Hearing set on Katonah 15-unit apartment plan

Aerial map shows the proposed apartment building site, outlined in black at center, in context of its surroundings, with Arroway Tractor at left, a commercial building immediately to the right, and existing apartment building to the right of that. THE HELMES GROUP

Architect’s rendering of the proposed apartment building at 150 Bedford Road, Katonah. THE HELMES GROUP

By JEFF MORRIS 

The public will have its say on a proposed 15-unit apartment building in Katonah next month.

The plan for 150 Bedford Road came before the Planning Board for the third time on Feb. 9. It was first introduced in May 2025 and then shown in a somewhat revised version in December. 

At the recent meeting’s outset, board Chair Deirdre Courtney-Batson announced that it was not a public hearing, and that it was the board’s intention to set a date for a public hearing in March. That headed off the possibility of any comments, either pro or con, at the meeting. 

The proposal had already been obliquely referenced in a letter to the editor which appeared in the Feb. 6 issue of The Recorder, from the co-presidents of the Katonah Village Improvement Society. That letter criticized developers who are “increasingly advancing projects that do not align with the scale, infrastructure capacity, or architectural fabric of Katonah,” and include “only a token number of affordable units while introducing density and intensity far beyond what our hamlet can reasonably sustain.”

Such concerns were not addressed at this meeting.

The building under consideration calls for six two-bedroom and nine one-bedroom units, including three units characterized as affordable, complying with town code requiring 20% of the units be affordable. It is a short distance from the building now known as The Mark, at 156 Bedford Road, which was completed last year with 13 apartments and the same 20% affordable ratio. That project had generated considerable neighborhood pushback.

Architect Steven Helmes of The Helmes Group highlighted some changes that had been made to the plan since their Dec. 8 appearance, in response to comments and requests that were made at that time. He said the elevator was increased in size to accommodate a stretcher; the designated affordable units, all 1-bedroom, are now depicted on the floor plan, with one on each floor; the landscaping plan was revised and updated with all native plants; and air handlers are depicted on the south elevation drawing.

There is now an architectural rendering, showing a three-story, gambrel-style building, having a pitched roof, with stone on the lower level facade and siding or shingles on the upper levels. “It’s not going to be white,” said Helmes. “We’re thinking some other color; there’s too many white buildings there now. Soft yellow, we’re thinking, but it’s not set yet.” He said there will be fiberglass roof shingles.

Helmes said most of the parking is in the back of the long, narrow lot, with handicapped accessible spaces in the front. He said they had done a study on the traffic impact on the non-state road. The memo submitted by Helmes says the project is anticipated to generate approximately seven to eight trips during the a.m. peak hour and approximately nine to 10 trips during the p.m. peak hour. 

According to the memo, “Trip generation estimates were developed using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, Land Use Code (LUC) 220-Low-Rise Apartments.” It says based on ITE rates, the project is expected to generate approximately 6.5 to 7.0 vehicle trips per dwelling unit per weekday, resulting in approximately 95 to 105 average daily vehicle trips. 

The memo goes on to say, “Based on the low traffic volumes generated, the roadway context, and the absence of nearby capacity-constrained intersections, the proposed development is not anticipated to result in significant adverse traffic impacts. Accordingly, a detailed traffic impact study is not warranted.”

Helmes said he was aware of a traffic study that had been done for the building at 156; he did not know how thorough it was and had been unable to locate it. 

Courtney-Batson said they had just received his traffic memo that day and not had a chance to look at it, but would do so before the beginning of March. She said it was worth comparing it with the study for 156; board member Jared Antin said the amount of traffic was “arguably the same or less than another use of the site could bring,” something he noted they had also discussed during the 156 application.

Helmes mentioned several other details that had been addressed in the plan, and board members raised a few issues regarding exterior design features and drainage onto the property next door.

Board member Michael Tierney said the rendering showed “design intent,” but was a little bit deceiving. He noted as you drive down Bedford Road, you are not going to see vegetation as depicted, but would actually see the neighboring buildings. Helmes said they could do another rendering with the planned building superimposed on a photograph of the site.

The board reviewed Part 1 of the Environmental Assessment Form, and began going through Part 2. Regarding a question on whether the proposed action would “impair the character or quality of the existing community,” Courtney-Batson said she thought that was something they should hold for the public hearing. 

The applicant cannot go before the Zoning Board of Appeals for any variances until the Planning Board completes the environmental review.

The Planning Board passed a motion to hold a public hearing on the application on March 9.