Bedford Planning Board considers project’s impact on traffic, historic district

At its Aug. 31 meeting the Bedford Planning Board began considering alternate plans for 633-647 Old Post Road. This was presented as "Plan B". COURTESY OF BEINFIELD ARCHITECTURE 

By JEFF MORRIS 

The review and public hearing on a rezoning request that is tied to a proposed mixed-use building next to the Bedford Playhouse, at 633-647 Old Post Road in Bedford Village, resumed at this week’s planning board meeting. As the board continued going through Part 3 of the SEQRA environmental review, chair Deirdre Courtney-Batson noted the two items they had not yet discussed were traffic issues and the impact on the historic district.

Traffic impact

A key document looked at by the board was a review of traffic studies and related letters that was submitted on Aug. 20 by Peter Canning of Kimley-Horn Engineering, the town’s traffic consultant. The primary traffic impact study it referenced, which was conducted on behalf of the applicant, was revised April 24 by Colliers Engineering & Design, with supplemental crash data provided in July.

The Colliers study revealed that there are two locations — the intersection of Route 172 with Village Green, and the intersection of Route 121 with Route 22 — which currently exhibit poor operating conditions during at least one of the peak hours. In addition, it said, a number of intersections and roadway segments in the area have exhibited higher than expected crash rates. The review said these conditions will continue to prevail in the future, with or without the project.

Canning’s review summarized a number of measures recommended by Colliers to make marginal improvements to traffic conditions, though reiterating that the project is expected to have minimal impact. It concluded: “The Applicant has proposed to implement a number of measures to help improve traffic safety and identified additional long-term measures that the Town could seek to implement with the assistance of the State. No further action is required.”

Board member Diane Lewis noted the report did not find anything that would substantially worsen any of the traffic in the area, which she thought was “a good thing,” but she was concerned about the turns in and out of the driveway adjacent to the front of the Playhouse. She said while it may not slow things down, the area is really complicated, with drivers needing to watch “kids moving, cars moving, and everything else.” 

But despite her doubts, she conceded, “they are the traffic experts and they did not find that this would significantly add to time or seriousness of the traffic issues.”

Board member Jared Antin’s take was that the report recognizes traffic conditions on the whole thoroughfare through the center of town are already poor, “and that’s probably being generous,” so “it’s not going to make poor that much worse.”

“It’s not that they’re saying traffic will be wonderful through Bedford Village if this project is built,” Courtney-Batson said. “They’re just saying, basically, your traffic is going to continue to be absolutely awful, and you won’t notice the difference. This is not good news, but it is the reality.”

Board member Michael Tierney said he drives there every day at rush hour, “and no matter what, rush hour, I believe, is still longer of a time period than what’s in the reports.” He talked about all the reasons traffic stacks up at other times, and questioned the accuracy of the traffic consultant’s report. The board discussed the pros and cons of various traffic calming solutions mentioned in the report, from banning left turns to crosswalks with flashing lights. Planning Director Jesica Youngblood noted both 172 and 22 are state roads. 

“The applicant has proposed to implement a series of mitigation measures,” she said. “In a sense, everything’s predicated on whether or not the DOT goes along with it,” and it’s a big step to have anything actually approved by the state.

Courtney-Batson said the question they needed to answer was whether, as it relates to this application, they can say the proposal would have an environmental impact; Tierney said he was leaning more toward it having an environmental impact than not.

Resident Gerardo Mendez spoke via Zoom, saying he read the traffic report, and thought it understated the problem. 

“We’re basically taking a broken situation, adding a more complex potential solution to it that is out of our hands due to the state parties involved,” he said. “You’re adding people, you’re adding cars, and now we’re basically inviting a disaster. You’re inviting some pedestrian to be hit crossing in front of the Village Green.” 

He said it was already challenging enough.

“I think that the answer here should be this situation is untenable until the town has a better handle on its traffic,” Mendez said, reiterating that he disagreed with the traffic consultant saying the impact was minor. “Because you try to walk across that street in the middle of a rush hour, try to go from the Playhouse to get a coffee at G.E. Brown, and you put your life in your hands.”

Courtney-Batson said she agreed with a lot of what Mendez had to say, but that if they take the position that anything that will add to the traffic has to be rejected, they are saying that “nothing goes into Bedford Village anymore, because there isn’t anything that isn’t going to add to the issue,” and it is not a tenable position. “I mean, not tenable from a planning perspective to simply say we’ve got to freeze life at this moment in time.”

Courtney-Batson thought they had enough to add the discussion to the draft of SEQRA Part 3 for their October meeting.

Historic District impact

Courtney-Batson said she thought the board was favorably impressed with the direction in which the architectural plans were going, based on revised drawings submitted at the previous meeting.

Clayton Rose, chair of the Bedford Village Historic District Review Commission, said they had not yet had time to give it the attention it deserves, though he thought the new designs were more closely aligned with where the commission was after the first set of drawings. He said they are working “as quickly as we can to have a reasoned and deliberate review” and will be back in October.

Courtney-Batson attempted to explain the significance of the process they’re involved with, and why it is a little different than what they usually do.

“We’re not deciding on an application,” she said. “The Historic District Commission does not have an application before it at the moment. What we’re writing an environmental review for, is for rezoning.” 

She said if they recommend it and the Town Board decides to do the rezoning, “the result of that is not a project.”

But she said they need to keep in mind the result of that is permission for somebody to put forth a full application for a project, and she is concerned that after the rezoning they could “end up with something that we didn’t intend.”

Courtney-Batson had requested the town attorney come up with a passage that she recommended be included in the SEQRA review. She said it would protect the status of the BVHDC and its authority to supersede any claims that somebody has a right to a certain kind of density. The draft specifies, “the proposed design plans limit the number of residential units to 24 to 28, establish the maximum square footage of commercial space to be developed at about 4,140 square feet, and limit the height of the proposed development to 35 feet.” It says, in part, “To the extent the requested change in zoning allows development that would result in a greater number of residential units or an increase in the density of the requested development, such an increase in the scale or density of the proposed designs shall require a revised environmental determination by the Planning Board.” 

She explained, “What that section is essentially saying is that if somebody were to walk in and want something denser than what’s been talked about here or radically different from what’s been talked about here, not only would the Historic District have rights over it; it in fact would involve a new environmental review by the Planning Board.”

The hearing was again adjourned, with the discussion to resume Oct. 22.