Neighbors oppose Bayberry Lane animal sanctuary

By JEFF MORRIS //

Two related applications that would allow use of a property at 44 Bayberry Lane in Bedford Corners as an animal sanctuary were met with opposition from neighbors and skepticism from Bedford Planning Board members during a public hearing June 24. Multiple residents of Bayberry Lane, a cul-de-sac with 11 homes, expressed negative reactions to the granting of a special use permit for an animal sanctuary and education center.

There were actually two public hearings held in tandem because of the connected nature of the requests. The first was to consider an application for a special use permit for an existing accessory structure, a cottage; the second was to consider a special use permit application for a philanthropic/eleemosynary use — in other words, related to or supported by a charity — for an animal sanctuary. Both applications were made by Josh Wagner on behalf of Safe Haven: A Healing Place.

The accessory structure application immediately ran into a problem. Planning Board Chairwoman Deirdre Courtney-Batson asked Wagner who owned the property; he replied that Safe Haven: A Healing Place is the owner, and a farmhand who takes care of the animals is living in the cottage. Courtney-Batson noted that one of the town’s requirements for an accessory cottage or apartment is that the owner of a property live on the property; there cannot be two non-owners living in the two residences.

“In the case of an eleemosynary institution, we haven’t had this come up before,” said Courtney-Batson. “Who is the owner that lives on the property?” she asked. Wagner said he was the founder of the nonprofit. Courtney-Batson said they would have to look into whether that meets the spirit of the law, and because of that she recommended putting off any decision on the accessory structure.

With the opening of the public hearing, residents began enumerating problems with the application, including the applicant’s answers to questions that had been posed by the board that suggested the sanctuary would be open to visitors. Residents also expressed concerns that a public website for the sanctuary already exists in advance of a permit approval to operate, and about the proposal’s traffic impact on a small cul-de-sac. Questions also arose regarding the organization making the application. Documents available online show the original IRS tax exempt status application was filed in 2021 with a Chappaqua address; there are additional references to filings made in 2018 and 2019.

When asked about discrepancies in the documents, including different names using the same IRS application number and inconsistencies regarding whether the organization was soliciting donations, Wagner expressed surprise and suggested that unknown persons may have added information to the online records without his knowledge. Town attorney Eric Gordon pointed out that the names of people on the foundation’s board, who Wagner claimed not to recognize, were on the forms that he submitted to the town.

Under questioning by Courtney-Batson, Wagner said the animals being sheltered were goats and sheep, all of which were rescued from a slaughterhouse in Peekskill. Courtney- Batson asked whether approvals had been granted by county health officials; Wagner said\ he had not obtained such approvals but would look into it.

Further questioning elicited Wagner’s admission that he had no formal training in animal rehabilitation. Asked where he had learned about the care and feeding of goats and sheep, Wagner cited a shelter where he had volunteered in Los Angeles, California.

Board member Diane Lewis pointed out that the cul-de-sac is a Bedford Riding Lanes Association path and expressed concern about additional traffic impacting the horses. She also said it disturbed her that the facility was already up and running without a permit and was publishing a website. Wagner replied he had been told he had to have a website up in order for his application to be considered; Courtney-Batson said the town had no such requirement.

Wagner expressed surprise about the objections raised, maintaining that the actual number of visitors and traffic would be much less than what the road already experiences from Amazon and other delivery vehicles. He suggested such concerns were exaggerated. Board members requested clarification about the expected number of visitors and hours, as well as the educational requirements for a planned program involving children’s interactions with the animals, among other issues.

Board member Nilus Klingel summed up the three requirements that needed to be met. “They need to be on a county or state road, which this is not; they have to have nonprofit status, which they do; and they have to demonstrate to us their community purpose, which is what we are kind of circling around right now.” Courtney-Batson added that the fact it is on a cul-de-sac also raised issues.

Courtney-Batson proposed keeping the public hearings open, and the board agreed. She requested additional information about the applicant, its background and its intentions.