Bedford Town Board passes 20-acre development moratorium

By JEFF MORRIS

The Bedford Town Board on Aug. 11 resumed a public hearing on a proposed six-month moratorium for new developments on parcels over 20 acres. The legislation had been rewritten over the last month to specify that it applied to developments that involve five or more housing units. 

After some discussion, the moratorium was passed.

Supervisor Ellen Calves explained that in its previous iteration, the moratorium could have unintentionally affected properties where there was a plan to add or expand only one dwelling unit, or even a pool.

“It was something beyond the scope of what we intended,” she said.

The actual intention, said Calves, is to give the board an opportunity to hear from the Conservation Board regarding proposed changes they’d like to make to town code. Such changes would protect wildlife corridors that may affect large parcels that are considering using a conservation subdivision or Conservation Development tool. That report is expected at the Town Board’s next meeting. 

“It also gives us time to get a report back from our town housing task force,” said Calves, “which is considering amendments to how the town law treats middle income housing or affordable housing, which also could impact development.” 

One speaker, Sally Slater, commented via Zoom, referencing a letter she had sent to the board. She felt that the moratorium was targeting “the one big property across from DeCicco’s.”

Slater was referring to property on Route 22 across from Hunting Ridge Mall in Bedford, where DeCicco & Sons supermarket is located. The property had been the subject of speculative publicity, with the creation of fictional “Hunting Ridge Estates” promotional material that claimed it would be turned into 60-plus homes — while containing a disclaimer in tiny type stating no development application had been submitted to the town, plans are unknown, and no approvals have been granted.

The posting of that AI-generated flyer was enough to generate a fierce backlash on social media, and spurred a “Bedford Village West Land Use Input Meeting” in June, where it was noted the only actual activity involving the Route 22 property was that it had recently changed hands.

Slater commented that the property has been held up from any kind of development for 20 or 30 years; at one point there were plans to make it into the Rippowam Cisqua School campus. 

“And it’s just been prevented from any kind of development, and yet the owner pays full taxes,” she said, “and I believe that people have rights when they own property.” She added that it is unfair to only target large properties when it comes to a wildlife corridor, without looking at “smaller properties where people mow their lawns and spray chemicals and all of that.”

“I’ve lived in Bedford for 43 years,” Slater said. “It was beautiful when I moved here and it’s beautiful now. And I believe it’s going to stay that way because people choose Bedford for what it is.”

With that the only comment, the public hearing was closed.

Board member Midge Iorio said she agreed the moratorium made sense. 

“I wouldn’t be in favor of it if I thought it was trying to prohibit development of any parcel, and that one in particular,” she said. 

Calves agreed it made “a lot of sense.” She said she completely understands the rights of property owners, and she didn’t intend this to hold up any particular development.

“I think that’s a hard thing for residents who don’t want development to happen, to understand that zoning does give people certain rights,” Calves said. “They own properties and they have expectations to use that property.”

In fact, Calves said, the moratorium is intended to save any larger applications from having to go back and be amended or changed, once any potential recommendations from the conservation board or the housing task force are in place.

“We would move quickly to consider whatever recommendations are made,” she said. “If there are local laws to be passed, to pass them and then to end the moratorium — and we could end it early if we get through that in shorter than six months.”

At the same time, she noted, six months is appropriate because getting anything done takes several months anyway: “If you hear from the conservation board, draft a law, have a public hearing, it could take a few months, even if there’s just a few changes that they recommend,” she said.