Bedford Planning Board eyes environmental review of Post Road project

By JEFF MORRIS 

The Bedford Planning Board held another special meeting on Thursday, May 21, for the sole purpose of continuing review of a proposed multiuse development at 633-647 Old Post Road in Bedford Village. Meanwhile, letters added to the document file for the application both posed and answered some questions.

The meeting was a continuation of the public hearing regarding the proposal, and the only thing on the agenda was to go through all the items in Part 2 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act form. Representatives of the applicants were present but made no comments.

Letters on file

Separate from the meeting, letters had been placed in the document file. One, dated April 20, was from the town’s Wetlands Control Commission and indicated it had done a preliminary review of the viability of the proposed development as it relates to potential impacts on regulated wetlands and wetlands buffers. The letter was sent seven days after the board had held its previous special hearing on the project, which focused entirely on wastewater treatment. 

The wetlands commission called the conceptual plan submitted to the Planning Board “very preliminary” and said it lacks “many details that will be required if the plan proceeds and comes before the Commission for formal review and approval.” It said the wetlands commission “has a number of concerns and questions, although nothing that at this time would lead the Commission to conclude that the proposal is unfeasible.”

One of the wetlands commission’s primary concerns was the proposed installation of a wastewater treatment facility in the wetlands buffer, which was precisely what was discussed at the Planning Board’s April 13 meeting. The wetlands commission recommended that the applicant explore other locations on the site for the facility, “and/or demonstrate why this location has no suitable alternative.” It questioned the selection, operation and sizing of the proposed system.

Regarding sizing, the wetlands commission noted the applicant had proposed a significant increase in the capacity of the treatment system, from the current system’s 6,800 gallons per day to a proposed 28,000, which would serve the Bedford Playhouse building next door and the proposed multiuse development, as well as “potential others.” “We understand the ‘potential others’ might include the Bedford Village Elementary School, which is in need of an upgrade to its current effluent management system,” the wetlands commission said. “There may well be a general environmental benefit to making the wastewater treatment facility available to the elementary school, or other off-site users,” continued the letter. “However, the Commission’s focus is the potential impact on the wetlands. In that regard, the impact of a significant increase in the volume of effluent discharged into the wetlands must be carefully considered.”

That issue was partially resolved in a second letter, dated May 19, from Robert Glass, superintendent of the Bedford Central School District. Glass said the district had been approached regarding the possibility of partnering/participating in the wastewater treatment project being discussed by the applicants with the planning board.

“It is my understanding that the possible participation of the school district was at some point expressed to the Planning Board,” Glass said. “After much discussion, consultation and analysis regarding the possibility of the school district’s participation, the Board of Education and the administration of the school district believe it is important to be transparent with the Planning Board that we have determined it is in the district’s best interest to continue on the pathway toward construction of our own WWTP on the Bedford Village site.” 

This removal of BVES from the wastewater treatment equation was not discussed at the board’s May 21 meeting.

The wetlands commission had gone on to express concerns about the quality of effluent discharge, the need for careful review of the stormwater management system, plans for additional parking, and plans for wetlands restoration. Their letter concluded that, assuming their concerns are met, “the project may well improve the current situation on the site, and a robust wetland restoration plan would certainly improve the wetland.”

SEQRA Part 2 review

As it went through all of the questions in Part 2, the board spent considerable time attempting to determine what the meaning and intent was of some of the language used.

The instructions for the form say that Part 2 “is designed to help the lead agency inventory all potential resources that could be affected by a proposed project or action.” It acknowledges that those doing the review “will not necessarily be environmental professionals,” so “the questions are designed to walk a reviewer through the assessment process by providing a series of questions that can be answered using the information found in Part 1.” The board had already gone through Part 1. 

The assessment form presented a long series of questions designed to gauge whether “the proposed action” would have an impact on multiple areas, some of which had more relevance than others. Each required a Yes or No answer, with Yes answers triggering a series of detailed sub-questions, to which the choices were either “No, or small impact may occur” or “Moderate to large impact may occur.”

In most cases, the board determined that the answers were either No or, if Yes, impact would be small to moderate. There were some exceptions, in which the board thought the impact would be moderate to large, notably in considering the wastewater treatment plant and the wetlands buffer. In many instances board members thought the form contradicted itself, and upon further consideration — usually in light of subsequent questions — they went back and changed answers. 

At one point, Chair Deirdre Courtney-Batson complained, “I’ve got so many crossouts here, I can’t tell what I’m doing.” 

The consensus was that a sizable number of items were going to need further discussion and study when they got to Part 3 of the assessment.

Public comments

There were only two comments from members of the public. Bedford Town Historian John Stockbridge, who did not indicate whether he was speaking in an official capacity, said there was just “one little point” that he had: “I was thinking the proposed action may have a significantly negative impact on the historic character of the village.”

Kevin McAvey, a resident of The Farms, said it was important to think about “how to preserve the historic character of our district” while also “balancing that with a shared need for smart, sustainable development.” He said he wanted to, on behalf of his family and many of his 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.”

He spoke of creating more retail opportunities, housing opportunities, and more of a dynamic atmosphere downtown.

“I think many concerns still need to be mitigated and addressed,” he said, “and I have full confidence in this board and others to do that and have public comment along the way.”

The board voted to adjourn the public hearing and close the meeting.