Developer proposes additional apartments on Adams St.

Elevation drawings and a full-color rendering of the apartments proposed on Adams Street in Bedford Hills.  COURTESY OF THE HELMES GROUP

By JEFF MORRIS 

Eight months after a plan for an 18-unit apartment building on Adams Street in Bedford Hills went before the Zoning Board of Appeals, a plan for a 10-unit apartment building practically next door was presented to the Planning Board.

The plan, presented by architect Steven Helmes of The Helmes Group and Jan Johannessen, principal at KSCJ Consulting, calls for a two-story building at 61-85 Adams St. containing 10 apartments, two of which would be classified as affordable. The property is owned by Jonathan Nissman, under the name 190 Realty Corp.

Helmes said Nissman has owned the property since 2019. It is currently occupied by two office/commercial buildings on either side of a parking lot. “The Nissmans came to us to see what we can do to redevelop this property,”  Helmes said. “We came up with a concept for a 10-unit apartment two-story building.” 

He said the end units will be two bedrooms, and the middle section will consist of four one-bedrooms on the ground floor, which will be ADA compliant, and four one-bedrooms on the second floor.

According to Helmes, they received approval from Public Works Commissioner Kevin Winn last summer for 10 apartments. Winn is in charge of approvals for connection to the Katonah-Bedford Hills sewer system.

Helmes also said they recently met with the Bedford Hills Fire Department on site, and received a letter from Zachary Patierno, chief of the department, saying they had no problems with the application. That reaction contrasts with the response Patierno had last fall to a plan for a five-story, 18-unit building at 59 Adams St., about which he expressed “serious concerns” regarding access and safety. 

That property has no connection to this proposal, though Helmes did reference it at the end of his remarks, saying, “I believe there’s another proposal just south of this property, that’s been before your board.” He was admonished by Planning Director Jesica Youngblood to only “speak of your own application,” but he continued, “I mean that’s more housing coming in.”

Helmes said they will be pursuing variances from the ZBA, one of which is to allow the front covered porches, which encroach into the 10-foot front yard setback almost 6 feet from the property line, and a rear yard variance.

He said they also “slightly exceed the building coverage by less than a point,” with a footprint that is under the 4,000 square foot limit for a single use. Another variance is needed for a deficiency in off-street parking, with the property able to accommodate 11 spaces and the town code calling for 16.

“There is parking nearby and we feel we can get the passes for the deficiency,” he said.

The existing buildings on the site are “tired, and we want to demo,” Helmes said, adding that they had looked at the possibility of retrofitting the buildings, but the cost associated with doing two buildings and adding sprinkler systems was too high.

Johannessen noted that the site was a little bit challenging topographically, with the existing parking area and driveway not meeting town standards for maximum grades. He said the lot will have to be dropped down a few feet, and the proposed first-floor elevation of the apartment building is about 3 feet lower than the existing condition. Dropping the level will require a retaining wall at the rear of the building, and about 3,050 feet of steep slopes will be disturbed, which he called “unavoidable.”

There was some pushback from board members regarding the absence from the plan of a sidewalk along Adams Street, though it does show a sidewalk that would connect the front doors to the parking lot.

“So you’re creating a situation where you’d not be able to walk if you have an apartment in this building, even if the town itself becomes more walkable in the future?” asked Chair Deirdre Courtney-Batson. “It seems odd that the only access into the building is through the parking lot,” added board member Jared Antin, a comment with which other board members agreed.

Johannessen explained that even with the site lowered 3 feet, there will need to be a retaining wall in the front, with steps down to any street-level sidewalk, and Helmes noted a sidewalk would have to be within the town right-of-way. The board acknowledged this, but insisted that a sidewalk and landscaping would be in keeping with the town’s desire to promote walkability and its efforts at tree planting. Johannessen began thinking of ways they could make that work, picturing a second sidewalk at a lower level running parallel to the upper sidewalk, with the board encouraging the idea of a landscaped seating area.

The board declared its intention to be the lead agency for environmental review, beginning the 30-day period for other agencies to state any objections. Youngblood noted that the Metropolitan Transportation Authority has recently requested that applications be submitted to them in any municipalities where they have a train station.