Protesters Pack Public Hearing on McLain Street Housing Complex

Bedford Town Hall was packed Thursday night as the town board held a public hearing about a housing development that has been proposed for a parcel bordering McLain Street and Route 172, near the Mt. Kisco Border.

The developer, Northern Westchester Professional Park Associates II, proposes a 55 and over complex, with 32 market rate units and 12 affordable housing units on 12.6 acres. The proposed development will require changes to the town's zoning laws.

The two parcels on which the development is proposed are currently zoned R2A for residential use allowing only single family homes on minimum of 2 acres. In December, the Bedford planning board voted to approve the proposal, starting the approval process.

Tuesday night, more than 85 people showed up for the hearing, with a line of people standing along the wall at the back of the room.

As the meeting began, Town Supervisor Lee Roberts Bedford Town Attorney Joel Sachs explained that due to a petition filed by Carla and Michael Bird, residents of the gated McLain Street development Penwood, the five-member town board would require a supermajority of four votes out of five to pass any zoning changes.

The supermajority is required because more than 20 percent of the property owners whose land immediately abuts the proposed site for rezoning signed the petition.

"Normally it's just a majority," Sachs said. "Since a protest petition has been filed, any action the board may take would require four votes instead of three. "

The meeting started with a review of the plans and areas where the developers were open to changes. Geraldine Tortorella, the developers' attorney, suggested that the plan can be used to satisfy some of the county's federal affordable housing obligations. Tortorella explained that they had met with Westchester County Officials who supported the plan as meeting their own fair and affordable housing guidelines with some suggested changes.

"Our client is fully prepared to abide by [the county's] recommendations," she said.

While certain details were up for discussion—for example, whether to use the town's or the county's affordable housing guidelines—the development itself drew complaints from Bedford and Mt. Kisco residents attending the meeting who lived near the area.

Residents expressed concerns about the impact on traffic, citing the already congested and hazardous conditions at the intersection of McLain and 172. They also questioned the ability for the land to support the development, noting the finite supply of well water, amount of septic runoff.

Aesthetics came into play when residents worried about the 3.5 story units potentially towering over the homes downhill from the development and changing the look of the neighborhood.

Some residents questioned the intent of the housing, claiming that locating the homes at the border of Mt. Kisco and Bedford instead of Bedford's town center serves to isolate the population. Additionally, the 12 affordable units sit away from the planned market value homes, prompting one area resident to refer to the units as a ghetto.

"Affordable housing is much on everybody's mind," said Stanley Bernstein of the Mount Kisco Planning Board. "Mt. Kisco did its share of affordable housing. It's important, but to put it all in one building, sequestered away from the rest of it, does turn that building into a ghetto."

Tom McGrath of Bedford's Blue Mountain Development Corp., a town board created to promote social welfare, clarified that the board's position was to recommend that the affordable units be made available as rentals, and that as rentals, it wouldn't be reasonable to mix them with the for sale units.  He, and others speaking in support of the units, cited the value of affordable units in making sure that emergency workers, police, firemen, and nurses can live in the town of Bedford.

Most opponents of the development stated that it is not the affordable housing that they objected to, but the increased density of all units, including the market level.

The Bedford and Mt. Kisco residents opposed to the development made up more than half of the audience, and shared passion in opposition – many statements were punctuated by applause from the crowd. But the ultimate reality of the development's effects may rely on accurate traffic and environmental impact studies.

While a few Penwood residents shared stories about difficulties they had had accessing well water across the street from the proposed development, town officials and Tortorella assured the crowd that building cannot commence until environmental impact statements have been made available as part of the Department of Environmental Conservation State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR).

The meeting adjourned with a closing of the public hearing, with 30 days more for written public comment. The petitioners' lawyer said that after the meeting, they will consider performing their own traffic or environmental studies to answer their own concerns.