Planning Board - Regular Meeting

I'd like to bring this meeting of the Bedford Planning Board to order. The first and only item on our agenda tonight is to reopen a public hearing on the development in Bedford Village. And I don't have the script in front of me because I didn't bring a copy of the agenda.

Sure. It's 633-647 Old Post Room.

Half a meeting half an hour early and I'm completely flummoxed. No, that doesn't. Thank you. I should memorize these things, I think. So it's continuing the public hearing for Town Code Chapter 125.133. to review a review of a referral from the town board for a proposed zoning petition and conceptual site plan for mixed-use development and request for the planning board to conduct the required environmental review pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act. And you can all see why I can't memorize that and do it by heart. The owner is Alchemy Bedford Tennant LLC. The applicant is LHP Old Post Road LLC. The address is 633-647 Old Post Road in Bedford Village. I say this is a continuation of the public hearing. The main purpose of the business tonight is to begin to go through the part two. We have kept the public hearing open so that the public can make comments on the different aspects of the part two as we go through them if there is a desire on their part at that point. We've wanted the public to feel involved in the part two and to feel comfortable with the process. So that's the reason that the public hearing is still open. That being said, does the applicant have anything they want to say before we begin?

We'll just leave it to you to go through the part two, Madam Chair, first.

Okay. So I think we all have a hard copy as well as our computer copies of this. And we know that the general approach, there's two ways we can do it. We can either do it in order or picking out topics. And I think it makes most sense for us to do it in order. Do you agree? So to begin, uh number one impact on land the proposed action may involve construction on or a physical alteration of the land surface of the proposed site do we answer no or yes yes yes yes construction yes um okay can you give me a pin I don't Okay, so the proposed action may involve construction on land with depth of water table is less than three feet.

Yeah, yeah.

What do we say to that? I believe the answer is no to that one, but I'm not sure in the wetland buffer. the uh the proposed action may involve construction on land where death to water table is less than three feet i don't know what the situation is i mean there's there's there's marsha joining the site um so it's probably nowhere small i think sorry that's that's what i'm leaning leaning towards there's no i believe the african had provided in their part one around six feet The six feet as the average for the site.

As the average depth of the water table, yep.

Yeah. I think no, we're small. Agreed. Comfortable. Until we complete the whole document, the answers are changeable should we come across any other information that gets in our way. The proposed action may involve construction on slopes of 15% or greater. that is a potential impact.

Yes. Is it really moderate?

I think that's what we don't know for sure. What do you think? It's not a huge impact. The question is whether it's small or moderate. I'm sorry?

Small would seem appropriate to me.

What is your reasoning? I'm not questioning it. I'm just curious.

It's not a dramatically consistent sloped site with very complex topography across all of it.

There is the dip in topography at the front of the site.

It's not the kind of consistent steep slope that the ordinance is.

Compared to some of the steep slope applications we've looked at, right?

Yeah. That makes sense to me, actually. Diane? Okay. So we'll put it down as a small or moderate. Sorry, no or small impact may occur. proposed action may involve construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within five feet of existing ground surface that's no the proposed action may involve the excavation and removal of more than 1 000 tons of natural material i don't remember seeing anything like that

I believe the applicant had provided a number around 140 cubic yards, so well below the 1,000 ton threshold.

I'm getting, are you having trouble? Is the microphone not working?

Better for me, I have.

Okay, I'll try. Okay. The proposed action may involve the, oh, I forgot that one. I could talk louder. I know I should say the right thing. proposed action may involve construction that continues for more than one year or in multiple phases and i think your answer to that was yes wasn't it 12 to 18 months was the approximation 12 to 18 months would have been another between small or moderate i'd actually say if it's well given where it is I would check moderate, too, because of the potential traffic implications. The proposed action may result in increased erosion, whether from physical disturbance or vegetation removal, including from treatment by herbicides. I would say there's no or a smaller thing. proposed action is or may be located within a coastal erosion hazard area no are there any other impacts

there is a proposed subdivision as part of the project so i would just note that this the two lot subdivision is proposed but it would be up to your board whether it's notice small or moderate large but there's no additional construction or duplication of any sort of density on the subdivided lots it's merely for the project to be consistent in a holistic manner and the subdivision would go in here that There's no real other place to put it.

