locations of buildings and structures. It wasn't aptly addressed. We can leave it open on that one because that goes to the structure question and is a part of the condition of the of the code of whether it's permitted. So we could ask leave that open ask the not the the owner of the farm to come back and address essentially the location of the houses to to seek whether it's conformance with the uh secondary conditions that are part of that code provision. And then when you look at that there was if you say okay well I think they apply they all of these things allow them to have horses there and they're allowed to have riding lessons because the code does allow riding lessons. The question is whether paid riding and lessons converted to a

commercial delivery operation. And that is where is there's no there I don't think that that is clear from the code because the code references the leasing of a horse for an hour a day or like and you can actually lease and license a horse for those period of time separate and apart from a riding lesson. So I think what the real question is whether as a town we would view riding paid for riding lessons as becoming commercial operation. And that's where I think the code is still ambiguous. I think today the benefit goes in favor of the owner of 1055 in that offering riding lessons uh at a cost. There's nothing that's precluding it under the code as it's written today. Uh I so I don't I don't think that you can say that the code precludes that that use. I don't think it's a commercial delivery operation. They are not leasing out at least and I may be wrong. if we find up this contracts or otherwise they're leasing out the horses uh and have these licensing agreement for the horses. That's that's a secondary part, but it wasn't presented in the facts on on that particular part. They did advertise for that type of service and I I think that was among their things they listed, but they pulled down the advertising and so it's it's a gray area, but I'm gonna go back to the fact the code is ambiguous on the paid riding list and that's uh I can understand the concern that's being raised about an escalation of commercial operations in a residential zone when that's not the intent of an accessory use. But I think our code is is lacking that clarity.

Can I make one point? Yes, go ahead. I really appreciate that. Could you step up the Yeah, I really appreciate your comments. Um I just want to make a distinction between paid riding lessons because I think you made a really good point which you said um when they own the horse and then the the the compensation is going for the instruction, right? So if I own a horse y

and I give a lesson, okay, you could say that the compensation is going for the lesson. But if you have a third party instructor coming in, right, what is actually happening is the owner of the horse is taking compensation from the instructor effectively. Right. So if someone pays $100 for a riding lesson to a third party instructor, right? Right. And then the owner of the horse gets 50 and the instructor gets 50. the owner of the horse and the owner of 1055 is not giving a lesson.

I I agree and I'm going to go back to my point of that I think the code does not have the clarity we need in it. So I I I agree with you there because there is a difference from the homeowner themselves or owner of the horse giving the lesson

also differentiate that in the in the agon. So I but I think as as a the town no quite frankly I don't think I've in my time on the ZBA no one has raised this particular question on the commercialization other than what you what typically has happened or we've seen happen is that they go and they apply into the act district to become a agricultural site and then they uh avoid this question at hand. And so the town hasn't had to deal with the question of paid riding lessons where the payment doesn't go to the homeowner but is going to a separate third party who's being paid to come on site and give lessons. Uh and that still though is not it is not clear in the code that that is problematic because it says you're allowed to have allow for riding lessons without the distinction of who's giving the riding lessons. So, um, it I agree that the intent overall is not to have a commercialization of this of the site. However, I think the problem is the town hasn't defined where that line of commercialization is. And we just ran we ran into this recently with another ancillary use. You may get up and ask your question.

Okay. I agree with Mr. Batansky on a key point. It is simple. Mhm. Whatever else is this? Is this keeping of animals? Is this maintaining animals? That's what the code allows. That's all the code allows. Is this the keeping of animals? Is this the maintenance of horses? They're simple words. It's more than that. It's a lot more than that.

And there's one other thing I want to say just because those were very thoughtful comments on the conforming law piece. It's really hard to read this and just ignore the word on conforming lots because if you read below that's where it says the acreage requirements. So if if you there's no other way to read non-conforming lots and we do have legally non-conforming lots in Bedford, right? So there's no real other way to read this. Well, we also have lots that don't have the acreage requisite to support horses. Yeah, but that would be handled below,

right? that would be handled in a right so you wouldn't need to say on conforming lots because it would be caught by a right well it's all it's all of the qualifiers that what would be an example of a lot which is noncon is is what would be an example of a lot threeacre lot a threeacre lot parking lot right it's 4 acre district minimum 4 acre size this lots almost 18. No, no, no. But I'm just saying that the words on conforming

but the words on conforming have to mean something, right? So if it if it just meant you meant you met if on conforming only meant that you met the acreage requirements below, then you wouldn't need the words on conforming, right? Those that that those words would not be additive to the statute, right? Um you wouldn't need it. I'm I'm I'm going to I'm going to go with that and process the

Yeah, you just wouldn't you wouldn't need those words. And then that um the last thing I just want to say is that the determination from the building department specifically said, and this is kind of where I really have a problem, that no matter how many paid lessons you give in a day, right? So they didn't say you can incidentally give paid lessons. The determination said you could give 12 lessons a day. You could be making, you know, that's why we're not talking about what they're doing. We're talking about the determination. You could be making half a million dollars a year under that determination and running a full scale and that's just opening the door for abuse.

And and that's where I'm saying I don't think the code is clear. I appreciate it allows for riding lessons. It allows for one rider at a time. The way the code reads in the building inspector looked at it is says look and and I agree with this the it's that you could have one writer an hour if you want over 12 days and okay but your point is that leads to commercialization because then you can simply monetize the use of it. I appre I fully appreciate what you're pointing out and I'm going to fall back on the problem that I have is I don't think the code lends that distinguishing is clearly distinguishing at this juncture. Okay. So, I I appreciate what you're saying and the distinction that is being asked for, but that's not an interpretation of the words unless we want to rewrite how that law reads and what it does. And I have council here today, so he can also chime in at any point in time, too.

We're going to wait here.

I'm trying to let you all you're the board. I'm not on the board, but the one thing I did want to comment on was um and then I want to let council speak as well. the there are some items here that were discussed that I want to make sure your board understands um aren't within the ambit of review here. So we are here strictly on the interpretation that the building inspector offered and your review of that interpretation. Is it right? Is it wrong? Do you want to modify it? Affirm it. But other issues such as Mr. Stern, you brought up what trails are they going on? Um the we've heard a lot about the driveway and the easement. Those are really private to private property disputes that are not within here. So, um, whether the road is being the driveway is being damaged or heavily trafficked, that's really not within the review here. The review is strictly all about this is the use. Does it does did the building inspector get it right in interpreting how the use is applied here to the code? Um, or didn't he?

Uh, thank you, council. Um, and thanks again to the board for for um hearing these arguments this evening. Um, two brief points. one is um that the the the board's being tasked with interpreting the zoning code. We believe that the zoning code clearly allows this um use. I think the applicant in some ways is grasping its straws here and reading requirements into the code that just simply aren't there. Um to the extent that there's any ambiguity in the code, it has to be interpreted in favor of the private property owner, private property rights um um trumping um zoning restrictions. Thank you. So,

I would agree with you, Meredith. Um, unfortunately, the I mean, I I um this could all be written a lot better. Um and un you know and and not just this but we've seen other requests and and issues before us where um the if something is not specifically said. It still doesn't mean that what's not specifically said isn't part of the law.

Right. Um, and I'm thinking in primarily in this one where we um you couldn't have a you couldn't have a um a cottage or a an apartment above a garage in a 1acre zone, but it never says in our code you can't have it in a 1acre zone. It says you can only have it in a two, right, or above zone, which means that you can't have it. And that therefore becomes sort of an unwritten law.

And I think that's what is is is unfortunately sort of exists in this. I mean the word for example the boarding of 10 or more horses on any property requires a special permit which then unsaid means that if you have less than that then you can board them without a special permit. Um now it doesn't say anywhere in there that you can board horses but you know in this case there they have one friend's horse. Um, I don't think and and the only reason I bring that up is because under commercial livery, if you look at it in a dictionary or whatever, it talks about boarding of horses. Um, and but this is just among friends. So I do I do think the applicant's point I think the applicant's point about writing instruction is is an interesting one in not the writing instruction itself but who provides the writing instruction and what the intent is. So where the homeowner is providing the writing instruct instruction or bringing in a writing instructor for their own personal children or family, right? That that we would see it as, you know, customary and being being the homeowner's use of the property for accessory purposes. But where you're paying someone to come onto the site and and then give lessons to third parties, you know, I would start to look at and question whether that is really the accessory use that we're talking about and was intended here. Um because that does start to beg the question of getting getting paid not for your services and

your family or your use of the horses which is really what's intended but it is then structuring it more as a business construct which is is not the intent of of the code is we want to support horse farms. We want to support families, but there are ways to to do that. And we tried to structure it as, you know, one piece of that is the number of horses switches over to a special permit.

But I I could I I kind of look at it like if I So I'm a a lawyer by trade if you don't know that already. Okay. Lawyer by trade. All right. But um I'm actually also a trans musician. So there are have been times in over the course of my life where on the side I've given private lessons intermittently to different students or different occasions. It's not a full-time business. It would never be something I would file taxes for. It is not something I would have registered for. But I was I was accepting some payment for a a skill I had and I was giving. Right? But if when I hire my children's piano teacher, all right, I'm paying her for a service. Whether she comes to my house and gives it to my students, comes to my house, uses my piano, gives it to a third party, I am now kind of venturing e edging over that line of it being a recreational use and a support and an ancillary, you know, maybe a side income to me personally to now bolstering really a more of a business structure of sorts. and it starts to beg the question of what the intent of the code is here. So, while it talks about riding lessons, and that's why I asked him to give me the code um to understand how it's structured, it just says riding lessons. But I think part of what I would would want you to look into, Lee, is a little bit of that question of like if it's not the homeowner now of the property that is taking or receiving the benefit of those lessons, but has a third party giving them in and administering that, is that something that's crossing that line into a commercial type of use? Again, our code isn't well worded on that front, but I think that's a fair assertion and question to ask. And I also don't think think that that's offensive to the horse community because for them at large too if they're giving and receiving lessons because it's their skills uh and they have less than 10 horses. I'm looking at that that's their they chose to buy maybe the wife or husband that's what

their skill set is and they're running that in that side business. But that's what what we want to allow in the horse community. Um, I know that when I've gone to farms, I have both the owner that may be giving lessons, but they also may be hiring a trainer to give secondary lessons. There's time when only they operate, there's times when the other person comes in. That's more of a business contract. They have to enter into a contract with that particular person to come and provide lessons on site and then there's an arrangement in place that's starting to escalate the level of use. I'm not quite sure that that's what we want to delve into as an accessor allow when we consider an accessory use is where we start paying the third party to provide the service and then we're getting a cut cut of that that feels more uncomfortable to me.

