Bedford Planning Board welcomes one project, another? Not so much

By JEFF MORRIS 

The Planning Board had very different reactions on Monday to two Bedford Hills apartment buildings that are proposed for sites only about 200 feet apart on Adams Street.

61-85 Adams St.

A proposal for a two-story, 10-unit apartment building at 61-85 Adams St., Bedford Hills, was granted preliminary site plan approval. 

The plan, originally presented in May by architect Steven Helmes of The Helmes Group and Jan Johannessen, principal at KSCJ Consulting, is for property owned by Jonathan Nissman, under the name 190 Realty Corp.

Renderings of the proposed 12-unit apartment building at 59 Adams St., Bedford Hills. TOM ABILLAMA ARCHITECTS

Rendering of the proposed 12-unit apartment building at 59 Adams St., Bedford Hills.

Two existing buildings on the site would be taken down. The applicants obtained four variances from the Zoning Board, for a front yard setback to allow covered front porches; a rear yard variance; building coverage slightly exceeding the 20% coverage allowed, at 21%; and a deficiency in off-street parking. “The project requires 16 off-street parking spaces; we provide 11,” said Helmes. He also said they met with the Bedford Hills Fire Department and got their signoff.

Johannessen said they’ve provided a full engineering design, with a stormwater mitigation system that would be underneath the proposed parking lot, rather than discharging into the road as is currently the case.

There was considerable discussion about a lighting design plan, and what would provide the best coverage for the parking lot and walkways without causing glare outside the property. The board ultimately agreed to include possible changes to lighting as a condition of approval, with another condition to be working with the Town Board for construction work that needs to occur on town property in order to provide sidewalks.

“The applicants have been very cooperative with us,” said Chair Deirdre Courtney-Batson. “This is a good development. It fits the community. The variances that were needed were very minor.”

59 Adams St.

Things did not go as smoothly for a planned five-story, 12-unit building at 59 Adams Street, owned by Bedford South Adam LLC. 

The proposed building is identified as The Mark II, and the applicant, Mark Fonte, was also responsible for opening The Mark, a 13-unit building located at 156 Bedford Road, Katonah.

A preliminary presentation was made by Mark Blanchard, land use attorney to the project, who said, “It seems a little odd to call it preliminary because this application has been in the works for quite a while, and it has been revised since it was initially brought forward.”

He said it was originally an 18-unit building, and they brought it down to 12. 

“We have dropped the height of the building; we’re only about a half story now above what your code allows,” Blanchard said.

Zoning board challenge

The original 18-unit concept went before the Zoning Board of Appeals a year ago and was challenged by several members of that board, which left its hearing open before referring it to the Planning Board. It was also criticized at that meeting by Zachary Patierno, chief of the Bedford Hills Fire Department, who expressed serious concerns about the building height and the ability of the fire department to gain access.

“On June 4 of this year, we received a letter from the fire department stating that they now have no objection to the property, that they appreciated that we lowered the height,” Blanchard said. “They feel that they have fire suppression and fire emergency first access to the entirety of the building.”

The building will have two affordable units in compliance with town code. Esther Martinez, part of the design team at Tom Abillama Architects, said they were going to have a café as part of the first floor to contribute to connectivity with the sidewalk and “people walking around the town.”

'A material improvement'

Board member Jared Antin said, objectively, it’s a material improvement over what’s currently there, but he thought they needed to do more to separate the driveway from the neighbors. He said he appreciated the variety of unit sizes.

“These are actually larger, I would argue, than many of the other projects that we’ve reviewed,” he said, and it was the only project in the last few years that has had a three-bedroom unit. Blanchard noted there is only one of those, “so there’s not a shock to your school system.”

Antin was concerned that the elevator mechanical space on top of the building could grow, as he said it had on other projects, and board member Michael Tierney suggested a different type of elevator could eliminate the need for that structure and substantially lower the building.

Courtney-Batson said she found the drawings a bit misleading, with the relationship to the building next to it “off.” 

But she had more fundamental objections.

“I think it underestimates the appearance in terms of the size and height of the building,” she said, and in developing the master plan there was no enthusiasm for increasing the allowable height of buildings. 

She said the variances that are needed are really significant, and while there are some people in town who’ve argued that “we shouldn’t give any variances at all for housing, I don’t agree with them. But there are limits, and the variances here are variances specifically related to the size of the building: 68% building coverage where 20 is allowed. This is a much bigger building than is allowed by the zoning. This isn’t a matter of just a few feet.”

Tierney said its size was such that, “you’re going to see it as soon as you hit the bridge. You’re going to see it from the Saw Mill. You’re going to see it from everywhere in the winter.” 

“It’s going to dwarf everything in the neighborhood,” said Courtney-Batson. 

“It’s going to dwarf the entire village,” said Tierney.

And, he noted, it would have a much bigger impact than the other Mark in Katonah. “It’s substantially taller than that,” he said, and while the Katonah building has breathing room around it, “this one doesn’t have anything for breathing room. And it has diminutive buildings next to it.” He said he would like to see a representation of the streetscape at least going out three or four properties.

Tierney asked whether the fire department made any comments about EV cars being stored underneath; Blanchard said they had not referred to anything specifically, but said overall they had no problems with the project. 

EV charging stations

Courtney-Batson asked about the designated EV charging stations shown on the plan, wanting to know if reserving those for EV charging didn’t reduce the number of available spaces and make the parking deficiency, for which they are applying for a variance from the ZBA, worse. Blanchard said they would come back with more information on that.

“We’ve been hearing a lot from people about what they do and don’t want in terms of housing,” said Courtney-Batson. “And by and large, this board has been very much in favor of increasing the housing diversity and the rest. But this is the kind of thing that people have been worried would be the ultimate result of our pushing for more housing.”

She said it’s producing very expensive housing with wonderful amenities, and while she didn’t want to sound like a snob, “it isn’t really what our master plan is about. It’s taking up an enormous amount of space. It’s going to be a monument seen from afar. I just don’t understand how the zoning board is going to look at this and see it as a good idea. But that will be their business.”

Blanchard said he had to push back against the idea of it not being aligned with the comprehensive plan, but he thought they could do something to deal with the massing.

“We have our work cut out for us,” he said, “but our next stop is in front of the Zoning Board,” where they are scheduled to appear Oct. 1.