Yeah. That certainly would involve more impact on the land potentially. So there is a subdivision, but it will be a smaller, a no or small impact. Okay. That's it for the impact on land. impact on geological features. The proposed action may result in the modification or destruction of or inhibit the access to any unique or unusual landforms on the site. For example, cliffs, dunes, minerals, fossils, caves. I would say the answer to that is no.

No.

So that means we get to skip this whole section. Three, impacts on surface water. The proposed action may affect one or more wetlands or other water bodies, for example, streams, rivers, ponds, or lakes. I would say yes.

Yes. I agree. Yep.

Okay. 3A, the proposed action may create a new water body. We sincerely hope not.

No.

The proposed action may result in an increase or decrease of over 10% or more than a 10-acre increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water. No. No. The proposed action may involve dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from a wetland or water body.

No. No.

The proposed action may involve construction within or adjoining a freshwater or tidal wetland or in the bed or banks of any other water body. I would say the work for the wastewater treatment plants in the buffer would fall into that category.

Agreed.

So that would be a moderate to large impact, correct?

Yeah, I would agree with that.

The proposed action may create turbidity in a water body, either from upland erosion, runoff, or by disturbing bottom sediments. I don't think we've seen any evidence of that.

Well, during the course of construction on a slope.

But there has to be the water. You have to have water for the, what water is the turbidity going to go into? Turbidity involves soil moving around in water.

I got that. Isn't there a water body at the bottom of the slope?

There's a wetland and a wetland buffer. There's a wetland buffer. With a buffer on the side, yeah.

But do you think that would?

Thanks.

Well, regardless, the applicant is going to be required to have a SWIP. Right. Right. That's true. It would provide mitigation measures and protection measures against any.

Right. No, I just thought that it was a possibility that would be mitigated. Okay. That's my only.

I did not get the impression that there would be turbidity, but that's.

So I could be wrong.

But we should, but we should put it down if there's a possibility.

People that live nearby. I just.

Well, never mind. Okay, so.

It's more that it needs to be mitigated and looked at. The erosion control. It's not that I think.

Proposed action may include construction of one or more intakes for withdrawal of water from the from surface water no i don't believe so are we correct the proposed action may include the construction of one or more outfalls for discharge of waste water to surface water no no but with the discharge of the gourd

Of the treatment plant is going to go.

Um, right so there would be. Discharge and, you know, it's not the same as a. Stormwater outfall, but there will be, I believe infrastructure that's somewhat hyped from the wastewater treatment plan eventually into. So that might be more of a technical clarification that maybe the applicant can answer. But I had market actually to as more of a yes.

That's G, you had marked this.

One G though, correct.

Waste water to... The DEC guidance suggests that if there is going to anticipate to be a high flow and volume that's going to result in scouring of sediments or changes in water temperature or chemistry, that we should be considering that to be a moderate or large impact. But if this is just the routine Re infiltration from treated septic system. That's pretty conventional. I don't. That falls in that that threshold, but.

We actually have enough information. Yeah, that could be.

That's probably the good points to be looked at.

I'm not saying it's a problem. I'm just saying. It's something that as we go through the process needs to be looked at, but I could be wrong. Sure.

We will look at it. So that's both F and G then we would do as moderate to large?

Sure.

There's a may there. It's not will. It's may.

Well, that's the language of the entire document. Right.

But I'm saying, but that's why I think it's worth it.

Let's not argue it.

Yeah. No, no, no.

The proposed action may cause soil erosion or otherwise create a source of stormwater discharge that may lead to siltation or other degradation of receiving water bodies. No, the reasoning we're using it has to be yes. Yes.

Um, but again, you just ask a question about clarifying that. Sound like for a 2nd, that you were changing that factory intake.

Understand. Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, you're correct.

I did not. Thank you. I've got so many cross outs here. I can't tell what I'm doing.

So the proposed action may affect the water quality of any water bodies within or downstream of the site of the proposed action. I'm going to leave it to somebody else to put their neck out on this 1.

Assuming a code component development. I don't I don't see how that would be true.

Well, no, I fall into the same category, but I'd be getting to.