Let me offer a quick insight on that. So um we're talk we keep I just want to point out what the code actually says. So we're we keep saying riding lessons. The provision of the code says writing instruction is permitted provided that no paid advertising is used to announce such use and provided that instruction is limited to a single pupil at a time. So the section dealing with writing instruction is the same section that's discussing paid advertising. So the code is contemplating there's going to be some activity there. And the way that they're trying to minimize potentially that commercial activities is by saying, "Well, you can give riding instruction, but you shouldn't have paid advertising for that riding instruction." So Meredith, to your point, if the question is, are we instructing our own kids who we live there or are we having others come in? There does seem to be a contemplation here that others will be coming in because they're saying, well, you can't advertise it, but you can do it. And I also want to point out that this that same provision comes from the general keeping of animals excess for use. Horses are one of them, but there are other animals that are discussed in that section, including chickens and goats. In those, there are other commercial uses that are discussed, such as the sale of eggs in the case of hens. So, this accessory use section and the keeping of animals and when it's delineated by animal. There's obviously some commercial use that is contemplated in allowing people to keep animals on their homes. And then there are ways that the code then tries to keep it from becoming too intense. for example, by saying you can't use paid advertising,

right? So,

but just on that quickly because I I I just want to just emphasize that distinction because I think it's a really good one. Like if I have a piano and I'm a piano teacher and I have students coming and I I hand out flyers, right, and I have students coming to my house, that's one thing. If I have an instructor and I'm renting out my space to an instructor, which is equivalent of having an instructor come to your house and teach lessons, that's something completely different. And that is caught by compensation for horses on an hourly basis because there's no way to say that the instructor is not paying the owner of the horse for the horse for that hour. That is what's actually happening funably. Um, and I would also note to you Meredith that um, you know, the guidelines for review of local laws affecting commercial horse boarding from New York State, they do make a distinction between different types of horse businesses and a commercial horse boarding operation, right? Yada yada yada. um riding and training activities that are directly related to and incidental to the boarding of raising horses, including riding lessons for person who own or have long-term lease or where they're boarding the horse at the farm. And then they have another category which is commercial ecquin operation or a riding academy. That's where you know so so those are two clear distinctions um that I think are important. Thank you.

Thank you.

I think we committed that we would reserve for the next meeting to have the owners um come in. I think we should also have private conversation with our council so we can get a better interpretation of the law for ourselves in order to render a decision. Yes. So, I think council needs to issue us an opinion other than uh a private

private meeting because a private meeting we we can go into executive discussion for contemplation litigation but that's not what this is. This is an interpretation. So, I think though we can ask council to provide us an opinion. Um I'm curious again as to note the distinguishing between payment for third parties of uh regarding the use. Um it I'm curious if there's any intent or overlap in terms of the state provisioning dealing with the agricultural uh oper you know horse riding and stabling operations and like um I don't and then the last thing is for the applicant not the owner of 1055 um we just need to better understand the clarity of the structures in conformance with the subprovision of our 125. Um, so I don't know if you have a survey or if you have measurements or the like, but if you could direct that to your client, that would be very helpful and then submit that to the building inspector. Yes, L.

That is under investigation as far as the allegation looking into that. Yeah. Yeah. So that is under um and some of some of that too then will be the history of the uh pre uh permitting and like that certain structure would be when it was built. Mhm. U as I really don't want to get into it, but from what was given even by Mr. Sal survey uh time period um in that time period the codes were different than they are now. So it was less so I'll leave it at that.

Y still under investigation. But just on that, um, regardless of, um, what what the setbacks were at the time it was built, you still you still have a, um, you lose grandfathering after uh, 6 months of non-use. So, it's would have to meet the setback requirements today if you wanted to. It's no longer legally non-conforming if it stopped being used for a six-month period. So there's there's there's two different elements of pre when you deal wait there's two issues of pre-existing non-conform when you talk about it pre-existing non-conforming as to location or structure remains in place and carries forward unless the structure itself is destroyed by more than 50% and then not rebuilt within the time period. the question about use uh carries doesn't carry for if you have a variance for that use it carries forward indefinitely and then I don't think that there was a question of whether a use here was uh was prohibited or or otherwise

permitted structure in that use yeah so it doesn't if if this if the structure is allowed on the site the structure that's the physical structure then you have the overall uses on a property within the zoning that's permitted. So if we're saying the accessory uh use as for horses is permitted, the barn can be used for horses and writing. What what is Can I give you a perfect example would be if you had a commercial property in a residential zoning district and it was not being used for over 6 months, then you would have to bring it back to a use that is perhaped in in that zoning district. But the commercial structure,

it's yeah, a a barn structure, a shed structure, any of those types are allowed in a residential zone district. So that that's that doesn't pertain to I mean you have to look I mean you have to talk to council on that because you have to what go back what I guess maybe what I'm not clearly understanding is what is your concern about use that you're saying it doesn't well the concern is that if it doesn't meet the requirements of A through F right then it doesn't meet those requirements how do you get around Right. So, I don't think that we've gone through demonstrating it doesn't comply yet at this point.

And if it if it doesn't comply, it doesn't mean that it couldn't be brought up to compliance because the accessory general accessory use is permitted. And then the actual when you actually bring the horses in, you would say A through F are they does it meet all those requirements, right? Which if if it doesn't meet the 50 foot

set if they move the so if the structure is pre-existing non-conforming then we would say the structure is compliant with code because it's under a pre-existing grandfather and pre-existing non-conforming as to the structure location. If though we have we have situations where we have for example movable structures that we've dealt with for example it's not if it's not seeded and it's a lean two shed we've told them you have to go and move that and bring it in conformance or you have to get a variance. So those are the when they look at it and and they say okay well these structures are in conformance it doesn't mean that it can't be cured uh to remedy that fact. We'll have to look at all the facts once we have them. And then if they come before the board, they

Yeah, the overriding use is allowed in the zone. That's the first piece. And then A through F has then the implementation of it on site. They have to follow A through F, right? They can always cure

through these elements through a variance or through moving the structure. Okay. Or it could be pre-existing non-conforming. We don't know those parameters. Everything Meredith said is correct. Um, but I'll add there really isn't at this time on this interpretation an issue of pre-existing non-conforming either as it relates to structures or the use. I don't think that the property owner is asserting that their use is pre-existing non-conforming. So, their use has to comply with the accessory use section. And so, the building inspector's interpretation is that it does. And your decision is does it or doesn't it? I don't I don't think that the owner is asserting that they can get away with not having to comply with those five elements in in the accessory use section.

Okay. And you're still investigating? Yeah. Yes. Yeah. Okay. So, continue to public hearing. We'll keep public hearing stays open and we'll continue this over then to April 9th. Um, I would ask to the extent that parties have things they want to submit, you submit them, uh, no later than when we want them and when does council want. So, I would also say if so, if you want me to draft a memo, we need a motion for that as well. So, it's a motion to adjourn, keep the public hearing open. Um, I would suggest that we give it's I guess we have 30 days. So perhaps we can give them 14 to get any materials and that'll give me the remaining 14 or so 16 days to to review them and then generate a memo.

Okay. Maybe a few days before the meeting. Sounds good. I'm sorry. Can you include time for a rebuttal if the owner is going to submit papers and had the opportunity to do so before that opportunity? anything. So, so you can you can so everybody can submit stuff within 14 days. Hold on, let me finish. I understand what your point is. Okay. Anyone can submit materials after that. I would say no later than 48 hours prior to the meeting. Okay. Okay. And then it's an open public hearing. If you still want to submit stuff at the meeting because it wasn't fully covered, you can still bring it at that time. No, you're good.

Yeah, there's no drop dead Meredith. we may be handicapping legal counsel because he needs to see everybody's papers so that he can then make a determination but give us an opinion letter. So there has to be some sort of not we we shouldn't handicap our person to a 48 hour time period. No, he's going to keep responding as he needs to. But I'm just saying the papers here generally submitted the the team the parties at play here understand the general submission idea of what you're supposed to do. There will there may be more stuff that comes up at a public hearing. That is always permitted. All right, council. If you need to revise your opinion after you get more information at the public hearing, we will then go down that road. So, I think that's fine

and we can get a general imp uh you know report from Jim. Yes. Yeah. I'm comfortable with as long as I have the general the the formal submissions within 14 days, then I'll have the remaining 14 to to generate my opinion. I think you've I think you've got already in hand the you know as of today with the with the other response from or the affidavit from the um from 1055. Is there anything you're lacking that you would want to see on the doc? I would like to see I mean we only have one side of the story really in terms of write in writing. So I would like to see the memo from uh the property owner um and then No, you don't need a a lease or anything or nothing. No. Did you want formal motions on?

Yes. Why don't we do a motion for everything we just discussed? The adjournment to keep in the public hearing. Motion to adjourn for the next meeting, keeping the public hearing open and following the submission uh dates that we've requested for additional materials. I'll second. Yeah. Okay. Howard second. All in favor? Yes. Yes. Yes. And then a motion to um ask our counselor to write an opinion. I don't think that needs to be a motion. We need a motion for that. You need a motion from us if you're making the request. You can make the request. I Yeah, please. Request made. Thank you. Exactly.

All right. We're joined on that until the next meeting. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you. All right. Um, okay. For the for the record, all you lovely people, I need to recuse myself since my husband works for the company that's coming before us.

Have fun. You're recusing yourself. I like fries. I was talking at the same time. Where's our coral? All right. I want to air a grievance. Hey, Mr. Single. Oh, this is I have to read your We're not starting yet. We're waiting for a point. Okay, go right ahead. All right. I want an air of grievance and a song with your What would that be? Having grown up on Bedford Center Road and having two parents that were terrible cooks and were professionals and never ever ever wanted to cook at home. We ate out every single night of the week at Mapamondo.

