Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Community topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Beagle School seeks to consolidate two locations; public hearing opened and held open pending county referral
Summary
The Beagle School proposed consolidating Little Beagle and Big Beagle into an expanded Regent Street facility, adding one classroom and 16 students; the board opened a public hearing on the special‑use permit modification and left it open pending county review and receipt of additional materials, including parking arrangements.
The Beagle School (preschool) sought a modification of its special‑use permit to consolidate two locations into a single expanded Regent Street site. The project would add one classroom and accommodate 16 additional students overall; the board reviewed a modest addition and reorientation of a gated play yard, replacement of aging play structures, and a proposed off‑site shared parking agreement with at least one nearby property.
Key project points
- Enrollment and operations: the school currently serves about 80 students across two locations; the consolidation would allow both programs (“Big Beagle” and “Little Beagle”) to operate at the Regent Street site with staggered arrival and departure times (staggered starts 8:30–9:30 a.m. and staggered pick‑ups 3:00–3:30 p.m.) to reduce overlap at arrival/dismissal.
- Physical work: proposed work included an ~800 square‑foot addition for a classroom, filling in an existing deck to create interior storage, relocating a shed/playhouse from one yard corner to another, replacing play equipment, and shifting a short fence line to enlarge a gated courtyard and create a clearer main entrance.
- Parking: the site plan showed two or four small on‑site spaces and proposed a shared parking agreement with a nearby church and Empire State College to meet local parking requirements for the additional classroom capacity. The applicant stated the shared parking agreement is currently an owner‑to‑owner arrangement (not a deed restriction); the board asked the applicant to clarify and document the shared‑parking commitment.
Public comment and board concerns
A nearby resident (Dan Maney, 108 Regent Street) urged the board to address drop‑off and street safety on Regent Street, citing past near‑misses and congestion during drop‑off times. Board members and the applicant discussed safety measures including police enforcement, crossing guards, traffic calming, and potential short‑term and physical measures (signage, temporary enforcement, or design changes to reduce conflicts). The board also asked the applicant to document incidents or safety data relevant to the neighborhood’s concerns and to consider physical measures to calm traffic or otherwise improve safety on Regent Street.
Procedure and next steps
The board opened and closed public comment for the special‑use modification but left the public hearing formally open because the application triggered a county referral (board staff noted a 239‑m type referral and county review was pending) and additional materials were required. The board reviewed the proposed site plan as a Type 2 action and discussed parking and drop‑off solutions; members suggested that the applicant document outreach to city/public safety for enforcement or traffic‑calming help and provide any evidence about incidents or near misses.
No final special‑use decision was made; the board indicated it will return the application for decision after county review and once the applicant submits the requested parking documentation and safety/traffic information.