Madam chair, if I may letter or sub categories H, and I. you know, absent any measures, mitigation measures that are provided, which would be through a SWPPP, there would be cause for concern. So it might be just advantageous to state that because the applicant would be required to produce a SWPPP per DEC guidelines, then therefore these two things would be at least addressed. Maybe not avoided, but they would be.

Well, that's what you have to say all of that in the part three, so.

So would you like to go back and address the severity of the impact for H&I? Would you like to leave that open?

I think we have to... Do you mean whether we check no or moderate? Right.

Would you like to make that determination now or later?

I think we should make it now. Okay. I don't think... I don't know what information... I'm fine with that, too. We're not going to wait until the entire SWIFT is done. No. So...

I'm just not... Well...

so we're doing moderate to large impact for h and i j is the proposed action may involve the application of pesticides or herbicides in or around any water body i'm hoping the answer is no the answer no it's also prohibited by code under section 122 excellent on both proposed action may re require the construction new or expansion of existing wastewater treatment facilities the answer is yes and i would say that is a moderate to large impact agreed and other impacts any other impacts Okay, I'm taking silence as a no. Impact on groundwater. The proposed action may result in new or additional use of groundwater or may have the potential to introduce contaminants to the groundwater or an aquifer. Yes or no. I would say, given the reasoning we're using.

Well, there's going to be an additional use of ground water actually.

Yes. So there really is no question. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. The proposed action may require new water supply wells or create additional demand on supplies from existing water supply wells. Yes.

Yes.

Yes. No or small impact or moderate to large impact? Moderate to large. Moderate to large.

Yeah, because they're getting from the town.

By the way, I'm going to stop for a minute. Something I forgot to mention or ask about. When we were talking about impacts on surface water, I should point out that we have gotten something from the Wetlands Commission, and they do have questions about some of these issues. So that's another piece of the puzzle. uh the water supply demand from the proposed action may exceed safe and sustainable withdrawal capacity rate of the local supply or aquifer I would think it's no it does just say Jessica how is that determined But this one, they actually say you have to cite the source if you're going to say it.

The town's water department did provide an intended letter to serve the project site. So therefore, the answer would be no. Because the capacity exists.

They've already described the capacity as existing. Correct.

no and and madam chair for the record here again there's there are no wells to be dug on the site they're all coming from the town and that's why the willingness to serve letter exists okay the proposed action may allow or result in residential uses in areas without water or sewer services yes

proposed action may include or require wastewater discharge to groundwater yes yes the proposed action may result in the construction of water supply wells in locations where groundwater is or suspected to be contaminated no no no it can be town supplies yeah

and it is in the present case this whole area has had issues they don't right but it doesn't have it at the moment but they're not doing construction of Wells for this the town has the capacity and this is about the construction of Wells am I wrong I I thought that the

So there's no, well, there's no, well, there's no direct. Okay. That the town may be constructing wells is separate part of this worst. I would think being studied as part of that. Okay. That's what I don't think the town is digging new wells for this.

That's what Jessica just said. They already have the capacity.

They're just tapping into the existing.

Correct. From the, the, the farm's water district.

Correct.

The proposed action may require the bulk storage of petroleum or chemical problems over groundwater or an aquifer.

No.

No, I hope. The proposed action may involve the commercial application of pesticides within 100 feet of potable drinking water or irrigation sources. Again, no. and other impacts. Okay, impact on flooding. The proposed action may result in development on land subject to flooding. I don't think that this has ever been a flood issue. It's not in the floodplain.

Don't believe it is. It's not according to the park law. I would say no.

So that would be no. So we're on to page four. Impacts on air. The proposed action may include a state regulated air emission source. No, I don't believe. On to item seven, impact on plants and animals. The proposed action may result in a loss of flora or fauna. Almost anything you do might.

Chances are small, but I think the yes is required.

But the question is, is it a small impact or a moderate one? It's really not a yes or no question.

Again, I think that's one that we did get some letter that we need to look at the flora. Well, I don't know if it's flora, but definitely the fauna on the site and make sure they're not affected. So I think we have to answer yes.

But is any part of the site wild? I mean, the whole site has been cleared at some point in history. That's what I'm saying.

The chances are small, but we did get this whole thing about box turtles. There is a wetland and there were a couple of other things. I don't know. Jessica. What do we do with that? I mean, it's a site that's not wild and free.