What? At Mapamondo. And one of the places we used to go was to Rex. That was the place in all. What was it called? Rags. Rags. like rags to riches. Yeah. And it was where the building was torn down. That was the most popular restaurant in all of for many, many years. Nice to see you. Even more so than Minos over on 121 in Veteran Village. Oh, much more so. Yeah. Top Fields, whatever it's called. No, it's not. Well, now it's the bedroom post. But I'm sure I'll be talking to you. Well, I didn't know it as rags. I knew it is Mapamando for Mapamando first and then

it was like a burger. It was where everyone went and it's it's I'm not grieving or or weird sad to see it drove by to I agree. It's weird not to see it. Mhm. You're losing everybody, Peter. Yeah, we're going to have to not keeping a good uh I don't know where they are. I don't know. I didn't call a recess. You know, you're didn't hit your mark. I think mother nature. Another one. Huh? Speak Speaking of Nos, is the the Nenos in Bedford Hills still there? Still there? Yeah. Yeah. Still there. Currently. Currently. It's a tough spot. Sure. Yeah. We gave we gave We gave We gave permission for a hamburger place, you know, across the street.

Across the street. Uh just up from the delicatess. Oh, really? You know, you know where the barber shop is? Yeah. Yeah. In that other side of that building is going to be a burger place. Okay. It was Ryan, right? Ryan. Yes. Hey, Van. I've heard by yourself. I know. That's not nice to see you. Are you kidding? Yeah. They got married now. So, yeah. Not yet. I I keep hoping. That's me. I got a throw now. Oh, they don't. That's great.

They have an Where do you where do you stay? Doesn't matter. You have to have access or what? I haven't seen anything. The lot is non-conforming in that it doesn't have frontage and accessibly improve publication. I don't know. I don't know what's on Stone Hill. I want to see retiring. It's like a flag off Stone Hill. I don't know. Just trying to figure out what Yeah. I don't know what's

flag, but maybe they have a 288 bearings already. I don't know. I don't know. Um, I don't know what the topography is, so I don't know why they don't use the stone.

I know. I was actually Oh, they're quick with us. I did. I forwarded a letter. Yes. From a neighbor. The purported neighbor. Is it old? Is it

Yeah, I know.

Yeah. seems to sell something. I did think of that myself, but I don't know what's out on Well, if that's not where they get their access. No, you're definitely right.

But you know what? I think and all this what they're going to do with the horse. And what you think you're looking under the microscope's got backseat drivingwhere.

Where did Howard Howard go? No, I'm g because I want to go home. Do you need a stick?

Look at this. I printed out all the stuff, right? And I'm going through my stuff. Okay. Where's my memory? Okay. Wait a wait a second. Page three. Page five. I didn't realize that. I apologize. I appreciate you brought us Whitney. I hope you brought us coffee. What? I hope you brought coffees for everybody. Yeah, I wish. Once you once would you give me my my approval tonight. Good to see you. I apologize. I Meredith was outside so I thought we were taking a break. I didn't realize she had reclus.

All right. So DP142 LLC is seeking a variance of article 5 section 125-50 and article 11 of the zoning ordinance for 777 Bedford Road, Bedford Hills designated section block and lot 71.12-2-41 in the roadside business zoning district to permit the construction of a restaurant and site improvements where the building coverage results in 24.3% where the existing building coverage is 23.9% and where 20% is the maximum building coverage permitted in the roadside business zoning district and where the building and parking area coverage results in 85.1% where the existing building and parking coverage is 85.6% 6% and where the maximum permitted parking coverage is 80% in the roadside business zoning district and to permit a freestanding sign totaling 88.3 square ft of sign signage area where 25 square ft of signage area is permitted and where directional signs resulting in a total sign area of signs S1 and two is 3.23 23 square ft each and S3 double-sided and S4 is 2.71 square ft each where 2 ft is per is the maximum permitted area of a directional sign in the roadside business zoning district.

Good evening, Mr. Singleton. Good evening everybody. Um you left one part out though. I just want to clarify the drive-thru that will be for horses. No more horses. I'll count on that. As long as a horse can go through. As long as it's a permitted uh Good evening everybody. Whitney Singleton from Singleton Davis and Singleton on behalf of the applicant.

Um as what what I'd like to do, there's a couple of different moving variances here. Essentially, we're reducing the development coverage on the property from what's existing. Still not compliant with zoning, but it's very close. We're bringing it down and bring and putting in more landscaping, more greenery. We're also uh taking down a building, depending on how you define building, that's either 680 square ft uh or 2200 square ft, but either way, it's an eyesore. We're taking that down and replacing it with something in between that at 1500 square ft. This is all on existing imperous surface. It's really we're taking down an eyesore, replacing it with a smaller

Well, that's just who said that. What's that?

Um, so what we're trying to do is make something that's a little bit more aesthetically pleasing, more functional, and will be nicely landscaped along the North Bedford Road corridor. And toward that end, we need uh depending on interpretation, we need a we need a building coverage variance, slight building coverage variance, and we need a slight development coverage variance, and we need a variance for the size of the sign. Um with regard to the uh building inspector pointed out that the proposed signs which are in the vicinity of 3.1 square feet for wayfinding or directional signage um we were not aware that that was a limitation. He caught it and um we've conferred with Starbucks management and we are going to try to not pursue that as a variance. We think that we can conform with the villages I'm sorry with the town's code regarding the directional signage and so we will not be seeking a variance for that this evening nor was it noticed. So we definitely won't be. Um but in any event, so we have the we have the dimensional requirements of building and development coverage and the sign and rather than talk about it in the abstract or or get into the to the weeds of is it 2.8% 8% or is it 3.1%. Uh I think what I'd rather do is have our engineer Pete Katzone show you what's being proposed because I'm a big believer in uh you know showing it to you in in a picture or in a diagram or something like that. So this is Pete Katzone.

Hi Peter Katzone. Catzone Engineering. I just want to take you through um the site plans very quickly. And um I can't do that. Uh so this is the um existing site and uh the area that we're talking about is this area here. That's where the bank is. And uh the the Starbucks is Can you make that any bigger for that? So the bank is the old drive-in bank.

Yeah, it's the old one. So our building, if you're just looking at the building footprint, our building's around 2,000 square ft. If you're just looking at the building itself, it's uh the existing bank is 600 and change. But if you count all the canopies over the drive-thru and the connecting, it were slightly smaller. Either way, the variance is the same.

Uh but um I'm going to go to the next page, which is a little bit bigger and easier to see. So uh the bank is coming down and we are uh proposing a new Starbucks here. And um uh uh again, as far as the um development coverage, we're going to be uh slightly less than what's there now. So that's an improvement. And again, uh the building coverage, you know, it depends on the interpretation, but the the variance is the same. Um there are uh a series of signs. There is I'll start on norm there just showing the word. It's not working. The Starbucks is going to be on the same spot lot same location. So you you would be able

This is where you're going to see the enhanced landscape in your green space and people will drive through. Is that right? So So you could come in through uh Bedford Road and make this right in and that puts you into this um a drive-th through queue um and then pick up your order at this location and exit. And when you exit, you could either exit north, you know, uh, north or south. Yeah. Well, no, no. No, just south. South. Just south. Or you can exit through 333. Or you could exit through Norm. So, uh, there's a lot of options there. Um, we are Or you can go around the empty mall that they also own. What's that?

Or you can go around the empty mall that they also own right across the street. Oh. Where Shopright used to be. Right. Right. Oh, with that they used to they used to um

again as Whitney um indicated we are providing a series of uh you know intense landscaping here and actually these plans have been uh revised. Uh it's an evolving project. So, uh, we have a landscape architect on board now, which has really beefed this area up a lot. But under the existing conditions, this parking is right against the sidewalk. So, it is going to provide a nicer uh buffer, nicer uh site layout than what's there. Now, um, if you come in uh going south, uh, there'll be this sign here, which which we're requesting a variance for. Uh there's also going to be a wayfinding sign here that brings you in a a sign here for the drive-thru. Um and then coming in this way, there'll be a sign at this corner. This is again directional. And then um a sign for the drive-thru and then there's an exit thank you sign. Um so that's pretty much the the scale of the project. Um I could take you through what the existing signs look like. This is the existing sign. It is located

that goes away. That goes away. Yes, that is located right around this area. Yeah. And uh

it's it's around um 15 ft maximum height. It's around 25 square feet. And um I I just want to mention before I show you the the other sign is that um 777 is now connected to 333 and we're looking at this as kind of a campus feel and um you know which is why we're asking for this this sign. Uh, and this is the sign at 333. It's It's going to mimic this sign. Uh, the

Let me bring that up. That's a big Yeah, we we have a picture of it here. Yeah. Just want to bring up. So, you're removing the existing sign and you're keeping the names of all the stores on the sign you're you're replacing. No, no, no. We're removing the existing sign and we're putting the existing sign is the small the Kohl's and Vision World and we're going to be replacing it with this sign that's on the on the uh board right now. Uh the significance is if you look we not only have Kohl's but we also have ShopRite where you know again this is a a campus uh feel so we want to

but if people turn in there you can't get over to shop right can you connect those two sites are currently connected so people can go in that or the one with the light into the parking lot right so you could come in through dorm which is one car less Bford road but your sign will have all of these stores on the It'll have everything that's shown there. Uh including Starbucks, including including Okay. Cole, Shopight, Vision World, right? Vision World, the Speed uh uh place. I'm sorry, for forgot my glasses, so I'm having trouble reading. Grand Prix. Grand Prix.

I mean, theoretically, you can go from the uh Grand Prix at the southern end of the site all the way onto the Salt Mill Parkway without getting on to North Bedford Road. Oh, okay. So, what we're trying to do and what one of the importances of of the sign is not is is not only to identify the retailer or the service that's on the site, but also to get cars off the road and for selfish reasons onto our client site so that so that they uh are patronizing themselves. The the other benefit is the light that that gets you into the big campus always has a backup. Yes. And so you might alleviate some traffic at the main light there and have people go in instead an alternate way.

Yep. And so and they'll come to your campus. Yeah. And we also thought we also thought it was appropriate to match the sign. I think it would be inappropriate to have the sign at 333 like this and the sign in front of Kohl's same sign like that. We're we're simply matching exactly what's there with diff with different identifying uh retailers. Will 333 mimic the 777 sign except for the numbers? Hold on one second. Yes. Yeah, they just hadist. Now the landscaping. This is the 333 sign. Okay. It's it's basically other than the panels being a different tenant. It's the same number. Exactly.

