Bedford's Historic Commission cool to mixed-use proposal

Artist’s rendering of the most recent concept for a mixed-use building on Old Post Road in Bedford Village. COURTESY OF BEINFIELD ARCHITECTURE

By JEFF MORRIS 

The proposal for a mixed-use development at 633-647 Old Post Road in Bedford Village, next door to the Bedford Playhouse, ran into some pushback at the Planning Board’s latest review of the application.

Continuing a public hearing on the project, Chair Deirdre Courtney-Batson said that she was reordering the board’s review of Part 3 of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act form in order to focus on “more substantive issues.” 

“One of the major issues that we have to consider has to do with the historic issues,” she said. “Some people would argue that this is not an environmental issue because it’s architectural, and the planning board does not have any jurisdiction over architectural issues. But this is also historic preservation, which is explicitly discussed and carried by the SEQRA process.”

Courtney-Batson said the Bedford Village historic district “is quite precious to Bedford,” and there are objective standards about how things are supposed to be considered. She said the Bedford Village Historic District Review Commission has say over it, as “an involved agency that the Planning Board is very interested in hearing from.”

After recounting why and how the town established the historic district and the review commission, its chair, Clayton Rose, described the process it had followed in reviewing the proposal, including all the input it had received, and he quickly summarized their findings.

“Based on the material provided to us at present, the commission would find that the current proposal lacks compatibility with the established character, scale and material integrity of Bedford Village Historic District,” Rose said. “However, the commission is providing recommendations regarding aspects of the proposal that would better align with the historic character of the district.”

Rose said their review should not be taken as a “do not disturb sign with regards to development of 633-647 Old Post Road.”

He said they look forward to reviewing any future revised project proposals that more accurately reflect and preserve the historic district’s context. 

Commission member Stacy Albanese reiterated that the review commission usually deals with “signs and mailbox colors” and “this is of a different order of magnitude in more ways than one for us.” 

She again summed up their process in the context of the establishment of the historic district, and ran through their determinations.

“First and foremost, we found that considerations of scale, siting, and massing are paramount to any new construction within the historic district.” The village context, she said, is in its 18th and 19th century historic buildings that do not exceed two and a half stories, with small scale massing, narrow frontages, and human scale proportions. 

“The proposed monolithic structure is significantly broader and taller than any contributing building in the district,” she said, calling the 1947 Playhouse adjacent to the proposed site a “documented outlier” that “does not establish a precedent for expanded scale or massing, in the commission’s opinion.” 

Albanese cited the Village Green as the “organizing element” around which there is an assemblage of historic structures. In that context, she said, there is a homogeneity of materials, scale, and proportion, with an absence of incompatible 20th century elements. “We believe that the current proposal would dilute this character-defining feature.”

She also noted there is a matter of precedence: “Once the scale of large new construction is established, it can be difficult, if not impossible, to contain.” 

She said one such building often invites others, gradually shifting the threshold, and the introduction of a large multi-use building is not simply a matter of adding density; “It’s a fundamental alteration of scale, pattern, and identity.” In such contexts, said Albanese, preservation depends not only on protecting individual buildings, but on sustaining the relationships between them. “When those relationships are disrupted, the character of the village is at risk,” she said.

Noting that the Planning Board has been asked to consider rezoning of at least part of the property due to the existence of multiple zoning maps that show it split between residential 2 acre and neighborhood business zones, Albanese concluded, “Regardless of a determination of which map is correct, the project would still require a variance for exceeding the two and a half story height limit pursuant to town zoning law. We believe that such a zoning variance would materially impact Bedford’s historic character for both this application and any subsequent variance requests.” 

Attorney P. Daniel Hollis, speaking for the applicants, contested the opinions expressed by the historic review commission, and warned against the board straying from its mission. He said the reason they were there was to deal with the need for rezoning due to the discrepancy in the maps — not to consider a site plan. 

“The rezoning has to take place, and that’s what the SEQRA is about,” he said. “The question to answer today is not what the tone is or the scale or what the materials are, but are there any significant environmental impacts that we can’t eliminate or mitigate.” He insisted, “Let’s not get off target here. There’s a time and a place for the concerns.”

Courtney-Batson countered that, though she appreciated being reminded of the mission, they went into it “very aware that there was a specific proposal that went with the rezoning — this wasn’t just a rezoning out of the blue somewhere.”

And while Hollis advocated for moving ahead with a negative environmental impact declaration to support the rezoning, Courtney-Batson cited the review commission’s conclusions and said there were still too many questions and concerns to do so.

Tom Kennedy, one of the principals of applicant LHP Old Post Road LLC, expressed confusion over why the proposal was being subjected to this kind of review at this stage. He said his understanding was “there’s a lot of different approvals you need,” and no site plan will get approved if there are wetlands, historic and zoning questions. 

“Nothing gets approved without those parties doing their due diligence on each of those items,” he said, asserting that he loves the town, is a member of the historical society and a “green” person. “I want every person to do their entire due diligence on this entire project,” he said, with his understanding being that will happen during the site plan approval process. He said he wants to mitigate everything that’s been mentioned, and he would not get the approvals of those bodies without mitigating. “So that’s where I’m at a little bit of a loss.”

Courtney-Batson responded that she believed he absolutely meant what he said. But, she emphasized, any criticisms were not directed at him, as approvals are not given to individual people, but are aimed at staying within the law. 

There were additional arguments, with Hollis sparring with Courtney-Batson and board member Diane Lewis over whether 20th century additions such as the Playhouse or the Arcade Building should be considered when assessing if the proposal fits within the village’s urban context. 

Courtney-Batson concluded that the Playhouse building was not a good historical reference point, and that it had problems of its own that could use mitigation. She said there was still a lot she was uncomfortable with, and while she did not necessarily need a worked-out site plan, she wanted something that people — particularly people on the historic commission — feel is going in the right direction, “and I don’t see that yet. And if it’s not going in the right direction, there’s only one other direction for it to go in.” 

The public hearing was again adjourned.