Right. I mean, on its face, sure, there may be some loss of flora or fauna, but again, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife did provide a letter showing that there was an impact of no effect.

So again, no- So we're set with that? Yeah. Okay.

Yes. You could use that to cite. And then if you would like to err on the side of caution, if you go through the rest of these, that may very well lead to a nowhere small impactful result at the end.

So you say no. Answer yes, but you don't know we're small. Correct.

Similar to what we've done in the past. So we answer yes for that.

And then no on okay.

And we can state justification reasons why the board feels the way.

Okay. So the proposed action may cause. Actually, we weren't even doing the specific questions. That was all on what was the no or yes. So we've answered yes to it. The proposed action may cause reduction in population or loss of individuals of any threatened or endangered species as listed by New York State, etc. And it would be no or small. Although that's what we just said you want to put the yeses for. It does nothing to put the yes on number seven if you're not going to put... You're not going to write about it if you haven't answered.

Right, you can just go through these and then go back to the no if you want. I think that would do the same thing, just for the record.

The proposed action may result in a reduction or degradation of any habitat used by any rare, threatened or endangered species. No. No. More for the reasons that they've already said that it's already been completely disturbed. The proposed action may cause reduction in population and loss of individuals of any species of special concern. No. So we're going to do no all of these. The proposed action may result in a reduction or degradation of any habitat used by any species of special concern and conservation need. And again, not by the logic.

And then now we think.

So now we've completely contradicted ourselves.

Well, no, we can go back and do no if you want on the top, right?

there are additional questions there are there are more questions and the logic for what we said to say that's fine i'm having a real problem with the logic here um which i know is we we do this all the time but it just seems overkill. The proposed action may diminish the capacity of a registered natural national natural landmark to support the biological community was established to protect that would be no, no. The proposed action may result in the removal of or ground disturbance in any portion of this designated significant natural community.

No, no.

The proposed action may substantially interfere with nesting, breeding, foraging, or overwintering habitat for the predominant species that occupy or use the project site. There isn't really a predominant species that uses the project site, so no. The proposed action requires the conversion of more than 10 acres of forest, grassland, or other regionally and locally important habitat. No. Proposed action. Well, this is what we've already said. Yeah. And other impacts. Are there any other impacts? No, no. Okay. Impact on agricultural resources. The proposed action may impact our agricultural resources. No, I do not believe so. No, everybody agrees.

Yep. Yes.

Okay, impact on aesthetic resources, the land use of the post action obviously different from, or in sharp contrast to current land use patterns between the post project and the scenic or aesthetic resource. I think we still don't know the answer to this. So, yes, yes. The proposed action may be visible from any officially designated federal, state, or local scenic or aesthetic resource. Yes.

Yes.

The proposed action may result in the obstruction, elimination, or significant screening of one or more officially designated scenic views. That's a no. No.

Madam Chair, can we get back to letter A for a second? I believe in the letter provided by Shippo, there is no actual officially designated resource.

A number of state designated, but don't we have our historic district designation?

Wait, where did we go back to? I thought you said A.

Are you on aesthetic?

9A. Are you on 9A? 9A.

9A.

I thought you said number A. I was going back to agricultural resources.

No, sorry, 9A. 9A.

Okay, that's it.

I guess the question is, what is the officially designated federal, state, or local scenic or aesthetic resource that the board is saying?

It's not a local scenic resource to have the historic district.

Two separate things.

The Bedford Village is not considered an aesthetic resource.

It's in the next section under historic resources.

Section 10 deals with historic impact on historic and archaeological resources. So I think the aesthetic...

It would be like if the project were next to the Mayanus River Gorge, for example. That's a designated aesthetic resource.

Okay, this contradicts something I've heard recently, but I don't have enough of that, so I won't.

Or if there were a national scenic byway, for example.

I can see that it's the assumption that the historic district would not be considered an aesthetic resource. I'm not sure that's true, but from a preservation point of view, but that's not my call. That's the board's call. Yeah.

My reading of the guidance material is that the aesthetic resources generally are natural in nature. Sorry. But, you know, they are state parks, state forest areas, game refuges, natural landmarks, national parks, and that those are distinct from historic human settlement.