Okay. And you said you were planning for landscaping, which there are, you know, especially on that 117 route, the landscaping is we have the landscape plan. We're going to show you the landscape plan. We have the landscape plan that was submitted and we also have a landscape plan that was uh submitted later to the planning board which is much more uh uh robust. So I'll um

the focal point with the planning just and you can get your own impact uh you know takeaway from planning board members if you want but the the feedback that we're basically getting from the planning board is that they like everything but they would really like to see a land landscape corridor along 117. Yes, there's a lot. So that's been that's been a very uh big focus for us in dealing with the planning board. Right. And I know there is a a town meeting going on about signage on 117 that we're they're looking at it by the store owners. You know what's what consistency should be should be done. So

yeah, what's interesting about this site and I mentioned it in my memo to your board and principal points letter to your board. And I do think it's important um when you drive up and down 117, whether you're at Honda, Acura, McDonald's, Car Washes, what, wherever you're at, you see a sign in the road, and then you look, the building's right there, and there's a very big sign on the building. When you go by the Kohl's parcel, you're over 500 ft away from the building. Mhm.

And for whatever reason, when you look down there, it is a sea of concrete. I get that. And there's tons of extra parking on that site. There always has been no no matter who was there, Caldors, Kohl's, whoever. But what's happened was they require the town required them to put in landscaping and various islands within the parking lot. And those trees are now really big and mature. And while it may not be much of an obstruction right now, in the spring and the summer and and the fall, your ability to see what's down there is very very limited. So the signage is important not only to identify who's there and but also for wayfinding purposes and and we think that you know the sign's critical to our application and and that's why we're willing to uh do anything that the planning board wants relative to uh to landscaping and making the front attractive.

Have you figured out what to do about the seagulls? Senator McDonald, I I don't know if we're allowed to disd Westchester County, are we? I don't know why they're there. I mean, you know, I mean, I'm I'm not joking. There there are usually several hundred seagulls in that one parking lot for some reason. Yeah. Do you have an explanation? Uh Jay Black, he he in addition to addressing that, maybe he can shower more often. He's our environmentalist.

Yes. So, with the seagulls and we recognize like the the problem that it's been for us over the past couple years and uh you if you're actually over at 333 at night, you may actually see periodically a green laser passing over. We actually employed a new strategy a couple years ago as a deterrent to keep them off of the roof and try to limit how much that they're uh they're nesting and resting in the in those areas. And it's actually been a huge improvement on that front. And separate apart, I just want to bring up one other thing relative to the landscaping that we talked about and part this whole concept of campus. The opportunity to interconnect both 333 and 777 via this interconnector within the properties has really helped energize the connection between them. So yes, the signage is is another piece whether that's at the north entrance of 333, ultimately the south entrance of 333 in a couple years when we finish out our resolution requirements there and now over at 777. But as part of the landscaping, aside from it being an important facet along North Bedford Road, it was something that we're also introducing as a binding point for the overall campus feel. So, um, aside from what's happening and being proposed as part of this application, we're looking at it more broadly as a consistent theme across the board to bring it all together. And actually, we have another, um, application before planning board, not for variance purposes, it with uh, planning board, but we're also using the same designer to propose uh, landscaping for that site at 793 North Bedford Road. So, there's a consistent theme happening across the board.

Great. I'm happy if it's not an inflatable creature that's blowing in the wind with the arms. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to speak on this application or on the Zoom call? If you're on the Zoom call, please raise your hand. No hands. No hands. Well, before you before you do that, I do want to address I I don't want to minimize it, but there was uh one comment from the public in writing from a miss from Stuart over. He says he's an adjoining contiguous property owner and he's not. He's not right.

I already went looking for him. Couldn't find him. I had to have I had to have Rosemary, not Rosemary, Kim pull him pull him up on the um on the he's back here. He's way back. Um and he doesn't even have a driveway into the flag lot yet. Um as far as No, he has frontage on Green Lane, but his frontage is on Green Lane. It's but it's a little itty bitty section of Green Lane that doesn't have even have an address. Yes. Even though it's never been developed. Yeah. But but without without trying to uh I don't want to disparage the person who's him. No, there there's one part.

What's he behind or what's in front of him? He's behind the sound concepts. Sound concepts. It's that brick build. It's that wood dark wood building across the street from Collagium Pontiac or whatever the Pontiac dealership is now. The rug store. Oh, okay. Yeah. There. They were Collian Pontiac when they were in the Bronx 40 years ago. Oh, you mean they were Calgian Pontiac when they were in Bedford? The fine carpets. But they come in off of because I'm seeing it here on the thing. It's a flag left. They come in off of Green Lane. But but regardless of his sensitivities and concerns and everything else, we've taken a look at that and nothing we're doing is going to be anything higher or larger than what's already there. It's just not going to be rusted.

Yeah. Yeah. All right. Um I I do agree with him that we are bringing a um a change to the character of the neighborhood. Where I disagree is whether or not it's positive or negative. I think that this is going to be an improvement for the community, for the neighborhood, and for the town overall. It's going to re, you know, freshen up something in an economy where not many people are refreshing their properties. Yeah. Well, that property is pretty much an eyes saw the way it is now. The concrete, you know, chases. It It was to be fair, it was never attractive. Um, could I have a motion to close the public hearing? I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. Have a second.

I'll second. All those in favor? I. Public hearing is closed. Any more discussion? Um, okay. I almost feel like I'm back in Bokeh with with your campus, but it sounds like it'll be nicer than what's there now.

I'll make a motion to um to approve to grant the variances as requested in the public notice. Um, doing so we believe would not create or will create a positive to you Whitney's concern uh positive desirable change in the character of the neighborhood but with no detriment to the nearby properties. Uh the benefits sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by any other means feasible to the applicant and we wouldn't want it to be because it's removing of basically a building that hasn't been used in seven or eight years now and is an eyesore. Uh variance requested we don't believe is substantial. In fact, it's bringing down the size of what is there now, at least in terms of overall coverage um on the impervious surface that's there. The variance requested will not result in any adverse physical or environmental effects on the neighborhood or community. The alleged difficulty is not self is self-created. Um but it's only one of the factors to be considered by the board in making its decision and is not determinative. If granted, the applicant shall uses use their best efforts to ensure that a building permit is issued within one year of the board's approval of this variance and then diligently pursue such to uh such construction to completion. The applicant shall submit a certified asbuilt survey including building and impervious coverage calculations to the building prior department to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The variance is granted in accordance with the plans submitted to the board dated

September 25th, 2025 and filed February 12th, 2026. Okay. And um I would add as a condition that we we too um are very concerned about the um the um um landscaping um and so want you to follow whatever the we'll leave that in the hands of the planning board to determine what landscaping will be done. But that we would also put that in as a condition. So I'm sorry I didn't hear everything that you said, Peter, but you were referencing the submission dates or documents that we submitted. Yeah. If you could just put like a little catch all on the end of that as may be modified by the planning board because you know if we change our landscaping plan and all of a sudden

Yeah. You don't have to come back. It's not exactly well it's not the same plans that were referenced in our application. Gotcha. And also the um we also have the the plans for the um for the sign is dated 113 2026. Okay. Do we clarify what he asked for before or mentioned in the beginning which is that there is a you do need a variance for signage or you we need we need a variance for our monument sign. I don't know exactly what that calls it's. It's generally referred to as a monument sign

but we decided and I don't know if Al was in the room when we said this. We we conferred with Starbucks and we've determined that and we didn't even ask for the variance. Al picked it up on his own. Um we've determined that uh that Starbucks will do everything they can to come into compliance with the with the wayfinding or directional signage. Gotcha. In your in your code. Are you happy with that, Kim? Yes. So we we will not be issuing a variance for directional signs. removing those. Nothing greater than 100 square feet. So So those design I was gonna say, wait a minute, I think you're less than that. It's too late to be joking with me.

So you're going to submit those that those revised signage plans. They're going to be in compliance saying yes. Yes. Okay. Well, Walter needed it for the record. Yeah. Okay. I'm good with that. I'll second that. Roger seconds. And Mr. Stern? Yes. Miss Lee? Yes, Mr. Van Lover. Yes, Mr. Malis. Yes, you got it. Thank you. Good luck with the rest of your morning. Want my first Want my first cup of coffee? Want my first cup of coffee? Mr. Black, would you like the plans? No. If you take them, you won't need them. If you leave them, you're going to need them for something else. Maybe save a tree. What happened to you? Go. What happened to you?

You broke it. You you take take all the plans, but you really want to get My sister also broke her ankle in the on the ice. You really want to get her angry narrative back in here. Take I normally burn these, but I got to sell my Absolutely. That way we can save a tree. Yeah, if you said feel better. Thank you, too. Anybody we can sue? Just joking. Keep going. Oh, yeah. We have to sue the boss. He's getting the generation Z's would now be on unemployment. Getting the employee of the month. It's your husband. We got to wait for Meredith. Jay, can you send Meredith back in? He didn't hear me.

Hey Jay, one second. So we have to bring in fifth and that's this time.

Okay. Ryan and Andrea Rico are seeking a variance of article 5 section 125-50 of the zoning ordinance for 20 stone paddic place Bedford section block and lot 84.17-1-18.2 on the town tax maps in the residential 4acre zoning district to permit the construction of a swimming pool where the building coverage results in 3.26% where the existing building coverage is 2.86% 86% and where 3% is the maximum building coverage permitted and where the impervious surface coverage results in 80 I'm sorry 8.21% where the existing imperous surface coverage is 6.16% and where 8% is the maximum impervious surface coverage permitted in the residential 4 acres zoning district.

How you doing? Good evening everybody. Matt Deronda from Bibbo Associates and on behalf of the applicant good to see you all. Um, here with me tonight is Andrea Ruko. Applicants are Andrea and Ryan Ruko. Property is located at 20 Stone Paddic Place as Kim mentioned. This is you.

Um, Route 122 about a half uh, excuse me, Route 22 about a half a mile south of intersection with 172 just north of Fox Lane is Stone Paddic Place. This is our parcel here. This subject uh property was part of a uh two lot subdivision done in 2007. Uh the applicants purchased it in 2020, bought the home shortly after, finished it about two years ago. Um the application tonight is to construct a inground swimming pool associated patio pool equipment which would result in overages of the building coverage and impervious coverage for the site roughly both of approximately 400 square feet. So, not substantial numbers.

