Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Major Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developers present revised Biomed warehouse plan; board presses for stronger sidewalk and truck-route commitments
Summary
Biomed/BMR presented a revised site plan for a warehouse on Saw Mill River Road, emphasizing landscaping, designated truck routes to be enforced through leases and contracts, and a conceptual sidewalk package. Board members pressed for on-site tree-marking, a site visit, clearer sidewalk scope, and firm enforceable mechanisms; the board requested additional responses and materials by Sept. 22 and will continue review on Sept. 29.
Representatives for Biomed/BMR returned to the Town of Greenburgh Planning Board on Sept. 17 for a referral on the proposed redevelopment of the Biomed property on Saw Mill River Road to a warehouse facility.
Applicant counsel Jennifer Grama (Keenan Bean) told the board the proposal is strictly for a warehouse (not a last‑mile distribution center) and summarized recent revisions: a strengthened landscape buffer at the property frontage, larger caliper and taller evergreen stock to accelerate screening, and an updated traffic study. The team said they have designated inbound and outbound truck routes, and proposed multiple enforcement layers — lease provisions requiring tenants to comply with the routes, contract terms with third‑party trucking companies, site signage and operational measures — so the town can enforce route compliance through conditions of approval and leases.
Board members focused on sidewalks and connectivity. The applicant submitted conceptual sidewalk plans that would build a sidewalk from the northern driveway to a bus stop at the property frontage and a crosswalk to the opposite bus stop. Consultants noted engineering constraints (grading, drainage, right-of-way restrictions) and that constructing a continuous sidewalk along the entire frontage could require mature-tree removals. The applicant offered to construct frontage sidewalk improvements and to make a fair‑share contribution toward longer off‑site segments, and agreed to provide footage calculations and refined schematics.
Tree removal and mitigation drew sustained scrutiny: JMC and the applicant described an updated planting program (deciduous trees increased from 61 to 98; additional evergreens with larger nursery stock) and said detailed tree‑removal and mitigation calculations are in the submission. Board members requested an on-site tree-marking/site visit and an inventory distinguishing previously planted landscape trees from trees growing in wooded areas. The applicant agreed to provide a tree-removal plan and species breakdown.
Traffic, truck routing and enforcement also remained open questions. John Canning and other consultants recommended placement adjustments for crosswalks and signage and suggested fair‑share cost calculations for off-site sidewalk and roadway improvements. The applicant reiterated operational measures (interior signage, lease provisions, signage directing drivers to the south driveway for 87 access) and said it will work with staff on enforceable conditions.
Given the number of outstanding questions — planting inventories, site visit, sidewalk footage, and traffic/signage details — the board asked staff to compile comments and requested that the applicant provide written responses and additional materials by Monday, Sept. 22 so the board can review them in advance of its Sept. 29 meeting. The board indicated a preference that the applicant construct sidewalks where feasible rather than rely solely on a fair-share payment that the town must later spend.
Quotes used in this article come from the public transcript of the Sept. 17 planning-board meeting.