Okay.

Yes. And so, just unrelated to this, so if something were coming in and blocking a historic church tower with, you know, that was done by a famous architect. That's not an aesthetic research. I'm just curious. I'm trying to figure it out.

Seeker sort of breaks it out, and that's why you have a whole separate section on historic and archaeological resources. Okay. They do define it specifically, and if you go through the handbook, it walks you through that. Yeah, no, thank you.

Okay, so we'll change that to no, and we'll

I forget the ones we filled out.

Back to 10, impact on historic and archaeological resources. We do get to say that the Historic District is a...

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

The proposed action may occur wholly or partially within or substantially contiguous to any buildings, archaeological site, or district which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Definitely, yes. The proposed action may occur wholly or partially within or substantially continuous to an area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites by the New York State Historic Preservation Office archaeological site inventory.

So they're taking care of that.

The proposed action may occur wholly or partially within or substantially continuous to an archaeological site not included on the New York State's inventory. No. Other impacts? Anybody? OK. If any of the above are answered moderate to large impact may occur, continue with the following questions to help support conclusions in part three. The proposed action may result in the destruction or alteration of all or part of the site or property. It will result in the alteration of it.

Agreed.

So yes. So yes. The proposed action may result in the alteration of the property setting or integrity. Again, yes. Yes. The proposed action may result in the introduction of visual elements which are out of character with the site or property or may alter its setting. Yes.

Yes. Yes.

Okay, impact on open space and recreation.

Madam chair. I apologize to make you go back just to put on record that you did receive late this afternoon a letter from the Bedford village historic district review commission. I understand it was a late submission. Therefore, you might not have had the opportunity, but just for the record, there was 1 submitted and you may take additional time to review that letter in order to provide more comment.

Is this where that would be commented on.

Yes, this is the appropriate section, we would have done that too.

I don't think the letter would actually change anything we've said here, kind of the opposite.

Right, I just wanted to make it clear that a letter was submitted and there's reasoning in there.

Okay, so as confirmed by the letter from the historic district, yeah.

Correct. And they did take a significant amount of time, it looks like, to provide a very thoughtful comment and response to your board as a lead agency.

No, in fact, the letter makes it quite clear that further study is necessary in exactly the direction that the yes answers would lead us to. Right. Number 11, impact on open space and recreation.

Did we do E3?

I thought we did. It was yes. Yes. Yes. Yes, it was yes. Impact on open space and recreation. The proposed action may result in a loss of recreational opportunities or a reduction of an open space resource as designated in any adopted municipal open space plan. I don't believe that this is an open space that we've identified in the .

So now,

impact on a critical environmental area. The proposed action may be located within or adjacent to a critical environmental area. I believe it is over the aquifer, so yes. Opposed action may result in a reduction in the quantity of the resource or characteristics which was the basis for the designation of a CEA. No. Okay, I would have said no before. I'm not sure I see the logic in saying no in the others, but I think no is the right answer.

Agreed that no is the right answer. Agreed.

But somebody's going to explain to me later what the difference is. The proposed action may result in a reduction reduction in the, in the quality of the resource or characteristic, which was the basis for the designation of the same thing.

No.

And any other impacts.

Is this. Okay, next item, impact on transportation. The proposed action may result in a change in existing transportation systems.

Now this I was wondering, but they are they including automobiles in this yes yeah this is the so the answer is yes or at least we have the evidence that it's an issue oh right and then actually the first question makes it perfectly clear projected traffic increase may exceed capacity of existing road network that's what we're trying to study At this point, I think we don't have an answer to that. But the fact that we don't have an answer to it, we're still working on the traffic studies. So I would put that down as a potential.

Potential, yes.

Yes.

Right.

The proposed action may result in the construction of paid parking area for 500 or more vehicles. No. The proposed action will degrade existing transit access. No. No. There is no transit access. The proposed action will degrade existing pedestrian or bicycle accommodations.

No. No or no.

Are we sure that based on the traffic says, I think it's likely that it won't. But I'm not sure that particularly the bicycle issue with.

With the traffic, the, the applicant, I believe did propose. A sidewalk extension to the existing network in front of the project site. So it actually would be contrary to what letter D is getting at.