So, it's not really squared off on the back patio or the stairs going down. It's a little It's more a little towards the driveway. Yes. Gotcha. Okay. Your your mother wasn't quite sure and it was and there was a lot of snow and I'm sure you might have staked it, but Yeah. Yeah. There was staking there, but she said it was pretty brutal. She was very nice to let us in. The snow was tough. She let me in, too. Was that Mr. Maruko that I spoke to on the camera. Yes. Okay, that's correct. I've been seeing the church, you know, but I had pressed the button and I I spoke with somebody that was Yes. who saw me, but I didn't see them. So, you all had a chance to visit the property? Yes.

Yes. Okay. Um, so, as you all know, this the pool is located in what's currently a lawn area, a previously disturbed area when they built the house. Uh when this lot was subdivided in 2007, there was consideration of a pool site essentially right here, which is actually Yeah. It had to cut into the hill. Yeah. It's actually on a steep slope. Yeah. Um not a good idea. Not sure if you guys can see this, but it's a it's a wooded area and actually on top of a steep slope. So, you know, the the pool was located in the previously disturbed area, the lawn area, which was flatter. Would there be any environmentally sensitive issues or impacts of steep slopes with with the location? Um, are you familiar with Mimi Thompson on Fox Lane?

I am not. Okay. Just wondering if that's her house down below. We did have one letter that was that that was that was the letter was from. Yeah. I actually did not see that. Okay. Um, she was just she she couldn't be here tonight. She just was concerned about some screening and stuff that's going to go in on the other side of the pool. So that but I believe I mean from what you I could see there and where's Fox Lane Road? So Fox Lane is here. Fox this is Fox. Okay. So and because you're right the only house I could see is the one where you have the Grey House down below right here. Peter I sent her a copy of the plans and there's Okay. So there's this prop there's Okay. There's land right here too. Yeah.

Yeah. They sent her a copy of the plans and when she looked at them, she said, "Oh, okay, great. They do already have screening." Gotcha. Yeah. Yeah. And where it's located, that's quite a distance away. Yeah. I think they indicated that we're not taking any trees down for the pool. No, there are no trees. And in fact, we're we're planting um good there's a significant and robust landscape plan for screening for actually what would really be the most affected neighbor, which is the property just to the north. Um as a part of the construction of the house there was screening evergreens planted here that any impacts to we will remain uh keep the same number of trees relocate and replant and also add.

So there was a name there was a landscape plan submitted. Yeah. No. And there's a buffer right there too. So the orientation is slightly different but north. This is when you were on the property. The uh the house over the hill up the hill. Yep. So, the intention is again to provide some screening here to minimize any visual impacts to the most affected neighbors to the north. Um the properties on Fox Lane. There's substantial amount of existing trees and screening between these properties. So, this pool will not be visible to them. Um are those helicopters? Where's that? Oh, the tree symbols.

Yeah. No. No. The Is that what that is? Trees over there. Those are Mercedes symbols. It looks like a Mercedes. Don't they look like them? These? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. What is trees? Is that just a tree? Those are trees. Okay. They look like Mercedes. Yeah. I thought if you have it flaunted, it's okay. I thought it was a drone taken. No. No. No. No. No helicopters. No drones. We're not keeping any horses here or anything like that. There you go. Okay. Um, no signs. No horses. No signs. No horses. Yeah.

Um, yeah, you know, one thing I did want to point out, which we didn't submit, I brought an aerial photograph here just to this is a aerial shot of Stone Paddic Place just to demonstrate that this proposed pool is is really not out of character with the neighborhood at all. In fact, the majority of the homes on Stone Paddic Place have outdoor pool and patio areas of similar size. Um, homes at this price point, it's really a uh sort of essential to have a pool.

Yeah. So that's basically the gist of the application. Um again the the overages to building coverage and impervious coverage are relatively minor. Um there is some substantial screening provided to minimize any visual impacts to the most effective neighbor. Um and uh that's about it. Is there anyone in the audience or on the Zoom call that wanted to speak on this uh application? I don't have anybody on Zoom. Seeing no one, can I have a motion to close public hearing? I will make it. All those in favor? I I public hearings closed. Any more discussion or

questions? I'm not concerned with the size of the but given that we're going over on lot coverage. Sorry. There's a lot of it's on. You're on. You're on. Yeah. Sorry.

Uh I'm not concerned with the idea of a pool and I don't think this is an overly large pool, but this is a lot of decking. Patty's pous imperous area going in here and going over, you know, where we're already permitted. And we have worked with other applicants in terms of reducing what that looks like around a pool. Um because it does have other impact besides just a visual aesthetic. It does have environmental the more coverage issues we have. So I I'd like to see that addressed or or commented on by the applicant in some way. Um that's really my my own concern. And I appreciate the landscaping that's there and the buffers in the neighborhood. And I do appreciate that the neighbors uh in the community largely have a pool. So I'm I'm not offended by that. And I understand that the pool is what will in part put us over with building coverage. But I do have concerns about this the amount of impervious uh paving that we're putting in now and pavers like here.

So the question is whether you can get down to get get rid of 21%. So we would have to remove I believe that's roughly 370 square exceeding by roughly 370 square feet which is about the size of this pool. Um that pool's roughly 18 by 35. How big is the pool? The pool is 18 by 18 by 36 I believe. 18 by35. Um just for a visual perspective. Um is that one of those lap pool?

How did you ch how did you choose that size? It was really we have two small kids and I think our focus is sacrificing the shallow end and not having such a deep end or you know deep deep end uh and also where the septic is on our property and where disturbance are as well. We have a you know very specific space that we're able to build on and so that was how we felt it. I will also note we're uh we have engaged the the pool designer himself um on the project yet we need the variance in place. So you know I I only ask because you're asking for all sorts of increased price on this. I mean a standard pool is 40 by is 20 by 40.

So that's part of that is the limits of disturbance that we have on the back end. I do want to have um you know some patio to be able to provide right on the pool. So I would rather extend that than the zone. Gotcha. What do you want to bring it down? I do want to bring it down. Usually the applicant looks at what what works for them and looking at how to do that. So propane cool equipment. Okay. So the patio is rural. It's connecting sliding doors in the back or something.

So we have our deck which is existing. You may have seen it. Um really runs across the back house and so um the pool is essentially Oh, could you come up? Can you come up and Yeah, thank you. I'm sorry. I'm getting notices from back. There's a microphone right here. Yeah, perfect. Um so, can you repeat the question actually? Uh just uh on the patio on the on the patio. I'm assuming I can't that you have sliding doors that are going to take you out to the to the pool and that and that this section here uh connects you know to the you know very closely to the to the pool.

Correct. Yeah. So so you can exit the sliding doors and go onto the broader deck and then down those middle stairs to the right is where the pool will be. Okay. In that patio, right? And then you have to the left um we'll have a butterfly garden that we're putting in which is the that circular any suggestions of where to get rid of 325 square ft of

I think the challenge that I have is so I have an eight-month-old and a 4 and a halfyear-old and just I didn't grow up with a pool but my my in-laws have one and so we have a lot of experience going to their pool with the the little kids and I do want space and room to play around the pool. Um we're very you know safety cautious. We have a fence around the pool itself. Um, and so I just want some space so people aren't, you know, nervous to fall in and things like that. It's not that I'm opposed to having like an area around the pool, but there are different ways to approach

decking and paving and the area here and all that you've laid out is an impervious surface. So, um, you know, and and it's it's a lot if you really think about you want the connections to the house and the additional walkways to all have that impervious surface on top of the decking around the pool. We've worked and seen where other applicants have pulled back the decking and made it a grass, you know, that there's grass there or they looked at doing different versions of impervious papers to leave some control there um but not have the grass necess to the pool. So, I think there may be other potential strategies to meet what you're looking for here. Still get some level of a of an impervious surface directly around the around the pool, but also then have a usable area um for the kids to play on. And likewise, um, I'd ask the applicant to explore that, uh, and and and consider what that might look like because this is you're already at what you have for um, for impervious surface, you're exceeding what's permitted. Usually what we look at is if there are other areas to pull back on, there really aren't. When you look at the the site overall, you're already kind of at the m max, and this is really pushing you over with it. So, um it's not that I'm expecting you to take everything away, but I'd ask you to consider what you could do to reduce that and still meet your functional need.

Sure. Yeah, we will absolutely look into that. One other note just on the patio is um so what you see here I've obviously worked in conjunction with Billow and our landscape architect um and we sort of laid out you know really it's enough room for the chairs that we'll have in place to kind of go run along the side of the pool and then in the back of the pool a small table um so we can eat and maybe a grill. I mean, it's really not a massive pool patio area when you look at the broader scope of the backyard. I do note your point on that though and um we'll most certainly look into what else we can do there.

I don't think your your pool and your your patio around the pool are are the issue with so that that with a little care and design you can still get what you want and you wouldn't even have to ask for that variance. We believe I don't think there's an issue with the the building uh that

no because that goes back to the pool and the pad equipment and and again I don't think that that's generally out of conformance what we've seen for uses and I'm not offended by that for for building again when we talked about the visual and the pool impact in the past it doesn't have the same visual aesthetic that a physical structure has. So while it does get calculated as part of building coverage, um to me, you've done screening to impact the views, you're going to have to equipment or otherwise and the pool itself. Uh so that aspect is mitigated, which is largely what you're concerned with when you're talking about building coverage, but we still come back to lot coverage and impervious surface. And I and I think there's a way you can achieve what you want to achieve um by reducing what that variance is or even eliminating it with some a little bit more care around that aspect. There's a lot of a lot of hardscape when you add the driveway, the black top of the driveway. It's a lot of hard hardcape going on here. I'm trying to understand the frame the fence is going around the entire patio and pool area.

