Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 150 Bedford Multifamily topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board advances review of 15‑unit project at 150 Bedford Road amid debate over scale and parking
Summary
Developers presented a revised three‑story, 15‑unit building for 150 Bedford Road; board members said massing has been broken up and compared it with existing Katona buildings, asked for landscaping and lighting details, and adjourned the public hearing for further engineering and design revisions.
The Planning Board reopened the public hearing and resumed site plan review for a proposed three‑story, 15‑unit multifamily building at 150 Bedford Road, presented by Steven Helms of the Helms Group.
Helms and his team described the project as 15 apartments (six two‑bedrooms and nine one‑bedrooms) with a full basement, on‑site parking and a sidewalk extension along Bedford Road. The applicant said the design meets the CB‑zone maximums for building coverage (19.8% of the lot) and impervious coverage (77.3%), and that DPW has approved a sewer connection made earlier this year. The design team acknowledged a two‑space parking shortfall (24 spaces proposed versus 26 required) and said compact parking for up to one‑third of spaces could address the deficiency.
Board members focused discussion on scale and context. Several members said the proposed building has been visually broken up through stepped facades and materials and that comparable structures (recent multifamily buildings and local commercial structures) already set a similar scale along Bedford/Katona Avenue. One board member, after reviewing several nearby building footprints, said he did not consider the project out of scale with that corridor. Others cautioned about streetscape and asked the applicant to refine landscaping, lighting and sidewalk details.
Public comment included voices both supportive and critical. A local resident urged the board to permit more housing that can be more affordable than single‑family homes and emphasized benefits for local businesses and the tax base. Opponents continued to raise questions about whether the massing fits Katona’s historic character and asked for careful review of materials and site landscaping.
The board left the public hearing open for further materials and asked the applicant to return with updated engineering responses, a stormwater (SWIP) revision addressing town engineer comments, clearer renderings (including an overlay on aerial imagery), and a landscaping and lighting plan to reduce perceived bulk from the street. The board noted that, under the recently explained state SEQR changes, some environmental review components may be exempted but that local site plan review and zoning processes remain in force. The hearing was adjourned to the next scheduled meeting to allow the applicant to refine details and pursue any needed zoning variances.
