Planning Board housing hearing turns personal

Architectural rendering of 150 Bedford Road from the north, not showing the Arroway property. Courtesy of THE HELMES GROUP

By JEFF MORRIS 

A public hearing before the Planning Board about the plan for a 15-unit apartment building in Katonah turned both contentious and personal on Monday.

The hearing that was opened at this meeting marked the fourth appearance by architect Steven Helmes regarding the property at 150 Bedford Road. After an hour and 20 minutes, the hearing was adjourned until April, with Chair Deirdre Courtney-Batson explaining the adjournment was due to there having been a glitch on the town website causing information about the hearing to disappear for a period of time. Since that may have led some people to believe it had been canceled, it will be reopened to accommodate anyone who might have missed it.

While concerns about the impact of the proposal were expressed by all five residents who spoke, it was one in particular, Frank Veith, who dominated much of the discussion and was enmeshed in a personal confrontation with Courtney-Batson. Ironically, they appeared to be old friends, or at least Katonah acquaintances, and expressed admiration and respect for one another.

Veith, who said he had a law office in Katonah until 2025 and was a past president of the Katonah Chamber of Commerce, said he was very surprised by comments made by Courtney-Batson prior to opening the hearing, in which she characterized the proposal as “small scale.” He felt it was completely inappropriate. 

“It seems to me that the chairperson has made up her mind, when you come out and call it a ‘small scale’ project,” he said. “The fact that it needs variances from the zoning board clearly means it is not small scale, in my mind.” 

He said the scale of what is built in that area will, over time, dramatically change the feel of Katonah.

He then doubled down on his criticism.

“If you were a judge, and I an attorney arguing a case, it seems to me that at least the chairperson has made up her mind, even though she’s expressed wanting to hear the entire application.” He said, “It seems to me the decision has been made.”

Board member Jared Antin explained that the variances needed were not related to the size of the project, but Veith argued that they were. Courtney-Batson also attempted to argue that practically every application results in variances being sought, but Veith was having none of it and made clear he did not wish to hear her response.

“You can’t tell me not to respond when you make it personal,” said Courtney-Batson.

What Courtney-Batson had actually said, which Veith objected to, was, “The type of small-scale multifamily residential development that this represents is in fact something that has been relatively common in Katonah and Bedford in the past.” 

She contrasted it with 20 condo units at the corner of Wildwood and Valley Road, 41 units of multifamily housing on Nottingham Road, 59 units built at Lake Marie, and 90 units at Fellowship Hall. She said these 15 units, and the 13 that were already built at 156 Bedford Road, have an impact that has to be studied, “but it is not an innovation, it is not something that Katonah or Bedford has never dealt with, and it’s not something that we should necessarily see as a threat.”

In those introductory remarks, Courtney-Batson was responding to a letter from the Katonah Village Improvement Society, which was sent to the board and appeared in the Feb. 6 issue of The Recorder. That letter criticized developers who are “increasingly advancing projects that do not align with the scale, infrastructure capacity, or architectural fabric of Katonah.” 

She argued that the letter gave the impression that there were many applications, when in fact there were only two: this one, and the one already built at 156 Bedford Road. Taryn Kendall, who had co-written the letter, later appeared and clarified that she was referring to projects throughout Bedford, not only Katonah. 

Courtney-Batson rebutted other criticisms that had been leveled, including that the applicants “seek to bypass longstanding zoning protections.” She said that was simply not true; the application reflects the existing zoning code, but “that doesn’t mean these automatically get approved.” She said KVIS was “right to insist on a careful and transparent examination of the issues, and that’s why we’re starting this off with a public hearing.”

Planning Director Jesica Youngblood provided an extensive list of various steps that applicants need to go through before a plan is even submitted.  

Besides Veith and Kendall, those who spoke included Karen Ferris, Karen Fuchs and Tim Murphy, with letters on file from Kendall and Laureen Campanelli. All expressed concerns with the cumulative effect of both apartment buildings being in the same area and creating an undue burden on the neighborhood, both in terms of building size and character, and additional traffic.

Murphy, who lives across the street, said, “This is the opposite of what this town has always been.”

Kendall noted the developer has expressed interest in also developing the property next door, the Arroway Tractor dealership. She asked the board to consider the cumulative effect of all the projects, rather than considering them in isolation.

Helmes confirmed that his client was planning to redevelop the Arroway property, but said that project was in the very preliminary stages. He did reveal that it may be a mixed-use project, “not more apartments.”

There was additional criticism that strayed off this application and focused on the appearance of The Mark, the building at 156 Bedford Road, and brought out the fact that the town does not have a formal architectural review process.

Further comments from residents and board members also raised questions about green space, sidewalks, the quality of architectural renderings, and more doubts about the amount of parking that would be required. Helmes reiterated that he had suggested other uses to the property owner, but that a restaurant or retail would require far more parking than a multifamily building.

The public hearing was adjourned until Monday, April 13.