Correct. And then the children will come out the sliding doors. They won't be able to get it into the pool. That is correct. I do go down those little stairs to get So I I want to make sure that they cannot access the pool without an adult. So that is why we did it that way. Okay. So, I mean, some of the other things that I said is we've seen people do um stone pavers instead because that does eliminate some of the covers. Not all of it certainly. We've seen people do permeable pavers that have a different type of approach. We've seen people do a gravel uh that doesn't have a macadem underneath. So, there's again there's other ways to get the the patio idea and a little bit of a hardcape without it kind of breaching that impervious surface. Sure. So

pvious pavers actually was a question I had and I didn't know if that was an interpretation we needed from the building department because that did come up when we first discussed this with landscape architect. There are a number of porous pavers out there that really look like essentially blue stone. um which would obviously satisfy our applicants, you know, intents from zero. But I I don't know if that would be considered under the town zoning code as impervious coverage or lock coverage or not. Oh, this is the question I'm waiting for. I'll It's not really It's even when you when you deal with stone dust and things like that, they it compacts. Yeah, it depends.

Right. So, you still I mean, we have done it in the past when it was a uh black top. it would, you know, totally uh impervious. But uh yeah, you I mean, if you did the grass pavers, you'd still take out the concrete part of the uh you know, and take that into your calculations. Um where would you want to use on on the site?

It it depends. It depends on I think on sometimes on the product and on the design of that that product. So not all materials are the same when you look at the overall permanent ability and whatnot. So that's part of the component. It's not that we can say definitively if you bring in a permanent paper, it will definitely be considered an impervious surface. The building inspector would have to look at it and understand what that deals with. Like I said, we've dealt with people who have done uh Macinum driveways, but they have a liner underneath and that totally messes up the ability being an impervious surface. So, uh, or the manufacturer specs should get you some information about the per the

Well, we I mean, we certainly can get plenty of specifications, but the point I'm trying to make is essentially you could walk on this patio and it would be pvious and porous from the standpoint of runoff, but it would from it would it appear 100% credit. It's it's

so so I don't know if there's a if there's a metric that the town would apply to. I would say it's up to the inspector to evaluate the material that's being presented and opine whether you know if he weighs in and says look from what his understanding is of the material and operational he would say yeah it's I would deem it you know more akin to a pvious surface we can look at it is some materials though like they market themselves as permeable and we actually do the research on how they function and what happens is they break down they're not actually they will not maintain that level of um permeability that you really are looking for when we're talking about an impervious surface. So I we don't have a material in front of us to weigh. I suggest you take up that conversation with the inspector. I think we as a board have been open to the concept of permeable pavers so long as they actually work, which is the idea that they're porous and you actually get the drainage through them because that's the big concern with impervious. But all materials are not created equally, right? Um, and there's times when certain applications are appropriate, not which is why instead of saying we're going to redesign this for you and tell you what to do. I, you know, as a board we're usually like, well, I'm not leaning towards your variance here. I suggest on this aspect of it, I suggest you take a look at it and evaluate and weigh, you know, what the options are and come back. It it doesn't mean a yes. It doesn't mean a no, but it's direction um to you to consider. Go on, Alan. You want to say no, I'll speak to you. Oh, okay. Anyone else on the board feel differently or similar?

No, I I totally agree. There's an opportunity here to reduce your coverage by that percent uh that we were talking about. I think there's I think there's some opportunity where we can reduce some of the hardcape and walkways. Um get that closer to conforming or if possible eliminate that impervious uh yeah, even maybe the area by closer to the driveway. Yes, that would be good because you'd absorb more more uh water flow that wouldn't go down the driveway. This this area right here that could turn into Yeah, maybe maybe this walkway and this area could be

you know the driveways the black top driveways a lot of that runs straight down that curve that of the driveway. So the issue with the black top driveway um why I don't really want to look at eliminating that or creating any part of that it's really steep and actually when they built this there was some erosion issues. Um if you all had a chance to visit there's a tremendous amount of runoff that comes from the upstream properties and actually there's a there's a storm water management practice here that collects runoff from Stone Paddic Place that discharges through. So part of this application is to mitigate that by adding some drainage and taking this runoff and I see directing it that way. And also the steepness of the grade is why we would

Yeah. And the more you can absorb at the top of the hill, the less we'll go that on the butterfly garden. Nice job. I can't take it any her bench. Where are you putting the ponies? Oh, exactly. They're further back here. Thank you. We'll show you that one. Thank you. We'll have no signs less than 300 square. No, we No, we closed the public hearing. We just keep this open because we have to come back on that design element for that hearing. Okay. I think we can uh we'll have to discuss that with Doug, but I think there's opportunity to reduce. Can you come back on the 9th? Uh yeah. Yeah. Thank you.

Yeah. If you have any um I had some resources done. I did some work on the impervious pavers for a while because they they were of interest and they're kind of vague in our in our as you said in the use in terms of how they work and how much. So, um I I will look at my file and if you have some list of contractors maybe let him know and we'll take a look you know come back. Sure. I mean as you're aware there's a number of products out there that they make now. Um, and from the surface they appear to be like any other blue stone or or patio pa, but they some they're marketed as per Yes. Yeah. Some have the whole subre,

but I I think there's opportunity here that we can we can reduce that by 300. So, we'll see on the 9th. Great. And the submission deadline for the 9th for new materials. I'm I'm less worried about you guys. Kim, well, talk about the pvious impervious stuff with all in advance, please. I'd like his sign off before you present it to us. But what? Yeah. As I just need it's already we're not renoticing or anything. So, um a week before or five days before. Oh, so it's going down, not up. So, it Yeah. Okay. It's actually coming into conformity if you can. Right. Right. I I if I could pull that off on you. I got you.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you for your time. Is that is that supposed to have been checked off? Okay. Guyiser Pratt is seeking a variance of article 8 section 125-79.1

for 333 Beford Center Road Beford Hills designated as 72.12-2-4 on the town tax in the residential 4acre zoning district to permit the conversion of a loft into a cottage in a pre-existing accessory structure being used as garage and home office where the total floor area to be occupied as a cottage within the accessory structure did not exist prior to 1989 in the adoption of the town code for cottages and where the cottage results in 70 754 square ft of gross floor area and where the principal residence is 2,792 square ft and the cottage shall not exceed 25% or 698 square ft of the total floor area of the principal residence in the residential 4acre zoning district.

Good evening everyone. I'm Darren Mercer. I'm the architect for the Fiser Pratt uh project. Uh to give you a little background on this, um the project was started two years ago and uh my client moved from uh Guardill Road to this location and uh we we had to get uh extensive approvals from the health department to get the septic up to speed for the number of bedrooms we need and that took time and so we finally got that after we finished the project in with keeping in mind to be going for this variance at some point. So that's why we're kind of behind a bit. Um, one of the things that I have to bring up is that the way I calculated which is on my plans the um the area of the of the proposed ADU or cottage unit above the garage is I have the first floor area at 2810 and then the second floor is an additional amount of square footage which is 974. So my calculations had us at It's being less than 25% at 19%. So, I think I'm correct. I'm not sure if that's not the way it's calculated, but I assumed it was the gross area of the house to compare to the size of the

of the uh the cottage. I'm sorry, I didn't need to mention um there was a problem with the noticing. We we were a day late. Um, yeah, due due to the snow, I was a day late because I couldn't get to the well, the post office wasn't open and also my notary wasn't open, so I went on the next day. So, I'm I'm a day late if that's something I have to come back for. I'm a dollar short, too. No, those uh I mailed them out as also as registered mail. So, that was expensive. But you know, if they'll proceed with your Yeah. So the the only risk that you have where there's not timely notice is that another if you were approved someone would have a basis to challenge the appro approval.

Sure. Okay. So that that's the risk the applicant can choose to proceed with that risk as long as they're aware that that's essentially what it is. It would be a technical uh fault. So they wouldn't have to have take issue with the application as processed but more so that the notice was improper. Would it be able to present and then if necessary return for the next meeting? Um uh with with the notice redone uh we can we can keep the meeting open and do renotice if the applicant so desires it just mean I think we should probably do that just to to avoid any problem in the future probably. I I agree. Okay. And then was there a fee that's charged for the notice? I don't think we have any is there a fee for the notice? There would be another fee to

Okay. So, in this instance, you have to since it was your fault, sometimes we have to do it if there's an error on our side. But since it's your fault, you you're Oh, would I need to send out the mailings again to the neighbors? Yes. Yeah, but regular post office. Yeah, I won't do that again. It won't snow this time. I'm sorry. It won't snow this. I just did another one in in Lewisboro and that had to be registered mail return receipt. That was very expensive. Yeah. Um so, um just to back up. So that's the way I was calculating. We need we need your interpretation on this.

So I had both the first and the second floor the gross area of the house and then so using my calculations the size of the ADU um at 754 and adding the first and second floor together I come with 19% not 25%. Okay. I believe that's correct but if I'm misinterpreting something I'm No, I think it was just that you cannot exceed 25%. So you you're so I would if I'm not including the second floor then I would be exceeding 25%. So I want to make that that clear.

Um uh so this is the floor plan of the basically it's a 10acre lot and so could you tell me there are three buildings on the property. The first one is the one No, there's only two buildings. So Okay. What was the one in the middle? Uh, well, there's a pool over here. This is the main house. There was there previously was a threecar garage that was taken down but rebuilt on the same footprint and then the garage is moved over here and then the the cottage is up above. Okay. I thought I saw like a small building in between, but maybe it was attached.

Uh, no. There's there's no other except for the pool. There's no other other building on the project except for the house. The main house and the detached garage. The main house. The attached. Yeah. So, um this is this is showing the the second floor loft area of the um of the the cottage. So, it has a one large space here with a a kitchen and then this is the bedroom and the bathroom and then the staircase goes down. I'm sure some people went to visit the property like a junior one in Manhattan. That's how big that upstairs,

right? Well, that's the person that lives in theirs is their um their full-time house manager. Gee is about 82 years old. He's still an active trader. So, he works out of y the house. So, they wanted to have her have a place that was private so that she didn't have to live in the same house as them. And that's what drove the whole Very. Yes. So, I I know I want I'm sure the others did. I I had a a wonderful walk through. Got to see everything.

