Review finds few impacts of Bedford Village proposal

By JEFF MORRIS 

The town Planning Board continues to find that there will be no significant environmental impacts from a proposed multi-use development in Bedford Village.

On June 8, the board reopened its review of 633-647 Old Post Road, a mixed apartment and commercial building planned for a vacant lot next door to the Bedford Playhouse, which is also a mixed residential and commercial structure.

This review was a reopening of the public hearing last opened at a special meeting on May 21 at which the board went through Part 2 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act form. At this meeting, the board began to look at the draft of Part 3. As the proposal was not the only item on the agenda, Chair Deirdre Courtney-Batson set a fixed stop time of 8:45 p.m. for the discussion.

Part 3 of the SEQRA review repeated and expanded on the same areas that had been covered in Part 2, focusing on impact on land and impact on surface water. Courtney-Batson pointed out that this project was not being impacted by the changes to SEQRA included in the recently passed state budget.

Courtney-Batson noted the document uses the term “the proposed action” to designate the zoning petition request to rezone the parcel from a split zoning designation of neighborhood business and R2A — residential 2 acres — to a fully NB neighborhood business designation, as well as the proposal’s construction. It also uses “the proposed project” to designate the proposed mixed-use building — residential and retail commercial — with on-site parking, a new wastewater treatment plant, and related landscaping and appurtenances. “These two issues are combined,” she said.

Impact on land

The board agreed that, though the proposed action may involve construction on slopes of 15% or greater that cover approximately 8.3% of the project site, with 15.6% of the site having 10%-15% slopes and approximately 76.1% of the site having 0%-10% slopes, there are no slopes exceeding 25%, meaning no steep slopes permit is required under town code. That, said Courtney-Batson, justifies saying the project has ‘'no or small impact” on steep slopes.

One area the board had judged would have “moderate to large” impact was that it “may involve construction that continues for more than one year or in multiple phases.” It agreed that the nature of the site and building construction will likely result in the construction process lasting at least one year; the applicant will be required to prepare a sediment and erosion control plan and engage in other mitigation and monitoring steps. 

Board member Jared Antin said he didn’t see it as a significant impact. “These are all reasonable mitigations that are routine for a standard construction process,” he said, but he noted that one of the biggest impacts of the construction is also the additional traffic that it is going to cause — though that was covered elsewhere in the form. 

The board continued through several other areas, finding there would be little to no impact. “The conclusion for impact on land that is suggested in the draft is that the planning board finds that the proposed action will not have a significant adverse impact to the land,” said Courtney-Batson, who noted anything they say is tentative until they’ve gone through the entire document. The board agreed with that conclusion.

Impact on surface water

A part of the proposal that the board had judged would have a moderate to large impact was some construction within a locally regulated freshwater wetland buffer. The wetland was originally flagged in 2019, and the board noted approximately 100 linear feet would be disturbed, with the Wetlands Control Commission reviewing the project and providing additional mitigation measures. 

The draft noted that “the wetland and the 100-foot wetland buffer have already been disturbed by man-made activity, including the removal of vegetation, regrading of soils of a drainage channel east of the property, installation of a sewage treatment plant, underground sand filtration system, and asphalt parking lots.” Due to the already disturbed nature of the wetland and buffer, and the propagation of invasive species, “the regulated areas do not possess a high degree of functionality.” The board agreed with this.

The draft goes on to describe the already disturbed wetlands buffer, the existing asphalt parking areas, and notes the majority of proposed disturbances will occur on previously disturbed lands. It notes that the existing 1970-vintage sewage treatment plant does not comply with the current New York State Department of Environmental Conservation or Westchester County Department of Health standards, and that the proposed new plant will adhere to all standards. It concludes that the effluent from the new plant will be cleaner than the currently discharged surface water.

There was further discussion of details in the draft regarding stormwater discharge, runoff, and maintaining the boundaries of the 100-year floodplain; all were considered dealt with as part of the plans provided for stormwater and flood control.

The board accepted the conclusion that the proposed action will not have a significant adverse impact to surface water. 

There were no comments from anyone in the audience or via Zoom, so as promised, the discussion and public hearing were adjourned at 8:45 p.m. They are to resume July 13.