Well, I think what Deirdre is saying is like, people are trying to cross the road and there's more traffic.

I'm just going on the basis because we haven't settled the traffic issue. We don't really know yet what the impact.

But this sort of talks about bicycle accommodations, pedestrian and bicycle accommodations. If it's going to affect the crosswalk.

It's not going to.

The amount of traffic may.

But, but it's not going to remove a sidewalk across walking trail path. So, I don't think that's okay.

It's expanded so much.

I don't think it's degrading an existing accommodation.

Interesting.

I will just say on a personal personal level that when we increase the traffic, um. particularly in roadways where crosswalks are a significant element in the in the safety issue it a severe increase in traffic has an impact and we've been dealing with that in the town.

Yeah, no, I agree with you.

With people who have been killed right in the area we're talking about while in the act of being pedestrians crossing the street. So I'm not saying it's going to be a problem, but I don't know that I feel we've got enough evidence to say it's not, given the fact that it has been a problem in the area.

I agree with you.

Okay, so let's mark that comment then.

Sorry?

If the chair would like, we can mark that comment next to it.

I think it needs to be discussed in the part three. Is there another place in the document to put it if what I'm talking about is not the degradation of existing pedestrian accommodations, then where would we put pedestrian safety?

I mean, I don't disagree with you. I think that would get caught up in the discussion of the studying part a road network is used by multiple different types of transportation, pedestrians, bicycles, light, medium, heavy duty vehicles. And I presumed we would just when we're when we're doing our traffic study that that would consider those. You know, you said possession usage of a. Well, I would, but so, but if you want to go, if the approach. For better approach would be to say that there might be a moderate impact.

I think go that route and study it or describe the medications better. And I, I agree with. The chair on on the issue, and it's more a matter of how to, but if you put note here, because. Both the sidewalk and any bicycle combinations specifically would not be degraded. Then you could write in under F other impacts concern about. Pedestrian and bicycle mobility with increased traffic.

That would be I'm open to any of those, so I'd be and then I would prefer I would prefer to do the.

Existing pedestrian and bicycle accommodations, because otherwise I think you're opening a whole world. That's fine.

Agreed no objection.

The most action may alter the present pattern of movement to people or goods.

Yeah, I would say yes, because it's currently changing as we speak.

Yep. I would agree.

Have to study it.

Other impacts. Okay. Impact on energy. The proposed action may cause an increase in the use of any form of energy. Yes. Yes. proposed action will require a new or an upgrade to an existing substation no i don't think we request that the proposed action will require the creation or extension of an energy transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two family residences or to serve a commercial or industrial use i would think yes yeah What constitutes the extension of an energy transmission system? If it's just the wire going from the road to your house, then the answer is yes. If it's the main wires going down the street, which I think is what it is, it would be. What's being built.

It's not over 50 units in the building. No, but it says or commercial or commercial or industrial use.

So.

Yeah, the last is to is. I still think the answer is is no, but. Does anybody know, know for sure whether the definition of a. An energy transmission or supply system.

I think it's yes, but it's a small impact, right?

I assume it would be a small impact. We keep saying yes or no, but the form doesn't say yes or no. Everything is a little box that they leave out in the middle, which is the problem we're all having with this.

um the guidance for this question suggests that if it's a a residential development a small commercial use uh it's a it's a it's a use that's compliant with the community's local act climate action plan and if the proposed uses follow the energy code they're most likely to have a small impact but if something were to be an industrial use or have a very large number of residential units then Might have a moderate or large impact. So, based on my understanding of what's proposed here, I think it would be no, or small.

I agree given what you've just read. Is that.

Agreed no. The most action may utilize more than 2500.

1 hours per year of electricity. I don't think so.

How do we figure that out?

The proposed action may involve heating and or cooling of more than 100,000 square feet of building area when completed. I don't think so.

Just want to note that the corresponding questions in the part one aren't filled out for D2K.

I'm sorry.

The corresponding questions in part 1 are not filled out for question D2K, so we'll just have to come back and fix that.

And other impacts under impact on energy. Okay, impact on noise, odor, and light. The proposed action may result in an increase in noise or odors or outdoor lighting. Probably. I mean, there'll be a little bit of light where there wasn't light before.