Great. Great. So, the project is complete. Uh we have a sea of the house. We still have to get make an adjustment to get a change in that for this this uh area upstairs. Um I don't have any other things to say. I guess I will be back next month. Um so I guess there's at this point we would just um keep the if we have any questions I guess that would be of course you mean the project is complete in terms of the building is finished. We built it. Oh you built it. So I built it with as of right for you know having for the size of it the height of the building setbacks coverage is all you know all confined zone

it's the building with the two dogs on Bedford center road there two three three uh 333 uh center roads finger another interesting driveway get up there like three trucks in there the varian the variance was full in the apartment and it doesn't look like 10 acres They never do back there because it's all wetlands. Yeah. A lot of you don't even see. There is an eagle on the property though, which is nice. There's a There's an eagle on the other side. I think we saw him. I don't know. It's on the other side of the of the pond. We He came to see our chickens one day. Oh, he did. Oh, yes. That's his grandson was thrilled. I mean, it was amazing.

I I see a lot of red hawks, but I haven't seen them eat. No. No. They would normally be on water now in this time of the year unless they saw a chicken. No, I saw I saw it and I was like like we got the binoculars out. We actually got a Had a nest on top of a tree. So Kennedy used to do on 172. Used to walk through people's property. Oh, that's right. He had falcons, I think. Falcons. Yeah. Yeah. He would just walk through people's property while he was burning. Oh, free range. So that's a wetland back here in between. Oh yeah. And that's why we had to get we had to that was also delineated on the um on the site plan. So we cleared the wetlands buffer. So

that had to be coordinated with the the work on the septic system to upgrade it to an additional bedroom. Um pretty place. Meredith

I I think you're you're in better condition maybe what the notice reflects and that was a little bit of your point. Your total area you have for the main house is 37.84. That was a calculation you gave first and second. We actually are at 19%. So the 19% puts us uh under the it was between 400 and 800 for a c the accessory cottage can be permitted. So that's where we are. The only caveat we have is it didn't pre-exist at 1989. So really what when we talk about this because in the notice and this is going to be part of the notice correction. It would appear that a variance is needed because it would exceed over the 25% of 698 but the calculations are wrong in the notice. If the notice is correct as per the application nor per the drawings 37.84 and the square footage of the proposed cottage is 754 that's only 19%. So there's no variance needed for that. What it is is that we don't have the predated right to cement it if you go to this the definition of floor.

Yeah. Yeah. Horizontal of several floors. So you had to count the other floor. Yeah. Which I did. Right. So So it did. Yeah. I have it right. This got changed. So when I read that I was like that I'm less than 25%. 125 just the cottage um itself the 125. So is the 754 number correct? So the 754 is correct but the total square footage in the main house is 37.84. 37.84 which means that we're at 19%. Okay. Okay. Which does not exceed 25% of the main. Correct. Yeah. Correct. Yes. That's cuz they're at 19%. The floor rate is 12.

Correct. Is that still is that still affected if since the building was was built after 1989 and wasn't it pre pre-existing? Um because there wasn't a cottage already established. Established. He's creating a cottage pre Yeah, he has to have for the fiveyear rule. Okay, that's what I think this is a special use permit. So I went to the planning planning board first, then I come back here and then all while I go back to the planning board to finalize it. Oh, yeah. I know. I noticed you had that special permanent in your hand. Okay, we'll sort this out. Yeah, I think so.

I don't have any objection to this. We have to keep the hearing open. It's going to be renoticed for the April meeting. Apple's gonna make sure that that notice goes as well as mailings. U blessing into skies because I would have wanted to come back anyway to get the notice correct. Correct. So we both made kind of so we're going to correct and that'll have the corrected notice as it is. And then with that you'll notice that we're not over the 25%. So there's no variance here really um needed. The only thing that we're making note of is that it doesn't meet the fiveyear uh back period really. So that that's that's the only bit that that we're really talking about here. Okay.

So, uh I keep it open for I move to keep it open uh for the April meeting and a requirement of renotice of it in it'll be up in the it'll be in the beginning of the uh April 9th meeting. Perfect. And then I'll reschedu I was planning on going to planning board on Monday, but I'll push that back to Yeah, you you can als I mean advise them that we don't have any issue. There's no issue. There's no issue yet. 25%. Uh, we also have no issue with regard to the years. It's likely it will likely be approved. I don't know. Yeah. I mean, I don't know. Anybody have a problem with this applicant? No. No. Not at all.

Yeah. I think they want that approval. Don't worry. They'll pass it on. Pass it on in the office. Okay. That's that's go to the planning board. Thank you so much. You're welcome. Thank you. They'll just make it conditional upon the approval. Exactly. You're fine now. Thank you. Just stick it on the table. Keeping the uh Y. Thank you. Thank you. All right. McIll is seeking a variance of article 5 section 125-50 of the zoning ordinance for 25 Cartway Lane Westford

designated as section block lot 84.12-1-12 on the town tax maps in the residential 1acre zoning district to prevent the construction of a pool that results in a sideyard setback of 12.2 ft where 30 ft is required and where the pool equipment and future generator result in sideyard setback of 2.9 ft where 30 ft is required in the residential 1acre zoning district. Yeah, I know. Please stand.

Good evening. For the for the record, my name is Abigail Adams. I'm a New York State registered landscape architect and I'm owner of A2 Land Consulting out of New Fairfield, Connecticut. Tonight I am here representing James McIll, owner of the property, who is attending this evening via Zoom. So hopefully he's

I think he's he's on. Fantastic. Um this property is located in the R1A zoning district on the north side of Cartway Lane West. It's approximately 1.472 acres. As you've seen from the plan set, the entire northern portion of the property and a large portion of the western side is occupied by a large wetland system. The home is located up slope of the wetlands with an associated driveway and patio. There's a large septic system located to the northeast of the home and the patio, and the well is located just east of the driveway. Mr. McIll purchased this property in December 2023. After living in the home for a little while, he decided that he would like to install a swimming pool for his family's enjoyment, which is why we are here in front of you this evening. I've highlighted a copy of the current plan that is before your board for consideration. The orange highlight on the plan um in front of you indicates the 100 ft wetland setback. The green highlight indicates the building setback and the blue highlight indicates the septic system separation distances for the health code. As you can see, the primary hardship is being caused by the 100 ft um upland review setback area from the extensive wetland system in which we are unable to construct the pool. This then relegates us to the southeastern portion of the property. Once we're in this area, we're contending with not only the required building setback, but the septic system separation distances. Unfortunately, we're left with the little teeny tiny piece of property that will not fit the small approximately 8 by13 ft pool that Mr. McIll would like to construct.

That's that's what's staked out right now. That's what's staked out right now. That's the tiniest little pool I've ever seen. It is. We're going with a company um likely called it's called Soap Pools. Soap Pool. Yeah. Yeah. So, it's a it's a nice small one because he would like something on his property and we are really we have this tiny little area. Yeah. No, exactly. Um swim spa.

Yeah. Almost like it's almost like a swim. Very nice. Um therefore, we are hereby requesting a 17.8T 8ft variance to the sideyard setback for the swimming pool and a 7.1 ft variance to the sideyard equipment accessory structure setback for the pool equipment and future generator. As part of the application, we will be requesting a tree removal permit from the town. We will be installing pool code compliant fencing along the front of the property um off the corner of the house and removing the existing dilapidated fence along the eastern property boundary. This will be replaced with new privacy fence that will extend past the proposed pool equipment and generator locations.

So, what kind of fencing is it? Um, it's going to be a 6ft high privacy fence, board fence for the portions that are going to screen the front the pool from the front yard. Right now, you're basically a stockage fence stops halfway towards the road. Correct. So, you'll continue it on. Yes. Yeah. But it won't be stocked. It will be a privacy fence. Correct. Gotcha.

Correct. And then once we get past the generator equipment, currently on site, there's a split rail fence that will have the wire mesh, so it will be code compliant for the rest of the uh property for the pool enclosure. We'll also be installing new plantings along the fence in the vicinity of the pool and along the front um property line there. Um, continuing a a hedge of boxwoods. We have received and submitted as part of the application a letter from the neighbor at 23 Cartwway Lane West in favor of this application. They are the neighbor right next door whose driveway would abut where we're looking to put the pool. And it sounds like um Okay, that was that was the next door neighbor and the driveway.

That's correct. I would say that that's very important. Yes. I was looking to see is there a letter in here? Yes, there we did. I think it was included in your package. It was included in the package. Would you I can read it very and Violet 23 Cart Lane West approve, you know, is unopposed. In favor of the design, correct? They're in favor of the the project. See close.

Let's see. Um at this time, um I I'm happy to pass it over to uh Mr. McIll to see if he has any additional information he'd like to share, but it's it's pretty straightforward and um we hope that the board deems this request reasonable to allow the construction of this small pool at 25 cart whailing west. Thank you. Oh, there's Mr. Miguel. I see him on the screen. Thank you. Are you here to speak against your own application? Wait a minute. Oh, hold on. You're muted still. I can't hear. I think he's saying yes. Oh, still can't hear you. What's going on? Help me, Peter.

Peter, are we okay? There we go. Now you're on. Okay, great. Thank you. Yep. Thank you. Can you hear me? Yeah. Now, yes. Yes.

Yeah. I I really appreciate this opportunity uh to be in front of you. Um I I initially raised my hand because, you know, somebody had mentioned stockade fence. you know, we're we're going to do like a really attractive looking fence that's going to be have boxwoods in front of it. It's going to be uh continuous with the boxwoods that are in front of my my house. Now, um the reason, you know, why we have such a small pool is because uh like Abigail said, we are restricted from both the wetland buffer setback as well as the septic setback. Um, and my my neighbor was graciously uh kind enough to write a letter. Um, the property on that side does abut her driveway. So, uh, you know, if there was noise or interference, it's not going to affect her home while she's inside. It's her driveway. Um, I I will note that we are uh planning to delineate the septic fields. Uh right now um the the septic fields are are an estimate. Um what's on the record for the town is uh is old and my um the gentleman who who did the who who did the plan uh put in the estimate of where the fields are. when the snow melts, we plan to dig it up and then get more of a concrete um location of those septic fields and then do that 30foot setback. So, you know, for the record, um you know, we'd like to move the pool as tight as we can to that 30foot setback um and and take it away from the front yard as much as we can.

