Planning board presses BioMed on traffic, slope disturbance and requests EIS-level review

BioMed Realty representatives told the Greenburgh Planning Board on Nov. 19 that they have responded in a matrix to about 50 comments and have incorporated several design changes — including adding a sidewalk along Route 9A and modest architectural revisions — but will carry other responses into the Town Board review.

"We have made a number of modifications to the project in the course of this process," said Ethan Warsh, the applicant representative. "We are waiting to collect all final comments from this board and carry that into our conversations with the town board."

Board members pressed the applicant for specifics they said are necessary to judge the project’s impacts. Several members said the traffic analysis as submitted does not settle questions about truck routing, construction-phase truck volumes and pedestrian safety along Route 9A. One member summarized the concern as a safety question: how the road will function when an 18‑wheel truck breaks down or when large construction vehicles are operating on a narrow corridor without shoulders.

Town staff and consultants described mitigation measures the applicant has proposed — a left‑turn lane off Route 9A, signal‑ahead warning signage, and a sidewalk along the property frontage — and said the applicant had agreed to consider a fair‑share contribution to off‑site safety improvements on nearby Lawrence Street. The town’s traffic reviewer noted the site generated significant traffic historically when it was an office campus and that the expected warehouse traffic would differ, but still produce additional truck movements.

Fire protection was a recurring concern. A planning board member requested written confirmation from the Hastings Fire Department that it can serve a large warehouse use, and the applicant agreed to continue coordination. "They’re trending towards a minimum of eight hydrants that they seek on the site and in the periphery of the site," said a town official summarizing a recent meeting with fire officials; no formal sign‑off had been recorded at the time of the Planning Board meeting.

Environment and steep slopes dominated the technical debate. Members cited the applicant’s estimate to remove roughly 270,000 cubic yards of material, fill deep retaining walls and disturb several acres of steep slope. One member urged the board to recommend that the Town Board require an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), arguing that an EIS would compel the applicant to analyze alternatives (including reduced building footprint, phased or land‑banked parking, and less steep‑slope disturbance) and provide independent technical study of erosion, slope stability and long‑term stormwater effects. Several members seconded that view during the discussion.

The board directed staff to prepare draft recommendations for the Town Board and to circulate those recommendations to planning board members a week before the Dec. 3 meeting; members were asked to submit written comments by the preceding Monday so staff could incorporate them. The applicant has agreed to extend the statutory review period through the board’s next meeting.

Next steps: staff will prepare draft recommendations summarizing the board’s concerns (traffic and construction‑management detail, confirmation of fire‑district capacity, additional stormwater/erosion controls, and a request that the Town Board consider an EIS). The board will review the draft at its Dec. 3 meeting and may vote to forward a recommendation to the Town Board.