Heated discussion of St. Mary’s subdivision at Planning Board

Photograph provided by The Helmes Group of an existing house on the St. Mary’s property.

By JEFF MORRIS 

A continued hearing into the request for approval of a subdivision by St. Mary of the Assumption Church in Katonah dominated the Oct. 22 Planning Board meeting, and it became heated at times.

The church wants to subdivide 5.3 acres of property at 117-119 Valley Road from one lot into three.

The matter had last been before the Planning Board in August. Subsequent to that, said architect Steven Helmes, they obtained a side yard variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. As at the first hearing, conflict developed regarding the potential for future development.

Father Mark Vaillancourt of St. Mary’s insisted that the only intent was to subdivide the property so that an existing house on one portion can be sold immediately, while the vacant lot that would result on the third portion can be sold later. He said they would save money by applying for a three-lot subdivision, rather than doing a separate subdivision later on. The church wishes to raise funds by selling the property, which it can only do by having a subdivision approved; it has no intention of building anything or having any involvement with any potential future development, said Vaillancourt.

“We’ve been working with The Helmes Group to get the proper boundary lines,” he said, so that they can put the house adjacent to the rectory on the market. He said this can take the burden of the property off of the parish, “get us the revenue back into the parish itself, and then whatever the future might hold for the other parcel, we have no definitive plans at this time.”

As simple as that sounded, considerable confusion ensued, with members of the public and the board questioning what the subdivision entailed, and whether there was a plan for a road or a driveway to access one of the lots. The discussion went on for over an hour. 

Helmes insisted whoever bought the property could decide to build whatever they liked, but that had nothing to do with the current request; he said a plan that he had presented showing a 16-unit development was only created at the request of the Planning Department, as an illustration of the maximum that could be built on the site. Planning Director Jesica Youngblood confirmed she had requested the plan in order to confirm that the vacant lot that would be created is, in fact, viable as a separate parcel. 

According to Youngblood, in order for the parcel to be viable, it has to be accessible, and that meant an easement would be needed for a driveway, as well as to provide utilities.

As at the earlier planning and zoning board meetings, several residents raised alarms about what they saw as the certainty that the subdivision would inevitably lead to a multi-family development, despite assurances by Helmes and Vaillancourt that whoever bought the property could build a single home if they so desired. The residents said they suspected such a development plan was already in the works, and raised the specter of increased traffic, danger to pedestrians and bicyclists, and stormwater cascading downhill as a result.

Chair Deirdre Courtney-Batson cautioned that the church has a legal right to subdivide, and repeated that any later development will face a full review, but said she was disappointed with the way the application had originally been presented. 

Courtney-Batson emphasized that this is a “very complicated property,” and she didn’t want the board to “do anything now that assumes an answer that might be used to allow a density on this property that is not appropriate.” She said she wanted to make it clear to any future developer that their intentions were not to prejudge any development, or say that “we think 16 units in two buildings is the right thing to do, or that we even are making the assumption that it can be done. If we don’t talk about these things at all, we run the risk of losing the town’s control over it.” 

The board’s job, said Courtney-Batson, is to protect the town’s rights against the next owner, without destroying the rights of the present owner. She said the board wants confirmation from the town engineer that the third lot can truly be reached, given wetlands and steep slopes within 20 feet of the illustrative driveway. 

Helmes said they could forward their package to the town engineer for review, but wanted to know who would pay for it. Youngblood said there would be a nominal fee, as there always is, and tried to offer clarification “because this is really getting out of hand.” She said the town engineer simply needs to confirm that a driveway can actually be done “from a design and construction standard pursuant to the subdivision regulations of the town of Bedford,” and if they can get through that hurdle, “it sounds like a lot of these issues are going to become non-issues.” But, said Youngblood, there needs to be certification that access can be gained from Valley Road, not only from Wildwood Road; “Otherwise, you cannot have a subdivision.”

The board adjourned the public hearing, but Vaillancourt had an additional comment. He said he thought “all of this has a prejudice to the church’s position,” and that in being told to “find feasibility of driveways and everything,” it seems that “undue prejudice is being put on us that normally somebody who would want to subdivide a piece of property would not have to go through.” 

Courtney-Batson replied that she was “profoundly sorry that you feel that way, because it is not true,” but Vaillancourt was insistent that they were being treated differently. “We’re just asking for a subdivision, period, end,” he said.

Board member Nilus Klingel said an additional level of scrutiny to satisfy the board’s concern about whether there is valid access is legitimate. “There’s wetlands within 20 feet of the illustrative driveway,” he said. “There’s steep slopes within 20 feet of the illustrative driveway. I think it’s worth just one level deeper of analysis. I don’t think that’s unduly burdensome.”

Courtney-Batson concluded the session with the observation that she often finds people cannot be fair to each other, “and I just would like everybody in the room to consider, and this is on both sides, whether they’re being fair to the other side.” She acknowledged the church has real needs, and the neighbors have real needs as well. “I grew up with being connected with parishes like the one here,” she said. “There was a notion that there was a particular way I was supposed to behave towards other people. And I just wish we’d all try and keep that in mind, because it applies as much in this room as it does in some of the other rooms we find ourselves together in. And on that overly emotional note, I would like to move on to the next item on our agenda.”