Gotcha. if he's going to move. So, you're saying it could be going back a little bit? Yeah. Yeah. If if the septic field if the septic fields allow us um we the original plan called for it to be more vertical. Now it's horizontal. Yeah. Um so the setback will be similar which is what this variance meeting is for. Um but uh once the septic is dug up and then delineated, we we'll we'll then measure 30 ft which is the setback and then start to pull at that sanction. Correct. Just I'm showing the map right now. So um

uh can you pick up the mic over there? Thank you. Okay, that that works. So the wetlands have were delineated but and have a 100 foot buffer as far as you know with That's correct. That's correct. Um the the septic system that we're talking about is right here. We've got these long fields coming this location, but then there's two other fields that are being shown that come closer towards the um front of the property. It is our hope that when the septic system is located in the field physically that these two will not be here. So we can at least push the pool back a little bit so it's not

okay right at the front yard line. That's the intent because this blue line here is that 30 foot separation distance from the absorption fields. This is the 20 foot set back from the septic tank. So, it's it's really relegating us right into this tiny little area here. Did you say you were having the wetlands delineation updated? No, no, no. It's the septic. We're We're having the septic system field located. But the wetlands delineation is on the wetlands map in town. That's how you That was delineated quite a while ago, this wetlands. And um

this is just wetlands. They got the whole river running through there. Yeah. Yeah. It's It's town wetland. It was mapped um It was mapped a while ago. I've seen the maps and they're hard to read. We uh we I I you know I I had Paul Janigga remap it. Oh, good. Like six months before he became the the town advisor. So uh Yes. Um yeah. So he we remapped it and basically validated the original mapping. So Okay. Yeah. We're we're very restricted with the 100 foot buffer.

Yes. Um, I think the only thing the only thing I would note is that I don't I don't have any problem with this and I because of it's a sideyard setback as opposed to a front yard setback, we can shift it as long as it doesn't come any closer within what the variance would be for that for the sideyard. Um, but with regard to the equipment, I would still like to see an enclosure around that, more of an enclosure around that as opposed to the post and rail fence for the equipment going to the neighbor side because there's no room there in terms of the variance that's being requested for the equipment. That's a post and rail fence, but that don't have room to put in landscaping there. So, I want a more of a visual uh buffer between

the the privacy fence, just for clarification, will it'll start at the corner of the house here, come across, and the privacy fence will not end until after the equipment, at which point then it will then it will go. Yes, correct. Okay, that's fine. And are you I'm trying I'm looking at the pool and I'm you're going you have the privacy fence. Are you putting additional fencing around the pool or is the whole area enclosed? No, the entire area would be closed. So we would this corner of the house,

this entire portion of the property and a portion of fence would be added to tie into this corner. So the house would be alarmed and then this entire area would be cool for the house. Okay. Well, that makes sense. Otherwise, it would have been a very difficult fence. Yes. Good. So the plan is let me find out if there's anybody want to speak in the application. Go to the board of health. Nobody here. Seeing nobody here and nobody on the Zoom call can have a motion to close the public hearing. I'll make it. All those in favor? I I public hearing is closed. Thank you,

Meredith. We can approve it and they can still move the pools with no problem as long as they can't go within the setback and then we'll have to still file final plans to uh identify where it is. Exactly. Okay. So, we'll have final plans. Yeah. here and it's I mean my god it's really not terribly good. They're not going to be able to move it very far. It's constrained by the setback. So this is the new way we're seeing smaller and smaller giant. You should just go with the swim spa though cuz the new hot and cold use. Anyway, go on. Sorry.

All right. My hot tub is bigger. Do you want to make a motion? I would move to approve the application as noticed, bearing in mind that the applicant has requested the ability to shift the location at the pool a little bit closer to the rear uh to uh the rear yard based on the adjustment of the setback lines for uh setback for the sewer lines there. The board is amendable to that so long as the pool would get no closer to the setback um than what is is permitted. And in fact, if a greater distance is possible, that would be preferred by the board.

The applicant uh cannot seek the benefit by the applicant cannot be achieved by another means feasible to the applicant as demonstrated here. Really what we're looking at is a very constrained site based on various setbacks including the wetland setback, the septic setback, and then there's uh the building setbacks that impact that overall. Uh there will not be an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood, a detriment to nearby properties. This is a small pool going in. Uh it's not affecting our imperous uh coverage here or building coverage. The applicant in fact proposing a privacy fence around the front face of the property where the pool is and going all the way down back to um just past where the pool equipment will be installed. So be no negative visual impacts to the to the neighbors on this. Uh the variance requested I'd say is not substantial. uh even though it was a a large setback uh generally that's being sought here where because more than half of what it is um there's really no other way to place this based on the constraints of the property overall. So um the variance request or rather let me rephrase that the variance requested is substantial but it's also understanding constraints of the site are creating that situation where there's no other options but where to place the equipment and the pool in this location request will not result in any physical abil or environmental effects on the neighborhood or community. Uh again, the visual impacts that we're usually concerned with are being mitigated by the in installation of a privacy fence that will be done in conformance with code. Uh the alleged difficulty is self-created, but that's only one of the factors to be considered by the board in making it decision and is not determinative. Approval of the proposed variance will be subject to the following conditions. Applicant will use their best efforts to ensure that a building permit is issued within one year of the board's approval of the variance and then diligently pursue such construction to completion. The applicant will submit a certified asbuilt survey, including building an appropriate coverage calculations to the

building department prior to the issuance of certificate of occupancy for the pool. Um, and again, as noted, well, we have plans today that show the location of the pool. Uh, the applicant has the approval of the board to shift the pool back a little bit to account for the uh septic setback, a shift in that that may bring that board to the rear, but they may go no closer than the variance uh distance granted here in regard to the sideyard setback. the issuance of the special permit for uh sorry uh it's uh granted in accordance with plans uh dated January 21st 2026 initially and filed February 19th 2026. Thank you. Pleasure.

I have a filing revision for um filing date of 21726 based on staff comments. That was the one I was referring to. I'm sorry. I should have I should have added the 217. Uh and I uh that's I'll second that. Mr. Stern, yes. Miss Lee, yes. Mr. Van Loverren, yes. Miss Black, yes. Mr. McC. Yes, you've got it. Thank you so much. We appreciate your time. Plans, James, you got it. Enjoy the pool. Take your plants. Here you go. I'm sensitive at the name so it's a great name. Thank you so much.

Nice job. Nice. We had constraints there. Obviously, is there any thing anything else anybody wanted to bring up in the board's attention? We keep adding to the list the town board's review of zoning code issues. I know. Tell me about and so it should be. When was the last time in totality the code was reviewed and updated? Who? No. The last time the code itself was reviewed and fully updated. They had a very recently they had a minor very uh uh nothing intense or comprehensive. They just had some language changes and that I keep trying to get that document.

We might we might want to propose you know that they're they're a consultant we've reviewed and we look at an update. I mean there's provisions in here that are updated simply by way of technologies and time and evolution. Yeah. and aren't applicable. And there's also things that uh you know we keep patching the code to deal with. Yeah. Where we could get in front of we did the comprehensive code if the zoning code hasn't had a thorough review and rewrite and god knows how long it may be something to we keep coming to the same things with the signs and the you know repeatedly. Yeah. So do does that mean we have to explain where what issues are happening that that we would like them to address? No, you're right. have somebody have a consultant with

you. I think we need I need a consultant cuz I would say we shouldn't have to always be identifying these these piggyback issues that just by the nature of time and technology are clearly involved. The code itself should be reviewed broadly to bring it up bring more things into conformance with what recommendations are and routine that should be done periodically that has not been done. I don't think this major rewrite we would not have the repeated issues if we had a better clarification on some code issues that we've been seeing over it was better re better written and addressed would that be something that the consultant that was here that's what I'd say it's ask the town board to bring someone but that's a scope of the scope of work for them

we could have a discussion and explain where they had some pitches so good idea if you went over every law in the town we could find holes no we and we will but I mean code I don't think has had a comprehensive rewrite itself in 40 or 50 years. It's probably time

because it's so old. We keep we keep getting this app. So I mean I my suggestion is we we get teed up for the supervisor to consider at some point in the near future it should be considered. Did you see the note in the in the comprehensive plan which is now what five six years ago they clearly said that a lot of the porch facilities were were having constraints and I don't know if that's been addressed yet. I know they allowed washing in in the bathrooms in the malls but that's the only thing I've heard recently.

There's you know it's just acknowledging the fact that these things need to be periodic reviewed and updated and it hasn't been done for a significant time. we could use the weighin of of experts to to give us guidance and also some of the organization of the code could probably be reframed based on how we know the uses and as Roger said we we have a changing system now people are working at home and that's coming up more and more this different there's it's an evolution it's it's typical right the other thing we should look at is that we've been giving a lot of repeat type of variances generator um you know a little bit over in the 4 acre a little bit over in in the two acre but mostly the 4 acre the calculations

might need to be adjusted are so rest the the limit limits are so restrictive in 4 zoning living in a 4acre yeah and also I I don't like this um pool being part of structure I think pool is a different animal look the tennis court pool sports court that's one of those categories of uses that needs to be revisited and discussed about how it's processed. Um, but all of this is part of what should be a larger discussion about the code and it and it's time for and gates. We need to look at gates because that's also a constant and fences thing that comes before. See, wait, the laundry list just keeps going. We can make a list and have a discussion.

Yeah, but it's not just limited. That's what I'm saying is it's it's probably but a lot we get we're getting so many variances because there are things in the code that could be and I'm sure the planning board has limits as their own as their core of 20 or 30 issues that they deal with on a repetitive basis. So who would make the request to the town board for getting someone to help us? We make the request and then the town board meets the supervisor. Exactly. Okay, sounds good. Mhm. All right. Hearing all that and Kim Kim has that now on a recording. Um I um make a motion to adjourn till March 9th. April 9th.

April 9th. April 9th. All those in favor? We'll see you all April 9th. Oh, wait. Whether you could change from on what was that May 6, May 6th to May 5th. sent you guys in the the notice and email instead of it's Thursday May 6. If we could do it Wednesday, May 5th wants to move it to the Wednesday. You mean Tuesday? No, Wednesday. Wednesday the 6th. Wednesday the 6th. Seven to the 6th. Yeah. 7 to the 6th. Could you just send us my anniversary? Send the email. You want to come here? Well, because I got to go back and look at my calendar, but I think I don't right now. But I'm not promising. I'll send out a note. Okay, I'll send out another nose. Okay, it's good.

Thank you, Peter. You can stop recording. Oh, there's another Peter.