Neighbors cool to Katonah church's plan for subdivision

Architect Stephen Helmes presented photos of existing residences on the site along with a possible subdivision plan.

By JEFF MORRIS 

A plan by St. Mary of the Assumption Roman Catholic Church to subdivide its land in Katonah into three lots was met with concern by neighbors at a public hearing Aug. 31. 

Bedford Planning Board Chair Deirdre Courtney-Batson made clear that while the hearing on the application was being opened, it would not be closed the same night, “given the time of year” with many people away on vacation; it would be adjourned to a future meeting.

Even with the anticipated low turnout, five people turned up and spoke at length, expressing questions and concerns.

What is proposed

The property is a single 5.32-acre lot located at 117-119 Valley Road. Architect Stephen Helmes of the Helmes Group, representing the owner, said the property is unique in that it technically has two frontages: one on Valley Road, the other on Wildwood Road. There are two houses on the property, one of which is the rectory.

“We are not proposing any development,” said Helmes. 

He said they want to take the unoccupied single-family house at 119 Valley Road, which they don’t need anymore, “off their books, put it on the tax roll, and so they don’t have to maintain that house.”

His statement led to a resident asking if the church was going to be paying taxes for the house. Helmes clarified that he meant the house would be put on the rolls as a separate property; it would remain tax-exempt unless and until it was sold.

Helmes said he met with the planning director, and was advised that if they want to create a three-lot subdivision, they have to see if the back lot is buildable. They did this by creating two possibilities: a single-family home with access off Wildwood Road, and a two-building, 16-unit development, also with access off Wildwood. “We came up with a scheme that could support 16 apartments if needed,” he said, “but the church does not want to go into developing. They just want to have the option of, if they wanted to ever sell this parcel down the road, they wouldn’t have to come back.”

Courtney-Batson was quick to point out that if they ever did plan to develop it, they would absolutely have to come back and get approvals. Helmes clarified that the only thing they would not need to come back for is the subdivision, which is a required step before they can move ahead with anything.

The Rev. Mark Vaillancourt, pastor of St. Mary’s, explained they had enlisted the Helmes Group to investigate the property. 

“It’s very clear to us that if we don’t subdivide the property, we really don’t have a future as far as planning any type of development of it,” he said.

He said at this time there is no deliberate plan to develop the property, “although we do want the opportunity in the future.” 

Vaillancourt said it’s just for the future development of the parish. 

“We would really look to see if this is a possible direction for us to raise revenue,” he said. “This seemed to be the right direction for future decisions to be made about where we can develop the parish, whatever the options are.” 

Helmes noted that dividing the property would require seeking some variances, because the resulting side yard for the rectory would be less than the 50 feet required. 

He noted that the St. Mary’s property is part of the sewer system, and any development on the back lot would require a connection to the sewers on Valley Road even though the driveway access would be on Wildwood. The area is already zoned Village Apartments, and according to Courtney-Batson, has been so designated since zoning was first introduced in 1926.

Concerns

Courtney-Batson made the point that any decisions they make now will obligate the town down the road. 

“We have to consider all the implications of it now the way we would consider it three years from now,” she said, and they have to explore both the options and the concerns for the future.

Wary of development

All the members of the public who spoke were longtime residents of the neighborhood, and all expressed concerns. They shared a belief that just the fact a subdivision was being sought meant some kind of development was inevitable. The plan for a 16-unit project presented by Helmes helped fuel that, though he said it was merely a concept that was created to show what was feasible on the subdivided parcel. 

Elizabeth Plunkett of Wildwood Road said there is “tons of traffic” on Wildwood, “even though you don’t think there would be,” as a result of the sports courts and fields at Katonah Memorial Park, just up the road.

Tom Conrad of Valley Road said, “I think we need to be honest that the whole point of subdividing is to develop, and I guess my main concern is that whatever development occurs abides by the town’s own language in its comprehensive plan.” He asked whether the subdivision would “lay the groundwork for development that I and other neighbors who abut these properties are going to have a problem living with?”

Barbara Bright-Mottleson of Wildwood Road asked about the off-street parking for 16 apartments mentioned in the conceptual plan; the town’s requirements for parking spaces to meet the bedroom count were described by Helmes. 

She also questioned whether 16 apartments could potentially be developed on each of the three lots. Board member Jared Antin explained that the one house that could be subdivided out is a Tier 1 historic structure, which is protected and would require “a whole slew of approvals” to do any modification; the second lot is the rectory, which the church has stated it has no interest in changing. 

He said the potential lot three would be vacant, and the applicant has to demonstrate it can be a viable lot in order to create the subdivision. “So they have put forth a 16 unit multi-family housing development which is the densest it could be to the zoning code,” as well as a potential single-family option. “So we are reviewing what is possible.”

Bright-Mottleson said it would be “a very significant change in the nature of that area of town.” She mentioned the town camp, which she called “robust” and mentioned the traffic flow on Wildwood, which she said was “dangerous.”

Apartments are allowed

Dan Bigman, of Ashby Place, asked about the area’s current zoning, and was told it is already zoned for Village Apartments, which means multifamily development would be allowed even without the subdivision. It was noted that this is not a rezoning, and that Wildwood Condominiums already exists next door. 

Bigman also asked about the status of the adjacent former St. Mary’s School. Vaillancourt said right now, the school is occupied, with a pre-K program, a religious education program, and CYO programs, youth leagues, and other types of programs using the gym. “And it is very capable of being ramped up to be another school for the future,” he said.

Susan Polos, also of Ashby Place, asked whether instead of approving three lots they could approve only two. She said that way they can sell the house, “as opposed to giving them this extra lot when we know that they’re going to develop it, which is scary for most of us.” Courtney-Batson said the only way she knew they could consider something like that is if they found there was “something undevelopable about a large chunk of the space”— otherwise, whatever is requested could happen. 

Town Attorney Eric Gordon interjected that the application is for three lots, so it could be denied for three lots, and then the applicant would have to decide how they’re going to proceed at that point. “Well, I think that the neighborhood really hopes that happens,” said Polos.

Courtney-Batson observed that “you can’t expect people to ignore the potential for development.” But, she said, “We also have to accept the fact that whoever owns the property, whether it’s a church or an individual or a business, has property rights, as we all do,” adding the board “has both a legal and a moral obligation to respect those rights.” 

Next steps

The public hearing was adjourned, and will be reopened. Courtney-Batson said the board needs to do an environmental review, but rather than declare itself lead agency, she moved that it be an uncoordinated review, with the ZBA issuing its own environmental determination.

She told Helmes it might be helpful to speak with his client about some of the comments the public made “just with regards to the viability or the non-viability of a two-lot subdivision. I think that would be nice to have on the record as well, just to close that door.”