I think it's probably yes.

I think the people in the residential side of it would say yes.

Okay, we can study it.

The people at the movie theater, not so much.

Okay, so the proposed action may produce sound above noise levels established by local regulation. I don't believe so.

Maybe possibly only during construction, but the long-term effect would not be there.

The proposed action may result in blasting within 1,500 feet of any residence, hospital, school, licensed daycare, or nursing home. I don't think so. The proposed action may result in routine odors for more than one hour per day. No.

No.

The proposed action may result in lights shining on two adjoining properties.

Should not. No.

Yes, should not. if we well but this is the yeah yes and then we have to make sure that i think given the reason that reasoning we used going through yeah through this up until now we'd have to say yes on that you mean to be a moderate to large impact based on light on could be and what we're then we have to mitigate it and make sure it's not There's going to have to be some light on the building because you have to have a light next to every door to begin with.

Right. And there are going to be a number of residences that have lights on.

And who aren't going to have curtains on their windows. So it's a possibility. I don't think it's going to be an issue.

I don't think it'll be an issue.

And don't forget, we also have a chapter of our code that does require elimination, be down and whatnot. So, 1, 2541 would really help mitigate any of that light spillage onto a joint properties. Yeah.

Now, again, I, I don't think it's something that the proposal as I've seen it is threatening to do. Do I think it's something we'd let it do? The proposed action may result in lighting creating sky glow brighter than existing area conditions.

No.

And I would say no.

Although, again, a building this size could if it were done improperly. Other impacts?

No.

No. No.

Impact on human health, the proposed action may have an impact on human health from exposure to new or existing sources of contaminants.

I don't think so any moderate or large impacts for any of these questions. So I would say no.

Agreed.

Okay, so. Consistency with community plans. The proposed action is not consistent with adopted land use plans.

This one is a double negative, so no, right?

It's asking if it's inconsistent and then think of the no and yes as true or false.

if yes answer questions a through h so it's it's not consistent oh the proposed action is consistent so the answer here would be no is that correct the proposed action is not consistent so if you believe it's not consistent no but if you believe it is consistent then the answer is no correct correct yeah

I'm inclined to agree. Although we do have one problem here. What's that?

The non-determination of zoning?

the it isn't consistent with the existing zoning the petition to change the existing zoning can't be consistent with okay adopted land use plans yes I'm sorry I was thinking more of the master plan yeah right so I think we actually have to okay do do yes So the proposed actions land use components may be different from or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns.

No. That's no.

The proposed action will cause the permanent population of the city, town, or village in which the project is located to grow by more than 5%. No. The proposed action is inconsistent with local land use plans or zoning regulations. Yes.

Would you like to check that as moderate to large or no to small?

Moderate to large, yeah.

Thank you for putting that on the record.

The proposed action.

No or moderate to large?

That was no to small. That was no to small is what we put down. But again, I have trouble with making the distinction between small or moderate where they don't make... Well, I would say, yeah, and I think

On a, it's no, because it's patterns. It's not the zoning code. Right. Right. And the reason we think this is. A reasonable project is because it does fit the patterns if not the zoning. So, I think a is no, and then the other is yes. Yeah.

The proposed action is inconsistent with any county plans or other regional land use plans. That's no, as far as I know, the county has been interested. The proposed action may cause a change in the density of development that is not supported by existing infrastructure or is distant from existing infrastructures.

No.

The action is located in an area characterized by low density development that will require new or expanded public infrastructure. No.

No.

The proposed action may induce secondary development impacts, for example, residential or commercial development not included in the proposed action. No. No. And any other? Okay, here's everybody's favorite. Consistency with community character. The proposed project is inconsistent with existing community character.

I would say no.

I think with some of the letters that have been received, you have to say, yes, you have to say yes, because of the discussion in that we're hoping it will get to a no with. Revision historic district. Letter said, yes, that's true.

So the proposed action may replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures, or areas of historical importance to the community. No.

No.

Be careful. Is that open spaces, open space important to any members of the community? I think some of the public input we've had has said it is.

I'm not saying I agree.

I don't know. People talk about pushing the needle to moderate to moderate. Yeah, I can't say moderate to I've never seen people congregating.

I mean, they used to have no concerts that they get special permit that would but that would be in the back to what I'm just talking about what what people have have said, and I'm not sure I I just want us to think about the... Well, no, I'm not sure either. It's a very strange question to have to ask on this

I don't think it's replacing or eliminating an existing facility or a structure or an area of historic importance.

I don't think so either. And the question is, if you're talking about community, You and I are just two people.

No, no, I agree. That's why I said if you feel that you need to say yes, Sarah, I will defer to you.

I'm trying to remember the discussions at the public hearings. And I'm thinking more frankly of earlier discussions.

Wouldn't it be important that it's not to the public for public use.

I think that's a very good point, Anik. It's not at all that I think that this is... It's not at all that I think that it's going to eliminate something of historic importance to the community. But I've been at public meetings more at earlier public meetings where People have stood up and said it was important to them. I don't say I agree with them. But it's why I think it's everybody's favorite topic. It probably makes sense to say no, and then if that's the wrong answer, we'll be told. So, no or small. Agreed?

Agreed, yes.

The proposed action may create a demand for additional community services. No. The proposed action may displace affordable or low-income housing in an area where there is a shortage of such housing. No. They give us some. The proposed action may interfere with the use or enjoyment of officially recognized or designated public resources. No. No. It is not. The proposed action is inconsistent with the predominant architectural scale and character. Again, going to the Bedford Village District letter. I think we'd have to look at the moderator to say yes. Although I think we should be clear to the public that the letter did not come out and say that. The letter basically said they had to think some more.

Right. I think consistently throughout this, and we can reiterate that it is not the project per se, but some design issues related to the project. that were emphasized by the Deptford Village Historic District.

I just don't want to see us mischaracterize their position. Proposed action is inconsistent with the character of the existing natural landscape.

No.

No. And other impacts.

There are none. So that leaves us with a fair number of things that do need to be discussed in a part three. Some things that do not. I don't think that there's anything else we can do tonight, although I should, since we have kept this open, at least ask, is there any member of the public who would want to comment on anything we've done tonight?

yes this is dockbridge well okay you do have to come to the microphone i'm sorry thank you just uh one little point that i've had everything i hear is the proposed action may have but i was thinking the proposed action may have a significant significantly negative

impact on a historic character of the village okay thank you is there anyone else who has has a comment okay i this is there anything else that Oh, there is somebody.

Is that Kevin McAbee?

Kevin, do you have something you want to say? Yes. Can you hear me okay? Yes, we can.

Yes. Sorry. I can't be there in person. My name is Kevin McAvey. I'm at 35, the farms road and Bedford, New York, um, with my family and I, and right now I'm putting three of my little ones at six, four and one down to bed. Um, and we live less than a mile from the village and we frequent it frequently. I just wanted to, uh, first off, thank you for the careful deliberation tonight and across the many meetings so far about this development. It's incredibly important when we're thinking about how to preserve the historic character of our district, which many of us have migrated to in order to live here and raise our families here, while also balancing that with a shared need for smart, sustainable development. I know that this is the beginning of a very long process, and a process that I know, thanks to knowing many of you, is going to be incredibly thoughtful and informed by public comment to consider things like historical design, environmental impact, and traffic impact. But for tonight and the decisions that are made in the near term, I did want to, on behalf of my family and on behalf of many of my neighbors, register support for this project. I do think that it could create a little bit more of a center of gravity in the district if fulfilled, as early concepts have indicated. creating more retail opportunities, housing opportunities, creating a little bit more of a dynamic atmosphere downtown. Again, I think many concerns still need to be mitigated and addressed and I have full confidence in this board and others to do that and have public comment along the way. But for tonight, I did want to register my support and thanks for all of your work.

Thank you, Mr. McAbee. We appreciate your comments.

Is there anyone else on the Zoom that doesn't look like it?

I can't tell what's going on with this.

Yeah, it doesn't look like anyone else.

Okay. And there's no other comments from members of the... Okay. Is there anything else that the applicant would like us to try to do tonight?

No, thanks.

Then I think it is time, first of all, to have a motion to adjourn the public hearing. So moved. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Public hearing is again adjourned. Could I have a motion to close the meeting? So moved.

Second.

All in favor? Aye.

All opposed?